Early Childhood Bilingualism: a sociolinguistic review of U.S. American research in bilingual language acquisition from the perspective of preschool education

  Early Childhood Bilingualism  

  Content:  

1.  Introduction: Ethnicity, Language, and Early Childhood Education  2

2.  The Perspective of Early Childhood Educators  3

3.  The Linguistic Potential of the Reference Group  7

3.1.  Ethnic Composition the Linguistic Potential  7

3.2.  Language Status  7

3.2.1.  Varieties of English  7

3.2.2.  Non-English Languages  8

3.2.3.  Varieties of Non-English Languages  9

3.2.4.  The Role of Schools  10

3.2.5.  Conclusions (Educational Implications)  10

3.3.  Language Loss Maintenance  12

3.3.1.  Schools and Language Loss  12

3.3.2.  Family and Language Loss  13

3.3.3.  Peer and Language Loss  13

3.3.4.  Language Maintenance v. Retention  14

3.4.  Acculturation Theory  14

3.5.  Differing Cultural Patterns in Preschool  14

4.  The Linguistic Potential of the Individual Speaker  15

4.1.  Uni (Mono ), Bi , and Multilingualism  15

4.1.1.  Bilingualism Defined  15

4.1.2.  The Matter of Norm: Mono- or Bilingualism ?  15

4.2.  Societal Parameters  16

4.2.1.  Bilingual Patterns (ways of becoming bilingual)  16

4.2.2.  Types of Bilinguals (bilingual individuals classified)  16

4.3.  Linguistic Parameters  16

4.3.1.  Input Conditions  17

4.3.2.  The Parameter Time  17

4.3.3.  Impact of Linguistic Parameters on Preschool Children  18

4.4.  The Outcome of Bilingual Language Acquisition  18

4.5.  Theories and Studies  20

4.5.1.  A Social Model of SLA  20

4.5.2.  A Four-Stage Model of Consecutive BLA  21

4.5.3.  Formulaic Speech  21

5.  Research in SLA and FLA  22

5.1.  Theories of Second Language Acquisition  22

5.2.  Age Differences  23

5.3.  Types of SLL  24

5.4.  Research in FLA  24

6.  Research in Bilingual Language Acquisition (BLA)  25

6.1.  Results in general  25

6.1.1.  Theories and Models: Cummins  25

6.1.2.  Studies: BLA Compared to MLA  26

6.2.  Bilingualism Cognitive Development  28

6.3.  Language Differentiation and Awareness  29

6.3.1.  To Mix or To Switch?  29

6.3.2.  Metalinguistic Awareness  31

6.3.3.  One Language System or Two.  31

6.4.  Emerging Literacy  33

7.  Program Studies  34

7.1.  Preschool Program Effectiveness  34

7.2.  Successful Consecutive BLA  37

7.3.  Long-Term Effectiveness  37

8.  Some Conclusions  39

9.  References  40

1

Early Childhood Bilingualism

1. Introduction: Ethnicity, Language, and Early Childhood Education

The number of linguistically and culturally

diverse children in the United States grows. So does their need for adequacy in schooling and child care. The number of limited English proficient students has nearly doubled in less than a decade. It “grew two and a holf times faster than regular school enrollment” (August & Hakuta 1993, quoted in McLaughlin 1995). Today, there are 3.2 million limited English proficient students nationwide, the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs estimates (OBEMLA 1998a). Regarding the future, Tucker goes as far as to claim the following: "If current trends continue, we can expect that 53 of the major American cities will have minority language youngsters as a majority of the school population by the year 2000” (Tucker 1991: p.75). In California, the one state that conducts a school-by-school Language Census each year, the number of limited English proficient students increased by 20% between 1993 and 1997 (OBEMLA 1998a). The percentage of the non-Anglo school-age popula tion is expected to increase to 60% by the year 2000, and to 70% by 2030 (Garcia 1991).

As a matter of fact, no figures are available

about the linguistic background of children at preschool age. However, whereas the overall percentage of children under the age of five has been predicted to drop after 2000, the birthrates differ considerably according to ethnic background: 6.85% for white women, 8.32% for bla ck women, and 9.58% for Hispanic women in 1987 (Williams & Fromberg 1992: p.104). Consequently, the proportion of children with a mother tongue other than English will further rise. The National Association for the Education of Young Children states that linguistic and cultural “diversity is even more pronounced among children younger than age 6” (NAEYC 1995: p.2).

Conclusions can also be drawn from developments in ethnic and language back-ground. The 1990 U.S. Census reports that 14% of the US residents age five and over reported speaking a language other than English at home. The percentage of Whites (excluding Hispanics) was 73,5% and is estimated to drop

2

Early Childhood Bilingualism

and the behavior and practices recommended by

family and friends are gradually internalized and contribute to a child's definition of self" (p.119).

Accordingly, self-concept is primarily built on patterns and beliefs that are culturally specific and thus very often different from those prevailing in a preschool setting dominated by the majority culture. Ignoring the cultural dimension in child development therefore would inevitably lead to disruptions in the development of self-concept, thereby inhibiting the course of development of many other competencies as well. It follows that for children with a cultural and linguistic background different from that of the majority, adapting to a preschool culture is much more difficult: First, they rely on culturally different experiences, that is their sets of references are different. Thus their development of cognitive skills and that of concept formation in particular is in danger to be interrupted. Second, they often do not even speak the language of the majority and therefore are unable to communicate with neither peers nor teacher. Their attempts in socializing through non-verbal means may fail because of cultural differences in socialization patterns.

... & the literature on early childhood

It seems that investigations in the

multilinguality of preschoolers are of considerable concern. As a matter of fact, much more research has been carried out with samples of school age children. A look at the range of (monograph) publications presenting advice on preschool or early childhood education reveals that, among early childhood educators, there seems to be little concern about the linguistic diversity of young children. B. Beatty`s 1995 Preschool Education in America: The Culture of Young Children from Colonial to Present (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press) disregards this issue as well as Literate Apprenticeships: The Emergence of Language and Literacy in the Preschool Years from 1996 [sic!] (ed. by K.

2. The Perspective of Early Childhood Educators

Ever since the passing of the 1968 Bilingual

Education Act (Title VII and part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act),

3

Early Childhood Bilingualism

In 1971, for instance, a conference on “Bilingualism in Early Childhood” was held in Chicago by researchers in Applied Linguistics (Mackey 1971). On the other hand, early childhood educators, in alliance with regional Offices of Education, tried to tackle the “problem” of their classroom being multilingual by compiling materials on their own, such as resource books, teaching guides, curriculum supplements and the like (NCBE 1980).

