16 Bilingualism and Aphasia
Paradis M (1990). ‘Language lateralization in bilinguals:
enough already!’ Brain and Language 39, 576–586.
Paradis M (1998). ‘Acquired aphasia in bilingual speakers.’
In Sarno M (ed.) Acquired aphasia, 3rd edn. New York:
Academic Press. 531–549.
Paradis M & Goldblum M (1989). ‘Selective crossed apha-
sia followed by reciprocal antagonism in a trilingual
patient.’ Brain and Language 15, 55–69.
Paradis M, Goldblum M & Abidi R (1982). ‘Alternate
antagonism with paradoxical translation behavior in
two bilingual aphasic patients.’ Brain and Language 15,
55–69.
Paradis M & Janjua N (1998). Bilingual Aphasia Test
(Urdu version). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paradis M & Parcehian P (1991). Bilingual Aphasia Test
(Bilingual-French version). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Perani D, Paulesu E, Galles N S et al. (1998). ‘The bilingual
brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second
language.’ Brain and Language 121(10), 1841–1852.
Perecman E (1984). ‘Spontaneous translation and language
mixing in a polygot aphasic.’Brain and Language 2, 43–63.
Rey G & Benton A (1991). Examen de afasia multilingue:
manual de intrucciones. Iowa City, IA: AJA Associates.
Sasanuma S (1991). ‘Aphasia rehabilitation in Japan.’ In
Sarno M & Woods D (eds.) Aphasia rehabilitation: views
Bilingualism and Second Language Learning
T K Bhatia, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
There is a widespread perception in monolingual
societies, particularly in the United States, that bilin-
gualism is a rare and exceptional occurrence in com-
munication. By contrast, from a global perspective,
bilingualism is a world-wide phenomenon. In fact,
global communication is often carried out through
a speaker’s second, third, or even fourth language.
According to David Crystal (1997) approximately
two-thirds of the world’s children grow up in a bilin-
gual environment which, in turn, leads to adult
bilingualism/multilingualism. However, childhood bi-
lingualism is not the only reason for adult bilingual-
ism. A host of different factors (such as marriage,
religion, education, linguistic plurality of a particular
region, migration, jobs, government policies, urbani-
zation, etc.) also lead to adult bilingualism. How,
then, do humans become bilingual? Is adult second-
language learning different from child-language
learning? Is bilingual-language acquisition different
from monolingual-language acquisition? Is early bi-
from the Asian-Pacific region. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Silverberg R & Gordon H (1979). ‘Different aphasia in two
bilingual individuals.’ Neurology 29, 51–55.
Streifler M & Hofman S (1976). ‘Sinistrad mirror writing
and reading after brain concussion in a by-systemic
(oriento-occidental) polyglot.’ Cortex 12, 356–364.
Taussig I, Henderson V & Mack W (1988). Spanish trans-
lation and validation of a neuropsychological battery:
performance of Spanish- and English-speaking Alzhei-
mer’s disease patients and normal comparison subjects.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Gerontological
Society of America, San Francisco.
Wald I (1968). Problema afazii poliglotov. Voprosy Kliniki I
Patofiziologii Afazii. 140–176.
Warburton E, Price C & Swinburn K (1999). ‘Mechanisms
of recovery from aphasia: evidence from positron
emission tomography studies. Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 66, 155–161.
Wong P C M, Parsons L M, Martinez M & Diehl R L
(2004). ‘The role of the insula cortex in pitch pattern
perception: the effect of linguistic contexts.’ Journal of
Neuroscience 24, 9153–9160.
Yiu E M-L (1992). ‘Linguistic assessment of Chinese-
speaking aphasics: development of a Cantonese aphasia
battery.’ Journal of Neurolinguistics 7, 379–424.
lingualism different from late bilingualism? Does sec-
ond language learning have adverse cognitive effects
on children? And how are two (or more) languages
represented in the brain? This chapter attempts to
answer these and other questions concerning bilingual
language learning and use.
Key Concepts
Before discussing language development among bilin-
guals, it is crucial to give an overview of key funda-
mental concepts concerning language development in
children and adults. Also, it should be mentioned that
the term ‘second language learning’ is used in a wider
sense to include the learning of any additional lan-
guage during a period ranging from childhood to
adulthood. An additional language may be a lan-
guage of the country or spoken outside the country
(i.e. foreign language).
