Bilingualism: Cultural Influences, Global Perspectives and Advantages/Disadvantages 1634852273, 9781634852272

Citation preview

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

BILINGUALISM CULTURAL INFLUENCES, GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the eBooks tab.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

BILINGUALISM CULTURAL INFLUENCES, GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

CARROLL E. WILSON EDITOR

New York

Copyright © 2016 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: (%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Chapter 1

Alexandria and the Law of Moses Giuseppe Solaro

Chapter 2

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English Implementation Krzysztof Polok

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual in a Foreign Language Learning Context: Recent Developments in Use of the Testing Effect in Foreign Language Learning Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten, First, and Second Grade Heritage Spanish-English Bilingual Children Audrey Lucero Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging within and Outside the Educational Context Roula Tsokalidou

1

37

59

73

101

vi Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Index

Contents Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Identity Construction: Perspectives from Minority and Majority Students in the Greek Educational Context Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory in Monolingual and Bilingual Children in South Africa Diana Soares De Sousa Grammatical Knowledge in Second-Generation Spanish/English Bilinguals Alfredo Ardila, Yahaira Concepción, Heidi Díaz, Juana Gutiérrez and Adriana Montoya How Does Extensive Reading Affect L2 Proficiency? A Review of Recent Studies on Extensive Reading Effects on Reading and Listening Ability in EFL Settings Katsuhiro Chiba and Satoru Yokoyama

119

141

179

197 205

PREFACE This book focuses on the cultural influences of bilingualism, as well as global perspectives, and the advantages and disadvantages of being bilingual. Chapter One discusses the Letter of Aristeas. Chapter Two discusses various aspects bridging the issues of culture implementation during a planned school course of English as a global language (EGL). Chapter Three discusses the future direction of studies related to the application of the testing effect and retrieval practice in foreign language learning. Chapter Four reports findings from a study that examined whether there would be significant differences on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade SpanishEnglish bilingual children in U.S. schools. Chapter Five highlights some of the issues related to the concept and practice of ‘translanguaging’ as proposed by Baker (2011) and García (2012) within the broader context of language contact. Chapter Six records the bilingual immigrant students’ views on their L1 development and use and their attitudes towards home language and culture; and the majority students’ views on the linguistic and cultural identities of their immigrant classmates. Chapter Seven ivestigates the association between levels of language proficiency and levels of bilingualism and performance on verbal and visual-spatial working memory tasks in young monolinguals and bilinguals 9-year old children in South Africa. Chapter Eight analyzes the grammar knowledge and use of second-generation Spanish/English bilinguals in South Florida. The final chapter reviews recent studies on extensive reading focusing on EFL settings such as Japan and China.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

ALEXANDRIA AND THE LAW OF MOSES Giuseppe Solaro

*

Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

This Jew was Greek not only of language but also of heart (Jos. Ap. 1.180) Ita fiet ut, cum aequali cura linguam utramque tueri coeperimus, neutra alteri officiat (Quintilian) I giudei nella dispersione greca impararono lentamente a pensare e a scrivere in greco. Il primo frutto del loro lavoro fu una traduzione, la più importante mai fatta; essa aprì la Bibbia al mondo e il mondo alla Parola di Dio. Senza questa traduzione Londra e Roma sarebbero ancora pagane (E.J. Bickerman)

*

[email protected].

2

Giuseppe Solaro Although the Letter of Aristeas itself is in large part fanciful and legendary, the author clearly presumed that Greek was known in Jerusalem (L.I. Levine)

ABSTRACT The so-called Letter of Aristeas tells of the alleged origins of the Greek translation of the Torah dated from the time of king Ptolemy II (282-246 BCE) and his trusty, hypothetical adviser, the Peripatetic philosopher Demetrius of Phalerum, author of the magnificent library of Alexandria. The letter - as some modern scholars think -, while surely later than that time, could however contain elements of truth connected with the multiethnic and multilingual cultural policy of the Ptolemies. The perfect and almost mythical bilingualism of the seventy-two experts sent to Philadelphus from Jerusalem by the high priest Eleazar is certainly the ideal case of marriage between Jewish mindset and pagan culture that the ancient tradition delivers us. However we intend to especially emphasize here with some examples the continuing news of PseudoAristeas to the Byzantine world (up to Tzetzes and his late report on the translation of foreign books plans by Ptolemy II aimed at the consolidation and expansion of the Museum). We also dwell on the technical but wavering Greek vocabulary of transcription and translation in the letter in particular with some new observations about § 30 on the wake of the interpretation of this paragraph by Thackeray and others. The final part contains some notes on bilingualism and biculturalism typical of the Roman world (in comparison to the Greek).

Keywords: Hebrew, Greek, Bible, translation, library, Ptolemies, Hellenism

INTRODUCTION In Prolegomena de comoedia Aristophanis the great Byzantine poet and scholar John Tzetzes (c. 1110-1185), who was at Constantinople γραμματικός (schoolteacher) and γραμματεύς (secretary), writes about the foundation of the famous library of Alexandria thanks to king Ptolemy II Philadelphos (282-246 BCE). Tzetzes describes Ptolemy II as a very philosophical king, ready to buy books from everywhere and to put them into the two libraries (the bigger and the smaller, the so-called mother and daughter, but Tzetzes doesn’t use these

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

3

words) that he realized with the help of the Peripatetic thinker Demetrius of Phalerum and other men of wisdom. Tzetzes also knows and specifies the number of scrolls collected by the zealous king and his collaborators: four hundred and ninety thousand were placed into the bigger one, inside the palace of the king (the so-called library of the Museum, but Tzetzes doesn’t use this expression), forty-two thousand and eight hundred in the so-called Serapeum (also a word not used by Tzetzes). One might ask why the Byzantine scholar appears more accurate (of course, we have to mean his sources) in reporting the number of books of the Serapeum: perhaps this was due to the lower consistency of books of the daughter library. The author of the Αἴτια - Tzetzes says -, Callimachus of Cyrene (born in 304 BC?), at that time only a νεανίσκος, made the catalogues of the books of the library but only after they had been amended. He should have been assisted by his countryman Eratosthenes (born in 296 BC?), the so-called Beta, scientist and philologist, head librarian of king Ptolemy. This is a preliminary remark regarding Alexandria, John Tzetzes and the libraries of king Ptolemy II Philadelphos. But Tzetzes’ story continues. He writes in fact that the learned Ptolemy, after having collected all the Greek books and of every other nation (ἔθνους παντός) and particularly of Hebrew literature (καὶ σὺν αὐταῖς τῶν Ἑβραίων), entrusted the translation of these foreign books in Greek to native speakers educated men who knew well the Greek language (τὰς ἐθνικὰς μὲν ὁμογλώσσοις ἐκείνων ἀνδράσι σοφοῖς καὶ ἀκριβῶς ἑλληνίζουσιν εἴς τε γραφὴν ὁμοῦ καὶ γλῶσσαν ἑλλάδα μετήμειψεν). This - if true - is obviously a very important case, in this form really unprecedented in the Greek world, of bilingualism (and consequently of sociocultural exchanges). On translations promoted by king Ptolemy II Tzetzes gives the famous example of the translation of the Hebrew texts made by seventy-two Jews1 naturally skilled in both Hebrew and Greek (ὡς καὶ τὰς ἑβραΐδας δι’ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνέων ἑβραίων σοφῶν πεφυκότων καθ’ ἑκατέραν διάλεκτον). So, to listen Tzetzes, the generous and very enlightened patronage of Ptolemy II not only concerned the foundation of the famous library and the 1

Heliodorus (“probably a commentator of Dionysius Thrax” according to E. Matusova [2015], p. 55, n. 27), quoted by Tzetzes as ranting, became confused and claimed that the learned men who ordered and corrected the poems of Homer in the time of Peisistratus were also seventy-two, while in fact Peisistratus’ redaction of Homer’s text - as the same Tzetzes writes - should have been carried out by four people (Epicongylus, Onomacritus of Athens, Zopyrus of Heraclea, Orpheus of Croton). The reference to the bizarre theory of Heliodorus and to the four Peisistratus’ correctors occurs in both Tzetzes’ prooemia (see note 2 below).

4

Giuseppe Solaro

establishment of a court of important poets and intellectuals (like the aforementioned Callimachus and Eratosthenes, to which you must add at least Theocritus) but also promoted an important work of translation and exchange between cultures and literatures in the ancient Mediterranean area after Alexander the Great2. As it is well known, chronologically Tzetzes is not the first author to give news of a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts promoted by Ptolemy II Philadelphos. And he is not the only source that sets the subject of this important translation in the broader matter of the extensive Alexandrian translation tasks at the court of the mentioned king. But generally - we can say - we do not know a lot of foreign books that were specifically translated on the initiative of Ptolemy II. Long before Tzetzes, George Syncellus (late eighth century), the author of the famous Ἐκλογὴ χρονογραφίας (Ecloga chronographica), edited by Alden A. Mosshammer (1984) for the Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, tells the mythical translation cited by the high priest Manetho of Sebennytus, an Egyptian who wrote in Greek, author of a History of Egypt (Ἀιγυπτιακά) preserved in extracts, who lived in the time of Ptolemy I and II, of the stone inscriptions from hieratic script in Greek, made by Agathodaimon, father of Tat, and deposited in the form of books in the temples of Egypt, and that the same Manetho dedicated to Philadelphus in the so-called Book of Sôthis (dedicatory letter certainly false that there Syncellus preserves3). Of course this is not an example of translation (or bilingualism) promoted by Ptolemy II Philadelphus but we still wanted to remember the episode that links the Ptolemaic king, his priest and official and the use (very ancient in the Egyptian area?) of a dual linguistic register (hieratic/Greek). Among other things in the same letter of dedication to Philadelphus, Manetho (or Pseudo-Manetho) refers to the Greek translation of the Scripture, recalling in particular that those interpreters had followed the use of the Greek word “Egypt” (instead of Μεστραία which we know today a previous Semitic name). In the same context Manetho exalts with a single adjective the 2

My quotations from Tzetzes’ Prolegomena come from the reference edition of Koster, W.J.W. (1975). The Prolegomena contain two different prooemia, but even if there are similarities between them two, only in the second one the Byzantine erudite speaks about the translations promoted by king Ptolemy II. Scholars - it must be said - are not always tender with Tzetzes’ information and sometimes regard them with suspicion. 3 See for example Waddell, W.G. (Ed.) (1964). Manetho. Cambridge, Massachusetts-London (first printed 1940), p. XXVIII. Discusses various interpretations of this passage of Syncellus, Slavenburg, J. (2012). The Hermetic Link. From Secret Tradition to Modern Thought. Lake Worth, FL: Ibis Press (originally published in Dutch in 2003 as De Hermetische Shakel).

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

5

erudition of Philadelphus (called by him φιλολογώτατος: see Sync. Ecl. Mosshammer 42.31) and seems to mean that the request of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures came from the whole entourage of the king. Moreover, compared to Tzetzes, translators, perhaps to rounding, decrease to seventy (from seventy-two). George Syncellus refers more clearly to the Septuagint translation in various places of his Ecloga: especially but always en passant in 291.22-24 M. about Ezra (where we can find the name of Philadelphus) but first of all in the biography of Philadelphus, which begins on page 327.17 M. and that we consider in more detail. Here Syncellus states that the king, called early σοφὸς καὶ φιλοπονώτατος, managed to put together (συλλεξάμενος) and to translate (μεταφράσας) into Greek (εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν) foreign books (τὰς βίβλους τὰς ἀλλογλώσσους) of all the authors (Chaldeans4, Egyptians and also Romans: his universalistic project is therefore quite clear given that Syncellus also lists examples of peoples and literatures5), collecting in the two libraries that he made in Alexandria a hundred thousand volumes (number repeated twice in Syncellus’ biography of Ptolemy II but that does not correspond to the data much higher of Tzetzes). However, the only real example offered by Syncellus of translation promoted by Philadelphus is the same as Tzetzes and namely that of Holy Scripture. In order to achieve this objective, Philadelphus, as Syncellus writes, would implement a great political strategy, releasing even one hundred twenty thousand Jewish prisoners (a very astounding figure: but the issue went back to the time of his father Ptolemy I, as we know from the Letter of Aristeas, which will be discussed later6) and sending valuable offerings to Jerusalem 4

Also Plin. Nat. 30.4 relates the incredible news of the translation (properly an explanatio) by Hermippus, the pupil of Callimachus, expert on biography and evidently also on magic, certainly attached to the Ptolemaic court of Alexandria and its archives, of two million of verses attributed to the Persian Zoroaster. 5 The news surprised Momigliano (1980, p. 169), who, however, did not refer to Epiphanius (see below). 6 An old study on the matter is due in 1929 to the American papyrologist W.L. Westermann (15 Sept. 1873-4 Oct. 1954), regarding particularly the age of Ptolemy V. But see also Westermann (1955), p. 28, where we read: “the report contained in the well known Jewish propagandist letter to Philocrates [namely the so-called Letter of Aristeas] that more than 100,000 Jewish slaves captured in the wars of Ptolemy I were freed by Ptolemy II at the time of the translation of the Septuagint, is not supported by evidence of enslavement of any large number of war captives under either of the first Ptolemies.” Compare E.S. Gruen (1998), p. 42, n. 3 “the tale itself of the deportation of 100,000 Jews by Ptolemy I and their release by Ptolemy II is questionable,” who on the ground of Pseudo-Hecataeus still adds: “the congruence of testimony does at least suggest that a significant movement of Jews to Egypt occurred at the beginning of the Hellenistic period.” On this matter see also L.L. Grabbe (2008), p. 282.

6

Giuseppe Solaro

and finally by sending an embassy with many gifts to the high priest Eleazar (Syncellus’ indicated source are Πτολεμαϊκά) asking to be sent to Alexandria the sacred texts with religious and scrupulous experts both on Jewish and on Greek culture (πρεσβευσάμενος σταλῆναι τὰς ἱερὰς δέλτους εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν καὶ ἄνδρας ἱεροὺς ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστήμονάς τε αὐτῶν καὶ τῆς Ἑλλήνων ἐμπείρους παιδεύσεως), who could ensure a safe interpretation of the text (ὡς ἂν ἀσφαλῶς ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραίων φωνῆς ἑρμηνευθεῖεν αὐτῷ). All of this - in the opinion of Syncellus - would be the work of divine providence and Philadelphus is already in some way on the road of the Incarnation. The σοφώτατος king - George continues - welcomed the delegation of learned Jerusalemites expert in both languages (σοφοὺς κατ’ἄμφω τὰς γλώσσας) and was very impressed by their universal preparation. He then explained to them with gentle words that the translation of the Holy Scripture was done without any form of envy (ἀφθόνως ἑρμηνευθῆναι), assigning as a place for their work the small island of Pharos (apparently to facilitate their focus), where men θεοφιλεῖς, animated by a divine harmony and divine inspiration, carried out their entire translation (τὴν ὅλην Ἑβραίων φωνήν) within seventy-two days. The work was then read to king Ptolemy and his entourage (Demetrius of Phalerum, the philosopher Menedemus7 and others unnamed) and received general approval. In conclusion, the king made the interpreters return to the high priest Eleazar. In the last part Syncellus, who refers explicitly to Josephus (that he drastically but understandably summarizes: see AI in particular 12.17-33.50), mentions for the first time Aristeas (who in Josephus urges the king to free the prisoners) and Andrew as his emissaries to Jerusalem to make contact with Eleazar. He finally, after recalling the help with the preparation of the library given to Ptolemy II by his main adviser, Demetrius of Phalerum, remembers 7

On Menedemus of Eretria, also mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas (certainly a source of Syncellus), E.S. Gruen (2010) writes: “Both his dates and his service with the Macedonian king [Antigonus Gonatas] make it improbable that he would become a confidant of Ptolemy II in Alexandria” (p. 316, n. 38). Menedemus died in 265/260 BCE and only theoretically could meet Ptolemy II. But relations with the father of Ptolemy II are known to Diog. Laert. 2.140 (an embassy to Ptolemy and Lysimachus; another embassy to Demetrius Poliorcetes of 304 BCE) and this may explain the role of spokesman, so to say, in the Letter of Aristeas (see § 201 where he is, in a short passage, a supporter of divine providence). As for Demetrius of Phalerum, the third legislator of Athens (after Draco and Solon: we know that he, a favorite of Cassander, ruled Athens as a tyrant from 317 to 307 BCE), maybe he fell into disgrace after the death of Ptolemy I (see Diog. Laert. 5.78: the source, however, is the notorious, according to some, Hermippus of Smyrna). Gruen (1998), p. 209 was also consistently critical in considering the role of Demetrius as invented. But this view goes back at least to Emil Schürer. Finally in the letter they are also mentioned Hecataeus of Abdera (§ 31), Theopompus (§ 314) and the tragic poet Theodectes (§ 316).

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

7

that the untiring sovereign after filling the library (ἧς πληρουμένης) in Olympiad CXXXII (years 252-249 BCE) died. We know that Philadelphus exactly died in 246 BCE (Olympiad CXXXIII, third year). As we can see, there are some similarities (the largest translation project of Philadelphus, the reference to bilingual interpreters, the Septuagint, the important role as a collector of books of Demetrius) and differences (the mention in Syncellus of Menedemus, Aristeas and Andrew through Josephus and the Letter of Aristeas) between the story told by Tzetzes and that told by Syncellus but perhaps the greatest contrast regards the number of books contained in the main library of Alexandria, showing certainly different sources: ‘only’ 100,000 volumes in the witness of George, 490,000 according to the report from Tzetzes. Of course the sources on the origins of the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek translation of the Pentateuch) are numerous and distributed in time8. They concern both Greek and Latin tradition and also the Arab fortune and obviously can draw inspiration from the main source, the so-called Letter of Aristeas, the much debated koiné Greek work written by a Hellenized Jew (presumably residing in Alexandria) almost certainly not before the second century BCE. Before dealing of this, I will still refer to the important and learned testimony of Epiphanius (born between 310 and 320 and died in 402/403 AD), a combative bishop of Salamis of Cyprus, the first author in 8

Albeit incomplete list of these witnesses, with a single Arab source, really a Christian author, the Melkite Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria (also known by his Arabic name Saʿīd ibn Baṭrīq or Biṭrīq, 877-940 AD), the writer of a chronicle in Arabic language entitled Nazm al-Jauhar (Row of Jewels), is reported at the end of the edition of L. Mendelssohn and P. Wendland of Aristeae ad Philocratem Epistula (Lipsiae 1900, pp. 87-166; cf. also Thackeray [1917], pp. 89-116), where the passage of Eutychius is however not mentioned in the original language, but according to the Latin translation that was published by the Oxonian Orientalist Edward Pococke (1604 - 1691). The Letter of Aristeas is as known a kind of forgery (it needs nevertheless to see in what terms and up to that point), as it was shown among others by the theologian Humphrey Hody in 1684 (attacked by Isaac Vossius, who called him contemptuously “Juvenis Oxoniensis”), because its author, not a Greek but transparently a Jew, certainly is not a courtier of Ptolemy II but writes probably long after him (in 1930 Bickerman argued approximately under Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II nicknamed Physcon, king of Egypt 145-116 BCE; a pupil of Bickerman, J.A. Goldstein [1991], p. 9 between 163 and 130 BCE; A. Momigliano [1932] about 110/100 BCE; F. Parente [1972], p. 528 even more recently: 75 BCE; instead Fraser [1972] proposes the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, 180-145 BCE, and R.J.H. Shutt in Charlesworth [1985] suggests 170 BCE; differently U. Rappaport [2012] proposes the late third century BCE, either towards the end of the reign of Ptolemy IV or the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy V; about ambiguities and uncertainties of composition see the sceptic Gruen [1998], pp. 210-211, n. 76 with bibliography). For some updated quaestionis status on the date of writing of the letter see J. Cook in McKechnie & Guillaume (Eds.) (2008), p. 196 and now Wright III (2015), pp. 2130.

8

Giuseppe Solaro

which perhaps we meet a long list of works whose translation would have been promoted by Ptolemy II, king he calls in De mensuris et ponderibus, as well as φιλόλογος, φιλόκαλος ἀνήρ. Anyway Epiphanius does not speak explicitly of translation of books but only of collection of volumes for Ptolemy’s library, made with the help of the usual Demetrius. The bishop indicates the works still missing in the library of Alexandria in the opinion of Demetrius, after an initial harvest of 54,800 volumes, belonging to the following nations: Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Syrians, Latins9 (a very larger list than Syncellus’). Of course, because the story is told in the context of the Septuagint, we can suppose that Epiphanius attributed to the couple Ptolemy/Demetrius the intention to translate into Greek the works of those nominated peoples. But in Epiphanius the words of Demetrius, who answers to the king, are actually very vague (Ἀκούομεν δὲ ἔτι πολὺ πλῆθος ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὑπάρχειν κτλ.) and therefore not to be understood strictly speaking that they proceeded to gather and translate those texts. According to Epiphanius - we can say with absolute certainty - it is true just the story of the Septuagint. Of course Ptolemy II, “a Greek man” (as defined with the necessary distance by John Chrysostom [Adv. Iud. I MPG 48.851.52 Ἕλλην ὁ ἀνήρ], a contemporary of Epiphanius, with whom he didn’t have good relations), belonging to a Macedonian dynasty that can be traced back to Lagus10, royally settled in Egypt since 305/304 BCE (but his father Ptolemy I Soter was satrap since 323, after the death of Alexander in June, when the provinces were distributed in Babylon), would not only collected copies of all those foreign books but would also certainly hired adequate interpreters (if the project evoked by Epiphanius was really made). In the list of countries provided by 9

Paradoxically the Arab historian of Egyptian origin Ibn al-Qifṭī (1172-1248 AD) understood the Greek word Ῥωμαῖοι used by Epiphanius as usually happened in his time and that is as Romaioi or Romans (i.e., living in the so-called ‘land of Rūm’) and therefore in the sense of Byzantines or Byzantine Greeks, as if the Alexandria of Demetrius of Phalerum and Ptolemy Philadelphus was even devoid of Greek works, while Epiphanius, the possible source of Ibn al-Qifṭī (both give more or less the same number of volumes already collected in the library, an important element in common: fifty-four thousand, a figure altogether modest), obviously refers to the inhabitants of Latium (thing that Ibn al-Qifṭī, while a historian, could not possibly imagine). 10 A man about whom we know very little except perhaps the fact that he was the father of Ptolemy I Soter, although an uncertain and possibly unreliable legend even claimed that Soter was the son of Philip II (see Curt. 9.8.22 and Paus. 1.6.2 that denies). According to the Rabbinic tradition, because of Lagus, in the Septuagint the Greek word λαγώς (‘hare’ from the Hebrew arnebet) would be avoided twice and replaced by the synonym δασύπους (Lev. 11.5 and Deut. 14.7).

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

9

Epiphanius Ptolemy’s bilingualism seems to take multiethnic and multicultural characteristics, although probably we must imagine an activity of translation from time to time so to speak unilateral for example from cuneiform to Greek, from Ethiopian to Greek, from Latin to Greek, from Indian to Greek and so on. The Greek language always had to be the one and only so-called target language. Less than think of a farfetched babel of languages and interpretations: as Tzetzes says, the vision of Ptolemy II was ‘Hellenocentric.’ Of course, if we have to believe Epiphanius, Ptolemy Philadelphus had to invest much time and money in his translation projects. But sources seem to agree in describing him as a munificent king and as a passionate patron of letters, always ready to use his assets for culture and for books. Perhaps the story of Epiphanius and similar ones should not then leave us surprised (but think of a conspiracy of fantasy). One question more than necessary remains: why almost all of this estimated translation activity has been lost? But let us now see the emphatic Letter of Aristeas (also the oldest evidence on the consistency of the library of Alexandria). The ninth paragraph says that Demetrius of Phalerum, assigned as director of the Alexandrian library (Κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως βιβλιοθήκης), received by the sovereign huge sums to gather as much as possible all of the world’s books (ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην βιβλία: a pharaonic plan, so to say, of universal or cosmic library; Ps.-Aristeas seems to know very well what he is talking, he seems to breathe Hellenism). In some cases - Ps.-Aristeas writes Demetrius bought directly, in others did prepare transcripts (ποιούμενος ἀγορασμοὺς καὶ μεταγραφάς). Μεταγραφή here, as well as in the tenth paragraph, in relation to τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμιμα, doesn’t mean necessarily translation but properly copy. First of all in fact Demetrius communicates to the king, who is not yet specifically mentioned by name in the work, that a copy of the Jewish law would have been worthy of being part of the library of Alexandria. But the problem was just that those laws could not simply be transcribed (as apparently in the case of not foreign books) because they had to be first interpreted and translated (§ 11 Ἑρμηνείας προσδεῖται: of course from Hebrew to Greek), as Demetrius explains to the king who thought he had put everything at the disposal of his trusted adviser, starting with the fundamental economic means. Compared to μεταγραφή in paragraphs 9.10, in paragraph 11 the word ἑρμηνεία leaves no room for any doubt and it is only here that Demetrius actually explains to the king that the Jews possessed their own language, with particular characteristics (i.e., not reproducible by a mere copyist), as well as Egyptians, a thing that made a priority, before (and in place of) any transcription (such as simply from Greek to Greek), a work of

10

Giuseppe Solaro

translation. Whereupon the king, inspired by Demetrius account, decided to take action on these special needs by writing to the high priest in Jerusalem. In the twenty-eighth paragraph occurs yet another word: ἀντιγραφή, which is a synonym of μεταγραφή, and therefore means ‘transcription,’ ‘copy’ (a similar Greek word ἀντίγραφον in various authors, and also in Ps.-Aristeas, has the same meaning [think to the famous Ἀττικιανὰ ἀντίγραφα mentioned for example by Galen, In Plat. Tim. Comm. fr. 2, ll. 107-8], together to other meanings, as also ἀντιγραφή, for example ‘answer’ or ‘reply’). Here the king orders to Demetrius to keep him informed precisely about the process of transcription of Hebrew texts. And his chief librarian warns that τοῦ νόμου τῶν Ἰουδαίων βιβλία, which according to his judgment are the only missing together with few others for the completion of the library, are written of course in Hebrew (as indicated in paragraph 11) and have already been translated but, in the opinion of some learned men not specified by Demetrius, in a very inaccurate way (§ 30 ἀμελέστερον δέ, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει, σεσήμανται). This last is notoriously a very controversial passage of the letter. According to E. J. Bickerman (1.6.1897-31.8.1981), the great Jewish pupil in St. Petersburg of M. Rostovtzeff, the author doesn’t refer here to Greek translations already circulating in the Diaspora, as the Orientalist and Masoretic scholar Paul Ernst Kahle (1875-1964) thought (contra also G. Zuntz [1959] and later David W. Gooding11 [1963], who would have demonstrated that the verb σεσήμανται means “have been transcribed” and not “translated”), but to “carelessly penned” Jewish copies (see The Septuagint as a Translation, p. 29 and n. 62: where he quotes the old J. Fischer, 1926, p. 39)12. According to others (and to us) the author would speak here of imperfect preexisting Greek versions (for a status quaestionis until 1995 see Calabi, p. 9, n. 8 and p. 60, n. 28)13. In support of this hypothesis, in my opinion, is the following 11

12

13

Gooding (1963) was based on the use of σημαίνω in a fragment of Aristobulus (4 Walter = Eus. PE 13.12.7.2), but where he recognized that “‘writing’ involves ‘interpretation’” (p. 377). And he added: “Demetrius... should ask, not for an exact manuscript, but for elders to give the exact interpretation.” It is of the same opinion also Gruen (1998), p. 207, n. 59 and p. 213, n. 93. J.J. Collins (2000) writes “despite the contentions of Kahle, it is now widely agreed that this passage does not refer to pre-Septuagint Greek translations but to inadequate copies of the Hebrew text” (p. 102). Like-minded also Wright III (2008). Another possible interpretation (but maybe a little vague) is as follows: ‘the books happen to be written in the Hebrew script and language, but somewhat carelessly, and they have no meaning (σεσήμανται) as they now exist’ (see J.R. Bartlett [1985], p. 22, who comments “Demetrius is saying that there are no accurate Hebrew copies to be had in Alexandria, for Hebrew manuscripts have never had the skilled attention that the king’s scholars had given to Greek texts”). We have to remember that the community of the Alexandrian Jews was not bilingual: so they were not able to read the Bible in the original language, although scholars do not agree that

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

11

summarizing sentence of Demetrius: προνοίας γὰρ βασιλικῆς οὐ τέτευχε, which seems to indicate that those texts (translations), of which he had knowledge, of Jewish law, unfortunately “could not count on the attention of the sovereign” i.e., were not precise because made before the accurate Ptolemaic project (of course of Greek interpretation and not of Hebrew

the Septuagint had been made indeed (by Ptolemy II or possibly others) to their community. The issue is certainly not simple. As for the controversial passage of the letter, O. Murray (1987), pp. 23-24 emphasizes the ambiguity of another verb used by Ps.-Aristeas, μεταγράφειν (which in Greek, I observe, means ‘to transcribe, to copy’ [see for example Eur. IA 108], but even ‘to fake’ [see Demosth. Meid. 85], a meaning however not present in the letter, and finally ‘to transpose, to translate’ [see Luc. Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 21 καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα μεταποιῆσαι τὰ Ῥωμαίων καὶ μεταγράψαι ἐς τὸ Ἑλληνικόν], and thinks - as Bickerman - that Pseudo-Aristeas refers in § 30 to Jewish texts written not accurately. G. Howard (1971) also thinks it is of Hebrew corrupt manuscripts. Differently G. Dorival (1988) suggests a reference to provisional Greek versions and commentaries circulating in oral form, but Ps.-Aristeas’ story doesn’t explain how exactly Demetrius would hear about it and what type of errors this kind of incomplete translations contained in relationship to the obscure Jewish φωνή and even more mysterious written γράμματα, a description which would seem to suggest a problem of interpretation and translation in a written form. These words of Bickerman (1991), p. 147 seem to confirm our judgment: “nelle condizioni dell’industria antica del libro sarebbe stato uno straordinario spreco di danaro e di lavoro manuale tradurre, copiare e ricopiare i cinque rotoli della nuova Torah greca allo scopo di aiutare un interprete inesperto alle prese con la traduzione orale di passi isolati.” Certainly the librarian Demetrius does not speak of preexisting versions made for a liturgical purpose. Therefore of which? Perhaps we should not make us this kind of questions (of historical-textual verisimilitude) on a novel (even however well informed). Someone thinks (but they are assumptions) that if the verb σεσήμανται means ‘have been interpreted,’ Ps.-Aristeas may here support a fairly recent revision of the original thirdcentury Greek translation (for more details see Bartlett [1985], p. 13 and p. 22). According to G. Boccaccini (1991), p. 164, n. 6 this hypothesis appears already formulated in its essential terms by Motzo (1915), an ancient historian much appreciated by Momigliano (Motzo nevertheless does not go beyond the era of Ptolemy II). Generally, in this regard, it doesn’t need to forget what he would have said Aristobulus (fr. 3 Walter; following Ps.Aristeas?) on the partial translations of the Jewish law before that full realized by Ptolemy Philadelphus and Demetrius of Phalerum (see Eus. PI 13.12.1-2: but he did not believe in his testimony altogether understandably already Gilbert [1909], p. 534). Perhaps Demetrius (and so Ps.-Aristeas) wants to tell us that the new translation of the Jewish law (the Septuagint), illustrious because going up to the age of Ptolemy II, will exceed those that could eventually have existed before and will be the best. After all already the distinguished Thackeray (1903), p. 347 intended and translated σεσήμανται, albeit with some doubts, with “have been interpreted” (and not “copied out”), and the nearby καὶ οὐχ ὡς ὑπάρχει with “and not according to their true meaning” (he always kept his translation until 1917: on this matter see anyway Gooding [1963], especially pp. 360-361). Significantly Thackeray referred in a footnote to § 314 of the letter (see below note 14 what I say on Theopompus). His other hypothesis, “committed to writing,” is the one that has had better luck: this was followed for example by Hadas (1951), p. 111, who nevertheless added the footnote “sesēmantai more regularly means “‘interpreted’” (i.e., translated) and rightly commented “it seems unnatural for the king to be interested in the state of the Hebrew text” (of the same opinion the already mentioned Kahle [1959], p. 213).

12

Giuseppe Solaro

transmission or edition)14. Demetrius in fact seems to mean that the difficulties and peculiarities repeatedly underlined about γράμματα and φωνή of the Jewish people had produced until that moment a bad ‘explanation’ of its law (hence the verb σημαίνω: see already its use in Hdt. 1.108): an explanation that certainly, given the context, is not intended as simply oral (Demetrius deals with written and copied books and their conservation sites), against which the colossal enterprise promoted by Ptolemy II promised to have a very different success. The chief librarian indeed adds (and so repeats): “it is necessary that you have with you also these books [he naturally means the Torah or, we could say, using the Christian word, the Pentateuch15] in proper 14

15

The focus is also always the Greek translation in the paragraph 15, where Demetrius academically distinguishes among μεταγράψαι and διερμηνεῦσαι (and obviously it is more main point also from a political point of view the second aspect). In addition, references, in the conclusion of the letter, to previous attempts to insert translated passages of Scripture by Theopompus and Theodectes in their own works, although obviously to be taken with caution, seem to go in the same direction (cf. Gooding [1963], p. 379, who however from his point of view considered the historical value of this assertion very little or none). About this G. Boccaccini (1991) wrote: “they were dealing with ‘some passages of a previous translation of the law,’ a translation that could not have been very accurate, at least judging from the poor quality of the Hebrew manuscripts then extant in Alexandria and the librarian’s solicitude to ask for a reliable text from Jerusalem” (p. 183). But the translation was not accurate - we must assume - mainly because, according to Demetrius, Hebrew is a very special language, with peculiar characters (cf. § 11 χαρακτῆρσι γὰρ ἰδίοις), therefore requiring particular skills (on translation's pains in Demetrius’ words see VanderKam [2001], p. 13). B.G. Wright III (2015), p. 148 (actually on the line of thought of Zuntz [1959], pp. 117-119) thinks that “the Hebrew manuscripts of the law that are in Alexandria have been transmitted 'carelessly' because they have not benefited from the oversight of the king, and this has been ascertained by consulting 'experts,' probably Jewish scholars (who presumably were knowledgeable in the text-critical procedures that Homeric scholars performed on Homer and thus would know if the Hebrew manuscripts were the most reliable?). The lack of royal patronage to establish the best text, and thus by extension an acceptable translation, also provides Ps.-Aristeas with a convenient explanation for what he clearly sees as the reason that 'writers and poets and the mass of historians' do not mention the Jews and their laws.” We do not think that this is the only or right perspective: what in fact ἀπολείπει in the Alexandrian library - as we believe we can deduce from Demetrius’ words - is mainly not a philological Hebrew text of the law of Moses but a good Greek translation (then absent: the existence of a Hebrew text, no matter whether critical or not, above all out of the library, for the Ptolemaic court was equivalent to nonexistence). So the focus of the speech in my opinion is here always the translation, which of course could only be based on the Hebrew text. Naturally in the syncretism of the Letter this focus linked the goal of the library and the spread of the Jewish religion and culture. [I have had an interesting exchange of opinions with professor Wright, that I thank a lot, but everyone has remained of his opinion (I do not touch here the topic of the presumed philological value of the text of the law brought to Alexandria from Jerusalem of which we have also discussed). In general terms I can say that our positions are nearer in the skepticism on the story of Aristeas]. This name for the Greek Torah is not attested before the second century CE (in the Gnostic Ptolomaeus’ Letter to Flora cited by Epiphanius Haer. ed. K. Holl 1.452.11).

