A:
In order to answer this question I have to
introduce two notions: Communicative Fluency (CF) and Cognitive
Language Mastery (CLM).
Communicative Fluency (CF) refers
to language skills needed for social interaction in everyday communication
within an "ordinary" (commonplace) context and includes
basic skills in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. This aspect
of language seems to be acquired naturally and without formal
schooling. In short, it is mostly oral language fluency needed
for social interaction in everyday communication.
Cognitive Language Mastery (CLM) refers to
language as a tool of reasoning, a means of literacy, and a medium
in academic learning. This aspect of language emerges and becomes
distinctive with formal schooling and through developing literacy
skills involving conceptual and semantic knowledge of the language.
CF and CLM are not isolated from each other and interact as they
develop, enhancing or inhibiting each other. Nevertheless, there
is a distinct difference between these two language proficiencies.
The context of communication is one of major distinguishes between
CF and CLM. You see, in CF we have context-embedded communication
where the linguistic message is coming within a flow of meaningful
context, supported by a wide range of nonlinguistic clues, such
as situation, intonation, gestures, etc. In CLM (reading a text,
writing an essay) communication has a very limited range of nonlinguistic
supports, and is said to be "context-reduced". Acquisition
of meaning in context-reduced academic situations (and during
psychological tests) requires specific conceptual and semantic
knowledge of the language itself.
Developmentally, CF forms much earlier than
CLM in normal language acquisition and may (or may not) support
the formation of CLM. With the emergence of CLM, however, they
(CF and CLM) develop at a different pace, with CLM developing
more rapidly. Compare, for example, the oral communicative skills
of a 9-year-old and 18-year-old in terms of topic maintenance,
turn- taking, expressive vocabulary, grammar structure, speech
fluency, intonation, the use of appropriate extralinguistic skills,
etc. The difference is not so great. However, if we compare their
CLM in terms of conceptual knowledge, comprehension of word meanings,
mastery of writing/reading skills, etc., the difference will be
significant. According to Dr. J. Cummins (a well-known authority
in bilingual education), it takes a 9-year- old immigrant child
about 2 years to reach native speaker proficiency in CF and about
5 years to reach CLM comparable to the native speaker. I personally
do not believe in these numbers at all, but would like you to
be aware of this point of view anyway. I have found through observations
and practical experiences that the effect of bilingualism on academic
performance - in other words, on CLM formation at the age expectancy
level -depends on a great variety of factors. Under certain circumstances,
bilingualism can impede the learning process and lead to academic
difficulties).
Children in adoptive families are in a different
situation from children in immigrant families, where native language
is used in CF function and, sometimes, in CLM function as well.
Your children do not learn English as a foreign language. They
live within the culture of this language: peers, media, and culture
at large are influential sources of language. They acquire English
as a byproduct of meaningful communication in the process of performing
different activities. Their situation of language acquisition
is more akin to the naturalized ways in which first languages
are developed.
Does this mean that they are immune from CLM
related problems? Not at all. What may often happen is the following:
your child (and I am talking about a child older than 7), within
a relatively short period of time, becomes almost indistinguishable
from native speakers in CF. It does not mean that s/he has sufficient
mastery of the context-reduced aspects of the English language
to do well academically. Nevertheless, as a result of his/her
fluency in face-to-face communication, educators (and adoptive
parents alike) assume that the child has learned the language,
can be classified as English proficient, and is qualified for
regular instructions in English. If the child then experiences
academic difficulties or shows low verbal abilities on an IQ test,
this is attributed to intrinsic cognitive or motivational deficiencies
within the child ("learning disability"). Interestingly
enough, in my practice I run into the opposite scenario as well.
A child (at that time 10 years old and after 3 years in the country)
felt comfortable communicating interpersonally in Russian, but
had formed the CLM in English only. Moreover, it was determined
that she has no measurable CLM in Russian! Nevertheless, this
child (who had a pronounced learning disability) was designated
as having English as a second language and testing was requested
in her native (and weaker) language. It is your duty to determine
(with professional help, if needed) the nature of bilingualism
in your children and request teaching (and testing if needed)
in the strongest modality available to a child.
