Communication and Linguistic Studies

VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1

The International Journal of

Communication and Linguistic Studies

thehumanities.com

The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies ………………………………… The Humanities Collection VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1 APRIL 2014

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES www.thehumanities.com First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2327-7882 © 2014 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2014 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

EDITOR ………………………………… Asunción López-Varela, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ………………………………… Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK David Christian, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA Joan Copjec, State University of New York, Buffalo, USA Alice Craven, American University of Paris, Paris, France Michel Demyen, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada Elizabeth DePoy, University of Maine, Orono, USA Mick Dodson, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Oliver Feltham, American University of Paris, Paris, France Clyde R. Forsberg Jr., Oxford College/Aletheia University, Tamsui, Taiwan Stephen French Gilson, University of Maine, Orono, USA Hafedh Halila, Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia Souad Halila, University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia Ted Honderich, University College, London, UK Paul James, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA Marion Ledwig, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Greg Levine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Harry R. Lewis, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA Juliet Mitchell, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Tom Nairn, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Nikos Papastergiadis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Scott Schaffer, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Jeffrey T. Schnapp, Stanford University, Stanford, USA Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University, New York, USA Bassam Tibi, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany and Cornell University, Ithaca, USA Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Cheryl A. Wells, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA Zhang Zhiqiang, Nanjing University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

ASSOCIATE EDITORS ………………………………… Rebecca Dadey Reiko Furuya Michèle Minor-Corriveau Renata Vystrcilova

Scope and Concerns HUMANITIES—SCIENCE—TECHNOLOGY ………………………………… The western roots of techno-science are the Greek concept of ‘techne’, and its Latin equivalent ‘ars’. These roots tell of a narrowing of definition in modern times, and of a particular kind. It is a narrowing which dehumanizes techno-science, reducing it to programs of merely instrumental rationality. More broadly, by contrast, ‘techne’ and ‘ars’ meant art, craft and science, a kind of practical wisdom involving both doing (application of technique, using tools) and reasoning (understanding the principles underlying the material and natural world). These ‘arts’ are the stuff of human artifice, and the result is always an aesthetic (those other ‘arts’) and human valuedrenched, as well as instrumental. Such is an artfulness that can only be human, in the fullness of our species being. Now is the time to broaden the agenda of techno-science once again. How better than to redefine science and technology as ‘arts’? Indeed, our times may well demand such a redefinition. The new technologies and sciences of informatics, for instance, are infused to a remarkable degree with the human of the humanities: the human-centered designs which aim at ‘usability’; the visual aesthetics of screen designs; the language games of search and tag; the naming protocols and ontologies of the semantic web; the information architectures of new media representations; the accessibility and manipulability of information mashups that make our human intelligence irreducibly collective; and the literariness of the code that drives all these things. So too, new biomedical technologies and sciences uniquely inveigle the human—when considering, for instance, the ethics of bioscience and biotechnology, or the sustainability of the human presence in natural environments.

HUMANITIES—ECONOMY—COMMERCE ………………………………… Returning to roots again, the Greek ‘oikonomi’ or the Latin ‘oeconomia’ integrate the human in ways now all-too-easily lost to the more narrowly understood contemporary understandings of econo-production. In the modern world, ‘economy’ and ‘production’ have come to refer to action and reflection pertaining to the domains of paid work, the production of goods and services, and their distribution and market exchange. At their etymological source, however, we find a broader realm of action—the realm of material sustenance, of domesticity (the Greek ‘oikos’/household and ‘nemein’/manage), of work as the collaborative project of meeting human needs, and of thrift (economizing), not just as a way of watching bottom lines, but of conserving human effort and natural resources. Today more than ever, questions of the human arise in the domain of the econo-production, and these profoundly imbricate human interests, needs and purposes. Drawing on the insights of the humanities and a renewed sense of the human, we might for instance be able to address today’s burning questions of economic globalization and the possible meanings and consequences of the ‘knowledge economy.’

THE HUMANITIES THEMSELVES ………………………………… And what of the humanities in themselves and for themselves? To the world outside of education and academe, the humanities are considered by their critics to be at best esoteric, at worst ephemeral. They seem to have less practical ‘value’ than the domains of techno-science and econo-production. But what could be more practical, more directly relevant to our very existence than disciplines which interrogate culture, place, time, subjectivity, consciousness, meaning, representation and change? These disciplines name themselves anthropology, archaeology, art, communication, arts, cultural studies, geography, government, history, languages, linguistics, literature, media studies, philosophy, politics, religion and sociology. This is an ambitious program even before mention of the social sciences and the professions of community service which can with equal justification be regarded as closely related to the humanities, or even subjects of the humanities, more broadly understood. Within this highly generalized scope, the Humanities Conference, Journal Collection, Book Imprint and News Weblog have two particular interests: Interdisciplinarity: The humanities is a domain of learning, reflection and action which require dialogue between and across discipline-defining epistemologies, perspectives and content areas. Globalism and Diversity: The humanities are to be considered a space where recognizes the dynamics of differences in human history, thought and experience, and negotiates the contemporary paradoxes of globalization. This serves as a corrective to earlier modes of humanities thinking, where one-sided attempts were made to refine a singular essence for an agenda of humanism. The humanities come into their own in unsettling spaces like these. These kinds of places require difficult dialogues, and here the humanities shine. It is in discussions like these that we might be able to unburden ourselves of restrictively narrow knowledge systems of techno-science and econo-production. The conversations at the conference and the publications in the journals, book series and online community range from the broad and speculative to the microcosmic and empirical. Whatever their scope or perspective, the over-riding concern is to redefine the human and mount a case for the humanities. At a time when the dominant rationalisms are running a course that seems at times draw humanity towards ends that are less than satisfactory, the disciplines of the humanities reopen fundamental questions of the human—for pragmatic as well as redemptory reasons.

Table of Contents Code Switching in Tai Dam Classrooms in Nakon Pathom, Thailand .......................1 Chamaipak Tayjasanant Cognitive Underpinnings of Language: A Framework for the Study of Multilingualism ..............................................................................................................19 Manon Robillard and Chantal Mayer-Crittenden

The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies Volume 11, 2014, www.thehumanities.com, ISSN 2327-7882 © Common Ground, Authors, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

Code Switching in Tai Dam Classrooms in Nakon Pathom, Thailand Chamaipak Tayjasanant, Kasetsart University, Thailand Abstract:Tai Dam, an ethnic language of Vietnamese immigrants, is among the minority languages facing a decline in their use among the younger generation in Thailand. Efforts have been made to preserve the ethnic language through education programs. Based on an awareness that the proper use of students’ first language serves useful pedagogical and social functions in multi-ethnic classrooms, the present case study thus examined: 1) the teacher’s beliefs about Tai Dam teaching and learning, classroom language and codeswitching; 2) his classroom language use, code switching types and functions; and 3) his students’ language use and functions. The observational and interview data, collected from one native teacher of Tai Dam and his students at two schools in Nakon Pathom, revealed: 1) the teacher’s belief in teaching Tai Dam to preserve the language and culture through traditional methods, using Tai Dam as a sole classroom medium; 2) his small number of switches to Central Thai, most of which were inter-sentential switches used to present new information; and 3) his students’ main use of Tai Dam for passive functions. Overall, the study shed some light to language teachers on appropriate codeswitching, and to policy makers in providing appropriate training to teachers of ethnic languages. Keywords: Tai Dam, Classroom Interaction, Codeswitching, Pedagogic Goals

Introduction

T

hailand is a multidialectal and multicultural society. Central Thai was established as the official national language; yet the national language policy also recognizes other languages, dialects and indigenous minorities. Tai Dam, spoken by the Tai Dam (Tai Song Dam) ethnic group, which migrated from Vietnam, is one of the minority languages which seem to be facing a decline in their use among the younger generation. Due to its lack of popularity, it is expected that there will be no Tai Dam native speakers in Thailand in fifty years times. Efforts thus have been made to preserve Tai Dam through education programs at schools and local communities. Apart from being taught at cultural centers in communities, Tai Dam has also become a subject in a number of schools where a large number of students are from the ethnic background. Research into the teaching and use of Tai Dam in Thai schools is rare, and there is low recognition of teacher talk and classroom codeswitching, largely because Tai Dam is not widely spoken or taught in Thai schools, where Thai is the sole classroom medium for students from all ethnic backgrounds. Based on recent research in foreign language teaching, a number of benefits of classroom codeswitching when used with a learner-center approach have been revealed. The present study thus presents a case study of teacher talk and codeswitching in Tai Dam classrooms at two schools in Nakon Pathom, where the language is taught as a compulsory foreign language. It aims to explore: 1) the teacher’s beliefs about Tai Dam teaching and learning, classroom language and codeswitching; 2) his classroom language use, code switching types and functions; and 3) his students’ language use and functions, as their language choice may be influenced by the teacher’s switches and vice versa.

Background of the Study From the vicinity of Muang Thaeng or present-day Dien Bien Phu in northwestern Vietnam, Tai Dam (the Black Tai, named for the color of their traditional clothing) first migrated to Petchaburi Province in Western Thailand in 1779 AD. Since then, the communities of Tai Dam in Thailand The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies Volume 11, 2014, www.thehumanities.com, ISSN2327-7882 © Common Ground, Chamaipak Tayjasanant, All Rights Reserved Permissions:[email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

have been widely scattered in neighboring provinces in the western region (Kanchanaburi and Rachaburi) and the central region (Nakon Pathom, Samut Sakhon, and Samut Songkhram) (Burusphat et al. 2012). Tai Dam families live in modern-style houses, but traditional Tai Dam thatch houses are still found in cultural/wisdom centers and museums. Most Tai Dam work in farming, but weaving is also considered their specialized occupation. The renowned characteristics of Tai Dam are friendliness, hospitality, peacefulness, loyalty, and sense of humour. Their basic societal unit is very strong and close-knit. They believe in spirits and supernatural forces ("Phi"), guarding their lives and determining their destiny. The two most important ceremonies of Tai Dam that require great community collaboration are the Sen Huan ritual (worshiping ancestral spirits) and the funeral. Tai Dam kids and adults play various traditional games in their free time or festivals, con throwing being the most entertaining. Tai Dam people have their own spoken and written language, Tai Dam, which belongs to the south-western branch of the Tai language family. According to Burusphat (1997), the phonology and grammar of this language is similar to the Central Thai phonology. Certain differences include, for example, the nasalization of the /j/ phoneme and the larger number of tones (6 tones). The scripts of Tai Dam were assumedly derived from "The Sukhothai Script" of 1283-1438 due to the expansion of the Sukhothai kingdom to many regions nearby, e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin and Laos. The Thai schooling system is divided into three key stages: six years in primary school (Prathom 1 - 6), three years in lower secondary school (Matthayom 1 - 3), and three years in higher secondary school (Matthayom 4 - 6). The main language and culture influencing daily instructional tasks is Central Thai, the official language of the country. Other languages taught in Thai schools tend to be foreign languages (e.g. English, Chinese, Japanese, French and German) rather than languages of indigenous groups. School rituals also tend to follow the norm of the central culture, for example, the wai khru ceremony at the start of the academic year, in which students present their teachers with flower garlands to pay respects and express their gratitude to their teachers. Nakon Pathom is one of the provinces in the central region of Thailand where Tai Dam groups have formed strong communities and where great efforts have been made to maintain the language from becoming extinct. Nowadays Tai Dam is a school subject in six schools at different districts in Nakon Pathom, taught twice or two hours a week. This subject is considered the only subject which allows both Tai Dam and non-Tai Dam students exposure to both spoken and written Tai Dam.

