BILINGUALISM AND MULTILINGUALISM

By Group 7:
Rezky Ananda (40300119076)
Selvy (40300119077)
Khaerun Nisa (40300119078)
Ismiah Miftahul Khaeraeni (40300119079)
Muh. Nur Fakhri Ramadhan (40300119080)
Najwah Dahlan (40300119081)
Utami Nur Islamiati Daud (40300119094)

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

ADAB AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
ALAUDDIN ISLAMIC STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR
2022
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
When people hear the term bilingual many imagine an individual who speaks two
languages perfectly. For them someone who is 'truly' bilingual is two native speakers in
one. They imagine that such a person can speak, understand, read, and write in two
languages at the highest levels. For others, the term bilingual means something quite
different. When newly arrived immigrant children entering U.S. schools, for example,
are described as 'bilingual children,' the term is often used as a euphemism for 'poor' and
'uneducated'. In this case, newly arrived immigrant children do not yet function in two
languages. They are monolingual speakers of their first language and not bilingual at all.
The term bilingual here is used to convey a very different set of meanings from what
linguists intend.
The terms bilingual and multilingual are widely used to refer to individuals who
have obtained the ability to use more than one language. However, bilingualism and
multilingualism (however they are defined) are highly complex social, psychological,
and linguistic phenomena and need to be understood from a multidimensional aspect.
Moreover, in recent years, there has been a growing number of researchers who have
argued for the importance of making a clear distinction between bilinguals and
multilinguals, as opposed to using bilinguals as a blanket term entailing multilinguals as
one variation (e.g., Aronin and Hufeisen 2009; Cenoz and Genesee 1998; De Angelis
2007).
The question of how to define bilingualism or multilingualism has engaged
researchers for a very long time. Some researchers have favored a narrow definition of
bilingualism and argued that only those individuals who are very close to two
monolinguals in one should be considered bilingual.
More recently, however, researchers who study bilingual and multilingual
communities around the world have argued for a broad definition that views bilingualism
as a common human condition that makes it possible for an individual to function, at
some level, in more than one language. The key to this very broad and inclusive
definition of bilingualism is 'more than one'.
From the perspective of this framework, a bilingual individual is not necessarily
an ambilingual (an individual with native competency in two languages) but a bilingual
of a specific type who, along with other bilinguals of many different types, can be
classified along a continuum. Some bilinguals possess very high levels of proficiency in
both languages in the written and the oral modes. Others display varying proficiencies
in comprehension and/or speaking skills depending on the immediate area of experience
in which they are called upon to use their two languages.
According to this perspective, one admits into the company of bilinguals
individuals who can, to whatever degree, comprehend or produce written or spoken
 utterances in more than one language. Thus, persons able to read in a second language
(e.g. French) but unable to function in the spoken language are considered to be
bilinguals of a certain type and placed at one end of the continuum. Such persons are
said to have receptive competence in a second language and to be 'more bilingual' than
monolinguals who have neither receptive nor productive abilities in a language other
than their first. The judgment here is comparative: total monolingualism versus a minor
degree of ability to comprehend a second language.

B. Formulation of the Problem

1. What is bilingualism and multilingualism?
2. What do bilingualism and multilingualism have in common?
3. What is the difference between bilingualism and multilingualism?

