SUMMARY OF

LANGUAGE USER GROUP AND LANGUAGE TEACHING & BILINGUAL AND

MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION

By

Name : Winda Daniati

Reg. Num : 2022 / 22178031
Subject : Applied Linguistics
Assignment : week 4

STATE UNIVERSITY OF PADANG

2022
Article 1: Langauge User groups and Language teaching

Multi-competence background

Multi-competence was proposed in 1990 by Cook (1991). Multi-competence means the compound state
of a mind with two grammars or the knowledge of two languages in one mind. Multi-competence
emphasizes on:

1. The relationship of the languages in the same person’s mind rather than the separate existence
of a first language and an interlanguage
2. Is not a model of second language acquisition but is more a way of looking at second language
acquisition from the positive point of the L2 user as a different kind of person rather than from
that of the native speaker.
3. Was productive in supporting the growing movement to regard the L2 user as a person in their
own right rather than as a bad native speaker.

As multi-competence is started with the individual’s knowledge of language, the followings are 5
different meaning of language (Cook, 2007)

From the table we can conclude that we should start by seeing how languages relate to each other
within community

There are some weaknesses that become apparent related to multi-competence

1. The absence of EFL (English as Lingua Franca) from multi-competence

2. Multi-competence seemed to treat language knowledge as static rather than constantly
changing.

In fact, language knowledge is in flux, socially dependable and dynamic. In the first language, a person’s
language knowledge may be growing as in children acquiring their first language or declining as in first
language attrition through injury; ageing or change of circumstances when another language. So, the
balance and form of the two languages changes over time and shifts dynamically. The relationships
between languages in the multilingual community is also continuously shifting.

Communities and Language User Groups

Communities can be defined as

1. People living in an area

2. People united by a uniform style of speech
3. A set of evaluative norms

The core value of community is almost invariably taken to be a single language: a minority ethnic
community is seen as identifying itself with its own language, protecting it and maintaining it as a
heritage. An individual’s use of two languages supposes the existence of two different language
communities; it does not suppose the existence of bilingual community.

According to Canagarajah (2007), Linguistic diversity is at the heart of multilingual communities. There is
constant interaction between language groups and they overlap, interpenetrate and mesh in fascinating
ways.

The De Swan Hierarchy

Below is the scheme about how languages differ in terms of geographical and functional areas where
they are used and why

At the bottom of hierarchy is language peripheral which means the languages are used within a
circumscribed territory for the purposes of a local community for example Japanese in Japan. At the
upper hierarchy, there is central languages which means the languages used within a geographical area
for communication between different groups mostly for education and government such as English in
India used by native speakers of many languages for everyday public functions. At the upper of the
hierarchy there is supercentral which means the languages that have a wider geographical spread and
are used for cross-national communication for a limited range of functions, such as Arabic or Latin for
religious ceremonies or Japanese for Karate. At the top of the hierarchy there is hypercentral which
means languages used chiefly by non-native speakers across the globe for a large range of purposes.

Groups of language users

Language users can be divided into groups based on the levels presented by De Swan above

The first group is people using their first language with each other in the local language geographical
territory. The size or location of a speech community does not affect the issue of whether people are
native speakers of a local language. Group A communities use their native local language for all the
possible monolingual language functions of human life.

Group B consists of permanent residents using a central second language to communicate with the
wider community outside their local language group.

Group C consists of people using a supercentral language across national or linguistic borders for a
specific range of functions of language rather than for all functions. Religions for example have often
required believers to use a particular language such as Arabic, Latin, Hebrew, etc

Group D consists of people using a hypercentral second language, perforce English, globally across all
countries and used for all possible second language functions.
Below are the groups L2 users that cannot be classified by De Swan Hierarchy:

Group E consists of people descended from a particular cultural or ethnic group may want to learn its
language to talk to their grandparents.

Group F is for L2 users who keep their user language within a small social group. Some parents choose to
use a language with their children they will not encounter outside the home.

Language groups and SLA research

SLA research has then been making generalization about second language acquisition based on the CL
group, the only group with no clear goal and no clear community to belong to, and on immigrants
considered as petitioner for Group A membership rather than as Group B central language users.

The lists below show how the second language groups B-F be related to second language teaching

1. Group B learning and teaching of central languages

What is needed for this and for other situations like it is a curriculum that recognizes the particular
uses and issues associated with the use of a central language by Group B speakers
2. Group C teaching of supercentral languages
One characteristic of supercentral languages is their limited use across borders for a small range of
functions. The overall emphasis in the framework is on the development of an ability to function like
a native speaker. The goals are to understand a conversation between native speakers and to
understand a native speaker interlocutor (friends to talk)
3. Group D teaching the Hypercentral Language
Its users do not have to take part in a particular society. The ELF movement recognizes that L@
users are different from native speakers; it does not promote a native speaker standard for
teaching. Rather the aim is to teach this particular variety of English for global use for many
functions.

