Learning a language

This article has been published on the Camberwell Primary School website with the permission of the author Anthony J. Liddicoat, (Head of the School of Language Studies at the Australian National University, The Faculties, Canberra)  and Babel, the Journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Inc (Vol.35, No3, Summer 2000 - 2001)

LEARNING A LANGUAGE, LEARNING ABOUT LANGUAGE, AND LEARNING TO BE LITERATE    

LANGUAGES VS LITERACY

The new push for improving outcomes in literacy has led to a situation in which a number of primary schools have considered removing language programs in order to provide more time for literacy development. This is the outcome of a view that argues that learning another language is in some way problematic for the development of literacy in English. In this view, literacy development and language learning are viewed as being antagonistic to each other.

This problem grows in part out of how literacy has come to be defined in the Australian context. Since the early 1990s (DEET 1990 and 1991) literacy has been defined in policy as ‘literacy in English’, and broader views of literacy that include being literate in more than one language have fallen out of the literacy debate. Thus, literacy in Australian education has come to be seen at the policy level as a single and monolingual phenomenon, not as a complex and potentially multilingual one. This impoverished view of literacy is linked in turn to an impoverished view of bilingualism in general. 

Bilingual ability may be considered a deficit, a problem, or a handicap (Lo Bianco and Freebody 1997). This is a perception which has long plagued minority-language speakers and continues to do so as it is a view which underlies recent policy changes regarding bilingual education in the Northern Territory. Martín (1996) has also reported that such an attitude is found when schools advise parents from non-English-speaking backgrounds against speaking their first language with their children. It appears that more than a decade of rhetoric about bilingualism as an asset and a resource has not had a strong impact. Rather than a shifting of perceptions towards a positive view of bilingual ability, we now seem to be facing a situation where the view that bilingualism is a problem is expanding into the area of second language learning.

The perceived problem of bilingualism can be considered to be a ‘common sense’ view of learning which equates time on task in a simplistic way with learning. While it has been shown that commonsense views of language learning do not reflect realities (e.g. by Cummins 1980, and Ferris and Politzer 1981), the simplicity of the idea seems to appeal to many policy makers at many levels.

However, the research shows clearly that learning a second language does not harm first language literacy, as long as the first language is taught and valued in the school system. What is at play here is linked to the distinction that Lambert (1975) makes between additive and subtractive bilingualism. In situations of additive bilingualism (situations in which the first language is valued and maintained and a second language is learnt to expand the linguistic repertoire of the learner), research has shown that the outcome is usually not just second language proficiency, but also development of other cognitive and linguistic skills. In situations of subtractive bilingualism (situations in which the first language is not valued and learners are taught the dominant language of a society in order to be assimilated into it), the outcome is often language loss and educational deficits. English is not endangered in any way in Australia by school second language programs. Indeed, the teaching of additional languages to learners from an English-speaking background can have positive benefits for their cognitive and linguistic development.

Studies have shown that learners who learn a second language at school can develop literacy skills faster than learners who do not learn a second language (Lombardi 1986). This idea might seem to run counter to commonsense, but what we find is that learners who learn a second language in primary school are not confused by the experience, but rather their learning is enhanced by it. There is evidence to suggest that even a small amount of language learning can have positive outcomes on literacy development (Yelland, Pollard, and Mercuri 1993). This is particularly the case with the development of word attack and word recognition skills. In fact, it is arguably the case that the minimal language programs currently offered by some schools may be more beneficial to the development of first language literacy skills than to the development of second language competence.

METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS — LEARNING ABOUT LANGUAGE 

Given the position that language learning might in fact facilitate rather than impede literacy development, it is important to gain some idea of why this might happen. The key here appears to be related to the component of learning about language which is common to both language learning and literacy development, i.e. the development of metalinguistic awareness.

