linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnielinguistlist.org>
linguistlist.org
linguistics.usyd.edu.au>Kecskes, Istvan, and Tunde Papp. (2000) Foreign Language and Mother Tongue, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. xxv+148pp. $39.95 Reviewed by Ingrid Piller, University of Sydney The central concern of this volume is the effect that foreign language learning (FLL) has on the development and use of the first language (L1). Many people, like myself, who were told throughout many years of intensive Latin learning in high school that being able to read and write in Latin would boost our overall cognitive and linguistic skills, probably have no doubt whatsoever that FLL is of benefit beyond the learning of another language. However, this continental European common sense notion that higher education and FLL go together is not as widely shared in the US. Therefore, the research of Istvan Kecskes and Tunde Papp, which goes a long way to prove that FLL can indeed enhance L1 skills, is a most welcome addition to the literature in Educational Linguistics, Second Language Learning (SLL), Bilingualism, and Cognitive Linguistics. SYNOPSIS The Preface (ix-xxv) sets out the book's theoretical framework: drawing on Cook's (1992) notion of multicompetence the authors point out that the competence of multilinguals differs significantly and substantially from that of monolinguals, and that FLL is best understood as one form of multilingual development. Unfortunately, few researchers do indeed view FLL as a form of multilingual development, and as a result the possibility of transfer from the FL to the L1 in this setting tends to be ignored. Ch. 1, "Mother Tongue and Subsequent Languages", (1-14), clarifies the basic terms used in the book, such as "mother tongue", "foreign language" (learnt in the classroom), and "second language" (learnt in its sociocultural environment). Unlike the authors, I think that "mother tongue" is too ideologically fraught to be of any use as a research term, which is why I am departing in this review from the usage of the authors, and substitute "mother tongue" with L1 in most cases. The authors argue that FLL and SLL differ substantially in the fact that it is skills which matter in the latter, while knowledge is focused upon in the former. Ch. 2, "Foreign Language Influence on Written L1", (pp. 15-36), details a research project in Hungary in which L1 (Hungarian) essays of students who studied a FL (English, French or Russian) in an immersion program, in an intensive program, and in a non-intensive program (three hours a week; "control class") were collected over a time-span of almost three years. At the beginning of the research project when students had just started in the different FL programs, the syntactic complexity of their essays did not differ significantly. However, in the long term, the Hungarian essays written by the immersion and the intensive students increased much more in syntactic complexity than did the essays of the students in the control class. Thus, structural well-formedness in the L1 clearly benefits from reaching threshold proficiency in an L2. Ch. 3, "Language Processing Device of Multilinguals", (pp. 37-54), addresses the question of the relation between the two language systems of a bilingual. The authors argue that "the bilingual or multilingual Language Processing Device (LPD) consists of two (or more) Constantly Available Interacting Systems (CAIS) and has a Common Underlying Conceptual Base (CUCB)" (p. 38). FLL does not only entail the acquisition of grammatical and lexical knowledge but also the acquisition of conceptual knowledge, i.e. knowledge about the ways in which concepts are encoded in the FL. Conceptualization and language learning go hand in hand in the L1, and the conceptual base is thus language-dependent. Thus, in order to become fluent, FL learners need to adjust their conceptual base so that this partly language-specific knowledge can be used through their L2 channel, too. The next chapter, "Thought and Word", (pp. 55-72), discusses how this reconceptualization can be achieved. Based on the assumption that the conceptual base is a least partly language-specific, and that the L1 played a crucial role in concept formation, the authors argue that a process of "neutralization" of L1 concepts needs to occur for L2 concepts to get a foot into the door. In the process of neutralization, L1 concepts are modified under the influence of L2 concepts. The result is the unique conceptual field of bi- and multilinguals which differs from that of monolinguals because it represents a merger of the concepts of two or more languages. Ch. 5, "Transfer of Skills in the LPD", (pp. 73-86), relates the authors' findings from the Hungarian research project to the work of other researchers in bilingualism who concur that bi- or multilinguals have a metalinguistic advantage over monolinguals and are superior to monolinguals in manipulating language for their communicative purposes. However, most such research demonstrated these benefits for simultaneous childhood bilinguals (e.g. Bialystock 1986) rather than for FL learners. The authors' argument that positive transfer from the FL into the L1 does not entail linguistic elements, but rather conceptual knowledge, cognitive skills, and metalinguistic awareness, however, entails that these positive functions of FLL can only be achieved by learners after age 10 or 11 when these higher-level cognitive operations are usually thought to start occurring. Ch. 6, "Language Distance and Multicompetence", (pp. 87-105), discusses how language distance, whether objectively given in the form of typological distance or subjectively perceived in the form of psychotypology, influences the FLL process and its outcome, multicompetence. The authors suggest that the acquisition of a more distant language is more beneficial than learning a close language because the English and French learners in their Hungarian study achieved slightly higher syntactic complexity in their Hungarian essays than did the Russian learners. This difference might be do to the fact that both Hungarian and Russian are free word-order languages, while English and French are fixed word-order languages. Ch. 7, "Pragmatic Knowledge of Multilinguals", (pp. 106-18), examines the "Intercultural Style Hypothesis" put forward in Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993). According to this hypothesis bilinguals may create an intercultural speech style for themselves which draws on both codes but is distinct from either. Kecskes and Papp basically concur with this hypothesis but emphasize the role of individual agency in pragmatic and discursive practices in the L2. They argue that high levels of grammatical and lexical proficiency can be achieved without acculturation but pragmatic and discourse proficiency is predicated upon the identity choices learners make. The conclusion (pp. 119-23) outlines three implications for educators: namely, that the conceptual base of multilinguals is always dominated by one language and that educational success depends upon one set of concepts being fully in place before another one is added. Second, monolinguals and multilinguals have different competences, and therefore tests developed for monolinguals are useless for multilinguals. Third, FLs are not just another school subject. They should be taught not just for themselves but also for general educational enhancement and development. CRITICAL EVALUATION For continental Europeans, and indeed most people of non-English speaking backgrounds, to become educated means to become bi- or multilingual. And this is not only due to utilitarian reasons but also to a strong belief that learning languages brings cognitive and linguistic benefits. In German, Goethe is often quoted as saying "Only someone who has learnt a foreign language can truly understand their mother tongue", and Vygotsky claimed almost a century ago that FLL can affect mental development positively (Vygotsky 1934; 1962: 109). However, these insights have for a long time been neglected in mainstream Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. It is the strength of this book that it carefully examines the idea of educational benefits inherent in FLL, and supports this common sense notion with the authors' research and their review of a wide variety of research in the field. Furthermore, it consistently favors a multilingual over a monolingual perspective, and a cognitive-pragmatic perspective over a lexico-grammatical one. Given the importance of the book's message, it would have deserved a more accessible and reader-friendly style and more careful editing. REFERENCES Bialystock, E. (1986). "Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness." Child Development 57: 498-510. Cook, V. (1992). "Evidence for multicompetence." Language Learning 42: 557-91. Kasper, G., and S. Blum-Kulka, Eds. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934; trans. 1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. REVIEWER Ingrid Piller (Ph.D Dresden, 1995) has teaching and research interests in Multilingualism and Second Language Learning, Sociolinguistics, Discourse Analysis and Advertising Discourse, and Language and Gender. Dr. Ingrid Piller Linguistics Department, F12 University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia ingrid.pillerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue