~*~ ICU Chatterbox ~*~

[tamcharles]

yalie5

tamcharles

yalie5

tamcharles

CrimsnHawk

i doubt anybody has asked BUT
The reason for my long distubing abscense is because (idiotically because i think im now turning into a dumbass. thats why im trying to sound fancy) i forgot...my password (oh dear) oh well, its all well and good now...i guess sweatdrop

It's alright man, welcome back. But for future reference, next time you're using a Q-tip and there's resistance, stop pushing. lol

I'm just kidding! Welcome back man, and you're not a dumbass... 3nodding

yeah and don't try to sound fancy becuase then you'll just end up sounding like a jack a** rofl (trust me I knowlol)

Awww... but how else can I flaunt my pedantic and eruditic nature? sweatdrop

I think it would be best that you pass all your classes, get a degree in human sciences or something like that then write a book where you can use all the big words you want, or get a T.V. show like 60mins. or whatever so you can bore us all to death quicker. lol rofl

How's physical and life science? That's what I'm in. But if you guys want to read some of my written work, I do have some Gaia formatted papers ready. Are you seriously interested? I'm not joking. biggrin  

[Flammable Bait]

tamcharles

yalie5

tamcharles

yalie5

tamcharles

CrimsnHawk

i doubt anybody has asked BUT
The reason for my long distubing abscense is because (idiotically because i think im now turning into a dumbass. thats why im trying to sound fancy) i forgot...my password (oh dear) oh well, its all well and good now...i guess sweatdrop

It's alright man, welcome back. But for future reference, next time you're using a Q-tip and there's resistance, stop pushing. lol

I'm just kidding! Welcome back man, and you're not a dumbass... 3nodding

yeah and don't try to sound fancy becuase then you'll just end up sounding like a jack a** rofl (trust me I knowlol)

Awww... but how else can I flaunt my pedantic and eruditic nature? sweatdrop

I think it would be best that you pass all your classes, get a degree in human sciences or something like that then write a book where you can use all the big words you want, or get a T.V. show like 60mins. or whatever so you can bore us all to death quicker. lol rofl

How's physical and life science? That's what I'm in. But if you guys want to read some of my written work, I do have some Gaia formatted papers ready. Are you seriously interested? I'm not joking. biggrin

I wouldnt mind: It would be something to read.  

[tamcharles]

You asked and so I provided. smile

So for all you kids out there who have parents who feel that learning two (or more) languages is helpful to you -- think again. The scientific literature does not support that assumption.

By the way, I'm trilingual. wink

Quote:

Bilingualism, Not So Beneficial:
A comparison of monolingual and bilingual child language acquisition

By: Charles Tam

Parents have always sought to provide advantages to their children. Some plan out the week of their children to include for enrichment courses such as language immersion programs and other such settings. Studies have shown that there are differences in young children who acquire one-language (monolinguals) compared to those who acquire two-languages (bilinguals). It has been discussed that bilingualism imparts mostly phonological benefits in the short-term and over the long-term, cognitive benefits to those students. However, it is this pretence to begin with this is an observation, after your discussion it might be a pretence, but not yet that has prompted parents to consistently encourage such programs even when the results are inconclusive. Parents and scholars some scholars have a reason to believe this depending on their data, alike often believe that bilingualism (is usually associated with early learning) will increase cognitive abilities in children. As mentioned before, past studies do show just that, however there have been many inconsistencies in the studies of bilingualism versus monolingualism. As such, there exist many currently debated issues which still need to be addressed. Bilingualism is often a desired trait and is considered to be prestigious and impressive. Perhaps to the dismay of ambitious parents, studies are now showing that cognitive benefit conveyed by bilingualism may be short-lived and that overall, there is no general cognitive benefit to bilingualism as previously thought.