Acquisition vs. Learning
A child’s process of learning languages is different
from an adult’s process. A child can learn any lan-
guage relatively effortlessly, while the same task
becomes rather challenging for adults. For this rea-
son, some second language researchers (Krashen,

1985) distinguish between two types of mechanisms
in language development: a subconscious process
resulting in tacit knowledge of the language (i.e.,
‘language acquisition’), and a more conscious process
(i.e., ‘language learning’). While children go through
the former process, adults undergo the latter in their
quest to become bilingual.
The Critical Period Hypothesis and Its
Biological Basis
In addition to degree of effort, it has been frequently
observed that even very proficient bilinguals fall short
of being perfect bilinguals. In spite of the complete
mastery of syntax, their speech is marked by traces of
the first language accent. Similarly, it is also shown
that in spite of considerable effort and motivation, the
ultimate attainment of some grammatical structures
by adults is seldom achieved. To explain these and
other differences in language acquisition and recovery
from aphasia Lenneberg (1967) proposed the ‘‘critical
period hypothesis,’’ which is sensitive to age. This
hypothesis claims that there is a period in the matura-
tion of human organism, lasting from two years to
puberty, in which nearly effortless and complete
language acquisition is possible. Afterwards, this
hypothesis notes, language learning requires more
effort and motivation, largely because of a loss of
brain plasticity resulting in the completion of the
lateralization of the language function in the left
hemisphere. Recent research claims have additionally
shown that there are different critical periods for
different grammatical structures of language. Since
the accent (phonetics and phonology) of a second
language is the most difficult to attain, the critical
period for phonetics and phonology (approximately
from five to seven years) is earlier than that for
morphology and syntax. See Johnson and Newport
(1991) and Bhatia and Ritchie (1999) for details.
Access to Universal Grammar (UG)
Children are born to acquire human languages. Re-
gardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or nationality,
every normal child is capable at birth of acquiring
any human language. In theoretical studies following
from the Chomskyan mentalistic framework, this in-
nate ability is termed the access to universal grammar
(UG). In this case, a child has full access to universal
grammar, whereas an adult has either limited or no
access. These and other universal principles of gram-
matical structures and principles of learning largely
lead a child’s language development. The role of pa-
rental input then becomes to trigger an appropriate
value for innately given or set parameters, specific to
the language to which the child is exposed. One such
parameter, called the ‘head parameter,’ describes
Bilingualism and Second Language Learning 17
how a child does not have to even learn the specific
word order of his/her language, but only has to
choose between already specified values – head-
initial or head-final – based on the nature of the
input language. Children begin to learn to set para-
metric values even from the one-word stage.
A Japanese child learns to choose the head-final sys-
tem, whereas an English-speaking child chooses the
head-initial value. These principles are generally
refereed to as a child’s language acquisition device
(LAD).
Input and Learning Environment: Natural vs.
Unnatural Settings
Usually children become bilinguals or multilingual in
a natural way. A normal child can become a fluent
bilingual by the age of five, for instance, without any
formal training. In the process of acquiring a lan-
guage, the role of input (motherese, etc.) or imitation
is important but limited. Children do not learn a
language by mindlessly imitating the input provided
by mothers or caretakers. That is, while the role of
parental input cannot be ruled out, language acquisi-
tion studies show that neither motherese nor imita-
tion plays a significant role in a child’s language
development. Instead, this burden is carried by the
child himself/herself. Research on child-language ac-
quisition reveals that the child learns the language by
using the ‘rule formulation strategy.’ For instance, an
English-speaking child learns on his/her own that by
the addition of the inflection ‘-ed’ to a verbal stem,
one generates the corresponding past tense form of
the verb. In this process, the child over-generalizes
and produces utterances such as ‘I go-ed’ [go-PAST].
Even after being corrected [i.e. provided negative
evidence] by the mother or caretaker that the child
meant ‘I went’ [go.PAST], the child still does not
reject the rule s/he has formulated in his or her mind
and which s/he still produces in utterances such as ‘I
went-ed’ [go.PAST-PAST]. The role of the adult is
thus to prevent the child’s grammar from overgener-
alization. In other words, the child has an innate
capacity to acquire languages in an environment
which is termed a ‘natural’ environment, whereas,
by contrast, adults and school-age children learn lan-
guage in formal settings such as schools and colleges
through a formal instructional method.
