Linguistic terms and definitions

2.2.1.1 Who is bilingual?

Bilingualism is as old as languages themselves. Nevertheless, during different eras the justification of the phenomenon changed to a great extent. In ancient times it was not rare that conquerors and conquered people learnt each other’s language and up to the establishment of nation-states bilingualism was an everyday routine worldwide. At the turn of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, however, bilinguals were considered to be different from the norm in Europe and bilingualism was not an example worth following (Bene, 2000). Even today bilingualism might cause ambivalent feelings in monolingual people: on the one hand, bilinguals are envied because of their command of more than one language, and on the other hand, they might be implicitly excluded from different communities and considered to be outsiders (Wardhaugh, 1995).

In the 20^th century bilingualism came into the limelight of linguists’, psychologists’

and sociologists’ attention (Göncz, 1985) and many of them tried to serve with an acceptable definition about the gist of the notion. In spite of all the efforts, it seems to be easier to categorise bilingualism than to give an overt, extended and valid definition to it. Altogether, it is relevant to scrutinize the existing classical and modern definitions as it is done in the following table (Figure 3).

12

maximalist Bilingualism is the “native-like control of two languages”.

Bloomfield in 1933

minimalist A bilingual can “produce complete meaningful utterances in the other language”.

Haugen 1953

permissive Bilingualism is the “contact with possible models in a second

functional Bilingualism is “the practice of alternatively using two languages”.

Weinreich 1979

functional Bilinguals are “those who use two (or more) languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives”

Grosjean 1994

fractional Bilinguals are “two monolinguals in one person”.

Figure 3. Who is bilingual? - Definitions of bilingualism on the basis of the indicated authors

To clarify the definitions, it is worth going back to the first conventional interpretation which was provided by Bloomfield in 1933. He examined new immigrants to the USA who became more and more fluent in their newly acquired language. Bloomfield, in his oft-cited definition states that bilingualism is a “native-like control of two languages” (as cited in

13 Hoffmann, 1991, p. 15). This strict rendition determined the views on the subject for a long time and it was not until the 1950s that a new, less strict interpretation came to light by Haugen, who describes bilinguals individuals who, besides their first language, are able to

“produce complete meaningful utterances in the other language” (Butler  Hakuta, 2004, p.

114). With this breakthrough the myth of “true” bilingualism (Gottardo  Grant, 2008, p. 1) has been destroyed and it was time to give more refined definitions from different scientific aspects. Before that the most permissive definition came to light by Diebold in 1961. In his essay titled Incipient Bilingualism the author goes further than others. He concludes that bilingualism is the “contact with possible models in a second language and the ability to use these in the environment of the native language” (Diebold, 1961, p. 111). Although Macnamara (1967) shared his views, later researchers (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986; Bartha, 1999) find the definition an exaggerated one as according to it anyone who speaks a few words in a foreign language can be considered bilingual. Conferring this view with Bloomfield’s definition it can be stated that they represent the two far extremes of the definitions. This idea is supported by Baker, who makes a distinction between Bloomfield’s and Diebold’s concepts when he calls the first the “maximalist” and the second the

“minimalist” definition (Baker, 2011, p. 8). He also categorises views on bilingualism when he discusses “fractional” and “holistic” (2011, p. 9) views of the problem. By “fractional” he means “two monolinguals in one person”, while the “holistic” view confirms that bilinguals, unlike monolinguals, have very different characteristic linguistic features, especially relating acquisition, thinking or interconnections of languages, which cannot be compared with those of monolinguals. This basic distinction can explain the different approaches to the question.

Another school of bilingual researchers was established by Uriel Weinreich, who puts an emphasis on functionality: “the practice of alternatively using two languages will be called bilingualism and the person involved, bilingual” (1979, p. 71). It is he, who introduces the notion of ‘multilingualism’ in 1953 as “the practice of using alternately three or more languages” (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986, p. 2) which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Mackey (1970) confirms Weinreich’s statements by involving two or more languages in the scope of bilingualism. Since that time researchers have dealt more and more with the functional side of bilingualism. Still in Weinreich’s path, Grosjean also emphasises language use and multilingualism in his definition according to which bilinguals are “those who use two (or more) languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (1994, p. 1656).

It has already turned out how difficult it is to find a proper definition for bilingualism.