Literature Review This part will review some attempts to bring back ethnic languages through teaching in schools, and the development of classroom interaction research from its early days to the present trend, which recognizes contextual factors, pedagogical factors and the role of codeswitching.

Ethnic Language Maintenance through Teaching in Schools In many countries with ethnic minorities, it is generally expected that schools be an important channel for helping preserve endangered languages. Yet various studies have revealed that although the teaching of ethnic languages in schools is promoted, ethnic language teachers have not been adequately trained regarding appropriate teaching approaches and patterns of interaction. In Fiji, for example, Shameem (2007) has observed that the education policy requires primary schools to teach ethnic languages in the first three years even though many schools have not been able to put it into practice due a lack of linguistic resources and proper teacher training. Majzuba and Raisb (2011) have also found that lecturers and undergraduate students at a Malaysian university urge their government to urgently preserve Bateq, an ethnic language in 2

TAYJASANANT: CODE SWITCHING IN TAI DAM CLASSROOMS IN NAKON PATHOM, THAILAND

danger of extinction with only about 1,500 native speakers, through formal curricular and cocurricular at both micro and macro levels.

Classroom Interaction, Contexts and Pedagogic Goals Classroom interaction, contexts, and pedagogic goals are essential components in learnercentered approaches, which are geneally encouraged in the teaching of second or foreign languages. Tsui (2001, 120) defined classroom interaction as “the interaction between the teacher and learners, and among the learners in the classroom” and also provided the background of research in this area. L2 (a second language) classroom interaction research has been ongoing for more than a few decades due to a general agreement among researchers that there is a link between classroom talk and learning, i.e. knowledge construction or cognitive development (Mercer 1994; Mercer and Littleton 2007). Recent researchers, however, have considered that it is not possible to find the “best” method of language teaching without looking at less observable influences on classroom interaction and learning, which are attitudes, attribution, beliefs, learning styles, motivation, and socio-cultural background. Yet differences among recent classroom interaction research have been revealed (Li and Walsh 2011). Some researchers seem to strongly advocate that conversations in language classrooms are comparable to conversations in everyday life, and therefore disapprove of classes where there is a high quantity of teacher talk. Nonetheless, there are many scholars that hold a different belief in that L2 classroom discourse has its own unique components, i.e. setting, participants and language use. This may be elaborated by Walsh (2002), who has maintained that the teacher plays major roles in controlling topics, content, procedure, participants and turns of participation, interaction management, talking and modification of their talk. The role of learners, however, is mainly to take cues from their teacher. Thus relationship among characteristics of classroom interaction, contexts and pedagogic purposes is another significant factor in recent classroom interaction research (Seedhouse 2004). Apart from the distinctive classroom features stated earlier, van Lier (2001, 92) has also put forward that the influence of contexts should not be underestimated: “In the social setting of the classroom, interaction among participants takes place against a backdrop of constraints and resources that are in some ways different, in some ways similar, to those that characterize other settings.” Nunan (1996) has also argued for the need to take into consideration the context in which classroom behaviour occurs, in the sense that we should not draw conclusions about teacher and student behavioral patterns without listening to their voices first. Borg (2006; 2009) has further advocated exploring “voices” of language teachers or teacher cognition, including teacher decision-making, knowledge, thought processes, beliefs, prior language learning, and pre-service/in-service teacher education. This is because what happens in language classrooms tends to reflect these teacher cognition elements. There are two points of view concerning the context where classroom interactions take place. Some researchers claim the language classroom setting is comparable to the “real” world; thus they encourage the integration of “authentic” communication in the classroom while rejecting teacher-fronted or transmission-style teaching. The opposing view, nevertheless, distinguishes between bigger contexts (such as schools, cities and countries) and a smaller classroom context, considering that a classroom is a context with a ‘real’ language on its own (van Lier 1988). Seedhouse (1996, 118) has also agreed with the latter view of classroom contexts, seeing them as “the interface between pedagogy and interaction”. Walsh (2006, 62) has used the term mode for this type of context, and defined it as having “a clearly defined pedagogic goal and distinctive interaction features determined largely by a teacher’s use of language”. In short, this viewpoint believes that there is a local construction of classroom context by the participant through their interaction based on institutional goals and immediate pedagogic goals (Ibid.).

3


Based on this idea, it is acceptable that some teaching methods and activities, such as teacherfronted and transmission-style grammar explanation, require more teacher talking than those that encourage active learner response (Walsh and Li 2011).

Codeswitching and Classroom Interaction Codeswitching, as defined by Richards and Schmidt (2002), is “a mixing of two codes or languages, usually without a change of topic..... This is quite common in bilingual or multilingual communities and is often a mark of solidarity.... (It) can involve various levels of language, e.g., phonology, morphology, grammatical structures, or lexical items” (81). It occurs when a bilingual or multilingual speaker switches from one language to another in the same discourse or even in the same utterance (Mayers-Scotton 1997; O’Cain and Leibscher 2009). This speech behaviour has been a widely investigated topic in the area of bilingualism due to its varied patterns. Crystal (2006) concluded that speakers normally code-switch from the more influential language to their ethnic language for three main purposes: 1) to convey their deeper thoughts, especially when they are stressed or tired, and thus have less concentration; 2) to show solidarity among members of the same cultural group, as well as to prevent outsiders from getting involved with their group; and 3) to express the speaker’s emotion or attitude towards the listener, i.e. friendliness, annoyance, proximity, or irony. Coulmas (2005) has regarded codeswitching as a controllable strategy, also widespread in multilingual professional environments, such as international trade, the airline industry, and language classrooms, “A foreign language teacher uses the foreign language, L2, in class, but occasionally provides some explanations in the students’ native language, L1” (112). This use of L2 in alternation with the learner’s L1 has created controversies. Code switching in classroom conversation may also be in conflict with old-fashioned teaching methods, which put a considerable emphasis on explaining language rules in the learner’s first language. This purist belief that codeswitching lowers the standard of the target language also makes teachers feel embarrassed to admit they codeswitch, even though they do so. However, recent research has revealed that teacher code switching can serve useful functions in classroom interaction, based on pedagogic goals of particular moments of teaching and learning (Adendorff 1996; O’Cain and Leibscher 2009; Cook 2010). Bowers (1980) proposed seven pedagogical and social functions of teacher codeswitching: 1) present – to present information or ideas relevant to the learning task; 2) elicit – to produce a verbal response from another speaker or speakers; 3) direct – to encourage students’ non-verbal activity related to the learning task; 4) organize – to structure the learning task or environment; 5) evaluate – to assess students’ response; 6) sociate – to establish or maintain social relationships to facilitate the learning task; and 7) respond – to react to students’ utterances. Eldridge (1996, 305-07) proposed that students, in response to their teacher, may also codeswitch for the following reasons: 1) equivalence – using a native equivalent due to a lack of knowledge of the target language; 2) floor-holding – using a native language to fill gaps during communication; 3) reiteration – to reinforce, emphasize, or clarify messages not previously understood; and 4) conflict control – to transfer precise meaning and avoid misunderstanding. Codeswitching episodes may be categorized into three types, based on Sankoff and Poplack (1981): tag-switching (the switching of a tag phrase or a word); intra-sentential switching (switching within a sentence); and inter-sentential switching (switching between sentences). Various social and academic objectives of both language teachers and learners can be achieved through codeswitching (Adendorff 1996). Thus, codeswitching may be considered as a kind of “contextulization cue” (Gumperz 1982, 119), or a signal the speaker chooses to perform important functions, as well as a way to give a “meta-message” (Tennen, 1985, 204) about the speaker’s intention and the relationship between the speaker and the listener. O’Cain and Leibscher (2009, 142) discovered that classroom codeswitching helps “support learning through

4


scaffolding or the promotion of inter-subjectivity,” which then promotes learners to be able to code switch like bilingual speakers do.

The Present Study The Setting and Participants The present study was carried out at two primary schools in Nakon Pathom in the central region of Thailand, where attempts had been made by schools, local communities and ethnolinguists to preserve Tai Dam by including the language as a compulsory foreign language course. The participants in the present study consisted of one teacher and approximately 60 students. The selection of the participant teacher was based on availability and easy accessibility. Only one male Tai Dam teacher, aged over 70, was willing to participate due to a shortage of Tai Dam native teachers, causing the teacher to be in charge of teaching the language at different schools. His students from the two observed classes (each consisting of roughly 30 students) also participated in yielding data on students’ talk.

The Research Questions The present study intended to answer the following research questions, relevant to the research aims presented in the introductory part: 1. What are the teacher’s beliefs about Tai Dam teaching and learning with an emphasis on the classroom language and code-switching? 2. What are the teacher’s classroom language use, code switching types and code switching functions in his talk? 3. What are the students’ classroom language use and functions?

Data Collection Two qualitative methods were employed in this small-scale study:

Video-recordings of Classes During the first semester in June 2012, two video-recorded non-participant observations of the teacher’s one-hour class were made to obtain data on the classroom discourse, with the focus on the classroom language use, codeswitching types in both teacher and students’ talk, and the key functions of their switches in relation to contexts and pedagogic purposes. The lessons recorded were basic Tai Dam for Primary Year 6 students, including easy Tai Dam poetry and Tai Dam scripts. The number of students per class was nearly 30; yet the two multi-ethnic classes observed differed in terms of the number of students from Tai Dam families in that the number was higher in the first school.