In conclusion, English teaching has to be clear whether it is teaching

1. A local language to people who want to take part in a monolingual local language community,
whether Finnish to Finland or Basque in Spain
2. A central language to people who want to take part in a multilingual community where the language
is used, whether English in London or Delhi
3. A supercentral language to people who want to use it for specialist cross-national uses such as
French for diplomacy
4. A hypercentral language to people who want to use it for a range of purposes across the globe.

Article 2: Bilingual and Multi-Lingual education

1. Definitions and purposes

In terms of bilingual and multi-lingual education, there are many definitions suggested by the
experts. Bilingual education:
a. Refers to the rapidly growing number of Mandarin/English programmes for the Han majority
b. Programmes that teach Spanish-English bilingual children in a single language (Typically
English in the US and Spanish in Mexico)
c. Programmes that teach in both English and Spanish even if students are home pangauge
speakers of only one of these languages
d. Programmes which intentionally group together pupils of two distinct language background
2. The purposes of bilingual and multilingual education programmes are similarly diverse, ranging from
development of advanced levels of proficiency and academic achievement in both target language
to the promotion of academic, skills in a dominant language but not in the pupils’ home language.
3. Some programs aim to help learners develop knowledge about a particular cultural group in addition
to their own
4. Below is three-part framework for understanding how education in multiple languages is commonly
organized

The framework above shows 3 frames of how education in multiple languages is organized. They are
language-based frames, content-based frames and context-based frames.

LANGUAGE-BASED FRAMES
 In this frame, bilingual and multilingual programmes are seen through language use and language
outcomes.

1. The first type of language based frames concern the linguistic usage, the language can be
classified into strong and weak
The strong-weak dichotomy in bilingual education refers to the balance in classroom usage
between the two languages involved.
a. Strong bilingual education involves balanced usage of both languages across all subject
areas in order to reinforce the minority language in its role as a medium of instruction
b. Weak bilingual education, it happens when the non-dominant languages are used
sparingly, typically to clarify instructions or for interpersonal communication only. In
other words, the minority language is used for less central curricular functions.
In this frame, the languages involved in bilingual and multilingual education distinguished
between dominant language and minority language. Dominant language means it is spoken by
many people in the society while minority language is spoken by few people in the society. For
example, Urdu is a minority language in the UK but it is a dominant language in Pakistan.
In other context, speakers may be unsure to having children to read and write their
heritage language. A heritage language is the language of a minority community viewed as a
property of the group’s cultural history and is often in danger of loss as third generations grow
up being underexposed to the language. Biliteracy is literacy in two languages. It is viewed as
appropriate and desirable for heritage language learners but not for others.
2. A second type of language based frame concerns the linguistic outcomes of schooling in multiple
languages. It concerns on the changes in pupil’s abilities to use their first and additional
languages after completing a bilingual or multilingual programme of study. In terms of the
outcome, the programme can be differentiate into 2, they are:
a. Subtractive programme are those in which the students’ home language is not used at
all as a medium of instruction or its use in progressively diminished as early as the first
year of school. Subtractive bilingual education leads to the loss of the first language.
b. Additive bilingual and multilingual programme aim to support and extend the
students’home language and additional language through the systematic and sustained
use of both as languages of instruction.

CONTENT-BASED FRAMES

There is also growing awareness that the forms of knowledge that linguistically diverse learners bring to
school are a valuable resource to be taped in bilingual and multilingual programmes. Implicit use of
students’ existing conceptual and content knowledge has been described as de facto bilingual
education.

Children engage in de facto bilingual education when they and their teacher implicitly draw on subject
knowledge acquired previously in a language which is different from the language of instruction. For
example a Hongkong student who learned elementary mathematics through the medium of Cantonese
will be familiar with mathematical concepts even when they’re presented by a Mandarin Chinese
speaking teacher.
The most common forms of bilingual and multilingual schooling

1. Submersion education
In this type of bilingual education, pupils are placed in classes with students who are
native/proficient speakers of the dominant language, and their academic progress is evaluated
using measures designed to assess the performance of native speakers and for comparison with
the norms established for them.
2. Transitional bilingual education (TBE), In this programme, students’ L1 is temporary use as an
academic bridge to highly proficient users of the dominant language. This programme often
features at least some content instruction in the home language and may also include initial
literacy instruction in the students’ L1
3. Maintenance bilingual education
Upkeep the non-dominant language. It is intended for immigrant pupils thought likely to return
to their home countries and whose successful return would ideally include being able to
participate in schools
4. Immersion
Refers to the programme designed to teach content in the target language but in a way that
does not harm the learner’sL1
5. Community language teaching
Refer to as mother-tongue teaching and home language instruction but has the advantage
accounting for the effects of language shift and the inclusion of non-migrants
6. Heritage Language programme
It assumed that there is educational value in teaching students in and about the historic
language of their community.

Context-based frames

This frames consider bilingual and multilingual education is based on the nature of the contexts in which
programmes are designed enacted and evaluated. This programme can be divided into macro and micro
context

Macro-level context

At the national level, ideological stance leads to consider able diversity in public and official students to
bilingual and multi lingual education.

Micro-level context

It examines conditions at more micro level. Elite and folk bilingualism are terms used by Suzanne to label
the difference in socioeconomic circumstances and motivations between those who seek to become
bilingual and of choice.