Bilingual Acquisition and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: Challenges to the Research Paradigm

Abstract

The belief that learning a second language (L2) poses challenges to cognitive performance in early childhood is questioned along with the ideas of proponents and opponents. It is regarded colorable to claim that development in bilinguals and monolinguals can be different because of the functions or advantages of specific experiences in each language. Studies maintaining that bilingualism influences cognitive development in early childhood lead one to the conclusion that language and cognition are interdependent rather than independent issues. Nevertheless, bilingualism has been treated as a single discrete independent variable ignoring that it is a multidimensional notion, which seems to remain a problem in the experimental paradigm of research. Thus, to scrutinize on the influences of bilingualism, it is considered crucial to take into consideration the unique features of participants, tasks and the relationships of those tasks to the constructs in question. Finally, bilingual children’s ability to transfer their decontextualized skills and knowledge from one language to another is regarded as an advantage while children in monolingual contexts are only able to carry out the very same tasks only in one language

Keywords

• Cognitive development,early childhood,bilingual acquisition

Erken çocuklukta çift dilliliğin kazanımı ve bilişsel gelişim: Araştırma paradigmasındaki problemler

Öz

İkinci dil kazanımının bilişsel performansa olumsuz etiketi ileine yönelik inançlar savunucuların ve karşı gelenlerin fikirlerini yararlanılarak sorgulanmıştır. Kazanılan farklı farklı dillerdeki farklı işlevleri nedeni ile dilli ve çift dilli çocuklarda gelişimin farklılıklarından öne sürmek kabul edilebilir görünmektedir. Çift dilliliğin bilişsel gelişimi etkilediğini savunan çalışmalar dil ve biliş kavramlarının birbirinden bağımsız olduğu, birbirleri ile ilişkili olduğu mevcutuna yönelmektedir. Ancak çift dilliliğin tek kişi bir bağımsız değişken olarak algılanması ve çok yönlü bir olgu oluşunun göz ardı edilmesi, araştırma paradigmasında hala rastlanan bir problemdir. Bu kişilik çift dilliliğin etkileri üzerine odaklanabilmek için, çift dilli çocukların eşsiz olan özelliklerinin gideri alınması, gerçekleştirilen görevlerin özelliklerinin incelenmesi ve bu görevlerle incelenen yapılar arasındaki ilişkilerin açığa çıkarılması Gerekmektedir. Son olarak, çift dilli çocukların bir dili öğrenme ortamında elde ettikleri deneyimleri başka bir dil öğrenme ortamına aktarma yetileri bir avantaj olarak ele alınmış, tek dilli çocukların aynı görevleri sadece tek bir dil ortamında yerine getirmeleri durumunda daha dezavantajlı olabilecekleri tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilişsel gelişim, erken çocukluk, çift dilliliğin kazanımı

Kaynakça

1. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48(3), 1009-1018.
2. Bialystok, E. (1986). Children’s concept of word. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15(1), 13-32.
3. Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 560-567.
4. Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portrait of the L2 user (pp. 147-165). New York: Multilingual Matters.
5. Bialystok, E., & Herman, J. (1999). Does bilingualism matter for early literacy? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 35-44.
6. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9 (1), 43-61.
7. Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 580590.
8. Bruck, M., & Genesee, F. (1993). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Unpublished manuscript, McGill University.

9. Fredman, M., & Centeno, J. G. (September, 2006). Recommendations to work with bilingual children. Comité Permanent de Liaison des Orthophonistes /Logopèdes de l'Union
10. Européenne [Standing Liaison Committee of Speech and Language Therapists /Logopedists in the European Union], 6th Congress, Berlin. Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. New York: Multilingual Matters.
11. Genesee, F. (2002). Portrait of the bilingual child. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portrait of the L2 user (pp. 170-196). New York: Multilingual Matters.
12. Gonzáles, V. (2001). The role of socioeconomic and sociocultural factors in language minority children’s development: an ecological research view. Bilingual Research Journal, 25 (1&2), 1-30.
13. Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1 (2), 131-149.
14. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: the debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
15. Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23 (1), 1-39.
16. Haznedar, B. (2003). The status of functional categories in child second language acquisition: evidence from the acquisition of CP. Second Language Research, 19 (1), 1-41.
17. Ionin, T., & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research 18 (2), 95-136.
18. Lambert, W., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children; the St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers.
19. Lyon, J. (1996). What factors predict a child’s language in a bilingual environment? In M. Aldridge (Ed.), Child language, pp. 103-111. New York: Multilingual Matters.
20. Meisel, J. M. (1997). Code-switching in young bilingual children: the acquisition of grammatical constraints. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (4), 413-439.
21. Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language? Evidence from Tense and Agreement. Second Language Research 16 (2), 103-33.
22. Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: a background. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 3-21). New York: Multilingual Matters.
23. Streets, L. (1976, reprinted in 1991). I can talk. London: Down Syndrome Association.
24. Rubin, H., & Turner, A. (1989). Linguistic awareness skills in grade one children in a French immersion setting. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 73-86.
25. Rubin, R., & Carlan, V. G. (2005). Using writing to understand bilingual children's literacy development. Reading Teacher, 58 (8), 728-739.
26. Wakabayashi, T. (2002). Bilingualism as a future investment: the case of Japanese high school students at an international school in Japan. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3),631-658.
27. Yelland, G. W., Pollard, J. & Mercuri, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (4), 423-444.