Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

English language skills of minority language children in a French Immersion program Davies, Susan 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 D39.pdf [ 5.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096081.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096081-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096081-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096081-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096081-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096081-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096081-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096081-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096081.ris

Full Text

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLS OF MINORITY LANGUAGE CHILDREN IN A FRENCH IMMERSION PROGRAM by SUSAN DAVIES B.A., M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School Of Audiology And Speech Sc i e n c e s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1985 © Susan Davies, 1985 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Audiology And Speech Sciences The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: August 1985 i i A b s t r a c t The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the E n g l i s h language s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n (experimental group) i n a e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program by comparing them with those of E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion ( E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group), and with those of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program ( m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group). Ten grade one c h i l d r e n comprised each of the three groups of c h i l d r e n . L i s t e n i n g comprehension of E n g l i s h was assessed u s i n g two s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s of E n g l i s h comprehension (the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test and the Token Test f o r C h i l d r e n ) . E n g l i s h speaking s k i l l s were assessed using the Clark-Madison Test of O r a l Language (a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t ) and a ten to f i f t e e n minute language sample. E n g l i s h m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s were assessed with a phoneme d e l e t i o n task used by Rosner & Simon (1971) and with two t a s k s used by P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey (1984): a morpheme c o r r e c t i o n task and a word order c o r r e c t i o n t a s k . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used to assess a t t i t u d e s towards the m i n o r i t y language and c u l t u r e and to determine the c h i l d r e n ' s home and language background. I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d that the E n g l i s h language s k i l l s of the experimental group would be at l e a s t as good as those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group and the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group. The r e s u l t s supported the hypotheses. The experimental group d i d as w e l l as the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group on a l l of the measures of E n g l i s h comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n t e s t e d . The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group scored lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group on a l l measures of E n g l i s h comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . They scored lower than the experimental group on the comprehension of complex commands and on the C l a r k -Madison Test of O r a l Language. The three groups scored s i m i l a r l y on a l l of the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks except on the morpheme c o r r e c t i o n task, where the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group scored lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group. R e s u l t s support the s u i t a b i l i t y of e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n who have t h e i r f i r s t language and c u l t u r e valued and maintained. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 II FRENCH IMMERSION AND RELATED STUDIES Immersion i n Canada: D e f i n i t i o n and Description . . 6 Results of Early Total French Immersion 10 The St. Lambert experiment 11 Studies subsequent to the St. Lambert experiment . 15 Eff e c t s of Early Bilingualism on Metalinguistic and General Cognitive Development 20 Some claims about negative e f f e c t s of early b i l i n g u a l i s m 29 Immersion Education for Minority Language Children . . 32 Two t h e o r e t i c a l models 33 Social-psychological model 33 Psycholinguistic model 35 Minority Language Children i n French Immersion . . . 43 III METHOD Design 56 Subjects 57 Procedure . . . . . 63 Description of English language tests used . . . 63 Comprehension tests 63 Production tests 64 Metalinguistic tasks 65 IV RESULTS Comprehension tests 78 Production tests 82 Metalinguistic tasks 83 V DISCUSSION 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY 112 APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW FOR MINORITY LANGUAGE CHILDREN 118 APPENDIX B - QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS 119 APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS 120 APPENDIX D - RESULTS OF LANGUAGE SAMPLE ANALYSES . .124 V LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Number of s u b j e c t s and s c h o o l s from which they were s e l e c t e d 61 2. D e s c r i p t i v e data on s u b j e c t s 62 3. Test items f o r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 1a — Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n ( P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey, 1984) 67 4. Test items f o r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 1b — Word Order C o n d i t i o n ( P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey, 1984). 68 5 . Test items f o r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 2 — Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task (Rosner & Simon, 1971) 76 6. Mean scores and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the E n g l i s h comprehension t e s t s 81 7. Mean scores and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the t e s t of E n g l i s h o r a l language ( t o t a l = 9 7 ) . 84 8. Responses to Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n ( t o t a l = 12) ( c a t e g o r i e s are mutually e x c l u s i v e so that f o r each s u b j e c t there i s a t o t a l of 12 responses across c a t e g o r i e s ) . . . . 85 9. Mean number of c o r r e c t responses ( t o t a l = 12) f o r each group f o r the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n . 86 10. Responses to Word Order C o n d i t i o n ( t o t a l = 12) ( c a t e g o r i e s are mutually e x c l u s i v e , so that f o r each s u b j e c t there i s a t o t a l of 12 responses a c r o s s c a t e g o r i e s ) 88 11. Mean number of c o r r e c t responses ( t o t a l = 12) f o r each group f o r the Word Order C o n d i t i o n . 89 12. Mean number of c o r r e c t responses f o r the Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task ( t o t a l = 6, f o r each p a r t ) , shown as raw scores and percentages (%). . . 92 v i Acknowledgement I wish to express s i n c e r e thanks to my s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. Caro l y n Johnson, f o r the support and guidance r e c e i v e d d u r i n g a l l phases of t h i s r e s e a r c h . I a l s o wish to thank E l i z a b e t h Duncan f o r her h e l p f u l s uggestions and comments. Thanks are a l s o due to Dr. John G i l b e r t , who k i n d l y p r o v i d e d me with the use of a word pr o c e s s o r . I think Barry Wong f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l c o n s u l t a t i o n s . I am g r a t e f u l f o r the co o p e r a t i o n r e c e i v e d from p r i n c i p a l s , t e a c h e r s , p a r e n t s , and c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. F i n a l l y , I thank my f a m i l y f o r t h e i r moral (and f i n a n c i a l ! ) support, and encouragement throughout my e d u c a t i o n . T h i s r e s e a r c h was p a r t i a l l y funded by a U.B.C. S.S.H.R.C. Humanities and S o c i a l S c i e n c e s Grant to Ca r o l y n Johnson. I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h i s support. