Developing language skills fast and efficiently is one of the necessary attributes of being a member of the XXI century society. Because of the globalization process, economic, political and cultural boundaries between different states and their representatives are being erased, which creates the premises for acquiring new communication skills (Norton & McKinney 2010, p. 88).
Though the phenomena of second language learners and bilingual speakers have been known for quite a while, it was not until the globalization process that the issue of second language acquisition and the study of the code switching processes occurring in bilingual people gained a close attention of researchers (Chowdhury 2013, p. 40).
Understanding the effects that the context of formal and informal discourse has on the process of learning the second language and the bilingual people will help define the ways of shaping the learner’s identity and contribute to improving the process of language learning, as well as facilitate the environment, in which a bilingual learner or the learner of a second language can develop the required skills faster and acquire new knowledge in a more productive manner.
The significance of formal discourse cannot be overestimated – it provides the second language and bilingual students with the basic information about the language and the culture of its usage. However, the significance of informal discourse is not to be underrated either.
Despite the fact that the role of the informal context of language skills acquisition for bilingual and second language learners is often underestimated, these are the elements of informal discourse that allow the learners to develop such skills as a fast analysis of the message generated by the sender, the acquisition of new lexemes and their further application in the context, the ability to process information instantly and provide a prompt response, etc., thus, making the process of learning the second language or, in case of a bilingual learner, being able to perform the code switching process faster and more efficiently, possible (Butler & Hakuta 2004, p. 115).
Because of the necessity to incorporate the study of the language phonology and the need to learn new vocabulary, as well as start using the latter in proper contexts, second language and bilingual students need both the context of a formal discourse to meet the first requirement and the informal to meet the second one (Diaz-Campos 2006, p. 27).
More to the point, having no first language to relate to when studying another one, bilingual learners need the formal context to learn the necessary skills and the informal one to facilitate the acculturation process and, therefore, help them understand the mechanics of the languages learned.
Before going any further, it will be required to define the key phenomena and concepts that are considered in this paper. The definition of bilingualism often causes debates; though it is traditionally believed that bilinguals are the learners, who acquire the communication skills in two different languages simultaneously (Bialystok 2011, p. 231), there is a bit more to the phenomenon than that.
There are certain age restrictions as per the definition of the phenomenon; for instance, it is traditionally considered that a person may only be bilingual as long as the basic skills of both languages were acquired before the age of one (Gottardo 2008, para. 2). Another study suggests that bilingualism should be viewed as the alternation of two languages (Miranda 2012, p. 265).
In fact, Miranda touches upon a very important aspect of bilingualism definition. Instead of focusing on the fact that the person is capable of communicating in two languages with the same fluency and efficiency, it will be more adequate to consider the process of switching between two languages, as well as the tools used in the process. Thus, the phenomenon of code switching comes into the limelight.
Though the phenomenon of code switching can concern any process of communication in which the necessity to maneuver between two languages arises, the issue is brought up most often when talking about bilingualism. The term is used quite broadly in a variety of fields, particularly, linguistics; its ubiquity, in its turn, defines the complexity of the subject matter and the following problems with its definition. Nilep (2006) warns about the threat of mixing the notions of code switching and language variety.
Anyway, code switching should be defined as a “voluntary behavior over which a bilingual has control” (Dulm 2007, p. 9). The given definition might seem somewhat general and failing to provide the link between bilingualism and code switching processes.
To understand the complexity related to defining the notion of code switching, one must mention that the process should not be mixed with the so-called triggering, which, in its turn, is traditionally identified as using the words that are at the intersection of two languages (Riehl 2005, p. 1946). In some sense, triggering can be viewed as one of the stages of code switching, i.e., the process that facilitates an easier transition between two languages.
Despite its seeming simplicity, the phenomenon of second language learning may also cause certain complexities in terms of its definition. Some sources claim that the subject matter can be defined as the process of learning any language that is not native for the learner (Tatawy 2006, p. 1). Though the word “second” may sound very misleading, it is necessary to keep in mind that the process includes studying any language besides from the native one, be it the third, the fourth, the fifth, etc. language studied by the learner.
When talking about the key difference between the second language learner (SLL) and the bilingual student, one must mention that, in contrast to the SLL, who already has a solid basis to drive their experience from, a bilingual student cannot refer to a similar experience with their native language when studying the other one (Zhang 2008, p. 58).
Seeing how bilingual learners (BL) do not have one native language, they are supposed to draw parallels between the two cultures simultaneously, which can be viewed as the major obstacle in developing bilingualism in students. SLL, in their turn, have a profound set of knowledge to rely on when acquiring information concerning the second language.