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

13

form” (we do not discuss here the different interpretations of the sentence, which still contemplate the royal patronage). It then shifts in this case, obviously in the story all to be verified of the letter (we might almost say thanks to the Alexandrian textual criticism, that somehow certainly PseudoAristeas knows and considers: an authoritative element noticed by modern scholars in various ways since Zuntz until Honigman and beyond16), from a kind of bilingualism (Hebrew/Greek) lame and imperfect of inexperienced and uncouth translators to a purest and attentive, also based, according to this probably legendary tradition, on fundamental diplomatic relations with Jerusalem, in which are kept save content (moreover sacred) and linguistic form17. The more unequivocal word ἑρμηνεία occurs a little further (§ 32), where Demetrius suggests to Ptolemy to ask Eleazar to send to Alexandria experts of the Jewish law, who can finally realize a precise interpretation/translation (τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ἀκριβές), in order to establish an unanimous text worthy of Philadelphus (and hence also of his great library). Ptolemy writes immediately to the high priest a diplomatic letter in which first of all points out the release of prisoners and, revealing his plan to spread the Torah in Greek (aimed primarily to deposit a copy of the translation in his library in Alexandria), asks, substantially with the words suggested to him by Demetrius, to send honest men but above all δυνατοὺς ἑρμηνεῦσαι (evidently different from their predecessors). Here the vision of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at least as Pseudo-Aristeas represents it to us, from a mere textual and interpretative bilingualism becomes something with a wider cultural perspective, where Jewish element of Diaspora and Greek element merge into a civilization, in the hope of the Hellenistic ruler, destined to last for centuries (in fact, he says he is acting in the interests of “all the Jews of the world and their descendants”). But these are with all probability apologetic words of propaganda of Ps.-Aristeas and not of Ptolemy II. See also Niehoff (2011), who writes: “it clearly emerges that” Aristeas “was familiar with textcritical methods” (p. 25). I feel interesting but a bit forced her new interpretation of ἀμελέστερον σεσήμανται as “connected to the scholarly marking of the Greek text” (p. 33). In this way she still somehow recovers the idea of Kahle. According to Niehoff, Aristeas “hopes to recover the original, pre-critical stage of the biblical text” defending it (and its Ptolemaic Greek translation) against any future manipulations. Mutatis mutandis Niehoff establishes a chronological and methodological connection between the Letter and the method of Aristarchus. 17 With an unanimous reference to the purity and inviolability of the just announced Septuagint the text of the Letter also ends (§ 310 καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως διηρμήνευται καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως), where it is stressed that the translation is ‘rigorous’ in every respect and ‘holy,’ that is inspired by the same divinity (a case of bilingualism almost prophetic). 16

14

Giuseppe Solaro

In his response Eleazar uses a couple of times the word μεταγραφή (without, however, that there is near the adjective ‘Greek’). Here, however, we can freely understand “translation,” as it is clear to the two correspondents, Ptolemy and Eleazar, that it should be, even though, strictly speaking, the term should still mean ‘copy,’ given that Pseudo-Aristeas uses, as we have seen, the word ἑρμηνεία, and indeed he does it again in paragraph 12018. In paragraph 121, however, it is stressed that those chosen by Eleazar for the interpretation were not only honest and illustrious men, of course good experts of the Jewish letters (τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραμμάτων ἕξιν περιεποίησαν), but they were also interested in the Greek style in depth (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἐφρόντισαν οὐ παρέργως κατασκευῆς) and were therefore especially suited to embassies19. As a result - and this is very important to detect - theirs was not a dusty bilingualism, simply bookish, but alive and dynamic, based on an effective knowledge of Greek culture and as such had to be also their translation20. Finally the word ἑρμηνεία recurs again towards the end of the letter (§ 301: Demetrius urges the seventy-two to make their work, παρεκάλει τοὺς ἄνδρας τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐπιτελεῖν; in § 303 we have another word, ἀναγραφή, because Demetrius oversees the ‘transcription’ of the translation). Finally in the paragraphs 307-308 we find the similar expressions τὰ τῆς μεταγραφῆς and τὰ τῆς ἑρμηνείας used as if they were interchangeable (by a divine plan the work of translation lasts, how many the translators are, seventy-two days and at the end Demetrius gives a public reading involving all the Jews in Alexandria - a detail of course more than any other as celebratory as imaginative -, also in the presence of the top experts, namely all the seventytwo interpreters, παρόντων καὶ τῶν διερμηνευσάντων).

On this oscillation of μεταγραφή between the meanings of ‘translation’ and ‘transcription’ see Wright III (2008), p. 156. 19 In Saggezza straniera Momigliano (1980), p. 24 wrote: “Gaetano Salvemini [1873-1957, Italian historian, politician, socialist, meridionalist, anti-fascist] sosteneva che Mussolini finì rovinosamente perché diceva sempre ‘Ja’ a Hitler nel momento sbagliato. Essendo vanitoso, Mussolini non voleva ammettere che il suo tedesco fosse inadeguato ad un colloquio diplomatico.” 20 On the whole Septuagint as alive translation Averincev (1998), p. 53 observed: “i traduttori volevano che la loro opera fosse percepita vivamente dal lettore alessandrino, chiunque egli fosse: elleno o giudeo (...) i dettagli della vita palestinese fissati nel testo della Bibbia sono sistematicamente sostituiti dalle condizioni dell’Egitto ellenistico.” According to the previous Bickerman (1959), p. 37 “yet the paradox remains that the Septuagint version is literal and free at the same time. It often follows the original slavishly as to wording, syntax and style, but changes the meaning of the original.” In this sense Bickerman and Averincev (1937-2004) do not appear in strong contrast among them. 18

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

15

Compared to the Roman or Latin literature since its origins (see the bilingual Livius Andronicus, the famous author/translator of the Latin Odyssia, or the same Ennius21, which Suetonius gramm. 1 writes that were experts both in Greek and Latin, utraque lingua docuisse) of translatingimitative kind22 and therefore based on a bilingual educated class, the Greeks before Alexandria and the Ptolemies (with their lettered Museum), to what we know, did not devote themselves almost never to translation23. And after all 21

It seems that Ennius - Gellius reminds us briefly (17.17.1) - spoke even three languages (Greek, Oscan and Latin). Gellius uses in his account the verb loqui (in the heading of the chapter we have the more generic percallescere): so this would be a trilingualism, so to say, ‘alive.’ This trilingualism made Ennius say to have three souls (tria corda). Ennius anyway, perhaps not casually a Messapic native speaker, contributed greatly to the formation of an autonomous literary Latin language or less indebted to the Hellenic. It should be parenthetically mentioned here that in the same chapter Gellius largely cites the case of king Mithridates VI of Pontus who would have mastered the language of twenty-two nations dominated by him having never needed interpreters. 22 July 30, 1822 G. Leopardi briefly and sharply wrote: “la letteratura greca fu per lungo tempo (anzi lunghissimo) l’unica del mondo (allora ben noto): e la latina (quand’ella sorse) naturalissimamente non fu degnata dai greci, essendo ella derivata in tutto dalla greca; e molto meno fu da essi imitata” (Damiani [1997], p. 1652). The Romans, great and skillful imitators, reflected at length on the secrets of their art and of public success. In his Ars poetica the Augustan lyric poet Horace says to prefer the known to the unknown: so the originality of literature would derive not from the content but from the form, from not translating word for word (133-134 nec verbo verbum curabis reddere fidus/interpres). [Here is already in nuce the concept of belle infidèle, used by Gilles Ménage (1613-1692) on the translation of Lucian by Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt, 1654, and subsequently by Vincenzo Monti (19.2.1754-13.10.1828)]. But already Cic. fin. 3.4.15 in a famous passage in the same way invites not to use a literal translation (nec tamen exprimi verbum e verbo necesse erit) as it happens to those that he calls interpretes indiserti (“interpreters or translators without speech”) and to possibly use circumlocutions, and, if necessary, to use, with real bilingualism, the Greek original words. The classic method of translation, according to the meaning and not the single words, was adopted by the Christian authors, as for example Saint Jerome, ep. 57.5, who cites both Cicero (translator of Plato, Protagoras, Xenophon, Economics, Aeschines and Demosthenes) and Horace and finally the comic poets Terence, translator of Menander, Plautus and Caecilius Statius. 23 For some scattered indications see first of all the old Bickerman (1959), p. 14, n. 26, especially on medicine and mathematics. Without even mentioning the case of Democritus (see below) and referring to G. Folena (1991, p. 8), F. Laurenti (2015), p. 19 ranks certainly in the Alexandrian era the first Greek translations (such as the Rosetta Stone and the Egyptian sources translated into his Greek work by the priest Manetho), works of those Greeks who had previously always considered ‘barbarians’ (lower) the other peoples and their language/culture. In fact, before Alexandria, one of the few possible exceptions is the translation of the famous Ahiqar’s stele by Democritus (on which see for example H. Wilsdorf [1991]), an event questioned however among others by Eduard Meyer (1912), pp. 124-125, according to which in any case others must have translated into Greek, and Ionic, Ahiqar (and the translation would have been then transmitted for error between the works of the atomist), and by E.J. Bickerman (1991), p. 148, according to which Democritus simply knew the version in Aramaic but did not translate it. The source of the news is Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.15.69.4/5), therefore a witness rather late (he died at the beginning of

16

Giuseppe Solaro

the Romans themselves would have begun with their bilingualism applied to literature (epic and theater), the so-called ‘artistic translation,’ in the Hellenistic period, because this is the first true period, so to speak, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, of increased crossing of races and cultures, as Arnaldo Momigliano (5.9.1908-1.9.1987) well saw. In 1975, in Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization, stressing the Greek presumptuousness he wrote (I quote from Momigliano [1980], p. 9): “la civiltà ellenistica rimase greca nel linguaggio, nei costumi, e soprattutto nella presunzione (...) Ma durante il III e II secolo a.C. emersero degli indirizzi di pensiero che ridussero la distanza tra i Greci e gli altri popoli (...) Ciò significò che Ebrei, Romani, Egiziani [whose language and writing were for the Greeks very cryptic], Fenici, Babilonesi e perfino Indiani (gli editti di Asoka) fecero il loro ingresso nella letteratura greca” (so for example the Babylonian priest Berossus or Berosus, already a contemporary of Alexander the Great, wrote to king Antiochus I Soter of Syria [281/280-261 BCE] a History of Babylon in three books in Greek). Of course they always had to be the others, the barbarians, to convert to Greek: bilingualism was so always unidirectional and Hellenocentric. Real understanding and dialogue were not certainly facilitated. Momigliano added, p. 10: “i Greci si trovavano raramente in condizione di

the third century) but circumstantial, that according to M.J. Luzzatto would date back even to the same Democritus (in my opinion probably Clement says that Democritus in his work carefully distinguished between his translation of Ahiqar and personal thoughts introduced by the clear phrase τάδε λέγει Δημόκριτος). Furthermore - an even more important consideration - the underlying issue is whether Democritus really traveled so much, as our sources, beginning with Diogenes Laertius, report. After all, as already Samuel Johnson back in 1759 noted on “The Idler” No. 68, Saturday, 4 August, the Greeks while traveling (into Egypt) did not translate (from the Egyptian language). Against the idea diffused mainly by A. Momigliano that the Greeks did not translate L. Canfora (1989) has stated that an activity of translation (and more generally a certain bilingualism) had begun in ancient literature before Hellenism (he does not adduce the possible example of Democritus). Among other examples Canfora remembers what the ancient sources (from Thucydides 1.138.1) say on the famous (and, according to us, exceptional) learning of Persian by Themistocles (anyway not for cultural but practical reasons, politically connected with the exile of the Athenian statesman, as already observed by M. Dubuisson [1982], p. 16; cf. M.F. Baslez [2008], p. 186 “le bilinguisme des Grecs reste exceptionnel”). Canfora recognizes, however, that “la grande svolta” would have happened with the Macedonian expansion (in his view already with Alexander the Great, although he mentions the very suspected case of Mar Abas Catina, quoted by Moses of Choren [fifth century AD], History of the Armenians 1.9, according to which Mar Abas Catina would have found in the royal archives of Nineveh a book translated from Chaldean/cuneiform to Greek on the orders of Alexander). He ultimately believes that the Ptolemies really promoted both the translation of the Zoroastrian corpus (see above note 4) and of the Torah (this second initiative, basically witnessed by the Letter of Aristeas, for the Alexandrian Jewish community of the Diaspora, in order to better know their subjects).

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

17

verificare quanto gli indigeni raccontavano, poiché non conoscevano la loro lingua. Questi ultimi, d’altra parte, essendo bilingui, avevano un’acuta percezione di quanto i Greci volevano sentire da loro, e si esprimevano di conseguenza. Questo atteggiamento degli uni verso gli altri non giovò né alla sincerità né all’autentica comprensione”24. We can console ourselves thinking 24

In the same year (1975) he also asserted with even greater emphasis in The Fault of the Greeks (= Momigliano [1980], p. 162): “i Greci rimasero orgogliosamente monoglotti, come erano stati tranne rare eccezioni, per secoli. Conversare coi nativi nella loro lingua non era affare per loro; ignoravano la letteratura latina e quella ebraica; non avevano una tradizione di versioni in greco di libri stranieri. La Bibbia dei Settanta fu tradotta quasi certamente da Ebrei, di loro iniziativa, e solo più tardi attribuita all’iniziativa di Tolomeo II Filadelfo.” In the opinion of Momigliano (1987), p. 22 it was therefore “Gerusalemme, e non Alessandria, il luogo dove si giocò il futuro del giudaismo” (from the famous essay Ebrei e Greci, initially published in 1976 in Rivista Storica Italiana, 88, 425-443 and then [1980] in Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, t. II [pp. 527-549]. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). According to the Piedmontese historian, who did not believe in the translation projects of the cultured king Ptolemy II, the Jews learned Greek because they had to talk with Macedonian officials, but when emigrated to Egypt, they forgot both Hebrew and Aramaic. After all Tcherikover [1959], p. 348 had already written that “the Egyptian Jews had ceased to understand Hebrew” and that the Septuagint was made “to provide them with the Pentateuch” in Greek, that is the language they spoke (ultimately what he had said at the time a genius like Hody): cf. recently Grabbe [2008], p. 156 “the Septuagint was created for Jews whose home was the Hellenistic world and the Hellenistic language.” As known the same Tcherikover [1958, published in Hebrew in 1945] thought that the Letter of Aristeas, notoriously in his opinion not a piece of propaganda, was addressed not to Greek, but to Jewish readers. From a different perspective, perhaps more ingenuous, Aryeh Kasher (1985), p. 5 wrote: “despite the tinge of legend coloring the story [of the Letter: a legend, for example, also for McNamara (1983), p. 231], it is hard to doubt the fact that intellectual circles at the Ptolemaic court found the values of Judaism of great interest, which led to the production of the Septuagint.” But already according to Moses Hadas (1951), pp. 57-58 the Letter was “an imaginative treatment of history” and so had historical verisimilitude (not intrinsically improbable also according to L. Rost [1971] and Soggin [1989], p. 24). More recently Sylvie Honigman (2003), pp. 88-116 and Tessa Rajak consider royal involvment plausible (contra Carleton Paget, J. [2014]. The origins of the Septuagint. In J.K. Aitken, & J. Carleton Paget [Eds.], The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire [pp. 105-119]). Arie van der Kooij (2007) thinks that the translation could only have been done by scholars called from Jerusalem for the express, scholarly purpose of placing it in the Alexandrian library and Natalio Fernández Marcos (2009) also sees the Ptolemaic library as the most likely milieu for the work. Already in 2000 also Nina L. Collins (“not convincing” according to Wright III [2011], p. 304, n. 3), who was persuaded that Demetrius of Phalerum had really worked as a librarian at the court of Ptolemy II, believed that the translation (completed in 281-280 BCE) had been made “basically in the way that Aristeas describes” (and therefore on a non-Jewish but Greek initiative, destined to enrich the library of Alexandria: according to her the evidence for the prevalence of Aramaic among the Jews of this time suggests that the Jews did not need a translation into Greek; interestingly Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua [2002], p. 117, reviewing N.L. Collins, notes that “sono più di 70 i testi dei Padri che pongono la traduzione del Pentateuco in greco sotto Tolemeo II” and that those who report a date “non dipendono né da Aristea né da Aristobulo, che non ne forniscono alcuna”). See also Staikos (2000), p. 71, n. 22: “the events described by Aristeas cannot be fictitious.”

18

Giuseppe Solaro

to the Ptolemies and their universalizing mentality, to the beautiful numbers given by Tzetzes on the consistency of the Alexandrian library, to the fabulous Septuagint as told by Ps.-Aristeas, but this is the account of an essential failure, the account of a persisting monolingualism of the Greeks during the kingdoms of the Diadochi. Maybe pessimism of the Hebrew Momigliano will have its weight in this kind of judgments, but his vision is today again historically founded25. Before Momigliano, in the years 1971-1973 Sergej S.

25

Differently E.S. Gruen (1998), p. 209 does not believe in the story of Ps.-Aristeas and comments: “the Jewish law code was hardly of burning interest to the Ptolemaic court. The number of Jews in Alexandria at the time of Philadelphus would not have been large enough to provoke a state-sponsored enterprise of this scale.” Radically for Hody’s vision and therefore for Aristeas’ text as fiction is Wevers (1985). Towards a complete lack of historicity of the Letter inclines also Benjamin G. Wright III (2015): according to him the origins of the LXX remain clouded and the text of the Letter simply offers us a foundation myth. As to the land of Israel (thus leaving Alexandria and his almost mythical library), against the famous views of Martin Hengel (1973), L.H. Feldman (1986) wrote that in the period from Alexander’s conquest to the Maccabean revolt and even thereafter the influence of Greek culture upon the Jews was not really deep, because the predominant language was not Greek but Aramaic syde by syde with Hebrew (in Upper Galilee, in particular, to judge from the inscriptions, there would have been little Hellenization). For a different point of view, based on archaeology, numismatics, and generally on the material culture, in relationship already to the centuries before the conquest of Alexander the Great, see D. Auscher (1967). But in the seventies and eighties of the last century a strong debate took place on the issue of Hellenization in pre-Hasmonean Palestine: on the one side were those who claimed an important level of external influence (for example Bickerman, Hengel and Goldstein [1981]); on the other were those who minimized such influence, for example Tcherikover (1959), followed by others and by Sandmel (1977). About Hengel and his critics see the critical summary by L.L. Grabbe (2008), pp. 128-132 (on Feldman he notes “a reluctance to accept the idea of Palestinian Jews being Hellenized”). On the relations between Greeks and Jews (including the one certainly impossible in Egypt between Plato and Jeremiah, who lived more than two centuries before, something which at first believed also Augustine, who then corrected himself), even long before Alexander in the Persian period, Bickerman (1991) refers to the theoretical medium of Aramaic, a very international language (thus possibly in his opinion a Greek/Aramaic bilingualism). But “rimane tuttavia il fatto - he writes and summarizes (p. 40) - che il Popolo Eletto ed i suoi eroi non sono mai menzionati nella letteratura classica greca. Nessun viaggiatore greco in oriente, né Erodoto né Ctesia, rivolse la minima attenzione a Gerusalemme o alla sua Divinità” (about Herodotus, who still was in Tyre but not in Jerusalem, it is not only apparently true: in fact he mentions twice Palestine but he does about the Syrians and he probably does not know the name Ἰουδαῖοι, as the American philologist, also an expert on Roman law, Max Radin pointed out already in 1915, remarking that the Ionian historian “obviously writes at second hand” [p. 80]; furthermore R.H. Pfeiffer (1937), p. 91 observed that “direct contacts between Greeks and Hebrews before 348 B.C. are not recorded in our extant literary sources”). Generally about the classical period of the same opinion of Bickerman and if possible even more categorical was already A. Momigliano (1980), pp. 80-82 (Jews and Greeks would not have been able to communicate because the Greeks were stubbornly monolingual and the Jews bilingual but Hebrew/Aramaic). Something seemed to change with the Peripatetic school (to which must be added the historian and geographer, ambassador of Seleucus I, Megasthenes, ᾽Ινδικά FGrH 715 F 3 = Clem. Alex. Strom.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

19

Averincev wrote (1998), p. 47: “nei confronti dell’Oriente il greco poteva mostrare curiosità, desiderio di conoscenza, costruire profonde congetture e supposizioni, entusiasmarsi, ma lo studio pratico di una delle lingue orientali gli appariva nella schiacciante maggioranza dei casi un’impresa impensabile” (Averincev gives the famous example of the name ‘Jerusalem’ according to Clearchus of Soli difficult to pronounce).

CONCLUSION But back in Rome, where differently it was not a bilingualism merely intended to interpretation: so the Roman chroniclers Quintus Fabius Pictor (flourished c. 200 BCE), Lucius Cincius Alimentus (praetor in Sicily in 210 BCE), Gaius Acilius (senator in 155 BCE at the latest), Publius Rutilius Rufus (born in 158 BCE at the latest), to give just some examples, decided to write their works in Greek (for a restricted cultivated audience, politically dominant, able to accept them). About this cultural phenomenon it has been remarked: “si può dire insomma che il ceto colto romano sia divenuto sempre più e sia rimasto a lungo e stabilmente bilingue”26: a great demonstration of opening

26

1.15.72.5, who alludes to the philosophical knowledge of the Jews of Syria) despite inaccuracies and errors and above all with the Pyrrhonian Hecataeus of Abdera, who lived at the time of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I and who considered the Jews a people hostile but able to adapt to various rulers (Bickerman did not raise the question of the authenticity of the work, perhaps not Hecataeus’ but by a Hellenized Jew, On Jews, quoted in ancient times mainly by Flavius Josephus and one time by Origenes). Anyway after Hecataeus the already low Hellenic interest in Judaism would be dropped (naturally the Septuagint could represent an important change). In this regard come to mind the famous words of Tertullian (II-III centuries AD) who meditates upon the experience of the Apostle Paul and wonders (De praescr. haer. 7): Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? What Athens and Jerusalem have in common? But a little before the Neoplatonic and Neopythagorean Syrian philosopher Numenius of Apamea (2nd century AD), certainly exaggerating, according to Eusebius would have said ‘Τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων’; (fr. 8.14 des Places), that is: “For what is Plato if not a Moses speaking Attic?”. We note that had to surrender to some historical relationship between the Greek world and Judaism even the Russian Jew existentialist Lev Isaakovič Šestov in his famous essay of 1938 Athens and Jerusalem (where Athens is the reason and Jerusalem the feeling). L. Canfora (1994), p. 23. His judgement appears clearly more appropriate for the Latin world (and literature) than for the Hellenic. B. Rochette (1995), p. 6 instead associates Romans and Greeks (“pourtant si curieux des coutumes et des caractères des peuples qui les entourent”) in the general lack of a very cultural interest in foreign languages and literatures. On the Romans he writes (p. 12): “c’est la matière traitée, non la langue qui intéresse les Romains.” This looks very simplistic especially if you think of authors like Cicero and Lucretius (and what the latter says about the egestas of the Latin language deeply reflecting on the difficulties of a poetic translation of the Greek scientific and

20

Giuseppe Solaro

(especially towards the defeated Greeks) and at the same time a profound difference in comparison with certain exclusiveness of the ‘classic’ Greek intellectual and culture. And to well realize how this Greek-Latin bilingualism of a cultured Roman man was a really living thing you can only read for instance the letters of Cicero where the famous orator (“styled ‘philhellene’ by both himself and others” - as once Alan Wardman remarked), translator in youth of the didactic Aratus of Soli, often embeds Greek words of his own invention (as for example the very rare συμφιλολογεῖν in Cic. Fam. 16.21.8 reinforced by the Latin adverb una) and that his educated correspondents were evidently able to understand (in the mentioned case it is the ex-slave Tiro). Anyway the Romans - obviously the aristocratic class - not only wrote but also spoke in Greek and talked in Greek to Greeks (while it did not happen the opposite case). Many examples are remembered by Momigliano in Alien Wisdom. Even the champion of Italic-Roman conservatism, Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 BCE), big opponent of the Hellenistic circle of Scipio, allegedly gave a public speech in Athens in Greek, praising the virtues of the ancient Athenians and the beauty of their city. But Plutarch, who did not believe the news, writes that he could have done it if he had only wanted (Plut. Cato maior 12.4). Before Plutarch also Cornelius Nepos succinctly noted (Cato 3.2): neque de Graecis neque de Italicis rebus, quod ei fuerit incognitum. Evidently the traditionalist Romans loved deeply know the enemy (beginning with language and literature) and in fact our Cato the Elder also explained to his son Marcus to have well known the bad Greeks (and their doctors murderers), according to which the others are all barbarians (barbari), during his stay in Athens (Libri ad filium, fr. 1 Jordan). But maybe one of the most interesting ancient evidence of opening to the other (in linguistic and cultural sense) is that offered by Quintilian (1.1.12-14). Of course it concerns the teaching of the Greek language at the time of the rhetorician of Calahorra. Quintilian here proposes that the Roman puer begins (!) to learn Greek, given that Latin is already the most used language (pluribus in usu est). But Greek should not completely prevail, especially to avoid mispronunciation. So the Hispanic rhetorician imagines a kind of perfect bilingualism and says: Latina subsequi debent et cito pariter ire. The Roman school of Quintilian, not wanting therefore to give up the Greek classical heritage, aimed precisely at this balance (pariter ire), at this going hand in philosophical discoveries). Very differently Fernández Marcos (2000), p. 18 writes: “in the West, the translating tradition really began with the Romans when faced with the Greek literary legacy which they considered to be culturally superior.” As to the Septuagint he thinks that was made by Jews and for Jews, by bilingual Orientals and not by Greeks.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

21

hand of Greek and Latin in the training of children. A fundamental suggestion for those who would destroy the indissoluble link that we find today in the Italian ‘Liceo Classico’: exactly the multiform tie between Greeks and Romans.

REFERENCES Aitken, J.K., & Carleton Paget, J. (Eds.) (2014). The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Auscher, D. (1967). Les relations entre la Grèce et la Palestine avant la conquête d’Alexandre. Vetus Testamentum, 17, 8-30. Averincev, S.S. (1998). Atene e Gerusalemme. Contrapposizione e incontro di due principi creativi. Roma: Donzelli editore. Bagnall, R.S. (2002). Alexandria: Library of Dreams. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 146, 348-362. Banfi, A. (2010). Sovranità della legge. La legislazione di Demetrio del Falero ad Atene (317-307 a.C.). Milano: Giuffrè Editore. Barclay, J.M.G. (1996). Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE). Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Barthélemy, D. (1974). Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec? In M. Black, & W.A. Smalley (Eds.), On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (pp. 23-41). The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Bartlett, J.R. (1985). Jews in the Hellenistic World. Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bartlett, J.R. (Ed.) (2002). Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. LondonNew York: Routledge. Baslez, M.-F. (2008). L’Étranger dans la Grèce antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Berti, M., & Costa, V. (2010). La Biblioteca di Alessandria. Storia di un paradiso perduto. Tivoli (Roma): Edizioni TORED. Bettini, M. (2012). Vertere. Un’antropologia della traduzione nella cultura antica. Torino: Einaudi. Bevan, E.R. (1927). Hellenistic Judaism. In E.R. Bevan, & C. Singer (Eds.), The Legacy of Israel (pp. 29-67). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

22

Giuseppe Solaro

Bickerman, E.J. (1930). Zur Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 29, 280-298. Bickerman, E.J. (1959). The Septuagint as a Translation. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 28, 1-39. Bickerman, E.J. (1991). Gli Ebrei in età greca. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino (tr. it. di The Jews in the Greek Age, Harvard University Press, 1988). Bickerman, E.J. (2007). Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2 vols.), a new edition in English including The God of the Maccabees, intr. by M. Hengel, ed. by A. Tropper. Leiden: Brill. Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L., & Zahle, J. (Eds.) (1992). Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Boccaccini, G. (1991). Middle Judaism. Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Box, G.H. (1932). Judaism in the Greek Period, from the Rise of Alexander the Great to the Intervention of Rome (333-63 B.C.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Calabi, F. (1995). Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, intr., trad. e note, testo greco a fronte. Milano: BUR. Calabi, F. (2010). Storia del pensiero giudaico ellenistico. Brescia: Morcelliana. Canfora, L. (1986). La biblioteca scomparsa. Palermo: Sellerio. Canfora, L. (1987). Ellenismo. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Canfora, L. (1988). Le biblioteche ellenistiche. In G. Cavallo (Ed.), Le biblioteche nel mondo antico e medievale (pp. 5-28). Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza. Canfora, L. (1989). La traduzione: prima e dopo Alessandria. In Una società premoderna. Lavoro morale scrittura in Grecia (pp. 209-220). Bari: Edizioni Dedalo. Canfora, L. (1994). Roma “città greca.” Quaderni di Storia, 39, 5-41. Canfora, L. (1996). Il viaggio di Aristea. Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza. Carleton Paget, J. (2010). Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Charles, R. (2009). Hybridity and the Letter of Aristeas. Journal for the Study of Judaism, 40, 242-259. Charlesworth, J.H. (Ed.) (1985). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Clauss, J.J., & Cuypers, M. (Eds.) (2010). A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

23

Collins, J.J. (2000). Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Grand Rapids (Mich.)-Cambridge, UK-Livonia (Mich.): W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Dove Booksellers, second edition (1983). Collins, J.J., & Sterling, G.E. (Eds.) (2001). Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Collins, N.L. (2000). The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. LXXXII). Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill Academic Publishers. Damiani, R. (Ed.) (1997). G. Leopardi: Zibaldone, t. secondo. Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Davies, W.D., & Finkelstein, L. (Eds.) (1990). The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2, The Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Crom, D. (2008). The Letter of Aristeas and the Authority of the Septuagint. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 17, 141-160. De Luna, M.E. (2003). La comunicazione linguistica fra alloglotti nel mondo greco. Da Omero a Senofonte. Pisa: ETS. Denis, A.-M., & Haelewyck, J.-C. (Eds.) (2000). Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique: pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament. Turnhout: Brepols. Dogniez, C. (1995). Bibliography of the Septuagint. Bibliographie de la Septante (1970-1993). Leiden-New York- Köln: E.J. Brill. Dorival, G. (1988). Les origines de la Septante: la traduction en grec des cinq livres de la Torah. In M. Harl, G. Dorival, & O. Munnich (Eds.), La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien. Paris: Éditions du Cerf/Éditions du CNRS. Dubuisson, M. (1982). Remarques sur le vocabulaire grec de l’acculturation. Revue belgique de philologie et d’histoire, 60, 5-32. Erskine, A. (1995). Culture and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The Museum and Library of Alexandria. Greece & Rome, Second Series, 42, 38-48. Feldman, L.H. (1986). How much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine? Hebrew Union College Annual, 57, 83-111. Feldman, L.H. (1993). Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Feldman, L.H., & Reinhold, M. (Eds.) (1996). Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Feldman, L.H. (2006). Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

24

Giuseppe Solaro

Fernández Marcos, N. (2000). The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill. Fernández Marcos, N. (2002). Review of N. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill Academic Publishers. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 33, 97–101. Fernández Marcos, N. (2009). The Greek Pentateuch and the Scholarly Milieu of Alexandria. Semitica et Classica, 2, 81-89. Filoramo, G. (Ed.) (2006). Ebraismo (third edition). Roma-Bari: Laterza. Fischer, J. (1926). Zur Septuaginta-Vorlage im Pentateuch. Giessen: A. Töpelmann. Folena, G. (1991). Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi. Fortenbaugh, W.W., & Schütrumpf, E. (Eds.) (2000). Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Fraser, P.M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gager, J.G. (1972). Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Gilbert, G.H. (1909). The Hellenization of the Jews between 334 B.C. and 70 A.D. The American Journal of Theology, 13, 520-540. Goldstein, J.A. (1981). Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism. In E.P. Sanders, A.I. Baumgarten, & A. Mendelson (Eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. II: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (pp. 64-87, 318-326). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Goldstein, J.A. (1990). Semites, Iranians, Greeks, and Romans. Studies in their Interactions. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Goldstein, J.A. (1991). The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates in the Second Century BCE: Obey the Torah, Venerate the Temple of Jerusalem, but Speak Greek and Put Hopes in the Ptolemaic Dynasty. In M. Mor (Ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel, and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations (pp. 123). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Goldstein, J.A. (1993). Alexander and the Jews. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 59, 59-101. Gooding, D.W. (1963). Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies. Vetus Testamentum, 13, 357 –379. Grabbe, L.L. (1992). The Jews and Hellenization. In Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (pp. 147-170). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Grabbe, L.L. (1995). Hellenistic Judaism. In J. Neusner (Ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part two: Historical Syntheses (pp. 53-83). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

25

Grabbe, L.L. (2008). A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. II. The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE). London: T&T Clark. Green, P. (Ed.) (1993). Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Gruen, E. S. (1998). Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Gruen, E.S. (2001). Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity. In I. Malkin (Ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (pp. 347-373). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gruen, E.S. (2002). Diaspora. Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gruen, E.S. (2010). Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gruen, E.S. (2011). Jews and Greeks as Philosophers: A Challenge to Otherness. In D.C. Harlow, K. Martin Hogan, M. Goff, & J.S. Kaminsky (Eds.), The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (pp. 402-422). Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Gruen, E.S. (2013). The Letter of Aristeas. In L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, & L.H. Schiffman (Eds.), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, vol. 3 (pp. 2711-2768). Lincoln/Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press/The Jewish Publication Society. Gzella, H. (2002). Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit: Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie des Septuaginta-Psalters. Berlin: Philo. Haag, E. (2003). Das hellenistische Zeitalter: Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Hadas, M. (1951). Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper & Brothers. Hadas, M. (1959). Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. New York: Columbia University Press. Harrison, T. (1998). Herodotus’ conception of foreign languages. Histos, 2, 145. Hayward, C.T.R. (1996). The Jewish Temple. A non-biblical sourcebook. London and New York: Routledge. Hengel, M. (1973). Judentum und Hellenismus. Second revised and enlarged edition (1969). Tübingen: Mohr. Hengel, M. (1976). Juden, Griechen und Barbaren. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag.

26

Giuseppe Solaro

Hölbl, G. (2001). A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (German edition 1994). London-New York: Routledge. Honigman, S. (2003). The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London & New York: Routledge. Honigman, S. (2007). The Narrative Function of the King and the Library in the Letter of Aristeas. In T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken, & J. Dines (Eds.), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (pp. 128-146). Berkeley: University of California Press. Howard, G. (1971). “The Letter of Aristeas” and Diaspora Judaism. The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 22, 337-348. Jaeger, W. (1938). Greeks and Jews. The Journal of Religion, 18, 127-143. Jellicoe, S. (1961). Aristeas, Philo and the Septuagint Vorlage. The Journal of Theological Studies, 12, 261-271. Jellicoe, S. (1965-1966). The Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-examination. New Testament Studies, 12, 144-150. Johnson, S.R. (2005). Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Kahle, P.E. (1959). The Cairo Geniza. Second edition (1947). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Kaiser, O. (1982). Judentum und Hellenismus. Vorträge und Forschungen, 27, 68-88. Kaiser, W. (1998). A History of Israel. From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Kasher, A. (1985). The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal Rights, revised and translated from the Hebrew original (Tel Aviv University 1978). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Klijn, A.F.J. (1964-1965). The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt. New Testament Studies, 11, 154-158. Koster, W.J.W. (1975). Scholia in Acharnenses, Equites, Nubes. Fasc. I A continens Prolegomena de comoedia. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis. Kovelman, A. (2005). Between Alexandria and Jerusalem. The Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Kraus Reggiani, C. (1979). La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate. Introduzione, esame analitico, traduzione. Roma: Università di Roma, Istituto di Filologia Classica. Kraus Reggiani, C. (1982). I frammenti di Aristobulo, esegeta biblico. Bolletino dei Classici, third series, 3, 87-134.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

27

Kraus Reggiani, C. (2008). Storia della letteratura giudaico-ellenistica. Milano-Udine: Mimesis Edizioni. Kyle McCarter jr., P. (2011). Dualism in Antiquity. In A. Lange, E.M. Meyers, B.H. Reynolds III, & R. Styers (Eds.), Light Against Darkness (pp. 1935). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Laras, G. (2006). Storia del pensiero ebraico nell’età antica. Firenze: Editrice La Giuntina. Laurenti, F. (2015). Tradurre: Storie, teorie, pratiche dall’antichità al XIX secolo. Roma: Armando. Levine, L.I. (1998). Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity. Conflict or Confluence? Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Lods, A. (1939). La rencontre du judaïsme et de la civilisation gréco-romaine. In La religion d’Israël (pp. 210-245). Paris: Hachette. MacLeod, R. (2000). The Library of Alexandria. Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. London-New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Magnani, A. (2007). Gli Acta Isidori e la Lettera di Aristea. In J. Frösén, T. Purola, & E. Salmenkivi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1st-7th of August 2004 (vol. II, pp. 595-613). Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Marcus, R. (1956). The Hellenistic Age. In L.W. Schwarz (Ed.), Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People (pp. 95-139). New York: Random House. Mariotti, S. (1986). Livio Andronico e la traduzione artistica. Seconda edizione (1952). Urbino: Università degli Studi. Matusova, E. (2015). The meaning of the Letter of Aristea. In light of biblical interpretation and grammatical tradition, and with reference to its historical context. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. McKechnie P., & Guillaume, P. (Eds.) (2008). Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World. Leiden-Boston: Brill. McNamara, M. (1983). Intertestamental Literature. Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier. Meecham, H.G. (1932). The Oldest Version of the Bible: Aristeas on its traditional origin. A study in early apologetic with translation and appendices. London: Holborn Publishing House. Meisner, N. (1973). “Aristeasbrief.” In W.G. Kümmel (Ed.), Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, 2.1 (pp. 35-88). Gütersloh: G. Mohn. Mélèze Modrzejewski, J. (1991). Les Juifs d’Égypte. De Ramsès II à Hadrien. Paris: Éditions Errance (2e éd., revue et complétée, Paris, PUF, 1997).

28

Giuseppe Solaro

Meyer, E. (1912). Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Millar, F.G.B. (1978). The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel’s “Judaism and Hellenism.” Journal of Jewish Studies, 29, 1-21. Mimouni, S.C. (2015). Le judaïsme ancien du VIe siècle avant notre ère au IIIe siècle de notre ère: des prêtres aux rabbins. Paris: PUF. Momigliano, A. (1932). Per la data e la caratteristica della Lettera di Aristea. Aegyptus, 12, 161-172. Momigliano, A. (1970). Review of M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. Journal of Theological Studies, 21, 149-153. Momigliano, A. (1971). The Development of Greek Biography. Four Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (tr. it. di G. Donini, Lo sviluppo della biografia greca, Torino, Einaudi, 1974). Momigliano, A. (1975). The Fault of the Greeks. Daedalus, 104, 9-19 (tr. it. L’errore dei Greci in Saggezza straniera, 1980, pp. 157-174). Momigliano, A. (1980). Saggezza straniera. Torino: Einaudi. Momigliano, A. (1981). Greek Culture and the Jews. In M.I. Finley (Ed.), The Legacy of Greece: A New Appraisal (pp. 325-346). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Momigliano, A. (1987). Ebrei e Greci. In Pagine Ebraiche (pp. 13-31). Torino: Einaudi. Motzo, B.R. (1915). Aristea. Torino: Fratelli Bocca. Mullen, A., & James, P. (Eds.) (2012). Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Murray, O. (1967). Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship. The Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 18, 337-371. Murray, O. (1975). Aristeas and his Sources. In E.A. Livingstone (Ed.), Papers presented to the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1971 (= Studia Patristica 12, pp. 123-128). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Murray, O. (1987). The Letter of Aristeas. In B. Virgilio (Ed.), Studi Ellenistici, II. Pisa: Giardini. Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A.J., & Green, W.S. (Eds.) (2005). Encyclopaedia of Judaism. Second edition. LeidenBoston: Brill. Niehoff, M.R. (2011). Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nilsson, M.P. (1941). The Historical Hellenistic Background of the New Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

29

Oesterley, W.O.E. (1941). The Jews and Judaism during the Greek period: the background of Christianity. London-New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge/The Macmillan Company. Orlinsky, H.M. (1975). The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators. Hebrew Union College Annual, 46, 89-114. Parente, F. (1972). La Lettera di Aristea come fonte per la storia del giudaismo alessandrino durante la prima metà del I secolo a.C. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, third series, 2, 177-237 and 517-567. Parente, F. (1993). Gerusalemme. In G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, & D. Lanza (Eds.), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, I.2: L’Ellenismo (pp. 553624). Roma: Salerno Editrice. Passoni Dell’Acqua, A. (2002). I LXX nella biblioteca di Alessandria. Adamantius, 8, 114–126. Pelletier, A. (1962). Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, introduction, texte critique, traduction et note, index complet des mots grecs. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Pfeiffer, R.H. (1937). Hebrews and Greeks before Alexander. Journal of Biblical Literature, 56, 91-101. Préaux, C. (1978). Le monde hellénistique. Paris: PUF. Radice, R. (1995). La filosofia di Aristobulo e i suoi nessi con il “De mundo” attribuito ad Aristotele. Con due Appendici contenenti i frammenti di Aristobulo, traduzione a fronte e presentazione delle varianti. Second revised and enlarged edition (1994). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Radin, M. (1915). The Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Rajak, T. (2002). The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome. Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. Boston-Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Rajak, T. (2008). Translating the Septuagint for Ptolemy’s Library: Myth and History. In M. Karrer, & W. Kraus (Eds.), Die Septuaginta. Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23 Juli 2006 (pp. 176-193). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rajak, T. (2009). Translation & Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rappaport, U. (2012). The Letter of Aristeas Again. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, 21, 285-303.

30

Giuseppe Solaro

Rochette, B. (1995). Grecs et Latins face aux langues étrangères. Contribution à l’étude de la diversité linguistique dans l’antiquité classique. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 73, 5-16. Rochette, B. (1998). Le bilinguisme gréco-latin et la question des langues dans le monde gréco-romain. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 76, 177196. Rost, L. (1971). Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, einschliesslich der grossen Qumran-Handschriften. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Sacchi, P. (1994). Storia del Secondo Tempio. Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale. Saebø, M. (Ed.) (1996). Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 1: Antiquity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sandmel, S. (1977). Hellenism and Judaism. In S.M. Wagner, & A.D. Breck (Eds.), Great Confrontations in Jewish History (pp. 21-38). Denver: Denver University Press. Saulnier, C., & Perrot, C. (1985). Histoire d’Israël. III. De la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du temple (331 a.C.-135 a.D.). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Schürer, E. (1985-1998). Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesù Cristo (175 a.C.-135 d.C.). Brescia: Paideia. Schwabl, H. & al. (1962). Grecs et Barbares. Genève: Fondation Hardt (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique, vol. VIII). Scott, I.W. (2010). Revelation and Human Artefact: The Inspiration of the Pentateuch on the Book of Aristeas. Journal for the Study of Judaism, 41, 1-28. Seltzer, R.M. (1980). Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Settis, S. (Ed.) (2001). I Greci. Storia Cultura Arte Società. 3. I Greci oltre la Grecia. Torino: Einaudi. Soggin, J.A. (1989). Introduction to the Old Testament. From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon. Third Edition. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press. Soggin, J.A. (1999). An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. Third Edition. London: SCM Press. Solaro, G. (2012). Il mistero Democrito. Roma: Aracne editrice. Sollamo, R. (2001). The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the LXX. In B.A. Taylor (Ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

31

and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 (pp. 329–342). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Stählin, O. (1921). Die hellenistisch-jüdische Litteratur. München: Oskar Beck. Staikos, K.S. (2000). The Great Libraries: From Antiquity to the Renaissance. New Castle: Oak Knoll Press. Swete, H.B. (1902). An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Revised by R.R. Ottley. With an Appendix containing the Letter of Aristeas edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tcherikover, V. (1958). The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas. Harvard Theological Review, 51, 59-85. Tcherikover, V. (1959). Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society of America/The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Thackeray, H. St. J. (1903). Translation of the Letter of Aristeas. The Jewish Quarterly, 15, 337-391. Thackeray, H. St. J. (1917). The Letter of Aristeas translated with an Appendix of Ancient Evidence on the Origin of the Septuagint. London-New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge/The Macmillan Company. Tramontano, R. (1931). La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate. Introduzione, testo, versione e commento. Prefazione del R.P. Alberto Vaccari. Napoli: Ufficio Succursale della Civiltà Cattolica. Troiani, L. (Ed.) (1997). Letteratura giudaica di lingua greca. In P. Sacchi (Ed.), Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, vol. V. Brescia: Paideia. Van der Kooij, A. (2007). The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule. In G.N. Knoppers, & B.M. Levinson (Eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. VanderKam, J.C. (2001). An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Vattioni, F. (1980). Storia del testo biblico: l’origine dei LXX. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 40, 115-130. Virgilio, B. (Ed.) (1987). Studi Ellenistici, II. Pisa: Giardini. Walbank, F.W. (1993). The Hellenistic World. Revised edition (1981). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walter, N. (1987). Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philon von Alexandrien (unter Ausschluß der Historiker). In W. Haase (Ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.20.1 (pp. 67-120). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

32

Giuseppe Solaro

Wardman, A. (1976). Rome’s Debt to Greece, London: Paul Elek. Wasserstein, D.J. (2003). Review of Collins, N.L. (2000). The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill Academic Publishers. Scripta Classica Israelica, 22, 318-320. Wendland, P. (1986). La cultura ellenistico-romana nei suoi rapporti con giudaismo e cristianesimo, edizione italiana a cura di G. Firpo. Brescia: Paideia. Westermann, W.L. (1929). Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt. New York: Columbia University Press. Westermann, W.L. (1955). The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Wevers, J.W. (1985). An Apologia for Septuagint Studies. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18, 16–38. Will, É., & Orrieux, C. (1986). Ioudaïsmos-Hellenismos. Essai sur le judaïsme judéen à l’époque hellénistique. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Williams, M.H. (1998). The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diaspora Handbook. London: Duckworth. Wilsdorf, H. (1991). Der weise Achikaros bei Demokrit und Theophrast. Philologus, 135, 191-206. Wright III, B. G. (2008). Transcribing, translating, and interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: on the nature of the Septuagint. In A. Voitila, & J. Jokiranta (Eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (pp. 147-161). Leiden-Boston: Brill. Wright III, B.G. (2011). The Letter of Aristeas and the Question of Septuagint Origins Redux. Journal of Ancient Judaism, 2, 303-325. Wright III, B.G. (2015). The Letter of Aristeas. ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews.’ Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Zuntz, G. (1959). Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah. Journal of Semitic Studies, 4, 109-126.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Name: Giuseppe Solaro Affiliation: Università degli Studi di Foggia/University of Foggia

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

33

Education: Degree in Classics Address: via Arpi 176 – 71121 FOGGIA – ITALY Research and Professional Experience: see below Professional Appointments: Coordinator of the Master’s Degree in Philology, Literatures and History of the Department of Humanities of the University of Foggia Honors: my essay Omero a Spoon River (Bari: Palomar, 2003) was very well rated by CIVR (National Committee for the evaluation of scientific research); in 2013 I was a finalist in the first national prize of the “Associazione Italiana del Libro” with my book Il Mistero Democrito (Rome: Aracne, 2012). Main publications (last three years): 1. Solaro, G. La biblioteca di Alessandria e i dilemmi di POxy 1241. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Forthcoming. 2. Solaro, G. Un'edizione di Lucrezio nella curia romana. Technai. Forthcoming. 3. Solaro, G. Virgilio e l’Europa cristiana. A proposito di Thomas Stearns Eliot. In M. Capasso (Ed.), Miscellanea per Salvatore Cerasuolo (pp. 681690). Lecce: Pensa Multimedia. In press. 4. Solaro, G. (2015). Discorsi e polemica in Tucidide. In M. Marin (Ed.), Auctores Nostri, 14, 2014 (pp. 39-49). Santo Spirito (BA): Edipuglia. 5. Solaro, G. (2014). Alla corte di re Creso. Storie di storie, 1 (www.storiedistorie.it). 6. Solaro G. (2014). Cicerone e le “leges historiae.” Osservazioni sull’epistola a Lucceio (Fam. 5, 12). In G. Solaro (Ed.), La Roma di Cornelio Nepote (pp. 193-200). Rome: Aracne. 7. Solaro, G. (2014). Francesco De Sanctis a scuola da zio Carlo. In S. Cerasuolo, M.L. Chirico, S. Cannavale, C. Pepe, & N. Rampazzo (Eds.), La tradizione classica e l’unità d’Italia (vol. I, pp. 117-127). Naples: Satura Editrice. 8. Solaro, G. (2014). La duplice debolezza di Medea. Su donna e famiglia nel mondo classico. In I. Loiodice (Ed.), Formazione di genere (pp. 132-139). Milan: Franco Angeli.

34

Giuseppe Solaro

9. Solaro, G. (2014). La falsa storiografia: il caso Nepote. Sulla polemica corneliana tra W.Fr. Rinck e J. Kohen. In G. Solaro (Ed.), La Roma di Cornelio Nepote (pp. 131-163). Rome: Aracne. 10. Solaro, G. (Ed.) (2014). La Roma di Cornelio Nepote. Rome: Aracne. * During High School, that I attended in Bari, my hometown (I was born March 22, 1969), in 1986 (May 25) I finished third in Certamen Catullianum (Accademia Catulliana of Verona). 1.11.87-8.7.1991. I applied to the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy (classic address) of the University of Bari. During the first year I attended the course of Greek Literature of the late C.F. Russo, the student of Aristophanes and editor of Belfagor. July 8, 1991. Degree in Textual Criticism. Title of the thesis: “The indirect tradition of Catullian Liber” (supervisor R. Roncali). From the thesis comes my article published in Silenus in 1993 on the Nachleben of the first poem of Catullus. 1.11.1991-31.10.1994. I attended the PhD in Greek-Latin Philology at the University of Bari. Topic of my doctoral thesis: “The humanistic biographies of Lucretius.” In 1993 I presented the results of my research at the conference “Formative stages of classical tradition” (Erice, Ettore Majorana Centre, October 16 to 22). In the same year I was invited by Professors F. Tateo and M. De Nichilo to give a lecture on my research at the annual conference of IANLS (International Association for Neo-Latin Studies), which took place in Bari from 29 August to 3 September. December 11th, 1995. I achieved in Rome (La Sapienza) the ultimate title of PhD in Classical Philology. 1.1.-31.10.2001. Researcher of Classical Philology at the University of Bari. 1.11.2001-31.10.2005. After a won competition at the University of Salerno I have been called as an associate professor of Classical Philology by the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Foggia.

Alexandria and the Law of Moses

35

2002. I joined the editorial staff of the scientific journal Quaderni di Storia (ed. by L. Canfora). 2003. Since this year I was part of the “Coordinamento dei Professori Universitari di Filologia Classica” (today Consulta of Classical Philology). 2.11.2005-today. Full professor of Classical Philology at the University of Foggia. 2009. I founded on the Web a new philological/literary journal (publisher: Aracne, Rome), entitled Storie di storie (www.storiedistorie.it: the first number came out in 2014). Since 2013 I was part of the Scientific Committee of “Technai. An International Journal for Ancient Science and Technology” (Fabrizio Serra publisher, Pisa - Rome), edited by C. Santini. I also became editor of a publication series (Lecturae novae, Publisher: Aracne Editrice, Rome), that till now has produced four volumes (http://www.aracneeditrice.it/aracneweb/index.php/collana.html?col=LN). 02.11.2015. The Fondazione Banco di Napoli gave me a contribution for the project “The historical value of democracy.” 01.15.2016. I was invited as a speaker in the context of the “Night of Classical High Schools” by the Liceo Classico “G. Fortunato” of Rionero in Vulture (PZ) where I talked about The Mysteries of Alexandria. 29.3.2016. I get on the scientific committee of the First National Prize of the University Book Industry promoted by the “Associazione Italiana del Libro.” - Some interests of study: Greek and Roman history, modernity and contemporaneity of the ancients, history of philology, history of civilization, history of libraries, history of the transmission of ancient texts, textual criticism, papyrology, classical theater, Romance philology, Byzantine studies.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

THE ISSUES OF CULTURE IN PLANNED SCHOOL-CENTERED GLOBAL ENGLISH IMPLEMENTATION Krzysztof Polok* University of Zilina, Slovakia

ABSTRACT The paper makes an attempt to discuss various aspects bridging the issues of culture implementation during a planned school course of English as a global language (EGL). While basing on the list of salient features of EGL as presented by Smith (1976) and thoroughly analyzed by Brutt-Griffler (2002), an approach to the issue of culture as an element of EGL will be presented. Having accepted the basic line of reasoning as offered by McKay (2014), who argues that any language seen from the point of view of its application for international communicational purposes must be de-nationalized, the paper seeks an answer to the questions concerning the scope of language de-nationalizaton, especially when the culture-as-an-educational-dimension arguments offered by Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi (1990) are to be critically analyzed from the school curriculum stance. It is here where the definition of culture as a cognitive unit (Spradley, 1980) is to be juxtaposed with the expectations emerging from the popular notions of standard English, as presented by Strevens (1983), Quirk (1990) and Widdowson (1994). Additionally, the *

Corresponding author: [email protected].

38

Krzysztof Polok issues of a norm as an element of conventional and culture-dependent language pattern are to be analyzed here (Bamgbose, 1998). Finally, the paper will try to analyze the amounts of source culture, as well as the target one, necessary to be possibly introduced during a planned schoolcentered course of EGL.

Keywords: global english, standard english, culture implementation, norm, convention, L2 classroom curriculum It goes without saying that English has become the most implemented means of thought transfer in the world. Being a vehicle of communication, English is not only compulsory in integral branches of contemporary human functioning such as various forms of international commerce, medical sciences and/or the media, but also as a required means of message transmission in international politics. Small wonder that the aforementioned situation has fostered an increased interest in the language in different circles of the international community and induced so many (mostly young) people to master the mechanisms that will facilitate the transfer of their ideas in a global society. Basing upon the growing interest and popularity of the language as well as the necessity to help their citizens discover and get acquainted with the rules of (inter)national communication, many countries have introduced mandatory courses of foreign languages (mostly English) into their primary and secondary cycle educational curricula. In this way, many specially elaborated courses aimed at making their participants more-or-less competent users of the language have been introduced into school systems. However, alongside such planned forms of language course introduction, a number of queries have appeared which, when left unanswered, may lead the whole system of planned language learning astray. Some pertinent questions may be verbalized as follows: /1/What are the primary features of the functional application forms of (English) language education that best serve the language users? /2/Following the stance that the goals of these forms of language education should reveal their functional character, what (if any) is the content as well as the technical differences between the functional vs. the ‘normal’ use of the language? /3/ What procedures of effective education can be recognized as best-fitting the expectations of such learners? /4/ What forms of teacher/learner involvement should be incorporated as most promising in introducing such function-focusing language courses in the school curricula? All the questions are to be analyzed on the example of English and the name of Global Language (i.e., EGL) has been assumed to be the best-fitting form of English that can currently be observed functioning in the world.

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 39

1. LISTING THE FEATURES OF EGL It seems convenient enough to begin the presentation of the most striking EGL features from the division of the groups of English users offered by Kachru (1992), that is into the three co-existing and co-occurring circles: the Inner Circle (where the rules of the language use are formed), the Outer Circle (where these rules of use are developed) and the Expanding Circle (where these rules of use are applied for the purposes of general communication). Even if one has assumed that such a distribution does not fully meet the requirements of exact division of the functions performed by the language, it cannot be denied that the offered distribution of the functions ascribed by Kachru to the particular groups of language users cohesively illustrates the goals the language is to serve in each of the specified circles. The Inner Circle countries, responsible for the production of the rules of language use, are the monolingual mother tongue countries, in contrast to the two remaining Circles where the status of use of the language differs predominantly, sharing the area of everyday communication with at least one additional language. The difference between the position of English found in the Outer and Expanding Circles is that the former circle entails these countries where English is perceived as the second language whereas the latter circle presents countries where the use of English is based upon various forms of mandatory foreign language education. In this way, the whole division resembles the one offered by J. Schumann (1976, in: Valdes, 1995, pp. 21, 39-41), who offered a similar distribution when discussing the forms of influence of the L2 culture on the learners of the target language. In making an attempt to list the most striking EGL features, we may begin with the elaboration prepared by Smith (1976, p.38), who aptly remarks that the most important difference observed between “normal” and “functional” use of the language is the lingua franca status which is clearly ascertained in the latter case. In other words, it is necessary for people coming from various Expanding Circle countries to start using the language as a vehicle of transfer of thoughts and ideas to fulfill the basic functions of a global means of communication. Naturally, such an approach poses a number of questions, the first concerns the nature of the mutual relationship between language and culture (together with the necessary analysis of the definition of culture) and the second one being the ways the user’s native culture should be allowed to cooperate with the standardized norms of language use. It cannot be denied that

40

Krzysztof Polok

either of these questions has reached a satisfactory soluble output to be observed in the world’s literary discourse of these problems. Smith (ibid., p. 38), while analyzing the problems, offers the following three assertions, attributing them to the general picture of EGL functioning: /1/ the cultural norms cherished by the Inner Circle users need not to be internalized by any of the Expanding Circle users of English; /2/ EGL is not to be described as totally dependent on the rules of language use generally created by the mother country users; and /3/ EGL users should have a right to present their native culture- based ideas in the lingua franca forms of communication. In this way, Smith suggests that what actually matters in the EGL-modelled communication is a process resting upon the borrowing of the original framework found in the source language and its subsequent adaptation to the current communication-bound necessities. A similar approach may be found in the book by J. Brutt-Griffler (2002), who, while claiming that the heritage of EGL differs from the one found within the mother tongue English, indicates that its actual and current creators are millions of unknown bilingual users of various social denomination who have acquired it in various conditions and transferred upon a number of other incidental participants of discourses they took part in. Such a stance actually means that there is a very thin, almost unnoticed, difference between the members peopling the Outer and the Expanding Circles, especially from the point of view of their practical responsibility for the current shape of English. While the Outer Circle language users shape the rules of the use of English on the grounds of their daily application of the language to transfer local culturebased notions and ideas (in this way, following Kachru, suggesting possible applications of the language in a number of linguistic solutions), the Expanding Circles users are still given a right to apply the language to serve their purposes; it is, however, mostly because their purposes are momentary and pragmatically negotiable, that they are unable to introduce these newly formed, pragmatically defensible, rules into the corpus of the language. Any of the Expanding Circle users of the language are thus given a right to freely manipulate it in the way they find suitable to help them transfer the ideas to be communicated. Graddol (1999, p.62) remarks that a trend to establish English alongside other languages has been dramatically escalating, in this way letting the number of bilinguals overtake those still functioning on the monolingual basis. The numbers given by Graddol (up to 46 million such users during the next 50 years) also illustrate the possible number of such language-based manipulations during various forms of language contacts.

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 41 The picture of Global English presented above not only seems to reject the fact that the rules of language use should be based upon certain normative standards, but also recognizes the words and expressions found there as handy and usable mechanisms to be applied when a need to inform others about any whatsoever idiosyncratic issues arises. These forms of treatment of the language result both in the general approval of the use of many standard and stereotypical expressions (that are able to only partly illustrate the idea originally wished to be presented), as well as in the acceptance of the situation that any message comprehension has to depend on (almost obligatory) subsequent negotiations of the actual meaning. As – what has been stressed by McKay (2014) - communicational competence has been recognized to be useful (but not necessary) any meaning can take this form as long as one has been able to present it competently. Stereotypical presentation of ideas has been gradually recognized as possible and a subsequent process of negotiation for the meaning has been considered to function on the principle of a norm (Tanabe, 2003). This process of communication appears to be based upon the forms of message transference that only partly reveal the ideas originally born in the minds of their authors and where the context in which they have appeared has to be been given additional importance. As such the picture is quite different from the many forms of English education advocated in schools, it seems necessary to have a deeper look at both the norms of language use as they are understood in the two forms of linguistic education and the understanding of culture found there. Both the norms of language use and cultural awareness can be recognized as strikingly different in the two approaches to the use of English; at the same time, this clearly observed difference ultimately results in the changes in understanding (and description) of the very notion of language.

2. STANDARD ENGLISH VS. GLOBAL ENGLISH; FORMS OF MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE The issue of standard in Global English is muddled as far as the steps necessary to establish what standard is are attempted. Apart from that, the very issue of standard - in the way Standard English (as opposed to Global one) is presented by scholars – can also be given many approaches. Strevens (1983, p.88) defines Standard English as “(…) a particular dialect of English (…) universally accepted as the appropriate educational target in teaching English

42

Krzysztof Polok

(…).” Quirk (1985, p.16), while presenting a pretty stiff point of view on what is (and what is not) to be recognized as a standard, claims that any variation in the use of language found in the language produced by a non-native language user is relatively damaging to the original (i.e., standard) use of the language and clearly lowers the level of its comprehensibility. For Quirk, the generally accepted rules of language use, as they are established by the Inner Circle language users, have to be learned and practiced by all the users functioning in the Expanding Circle, without any changes or modifications, if they want to communicate efficiently. In the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (LDAL) Richards, Platt and Weber offer the following definition of what can be termed a standard language: this is a language variant “(…) /1/ used in the media and in literature; /2/ described in dictionaries and grammars; /3/ taught in schools and (…) /4/ taught to non-native speakers when they learn it as a foreign language.” (LDAL, 1985, p. 271). The definition, as presented, gives no room for one’s voluntary interpretation, clearly indicating that it is only patterns of language use found in the Inner Circle media, numerous books, language manuals and/or dictionaries are to be accepted as standard applications. In this way a return to an either/or-type situation can be observed; either one accepts the conditions of the forms of linguistic cooperation, or not but, in the latter case, one has to seriously consider the fact that one may have problems with being correctly understood. Such an approach, clearly juxtaposed with the stance offered by Smith, Brutt-Griffler and many others advocates of Global English, must raise the question of intelligibility. As McKay (2014, p. 52) sees it, the issues of intelligibility must include two more aspects, i.e., the one of comprehensibility and the one of interpretability. Generally speaking, the former aspect of comprehensibility deals with whether discourse participants know the common meanings of utterances used by them in speech, whereas the latter indicates the discourse participants’ knowledge concerning the meaning of an expression in a given community group. Apart from that, this approach requires the explanation of the role of culture in any process of message production. It cannot be overlooked that any discourse is always strongly connected with its context, this should help discourse participants (at least, up to a point) find themselves in the semantic area expected to be used in the process of message interpretation. In this way, speech participants are expected to subject any received message to the process of interpretative analysis which, in turn, results in the initiation of a possible advisory process of negotiation. As it is hardly possible for any two (or more) speech participants to possess exactly the same level of communicational competence, the one with the higher

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 43 competence level will take a lead in the whole interpretative process, thus helping other speech participant/s/ verbalize the message contents in a more exacting explicit way. This process of message interpretative analysis explains that any message is to be subjected to the said analysis in order to be comprehensible. Definitely, it is never left alone; quite the contrary, when uttered, it is carefully looked through and immediately plugged into the out-of-the-language context it describes. These activities help speech participants begin and continue the negotiation process of message analysis, the process which must end up with success if meaningful communication is to be continued. As Widdowson (1994, p. 385) observed, any process of communication must serve the needs and expectations of different communities, which means that such a process must be based upon certain unifying standards. This stance does not mean that a standard must remain rigid and unchangeable; following Widdowson, it is enough when one has decided to observe certain, basic for communicational purposes and securing the independent position of the language used in any act of speech, norms existing in a given language. But this also raises another question – one concerning the definition of a norm. On the one hand, it seems clear that only native language users are naturally entitled to manipulate the only language they use for the purpose of everyday communication. Native speech participants are to be given a right to decide what is (or is not) a norm thus accepting possible, internally and externally influenced, language changes. The result is the production of new or different, structurally-based, semantic language possibilities later to be developed by Outer Circle users. In this way, all linguistic innovations (language changes) may ultimately change their status and become a norm. Possible language change, apart from being an evident sign of creative language functioning, could not be the result of linguistic activity of the Expanding Circle users, due to one simple but important fact – exposure time necessary to generally accept a given language variant as commonly used by large enough groups of users, so that it can be considered a pattern of use in respect to a particular element of the out-of-language reality. Additionally, this interpretation of a language norm follows the one offered by Bambgose (1998, p. 10), who indicates that any language norm has to be assessed from a number of different points of view, that would focus upon its social acceptability, democratic and/or autocratic preferences included. Only after establishing who uses a given expression, the situations in which an expression is to be used as well the contexts it mostly appears in that the utterance can be recognized as an example of normative language use and,

44

Krzysztof Polok

subsequently, introduced as a formative and pragmatic variant of semantic language application. There, however, appears an important question concerning the approach to the fact whether (or not) a given norm illustrates the culture it is supposed to represent. In other words, it seems necessary to either consider a norm as a pattern-based illustration of the culture it has grown from, or just an element of the framework of a language applied to transfer the meaning produced by any language user, who considers it to be a handy mechanism necessary to produce a wished for element, just as a nail is considered a handy element to put two things together for good. Briefly speaking, it is necessary to consider the very approach to culture, observed in the two forms of understanding of a norm. Is it necessary for an EGL user to remember that the cultural heritage of the language used is an instrument of communication, or may this fact be ignored? This is where – among others - the approach to language has to be more precisely formulated.

3. LANGUAGE AND CULTURE (OR CULTURE WITH LANGUAGE)? While making an attempt to analyze a language (and partly to understand the phenomenon of its vital existence) it is possible to discover many examples of mutual intrinsic functioning of language and culture. This approach appears to be especially valid in the moment one wishes to establish the position culture is to be perceived not only when it is confronted with the stance defining its function in the whole EGL teaching business, but also as an element of an everlasting back-up of language. The EGL approach generally assumes culture as this sector of human existence that cannot be an intrinsic element in the forming of language; the older language-valuing approach, on the other hand, considers culture as an imminent language-formatting element, without which language could not have been formed. These two approaches, the first one, recognizing language as a tool necessary to transfer a message by any of its users and the second one, recognizing culture as this segment of language which is directly responsible for its appearance and further functioning need to be thoroughly analyzed so as to discover and prove (or disprove) the claims put forth by the groups of EGL teaching advocates can be given any realistic groundwork.

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 45 In their highly educative paper Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi (1990, p.11) enumerate the four dimensions (e.g., senses) of culture, to be looked for in any linguistic production: the esthetic sense (i.e., the sense a community is able to produce after having heard an opinion), the sociological sense (i.e., the sense largely dependent on the customs cherished by a community), the semantic sense (the sense normally allocated within a given expression) and, last but not least, the pragmatic sense (i.e., the sense an opinion the message receivers will in all probability use to interpret the message by). All the four dimensions are so closely inter-related that it is practically impossible for an opinion to be analyzed with the exclusion of any of them. Thus, any message alien in a given community will most probably be understood incorrectly or even misunderstood by the community members (who may demand additional explanations concerning the semantic and/or pragmatic application for the message just received). This will undoubtedly happen when their conventionally formed conceptual system is unable to retrieve the notions mapping the context-embedded situations of the phrase in question. Everything that may actually be taking place here is a process of production of a number of not very certain from the semantic and/or pragmatic point of view contexts that might be offered as possible interpretations of the message enclosed in the message. Any language, as A. Damasio (1994) teaches us, is a collection of conceptual pictures (coined by A. Damasio as imagens) paired by their verbal labels (i.e., logogens) It is only in a situation where all imagens are duly assisted by their logogens that one can talk about completed, fully-balanced language. But this is not the end of the story; all imagens that have appeared in one’s mind must reveal their cultural heritage (this is as far as the interpretation of the theses offered by Adaskou et al. must go). Sometimes the cultural heritage of a message (or any of its sections) reveals its local character thus the chances of the utterance being comprehensible or intelligible to the people functioning in a different cultural reality are limited or practically nonexistent1. The notion of mutual interdependence of language-connected imagens and logogens has to be taken into account when the issues of language vs. cultural reality are to be analyzed. C. Kramsch (1998, p. 12) indicates that these mutual connections are of various type - language can express, embody or symbolize cultural reality; but they can also perform certain culture-dependent activities, 1

See the explanations on the issues of mutual equivalence to be found in R. Jakobson’s paper (1953) “Lexicon meaning and grammatical meaning,” in: Sol Tax (ed), An Appraisal of Anthropology Today, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp.279-280.

46

Krzysztof Polok

behaving in the ways conventionally prescribed by a language. As English, being an inflection-scarce language, had to accept other methods of message transmission and message presentation, also offering alternative ways of linguistic behavior necessary to discover and decode the hidden meanings, one may call these forms of behavior essential mechanistic techniques necessary when an attempt to reveal the meaning behind the message is being searched for; however, the other may claim that it is these procedures that are responsible for the formation of the language and – as such – they have to be recognized as culture-emerging suggestions concerning the production of meaning. In other words, it is culture (or, to be more exact, the local understanding of cultural reality) that is primarily responsible for the current shape of the language. Incidentally, this is where one has to take into consideration a stance held by Spradley (1980, p. 10) indicating that culture is “(…) the knowledge that people have learned as members of a group,” where the expression “knowledge” may either include, or exclude the notion of language. If this notion is included, language becomes an important element of culture, necessary to be learned and remembered about; if, however, one excludes it, culture is seen as an independent section of human functioning and everything its users are expected to do is to learn the normative ways of message transference found there just as one learns how to ski. The problem that may appear here is that /1/ the number of the rules to be remembered is really huge and that /2/ not all of the rules have been practiced well enough, the ones that are usually remembered better, i.e., the regulations found in the user’s native language, may be transferred instead of introducing the ones naturally expected to appear, thus bringing chaos and incongruity into the sofar smooth production of meaning. Our analysis of this contradictory approach seems to be backed (at least to some extent) by J. Bruner who, when discussing the mutual forms of functioning of language and thought remarked that their mutual co-existence resembles the “mutual predisposition of mind to certain modes of thought and certain ways of arranging the shared reality of a linguistic community” (1962, p. 137). As the forms of thought functioning (illustrated by language) seem to shape certain thought patterns, all the native (as well as bilingual) language users have to accept the ways of thought presentation up to a point necessary to produce the messages with the help of these language-characteristic “mind predispositions.” In this case these “mind predispositions” will be understood as norms of use, the current level of one’s competence within the application of these norms will evidently influence both the form and the speed of message production. What at this point appears as a claim urgently requiring

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 47 an answer is whether the approach presented above concerns all the languagedescribed situations that can be found. While analyzing the stance, Ruggles-Gere and Smith (1979, p. 6) see human cognitive activity as being embedded by ‘left-handed’ and ‘righthanded’ meanings, the former being the patterns of realistic functioning, whereas the latter being constructed of emotions (the two authors, following Bruner, call them ‘myths’). Stating that both forms of meanings contribute to the correct functioning of the culture-depending language, Ruggles-Gere and Smith remark that myths, in contrast to right-handed expressions, represent these areas of mind that are always subjective, personal, convention-pursuing and culture-formatting. They seem to instruct the community about the forms of activity worth imitating, or the values worth accepting. In this way, they offer the expressions, mostly metaphorical and idiomatic, that are usually preferred when talking about, or even mentioning such matters. Everyday culture does not only contain the expressions that illustrate the forms of daily functioning accepted by a given community on a regular basis, there are also these discrete, metaphor-entailing phrases which illustrate emotions, inner feelings and expectations. It is these small delicate phrases (and/or phaseillustrated forms of social behavior, such as paying compliments2, for example) that mainly illustrate one’s level of language awareness, whether one feels the language and the culture, or whether one’s level of language competence still requires intensive shaping. A similar stance is proposed by Spradley (1980, p. 12), arguing that the so-called ‘naïve realism,’ which misleadingly describes and defines the world in exactly the same way for native speakers as for the members representing different communities is pure assumption and has to be put aside. All the cultures of the world are individual and subjectively dependent, offering certain forms of social behavior that are later expected to be furnished with the expressions conventionally uttered in such situations. This form of behavior, being the most important activity of a learner, concerns not only a target language learner, but any language user applying a language to present his/her views on a given topic. Following Kramsch (1993), while making an attempt to discover, learn about and implement the normative forms of linguistic

2

Nessa Wolfson’s research concerning the ways compliments are paid worldwide reveals striking differences between different researched nations. Whereas Americans are expected to produce their smiling gratitude for any compliment they received, Eastern Europeans are found to diminish the activity they are prized for and Asians are expected to produce another compliment in return to the one received. See: N. Wolfson, Compliments in crosscultural perspective, in: M. Valdes.(ed.), Culture Bound, Cambridge, CUP, pp. 112- 120.

