Linguists have found out that different languages come in contact through travels, trade, war and conquest, migration etc. But when such languages come in contact, certain phenomenon comes into play. These include language change, language assimilation, diglossia, language death, lingua franca, bilingualism and language domination. The thrust of this paper is to discuss the relationship between bilingualism and languagecontact with particular reference to language situation in Nigeria. This we shall explore in this paper by examining what is meant by bilingualism itself, the linguistic situation in Nigeria and also languagecontact. We shall look at the relationship that exist between them look at the relationship that exist between them paying attention to the effect of English language in contact with Nigerians languages at various levels of language with copious illustrations. Abstract: It is a known fact that when an individual or a community is vast in the use of two languages in communication, one can say that there is an existence of two languages in the linguistic repertoire of that individual or a speech community thus makes such an individual or speech community bilingual in nature. This paper unravelled the concept of Bilingualism and what gave rise to it. It further explored bilingualism and linguistic situation in Nigeria, bilingualism and languagecontact, paying attention to the relationship that exists between the duo. It further discussed the linguistic effects of English Language in contact with Nigerian languages using English/Yoruba as a case study. The consequences of languagecontact and bilingualism such as code-mixing, Nigerian Pidgin, and Nigerian English are also examined.
The evidence of languages in contact in Roman Britain gives a perspective of the various identities that composed the population of this Imperial province. At the time of the initial conquest of Britain under Emperor Claudius in 43 AD, the first language of the native inhabitants of Britain was a Celtic language. When Roman rule ended in Britain at the beginning of the 5 th century AD the Celtic language still remained, and unlike the vernacular languages of most other western provinces where Romance languages developed, Celtic remained spoken in Britain into the modern era. This conspicuous distinction between Britain and its continental neighbours has encouraged some to think that Britain was not as Roman as the more Latinized provinces. Other factors have indicated that Britain was less Latin and therefore less Roman, such as the relatively low number of Roman inscriptions on the island and the disproportionately strong Roman military presence for a province of its size. The purpose of this thesis is to prove that Celtic and Latin were not isolated from each other in Roman Britain and that bilingualism was widespread throughout the population. This conclusion implies that the native and immigrant inhabitants of Roman Britain shared cultural interactions in the creation of distinct and multicultural identities. The greatest stimulant for these interactions was Rome’s imperial power which confronted provincial subjects in the forms of law, government, the military, religion and economic activities. These domains of influence are also the predominant sources of epigraphic material from the Roman world. This is on the one hand fortuitous because they offer first hand accounts of the interactions between Roman power and provincial subjects. On the other hand, the prevalent absence of texts from outside of the influences of Roman power leaves the individuals isolated or distanced from the domains of Roman influence relatively silent.
In many cases the contact phenomena looked at are at the level of society, such as ‘propagated’ loans that have been accepted by speakers of a group (Croft, 2000). Prominent subfields include the studies of linguistic areas (e.g. Campbell et al., 1986), borrowing hierarchies (e.g. Moravcsik, 1978; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988; Matras, 2007), pidgins, creoles and mixed languages (e.g. Holm, 1988; Siegel, 2008) and types and processes of lexical and grammatical borrowing (e.g. Johanson, 2002; Heine & Kuteva, 2005; Matras & Sakel, 2007a, 2007b; Haspelmath & Tadmor, 2009). Some studies of languagecontact look at individual speakers and study languagecontact as it happens, not tending to take into account a diachronic perspective. Above all these include various studies of bilingualism (e.g. Grosjean, 2008; Clyne, 2003), in particular studies of code-switching (e.g. Gardner-Chloros, 2009; Muysken, 2000). Adding a diachronic perspective, Backus (2005) discussed how code- switching and borrowing can be located on a scale. It places code-switching by individual speakers at the early stages and borrowing within society at the later stages of the continuum, making the distinction between contact phenomena at the level of the individual versus that of society less clear-cut. Other recent studies furthermore include psycholinguistic findings on language processing (e.g. Matras, 2000; Matras & Sakel, 2007a).
The second challenge just mentioned, the so-called ‘bad-data problem’, is in fact the explicit focus of the papers by McDonald and Litty. As both rightly note, we can deduce a lot more from ‘bad data’ than most realize, including information along so- cial and structural dimensions. This is exactly what both authors do, with fundamen- tally different data sets: very small numbers of ancient, short inscriptions with little social context in the case of McDonald, and nineteenth-century letters letters from immigrants and their families for Litty. McDonald shows correlations of variation by text type, rather than the kinds of geographical or chronological patterns one might expect, in “a relatively unusual situation of stable societal bilingualism, in that nei- ther was ever the dominant language of the entire region during the period” in ques- tion. Litty’s examination of immigrant texts, mostly letters, focuses on difficult inter- pretations of orthographic variation as a window into phonological variation. The striking confirmation of her analysis comes from historical and current audio record- ings, where she is able to follow patterns from writing to speaking. (See Litty 2017 for more elaborate discussion on the subject.)
In most English-speaking countries there is intense pressure on linguistic minorities to shift to the dominant language since minority languages are viewed as unimportant or problematic, and English is assumed to be the more valuable option. There is no coherent national policy to promote foreign language learning and teaching in Britain and the curriculum ignores the fact that there are many pupils with multilingual backgrounds (Lamb 2001, 5). Kenner et al.’s (2008) study on British Bangladeshi children in London’s East End finds that many ethnic minority children are in danger of losing the advantage of growing up as bilinguals due to insufficient support to develop their mother tongue. The study recommends the need for these children to do academic work in mainstream schools bilingually, ‘… in order to fully develop concepts and skills in mother tongue as well as English’ (121). The status and prestige of different languages are important factors that contribute to the bilingual competence of immigrant children, and the power and prestige of English often undercut the value and motivation to use the child’s heritage language (Kohnert 2008, 11). However, studies have shown that second and third generation children and young people prefer to adopt multilingual and multicultural identities when given the opportunity, but their heritage languages are usually given low status in the wider society (Creese et. al. 2006; Mills 2001).
Unfortunately, this problem continues in many countries for so many years and unfortunately this factor affects them in many ways, primarily the cognitive development of bilingual learners (Akıncı, 2006). Due to these problems, only a very small number of bilingual students are able to complete their education after an intensive study period (Vallet and Caille, 2000). And some students lost most of their skills on the mother tongue over time as they are very focused on the second language. As a matter of fact, this is one of the main risks that bilinguals will experience (Schmit, Köpke, Keijzer, and Weilemar, 2012). At the same time, immersion programs in which children are taught only in the school language appear to be associated with low-level second language proficiency, scholastic insufficiency, and psychosocial disorders (Hakuta and Mostafapour, 1996). Because the content of the programs includes the characteristics of learning another language from the mother tongue (García, 2009). Therefore, it facilitates a conceptual language transfer between home and school language (Cummins, 2000). In this context, the program should promote minority children' academic achievement (Baetens-Beardsmore, 2009). At the same time, bilingual education should be beneficial to language cummins minority children as it makes learning to school content understandable and provides access to their mother tongue (MacSwan and Rolstad, 2010). Because target culture is an important factor during language education and it was stressed that “students would enjoy in language classrooms, at which level they would like to do them their attitudes towards the target culture, the level of importance students attach to the target culture and their understanding of ‘culture’” (Sarıçoban and Çalışkan, 2011, p.7). Submersion programs have a high drop-out rate for language minority pupils who need to learn both school languages and a weak language at the same time (Bialystok, 2001). Because submersion programs disrupt the academic performance and the development of the new language as the students cannot use their own language in the process of understanding the academic material (Cummins, 2000; García, 2009). On the other hand, bilingual programs that teach school materials in both home and school languages also support language minority children’s academic achievement and language development (Kimbrough Oller and Eilers, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
The aim of this study was to answer this question: Do EI, self-esteem and aggression differ in mono- and bilinguals? In order to address this question, Azeri-Persian bilingual students were compared with Persian monolingual students. We observed a significant difference for aggression in benefit of monolinguals with the means comparable to the results from other studies by Al-Amri (2013), Grosjean (1982), & Millett (2010). Bilingualism has positive effects that facilitate learning a new language, increase EI and self-esteem and could contribute to an acceptable personal adaptation, successful social communication, and help individuals to reduce aggressive behaviors. Good language skills prevent while poor language skills cause or predispose to psychopathology. Such protective effects may be mediated by nonverbal skills (Toppelberg et al., 2002; Sampath, 2005).
in China, Spanish in Latin America, and any of the 11 official languages in South Africa - in the context of implementation and that instruction is conducted in the L2 (English). Nonetheless, these programs share major features with folk bilingualism. One similarity with folk bilingualism is that even though the L1 is the dominant language (in number of speakers) and the aim of bilingual education is explicitly towards additive bilingualism (De Mejía, 2005; Lai & Byram, 2003; Probyn, 2006), English has much more prestige because it is associated with economic success. In the long run, the aim is a weak transitional bilingualism (Lai, & Byram, 2003) because (the same happens with minority groups) the choice of the medium of instruction (MOI) will predict the language choice of the group (Lai & Byram M, 2003; Paulston, 1980). In Hong Kong, as reported by Lai and Byram (2003), private bilingual schools are perceived to be better than government run schools, although during the colonial times most of the instruction was in Chinese when in fact it was supposed to be in English. Nonetheless, their reputation grew stronger and now parents demand the right to send their children to those schools. Those who attend the English bilingual schools are regarded as “able” while students who attend Chinese schools are considered inferior; as such, English is regarded as the language of power and prestige while Chinese is the language of shame. Despite the fact that after 1997 the government institutionalized Chinese as the language of instruction, English continues to be the means of communication for finance, trade, business, and tourism. Chinese is used for all the other matters. Without being deterministic but realistic, the roles of these students in society are being influenced or determined from school.
banks of the Hudson River for the fur-trading opportunities it would present. Seven- thousand Dutch settled before migration ceased in 1664 when the English took control of the region. Despite a lack of incoming Dutch, these seven-thousand original immigrants grew greatly in number: By 1790, just one hundred twenty-five years later, 80,000 Dutch Americans lived within a 50-mile radius of New York City. This was 80% of the total number of Dutch in the United States at that time, indicating just how close-knit and stable the communities they had formed were (Doezema, 1979). They maintained their language until the early 1700s, and then gradually lost it through the colonial period. The transition to English was nearly complete by the time of the Revolutionary War, though it remained in some isolated and rural pockets of New Jersey and Long Island into the 19 th century. In his study of New Netherland Dutch, Buccini (1995) notes that while the Bergen County, New Jersey, settlement maintained Dutch until the late 19 th century, "English-Dutch bilingualism was surely a fact of life for the Dutchmen of Bergen County from the middle of the 18 th century" (p.221).
education, amongst other sub-disciplines. Areas that can be researched using instruments from IRIS include the processing, representation and acquisition of L2s, the effectiveness of particular instructional interventions, the geographical or socio-cultural contexts in which second languages are used and learned, linguistic and cultural identity, and learners', teachers', policy makers' opinions about language use and learning, amongst many others.