Individual Interview A semi-structured interview with the teacher was conducted after the second observed class. The interview lasted approximately 30 minutes, covering the following issues: 1) the role of the language in Thailand; 2) the teaching and learning of Tai Dam at both school settings; and 3) different aspects about the teaching and learning, highlighting classroom codeswitching.

5


Data Analysis The data collected underwent word-for-word transcription, and were content-analysed based on two steps of coding. The purpose of the first step was to identify sections for the main themes; i.e. the teacher’s beliefs about different aspects of language teaching and learning, the reasons for his beliefs, and other constraining factors, the classroom language use, the various patterns of classroom codeswitching, the different functions of the teacher and students’ switches, For the second step of coding, the researcher re-read the transcripts of the observed classes and the interview to extract concepts of the main themes and corresponding quotations. After coding, the interview results and the observational results were presented and discussed.

Findings The findings comprise three main parts: 1) the Tai Dam teacher’s beliefs about language teaching and learning, including classroom language use and codeswitching; 2) his classroom language use and codeswitching from his two classes, his switches between Tai Dam and Thai in terms of their type and function; and 3) students’ classroom language use and functions.

The Teacher’s Beliefs The teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of Tai Dam will be discussed in terms of the role of the Tai Dam language in Tai Dam communities, particularly in Nakon Pathom, the purpose of teaching and learning the language, good teaching methods, and the classroom language use and codeswitching. These will be followed by the teacher’s reasons for his expressed beliefs and any constraining factors.

The Role of the Tai Dam Language in Tai Dam Communities The teacher was aware that Tai Dam had become less essential for work and daily life. Not only did younger members in Tai Dam communities not want to learn the language themselves, but their parents also wanted their children to grow up speaking Central Thai: Now they don’t want the language. They wonder why they should learn it, as it can’t be used for work. They don’t see the importance of their ancestors’ language. Once I chatted with little Tai Dam kids in Tai Dam, their parents got angry. They didn’t want their kids to know their grandparents’ language, as it’s not modern…I offered to teach the language to them at weekends. They just had to form groups of ten or twenty, and I would go to teach them. But they said they were too busy working

The Purpose of Teaching and Learning Tai Dam The teacher himself started learning his ethnic language after he had obtained his higher secondary school certificate. His aim was not to use the language for communication, but for conducting important ceremonies in traditionally correct ways, particularly the Sen Huan ritual: “My father wanted me to learn the language related to the Sen Huan ritual. As an educated person, I didn’t think it was my job, and there were those responsible for it. We discussed the reason; he said others might not do it the right way. We could do it right once we knew the language.” Thus when it came to teaching the language to Tai Dam school students, the teacher did not intend to teach communication skills: “Actually, teaching conversations is also possible. But this is not my aim. I’m doing it for the sake of Tai Dam rituals, which fewer people learn about.

6


There are those who learn Tai Dam via Central Thai’s alphabet, causing their pronunciation to be incorrect.”

Methods of Teaching the Tai Dam Language In regards to good language teaching, the teacher was not in favour of communicative methods due to two factors: the beginner’s level of the students and his purpose of teaching the language to preserve Tai Dam rituals (previously stated). Teacher-fronted teaching of pronouncing the Tai Dam consonants and vowels, followed by vocabulary practice, were predominant in his classes: I think the way I’m doing it is the fastest way for students to master the language. First, I let them see the consonants and the vowels, and then show them how to form words. There is another book of Tai Dam vocabulary for them to use later, or after they know how to form words. For conversation practice, they don’t do it now, as they still can’t read. They’re just beginners.

Classroom Talk and Codeswitching The teacher supported the use of both Central Thai (L1) and Tai Dam (L2), but the amount of L1 and L2 should vary depending on learner levels. He supported the use of as much L2 as possible for advanced learners, while codeswitching was required for the beginner-level classes: Half of the students in this class are Tai Dam. There are some Thai kids in this class; they understand Tai Dam quite well, but may still find it difficult if it is the only classroom medium. So I use Central Thai for translation…But at another school, where I’m responsible for teaching Tai Dam to three classes, both Tai Dam and non-Tai Dam students won’t get it if it’s used as a classroom language. They say they have no experience using the language. Their parents never taught it to them. The teacher supported the alternation between Tai Dam and Central Thai for different purposes. Central Thai was used for explaining or reviewing grammar rules to students: “When students look blank, I have to switch to Central Thai language, both spoken and written. It serves as a link to make students better understand what they are learning. When they get more advanced next semester, I will use Tai Dam characters.”

Reasons for the Beliefs Related to Codeswitching The teacher identified factors which he thought were likely to be linked with his beliefs in codeswitching. He indicated that his belief in teaching and learning Tai Dam to preserve the traditons had come from his father, who was a Tai Dam folk singer. He believed in using as much Tai Dam as possible when teaching the language, as his parents and older relatives spoke only Tai Dam at home: “All my beliefs are from my father, a folk singer and master of ceremonies, who wanted me to know the language. Most folk song composers spoke no Thai. My father and my mother spoke only Tai Dam.”

Constraining Factors The teacher said in some poor areas of Vietnam, Tai Dam teachers had no salary. Villagers gave them food in exchange for the language. Being Tai Dam teachers in Vietnam was therefore considered miserable. In contrast the teacher enjoyed doing the job in Thailand, not because it was well-paid, but money was not a big deal for him: “As long as the students show that they know the language, I was happy to continue teaching. Money is not the matter in this case.” 7


The Teachers’ Classroom Language Use and Codeswitching This part will reveal findings concerning the classroom talk of both the teacher and his students, including the number of their Central Thai and Tai Dam utterances, types and functions of their codeswitching.

The Classroom Talk The two lessons observed differed greatly in terms of length of teacher talk, but not in terms of classroom language use. The transcripts of both lessons revealed a greater number of teacher utterances (61.02% and 66.15%) than that of student utterances (38.98% and 33.85%), as well as extensive use of Tai Dam in the teacher’s talk (87.56% in the first lesson and 72.62% in the second lesson) with little use of Central Thai, as shown in Table 1. Table 1: The Classroom Talk Lesson

No of utterances

Teacher utterances

Student utterances

Teacher utterances in Central Thai

Teacher utterances in Tai Dam

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

1

531

324

61.02

207

38.98

40

12.34

284

87.56

2

127

84

66.15

43

33.85

23

27.38

61

72.62

Regarding code-switching in the teacher’s talk, four types of code-switching were evident, including: 1) tag-switching (the switching of a tag phrase or a word); 2) intra-sentential switching (switching within a sentence); 3) inter-sentential switching (switching between sentences); and long turns (entire stretches in the first language), based on Sankoff and Poplack (1981). Table 2: Types of code-switching in the teachers talk and the number of occurrences Tag-switching

Intra-sentential switching Inter-sentential switching

Long turns

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

Lesson

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

16

43.24

3

18.75

5

13.51

4

25

16

43.24

6

37.5

0

0

3

18.75

As shown in Table 2, inter-sentential switching outweighed the other types of codeswitching in both lessons, accounting for 43.24 % and 37.5 %. The following extracts are examples of the teacher’s inter-sentential switches. (Central Thai expressions are in square brackets and italicized.) # 1 (Inter-sentential switching, Lesson 1): T: อออ๋างเขียนจิ๊ เขียนเลกสูน เออ ออ เอมเขียนจิ๊ เออเขียนเลขสูนนีเลาะ เออ [มาหมดแล้วใช่ไหมพวกเราอาวทาความเคารพครูกอ ่ น เสียงดังๆหน่อยเพื่อนจะได้ยิน เอาใหม่]

8


(Translation: This is how to write Aow-ang. This is the way of writing Number 0. Yes, it’s like Number 0. [Are you all here? Now pay respect to me first. Say it loudly (talking to one student), so your friends will be able to hear you. Do it again.]) # 2 (Inter-sentential switching, Lesson 2): T: อ๋านอันทีสองแล่วเห่าจีน ้ ้าล้งม้า เอ๊าะเสียงโตเลาเห่าจี้โตนัน ่ [ข้างหลังรู้เรื่องหรือเปล่าทีค ่ รูพูด รู้เรือ ่ งนะ] (Translation: Read the second column, and point your finger at each of the characters you’re reading. Point at each character you pronounce. [Students at the back of the class, do you understand what I said? You got it?]) The teacher apparently made more tag switches (43.24 %) than intra-sentential switches (13.51%) in the first lesson, but opposite findings were revealed for the second lesson (25% intra-sentential switches vs. 18.75% tag switches). #3 (Tag switching, Lesson 1): T:ฮอ งอ หงา เขียนจี้ [ไม่สวย] ฮอ งอ หงา เขียน ฮอ หู เห่ามั้นจันซะก๋อนเออะ เออ (Translation: This way of writing ho ngo nghum is [not beautiful]. Start with writing ho hu beautifully first. Yes, that’s it.) # 4 (Tag switching, Lesson 2): T: ก๊อก๊าเป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] เป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] อะโตนี่ เป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] (Translation: Ko Khum is [high-tone.] This (consonant) is [high-tone.] It’s [high-tone.]) # 5 (Intra-sentential switching, Lesson 1): T: โตนิฟงั เห่าดี สอ เสีย [พูดซิ] สอเสีย แล่วโตนิปอป๋า เออ ปอปลานะ [อ้าวตานี้ อ้าวอาวอ่านตามครู] (Translation: Listen carefully to this one, so sia. [Say it], so sia, and then this one is po pla, po pla, [so now repeat after me.]) # 6 (Intra-sentential switching, Lesson 2): T: ลุเป้าอิ่นจูป ้ อปู๋มาเห็น ลุเป้า [แปลว่าอะไร] (Translation: The daughter-in-law (lupao in Tai Dam) committed adultery. Her fatherin-law saw it. Lupao,[what does the word mean?]) Long turns were rare; only three appeared in the second lesson, the following excerpt is one of the long turns in teacher’s talk. # 7 (Long turn 3, Lesson 2): T:อาวต๋อไป จ้อจี้จะ๊ จัง จา จี จือ จู เจ แจ โจ เจาะ จอ จอง เจอ เจีย เจือ จัว จัล ไจ เจา จัน จา จั๊บ [ก็แสดงว่าออกเสียงอย่างนี้