48

Krzysztof Polok

description of the out-of-language reality offered by a language, one is not expected to become its near-native user, but a person able to present his/her points of view on a number of world issues with the help of linguistic mechanisms found in the language. If one has made an attempt to become familiar with a new culture, an important thing is to find and internalize the differences between one’s own culture and the culture one intends to be functioning in.

4. TEACHING EGL; THE MAIN ASSUMPTIONS One of the most obvious issues noticed in the process of teaching English in the Expanding Circle schools was the approach accepting the educational stress placed upon activities that strongly valued the development of the learners’ communicational competence. It was believed that the level of the learners’ communicational competence was to be considered an element of target (mostly English) language fluency indicating a genuine ability to function within the still larger and larger circles of English-speaking communities. At the same time it was also believed that the average level of fluency to be attained by the learners needed to be raised so that most of the learners who truly desired to speak English as fluently as if they were to cooperate and co-function within other almost native speaking groups could do so. The principal goal of this form of teaching was to teach the language as if the majority of various course participants were to spend most of their lives immersed within highly competent English speaking people. The average level of language awareness of such people was not only highly developed, but also constantly refined. Additionally, the culture that paired the language taught was constantly presented, in this way assuring the learners that the only culture they would have to deal with would be the one encompassing the language being learned. Anything that did not match the expected forms of both linguistic and cultural behavior was to be considered faulty and inappropriate and – as a result – needed to be corrected. Obviously, such an approach produced many poorly prepared language users, who – while living under the ever present dangerous and unwelcome shadow of making mistakes – were not always ready to take a risk and make an attempt to enunciate a statement incorporating grammatical constructions they were not certain of. The fact that it is correctness and universal adjustment to the rule-abiding textbook norms of use that are to be followed became so obviously popular that no other possibilities, such as putting

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 49 meaning-stressing forms of language production before ones that preferred to nurture the structures found in the language was not generally considered or recommended to the target language learners. The whole English speaking world was not only expected to accept and follow the forms and expressions found in the language, but also discard the ones that are not genuine products of its native language speakers. It seems symptomatic that one of the most heated discussions that can be heard among language professionals in the English speaking world was (and still is) the question as to whether the process of teaching global English can be paired with the teaching of a perfect form of precise (i.e., good, grammatically and structurally correct) English. While delivering a speech at the 7th PAAL Conference (2003) in Tokyo, Professor Yoji Tanabe asked dramatically whether a generally observed attempt of teaching global English will not distort the well-elaborated process of teaching English. Similar opinions were presented by a number of other scholars. While agreeing that millions of speakers of English can no longer be recognized as ‘second’ language speakers, the popular stance offered by these scholars is that both general and specific rules of use/acceptance of EGL are still unclear and urgently need elaboration. Such a process has to observe not only the ways but also the reasons EGL is needed by its users on a daily basis. The propensity to consider – generally speaking – the EGL syndrome as a step towards linguistic mediocrity is common enough and can no longer be ignored. The issue that has to be resolved first of all is how to teach EGL, which linguistic aspects have been valued so far, which can still be recognized as salient to the process of foreign language education and which ones ought to be modified or even discarded. The following points are just a few examples of quests to be taken under consideration: 



The hierarchical sequencing of language skills to be practiced during language courses: In following the traditional way of FLT the four skills were recognized as equally important, but the skills of speaking were generally accepted as the teaching target. Whereas EGL is mostly used in reading and writing, should the two skills be recognized as teaching targets equal in importance to the skill of speaking? Organization of the whole process of Foreign Language Teaching: The current situation dictates that cognitive learning of the language ought to be fostered by activities triggering the process of language acquisition. As a result, immersive classes have recently gained some level of popularity. What is primarily needed by EGL learners is

50

Krzysztof Polok









information entailing the standardized rules of use observed in the English language. Consequently, should various language acquisition activities be limited to an absolute necessary minimum with the main stress being put on cognitively grounded internalization of the normdepending rules of use? The major issues of communicational competence: The current situation shows that the individual levels of one’s communicational competence are recognized as the ultimate goals of language education. Consequently, most of the various lesson activities are meant to help learners become as communicatively competent as possible. As EGL users are expected to favor meaning rather than structures, should they be allowed to struggle with the production of meaning any and whatever way they are able to? The ways and means by which standards of language use are to be internalized: The equal internalization of the four skills aimed at gradual growth of communicational competence has resulted in the appearance of varied forms of linguistic behavior in the classroom. This, in turn, prompts the learners to become more and more standardobserving communicatively competent English language users. Should the proposed method stress the language-formed norms of use resulting in the process of where the cognitively-grounded teaching of the norms intended to facilitate internalization becomes the main target of foreign language education? The issues of culture: Currently, the culture connected with the language taught is recognized as an element of linguistic education that evokes the learners’ perception of the uniqueness of the language being learned. In following the claims concerning the place of culture in the process of oral and written communication in respect to EGL, culture is perceived as an element of any process of communication that fully belongs to the message producer. Should the whole process of FLT fully discard the fact that any message (regardless of the language in which it has been produced) is a product of the local culture and concentrate upon methods where the FL learners are actively encouraged to discover the culture/s/ of all (the theoretically possible) future communication partners? The ways in which errors are to be perceived: Up till now errors have been recognized as the elements of the whole process which indicated where the learners’ in order to become more communicatively competent still needed additional effort both on the teachers’ as well

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 51





as the learners’ part. Adhering to the EGL claims that language users are fully responsible for the quality of the language used, where the only requirement observed is the quality of the language norms presented by the users, the issue of language errors has been moved down from the front line and placed within the individuals’ personal responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of the language used. As a tool of message production, should the notion of language error be one of the linguistic issues? Are language users not to be corrected for fear of causing them to become overly sensitive? Can an attempt to explain what had been meant always be made with the introduction of various negotiation procedures? The issues of negative transfer: Following the stance observed today, negative transfer is one of the most prevalent causes of misunderstood or even incomprehensible message production. Said transference not only proves that the level of one’s target language awareness is not up to par but may in certain cases be unintentionally offensive. As it is mainly L1 culture that is claimed to influence the quality of a message produced (in any foreign language), should the whole process of FLT diminish or hinder the methods of L1 message production which are likely to obstruct FL forms of production? At the same time, should the appearance of a message producer’s native form/s/ be considered the result of inadequate internalization of the norms of use expected to appear in the target language? Is it really possible to mentally internationalize all the forms of L2 use without being constantly exposed to most of the desired forms of communication? How are schools and L2 students to cope in such situations? Issues concerning the teaching of sounds naturally occurring in English: According to the current stance, the better one has mastered the sounds that are used in English for communicational purposes, the more easily the messages can be understood. In advocating EGL, should one decide that English sounds are only approximate markers that are applied for the production of a meaningful message? Should all sounds that merely come within the proximity of a level of recognition be accepted as adequate to signify comprehensible word production?

Many teachers seem to share many of the points of view presented above. During research (N = 495) carried out by this author (Polok, 2010) it was discovered that many Polish teachers preferred the activities aimed at teaching

52

Krzysztof Polok

the structures and the rules mainly presented in handbooks rather than introducing the processes that invite learners to speak the language. What is more, many of them advocated the forms of use assessed as stereotypical and even indicated that the expressions used by native speakers (employed for the purposes of the research) as hardly (or even never) used in English communication. Generally speaking, the researched teachers were not fully aware of many of the language aspects they were expected to teach; at the same time, a significant number of the teachers were not always able to explain the methodological procedures applied during the lessons. Many of the EGL-characteristic issues presented above, especially the ones concerning the forms of English education aimed at cognitive (i.e., conscious) mastery were the ones preferred by the participating teachers. English was presented as a language having its rules of use, which were to be learned and remembered, so that its users would be able to solve a number of grammatical rule-requiring textbook exercises. The learners were hardly ever informed about the reasons for learning the language and the forms of instrumental motivation applied during the teaching processes resulting in the appearance of many examples of non-systematical periodical education (mostly before class-tests). What was learned first were the general and most commonly used rules found in the language, without adequate pragmatic information concerning forms and/or situations expected to appear. The learners seemed to be left alone in this respect, as if they were to decide whether a given expression was or was not to be applied when a specific kind of message was to be produced. Obviously, this form of language education resulted in the production of a number of strange (and unusual) phrases and expressions which later yielded negotiation procedures in order to be cohesive. As, in most cases, the learners were unaware of the nature of negotiation techniques, most turning to their native (i.e., Polish) language to explain what they had attempted to include in the messages. Such forms of classroom education may be assessed as culture-dependent (as confirmed by the research carried out by Ballard and Claudy in 19913), but should such a stance be justified or is it just a handy excuse? All the learners have a right to be taught effectively, so as to discover both the nature and the out-of-language philosophy hidden within a language. It seems obvious that without earlier cognate perception of the language, the ways and the reasons of 3

Ballard, B. and J. Clanchy, 1991, Assessment by misconception: cultural influences and intellectual traditions. In: Hump-Lyons, L. (ed.) Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts, Norwood, NJ: Ablex; pp. 19 – 36; See also: MacKay, ibid., p. 77 for the (brief) interpretation of the ideas found there.

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 53 its functioning, with certain structural figures produced so as to function as message carriers, it will be much more difficult for the learners to grasp the general idea of how the language is to perform such message-carrying functions. The question that comes to mind instantly is whether the issues connected with the presentation of the target language philosophy juxtapose the speech acts production found in the learners’ native language. In other words, what demands attention is the confrontation of the two philosophies found in the two languages and consequently finding compromise in the presentation of world views on the one hand, as well as those areas where such views are presented differently on the other. Such a planned confrontation seems necessary because the learners have to be given a chance to grasp the general idea of message production advocated in the target language and discover the ways the propositions of message production found there differ from the ones the learners know in the production of messages in the native language. This process should help in the development of interlanguage. Another issue worth discussing is the one concerning the process of one’s interlanguage pragmatic development. In most cases people say something for specific, at times important, reasons, expecting the message recipients to act in some specific (mostly culturally predicted) ways. As a consequence, following E. Goffman’s stance ([1971]/1990), people adjust themselves to the roles ascribed to them by a community, they usually produce the messages that agree with the roles actually performed by them. Consequently, the notions conventionally ascribed to certain roles have to be adhered to. In this way, while making an attempt to act out the role of a student (or an academic), for example, the speakers have to remember to conform to culturally acceptable forms of behavior (both verbal and non-verbal) conventionally appropriate in a given community. As these forms of behavior may be differently perceived in different communities, in performing such roles one should take into account both verbal and non-verbal forms of message production, mainly because both of the aforementioned forms will be assessed from the convention-stigmatized point of view. Most often FL speakers are not sufficiently aware of all the nuances in the expressions produced. Were the messages appropriate enough when they were produced and were they in concord with the timing? The gestures that assisted these expressions, did they adhere to the conventional gestures expected? These are just a few points among a variety of other aspects liable to assessment. Any newcomer is primarily perceived as a stranger and even when one has no rational reasons for negative feelings towards him/her, one still has to find

54

Krzysztof Polok

out who is who and what is what. These issues are of particular importance in international commerce, as it is mostly there where incidental meetings are more than common. It is also during such meetings (both formal and informal) when the levels of linguistic competence revealed by negotiation partners appear to be important as they may ultimately influence the outcome of such business contacts. At the same time, while such meeting participants may expect and pardon possible mistakes committed by the opposite party taking into account the circumstances in respect to the forms used, but nonetheless, the business partner has lost some credibility by violating convention. If nothing is done to alleviate this language barrier, the next business negotiator could be far less permissive if conventional forms of language performance are not met. In other words, some conventional standards have to be observed both in respect to the language and the forms of behavior presented. It seems very likely that the level of communicational competence of the business partners or, to put it another way, the amount of conversational comfort found during the meetings will be assessed first. Both the quality of the language and the conventions of its use ascribed to any of the expressions during a business meeting can either encourage or hinder business contacts. It is obviously true that the ultimate goal in big business is financial gain, an activity outside the scope of words, but to come to the point where business ventures can be agreed on and finalized requires an infinite amount of communication and negotiation i.e., words. G. Aston (1993, in MacKay, ibid. pp.75-6), in having accepted the fact that gaining native-like competence is almost impossible for non-native speakers, suggests that such a situation is not a disaster at all, as this very fact may help initiate the state he calls comity (i.e., establishment of friendly relationships between people representing different cultures, due to the fact that neither group represents a high levels of communicational competence). Additionally, he contends that what usually matters more to people is one’s individuality rather than the representation of one’s own culture. Albeit, such relations may be possible as a result of extended personal encounters, but this seems highly improbable in the case of emotionally-charged business meetings of short duration. The principal aim of any business meeting is gain and the successful culmination of business negotiations, meaning that one should hardly expect any traces of comity here. Pedagogically speaking, informing the learners that what matters in their EGL education is not the process leading to the enhancement of their interlanguage level (so that it becomes more English and less native), but the one of interlanguage “difference hypothesis” (Aston’s expression) which for

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 55 all intents and purposes appears to be invalid from the very beginning. Not only does it mean that a learner’s motivation is effectively weakened from the very start of their FL education (why should they learn the language knowing that they will never become really fluent?), but it also indicates that one’s educational activity ought to be directed towards “(…) the development of an ability to use specific comity strategies appropriate to the context of NNS discourse” (Aston, 1993, p. 245), that is, towards the process of gaining a skill that may seem to be one of secondary importance in attempting to learn a language. Informing EGL learners not to worry when they are misunderstood, as their co-actants are also not too good in the use of the language of mutual contact, may be recognized as an agreement to internalize mediocre language. The language that might have been upgraded in future as a result of common mutual afterschool contacts with other non-native speakers after both parties of such contacts had arrived at the state of comity is now doubtful. Apart from that, the EGL educational processes that are to be observed, the fact that different people use different forms of message production (both verbal and non-verbal), will without a doubt instigate the formation of an attitude of message distrust within the learners. The course participants have to be made aware of the fact that both their, as well as others, messages are always subject to assessment from the point of view of both structural and semantic/pragmatic correctness. As a result, creative solutions to communicational problems have appeared, so L2 users need never feel discouraged if their messages have been wrongly decoded. The question as to whether teachers are really able to instill such convictions in the learners’ minds still remains unanswered.

5. A FEW WORDS TO CONCLUDE In discussing this pragmatic reference one should not overlook the fact that any pragmatic activity is strongly related to culture. In this way, while recognizing what is and what is not appropriate in a given expression-signaled situation it seems necessary to turn the speaker’s attention to the cultural background it may represent (from the points of view advocated by the message speaker, message recipient, or the language used for its production). Hence, following the suggestions offered by Smith (1976), Brutt-Griffler (2002), McKay (2014) and many other scholars mentioned earlier, the issue of culture should be recognized as de-nationalized in respect to EGL education. The perceptions of any of the co-actants’ native culture, put upon the texture of their personal communicational involvements are approaches which can

56

Krzysztof Polok

naturally be interpreted as a totally different understanding of the notion of language. Approval of the fact that an unlimited number of Englishes can coexist and function in harmony, neither better or worse, is based on the assumption that one’s communicational competence always illustrates one’s current target language potential. Pedagogically, such a stance means acceptance of the fact that many of the so-far methodologically salient assumptions have to be revised. While teaching/learning the language, the educational stress has to be shifted from reproduction onto production which, in turn, means that the lessons would have to favor educational activities where the learner’s involvement in the over-all process of FLL can be recognized as prevailing, if not decisive, for the would-be educational results. Most educational aids, such as textbooks and or other educational materials ought to advocate student’s individual work, where the teacher’s principal function is to counsel and guide the learner through appropriate organized goal oriented instruction. At the same time, it is the student who is responsible for the systematic growth of his/her language awareness. This can only be accomplished by constant work on improving his/her level of the language that would be needed for communicational purposes. The teaching practices introduced into the classroom ought to entail the mastering of various standard forms of message production techniques found in the English language. The language itself should be considered a tool necessary for appropriate production of messages based upon the skillful application of various well-practiced standardized forms of use. Whereby, the principal idea of appropriate involvement in a speech act should rely upon one’s level of skillfulness in applying any of the techniques normally used to transmit the idea just conceived and formulated in one’s mind, under the condition that the utterance is comprehended and accepted by its recipients. In this way, the whole process of EGL teaching/learning, while being concentrated upon the learner and his/her individual achievements, has to be recognized as mostly dependent upon the learner’s motivation to become more and more target language knowledgeable. The traditional learner, i.e., the one that mostly wishes to follow the teacher’s directions, will definitely have many problems in his/her FL education. Being adequately motivated to continual study so as to stay on top of the current trends, additions and changes in FLL is one of the problems most often observed. Another commonly observed problem is the insufficient number of brief lectures allotted to the whole process of discovering the language philosophy in message production where the standard forms of use are meant to be internalized. Consequently, the time

The Issues of Culture in Planned School-Centered Global English ... 57 necessary to allow him/her to internalize the ways any two languages are equivalent but not identical, will have to be worked out by him/her personally. The idea of culture implementation should also be adjusted to the general framework of EGL teaching/learning. Culture is no longer to be recognized as an element helping the learners learn the language, mostly because all the standardized norms of use found there should not be treated as examples of local culture-based patterns of out-of-language description. Said forms of environmental description may be applied by any EGL user, if only a need resulting in their application has occurred. Instead, in placing stress upon the activity of individual message production (with the help of the norms of language use found within the language), what requires attention is the way in which the EGL learner’s native culture can participate in the process of message production, so that its implicit elements should not obstruct the whole process of communication. Taking into account all the aspects and approaches presented above one may say the dramatic assumption offered by Y. Tanabe (2003, p. 26), stating that teaching global English may also mean teaching something inferior, might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is this what was actually intended by all the people who had advocated English to be so widely used in such a massive way?

Paper Summary The paper discusses various forms of culture implementation as approached from the point of view of a planned, school-centered course of EGL. Such culture-connected issues as linguistic vs. culture norm or standard vs. local use of the language are discussed and critically analyzed. The paper concludes with a suggestion concerning the amount of both source and target culture segments to be inserted into an average school course of EGL.

REFERENCES Adaskou, K., Britten, D. & Fahsi, B. (1990). “Design decisions on the cultural content on secondary English course for Morocco,” ELT Journal, 44/1, 310.

58

Krzysztof Polok

Aston, G. (1993). Notes on interlanguage comity, In: Kasper, C. and S. BlumKulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 224 – 50. Bamgbose, A. (1998). “Torn between the norms: innovation in world Englishes,” World Englishes, 17/1, 1-14. Bruner, J. (1962). On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A Study of Its Development, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carey, B. (2014). How We Learn. The Surprising Truth About When, Where and How It Happen, New York: Random House. Damasio, A. R. (1999). Błąd Kartezjusza. Emocje, rozum i ludzki mózg, (translated by M. Karpiński), Poznań: Dom Wydawniczy REBIS. Goffman, E. (1990). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, London: Penguin. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, L. S. (2014). Teaching English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, R. (1990). “What is standard English?” In: Quirk, R., G. Stein (eds): English in Use, London - Longman: 112-25. Polok, K. (2010) Nauczyciel bilingwalny; sylwetka językowa nauczyciela języka angielskiego jako obcego, Łask: OW LEKSEM. Richards, J., Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, London: Longman. Ruggles Gere, A. & Smith, E. (1979). Attitude, Language and Change, Urbana, Il.: National Council of Teachers of English. Smith, L. (1976). “English as an international auxiliary language,” RELC Journal, 7/2, 38-43. Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant Observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Strevens, P. (1983). “What is ‘standard English’?” In: Smith L. (ed.) Readings in English as an International Language, Oxford - Pergamon Press: 87 -93. Tanabe, Y. (2003). Can We Really Teach English As a Global Language?’ In: /Y. Tanabe //The Proceedings of 7th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. – 2003. P. 17- 28. –http://www. paaljapan.org/resources/proceed-ings/PAAL7/pdfs/02yoji.pdf. Valdes, M. J. (1995). Culture Bound, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). “The ownership of English,” TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377 – 88.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

A SMART METHOD FOR BECOMING BILINGUAL IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXT: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN USE OF THE TESTING EFFECT IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING Satoru Yokoyama1,2 and Katsuhiro Chiba3 1

Chiba Institute of Science, Choshi, Japan 2 Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 3 Bunkyo University, Koshigaya, Japan

ABSTRACT Many educational tools to help learners become bilingual in a foreign language have been developed worldwide. However, few materials have been developed using cognitive and/or cognitive neuroscientific findings. Since the language function clearly comprises several cognitive functions, foreign language learning materials based on cognitive function research would no doubt be effective. This current article introduces the testing effect and retrieval practice. The testing effect is the long-term retention of certain types of learned information in humans triggered by repeated testing. Retrieval practice refers to learning methods based on repeated testing. Such practice promotes long-term

60

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba retention. Previous studies in cognitive science have reported better retention results after one month of learning using retrieval practice than using other learning methods. Long-term retention is the most important factor in acquiring a foreign language. Hence, if the testing effect and retrieval practice are effective for foreign language learning, this learning method should be actively applied to actual classroom activities for foreign language learning. This article will review recent studies examining whether the testing effect is actually observed in foreign language learning. Finally, this article discusses the future direction of studies related to the application of the testing effect and retrieval practice in foreign language learning.

Keywords: language learning, testing effect, retrieval practice, vocabulary, memory

INTRODUCTION To acquire a foreign or second language, lexical knowledge, including how to use lexical knowledge, and grammatical knowledge, including both morphology and syntax, are necessary. Many methods or strategies for foreign language learning are offered commercially, but few have been been tested experimentally or can provide objective evidence that their methods are actually effective. Recent cognitive neuroscientific studies have found that processing of native and foreign language is supported by the common neural substrates, which primarily include the Broca’s area, Wernicke’s area, and areas in the parietal lobe (e.g., Yokoyama et al. 2006; Crinion et al. 2009). The neural substrates for the human language function also overlap those of the human memory function (e.g., Yokoyama 2012). These findings lead us to postulate that findings for the human memory function can be applied to the human language function and are applicable not only to native languages but also to foreign languages. In other words, we may be able to apply previous findings for memory and learning in general to foreign language learning. For over 100 years, memory and learning studies have advanced retrieval practice, a learning method based on the testing effect, which enhances the retention of certain information in long-term memory more effectively than the previous practice methods generally used to retain such information. Some prior studies examining the testing effect have investigated whether retrieval practice is more effective for learning foreign language vocabulary than other

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

61

standard learning methods. For foreign language learners, lexical knowledge and the skills to use it in a phrase or sentence must be acquired in long-term memory, not in short-term memory. Hence, since the question of whether such knowledge is acquired in long-term memory is highly important, a testing effect-based learning method may be effective for foreign language learning. In this study, we first introduce the testing effect, and then look into some of the studies that have examined the testing effect as used in foreign language learning. Finally, we discuss other experimental findings that may be useful or effective for foreign language learning.

WHAT IS THE TESTING EFFECT? The testing effect has been noted in studies over the past 10 decades (Abbott 1909; Gates 1917). The testing effect is a phenomenon in which the human brain effectively learns new information as long-term memory through testing of the information. Recent research has found that this effect is not caused by testing itself, but by information retrieval. Hence, recent researchers have cited retrieval practice as an effective learning method based on the testing effect (e.g., Karpicke and Roediger III 2008; Karpicke et al. 2011; Karpicke and Blunt 2011; Karpicke and Smith 2012). Some variations in methods can be observed, but most studies compared final recall test performance on information learned using a testing effect-based method with that learned using standard learning methods (i.e., repeated studying or reading). The common finding across these studies is that repeated retrieval of targeted information enhances learners’ final recall performance more than standard repetition-based studying methods. Specifically, testing effect-based learning methods help fix the learned information in the long-term memory rather than in the short-term memory. More recent studies have reported that the testing effect or retrieval practice enhance retention of varied kinds of information: related and unrelated word lists (e.g., Carpenter and DeLosh 2006; Rowland et al. 2014), paired items (e.g., Allen et al. 1969; Toppino and Cohen 2009), passages (Glover 1989; Roediger and Karpicke 2006), and nonverbal information (Carpenter and Pashler 2007; Kang 2010). A recent neuroimaging study examined the neural basis of testing effect/retrieval practice by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (Keresztes et al. 2013). In a previous neuroimaging study, German participants with no knowledge of Swahili learned Swahili-German word pairs. Half of the pairs were learned using a standard learning method, while the other half were

62

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba

learned using a method based on the testing effect. In the learning method based on the testing effect, participants were repeatedly tested on the word pairs and received corrective feedback. A week after the learning activity, participants’ brain activity was scanned when they retrieved the Swahili words by looking at cues for their German counterparts. Brain activity was found to have decreased when the Swahili words learned in a standard learning method were retrieved, while brain activity did not decrease when the Swahili words learned using the testing effect-based learning method were retrieved. These results suggested that information can be retained more reliably in the testing effect-based activity than in the standard learning method.

THE TESTING EFFECT IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING So far, several experimental studies of the testing effect have used foreign language vocabulary as stimuli. Here we show their findings.

1. Karpicke and Roediger 2008 In this study, 40 Swahili-English word pairs were learned by English native speakers with no knowledge of Swahili. This study had four groups of participants. All of the groups first saw each Swahili-English word pair, then took a recall test. Subsequently, they learned these word pairs differently. The first group learned the 40 word pairs using four standard activities and four testing-based activities. The second group learned them using four testingbased activities. The third learned them using four standard activities. The fourth one learned them without any activities. In the standard activity, participants saw only the Swahili-English word pairs. In the testing-based activity, participants saw the English word, tried to retrieve the corresponding Swahili word, and finally received corrective feedback. A week after the learning activity, the first, second, third, and fourth groups showed approximately 80%, 80%, 36%, and 33% accuracy on the final recall test. The most interesting finding of this study is that the first and second groups showed almost the same final recall performance, but the first group asked participants to perform four standard activities and four testing-based activities while the second group conducted only four testing-based activities. This result suggested that the four testing-based activities positively impacted recall performance one week after the learning activity. In contrast, the four

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

63

standard studies had almost no positive effect on final recall, while the third and fourth groups showed no difference. Hence, this finding led us to postulate that in order to learn effectively, one should not simply read textbooks, but should be repeatedly tested on their contents to learn them. Another interesting point of this study is that participants’ predictions of their own future final recall performance were the same for all groups. The authors claimed that learners were not aware of their performance in the testing-based learning method.

2. Carpenter et al. 2008 In this study, an experiment used foreign language vocabulary and compared recall performance between a testing-based learning activity and a standard learning activity. In the third experiment, 60 Swahili-English word pairs were learned by English native speakers with no knowledge of Swahili. In the testing-based activity condition, one-time testing was conducted. In the standard study condition, there was no testing. Recall tests were given 7, 14, and 42 days after the learning activity. The results were 30% retention at 7 days, 25% at 14 days, and 19% at 42 days in the testing activity condition; in the standard study condition, they were 21% retention at 7 days, 20% at 14 days, and 16% at 42 days. Overall, the testing activity condition showed better final recall performance than the standard study condition. These results showed a statistically significant difference between the conditions. These results suggested that even one-time testing enhanced learning, and the effect persisted for at least 42 days.

3. Toppino and Cohen 2009 This research comprised two experimental studies examining the testing effect. The first experiment used 24 Swahili-English word pairs. English native speakers with no knowledge of the Swahili language learned the pairs. In the testing-based learning condition, they worked on each pair four times (a Swahili-English word pair was presented and participants tried to learn it), and then completed an additional testing-based activity (an English word was presented, participants tried to retrieve it, then corrective feedback was presented). In the standard activity condition, they worked on each pair four times, then one additional standard learning activity was conducted. Recall

64

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba

tests were conducted two minutes after and 48 hours after the learning activities. The final recall results were 50% for the testing condition and 60% for the standard condition at two minutes after learning. After 48 hours, retention was 55% for the testing condition and 30% for the standard condition. These findings suggested that testing-based learning did not enhance immediate recall performance, but did enhance long-term memory maintenance. In the second experiment, almost the same procedure was used as in the first experiment, but only items not learned in the initial study were learned in the study activities. Twenty pairs were selected based on the initial study results. Following this, eight standard activities were conducted. In the testing condition, one test was conducted. In the standard condition, one standard activity was conducted. Recall tests were conducted five minutes after and 48 hours after the learning activities. The recall results were 85% for both the testing condition and the standard condition five minutes after learning. Forty-eight hours after the learning activity, the results were 75% retention for the testing condition and 60% for the standard condition. Thus, the positive long-term enhancement of the testing effect in learning was replicated.

4. Pyc and Rawson 2009 This research involved two experimental studies using foreign language vocabulary learning and testing-based learning. In the first experiment, 48 Swahili-English word pairs were used as stimuli. Each participant learned 24 pairs using a testing-based learning method three times after the initial study (i.e., Swahili-English word pair was presented and participants were asked to learn it), which was called the fixed condition. The participants also learned another 24 word pairs with a testing-based learning method after the initial study, but if an item was correctly answered during the testing-based activity, the item was dropped in the following testing-based activity. This was called the dropout condition. The final recall test was conducted seven days after the learning activities. An interesting result was that if the item was correctly answered in the first test in the testing-based learning, the final recall test scores were 65% for the fixed condition and 20% for the dropout condition. This means that even if an item was correctly given in the first test, additional repeated testing improved the final recall test performance. This view is supported by their findings, because if an item was correctly answered in the third test in the testing-based learning, the final recall test scores were 35% for

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

65

the fixed condition and 35% for the dropout condition. In the second experiment, almost the same procedure was used, but a second learning session was added. The result replicated the results of the first experiment. Another interesting result was that the fixed condition showed better final recall test performance than the dropout condition, but the higher performance for the fixed condition was traded off against its cost. In other words, a benefit of the dropout condition is it reduces learning effort, but the final recall performance is slightly lower than in the fixed condition.

5. Pyc and Rawson 2010 In this research, 48 Swahili-English word pairs were used. To examine whether a mediator, a keyword linked to the target word, affected the testing effect, three conditions were tested: non-mediator, mediator, and mediator retrieval condition. Participants were divided into a testing-based learning group and a standard study group. All the participants learned the SwahiliEnglish word pairs using either a testing-based or standard study method. In the learning phase, an initial study period and one test for the testing-based learning group or initial learning period and one standard study period for the standard study group were conducted. In the mediator and mediator retrieval conditions, participants were also required to generate a mediator for each Swahili word. At the final recall test conducted seven days after the learning activity, participants in the non-mediator condition saw only one cue (i.e., English word) per item to retrieve the corresponding Swahili word. For items in the mediator condition, participants saw both the cue and its mediator (an English word linked to the target Swahili word) to retrieve the corresponding Swahili word. In the mediator retrieval condition, participants first saw only one cue per item and tried to retrieve its mediator before trying to retrieve the corresponding Swahili word. In the end, the testing-based learning group showed better perfomance in the final recall test than the standard study group. For the mediator effect, the mediator condition (45% recall for testing, 32% for standard learning) produced better recall than the other two conditions (non-mediator: 40% recall for testing, 15% for standard; mediator retrieval: 40% for testing, 19% for standard). In the mediator retrieval condition, the final recall test accuracy was approximately 70% when the mediator was successfully retrieved, while the final recall test accuracy was approximately 15% when the mediator was not retrieved. The result suggests that the mediator enhances the testing effect.

66

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba

6. Finley et al. 2011 The purpose of this research was to examine whether accumulating or diminishing cues better enhance the testing effect. Accumulating cues follow the pattern…., a…, ab.., abc., abcd, while diminishing cues follow the pattern abcd, abc., ab.., a…, ….. Twelve English-Inupiaq word pairs were used. Three conditions were prepared: accumulating, diminishing, and study condition. For all conditions, participants first conducted three standard study trials, and then six additional trials. In the accumulating and diminishing conditions, the six additional trials were all testing-based learning trials (in which participants saw a cue and tried to retrieve the target item). In the study condition, the additional trials were all standard study trials (participants saw an EnglishInupiaq word pair and tried to memorize it). In the first experiment in this research, no feedback was given. In the second experiment, corrective feedback was given. The final recall test scores for the first experiment were 25%, 40%, and 29% for the accumulating, diminishing, and study conditions, respectively. The final recall test scores for the second experiment were 51%, 58%, and 40% for the accumulating, diminishing, and study conditions, respectively. Overall, diminishing cues and corrective feedback positively enhanced the testing effect.

7. Kang et al. 2013 This research compared the effects of repeated imitation and testing in foreign language vocabulary learning. This may be the most suggestive of the findings in testing effect research on foreign language learning. In this experiment, 40 Hebrew-English word pairs were used. In the repeated imitation condition, each trial was conducted in four seconds, during which a picture indicating the word meaning was presented visually. In the first second, a Hebrew word was presented aurally. Participants were asked to imitate and repeat aloud the Hebrew word in the remaining seconds until the next trial. In the repeated testing condition, a picture was visually presented for four seconds, and participants were asked to retrieve and repeat aloud the corresponding Hebrew word. In the final second, the Hebrew word was presented aurally as corrective feedback. Hence, the amount of the input (visual and auditory) was the same between the two conditions (a four-second picture presentation and a one-second auditory presentation). There were two experiments, both of which used the same experimental procedure. However,

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

67

in the first experiment, each item was worked on three times; in the second experiment, each item was worked on six times. Finally, a comprehension test and production test were given as final tests 48 hours after the learning activity. In the comprehension test, participants were asked to hear the Hebrew word and pick the picture corresponding to its meaning. In the production test, they were asked to look at the picture used in the comprehension test and produce the corresponding Hebrew word. In the first experiment (repeated three times), the accuracy rates in the comprehension test were 57% in the imitation condition and 63% in the testing condition. These results reflected a statistically marginal difference. In the production test, accuracy rates were 27% in the imitation condition and 40% in the testing condition, a statistically significant difference. In the second test (repeated six times), the accuracy rates for the comprehension test were 44% in the imitation condition and 57% in the testing condition, while those in the production test were 19% in the imitation condition and 34% in the testing condition. Both of these results reflected statistically significant differences. Overall, these results suggested that repeated testing is better than repeated imitation for foreign language vocabulary learning.