This study compares lexical retrieval amongst monolinguals and intermediate bilinguals and advanced bilinguals. It also investigates the possible effects of their language learning strategies on their respective lexical retrieval advantage. The study used a mixed methods design and the groups consisted of 20 Persian near- monolinguals, 20 Persian-English intermediate level bilinguals, and 20 Persian- English high-proficiency bilinguals. Auditory and visual lexical Memory Span Tasks were utilized to evaluate the lexical retrieval of all the language groups. The way that bilinguals used their L2 on a daily basis was examined using semi- structured interviews. It was suggested that the knowledge of two languages will not necessarily result in lexical retrieval advantages in bilinguals when compared to monolinguals. However, it was found that the specific language learning strategies used by the bilinguals could potentially influence their lexical retrieval advantages. Furthermore, when comparing lexical retrieval in different language proficiency groups, the method by which bilinguals manage their two languages as well as the environment they are located in should be taken into consideration. Keywords: Advanced Bilinguals, Degree of Bilingualism, Intermediate Bilinguals, Language Learning Strategies, Lexical Retrieval
previous problem with place. Clearly, Indonesian is highly prioritized for official activities, prayer, discussion of technical topics, and delivery of something clearly and easily. The latter thing is interesting, namely that Indonesian is considered clearer and easier for people, compared to its B1. Regarding other functions, namely to be comfortable or for personal or non-technical topics, the choice of language seems to be quite mixed between Indonesian, Palembang, and regional languages. However, if the Palembang language as B1 is moved and merged with the local language, the difference was greater, and the main language there becomes the first language, whatever the language was. Based on the findings obtained through the survey, the use of Indonesian by students has been done appropriately. Through exploratory diglossia and participant's biologicalism, the researcher explores the existence of good and right Indonesian language usage by the participants, especially in academic activities. Regarding understanding of the context of good and true Indonesian Language, participants understood the context of Indonesian in a good and correct way. According to Mayrita et al. (2017), a good and correct Indonesian language context is the use of Indonesian in accordance with the situation and according to language rules. A good Indonesian is Indonesian that suits the situation, while the correct Indonesian is Indonesian that is in accordance with Indonesian language rules. The Indonesian principle is PUEBI. PUEBI (Pedoman Umum Ejaan Bahasa Indonesia) discusses the correct Indonesian rules (2016). PUEBI has printed version, online version (online) or even offline. Regional languages, is also Indonesian. So when in a formal environment, they used Indonesian. When talking
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1995. "Constructing meaning, constructing selves: Snapshots of language, gender, and class from Belten High." In Hall, Kira and Mary Bucholtz (eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. New York: Routledge. 469-507.
Building the hypotheses mainly on results found by previous studies in the United States and in Canada in the past 25 years (with the exception of the works by Grin in Switzerland), this study attempts to test their generalizability at the international level. Interestingly, the studies conducted so far show rather mixed results. For instance, some find that a variable measuring English proficiency is not statistically significant in influencing hourly wages. In the United States, such findings include the studies by Borjas (1984) using the 1976 Survey of Income and Education (SIE) for various Hispanic groups, Reimers (1983, 1985) for males and females in the SIE data set, and Gwartney & Long (1978) and Carliner (1980) using census data. In Canada, Bloom & Grenier (1992), Vaillancourt (1992), Robinson (1988), Chizwick & Miller (1992), Shapiro & Stelcner (1987) and Grenier (1987) failed to find strong language effects on earnings outside Quebec (where the returns to bilingualism in French and English are generally positive), thereby confirming the findings from the United States.
language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) was used for the study. The tests were administered simultaneously in the three centers twice; first, as a pre-test and second, as a post- test. The pre-test was meant to measure the ability or entry behavior of the learners before the commencement of the treatment, while the post-test was to determine the effectiveness of each instructional method used in teaching the learners in their intact classes. The experimental treatment lasted eight weekends of two lecture-contacts for 3 hours per week (Friday and Saturdays). There were two experimental groups with different instructional methods and a control group. Osun College of Education, Ilesa was allotted the Direct Instructional method which involves teaching English in English Language without deviation into any other language. Emmanuel Alayande College of Education, Oyo was allotted the Bilingual method of teaching which involves Code-mixing and Code switching between English Language and the mother tongue, College of Education, Ikere Ekiti was used as the Control Group (Conventional Instructional Method). This to a great extent eliminated interactive effect by the participants. The lecturers of each treatment group were trained in the first two weeks on the instructional methods used in their groups. Instruments used included General English studies Ability Test Scale (GESATS) (Pre- Test), General English Studies Achievement Test (GESAT)(Post-Test), General English Studies Teaching Observation (GESTO) (While teaching was on), and Teaching Methods Assessment Scale (TMAS) After the Class contact.