Meta-linguistic awareness and phonological awareness

It has been asked whether or not bilingualism affects a child’s ability to acquire language compared to the progress of a monolingual child. Monolingual children have been shown to acquire language in stages as suggested by Gleason & Ratner (199 cool . There are many theories about child language acquisition, to briefly summarize; children will first enter a holophrastic stage in which they use single word sentences (usually a content word). After which, they will start to develop telegraphic speech and will acquire the ability to show possession. After that stage, children will then learn to use conjunctions to create compound sentences to eventually acquire the ability to paraphrase.good recap of Child language acquisition.

Bilingual children at the same level have been shown to display similar stages, however it was noticed that they also displayed advanced meta-linguistic awareness over their monolingual peers as explained by Bialystok (as cited in Chen et al., 2004). The results of the study explain that “[bilingual children] have more advanced word awareness and syntactic awareness and usually show an advantage in phonological awareness as well” (Chen et al., 2004, p. 150). This was supported by a previous study by Rubin and Turner (as cited in Chen et al., 2004) who found that first grade English-speaking students in a French immersion program had greater phoneme segmentation skill than their peers in an English program. Chen then explains that the advantage conveyed by bilingualism is a natural consequence of learning more than one language at a young age. He points out that there is a contrasting effect between the languages which makes bilingual children more attentive to the phonological form of the words. Wagner et al. (as cited in Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003) also found that there were advantages in bilingual subjects which contributed towards increased phonological awareness.

It should also be noted that in the study by Chen et al. (2004), they found that having richer phonetic input seemed to convey advanced phonological awareness early on, this effect was short-lived and that by the fourth grade, the monolingual children had caught up. A similar effect which lends support for the above observation, identifies that differences between monolingual children and bilingual children had disappeared over time were also observed by Bialystok et al., (2003) in their studies. An observable general consensus among the above studies is that there are advantages conveyed by bilingualism, although still debatable, the increased awareness effects did level off. Is it possible that this increased awareness during the initial stages of bilingual language acquisition may be crucial in some way even though such differences dissolve later. Additionally, by 4 years these children may be comparable, with the one huge and obvious difference that a bilingual child can speak an additional language, which then can contribute to other (e.g., social) advantages.

Possible detrimental effects

Another topic often debated when comparing bilingualism and monolingualism is whether or not having to learn two languages (double the workload) has a detrimental effect on language acquisition in one or both of the languages. It has been suggested that learning two languages in childhood is not the same as learning one language and has been implied to result in delays in language development (Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). They found that when learning two languages, the languages often did not develop in perfect synchrony. Genesee et al. (as cited in Paradis et al., 2003) found that one language would exhibit dominance over the other. This dominance was not restricted and was also observed to change over time depending on input from the child’s environment. Paradis et al. (2003) elaborated on the subject to suggest that this dominance indicates that bilingual children may have less exposure to each of the languages, as compared to a monolingual child. However, this was not supported by their study in which a monolingual group and a bilingual group were compared by using coded spontaneous language samples. After analysis it was concluded that bilingual children displayed difficulties in morphosyntax (tense) which were also observed in monolingual children. Other factors were found to show no differences and this lead the authors of this study to suggest that bilingual language learning does not interfere with the overall course of language acquisition (Paradis et al., 2003).

Optimal period for second language acquisition

There have also been arguments regarding bilingualism versus monolingualism suggesting that normal language acquisition must occur only in early childhood. Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, (2004) also addressed this critical period hypothesis. They found that maintained exposure to phonological sounds in early childhood that were particular to a language being acquired would allow for those children to learn the sounds of multiple languages when exposed to them. In bilingual children, Kormi-Nouri, Moniri, & Nilsson, (2003) found that when comparing with monolingual children, having to identify two sets of speech sounds was advantageous as the integration of the two languages in children allowed for better semantic and episodic memory. The also found that this advantage decreased with age and in older speakers learning a second language. In both studies the critical period was suggested to end around school-age; providing support for observations found by Chen et al., (2004) that the differences between the two groups would eventually decline. In all three studies (Manis et al., 2004; Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003; & Chen et al., 2004), it was found that there was support for the critical period hypothesis. Age differences in relation to performance were also observed, children did acquire a second language better when the learning was done at a younger age. However as mentioned previously, the cognitive advantages were shown to eventually reach similar levels in both types of children. It’s good to see that you are comparing across studies. To give some additional information to the readers, I would encourage you to provide some additional information regarding subject number, age range, and data collection methods.

