{"title":"The mysteries of bilingualism: unresolved issues","authors":"Yumi Tanaka, C. Starling","doi":"10.1080/13670050.2023.2237638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"François Grosjean’s latest book, with its colorful cover carrying the simple title The Mysteries of Bilingualism, may briefly intrigue readers with just a casual interest in bilingualism or a need for practical guidance. However, the subtitle, which we first come to on the title page, hints at the author’s academic purpose, and the introduction states it clearly. He proposes to examine eleven unresolved issues concerning bilingualism and for each of them review relevant research, highlight leads most promising for their elucidation, and give ‘the best explanation we have’ (1). In his Part 1 (of four parts), Bilingual Adults and Children, Grosjean fittingly begins by questioning how the term ‘bilingual’ should itself be defined, before going on to explore how many bilinguals there might be, and how bilingual infants progress to language separation. How we understand ‘bilingual,’ he shows, has changed with time. Where forty years ago it primarily meant the ability to speak two languages, with an emphasis on fluency, nowadays attention is given rather to amount of use, so that even second language learners may qualify. Grosjean’s own favored definition of ‘bilinguals’ is ‘those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives’ (11, italics in original). This may seem compellingly simple and convenient, but even readers of this book may find it problematic. Indeed, in the third section of Part 1, dealing with bilingual infants and how they distinguish their languages perceptually, the tacit meaning of ‘a bilingual’ seems quite different. This is clear when Grosjean writes that ‘bilingual infants maintain their perceptual sensitivity to language differences – something they need in order to separate and learn their two languages’ (32), leading to the ‘operation of conceptual language categories’ (40) essential to language use. Even if ‘bilingual’ here is taken as shorthand for ‘bilingual-to-be,’ it denotes a distinct group of infants pre-learning, and calls for a more comprehensive definition (perhaps emphasizing ‘attention’ rather than ‘use’). Part 2, Linguistics and Neurolinguistics, examines in turn accents (their detection, their comprehensibility, and reasons they occur in one’s L2 or L3), language loss, and bilingual aphasia. The pages on aphasia, in particular, display the full historical sweep of Grosjean’s project. After citing recent neuroscientific theory on factors in bilinguals’ impairment (lesion site; impairment of the cognitive control system), he takes us back to late 19th century writings of Ribot and of Pitres to review the factors they posited as relevant to both impairment and recovery (respectively first language acquired and language(s) used the most). Other posited factors (age of acquisition of the second language, language dominance, literacy, and so on) are then scrutinized in turn in a fascinating discussion. This section also reminds us how much bilingual studies is necessarily an interdisciplinary field (citing insights from psychology on the first language acquired, sociology on language use, and neurology on aphasia). In the zone of convergence of multiple disciplines, specialists limited to any single one can find it hard to grasp the overall context of their project. The far-ranging discussion we find here depends on a synoptic view that tacitly invites researchers to venture beyond their own specialty and thereby appreciate the actual vastness of the field and full value of their endeavor. Part 3, Language Use and Language Processing, looks into how bilinguals use two languages in interaction, what bilinguals’ languages are used for, and whether language processing is selective or","PeriodicalId":47918,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2023.2237638","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