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Within the l a s t decade Immersion education i n Canada has become i n c r e a s i n g l y popular. Immersion education has spread from French Immersion i n Montreal to other languages and to other p l a c e s i n Canada. An estimated 115,000 c h i l d r e n are c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n these Canadian Immersion programs (Stern, 1984b). W i t h i n B.C. alone, the number of school d i s t r i c t s o f f e r i n g French Immersion has grown from three i n 1973 to eighteen i n 1980 (Shapson & Dey, 1982). With t h i s r a p i d spread of French Immersion ac r o s s Canada, there has been an i n c r e a s i n g need fo r r e s e a r c h to l e g i t i m i z e the e d u c a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these programs. And indeed, s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out on these programs. The r e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s i n d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g s and with d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s i n Canada i n d i c a t e that French Immersion i n Canada i s s u c c e s s f u l f o r m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ( i . e . c h i l d r e n whose f i r s t language i s the m a j o r i t y language of the community, here E n g l i s h ) . These c h i l d r e n become p r o f i c i e n t i n French, and although they i n i t i a l l y l a g behind t h e i r E n g l i s h monolingual peers i n c e r t a i n aspects of E n g l i s h language s k i l l s , they e v e n t u a l l y c a t c h up and outperform them. The French Immersion c h i l d r e n a l s o enjoy the 2 advantages of i n c r e a s e d c o g n i t i v e and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s , which may enable them to achieve g r e a t e r academic success. Could i t be the case that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n 1 are j u s t as s u c c e s s f u l , i f not more s u c c e s s f u l , i n French Immersion than monolingual E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n ? S t u d i e s of c h i l d r e n with t r i l i n g u a l backgrounds i n French Immersion programs have been sparse and, g e n e r a l l y , i n c o n c l u s i v e . The m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s l o o k i n g at m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n -as l e a r n e r s of more than one language have focused on these c h i l d r e n ' s performance in a l l E n g l i s h programs. R e s u l t s of these studies.show that these c h i l d r e n o f t e n do p o o r l y i n E n g l i s h and a l s o begin to l o s e competency i n t h e i r f i r s t language. While some r e s e a r c h e r s have a t t r i b u t e d these c h i l d r e n ' s f a i l u r e to s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , others have a t t r i b u t e d i t to l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s . Researchers of the former view f e e l that p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards m a i n t a i n i n g the f i r s t language and c u l t u r e are necessary to a c h i e v e competence i n the f i r s t and second languages. While t h i s i s the case f o r E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, i t i s o f t e n not the case f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs. E n g l i s h i s o f t e n seen as being the more p r e s t i g i o u s language; t h e r e f o r e the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d tends to devalue h i s own c u l t u r e and language, which i n turn r e s u l t s i n a lowering of h i s f i r s t language s k i l l s . Because the p r e s t i g i o u s language may pose a t h r e a t to the m i n o r i t y c h i l d ' s c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y , i n a d d i t i o n to impeding the development of c h i l d r e n whose f i r s t language or home language i s d i f f e r e n t from the language of the wider community, here other than E n g l i s h . 3 the f i r s t language, the development of the second language may a l s o be impeded. Other r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e that the reason a number of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n f a i l when p l a c e d i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program i s that t h e i r f i r s t language i s not w e l l developed p r i o r to e n t e r i n g the program. The E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, on the other hand, do have w e l l developed f i r s t language s k i l l s p r i o r to e n t e r i n g the language program, and t h e r e f o r e they succeed i n adding a second language to t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c r e p e r t o i r e . However, r e s e a r c h has shown that E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n who have weak f i r s t language s k i l l s ( i . e . are language-impaired) do not s u f f e r from f u r t h e r weakening of t h e i r E n g l i s h s k i l l s when p l a c e d i n French Immersion. I t has been suggested that they are a b l e to succeed i n French Immersion because t h e i r f i r s t language i s the language of the m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e and i s t h e r e f o r e h i g h l y v a l u e d . I t appears, then, that s o c i a l - p y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , r a t h e r than l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s , are the major f a c t o r s determining both m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s success i n e d u c a t i o n a l programs where t h e i r f i r s t language i s not the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n . There i s some r e s e a r c h that suggests l e a r n i n g a second language may f a c i l i t a t e the l e a r n i n g of of a d d i t i o n a l languages. If t h i s i s the case, and i f i t i s the case that s o c i a l -p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s are the primary p r e d i c t o r s f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s success i n b i l i n g u a l programs then we would s t a t e the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses r e g a r d i n g the performance of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion. These 4 hypotheses w i l l be addressed in t h i s t h e s i s : 1) If the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t language and c u l t u r e are p o s i t i v e l y v a l u e d and maintained, as are the m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s , then these c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s w i l l be at l e a s t as good as, and maybe even b e t t e r than those of the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n . 2) These m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s s k i l l s i n these areas w i l l be at l e a s t as good as those of s i m i l a r m i n o r i t y " language c h i l d r e n i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h language school program. A study i n v e s t i g a t i n g these hypotheses i s of p r a c t i c a l r e l e v a n c e , e s p e c i a l l y i n Vancouver, s i n c e there i s a s i z e a b l e m i n o r i t y language group r e p r e s e n t e d here. With the spread of French Immersion more of these f a m i l i e s are d e c i d i n g to e n r o l l t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n such programs, and t h e r e f o r e want to know i f they are s u i t a b l e f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I t i s important to assess these c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s , because these c h i l d r e n must u l t i m a t e l y f u n c t i o n i n the m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e and language (here, E n g l i s h ) . I t i s a l s o of p r a c t i c a l r e l e v a n c e to t e s t the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion because such s k i l l s are c l o s e l y t i e d to language s k i l l s , e s p e c i a l l y the l a t e r d e v e l o p i n g aspects of language which are a s s o c i a t e d with r e a d i n g . I f m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s are enhanced as a r e s u l t of b i l i n g u a l i s m , as they are p u r p o r t e d to be, then the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d may be a b l e to reach a higher l e v e l of academic achievement than he would had he or she not been in French Immersion. 5 In Chapter I I , I w i l l review the l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t to the above hypotheses. In Chapter I I I , I w i l l d e s c r i b e the study. The r e s u l t s w i l l be presented in Chapter IV, and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter V. 6 CHAPTER II FRENCH IMMERSION AND RELATED STUDIES Immersion in Canada; D e f i n i t i o n and Description As part of the necessary background for t h i s present study, a d e f i n i t i o n of Immersion education, (more s p e c i f i c a l l y of French Immersion), w i l l be provided in the f i r s t section of this chapter. A description of the p r i n c i p a l types of Immersion (early, delayed, and late) w i l l also be included. Immersion education refers to a type of b i l i n g u a l education wherein a second language i s used, along with the children's native language, for curriculum i n s t r u c t i o n (Genesee, 1983). The French Immersion programs in Canada thus use French as the primary medium of instruction, with English also being included in the program. The French Immersion programs have as t h e i r goals to assure an adequate development of the children's academic and English language s k i l l s and to assure that the children a t t a i n a working knowledge of French so that they w i l l become as functionally b i l i n g u a l as possible by the end of the program (Genesee, 1983). French Immersion programs in Canada are characterized and thus defined by the following educational conditions. One such condition i s that these programs are intended for c h i l d r e n who 7 speak the m a j o r i t y language ( i . e . E n g l i s h ) . The c h i l d r e n are pe r m i t t e d to use E n g l i s h i n the classroom, at l e a s t during the beginning of the program, and are p e