Equal competence in both languages

It has been suggested that teachers and linguists alike have argued that there is a transfer effect involved from the first language to the second language. This issue was partially addressed in the study published by Kormi-Nouri et al., (2003). They found that in their study, as the bilingual children aged, it was observed that there was not equal competence in both languages. This was similar to the observations and suggestions made by Paradis et al., (2003). The bilingual students developed their first language less than their second language, and in the comparison studies out performed the monolingual students. They found that the cognitive studies suggest that, “knowing a second language extends rather than diminishes the individual’s capabilities” (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003, p. 51). It is then reasonable to interpret the results such that learning a second language confers a positive benefit rather than creating problem by giving that person access to situations and experiences that are unique to a bilingual person (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003). This is also in agreement with some of the results presented by Chen et al., (2004) in which he found that learning a second language also confer a benefit (albeit short-lived) which allows the bilingual children to manipulate phonological units better than their monolingual counterparts. However to offer a countering opinion, both Paradis et al., (2003) & Bialystok et al., (2003) found that there were no clear and consistent advantageous effects provided by bilingualism. Based on their results of the children’s performance, they ruled out a conclusion about a general bilingual advantage.

Two opposing views and suggestions for further research

In conclusion, as most of these studies have shown (and even within this limited comparison); language acquisition within bilingualism and monolingualism is still being debated. We can see that there are studies which point in opposing directions. There are many theories and studies that have suggested that bilingual benefits may initially be present until monolingual students catch up (Chen et al., 2003). In the same vein, it has also been reported that students, regardless of a bilingual or monolingual nature, showed the same progress when considering the overall course of language acquisition (Paradis et al., 2003). A more optimistic suggestion found that second language acquisition confers more benefits than hindrances (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003). Finally, contrary to the optimistic view, Bialystok et al., (2003) found that there were no advantageous effects provided by bilingualism. These conclusions, although each of due merit, are obviously in contention with each other. As Gleason & Ratner (199 cool noted, the disagreements and contrasting conclusions by researchers on the topic, reflect their interests in the different perspectives of bilingualism and second language acquisition.

To address these differences and disagreements, there obviously exists a need for further research into this topic. As suggested by Gleason & Ratner (199 cool , that future research will need to consolidate the differing perspectives to ensure a more holistic approach that considers the learner, the environment and the broader contexts of language acquisition. Another suggestion that seems appropriate for further research in this topic would be to address the bilingual and monolingual interactions in more than just one group of students. In many of the studies, it was observed that the subjects were either learning two mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (Chen et al., 2004), the languages of Swedish and Persian (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003), or the languages of French and English (Bialystok et al., 2003; & Paradis et al., 2003). The interactions observed and conclusions derived from the above studies could have been unique to those combinations of languages. Another approach would be necessary to identify the deep-seated principles that could have remained hidden meaning?. Lastly, nearly all of the above studies indicated that there were one or more serious control issues Again, the reader would have been able to assess this as well if more informormation had been provided . For example, the researchers could not reasonably control language exposure outside of observation (in home for example). Again another approach (perhaps the holistic approach suggested by Gleason) is necessary to perhaps work-around or diminish the effect of these control issues. It is reasonable to assume that this topic will likely remain hotly debated, if not among academia then among ambitious parents. In the meanwhile, it will be very interesting to see just who gets the last say.