Arenas (1978) anticipates the philosophy of what today is called "two-way bilingual education" in the journal Children Today: "Learning two languages can become part of the learning that takes place naturally during the socialization process – c hildren playing with other children and learning from each other. Teachers can take advantage of this natural interaction. If both languages are part of the regular classroom environment, children will help each other learn both languages." (p.4) She suggests the integration of both languages into all areas of the curriculum in order to "continue the development of the first language and facilitate the acquisition of a second" (p.4). Furthermore, she points to some research results:

− thought processes (discourse styles) differ

between cultures

− bilingual children use language more

precisely than monolingual children

− learning to read in ones native language does

not impede learning to read the second language

− children with a positive self-concept (for

instance through the appreciation of their home culture in school) do better at school than children who have a poor self-concept.

a few more conclusions drawn from research in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics find expression in p resentations of early childhood educators.

Saracho (1983), for example, points to the matter of language status and its effects on children claiming that "even at a very early age, bilingual/bicultural children know that speaking a language other than English makes them different." She explains that "teachers let them know ... that English is better than their own native language ... communicating, 'You are ignorant until you learn English.' " (p.99) In order not to "devastate children's self-concept", she recommends the teachers to incorporate

4

Early Childhood Bilingualism

5

Early Childhood Bilingualism

individual and community esteem; and children's potential nonmastery of their home language or English" (NAEYC 1995: p.2; bold in the original). They think that "sometimes the negative attitudes conveyed or expressed toward certain languages lead children to 'give up' their home language" (p.1). Accordingly, they put up the goal to "encourage the development of children's home language while fostering the acquisition of English" (p.2) because:

1. the development of the c hildren's home language does not interfere with their ability to learn English

2. knowing more than one language is a cognitive asset (with reference to Hakuta & Garcia 1989)

3. acknowledging (accept, respect, value, promote, encourage) children's home language and culture strengthens the ties between family and programs and leads to better learning because children feel supported and nurtured. Furthermore, they point to some individual phenomena:

− some children may experience a silent period

of six or more months

− some may mix or combine languages − others may seem to have acquired English-language skills but are not truly proficient. Considering theories of second language acquisition, they argue for native language instruction, because children learn best in context, and knowledge acquired in the first language can make second-language input much more comprehensible (with reference to Krashen). Also, they can better attain the language and cognitive skills necessary for understanding academic content through reading and writing, which is decontextualized learning. The acquisition of those skills in the second language may require four or more years (with reference to Cummins and Collier). NAEYC recommends that teachers should explain to parents that communicating with their children in English despite an insufficient parental command of the English language can often result in verbal interactions being limited and unnatural. There can be a lack of communicating complex ideas or abstract thoughts, and vocabulary growth will be less optimal as well. Giving recommendations for programs and practice, they clearly state (with reference to Krashen) that "literacy developed in the home language will transfer to the second language"

6

Early Childhood Bilingualism

the others have, "many times the school treat

those children as if they were mentally retarded", that is, as "dumb-dumbs, and their

3. The Linguistic Potential of the Reference Group

3.1. Ethnic Composition & the

Linguistic Potential As a function of ethnic composition, the linguistic composition of a multilingual preschool classroom varies owing to the interplay of three factors: a. the proportion of native English speakers, b. the proportion of non-English native speakers, and

c. the number of non-English native languages present in the classroom. As a result, classrooms can be (by mother tongue)

1. monolingual (Hispanic only for example),

2. bilingual (English and one non-English language),

3. multilingual (English and more than one non-English language),

4. bilingual (two non-English languages), or

5. multilingual (more than two non-English languages).

Furthermore, the proportions of speakers may vary from one speaker of a language to all but one speakers of a language. This diversity has major implications for potential teaching methods, especially with regard to the issues of languages of instruction and availability of target language speakers.

3.2. Language Status

Probably even more influential is the status of the languages in a classroom. Being the de facto official language of the United States, "Standard" American English generally has the highest prestige among all other languages because it is through English that higher education and success in society is attainable. Academic and economic underachievement compared to federal or national mean figures, school drop-out rates, and poverty rates (Garcia 1991; Spener 1988; Corson 1993; Cummins 1986) of for example the Hispanic American population (Zentella 1997) suggest a proportional relationship between the prestige of a speech community and the prestige of their language in society. Hoffmann (1991) explains why members of a language minority group attribute higher status to the majority language. She claims that "personal wealth, professional standing and

7

Early Childhood Bilingualism

developed linguistic arguments" given by Labov, for example, that prove "its status as a full-fledged language", Ruiz 1988: p.544) and clearly is subordinated to Standard American English or British-influenced forms. AAVE and other "subordinated" varieties such as Chicano English and Appalachian speech lack the "status as purveyors of social power"(ibid.) because they do not give the speakers the potential for upward mobility. Parallels have been found in the 1998 study by Nicoladis et al., which investigated differences in Spanish achievement between African-American students and English native white children in the early grades of a Spanish-English two-way

controlling for intelligence. Results show that, although performing significantly lower than majority white students on English achievement tests, African-American students do not differ significantly in Spanish achievement (in math's and reading).

Nicoladis et al. conclude that the "results of this study point to the primary role of social/environmental comparatively lower scores of African-American children on standardized English achievement tests" (p.134). The authors relate their findings to the circumstance that Spanish is a "culture-free" and an equally new language for both groups of students. Yet they admit that "the present data do not point to which social/environmental factor or factors may play a role" (p.146) and speculate about similarities between Hispanic and African-American discourse and interactional styles. Likewise it could be argued that the results are rooted in dimensions of ethnic and language status. At least, they prove false the linguistic mismatch theory, which centers around the assumption that poor academic achievement is mainly due to the linguistic mismatch between home and school.

3.2.2. Non-English Languages

With regard to non-English languages, Ruiz (1988), d rawing on a distinction made by Ferguson and Heath in 1981, points to the widening gap in the status of ethnic and foreign languages. Efforts to maintain (the status of) an ethnic language have often been viewed as acts of separatism, leading to racial segregation. This view is strongly put forward by Glenn, who basically denies ethnic minorities the right to cultural maintenance. Glenn (1996) consequently argues

Early Childhood Bilingualism

9

Early Childhood Bilingualism

− most subjects are taught in English but

Spanish is the social language of the school − literacy in Spanish according to monolingual

Cuban standards is expected and attained. Romaine (1989) reports that the pupils fare better than Cuban-Americans elsewhere and that "Garcia and Otheguy (1987: 89) attribute the success of these schools to the prestigious status accorded in Spanish" (p.224; see also footnote 3).

Moll (1992) reports that Garcia and Otheguy discovered during their studies in Dade County in the 1980s that their research questions (matters of language dominance, length of instructional use of the first language, language of initial reading, time of mainstreaming or transferring

instruction, and character of language tests for evaluating program effectiveness) were irrelevant or inapplicable to the schools they were studying. In fact, the community educators showed "remarkably little interest in language questions" (p.90, emphasis in original) and dismissed the researchers' issues as irrelevant if not nonsensical. Instead, their primary concern was with pedagogical issues and academic development. "Spanish and English fluency and literacy were simply expected

unquestioned, valuable, obvious goals ... and ... the use of both languages is considered the only natural – indeed the only conceivable – way of educating children" (Moll 1992; p.20). Garcia and Otheguy (1987) admit that they had uncritically accepted limited visions of what is important in education. Notably, the same research questions rule in the debate on bilingual education, probably leading to the same fallacies. Today, Coral Way Elementary School students "score at or above district, state, and national averages on standardized tests. Test scores are particularly high in mathematics" (Pellerano, Fradd & Rovira 1998).