C. Writing Purpose
1. To know the meaning of bilingualism and multilingualism
2. To find out the similarities between bilingualism and multilingualism
3. To know the difference between bilingualism and multilingualism
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. Definition of bilingualism/multilingualism
The terms bilingual and multilingual are widely used to refer to individuals who
have obtained the ability to use more than one language. However, bilingualism and
multilingualism (however they are defined) are highly complex social, psychological,
and linguistic phenomena and need to be understood from a multidimensional aspect.
Moreover, in recent years, there has been a growing number of researchers who have
argued for the importance of making a clear distinction between bilinguals and
multilinguals, as opposed to using bilinguals as a blanket term entailing multilingual
as one variation (e.g., Aronin and Hufeisen 2009; Cenoz and Genesee 1998; De
Angelis 2007). In the literature on bilingualism, one can find a wide range of
definitions for bilinguals. As is often believed, bilinguals can be defined as individuals
who have ‘native-like control of two languages (Bloomfield 1933: 56). However, such
a narrow definition prevents most people from being categorized as bilinguals, not to
mention the difficulty of operationalizing ‘native-like control.’ Haugen defined
bilinguals as individuals who are fluent in one language but who ‘can produce
complete meaningful utterances in the other language’ (1953: 7). While this definition
can include people who have various degrees of language abilities in their L2, it
neglects the fact that the ability and use of the dominant language (or L1) can also
vary by context and can change over time.
B. The Complexity of Understanding Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Bilinguals and multilinguals thus entail quite heterogeneous groups of
individuals. Their diverse individual and linguistic conditions are nested in larger
societal contexts which cause varying degrees and types of language contact. In the
literature on bilingualism, there are a number of terminologies that have been used to
characterize different types of bilinguals. While these terms are often used among
authors without agreed-upon definitions, it is useful to summarize some of the major
ones in order to illustrate the critical dimensions that contribute to the diversity of the
concept of bilingualism itself (see Table 5.1).
Reflecting the multidimensionality of bilingualism, we can see that different
classifications have been proposed focusing on different dimensions of bilingualism.
Such dimensions include: the relationship between language proficiencies in two
languages (as seen in balanced and dominant bilinguals); the functional ability
(receptive and productive bilinguals); the age of acquisition (simultaneous,
sequential, and late bilinguals); the organization of linguistic codes and meaning units
(compound, coordinate, and subordinate bilinguals); language status and learning
environments (elite/elective and folk/circumstantial bilinguals); the effect of L2
learning on the retention of L1 (additive and subtractive bilinguals); cultural identity
(L1 monocultural, L2 accultural, and deculturated bilinguals), and so forth. While
these terms often appear in bilingual literature (and multilingual literature as well), it
is also important to note that such classifications fail to capture the complex and
dynamic nature of bilingualism.
First, many of these dimensions are not categorical but continuous constructs.
For example, balanced bilinguals refers to bilinguals who have an equal level of
proficiency in both languages, but this term usually refers only to individuals who
have equally ‘high’ proficiencies in both languages. Dominant bilinguals are
individuals whose proficiency in one language (usually in their dominant language,
L1) is higher than in their other language. However, these terminologies do not
specify the degree of proficiency. How much ‘high’ proficiency does one need to
obtain in order to be qualified as a balanced bilingual? As we shall see below, defining
and measuring bilingual proficiency is a very complex business and ‘high proficiency’
itself is frequently determined arbitrarily. Similarly, there is no consensus as to what
cut-off point should be used to distinguish early bilinguals (individuals who acquired
two languages during their childhood, further divided into simultaneous and
sequential bilinguals) and late bilinguals (those who became bilinguals during their
adulthood).
Second, the categorizations above fail to capture the role of the context in which