r m i t t e d t o use E n g l i s h among themselves at a l l stages of the program. Although the teachers only speak the t a r g e t language i n c l a s s ( i . e . French), they understand e v e r y t h i n g the c h i l d r e n say to them i n E n g l i s h as they are t y p i c a l l y b i l i n g u a l ( E n g l i s h - F r e n c h ) . In a d d i t i o n , because French Immersion programs are o f t e n l o c a t e d w i t h i n s c h o o l s a l s o o f f e r i n g the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c u r r i c u l u m , the c h i l d r e n c o n t i n u e to use E n g l i s h out of c l a s s . The f a c t that the use of E n g l i s h i s pe r m i t t e d i n the e a r l y stages of the program and the f a c t t h a t i t i s the primary medium of i n s t r u c t i o n at the l a t e r stages of the program, i s evidence of the acceptance of the c h i l d r e n ' s mother language and c u l t u r e by the e d u c a t o r s . Because the E n g l i s h language and c u l t u r e are val u e d as such, l e a r n i n g a second language does not pose a t h r e a t to the E n g l i s h students' sense of p e r s o n a l or c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y , nor to the maintenance of t h e i r mother tongue (Swain, 1981b). Another e d u c a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of the French Immersion programs concerns the way i n which French i s taught. The second language ( i . e . French) i s a c q u i r e d i n circumstances much the same as those i n which the c h i l d a c q u i r e s h i s f i r s t language ( i . e . E n g l i s h ) . For example, although the t e a c h e r s encourage the use of French, they do not c o r r e c t the c h i l d r e n ' s French grammatical or s t r u c t u r a l e r r o r s . The focus i s on the message, not the form. Formal i n s t r u c t i o n of French ( i . e . grammar) 8 occurs only w i t h i n the French language a r t s c l a s s . Furthermore, the t e a c h e r ' s language i s s i m p l i f i e d and spoken i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s , so that the meaning i s obvious even though the c h i l d does not understand every word. T h i s resembles the way a d u l t s speak to young c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r f i r s t language (Krashen, 1984). A l s o s i m i l a r to f i r s t language l e a r n i n g i s the f a c t t h at d u r i n g the i n i t i a l phase of the program, the t e a c h e r s emphasize the development of comprehension s k i l l s , as opposed to p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s (Swain, 1981). A f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of the French Immersion programs concerns the context i n which French and E n g l i s h are used i n the c l a s s . Once E n g l i s h i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the program, the l e a r n i n g of the two languages takes p l a c e i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s w i t h i n the program: the same c u r r i c u l a r m a t e r i a l i s never taught c o n c u r r e n t l y using both languages, and the E n g l i s h and French components of the program are u s u a l l y taught by two d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s i n two d i f f e r e n t classrooms. Indeed, i t has been shown t h a t separate l i n g u i s t i c c o ntents are important f o r o p t i m a l c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c development f o r the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d (Vygotsky, c i t e d i n Cummins, 1976; McLaughlin, 1984). Another important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the French Immersion programs i s t h e i r v o l u n t a r y nature. Because these programs are o p t i o n a l , the p a r t i c i p a n t s are g e n e r a l l y motivated to l e a r n French. Such p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g French c o n t r i b u t e t o the success of these programs (Swain, 1981b). Although these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are common to a l l French Immersion programs, a l t e r n a t e forms of programs do e x i s t . Since 9 1965, a l t e r n a t e forms of French Immersion have been developed, each d i f f e r i n g in the grade l e v e l at which French i s i n t r o d u c e d as the main medium of i n s t r u c t i o n . P r e s e n t l y i n Canada three major types of Immersion programs e x i s t : 1) e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion, 2) delayed French Immersion, and 3) l a t e French Immersion. In e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion a l l content i n s t r u c t i o n i s presented in French, beginning i n k i n d e r g a r t e n or grade one. Depending on the program, E n g l i s h language a r t s i s i n t r o d u c e d i n grades two, thr e e , or f o u r . In the Vancouver School system, i t i s i n t r o d u c e d i n the t h i r d grade. L a t e r , the use of E n g l i s h i s expanded to i n c l u d e other s u b j e c t s u n t i l , at around grade e i g h t (again, the a c t u a l grade depends on the program), French i s the language of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r 60% of the time and E n g l i s h f o r 40% of the time (Genesee, 1978). In delayed French Immersion the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n i s . i n i t i a l l y E n g l i s h . French i s i n t r o d u c e d i n the mid elementary grades, at which time a l l i n s t r u c t i o n , except E n g l i s h language a r t s , i s given i n French f o r one to two y e a r s . In the higher grades the students take e n r i c h e d French language a r t s courses and a few r e g u l a r s u b j e c t s are taught i n French (Genesee, 1983). Late French Immersion i n t r o d u c e s French as the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n at the end of elementary s c h o o l (grade seven or e i g h t ) . The l a t e French Immersion i s s i m i l a r to the delayed French Immersion program i n that i t a l s o presents a l l c u r r i c u l u m i n s t r u c t i o n i n French f o r one to two years and t h e r e a f t e r o f f e r s advanced French language a r t s courses as w e l l as o p t i o n a l 10 nonlanguage c o u r s e s that are taught i n French. These l a t e Immersion programs may be preceded by core French language i n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g the elementary grades ( i . e . programs which have approximately 20% of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l time i n French) (Genesee, 1983). The e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program was chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s study because i t i s p o t e n t i a l l y the most d e t r i m e n t a l t o m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s , s i n c e these c h i l d r e n ' s exposure to E n g l i s h before e n t e r i n g the program i s much l e s s than that of the m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . T h i s e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program was a l s o chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n because i t i s the most e x t e n s i v e l y and best r e s e a r c h e d Immersion program of a l l the three types of French Immersion. R e s u l t s of the e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion programs In t h i s s e c t i o n the r e s u l t s of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n order to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s of t h i s present i n v e s t i g a t i o n of e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion i n Vancouver, B.C. 1 1 The S t . Lambert experiment French Immersion programs were f i r s t researched i n 1965 i n St. Lambert, a community near Montreal. T h i s p r o j e c t , conducted by Lambert & Tucker (1972), r e s u l t e d from a p a r e n t a l concern r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t s of such a program on t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t language development, academic achievement, and emotional w e l l - b e i n g . Not only was t h i s study one of the f i r s t s t u d i e s to e v a l u a t e French Immersion, i t was a l s o one of the most c a r e f u l l y planned and e v a l u a t e d Immersion p r o j e c t s . I t has t h e r e f o r e served as the prototype f o r the Canadian French Immersion programs (Lapkin & Swain, 1984), and w i l l thus be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l . The Lambert & Tucker (1972) experiment was a l o n g i t u d i n a l study which f o l l o w e d the academic and l i n g u i s t i c performance of twenty-two c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n an e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program, from grades one to f o u r . The s u b j e c t s c o m p r i s i n g the experimental group were twenty-two c h i l d r e n from E n g l i s h speaking homes who had been e n r o l l e d i n a French Immersion program s i n c e k i n d e r g a r t e n . T h e i r teacher spoke only French i n k i n d e r g a r t e n and i n grade one. T h e r e a f t e r , 60% of the i n s t r u c t i o n was conducted i n French and 40% i n E n g l i s h . The language of the school as a whole was E n g l i s h so that the c h i l d r e n were able to speak E n g l i s h to peers o u t s i d e of c l a s s . French and E n g l i s