Language proficiency

Language proficiency has been defined in different ways. Jackson (2013, 16) states that ―language proficiency is the individual‘s knowledge and ability to use the language through listening, speaking, reading and writing in contextually appropriate ways‖. For instance, a bilingual NS-English learner can be regarded as proficient in English if the learner can understand instructions in English, speak the language with ease, and read and write in the language. The definition by Jackson (2013) is simple, precise and attempts to explain a complex concept in simple terms.

According to Peregoy and Boyle (2000, 239) language proficiency is an ―individual‘s general knowledge of language, including vocabulary, grammar and discourse conventions which may be called upon during any instance of oral or written language use‖. Defining language proficiency is very subjective in the sense that the amount of vocabulary, grammar and level of discourse convention which must be attained by an individual cannot be stated in absolute terms. For instance, most of the people that are considered proficient readers in L2 make grammatical errors when speaking and writing. This refers back to the gaps discussed in the LTH, where it is difficult to determine a precise language proficiency level at which transfer of L1 skills to L2 will become possible. The definition by Peregoy and Boyle (2000) thus presents a very abstract understanding of language proficiency.

The most appropriate and realistic definition of language proficiency is given by Lee and Schallert (1997). According to Lee and Schallert (1997, 716), ―language proficiency relates to language competence, metalinguistic awareness and the ability to speak, listen, read, and write the language in

69

contextually appropriate ways‖. Language proficiency refers to one being well versed in the language. An individual might have a vocabulary of a language which is not very broad, but still use the language competently in writing, speaking and dialogue. One must have a phonological knowledge of the language, should be able to speak, comprehend and write in the language.

L2 reading proficiency develops from a firm foundation of oral language proficiency (Strauss 2008, 20; Verhoeven 1991, 72; Yamashita 2002b, 91). In fact, L2 oral proficiency has been said to be the most prominent factor in ensuring positive L2 reading development. Successful L2 reading is also dependent upon a child‘s ability to master L2 language structures. This is in line with the LTH which emphasises the importance of L2 language proficiency in L2 reading. Eskey and Grabe (1988, 226) claim that reading requires a relatively high degree of grammatical control over structures that appear in whatever readings are given to L2 students.

The learner should thus, ideally, receive sufficient oral exposure to the L2 before they attempt to read it, and a working knowledge of the L2 is essential to ensure successful decoding and comprehension in the L2 (Limbos and Geva 2001, in Damber 2010, 30). The moment one speaks a language, one has created an appropriate linguistic atmosphere to read in the language. Proponents of this view would prescribe to what Cummins (2000, 174) refers to as a ―time-on-task remedy‖; i.e. that increasing the instructional time in the L2, often at the expense of time spent on the L1, will lead to improved reading outcomes.

Lack of proficiency in an L2 is one of the primary reasons for L2 reading difficulties (Peregoy and Boyle 2000, 239; Charles et al. 1999, 34; Alderson 1984, 133; Lee and Schallert 1997, 736; Clarke, 1978, 147). The L2 reader may not have enough linguistic proficiency in order to pick up correct cues from the text to make correct guesses and predictions (Durgunoglu and Hancin-Bhatt 1992, 393) which increases the risk of L2 learners becoming word callers (i.e. readers who decode without comprehension) (Damber 2010, 31).

70

Another challenge for L2 readers is that the oral language that they possess of an L2 is often different from the written form of the language (Bernhardt 2009, 12). Many L2 learners begin to read in an L2 at almost the same time that they start to acquire the L2 vocabulary (Jackson 2013, 16; Strauss 2008, 20). This implies that the L2 readers have to explicitly rely on the written print in accomplishing the L2 reading task. Geva (2006, 4) states that even after five to six years of attending school in the L2 environment, aspects of L2 oral proficiency skills, and especially those required for academic learning, continue to lag behind the skills of L1 peers. The main cause for inadequacy in L2 oral proficiency is the size of the bilingual child‘s vocabulary (Bialystok 2002, 176). The vocabulary of L2 learners has been found to vary between 2000 and 7000 words, compared to fluent L1 readers‘ vocabulary of 10 000 to 100 000 words (Grabe 1991, in Damber 2010, 33).

Achieving L2 proficiency is a big challenge. Bilingual children appear to be at risk of developing inadequate oral language proficiency in their L2 (Bialystok 2002, 176) and their oral language proficiency is often higher in their L1 than in their L2 (Soares De Soussa and Broom 2011, 3). However, this may not be true for all bilinguals. The distinction between additive and subtractive bilinguals is crucial in this case. An additive bilingual is an ―individual whose two languages combine in a complementary and enriching fashion‖ whilst a subtractive bilingual is an ―individual whose L2 is acquired at the expense of the aptitudes already acquired in the L1‖ (Karahan 2005, 1153). In this case, whilst it might be difficult for subtractive bilinguals to acquire proper L2 oral proficiency to support reading, it is possible for additive bilinguals to gain adequate oral language proficiency in both L1 and L2, sufficient to support L2 reading. Cummins (1991b, 85) argues that unless children are in a situation which promotes additive bilingualism, where both languages are developing, the positive effects of bilingualism will not manifest. A subtractive bilingual condition will have negative consequences on the development of reading in an L2 learner.

According to Damber (2010, 31), the question of whether L2 reading should be taught before an adequate level of L2 oral proficiency is reached, is a

71

contentious one. While it has been argued that the postponement of formal reading instruction is appropriate until L2 learners have attained an adequate level of L2 oral proficiency (Snow et al. 1998, 238), the delay may have serious effects on the children‘s schooling in general, as it may take up to two years for children to acquire conversational language proficiency (Cummins 1981, 135). A delay in L2 reading instruction may have other negative repercussions on the general achievement of the learner. For example, in many African contexts, formal schooling mostly takes place in a L2 (typically English) due to the multilingual nature of most African countries. In such environments, formal instruction in L2 reading should not be delayed.