The idea that both formal and informal contexts of discourse are of equal significance to either an SLL or a bilingual learned may seem rather questionable. Indeed, the idea that the formal communication process, which mostly occurs at school and in the process of which a student gains the knowledge that is directly related to the second language seems rather reasonable at first. However, the recent studies show that, for SLL learners, informal context is just as significant, if not even more important, than the formal one.
In fact, the very change of the context, in which the discourse in question takes place, plays a huge role in the outcomes of the conversation and the performance of the student in question. According to the study conducted by Butler, “can alternate between the two languages depending on the topic of discussion, interlocutors, formality/informality of the conversational setting” (Butler & Hakuna 2004, p. 119).
Therefore, it will be safe to say that contexts play a major part in both the development of languages kills and their usage. As Butler explains, the changes in the quality of the code switching process may occur to the SLL students.
The formal context is also crucial for SLL to develop unique characteristics, which will help them train their newly acquired skills in, or to learn the new ones. Much to the credit of the formal discourse context, it has turned into a powerful tool for encouraging students for learning new skills, and it has done so in a relatively short amount of time.
Box (2012) lists class interactions and games as the key tools for second language learners to remember specific patterns of information acquisition and further management, which is supposed to enable their construction as English language learners:
In recent years, research on classroom discourse in second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) classrooms has become increasingly popular. Interaction takes on an especially significant role in these spaces, considering that talk against such a background is “both the object of pedagogical attention, and the medium through which learning is accomplished”. (Box 2012, p. 1)
The effects of these activities, however, are yet to be identified. It is important to bear in mind that the evolution of a learner hinges on the learner’s motivation. Indeed, as long as a student recognizes the significance of the knowledge that they acquire, they are capable of constructing an identity of an efficient learner and an active participant of language development related activities. Therefore, the necessity for a student to define and build their professional self emerges.
In contrast to a bilingual person, who considers both languages an integral part of their identity, a SLL is capable of understanding the professional benefits of knowing a second language and being able to use it to their advantage (Lazzaro-Salazar 2013, p. 7).
Likewise, both formal and informal contexts affect the construction of a bilingual learner, though in a slightly different way. Nevertheless, some case studies show that in a range of instances, bilingual learners experience specific difficulties in the formal context of language skills acquisition, especially when it comes to acquiring the experience, which will serve as the basis for further academic patterns in such students.
For instance, the case study conducted Falsafi has shown that formal discourse may have a negative effect not only on a SLL student’s acquisition of the second language related skills, but also on the student’s behavioral patterns in general, thus, defining the obstacles, which the student in question is going to face in the future; according to the case study, Miguel, a former student, “equaled the memory of an experience with its impact” (Falsafi 2001, p. 192); thus, a negative experience of the formal discourse has shaped the student’s attitude towards learning and may even have affected the development of the student’s communication patterns, making him unwilling to develop social contacts.
The fact that formal discourse has such a tremendous impact on the construction of a bilingual student does not mean, though, that the given factor must be excluded from the student’s environment; instead, the emphasis should be shifted from active use of language skills in the formal setting to the application of the skills learned at school to the informal environment, i. e., the student’s family, communication with friends, etc.
As for the informal discourse context and its impact on the evolution of a bilingual student’s skills, one should mention that, in fact, a child’s basic language skills acquisition starts in the context of an informal discourse with their mother. Therefore, one must give credit to where it belongs and define the informal discourse a crucial element of the construction of a bilingual person.
To make the situation even clearer, the studies regarding the effects of communication between bilingual learners and their fellow students have shown that these everyday conversations contribute to the development of key listening and speaking language skills (Falsafi 2001, p. 7).
Though the informal discourse context is often underrated for some reason and most of the credit goes to the formal discourse at school or in any other institutional establishment, these are the instances of an informal discourse between a bilingual learner and their relatives or friends that allows for a more efficient code switching and a better application of the newly learned skills.
Falsafi says that the identity of a bilingual student “is constructed, negotiated and revoked in meaningful interaction with relevant others” (Falsafi 2001, p. 7), thus, affecting the “appropriation of the learner’s own voice in that language” (Falsafi 2001, p. 7).
As the analysis carried out above has shown, though often underrated, the significance of the formal discourse on the development of the SLL and especially bilingual learning skills and, more importantly, the evolution of a bilingual or an SLL student as a learner, hinges on the informal discourse, though the formal one also has an admittedly huge effect on encouraging a student for developing the required qualities.
It would be reasonable to suggest that the premises for the student to develop specific characteristics that facilitate their construction are created once the student in question engages in a formal discourse and is capable of acquiring the corresponding information from the formal discourse. The phase of skills training and the development of habitual patterns of code switching, however, starts as the informal discourse begins.
Despite the fact that the actual skills are offered to students in the formal environment of their schools and colleges, educational establishments often appear to be containers of a number of factors hindering the student’s expression as a SLL or a bilingual learner.
