Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:10:55.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

BLC mini-series: Tools to document bilingual experiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2020

Gigi Luk*
Affiliation:
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University
Alena G. Esposito
Affiliation:
Clark University, Psychology
*
Address for correspondence: Gigi Luk, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Bilingual experiences are complex and dynamic (Grosjean, Reference Grosjean, Grosjean and Li2013). The complexity reflects the rich language experiences an individual accumulates over a lifetime, and the dynamicity represents how the complexity changes across different language interaction contexts. Essential to understanding the cognitive and linguistic consequences of bilingual experience, the experience of bilingualism ought to be documented. Currently, we know that bilingualism can be captured in multiple dimensions, such as onset age of second language (L2) exposure (see Birdsong, Reference Birdsong2018 for a recent review), language dominance (Unsworth, Chondrogianni & Skarabela, Reference Unsworth, Chondrogianni and Skarabela2018), first and second language proficiency (Pérez, Hansen & Bajo, Reference Pérez, Hansen and Bajo2019), or the learning context in which L2 acquisition occurs (Montrul, Reference Montrul2019). Researchers in the field use different tools to document language experiences, providing quantity and quality of language acquisition history, daily usage, or home exposure through multiple languages for children and adults. Given the interdisciplinary nature of bilingualism research, if these tools are published at all, they are dispersed across different journals and as appendices of articles. The main purpose of this mini-series is to collect these tools for researchers to choose and adapt.

In this mini-series, we have collected five contributions from researchers from the U.S. and Canada who have invested in developing tools for research purposes. These contributions present tools that document bilingual experience from infancy to senior adulthood. We see the mini-series as an opportunity to collectively report tools researchers use to document participants’ bilingual experience. These tools will be a systematic collection for students and emerging researchers interested in pursuing research in bilingualism.

Recognizing the diverse social contexts where bilingualism occurs is important. Bilingualism, like other experiences, does not happen in a vacuum. The mini-series has included five contributions from research teams in North America. Their tools are designed and grounded in an environment where there is a societal dominant language – namely, English – except for Byers-Heinlein et al. (Byers-Heinlein, Schott, Gonzalez-Barrero, Brouillard, Dubé, Jardak, Laoun-Rubenstein, Mastroberardino, Morin-Lessard, Pour Iliaei, Salama-Siroishka & Tamay, Reference Byers-Heinlein, Schott, Gonzalez-Barrero, Brouillard, Dubé, Jardak, Laoun-Rubenstein, Mastroberardino, Morin-Lessard, Pour Iliaei, Salama-Siroishka and Tamay2020): her work is situated in Montreal, Canada, where English and French are present in the community. In addition to documenting individual participants’ language, describing the societal language use and contact will enrich the interpretation of participant characteristics captured by these tools. Currently, in research adopting a monolingual-bilingual comparison, the information about societal language context is not often documented (Surrain & Luk, Reference Surrain and Luk2019). Furthermore, new dimensions, such as language entropy and capturing the social interactions of bilinguals, should be considered to supplement the conventional qualifiers of bilingualism (Gullifer & Titone, Reference Gullifer and Titone2020; Gullifer, Kousaie, Gilbert, Grant, Giroud, Coulter, Klein, Baum, Phillips & Titone, Reference Gullifer, Kousaie, Gilbert, Grant, Giroud, Coulter, Klein, Baum, Phillips and Titoneaccepted).

The first contribution, by Byers-Heinlein et al. (Reference Byers-Heinlein, Schott, Gonzalez-Barrero, Brouillard, Dubé, Jardak, Laoun-Rubenstein, Mastroberardino, Morin-Lessard, Pour Iliaei, Salama-Siroishka and Tamay2020), has shared a structured interview designed to document infants’ language experience, the Multilingual Approach to Parent Language Estimates (MAPLE). In the contribution, Byers-Heinlein et al. (Reference Byers-Heinlein, Schott, Gonzalez-Barrero, Brouillard, Dubé, Jardak, Laoun-Rubenstein, Mastroberardino, Morin-Lessard, Pour Iliaei, Salama-Siroishka and Tamay2020) address the key descriptors to document in the interview, as well as interview practices that are engaging, but respectful. Finally, the contribution ends with possible effects that may influence the interpretation of parental reports of children's language environment.

Since young children spend a significant amount of time at school, characterizing children's school environment can supplement information captured from home language environment. Castro, Scheffner Hammer, Franco, Cycyk, Scarpino, and Burchinal (Reference Castro, Scheffner Hammer, Franco, Cycyk, Scarpino and Burchinal2020) share the Center for Early Care and Education Research – Dual Language Learners (CECER-DLL) Child and Family, and Teacher Questionnaires. In this questionnaire, parents and teachers are proxies for capturing young children's home and school language environment. The tool was designed with Spanish–English bilingual families in the U.S. in mind. Castro et al. (Reference Castro, Scheffner Hammer, Franco, Cycyk, Scarpino and Burchinal2020) supplement this tool with a validation study using child assessments as correlates.

