Faculty of Arts Department of English and Communication

Name(s) Surname Reg # Level Module (BAEH 406) Lecturer Masimba Joseph Gumbo R0825527f (PDP) 4:2 Bilingualism Ms Ngoshi

Question: Examine the various perspectives that scholars of Bilingualism have used to define the term. Due Date: 13 February 2012

Bilingualism has been viewed in various perspectives by different scholars to an extent that it has become difficult to come up with a particular definition for the term. The differences in the way scholars define the term points to the wide spectrum the term covers making it very difficult to come up with a uniform definition. Several aspects arise in the defining of the term like the level of competence one must achieve in both languages to qualify as a bilingual. The disparities in the acquiring of particular languages affect the degree of bilingualism making it impossible to arrive at a single definition of bilingualism.It can rather be loosely defined as the use of two languages which is mainly the criterion used to define and differentiate a bilingual speaker. According to Bloomfield (1935; 56), bilingualism is the native control of two languages. He argues that one must have the native speaker command of a language to be considered bilingual. In this light of this definition Bloomfield referred to what are perfect bilinguals who are fluent and perfect in both the languages. Macnamara (1967) proposes that a bilingual is anyone who possesses a minimal competence in only one of the four language skills which are listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing in a language other than his mother tongue. This brings about the argument of no universal consensus in defining the term because these two have extreme views with the other considering native speaker ability as the criteria to define a bilingual whilst the other loosen the reins to include anyone who can communicate in a language rather than the mother tongue by either writing, listening, reading and speaking which means even without the native command of another language rather than the mother tongue s/he can be regarded as a bilingual. Bilingualism can be viewed from Mackey (1962; 62)s perspective as the ability to use more than one language. This definition seems to be in line with Weinreich (1968) who stresses the point that bilingualism is the practice of alternately using two languages. This seems to be a

consensus view between the two scholars in the way they define the term because in fact it is more common for bilingual people, even those who have been bilingual since birth to be somewhat dominant in one language thereby brushing the native speaker command criteria to define bilingualism as too stringent and harsh. However these scholars definition is loose description of the term in the way that it does not attempt to point the extent of the use of the languages. It gives rise to the argument that if a native Shona speaker says, Ini ndinokuda zvangu nemoyo wangu wese but at times unondibhowa This utterance is in Shona with the exception of the underlined words and closely fits into Mackeys definition which is the ability to use more than one language. An argument which can be raised is if one has knowledge of a few isolated words of another language rather than his mother tongue does he qualify to be bilingual. This is the same as Weinreichs definition which means shifting from one language to another in a discourse and the knowledge of the other language maybe questionable but as long as one can communicate as Macnamara states they are fit to be called bilingual. A different angle is explored in the perspective of bilingualism by Titone (1972) who states that bilingualism is the individuals capacity to speak a second language while following the concepts and structures of that language rather than paraphrasing his or her mother language. This definition restricts the definition to the obeying of concepts and structures of language which means there is the native society influence on defining a bilingual person. Titone maintains that people who have the ability to hold a conversation in a different language are bilingual. His definition includes people who are able to communicate in a language rather than their mother tongue without being perfectly proficient. The definition highlights the aspects that one does not need to have the perfect skills in reading and writing as long as s/he has the capacity to communicate in the different communicative modes. This becomes contrary to Haugens

perspective when he states that bilingualism begins when the speaker can produce complete, meaningful utterances in another language. This is questionable in that one may produce a meaningful utterances but may not be able to engage in a conversation in the second language thereby loosely fitting e term bilingualism. Haugen (1959) stipulates that if a speaker of a language can produce complete meaningful utterances in another language rather than their mother tongue, we can closely refer to that state as bilingualism. Haugens definition can be assessed in the light of if a speaker of IsiZulu can say Ndinoda mvura yekunwa only as the utterance he know he qualifies to be bilingual. This bring about the idea that even though I can understand that he is asking for some water to drink there will be a possibility that with the little knowledge of the second language there will be minimal or communication breakdown hence unable to sustain a communication process. However Hamerrs and Blanc (2000) defines the term bilingualism in relation to the phenomenon of communication in two languages. This in some way puts someone who has the ability to communicate in two languages as bilingual even without any level of proficiency or native accent. This perspective also supports the idea that if an individual is capable of achieving his particular communicative goal in any of the four language skills, there is a qualification of being bilingual. Bilingualism can also be viewed from an individual and societal perspective whereby it focuses on the individual accomplishments of the second language whereas societal looks upon the society as a whole and Baker (1985) stipulates that these two categories are usually the most used in classification of bilingualism. Societal bilingualism refers to the society meeting the need for its communicative purpose in two languages within its inhabitants. This has been also trimmed to the possession of two languages by a single community and its use for

communicative purposes. This also have been hit by the way in which how can we differentiate the possession of two languages by an individual with the exclusion of an individual since an individual is part and parcel of the society at large. Bilingualism in light of scholars who adopt a native speaker stance will have no match in reality. An analysis of bilinguals around us will show that no human being can function like two monolinguals because their degree of competence in both languages is greatly influenced by the way each language is used and therefore differences are likely to be encountered from individual to individual. Another issue which undermines the native speaker command perspective is the way in which we can define a true representative of a native speaker. The definitions raise a number of considerations in that they lack precision and operationalism. They do not define what is meant by native like competence as the concept vary within several communities. If one can master all the aspects of a language but dont achieve the native command because of a foreign accent fail to be a bilingual. They also ignore non-linguistic factors when viewing bilingualism like the attitude of the society one dwells. This is supported by Grosjean (1989) who is rather more pragmatic in saying that a bilingual is someone who can function in each language according to given needs.he describes it as a unique and specific language configuration not a sum of two complete or partial monolinguals therefore leaning towards the communicative aspect of bilingualism. In conclusion defining bilingualism is problematic since individuals with varying bilingual characteristics maybe classified as bilingual and also range from a minimal proficiency in two languages to an advanced level of proficiency. Others maybe proficient in oral communication only whereas some maybe in reading and thereby it gives rise to the different perspectives in

defining bilingualism. Some say that modern approaches towards bilingualism acknowledge that any meaningful discussion must be attempted within a specific context and for specific reasons. To be bilingual means different things to different people.