Defining and Measuring Bilingualism
What is bilingualism and who is bilingual? Defining
and measuring bilingualism is a very complex task
due to the number and types of input conditions,
biological, socio-psychological, and other non-
linguistic factors that can lead to a varying degree
18 Bilingualism and Second Language Learning
of bilingual competencies. In short, there is no
widely-accepted definition or measures of bilinguals.
Instead, a rich range of scales, dichotomies, and
categories are employed to characterize bilinguals. If
a bilingual can understand but cannot speak a second
language, such an individual is called a receptive
bilingual, whereas a productive bilingual demon-
strates a spoken proficiency in two languages. If
the second language is acquired in a natural setting
before the age of five that individual is termed
an early bilingual, in contrast with a late bilingual
who learns his second language after the age of five
either in home or in schools. Labels such as fluent vs.
non-fluent, functional vs. non-functional, balanced
vs. unbalanced, primary vs. secondary, and partial
vs. complete refer, either to a varying command in
different types of language proficiency (e.g., spoken,
listening, writing, etc.), or an asymmetrical relation-
ship (dominance) between two languages. A com-
pound vs. coordinate bilingual refers to the way two
languages are processed in the brain. The list is by no
means exhaustive. Other major distinctions such
as simultaneous vs. sequential are discussed in the
next section. Similarly, bilingualism can be viewed
from individual, societal (attitudes towards bilingual-
ism), and political (i.e., government policies toward
bilingualism) perspectives.
In general, a bilingual person demonstrates many
complex attributes rarely seen in a monolingual per-
son. For that reason, a bilingual is not equivalent to
two monolinguals, but something entirely different.
This working definition of bilingualism is offered by
Bloomfield (1933), who claimed that a bilingual is
one who has a native-like control of two languages,
i.e., a balanced bilingual (see Grosjean 1982 or
Edwards, 2004 for more details).
Patterns and Mechanisms in Bilinglual
Language Development
Providing either a natural environment or inputs in
monolingual/dominant language speech communities
is not a challenging task. The same is also true for
those societies where social and political systems are
conducive to bilingualism. For instance, in India,
where bilingualism is viewed as natural, approved
by society, and further nurtured by government lan-
guage policies, linguistic groups and communities do
not need to take any special measures to assure that
their children receive input from two languages. In
sharp contrast, in societies where bilingualism is not
valued or where the language of a minority is distinct,
it becomes imperative for families to plan meaningful
strategies to ensure the smooth exposure to the family
language. One such strategy that families employ in
this second setting, described by Bhatia and Ritchie
(1999) as ‘‘discourse allocation,’’ restricts the use of
one language to one social agent or social setting and
the other language to other social situations. The
various manifestations of such strategies are the fol-
lowing: (a) one-parent/one-language (e.g., the child’s
mother speaks one language and, the child’s father
speaks the other. This strategy was employed by
Leopold (1939–1949) in his classic study of bilingual
language development of his daughter, Hildegard;
(b) one-place/one-language (e.g. speaking one lan-
guage in the kitchen and the other elsewhere); (c) a
language/time approach; and (d) a topic-related ap-
proach. Although the discourse allocation approach
is better than providing no input and thus raising a
monolingual child, it leads to different patterns in
bilingual language development than developing bi-
lingualism in a natural setting. For instance, during
the early stages of Hildegard’s bilingualism, she de-
veloped a rule that fathers speak German and
mothers speak in English.
Childhood Bilingualism
Other factors such as age and amount of exposure to
the two languages also result in differences in the
pattern of childhood bilingualism. The distinction
between simultaneous and sequential bilinguals in
research on bilingual language acquisition is based
on age and the degree of exposure to two languages.
When the child is exposed to two languages to more
or less the same degree from birth onward, the pat-
tern of language development is referred to as simul-
taneous, whereas sequential bilingualism describes
the attainment of one language first and the second
language later, preferably before the age of seven.
Similarly, the term late bilingual is used for those
sequential bilinguals who acquire their second lan-
guage at a relatively younger age than adults learning
a second language. Although there is unanimous
agreement among researchers about the validity of
the simultaneous and sequential bilinguals, there is
no consensus among scholars about the exact line of
demarcation between the two. See McLaughlin
(1984) and De Houwer (1995) for either theoretical
or methodological grounds.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the childhood
bilingualism is how children learn to separate the two
languages, particularly in a natural setting (i.e., a
simultaneous bilingual) in initial stages. After all,
when parents provide input, they do not tag or
prime their input with a language identification
label. Even if parents go to the absurd length of
identifying the language of each word or sentence
they use, these labels are semantically empty for

children. Furthermore, bilingual parents unwittingly
make the task of separating the two languages even
harder for children because of their normal tendency
to mix two languages. In short, a child is provided
with three distinct types of linguistic inputs: two lan-
guages, each in an unmixed/pure form, and one with
a mixture of two languages. Given this state of affairs,
how does the child learn to separate the two lan-
guages in question? This task is not challenging for
a monolingual child because only one language serves
as a source of input. The two hypotheses which at-
tempt to shed light on this question are the unitary
system hypothesis and the dual system hypothesis.