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) was first published in 2007 (Marian, Blumenfeld & Kaushanskaya, Reference Marian, Blumenfeld and Kaushanskaya2007). Since its publication, LEAP-Q has been used extensively in research involving bilinguals. This tool has been translated to 22 different languages, adapting to different dialects and cultural contexts. This tool reflects the collective effort in the field to improve the necessary linguistic sensitivity when conducting research with bilinguals. Kaushanskaya, Blumenfeld, and Marian (Reference Kaushanskaya, Blumenfeld and Marian2019) share how researchers have used this tool in the last decade, and the appropriate modifications that can be made.

Bilingualism is an experience that changes with time. Similarly, researchers are adapting and evolving with how bilingualism is captured. The fourth contribution by Li et al. (Li, Zhang, Yu & Zhao, Reference Li, Zhang, Yu and Zhao2019) reports another popular tool for bilingual researchers. The Language History Questionnaire (LHQ) 3.0 has evolved from the earliest version LHQ (Li, Sepanski & Zhao, Reference Li, Sepanski and Zhao2006), to LHQ 2.0 (Li, Zhang, Tsai & Puls, Reference Li, Zhang, Tsai and Puls2014), to this updated version that features the web-based adaptation. LHQ 3.0 provides a comprehensive web-based interface to capture language proficiency, language dominance, and language immersion. Li et al. (Reference Li, Zhang, Yu and Zhao2019) have also provided a step-by-step guide for researchers to utilize LHQ 3.0.

The final contribution from Anderson, Hawrylewicz, and Bialystok (Reference Anderson, Hawrylewicz and Bialystok2018a) reports the utility of the Language and Social Background Questionnaire (LSBQ) for children and older adults. LSBQ is also appropriate for use in young adults, as reported in the teams’ earlier work (Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi & Bialystok, Reference Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi and Bialystok2018b) and in factor analyses across these three age groups in the lifespan. In this contribution, Anderson et al. (Reference Anderson, Hawrylewicz and Bialystok2018a) highlights the different factors important to be used as qualifiers for bilingualism across the lifespan.

Characterizing bilingualism as an experience is both a goal and a challenge for researchers working with the increasingly linguistically diverse population around the world. The tools included in this mini-series provide a starting point to understand the complexity and dynamicity of bilingualism as an experience. As language contact and globalization increase, language experiences will become more complicated. To this end, the research community needs to adapt and evolve with bilingualism.

References

Anderson, JAE, Hawrylewicz, K and Bialystok, E (2018a) Who is bilingual? Snapshots across the lifespan. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000950Google Scholar
Anderson, JAE, Mak, L, Keyvani Chahi, A and Bialystok, E (2018b) The language and social background questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavior Research Methods 50(1), 250263. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D (2018) Plasticity, Variability and Age in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers-Heinlein, K, Schott, E, Gonzalez-Barrero, AM, Brouillard, M, Dubé, D, Jardak, A, Laoun-Rubenstein, A, Mastroberardino, M, Morin-Lessard, E, Pour Iliaei, S, Salama-Siroishka, N and Tamay, M.P. (2020) MAPLE: A multilingual approach to parent language estimates. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, D, Scheffner Hammer, C, Franco, X, Cycyk, L, Scarpino, S and Burchinal, M (2020) Documenting bilingual experiences in early years: Using the CECER-DLL Child and Family and Teacher Questionnaires. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5), 10.1017/S1366728920000401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F (2013) Bilingualism: A short introduction. In Grosjean, F and Li, P (eds), The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 525.Google Scholar
Gullifer, JW and Titone, D (2020) Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using language entropy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(2), 283294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullifer, JW, Kousaie, S, Gilbert, AC, Grant, AM, Giroud, N, Coulter, K, Klein, D, Baum, S, Phillips, N and Titone, D (accepted). Bilingual language experience as a multidimensional spectrum: Associations with objective and subjective language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Kaushanskaya, M, Blumenfeld, HK and Marian, V (2019) The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5), 10.1017/S1366728919000038Google Scholar
Li, P, Sepanski, S and Zhao, X (2006) Language History Questionnaire: A Web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods 38(2), 202210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192770CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, P, Zhang, F, Tsai, E and Puls, B (2014) Language History Questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(3), 673680. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P, Zhang, F, Yu, A and Zhao, X (2019) Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918001153Google Scholar
Marian, V, Blumenfeld, HK and Kaushanskaya, M (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR 50(4), 940967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montrul, S (2019) How Learning Context Shapes Heritage and Second Language Acquisition. In The Handbook of Informal Language Learning. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 5774. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119472384.ch4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, A, Hansen, L and Bajo, T (2019) The nature of first and second language processing: The role of cognitive control and L2 proficiency during text-level comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22(5), 930948. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saer, DJ (1923) The Effect of Bilingualism on Intelligence. British Journal of Psychology. General Section 14(1), 2538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1923.tb00110.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surrain, S and Luk, G (2019) Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22(2), 401415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S, Chondrogianni, V and Skarabela, B (2018) Experiential Measures Can Be Used as a Proxy for Language Dominance in Bilingual Language Acquisition Research. Frontiers in Psychology 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01809CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed