Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP)

Cummins (2000:59) argues that there is an interdependent relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency. According to Cummins, a strong L1 foundation acts as support in the learning of English, making the learning easier and faster. Using the concept of CUP he argues that since most of the learning that goes into the L1 transfers readily to a L2 then transfer of academic language from the first to second language in an educational setting is highly probable. On the other hand if the child’s L1 is not well developed the more difficult the achievement of bilingualism will be (Lindholm-Leary 2003:55). Cummins’ theory suggests that L2 competency, that is BICS, develops relatively independently of L1 surface fluency. In comparison, context reduced, cognitively demanding communication develops interdependently and can be promoted by either language or both languages in an interactive way (Lindholm-Leary 2003:56). Cummins’ theory, therefore, suggests that bilingual education programmes will be successful when children have enough first or second language proficiency to work in the cognitively demanding situation of the classroom. His theory also suggests that children operating simply at the context embedded level in the language of the classroom may fail to understand the content of the curriculum and fail to engage in the higher order cognitive processes of the classroom such as synthesis, discussion, analysis, evaluation and interpretation (Cummins 2001:182; Fitzgerald 1995:181).

Similarly, once the basic principles of reading are mastered in the home language, such reading skills transfer quickly to second language. Collier (1987:60) found that five, six, and seven year old arrivals in the USA tend not to adequately acquire academic skills in the L2 because of their limited skills in the L1. This is compared to older arrivals who can transfer their reading skills in their native language to reading in English. Studies in the USA generally confirm that students in late exit programmes perform better than those who exited bilingual programmes earlier (Ramirez 1991:38). The premise of interdependence between two languages supports additive bilingual programmes that develop proficiency in English while maintaining minority children’s L1. The younger group did not develop and maintain their L1.

Becoming fluent in the L2 does not mean having to lose one’s L1. Conversely, maintaining the L1 does not retard the development of a L2. However, many people still believe that if children have not mastered the L2 by early school years they never will. Lambert et al. (1993:86) divided bilingual programmes into two, namely, additive bilingualism in which children’s L1 is developed and maintained and subtractive bilingualism, in which the language of instruction is likely to replace children’s L1. The erroneous belief that children are fast additional language learners constitutes a logical foundation for the emergence of subtractive bilingualism (Lindholm-Leary 2003:181). Most black children in township-, rural- and farm-schools then are going to end up with two languages, each poorly developed. In other words they will be semi-lingual.

The result of bilingual education research on bilingual programmes shows that minority languages can be promoted in school at no cost to the development of the majority language. In other words, the educational arguments against bilingualism are invalid. Evidence shows that well executed bilingual programmes have had considerable success in developing English academic skills, despite the fact that students received less exposure in English than in monolingual programmes (Cummins 2001:193).

In conclusion the evaluation and research data reviewed refute the maximum exposure hypothesis and linguistic disparity with regard to minority language learners’ underachievement. This does not mean that exposure to language is not important nor that it is not more difficult to learn through a medium of L2 than through L1; rather, the data indicates that the influence of exposure and linguistic mismatch is considerably modified by other factors, inasmuch as predictions about the influence of these factors on their own is not possible.

The data reviewed shows that there is no evidence that language minority learners’ are at risk because of two languages of instruction. The opposite appears to be the case as found in Malherbe (1946:36) and Bruck (1982:98). There is no justification to force language minority parents in South Africa to use English at home. Not only is the switch to English unnecessary, but it can also backfire by lowering the quality of parent-child interaction in the home and exposing the child to poor models of English.

An experiment conducted by Belyayev (1963:107) on the relationship between thought and language skills can be used to support Cummins’s proposition that the more complicated the task at hand, the greater difficulty learners have in carrying it out. In timing the amount of time it took subjects to respond to tasks involving naming, giving opposites, associations and making generalisations Belyayev (1963: 110) established that the more complicated the thought process, the more slowly it was carried out in the foreign language. The less competent the learner was, the greater time the task took.

Cummins’ (2001:192) notion, that school demands abstract, scientific language can be related to Vygotsky’s (1962:110) ideas of scientific concepts. It extends Vygotsky’s ideas in relation to school adding scientific concepts by focusing on the language skills necessary to manipulate and present concepts in academic tasks. In line with this Cummins (1984:141), proposes that one of the major aims of schooling is to develop students’ ability to manipulate and interpret cognitively demanding, context-reduced text. Cummins’ (2001:286) BICS/CALP continuum provides a more in-depth understanding of language skills necessary for successful learning and is supported by Pereira (1984:18). Pereira suggests that through literacy, children are exposed to language not used in speech (BICS) and because of this, children learn to use increasingly more complex sentences and structures.

Several obvious implications of these data can be noted. First, educating bilingual and English language students is the responsibility of the whole school staff and not just the responsibility of and the L2 or bilingual teacher. The second implication is that school language policies which address the needs of all students should be developed for those who require support in English academic language learning (Corson 1998:34). This also implies that administrators in schools should be competent enough to provide leadership in addressing issues of underachievement in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts.

In short the difference between conversational and academic proficiency and the length of time required to catch up academically have major consequences for a variety of curricular and assessment issues. In particular this data suggests that we should be looking for interventions that will sustain L2 learners’ long term academic progress rather than expecting any short term ‘quick fix’ solutions to learners’ academic underachievement in English. The implication for instruction of L2 learners is that

language and content will be acquired most successfully when students are challenged cognitively as well as being provided with contextual and linguistic support or scaffolds required for successful task completion.

2.4.3.9 Conclusion

In this section research findings on how long it takes minority language learners to acquire English proficiency were reviewed and interpreted within a theoretical framework concerned with the nature of language proficiency and its cross-lingual dimensions. The reality that immigrant students require, on average, 5-7 years to approach grade norm in L2 academic skills. At the same time the findings suggest that peer appropriate L2 conversations within two years of arrival indicate that the conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency need to be differentiated.

Some of the reasons why minority children acquire L2 conversation skills more rapidly than age appropriate academic skills are apparent from the dimensions hypothesised to underlie the relationship between language proficiency and academic development. Considerably less knowledge of L2 is required to function appropriately in a conversational setting than in an academic setting because of greater contextual support available for communicating and receiving meaning.

A large amount of data suggests that L1 and L2 context reduced cognitively demanding proficiency are interdependent or a manifestation of common underlying proficiency. This theoretical principle accounts for the fact that instruction through a medium of a minority language does not result in the lower levels of academic performance in the majority language.

Consequently there is little justification for the frequent scepticism expressed by educators and parents about the value of bilingual or mother-tongue education programmes, especially for the students with potential language or learning difficulties. It is for this reason that South African learners will benefit more from mother-tongue instruction, promotion of literacy skills, and the development of an additive form of bilingualism.

The CUP principle shows that instruction in mother-tongue will benefit learners. Moreover it is not advisable for schools to switch to English before learners L1 skills are fully developed. The English policy results in damaging learners emotionally and cognitively because of the lower quality and quantity of interaction that primary-school teachers, in the South African context, provide. For minority language students who are academically at risk there is evidence that strong promotion of L1 proficiency represents an effective way of developing a conceptual and academic foundation for acquiring English literacy skills.