8. Kang et al. 2014 The purpose of this research was to determine whether expanding or equal intervals are better for testing-based learning. In the experiment, testing-based learning was conducted in the expanding interval condition on Days 1, 3, 9, and 28 of the study. In the equal interval condition, testing was conducted on Days 1, 10, 19, and 28. Participants were asked to learn 60 Japanese-English word pairs. These 60 word pairs were divided between the expanding interval, equal interval, and filler conditions. A final cued recall test was given on Day 84. Participants in both the expanding and equal interval conditions were asked to perform the same testing-based learning. Accuracy on the final test was 49% in the expanding interval condition and 46% in the equal interval condition, showing no statistical difference. This suggests that different intervals do not affect testing-based learning.

68

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba

THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF TESTING EFFECT RESEARCH IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING Overall, testing effect-based learning methods produced better final recall test performance than standard learning methods, such as imitation-based learning methods, in foreign language vocabulary learning. Hence, it might be beneficial to employ testing effect-based learning methods in teaching foreign language vocabulary. Although they have not yet been examined in foreign language learning contexts, auditory or visual stimuli have been reported to have equal impact on the testing effect (Putnam and Roediger 2013). The testing effect is also effective in e-learning contexts (Grimaldi and Karpicke 2014), but individual differences in the testing effect occur among participants (Brewer and Unsworth 2012). In future studies, testing effects will have to be tested in the foreign language learning setting. Also, to our knowledge, none of the previous studies of the testing effect in foreign language vocabulary learning used participants with any previous knowledge of the target language. It would be necessary to examine whether the testing effect holds when participants (such as intermediate-level learners) do have some knowledge of the target language. In addition, up to now, there have been no experimental studies of the testing effect to investigate whether it benefits foreign grammar learning as well as foreign language vocabulary learning. The studies reviewed above clearly show that the testing effect occurs in the acquisition of semantic memory information (i.e., vocabulary). However, no one has examined its impact on procedural memory information such as syntactic (i.e., subject-verb agreement) and morpho-syntactic information (i.e., past-tense forms of English words) in foreign language learning contexts.

REFERENCES Abbott, E. E. (1909). On the analysis of the factors of recall in the learning process. Psychological Review: Monographs Supplements, 11, 159–177. Allen, G. A., Mahler, W. A., & Estes, W. K. (1969). Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 463–470.

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

69

Brewer, G. A., Unsworth, N. (2012). Individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 407–415. Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005). Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 619– 636. Carpenter, S. K., & Pashler, H. (2007). Testing beyond words: Using tests to enhance visuospatial map learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 474–478. Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008). The effects of tests on learning and forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 36, 438-448. Crinion, B. J., Turner, R., Grogan, A., Hanakawa, T., Noppeney, U., Devlin,, J. T. Aso, T., Urayama, S., Fukuyama, H., Stockton, K., Usui, K., Green, D. W., Price, C. J. (2006). Language Control in the Bilingual. Science, 312, 1537-1540. Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6, 1-104. Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392–399. Grimaldi, P. J., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Guided retrieval practice of educational materials using automated scoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 58-68. Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., Hays, M. J., Bjork, R. A., & Kornell, N. (2011). Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 289–298. Kang, S. H. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: The benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009–1017. Kang, S. H. K., Gollan, T. H., & Pashler, H. (2013). Don’t just repeat after me: Retrieval practice is more effective than imitation for foreign language learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1259– 1265. Kang, S. H. K., Lindsey, R. V., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler, H. (2014). Retrieval practice over the long term: Should spacing be expanding or equalinterval? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1544–1550. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science, 319, 966-968.

70

Satoru Yokoyama and Katsuhiro Chiba

Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 17–29. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-775. Keresztes, A., Kaiser, D., Kovács, G., & Racsmány, M. (2014). Testing Promotes Long-Term Learning via Stabilizing Activation Patterns in a Large Network of Brain Areas. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 3025–3035. Putnam, A. L., & Roediger H. L. (2013). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect? Memory and Cognition, 41, 36–48. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis: Does greaterdifficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 437-447. Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 333-335. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. Rowland, C. A. (2014). The Effect of Testing Versus Restudy on Retention: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Testing Effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432-1463. Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The testing effect and the retention interval: Questions and answers. Experimental Psychology, 56, 252–257. Yokoyama, S. (2012). Neuro-anatomical overlap between language and memory functions in the human brain. In Bright, P. (Ed), Neuroimaging. InTech publisher. Yokoyama S, Okamoto H, Miyamoto T, Yoshimoto K, Kim J, Iwata K, Jeong H, Uchida S, Ikuta N, Sassa Y, Nakamura W, Horie K, Sato S, & Kawashima R. (2006). Cortical activation in the processing of passive sentences in L1 and L2: an fMRI study. Neuroimage. 30, 570-579.

A Smart Method for Becoming Bilingual …

71

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Name: Satoru Yokoyama Affiliation: Chiba Institute of Science Education: Ph.D Address: Shiomi-cho 3, Choshi city, Chiba prefecture, 288-0025 Research and Professional Experience: Psycholinguistics, Foreign language learning Professional Appointments: Publications Last 3 Years: Yosuke Hashimoto, Satoru Yokoyama, Ryuta Kawashima. (2014). Neural Differences in Processing of Case Particles in Japanese: An fMRI Study. Brain and Behavior 4, 180-186. Satoru Yokoyama, Kei Takahashi, Ryuta Kawashima. (2014). Animacy or Case Marker Order?: Priority Information for Online Sentence Comprehension in a Head-Final Language. PLoS ONE 9: e93109. Satoru Yokoyama, Jungho Kim, Shinya Uchida, Tadao Miyamoto, Kei Yoshimoto, Ryuta Kawashima. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence of first language writing systems on brain responses to second language word reading in late bilinguals. Brain and Behavior 3, 525-531. Satoru Yokoyama, Kei Takahashi, Ryuta Kawashima. (2013). Use of semantic information to interpret thematic information for real-time sentence comprehension in an SOV language. PLoS ONE 8: e56106.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

ORAL NARRATIVE PERFORMANCE AMONG KINDERGARTEN, FIRST, AND SECOND GRADE HERITAGE SPANISH-ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN Audrey Lucero University of Oregon Eugene, OR, US

ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to report findings from a study that examined whether there would be significant differences on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children in U.S. schools. Existing research has identified specific narrative retell skills that are developmental in nature among monolingual English-speaking children and bilingual children from a number of language groups. However, different elicitation methods have been used and findings have been mixed. In this study, oral narrative retell assessments were conducted with 95 bilingual children (kindergarten n = 23; first grade n = 33; second grade n = 39) in Spanish and English and were analyzed for vocabulary, grammar, and discourse. Overall, second graders performed significantly better than kindergarteners in both languages and means in English were higher at all 

[email protected].

74

Audrey Lucero three grades than they were in Spanish. However, there were improvements in Spanish performance across grades as well. Results from one-way between groups ANOVAs showed a main effect of grade for all elements except English grammar. In Spanish, all significant differences were between kindergarten and second grade. In English, there were significant differences between first and second grade as well as between kindergarten and second grade. There were no significant differences between kindergarten and first grade on any element in either language. Sixty-five children in the study were enrolled in dual language immersion classrooms, so that may account for the continued Spanish oral language proficiency. Findings suggest a developmental trajectory for bilingual narrative performance, but because of the cross-sectional nature of this study, longitudinal research is needed in order to better understand oral narrative development among Spanish-English bilingual children.

Keywords: bilingualism, oral narrative retell, Spanish speakers, primary grades

INTRODUCTION The importance of oral language in the development of reading skill is well documented for both monolingual and bilingual children (Crosson & Lesaux, 2010; Roth, Speece, & Cooper, 2002; Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1995; Speece, Roth, Cooper, & De La Paz, 1999), and the process of language acquisition may be similar for the two groups, with the caveat that oral language skills may be of increased importance among bilingual children (Verhoeven & Strömqvist, 2001). Because the oral language skills of bilinguals are distributed across two languages, measures in either language alone do not represent the full breadth of their linguistic resources. The range in language proficiency is also wider for those learning two languages than for those learning only one (Kieffer, 2012). Oral language proficiency should accordingly be broadly conceptualized in this population (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Hipfner-Boucher, Lam, & Chen, 2014), and assessment should tap skills in both the first (L1) and second (L2) languages (Marinova-Todd & Uchikoshi, 2011). In terms of assessment, the National Early Literacy Panel (2008) proposed that composite measures of oral language – which include domains like vocabulary and grammar in context – demonstrated considerably stronger relationships to later reading achievement than those that measured individual

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

75

skills separately. One such measure is oral narrative, which requires the “integration of the varied domains of language, including grammar, vocabulary, and morphology” (Curenton & Justice, 2004, p. 242). Oral narrative assessment has also been found to be developmentally-sensitive (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010; Paris & Paris, 2003; Roch, Florit, & Levorato, 2016; Squires et al., 2014; Suggate, Schaughency, & Reese, 2011) and less biased against bilingual children because it includes a cognitive component that taps into both language-specific and language-universal skills (Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). For these reasons, oral narrative assessment shows promise for the measurement of bilingual oral language (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2002; Miller et al., 2006), and may be especially useful when investigating the development of oral language among children in the first few years of formal schooling, because this is the period when children’s narrative abilities are evolving rapidly (Bohnacker, 2016).

ORAL NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT Oral narrative assessment has long been widely used to assess language disabilities, and two types of narrative tasks are common: spontaneous story production and retelling (Boudreau, 2008). In the spontaneous production condition, children look at a series of pictures or a wordless picture book, then generate a story about the pictures using their own words. In contrast, the retell task requires children to listen to a story while viewing pictures or a wordless picture book, then retell the story in as much detail as possible (Strong, 1998). Both tasks provide information about children’s understanding of holistic narrative elements alongside linguistic development (Muñoz, Gillam, Peña, & Gulley-Faehnle, 2003; Roth, Speece, Cooper, & De La Paz, 1996), but there is a wealth of research suggesting that the tasks require different cognitive and linguistic skills (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2002; Lever & Sénéchal, 2011; Roch et al., 2016). For example, research has shown that children’s retells are longer, better structured, and include more sophisticated linguistic elements than spontaneously-produced stories (Lever & Sénéchal, 2011). In addition, the same skills needed to be proficient in narrative retelling are also needed to comprehend written text, including the ability to understand and use extended, coherent discourse in school-appropriate ways (Gagarina et al., 2015; Oakhill & Cain, 2007). Joshi and Aaron (2011) argued that, “reading comprehension and listening comprehension are mediated by the same cognitive processes” (p. 316). The same may not be true of spontaneous production tasks, since

76

Audrey Lucero

listening comprehension is not required. For this reason, retelling was the assessment method used in the present study. A key benefit of oral narrative retelling (ONR) is that it allows for the assessment of comprehension without being confounded by decoding (Joshi & Aaron, 2011; Paris & Paris, 2003). This is especially appropriate for young children since their oral sequencing and presentation skills typically precede conventional reading and writing (Boyd & Nauclér, 2001). For bilingual children specifically, retelling provide a systematic way to examine oral language proficiency in two languages, potentially enabling researchers to better understand bilingual development among language-minority children in U.S. public schools. ONRs have been used extensively with bilingual children in recent years (Bedore, Peña, Gillam, & Tsung-Han, 2010; Fiestas & Peña, 2004), and at least one large-scale study found a robust relationship between ONR performance and reading proficiency for Spanish-English bilinguals (Miller et al., 2006). In addition, English listening comprehension has been found to significantly predict English reading comprehension among Spanish-speaking students (L. Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 2000). Retells are typically analyzed at two levels: microstructure and macrostructure. The first level – microstructure – includes linguistic elements like vocabulary and grammar; both have been shown in prior research to have a role in the development of reading proficiency for monolingual and bilingual children (Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim, 1999; Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Lindsey, Manis, & Bailey, 2003; Proctor, August, Snow, & Barr, 2010; Proctor, Silverman, Harring, & Montecillo, 2012). Vocabulary, in particular, is an area of concern for bilingual learners (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Carlo et al., 2004), and studies have shown vocabulary knowledge to be highly predictive of reading comprehension for such students (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; García, 1991; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Lindsey et al., 2003). Existing research highlights the predictive validity of vocabulary in the first language (L1) on reading comprehension in the second language (L2) for those as young as first grade and as old as fourth grade (Carlisle et al., 1999; Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Lindsey et al., 2003; Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006; Proctor et al., 2010; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Studies have also found that vocabulary is significantly correlated with and predictive of reading comprehension within the two languages of bilingual children (Lindsey et al., 2003; Manis, Lindsey, & Bailey, 2004; Proctor et al., 2010).

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

77

Grammatical, or syntactic, knowledge likely also plays a role in reading comprehension, because it affects children’s ability to synthesize information (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1998; Verhoeven, 2011a). Skills within the grammatical domain have been found to predict L2 reading comprehension (Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Hipfner-Boucher et al., 2014; Manis et al., 2004; Peregoy & Boyle, 1991; Verhoeven, 1990). However, the role of grammar in reading comprehension is not generally considered as important as that of vocabulary (Gottardo, 2002). The second level at which ONRs are analyzed is the macrostructure, in which the focus is on the child’s overall understanding of story, and the inclusion of discourse elements such as introduction, character development, conflict/resolution, and conclusion, among others (Gagarina et al., 2015; Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, & Dunaway, 2010; Schachter & Craig, 2013; Terry, Mills, Bingham, Mansour, & Marencin, 2013). Macrostructure analysis provides insight into the child’s understanding of story structure, relationships among events in a story, and character motivations and actions (Bedore et al., 2010; Fiestas & Peña, 2004; E. Reese, Sparks, & Suggate, 2012), and is considered to be an area of relative strength among bilingual children because of the language-universal nature of discourse (Paradis et al., 2011; Pearson, 2002). In addition, ONR discourse performance has been found to correlate with, and in some cases be predictive of, reading proficiency. For example, Reese et al., (2010) analyzed the narrative quality of monolingual English children’s ONRs (N = 31) – based on the presence or absence of orienting and evaluating elements – at the end of first grade and found that it uniquely predicted DIBELS oral reading fluency scores both concurrently and one year later. Similarly, Paris and Paris (2003) developed a tool that included story grammar elements such as setting, characters, problem, and solution. They assessed kindergarten, first, and second graders (N = 141) using a frog book (Mayer, 1975) and found that discourse performance was significantly correlated with ITBS comprehension and vocabulary subscores. One tool that has been recently developed to measure ONR discourse is the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010), which incorporates features of story grammar with other narrative elements, such as character development, cohesion, and the use of metalinguistic and metacognitive verbs. The NSS is scored using a combination of discrete coding criteria and qualitative researcher judgment, and is intended to encompass the elements of retelling that map onto reading proficiency (Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, et al., 2010).

78

Audrey Lucero

DEVELOPMENT OF ORAL NARRATIVE SKILL Some research on the development of narrative skills – both spontaneous and retell – among monolingual children has been conducted in the past fifteen years (Lynch et al., 2008; Paris & Paris, 2003; Suggate et al., 2011). In general, this research has shown that macrostructure skills improve with age and formal schooling. For example, Paris and Paris (2003) found a significant effect of grade level on children’s story grammar production in a spontaneous narrative task, with second graders telling significantly more complete stories than either kindergarteners or first graders. The stories of second graders were also better sequenced than stories told by younger children. Similarly, Lynch et al., (2008) found that 6 year-old monolingual English speakers recalled significantly more events from a story heard (or viewed) than 4-year-olds. The older children were also more sensitive to the causal structure of the story than younger children. Suggate et al., (2011) found that among 5- and 7-year-old English speakers in New Zealand, older children performed better in terms of how much of the story they could retell, as well as their understanding of causal structure and inclusion of internal state terms. They were also more sophisticated in their use of microstructure (linguistic) elements like evaluative statements and dialogue. Taken together, findings for monolinguals have identified a number of skills within the narrative retelling task that are developmental in nature among monolingual English-speaking children. In addition, a number of studies have investigated the role of development in spontaneous oral narrative production specifically among bilingual children in the early years of schooling (Bohnacker, 2016; Kupersmitt, Yifat, & Kulka, 2014; Melzi, Schick, & Bostwick, 2013; Muñoz et al., 2003), but only a few have specifically investigated the retelling condition (Roch et al., 2016; Squires et al., 2014). As Gagarina (2016) noted, “our knowledge of the development of macrostructure and its manifestation in the two languages of bilinguals is still inconclusive” (p. 93).

Development of Spontaneous Production among Bilingual Children Studies that have investigated the development of spontaneous narrative production have been conducted with various groups of bilingual children: Spanish-English (Melzi et al., 2013; Muñoz et al., 2003), Swedish-English (Bohnacker, 2016), and Russian-German (Gagarina, 2016), among other

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

79

language pairs (Kupersmitt et al., 2014). Findings are hard to compare directly because researchers used a variety of elicitation protocols, and analyzed different components – some macrostructure and microstructure, some microstructure only. In addition, they managed language differently. Some researchers assessed children in both languages, while others assessed them only in their dominant language; still others combined children’s performance across two languages to arrive at an overall conceptual score. Most were crosssectional, comparing the performance of older and younger children, whereas only one study was conducted longitudinally. Nonetheless, there are some consistent themes across studies with regard to the development of narrative skill, at least with regard to macrostructure. First, several studies found that older children in these studies (ranging in age from 5 to 9 years old) included significantly more story structure elements than their younger counterparts (ranging in age from 3 to 6 years old) (Bohnacker, 2016; Gagarina, 2016; Kupersmitt et al., 2014; Melzi et al., 2013). Kupersmitt et al., (2014) followed immigrant learners of Hebrew in Israel from various language groups from 6 to 8 years of age longitudinally and found that as children got older, they included more story structure elements, especially settings, attempts, outcomes, and initiating events. Bohnacker (2016) compared the performance of Swedish-English bilingual 5 and 7 year-olds, and found that the prevalence of specific story structure elements like orientations and outcomes was significantly higher among older children than younger children. Older children showed increased familiarity with storytelling conventions, which would be expected as children spend more time in formal schooling environments. However, Bohnacker also found a lack of developmental difference in other macrostructure elements, like goal statements, which were low in both age groups; 18% of stories told by 5 year-olds included explicit goal statements, and only 22% of stories told by 6 and 7 year-olds did. It is likely that proficiency in structuring stories continues to improve as children move through school (Berman & Slobin, 1994). Second, older children tended to produce more complex and coherent stories than younger children. For example, Muñoz et al., (2003) and Melzi et al., (2013) examined the spontaneous narrative production of 4 and 5 year-old Latina/o preschoolers in terms of language productivity, sentence organization, and story complexity using Mercer Mayer frog books (Mayer, 1967, 1969), and found that 5 year-olds produced a greater number of complete episodes (including goal, attempt, and outcome) in their stories than 4 year-olds. Gagarina (2016) compared the spontaneous productions of Russian-German preschoolers to those of first and third graders and found significant

80

Audrey Lucero

differences in number of complete episodes between preschoolers and third graders in both languages. The difference between preschoolers and first graders was significant in Russian (L1) only, suggesting that story complexity may take longer to develop in an L2. In the first language, in contrast, there may be more developmental growth in story structure and complexity at the earliest years of schooling. These findings also provide further evidence that some elements of macrostructure – such as complexity and story structure – are not fully acquired by children even by the age of seven. A third consistent macrostructure finding across at least two spontaneous narrative studies with bilingual children was that older children used more internal state (thinking and feeling) verbs than younger children (Bohnacker, 2016; Gagarina, 2016). For example, among Swedish-English bilinguals, internal states were used as initiating events in only 13% of stories told by 5 year-olds, but were present in 27% of stories told by 6 and 7 year-olds (Bohnacker, 2016). Gagarina (2016) also found that first and third grade Russian-German bilinguals produced significantly more internal state terms than preschoolers in both languages. In contrast to macrostructural findings, fewer studies of spontaneous narrative production measured microstructure performance, and those that did had disparate – and sometimes contradictory – findings. Muñoz et al., (2003) found that among Spanish-English bilingual preschoolers, length of narratives did not differ significantly between 4 and 5 year-olds. This finding is similar to another bilingual study with slightly older children (Kupersmitt et al., 2014), but differs from work done with monolingual children (Paris & Paris, 2003) and at least one other study with bilingual children (Gagarina, 2016), which both found significant differences between younger and older children on the total number of words used to tell stories. Beyond length, some elements of microstructure may improve with age, but the evidence for such improvements is minimal, given the few studies that have investigated this issue. Specific findings include: 5 year-olds produced stories with longer C-units and a higher proportion of grammatically acceptable sentences than 4 years olds (Muñoz et al., 2003), as well as more coordinating conjunctions (Melzi et al., 2013). Eight year-olds in Kupersmitt et al., (2014) also used more coordinating conjunctions than 6 year-olds, but the number of subordinating conjunctions used was low at both ages. Thus, as is the case with macrostructural elements, some narrative microstructure skills may not be fully developed even by the age of 8 years old.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

81

Development of Retell Production among Bilingual Children Only two recent studies specifically investigated performance on oral narrative retell tasks – as opposed to spontaneous production tasks – among bilingual children (Roch et al., 2016; Squires et al., 2014), and both found significant macrostructure differences between younger children (5 and 6 yearolds) and older children (6 and 7 year-olds). In a longitudinal study, Squires et al., (2014) reported that first grade Spanish-English bilinguals included more references to characters, initiating events, and internal responses in both languages than they did as kindergarteners. A cross-sectional study by Roch et al., (2016) reported similar findings: first grade Italian-English bilingual children produced significantly more story structure elements than kindergarteners did. The older children also produced significantly more internal state terms than younger children, a finding that mirrors those from some of the studies of bilingual spontaneous narrative discussed earlier (Bohnacker, 2016; Gagarina, 2016). Unlike others, however, Roch et al., did not find significant differences between older and younger children on complexity. Just one study has investigated developmental differences among bilingual children on microstructure, and significant changes in performance were found between kindergarteners and first graders in Spanish (L1), but not in English (L2) (Squires et al., 2014). Overall, recent findings related to spontaneous and retell narrative production show strong evidence that some macrostructural narrative elements improve with age and formal school experience, while others do not. Findings for microstructural performance are less robust and consistent, but suggest that some elements of microstructure may be developmental as well. Such development seems to be more rapid at earlier ages – preschool to kindergarten – possibly due to cognitive development that is also prevalent in this age range. Formal schooling also likely plays a role in narrative development; as children are exposed to more formal literacy practices at school and the stories they hear become richer and more complex, it is to be expected that the stories they produce will also show more conventional structure and greater complexity.

82

Audrey Lucero

CURRENT STUDY This study examined whether there were significant differences on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade SpanishEnglish bilingual children in U.S. schools. Existing research has identified specific narrative skills that are developmental in nature among monolingual English-speaking children and bilingual children from a number of language groups. However, different elicitation methods and mixed findings have made generalization difficult. In addition, the range of ages in oral narrative research has been wide, and many studies have compared children who are at least two or three years apart. As Bohnacker (2016) noted, “it is worth asking whether any development can already be seen from age 5 to 6-7” (p. 43). The population of interest in the present study was children in their first three years of formal schooling. Two specific questions guided this research, and hypotheses were developed based on the existing literature: Question 1: Are there significant differences in macrostructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do macrostructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? It was hypothesized that there would be significant differences in performance among children in different grades. Almost all existing research with bilingual children between the ages of four and eight shows significant differences between older and younger children on at least some elements of macrostructure (Gagarina, 2016; Kupersmitt et al., 2014; Melzi et al., 2013; Muñoz et al., 2003; Roch et al., 2016; Squires et al., 2014), although none of those studies used the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS). In terms of specific grade-level differences that were expected, Bohnacker (2016) found significant differences between a group of kindergarteners and a combined group of first and second graders on story structure and number of internal state terms included in spontaneous stories. The NSS also includes elements of story structure and internal state terms, so it was expected that differences would be found between kindergarteners and first or second graders in the present study. Regarding the question of whether grade-level differences would vary by language of retell, it seemed likely that there would not be significant differences. Two studies that investigated this issue among young bilinguals

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

83

found no significant differences by language on either a spontaneous production task (Gagarina, 2016) or on a retell task (Roch et al., 2016). It was therefore expected that older and younger children in this study would exhibit similar differences in macrostructure in both Spanish and English. Question 2: Are there significant differences in microstructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do microstructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? There are few studies that examine the microstructure development of oral narrative skill among young bilingual children, so it was difficult to generate a meaningful hypothesis. However, one of the few studies that does exist found significant differences on some elements. Muñoz et al., (2003) found that 5 year-old Spanish-English bilinguals produced significantly longer utterances than 4 year-olds in English, but there were no age differences on vocabulary. With regard to the question of whether grade-level differences would vary by language of retell, again there was only one study to draw on. Squires et al., (2014) found significant differences between kindergarten and first graders’ microstructure production in their (L1), but not in their L2. Therefore, it was possible that grade-level differences would vary by language. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, since the microstructure elements assessed by Squires et al., were not the same as those assessed in the present study.

METHOD Participants Data for this study were collected in four schools in two districts; both districts were located in the same mid-sized urban area in the Pacific Northwest near a large public university. District A served a diverse population of about 11,000 students, approximately 68% of whom were white and 19% Latino, as reported by the State Department of Education (Oregon, 2013). At the time of the study, sixty-three percent (63%) of students were eligible for free and reduced lunch and approximately six percent (6%) received English as a Second Language (ESL) services. A majority of ESL students spoke Spanish as a home language, and were concentrated in certain

84

Audrey Lucero

areas of the city. Students from three schools with high concentrations of Spanish-speaking Latino students (averaging 29%) and rates of eligibility for free and reduced lunch (averaging 85%) participated. All elementary schools in the district provided instruction in English only at the time of the study. District B enrolled approximately 16,000 students in grades K-12, 68% of whom were white and 14% Latino. According to the State Department of Education, forty-three percent (43%) of students were eligible for free or reduced lunch and approximately one percent (1%) received English as a Second Language (ESL) services at the time of the study. As in District A, a large majority of ESL children spoke Spanish as a home language, and attended a handful of elementary schools. The site for this study was a dual language immersion school with a considerably higher percentage of Latino students (41%) and those eligible for free and reduced lunch (68%) than the district average. In this school, literacy instruction in grades K-2 was conducted in the home language of the child (as determined by school criteria and initial language assessment), so all participating children received literacy instruction in Spanish at the time of the study. The inclusion of children in different language of instruction contexts was intended to be representative of the primary grade Spanish-speaking population of the U.S. in that some children possessed strong native oral language and reading skills and others did not (Proctor et al., 2005). All kindergarten, first, and second graders in these schools whose parents identified them as “speaking Spanish as a first language” on a home language survey were given consent forms. Ninety-five children returned signed forms and were consented in to the study (kindergarten N = 23; first grade N = 33; second grade N = 39). Nothing was known about the amount of each language spoken in the home, but all participating children had been enrolled in the school at least since the beginning of the school year in which assessments were conducted. The majority were born in the United States to parents of Mexican descent, although a small number of participants came from families originating in Central America. Since participants were enrolled in two types of programs (dual language immersion N = 65; English only N = 30), they exhibited a range of oral proficiencies in both languages, and the majority (N = 80, approximately 85%) qualified for ELL services. Qualifying children received daily push-in or pull-out English language development instruction with an ELL teacher or a bilingual instructional assistant. A small number either did not qualify or had already exited services by the time the study was conducted (N = 15). ESL qualification data was missing for three children.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

85

Spanish language proficiency data were not collected in either school and were therefore not known to the researcher. Seven children from the original sample did not adequately complete the oral narrative retell assessment in either Spanish or English, but all children were able to do the assessment in at least one language. Therefore, 88 children completed the assessment in each language, and 82 completed the assessment in both languages. Sample sizes for each of the analyses vary accordingly.

ORAL NARRATIVE RETELL PROCEDURE ONR assessments using two wordless picture books, Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969) and Frog goes to dinner (Mayer, 1974) were conducted. Audio scripts provided by Miller, Andriacchi, and Nockerts (2011) were used to record a highly proficient bilingual speaker reading both stories. These scripts are designed to have comparable lengths, sentence complexity, and levels of cohesion (Greenhalgh & Strong, 2001) and they have been used with Spanish-English bilinguals in other studies (Bedore et al., 2010; SimonCereijido & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2009). All assessments were conducted by the principal investigator (Spanish and English assessments) and a trained graduate research assistant (English assessments only). The assessor began by giving a general overview of the book as well as instructions about how and when to turn pages while listening. Children were informed in advance that they would be asked to retell the story and that they would not be able to use the book while doing so. Children listened to the story using headphones while the assessor sat next to or across from the child and worked. This naïve listener condition is expected to lead to more detailed retelling because of the lack of shared knowledge between researcher and child (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Boyd & Nauclér, 2001; Strong, 1998). All children were assessed in Spanish first and in English approximately a week later. Books were randomly counterbalanced such that half of the children heard Frog, where are you? in Spanish and Frog goes to dinner in English, while the opposite was true for the other half of children. Each assessment session lasted approximately twenty minutes, and the assessor spoke only the target language for the entire session. After listening to the story, the child was given the option to review the book one more time before giving it to the assessor to put away. Approximately half the children took the option to do so. Then the

86

Audrey Lucero

audiorecorder was turned on, and children were prompted to begin their retell. The assessor remained silent throughout, intervening only after pauses of more than three seconds. After three seconds, the assessor gave a general prompt such as “algo más?” (“anything else?”) (Miller et al., 2011). Once the child had retold most of the story or paused for longer than five seconds, the researcher asked “es todo lo que recuerdas?” (“is that all you remember?”).

DATA ANALYSIS All narratives were audiorecorded and transcribed either by the principal investigator or trained and experienced university students who were highly proficient in the target language. The Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts computer program (SALT) and its accompanying conventions were used for all segmenting and coding (Miller, 2012; Miller et al., 2011). All measures in this study were calculated using only complete and intelligible utterances. In addition, maze behaviors such as repetitions and reformulations were omitted and therefore did not count in any of the measures. There were few instances of code-switching in the dataset, but those instances were also considered maze behavior and were not counted in final measures. In line with SALT conventions, transcripts were segmented into C-units using Loban’s (1976) rules; a C-unit includes a main clause and all of its subordinate clauses. For example, the sentence the frog jumped before it landed in the water would be considered one C-unit, since before is a subordinating conjunction. Segmenting of C-units only differed in the case of coordinated clauses with omitted subjects in the second main clause, as recommended in the literature on ONRs with Spanish-speaking children (Gutiérrez-Clellen & Hofstetter, 1994; Miller et al., 2006). In other words, utterances that contain a succession of coordinating verbs (and, but, or, etc.) without repeating the subject were segmented into separate C-units, even if they would be considered one utterance using standard segmenting conventions. For example, the following would be considered one utterance using standard C-unit segmenting conventions: the frog jumped and landed in the water. However, using modified C-units, as in the present study, it would be segmented as two utterances: the frog jumped/and landed in the water. This modified C-unit segmenting makes sense when analyzing transcripts in studies with bilingual Spanish speakers because of the pronoun-drop nature of Spanish; the subject pronoun is not necessary since it is encoded in the verb that follows.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

87

Modified C-unit segmenting results in a greater overall number of utterances than might be the case with standard C-unit segmenting, but it protects against overinflating the grammatical complexity children are using. In order to maintain consistency and comparability across languages, modified C-unit segmenting was used in the present study to segment all transcripts in both languages. This same procedure was used by Miller et al., (2006) to ensure that participants’ narrative abilities in both languages were calculated equitably (Miller et al., 2011). Number of different words (NDW) was the first microstructure measure analyzed (Miller et al., 2006). It is a total count of the unique, uninflected lexemes used in each complete retell. It is helpful as a cross-linguistic measure because it accounts for the very different morphological systems in English and Spanish and allows for direct comparison across languages (SimonCereijido & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2009). NDW has been shown to be a developmentally-sensitive and robust indicator of a child’s vocabulary and is widely used in research on oral narrative production among bilingual children (Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, et al., 2010). It has also been found to be positively related to reading achievement in Spanish-speaking children (Miller et al., 2006; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). NDW is analyzed automatically by the SALT program. The grammatical element analyzed was mean length of utterance at the word level (MLUw), widely considered a reliable measure of grammar for this population of learners (Castilla, Restrepo, & Perez-Leroux, 2009; Rojas & Iglesias, 2013). Grammatical analysis of oral narrative retells is important because syntactic knowledge plays a role in reading comprehension, especially with regard to children’s ability to synthesize information (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1998; Verhoeven, 2011b). MLUw is analyzed automatically by the SALT program. The macrostructure measure analyzed was the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) (Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, et al., 2010). The NSS includes basic story grammar elements, but also incorporates sophisticated narrative elements like cohesion, mental states, and the use of clear antecedents and referents (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010). It is an overall index of a child’s ability to produce a coherent and detailed narrative. The NSS consists of seven categories, each of which is scored holistically on a scale of one (minimal/immature) to five (proficient) for a possible 35 points total (Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, et al., 2010). When compared to other macrostructure measures, the NSS has been found to be more sensitive (less negatively skewed) to the performance of 5 through 7 year-old children.

88

Audrey Lucero

RELIABILITY To achieve interrater reliability, between ten and twenty percent of transcripts in each language (sixteen in Spanish, twelve in English) were randomly selected to be transcribed, segmented, and coded by both the researcher and a trained university student or SALT professional. In English, word-to-word match transcription was 98% and point-to-point agreement on identification of modified C-units was 94%. In Spanish, word-to word match transcription was 92% and point-to-point identification of modified C-units was 90%. In all cases, inter-rater reliability was considered adequate. Following Heilmann et al., (2010), Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff, 1980) was used to calculate interrater reliability for NSS, as it accounts for differences in both agreement and degree of difference on ordinal data between transcribers. Alpha values were calculated using the total NSS scores that were calculated by the two independent transcribers (a = .86 for NSS). This was above Krippendorff’s benchmark of .80 for adequate agreement.