ตามในลักษณะของตัวพยัญชนะมันที่เป็นเสียงต่าก็เสียงต่า เสียงสูงก็เสียงสูง เข้าใจ เข้าใจนะ ถ้าเป็นออ อ่างก็จะเป็น อ๊ะ อัง อาเพราะมันเสียงสูง ถ้าเป็นออเอม อออ่าง ก็ อ๊ะ อัง๋ อ๊าคือเสียงมันสูงกว่ากันนะ เอาอย่างนี้ ในเวลาที่เรายังเหลืออยู่นี้ ให้เขียนลงมาเป็นคอลัมน์ เขาเรียกอย่างนั้น ให้เขียนลงมาอย่างนี้ จากข้างบนลงมาข้างล่าง ตัง้ แต่ กอไก่ ถึง ออเอม หน้าละคอลัมน์ เราจะเรียนกันแค่ 3 สัปดาห์ แล้วจะขึ้นการอ่านภาษาไทดาเล่มที่ 1 อันนี้เรียนกัน 3 สัปดาห์ เล่มนี้แล้วก็ตอ ้ งส่งหมดอย่างนี้ แล้วก็ต้องเขียนหมดอย่างนีด ้ ้วย แล้วเขียนไปอ่านไป อย่างนี้ก็อา่ นว่า กะ กัง กา กี กือ นะ เออนั่นแหละถูกแล้วให้เขียนมาคอลัมน์นี้]

9


(Translation: And next, Jo Jii Ja Jung Jaa Ji Jue Ju Jae Jo Joh Joe Jong Jer Jia Juae Jua Jun Jai Jao Jun Jum Jup. [So they are pronounced like this, according to the characteristics of the consonants. If they are low-tone, make them low; if they are hightome, make them high, Do you understand? Got it? Aow-ang is high. For Aow-aim, it becomes higher. The sound is higher. Let’s do this. In the remaining time, write in columns like this, from top to bottom, from Ko Kai to Aow-aim. One column per page. We’re doing this for three weeks, and then we’ll start the first book of Tai Dam reading. We’re studying this book for three weeks. You need to finish all your writing tasks and hand it in to me. Complete all the writing exercises. Read and you write. This is Ka Kang Ka Kee Kue. Yes, that’s right. Write in columns like this.])

Functions of Codeswitching in the Teacher’s Talk As for key functions of codeswitching in the teacher’s talk, six out of seven functions as suggested by Bowers (1980) emerged: 1) to present; 2) to elicit; 3) to direct; 4) to organize; 5) to evaluate; and 6) to sociate. The other function, to respond, was not evident. Table 3: Functions of codeswitching in the teacher’s talk based on Bowers (1980) Function Present Elicit Direct Organise Evaluate Sociate Respond Total

Number Lesson 1 Lesson 2 23 5 7 3 0 5 5 0 4 5 0 3 0 0 39 21

Table 3 presents the different functions of the teacher’s switches and the number of occurrences. The findings revealed that the teacher switched from Tai Dam to Central Thai (the native language of the majority of the students) mainly to present or clarify the new language, which occurred 23 times in the first lesson and 5 times in the second lesson. Codeswitching to elicit student responses (10 times in total) occurred slightly more often than codeswitching to evaluate student performances (9 times in total). The teacher sometimes switched from Tai Dam to Central Thai in order to organize learning activities (5 times only in the first lesson), and to direct the students to do tasks (5 times only in the second lesson). He also switched to Central Thai to sociate (particularly to praise students) a few times. It should be noted that some of his utterances contained more than one function, e.g. to sociate and to evaluate at the same time, causing the number of his switches (39 and 21) to be higher than that the total number of switches (37 and 16) in Table 2. Examples of the teacher’s switches for these different functions are presented in Table 4.

10


Table 4: Examples of speech categories based on Bowers (1980) Category Present

  



Example ก๊อก๊าเป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] เป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] อะโตนี่ เป๋นโต [เสียงสูง] (Tag switching) (Translation: Ko Khum is [high-tone.] This (consonant) is [high-tone.] It’s [high-tone. ]) เสืองลุเป้า [นะไม่ใช่เสียงนะ] (Intra-sentential switching) (Translation: Suaeng Lupao, [and it’s not Siang.]) กว๊ามเซิ่งแกน [เขียนถูกไหม กอไก่ วอ แหวน ไม้ตรี สระอา มอมือมอม้า กอไก่ วอ แหวน ไม้ตรี สระอา มอ ม้า กว๊าม สระเออ เขียนถูกหรือเปล่า](Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: Khawm serng kaen. [Can you spell it? Ko-kai, wo-waen, a high-tone marker, aa (vowel), mo-maa, khawm. Do you know how to write the ‘er’ vowel?]) อาวต๋อไป จ้อจีจ ้ ๊ะ จัง จา จี จือ จู เจ แจ โจ เจาะ จอ จอง เจอ เจีย เจือ จัว จัล ไจ เจา จัน จา จั๊บ [ก็แสดงว่าออกเสียงอย่างนี้

ตามในลักษณะของตัวพยัญชนะมันที่เป็นเสียงต่าก็เสียงต่า เสียงสูงก็เสียงสูง เข้าใจ เข้าใจนะถ้าเป็นออ อ่างก็จะเป็น อ๊ะ อัง อา เพราะมันเสียงสูง ถ้าเป็นออเอม อออ่าง ก็ อ๊ะ อั๋ง อ๊าคือเสียงมันสูงกว่ากันนะ เอาอย่างนี้ ในเวลาที่เรายังเหลืออยูน ่ ี้ ให้เขียนลงมาเป็นคอลัมน์ เขาเรียกอย่างนั้น ให้เขียนลงมาอย่างนี้ จากข้างบนลงมาข้างล่าง ตัง้ แต่ กอไก่ ถึง ออเอม หน้าละคอลัมน์ เราจะเรียนกันแค่ 3 สัปดาห์ แล้วจะขึ้นการอ่านภาษาไทดาเล่มที่ 1 อันนี้เรียนกัน 3 สัปดาห์ เล่มนี้แล้วก็ตอ ้ งส่งหมดอย่างนี้ แล้วก็ต้องเขียนหมดอย่างนีด ้ ้วย แล้วเขียนไปอ่านไป อย่างนี้กอ ็ า่ นว่า กะ กัง กา กี กือ นะ เออนั่นแหละถูกแล้วให้เขียนมาคอลัมน์นี้] (Long

Elicit

Direct

turn) (Translation: And next, Jo Jii Ja Jung Jaa Ji Jue Ju Jae Jo Joh, Joe, Jong, Jer, Jia, Juae, Jua, Jun, Jai, Jao, Jun, Jum, Jup. [So they are pronounced like this, according to the characteristics of the consonants. If they are low-tone, make them low; if they are high-tome, make them high, Do you understand? Got it? Aow-ang is high. For Aowaim, it becomes higher. The sound is higher. Let’s do this. In the remaining time, write in columns like this, from top to bottom, from Ko Kai to Aow-aim. One column per page. We’re doing this for three weeks, and then we’ll start the first book of Tai Dam reading. We’re studying this book for three weeks. You need to finish all your writing tasks and hand it in to me. Complete all the writing exercises. Read and you write. This is Ka Kang Ka Kee Kue. Yes, that’s right. Write in columns like this.])  ลุเป้าอิ่นจูป ้ อปู๋มาเห็น ลุเป้า [แปลว่าอะไร] (Intra-sentential switching) (Translation: The daughter-in-law (lu pao in Tai Dam) committed adultery. Her father-in-law saw it. [What does the word lu pao mean?])  อ๋านอันทีสองแล่วเห่าจี้นาล้ ้ งม้า เอ๊าะเสียงโตเลาเห่าจี้โตนั่น [ข้างหลังรู้เรื่องหรือเปล่าทีค ่ รูพูด รู้เรือ ่ งนะ] (Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: Read the second column, and point your finger at each of the characters you’re reading. Point at each character you pronounce. [Students at the back of the class, do you understand what I said? You got it?])  อาวเล่ เริมต่นก๊ะ กั๋ง กา กี กือ กู เก แก โก เก๊าะ กอ ก๋อด เกอ เกีย เกือก กัว กัลไก เกา กัน กา กั๊บ[เปิดหน้าต่อไป] (Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: OK, start. Ko Kung Ka Kii Kue Ku Ke Kae, Ko Koh Ko Kod Ker Kia Kuaek Kua Kunkai Kao Kan Kum Kub. [Turn to the next page.])  อาวสมุดขึน ่ ม้า สมุดขึ่นมา อาวสมุดขึ่นม้า [คุย คุย อาวลงมือ ตามเลย เขียนเร็วๆ นะ แหมสารองไว้เยอะจังนะเจ้าณัฐวุฒิ ไม้ชี้ (เสียงหัวเราะ) เขียนวันที่แล้วก็เขียน

เสร็จแล้วขีดเส้นกั้นให้เรียบร้อย ตัวไหนที่อา่ นไม่ชัดถามได้นะ โห

11


เมื่อเริ่มต้นแค่นน ั้ เองเหรอ ทันเขาเหรอ เขาไปถึงไหนแล้ว ยังลบเป็นแถบอีก เราเขียนทันเสร็จหรือเปล่า หนังสือเล่มนัน ้ ทีม ่ าใหม่อ่ะ มาใหม่คนหนึ่งอ่ะ โน้นเหรอ เขียนทันเสร็จหรือเปล่า เขียนได้หรือเปล่าวะ เขียนได้นะ เออ เอาเขียนได้ก็เอา เดี๋ยวค่อยย้ากัน] (Long turn)

Organise

(Translation: Put your book on your desk. [Chatting again. Start writing what I’ve written on the blackboard quickly. Nattavut, you have so many spare ones. (Laugh) Write the date and draw a long straight line below it. Ask me if you can’t see any of the characters clearly. Hey, (talking to one student), why did you start writing so late? The others have gone very far. And you have erased so much of what you write. And you (talking to another student), will you be able to finish it in time. I mean that book. You, the newcomer. The new student, will you finish it? Do you know how to write it? OK, go on if you can. I’ll give you more explanation later.])  หลอหลัว ว้อ จ้อจี้ [นี่ไม่ได้หรอก พวกเราเขียนอย่างนีค ้ งไม่ได้แน่