The environment of an informal discourse, on the contrary, offers a plethora of freedom in terms of developing unique characteristics of a particular type of a learner. For example, informal discourse environment presupposes that there will be no one to correct the student in case of a mistake, or to point at their faults; thus, a student feels more comfortable to exercise the newly acquired knowledge and skills.
This concerns predominantly bilingual learners, which face more difficulties, since they are supposed to learn two languages at once and cannot rely on the background knowledge, like SLL students do. Nevertheless, the laid back environment of an informal discourse also works very well for SLL students to construct their personality of learners and apply the information that they have been taught in the course of a formal discourse.
It should be kept in mind, though, that the construction of a SLL or a bilingual learner’s identity is fraught with facing a range of challenges, the key one being the threat of turning the process of acculturation into the one of assimilation. Johnson states that the process of receiving an identity can be controlled by the language learners rather easily:
Also, although an individual holds several social identities, not all of them are enacted to full degree in all contexts. It is through language that learners receive or reject the identities assigned to them, as well as establish and maintain the identity they wish to present. (Johnson 2011, p. 9)
Practically, Johnson claims that a learner’s identity can be defined by learners themselves. It seems, however, that the environmental factors, which SLL or bilingual learners are subjected to, particularly, the realms of a formal and informal discourse, shape their behavioral patterns and, therefore, define their attitude towards the language acquisition to a considerable degree.
In other words, the learner’s awareness of developing a different identity related to a particular language and its culture informs the learner’s identity, but it does not define it. Formal and informal discourses, on the other hand, do – as the case studies and researches considered above show, negative experiences in formal environment affect the way in which SLL and bilingual students continue training their skills and develop new ones.
It could be argued that the informal environment has a much greater impact on SLL and bilingual learners; however, seeing how the negative impact, which formal factors have had on the construction of some bilingual learners and SLL, one may assume that the negative impact of formal discourses, should there be one, results in much more serious consequences for SLL and bilinguals than the informal one.
Meanwhile, the informal discourse seems to be more efficient its positive impact; the patterns learned in the process of informal communication affect the construction of a learner’s identity to a great extent, as the examples above have shown.
Although traditionally, much more credit is given to the formal discourse, which supposedly defines the process of a SLL or a bilingual learner construction, an analysis of the recent case studies and researches has shown that informal discourse, in fact, has a much stronger impact on the further evolution of a language learner than the formal does. The line should be drawn between the two environments and the effects that they have on the development of a language learner.
While the formal discourse creates the premises for acquiring new skills and learning new knowledge, these are the informal interactions that create the possibility of new skills application. Therefore, the significance of both types of discourses in the process of a bilingual learner or an SLL must not be underrated. The essential components of a language learning process, they should both be present in the process of a SLL or a bilingual learner’s communication.
Reference List
Bialystok, E. 2011, ‘Reshaping the mind: the benefits of bilingualism,’ Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 229 –235
Box, C D 2012, Microanalyzing discourse in the second and foreign language classrooms: a review of the literature, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Butler, Y. G. & Hakuta, K. 2004, ‘Bilingualism and second language acquisition,’ in T K Bhatia and W C Ritchie (ed.), The handbook of bilingualism, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 114–143.
Chowdhury, N. 2013, ‘Classroom code switching of English language teachers at tertiary level: a Bangladeshi perspective,’ Stamford Journal of English, vol. 7, no. 1, 40–61.
Diaz-Campos, M. 2006, The effect of style in second language phonology: an analysis of segmental acquisition in study abroad and regular-classroom students, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
Dulm, O. V. 2007, The grammar of English-Afrikaans code switching, LOT, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Falsafi, L. 2001, Learner identity: a sociocultural approach to how people recognize and construct themselves as learners, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Gottardo, A. 2008, Defining bilingualism, Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario, CA.
Johnson, T. R. 2011, Foreign language learner identity: a sociocultural perspective, University of Austin, Austin, TX.
Lazzaro-Salazar, M. V. 2013, ‘Diving into the depth of identity construction and motivation of a foreign language learner,’ Argentinean Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–23.
Miranda, I. 2012, ‘Insights on bilingualism and bilingual education: a sociolinguistic perspective,’ Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 262-272.
Nilep, C. 2006, “Code switching” in sociocultural linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Norton, B. & McKinney, C. 2010, ‘An identity approach to section language acquisition,’ in Dwight Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 73–94.
Riehl, C. M. 2005, Code-switching in bilinguals: impacts of mental processes and language awareness, Freiburg, DE, University of Freiburg.
Tatawy, M. E. 2006, Corrective feedback in second language acquisition, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Zhang, Y. 2008, ‘The role of personality in second language acquisition,’ Asian Social Science, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 58–59.