The other week, for a class titled "Culturally Sustaining Multilingualism", and during our discussion, we highlighted what it truly means to be "bilingual". Interestingly enough, this is a highly debated topic. Even still, I am not quite sure what I would define as "bilingualism" as it varies so much depending on academic institution, type of learning environment, use of skills, frequency of speaking a language, etc. When discussing, I highlighted three concepts from Baker & Wright's "Bilingualism: Definitions and Distinctions", specifically: Maximalist vs. minimalist definitions of bilingualism, surface fluency vs. academic language competency, and language theories form the 1960's vs recent language proficiency assessments.
- Maximalist vs. minimalist definitions of bilingualism: As is discussed by Baker and Wright in "Bilingualism: Definitions and Distinctions", the definitions and categorizations of bilingualism can vary, and requires viewpoints from vast contexts, leading to ideas which verge on "maximalist" and "minimalist" definitions of bilingualism. Maximalist bilingualism defines bilingualism as "native-like" (Baker & Wright, p. 7), where once has a "native-like control of two or more languages" (Bloomfield, 1933, as cited by Baker & Wright, p.7). Alternatively, some definitions of bilingualism fall under the minimalist category, meaning those who have a slight grasp of the language such as early learners, tourists, those who understand some phrases, etc. are also within the definition of bilingual. As Baker & Wright mention, there are many varieties within the scope of maximalist and minimalist bilingual criteria, and one must account for the fact that understanding a language can shift from place to place, person to person, day to day, or competency to competency. Baker & Wright introduce a table of how fluency and grasp of a language may be viewed, with one end being A (one language) and the other end being B "another language" with multiple contexts, where one may view their knowledge of the language in varying aspects. (This is off-topic, but fascinating as the table somewhat harkens to the cultural identities of deafness in the deaf community, someone being "Big D-Deaf" having grown up surrounded by deaf culture, "Little d-deaf" being someone who may be deaf, but had not been surrounded by the culture). Maximalism and minimalism in bilingualism is also political, as Baker & Wright discuss how those who speak multiple languages are skewed in census' depending on nationalistic identities of an area (Baker & Wright, p. 8-9). I feel Baker & Wright make a good point which I agree with on the varying definitions of bilingualism, "The danger of being too exclusive is not overcome by being too inclusive. Trawling with too wide a fishing net will catch too much variety and will therefore make discussion about bilinguals ambiguous and imprecise" (Baker & Wright, p. 8), while it is easy to create definitions of varying ability, which is important to take into account when defining bilingualism, we must ensure we do not over or undergeneralize bilingual populations, as it abstracts a concept that is, admittedly, already fairly abstracted.
- Surface fluency vs. academic language competence: Throughout the reading, Baker & Wright discuss the varying levels of bilingualism, with multiple brief discussions of bilingualism through "surface fluency", meaning those who are fluent in means of conversation, social situations, or just going on about their day-to-day speaking this language. The alternative criteria, which leads to, as Baker & Wright put it, contention in discussions of criteria related to bilingualism, is "academic language competence", which as the name states focuses on the ability to utilize a language in academic circles such as schools, institutions, testing, etc. The point Baker & Wright make related to this is how the levels of proficiency in these two spheres of bilingualism vary greatly in skills, structure, and time spent learning a language. According to Baker & Wright, "conversational language competence may be acquired fairly quickly (e.g. two to three years), but it is not enough to cope with classroom instruction. Academically-related language competence in a second language may take from five to eight years or longer to acquire" (Baker & Wright, p. 13). This is especially prevalent in the discussion of bilingualism in the educational context, such as qualitative data and standardized testing, and it speaks to the developments of educational structures which deem bilingual students in different categories based on their proficiency.
- Language theories from the 1960s with regard to communicative competence vs. more recent language proficiency assessments: The main idea related to the shifts seen in language theory from the 1960s to currently, is the growing focus seen not so much on replication and linguistic approach, and more so on the development of communication and its nuances. In 1960s models of language theory focused far more on the four components most often seen (reading, writing, listening, speaking), as well as replication of phonology and graphology in a language (Baker & Ellis, p. 13). This approach clearly upholds a far more academic means of language proficiency; as I discussed earlier, this has points of contention when learning a language and can be hard to attain/gauge. What has developed over time in language theory takes on a far more sociolinguistic approach, meaning the focus on social areas of communication which can vary from dialect to town to person. It focuses on communicative competence far more, as the name implies the competence of being able to effectively communicate with someone in a language. This includes other areas of theory such as strategic communication, or being able to "fill in" gaps of knowledge in communication when interacting with a specific language as well. Overall, the grand shifts seen move from a strict, academic, replicable practicality, and instead more towards a nuanced approach which still implements the same practicality, but with a larger focus on communication and socialization instead of specifically academic contexts.
This applies so much to my research interests due to the development of language learning in the Soviet Union throughout the country's existence. The relationship between upholding Russian as a language for all to learn, and the autonomy and preservation of other languages of countries within the Soviet Union was paramount to pedagogy. In fact, a large amount of language pedagogy utilized by the Soviet Union is still a topic of discussion currently, especially as it created identities within these countries, leading to a type of "banal nationalism". Meaning: countries developed nationalistic sentiments even within their affiliation with the Soviet Union.
What people do not realize oftentimes, as we participate in it subconsciously, is how deeply intrinsic language is in our identity. Language also plays a large role in nationalism across countries, and defining what language people should prioritize and learn (such as Poland, Hungary, and more conservative beliefs in the United States currently). Having your language represented and seeing your language in your surrounding area creates a sense of kinship and belonging; thus I pose the question: when learning another language, if and when does one also attain that sense of belonging?
What people do not realize oftentimes, as we participate in it subconsciously, is how deeply intrinsic language is in our identity. Language also plays a large role in nationalism across countries, and defining what language people should prioritize and learn (such as Poland, Hungary, and more conservative beliefs in the United States currently). Having your language represented and seeing your language in your surrounding area creates a sense of kinship and belonging; thus I pose the question: when learning another language, if and when does one also attain that sense of belonging?