3.2.4. The Role of Schools

It is widely acknowledged that "the school plays a powerful role in exerting social control over its pupils. It endorses mainstream, and largely middle class values" (Romaine 1989; p.217). Some theorists argue that educational institutions serve to maintain the power differential between groups because they reproduce the structure of production as they serve as sorting mechanisms. (Valdes 1998)

10

Early Childhood Bilingualism

automatically assigns much more prestige to the children's first language. Accordingly, it should be possible to create an environment that promotes the status of an otherwise low-status language.

But if language is a second-order matter along with

achievement, both being determined by first-order levels such as power relations in society, we should ask whether using the children's home language at school might change anything at all. Yet the difference language can make is to challenge and change its own status in the specific setting of the schools. And if children's home culture and language is valued in school only, it is valued in school at least. This will contribute to positive self-concept and social identity, provide (culturally) relevant learning contexts, and enhance motivation, all of which improve educational achievement although group relations in society are not affected directly. Positive effects of participation in a bilingual program on the self-concept of Asian-American kindergarten children were observed in a 1983 study. It also found "a significant correlation between the self-concept and the subtest fluency of the creative thinking test (.23), with originality (.18), and imagination (.30)" (DAO 1983-88: ACC 8314401). Causal variables are not specified, but the general impact of a bilingual program was shown. Deriving sociolinguistic principles from comparing failing and succeeding strategies in promoting bilingualism, Ofelia Garcia (1997) concludes that "low-status languages most often need the support of an educational setting in their maintenance and development [because] bilingualism, and especially biliteracy, are rarely obtained without the support of an educational setting" (p.416). Furthermore, she claims that "the use of two languages in school should complement their use in society at the initial stage of developing bilingualism" (p.417; emphasis added). (She does not, though, differentiate between function and quantity of language use.) Similarly, Romaine (1989) contributes the success of the Dade County ethnic schools to the strategy to "support via instruction the language which is less likely to develop for other reasons" (p.253). Zentella (1997) also concludes that schools should value and incorporate students' home dialects, thereby expanding students' linguistic repertoires. Consequently, her tenor is on language politics too. In the very last paragraph

11

Early Childhood Bilingualism

voice. Ruiz (1997) does not see "any action on the part of those who are to be empowered" (p.323) as for Cummins students are empowered or disabled through educators becoming advocates for them. Accordingly, Ruiz asks: "If empowerment is a gift from those in power to those out, what kind of power would they be willing to give up?" (ibid.). With reference to the Pedagogy of the Oppressed by P. Freire (1970), he explains that "for Freire, the language and culture of the child constitute the curriculum" (Ruiz 1997: p.324; in italics in the original), whereas for Cummins they merely "should be 'included' in the curriculum of the school" (ibid.). He proposes self-empowerment through the privatization of the "cultural capital" of minority communities (which to discuss here would go beyond the scope of this essay). It seems as if this concept does not apply to early childhood education as young children appear not to be likely to empower themselves. Yet if we think through this concept using "voice" at its center, self-empowerment for young children becomes imaginable when their voice (here not the grammatical category) is put at the center of the curriculum. With regard to the bilingual education debate in the USA, Cummins (1991a) claims that "enrichment or 'empowering' forms of bilingual education are seen as representing a threat to the societal power structure in that they institutionalize and valorize languages and cultures other than those of the dominant group" (p.184).

3.3. Language Loss & Maintenance

3.3.1. Schools and Language Loss The character of curriculum, assessment procedures, the status attached to certain cultures in school, staff expectations, and other related factors may have a severe impact on language shift. Schools do play a role in language loss. Hoffmann (1991) claims that "one of the most powerful causes of language shift can be seen in those areas where the school language is that of the high-status group and no provision is made for the children of the low-status group to learn to read and write the language of their ancestors" (p.191). In the USA, English is the language of the high-status group. It is used as the exclusive medium of instruction in places where language legislation, local education policy, and community and staff beliefs coincide in

Early Childhood Bilingualism

to communicate in, parents cannot discuss problems with or give advice to their children and convey their own personal, cultural, and religious values to the next generation.

A subtractive bilingual situation can be created by an English-only preschool experience, as is demonstrated in a case study in the 1991 guide of the National Preschool Coordination Project, San Diego, CA. (ERIC 1982-91: ED334058). The English-only experience lead to academic failure, disrupted family communication, and dropping out.

Another article (by Saville -Troike) in the same guide found that children who were "most at risk academically were children who had lost or failed to develop their native language while not becoming proficient in English; such children had been immersed in an Englishdominant environment before age 8" (ibid.). Simply educators lack of knowledge is made responsible for pejorative attitudes towards communicative styles that use codeswitching. Teachers' ignorance towards "the grammatical rules it honors, and the discourse strategies it accomplishes", can be devastating. Zentella (1997: p.269; with reference to Cummins) explains that, "linguistic insecurity ... often leads to loss of the native language, with potentially severe repercussions for the successful development of their English".

3.3.2. Family and Language Loss

Being motivated not only by the use of English in the media and the larger community, but also at school, children may opt to speak English at home before they have become competent in it. If parents also decide to speak English, both speak a language in which they have little competence and "an imperfect and inadequate model of English is perpetuated" (Baker 1998: p.493).

Parents may decide to speak English to their children because

a) their children do not speak the home language sufficiently any more, or

b) parents mistakenly believe that the switch to English would help their children. Sometimes misinformed teachers encourage parents to do so. Both Zentella (1997) and NAEYC (1995) stress that parents should be advised to speak to their children in a language they have "full" command in. Speaking insufficient English is detrimental to the children's linguistic development. Instead, as for literacy, "rich

13

Early Childhood Bilingualism

3.3.4. Language Maintenance v. Retention

In following his critique on Cummins (1986), Ruiz (1997), with reference to Heath, makes a distinction between the maintenance of a language ("the efforts of those outside the community to preserve the language" p.326) and the retention of a language ("the community acts out its language loyalty" p.326).

Ruiz agrees with Kjolseth who wrote in 1982: "Parental insistence upon the use of Spanish by themselves and their children within the private family domain is the only realistic hope." (quoted in Ruiz 1997: p.326) Hoffmann (1991) also claims that "once a la nguage ceases to be the language spoken at home, its continued existence will be seriously threatened" (p.192). It seems clear that the primary force in language retention at preschool age can only be the family. Yet the preschool can make a difference too.