เพราะว่าวันนีจ ้ ะเป็นวันเรียนคาบสุดท้าย สาหรับหนังสือเล่มนีน ้ ะ ต้องทาเสร็จทุกคนนะ โห นี่เมื่อไหร่มน ั จะเสร็จเนี่ย ยังเหลืออีกตั้งเยอะแยะ](Intra-sentential switching)



Evaluate





Sociate

12



(Translation: For the word lo lua wo jo ji, [you can’t write it this way. You can’t definitely write it like this, as this is the last day we’re using this book. You all need to finish it. Oh, when will you finish it? There’s a lot left.]) อออ๋างเขียนจิ๊ เขียนเลกสูน เออ ออ เอมเขียนจิ๊ เออเขียนเลขสูนนีเลาะ [เออมาหมดแล้วใช่ไหมพวกเราอาวทาความเคารพครูก่อน เสียงดังๆหน่อยเพื่อนจะได้ยน ิ เอาใหม่] (Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: This is how to write Aow-ang. This is the way of writing Number 0. Yes, it’s like Number 0. [Are you all here? Now pay respect to me first. Say it loudly (talking to one student), so your friends will be able to hear you. Do it again.]) ฮอ งอ หงา เขียนจี้ [ไม่สวย] ฮอ งอ หงา เขียน ฮอ หู เห่ามัน ้ จันซะก๋อนเออะ เออ (Tag switching) (Translation: This way of writing ho ngo nghum is [not beautiful]. Start with writing ho hu beautifully first. Yes, that’s it.) แต๋ละโตเล้ย เต็งเม็ด เต็ง สามสิบเก่าโต นันเลาะ โตเลาเขียนบ่สนัด นั้นถามคู จิเบ๊าะเห่าบ่เข่าใจเขียนนะ[นี่เราคงล่อๆอานเลยล่ะมัง้ นี่ นี่เพิ่งได้ 3-4 บรรทัดแค่นั้นเอง ต้องขยันนะ มาเรียนภาษาไทดานี้ ขี้เกียจไม่ได้นะ] (Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: Let’s go through them, one by one. Let’s make phonemes from all the 39 consonants. Tell me if you are unclear with any of them. I’ll tell you how to write them. [You still have a lot to do then (talking to one student). You’ve done 3-4 lines only. You must work hard, learning Tai Dam. Don’t be lazy.]) อาว อ๋านโตไหม …[อ้าว ปรบมือให้ตว ั เอง ใช้ได้ ใช้ได้ อ้าวตานี้ ยังงี้ เออคือวันนี]้ เซ้าเอิ่นมัน ้ วาเป๋นโตไหมสือไตดา (Inter-sentential switching) (Translation: Now read the vowels... [Give yourself a big hand. Good job, good job. Now, today.] They call these Tai Dam characters.)


The Students’ Talk Table 5: The students’ classroom language use Number of Student utterances Lesson 1

Lesson 2

207

43

Student utterances in Central Thai Lesson 1

Student utterances in Tai Dam

Lesson 2

Lesson 1

Lesson 2

No

%

No

%

No

%

No

%

15

7.25

10

23.26

192

92.75

33

76.74

The transcripts of the two lessons observed revealed a greater number of Tai Dam utterances than that of Central Thai (92.75% in the first lesson and 76.74% in the second lesson, as shown in Table 5. Nevertheless, the main function of their talk in Tai Dam was only to repeat after the teacher (97.40% in Lesson 1 and 48.48% in Lesson 2), followed by to respond to the teacher’s commands (2.60% and 39.39%). Students rarely used the language to sociate or ask a question, apparent in the second lesson only. (See Table 6 for the functions of student utterances in Tai Dam.)

Functions of Student Utterances Table 6 Functions of student utterances in Tai Dam Function Repeat

Lesson 1 No % 187 97.40

Lesson 2 No % 16 48.48

Respond

5

2.60

13

39.39

Sociate Question

0 0

0 0

3 1

9.09 3.03

Example T: ลุเป้าอิ่นจูป ้ อปูม ๋ าเห็น SS:ลุเป้าอิ่นจู้ปอปูม ๋ าเห็น (Translation: The daughter-in-law committed adultery.) T: อาว อ๋านโตไหม (Translation: Please read the vowels aloud.) SS: ม่ายซะ ม่ายซา ม่ายสา ม่ายสี ม่ายสือ ม่ายสู ม่ายเส ม่ายแส ม่ายโส ม่ายเสาะ ม่ายสอ ม่ายสอบ ม่ายเสอ ม่ายเสีย ม่ายเสือ ม่ายสัว ม่ายสัล ม่ายใส ม่ายเสา ม่ายสัน ม่ายสา ม่ายสั้บ (Students read the vowels aloud.) SS: เต้งเม็ดตื๋นขึ่น (Translation: Everybody rise!) T:[ตัวไหนทีอ ่ ่านไม่ชัด ถามได้นะ] (Translation: Ask me if there is anything unclear.) SS: ลุเป้า (Translation: Lu pao?)

As the students were mainly passive in their language use, there was no clear evidence of codeswitching. They mostly responded to the teacher’s initiation. Their utterances in Central Thai were also mainly to respond to the teacher’s commands (53.33% and 70%). The other functions (to sociate, to repeat after the teacher, and to ask a question) were infrequent.

13


Table 7 Functions of student utterances in Central Thai Function Respond

Lesson 1 No % 8 53.33

Lesson 2 No % 7 70

Sociate

5

33.33

1

10

Repeat

2

13.33

1

10

Question

0

0

1

10

Example T: ลุเป้าอิ่นจูป ้ อปูม ๋ าเห็น ลุเป้า [แปลว่าอะไร] (Translation: The daughter-in-law (lu pao in Tai Dam) committed adultery. Her father-in-law saw it. [What does the word lu pao mean?]) SS:[ลูกสะใภ้](Translation: [Daughter-in-law.]) SS:[อาจารย์ครับ โอวัลตินครับ] (Translation: [Teacher, Ovaltine for you.]) T: อ่าว นังล้ง เอาจี้ ฟัง นังสือเหล่มเหลืองเนีย เอาม้าส่งกัน จูก๊น ก๊ะโต๊ะปิ ก๊ะโต๊ะคู แล่วบ่แล่วบ่เป็นฮัง (Translation: OK, sit down. Then listen. The book, the yellow book. Everyone must submit it on this desk, the teacher’s desk. If you have finished the task, that’s all right.) SS:[ไม่เป็นไร] (Translation: [That’s all right.]) T:[เออนั่นแหละถูกแล้วให้เขียนมาคอลัมน์น]ี้ (Translation: [That’s right. Write it in this column. ]) SS:[คอลัมน์เดียวใช่เปล่า คอลัมน์เดียว] (Translation: [One column, isn’t it? One column? ] )

Discussion and Conclusion In sum, to answer Research Question 1, the findings showed that the teacher in the present study did not believe in teaching Tai Dam for communication. His purpose of learning it and teaching it was to help preserve Tai Dam traditions. He believed in the traditional teaching method of his father (his own Tai Dam teacher), stressing the form of the language rather than the function. He advocated the use of Tai Dam as a classroom medium, corresponding with his own experience in learning it with his father. Nevertheless he did not mind switching into Central Thai if necessary. It is therefore can be concluded along the same lines as Seedhouse (2004) that due to the rather traditional context of Tai Dam classrooms, the participant teacher had more conservative pedagogic goals, compared to teachers of popular modern languages. With regards to Research Question 2, the non-participant observational findings revealed that the teacher usually conducted Tai Dam classes in the target language (Tai Dam) and in mixed code, as strongly recommended by classroom interaction scholars (Braine 2010; Cook 2010; Cook 2011; Levine 2011). The two lessons, which took place in two schools, showed significant differences in terms of the amount of teacher talk; yet the classroom language use, codeswitching types and codeswitching functions were highly similar. The teacher mainly spoke Tai Dam in class and switched to Central Thai for pedagogical and social purposes, i.e. presenting, eliciting, evaluating, organising, directing, and sociating (Bowers 1980). The teacher did not codeswitch “to respond” to students, most likely because the teaching method used, which is largely teacher-centered, determined that the teacher should be the one asking questions, initiating dialogues and controlling classroom activities.Had the teacher been trained to use more learner-centered methods, the function “to respond” to student initiations could have been observed. Overall, findings from the interview data and the observational data were consistent,

14


and the teacher’s codeswitching corresponded with recent findings of O’Cain and Leibscher (2009). Concerning the students’ language use (Research Question 3), their use of the target language was predominant; yet, it served only passive functions: to repeat after the teacher, to respond to his commands, to ask a question and to sociate. Their use of Central Thai, which was much less frequent, also served very similar functions, which differed from the findings of Eldridge (1996). It can be concluded that schools near the settlements of the Tai Dam ethnic group in Thailand are used as a tool for preserving the Tai Dam language. Yet, similar to the findings of Shameem (2007) and Majzuba and Raisb (2011), Tai Dam teachers in Thailand have not been provided with proper resources and teacher training. The present study thus is hoped to shed some light to policy makers in supporting the teaching and learning of Tai Dam or other endangered ethnic languages and providing appropriate training and resources to teachers of ethnic languages. In the meantime, the proper use of students’ first language together with a learner-centered approach to serve useful pedagogical and social functionsin multi-ethnic classrooms should be encouraged.

