UNIT 4

BILINGUALISM

4.1 Varieties of bilingualism4.2 Is bilingualism beneficial or detrimental?4.3 Bilingual brain. Sequential or simultaneous learning?4.4 Transfer L1 on the learning of L24.4.1 Code-switching and its social significance in the Mexican-American language context4.5 Bilingual education.4.5.1 The specifics of the U.S. and Mexican situations4.6 Some considerations for raising bilingual children

What does it mean when we say that someone is bilingual?

Source: Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R., 1993, p. 424

4.1 Varieties of bilingualism

Bilingualism is a worldwide phenomenon. There has been some theoretical imprecision in the definition of the term in common practice. When we approach the topic of bilingualism, we’ll try to define the term precisely. Spolsky defines a bilingual individual as the one, who has developed “some knowledge and ability in second language” (1998, p.45). Other authors define it as: “the psychological state of the individual who has access to more than one linguistic code as a means of communication” Hamers and Blanc in Blanc, 1999, p. 31). In sociolinguistics we distinguish societal and individual bilingualism. The above-described definitions could be found under the heading Individual Bilingualism.

In the individual bilingualism we also do further distinction as far as the type of bilingualism. The aim of the bilingual education is often the ‘production’ of a balanced bilingual. It’s a person who has a very strong command in both languages. When bilingualism is viewed as individual phenomenon, the issues such as how one acquires two or more languages and in what period, in what sequence, how these languages are represented in mind, etc., are being discussed. This type of bilingualism also distinguishes between the individual’s competence and performance (see Spolsky), and further on a compound and co-ordinate bilinguals. Neurolinguistic research inspected closely these issues as well as the problems of interference of the two languages. The research of the individual bilingualism is mainly the subject of an interest of the psycholinguistics, while the societal bi/multi/ lingualism is the subject of sociolinguistics.

When we speak about societal bilingualism or societal multilingualism refer to the usage of two or more language by the whole language community. Majority of the countries in the world have to be bi/multilingual if we take into consideration that there are approximately 5000 languages in the world and only more or less 200 countries/nations (Crhova, 2004, p. 67). So, here you have the proof that social bilingualism or multilingualism affect great number of this world. That doesn’t mean that all the individuals of the officially bilingual country are in reality bilingual, even though bilingualism is a wide spread phenomenon. Not only hundreds of millions of people are bilingual o multilingual, furthermore also monolingual individuals use different language varieties in different social situations (standard language, regional dialect, formal, informal style, etc.). When bilingualism is viewed as social phenomenon, we consider topics such as what’s the role of each language in the society, their social status, attitude towards languages, language choice, correlation between language and the social class, gender, ethnicity, etc. There are several types of societal bilingualism. The most commonly mentioned are two:

a) Multilingualism based on territorial principle In this case, a country or a region consists of several language groups, each of them primarily monolingual (for ex. Canada).b) Multilingualism based on the personality principle In this case, multilingualism is the official policy of the country, where most individuals are really multilingual (for ex. India).

(The classification is adopted from Sridhar, 1998, pp. 47-47).

In a situation of societal bilingualism the status of each of the languages varies and depends on the function of the communication and relationship within different speech communities. There are different language varieties. Sociolinguistic uses frequently the term diglossia to refer to the usage of different variety for each linguistic domain, usually distinguishing one used in formal situation and the other in informal situations. For more details, see Spolsky, the corresponding chapter.

4. 2 Is bilingualism beneficial or detrimental?

Bilingual education has raised concern from the part of experts and also the population in general. In the English speaking countries, with the implementation of minority –language programs, some parents were concern about the effect of L2 on their children’s English. Numerous investigations have proved that receiving instruction in the l1 does not have negative consequences on the L2, on the contrary, it has positive effects on success in school and linguistic proficiency. (O’Grady, Dobrovolsky&Arnoff, 1997, p. 502).

Bilingualism and multilingualism are important for cognitive, social, and psychological reasons (García, 1997, p. 409). Students who are bilingual and biliterate have increased cognitive advantages, more divergent and creative thinking, and more cognitive control of linguistic processes, increased communicative sensitivity. Bilingualism can also bring better understanding among different groups and foster multiculturality, combat racism, etc. It has also positive psychological effects on language minorities, especially to language minorities who lack self-esteem.In addition, a number of studies were done comparing the results of I.Q. tests for monolingual and bilingual children. One of the first studies on bilingualism and intelligence was done in the U.S., in 1917, by Goddard. In his test, recent adult immigrants, with very poor English knowledge, scored very low compared to 11-year-old monolingual boy, who had a considerably bigger vocabulary. Goddard classified these bilinguals as “feeble-minded” (In Steinberg, 2001, p. 225). Other “researchers” found other similar results, and until today, we can still find people, who think that bilinguals’ thinking process is confused and that they will never recover from such ‘confusion’.