3.4. Acculturation Theory

The acculturation theory or model views language as just one aspect of culture, not as an issue also influenced by culture. Defining culture as specific sets of references, as Bowman (1989) did, language as one set of references appears to be a subsystem of culture. This theory was proposed by Schumann, who wrote that "the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language" (quoted in Baker 1993). The process of acculturation "requires cultural and

(Yawkwey & Prewitt-Diaz 1990). Accordingly, acculturation has to take place before the development of a second language. The theory claims that second la nguage acquisition is facilitated when both the target language group and the second language learner (SLL) group:

− have little equality distance, − desire assimilation of the SLL's social group, − expect the SLL group to share social facilities as operated by the target language group,

− have positive attitudes and expectations of each other; and when the SLL group:

− is small, not very cohesive, and assimilatable,

14

Early Childhood Bilingualism

Haitian preschool children it was found that

"Haitian teachers' rhetoric of verbal control is based in the notion of a hierarchical moral community with shared values (... similar to ... Hawaiian

mainstream verbal control strategies are embedded in a framework of individual rationality" (DAO 1989-93: ACC 9322297). Consequently, conflicts in styles and underlying values will emerge if no adjustments are made. McLaughlin (1995) points to the fact that, for example, Native American children "are not accustomed to speaking alone in front of other children and resisted the teacher's efforts to have them do so" because this behavior is regarded as arrogant in their culture. Likewise, they could be embarrassed when being told to

4. The Linguistic Potential of the Individual Speaker

4.1. Uni - (Mono-), Bi-, and

Mul tilingualism

The linguistic potential of individual speakers is mainly characterized by the number of languages spoken by the individuals. Henceforth we can differentiate between unilingualism (monolingualism), bilingualism, and multilingualism. It should be noted that sometimes the term multilingualism is used to name those cases where two languages are spoken. (This may be due to the more extensive meaning of multiculturalism.)

4.1.1. Bilingualism Defined

Considering the individual linguistic potential, we need to differentiate bilingualism in the individual

bilingualism in society (societal bilingualism) and from bilingualism in education (the usage of languages in instruction). Although bilinguality should be the more appropriate term – because an -ism tends to represent a concept rather than a description of the state of affairs – I follow all researchers in not differentiating between process and result nor between conditions and concept and use bilingualism also as the term for the fact that an individual speaks two languages. There are, of course, different definitions for the term bilingualism, ranging from "maximal" definitions (such as "native-like control of two languages" from Bloomfield) to "minimal" definitions (such as "producing complete meaningful utterances in the other language" from Haugen). In order to acknowledge the diversity in bilinguality and to avoid the

15

Early Childhood Bilingualism

their two languages" (De Houwer 1995: p.220, with reference to Wölk 1987/8). It seems as if bilingualism itself could evolve as one potential major norm.

4.2. Societal Parameters

The linguistic potential of individual speakers varies according to, among others, societal parameters that constitute (in our case)

4.2.1. Bilingual Patterns (ways of becoming bilingual).

These are, according to Hoffmann (1991: pp.40-45):

1) Immigration (settling once and for all in a host country): often results in native language loss in the third generation. 2) Migration (seen as temporary movement only): Migrants often aim at language maintenance but service is provided by the host country only rarely. (Here the outcome is less predictable than for immigrants.) 3) Close contact with other linguistic groups (in multinational countries with rich linguistic diversity through urbanization or internal migration): Bilingualism is common among children as well as adults. 4) Schooling (immersion for majority language children, foreign boarding schools, the compulsory use of a second language as a medium of instruction at the level of secondary education). 5) Growing up in a bilingual family: The maintenance of the home-only language is uncertain, depending on perceived need and social support. As the introductory demographical notes indicate, this paper is mainly concerned with the bilingual pattern immigration, not schooling. (Here it becomes quite obvious that Hoffmann's categories are not at all clear-cut. Schooling as such definitely is a set of parameters that has a tremendous impact on bilingual language acquisition of minority children as well as of majority children.) As a matter of fact, the patterns we are mainly concerned with can not be classified as close contact with o ther linguistic groups although it sounds appropriate. This is because this pattern presupposes an equal status of the linguistic groups as nations within one country. As early as at preschool, status differences of the languages used manifest themselves in all domains of communication.

16

Early Childhood Bilingualism

17

Early Childhood Bilingualism

"bilingual language acquisition" is employed by De Houwer (1995) in a more narrow form: "Bilingual language acquisition, then, refers to the result of the very early, simultaneous, regular, and continued exposure to more than one language" (p.222). Very early here means that exposure starts before the age of two. As it seems questionable to me why acquisition should be restricted to the result of acquisition, I will use bilingual language acquisition for the process of acquisition as well. Then, she makes a further distinction between Bilingual First Language Acquisition (beginning between birth and a month after) and Bilingual Second Language Acquisition (the exposure to a second language begins not earlier than a month after birth). Yet this distinction is only suggested for research that needs to consider time of first exposure – it does not contribute to structuring her essay.

McLaughlin introduced the distinction between simultaneous and sequential (or successive or consecutive) bilingualism, the latter referring to the "situation when one language is established first and a second is learned subsequently" (1984: p.10). As he could not, however, define when the first language is established, McLaughlin arbitrarily set the cutoff point at three years because the child "has had a considerable head start in one language" (p.73). Accordingly, "the child who is introduced to a second language after three is said to be successively languages" (p.10). I do not follow McLaughlin in his development of a matrix / typology because I find his classification problematic in one regard. It is based on the assumption that "most aspects of a language are acquired by age three" (McLaughlin

contradicts research results on the duration of first language acquisition and gives the impression that, in the category of successive bilingualism, the first language i s already acquired and does not need support for development anymore. Also, it does not consider categories such as context-embedded vs. context-reduced communication. Thus McLaughlin's dichotomy rather undermines efforts that are based on concepts that call for the continuous maintenance of the children's first language.

Most of the children we are concerned with are introduced to the second language English before the age of three. But in case all main

18

Early Childhood Bilingualism

result only (De Houwer 1995). On the one hand, we can try to define the outcome of language development at any time. On the other hand, these typologies mostly have in mind linguistic or academic achievement of students and do thus not directly relate to early childhood. But they can become useful in detecting future problems in language and general school development.

A balanced bilingual is "someone who is approximately equally fluent in two languages across various contexts" (Baker 1993: p.8) as opposed to unbalanced. But the use of this term is problematic because it turns out to be an idealized concept and raises the question of what is fluent. Thus it is only useful for comparison. The balance of two languages in one individual is more often captured by the concept of language dominance. However, as Kiernan & Swisher (1990) remark, "language dominance can refer to language proficiency, language preference, and/or overall usage patterns" (p.708), three completely distinct phenomena.

Whereas balance is a function of dominance and dominance is a function of comparison, the object of comparison is the proficiency (in one skill or subskill) in a language. Not being "sufficiently" proficient in either language has often been called semilingualism. But this term has been dismissed by some researchers (see Baker 1993: p.9-10 and McLaughlin, Blanchard & Osanai 1995) for several reasons: it has a negative connotation; it conflicts with the fact that there are no norms for "full -lingualism"; limitations in proficiency are interpreted as communicative deprivation even when they are due to a developmental phase.

The dichotomy additive vs. subtractive bilingualism draws attention to the goal of proponents of bilingual education, additive bilingualism: "a second language is added without cost to the first" (Lyon 1996: p.57; with reference to Lambert). "When the second language begins to dominate to the detriment of the first" (ibid.), we can speak of subtractive bilingualism.

Subtractive bilingualism often leads to continuos failure whereas additive bilingualism can have advantages in cognitive skills. This (circular) definition can be used in naming the outcome of developments we want to define effective conditions for. Therefore we should actually rather speak of additive or subtractive

19

Early Childhood Bilingualism

20

Early Childhood Bilingualism

initiations, turn talking, and utterances per turn are reported as an outcome of the program intervention.

A strategy proving successful in classrooms without proficient TL speakers has been reported in Fassler (1998). There, the only TL model can be provided by the teacher. However, it was observed how "in informal contexts for peer talk, children of like and different background served as resources for each other's use of English. They ... pushed each other to elaborate and clarify their English" (p.379). It is argued that "most support for L2 learning may come from ... a balance of different participation structures" (Fassler 1998: p.384; with reference to Johnson): whole group activities with major exposure to the teacher's English, small group activities and individual work. She observed how the children enacted "roles of both the good learner and the good language facilitator" (p.401) and could, better than adults, "tailor their interaction more sensitively to other children's interests and language level" (p.403; consistent with Hirschler 1994) and created "imaginative scenarios with words" (ibid.).

4.5.2. A Four-Stage Model of Consecutive BLA

When children that are new in a group of majority language children do not speak the majority language, they are said to pass through four stages or waves of language development (based on Tabors and Snow; reported in Baker 1998 and in McLaughlin et al. 1995): 1) Most children try to use their home language. They fail; the resulting frustration makes them give up speaking their language.

These strategies certainly overlap with the waves of the above mentioned model of

21

Early Childhood Bilingualism

they stress – in specific ways – the importance of situational context for language acquisition: The social strategy (1) is necessary because otherwise nobody would talk to the learner and no input would be provided. The native speakers were observed to tailor their speech. The cognitive strategy (1) is employed in order to establish relationships between speech utterances and objects or a meaning under negotiation.

But native speakers will continue to address learners only if the latter speak a few words too. Accordingly, social strategy (2) is necessary and is employed through cognitive strategy (2). This is where formulaic speech comes in. It is only the productive use of formulas that can provide the condition for further analysis of the relationship between words and objects. Also, it permit the speakers to further participate in activities that provide new contexts and feedback for their guesses in language use (whether one word or formula). Cognitive strategy (3) is the first step in breaking down the formulas into single units. First it leads to formulaic frames such as "Iwanna" and "I-don't-wanna" with the following position representing a constituent type that can be filled with elements from other freed formulas or newly learned words. At the same time, portions of the rule system emerge. Further differentiation takes place until all constituents can be used separately.

5. Research in SLA and FLA

The relationship between research in second language acquisition (SLA) and in bilingualism is bifold. On the one hand, very often bilinguals were the objects of studies in SLA because of the need to investigate processes involved in (foreign) language acquisition. On the other hand,

5.1. Theories of Second Language Acquisition

have contributed to research in bilingualism. Major contributions have come from

who has become an advocate of bilingual (maintenance) education through his research in second (foreign) language learning. His comprehensible input hypothesis

a) starts out from the commonplace that input must be comprehensible (the gap between

22

Early Childhood Bilingualism

23

Early Childhood Bilingualism

operational

language learning ability as learners "become afflicted by affective inhibitions like selfconsciousness, ego impermeability ... and so on" (Johnson 1998).

These result seem to support a relatively early beginning of L2 acquisition. Yet they do not sufficiently differentiate between the different language abilities. As we are concerned with preschool children in the USA, the latter studies do not apply. Whether the "sensitive period" for language acquisition affects all stages of language development and all language abilities, has not become clear. But Hakuta (1987) agrees with the critical period hypothesis in saying that "there is good evidence to suggest that some time after puberty is a period when the capacity to acquire a second language deteriorates" (p.33). Contrary to this claim, the 1989 research review by Singleton states that there is no support from international research for a critical period between the ages of two and 14. There are, though, advantageous periods, as for example the age before 12 seems to be for the acquisition of authentic pronunciation. (Baker 1998)

A 1997

investigated the cortical representation of first and second language as a function of age of acquisition. Findings show that "second languages acquired in adulthood were spatially separated from native languages", but "when the second language had been acquired during the early language acquisition stage of development, native and second languages tended to be represented in common frontal cortical areas" (PsycLIT 1996-98: AN 1997-05358-001).

These findings tell the difference, but they are no support for neither early nor late beginning of SLA because they do not attribute value to spatially separated vs. common cortical representation of languages. Also, they contradict what Baker (1998) summarizes about the lateralization of languages in the human brain: "Bilinguals did not seem to vary from monolinguals in neuropsychological processes, ... they do not differ in hemispheric involvement in language processing. ... a bilingual's languages are not stored in two different locations" (p.85; with reference to Vaid & Hall; Paradis; Grosejan). Another 1997 study investigated the influence of age on speech-perception in noise.

24

Early Childhood Bilingualism

English. On the contrary, "the schools must

promote bilingualism in the parents in order to facilitate the development of two languages in their children", claims Malavé (1997) in her study on parent characteristics. Her findings are consistent with Zentella's (1997) warning: "When the parents' version of English does not include the full-length

6. Research in Bilingual Language Acquisition (BLA)

Initial research into bilingualism and cognitive

functioning and into bilingualism and educational attainment often found bilinguals to be inferior to monolinguals. It was assumed that the brain had only limited capacities, and that L1 and L2 are separately stored. (A related model was the picture of two language balloons inside the head competing for space.) Yet both assumptions are not valid, as research has shown.

Because this misconception is still very common, it has to be stressed that the existence of two languages inside one individual "does not hamper the overall language proficiency or cognitive development ... there does not appear to be competition over mental resources" (Hakuta & Garcia 1989: p.376). Instead, balanced bilinguals tend to have cognitive advantages (Malavé 1997; Hakuta & Garcia 1989; see the chapter on bilingualism and cognition).

6.1. Results in general

6.1.1. Theories and Models: Cummins

has carried out research in bilingual language acquisition, and then put up several hypotheses and models. One of them is the differentiation between conversational (context-embedded or contextualized) and academic (context-reduced or decontextualized) language proficiency. He shows that children can acquire conversational skills in a second language very quickly (one to two years) but need considerably more time (five to seven years) to develop proficiency in academic -related tasks (Cummins 1998; Crawford 1992).