References:

Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological
awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 27-
44. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Hao, M., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2004). Phonological
awareness of bilingual and monolingual chinese children. Journal of educational
psychology, 96(1), 142-151. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Gleason, J.B., & Ratner, N.B. (199 cool . Psycholinguistics (3rd ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Kormi-Nouri, R., Moniri, S., & Nilsson, L. (2003). Episodic and semantic memory in
bilingual and monolingual children. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 44(1), 47-54. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-english bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech,
Language, & Hearing Research, 46(1), 113-127. Retrieved November 30, 2004,
from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

 

[yalie5]

tamcharles

You asked and so I provided. smile

So for all you kids out there who have parents who feel that learning two (or more) languages is helpful to you -- think again. The scientific literature does not support that assumption.

By the way, I'm trilingual. wink

Quote:

Bilingualism, Not So Beneficial:
A comparison of monolingual and bilingual child language acquisition

By: Charles Tam

Parents have always sought to provide advantages to their children. Some plan out the week of their children to include for enrichment courses such as language immersion programs and other such settings. Studies have shown that there are differences in young children who acquire one-language (monolinguals) compared to those who acquire two-languages (bilinguals). It has been discussed that bilingualism imparts mostly phonological benefits in the short-term and over the long-term, cognitive benefits to those students. However, it is this pretence to begin with this is an observation, after your discussion it might be a pretence, but not yet that has prompted parents to consistently encourage such programs even when the results are inconclusive. Parents and scholars some scholars have a reason to believe this depending on their data, alike often believe that bilingualism (is usually associated with early learning) will increase cognitive abilities in children. As mentioned before, past studies do show just that, however there have been many inconsistencies in the studies of bilingualism versus monolingualism. As such, there exist many currently debated issues which still need to be addressed. Bilingualism is often a desired trait and is considered to be prestigious and impressive. Perhaps to the dismay of ambitious parents, studies are now showing that cognitive benefit conveyed by bilingualism may be short-lived and that overall, there is no general cognitive benefit to bilingualism as previously thought.

Meta-linguistic awareness and phonological awareness

It has been asked whether or not bilingualism affects a child’s ability to acquire language compared to the progress of a monolingual child. Monolingual children have been shown to acquire language in stages as suggested by Gleason & Ratner (199 cool . There are many theories about child language acquisition, to briefly summarize; children will first enter a holophrastic stage in which they use single word sentences (usually a content word). After which, they will start to develop telegraphic speech and will acquire the ability to show possession. After that stage, children will then learn to use conjunctions to create compound sentences to eventually acquire the ability to paraphrase.good recap of Child language acquisition.

Bilingual children at the same level have been shown to display similar stages, however it was noticed that they also displayed advanced meta-linguistic awareness over their monolingual peers as explained by Bialystok (as cited in Chen et al., 2004). The results of the study explain that “[bilingual children] have more advanced word awareness and syntactic awareness and usually show an advantage in phonological awareness as well” (Chen et al., 2004, p. 150). This was supported by a previous study by Rubin and Turner (as cited in Chen et al., 2004) who found that first grade English-speaking students in a French immersion program had greater phoneme segmentation skill than their peers in an English program. Chen then explains that the advantage conveyed by bilingualism is a natural consequence of learning more than one language at a young age. He points out that there is a contrasting effect between the languages which makes bilingual children more attentive to the phonological form of the words. Wagner et al. (as cited in Bialystok, Majumder, & Martin, 2003) also found that there were advantages in bilingual subjects which contributed towards increased phonological awareness.

It should also be noted that in the study by Chen et al. (2004), they found that having richer phonetic input seemed to convey advanced phonological awareness early on, this effect was short-lived and that by the fourth grade, the monolingual children had caught up. A similar effect which lends support for the above observation, identifies that differences between monolingual children and bilingual children had disappeared over time were also observed by Bialystok et al., (2003) in their studies. An observable general consensus among the above studies is that there are advantages conveyed by bilingualism, although still debatable, the increased awareness effects did level off. Is it possible that this increased awareness during the initial stages of bilingual language acquisition may be crucial in some way even though such differences dissolve later. Additionally, by 4 years these children may be comparable, with the one huge and obvious difference that a bilingual child can speak an additional language, which then can contribute to other (e.g., social) advantages.

