Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use

Attitudes, Awareness, Activation

Agnieszka Otwinowska

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781783094370
• eBook ISBN: 9781783094400
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book brings together linguistic, psycholinguistic and educational perspectives on the phenomenon of cognate vocabulary across languages. It presents a large-scale, long-term research project focusing on Polish-English cognates and their use by bilingual and multilingual learners/users of English. It discussesextensive qualitative and quantitative data to explain which factors affect a learner's awareness of cognates, how adult learners can benefit from raised awareness and whether cognate vocabulary can be used with younger learners as a motivational strategy. The work shows how cognate vocabulary can be examined from a range of methodological perspectives and provides considerable insights into crosslinguistic influences in language learning. While the focus of the studies is Polish-English cognates, the research will be of interest to anyone teaching learners of different language constellations, levels, ages and backgrounds.

Part 1

Bilingual and Multilingual Language Use

1Language Users and Language Use

Introduction. Why do Linguists Often Study Monolinguals?

Knowing and using several languages is a norm in many societies and countries around the world, a fact which escaped the attention of linguists for a long time. Since the late 1950s, the main object of many linguistic studies has been a set of abstract rules of one language, in accordance with the assumption that all normal adult human beings have linguistic competence in their first language (e.g. Chomsky, 1959, 1965) and language is ‘represented as a speaker’s mental grammar, a set of abstract rules for generating sentences’ (Larsen-Freeman & DeCarrico, 2010: 20). Although the concept of ‘communicative competence’ (Hymes, 1971) drew linguists’ attention to language use in particular contexts, which opened ground for the development of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, for many decades linguistics focused on studying abstract monolingual native speaker’s competence.

Chomsky’s concept of language competence and performance, the observable manifestation of the underlying competence, was based on a much earlier dichotomy of langue and parole proposed by a Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1916). According to him, linguistic analysis was not supposed to focus on the use of language (parole, or speech), but rather on the underlying system of language (langue), namely on how the elements of language relate to each other synchronically. It was de Saussure’s understanding of language that strongly influenced structural linguistics, philosophy and literary criticism in the first half of the 20th century. Interestingly, structuralists did not adopt the views of de Saussure’s great contemporary, Baudouin de Courtenay, a Polish linguist (e.g. known for the widely-used notion of the phoneme). Baudouin de Courtenay not only distinguished between language as an abstract group of elements, and speech and its implementation by individuals, but also pioneered research on the use of multiple languages by speech communities. Sadly enough for studies of multilingualism, structural linguistics and then Chomsky’s tradition followed the work of de Saussure, rather than that of Baudouin de Courtenay, excluding people who use more than language as their abstract competence was not ‘pure’ enough as the object of study (Chomsky, 1986).

On the other hand, to return to the sentence opening this chapter, knowing and using several languages is a norm for many people around the world. Thus this book predominantly deals with language acquisition and use by those who use more than one language. In this chapter we will first say why the concept of the ‘ideal’ monolingual native speaker of a language is inadequate as an object for language study. Next, we will define someone who knows, learns or uses another language or languages i.e. becomes bilingual or multilingual. Finally, we will look at multilingual speech communities and define the notion of plurilingualism.

Defining Monolingualism

It is worth understanding why the idealised native speaker is now considered an inadequate model for linguistic studies. A native speaker is traditionally defined as a person who has ‘learnt language in a natural setting from childhood as a first or sole language’ (Ellis, 2008: 297). This definition suffices from the linguistic point of view, however, today it is assumed that the ideal situation of knowing and using one language, i.e. being a monolingual native speaker of that language, may be true only of minority of language users. Using two, or even several languages, is natural in many regions of the world (cf. Aronin & Singleton, 2012a; Cook, 1991; Graddol, 1997; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Thus, it does not suffice to concentrate on understanding and to explain the grammatical knowledge and the language processing of an isolated ideal native speaker. Considering multiple language abilities and changing social identities of language users, one may even question the very notion of the native-speaker and native-like proficiency (Siegel, 2003), which has become vague and fuzzy:

Today’s ideal speaker lives in a heterogeneous society (stratified along increasingly globalized lines) and has to negotiate interactions with different people representing all sorts of power and solidary positions on a regular basis. What is this ideal speaker a native speaker made of, but a polyphony of codes/languages working cumulatively (and sometimes complementarily) rather than a single, first-learned code? (Mesthrie, 2010: 74)

Therefore, it is proposed that ‘native speakerness’ is not a simple notion. For instance, Leung et al. (1997) claim that terms such as ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ should be replaced with the criteria of language expertise, language inheritance and language affiliation. Earlier, Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) proposed defining language users according to the origin of their language, their language identification, their competence and the function the language performs in their lives, as summarised in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Criteria of defining the mother tongue
Criterion	Definition
ORIGIN	the language one learned first
IDENTIFICATION a. internal. b. external	a. the language one identifies with b. the language one is identified as a native speaker of by others
COMPETENCE	the language one knows best
FUNCTION	the language one uses most
Source: After Skutnabb-Kangas (1995: 44)

Considering the criteria of defining the mother tongue as proposed above, we can see that identifying a monolingual native-speaker by his/her mother tongue poses several problems. As suggested by Kachru and Nelson (1996), if approached from the sociolinguistic perspective, a ‘genetic native speaker’ has to be distinguished from a ‘functional native speaker’ – someone who functions as a native speaker in a variety of a language. Kachru (1999, after Ellis, 2008) further argues that, for instance, an educated speaker of a non-native variety of English can achieve the same degree of functionality in the language as someone who acquired it in the natural setting. Cook (2007: 240, original emphasis) states that ‘within the past decade the term native speaker has been deconstructed, partly by recognising that people are multi-dimensional; the role of a native speaker is comparatively a minor part of one’s identity.’