If the development of academic proficiency in L1 is denied to the children, they will perform below grade norms in academic achievement for five to ten years, before being eventually able to catch up with their monolingual peers (Cummins 1991b; Cummins 1998; footnote 2; with reference to Collier; Ramirez; Beykont).

25

Early Childhood Bilingualism

proficiency

performance in both languages. In support of his model, he cites studies that found in additive bilingual situations 1) a moderately strong correlation between L1 and L2 academic literacy 2) high crosslingual correlations between L1 and L2 communicative skills 3) significant relationship between L1 and L2 rhetorical effectiveness 4) moderately strong relationships between reading performances in languages with different writing systems (Cummins 1991b; p.75-80).

It has to be remarked, though, that correlation does not mean that L1 skills automatically lead to better L2 skills in any sociolinguistic situation. In his debate with Rossell and Baker, Cummins himself makes the point that his principle is a linguistic principle, and a principle of interdependence, not of facilitation. He stresses the importance of a holistic view on linguistic and instructional factors as "intervening variables whose effects will be significantly influenced by sociocultural and sociopolitical conditions" (Cummins 1998; footnote 3). Accordingly, he derives from his hypothesis that "the transfer of conceptual and linguistic knowledge across languages can compensate for the significantly reduced instructional time through the majority language" (ibid.; emphasis added). Hakuta also found, in a three-year study, a "pattern of increasing correlation between Spanish and English vocabulary scores in several groups of Puerto Rican children in bilingual education programs" (Hakuta 1990). Other researchers, such as Baetens Beardsmore, share Cummins' view in saying that a unified underlying system, that is, "certain shared rules and linguistic characteristics", serve distinct languages (Ambert 1988).

On the question of whether children should learn to read in their native language or in English, Cummins claims that it depends on the character of native language and on other circumstances. For him, "the promotion of literacy in bilingual students' two languages throughout elementary school is far more important" (Cummins 1998). Also, he stresses that he does not say "that English academic instruction should be delayed for several grades until students' L1 literacy is well-established" (Cummins 1998). Instead, there should always be a "strong English

26

Early Childhood Bilingualism

verbs in clauses with a multicomponent verb phrase, the incidence of negative interrogatives, interrogative pronoun usage, and the comparative usage of declaratives v. interrogatives" (p.243). She furthermore found, for both Dutch and English, "parallels for ... most structural aspects of verb usage, the types of proposed elements in affirmative sentences, the incidence of nonadultlike word order, nonfinite verb placement, clause types, sentence types, conjunctions, the incidence of subclauses, the number and type of clause constituents, and question inversion",

"similarities ... for auxiliary usage in questions, the use of tags, interrogative pronoun usage, the use of the pronoun it, the variety of structural patterns, and the use of indirect v. direct objects" (p.243).

Are Young Bilinguals Disadvantaged?

Bilingual language acquisition is natural and attainable for many preschool children in general. Garcia (1986) reports that Skrabanek described the continued acquisition and support of both English and Spanish among preschool children in the southwest of the USA, commenting that "this phenomenon has existed for the past hundred years with no indication that it will be disrupted" (p.101). Several studies support the claim that bilingual experience does not necessarily retard the acquisition of L2: − "Children who were operating at complex

levels in Spanish were not retarded in English as compared to other matched monolingual English-speaking (age 3.0-4.2; Garcia 1983: p.126). − Padilla and Liebman found no overall

reduced or slower rate of language growth for bilingual three-year-olds as compared to monolinguals. An initial lag in language acquisition is confirmed by some studies but not found in others (Garcia 1993). − "French-English

children were not delayed in reported age of first word" although scoring lower on the Peabody (McLaughlin 1984: p.193). Oller et al., in a review of research in early bilingualism, simultaneous

"competent functioning in two languages .. commonly occurs" (ERIC 1992-9: ED408843). For the latter type of le arners, poor linguistic or

27

Early Childhood Bilingualism

28

Early Childhood Bilingualism

(functions of language use) and frequency of verbal mediation indicate cognitive efficiency. (abstract in PsycLIT 1988-92: AN 1992-29152-001)

Johnson (1991) reports a study by Bain and Yu that investigated differences in the performance of bilinguals and monolinguals in tasks involving conflicting cues. Their subjects age 2-4 tended to show bilingual advantages in "tasks requiring linguistic control of overt action in situations where verbal action conflicts with motor action" (p.216). This is consistent with the assumption that private (self-regulatory) speech is an overt evidence for cognitive processes, as Diaz & Klingler (1991) reasoned above.

6.3. Language Differentiation and Awareness

Opponents of bilingualism in education very often use the phenomenon of "languagemixing" as an argument against the use of the native language in education. They blame the bilinguality of the setting for the use of more than one code in communication, which they see as detrimental for (English) language development. Romaine (1989)

observations in saying that "many professionals such as speech therapists view normal language mixing as harmful" (p.213). Quite often, parents have given up to bring up their children developing their mother tongue too, mislead by "uninformed warnings by people in authority concerning the supposed negative effects of a bilingual upbringing" (De Houwer 1995:

29

Early Childhood Bilingualism

30

Early Childhood Bilingualism

31

Early Childhood Bilingualism

absence of one member of a pair can be due to a gap in the input. (b) Studies by Quay show that crosslinguistic equivalents (translation pairs) are used "from the beginning of interpretable speech on wards" (De Houwer 1995: p.232), that is, at age 1;5. The study of children 0;8 - 2;6 years by Pearson et al. (1995) shows that "30% of all words were coded in the two languages, both at early stages ... and later" (p.346). This result shows that, even at the beginning (vocabularies 2 -12 words), translation equivalents exist in the bilingual lexicon. 2) Stage II has been criticized on several methodological / analytical and theoretical grounds (see De Houwer 1995: pp.233-5, for a review).

Also important is the notion that, given that language acquisition begins at or before birth, the "baby hears distinct sound patterns from different speakers, ... start[s] associating certain sounds with certain speakers" (p.234). Supposing that, furthermore, perception and comprehension are related to speech production, the differentiation in listening can provide a good basis for the differentiation in speaking.

Separate "voicing systems" have been found for bilingual subjects 1;7 - 2;3 (De Houwer 1995: p.234; with reference to Deuchar and Clark), separate phonological development is indicated in a study of a 2 years old child (reported in Lanza 1997: p.60; with reference to Ingram).

The claim that "the morphosyntactic development of a preschool child regularly exposed to two languages from birth which are presented in a separate manner proceeds in a separate fashion for both languages", has also been labeled Separate Development Hypothesis (De Houwer 1995: p.236). Supporting evidence has been found in, as an example, Deuchar's subject (1;7 - 2;3) marking subject-verb agreement in language-specific ways from the very beginning. Baker (1998) agrees in summarizing research supporting the separate system development. Yet, on the next page, she contradictingly claims a mixed vocabulary system at the beginning, and a "combination of the grammatical rules of both languages" (p.36) on the stage of vocabulary separation. (Both claims are the essence of the single system hypothesis).

