Bilingualism, literacy and NAPLAN : ongoing challenges for EAL/D education [Editorial]

Advocacy is integral to the work of many TESOL specialists. For several decades, ACTA and the state TESOL associations, along with other professional associations, and individual teachers, researchers and administrators have all engaged with conversations about EAL/D education in public forums. These advocates have drawn attention to implications of policy developments for EAL/D students; they have proffered alternative forms of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to better account for the particularity of EAL/D learning pathways; they have argued the necessity of specialist EAL/D teaching. In response to the Australian Language and Literacy Policy of the early 1990s, for example, there was “a frenzy of writing responses… a conference… and attempts to publicise what was going on through the press and television” (Moore, 1995, p. 6). It is in this spirit that this double issue of TESOL in Context has been compiled...

Neurolinguistic contributions to understanding the bilingual mental lexicon

Introduction Many bilinguals will have had the experience of unintentionally reading something in a language other than the intended one (e.g. MUG to mean mosquito in Dutch rather than a receptacle for a hot drink, as one of the possible intended English meanings), of finding themselves blocked on a word for which many alternatives suggest themselves (but, somewhat annoyingly, not in the right language), of their accent changing when stressed or tired and, occasionally, of starting to speak in a language that is not understood by those around them. These instances where lexical access appears compromised and control over language behavior is reduced hint at the intricate structure of the bilingual lexical architecture and the complexity of the processes by which knowledge is accessed and retrieved. While bilinguals might tend to blame word finding and other language problems on their bilinguality, these difficulties per se are not unique to the bilingual population. However, what is unique, and yet far more common than is appreciated by monolinguals, is the cognitive architecture that subserves bilingual language processing. With bilingualism (and multilingualism) the rule rather than the exception (Grosjean, 1982), this architecture may well be the default structure of the language processing system. As such, it is critical that we understand more fully not only how the processing of more than one language is subserved by the brain, but also how this understanding furthers our knowledge of the cognitive architecture that encapsulates the bilingual mental lexicon. The neurolinguistic approach to bilingualism focuses on determining the manner in which the two (or more) languages are stored in the brain and how they are differentially (or similarly) processed. The underlying assumption is that the acquisition of more than one language requires at the very least a change to or expansion of the existing lexicon, if not the formation of language-specific components, and this is likely to manifest in some way at the physiological level. There are many sources of information, ranging from data on bilingual aphasic patients (Paradis, 1977, 1985, 1997) to lateralization (Vaid, 1983; see Hull & Vaid, 2006, for a review), recordings of event-related potentials (ERPs) (e.g. Ardal et al., 1990; Phillips et al., 2006), and positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of neurologically intact bilinguals (see Indefrey, 2006; Vaid & Hull, 2002, for reviews). Following the consideration of methodological issues and interpretative limitations that characterize these approaches, the chapter focuses on how the application of these approaches has furthered our understanding of (1) selectivity of bilingual lexical access, (2) distinctions between word types in the bilingual lexicon and (3) control processes that enable language selection.

The acquisition of an artificial logographic script and bilingual working memory : Evidence for L1-specific orthographic processing skills transfer in Chinese-English bilinguals

Studies of orthographic skills transfer between languages focus mostly on working memory (WM) ability in alphabetic first language (L1) speakers when learning another, often alphabetically congruent, language. We report two studies that, instead, explored the transferability of L1 orthographic processing skills in WM in logographic-L1 and alphabetic-L1 speakers. English-French bilingual and English monolingual (alphabetic-L1) speakers, and Chinese-English (logographic-L1) speakers, learned a set of artificial logographs and associated meanings (Study 1). The logographs were used in WM tasks with and without concurrent articulatory or visuo-spatial suppression. The logographic-L1 bilinguals were markedly less affected by articulatory suppression than alphabetic-L1 monolinguals (who did not differ from their bilingual peers). Bilinguals overall were less affected by spatial interference, reflecting superior phonological processing skills or, conceivably, greater executive control. A comparison of span sizes for meaningful and meaningless logographs (Study 2) replicated these findings. However, the logographic-L1 bilinguals’ spans in L1 were measurably greater than those of their alphabetic-L1 (bilingual and monolingual) peers; a finding unaccounted for by faster articulation rates or differences in general intelligence. The overall pattern of results suggests an advantage (possibly perceptual) for logographic-L1 speakers, over and above the bilingual advantage also seen elsewhere in third language (L3) acquisition.

Coming into an inheritance : family support and Chinese heritage language learning

The critical role that family plays in Chinese Heritage Language learning has gained increasing attention from psychological, political and sociological scholarship. Guided by Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’, our mixed methods sociological study firstly addresses the need for quantitative evidence on the relationship between family support and Chinese Heritage Language proficiency through a survey of 230 young Chinese Australians; and then explores the dynamics of family support of Chinese Heritage Language learning through multiple interviews with five participants. The interview data demonstrate ongoing intergenerational reproduction of Chinese Heritage Language through various forms of family inculcation. Learners’ transition from resistance to commitment is a focus of the analysis. Extant research struggles to theorise the reasons behind this transition. We offer a Bourdieusian explanation that construes the transition as ‘habitus realisation’. Our study has implications for Chinese Heritage Language researchers, Chinese immigrant parents and Chinese teachers.

Differences in L1 linguistic attention control between monolinguals and bilinguals

Relational elements of language (e.g. spatial prepositions) act to direct attention to aspects of an incoming message. The listener or reader must be able to use these elements to focus and refocus attention on the mental representation being constructed. Research has shown that this type of attention control is specific to language and can be distinguished from attention control for non-relational (semantic or content) elements. Twenty-two monolinguals (18–30 years) and nineteen bilinguals (18–30 years) completed two conditions of an alternating-runs task-switching paradigm in their first language. The relational condition involved processing spatial prepositions, and the non-relational condition involved processing concrete nouns and adjectives. Overall, monolinguals had significantly larger shift costs (i.e. greater attention control burden) in the relational condition than the non-relational condition, whereas bilinguals performed similarly in both conditions. This suggests that proficiency in a second language has a positive impact on linguistic attention control in one's native language.