Yet, it is useful to clarify which one it is preferred and applied in the present study. On the

14 basis of Grosjean’s (1994) already cited definition from the aspect of this research it is Bartha, who can provide a definition of bilingualism that will be used in this dissertation later on:

“... bilingual is the person who, in his/ her everyday contacts, is able to use two or more languages regularly (in oral and/ or written forms or in sign language) according to his/ her communicative and socio-cultural needs.” (1999, p. 40)

2.2.1.2 Types of bilingualism

Towards the end of the 20^th century researchers seemed to be confused about the multi-faceted feature of bilingualism and instead of giving definitions, they rather made categories. Baetens Beardsmore (1986, p. 2) tends to admit the limits of definitions and considers bilingualism a notion that must be clear to everyone even without further explanation:

“To some extent the notion of bilingualism finds itself in the same category as the elusive yet so familiar concept of the word; everyone knows what a word is yet no one can give a satisfactory definition. ... Just as in our bones we know what a word is, inadequately definable though it may be, so most of us have an opinion as to what bilingualism is, even though individual interpretations may vary considerably.”

What several scientists point out is that the definitions are moving along a scale of contrasts like ‘productive – receptive’, ‘active – passive’, ‘natural – guided’, ‘primary – secondary’ (Bartha, 1999), ‘individual – societal’ (Hoffmann, 1991), or ‘dominant – balanced’ and ‘bilateral – unilateral’ (Kiss, 1995). On the basis of modern psycho- and sociolinguistic typologies and descriptions (Cummins, 1979; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990;

Hoffman, 1991; Kiss, 1995; Baker  Prys Jones, 1998; Baker, 2011) in the following table (Figure 4) the different characters and varieties of bilingualism will be outlined:

Factors Types Comments

Age 1. early

2. late

Cut-off points are not firm. Adolescent bilingualism may also be added.

Competence 1. balanced

2. dominant

It suggests the level of proficiency in the different languages.

Level of language command 1. perfect 2. partial

It always refers to age-appropriate language command.

15

Origin 1. natural/ spontaneous

2. artificial/ cultural

Natural bilinguals acquire the languages from speakers around them in childhood (e.g. one-parent-one-language method) while artificial bilingualism can be achieved in a systematically structured way (e.g. at school). acquisition is mutual, bilingualism is bilateral. If not, unilateral.

Ethnic bilingualism is characteristic of co-habiting communities, while elite bilingualism is more voluntary and depends on individual choice. subordinate bilingualism one of the languages is dependent on or secondary

Figure 4. Types of bilingualism on the basis of Cummins (1979), Skutnabb-Kangas (1990), Hoffmann (1991), Kiss (1995), Baker  Prys Jones (1998) and Baker (2011)

16 The term “bilingual” in the standard language and in the usage of linguists are not so far from each other as both refer to the application of two languages. The only difference, presumably, as Kontra (1999) seems to suggest, is that linguists also use the term “bilingual”

to people who speak two languages badly. In this sense “bilingualism” might carry the pure chance of language use, and not the level or quality of speech.

2.2.1.3 Multilingualism

As the focus shifts from bilingualism towards multilingualism, it may be noticed that bilingualism as a term is widely used both for literary bilingual and multilingual people as well. The latter means that the individual may have “varying degrees of proficiency in three, four or even more languages” (Baker  Prys Jones, 1998, p. 17). Literally, multilingualism is

“the use of two or more languages” (Biseth, 2009, p. 7). Multilingualism is especially widespread in Africa and Asia and according to Baker  Prys Jones (1998) it is due to the co-existence of local or ethnic languages, historical traditions, industrial development and different political unions or urbanisation. Additionally, it can also be the outcome of modern language learning requirements, for instance in Europe, and especially in countries where language learning has a high prestige (e.g. Scandinavia), language learning policy support it (e.g. Canada) or language communities give priority to multilingualism (e.g. Yiddish, Hebrew and English in New York). Obviously, just like in the case of bilingualism, there might be large differences between the level of competence and skills in the different languages.

Baker (2011) makes a clear distinction between bilingualism and multilingualism. The latter term, in his interpretation, means that three or more languages are used in communities where local, regional, official or international languages are acquired and learnt. He also examines multilingualism in the light of bilingualism, supposing that two languages are already given, and a third/ fourth language is added to the existing ones. In this case he considers the actual bilingualism an asset and a favourable soil for learning further languages.

He is ready to add that multilingualism is often in the limelight of political and social arguments. As far as the individual is concerned, he stresses the importance of the acceptance of languages by peers. It might be considered to be a crucial factor in our research, too, while examining the kindergarten community.

Research into tri- or multilingualism, comparing it with bilingualism is relatively rare.