15


REFERENCES Adendorff, Ralph. 1996. “The Functions of Code Switching amongst High School Teachers and Students in KwaZulu and Implications for Teacher Education.” In Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education, edited by Kathleen M. Bailey and David Nunan, 388-406. New York: Cambridge University Press. Borg, Simon. 2009. “Language Teacher Cognition.” In The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education, edited by Ann Burns and Jack C. Richards, 163-71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borg, Simon. 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Bowers, Roger G. 1980. “Verbal Behaviour in the Language Teaching Classroom.” PhD thesis, University of Reading, England. Burusphat, Somsong, Sujaritrak Deepadung, Sumitra Suraratdecha, Pattama Patpong, Narong Ardsmiti, and Pichet Setapong. 2012. “Ethnicity Language Culture and Ethnic Tourism Development.” Press release, Mahidol University, Thailand. Cook, Guy. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, Vivian. 2001. “Using the First Language in the Classroom.” Canadian Modern Language Review 57. 3: 399-423. Coulmas, Florian. 2005. Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers’ Choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. 2006. How Language Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durongphan, Mayuree, Namtip Aksornkool, Sawangwong Wannawech, and Supanee Tiancharoen. 1982. The Development of English Teaching in Thailand: A Rattanakosin Experience. Bangkok: Aksorn Charoentat Publishing Company. Eldridge, John. 1996. “Code-switching in a Turkish Secondary School.” ELT Journal 50. 4: 30311. Gu, Mingyue, and John Patkin. 2013. “Heritage and Identity: Ethnic Minority Students from South Asia in Hong Kong.” Linguistics and Education 24: 131–41. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levine, Glenn S. 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Li, Li, and Steve Walsh. 2011. “Seeing is Believing: Looking at Teacher’s Beliefs through Classroom Interaction.” Classroom Discourse 2.1: 39-57. Majzuba, Rohaty M., and Maisarah Muhammad Raisb. 2011. “Perceptions of Students and Lecturers on the Preservation of Endangered languages.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 1677–83. Mercer, Niel. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mercer, Niel, and Karen Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the Development of Children's Thinking. London: Routledge. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1997. Duelling Languages, Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunan, David. 1996. “Hidden Voices: Insiders' Perspectives on Classroom Interaction.” In Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education, edited by Kathleen M. Bailey and David Nunan, 41-56. New York: Cambridge University Press. O’Cain, Jennifer D., and Grit Leibscher. 2009. “Teacher and Student Use of the First Language in Foreign Language Classroom Interaction: Functions and Applications.” In First

16


Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, edited by Miles Turnbull, M. and Jennifer Dailey O’Cain, 131-44. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Richards, Jack C., and Richard Schmidt. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education. Sankoff, David, and Shana Poplack. 1981. “A Formal Grammar for Code-switching” International Journal of Human Communication 14.1: 3-45. Seedhouse, Paul. 1996. “Learning Talk: A Study of the Interactional Organization of the L2 Classroom from a CA Institutional Discourse Perspective.” PhD thesis, University of York. Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Second Language Classroom: A Conversational Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Shameem, Nikhat. 2007. “Language Education Needs for Multilingualism in Fiji Primary Schools” International Journal of Educational Development 27: 39–60. Tennen, Deborah. 1985. “Cross-cultural Communication.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis (vol. 4: Discourse in Society), edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 203-15. London: Academic Press. Tsui, Amy B. M. 2001. “Classroom Interaction.” In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language, edited by Ronald Carter and David Nunan, 120-5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Lier, Leo. 2001. “Constraints and Resources in Classroom Talk: Issues in Equality and Symmetry.” In English Language Teaching in its Social Context: A Reader, edited by Christopher N. Candlin and Niel Mercer, 90-107. New York: Routeledge. Walsh, Steve. 2001. “Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvement in the EFL Classroom.” Language Teaching Research, 6.1: 3-23. Walsh, Steve. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Chamaipak Tayjasanant: Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, The Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.

17

Cognitive Underpinnings of Language: A Framework for the Study of Multilingualism Manon Robillard, Laurentian University, Canada Chantal Mayer-Crittenden, Laurentian University, Canada Abstract: An increase in research demonstrating the evidence of a connection between children’s cognitive skills and language abilities is available. Accordingly, cognition would be a necessary component to the development of language skills. Indeed, both working memory and sustained attention deficits have been linked to primary language impairments. The impact of multilingualism on cognition has also been greatly documented. Although some studies suggest a cognitive advantage of multilingualism, debates on this topic still remain. Moreover, the influence of cognition on the language development of multilingual children has yet to be well documented. For instance, do cognitive skills have the same impact on the language abilities of multilingual children than they have on monolingual children? The purpose of this article is to propose a framework for the study of multilingualism, which would involve the analysis of multiple cognitive abilities and that would focus on the cognitive underpinnings that are common to all languages. Keywords: Multilingualism, Language Development, and Cognition

Introduction

T

here is growing evidence to support the theory that cognitive and language skills are correlated in children (Ebert and Kohnert 2009; Kohnert and Ebert 2010). Moreover, a relationship between language skills, processing speed, sustained attention and working memory has been documented (Archibald and Gathercole 2007; Bishop and Norbury 2005; Gathercole 2006; Hoffman and Gillam 2004; Kohnert and Windsor 2004; Miller, Kail, Leonard, and Tomblin 2001; Montgomery 2008; Windsor and Kohnert 2009). There is also evidence that children with primary language impairment (PLI) perform below their peers on nonlinguistic cognitive processing tasks, although they do not perform below the norm (Ebert, RentmeesterDisher, Kohnert 2012). Essentially, cognitive skills would be needed for children to develop their language skills. Even though the impact of multilingualism and bilingualism on cognition is still an open debate, some studies suggest a cognitive advantage to being multilingual. Recent studies (e.g. Ebert, Rentmeester-Disher, Kohnert 2012), have suggested that language skills can be improved by working on cognitive skills. The use of a cognitive approach could prove to be successful in improving linguistic skills in more than one language at once. Thus increasing efficacy of treatment by reducing overall intervention time. This method could also be beneficial for Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) who need to intervene in a language unknown or unfamiliar to them. Since cognitive and linguistic skills are connected, the purpose of this article is to propose a framework for the study of bilingualism and multilingualism, which would involve the analysis of multiple cognitive abilities and that would focus on the cognitive underpinnings that are common to all languages. When assessing the linguistic competencies of multilingual children with primary language impairment (PLI), cognitive skills such as processing speed, working memory and sustained attention should be incorporated within the evaluation process. Moreover, according to Ebert et al. (2012) the addition of non-linguistic cognitive tasks should be included within the intervention plans of multilingual children who have PLI. The strategy would ensure that prerequisite skills, such as cognition, are acquired to facilitate the acquisition of linguistic skills.

The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies Volume 11, 2014, www.thehumanities.com, ISSN 2327-7882 © Common Ground, Manon Robillard, Chantal Mayer-Crittenden, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


Cognitive Underpinnings of Language The relationship between cognitive and language skills is of growing interest. According to numerous studies, processing speed, sustained attention and working memory are all correlated with language skills (Archibald and Gathercole 2007; Bishop and Norbury 2005; Gathercole 2006; Hoffman and Gillam 2004; Kohnert and Windsor 2004; Miller, Kail, Leonard, and Tomblin 2001; Montgomery 2008; Windsor and Kohnert 2009). Indeed, learning language without sufficient cognitive skills could prove to be difficult. Researchers now recognize that cognitively demanding tasks can modulate the development of the brain, in turn modifying cognition (e.g. Green and Bavelier 2003; Maguire et al. 2000; Polk and Farah 1998; Salthouse and Mitchell 1990). If we think of learning a new language as a cognitively demanding task, acquiring a new language could therefore improve cognition.

Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Language Development Although bilingual children’s experiences with each language can vary greatly, simultaneous bilinguals can become proficient in both languages if a continuous input and new opportunities to develop each language are present (Kohnert 2009). As for sequential bilinguals, they will usually be more skilled in their first language (L1) than in their second language (L2) (Kohnert 2007; Kohnert 2010; Meisel 2006; Valdés 2003). However, the language dominance can fluctuate across ages and learning opportunities (Kohnert 2010). That being said, the dominant language may not always be the strongest in all settings; some tasks may be better performed in L1 and others in L2 (e.g. Kohnert and Bates 2002; Ordóñez, Carlo, Snow, and McLaughlin 2003; Peña, Bedore, and Zlatic-Giunta 2002; Snow 1990; Snow 1991). This phenomenon may be apparent for children who use each language with different communication partners (Kohnert 2010), which may be the case for a child who speaks one language with one parent and another with the other parent. Another example would be a child that speaks one language at home and another at school. Cross-language associations or transfers may be present in children learning more than one language (Bialystock 2001; Kohnert 2010). A bilingual advantage in bilingual children has been documented on some basic cognitive processing tasks (e.g. Bialystok 2007). Research has demonstrated that in bilinguals, both languages are always active to a certain degree, even in situations that support only one of the languages (e.g. Francis 1999; Grainger 1993; Kroll and de Groot 1997; Rodriguez-Fornells, Rotte, Heinze, Nosselt, and Munte 2002; Thierry and Wu 2007). A 2011 study by Bialystock found that balanced bilingual children performed better than monolingual children in dual-modality conditions, demonstrating a bilingual advantage in executive control (selective attention, inhibition, shifting and working memory).

Cognition and PLI Children with PLI have difficulty learning language (Kohnert 2010) and represent approximately 7% of school-aged children (Tomblin et al. 1997). These children typically have a persisting language delay (American Psychiatric Association 1994; Bishop 1992; Leonard 1998). Within a clinical setting, PLI defines language learning difficulties in the absence of other developmental difficulties (Kohnert 2010; Tomblin et al. 2003). This suggests that the difficulties occur mainly within the language domain, without implying that treatment of information or working memory difficulties could not be co-existent. Children with PLI do not have a specific lesion site, nor are their language delays caused by a clear cognitive impairment (Kohnert, Windsor, and Ebert 2009). However, new findings support the possibility of a neurological component to PLI (see Ullman and Pierpont 2005 for a review). According to Kohnert (2010), PLI is due to innate factors that negatively interact with the demands of language-learning. Some of the reported markers of PLI are limited vocabulary

20

ROBILLARD & MAYER-CRITTENDEN: COGNITIVE UNDERPINNINGS OF LANGUAGE

(e.g., Gray 2004; Rescola 2005), morphosyntaxical difficulties (e.g., Bedore and Leonard 2001; Cleave and Rice 1997), shorter and less complex narrative discourse (e.g., Gutiérrez-Clellen 2004; Mayer-Crittenden 2013; Scott and Windsor 2000), and difficulties with social language (Fujiki et al. 1999). Children with PLI are also at risk for reading and writing difficulties (Bishop and Snowling 2004). This could in turn put them at risk for reduced academic, economic, and social outcomes (Kohnert 2010). Until recently, children with a language impairment were thought to have intact cognitive skills (Leonard 1998). We now know that children with PLI may have general processing capacity limitations which lead to a reduced performance in both the verbal and nonverbal areas (Leonard et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2001; Weismer and Hesketh 1996). There is growing evidence that children with PLI have poor performances in cognitive nonlinguistic areas. Attention, working memory and processing speed are examples of functions that would be affected in children with PLI (Archibald and Gathercole 2007; Bishop and Norbury 2005; Gathercole 2006; Hoffman and Gillam 2004; Kohnert and Windsor 2004; Miller, Kail, Leonard, and Tomblin 2001; Montgomery 2008; Windsor and Kohnert 2009). It has been proposed that children with PLI may experience limitations in general processing capacity which lead to poor performances in both verbal and non-verbal tasks (e.g. Leonard et al. 2007; Miller, Kail, Leonard, and Tomblin 2001; Weismer and Hesketh 1996). Sustained attention would be more impacted when children with PLI process information that is language-based than information nonlinguistic based (Ebert and Kohnert 2011). According to Marton (2008), children with PLI have difficulty controlling their attention, which was observed with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (reference WCST). The phonological loop, or verbal working memory, provides a temporary storage of verbal information and plays an important role in sub-vocal rehearsal (Baddeley and Hitch 1974). A study by Leonard et al. (2007) demonstrated a causal relationship between processing speed and PLI. Language skills could therefore be predicted from non-linguistic factors. It is plausible that these children have difficulty processing the information that is needed to acquire language adequately. That is, language itself may not be the problem; instead, processing limitations may significantly affect the child’s ability to access language from the input and, once (finally) acquired, use it with facility. (Leonard et al. 2007, p. 408)