If in the past, some bilingual children scored lower, the results were not found in the cognitive areas but mostly in socio-economical one. These were usually minority children in the U.S. They were coming mostly from lower economic class and they didn’t have the knowledge of the same topics as the majority of middle class monolinguals, who they were usually compared to. The bilingual studies done in Canada, done on the bilingual and monolingual children from socially and culturally more homogenous groups didn’t show any deficiency of bilinguals, on contrary, they were able to outperform the monolinguals in many areas (Lambert, 1962, was first to prove positive results for bilinguals).

A very interesting research had been carried out by Ianco-Worall(1972), which reflects some differences between monolingual and bilingual children.

She asked the children to choose the two words that were similar from a set of three, for example, ‘cap’, ‘can’ and ‘hat’. Younger bilinguals made their choice on the basis

of meaning, picking ‘cap’, ‘hat’, while the monolinguals made their choice on the basis of sound, picking ‘cap’ and ‘can’. The bilingual children were more semantically oriented. […] She gave the children a hypothetical situation: if they were creating words for objects, would it be just as simple to call a dog ‘cow’ and a cow ‘dog’? The bilinguals answered that either name would be acceptable, the monolingual did not. The bilingual children were more likely to be aware of the psycholinguistic concept that the matching of word sounds with objects is merely a convention, that is, the meaning has no real relationship with the sound. Bilingual children more than monolingual children understand that a spoken word has no real relation to an object and is only an arbitrary name for it (Steinberg, 2001, p.332).

4.3 Bilingual brain. Sequential or simultaneous learning?

Since bilingualism is a wide spread phenomenon, it has also caught the attention of neurolinguistics. Recent researches have reflected interesting discoveries. There has been discussion about the hemispheric specialization of the brain as far as bilinguals. Considerable amount of researchers believe in the greater involvement of the right hemisphere in bilinguals, even though there are also those who don’t agree (see Steinberg, 2001,p. 377-328). We may say that the evidence is inconclusive. There are other studies done on the age at which a L2 is learned and its effect on lateralization. It seems that the age at which L2 is learned affects lateralization. Studies done by Geesee, Hamers, Lambert, Mononen, Seitz, and Stark (1978), in Steinberg, p.328, indicate that the left hemisphere is more involved than the right for the infancy and childhood bilinguals, while for adolescent bilinguals the situation was reverse.

Sequential and Simultaneous Learning Situations

A person may become bilingual in two conditions: 1) The 2 languages are acquired sequentially, such as the L2 learned later at school or2) Simultaneously, such as young child exposed to 2 languages in the home at the same time.Ad 1)The case of sequential learning in school is well-known, so won’t discuss it. It’s more interesting, when the child speaks one language at home (i.e. his/her L1) and learns L2 in the community. In this case, the child learns the entire language very fast, often in less than a year (then a 4-5 years old child is interpreting for his/her embarrassed parents).

In either type of bilingualism, sequential or simultaneous, there is usually one dominant language, which can also change during the time. Often, these bilingual speakers could be dominant in different modalities for different language (in oral production in one, in the written, in the other, etc.).

Ad 2)In the case of simultaneous learning, a bilingual child faces usually one of the two possibilities; one person speaks one language only to the child, or each person speaks the same two languages. Research seems to favor the 1P-1L situations compared to 1P-2L;

apparently in 1P-2L situations, children produce more mixed sentences (McLaughlin, 1987, in Steinberg, 2001, p. 231). 1P-1L is better since learning may be faster and less mixing might occur.

An interesting case, and my children prove it, is a simultaneous trilingual case. In that case, 1P-1Lx3, in my family, children are exposed simultaneously to 3 languages (Spanish, Czech, and English) with the older child being exposed sequentially to L 4 (German). The older child never experienced any kind of problems. Since the age of two she was distinguishing perfectly all the languages, never mixing, capable of competent simultaneous translation from the age of 5. The younger child, at the age of 5, was still mixing languages, although competent in 3 languages, compared to monolinguals, less numerous vocabulary, mixing in one sentence all 3 languages. I have to admit that I haven’t dedicated the same amount of effort and time to the “language experiment” with the second child as with the first one. Also, the second child spends more time in school facilities, Kindergarten (with the first one I stayed home) + Elementary school. Also, with the younger child, I have on occasions violated the rule 1P-1L, even though I know I shouldn’t do it, I sometimes use Spanish with her. With the first child, I was very strict in using my language and under no circumstances I used Spanish.