Acknowledgements. My work was partly supported by two Discovery Projects from the Australian Research Council ('The world through the prism of language' and 'The grammar of knowledge'). I am grateful to my W-Tariana family, especially to Jovino Brito, Leonardo Brito and Jorge Muniz, and to my K-Tariana relatives — Laura, Ronil, Fransisco, Fernando, Fâtima, José, Jacinto, Gullerme, Laureano and Beatriz, and the Baniwa speakers in Santa Terezinha, especially Nazarêa, Ângelo and Gabriel. Thanks go to Ilda da Silva Cardoso and Afonso Fintes, for teaching me Baniwa over the years, and to Zenilson Bezerra, for sharing his Kurripako publications with me. I am grateful to R. M. W. Dixon and to Nancy Dorian for incisive comments. I am indebted to Cácio Silva, Elisângela Silva, Carlos Janzen and Elfriede Janzen for their care and support throughout my fieldwork.
The early form of bilingualism is meant to have started when young children begin hearing not just one language but two more. The languages learnt by children may be heard from their birth, or the study of a second language may start at a later age. It is noteworthy to stress that the first bilingual process of children begin with their first language acquisition (abbreviated form BFLA) (Houwer 1990, 2009; Meisel 1989, pp.13- 40). BFLA means the children having two first languages. The term “two first languages” mean Language A (LA) and Language Alpha (La). Both of these kinds of languages are spoken at home by people. It means that people namely children are not meant to have chronologically first or second language. First of all, they are grown up with just a single language (Language 1 or L 1), and they are possible to hear a second language (Language 2 or L2) at a later age. It is called the process of early second language acquisition or ESLA (Houwer, 1990, p.58). So, ESLA children are believed to hear just one language at home (L1), and meet the L2 outside the home such as in kindergartens, daycare centers, etc. The L 1 language is considered to be a minority language.
Research on developmental language disorders in bilingual children has made significant advances since the seminal work by Paradis (2005). The key finding that emerges from recent research is that the gap between typically developing monolingual children and children with developmental language disorders is similar to the gap between typically developing bilingual children and bilingual children with developmental language disorders (Marinis, Armon-Lotem, and Pontikas, 2017). However, research also shows that bilingual children are over- diagnosed or under-diagnosed more than monolinguals (Grimm and Schults, 2014), and their language needs can be mistaken for special education needs (Lisiadou, 2013). Both simultaneous and sequential bilinguals can be misdiagnosed, but assessing language abilities in sequential bilinguals presents more challenges because it is difficult to disentangle normal second language acquisition from developmental language disorders. Testing skills in the new language is unlikely to offer a representative view of the child’s linguistic abilities, and using other psychometric measures administered in a non-dominant language may also result in misdiagnosis. The difficulty in assessing sequential bilinguals is exacerbated by the fact that typical difficulties in second language learning are similar to those found in developmental language disorders. These include errors in the use of morphemes, limited expressive vocabulary, difficulty constructing narratives, production of sentences that are shorter or less complex than those of their peers, difficulty in using language for social purposes and in interacting with peers. (Kohnert, Windsor and Ebert, 2009; Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou, 2016; Vender, Garraffa, Sorace, and Guasti, 2016).
Languagecontact, language change and lexical borrowings have occurred all over the world and Russia is no exception. The sources of lexical borrowings did not remain constant, as French, German, and English were each at one time the most the popular source of borrowings. But even once English became most popular, the intensity of borrowings from it varied, as Russia suffered through two World Wars and a Cold War and underwent two revolutions of ideology. These events helped to shape the attitudes of Russian speakers towards borrowings from English. It was during the times of change, like the 1917 revolution or the collapse of communism in 1991, that using new foreign words to describe new foreign concepts was seen as common sense and acceptable. But after the end of WWII or during the height of the Cold War when the attitudes towards the West and the United States were particularly negative, so were the attitudes towards foreign loanwords. During these times it was commonplace for the government to institute linguistic policies that aimed to remove foreign borrowings from Russian or replace them with native counterparts. While these efforts were not always successful, they negatively affected the loanwords’ chances of survival in the language by limiting their exposure to the public.