Multilingualism and Cognition Speaking two or more languages on a daily basis produces changes in cognition (e.g., Bialystok 2009; Morales, Calvo, and Bialystok 2013). “The mechanism by which bilingualism leads to this experience-induced cognitive change is likely based on the need to monitor attention to the target language in the context of joint activation of the other language (Morales et al. 2013, p. 188).” Researchers now recognize that cognitively demanding tasks can modulate the development of the brain, in turn modifying cognition (e.g. Green and Bavelier 2003; Maguire et al. 2000; Polk and Farah 1998; Salthouse and Mitchell 1990). A recent study by Morales et al. (2013) demonstrated an advantage for bilingual children in working memory. Indeed, they found that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in response time and accuracy. Since the bilingual children’s advantage was larger in the more difficult trials, other cognitive functions would also come into play during these tasks. A bilingual advantage has been shown in children as young as 24 months who have minimal experience in language production (Poulin-Dubois, Blaye, Coutya, and Bialystok 2011). “…it is clear that bilingualism is an experience that has significant consequences for cognitive performance (Poulin-Dubois et al. 2011, p. 569)”. Bilingual or multilingual children with PLI have difficulty learning all of the languages to which they are exposed (Kohnert 2010). Indeed, they often learn both languages at a slower pace

21


(Hakansson, Salameh, and Nettelbladt 2003). There is no evidence indicating that bilingual children with PLI have an advantage or are at a disadvantage versus monolingual children with PLI (Kohnert 2010). In a study by Kohnert, Windsor, and Ebert (2009), bilingual children with PLI had the same cognitive processing weaknesses as monolinguals with PLI.

Intervention of Non-Linguistic Cognitive Skills Ebert, Rentmeester-Disher, and Kohnert (2012) conducted a study that looked at different intervention models for working with bilingual children with PLI. In fact, they targeted cognitive skills during intervention in order to see if this would have an effect on the linguistic skills in both languages spoken. For the treatment of cognitive skills to impact the language abilities of children with PLI, a correlation and a causal association are required between nonlinguistic processing weaknesses and language skills (Ebert, Rentmeester-Disher, and Kohnert 2012). New studies have shown that it is possible to improve language learning in children who have PLI by working on cognitive non-linguistic processing tasks (e.g. Ebert and Kohnert 2009; Ebert, Rentmeester-Disher, and Kohnert 2012). In 2009, Ebert and Kohnert’s study revealed that two children aged 7 and 8 with PLI made gains in expressive language skills after participating in activities targeting auditory memory and speed of processing for visual information. In 2012, Ebert, Rentmesster-Disher, and Kohnert revealed that two bilingual children (Spanish-English) made gains in cognitive non-linguistic processing skills as well as gains in language ability after participating in activities targeting processing speed and sustained attention. Given that cognitive processing deficits contribute to language learning delays in PLI, it is not surprising that the improvement of processing skills positively affected the linguistic skills (Ebert, RentmeesterDisher, and Kohnert 2012). Since this treatment method does not target a specific language, gains can be made in both languages known to bilingual or multilingual children (Ebert, RentmeesterDisher, and Kohnert 2012). Since both languages are affected in bilingual children with PLI (Kohnert 2010), they typically learn each one of them at a slower pace (Hakansson, Salameh, and Nettelbladt 2003). Non-linguistic cognitive therapy could be a very effective approach in the intervention of bilingual children. Since the cognitive gains made from this type of intervention increases skills in both languages of a bilingual child (Ebert, Rentmeester-Disher, and Kohnert 2012), a speechlanguage pathologist (SLP) who has no or limited knowledge of the foreign language could assist in increasing linguistic skills within that language by using a cognitive non-linguistic treatment approach. Not only could this technique help improve the learning of a language unbeknownst to an SLP, it could also improve skills within two languages at once, in turn reducing intervention time and costly dollars associated with extended treatment sessions.

Framework for the Study of Multilingualism in Children Given that cognition and language skills are correlated and that the intervention of cognition can bring gains in all languages of a multilingual child, the incorporation of cognitive tasks within an assessment and intervention framework of a multilingual child seems sensible.

Framework for the Assessment of Multilingual Children A complete assessment is a critical step in the successful intervention of children with PLI (Konhert 2010). When assessing the language skills of bilingual or multilingual children, not only is it important to assess all languages, but adding cognitive tasks could prove to be beneficial (Mayer-Crittenden 2013; Thordardottir, Keheyia, Lessard, Sutton, and Trudeau 2010). The cognitive score can help to rule out cognitive delays, as well as provide a more complete picture of the child’s overall underlying abilities and difficulties. A complete picture of all linguistic and non-linguistic skills and difficulties is needed. Although an ideal assessment 22


incorporates complete testing in all of the child’s languages, this is not always possible if the speech-language pathologist is not fluent in one of the languages. At times, a parent or translator could facilitate the assessment process. However, this is not always possible due to human resources scarcities or time constraints. Standardized tests such as the Leiter International Scale-Revised (Leiter-R, Roid and Miller 1997) and the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4, Brown, Sherbenou and Johnsen 2010) could be good choices since they involve non-verbal tasks. This would reduce the probability that a child was unsuccessful due to the linguistic component.

Framework for the Intervention of Multilingual Children In most settings, whether it be in the private sector or in a government-funded center, children with PLI receive intervention sessions on a weekly basis for a predetermined period of time. The predetermined duration of therapy often depends on funding available and resources. Having said this, it is often difficult to provide services in all of the languages spoken. As mentioned above, apart from the funding possibilities, SLPs very seldom speak all of the child’s languages and translators are often hard to come by. The proposed framework suggests the addition of cognitive non-linguistic tasks during the intervention of multilingual children with PLI. As shown in previous studies, these tasks can improve language skills by improving cognitive functions. Since improvements could be made in more than one language, SLPs who are not familiar with one or more of the languages that a child speaks could make gains in those languages without directly targeting them. This is important since SLPs are not always familiar with all of the child’s languages. It could also reduce the intervention hours needed since intervention is not received in all languages. Since cognitive skills are a prerequisite to linguistic skills, it is important to increase cognition in order to increase language skills. Working on language without the appropriate cognitive skills could prove to be frustrating both for the child and SLP who don’t see gains from intervention. Proper non-linguistic intervention can lead the way to changes in cognitive function and successful language gains. For bilingual children, gains could be made in the child’s first language (L1) as well as the second language (L2) even though only one is often targeted during direct linguistic intervention. Not only could this technique help improve the learning of a language unbeknownst to a speech-language pathologist, it could also improve skills within two languages at once, in turn reducing intervention time and costly dollars associated with extended treatment. Non-linguistic games such as Blink (Staupe 2001), Bop-it and Simon Trickster have been shown to increase cognitive skills, which in turn increase language skills (Ebert, RentmessterDisher, and Kohnert 2012). These games could be motivating for the child who has worked on language for many years. In fact, since children are motivated by technology (Kulik 1994; McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, and Heald 2002), an approach that combines non-linguistic games with technology could be particularly motivating. Robillard and Mayer-Crittenden (under review) proposed a treatment model that incorporates non-linguistic treatment with the use of technology, such as apps that can be used on an iPad (Apple 2013) or other tablet, combined with traditional linguistic therapy. As Robillard and Mayer-Crittenden’s model proposes the addition of indirect hours of cognitive therapy with the use of technology on days when linguistic intervention is not received, gains could be made more quickly as the overall treatment hours are increased. Since some studies have shown gains in linguistic abilities from working solely on cognitive tasks (i.e. Ebert, Rentmesster-Disher, and Kohnert 2012), another possibility would be to only intervene with non-linguistic cognitive tasks. This model could be of possible interest for the child who has been working on language for many years without much success.

Conclusion 23


There is undoubtedly an existent relationship between cognitive and language skills. In fact, children with PLI often have reduced processing speed, sustained attention and working memory skills, alongside their more salient language difficulties. A relationship is also present between multilingualism and cognition, which, in certain circumstances, indicates an advantage for children who are exposed to more than one language. Since recent studies have demonstrated that language gains can be made when working on non-linguistic cognitive tasks and that these gains can be seen in more than one language, a new framework for the study of multilingualism was proposed. This framework recommends that the focus be on the cognitive underpinnings common to all languages during the intervention of multilingual children with PLI. When assessing children’s language skills, speech-language pathologists should include cognitive assessments, especially those that measure processing speed, sustained attention and working memory (see Mayer-Crittenden and Robillard (in preparation) for a review of the available non-linguistic assessment tools). The intervention of multilingual children with PLI should include non-linguistic cognitively based tasks in order to increase cognitive functions, which in turn can bring gains into the language domain, and that, in more than one language. The framework presented in this paper could prove to be more efficient and cost effective by indirectly treating more than one language at once in multilingual children. Also, clinical work could be greatly facilitated by the availability of various treatment models. However, the next step in this research, aiming to develop a new framework for the treatment of multilingual children with PLI is the verification of the efficacy of this model. Also, empirical research that compares the traditional linguistic approach to the non-linguistic cognitive approach are also needed. Such work is currently underway.

Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Mélissa Therrien, research assistant.