According the unitary system hypothesis (Volterra
and Taeschner, 1978), the child undergoes three
stages before s/he is able to separate two input lan-
guages. During the first two stages, the child experi-
ences confusion. During the first stage, s/he is unable
to distinguish the two lexicons and grammars of the
linguistic systems. At this stage, they have a single
lexicon made up of items drawn from the lexicons
of both languages. Hence, no translational equiva-
lents or synonyms are found in their vocabulary.
Volterra and Taeschner claim that their two bilingual
subjects at the ages of 1 year 10 months and 1 year
6 months had a hybrid list of 137 words with no
translational equivalents. During the second stage,
the child slowly learns to separate the two lexicons,
but is still unable to separate the grammatical sys-
tems. Cross-linguistic synonyms emerge, but the child
applies the same set of syntactic rules to both lan-
guages. It is only during the third stage that the child
becomes capable of separating the two sets of voca-
bularies and grammars. Findings of recent research
reveal that the unitary system hypothesis cannot sus-
tain the scrutiny of the succeeding research and the
evidence motivating the three stages of bilingual lan-
guage development is full of shortcomings and con-
tradictions both on methodological and empirical
grounds.
The dual system hypothesis states that bilingual
children, based on their access to Universal Grammar
and language specific parameter setting, have the
capacity of separating the two grammars and lexical
systems right from the beginning. A wide variety of
cross-linguistic studies (e.g., different input condi-
tions – one parent/one language and mixed input
condition; and different word order types) lends sup-
port to this hypothesis. For instance, in a study
devoted to the language development of a Hindi-
English bilingual child, it is clear that at age 2, the
child is capable of developing two distinct lexicons
using a syllabification strategy. At the age of 1 year 7
months, two different word orders develop – SVO
[subject-verb-object] for English and SOV for Hindi.
Bilingualism and Second Language Learning 19
For a more detailed treatment of the shortcomings of
the unitary system hypothesis and the strengths of the
dual system hypothesis, see Bhatia and Ritchie 1999:
591–614.
Another fascinating feature of bilingual speech is
that, not only are bilinguals capable of keeping the
two linguistic systems separate, but they often mix
them either within a sentence or inter-sententially.
This behavior is often termed ‘code-mixing’ or ‘code-
switching’ in sociolinguistic literature. Depending
upon the theoretical and empirical objectives of their
research, some researchers do not distinguish
between the two terms and use them interchangeably;
for those researchers who distinguish between the
two, the code-mixing refers to intra-sentential mixing
while the term code-switching refers to the intersen-
tential mixing in bilinguals. Both bilingual children
as well as adults show this behavior. What explains
this behavior of language mixing? Earlier research
attempted to explain it in terms of the language defi-
ciency hypothesis: it was claimed that bilinguals in
general and children in particular have language gaps.
As claimed by the unitary system hypothesis the lack
of synonyms compels them to mix the two lexical
systems during stage I. Similarly, stage II yields the
mixing of two language systems due to confusion. In
other words, the lack of proficiency in either one
language (i.e., the absence of balanced bilingualism)
or both languages (i.e., semi-bilingualism) leads to
mixing.