h were taught by two d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s , both n a t i v e speakers of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e languages. The E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were twenty-two E n g l i s h monolinguals from the same s c h o o l as the experimental c h i l d r e n . The French c o n t r o l 1 2 s u b j e c t s were twenty-two French monolinguals a t t e n d i n g a French C a t h o l i c school i n the suburb of St. Lambert. Both c o n t r o l groups were engaged in s p e c i a l c u r r i c u l u m s . T h i s was to a v o i d the "Hawthorne E f f e c t " whereby s u b j e c t s perform b e t t e r simply because they are t r e a t e d s p e c i a l l y . A l l c h i l d r e n were from s i m i l a r socioeconomic and home backgrounds (based on home in t e r v i e w s ) and were of s i m i l a r I.Q., as measured by the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s Test of General I n t e l l i g e n c e . A l l c h i l d r e n were e v a l u a t e d on a s e r i e s of t e s t s which were ad m i n i s t e r e d a n n u a l l y . The t e s t s i n c l u d e d both v e r b a l and nonverbal i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , E n g l i s h and French achievement t e s t s , and t e s t s of l i s t e n i n g comprehension and pro d u c t i o n i n E n g l i s h and French. Production was assessed by having the c h i l d r e n r e t e l l a s t o r y and a l s o c o n s t r u c t a s t o r y from sequenced p i c t u r e s . At the end of grade one, i n 1968, the r e s u l t s showed that the Immersion c h i l d r e n performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s i n t h e i r l i s t e n i n g comprehension, in t h e i r o v e r a l l e x p r e s s i o n , grammar, and e n u n c i a t i o n . For example, d u r i n g the s t o r y r e t e l l i n g and c r e a t i n g , r e l a t i v e to the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , the experimental c h i l d r e n ' s speech was b e t t e r e n unciated and c o n s i s t e d of a " r i c h e r d e s c r i p t i v e r e p e r t o i r e of E n g l i s h terms" (Lambert & Tucker, 1972: 56). However, the experimental c h i l d r e n scored lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t , and on the t e s t s of E n g l i s h r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g , and punctuation a b i l i t i e s . Although the Immersion students i n i t i a l l y lagged behind the 1 3 E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s i n t h e i r E n g l i s h vocabulary scores and E n g l i s h l i t e r a c y s k i l l s , t h e i r vocabulary scores were e q u i v a l e n t w i t h i n a year of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of E n g l i s h language a r t s ( i . e . at the end of grade two). By the end of grade three t h e i r reading and s p e l l i n g a b i l i t i e s i n E n g l i s h were a l s o e q u i v a l e n t to the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , but they were s t i l l below the c o n t r o l s on p u n c t u a t i o n . However, by the end of grade fo u r , the Immersion students scored as w e l l as the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on a l l of the E n g l i s h t e s t s of l i t e r a c y s k i l l s . Apparently, t h i s appears to be the case even i f E n g l i s h i s not introduced i n t o the c u r r i c u l u m u n t i l grade t h r e e , or even grade four (Swain, 1981b). Thus, i t appears that once l i t e r a c y s k i l l s are w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n one language, the Immersion c h i l d r e n t r a n s f e r these s k i l l s r e a d i l y and r a p i d l y to the other language. Regarding the Immersion students' French language a b i l i t i e s , r e s u l t s at the end of grade one i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r l i s t e n i n g comprehension of French was s i m i l a r to that of the French c o n t r o l s . T h e i r o r a l e x p r e s s i o n , however, was not n a t i v e - l i k e . Although the Immersion c h i l d r e n showed l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n conveying t h e i r ideas i n French, they maintained an E n g l i s h accent and produced grammatical e r r o r s even at grade f o u r . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with other s t u d i e s : Adiv ( c i t e d i n Genesee, 1983) found that the Immersion students d i s p l a y e d incomplete mastery of French l i n g u i s t i c forms such as pronouns, a r t i c l e s , a d j e c t i v e s , and gender, at the end of grade t h r e e . Harley & Swain (1977) found that although t h e i r gr.ade f i v e French Immersion students used the same p r o p o r t i o n of verb 1 4 tokens as t h e i r French c o n t r o l s , they d i d not use as many p h o n o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t verb forms, suggesting that they had a more s i m p l i f i e d verb system. For example, i n s t e a d of u s i n g the c o n d i t i o n a l verb tense (which i s comprised of the simple f u t u r e p l u s the imperfect form, e.g. je p r e n d r a i s ) , the Immersion c h i l d r e n o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d forms from the imperfect, the simple f u t u r e , or the use of the p e r i p h r a s t i c f u t u r e , e.g. je  p r e n d r a i , o r je v a i s p r e n d r e ) . However, t h i s c o u l d have been due to the Immersion students' lac k of i n t e r a c t i o n with n a t i v e French speaking peers r e s u l t i n g i n a l a c k of o p p o r t u n i t y to use the t a r g e t language (Swain, 1981b). In summary then, the S t . Lambert experiment p r o v i d e d evidence t h a t an e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program enabled students from a m a j o r i t y language group to be taught i n a second language w i t h no d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s on the f i r s t language development or on the l e a r n i n g of academic coursework. Some enhancement of c e r t a i n f i r s t language s k i l l s ( i n both comprehension and production) was noted a f t e r only one year of French Immersion. In a d d i t i o n , these Immersion students were abl e to develop a competence i n r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , speaking, and understanding of French. A c c o r d i n g to Lambert & Tucker (1972: 152), these Immersion students had " a c q u i r e d a thorough mastery of the b a s i c elements of French phonology, morphology, and syntax." 1 5 S t u d i e s subsequent to the S t . Lambert experiment The encouraging r e s e a r c h r e p o r t of the S t . Lambert experiment i n f l u e n c e d the spread of Immersion to other areas i n North America. Lambert & Tucker (1972) thus set the p a t t e r n f o r a p e r i o d of subsequent r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out to ev a l u a t e the e d u c a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of other French Immersion programs. These r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s have been c a r r i e d out with d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s and i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t areas of Canada. They w i l l be d i s c u s s e d in t h i s s e c t i o n . The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by other r e s e a r c h e r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion programs has been c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Tucker & Lambert (1972). Thus, e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion programs have proven to be s u c c e s s f u l f o r u n i l i n g u a l E n g l i s h speaking c h i l d r e n , not only in Montreal, but a l s o i n p l a c e s such as Ottawa (Edwards & C a s s e r l y , 1971-72; 1972-73), Toronto (Swain, 1979), and F r e d e r i c k t o n (Gray & Cameron, 1980). The e a r l y t o t a l Fench Immersion progams have a l s o been e v a l u a t e d i n the West. Researchers suggested that although r e s e a r c h i n the East showed the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Immersion e d u c a t i o n , s e v e r a l f a c t o r s s p e c i f i c to the West c o u l d i n f l u e n c e the outcomes of such programs. Such f a c t o r s i n c l u d e : the l a c k of exposure to French i n the community, a shortage of French t e a c h e r s , and a d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e s stemming from the West's f e e l i n g of i s o l a t i o n from f e d e r a l p o l i t i c s (Shapson & Kaufman, 1978). However, r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s i n the West have been c o n s i s t e n t with those i n the E a s t . Thus, French Immersion has a l s o proven to be s u c c e s s f u l i n Edmonton, A l b e r t a 16 (Carey & Cummins, 1983), in Coquitlam, B.C. (Shapson & Dey, 1982; Shapson & Kaufman, 1978), and in Richmond, B.C. (Roy, 1981). These results suggest that French Immersion i s successful for English speaking children regardless of the demographic features s p e c i f i c to each d i f f e r e n t geographical locati o n . Not only have these studies since the St. Lambert experiment proven the effectiveness of French Immersion in di f f e r e n t settings, but also they have shown that a broad range of student types can benefit from French Immersion. For example, in his review of the l i t e r a t u r e