language is used, which adds another layer of complexity to understanding
bilingualism. Bilinguals’ use of each of their languages varies greatly depending on
the content, purpose, interlocutors, psychological conditions (such as when they are
under stress), formality/informality of the social setting, and so forth. For example,
an individual may exclusively use the language of instruction in her science class
because she does not have enough scientific vocabulary to convey meaning in another
language. However, the same individual may alternate between two languages when
she carries on a casual conversation with her sister who is also a bilingual. When the
sisters’ mother, who is limited in the host country’s language, joins the conversation,
the sisters may exclusively use the language which is understood by their mother as
well.
The third, but not least, complication stems from the fact that the bilingual
profile is constantly changing. An individual may lose her dominant language
proficiency as she engages in school or daily activities more heavily in her L2, and
eventually her L2 may take on the dominant language status. Societal values placed
on each language an individual speaks may be different from one place to another; for
instance, an individual’s bilingual profile can drastically change as a result of
immigration to a new country.
Table 5.1 Classical typology of bilingualism
Point of Typology Definitions Characteristi Related Additional
focus cs of SLA issues and complication
(Dimensio educational s in
n) implications multilingual
contexts
Relationshi Balanced Achieving Functional Conceptualizi Greater
p between Dominant equal level of differences; ng and complexity in
proficiencie (Peal and proficiency in related to age assessing conceptualizi
s in two Lambert L2 with L1 factors (?) language ng and
languages 1962 (balanced); proficiency; measuring
L2 Cummins’ multilingual
proficiency threshold competences
varies but not hypothesis
the same as and
L1 interdependent
(dominant) hypothesis;
Functional Receptive Understand Functional Language use Greater
ability Productive but not and irrespective of diversity in
produce L2 motivational proficiency functional
either in oral difference levels and differences
and/or written identity across
domains domains and
(receptive); across
understand languages
and produce
L2
(productive)
Age of Early Exposed to Maturational Neurolinguisti Greater
acquisition Simultaneou two differences; c differences; diversity in
s Sequential languages schooling critical period the
Late from birth difference hypothesis acquisition
(Genesee et (simultaneous order; can
al. 1978 ); Exposed to have multiple
L2 after L1 L1s and/or
has some L2s
foundation
(sequential);
became
bilinguals
during
adulthood
(late)
Organizatio Compound Two sets of Functional Difficulties Greater
n of Coordinate linguistic differences; with complexity
linguistic Subordinate codes stored differences in operationalizi and diversity
codes and (Weinreich in one form-meaning ng distinctions in
meaning 1953) meaning unit mapping and testing multilingual
unit( (compound); differences memory
stored organization
separately according to
(coordinate); typological
L2 is differences
accessed among
through L1 languages and
(subordinate) proficiency
levels
Language Elite Folk No or little Differences in Support for Greater
status and (Fishman additive value language literacy in L1 diversity in
learning 1977); of L1 as a status and and L2 social values
environmen Circumstanti language value of literacy attached to
t; literacy al Elective minority bilingualism development multiple
support of (Valdés and status (folk/ languages
L1 Figueroa circumstantial
1994) ); additive
value of L2
(elite/
elective)
Effect of Additive L2 as L2 as Social value Greater
L2 learning Subtractive enrichment enrichment of L1 greatly complexity of
on the (Lambert without loss with or influences the learning an
retention of 1974); of L1 without loss retention of additional
L1 (additive); L1 of L1; status L1; support language
is replaced by of a language for literacy in from
L2 in a given L1 and L2 previously
(subtractive) context literacy acquired
development languages;
greater
diversity of
status across
languages
Cultural Bicultural Cultural Differences in High bilingual Multiple
identity L1 identity acculturation competence cultural
monocultural shaped by process does not identities
L2 accultural two cultures necessary coexist
Deculturated (bicultural); coincide with irrespective of
(Hamers and identity in dual identity competences
Blanc 2000) one culture
(L1
monocultural)
; loss of L1
culture (L2
 accultural);
identity in
neither
cultures
(deculturated)