Literacy development involves learning to manipulate language in ways which are considerably different from the ways in which non-literate societies and people do (Wells 1985, Olson 1988). An important part of developing literacy involves learning about language and developing an awareness of language as an artefact of human culture and society. In other words, the development of metalinguistic awareness is central to literacy development. In fact, Olson (1988: 225) has argued that developing knowledge about language is fundamental to developing literacy and that ‘becoming literate is only indirectly related to learning to read and write’.

Olson (1988: 223) sees a literate person not only as someone who can read and write, but also as a person who knows that:

• Language exists as a something that is independent of the actual messages that it encodes. This is the realisation that language is an abstract system which exists beyond actual communication. It is also the knowledge that language is composed of (sound) elements which have an arbitrary relationship to the referents that they identify.
• Language has structure.
• Language is composed of grammatical units such as words and sentences that can be combined to create other units.
• You can talk about language.

Learning a second language is a way of developing metalinguistic awareness by providing direct experience of the variability and arbitrariness of language. Monolingual learners developing metalinguistic awareness have a limited set of resources that can help them develop this awareness. However, learners learning a second language have another language system to use for comparison with their first language (Lombardi 1986). Such a comparison makes explicit and obvious information about the nature of language which learners need in order to develop literacy.

If we consider each of Olson’s criteria for literacy in turn, we will see how learning another language can assist in the development of these aspects of metalinguistic awareness.

Language is independent of actual messages 

Literacy is based on a conception of language as an abstract concept which is independent of things that people actually say. This is a belief that language can be treated opaquely and be removed from the individual, transitory meanings of actual utterances (Derrida 1967). This conception is not an inherent view of language, but has to be learnt. It is a specifically literate understanding of what language is.

We can see this distinction between a literate understanding and a non-literate understanding of language more clearly in the languages of some oral societies. For example, the Awa (an indigenous people of southern Colombia) have no word for ‘word’, or for ‘sentence’, or any other unit of meaning. Moreover the word pit (literally ‘mouth’) which can be used to mean ‘language’, does not distinguish between the concepts of ‘language’ and ‘talk’. As such, pit means something like ‘the things people say’ rather than conveying the idea of an abstract system (Curnow 1997). The Awa, therefore, conceive language in a way which is very different from the ways in which literate societies view language.

Learning a second language provides a clear starting point for developing an understanding of the arbitrary nature of the relationship that exists between form and meaning. For example, it takes time for a child to learn that the particular sounds found in the English word ‘dog’ are not inherently related to the meaning of the word ‘dog’. However, a child who learns that another collection of sounds, such as those found in French (chien) or Japanese (inu) can also mean ‘dog’, has learnt something important about the nature of language (Ianco-Worrall 1972). The child knows that a meaning can be represented in more than just one way and that variation in form is a possibility in language.

This is an important realisation which assists in learning that sound can be encoded in graphic forms and that these graphic forms can be variable. This is a first step in understanding language as a system and an artefact.

Language has structure 

All languages have grammars, but not all speakers have an awareness of the grammar of their language as a phenomenon. Literacy involves learning that languages are structured and being able to reflect on and exploit the grammar of one’s language. Learning a second language can provide a perspective on language structure which grows from being able to compare and contrast two possible sets of structures. In fact, Weinreich (1979) has argued that a key educational element of language programs is the development of learners’ ability to reflect on the data they receive during language learning, including the data they receive about language. Galambos and Goldin-Meadow (1983) have shown that access to a second language improves learners’ abilities to recognise syntactic errors and develop greater skills at supplying syntactically-oriented corrections of such errors. They conclude that their subjects had a stronger syntactic focus on language than monolingual learners of the same age.

Language is composed of grammatical units 

The notion of what a word or a sentence is, is also not an obvious concept to a non-literate speaker of a language. One element of becoming literate is learning that messages are composed of parts. This notion, as with the notion of language as an abstract system, is not inherent in human beings. Anyone who has conducted fieldwork with non-literate informants has had direct experience with this. When informants are asked to supply a word, they frequently provide a phrase or sentence instead of a word.

Learning to segment language into its component parts requires a focus on the structures of language, and this focus is more often found in second-language classes than it is in English-language classes. In addition, a second language allows a dimension of comparison which helps develop this learning. In learning a second language, learners learn about the parts of language, they learn second language equivalents of units such as words, and learn, in a very explicit way, how to join words together into larger units, such as sentences. They learn something about the componential nature of language as a system. Bialystok (1987) concludes that access to two languages improves learners’ abilities in some word-related tasks, including being able to focus on the form of words. Such an ability to deal with words in isolation is an important skill for the development of reading and writing.

You can talk about language 

Language learners learn to talk about language as an object as well as ask and answer questions about language. Part of this involves learning to talk about meaning in different ways. When language learners are asked, ‘What does the French word chien mean?’, they are being asked a fundamentally different question from the question, ‘What does the word ‘dog’ mean?’ If you ask learners in their first language what a dog is, the question is about whether or not they know what the referent (the thing being talked about) is. However, if you ask them what the word chien means, you are asking them to talk about language and to relate elements of one system to another.

Language learners also ask questions about language which monolinguals do not. This is most notably the case in questions like ‘How do you say…?’, or ‘Is this how you say…?’, or ‘Can I say…?’. These questions are based on ideas that language is not something over which learners have complete control and that they might need to express things for which their language is inadequate. Language is something that one needs to find out about, that one needs to talk about, and that one can talk about.

THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING IN LITERACY DEVELOPMENT 

It is the generalist classroom teacher in the primary setting and the English teacher at secondary level who is usually expected to oversee learners’ literacy development. However, as Ludwig and Herschell (1999) point out, literacy is developed incidentally and rarely as the result of direct instruction. In contrast to this, the explicit focus of a foreign language program is language. Thus, language teachers provide an educational dimension which is not available elsewhere and provide an important complement to the work of the generalist/English teacher in the area of literacy.

Language teachers emphasise different skills from the generalist teacher. They expect that some words in a text will be unknown to the learner and they emphasise strategies that help the learner to learn about the word and its meaning from its context. Generalist/English teachers expect their learners to be familiar with the language (English) and for completely unknown words to be rare in the texts they are using. Thus, their teaching focuses more on identifying a word from its context and relating the written form of the word to the spoken language. In reality, both language and generalist/English teachers need to teach the same sets of skills. However, their approaches and emphases will differ and, in combination, will help to develop a far stronger set of literacy skills than either of them would achieve in isolation.

LITERACY IN ITS CULTURAL CONTEXT 

Current approaches to literacy development emphasise the cultural nature of literacy and the ways in which culture affects communication (Lankshear 1997). Access to a second language provides a perspective on this aspect of literacy. Because features such as text structure, style, argumentation patterns, etc. vary from one language and culture to another, language learners, especially those with higher proficiency levels, have extra resources to bring to their work in cultural and critical literacy. Reading and writing across languages challenges the idea of what constitutes a ‘good’ text. Moreover, the content of texts is affected by culture and there are questions about what shared knowledge is assumed by writers and what expectations writers have about the audience that need to be dealt with by the second language reader.

As our understanding of what literacy is moves increasingly towards ideas of decoding discourses (Gee 1997, Luke and Freebody 1997), learners stand to benefit from having access to a wider repertoire of discourses as well as access to messages produced by different cultures in different languages. Language learning provides a richer context in which literacy can develop. It also expands the opportunities for developing critical awareness and an appreciation of the cultural nature of texts.

CONCLUSION 

Learning a new language teaches the learner something about the nature of language and languages, and this is knowledge which needs to be developed by a literate person.

When people question the value of language learning for younger learners, or suggest that language learning might be counterproductive, they see only part of the picture. The see that language learning is learning about a particular language. What they do not see is the extra learning that takes place. Language teachers not only teach a language, they also teach about language as a concept, and about communication, context, and culture (Liddicoat, Crozet, Jansen, and Schmidt 1997).