24


REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. 1994. DSM-IV Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental health disorders (4th Edition). Washington DC: Masson Paris. Apple. 2013. Last modified 2013. http://www.apple.com. Archibald, Lisa, and Susan E. Gathercole. 2007. “The complexities of complex memory span: Storage and processing deficits in specific language impairment.” Journal of Memory and Language 57: 177-94. Baddeley, Alan D. and Graham Hitch. 1974. “Working memory.” In The psychology of learning and motivation, edited by Gordon H. Bower, 47-90. New York: Academic Press. Bedore Lisa M, and Laurence B. Leonard. 2001. “Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanishspeaking children with specific language impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44: 905–24. Bialystok, Ellen. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, Ellen. 2007. “Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change.” International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 10: 210-23. Bialystok, Ellen. 2009. “Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 3–13. Bishop, Dorothy V. M. 1992. “The underlying nature of specific language impairment.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 33: 3-66. Bishop, Dorothy V.M. and Margaret J. Snowling. 2004. “Developmental dyslexia and Specific Language Impairment: Same or different?” Psychological Bulletin. 130: 858–86. Bishop, Dorothy V.M., and Courtenay F. Norbury. 2005. “Executive functions in children with communication impairments, in relation to autistic symptomatology 2: Response inhibition.” Autism 9: 29–43. Brown, Linda, Rita J. Sherbenou, and Susan K. Johnsen. 2010. Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-4 (TONI-4). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Cleave, Patricia L., and Mabel L. Rice. 1997. “An examination of the morpheme BE in children with specific language impairment: The role of contractibility and grammatical form class.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40: 480–92. Ebert, Kerry D., and Kathryn Kohnert. 2009. “Efficacy of nonlinguistic cognitive intervention for school-aged children with language impairment.” Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 23: 647–64. Ebert, Kerry D., and Kathryn Kohnert. 2011. “Sustained attention in children with primary language impairment: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54: 1372-84. Ebert, Kerry D., Jill Rentmeester-Disher, and Kathryn Kohnert. 2012. “Nonlinguistic cognitive treatment for bilingual children with primary language impairment.” Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 26: 485-01. Ellis Weismer, Susan, and Linda J. Hesketh. 1996. “Lexical learning by children with Specific Language Impairment: Effects of linguistic input presented at varying speaking rates.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39: 177-90. Francis, Wendy S. 1999. “Analogical transfer of problem solutions within and between languages in Spanish-English bilinguals.” Journal of Memory and Language 40:301–29. Fujiki, Martin, Bonnie Brinton, Melanie Morgan, and Craig H. Hart. 1999. “Withdrawn and sociable behavior of children with language impairment.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 30: 183–95. Gathercole, Susan E. 2006. “Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship.” Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 513–43.

25


Grainger, Jonathan. 1993. “Visual Word Recognition in Bilinguals. ” In The Bilingual Lexicon, edited by Robert Schreuder, and Bert Weltens, 11-25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Gray, Shelley. 2004. “Word learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: Predictors and poor learners.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47: 1117–32. Green, C. Shawn, and Daphne Bavelier. 2003. “Action video game modifies visual selective attention.” Nature 423: 534–37. Gutierrez-Clellen, Vera F. 2004. “Narrative development and disorders in bilingual children.” In Bilingual language development and disorders in spanish-english speakers, edited by B.Goldstein, 235-56. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Hakansson Gisela, Eva-Kristina Salameh, and Ulrika Nettelbladt. 2003. “Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment.” Linguistics 41:255–88. Hoffman, LaVae M., and Ronald B. Gillam. 2004. “Verbal and spatial information processing constraints in children with specific language impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47: 114–25. Kohnert, Kathryn. 2007. Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing. Kohnert, Kathryn. 2009. “Cross-language generalization following treatment in bilingual speakers with aphasia: a review.” Seminars in Speech and Language 30: 174-86. Kohnert, Kathryn. 2010. “Bilingual Children with Primary Language Impairment: Issues, Evidence and Implications for Clinical Actions.” Journal of Communication Disorders 43: 465-73. Kohnert, Kathryn and Elizabeth Bates. 2002. “Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning spanish and english. ” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45: 347-59. Kohnert, Kathryn, and Jennifer Windsor. 2004. “The search for common ground: part II: Nonlinguistic performance by linguistically diverse learners.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47: 891-03. Kohnert, Kathryn, Jennifer Windsor, and Kerry D. Ebert. 2009. “Primary or ‘‘specific” language impairment and children learning a second language.” Brain and Language 109: 10111. Kohnert, Kathryn, and Kerry D. Ebert. 2010. “Beyond morphosyntax in developing bilinguals and “Specific” Language Impairment.” Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 303-10. Kroll, Judith F., and Annette M.B. de Groot. 1997. “Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. ” In Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, edited by Annette M. B. de Groot and Judith F. Kroll,169-99. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kulik, James A. 1994. “Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. ” In Technology assessment in education and training, edited by Eva L. Baker, and Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., 9-33. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leonard, Laurence B. 1998. Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Leonard, Laurence B., Susan Ellis Weismer, Carol A. Miller, David J. Francis, J. Bruce Tomblin, and Robert V. Kail. 2007. “Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50: 40828. Maguire, Eleanor A., David G. Gadian, Ingrid S. Johnsrude, Catriona D. Good, Josh Ashburner, Richard S.J. Frackowiak, and Christopher D. Frith. 2000. “Navigation-related structural

26


changes in the hippocampi of taxi drivers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 4398–03. Marton, Klara. 2008. “Visuo-spatial processing and executive functions in children with specific language impairment.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 43:181-00. Mayer-Crittenden, Chantal. 2013. Les compétences linguistiques et cognitives des enfants bilingues en situation linguistique minoritaire (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Laurentienne, Sudbury. Mayer-Crittenden, Chantal and Manon Robillard. (in preparation). “Importance of Assessing Cognitive Skills in Bilingual Children with a Primary Language Impairment.” The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation. McFarlane, Angela, Anne Sparrowhawk, and Ysanne Heald. 2002. Report on the Educational Use of Games: an Exploration by TEEM of the Contribution Which Games Can Make to the Education Process. Cambridge: Teem. Meisel, Jürgen M. 2006. “The bilingual child.” In The handbook of bilingualism, edited by Tej K. Bhatia, and William C. Ritchie, 91-112. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Miller, Carol A., Robert V. Kail, Laurence B. Leonard, and J. Bruce Tomblin. 2001. “Speed of processing in children with specific language impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44: 416-43. Montgomery, James W. 2008. “Role of auditory attention in the real-time processing of simple grammar by children with specific language impairment: A preliminary investigation.” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 43: 499-27. Morales, Julia, Alejandra Calvo, and Ellen Bialystok. 2013. “Working memory development in monolingual and bilingual children.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114: 187-02. Ordóñez Claudia Lucia, Maria S. Carlo, Catherine E. Snow, and Barry McLaughlin. 2002. “Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer?” Journal of Educational Psychology 94:719–28. Peña, Elizabeth, Lisa Bedore, and Rebecca Zlatic-Giunta. 2002. “Category-generation performance of bilingual children: The influence of condition, category, and language.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45: 938-47. Polk, Thad A., and Martha J. Farah. 1998. “The neural development and organization of letter recognition: Evidence from functional neuroimaging, computational modelling, and behavioral studies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 847–52. Poulin-Dubois, Diane, Agnes Blaye, Julie Coutya, and Ellen Bialystok. 2011. “The effects of bilingualism on toddlers’ executive functioning.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 108: 567-79. Rescorla, Leslie. 2005. “Age 13 language and reading outcomes in late-talking toddlers.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48: 459–72. Robillard, Manon, and Chantal Mayer-Crittenden. Under review. “Use of Technology as an Innovative Approach to Cognitive Non-Linguistic Therapy. ” The International Journal of Technologies in Learning. Rodriguez-Fornells, Antoni, Michael Rotte, Hans-Jochen Heinze, Tömme Nösselts, and Thomas F. Münte. 2002. “Brain potential and functional MRI evidence for how to handle two languages with one brain.” Nature 415: 1026-29. Roid, Gale H., and Lucy J. Miller. 1997. Leiter international performance scale-revised (LeiterR). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting. Salthouse, Timothy A., and Debora R.D. Mitchell. 1990. “Effects of age and naturally occurring experience on spatial visualization performance.” Developmental Psychology 26: 845– 54.

27


Scott, Cheryl M., and Jennifer Windsor. 2000. “General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 43: 324-39. Snow, Catherine E. 1990. “The development of definitional skill.” Journal of Child Language 17: 697-10. Snow, Catherine E. 1991. “Language proficiency: Towards a definition.” In A case for psycholinguistic cases, edited by Gabriela Appel, and Hans W. Dechert, 63-89. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Staupe, Reinhard. 2001. Blink. Madison, WI: Out of the Box Publishing. Thierry, Guillaume, and Yan Jing Wu. 2007. “Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreigh-language comprehension. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 12530-35. Thordardottir, Elin, Eva Keheyia, Nicole Lessard, Ann Sutton, and Natacha Trudeau. 2010. “Typical performance on tests of language knowledge and language processing of french-speaking 5-year-olds.” Revue Canadienne d'Orthophonie et d'Audiologie 34 : 516. Tomblin, J. Bruce , Nancy Records, Paula Buckwalter, Xuyang Zhang, Elaine Smith, and Marlea O’Brien. 1997. “Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children.” Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40: 1245-60. Tomblin, J. Bruce, Xuyang Zhang, Paula Buckwalter, and Marlea O’Brien. 2003. “The stability of primary language disorder: Four years after kindergarten diagnosis.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46:1283-96. Ullman, Micheal T., and Elizabeth L. Pierpoint. 2005. “Specific impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis.” Cortex 41: 399-33. Valdés, Guadalupe. 2003. Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Windsor, Jennifer, and Kathryn Kohnert. 2009. “Processing speech, attention, and perception: Implications for child language disorders.” In Handbook of child language disorders, edited by R. G. Schwartz 445-61. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Manon Robillard: Assistant Professor, Speech and Language Pathology Programs, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Chantal Mayer-Crittenden: Assistant Professor, Faculty of Professional Schools, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

28

The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies is one of five thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support the New Directions in the Humanities knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community. Communication, the focal point of this journal, entails the exchange of human meaning, from the processes of representation or symbolic sense-making grounded in human cognition to the outward manifestations of communication to the dynamics of interpretation of meanings by listeners, viewers and readers. This includes the structures of meaning to be found in language and analyzed in the discipline of linguistics, as well as other modes of communication using a range of media, including visual, audio, gestural, tactile, and spatial communication. The International Journal of Communication and Linguistic Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2327-7882