32

Early Childhood Bilingualism

6.4. Emerging Literacy

Literacy emerges in the preschool years. Understanding the relationship between (visual) symbols and (audible) words plays a decisive role. The awareness

representation of print was found by Bialystok (1997) to be better in bilingual children than in monolingual children (age 4 and 5). "Even the 4-year-old bilinguals were better than the 5year-old monolinguals" (p.437). She argues that "the separation of form and meaning makes it easier for bilingual children to selectively attend to form and ignore meaning" (p.439). These results add another potential advantage of bilinguals over monolinguals. For the Chinese-English cohort, Bialystok (1997) observed an initial lag in performance at age 4. But by age 5, this group "had surpassed all the others on the most difficult items". She explains that, "when the initial stage of confusion is resolved, the benefit of the richer experience enables children to apply their new knowledge to both languages" (p.438).

Cultural patterns play an important role in establishing literacy, Baker (1998) claims. For example, the tendency towards parentcontrolled conversations in Chinese families "closely mirror[s] the type of language behavior expected in many formal classrooms. ... Thus a certain form of literacy behavior and literacy use was established" (p.601). For Mexican-American children, a mismatch is recorded between patterns of language and literacy in home and that expected in school because family communication tends to occur more between adults only and children only. A 1998 study of the Influences on Early Writing of Linguistically Diverse Children age four and five found no relationship between socioeconomic level and writing ability and no relationship between being bilingual and writing ability. But writing ability was a function of being read to on a daily basis and of direct writing instruction. (DAO 1997-9: AAC 9905930)

An important issue is whether the acquisition of literacy should be approached in the minority language or in English. Krashen (1997) argued for first learning to read in the native language (comprehensible input) and transfer learning to read into the second language afterwards comprehensible

33

Early Childhood Bilingualism

to read and write in their native language" (p.79), while at the same time acquiring oral English skills. They should continue native literacy development until fourth grade, but the printed word should be incorporated gradually as part of English-language instruction (p.113). Baker (1998: p.607) shares this point of view: "It is generally preferable for minority children to establish literacy in their home language first."

Garcia (1991), in his effectiveness study, identified in successful programs: − students that "progressed systematically

from writing in the native language in the early grades to writing in English in the later grades" and

− students that "made the transition from

Spanish to English themselves, without any pressure from the teacher to do so", and of course

− that "students were allowed to use either

language".

(Whether the second observation is a causal variable of the effectiveness or an effect variable of another, not specified causal variable, has not been investigated.) The Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs accommodates the view of the National Research Council: "If language minority children arrive at school with no proficiency in English but speaking a language for which there are instructional guides, learning materials, and locally available proficient teachers, then these children should be taught how to read in their native language while acquiring proficiency in spoken English, and then subsequently taught to extend their

7. Program Studies

7.1. Preschool Program Effectiveness

The Carpinteria Preschool Program

In 1981, a Spanish-only preschool program was implemented in the Carpinteria Unified School District, CA., serving Hispanic children from families of low socioeconomic and educational levels, in order to enhance the children's kindergarten readiness. It was funded under Title VII and substituted a bilingual program with emphasis on English (Cummins 1986). Based in theory on Cummins interdependence theory, it had three major components: 1) "a strong conceptual foundation in children's L1 through the almost exclusive use of

34

Early Childhood Bilingualism

A) Results have been recorded in three groups of abilities:

1) Scores on the School Readiness Inventory:

The scores show steady improvement of the

program group until parity with the majority children is achieved at the end of the project. Campos & Keatinge (1988) conclude that Spanish-dominant children from disadvantaged

2) Spanish receptive skills and math's (administered in Spanish and measured in percentile of nationwide achievement):

35

Early Childhood Bilingualism

Other Preschool Programs

Example (2) shows that it is possible to enhance L2 acquisition in a bilingual setting. Example (3) shows the case often reported, that is, that gains are greater when only English is measured as an outcome. Example (4) shows what appears natural: L1 proficiency is enhanced in an bilingual program. Example (1) reports on a dual language program but mentions no results for the acquisition of the majority language English.

Rodriguez et al. (1995) studied the effects of bilingual two-way (dual language) preschool programs on 3 to 5 year olds in several classrooms across California compared to matched stay-home groups. Program children were instructed in Spanish during the morning hours and were exposed to English in the afternoon

Individual communication was conducted in the

36

Early Childhood Bilingualism

study confounding English-only and bilingual preschool programs. Yet Rodriguez et al. do not deny the danger of language shift. But it may be caused by language preference as well, they claim, not leading to the loss of L1 receptive abilities. They admit that the "the social impact of a bilingual preschool experience on the language preferences and family socialization" (p.489) remains uncertain, and maintain that beneficial preschool programs as the one they studied should be promoted and further studied. It also remains to say that the dangers of loss may lie – as several authors point out – in the long term only, and have not been captured by this study.

7.2. Successful Consecutive BLA

The successful consecutive bilingual language acquisition in additive situations has been illustrated in some studies. A five-year-old girl was enrolled in kindergarten shortly after the family's arrival in the United States with no proficiency in English, but was reported to show native-like proficiency after eighteen months (Williams & Snipper 1990; with reference to Hakuta). Another, younger girl was reported to have only receptive competence in English upon entry into preschool. Within 4 weeks, English moved to the productive stage so that she "was able to conduct role -play exclusively in English" (ERIC 1982-91: ED324102). Malavé (1997) studied parent influences on the bilingual development of their children, who were born or had arrived to mainland U.S. at an age no older than two or three years old. She reports that "almost a third spoke only Spanish ... before entering school", but "were bilingual by the third grade". Bilinguality by grade three was measured in oral proficiency, defined here as "the ability to speak fluently ... with native speakers".

Malavé concludes that "bilingualism can emerge during the first three years of school for young children who do not speak English at home". Yet we have to remember the distinction between conversational and academic language proficiency. In this case, the measured oral proficiency

McLaughlin termed "surface fluency" and often is misinterpreted as an evidence for the mainstreaming of these children into English- only classrooms.