Possible detrimental effects

Another topic often debated when comparing bilingualism and monolingualism is whether or not having to learn two languages (double the workload) has a detrimental effect on language acquisition in one or both of the languages. It has been suggested that learning two languages in childhood is not the same as learning one language and has been implied to result in delays in language development (Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). They found that when learning two languages, the languages often did not develop in perfect synchrony. Genesee et al. (as cited in Paradis et al., 2003) found that one language would exhibit dominance over the other. This dominance was not restricted and was also observed to change over time depending on input from the child’s environment. Paradis et al. (2003) elaborated on the subject to suggest that this dominance indicates that bilingual children may have less exposure to each of the languages, as compared to a monolingual child. However, this was not supported by their study in which a monolingual group and a bilingual group were compared by using coded spontaneous language samples. After analysis it was concluded that bilingual children displayed difficulties in morphosyntax (tense) which were also observed in monolingual children. Other factors were found to show no differences and this lead the authors of this study to suggest that bilingual language learning does not interfere with the overall course of language acquisition (Paradis et al., 2003).

Optimal period for second language acquisition

There have also been arguments regarding bilingualism versus monolingualism suggesting that normal language acquisition must occur only in early childhood. Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, (2004) also addressed this critical period hypothesis. They found that maintained exposure to phonological sounds in early childhood that were particular to a language being acquired would allow for those children to learn the sounds of multiple languages when exposed to them. In bilingual children, Kormi-Nouri, Moniri, & Nilsson, (2003) found that when comparing with monolingual children, having to identify two sets of speech sounds was advantageous as the integration of the two languages in children allowed for better semantic and episodic memory. The also found that this advantage decreased with age and in older speakers learning a second language. In both studies the critical period was suggested to end around school-age; providing support for observations found by Chen et al., (2004) that the differences between the two groups would eventually decline. In all three studies (Manis et al., 2004; Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003; & Chen et al., 2004), it was found that there was support for the critical period hypothesis. Age differences in relation to performance were also observed, children did acquire a second language better when the learning was done at a younger age. However as mentioned previously, the cognitive advantages were shown to eventually reach similar levels in both types of children. It’s good to see that you are comparing across studies. To give some additional information to the readers, I would encourage you to provide some additional information regarding subject number, age range, and data collection methods.

Equal competence in both languages

It has been suggested that teachers and linguists alike have argued that there is a transfer effect involved from the first language to the second language. This issue was partially addressed in the study published by Kormi-Nouri et al., (2003). They found that in their study, as the bilingual children aged, it was observed that there was not equal competence in both languages. This was similar to the observations and suggestions made by Paradis et al., (2003). The bilingual students developed their first language less than their second language, and in the comparison studies out performed the monolingual students. They found that the cognitive studies suggest that, “knowing a second language extends rather than diminishes the individual’s capabilities” (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003, p. 51). It is then reasonable to interpret the results such that learning a second language confers a positive benefit rather than creating problem by giving that person access to situations and experiences that are unique to a bilingual person (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003). This is also in agreement with some of the results presented by Chen et al., (2004) in which he found that learning a second language also confer a benefit (albeit short-lived) which allows the bilingual children to manipulate phonological units better than their monolingual counterparts. However to offer a countering opinion, both Paradis et al., (2003) & Bialystok et al., (2003) found that there were no clear and consistent advantageous effects provided by bilingualism. Based on their results of the children’s performance, they ruled out a conclusion about a general bilingual advantage.

Two opposing views and suggestions for further research

In conclusion, as most of these studies have shown (and even within this limited comparison); language acquisition within bilingualism and monolingualism is still being debated. We can see that there are studies which point in opposing directions. There are many theories and studies that have suggested that bilingual benefits may initially be present until monolingual students catch up (Chen et al., 2003). In the same vein, it has also been reported that students, regardless of a bilingual or monolingual nature, showed the same progress when considering the overall course of language acquisition (Paradis et al., 2003). A more optimistic suggestion found that second language acquisition confers more benefits than hindrances (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003). Finally, contrary to the optimistic view, Bialystok et al., (2003) found that there were no advantageous effects provided by bilingualism. These conclusions, although each of due merit, are obviously in contention with each other. As Gleason & Ratner (199 cool noted, the disagreements and contrasting conclusions by researchers on the topic, reflect their interests in the different perspectives of bilingualism and second language acquisition.