4.4 Transfer L1 on the learning of L2

One’s first language affects one’s learning of the second language. Thus, the second language is not learned at the same rate. To the extend that two languages have similarities in terms of their syntax, vocabulary, and sound system, a structure, there will be greater facilitation in the acquisition of the second language. In this case, the acquisition will occur at more rapid rate then if the 2 languages are very different. It’s also true that the knowledge that one has of one’s first language also helps with the acquisition of the second language even if it is very different from the first one.

When the two languages, such as English and Spanish, or Spanish and indigenous languages, are in contact situation, the two language systems influence each other and the results in transfer of L1 into L2. This transfer can happen in different areas of a language.One of the most easily recognizable traits is the speaker’s pronunciation of L2 with the features of a sound system of the L1.

This so called phonological transfer, when the L1 speaker of Spanish may say ‘ I espeak Spanish’. He/she commits the transfer because Spanish does not allow s+consonant sequences word-initially.

In the morphological transfer, a feature or a rule from learner’s L1 is carried over to the L2 grammar. Example: I didn’t took the car, when English does not mark the past tense on both auxiliary and main verbs.

Lexical transfer consists in confusion in the vocabulary, many times based on seeming ‘similarity’, like when a Spanish speaker says: “My wife is embarrassed”, but he in reality wants to say that his wife is pregnant. He commits the error because in Spanish embarasada = ‘pregnant’.

The transfer could be also syntactic. Spanish and English have different word order, and for example English requires adjective before the noun, while Spanish

usually puts adjective after the noun. It’s common to hear that the Spanish speaker when they speak English, commit the above described syntactic error. Example: the car red instead of the red car.

Some authors refer to the noticeable influences of one language on another also as interferences (Weinreich, 1966). Such interferences may be, in the language on Mexican Americans and/or border residents from the Mexican side as well, though less in proportion, easily to observe, and I’m sure that you know a lot of examples.Examples of grammatical transfers are: guacha for watch, etc. (for more examples, Crhova, 2004, p. 60-62; also your experience).

4.4.1 Code-switching and its social significance in the Mexican-American language context

Code switching happens frequently in bilinguals, it can sometimes (and frequently does) in the middle of the conversation. These code- switches can happen within sentences, involving individual words or phrases like:

I got a lotta blanquito friends. (Only one word switch) or

He was sitting down en la cama, miróndonos peleando, y really, I don’t remember si él nos separó or whatever, you know. (Multiple switches within the same sentence and speech)

Or these switches can occur between sentences.

It’s on the radio. A mí se me olvida la estación.

These examples come from Shana Poplack’s article titled “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Español”, in Crhova, 2004, p.65.For additional examples of code switching and code mixing, read Spolsky, the corresponding pages (49-50). I would like to make a comment about code switching. Sometimes, especially the traditional linguistics considers the usage of code switching as a proof of bilingual’s deficient capacity, or that he/she is not sufficiently bilingual to express without “interferences” in both languages. In my experience, and it’s also documented by many sociolinguists, that especially those bilinguals who perform constant switches within sentences are usually very proficient in both languages (and not deficient in one of the languages). For some reason they chose to speak like that, it’s not that they can’t speak each of the 2 languages with a degree of linguistic competence. This phenomenon has a social significance; a bilingual individual wants to express his belonging to certain social group (that is obviously bound by the usage of a common language).

4.5 Bilingual education

Bilingual education involves using two languages in instruction. From the sociolinguistic perspective, we monitor how language/s used in educational settings can produce different outcomes. There have been different types of bilingual education throughout the history and they were implemented with different purposes. Perhaps the first well documented case of bilingual education in the history dates back to 3000 BC when scribes in Mesopotamia were instructed both in Sumerian and Acadian (Brisk, 1999,p. 311). Going back to history of bilingual education in the world, the educational tradition has been largely monolingual in the language of the elite. In Europe, the Greco-Roman traditions had a very strong influence. Greek and Latin were languages of schooling and were both held in high esteem; also those who spoke these languages were valued higher compared to those who could only speak the local language.