FINDINGS Descriptives for all ONR macrostructure and microstructure elements are shown in Table 1. There were increases in performance for all elements across grades, such that mean scores among second graders were higher than those for kindergarteners or first graders. The goal of this study was to determine whether those differences in performance were significant. Findings for each research question are reported in this section. Question 1: Are there significant differences in macrostructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do macrostructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? To address the first research question, two one-way between groups ANOVAs were conducted. Grade level was the categorical independent variable and the two continuous dependent variables were SpNSS and EngNSS. Results are shown in Table 2.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

89

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of Spanish and English elements by grade level

Macrostructure SpNSS EngNSS Microstructure SpNDW SpMLUw EngNDW EngMLUw

Kindergarten (n = 23)

First grade (n = 33)

Second grade (n = 39)

Overall mean

14.7 (6.3) 14.2 (5.6)

18.0 (7.6) 16.8 (5.8)

20.6 (6.3) 22.6 (5.8)

18.4 (7.1) 18.8 (6.7)

40.9 (25.3) 6.5 (1.4) 49.8 (24.4) 7.3 (1.4)

52.9 (25.6) 7.0 (1.3) 55.0 (26.6) 7.6 (1.5)

64.3 (23.1) 7.6 (1.2) 77.9 (26.2) 7.9 (1.2)

55.1 (25.8) 7.2 (1.3) 64.1 (28.6) 7.6 (1.3)

Table 2. Tukey’s Post-Hoc Comparisons for Macrostructure ANOVAs (N = 88) Measure SpNSS

EngNSS

Comparison Kinder-First Kinder-Second First-Second Kinder-First Kinder-Second First-Second

Mean Difference -3.3 -5.85 -2.55 -2.61 -8.48 -5.87

SE 1.96 1.87 1.66 1.68 1.61 1.39

p ns .007 ns ns .000 .000

As expected, there was a significant main effect of grade in both Spanish and English macrostructure performance. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .01 level in SpNSS scores: F(2,85) = 4.9, p = .007. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .10, which is considered medium (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for kindergarteners (M = 14.7, SD = 6.3) was significantly different from second graders (M = 20.6, SD = 6.3). First graders (M = 18.0, SD = 7.6) did not differ significantly for either kindergarteners or second graders. There was also a statistically significant difference at the p < .001 level in EngNSS scores for the three grades: F(2,85) = 16.8, p = .000. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .28, which is considered large (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for kindergarteners (M = 14.2, SD = 5.6) was significantly different from second graders (M = 22.6, SD = 5.8). In addition, first graders

90

Audrey Lucero

(M = 16.7, SD = 5.8) also differed significantly from second graders. Kindergarteners did not differ significantly from first graders. Macrostructure differences by grade level did not differ by language of retell. The pattern of significant differences was the same in both Spanish and English. Question 2: Are there significant differences in microstructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do microstructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? To address the second research question, four one-way between groups ANOVAs were conducted. Grade level was the categorical independent variable and the four continuous dependent variables were SpNDW, SpMLUw, EngNDW, and EngMLUw. Results are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Tukey’s Post-Hoc Comparisons for Microstructure ANOVAs (N = 88) Measure SpNDW

SpMLUw

EngNDW

EngMLUw

Comparison Kinder - First Kinder-Second First-Second Kinder-First Kinder-Second First-Second Kinder - First Kinder-Second First-Second Kinder-First Kinder-Second First-Second

Mean Difference -11.88 -23.30 -11.42 -.50 -1.11 -.61 -5.24 -28.13 -22.89 -.34 -.59 -.25

SE 7.07 6.76 5.98 .37 .35 .31 7.61 7.26 6.31 .38 .37 .32

p ns .003 ns ns .006 ns ns .001 .001 ns ns ns

It was not known whether there would be a main effect of grade on microstructure elements of ONR, due to the small number of previous studies that have addressed this issue among bilingual children. In the present study, there was a statistically significant difference in both Spanish microstructure elements. First, there was a significant main effect of grade at the p < .01 level in SpNDW scores: F(2,85) = 6.1, p = .003. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .13, which is considered medium (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

91

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for kindergarteners (M = 40.9, SD = 25.3) was significantly different from second graders (M = 64.3, SD = 23.1). First graders (M = 52.9, SD = 25.6) did not differ significantly from either kindergarteners or second graders. There was also a statistically significant difference at the p < .01 level in SpMLUw scores for the three grades: F(2,85) = 5.2, p = .006. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .10, which is considered medium (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for kindergarteners (M = 6.5, SD = 1.4) was significantly different from second graders (M = 7.6, SD = 1.2). First graders (M = 7.0, SD = 1.3) did not differ significantly from either kindergarteners or second graders. The pattern of findings for English microstructure elements was different than that for Spanish. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .001 level in EngNDW scores for the three grades: F(2,85) = 10.2, p = .000. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .19, which is considered large (Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for kindergarteners (M = 49.8, SD = 24.4) was significantly different from second graders (M = 77.9, SD = 26.2). In addition, first graders (M = 55.0, SD = 26.6) also differed significantly from second graders. Kindergarteners did not differ significantly from first graders on EngNDW. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in English MLUw scores for the three grades.

CONCLUSION The present study aimed to improve the field’s understanding of narrative development among young Spanish-English bilinguals, especially with regard to age differences in performance. Oral narrative retelling, in particular, has been used to assess bilingual children in recent years (Bedore et al., 2010; Fiestas & Peña, 2004), and one large-scale study reported a significant relationship between ONR performance and reading proficiency for SpanishEnglish bilinguals (Miller et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important to understand the oral narrative development of bilingual children in U.S. schools. Improvement across grades was apparent in both languages; the oldest participants (second graders) performed significantly better than the youngest participants on vocabulary and macrostructure in Spanish and English, as well as on grammar in Spanish. On some elements, second graders also performed significantly better than first graders, but there were no instances of

92

Audrey Lucero

significantly different performance between kindergarteners and first graders. These findings suggest that children’s oral narrative skills continue to develop throughout the first three years of school. However, it is important to remember that this data is cross-sectional rather then longitudinal, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn about long-term development. Nonetheless, it was the case that older children outperformed younger children at both the macrostructure and microstructure levels. It is also notable that this pattern was evident in both languages because it suggests that these children were developing bilingualism rather than losing their home language, which frequently occurs in U.S. schools. One possible reason for this pattern of ongoing improvement is the fact that sixty-five of the ninety-five participants were enrolled in a dual language immersion program that explicitly facilitated bilingualism and biliteracy. In addition to these general findings, the study was driven by two specific research questions. Conclusions and implications for each are discussed below. Question 1: Are there significant differences in macrostructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do macrostructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? Significant differences in macrostructure performance across grades were expected. Most previous research with young bilingual children has shown significant differences between older and younger children on at least some elements of macrostructure (Gagarina, 2016; Kupersmitt et al., 2014; Melzi et al., 2013; Muñoz et al., 2003; Roch et al., 2016; Squires et al., 2014). The present study is the first to examine such differences using the Narrative Scoring Scheme (NSS) as a macrostructure measure, and findings largely corroborate previous research. Second graders performed significantly better than kindergarteners in both languages. In addition, there was variation in the pattern of grade-level differences on macrostructure between the two languages. In Spanish, NSS scores were significantly different only between kindergarteners and second graders, whereas in English, scores were significantly different both between kindergarteners and second graders and between first and second graders. This was an unexpected finding that contradicts studies that found no significant differences by language on either a spontaneous production task (Gagarina, 2016) or on a retell task (Roch et al., 2016).

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

93

Delving a bit deeper into the data, it was noted that kindergarteners and first graders performed slightly lower on NSS in English than they did in Spanish, but among second graders the opposite was true: they did better in English than they did in Spanish. This difference could be explained by the fact that by second grade, all children – regardless of whether they were in dual language immersion or English only classrooms – had been exposed to one more year of English. Perhaps their English oral narrative skills were improving more rapidly as a result of this exposure alongside formal schooling. It is also notable that overall macrostructure means were somewhat low in both languages (18.4 in Spanish, 18.8 in English – out of a possible 35 points). Bohnacker (2016) and others (Gagarina, 2016) have presented evidence that macrostructure proficiency continues to improve as bilingual children move beyond the primary grades. Indeed, findings from this study corroborate their argument that some elements of macrostructure – particularly complexity and story structure – are not fully acquired even by the age of seven. Question 2: Are there significant differences in microstructure performance on oral narrative retelling among kindergarten, first, and second grade Spanish-English bilingual children? Do microstructure grade-level differences vary by language of retell? Because of the dearth of studies examining the microstructure development of oral narrative among young bilingual children, it was not known what to expect with regard to vocabulary and grammar skills. A small amount of research has found significant differences on some elements, but not others. Muñoz et al., (2003) found that 5 year-old Spanish-English bilinguals produced significantly longer utterances (a measure of grammar) than 4 year-olds, but there were no age differences on vocabulary. However, they assessed children in English only, so it is not possible to draw conclusions from their findings about differences or similarities across languages. At least one study (Squires et al., 2014) found significant differences between kindergarteners and first graders’ microstructure production in L1 but not L2. The microstructure elements they assessed were different from those used in the present study, and findings were different as well. In the present study, Spanish vocabulary and grammar scores were significantly different only between kindergarteners and second graders, whereas in English, vocabulary scores were significantly different both between kindergarteners and second

94

Audrey Lucero

graders and between first graders and second graders. In no case were there significant differences between kindergarteners and first graders. Overall, findings from this study provide nuance to the small amount of previous work that has investigated the oral narrative performance of bilingual children. Older children performed significantly better than younger children on almost all elements in both languages, suggesting that narrative skills may show similar patterns of development bilingual children the same as they do in monolingual children. It would not have been possible to explore these nuances in oral narrative performance without assessing children in both of their languages, and at both the microstructure and macrostructure levels. The greatest contribution of this study is that it adds to the evidence base about what can be learned from bilingual oral narrative assessment, and expands what is known through the use of a novel tool (NSS) with the growing population of young U.S. Spanish-English bilingual children.

REFERENCES August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. E. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50-57. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2005.00120.x. Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., & Tsung-Han, H. (2010). Language sample measures and language ability in Spanish-English bilingual kindergartners. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 498-510. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.05.002. Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Bohnacker, U. (2016). Tell me a story in English or Swedish: Narrative production and comprehension in bilingual preschoolers and first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 19-48. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000405. Boudreau, D. M. (2008). Narrative abilities: Advances in research and implications for clinical practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(2), 99-114. Boyd, S., & Nauclér, K. (2001). Sociocultural aspects of bilingual narrative development in Sweden. In L. T. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context (Vol. 23, pp. 129-151). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

95

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(4), 459-478. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188-215. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3. Castilla, A. P., Restrepo, A., & Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2009). Individual differences and language interdependence: A study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish-English preschool children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 565-580. doi:10.1080/ 13670050802357795. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish-speakers' textreading fluency in English. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475-494. Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2004). African American and Caucasian preschoolers use of decontextualized language: Literate language features in oral narratives. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 240-253. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. T. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78-103. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4. Fiestas, C. E., & Peña, E. D. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Language and task effects. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 155-168. doi:0161–1461/04/3502–0155. Gagarina, N. (2016). Narratives of Russian-German preschool and primary school bilinguals: Rasskaz and Erzaehlung. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 91-122. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000430. Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balciuniene, I., Walter, J. (2015). Assessment of narrative abilities in bilingual children. In S. Armon-Lotem, J. deJong, & N. Meir (Eds.), Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 243276). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

96

Audrey Lucero

García, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371-392. Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 46-70. Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330-344. doi:10.1037/a0014320. Greenhalgh, K. S., & Strong, C. J. (2001). Literate language features in spoken narratives of children with typical language and children with language impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 114-125. doi:0161-1461/01/3202-0114. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (1998). Syntactic skills of Spanish-speaking children with low school achievement. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 207-215. doi:0161-1461/98/2904-0207. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2002). Narratives in two languages: Assessing performance of bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 175197. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Hofstetter, R. (1994). Syntactic complexity in Spanish narratives: A developmental study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 645-654. doi:0022-4685/94/3703-0645. Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Sensitivity of narrative organization measures using narrative retells produced by young schoolage children. Language Testing, 27, 603-626. doi:10.1177/ 0265532209355669. Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative retells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 154-166. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0024). Hipfner-Boucher, K., Lam, K., & Chen, X. (2014). The contribution of narrative morphosyntactic quality to reading comprehension in French immersion students. Applied Psycholinguistics. doi:10.1017/ S0142716414000319. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2011). Assessment of reading problems among English language learners based on the component model. In A. Y.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

97

Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language, and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings. New york, NY: The Guilford Press. Kieffer, M. (2012). Early oral language and later reading development in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Pscyhology, 33, 146-157. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kupersmitt, J. R., Yifat, R., & Kulka, S. B. (2014). The development of coherence and cohesion in monolingual and sequential bilingual children's narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 24(1), 40-76. Lever, R., & Sénéchal, M. (2011). Discussing stories: On how a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergartners' oral narrative construction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 1-24. doi:10.1016/ j.jecp.2010.07.002. Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 482-494. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.482. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (Research report). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Lynch, J. S., van den Broek, P., Kremer, K. E., Kendeou, P., White, M. J., & Lorch, E. P. (2008). The development of narrative comprehension and its relation to other early reading skills. Reading psychology, 29, 327-365. doi:10.1080/02702710802165416. Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades k-2 in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 214-224. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2004.00107.x. Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2011). The role of first language in oral language development in English: The case of both alphabetic and nonalphabetic languages. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings (pp. 29-60). New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Mayer, M. (1967). A Boy, a Dog, and a Frog. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press. Mayer, M. (1974). Frog goes to dinner. New York, NY: Dial Press. Mayer, M. (1975). One frog too many. New York, NY: Dial Press.

98

Audrey Lucero

Melzi, G., Schick, A., & Bostwick, E. (2013). Latino children's narrative competencies over the preschool years. Actualidades en Psicología, 27(115), 1-14. Miller, J. F. (2012). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts [Computer Software]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2011). Assessing language production using SALT software. Middleton, WI: SALT Software LLC. Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 30-43. doi:10.1111/j.15405826.2006.00205.x. Muñoz, M. L., Gillam, R. B., Peña, E. D., & Gulley-Faehnle, A. (2003). Measures of language development in fictional narratives of Latino children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 332342. doi:0161–1461/03/3404–0332. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children's reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47-72). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Oregon, D. o. E. (2013). October 1 Enrollment by Ethnicity Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0067Select2.asp. Panel, N. E. L. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute of Literacy. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2011). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second langauge learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Paris, A., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 36-76. Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 135-174). Celevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (1991). Second language oral proficiency characteristics of low, intermediate, and high second language readers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 35-47. Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159-169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.159.

Oral Narrative Performance among Kindergarten …

99

Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C., & Barr, C. D. (2010). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of SpanishEnglish bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 5-20. doi:10.1080/15235881003733209. Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanishspeaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246-256. doi:10.1037/00220663.97.2.246. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., & Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among english monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(7), 16351664. Reese, E., Sparks, A., & Suggate, S. (2012). Assessing children's narratives. In E. Hoff (Ed.), Research methods in child language: A practical guide (pp. 133-148). Chichester, UK: Blackwell. Reese, E., Suggate, S., Long, J., & Schaughency, E. (2010). Children's oral narrative and reading skills in the first three years of reading instruction. Reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 627-644. Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middleschool English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 633-662. Roch, M., Florit, E., & Levorato, C. (2016). Narrative competence of ItalianEnglish bilingual children between 5 and 7 years. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 49-67. doi:10.1017/S0142716415000417. Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2013). The language growth of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Child Development, 84, 630-646. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2012.01871.x. Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral language and early reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 259-272. doi:10.1080/00220670209596600. Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., Cooper, D. H., & De La Paz, S. (1996). Unresolved mysteries: How do metalinguistic and narrative skills connect with early reading? The Journal of Special Education, 30, 257-277. doi:10.1177/ 002246699603000303. Schachter, R. E., & Craig, H. K. (2013). Students' production of narrative and AAE features during an emergent literacy task. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 227-238.

100

Audrey Lucero

Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 315-337. doi:10. 1017/S0142716409090134. Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and firstgrade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 37-47. doi:10.1080/02568549509594686. Speece, D. L., Roth, F. P., Cooper, D. H., & De La Paz, S. (1999). The relevance of oral language skills to early literacy: A multivariate analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 167-190. doi:10.1017/S01427164 99002015. Squires, K. E., Lugo-Neris, M. J., Peña, E. D., Bedore, L. M., Bohman, T. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2014). Story retelling by bilingual children with language impairments and typically developing controls. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(1), 60-74. Strong, C. J. (1998). Strong narrative assessment procedure. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publication. Suggate, S., Schaughency, E., & Reese, E. (2011). The contribution of age and reading instruction to oral narrative and pre-reading skills. First Language, 31(4), 379-403. Terry, N. P., Mills, M. T., Bingham, G. E., Mansour, S., & Marencin, N. (2013). Oral narrative performance of African American prekindergartners who speak nonmainstream American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 291-305. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0037). Verhoeven, L. T. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 90-114. Verhoeven, L. T. (2011a). Second language reading acquisition. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 4, pp. 661-683). New York, NY: Routledge. Verhoeven, L. T. (2011b). Second language reading acquisition. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Routledge. Verhoeven, L. T., & Strömqvist, S. (2001). Development of narrative production in a multilingual context. In L. T. Verhoeven & S. Strömqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context (Vol. 23, pp. 114). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

BEYOND LANGUAGE BORDERS TO TRANSLANGUAGING WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT Roula Tsokalidou

*

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

ABSTRACT In this chapter we first attempt to highlight some of the issues related to the concept and practice of ‘translanguaging’ as proposed by Baker (2011) and García (2012) within the broader context of language contact. We will then propose an approach towards translanguaging which differentiates it from code-switching through examples from bi/multilingual language use. Building upon the theory of Otheguy et al. (2015), we suggest that TL can also be monolingual and we will propose a typology of levels of translanguaging. We will look into translanguaging as a creative linguistic practice that gives expression to new identities that are created in language contact situations within and outside the school context. Last but not least, we suggest that translanguaging may give us the means for softening the borders between different language groups. To this end we propose that the creation and use of identity texts (Cummins & Early, 2011, Kourti-Kazoulli & Tzanetopoulou, 2003) offers a very powerful means of bringing various issues of translanguaging to the foreground. *

Corresponding Author address. Email: [email protected].

102

Roula Tsokalidou

Keywords: bilingualism, translanguaging, synaesthesia, code switching, monolingual translanguaging, typology of translanguaging, identity texts

INTRODUCTION A Short Discussion on the Definition of the Term ‘Translanguaging’ As Baker explains, the term ‘translanguaging’ was created by a wellknown Welsh educationalist, Cen Williams, in the 1980s, describing the planned and systematic use of two languages for teaching and learning inside the same lesson (Baker, 2003, 2011). It was ‘coined as a Welsh word ‘trawsieithu’ by Cen Williams and a colleague of his (Dafydd Whittall) during an in-service course for deputy headteachers in Llandudno (North Wales) and it was later translated into English as ‘translinguifying’ but then changed to ‘translanguaging’ following a conversation between Cen Williams and Colin Baker.’ ‘Translanguaging’ came to mean the process whereby one language is used in order to reinforce the other with the aim to increase understanding and in order to augment the pupils’ ability in both languages (Williams, 2002:40). In other words, through translanguaging, pupils internalise new ideas they hear, assign their own understanding to the message/concept and, simultaneously, utilise the message/concept in their other language(s). In doing so, they augment and supplement the message/concept through dual language processing. Williams (2003) suggests that translanguaging focuses more on the pupils’ use of two languages (and what they are able to achieve by using both languages) rather than on the teachers’ role within the classroom, although it may be engineered by the teacher. Williams (2003) also suggested that through translanguaging often the stronger language is used in order to develop the weaker one thereby contributing towards a potentially relatively balanced development of a child’s two languages. This approach was important in the Welsh context as the aim was for the child to develop both languages at school and translanguaging was seen as a strategy for retaining and developing bilingualism rather than as a strategy promoting the teaching of the second language. The four potential educational advantages of translanguaging put forward by Williams, as documented by Baker (2001, 2006, 2011) are the promotion of a deeper understanding of the subject matter, the development of the students’ weaker languages, the facilitation of the co-operation between

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

103

the home and the school and the integration of fluent speakers with early learners. Ofelia García (2009a, 2009b) extended the term ‘translanguaging’ to mean more than the pedagogic variation of linguistic input and output. García treats ‘translanguaging’ as a strategy that bilinguals use to make meaning, shape their experiences, gain understanding and knowledge, and make sense of their bilingual worlds through the everyday use of two (or more) languages. García proposed the definition of ‘translanguaging’ as “a powerful mechanism to construct understandings, to include others, and to mediate understandings across language groups” (García, 2009a:307-308). García argues that it is impossible to live in communities such as New York and communicate among multilinguals without translanguaging (García, 2009b:151). Based on observation of translanguaging practices in bilingual communities, García’s approach towards translanguaging helped extend the use of this process to include the complex everyday realities of home and street (García, 2009a). In other words, García (2009a; 2011) views translanguaging— “or engaging in bilingual or multilingual discourse practices” (2009a: 44) — as an approach centred not on languages, but on the communicative practices of bilinguals. Within the notion and process of translanguaging, other linguistic contact phenomena are included, such as code-switching and translation, but the emphasis is given on the process adopted by bilingual students in their classrooms. The proposed approach to translanguaging (or TL for short) seems to be in line with an approach to bilingualism as proposed by Brutt-Griffler & Varghese (2004: 94), according to which ‘Bilinguals remind us that linguistic space is rather a continuum of Language (…) it is not only languages that cohabit in the same space but (…) also an accompanying process of (…) ‘mixing of cultures and world views’ that is impenetrable to some, troubling to others.’ In other words, according to the above approach, the fusion of different views and cultures plays a significant role in understanding bilingualism, and, at the same time, the traditional distinction of autonomous languages is abandoned as emphasis is given to the existence of a linguistic continuum. This definition shows that the resistance to bilingualism is attributed, to a great extent, both to the concerns of the dominant society about a potential subversion of the linguistic norm, and to the failure of monolinguals to appreciate the importance of language coexistence for bilinguals and the rest of the society (Tsokalidou, 2015). Equivalent is the approach expressed by Velasco & García (2014), according to which the language practices being learned by emergent bilinguals are in functional

104

Roula Tsokalidou

interrelationship with other language practices and form an integrated system. TL is more than code switching, which considers that the two languages are separate systems (or codes) and are “switched” for communicative purposes. Moreover, we believe that while code-switching refers mainly to the language level, translanguaging allows us to refer to the wider ideological issues of multilingual management and the development of languages and language varieties, which are related to our complex and changing relationship to the language and language varieties which make up our personal and collective identity.

Translanguaging and Related Terms In our attempt to further delineate or extend the borders of translanguaging, we will investigate its possible relation with other terms that have been proposed in the relevant literature. One term that may be associated with translanguaging is “synaesthesia” (Skourtou, 2002, Lvovich, 2012), that is a blend of senses, “which could be displayed in a variety of cross-sensory combinations: depending on the specific senses involved, synesthetes “taste” shapes, or “see” music, or attribute color to personalities, to name just a few examples” (Lvovich, 2012: 216). ‘Synaesthesia’ has been connected with language learning by Duffy (2005) who reports several accounts of language learners who use synesthetic images for learning or translating. An interesting account is one by Laurent Schlemmer, a journalist and a translator who characteristically writes “Whenever I translate a sentence from French into German…I inwardly see the sentence and also fly above it with the verb that has to move to accomplish the translation.” (Duffy, 2005:17, cited in Lvovich, 2012). In the same light, Lvovich (2012: 223) talks about the way Luc Sante describes his translingual experiences as follows: “In order to speak for my childhood I have to translate. It is as if I were writing for someone else. The words don’t fit because they are in English…The word ‘boy’ could not refer to him, he is ‘un garçon’…” The idea of a synaesthetic approach to language and bilingualism was also noted by Beaujour (1989) who proposed the term “polyglot synthesis” and Paradis (1981) who proposed a three-store bilingual version: one store for conceptual representations and knowledge of the world, the “image system” and a “verbal system” for each language. Beaujour (1989) suggests that for bilinguals, what is blended or synthesized is not only linguistic systems but

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

105

cultural, social, historical, interactional and personal scripts which forge networks and new realities that are expressed. Another interesting perspective is offered by Brigitta Busch (2010) who researched a complex multilingual situation in South Africa and played a key role to the redefinition of teacher training and school language policies (Lvovich, 2012). Busch used a multimodal approach called ‘language portraits’ which consists of a questionnaire, a personal narrative, and of coloring in a body silhouette, where different colors would represent ‘linguistic dispositions’ defined as “knowledge of language varieties, registers, and pragmatics…emotions linked to linguistic practices” (Busch, 2010: 284, Busch 2011). This “personal language profile” activity was used with teachers, to elicit the awareness of their multilingualism and of their complex language identities, and then with children, who thoroughly enjoyed the coloring activity and were able to represent symbolically the literal embodiment of their languages/codes in the silhouette. Color and its location in the body, representing languages, attitudes, and often hard to express emotions, become bearers of meaning, a meaning that may be related to that expressed through synesthesia. The extract that follows by an Albanian immigrant writer in Greece indicates the manner in which languages cooperate or compete as bilinguals communicate: Sometimes my mother tongue intrudes, like an outsider, as I speak, by replacing Greek words. …It is like it wants to remind me of how fragile my relationship with Greek is, the exact minute I have started to believe it is stronger than ever. Sometimes, when I'm with someone who I start to feel very familiar with, without realizing it, words in Albanian slip in. I am amazed myself by how stubborn my native language is. … When I write, my mother tongue often converses with Greek. As if they discuss with each other the way a picture or a concept can be formed in my head with the maximum intensity (Gazmet Kaplani, 2010: 316-317, my translation from Greek).

In this paper we claim that the above extract by bilingual author Kaplani can be considered translingual, although it is written in one language. We will expand on this point in the next section of the chapter. Moreover, in the preceding extract the two languages of the author appear to have human characteristics as they converse with each other. This point takes us back to the suggestion by Lvovich (2012: 226) that through synaesthesia a path is opened

106

Roula Tsokalidou

up towards imaginative personal discourse regarding languages and away from linear pre-conceived definitions of what languages are all about. The same transcendence of linear and restricting approaches to languages is suggested by the process of translanguaging. As suggested by García and Li Wei (2014), translanguaging is rooted in the belief that bilinguals select and combine elements from their languages and make their language choices fit different sociolinguistic situations. “By positioning the discourse ‘between’ two languages that are no longer static or linked to one national identity, translanguaging then generates alternative representations and enunciations (García, 2009; García and Leiva, 2014)” (García et al, 2015: 208). Thus new spaces of belonging may be opened up, spaces where students from various backgrounds can co-exist and share linguistic and cultural identities. This idea appears to be in tune with the concept of multiethnolects, defined by Clyne (2000) as varieties of language that express speakers of various ethnic backgrounds. In other words the use of a multiethnolect may express certain aspects of the process of translanguaging. It is also interesting that according to Clyne (2000) through multiethnolects different minority groups express their reaction to a low social status and their collective attempt to upgrade it. In other words the creation of translanguaging spaces may restrict power and dominance asymmetries, while allowing for linguistic creativity to be celebrated and expressed in various ways, as we will show in the next section. Moreover, the term ‘heteroglossia’ has been proposed as one related to translanguaging (Bailye, 2007 in Creese & Blackledge, 2010:106) and one that refers to the overall socio-historical context of an utterance, while it can be used for both multilingual and monolingual forms. This idea may be very interesting but the given term is made up of two Greek words, i.e., ‘hetero’ and ‘glossa,’ or in other words other(ness) and language. In order for us to be able to consider language contact issues from the perspective of multi/bilingual reality, the term ‘hetero’ or ‘other’ may not be the best starting point. On the contrary, treating issues of other languages as our own and the multiple realities within language contact contexts as possible alternatives for our own lives may be a much more useful approach. In this light the idea of identity texts, which we will discuss later, may be of great use within and outside the educational context.

Can Translanguaging Be Monolingual? In their insightful account of translanguaging and deconstructing named languages, Otheguy et al. (2015) claim that TL “becomes most useful when we

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

107

want to loosen the grip of social categories” and they associate it with the study and appreciation of the bilingual speakers’ idiolects. They claim that TL may be relevant with monolingual use “when speakers’ idiolects have features that have been left out of the named standard language” (p. 301-302). In this chapter we attempt to expand the notion of translanguaging beyond the realm of bilingual idiolectal use to involve monolingual language use. This, in our opinion, can happen in the following two manners. First, creative elements of TL may be found in monolingual language use, especially now that monolinguals and bi/multilinguals co-exist not only in the same social or educational context but also within the same family unit. Monolinguals pick up elements from bi/multilinguals or express linguistic creativity as they become students of foreign languages. Secondly, as TL involves cultural and political proficiency and not just linguistic proficiency (Otheguy et al, 2015: 299), we suggest that TL can encompass the special wisdom of a cultural/linguistic group, which could be expressed monolingually. My own experience of learning Arabic as a ‘family language’ (I use this neologism to refer to the language that becomes a second language for one family member because it is the first language of another) often leads me to share Arabic sayings/proverbs with my Greek-speaking friends (in Greek), a practice that I refer to as a level D TL. An example of an Arabic expression that I often share with my non-Arabic speaking friends is ‘If your love is honey, do not lick it all,’ an expression that comments on the need for appreciation and not being greedy about someone’s givingness, that cannot be found in Greek but is usually much appreciated in its translation from Arabic. We consider monolingual TL worth noticing especially because it may provide a gateway for a more flexible language use for educators who may be skeptical about the idea of TL on the whole. It can also function as a means for promoting language learning. In the next section we will attempt to expand on the possible levels of TL.

Possible Levels of Translanguaging Promoting Language Learning From the preceding discussion, we could conclude that translanguaging can be defined as the space where our linguistic resources find expression and where communication is realized exploiting as many branches of our identity as possible. Therefore, creativity, humour, code-switching, translation, transference etc. are all possible means that can be employed in order to

108

Roula Tsokalidou

promote multilingual communication and language learning. Hence we will propose a first typology of translanguaging which may provide educators with tools for involving their students in language games and practices that promote multilingual creativity. We propose that translanguaging may involve more than one writing system or more than one language on a surface level but it could also involve the wisdom and values of multiple linguistic or cultural systems and express them in one (or more) language(s). It could therefore be possible for translanguaging to occur with or without code-switching as we will see in the examples that follow. In this attempt for a typology of translanguaging, we propose the combination of numbers, (e.g., 1, 2) depending on the number of writing systems involved, and letters (A, B, C, D), which refer to the level of understanding in the ‘second’ language that is necessary for an appreciation of the translingual text. In more detail, level A requires minimal or no knowledge of a second language; in other words, TL occurs as elements from more than one language are combined at an initial level of language learning. Moreover, although we may use one language we can translanguage on a pragmatic or identity level. One such example of TLA1 could be the extract from my own research in the Greek diaspora, where a participant made the following comment: “Even when I try to hide my origin, it shows from the way I speak” (Tsokalidou, 2004). In other words, the ‘voice’ from another linguistic background can often be heard in monolingual environments. When more than one linguistic system is involved, TL on this level may be related to transference on a specific linguistic level, eg phonological. An example of TLA2 could be the word sχολείο (written by a Greek student of English as a foreign language, which means ‘school’). The word is written in Greek with the exception of the initial ‘s’ in English. Thus TL here expresses the beginning of the process of acquiring a second/foreign language. Level B translanguaging may often be expressed through simplified spelling but some knowledge of a second language is required. A TLB1 example could be the attempt of an immigrant background student to write her thoughts in Greek, i.e., ‘τι τατσι πας’ ‘what class are you in?’ but the word for ‘class’ ‘τατσι’ (tatsi) is not written in its standard citation form ‘τάξη’ (taxi) (Tsokalidou, 2010). example of TLB2 is the message ‘Just ΝΤΟΥ it’ from the internet (written on a wall). In this example, ΝΤΟΥ, in Greek, which means ‘attack,’ is used to intensify the meaning of the expression ‘Just DO it.’ On the proposed higher C level of translanguaging, more code-switching is involved and a better understanding of the ‘hidden’ language is necessary.

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

109

An TLC1 example is the expression ‘No worries, no koritsis,’ a GreekAustralian expression used to give emphasis to the well-known Australian expression ‘No worries’ by making a reference to the phonological similarity of the word ‘worries’ to the Greek word for boy (agori) so that the expression means ‘no worries/boys, no girls.’ On the other hand, an example of TLC2 translanguaging could be messages written in two languages that may or may not have the same meaning, eg the message in the picture on facebook below, where the Arabic phrase means ‘You are a donkey’ but its placement right below the English phrase ‘You are beautiful’ is meant to mislead the reader into thinking that they both mean the same.

Table 1. Levels of translanguaging Levels/Functions

1. One writing system

A: Basic/limited knowledge of L2 is required Comment on language/identity etc B: (bilingual) second language learner’s level A knowledge of two languages is necessary for the message to be fully understood. An L2 learner may simplify the spelling of a text but the message comes across

‘Even when I speak Greek people can tell I am not from here’ τι τατσι πας; ‘I can and I paracan’ The prefix ‘para’ in Greek is used to give emphasis to the meaning of the verb to which it is attached (in other words, the above translingual expression means ‘I certainly can.’ Den kostizi, AI ΛΑΒ ‘No worries, no koritsis’

C: (creativity/codeswitching) Two languages are necessary for the message to be appreciated D: (deeper meanings) One linguistic system (L1) is used to send a message in an L2 Or different systems cooperate for the meaning to get across

e.g., Ένα ζευγάρι κάλτσες (with the double meaning a pair of socks/cultures)

2. Two writing systems sχολείο Just ΝΤΟΥ it.

Raed You are beautiful/Inta hmar E.g, The way αστυνομία is dealing with we blacks, μαύροι, is not fair

110

Roula Tsokalidou

Last but not least, a D level of translanguaging presupposes a deeper understanding of both languages and it could be expressed either in one or in two linguistic systems. An example of D1 is the Greek expression ‘ένα ζευγάρι κάλτσες’ (a pair of socks) which was used as a pun in a GreekAustralian context to mean ‘a pair of cultures,’ as the pronunciation of κάλτσες (kaltses) can have both interpretations if one is aware of both languages. A D2 example could be the text of a learner of Greek as a second language who wrote about her life in Thessaloniki, Greece using both her languages and writing systems: ‘The way αστυνομία is dealing with we blacks, μαύροι, is not fair” (i.e., The way the police is dealing with we blacks, blacks, is not fair). The above attempted typology of translanguaging shows that language users and learners have a very broad range of linguistic creativity which could be utilized in class to promote language learning as a whole.

Photo taken by the author of a message on her birthday cake (Dec 2015)…In order for one to understand the expression ‘You can and paracan’ (=’You certainly can’) knowledge of both Greek and English is required. We suggest that it is an example of TLC1 (1 as it is written in English script only).

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

111

TRANSLANGUAGING AND IDENTITY TEXTS Moving away from the possible levels of TL and in our attempt to place it within an educational context, we propose its use through the creation and promotion of identity texts. According to Cummins & Early (2011: 3), identity texts act as mirrors reflecting back students' identities and various aspects in a positive light. Identity texts help children relate the new knowledge acquired at school to the already available knowledge, develop their imaginative and multilingual skills, and also to better understand the relation between the school language and their home language. Since 2009 the multilingual journal Polydromo, published in Greece by ‘Polydromo’ Group (Tsokalidou, 2015) has published numerous children's identity texts with the aim of providing a source of inspiration and a resource for educational initiatives in modern multilingual classrooms. Moreover, identity texts allow children to use all multimodalities— spoken, written, musical, visual, and dramatic—that can amplify the message. Identity texts go beyond cognitive and linguistic considerations (Cummins & Early, 2011). Such texts recognize the impact that the student’s emotional, cultural, and personality characteristics play in learning. Therefore, through the use of identity texts, we can tap into the child’s entire linguistic repertoire. In this light, Michael-Luna and Canagarajah (2007) followed two first-grade students in a bilingual classroom, as they developed literacy. Their teacher implemented six translanguaging practices that the authors refer to as codemeshing which are multilingual text selection, activation of knowledge from inside and outside the text (i.e., accepting answers in other languages and then translating them), valuing multilingual code meshing (accepting answers in other languages without translating them), modeling oral code-meshing (translation with contextual support), modeling written code-meshing (codeswitching in writing) and strategic scaffolding of text negotiation. To this list, we would like to add identity text production and identity journals (KourtisKazoullis, 2011). As noted by García (2011) for those students who use translanguaging, it becomes a key element in meaning making. This practice allows the emergent bilinguals to solve challenges in language comprehension and production when creating their own text and conveying their unique voices. In conclusion, we do not propose translanguaging practices as an educational ‘parenthesis’ but rather as a constantly possible and dynamic process or reality in classrooms that may develop or enhance multilingual skills and competences that may escort students throughout their lives within

112

Roula Tsokalidou

and outside the school. We will end this paper with a few examples of identity texts that highlight different aspects of experiencing language and culture contact, each in its unique manner:

Extract 1: A Student’s Text on Racism “I used to eat alone and I never played, just because here I was the Pontian from Russia, and in Georgia I was the Pontian. Up to the fourth class of primary school I was repelled by my schoolmates and I didn't even participate in school festive events. But then I started to grow up and learned to defend myself in similar situations. However the times pass, whatever happens, we were, we are and we will be Greeks abroad and foreigners in Greece!” (Text written by a secondary education student describing how he experienced racism. Polydromo, issue 1, April 2009, website: www.polydromo.gr, my translation into English from Greek)

Extract 2: Message on a Wall Text on a wall or multimodal text of discourse-image (the photo was taken by the author. The wall is near a primary school in Eastern Thessaloniki, Greece):

(The message means: ‘NEITHER GREECE NOR ALBANIA, OUR ONLY HOME IS OUR CHILDHOOD’).