François Grosjean’s latest book, with its colorful cover carrying the simple title The Mysteries of Bilingualism, may briefly intrigue readers with just a casual interest in bilingualism or a need for practical guidance. However, the subtitle, which we first come to on the title page, hints at the author’s academic purpose, and the introduction states it clearly. He proposes to examine eleven unresolved issues concerning bilingualism and for each of them review relevant research, highlight leads most promising for their elucidation, and give ‘the best explanation we have’ (1). In his Part 1 (of four parts), Bilingual Adults and Children, Grosjean fittingly begins by questioning how the term ‘bilingual’ should itself be defined, before going on to explore how many bilinguals there might be, and how bilingual infants progress to language separation. How we understand ‘bilingual,’ he shows, has changed with time. Where forty years ago it primarily meant the ability to speak two languages, with an emphasis on fluency, nowadays attention is given rather to amount of use, so that even second language learners may qualify. Grosjean’s own favored definition of ‘bilinguals’ is ‘those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives’ (11, italics in original). This may seem compellingly simple and convenient, but even readers of this book may find it problematic. Indeed, in the third section of Part 1, dealing with bilingual infants and how they distinguish their languages perceptually, the tacit meaning of ‘a bilingual’ seems quite different. This is clear when Grosjean writes that ‘bilingual infants maintain their perceptual sensitivity to language differences – something they need in order to separate and learn their two languages’ (32), leading to the ‘operation of conceptual language categories’ (40) essential to language use. Even if ‘bilingual’ here is taken as shorthand for ‘bilingual-to-be,’ it denotes a distinct group of infants pre-learning, and calls for a more comprehensive definition (perhaps emphasizing ‘attention’ rather than ‘use’). Part 2, Linguistics and Neurolinguistics, examines in turn accents (their detection, their comprehensibility, and reasons they occur in one’s L2 or L3), language loss, and bilingual aphasia. The pages on aphasia, in particular, display the full historical sweep of Grosjean’s project. After citing recent neuroscientific theory on factors in bilinguals’ impairment (lesion site; impairment of the cognitive control system), he takes us back to late 19th century writings of Ribot and of Pitres to review the factors they posited as relevant to both impairment and recovery (respectively first language acquired and language(s) used the most). Other posited factors (age of acquisition of the second language, language dominance, literacy, and so on) are then scrutinized in turn in a fascinating discussion. This section also reminds us how much bilingual studies is necessarily an interdisciplinary field (citing insights from psychology on the first language acquired, sociology on language use, and neurology on aphasia). In the zone of convergence of multiple disciplines, specialists limited to any single one can find it hard to grasp the overall context of their project. The far-ranging discussion we find here depends on a synoptic view that tacitly invites researchers to venture beyond their own specialty and thereby appreciate the actual vastness of the field and full value of their endeavor. Part 3, Language Use and Language Processing, looks into how bilinguals use two languages in interaction, what bilinguals’ languages are used for, and whether language processing is selective or
弗朗索瓦·格罗斯让(François Grosjean)的最新著作,其彩色封面上有一个简单的标题《双语之谜》(the Mysteries of Bilinguisition),可能会以对双语的偶然兴趣或对实践指导的需求短暂地吸引读者。然而,我们第一次看到的副标题是在标题页上,暗示了作者的学术目的,引言中也清楚地说明了这一点。他建议研究11个尚未解决的双语问题,并对每一个问题回顾相关研究,强调最有希望阐明的线索,并给出“我们所拥有的最佳解释”(1)。在他的第一部分(共四部分)《双语成人和儿童》中,格罗斯让恰如其分地开始质疑“双语”一词本身应该如何定义,然后继续探索可能有多少双语者,以及双语婴儿是如何发展到语言分离的。他表示,我们对“双语”的理解随着时间的推移而发生了变化。四十年前,它主要意味着说两种语言的能力,强调流利性,而现在,它更关注使用量,这样即使是第二语言学习者也有资格。格罗斯让自己喜欢的“双语者”定义是“那些在日常生活中使用两种或两种以上语言(或方言)的人”(11,原文斜体)。这可能看起来非常简单和方便,但即使是这本书的读者也可能会发现它有问题。事实上,在第1部分的第三部分中,关于双语婴儿以及他们如何从感知上区分自己的语言,“双语者”的隐含含义似乎完全不同。Grosjean写道,“双语婴儿对语言差异保持着感知敏感性——这是他们分离和学习两种语言所需要的”(32),这一点很清楚,从而导致了对语言使用至关重要的“概念语言类别的操作”(40)。即使这里的“双语”是“双语者”的简写,它也表示一组不同的婴儿在学习前,并要求更全面的定义(也许强调“注意力”而不是“使用”)。第2部分,语言学和神经语言学,依次研究口音(它们的检测、可理解性以及它们在二语或三语中出现的原因)、语言损失和双语失语症。尤其是失语症的页面,展示了格罗斯让项目的全部历史。在引用了最近关于双语者损伤因素(损伤部位;认知控制系统损伤)的神经科学理论后,他将我们带回了19世纪末Ribot和Pitres的著作,回顾了他们认为与损伤和恢复相关的因素(分别是习得的第一语言和使用最多的语言)。然后,在一场引人入胜的讨论中,其他假定因素(第二语言习得年龄、语言优势、识字率等)依次被仔细审查。本节还提醒我们,双语研究在多大程度上必然是一个跨学科的领域(引用心理学对第一语言习得的见解、社会学对语言使用的见解和神经病学对失语症的见解)。在多个学科的融合区,仅限于任何一个学科的专家都很难掌握他们项目的整体背景。我们在这里发现的范围广泛的讨论取决于一种天气观,这种天气观默许研究人员超越自己的专业,从而欣赏该领域的实际广阔性和他们努力的全部价值。第3部分,语言使用和语言处理,探讨了双语者如何在互动中使用两种语言,双语者的语言用于什么,以及语言处理是选择性的还是
期刊介绍:
The aim of this Journal is to be thoroughly international in nature. It disseminates high-quality research, theoretical advances, international developments to foster international understanding, and to spread ideas about initiatives in bilingualism and bilingual education. The Journal seeks: • To promote theoretical and applied research into bilingual education and bilingualism. • To provide a truly international exchange, and to encourage international debates and discussions on key issues in areas of controversy in bilingual education and bilingualism. audience.