Research Summary
Wolff and Holmes (2010) point out that recent findings support a variety of alternative ways in which language may have notable effects on thoughts, resulting in possible variations in thoughts across language communities. Boroditsky (2011) discusses how language influences the perception of the world of people. He proposes that the language people speak can make them think in a specific manner. According to Boroditsky (2011), research has shown that changing people’s language transforms their thinking. For example, teaching people about a new style of talking and telling time gives them another way to think about it. Consequently, Boroditsky (2011) asserts that studies indicate that bilinguals change how they view the world depending on the language they speak.
Byrd (2012) asserts that most bilinguals are fully operational in the two languages under the right conditions, making discrepancies temporary or profound. Evidence shows that bilinguals have variations in non-language thinking and functioning of the brain and advantages over monolinguals. Studies propose that being bilingual is effective if the two languages are introduced early, altering how bilinguals react and process information. Byrd (2012) argue that bilingualism in childhood appears to accelerate complicated cognitive processing. On the other hand, the benefit seems less evident at the top of cognitive capacity. Fundamental modifications in cognitive capabilities and neurological structure go into older age, diminishing cognitive deterioration. Bialystok et al. (2012) findings align with Byrd’s (2012) findings. Bialystok et al. (2012) discuss recent research using both neuroimaging and behavioral approaches to investigate the effects of bilingualism on cognition during maturity and investigate likely mechanisms for such effects. They found that bilingualism has an instead silenced consequence in adulthood; however, it plays a more significant part during older age, guarding older people against cognitive deterioration, a notion referred to as ‘cognitive reserve.’
Hoff (2006) contends that the potential for language for human beings depends on human biology, but for it to be realized, a social environment is needed. According to Hoff (2006), evidence proposes that human environments support language acquisition by offering children opportunities to experience communication, motivating the language acquisition process, and creating a language model that acts as data for language acquisition mechanisms. Regarding the bilingual acquisition, children with a second language make less than 25% of their contribution and are inclined to refrain from acquiring the language (Hoff, 2006). With enough input for language acquisition, the course and rate of language development in children acquiring two languages have been explained to be similar to that of monolingual development. It is observed that the consequence of multilingual exposure that involves merely overhearing a conversation in a specific language is not enough to acquire the language (Hoff, 2006). Moreover, being addressed in many languages does not guarantee that a child can acquire multiple languages.
Genesee (2015) shows that learning two languages concurrently is as natural as learning one, and children become fully competent in bilinguals, like monolingual children, with the right learning atmosphere. Genesee (2015) also shows that children with genetic susceptibilities for difficulties in learning can be competent in two languages at similar times in preschool years within the limits of their disability. This implies that learning challenges do not weaken language abilities more than is witnessed in monolingual children with similar learning difficulties.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Bilingualism
Advantages
During childhood, bilingualism quickens multifaceted cognitive processing (Byrd, 2012). It leads to enhanced early capacity to create categories and interpersonal relationships. For example, infants exposed to bilingual settings start using acoustic information to differentiate their two languages, which is a step towards knowing that there are cognitive groups that have to be differentiated. While this benefit seems less pronounced at the top of cognitive ability, the fundamental changes in cognitive capabilities and neurological organization continue into adulthood, reducing cognitive weakening (Byrd, 2012). Evidence shows that bilingualism is related to a delay at the beginning of symptoms of dementia (Bialystok et al., 2012).
Bilinguals have an advantage over monolinguals in their ability to change their perception of the world depending on their language (Boroditsky, 2011). For example, how bilinguals talk about time changes how they think about time depending on the language they speak.
Bilingual children have improved control over their inhibition and attention or frontal or executive functions than monolingual children. For example, preschool monolingual children continued sorting cards based on the first category (color), while bilingual children switched to sorting based on shapes as instructed.
Disadvantages
Bilingualism presents children with the burden of learning many vocabularies, cultural nuances, and grammar. Consequently, smaller vocabulary and weaker associations between words and their meanings are likely, leading to slower naming of objects.
Recommended Approach
A recommended approach for a second language is the natural approach. The natural approach to second language acquisition moves the focus away from teaching and learning a language to similarly acquiring a second language to that which people acquire their first language. All human beings, except for a few, acquire their first language from an early age with no formal instructions. The first language is usually acquired through exposure to it in the immediate environment. In the natural approach, people can make mistakes, and like in learning a first language, they are not overwhelmed with corrections. According to Krashen (2004), in his input hypothesis, people can only acquire language if they are constantly exposed to meaningful and comprehensible input or language in written or spoken form that they can understand. For example, teachers can sustain learners’ comprehension by speaking slowly, repeating, or modeling. No understanding means no acquisition of language and no language production.
Consequently, in the natural approach, there are four principles to the acquisition of a second language: Production follows comprehension, leading to several behaviors of the educator, such as teacher use of the second language, focusing on the theme of interest to the learners, and maintenance of learners’ comprehension. Production comes in phases ranging from non-verbal reactions to multifaceted discourse, with learners speaking when ready and speech errors only being rectified if they inhibit communication. The program has communicative goals, with the target topic including a thematic syllabus rather than a grammatical sequence. Activities have to lead to low anxiety and lower the learners’ emotional filter, accomplished by establishing and upholding a good rapport.
The natural approach is practical as acquisition involves a subconscious practice process in social groups, gaining from exposure to models of language in a trial and error process. There is no formal process required. Besides, several emotional variables are linked to success in acquiring a second language, including an optimistic self-image, low anxiety in the education setting, high motivation, and self-confidence (Krashen, 2004).
Recommended Approach in Professional Setting
The natural approach could increase cognition function in an educational setting through cognitive adaptation when one acquires another language. Consequently, according to Luk et al. (2020), language can be considered to be among the biological brain training programs for improving cognitive functions. Since learning another language could lead to far-transfer effects in non-linguistic cognitive skills, it can be anticipated that particular non-linguistic cognitive training can enhance the cognitive skills that form the basis of language control (Luk et al., 2020) but also improve language skills and language learning.
References
Bialystok E, Craik Fergus I.M & Luk G (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (4) 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001
Boroditsky L (2011). How language shapes thoughts: the language we speak affects our perception of the world. ScientificAmerican.com 63-65.
Byrd D (2012). Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual. Washington Academy of Sciences.
Genesee F (2015). Myths about Early Childhood Bilingualism. Canadian Psychology, 56 (1) 6–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038599
Hoff E (2006). How social context support and shape language development. Development Review, pp. 26, 55-88 doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Krashen, S. D. (2004). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press
Wolff P & Holmes K. J (2011). Linguistic relativity. WIREs Cogn Sci 2, 253–265 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.104
Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The dimensional change card sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1, 297-301
write