Cenoz and Genesee in their research found that “bilingualism does not hinder the acquisition

17 of an additional language and, to the contrary, in most cases bilingualism favours the acquisition of third languages” (1998, p. 20). It is also important to notice that multilingual competence should not be confused with monolingual competence. For a multilingual, according to the different use of different languages there is no need to develop all competences to the same level. Cenoz and Genesee (1998) suppose that multilingual schools have different aims in the different languages, which is manifested in their educational programme as well. They describe what happens if the target languages are used in a community by native-speakers and if they are not used by a native community. In the first case the usage of the target languages can be noticed both in formal and informal situations, while in the latter example the spectrum of the target languages will be reduced only to formal (e.g. academic) situations. In our research the kindergarten will give a very special setting of using the target (Hungarian and English) languages. As it will be seen, it may also happen that a child’s L1 will become an additional language under kindergarten circumstances (e.g. in the case of Bulgarian, Polish or Dutch in Pápa), as these languages are not among the official languages of the kindergarten and not spoken by the kindergarten teachers or the majority of the children.

Although in literature bilingualism often overlaps the concept of multilingualism, in this research they are not used alternately. First, with their sharp and consequent distinction I want to show clearly when children use two languages (‘bilingualism’) and when they exceed the point of strictly described bilingualism, i.e. they are able to make themselves understood in an additional language, too. Secondly, I examine not only the languages but also the existence and co-existence of different cultures, whose number is, due to the special circumstances, are necessarily more than two. Therefore, I find it more rational to make the bilingual vs. multilingual distinction.

2.2.1.4 Code-switching, code-mixing and linguistic interference

Languages are usually not kept apart from each other in the communication of bilinguals, which brings along the problem of linguistic interference, switching or code-mixing. Up to now these concepts have not yet been separated clearly in linguistic literature.

Languages are stored in the same territory in the brain, but storing might be influenced by several factors, for instance the method or the starting point of second language acquisition (Navracsics, 2007). In terms of bilingualism researchers draw attention to the linguistic interference. As Bakk-Miklósi (2009) explains, it is a phenomenon where the bilingual

18 individual cannot isolate two structurally contrasted linguistic systems, therefore the two languages interfere. Cseresnyési (2004) gives a graphic example to this by Leslie Barrat when he refers to the difficulties of Hungarian–English bilinguals or language learners who are trying to identify the colours, pink and purple in these languages. Interference tends to be usually stronger in the case of dominant than in balanced bilingualism.

In M. Batári’s (2008) opinion code-switching is generally considered to be a functional shift from one language to another, while code-mixing means a regular and sudden replacement of a language by another language (i.e. between codes) where replacement is continuous and not strategically planned. According to Thompson (2000) borrowing is based on the supposition that speakers use one dominant language which is “complemented” (2000, p. 178) by special elements of another language, while code-switching is rooted in the “one-speaker-one-language description of language behaviour” (2000, p. 178).

Code-mixing as a term is sometimes used at word-level (e.g. word or words of a certain sentence might be from another language) while code-switching often refers to the changing of the languages within a conversation either at word or sentence level; if Baker’s (2011) concept is considered. This distinction is rooted on Poplack’s definition from 1980 (Hoffmann, 1991), who makes a difference between intra-sentential (code-mixing) and inter-sentential (code-switching) alterations. He reduces the first to single lexical items within a sentence while by the second he means the use of whole tags or exclamations even across sentences.

The criteria of ‘mixing’ and ‘moving’ are not specified; therefore the definitions seem to remain ambiguous. This ambiguity often leads to the alternate use of the two terms. Taking a look at the sociolinguistic purposes of code-switching Baker (2011), finds the most obvious reasons in emphasizing a point in a conversation, substituting words due to a lexical gap, expressing a lacking concept in one language, reinforcing a request, clarifying a point in a conversation, injecting humour or excluding people from a conversation. Additionally, code-switching can also be an expression of identity, a sign of solidarity, therefore a useful communicative strategy (Bartha, 1999; Baker, 2011). According to another phrasing, code-switching applied indifferent situations is called ‘situational code-code-switching’ while changing languages according to different topics is called ‘metaphorical code-switching’ (Wardhaugh, 1995, p. 92).

Code-switching and code-mixing can be observed in educational situations as well, especially in a bi- or multilingual kindergarten. Whether it is used in a meaningful and

19 pedagogically justified way or in a confusing insert or embedding into another language as futile “sandwiching” (Djigunović  Nikolov, 2014) will be discussed in this work.