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

113

Extract 3: Roma Women’s Text “We would like to become something else, different. We would like to have a secure job, to make ends meet. We would like our children to finish school, to study and to get married. We would like to see our grandchildren grow up, to play around here in the yard and we would like to be around, to watch them and feel happy. We would like to learn how to read fairy tales to them.” (Written by Roma women expressing their desires) (Dimopoulou et al, 2014)

REFERENCES Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd edition) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2003). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh National Curriculum. In N.H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings (pp.71-90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beaujour, E. (1989). Alien Tongues: Bilingual Russian Writers of the First Emmigration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. & Varghese, M. (2004). Introduction. Special Issue: (Re)writing bilingualism and the bilingual educator’s knowledge base. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (2) & 7 (3), 93-101. Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorising linguistic resources in heteroglossic situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24 (4), 283-294. Bush, B. (2011). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual classroom. Presentation held at the 3rd International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity (LED), 22-25 November 2011, Colloquium: Language, Education, and Superdiversity University of Auckland, New Zealand.

114

Roula Tsokalidou

Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London: Continuum. Clyne, M. (2000) Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica, 14, 83-89. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103-115. Cummins, J. & Early, M. (Eds.) (2011). Identity texts the collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. UK & Sterling: Trentham Books. Dimopouloou, E., Dimopoulou, E. & Sabani, S. (2014) Teel Bachtalo! Polydromo, 7: 56-58. García, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140-158). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2011). Educating New York’s bilingual children; constructing a future from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 14, 2: 133-153. García, O. (2012). From diglossia to transglossia: Bilingual and multilingual classrooms in the 21st century, In C. Abello-Contesse & Ruben Chacón Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingualism in a school setting. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García, O. & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy. NY: Springer, 199-216. García, O. & Li Wei (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O., Nelson, F. & Homonoff Woodley, H. (2015). Constructing inbetween spaces to ‘do’ bilingualism: a tale of two high schools in one city. In Cenoz, J & Gorter, D (Eds.) Multilingual Education Between language learning and translanguaging, 199-224. Kaplani, G. (2010). Me lene Europi (=My name is Europe). Athina: Livanis. Kourti-Kazoulli, V. & Tzanetopoulou, (2003) Emis I alli (we the others). Rodos: Panepistimio Aigaiou. Kourtis-Kazoullis, V. (2011). Identity Journals in Multicultural/Multilingual Schools in Greece. In Cummins, J. & Early, M. (Eds.) Identity Texts: the

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging …

115

collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools (pp. 88-96). Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, U.K.: TrenthamBooks. Lvovich, N. (2012). The “Gift”: Synesthesia in Translingual Texts. L2 Journal, 4 (2012), 214-229. Michael-Luna, S. & Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). ‘Multilingual Academic Literacies: Pedagogical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher Education,’ Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 55–77. Otheguy, R., Garcia, O. & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: a perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6 (3), 281-307. Paradis, M. (1981). Neurolinguistic organization of a bilingual’s two languages. The Seventh LACUS Forum 1980 (Columbia), 480-494. Skourtou, E. (2002). Diglossi mathites sto elliniko scholio (=Bilingual students in the Greek school). Epistimes tis agogis. Thematiko tefhos, 11-20. Tsokalidou, R. (2015). Bilingualism otherwise: Research approaches towards language contact issues and the inclusion of bilingual children in the Greek school. In Τressou, Ε., Mitakidou, S. & Karagianni, P. (Eds.) (2015). Roma inclusion-International and Greek Experiences. Complexities of inclusion. (pp. 164-177). Thessaloniki: Copy City. Williams, C. (2002). A Language gained: A study of language immersion at 11-16 years of age. Bangor: School of Education. http://www. bangor.ac.uk/addysg/publications/Ennill_Iaith.pdf. Williams, C. (2003). Defnyddio trawsieithu i ddatblygu llythrennedd deuol. In G. Roberts & C. Williams (Eds.), Addysg Gymraeg – Addysg Gymreig (pp. 288-312). Bangor: School of Education.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Roula Tsokalidou is an associate professor of Sociolinguistics at the School of Early Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. She holds a PhD from the Department of Linguistics, Monash University, Australia (1994). Her research and teaching experience and interests lie in the area of language contact, sociolinguistics, language and gender, bilingualism, translanguaging and education. She has taught at Khon Kan University, Thailand, Monash and Deakin Universities of Australia, the University of Thessaly, Greece and as a visiting professor at the University of Strasburg, France. Since 2009 she coordinates the Group ‘Polydromo’ (www.polydromo.gr, www.facebook.com/polydromo) on

116

Roula Tsokalidou

bilingualism and multiculturalism in education and society and is the editor-inchief of the multilingual periodical Polydromo. Recent publications in English 











Gkaintartzi, A., Kiliari A. & R. Tsokalidou (2016) Heritage language maintenance and education in the Greek sociolinguistic context: Albanian immigrant parents’ views. Cogent Education, 3: 1155259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1155259. Tsokalidou, R. (2015) Bilingualism otherwise: Research approaches towards language contact issues and the inclusion of bilingual children in the Greek school. In Τressou, Ε., Mitakidou, S. & Karagianni, P. (eds.) (2015). Roma inclusion-International and Greek Experiences. Complexities of inclusion. Thessaloniki: Copy City, 164-177. Gkaintartzi, A., Kiliari A. & R. Tsokalidou (2014) ‘Invisible’ bilingualism-‘invisible’ language ideologies: Greek teachers’ attitudes towards immigrant pupils’ heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Published online: 28 Jan 2014). DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.877418. Gkaintartzi, A., Chatzidaki, A. & R. Tsokalidou (2014) Albanian Parents and the Greek Educational Context: Who is Willing to Fight for the Home Language? International Multilingual Research Journal. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19313152.2014.953004. Koutsogiannis, D. & R. Tsokalidou (2013) Designing and implementing a research project on bilingualism and language education: first findings and remarks Supporting ‘diversity within unity’ at secondary education level: some case studies from bilingual children in Greek secondary schools. Karagiannidou, E., Papadopoulou, C.O., & Skourtou, E. (eds) Language Diversity and Language Learning: New Paths to Literacy. Peter Lang Edition (Lingistik International). 339-346. 35. Gkaintartzi, A. & R. Tsokalidou (2013) On the way to bilingual and intercultural consciousness-raising: Findings from a research project in Greek primary schools. Karagiannidou, E., Papadopoulou, C.O., & Skourtou, E. (eds) Language Diversity and Language Learning: New Paths to Literacy. Peter Lang Edition (Lingistik International). 267-275.

Beyond Language Borders to Translanguaging … 

117

Tsokalidou, R., Gkaintartzi, A. & Markou, E. (2013) Le bilinguisme se developpe en Grece: resultants de recherché et pratiques prescolairres alternatives du groupe “Polydromo.” In Hélot Chr. & Rubio, M. N (Eds) Developpement du langage et plulrilinguismechez le jeune enfant. Toulouse: Éditions ERES, 123-143.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

ΒILINGUAL IMMIGRANT STUDENTS’ LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION: PERSPECTIVES FROM MINORITY AND MAJORITY STUDENTS IN THE GREEK EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT Eleni Griva*, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras University of Western Macedonia, Greece

ABSTRACT In the Greek educational context, with a number of students from culturally and linguistically diverse background, the way bilingual immigrant students construct their linguistic and cultural identities seem to be influential to their smooth inclusion and their educational success. On the other hand, the stances of students from the majority culture towards their bilingual immigrant classmates’ identities seem to be critical for affecting classroom dynamics. In the present study, an attempt was made to record: a) the bilingual immigrant students’ views on their L1 development and use and their attitudes towards home language and culture; b) the majority students’ views on the linguistic and cultural identities of their immigrant classmates. 146 immigrant students of Albanian origin and 90 majority students of Greek origin attending the 5 th *

Corresponding author: email: [email protected] & [email protected].

120

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras and 6th grade of Greek state primary schools in two areas with high population of immigrants of Albanian origin (Florina and Arta) participated in the study. Data were collected through individual semistructured interviews and analyzed through the Miles & Huberman’s (1996) analytical framework. The results of the study revealed that the bilingual immigrant students constructed their identities drawing considerably on their home language and culture. In particular, they mentioned that home language is used as a private code for interpersonal communication in the family environment. On the other hand, a quite stereotyped way in which Greek children talked about their immigrant classmates’ identities was disclosed, since most of them perceived immigrant children as “foreigners,” who differ from the Greeks because of the “other” language and culture. However, they avoided using highly negative stereotypical expressions to describe their classmates’ identities, probably as an attempt to distance themselves from the dominant racist discourse. The findings of the present study suggest that school and families should cooperate in order to promote a better understanding of multiculturalism and a greater sensitivity to the “other.”

Keywords: bilingual immigrant students, majority students, language choice and use, linguistic identity, cultural identity

INTRODUCTION The bilingualism of immigrant children has been a social and school reality in Greece during the last two decades, with the coming of economic immigrants from the countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkans since the early 1990s, and of new comers from Asia and Africa since the 2000s. This influx of immigrants has created a new reality of a pluralistic, multilingual and multicultural mosaic in a country, which was until then ostensibly “homogeneous” both linguistically and culturally, introducing new educational needs. Thus, students now reaching the end of primary education have grown up in an educational system characterized by great degrees of ethnic and linguistic diversity. According to the Greek Institute for Intercultural Education (IPODE, 2009), out of the 568.797 students who attend Greek primary schools, 58.332 are foreign students. By virtue of the data of the Greek Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs (school year 2012-2013), the students of Albanian origin constitute the largest immigrant group in the Greek educational system (78.5%).

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

121

Undoubtedly, the diversity of student population is not a particularity of Greece, but it is becoming a reality within the educational context of most societies. Against this backdrop, the promotion of the heritage language of immigrant students and the cultivation of bilingualism/multilingualism has been widely supported and recognized (Cummins, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Park, 2011; Fillmore, 1991 in Park, 2013). The acceptance of differences and similarities as well as whole-school approaches to learning are employed in an inclusive setting, where teaching emphasizes the connection between social, cultural and linguistic aspects of students’ experiences and understanding (Griva, 2015). However, Greece has developed an assimilation model of integration for all its citizens sharing the same language and culture for years. In this context, Greek language competence is a basic “tool” for immigrants’ social integration and the improvement of their socio-economic and professional status (Griva & Panitsidou, 2013). In a similar vein, immigrant children are expected to learn Greek language as L1, once they enter school, receiving no instruction in their home language (Griva & Chostelidou, 2014; Nikolaou, 2000). Therefore, they face unequal opportunities in their studies, as their educational and cultural capital tends to be ignored by the Greek system of education (Paleologou & Evangelou, 2003). In this assimilating socio-cultural context, a number of issues are associated with bilingual students’ language development and educational attainment, such as students’ personal characteristics, cultural and linguistic origin, socio-economic factors, and parents’ education and basic skills (Lindholm-Leary, 2001 in Griva & Chostelidou, 2014). More importantly, immigrant children’s ideas about bilingualism may affect their feelings and form certain behaviors towards learning, education, L1 and L2. Also, their views on “themselves,” which are influenced by attitudes towards language, culture and school, play a significant role in their bilingual development, school inclusion and educational success. Relevant studies have shown that the absence of a certain policy that promotes formal L1 teaching for many of the immigrants’ languages in the educational systems of other European countries has resulted into the shaping of negative attitudes of immigrant children towards their L1, considered to be a low status language (Schupbach, 2009) and a useless language for communication in their everyday life (Mansoor, 2004). Similarly, the stances of students from the majority culture and dominant language towards their immigrant classmates seem to be also critical in affecting classroom dynamics. In the Greek context, studies into the views of immigrant students about themselves are limited, indicating that they construct a complex linguistic and

122

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

cultural identity, by positioning themselves between two languages and two cultures (Papandreou, 2013). However, at the same time, they largely endorse the dominant assimilation discourse of monolingualism and monoculturalism (Archakis, 2014), by seeing themselves as the “other” (Anastasiadou, 2009). On the other hand, immigrant students tend to adopt differentiated strategies about L1 and L2 usage (e.g., Gogonas & Michail, 2014; Kiliari, 2014), showing that L1 is the language used at home, and L2 is used at school, while there is a growing tendency towards the loss of L1 (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Fillmore, 1991). Nevertheless, at the same time, they wish to develop (or improve) their reading and writing skills in L1 (Kiliari, 2014). Regarding the views of majority students, relevant research has generally recorded their negative stances towards their immigrant classmates (e.g., Bouras, Griva & Stamou, 2013; Dimakos, Spinthourakis & Tasiopoulou, 2011; Dimakos & Tasiopoulou, 2003; Magos & Prentza, 2009). As a result, a limited social interaction between the two groups of students has been recorded (e.g., Kassimati, 2006; Kiprianou, 2011). Moreover, the studies of Ioannou and Ieronimidis (2010), and of Zembylas, Michaelidou and Afantinou-Lambrianou (2010) revealed how Greek Cypriot students’ views are differentiated, depending on the origin of their immigrant classmates, with the most negative attitudes being held towards students of Muslim origin.

THE STUDY DESIGN Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the study was twofold, by exploring bilingual immigrant students’ views on linguistic and cultural identity choice as well as majority students’ stances and feelings towards the language and culture of their immigrant classmates. Specifically, the study aimed at: 



recording the views of minority bilingual students of Albanian origin on their heritage language development and use, and their attitudes towards their heritage language and culture mapping the views of majority students of Greek origin on their bilingual classmates’ heritage language development and use as well as their beliefs about the identity and culture of their immigrant classmates

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

123

Participants The sample of minority immigrant students consisted of 146 primary school students (74 girls and 72 boys) from Albanian families who had learned Greek from the school community. They had been living in Greece from 2 to 12 years, with 68 of the total number of the participants born in Greece, and 78 of them born in Albania. The children, aged between 11 and 12, attended the 5th grade (62 students) and the 6th grade (84 students) of state primary schools in North-Western Greece, in the areas of Florina and Arta, with great numbers of immigrant populations of Albanian origin. The sample of majority students included 90 primary school students (51 girls and 39 boys) of Greek origin. As with the minority student sample, the children, aged between 11 and 12, attended the 5th grade (36 students) and 6th grade (54 students) of state primary schools in North-Western Greece, in the areas of Florina and Arta.

Data Collection and Analysis Semi-structured interviews were used as the basic instrument to collect the data from both groups of students. The interviews were conducted individually, in the Greek language, and were tape recorded. They were transcribed and analyzed through a qualitative thematic analysis, following the procedures of data reduction and data display (Miles & Huberman, 1996). Data reduction included first and second level coding as well as pattern coding, which involves placing descriptive or conceptual names. Codes resulted in groups of categories, “labeled” by a specific name. Then, categories with common characteristics were clustered into major themes (thematic strands). The analyzed data were organized and displayed in tables (see Tables 1-6).

RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS Minority Students’ Views Rich insights into the immigrant students’ viewpoints were obtained through the interview data, which, after being coded qualitatively, resulted into

124

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

46 codes, which were grouped into 13 categories and classified into three basic thematic strands:   

Linguistic identification Heritage language learning stances Cultural identification

Linguistic Identification The majority of immigrant students declared to use only Greek while communicating in the family, whereas a great number of them acknowledged the phenomenon of code switching (Table 1). More specifically, most students opt either for their heritage language, or for Greek while talking with their mother and father. However, they choose Greek as language of communication with their siblings, and Albanian while communicating with their grandmother and grandfather. It is worth mentioning that an important part of the children stated that they choose to use the home language with their parents because their parents do not speak Greek well: “I communicate with my parents in Albanian, since they better understand the Albanian language, while with my sister in Greek….” On the other hand, a significant number of the students declared that they feel “confused” when they are “obliged” to use either the home or Greek language with one of their parents, so they code switch: “…when I talk to my mom I am confused and I speak half Greek, half Albanian.” Yet, a great part of the students declared that they prefer using the Greek language with their parents as well as with their siblings, since their communicative competence in the home language is low: “…Ι don’t speak Albanian all that well, because I was born in Greece, my mother speaks Greek, my dad speaks Greek, and I am used to speaking Greek.” Although most immigrant students declared to have acquired oral skills in L1, fewer ones know how to write in their heritage language. The majority of the children acquire and practice home language writing skills in the family environment through parental (mostly mother’s) commitment to their L1 development (“I ask mom what she wants to do and so we play…instead of talking we write to each other in Albanian”), or through a temporary formal tutorial. They usually write in heritage language either to forward an email, to send an SMS, or while posting on Facebook: “I write in Albanian to my uncle on Facebook.”

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

125

Table 1. Thematic strand A: Linguistic identification Α) Linguistic identification Categories Codes- Operational definitions 1. L1/L2 choice and COHLAFE- Communicate in usage in family heritage language in family environment environment COGLAFE- Communicate in Greek language in family environment COSWIFE- Code switching in family environment 2. Communication COMOHL- Communicate with between children and mother in heritage language parents/siblings COMOL2-Communicate with mother in Greek language COMFAHL-Communicate with father in heritage language COMFAL2-Communicate with father in Greek language COBSIGL- Communicate with siblings in Greek language 3. Communication COMGMFHL-Communicate with between children and grandmother and grandfather in grandparents heritage language COMGMFL2-Communicate with grandmother and grandfather in Greek language CSWGMFA-Code switching during communication with grandmother and grandfather 4. Written WSKIHL- Writing skills in heritage communication in HL language NWRISHL- Non-developed writing skills in heritage language WREMHL-Writing emails in heritage language WRFACHL-Writing posts on Facebook in heritage language WRSMSHL-Writing SMS in heritage language

Occurrences 31

70 40 75 62 53 68 121 80

27

11

73 73 29 19 21

126

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

Heritage Language Learning Stances Most students expressed their positive feelings towards learning their heritage language mainly on instrumental grounds, because they can better communicate with their family and friends either in Albania or in Greece: “…I don’t know much Albanian and if I knew it better, I could communicate better with people there [in Albania],” “because I would like to speak better with my family and grandparents and not being stuck on some words” (Table 2). In this way, they expressed the need to maintain close relationships with their home country. To a lesser extent, they regarded their heritage language as being part of their multilingual competence, and thus drawing upon the discourse of ‘bilingualism as passport’: “I like learning other languages, not only Albanian…,” “The more languages you know, the better….” Except for instrumental reasons, they also supported the maintenance of heritage language for emotional reasons: “it is my mother tongue…it is my culture,” “I enjoy speaking Albanian with my grandmother…I love this language.” Fewer students expressed negative feelings towards their heritage language maintenance and/or learning. Specifically, a certain number of them considered Albanian not to be useful because they do not use it at school (“I don’t speak it at school”), or because they rule out the possibility of future repatriation to their home country (“when I grow up, I would not like to go to Albania for work”). Some other students stressed the difficulties they encounter in acquiring home language: “I think that Albanian is a difficult language…I find it difficult to write, to read.” Fewer others want to avoid racist behavior on the part of their Greek classmates, and therefore they consider heritage language as an obstacle to their smooth school inclusion. Concerning their attitude towards a mastery of heritage language through formal schooling, it is supported by a significant number of the participants. The students stated that they would like to develop the receptive and productive skills in their home language, with particular emphasis on developing their productive skills: “…to write and to be able to talk better. I don’t speak Albanian well.” They also expressed their wish to be taught the heritage language at school in order for them to be acquainted with their home culture and history: “…to learn much more about Albania, the language, the history... and Albanian culture.” Some others expressed a positive attitude towards their Greek classmates’ learning of the language, so as to be able to communicate with them in Albanian (instrumental reasons): “to be able to speak with my friends in Albanian as we speak now in Greek,” or to make them understand that Albanian language has its own value and beauty

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

127

(affective reasons): “... I would like my friends not to think that (some words) sound strange.” Table 2. Thematic strand B: Heritage language learning stances B. Heritage language learning stances Categories Codes- operational definitions 5. Affective reasons HLCOSFA- HL as a code that sounds familiar HLCULID- HL as part of cultural identity 6. Instrumental HLUCRA- Usefulness for reasons communicating with relatives in Albania UCALPEG- Usefulness for communicating with Albanian origin people in Greece UPLURL - Usefulness for plurilingual learning 7. Reasons for PAMHLWJ- Positive attitude towards mastery of HL HL mastery without justification through formal PAMHLDG- Positive attitude towards schooling HL mastery due to the difficulties in Greek PAMHLGS- Positive attitude towards HL mastery on the part of Greek schoolmates PAMHLCU- Positive attitude towards mastery heritage language and culture 8. Reservations about HLDOBLA- HL development as an HL learning obstacle to L2 acquisition DINLEHL- Difficulties in learning HL HLDOSIN- HL development as an obstacle to smooth school inclusion LOTPERG- Long term permanence in Greece NUSEHL- No usefulness of HL

Occurrences 41 20 68

35

11 9

2

29

61 5 21 10 8 25

128

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

Cultural Identification In an attempt to record the minority students’ aspirations for the future, it was revealed that Greece was the place of the highest preference for the vast majority of the students to continue their studies, while only a very small number of them would select Albania for further studies (Table 3). Regarding the reasons for selecting Greece for continuation of studies, they declared that their long stay in Greece makes them to show an affective attitude towards the host country: “... I want to study in Greece, because I was born here and I live here.” To a lesser extent, some others choose Greece due to its better educational system: “…here the subjects are better taught …while in Albania you do not learn so much at school.” It is interesting to note that only a few students expressed their wish to continue their studies in Albania either because of the possibility of future repatriation (“In Albania, because my parents would like me to continue my further studies in this country… ,” “I want to study in Albania and…perhaps I will live here”), or due to feelings of pride and love for the home country and culture (“I want to study in Albania because I was born there and this is my country”). In a similar vein, the vast majority of minority students expressed their preference for the Greek national football team for emotional reasons (“because I was born in Greece and I love this place”), or because of the higher level of sports in Greece compared to that in Albania (“because Greek sports are more developed than Albanian”). A lower percentage of the students reported their preference for the Albanian national team, justifying their selection mostly on the grounds of ethnic consciousness: “to make the Albanian people proud for being Albanian,” “I would choose the national Albanian team because it is my country….” Some few students mentioned the difficulty in acquiring the Greek citizenship: “because…in football, as I have been told, in order to participate in the Greek national team you have to be only a Greek citizen.”

Majority Students’ Views The verbal data of majority students, after being coded, resulted into 34 codes, which were grouped into 8 categories classified into three basic themes:   

Cultural identity of immigrant classmates Heritage language use of immigrant classmates Relations with immigrant classmates

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

129

Table 3. Thematic strand C: Cultural identification C. Cultural identification Categories Codes- Operational definitions 9. Aspirations for the SGRCOS- Selecting Greece for future continuation of studies SALCOS- Selecting Albania for continuation of studies SOCOCOS- Selecting other country for continuation of studies 10. Identification with PERESGR- Selection of Greece for the host country for studies due to permanent residence academic purposes COGRLA- Selection of Greece for studies due to competence in Greek Language SUPEDS- Selection of Greece for studies due to superior educational system 11. Identification with FREPAL- Selection of Albania for the origin country for studies due to future repatriation academic purposes WALETCO- Wish to study in Albania because of ethnic consciousness 12. Identification SGNAT- Selecting Greek national with the majority football team culture SGNATPG- Selecting Greek national football team due to stay in Greece SGNATGL- Selecting Greek national football team because of Greek language competence SGNATBS- Selecting Greek national football team due to better sports 13. Identification with SALNT- Selecting Albanian national the minority culture football team SALNTEC- Selecting Albanian national football team because of ethnic consciousness SALNTDC- Selecting Albanian national football team because of difficulties in acquiring Greek citizenship UNSENT- Uncertainty about selecting a national football team

Occurrences 104 10 22 37 32

34 5 5 91 45 19

14 43 33

3

12

130

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

Cultural Identity of Immigrant Classmates With regard to the majority students’ views on the image of bilingual immigrant classmates, the majority of them perceived immigrant children as “foreigners,” who differ from the Greeks because of the “other” language and culture: “because, it is not their country and speak some other language” (Table 4). A noticeably lower part of the students put forward the argument that their immigrant classmates do not essentially differ from themselves: “they are like us, albeit they come from a different country.” Table 4. Thematic strand A: Cultural identity of immigrant classmates Α) Cultural identity of immigrant classmates Categories Codes- Operational definitions 1. Perception of the NODIFIMGR- Non-differentiation of image of bilingual immigrant students from Greek students immigrant students DIFIMMIGR- Differentiation of immigrant students from Greek students DEIMSTFO- Description of immigrant students as ‘foreigners’ 2. Feelings towards FEELIND- Feelings of indifference bilingual immigrant FEELDIS- Feelings of disdain students FEELHOS- Feelings of hostility FEELADM- Feelings of admiration FEELSAD- Feelings of sadness FEELSH- Feelings of shame FEELOTH- Feelings of otherness FEELSYM- Feelings of sympathy FEELCOM- Feelings of compassion FEELFRIE- Feelings of friendship FEELFEA- Feelings of fear 3. Attitudes towards POSACUL- Positive attitude towards the culture of culture immigrant NESACUL- Negative attitude to culture classmates POSLECU- Positive attitude towards learning elements of immigrant classmates’ culture NESLECU - Negative attitude towards learning elements of immigrant classmates’ culture KNELCUL- Knowledge of some elements of the immigrant classmates’ culture

Occurrences 28 58 57 7 2 2 49 11 2 32 4 6 31 20 60 1 72

12

3

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

131

In relation to their feelings towards bilingual immigrant students, they expressed diverse and contradictory attitudes. Interestingly, a significant number of the majority students strongly supported feelings of admiration (“because she learned our language very quickly and has become a friend with us,” “because he has suffered a lot…some children laughed at him in the past, and I admire him because he endured this”), and friendship towards them (“I feel them to be my friends…we don’t have to say ‘you are Albanian’…we are a family”). It is interesting to note that a certain number of the students expressed feelings of otherness (“they are foreign people…from some other country, some other religion,” “foreign…this means that they have a different culture, a different language”) and fear towards them (“sometimes I feel fear, because the police come to my neighborhood and search for Albanian people”). To a lesser extent, students expressed their sorrow (“I feel sad because they abandon their country since they don’t have money”). With respect to the students’ attitudes towards the culture of their immigrant classmates, almost in their entirety, they expressed positive feelings and expressed their willingness to learn some elements from the ‘other’ culture, mostly because they want to learn something new and different from what they experience in their daily life: “because I want to learn from other countries…how they celebrate Christmas…Easter,” “in order to observe their habits,” “out of curiosity about how they live in other countries.”

Heritage Language Use of Immigrant Classmates Concerning the stances of the majority students on the heritage language of immigrant classmates, the use of the mother tongue of their classmates at school was strongly supported by most students (Table 5). It should be also pointed out that some students highlighted the freedom of people to speak and use whatever language they like: “because they can freely speak and talk the way they want.” However, fewer of them seemed to be in disagreement with the use of heritage language on the part of their classmates, as to the fear that “their immigrant classmates would use Albanian in order to say something bad about them.” Regarding the phenomenon of code switching (Greek-Albanian), it is interesting that most students have never noticed their bilingual classmates to code switch in the school environment, but to communicate exclusively in Greek. Those students who noticed this sociolinguistic phenomenon on the part of their immigrant classmates, they put forward the argument that code switching is an indicator of confusion or limited knowledge of the Greek language: “because they are confused sometimes and say some words in Albanian instead of Greek,” “because they don’t know some words in Greek.”

132

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

On the other hand, most of the majority students expressed their negative feelings and reluctance to learn their immigrant classmates’ language either because they do not like their language (“I don’t like Albanian and I won’t go there”), or mostly, because they do not find it useful and prestigious compared with other “strong” European languages (“Albanian is not useful, because it is not a language that many people speak,” “I learn English because it is an international language…Albanian is not useful at all”). Table 5. Thematic strand B: Heritage language use of immigrant classmates B) Heritage Language use of immigrant classmates Categories Codes- Operational definitions 4. Stances on HL of POSATL1- Positive attitude immigrant classmates towards immigrant classmates’ HL NEGATL1- Negative attitude towards immigrant classmates’ HL 5. Stances on HL use at POSUSHL- Positive attitude school towards the use of immigrant classmates’ HL COSWCOM- Code switching for facilitating communication NEATCSW-Negative attitude towards code switching 6. Stances on HL NEATHLSH- Negative attitude learning at school towards the introduction of classmates’ HL as a school subject WILEAHL-Willingness to learn immigrant classmates’ HL RELEAHL- Reluctance to learn immigrant classmates’ HL

Occurrences 76 11 70

25 60 43 18

46

Relations with Immigrant Classmates Most of the majority students responded that they have no problem playing with their immigrant classmates: “I like playing football with them” (Table 6). Although they seem to give great importance to the character of their immigrant classmates (“with some kids, we have known each other from the past, and I know that they are good guys”), some students responded that they play with them for not being alone and feeling bad (“…in order not to feel bad, because they may not know children from the class when they first

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

133

come here”). Moreover, many students mentioned that they provide homework help for their immigrant classmates in order to help them to get to know the Greek reality (“when they first came here, we taught them Greek language, we showed them school stuff…”), or as a result of teachers’ motivation and as part of the classroom routine (“I cooperate with them because the teacher puts us with them in the same group and says that we should be friends with all our classmates, even if they come from other countries”). Contrary to the close social relations (mostly during play) that the majority students hold with their immigrant classmates, they declared that they cooperate to lesser extent with them in the classroom. Although a great number of the students expressed their willingness to cooperate with them in school activities (“…because some guy may happen to be a friend of mine, despite that he is from a different country”), they also mentioned that this does not only depend on them since the teacher is mostly responsible for the function of the class (“this is the way the teacher has arranged us how to sit”). Table 6. Thematic strand C: Relations with immigrant classmates C) Relations with immigrant classmates Categories Codes- Operational definitions 7. School WILCOUTA-Willingness to cooperate with cooperation their immigrant classmates in school activities RELCOUTA -Reluctance to cooperate with their immigrant classmates in school activities TEACOPRE- Creating students’ relation and cooperation with the teacher’s help 8. Social relations COIMMGA- Playing with immigrant classmates COSCHACT- Cooperating in homework activities RELFAIMC- Relations with the families of their immigrant classmates

Occurrences 52

15 22

71

60 39 45

NORELFAC- No relations with the families of their immigrant classmates

134

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The study aimed at exploring bilingual immigrant students’ views on linguistic and cultural identity choice, as well as majority students’ stances and feelings towards the language and culture of their immigrant classmates. By juxtaposing the findings from the two groups of students, it seemed that both the majority and the minority students were pervaded by the dominant assimilation discourse, by considering code switching/mixing as “confusion.” While most of the minority students seemed to be oriented to the majority language (e.g., salience of Greek language even at home) and culture (e.g., selection of the Greek football national team), resorting to acculturation practices as a strategy of inclusion to the Greek school and society, they were perceived as “foreigners” and “other” by most of the majority students. The Greek students seemed to have mixed feelings towards their immigrant classmates (admiration, friendliness, fear, compassion etc.). They also declared that they build more meaningful peer relations in out-of-school activities compared to relations in learning process within the classroom environment, which are mainly fostered by the teacher. With reference to the minority students, it was revealed that despite the fact that L1 and L2 switching/mixing is common in their homes, the majority language (L2) was the preferred code for everyday communication. Delving further into the issue of language use and choice, a few of them reported a heritage language instrumental attitude, since home language is used as a private code for interpersonal communication in the family environment. Most students held positive feelings towards learning their home language; however, mainly on instrumental grounds, but not for repatriation. It is worth mentioning that a certain number of the students were concerned about the usefulness of using Albanian at school, as they regarded heritage language as an obstacle to their smooth school inclusion. Unambiguously, women (mothers) seemed to hold a leading role in the heritage language maintenance/ development among the Albanian immigrant community. This is confirmed by studies in other immigrant contexts (e.g., immigrants of Greek origin in Australia, see Tsokalidou, 2006), which have also revealed that women are more supportive than men in the maintenance and learning of Greek. The affective component of heritage language including feelings of pride and love to the home country and culture were also identified to the responses of a smaller number of students. On the contrary, an attitude of assimilation was expressed by most children indicating their willingness to be incorporated with the majority children in a common cultural and social life. Their tendency

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

135

to change or adjust themselves to the cultural patterns of the host society (Greek society) was rather common among students, and derived from affective and instrumental factors. This tendency was reinforced by their long stay in Greece, which was the place of the highest preference for the vast majority of the students to continue their studies in the future. Concerning the majority students, most of them perceived immigrant children as “foreigners,” who differ from the Greeks because of the “other” language and culture. However, the respondents avoided using highly negative stereotypical expressions to describe their classmates, probably as an attempt to distance themselves from the dominant racist discourse. Delving further into the issue of “perceiving diversity,” some assorted examples are illustrative of the “contradiction” of their views: on the one hand, some positive comments from the part of majority students were recorded (e.g., feelings of admiration, stress on issues of social exclusion); on the other hand; some negative stances were identified (e.g., feelings of contempt, association of immigrants with criminality). The majority students expressed their reluctance to learn their immigrant classmates’ language because of both affective and instrumental reasons. With regard to instrumental reasons, it was indicated that the students perceive Albanian as a less useful and prestigious language compared to other “strong” European languages, like English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Perhaps, most paradoxically, the majority students responded that they have no problem cooperating with their immigrant classmates in out-of-school activities, but they have lower engagement in working collaboratively at school. By virtue of consideration of the afore-discussed issues, it can be concluded that the acceptance of diversity and the positive stances to multiculturalism seem to be still a request for the Greek society in general, and the school community in particular. Subsequent to the point made above, it is imperative that school and families cooperate in order to promote a better understanding of multiculturalism and multilingualism and a greater sensitivity to the “other.” In light of Dimakos and Tasopoulou’s view, it seems that multicultural awareness should become a priority within the Greek educational system (Dimakos & Tasopoulou, 2003: 315). Finally, some limitations of this study are presented; one limitation was the use of self-reported interviews as basic instrument, providing, thus, information about students’ perceived views. However, a further study employing a combination of quantitative with qualitative research methods (including participant observations) is suggested. Moreover, with reference to

136

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

the small sample size, an implication for a wider scale research would be the consideration of including a larger sample and immigrant children of other ethnic groups, in order to depict a broader and more complete picture of the issue under investigation.