To address these differences and disagreements, there obviously exists a need for further research into this topic. As suggested by Gleason & Ratner (199 cool , that future research will need to consolidate the differing perspectives to ensure a more holistic approach that considers the learner, the environment and the broader contexts of language acquisition. Another suggestion that seems appropriate for further research in this topic would be to address the bilingual and monolingual interactions in more than just one group of students. In many of the studies, it was observed that the subjects were either learning two mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (Chen et al., 2004), the languages of Swedish and Persian (Kormi-Nouri et al., 2003), or the languages of French and English (Bialystok et al., 2003; & Paradis et al., 2003). The interactions observed and conclusions derived from the above studies could have been unique to those combinations of languages. Another approach would be necessary to identify the deep-seated principles that could have remained hidden meaning?. Lastly, nearly all of the above studies indicated that there were one or more serious control issues Again, the reader would have been able to assess this as well if more informormation had been provided . For example, the researchers could not reasonably control language exposure outside of observation (in home for example). Again another approach (perhaps the holistic approach suggested by Gleason) is necessary to perhaps work-around or diminish the effect of these control issues. It is reasonable to assume that this topic will likely remain hotly debated, if not among academia then among ambitious parents. In the meanwhile, it will be very interesting to see just who gets the last say.


References:

Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological
awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 27-
44. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Hao, M., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2004). Phonological
awareness of bilingual and monolingual chinese children. Journal of educational
psychology, 96(1), 142-151. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Gleason, J.B., & Ratner, N.B. (199 cool . Psycholinguistics (3rd ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Kormi-Nouri, R., Moniri, S., & Nilsson, L. (2003). Episodic and semantic memory in
bilingual and monolingual children. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 44(1), 47-54. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-english bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech,
Language, & Hearing Research, 46(1), 113-127. Retrieved November 30, 2004,
from PsycINFO (1840-Current) database.

Sir, I must say, either you're the most boring people I've ever "met", or I must be the biggest idiot I know of. I can't decide which rofl  

[Minielf]

Idiot? Maybe. Boring? Definitely. xd
I think you've offended Charlie by your comments. xd xp  

[Flammable Bait]

I find it interesting sweatdrop

Because i kind of write crp like tht, but in my spare time o_O'  

[Niphredil Ithilmir]

*makes mental note to read it later

It looks really interesting, actually.. since I think that most of us here are bilingual.. I just don't have the time right now sweatdrop  

[t0shi0]

Don't be mean Yalie!
Charlie needs love too!
-hugs-
Don't joo Charlie-san?  

[Minielf]

I think I've been put off by the guild in the last few days. You know Crimsn, you and Charles and realy kill a conversation for everyone else with your scientific and highly intellectual comments. They're interesting read, but not so good to reply to. sweatdrop  

[Flammable Bait]

Too bad. xd  

[tamcharles]

CrimsnHawk

Too bad. xd

Ditto. twisted  

[Niphredil Ithilmir]

I like it. Am I just weird..? sweatdrop  

[Flammable Bait]

I asked that already, You reasking it is silly. And if i like it and you like it. And we;re probs the only ppl to read it all, i guess its not bad.  

[Flammable Bait]

Heh Heh Heh, Im nominating cat whiskers for a use friend avi contest in this guild leng mui got me in. good luck to myself.  

[Niphredil Ithilmir]

CrimsnHawk

Heh Heh Heh, Im nominating cat whiskers for a use friend avi contest in this guild leng mui got me in. good luck to myself.

Cat's sorta not here anymore.. lol..

I think his ava is a little cluttered, anyhow~