of French Immersion programs in Canada and the United States, Genesee (1976, 1983) c i t e s studies which indicate that students of below average i n t e l l i g e n c e , as measured by the Canadian Lorge-Thorndike Test of i n t e l l i g e n c e , are able to benefit from French Immersion as much as the average and above average students, in terms of acquiring both French and English l i s t e n i n g and speaking s k i l l s . Other studies c i t e d by Genesee (1976) have shown that English children of working class families benefit from French Immersion much in the same way upper-middle class children do. The results of these studies suggest that the English language s k i l l s of the working class children in Immersion are comparable to those of the working class students in the English program. Furthermore, the working class students perform as well as the middle class students on the French language tests. Even children with language-learning d i s a b i l i t i e s have been shown to benefit from early t o t a l Fench Immersion (Bruck, 1978; 1 7 1982). T h e i r progress in E n g l i s h has been shown not to be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y r e t a r d e d when compared to those of a comparable group of language-impaired c h i l d r e n educated i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program. In a d d i t i o n , Bruck has shown that they are able to cope with i n s t r u c t i o n i n French and to a c q u i r e p r o f i c i e n c y i n French (although not to the same extent as E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n with normal language a b i l i t i e s ) . S t u d i e s s i n c e the S t . Lambert experiment have not only provided evidence that French Immersion i s s u i t a b l e f o r a broad range of student types, but they have a l s o expanded our knowledge regarding the Immersion s t u d e n t s ' E n g l i s h communication s k i l l s . For example, Genesee, Tucker & Lambert (1975) found that grade one and two Immersion students were more s e n s i t i v e to the communication needs of t h e i r l i s t e n e r s than were c h i l d r e n of comparable age, S.E.S., and I.Q., but who were educated i n t h e i r n a t i v e language. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n was based on r e s u l t s of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l v e r b a l communication task, i n which the c h i l d r e n were asked to e x p l a i n how t o p l a y a game to two d i f f e r e n t l i s t e n e r s , one b l i n d f o l d e d and the other not b l i n d f o l d e d . The Immersion students mentioned more about the r u l e s of the game to the b l i n d f o l d e d than t o the s i g h t e d l i s t e n e r than the c o n t r o l s d i d . The a u t h o r s t h e r e f o r e p o s t u l a t e d that the Immersion experience may have made the c h i l d r e n more aware of p o s s i b l e problems i n communicating and they were t h e r e f o r e b e t t e r a b l e to "take the r o l e of others e x p e r i e n c i n g communicational d i f f i c u l t i e s , to p e r c e i v e t h e i r needs, and consequently, to respond a p p r o p r i a t e l y to these 18 n e e d s " ( G e n e s e e , e t a l . 1 9 7 5 : 1 0 1 3 ) . G r a y & C a m e r o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) a l s o e x t e n d e d p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s ' E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e s k i l l s . T h e y e x a m i n e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n ' s p l u r a l a n d p a s t t e n s e ' m o r p h o l o g i c a l r u l e s o v e r a p e r i o d o f t h r e e y e a r s . T h e c h i l d r e n , a g e s s e v e n t o t e n y e a r s , w e r e t e s t e d u s i n g a n e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k d e s i g n e d b y B e r k o ( 1 9 6 8 ) . T h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s a n d t h e m o n o l i n g u a l E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n , a g a i n s h o w i n g t h a t F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n d o e s n o t h a v e d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t . U s i n g d i f f e r e n t t e s t s o f E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e a b i l i t e s , s t i l l o t h e r s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d t h a t t h e F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s o u t p e r f o r m t h e i r E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s o n o t h e r a s p e c t s o f E n g l i s h s k i l l s b e s i d e s l i s t e n i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d e x p r e s s i v e a b i l i t i e s , w h i c h w a s s h o w n b y L a m b e r t & T u c k e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , E d w a r d s & C a s s e r l y ( 1 9 7 3 ) n o t e d t h a t i n t e n s i v e e x p o s u r e t o F r e n c h i n a F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n p r o g r a m f a c i l i t a t e d t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f s o m e E n g l i s h p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . T h e g r a d e t h r e e F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s t h e y s t u d i e d s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s o n t h e g r a m m a t i c a l c l o s u r e s u b t e s t o f t h e I l l i n o i s T e s t o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , i n 1 9 7 5 , T r e m a i n e f o u n d t h a t E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n p e r f o r m e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t h a n t h e E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n t h e r e g u l a r E n g l i s h p r o g r a m o n a t e s t o f E n g l i s h s y n t a x . T r e m a i n e r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d f i v e b o y s a n d f i v e g i r l s f r o m e a c h o f t h e g r a d e s o n e , t w o a n d t h r e e i n F r e n c h 1 9 Immersion and i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program. C h i l d r e n who were exposed to languages other than E n g l i s h were excluded. The c h i l d r e n were adm i n i s t e r e d a t r a n s l a t i o n of K e s s l e r ' s t e s t of s y n t a c t i c comprehension., o r i g i n a l l y designed to t e s t E n g l i s h and I t a l i a n language a b i l i t i e s . In t h i s experiment, the t e s t was designed to e v a l u a t e the comprehension of E n g l i s h and French i n f l e c t i o n s and s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s . R e s u l t s showed that a l l the Immersion c h i d r e n scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on the E n g l i s h s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s s u b t e s t . Because Tremaine c o n t r o l l e d f o r v a r i a b l e s such as age and c o g n i t i v e l e v e l , he concluded that the s u p e r i o r performance of the b i l i n g u a l s was due only to the e f f e c t s of the i n t e n s i v e exposure to the second language. In the higher grades of French Immersion, i t has been found t h a t s t i l l other areas of E n g l i s h language development are enhanced. Swain (1981b), f o r example, found that by the end of grade f i v e , the French Immersion students i n her study outperformed the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on vocabulary knowledge and on r e a d i n g comprehension. Wightman (1979) even goes so f a r as to suggest that some m i l d speech problems and poor speech h a b i t s may be improved by e a r l y French Immersion due to the a d d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e i n sound d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . 20 E f f e c t s of E a r l y B i l i n q u a l i s m on M e t a l i n g u i s t i c and General C o g n i t i v e Development The r e s u l t s of the aforementioned s t u d i e s show that e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion students are a b l e to a c h ieve o r a l / a u r a l competence i n French, without any negative e f f e c t s to t h e i r E n g l i s h development or to t h e i r c o g n i t i v e development and t h a t , in f a c t , the Immersion students tend to perform b e t t e r than t h e i r monolingual c o u n t e r p a r t s on c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of E n g l i s h s k i l l s , a f t e r only one year of French Immersion. These r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t with r e s u l t s from s e v e r a l s t u d i e s suggesting that there may be c o g n i t i v e advantages a s s o c i a t e d with l e a r n i n g two languages. These s t u d i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . Cummins (1976) and Lambert (1977) review s e v e r a l of the s t u d i e s which i n d i c a t e that c o g n i t i v e advantages r e s u l t from e a r l y b i l i n g u a l i s m . These s t u d i e s show that b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , r e l a t i v e to monolingual c o n t r o l s , d i s p l a y d e f i n i t e advantages on tasks measuring concrete o p e r a t i o n a l t h i n k i n g , d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g (or c r e a t i v i t y ) , s p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s , and g e n e r a l reasoning. For example, Bain (1975) found that F r e n c h - E n g l i s h balanced b i l i n g u a l