The monolingual education practice traditionally implemented in different European countries (and also beyond Europe) was responsible for numerous atrocities against the minority languages and their speakers in school settings. Example: the study done in France by Timm, 1980 (in Lastra, 1992, p.54) shows the disadvantageous position of Breton spoken in Britannia, region of France. The author describes the common practice in French schools of the region where a child who was caught speaking Breton had to carry a derogatory sign around his neck. Eventually, this punishment was completed by other forms of punishments, like copying lists of French verbs, cleaning of toilets, corporal punishments, etc. The student could escape the punishment only if he disclosed other classmate who was also using Breton. Imagine that! In Spain during Franco regime, the children who were caught speaking either Basque or Catalan were punished corporally and their tongues were also washed with strong soap (according to personal testimony of Nia Fernandez, the former leader of the “ CNTE” (National Federation of Labor in Catalonia).

The 1960s were marked by growing importance of ethnic identity and also of language and cultural diversity. Monolingual education was held responsible for exclusion of language minorities from society and as a remedy, the use of the mother tongue, along with the majority language, especially in the initial years of schooling, has become promoted. Together with it, several legal steps have been adopted to make the minority languages official in their respective autonomous communities. Example: Welsh, as a medium of instruction, made legal in 1967, caused the spread of bilingual education throughout Wales; in Spain since 1978, Catalan, Basque, and Galician are official languages in their respective autonomous communities and they are at the same time obligatory in schools (García, 1997, p.412).

There are several types of bilingual education. Some types of bilingual education promote additive bilingualism and others result in subtractive bilingualism. In additive bilingualism, students come to school speaking their L1 and L2 is added (bilingual schools in Mexico, the case of Spanish-English bilingual schools). The result is a bilingual individual. In subtractive bilingualism, students are instructed both in their L1 and in L2. Gradually, the instruction in L1 ceases and L2 becomes the only medium of instruction and as a result, the only language of a student. (Bilingual educational programs in Mexico, in cases of any indigenous language –Spanish, also in the bilingual programs in the U.S., in the case of minority language- English). Whether bilingual

education promotes additive or subtractive forms of bilingualism is related to the reason why the educational system uses the two languages. Often, bilingual education for the lang. Majority promotes additive bilingualism, while the educational programs for lang. Minorities tend to develop subtractive bilingualism. As many sensitive sociolinguists, we believe that bilingual education with additive bilingualism can be beneficial for language minority and majority. There are different approaches to bilingualism and also different authors (sociolinguists) identify different aims for bilingual education. The bilinguals of the elite seem to be enriched through the bilingual education, whereas others (minorities) are assimilated through the very same process of bilingual education (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). Bilingual education is a complex phenomenon with multiple realities.

To classify the bilingual programs, we have to have in mind the outcome (result) depending on societal and individual (familiar) circumstances. We can say (see García, 1997, p. 411) that:

1. Monolingual education for minority students leads to relative monolingualism This could be reached in different educational settings:

a) Submersion, which is also known as “sink or swim”, where minority students are simply put into classes where the instruction is given exclusively in the majority language without any consideration.

b) Submersion+withdrawal second language classes Language minority Ss take all the classes in majority language settings, only they are “withdrawn” (pulled out) for additional L2 classes with a language teacher. The purpose is to facilitate the acquisition of the majority language.

c) Structured immersion programs also use solely majority language for instruction; the difference from the above mentioned submersion programs consists in the existence of educational planning (and also adaptation of materials for minority Ss). The purpose of the program is to accelerate the acquisition of the majority language and as soon as the child becomes bilingual, he/she is transferred to mainstream monolingual class. (In the U. S., these programs are also known as “Sheltered English”).d) Segregationist

These types of programs use the minority language in the education of the particular minority. The purpose of this monolingual education is to keep the language minority separate and excluded from participation in the society (for example South Africa under apartheid).

2. Weak bilingual education leads to relative monolingualism or limited bilingualism The outcome of these language programs is the Ss’ limited bilingual ability. This

is reached in the following type of educational programs:

a) Transitional (This is the most popular educational program in the U.S. for the education of lang. minorities). Initially, the Ss are instructed in the

minority languages, with the majority languages being taught as L2. Progressively, both languages are used in instruction, and finally Ss are transferred out of the bilingual classroom to a monolingual one.

b) Mainstream+ withdrawal F/SL classes This program is used with Ss who speak a majority language. Ss are in mainstream classes for all subjects and in addition “withdrawn” for F/SL classes. A certain degree of bilingualism is obtained depending on length of study, teaching strategies, etc. It’s also important how the society values such bilingualism.

c) Mainstream+ supplementary F/SL classes In this type of education, children receive education in the majority lang., but their parents put them in additional classes, for example, on weekends or after school.