Early Childhood Bilingualism

38

Early Childhood Bilingualism

8. Some Conclusions

39

Early Childhood Bilingualism

9. References

Ambert, Alba N. (1988) Bilingual children: How the language acquisition process works. In Alba N. Ambert Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language: a research handbook: 1986-7. New York: Garland Arenas, Soledad (1978)

programs for preschool children. Children Today

7 (4), 2-6

Baker, Colin (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Baker, Colin; Jones, Sylvia Prys (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Bialystok, Ellen (1997) Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children's emerging concepts of print. Developmental Psychology 33 (3), 429-440 Bialystok, Ellen. ed. (1991) Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: University Press Bialystok, Ellen; Cummins, Jim (1991) Language, cognition, and education of bilingual children. In Bialystok

Bowman, Barbara T. (1989) Educating language minority children: Challenges and opportunities. Phi Delta Kappan 118-120 Campos, S. Jim; Keatinge, H. Robert (1988) The Carpinteria language

experience: From theory, to practice, to success. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and Jim Cummins: Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Chesterfield, Ray et al. (1983) The influence of teachers and peers on second language acquisition in bilingual preschool programs. TESOL QUARTERLY 17 (3), 401-419 Collier, Virginia P. (1995) Acquiring a Second Language for School Directions in Language and Education 1 (4) National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education ncbepubs/directions/04.htm) Corson, David (1993) Language, Minority Education, and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power. (The Language and Education Library: 6) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Crawford, James (1992) Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of Bilingual Education. (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/ -homepages/JWCRAWFORD/HYT.htm) Crawford, James (1998a) Language Politics in the USA: The Paradox of Bilingual Education. Social Justice 25 (3) (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/ homepages/JWCRAWFORD/paradox.htm)

Crawford, James (1998b) Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: (www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/crawford01.html) Cummins, Jim (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 56 (1), 18-36 Cummins, Jim (1991a) The politics of paranoia: Reflections on the bilingual education debate. In Bilingual Education. (Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday; 1) edited by Ofelia Garcia. Amsterdam: Benjamins

Cummins, Jim (1991b) Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In Bialystok

40

Early Childhood Bilingualism

Mexican-American

University of New Mexico Press Garcia, Eugene E. (1986) Bilingual development and the education of bilingual children during early childhood. American Journal of Education (November 1986) 96-121 Garcia, Eugene E. (1991) The Education of Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students: Effective Instructional Practices. (National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Educational Practice Report No. 1.) Santa Cruz: University of California

Garcia, Ofelia (1997) Bilingual Education. In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. edited by Florian Coulmas. Oxford (UK) & Cambridge (US): Blackwell

Garcia, Ofelia; Otheguy, R. (1987) The bilingual education of Cuban-American children in Dade County's ethnic schools. Language and Education 1 (2), 83-95

Genesee, Fred; Nicoladis, Elena; Paradis, Johanne (1995) Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 22, 611-631 Glenn, Charles L. (1996) Educating Immigrant Children: schools and language minorities in twelve nations. (Reference Books in International Education: 28; Garland reference library of social science: 921) New Y ork & London: Garland

Gomez, Ray A. (1991) Teaching with a Multicultural Perspective. ERIC/EECE Digest. Urbana, Ill.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (http://ericeece.-org/pubs/digests/1991/gomez91.html) Gonzales, Gustavo; Maez, Lento F. (1995) Advances in Research in Bilingual Education. Directions in Language and Education 1 (5) National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/-05.htm)

Greene, Jay P. (1998) A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute (http://-ourworld.compuserve.com/ homepages/-JWCRAWFORD/greene.htm)

Hakuta, Kenji (1987) The second-language learner in the context of the study of language acquisition. In Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development. ed. by Peter Homel, Michael Palij, and Doris Aaronson. Associates

Hakuta, Kenji (1990) Bilingualism and bilingual education: A research perspective. FOCUS: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education Number 1, Spring 1990 (www.ncbe.gwu.edu/-ncbepubs/focus/focus1.html) Hakuta, Kenji; Garcia, Eugene E. (1989) Bilingualism Psychologist 44 (2), 374-379 Hamayan, Else; Pfleger, Marco (1987) Developing Literacy in English as a Second Language: Guidelines for Teachers of Young Children from Non-Literate Backgrounds. (Teacher Resource Guide Series, Number 1, September 1987) National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education (http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/-trg/01literacy.htm)

41

Early Childhood Bilingualism

Psychology: 7) Norwood, N. Y.: Ablex Publishing Corporation

Moll, Luis C. (1992) Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational Researcher 21 (2), 20-24 NAEYC (1995) Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Effective Childhood Education A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Adopted November 1995. Young Children 51 (2) 4 -12 (www.naeyc.org/about/about_index.htm) NCBE (1980) Bibliography of Resources in Bilingual Education: curricular materials Rosslyn, Va.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Nicoladis, Elena et al. (1998) What two-way bilingual programs reveal about the controversy surrounding race and intelligence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

1 (2), 134-148

Nissani, Helen (1990) Early Childhood Programs for Language Minority Children. NCBE Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education Number 2, Summer 1990. (http://www.ncbe.-gwu.edu/ncbepubs/focus/focus2.htm) OBEMLA (1998a) Facts About Limited English Proficient Students. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (www.ed.gov/offices/OBEMLA) OBEMLA (1998b) Research Findings Regarding Schooling for Limited English Proficient Students. (drawn from: Improving schooling for language minority students: A research agenda. National Research Council, 1997) Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OBEMLA) Pattanayak, D. P. (1986) Educational Use of the Mother Tongue. In Bernard Spolsky, ed., Language and Education in Multilingual Settings (Multilingual Multilingual Matters

Paulston, Christina Bratt. ed. (1988) International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. New York: Greenwood Pearson, Barbara Zurer; Fernandez, Sylvia; Oller, D. K. (1995) Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Child Language 22 (2), 345-368 Pellerano, Cristina; Fradd, Sandra H.; Rovira, Lourdes (1998) Coral Way Elementary School: A Success Story in Bilingualism and Biliteracy. Discover (February 1998) PsycLIT (1988-1992) American Psychological Association: PsycLIT® (ondisc) 1988 - 1992 PsycLIT (1996-1998) American Psychological Association: PsycLIT® (ondisc) 1996 - Sep 1998 Ramirez, J. David (1986) Comparing Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education: First-year results of a national study. American Journal of Education 95 (1): 122-148 Ramirez, J. David; Yuen, Sandra D.; Ramey, Dena R. (1991) Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. Executive Summary. (San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International) Bilingual Research Journal 16

www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ramirez/longitudinal.htm)

42

Early Childhood Bilingualism

Wells, G. (1981) Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Williams, James Dale; Snipper, Grace Capizzi (1990) Literacy and Bilingualism. New York: Longman

Williams, Leslie R.; Fromberg, Doris Pronin. ed. (1992) Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Education. (Garland reference library of the social sciences: 504) New York & London: Garland

Willig, Ann C. (1985) A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research 55:

269-317

Wong Fillmore, Lily (1991a) When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 6: 323-46 Wong Fillmore, Lily (1991b) Second-language learning in children: a model of language learning in social context. In Bialystok Yawkey, Thomas D.; Prewitt-Diaz, Joseph O. (1990) Early Childhood: Theories, Research and Implications for Bilingual Education.

Proceedings of the First Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues. OBEMLA (http://www.ncbe.guw.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/first/early.htm) Zentella, Ana C elia (1997) Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishers

43