s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than E n g l i s h monolinguals on a problem s o l v i n g t a s k . In h i s study, there were ten b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n at the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e develoment and ten b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n at the c o n c r e t e o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l . These c h i l d r e n were matched to u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n on o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l , S.E.S., I.Q., and s c h o o l grades. The experimental task i n v o l v e d d i s c o v e r i n g a r u l e f o r f i n d i n g the sum of a s e r i e s of numbers. The r e s u l t s showed that at both 2 1 c o g n i t i v e l e v e l s , the b i l i n g u a l s took l e s s time to d i s c o v e r the r u l e s . Bain (1975: 17) b e l i e v e s there i s strong evidence that " i n g e n e r a l the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d tends to have a g r e a t e r c o g n i t i v e p l a s t i c i t y than a u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d . " Another p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of b i l i n g u a l i s m that has been f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s an i n c r e a s e i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. M e t a l i n g u s i t i c awareness can be d e f i n e d as the a b i l i t y to r e f l e c t upon and manipulate the s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of spoken language. I t a l s o i n c l u d e s the a b i l i t y to focus one's a t t e n t i o n upon the p r o p e r t i e s of language used to convey content r a t h e r than the content i t s e l f ( P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey, 1984). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness has been r e c o g n i z e d as p l a y i n g an important r o l e in a c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e development ( J a r v e l l a & L e v e l t , 1978). There i s by now c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence that l i t e r a c y s k i l l s are i n t e r r e l a t e d with m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . S t u d i e s suggest that a heightened l e v e l of l i n g u i s t i c awareness f a c i l i t a t e s r e a d i n g . However, m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s a l s o r e q u i r e some t r a i n i n g such as gi v e n by formal reading i n s t r u c t i o n (Blachman, 1984; J a r v e l l a & L e v e l t , 1978). Tunmer & M y h i l l (1984) p o s t u l a t e that i t i s m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness which mediates the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m on academic achievement. They s t a t e t h a t f l u e n t b i l i n g u a l i s m r e s u l t s i n i n c r e a s e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s which f a c i l i t a t e r e a d i n g a c q u i s i t i o n and which i n tu r n l e a d to a higher l e v e l of academic achievement. T h i s may i n p a r t e x p l a i n why an enhancement of f i r s t language s k i l l s has been noted i n 22 b i l i n g u a l s . Leopold (1949) was one of the f i r s t r e s e a r c h e r s to note i n c r e a s e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness as a r e s u l t of b i l i n g u a l i s m . He n o t i c e d that h i s daughter, H i l d e g a r d , who was r a i s e d b i l i n g u a l l y , became aware of the a r b i t r a r y nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p h o n o l o g i c a l r e a l i z a t i o n of a word and i t s meaning at a very young age. He suggested t h a t the simultaneous a c q u i s i t i o n of two languages i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d might l e a d to a f a s t e r s e p a r a t i o n of sound and meaning. He b e l i e v e d that t h i s a b i l i t y to separate the name from i t s r e f e r e n t would enable the c h i l d to a t t e n d to the e s s e n t i a l meaning expressed r a t h e r than to the word used to express i t . Ac c o r d i n g to Vygotsky (1962), t h i s process must occur before one can use language e f f e c t i v e l y as a t o o l of t h i n k i n g . Vygotsky a l s o i n f l u e n c e d experimental work i n t h i s a r e a . His i n t e r e s t i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i o n and language l e d him to study m e t a l i n g u i s t i c and m e t a c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , a b i l i t i e s he regarded as e s s e n t i a l to mature l i n g u i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g (Tunmer & M y h i l l , 1984). He b e l i e v e d that l e a r n i n g a f o r e i g n language c o u l d f a c i l i t a t e mastering the higher forms of one's n a t i v e language because the c h i l d would then begin to see h i s language as one p a r t i c u l a r system among many and to view c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c phenomena of the f i r s t language, which i n turn would l e a d to awareness of l i n g u i s t i c o p e r a t i o n s . L a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of Leopold's o b s e r v a t i o n s and Vygotsky's t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions, subsequent r e s e a r c h 23 i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i l i n g u a l i s m and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Feldman & Shen (1971), f o r example, compared the performance of 5-year-old S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l s and E n g l i s h monlinguals on three types of naming t a s k s : 1) the use of common names (e.g. c a l l a cup "cup"), 2) the s w i t c h i n g of common names (e.g. c a l l a cup " p l a t e " ) , and 3) the l e a r n i n g of nonsense names (e.g. c a l l a cup /wAg/). The c h i l d r e n were a l s o r e q u i r e d to use these three kinds of l a b e l s from the naming task i n simple r e l a t i o n a l sentences, such as "The cup i s on the p l a t e . " While the b i l i n g u a l s ' performance was equal t o the monolinguals' on t h e i r knowledge of common names and t h e i r a b i l i t y to l e a r n nonsense names, they were s u p e r i o r to the monolinguals i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to switch names and use these names in r e l a t i o n a l statements. These r e s u l t s show that b i l i n g u a l i s m may f a c i l i t a t e the a c q u i s i t i o n of the a b i l i t y to use l a b e l s i n sentences. They a l s o show that b i l i n g u a l i s m may not enhance a l l areas of f i r s t language development but only those r e q u i r i n g f l e x i b i l i t y of language and the s e p a r a t i o n of the r e f e r e n t from i t s l a b e l . Oren (1981) conducted a s i m i l a r experiment, but with English-Hebrew b i l i n g u a l s (mean age of f i v e y e a r s ) . L i k e Feldman & Shen (1971), Oren found that the b i l i n g u a l s ' performance on the naming and r e l a b e l l i n g t e s t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than that of the monolingual E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n . Furthermore, b i l i n g u a l s who had le a r n e d the two languages a t a very e a r l y age performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than those b i l i n g u a l s who had l e a r n e d the second language a f t e r 24 t h e i r f i r s t language was a l r e a d y w e l l developed. Ben-Zeev (1977b) a l s o examined the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s of English-Hebrew b i l i n g u a l s , but using a d i f f e r e n t m e t a l i n g u i s t i c task. She admi n i s t e r e d a symbol s u b s t i t u t i o n task to matched b i l i n g u a l s and monolinguals, aged f i v e to e i g h t y e a r s . T h i s task r e q u i r e d the c h i l d r e n to s u b s t i t u t e one meaningful word f o r another w i t h i n a given sentence frame, which r e s u l t e d i n a v i o l a t i o n of one of the language's s e l e c t i o n a l r u l e s (e.g. S u b s t i t u t e " s p a g h e t t i " f o r " I " i n the sentence "I am c o l d " ) . The b i l i n g u a l s ' performance was s u p e r i o r to that of the monolinguals on t h i s task ( i . e . they were more ready to accept and r e o r g a n i z e meaningless speech s t i m u l i ) . Ben-Zeev a l s o noted that when these same c h i l d r e n were asked to t e l l a s t o r y , the b i l i n g u a l s more o f t e n i n c l u d e d d e t a i l s necessary to i n t e g r a t e the s t o r y sequence than the monolinguals. T h i s a b i l i t y again r e l a t e s to the b i l i n g u a l s ' s u p e r i o r a n a l y t i c s t r a t e g y . Ben-Zeev (1977a) noted the same r e s u l t s u s i n g these same t a s k s , but with S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l s . I a n c o - W o r r a l l (1972) a l s o demonstrated the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m on m e t a l i n g u i s t i c development when she i n v e s t i g a t e d p r e s c h o o l and grade two and three A f r i c a n - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l s and monolinguals. In order to be c o n s i d e r e d b i l i n g u a l by the experimenter, the c h i l d r e n had to show* competence i n the two languages, as measured by a t e s t which tapped b a s i c s k i l l s i