3. Strong bilingual education leads to relative bilingualism and biliteracyThis aim is reached when schools and communities are truly committed to

develop bilingualism; it also implies strong parental involvement and individual Ss’ persistence. Educational programs that result in strong bilingualism are:

a) Separatist with withdrawal L2 classes These classes are organized by the lang. minority itself (which is different from the previously mentioned programs usually organized by the lang. majority). Instruction is done exclusively through the minority lang.; the majority lang. is taught as a subject in withdrawal classes. This type of education is usually promoted in societies in which lang. minority also pursues some kind of political purposes (political autonomy, for example, like Basque during the Franco regime).

b) Two-way /dual language They are also called dual-language programs. Usually financed by public funds, they include both majority and minority languages, both used in instruction with compartmentalization (with different teachers for each one). These programs usually work for minorities but are not so successful with language majority students.

c) Mainstream + supplementary heritage language classes Language minority sends their children to mainstream schools (in majority lang.) and also to supplementary schools for heritage classes (often after school or weekends). Heritage lang. classes not only teach the language, but also the history and culture of the ethnolinguistic group. The level of bilingualism depends mostly on family commitment.

d) Maintenance This type of education program uses both minority and majority language programs throughout the education of the language minority. Both languages are compartmentalized; using different teachers for each

of them. The aim of this program is to promote the maintenance and development of the minority lang., its history and culture, as well as the full development of the majority lang., its history and culture. This type

of bilingual education supports the pluralistic perspective that is needed by the majority society. High levels of bilingualism and biliteracy are often obtained through these programs.

e) Immersion These programs have been designed for language majority Ss or speakers of high-status languages who wish to become bilingual. Initially, the instruction is given in the minority lang. with a bilingual teacher, the majority lang. is used in instruction in later stages, but the instruction in both languages continues throughout Ss’ education. (Originally it was designed and implemented in Canada, in French-speaking province of Quebec). It has been very successful in Canada.

f) Mainstream bilingual This type of program uses two languages throughout the Ss’ education. Compared to maintenance program, in mainstream bilingual programs, all the languages are considered majority languages and all Ss are of majority. Ex.: Brunei, from 1984, all children receive instruction both in Malay and English. Bilingualism is thus guaranteed for all the population.

g) Two/multi-way mainstream bi/multilingual This type of program uses more than two languages throughout the Ss’ education. Students come from different ethnolinguistic backgrounds, but all considered majority Ss and all languages considered majority Ss; all the languages are granted equal value in the curriculum. Example: Most European schools. Initially, all Ss are instructed in their mother tongue, and then the instruction is done through different language(s). The aim of this type of education is to have multilingual/multilateral citizens. It differs from two-way dual lang. programs because all the languages are equally valued. The initial instruction is done in linguistically homogenous group.

To reach the aim of raising a bilingual individual, bilingual education has to be carried out in a completely bilingual educational context. “The entire school system must be designed to promote bilingualism for all, multilingualism for some, monolingualism for none” (García, 1997, p. 419).

4.5. 1 The specifics of the U.S. and Mexican situations

As we have mentioned in the beginning of the previous chapter, from 1960s there has been greater recognition of the language of ethnolinguistic minorities. In the U.S., the bilingual education has been mostly financed from public funds and in the period from 1968-1980 the money could be used only for transitional bilingual programs, i.e. for the programs where as soon as the student reached proficiency in English, was transferred to mainstream class. From 1980, when Bilingual Education act was reauthorized, other forms of bilingual language programs were included in federal funding, not only transitional programs, but also structured immersion and dual-language programs

In the U.S., the transitional bilingual education still prevails, even though now we have programs where bilingualism and biliteracy are the goals. Generally, when we spoke to Mexican-American from San Diego (in the research, 2002), this group of informants had the worst experience with bilingual education and were not favoring it as much as subjects from the general sample of Tijuana’s population and also the bilingual speakers of indigenous languages- Spanish. The proof of a dubious quality of bilingual education in the state of California, making reference to the Spanish-English bilingual context, are the words of (then) the Secretary of Education, Rod Page, who said that the quality of education for Latino children was not good. (Crhova, 2004, p.80). I suppose, the Secretary of Education is well acquainted with the sector he’s directing, and to know that 5 million of children (i.e. the number of children living in the U.S. whose first language is not English, 79% of them Latinos) are not receiving quality education is embarrassing, don’t you agree with me?