Neither is it easy to define ‘monolingual’ and ‘monolingualism.’ According to Kemp (2009), first it has to be distinguished whether the terms refer to the language use of the individual, or individuals in communities and societies. The term ‘monolingual’ will be used with reference to individuals, the alternative terms being ‘monoglot’ and ‘unilingual.’ Kemp (2009: 13) defines ‘monolinguality’ as the ‘psycholinguistic state of an individual knowing one language’, and ‘monolingualism’ as the use of one language by societies and individuals in those societies (based on Harmers & Blanc’s 1989, 2000 opposition between ‘bilinguality’ and ‘bilingualism’, to be discussed in more detail in the next section). Monolinguals are ‘individuals who use one language and may be proficient at using a number of different varieties of the language together with different registers in the variety or varieties they know, and of switching between varieties and between registers in the appropriate context’ (Kemp, 2009: 13). Interestingly, even such a broad definition may be questionable when one considers Wandruszka’s (1979) claim that people are innately multilingual, just because they are capable of shifting between a number of language variants, such as standard language, dialect, colloquial language, specialist jargon and knowledge of earlier linguistic forms of their own language. Thus, the homogeneity of the monolingual speech community is not clear, considering the existence of language varieties, dialectal differences and differences in the register use within monolingual communities (Labov, 1969; Wandruszka, 1979).

Since in many European countries people still identify themselves with one language, monolingualism is often seen by members of western cultures as the unmarked case, and a point of reference for comparison with bilingualism and multilingualism. Conversely, about half the world’s population is bilingual (Grosjean, 1982), and there are about 30 times more languages than countries (Romaine, 1989). Doughty and Long (2003: 4) state that ‘[i]n many parts of the world, monolingualism, not bilingualism or multilingualism, is the marked case.’ The changing perspective on the role of monolinguals has also been acknowledged by applied linguistics. In a recent textbook we can read that ‘because bilinguals outnumber monolinguals in the world’s population, bilinguals more than monolinguals provide a genuinely universal account of the cognitive mechanisms that underline language performance’ (De Bot & Kroll, 2010: 124).

Defining Bilingualism

Defining bilingualism poses several problems, and the definition of bilingualism evolved throughout the whole of the 20th century (Ewert, 2009). Most importantly, the definitions vary in relation to criteria of classifying someone as bilingual or not. Older definitions dealt either with the person’s L2 proficiency, or with the functional aspects of language use. In more recent definitions the defining criteria also stress the qualitative differences between the monolingual and the bilingual mind. Finally, bilingualism can be defined in terms of the sequence and completeness of L2 acquisition, as discussed in the following section. It is worth noting that in the present book the terms acquisition and learning are used synonymously, as opposed to Krashen’s (1982) position. However, learning will always refer to classroom settings. Also, symbols L1 will be used to denote the first language, L2 to denote the second language, and L3-Ln to denote the third and other languages of the learner.

Bilingualism and L2 proficiency

A popular belief is that a bilingual is someone who speaks two languages perfectly well, and that this situation applies only to people brought up with two languages and cultures. This view probably stems from Bloomfield’s classic definition (1933: 56): ‘In cases where perfect foreign language learning is not accompanied by loss of the native language, it results in bilingualism, native-like control of two languages.’

Applying Bloomfield’s definition to describing people who use two languages poses several problems. First of all, it is difficult to define perfection of language use, and what is meant by knowing a language perfectly. Secondly, it raises the question of defining ‘native’ and ‘native-like’ control of languages, leaving it unclear where one ends and the other begins. This definition excludes not only language learners, but also all those who use two languages even on a daily basis, if their use of L2 does not meet idealised native-speaker standard (Ewert, 2009). Interestingly, Cook (1997, original emphasis)1 points out that Bloomfield’s very assumption is wrong, because ‘(…) the one thing that the L2 learner cannot be by definition is a native speaker.’ Imperfect as it may be, using Bloomfield’s definition for years resulted in ‘punishing’ language learners for their failure in achieving native-like control of their L2, even though they could use their L2 quite efficiently and effectively.

In an attempt to define the minimum proficiency needed, Macnamara (1967: 59-60) called bilinguals ‘persons who possess at least one of the language skills even to a minimal degree in a second language.’ This definition obviously points to the other end of the proficiency spectrum, similarly to a more recent statement by Edwards (1994: 55) that ‘[e]veryone is bilingual. There is no one in the world (no adult, anyway) who does not know at least a few words in languages other than the maternal variety.’ Although both these definitions allow us to treat even those L2 learners who are just beginning to learn the second language as bilinguals, it seems that both Macnamara and Edwards are as extreme as Bloomfield. It is difficult to define a bilingual only in te...

Table of contents

• Cover-Page
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Dedication
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part 1: Bilingual and Multilingual Language Use
• Part 2: Defining Lexical Crosslinguistic Similarity
• Part 3: Lexical Crosslinguistic Similarity in Use
• Part 4: Investigating Lexical Crosslinguistic Similarity in Language Learning
• References
• Index