C. Psycholinguistic research on bi- and multilingualism

Psycholinguists using behavioral and neuroimaging methods have carried out a
substantial amount of research on the cognitive consequences of bi- and
multilingualism. Bilinguals have been found to outperform monolinguals in a range
of nonverbal control tasks that tap into cognitive abilities known as the executive
function (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012). Bilinguals not only seem to have better
inhibitory control, but also outperform monolinguals in monitoring, switching, and
updating. Bilingual cognitive advantages have traditionally been attributed to an
individual’s knowledge of two linguistic systems and to the practice of having to
inhibit one language when it is not needed. Recent research suggests that the presence
of a third language seems to provide an extra cognitive advantage. Indeed, trilingual
children outperformed a group of both monolingual and bilingual children. Bialystok
and colleagues report that the cognitive effects of bilingualism are more muted in
adulthood but start playing a larger role in older age. The authors argue that the use
of cognitive control networks for bilingual language processing may reconfigure and
strengthen them, strengthening “mental flexibility,” namely the ability to adapt to
ongoing changes and to process information efficiently. Older bilinguals have a larger
“cognitive reserve,” which can postpone the onset of symptoms in those suffering
from dementia. Indeed, bilinguals experience onset symptoms of dementia years later
than monolinguals.
Some researchers have wondered whether the advantage might in fact be
linked to the presence of two cultures in the mind of the bilingual, which often have
very different values
D. Bilingual and trilingual first language acquisition
The French psychologist Ronjat carried out the first study of bilingual first
language acquisition in 1913. He made detailed records of his son Louis’ speech from
birth to the age of 5. The family lived in Paris. The mother and nanny were native
speakers of German; the father was a native speaker of French.They only used their
mother tongue with Louis. Ronjat’s study showed that Louis’ bilingual upbringing
had no adverse effects on his cognitive development; that grammar, phonology, and
lexis developed in parallel; that the child realized very soon the existence of two
languages and acted as an interpreter; that language mixing was always limited and
tended to disappear toward his fourth birthday; and that Louis showed a more abstract
conception of language. Ronjat’s work was a milestone, as it refuted the claim that
early bilingualism had adverse effects. These days there is broad agreement among
researchers that infants possess the perceptual and memory capacities that allow them
to acquire several languages simultaneously from birth. They form differentiated
linguistic systems from the first input they get (during babbling). Their pattern and
rate of language acquisition is generally comparable to that of monolingual peers,
although the vocabulary size might be somewhat smaller in the weaker language.
There are of course more instances of cross-linguistic transfer and intentional or
nonintentional code-switching in the speech of multilingual children, but these remain
quite restricted in space and time. Code-switching is no longer seen as an indicator of
the inability to keep languages apart, but more as the manifestation, in certain
circumstances, of a unique multicultural personality. Dewaele (2013) found a positive
link between high levels of self-reported proficiency in different languages and self-
reported frequency of code-switching. Multilingual children have other advantages,
such as a better awareness of the arbitrary nature of language, an extra breadth of
understanding, and more efficient and more emphatic communication.
The best approach for multilingual language acquisition is probably the “one
parent, one language” policy (OPOL). Each parent speaks his or her native
language exclusively with the child, which leads to advanced competence in each
of the languages. As the amount of exposure to the languages is rarely the same,
the child might feel dominant in the most frequently used language. This is a
dynamic situation, as more exposure to one language (for example when spending
time with other users of a particular language) can boost that language. The decision
as to what language each parent uses with the child is usually based on what the
most “natural” language is for them: it should be their dominant language or the
language in which they have high proficiency. There are successful examples,
however, of parents using an LX in which they were not necessarily native-like,
and yet their child acquired that language to a native standard.
Although there is relatively little research on the perspective of the
multilingual children themselves, it seems that most of them value the experience
and realize how lucky they are to have absorbed their early languages effortlessly
once they start studying other languages at school.
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUCION
The terms bilingual and multilingual are widely used to refer to individuals who have
obtained the ability to use more than one language. However, bilingualism and multilingualism
(however they are defined) are highly complex social, psychological, and linguistic phenomena
and need to be understood from a multidimensional aspect.
Bilinguals and multilinguals thus entail quite heterogeneous groups of individuals. Their
diverse individual and linguistic conditions are nested in larger societal contexts which cause
varying degrees and types of language contact. In the literature on bilingualism, there are a number
of terminologies that have been used to characterize different types of bilinguals. While these terms
are often used among authors without agreed-upon definitions, it is useful to summarize some of
the major ones in order to illustrate the critical dimensions that contribute to the diversity of the
concept of bilingualism itself.
Psycholinguists using behavioral and neuroimaging methods have carried out a substantial
amount of research on the cognitive consequences of bi- and multilingualism. Bilinguals have been
found to outperform monolinguals in a range of nonverbal control tasks that tap into cognitive
abilities known as the executive function (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012). Bilinguals not only
seem to have better inhibitory control, but also outperform monolinguals in monitoring, switching,
and updating. Bilingual cognitive advantages have traditionally been attributed to an individual’s
knowledge of two linguistic systems and to the practice of having to inhibit one language when it
is not needed.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2003).Who is afraid of bilingualism? In J.-M. Dewaele, A. Housen, &W.
Li (Eds.), Bilingualism: Basic principles and beyond (pp. 10–27). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.3.001
Cook, V. J., & Bassetti, B. (2010). Language and bilingual cognition. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Costa, B., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2014). Psychotherapy across languages: Beliefs, attitudes and
practices of monolingual and multilingual therapists with their multilingual patients.
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 14, 235–244. doi:
10.1080/14733145.2013.838338
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Duff, Patricia (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: insights and issues.
Language Teaching 40: 309–19
Jarvis, Scott (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the
interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50(2): 245–309.
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition?
International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405–428. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.743665