The language augmentation hypothesis is capable
of offering deeper insights into the bilingual mixing
behavior. As it has been shown earlier in the discus-
sion of the dual system hypothesis, children do not go
through the initial stages of treating the two linguistic
systems as if they were one system, but begin to
distinguish them immediately. The consideration of
optimization leads bilinguals to mix language with an
aim to get maximum mileage from the two linguistic
systems at their disposal. An analogy drawn from the
beverage industry further explains this point. The
separation of juices (e.g., apple vs. orange juice) ren-
ders two distinct tastes. However, if one mixes the
two juices, the result is a new taste, a distinct from the
two pure juices. The same is true of bilingual lan-
guage mixing. Research on the linguistic and socio-
linguistic motivations for language mixing both in
children and adults shows that such considerations
as semantic domains and semantic complexity (an
item less complex or salient in one language), stylistic
effects, clarification, elaboration, relief strategy (i.e.,
a linguistic item is temporarily unavailable in one
language), interlocutor’s identification, discourse
strategies of participants/topics, addressee’s perceived
linguistic capability and speaker’s own linguistic
20 Bilingualism and Second Language Learning
ability, and other complex socio-psychological rea-
sons, such as attitudes, societal values, and personali-
ty, prompt bilinguals to mix two languages. The list
of motivations is by no means exhaustive (see Bhatia
and Ritchie, 1996, for more details).
Adult Bilingualism: Second Language Learning
In contrast to sequential childhood bilingualism,
adults who learn a second language after they have
learned their mother tongue experience the learning
of a second language as a laborious and conscious
task. As pointed out earlier, unlike children who are
able to universally and uniformly acquire native com-
petency in their mother tongue, adults rarely achieve
native-like competency in their second language.
Depending on the level of their motivation and hard
work, adults can learn a second language with vary-
ing degrees of competence. However, there comes a
point during the second language learning that even
the most talented learner cannot bypass the stage of
‘fossilization.’ This stage is marked with second lan-
guage errors which no amount of training can cor-
rect. For these reasons, second language (L2) learning
is viewed as fundamentally different from first lan-
guage (L1) acquisition. The hypothesis which aims at
accounting for these differences between the child
and the adult language is termed the fundamental
difference hypothesis.
In spite of the asymmetrical relation between L1
and L2 learning, one should not draw a conclusion
that there is nothing in common between the two.
What is common between L1 and L2 learners is that
both undergo stages of language development. In
other words, like L1 learners, in the process of gram-
mar construction, L2 learners undergo stages of
development: the intermediate stages of grammar
development between the initial stage and the ulti-
mate stage are termed interlanguage grammars. Take
the case of the development of negation in English L1
and L2 learners. The grammar of negation in L2
learners of English shows the same stages of develop-
ment as in L1 English learners – Stage I: the sentence-
initial placement of negation; Stage II: preverbal
placement of negation with no auxiliary verb; and
Stage III: preverbal placement of negation with an
appropriate auxiliary verb.
Native Language Influence and Dominance
An important way in which L2 learning is different
from L1 learning is the influence of the mother tongue
on second-language learning. The mother tongue or
L1 plays an important role in the process of L2 acqui-
sition. Research on grammatical errors of L2 shows
that L2 learners transfer the grammatical rules –
phonetic, phonological, morphological, and syntactic
rules – of L1 to their second language. An English-
speaking learner of Hindi has difficulties in hearing
and producing a four-way contrast between Hindi
aspiration and voicing contrast (i.e., unvoiced unas-
pirates, unvoiced aspirates, voiced unaspirates, and
voiced aspirates).
It would be a gross simplification to claim that L2
learners transfer all grammatical features of L1 to L2.
Adult learners possess a relatively higher level of logi-
cal and cognitive ability than do children; therefore,
these qualities color their second language learning.
For instance, English-speaking learners of Hindi will
not translate there in these sentences:
1. There is a chair in the room
2. The chair is over there
in an identical way (i.e. by choosing the remote loca-
tive adverb in both cases). Similarly, it would be an
oversimplification to claim that childhood bilingual-
ism is free from the dominance relationship between
the two languages. Not only does the mother tongue
influence second language acquisition in children, it
also affects their school achievement.
Approaches to Second Language Learning
In adult language acquisition research, the term sec-
ond language is used in a wider sense to include both
the acquisition of a second language which may or
may not be foreign to a country. However, in the
context of language teaching the distinction between
the two is made to highlight major differences in the
learning aims, teaching methods, and the achieve-
ment levels to be attained.
A number of approaches have been developed to
facilitate the learning of second/foreign languages.
Some of the following are notable:
1. Grammar-translation method: Following the tra-
dition of teaching classical languages such as
Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, this method places
emphasis on memorization and rote learning.
Learners memorize nominal and verbal paradigms
of the second language and translate L1 into L2 or
vice versa. Very little emphasis is placed on devel-
oping spoken proficiency in the foreign language,
while reading and written comprehension receives
overwhelming importance. This method is per-
haps the oldest method of language teaching
which dates back to the 19th century.