Learning a second language helps to create a perspective on one’s first language and helps one to learn about one’s first language. Most importantly, it helps one to come to see language as an object that can be talked about, which is a fundamental step in becoming literate. Second language learning is therefore a resource for enhancing literacy, not a problem for acquiring literacy. It forms part of a whole package for learning about language as a part of schooling and provides additional insights into the nature of language that are not available to the monolingual learner.

REFERENCES 

Bialystok, E. 1987. ‘Words as things — Development of word concept by bilingual children’. In Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 9, pp. 133–140.

Cummins, J. 1980. ‘The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education’. In NABE Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 25–60.

Curnow, T.J. 1997. A Grammar of Awa Pit — An Indigenous Language of Southern Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University.

DEET (Department of Employment, Education, and Training). 1991. Australia's Language — A National Language and Literacy Policy for the 1990s. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

DEET (Department of Employment, Education, and Training). 1990. The Language of Australia — Discussion Paper on the Australian Literacy and Language Policy in the 1990s. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Derrida, J. 1967. De la grammatologie. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

Ferris, R.M. and R.L. Politzer. 1981. ‘Effects of early and delayed second language acquisition. English comprehension skills of Spanish-speaking junior high school students’. In TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 265–74.

Galambos, S. and S. Goldin-Meadow. 1983. ‘Learning a second language and metalinguistic awareness’. In Chicago Linguistics Society — Papers from the Nineteenth Regional Meeting, pp. 117–33.

Gee, J. 1997. ‘Meanings in discourses — Coordinating and being coordinated’. In Muspratt, S., A. Luke, and P. Freebody (Eds), Constructing Critical Literacies — Teaching and Learning Textual Practices. pp. 273–302. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Ianco-Worrall, A. 1972. ‘Bilingualism and cognitive development’. In Child Development, Vol. 43, pp. 1390–1400.

Lambert, W.E. 1975. ‘Culture and language factors in and education’. In Wolfgang, A. (Ed.), Education of Immigrant Children. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Lankshear, C. 1997. Changing literacies. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Liddicoat, A.J., C. Crozet, L.M. Jansen, and Schmidt. 1997. ‘The role of language learning in academic education — An overview’. In Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 19–32.

Lo Bianco, J. and P. Freebody. 1997. Australian Literacies — Informing National Policy on Literacy Education. Language Australia: Canberra.

Lombardi, J. 1986. ‘Le abilità metalinguistiche nei soggetti bilingui’. In Rassegna italiana di linguistica applicata, Vol. 18, pp. 103–14.

Ludwig, C. and P. Herschell. 1999. Redefining Literacy Practices in Schools — Examining How Question and Answer Routines Affect Literacy Learning in Classrooms. Proceedings from the AATE/AFMLTA/ALEA Conference, Adelaide, 6–9 July 1999.

Luke, A. and P. Freebody. 1997. ‘The social practices of reading’. In Muspratt, S., A. Luke, and P. Freebody (Eds), Constructing Critical Literacies — Teaching and Learning Textual Practices, pp. 185–226. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Martín, M.D. 1996. Spanish Language Maintenance and Shift in Australia. Canberra, Australian National University.

Olson, D.R. 1988. ‘See! Jumping! Some oral language antecedents of literacy’. In Mercer, N. (Ed.), Language and Literacy from an Educational Perspective. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Weinreich, H. 1979. ‘Von der Langeweile des Sprachunterrichts’. In Informationsdienst Spracharbeit, Vol. 2, pp. 1–21.

Wells, G. 1985. ‘Pre-school literacy-related activities and success in school’. In Olson, D., N. Torrance, and A. Hilyard. (Eds), Literacy, Language, and Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Yelland, G., W. Pollard, and A. Mercuri. 1993. ‘The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language’. In Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol. 14, pp. 423–44.


Anthony J. Liddicoat is Head of the School of Language Studies at the Australian National University, The Faculties, Canberra. His e-mail address is Tony.Liddicoat@anu.edu.au.