REFERENCES Anastasiadou, S. D. (2009). Multivariate statistical analysis of Greek pupils’ attitudes toward reading. The International Journal of Books, 6(1), 35-43. Anderson, R. (1999). First language loss: a case study of a bilingual child’s productive skills in her first language. Communicative Disorter Quarterly, 21, 4-16. Archakis, A. (2014). Immigrant voices in students’ essay texts: Between assimilation and pride. Discourse & Society, 25(3), 297-314. Bouras, S., Griva, E. & Stamou, A. G. (2013). Primary school students talk about their immigrant classmates: An exploration of their views and awareness of the “other.” Paper presented at the 5th International Adriatic – Ionian Conference. Cummins, J. (2000). Power, Language and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dimakos, I. & Tasiopoulou, K. (2003). Attitudes towards migrants: What do Greek students think about their immigrant classmates? Intercultural Education, 14(3), 307-316. Dimakos, I., Spinthourakis, J. & Tasiopoulou, K. (2011). Greek students’ attitudes towards their immigrant peers: Have their minds changed at all? Europe’s Future: Citizenship in a Changing World Proceedings of the thirteenth Conference of the Children’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe Academic Network. London: CiCe. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,6, 323-346. Gaintartzi, A. (2012) (in Greek) Issues of Bilingualism in Preschool and Primary school: Social and Educational Dimensions. PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Gogonas, N. & Michail, D. (2014) Ethnolinguistic vitality, language use and social integration amongst Albanian immigrants in Greece. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36 (2), 198-211. Griva, E. & Panitsidou, E. (2013). Immigration and education: Policy and practices for integration and inclusion in the Greek Context. In J. Yu (ed.),

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

137

Immigrants: Acculturation, Socioeconomic Challenges and Cultural Psychology, 265-280. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. Griva, E. & Stamou A. G. (2014) (in Greek). Researching Bilingualism in the School Context: Teachers,’ Students’ and Immigrant Parents’ Perspectives. Thessaloniki: D. Kyriakidi. Griva, E. & Chostelidou, D. (2014). Bilingual children and literacy development: Inclusive learning issues and challenges. International Journal on New trends in Education and their implications, 5(3), 176-188. Griva, E. (2015). Bilingual immigrant students and inclusive learning: Issues and challenges. In G. Verma (ed), Approaches to educational and social inclusion: theory, policy and challenges. Routledge Publications. Ioannou, A, & Ieronimidis, S. (2010) (in Greek). Exploring bilingual or multilingual students in monolingual schools in Cyprus: Two case studies. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the Cypriot Pedagogical Association. Retrieved from http://www.pek.org.cy/Proceedings_2010/ pdfs/8_2.pdf. Kassimati, Κ. (2006) (in Greek). The inclusion of Albaian immigrants in Greek society. In C. Bakavos & D. Papadopoulou (eds.), Immigration and Inclusion of Immigrants in Greek Society, 353-411. Athens: Gutenberg. Kiliari, A (2014). Heritage languages in Greek public schools? Immigrant pupils’ attitudes and skills. In A. Psaltou, E. Agathopoulou & M Mathaioudaki (eds), Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education, 191-207, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kiprianou, D. (2011) (in Greek). Immigrant Children in Greece and Cyprus: Subjectivity and Subjectivation as a Result of Mediating Processes in Immigrant Contexts. Thessaloniki: Epikentro. Magos, Κ. & Prentza, Ε. (2009) (in Greek). Views of secondary vocational education teachers on their foreign students. Educational Sciences, 1, 7389. Mansoor, S. (2004). The Status and Role of Regional Languages in Higher Education in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(4), 333-353. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage publications. Nikolaou, G. (2000) (in Greek). Inclusion and Education of Foreign Students in Elementary Schools: From“Homogeneity” to Multiculturalism. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Paleologou, N., & Evangelou, O. (2003) (in Greek). Intercultural Pedagogy. Educational, Teaching and Psychological approaches. Athens: Atrapos.

138

Eleni Griva, Anastasia G. Stamou and Spyros Bouras

Park, S. M. (2011). The role of ethnic religious community institutions in the intergenerational transmission of Korean among immigrant students in Montreal. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(2), 195-206. Park, S. M. (2013). Immigrant students’ heritage language and cultural identity maintenance in multilingual and multicultural societies Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 30-53. Schüpbach, D. (2009). Language transmission revisited: Family type, linguistic environment and language attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 15-30. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education - or Worldwide Diversity and Human Righs? Mahwah, NJ & London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tsokalidou, R. (2006) (in Greek). Code switching and gender: The GreekAustralian case. In T. S. Pavlidou (ed.), Language-Gender-Sex (2nd edition), 203-214. Thessaloniki: Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon, Idryma Manoli Triantafyllidi. Zembylas, M., Michaelidou, A. & Afantintou-Lambrianou, T. (2010). Greek Cypriot adolescent attitudes toward immigrants and “enemy-others” in the context of an ethnic conflict. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 15, 5-39.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr Eleni Griva is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Faculty of Educational Studies (Department of Primary Education) at the University of Western Macedonia – Greece. She is also the coordinator of the module “Testing and Assessment in Language Learning” (at the postgraduate level) in the School of Humanities of the Hellenic Open University (HOU). Her research interests include: Methodology of teaching a second/foreign language, language learning strategies, bilingualism/multilingualism, Foundations of Bilingual/Multicultural Education, Methods and Materials in Bilingual/SL Education, Assessment in language learning. She is a member of various International Scientific Committees and Associate Editor of four International Academic Journals. She has published 4 books related to Bilingualism and teaching a second/foreign language (in Greek) and more than 140 papers, which appear in various international and national refereed journals, collected

Βilingual Immigrant Students’ Linguistic …

139

editions and conference proceedings. She has also participated in more than 150 International and National Conferences. Email: [email protected] & [email protected]. Dr Anastasia G Stamou is an Assistant Professor of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis at the Department of Early Childhood Education of the University of Western Macedonia, Greece. She holds an MA in Language in Society from the University of East Anglia, UK, and a PhD from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research interests lie in the study of textually mediated postmodern social life and the role of language to this process. She has published numerous articles in international peer-reviewed journals such as Discourse & Society, Critical Discourse Studies, Language & Communication, Language Awareness and Social Semiotics. She has published a book related to Bilingualism and a lot of papers, which appear in various international and national refereed journals, collected editions and conference proceedings. Email: [email protected]. Spyros Bouras is a primary school teacher. He holds an MA in Language Education from the University of Western Macedonia. He has participated in a number of National and International Conferences and Research Projects.

In: Bilingualism Editor: Carroll E. Wilson

ISBN: 978-1-63485-227-2 © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

THE EFFECT OF BILINGUALISM ON WORKING MEMORY IN MONOLINGUAL AND BILINGUAL CHILDREN IN SOUTH AFRICA Diana Soares De Sousa Department of Psychology, School of Human and Community Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT Working memory is a system for temporarily storing and processing information while performing higher-order cognitive tasks, such as comprehension, learning and reasoning (Baddeley, 2000, 2003). Bilingual language and literacy acquisition researchers have proposed that working memory capacity may account for variation in language learning and literacy acquisition in monolingual and bilingual learners (Bialystok et al., 2008). The present study investigated the association between levels of language proficiency and levels of bilingualism and performance on verbal and visual-spatial working memory tasks in monolingual and bilingual 9-year-old children in South Africa. One hundred AfrikaansEnglish balanced bilinguals, 100 partial Zulu-English bilingual, and 100 English monolingual children were administered working memory, 

Correspondence to be addressed to: [email protected].

142

Diana Soares De Sousa vocabulary, and reading comprehension tasks. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III and a parental questionnaire administered to parents were used to measure language proficiency. High proficient AfrikaansEnglish bilinguals performed better than partial Zulu-English bilinguals and English monolinguals across all tasks. English monolinguals scored higher than partial Zulu-English bilinguals on all tasks. This latter effect was more pronounced on measures of vocabulary size and rapid lexical retrieval than non-verbal working memory tasks. It was concluded that bilingual advantages in cognitive control and working memory are determined by the cognitive interdependence of language acquisition and representation, fluctuations in L1 and L2 proficiency, and ecological challenges posed by the child’s interactions with changing environmental demands and opportunities for language-learning. The results are discussed in light of working memory being a central aspect of language learning and the relationship between working memory and language processing varying as a function of the nature of the tasks and level of proficiency of the learner. A meditational bio-ecological model encompassing a complex interaction of bilingualism, language, and cognition is needed to address the educational needs of children with diverse linguistic and educational profiles in South Africa (De Sousa, 2016).

Keywords: academic achievement, functioning language, and memory

attention,

bilingualism,

executive

INTRODUCTION: BILINGUALISM, LANGUAGE AND COGNITION “What is memory if not the language of feeling, a dictionary of faces and days and smells which represent themselves like the verbs and adjectives in a speech, sneaking in behind the thing itself, into the pure present….” Julio Cortazar (cited in Scrauff and Rubin, 2000, p. 616) The ability to speak, read, write, and comprehend two languages is generally thought of as a cognitive-linguistic skill (Schrauf & Rubin, 2000). This raises the question of whether learning and using two languages affects what bilinguals remember and how well they remember it. In many parts of the world, bi-/multilingualism is becoming the norm and monolinguals the exception (Bialystok, 2007). Second-language acquisition is a complex task,

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

143

and yet many people achieve high levels of bilingualism competence, functioning at equivalent and high levels in both their first language and L2, suggesting that the ability to acquire multiple languages is a remarkable feat of the human brain, and that bilingualism an experience capable of having a significant effect on behavioural, neuropsychological and structural aspects of cognitive performance (Bialystok, 1991; Kuhl, 2004). According to Mechelli et al. (2004), individuals who speak a second language have been shown to have increased density of grey matter in the left inferior parietal cortex, with this change in cognitive function and organisation more pronounced in early bilinguals and balanced bilinguals who have a high level of language proficiency in L2. The left interior parietal cortex has been shown to be involved in vocabulary acquisition in monolingual and bilingual children, with enlargements in slightly different areas depending on the nature of the cognitive-linguistic demands of the orthography of the two languages of the bilingual (Green, Crinion, and Price, 2007). Bilingualism has been shown to provide protective effects against cognitive decline with aging (Valenzuela and Sachdev, 2006). The critical aspect of the bilingual experience that has been argued to account for advantages in cognitive performance lies in the well-documented finding that, in fluent or balanced bilinguals who use both languages regularly, both languages are active and available when one of them is being used (Hernandez, Bates, and Avila, 1996). This situation creates a need for optimal attentional control that is unique to bilinguals. It requires the ability to correctly select a form that meets all the linguistic criteria for form and meaning, as well as selecting the target language and not the competing one, which makes bilingual speech production largely different from that of monolinguals, and is at the same time responsible for both the cognitive and linguistic consequences of bilingualism (Bialystok, 2001). Researchers have claimed that because bilinguals have two “active” languages they must inhibit one language when producing the other, thereby practising attentional control from an early age (Bialystok, 1991). Research has demonstrated specific bilingual advantages within the executive function system (Bialystok and Martin, 2004; Bialystok and Shapero, 2005; Carlson and Metzoff, 2008; Poulin-Dubois et al., 2011). The ability to continuously monitor attentional resources to the target language (goal maintenance) and inhibit the non-target language to avoid confusion in language processing (conflict resolution) during the early years of a bilingual child’s development is necessary for successful bilingual language acquisition. Support for this model is provided by extensive research showing specific bilingual advantages

144

Diana Soares De Sousa

within the executive function system (Bialystok, 1999; Bialystok and Martin, 2004; Bialystok and Shapero, 2005; Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008; PoulinDubois et al., 2011). Refining this control is important in the early years of a bilingual child’s language development, as this ability is necessary for successful bilingual language and literacy acquisition. For example, Kovacs and Mehler (2009) used eye-trackers within an anticipatory cue cognitive control paradigm and found that 7-month old bilingual infants demonstrated an enhanced ability to use a novel cue to switch their attention to the correct location compared to monolingual infants. This advantage has been demonstrated in other studies (Bialystok, 1999; Bialystok and Martin, 2004), suggesting that the production of two languages or perceiving and processing sounds from multiple native languages early in life leads to cognitive advantages and domain-general enhanced executive functioning, as bilinguals have more practice in making associations and a wider range of retrieval cues in each language than monolinguals (Brito and Barr, 2014). These findings set the stage for an investigation of whether bilingualism is an experience that has significant consequences for working memory. The nature and direction of that consequence, however, has not received sufficient research attention (Bialystok et al., 2008; Engel de Abreau, 2011). In the present study, the bilingual advantage with regard to memory was examined by testing balanced Afrikaans-English and partial Zulu-English bilinguals and English monolinguals in South Africa on tasks tapping verbal and visual-spatial aspects of working memory.

WORKING MEMORY Working memory refers to the ability to retain information in the mind and update this information while simultaneously carrying out a task (Morris and Jones, 1990; Smith and Jonides, 1998). The “updating” component of working memory is considered to be particularly important, as “this updating function goes beyond the simple maintenance of task-relevant information in its requirement to dynamically manipulate the contents of working memory” (Miyake et al., 2000, p.57), and at the same time distinguishes working memory from short-term memory which passively stores information. Working memory is important for both cognitive development and academic achievement. Working memory abilities have been correlated with language and mathematical abilities (Gathercole et al., 2004; Passolunghi et al., 2007;

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

145

Swanson and Kim, 2007). Research focusing on the consequences of bilingualism is limited, and the nature and direction of that consequence are less clear. (Bialystok et al., 2008; Engel de Abreau, 2011). For example, Engel de Abreau (2011) studied 6-year-old monolingual and bilingual children longitudinally over a period of three years and found no differences between groups on simple and complex working memory tasks. On the other hand, Morales et al. (2013) studied working memory performance in 5-year-old monolingual and bilingual children using the Simon task and a computerized version of the Corsi block task to measure verbal and visual-spatial working memory, respectively, and reported an enhanced working memory in bilinguals. Thus, the effect of bilingualism on working memory performance depends on the age of the learner, the nature of the task and the linguistic domain. Additionally, working memory may account for variable success in additional language learning (O’Brien, Segalowtiz, Colletine and Freed, 2006). The most influential model of working memory is the one proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974). This model has three main components: two shortterm storage domains consisting of the phonological loop and the visualspatial sketchpad, and the central executive controlling the processing of information between the domains and other cognitive processes. The phonological loop is involved with the temporary retention of verbal information, whereas the visual-spatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information. A more recent addition to the model is the episodic buffer, the function of which consists of temporary storage and integration of various types of verbal-visual information, such as in reading comprehension, which involves phonological decoding and ascertaining the message the speaker is conveying (Baddeley, 2000). According to Baddeley (2003, p.836), “the episodic buffer is controlled by the central executive and is accessible to conscious awareness. Its multi-dimensionality coding allows different systems to be integrated, and conscious awareness provides a convenient binding and retrieval process.” Baddeley's (2000) model of working memory is illustrated in Figure 1. The phonological loop is responsible for phonological short-term memory and processing of phonological information, which is central to language learning and processing. Previous research has shown that phonological memory is important for learning new words and the ability to recall nonwords, and is a reliable predictor of vocabulary acquisition in young children (Baddeley, Gathercole, and Papagano, 1998). Adams and Gathercole (1996) reported that children with greater phonological memory capacity also produced longer utterances and grammatically and semantically rich narratives

146

Diana Soares De Sousa

compared to children with smaller phonological memory capacity. The role of phonological memory in learning new sound patterns has been shown to be important for learning in an additional language (Baddeley, 1996; French and O’Brien, 2004). In comparison with research on phonological memory, visual and spatial memory and the role of the episodic buffer on learning in an additional language have received less research attention. Alloway, Gathercole, Willis and Adams (2004) have proposed that sentence processing, such as in reading comprehension, involves the integration of information from short-term memory with the language processing system of long-term memory, which involves the episodic buffer. The central executive is responsible for coordinating and controlling the different activities within working memory. It has limited mental energy and capacity and allocates cognitive energy to different levels of a task, such as updating or refreshing the contents of working memory, sustained attention, selective attention, and inhibiting irrelevant stimuli (Baddeley, 1996). In the context of L2 research, attention research is synonymous with working memory. Additionally, tasks of working memory are considered measures of attention and executive functioning (Juffs and Harrington, 2011).

Figure 1. Baddeley’s (2000) model of working memory (adapted from Baddeley, 2003, p.835).

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

147

Maimela-Arnold and Evans (2005), argue that working memory capacity and linguistic knowledge are not separate constructs. Instead, working memory capacity reflects the activation of specific representations of longterm memory, and limited working memory capacity is a reflection of weak linguistic representations. Furthermore, the strength, access to, and retrieval of representation are influenced by the frequency of language input (MacDonald and Christiansen, 2002). This explanation suggests that the relationship between working memory and language processing is complex, dynamic and varies as a function of the level of language proficiency of the monolingual or bilingual child.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT: RE-ASSESSING BILINGUAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ON COGNITION The latest Census report on language use in South Africa shows that bilinguals aged five and older account for the majority of the population (South African Population Census, 2011). Of these, over 22.7% are ZuluEnglish and 13.5% Afrikaans-English bilinguals. These populations represent two extremes of the proficiency scale: high proficiency in Afrikaans and English (balanced bilinguals) and Zulu-English bilinguals who are more proficient in one language than the other (partial bilinguals). The distinction in proficiency and balance becomes important when used for or against the argument that bilingualism offers cognitive advantages beyond the expansion of the language system (Duncan and DeAvila, 1979). The co-existence of balanced and partial bilingual children in South Africa has come about due to a complex interaction of historical, political and socio-cultural factors. Parents are permitted to choose the language of schooling in primary and secondary education, with parents of Zulu-English speaking children opting for Englishmedium schooling due to the prestige associated with English as the lingua franca of South Africa and as an international language of wider communication. This view can be traced back to the apartheid government’s policy of “divide and rule” in its system of separate educational provision for different language groups, and is responsible for parents not choosing to send their child for mother-tongue education in an African language (Alexander, 1997, p. 82). Previous research (De Sousa, 2003, 2012; De Sousa, Greenop and Fry, 2010a) has shown that bilingual Zulu-English children rate their

148

Diana Soares De Sousa

proficiency in their home languages as weak, and indicated that they do not consider these languages important for formal communication in education or the public domain. They also watched television and listened to the radio more in English than in their home languages, and some reported that they did not read in their L1. They also tend to communicate more in English with friends and siblings. Conversely, parents of Afrikaans-English bilingual children ascribe approximately equal amounts of prestige to Afrikaans and English (De Sousa, 2003, 2006, 2012; De Sousa, Greenop and Fry, 2010b). The languagelearning contexts of these children thus provide an opportunity to investigate the effect of bilingualism on working memory and thus contribute to a growing body of knowledge demonstrating that bilingualism is capable of influencing cognitive functioning and brain structures (Mechelli et al., 2004; Green et al., 2007; Valenzuela and Sachdev, 2006). Over the years, researchers have studied the impact of bilingualism on children’s language and cognition (e.g., Bialystok, 2001; Hakuta, 1986; Pearl and Lambert, 1962). This research shows that, unlike monolinguals, bilinguals must learn and manage two linguistic systems, which invariably affects their verbal ability and cognitive development. With regard to the former, bilingual children have been shown to have significantly lower performance on receptive vocabulary tests in each language (Oller and Eilers, 2002), longer reaction times for picture naming (Gollan, et al., 2005), and more naming errors (Roberts, Garcia, Desrochers & Hernandez, 2002) compared to their monolingual peers. The prevailing explanation for these findings is not that bilingual children cannot acquire vocabulary. rather, it is that their word knowledge may be accessed in one language and not the other, bilingual children control a smaller vocabulary in each language than monolinguals (Oller and Eilers, 2002), and the average vocabulary size of bilingual children in smaller than that of their monolingual peers (for a review, see Bialystok, 2001). One example of bilingual children controlling a smaller vocabulary in each language than their monolingual peers is provided by Bialystok and Feng (2009). These researchers investigated the vocabulary test scores of 971 children aged between 5 and 9 years, roughly half of whom were bilingual, and found that monolingual children had a mean standard score of 105 compared with the 95 achieved by bilinguals. This difference was consistent in each age group and no interaction of age and language group was found, implying that a vocabulary gap exists between monolingual and bilingual children. Vocabulary size is an important measure of children's language development in both oral and literate forms, with a richer and diverse

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

149

vocabulary indicative of a more advanced understanding of language (Bialystok, 2009). The explanations for deficits in lexical access due to bilingual experience are not clear. On the one hand, connectivity models propose that if bilinguals use each of their languages less often than monolinguals, this leads to weaker links among the L1 and L2 connections required for rapid and fluent speech production and word recognition (Michael and Gollan, 2005). On the other hand, Hernandez and Li (2007) argue that the key aspect is the age of acquisition of the vocabulary of each language, with different outcomes for lexical access depending on the age of L2 acquisition. Alternatively, Greene (1998) proposes that the reduction in lexical access is due to the conflict created by competition from the corresponding item in the non-target language. This conflict is resolved by the executive process for control of attention and switching, and by inhibiting the interfering language. If bilingual language production requires the constant involvement of the executive control system of management attention to the target language, then it is possible that the bilingual experience will have consequences for those processes through practice, making them more efficient and available for other cognitive processes, such as those measured by working memory tasks. In contrast to the negative effects of bilingualism on vocabulary and rapid lexical retrieval, bilingualism should have an advantageous effect on the functioning of the executive control system. The executive control system consists of the following processes: inhibition, shifting of mental sets (task switching and cognitive flexibility), and updating information in working memory (Miyake et al., 2000). Research has shown that bilingual children outperform monolingual children in a number of cognitive tasks, such as conflict resolution (Costa, Hernández, and Sebastián Gallés, 2008), suppressing irrelevant information (Bialystok, Craik & Luk, 2008; Ransdell, Barbier & Niit, 2006), shifting between mental sets (Garbin et al., 2010; Prior & MacWhinney, 2010), after statistically controlling for age, verbal ability, parental education and income (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008), and slowing the decline of executive functions (EF) in aging adults (Bialystok, 2007). The prevailing explanation for these findings is that bilinguals are constantly faced with deciding when to use one of their two languages based on context; with habitual practice coordinating two languages, thereby exercising domaingeneral skills that lead to advanced cognitive competence in different areas of cognition (Bialystok, 2001). Bialystok (2001, 2010) argues that bilingualism would improve inhibitory capacity because both languages remain active during bilinguals’ language processing, and that this distributed activation

150

Diana Soares De Sousa

increases the chances of interference from the non-relevant language. She further contends that bilinguals constantly avoid language intrusions by holding in mind the relevant language and inhibiting the non-relevant languages, and that, with such practice, bilinguals become better at inhibiting irrelevant or misleading stimuli in cognitive tasks. Thus, bilingualism may bring about positive cognitive changes that are cancelled out by lower vocabulary in each language.

LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Previous studies that have investigated the effects of bilingualism have two major limitations. First, the bilingual advantage in cognitive tasks may be confounded by socio-economic status (for a review see Morton and Harper, 2007). Thus, to examine the unique impact of bilingualism on cognition, one must show that monolinguals and bilinguals are equivalent in socio-economic measures. Second, most studies have shown no significant differences between monolingual and bilingual children. For example, Bialystok (2010) and Bialystok and Feng (2009) reported no mono-bilingual differences on the Backward Digit Span, a working memory task. These authors contend that the absence of a bilingual advantage in working memory may be due to the fact that children must retain and manipulate verbal material (i.e., digits or words) in these tasks, and bilinguals’ disadvantage in vocabulary may explain why bilinguals did not outperform monolinguals. By administering a non-verbal working memory task, one might find that bilingual children have a significant advantage over monolinguals in working memory. To date, one study has done this: in Feng, Diamond, and Bialystok (2007), non-verbal working memory tasks were administered and a significant bilingual advantage demonstrated. Thus, bilingual children outperform monolingual children in tasks involving working memory and non-verbal stimuli. A bilingual advantage may also emerge in working memory tasks with verbal stimuli, but only when the effects of verbal ability are partialled out or bilinguals varying in level of bilingualism, i.e., balanced and unbalanced/partial bilinguals, are compared.

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

151

GOALS OF THE PRESENT STUDY The present study investigated whether mono-/bilingual differences are rooted in the proficiency and balance levels of bilinguals, which have not always been assessed in previous investigations. More specifically, this study looked at the influence of different degrees of bilingual language proficiency on performance in an array of executive functioning or working memory tasks in monolingual and bilingual children in South Africa. Executive functioning is an umbrella term referring to high cognitive functions, e.g., inhibition, and working memory necessary for conscious control of thoughts and actions (Welsh, Pennington, and Groisser, 1991). The relevant research question was whether Afrikaans-English balanced bilinguals performed differently on tasks of inhibition, shifting, and updating/working memory compared to emergent or partial bilinguals and to high and low English proficient monolinguals. The study thereby aimed to support a meditational bio-ecological model that encompasses bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read to address the educational needs of children with diverse linguistic and educational profiles in South Africa (Gopaul-McNicol and Armour-Thomas, 1997; De Sousa, 2016).

BILINGUALS’ PROFICIENCY AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING The American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012) defines proficiency as functional language ability as it pertains to practicality in real-world situations. Differences in bilinguals’ second language functional ability can be viewed as falling on a continuum, ranging from highly articulate language user to little or no functional ability. This definition was used in the present study. Oral language proficiency was tested using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary-III (Dunn and Dunn, 1997), which assesses multiple aspects of vocabulary, to determine a bilingual’s ability to comprehend and communicate in languages in which they claim to be proficient, and has been used in previous research (e.g., Bialystok, 1997) to compare the verbal ability of monolingual and bilingual children. Costa et al. (2008) studied bilingual advantages on non-verbal tasks in a sample of 200 young adults (100 monolinguals and 100 highly proficient Catalan-Spanish bilinguals) on an attentional network task (ANT).

152

Diana Soares De Sousa

Participants’ language proficiency was determined using a standardised test of language proficiency; they were subsequently tested on reading, writing, comprehension, speaking and pronouncing one or both languages, followed by administration of the ANT. Costa et al., (2008) reported that bilinguals were faster at responding on both congruent and incongruent trials, and that bilinguals incurred fewer switching and inhibition costs. Costa et al. (2008) conclude that high proficiency bilinguals have more efficient executive control networks compared to monolinguals. However, Costa et al. (2008) did not include an unbalanced/emergent bilingual group, and thus we do not know whether language proficiency was a relevant variable on the inhibition advantage found in the bilingual group. Videsott, Della Rosa, Wiater, Franceschini & Abutalebi (2012) investigated the attentional mechanisms of multilingual children with differential degrees of language competence, using the ANT. The authors reported that proficiency levels played a significant role in the development and enhancement of the alerting component of the attentional system. Videsott et al. (2012) interpret their findings as meaning that highly proficient/balanced bilinguals are better able to recognize, and consequently react more quickly to irrelevant or misleading aspects of stimuli than their less competent partial/emergent bilingual counterparts. However, Videsott et al. (2012) did not conduct a study to support this claim. According to Kousaie and Phillips (2012) past research on a bilingual advantage has included samples varying in socio-economic status as well as level of L2 proficiency. These authors controlled for the effect of language ability on an animacy judgment performance in French-English bilinguals and monolinguals and matched the latter two groups of children on socioeconomic variables, finding that the bilingual advantage disappeared on a task examining verbal inhibition (the Stroop task). However, a study by Segalowitz and Frenkiel-Fishman (2005) with a young adult English-French bilingual group using the same animacy judgment task found that degree of shifting significantly correlated with second language proficiency. Thus, language proficiency is an important variable to consider with regard to control of attention, which is handled by executive components, such as inhibition and shifting (Bialystok, 1991). Although bilinguals generally outperform monolinguals on non-verbal tasks, they usually are outperformed by monolinguals on verbal tasks (Hilchey and Klein, 2011). For example, Bialystok et al. (2008) found that monolinguals performed significantly better at lexical retrieval tasks than bilinguals. However, Bialystok et al., (2008) did not consider the effect of

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

153

level of bilingual proficiency on their results, nor was it assessed. Thus, the relationship between bilingualism on executive functioning needs to be reexamined, because if proficiency is measured, then high language proficiency in a bilingual’s first language facilitates higher proficiency in the second language (Mindt et al., 2008). In summary, bilingual advantages on nonverbal tasks result from the use of executive functions to manage their two languages without interference from language systems (Bialystok, 2009). Some research points to the manipulation of two languages leading to disadvantages for bilinguals on verbal tasks (Gollan, Montoya, Cera & Sandoval, 2008; Ivanova & Costa, 2008; Rosselli et al., 2000), other research supports bilingual advantages on nonverbal working memory and executive function task performance in comparison to monolinguals (Bialystok and Martin, 2004; Bialystok, Craik & Ryan, 2006; Emmorey, Luk, Pyers & Bialystok, 2008). The following section will focus on working memory, in which a bilingual advantage has been observed.

WORKING MEMORY IN BILINGUALS A bilingual advantage has previously been shown on nonverbal working memory tasks, such as the backwards Corsi block task, a working memory task (Bialystok & Feng, 2009). Bialystok and Feng (2009) presented monolingual and bilingual participants with a spread out array of 25 highlighted blocks arranged in a 5×5 pattern. The number of blocks that were highlighted changed between trials in order to increase the difficulty of the task. Participants were initially asked to click on the blocks in the order in which they were highlighted (simple condition) and then, in the most difficult condition, to click on the blocks by an ordering rule (such as top to bottom along each column). While participants performed equally well in the simple condition, bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on the difficult (backwards) condition, which placed greater executive control demands on working memory. The authors argue these advantages were not due solely to advantages in working memory. Rather, they claim, the tools needed to outperform on such tasks are the result of bilingual advantages in executive functions, such as updating (Hernández, Costa, Fuentes, Vivas, and SebastiánGallés, 2010) and inhibition (Bialystok & Feng, 2009).

154

Diana Soares De Sousa

THE PRESENT STUDY: AIMS AND RATIONALE The current study aimed to answer two questions: firstly, to study the bilingual advantage in working memory, and secondly to establish how working memory performance compares across children exposed to different languages. In previous studies, Engel de Abreau (2011) reported that bilingual children did not demonstrate a bilingual advantage over monolinguals. The threshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1984) argues that a certain level of linguistic proficiency is needed for the cognitive advantages of bilingualism to become evident, and this threshold may not have been reached by 6 years of age. Additionally, Brito and Barrr (2014) found no differences between monolingual and bilingual groups on simple measures of working memory. More complex measures of working memory such as updating representations emerge later in a learner’s language-learning and literacy acquisition (Greene and Abtaledi, 2013), and differences between groups may be more evident later in development. A final goal of this study was to evaluate whether balanced bilinguals performed differently on verbal and visual-spatial working memory tasks compared with unbalanced/partial bilinguals and English monolinguals. Specifically, this study examined the effects of level of proficiency (high vs. low) and the influence of inter-language proficiency (balanced vs. unbalanced) on measures of verbal and visual-spatial working memory. Three groups of children with different language experience and educational context were compared: 100 balanced Afrikaans-English bilinguals proficient in both languages, 100 unbalanced/partial bilinguals with low L2 English proficiency, and 100 English monolinguals. It was predicted that high proficiency in Afrikaans and English would provide advantages in working memory performance. This advantage was not expected in low proficient Zulu-English bilinguals. The low proficient bilingual and monolingual groups were expected to score significantly lower than the balanced bilinguals on all verbal and nonverbal tasks. Previous reports of the effects of bilingualism on executive functioning have measured specific aspects of working memory (i.e., inhibition, working memory) but, as far as we are aware, no earlier studies have analysed the influence of dual language experience in a wide spectrum of executive tasks (i.e., inhibition, shifting, updating, and working memory). Therefore, a final goal of the current study was to explore whether an enhancement in working memory scores was significantly associated with the language experience of the groups. Finally, parent-child interactional quality has recently been associated with measures

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

155

of executive functioning (Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008); parent-child interactional quality was assessed using a parent questionnaire. Finally, a measure of vocabulary, the PPVT-III (Dunn and Dunn, 1997), was used to compare language proficiency across the three lanaguge groups of the present study.

METHOD Participants The data in this study builds on previous published studies on the language development and literacy acquisition of monolingual English, emergent/partial Zulu-English bilinguals, and balanced Afrikaans-English bilinguals in the South African context (De Sousa, 2003, 2006, 2012a, 2012b, 2016; De Sousa and Broom, 2010, 2012; De Sousa, Greenop & Fry, 2011, 2010a, 2010b). The sample consisted of 100 monolingual English children, 100 balanced Afrikaans-English children, and 100 partial Zulu-English children from the Johannesburg area, between the ages of 8 years, 0 months and 9 years, 0 months. This age range was chosen because a significant amount of vocabulary should have developed and meaning should be derived from reading text (Department of Education, 2005). All schools in the Johannesburg area enroll students from the surrounding area. Thus, the three groups of children can be considered equivalent from a socio-economic point of view. The exclusion criteria for this study include children with diagnosed speech, hearing, behavioural and/or learning disorders, neurological impairments, and reading and/or spelling difficulties. Balanced bilingual children were defined as those who were exposed to two languages on a daily basis from birth or before 8 months of age. Unbalanced/partial or emergent bilinguals were exposed to L1 Zulu spoken proficiency only and L2 English literacy instruction. Monolingual children were defined as children with the same spoken and instruction language. In addition to these criteria, the L1/L2 proficiency of all of the children was tested using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III, Dunn and Dunn, 1997), and required to have an age equivalent no lower than 20 months less than their chronological age on the PPVT-III. Additionally, the Afrikaans-English bilinguals were required to meet this criterion to ensure that they were sufficiently proficient in both Afrikaans and English.

156

Diana Soares De Sousa

Although some studies have shown that the effect of bilingualism on cognitive functioning is influenced by the particular writing system of the two languages of a bilingual child in the areas of phonological awareness and reading and spelling (De Sousa, 2012; De Sousa and Broom, 2011, 2012; De Sousa et al, 2010a, 2010b), other research examining the influence of bi/multilingualism on memory tasks has reported that bilingual advantages are not dependent on exposure to specific language pairs (Brito et al., 2014), thus, type of language orthography was not controlled for. The present study measured nonverbal intelligence using a standardized test of non-verbal intelligence, the Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM, Raven, Raven and Court, 1998), to establish that the three comparison groups were similar with regard to general cognitive ability to control for the effect of this variable on monolingual and bilingual children’s working memory performance. An ANOVA indicated that the three groups of children did not differ significantly in terms of non-verbal intelligence, F (2, 299) = 1.02, ns. This result shows that the monolingual English (L1) children, balanced Afrikaans-English bilingual, and partial/emergent Zulu-English children were comparable in terms of non-verbal intelligence. Finally, this study computed a socio-economic status score based on parents’ highest level of education and total income in order to reduce their extraneous influence. No significant differences between the three groups was found, F (2, 299) = 0.17, ns.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III The PPVT-III test is a standardized, fairly-culture-free test of receptive vocabulary (Geva, 2000). It has been used as a measure of children’s language dominance and degree of intra-language proficiency, including in studies assessing monolingual-bilingual differences in performing an array of cognitive tasks (Bialystok, Majumder & Martin, 2003). The results indicated that the Afrikaans-English bilinguals were balanced bilinguals: that is, they were almost equally proficient in Afrikaans and English (M =19.11, SD = 2.36 for Form M in Afrikaans vs. M =18.89, SD =1.98 for Form L in L2 English). This study found Cronbach’s of α = 0.91 for the Afrikaans version of Form M of the PPVT-III, and α = 0.92 for the English version of Form L of the PPVTIII. The emergent Zulu-English bilinguals were partial bilinguals: they had slightly stronger language proficiency skills in their L1 Zulu than in their L2 English, but generally demonstrated weak language skills in both English and

The Effect of Bilingualism on Working Memory …

157

their mother tongue (Zulu). (M =12.45, SD = 2.35 for Form M in L1 Zulu vs. M =10.80, SD = 3.50 for Form L in L2 English), and M = 10.80, SD = 2.85), for the English (L1) monolinguals. An ANOVA indicated that balanced bilinguals, partial bilinguals and monolinguals differed in terms of verbal ability, F (2,299) = 19.56, p