2. The direct method: Also known as oral or natural
methods, it departs from the grammar-translation
method in three important respects: one, memori-
zation receives a back seat in the learning of the
second language; two, special emphasis is placed
on acquiring spoken and listening competencies;

and three, the introduction of the target language
is free from any reference to the native lan-
guage of learners. Native language is never used
as a tool to explain either grammar or other intri-
cacies of the target language usage. This model
attempts to simulate the native speaker environ-
ment of the target language. However, in actual
practice there are severe constraints on replicating
the natural setting of the native speaker’s learning
environment in an actual classroom setting.
3. The audio-lingual method is a byproduct of World
War II during which the United States experienced
an urgent need to quickly train its troops in foreign
languages for overseas military operations. An em-
phasis is placed on spoken and listening compe-
tencies, rather than on written ones.
4. The structural method: In order to speed up the
acquisition of foreign languages, insights of struc-
tural linguistics were applied to language teaching.
This method exposes learners to different structur-
al patterns and transformation drills.
Audio-lingual structural models assume that L2 is
acquired through imitation. The discussion in the key
concept section shows the limitation of this model.
A number of other methods such as the natural ap-
proach and ‘suggestopedia’ have been proposed, but
the fact remains that no method has a grip on the
complexity involving learning a second language.
Bilingual Education: Additive vs.
Subtractive Bilingualism
Teaching children a school language, particularly if
the school language is different from the child’s home
language, is one of the major challenges for bilingual
education programs. Bilingual education programs in
America aim at minority students learning English.
Such programs have attracted a great deal of contro-
versy on the basis of their merit and outcome. While
there is rapid growth of bilingual education programs
in the United States, the aim of such programs is not
always to introduce additive bilingualism which
ensures the maintenance of the child mother tongue,
while learning the school/dominant language. A large
number of bilingual education programs in the United
States aim at subtractive bilingualism. In other words,
while they offer children a transition to learning the
school/majority language, in that process they do not
ensure the maintenance of the child’s mother tongue.
In contrast, the language policies of bilingual
nations such as India, Canada, and Switzerland are
very conducive to the promotion of language rights
for minority languages. The government of India,
for instance, favors the advancement of linguistic
Bilingualism and Second Language Learning 21
diversity and pluralism by the introduction of the
Three Language Formula, which calls for trilingual-
ism in education. In addition to learning two national
languages, Hindi and English, students are expected
to learn a third language beyond their native tongue.
For example, in northern India, students are expected
to learn one of the four Dravidian languages (Tamil,
Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) from southern
India.
While bi- or multi-lingual education programs like
India’s do not view bilingualism in general and the
maintenance of minority languages in particular as a
threat to national integration, this is not the case with
bilingual education in the United States. U.S. educa-
tional policies are not conducive to linguistic and
cultural diversity.
A notable feature of the Canadian bilingual educa-
tion program is termed the language immersion pro-
gram. Introduced in the 1960s in Quebec, the
program was introduced at the request of the En-
glish-speaking minority to provide their children a
high level of proficiency in schools in the dominant
language of the region, French. Children were im-
mersed in schools in the second language of students
(i.e., French) in which children used their mother
tongue to communicate with a bilingual teacher
who would reply in French. This process leads chil-
dren from what Cummins (1981) calls basic interper-
sonal communication skills (BICS) proficiency to
cognitive-academic language proficiency (CALP) in
the school language. BICS refer to the language profi-
ciency level of students with restricted vocabulary
and simpler syntax, whereas CALP requires a type
of proficiency suitable for academic pursuits – a de-
veloped vocabulary and sufficiently complex syntax
suited for abstract and analytical thinking. The suc-
cess of the Canadian language immersion model con-
tinues to generate enthusiasm and controversy in
bilingual education in the United States.
Socio-Psychological Factors
Successful language learning not only depends on
teaching methods but also on learners’ motivation,
intelligence, opportunities, and other factors, such as
their attitude toward the target language and culture.
Keeping in mind the motivation and the learners’
attitudes, there are two types of learners: instrumen-
tal and integrative learners. Instrumental learners,
who learn a language for the purpose of gaining
external rewards (monitory gains, good jobs, etc.),
however, tend to be less successful learners than
integrative learners, who have a positive attitude
toward the culture of the target language. Psycholog-
ical factors such as the affective filter (Krashen, 1985)
22 Bilingualism and Second Language Learning
either inhibit or promote the learning of a second
language: negative influences such as anxiety, lack
of self-confidence, and inadequate motivation can
create serious obstacles to successful language learn-
ing. Due to a lack of self-esteem and a higher level of
performance anxiety, minority children tend to raise
the affective filter, which results in the reduction of
comprehensible input. Consequently, it takes a toll on
their progress in language acquisition. Similarly, since
adults show more self-consciousness than children,
they put themselves in a disadvantageous position in
terms of language acquisition.