n p r o d u c t i o n and comprehension (the degree of competence i n each language however, was not note d ) . She t e s t e d these c h i l d r e n ' s m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s i n two 25 experiments. In the f i r s t experiment, she t e s t e d the c h i l d r e n ' s semantic or phonetic p r e f e r e n c e s by a s k i n g them which word, from a c h o i c e of three words, was most l i k e the stimulus word (e.g. given "cap", "can", and "hat", the c h i l d r e n were asked which word was most l i k e "cap"). In the second experiment, the c h i l d r e n were r e q u i r e d to e x p l a i n why an o b j e c t was c a l l e d t h a t p a r t i c u l a r name and i f names of o b j e c t s c o u l d be interchanged (e.g. Can you c a l l a "dog" a "cow" and a "cow" a "dog"?). The c h i l d r e n were subsequently asked q u e s t i o n s about the o b j e c t s once the names were interchanged (e.g. L e t ' s c a l l t h i s dog a "cow". Now, does t h i s cow have ho r n s ? ) . Although there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the o l d e r monolinguals and b i l i n g u a l s on the t e s t of semantic-phonetic p r e f e r e n c e , the younger b i l i n g u a l s made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more semantic c h o i c e s than d i d the monolinguals. Because the younger b i l i n g u a l s p e r c e i v e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between words in terms of t h e i r symbolic r a t h e r than a c o u s t i c p r o p e r t i e s , Ianco-Worall, l i k e Leopold, concluded t h a t b i l i n g u a l s develop an e a r l i e r s e p a r a t i o n of word sound from meaning. R e s u l t s of the second experiment showed no d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups in terms of the types of t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s of words, nor i n t h e i r answers to q u e s t i o n s about o b j e c t s with interchanged names. However, s i g n i f i c a n t l y more b i l i n g u a l s than monolinguals r e p l i e d that names of o b j e c t s c o u l d be i n t e r c h a n g e d . Her data thus support Leopold's c l a i m that b i l i n g u a l i s m can f a c i l i t a t e the a c q u i s i t i o n of c e r t a i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . Cummins (1978a) i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r the i n f l u e n c e of 26 b i l i n g u a l i s m on c h i l d r e n ' s m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, s i n c e he f e l t t h a t t h e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s d i d not c o n t r o l f o r i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s such as i n t e l l e c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s (as i n Feldman & Shen, 1971) and s i n c e they d i d not r e q u i r e t h e i r s u b j e c t s t o j u s t i f y some of t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o t h e m e t a l i n g u i s t i c q u e s t i o n s (as i n I a n c o - W o r r a l l , 1972). He a d m i n i s t e r e d t a s k s d e s i g n e d t o a s s e s s c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o examine language a n a l y t i c a l l y and t h e i r a b i l i t y t o e v a l u a t e c o n t r a d i c t o r y and t a u t o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s t o grade t h r e e and grade s i x E n g l i s h - I r i s h b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n and t o c o n t r o l groups of u n i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , matched on I.Q., S.E.S., sex, and age. A l t h o u g h I r i s h was the second language f o r the m a j o r i t y of the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , a l l of the c h i l d r e n met the c r i t e r i a t h a t 1) a t l e a s t some I r i s h was spoken i n the homes and t h a t 2) the c h i l d r e n were a b l e t o e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s i n I r i s h w i t h l i t t l e h e s i t a t i o n (as judged by t h e i r t e a c h e r s ) . Cummins used t h r e e t a s k s t o a s s e s s o b j e c t i v i t y i n language: 1) The f i r s t t a s k i n v o l v e d a s k i n g the c h i l d r e n whether a word r e t a i n s i t s meaning i f i t s r e f e r e n t i s d e s t r o y e d ( e . g . I f a l l g i r a f f e s d i e , does the meaning of the word " g i r a f f e " change?) 2) The second t a s k was s i m i l a r t o the one used by I a n c o - W o r r a l l . C h i l d r e n were asked q u e s t i o n s such a s , "Suppose you were making up names f o r t h i n g s . C o u l d you then c a l l the 'moon' the 'sun'?" U n l i k e I a n c o - W o r r a l l ' s s t u d y , the c h i l d r e n were r e q u i r e d t o j u s t i f y t h e i r r e s p o n s e s . 3) The t h i r d t a s k examined t h e c h i l d r e n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the n o n p h y s i c a l n a t u r e of words by a s k i n g them q u e s t i o n s such a s , " I s the word 'book' made of p a p e r ? " To a s s e s s the c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o e v a l u a t e 27 nonempirical c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and t a u t o l o g i c a l statements Cummins (1978) presented the c h i l d r e n with a number of statements which they had to judge as t r u e , f a l s e , or impossible to know. Re s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the b i l i n g u a l s , at both grade l e v e l s , were more ab l e to understand the a r b i t r a r y nature of the word-r e f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and were a l s o more ab l e to e v a l u a t e the nonempirical c o n t r a d i c t o r y statements than were the monolinguals. These s t u d i e s may not be d i r e c t l y comparable due to the i n e v i t a b l y d i f f e r i n g l i n g u i s t i c e xperiences of the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n i n each study. For example, the c h i l d r e n ' s degree of competence i n each language and the age at which the languages were l e a r n e d c o u l d have c o n c e i v a b l y been q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f o r the c h i l d r e n i n the d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s , as t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was o f t e n not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d by the r e s e a r c h e r s . However, taken as a whole, these s t u d i e s do suggest that b i l i n g u a l s , as e a r l y as age f i v e , show a g r e a t e r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness than monolinguals, and that t h i s a b i l i t y may account f o r the b i l i n g u a l ' s enhanced f i r s t language s k i l l s . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have proposed reasons f o r t h i s i n c r e a s e d m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Ben-Zeev (1977b), f o r example, b e l i e v e s that c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g two languages develop a more a n a l y t i c o r i e n t a t i o n to language as a r e s u l t of t h e i r s t r u g g l e to prevent i n t e r l i n g u a l i n t e r f e r e n c e . Lambert & Tucker (1972), have suggested that the b i l i n g u a l ' s g r e a t e r o r i e n t a t i o n to language r e s u l t s from h i s tendency to compare s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n the vocabulary and syntax of the two languages. 28 It may be that the s w i t c h i n g from one language to another leads to a g r e a t e r degree of c o g n i t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y (Balkan, c i t e d i n Cummins, 1978b). Lambert & Tucker a l s o p o s t u l a t e t h a t , i f a c h i l d knows words i n the second language but not i n h i s f i r s t language, he w i l l a c t i v e l y seek out t r a n s l a t i o n s , thus i n c r e a s i n g h i s vocabulary r e p e r t o i r e i n h i s f i r s t language. In a d d i t i o n , the f a c t that a given concept may be a s s o c i a t e d with two d i f f e r e n t words from the two languages may g i v e the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of that concept, s i n c e he can see the concept r e p r e s e n t e d i n a two d i f f e r e n t ways (Ben-Zeev, 1977). Cummins (1981a) b e l i e v e s that knowledge of a second language may b r i n g i n t o focus aspects of the f i r s t language of which he would o t h e r w i s e be unaware. Cummins (1978b) a l s o b e l i e v e s that the b i l i n g u a l ' s i n c r e a s e d s e n s i t i v i t y to the l i s t e n e r may make him more aware of the mistakes i n h i s own speech, which in tu r n would enhance h i s f i r s t language s k i l l s . Ben-Zeev (1977b) h y p o t h e s i z e s that because the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d has a tendency to pay more a t t e n t i o n to the meaning expressed, r a t h e r than to the word used to express i t (as evidenced by the b i l i n g u a l ' s a b i l i t y to separate the word from i t s r e f e r e n t at an e a r l y age), he i s f r e e t o perform the l a t e r a b s t r a c t analyses of language (Ben-Zeev, 1977), which are i n v o l v e d i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c t a s k s . 