The situation of bilingual education in Mexico and in the U.S. has been described in detail in the Chapter V. of my book that is dedicated to bilingualism. I try not to repeat the same information from the book in the material that you are reading just now, but sometimes it’s difficult because the nature of the information hasn’t changed considerably since 2002 when I did the research. In a way, the language education policy in Latin America has certain common features. It appears to me, and I think I’m not the only one, that there are two different approaches to bilingual education. Language policy for bilingual schools, indigenous-Spanish, has been predominantly an assimilationist; there has been very little effort done in maintaining vernacular languages and use them as medium and subject of instruction. Though, lately there is observable effort to include the multicultural and bilingual aspect in the educational process, following the trend and recommendations of UNESCO’s resolution from 1990 that encourages the use of local languages in schools. It’s important to mention that Mexico was one of the first Latin American countries that included bilingual education in the 1930s. Also Mexico’s 1981 creation of the National Directorate of Indigenous Education as an independent organism affiliated to the Secretary of Public Education and directed by indigenous people marked the difference in approach to bilingual (indigenous-Spanish) education models (Hornberger, 1999, p. 134). Nevertheless, the support of this type of bilingual education is mainly in rhetoric. In theory, this type of transitional bilingualism supports instruction in the native tongue of a student until the sixth grade (like Mixtec- Spanish bilingual schools) but in common practice bilingual education concludes in the third grade, or even sooner whenever the child is able to comprehend Spanish, the native language is dropped and there can be no talk of intended maintenance of mother tongue.

A bilingual school, where one of the two languages is a high-prestige international language, such as English, has completely different treatment in the Latin American educational context. Such bilingualism is highly promoted. In all the major cities you can find at least one school destined to elite’s bilingual instruction. As a rule, these types of schools are privately funded. The bilingual schools, comprising any internationally prestigious language/Spanish, aim to reach additive bilingualism. The maintenance of the native language is not at risk at all compared to the previously mentioned indigenous language/Spanish bilingual schools, which result/ indirectly support the loss of a minority language. The role of English as a world language is

increasing every day. Its influence is evident in Latin America since the 19th century, when the British controlled much of the economic power in Latin America. Mexico, as the direct neighbor of the United States, have experienced perhaps more direct impact of English language throughout the 20th century and the situation continues until these days.As far as the bilingual education policy in Mexico, it’s fair to say, there is a great distance between bilingual education policy and practice in classrooms, but I don’t have to tell you that because you have observed it, for sure, yourselves.Note: You’ll find supplementary information on the topic in my book if you’re interested.

4. 5 Some considerations for raising bilingual children

In this section, I would like to give advice to those of you, who are parents, or potential parents. As bilingual speakers, you face the decision how to raise your children in bilingual situation. Sometimes you don’t know whether to start in the 1P-1L from the child’s birth or wait till the child is like 2 years old for the introduction of the L2. My advice is: don’t wait because every delay may mean difficult start. When you have already established social relationship with your child through one language, it’s difficult to switch to another language, both for you as it is for your child, who will feel strange and may initially, refuse it. As for reading, it’s recommended that the teaching is done sequentially, with the L2 following the first after a year or so. According to Steinberg, simultaneous teaching of reading is not advisable because it would be too confusing the child (p. 239).

References

Blanc, M. (1999). The Social Context. In B.Spolsky (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp.31-36). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Brisk, M. E. (1999). The School Context. In B.Spolsky (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp.311-315). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Crhova, J. (2004). Actitud hacia la lengua. Mexicali, B.C.: UABC, Centro de Estudios Culturales-Museo: Instituto de Cultura de Baja California: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.

García, O. (1997). Bilingual Education. In F. Coulmas (Ed.). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp.405-420). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.

Hornberger, N. (1999). Language Education Policy- Latin America. In B. Spolsky (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp. 133-139).Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lastra, Y. (1992). Sociolingüística para hispanoamericanos. Una introducción. México, D.F.: El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios.

O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M. & Arnoff, M. (1997). Contemporay Linguistics. An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press.

Sridhar, K.K. (1998). Societal Multilingualism. In S. Lee Mc Kay & N. Hornberger (Eds.). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (4th ed.) (pp.3-46). Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevelon, Avon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters. Translated from Swedish.

Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, D., Nagata, H. & Aline, D. (2001). Psycholinguistics. Language Mind and World (2nd ed.). Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education.