Effects of Bilingualism
Does bilingualism have an adverse linguistic and cog-
nitive effect, particularly on children? Earlier research
in the United States pointed out that exposing chil-
dren to more than one language during their child-
hood leads them to semi-bilingualism and confusion.
Crowding their brain with two or more languages,
this research suggested, not only leads children to
linguistic deficiency, both in competence and perfor-
mance levels (semi-lingualism, stuttering, etc.), but
also to a wide variety of cognitive and psychological
impairments such as low intelligence, mental retarda-
tion, left-handedness, and even schizophrenia.
Research by Peal and Lambert (1962), however,
put to rest such a negative view of bilingualism:
their findings and the work of succeeding researchers
provide ample evidence that these negative conclu-
sions of earlier research were premature, misguided
(biased toward immigrant communities), and unnec-
essarily pessimistic. Solid on methodological grounds,
Peal and Lambert’s study revealed a positive view of
bilingualism, including the conclusion that bilingual
children demonstrate more cognitive flexibility than
monolinguals. Contrary to previous studies, bilinguals
performed better than monolinguals in both verbal
and non-verbal measures. The study, which was con-
ducted in Montreal, was revolutionary in its own right,
changing the face of research on bilingualism forever
(see Hakuta, 1985: Chap. 2 for details). This study has
been replicated in a number of countries confirming
the positive effects of bilingualism.
Conclusions
A number of diverse and complex conditions and
factors lead to life-long bilingualism. These factors –
biological, social, psychological, and linguistic –
account for a varied pattern amongst bilinguals,
witnessed around the world. Thus, a bilingual is
neither two monolinguals in the brain, nor are two
bilinguals clones of each other. These complexities
indicate why no theory of language learning and/or
teaching is capable of explaining bilingual verbal
behavior and the mechanisms leading to bilingual
language development.
See also: Bilingualism; Bilingual Education; Bilingual Lan-
guage Development: Early Years; Code Switching and
Mixing; Foreign Language Teaching Policy; Interlan-
guage; Second and Foreign Language Learning and
Teaching; Second Language Acquisition: Phonology,
Morphology, Syntax.
Bibliography
Bhatia T & Ritchie W (1996). ‘Bilingual language mixing,
Universal Grammar, and second language acquisition.’ In
Ritchie W C & Bhatia T K (eds.) Handbook of second
language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
627–688.
Bhatia T & Ritchie W (1999). ‘The bilingual child: Some
issues and perspectives.’ In Ritchie W C & Bhatia T K
(eds.) Handbook of child language acquisition. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press. 569–643.
Bloomfield L (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Crystal D (1997). English as global language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins J (1981). Schooling and minority language stu-
dents: a theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California
State University.
De Houwer A (1995). ‘Bilingual language acquisition.’ In
Fletcher P & MacWhinney B (eds.) Handbook of child
language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. 219–250.
Edwards J (2004). ‘Foundations of bilingualism.’ In Bhatia
T & Ritchie W (eds.) Handbook of bilingualism. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. 7–31.
Grosjean F (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Hakuta K (1986). Mirror of language. New York: Basic
Books, Inc.
Johnson J & Newport E (1991). ‘Critical period effects on
universal properties of language: The status of subjacency
in the acquisition of a second language.’ Cognition 39,
215–258.
Krashen S (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implica-
tions. London: Longman.
Lenneberg E (1967). Biological foundations of language.
New York: Wiley Press.
Leopold W (1939–1949). Speech development of a bilin-
gual child: A linguist’s record (4 vols). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
McLaughlin B (1984). ‘Early bilingualism: methodological
and theoretical issues.’ In Paradis M & Lebrun Y (eds.)
Early bilingualism and child development. Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. 19–45.
Peal E & Lambert W E (1962). ‘Relation of bilingualism to
intelligence.’ Psychological Monographs 76, 1–23.
Volterra V & Taeschner T (1978). ‘The acquisition and
development of language by bilingual children.’ Journal
of Child Language 5, 311–326.