29 Some c l a i m s about negative e f f e c t s of e a r l y b i l i n g u a l i s m Although r e s e a r c h s i n c e the 1960s has p r o v i d e d evidence f o r the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m (Cummins, 1978b), e a r l i e r s t u d i e s p o i n t e d to n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m , suggesting that b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n s u f f e r e d from mental c o n f u s i o n and • language r e t a r d a t i o n . MacNamara (1967), i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e l i e v e s that l i n g u i s t i c r e t a r d a t i o n r e s u l t s from b i l i n g u a l i s m due to the mental e f f o r t s r e q u i r e d to master two languages competing with each o t h e r . He a l s o c l a i m s that i n s t r u c t i o n through the c h i l d ' s second language leads to r e t a r d a t i o n i n the su b j e c t matter taught i n t h i s language. T h i s l a t t e r c o n c l u s i o n was based on h i s study with E n g l i s h - I r i s h b i l i n g u a l s i n 1967. In t h i s study, the Immersion c h i l d r e n came from E n g l i s h speaking f a m i l i e s and were r a i s e d i n an E n g l i s h community, but they were taught e x c l u s i v e l y i n I r i s h . MacNamara found that the Immersion group performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the E n g l i s h monolingual c o n t r o l s i n math. However, both groups performed at the same l e v e l on the E n g l i s h achievement t e s t (he notes, however, that both the c o n t r o l and the experimental group performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the B r i t i s h norms on t h i s t e s t ) . Cummins (1978b) c r i t i c i z e s MacNamara's study and regards i t as i n c o n c l u s i v e because the experimental group was t e s t e d through t h e i r weaker language ( i . e . I r i s h ) , whereas the c o n t r o l groups were t e s t e d through t h e i r s t r onger language ( i . e . E n g l i s h ) . Thus he confounded the e f f e c t s of t e s t i n g with the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n . L i k e MacNamara (1967), Tsushima & Hogan (1975) c l a i m that 30 b i l i n g u a l i s m has a negative e f f e c t on c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c development. Tsushima & Hogan compared the performance of monolingual and b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n i n grades th r e e , f o u r , and f i v e on t e s t s of v e r b a l a b i l i t y and school achievement. A l l s u b j e c t s were c h i l d r e n of the Un i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y p ersonnel s t a t i o n e d i n Japan and a l l s u b j e c t s (both monolingual and b i l i n g u a l ) attended the E n g l i s h school l o c a t e d i n the m i l i t a r y housing area i n Japan. The b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n had mothers born and r a i s e d in Japan, and f a t h e r s r a i s e d i n the United S t a t e s , whereas the monolingual c h i l d r e n were exposed only to E n g l i s h i n the home from i n f a n c y onwards. Both groups were matched a c c o r d i n g to age and to nonverbal i n t e l l i e n c e scores (as measured by the Lorge-Thorndike I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t ) . The r e s u l t s of t h e i r t e s t i n g i n d i c a t e d no d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups i n t h e i r t e s t scores at grade th r e e , but by grade f i v e the monolinguals had a c l e a r s u p e r i o r i t y over the b i l i n g u a l s on vocabu l a r y , reading comprehension and language usage, as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic S k i l l s . The authors concluded that the i n c r e a s e d v e r b a l d i f f i c u l t y that the b i l i n g u a l e xperiences as he becomes o l d e r a r i s e s because of the i n c r e a s i n g l y complex language f u n c t i o n s c a l l e d upon i n the highe r grades. However, because Tsushima & Hogan d i d not c o n t r o l f o r S.E.S., had almost twice as many monolinguals as b i l i n g u a l s (142 b i l i n g u a l s versus 265 monolinguals), and d i d not a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e the experimental group's l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l i s m , t h e i r r e s u l t s , l i k e MacNamara's, cannot be c o n s i d e r e d c o n c l u s i v e . 31 Doyle, Champagne & Segalowitz (1977) a l s o showed b i l i n g u a l s to be i n f e r i o r to monolinguals on c e r t a i n t e s t s of E n g l i s h language a b i l i t y . They compared the performance of twenty-two F r e n c h - E n g l i s h .balanced b i l i n g u a l p r e s c h o o l e r s (mean age of 51 months') to that of twenty-two monolinguals matched by dominant language, age, sex, nonlanguage developmental s t a t u s , and p a r e n t a l occupation and e d u c a t i o n . The b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n showed g r e a t e r v e r b a l f l u e n c y than the monolinguals, as measured by the number of concepts expressed d u r i n g a p i c t u r e d e s c r i p t i o n task. However, the b i l i n g u a l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the monolinguals on the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary t e s t i n t h e i r dominant language. These authors b e l i e v e that the b i l i n g u a l s ' lower vocabulary score r e f l e c t s t h e i r l a c k of v a r i e t y of l i n g u i s t i c input i n t h e i r dominant language and that when both languages are examined, the t o t a l c o n c e p t u a l vocabulary of the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d may a c t u a l l y exceed that of the monolingual. S i m i l a r l y , Ben-Zeev (1984) has noted a vocabulary d e f i c i t in the second language of both the S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h and Hebrew-E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l s she s t u d i e d . However, l i k e Doyle et a l . (1977), Ben-Zeev b e l i e v e s that t h i s v ocabulary d e f i c i t may not be the d i r e c t r e s u l t of b i l i n g u a l i s m i n i t s e l f , but c o u l d be due simply to a reduced experience with the second language. Indeed, Lambert & Tucker (1972) noted, that the E n g l i s h vocabulary d e f i c i t of the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion disappeared soon a f t e r E n g l i s h was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the program. S e v e r a l of these s t u d i e s r e p o r t i n g negative e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m had s e r i o u s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l flaws (Cummins, 1978b). 32 For example, when determining i f there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t e l l i g e n c e between monolinguals and b i l i n g u a l s , S.E.S. was o f t e n not c o n t r o l l e d f o r . Furthermore, the i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s used were o f t e n those s t a n d a r d i z e d i n a c u l t u r e d i f f e r e n t from the one to which the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d belonged. S e v e r a l of these s t u d i e s a l s o d i d not a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e the l e v e l of the c h i l d r e n ' s b i l i n g u a l i s m , nor the c o n d i t i o n s under which the language l e a r n i n g took p l a c e . In a d d i t i o n , some of these s t u d i e s i n v o l v e d b i l i n g u a l s from m i n o r i t y language groups whose f i r s t language was g r a d u a l l y being r e p l a c e d by the more p r e s t i g i o u s second language, thus p u t t i n g them at a disadvantage r e l a t i v e to the monolinguals (Swain, 1981a). Most of the s t u d i e s r e p o r t i n g the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m have c o n t r o l l e d these v a r i a b l e s , and although not a l l of these s t u d i e s are m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y f l a w l e s s , taken together they do suggest t h a t l e a r n i n g two languages at an e a r l y age can a c c e l e r a t e a s p e c t s of l i n g u i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e growth. Immersion Education f o r M i n o r i t y Language C h i l d r e n While the s t u d i e s of the French Immersion programs i n d i c a t e that a switch from one language at home to another at s c h o o l can r e s u l t i n f u n c t i o n a l b i l i n g u a l i s m as w e l l as enhanced c o g n i t i v e and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c development, the o p p o s i t e r e s u l t s have been found with m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , from a v a r i e t y of e t h n o l i n g u i s t i c backgrounds, who a t t e n d m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e s c h o o l s , and where a l l i n s t r u c t i o n i s given i n a f o r e i g n language. Even a f t e r many years of f o r e i g n language 33 i n s t r u c t i o n , these c h i l d r e n have many problems i n c l u d i n g academic f a i l u r e , poor mastery of the f o r e i g n language, and of t e n poor mastery of t h e i r n a t i v e language (Ben-Zeev, 1984; Bruck, 1982; Cohen, 1975; Engel, 1975; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976, 1977; Swain, 1981a; T r i t e s , 1981; T r o i k e , 1978). Two t h e o r e t i c a l models 1. S o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model Two major t h e o r e t i c a l models have been proposed to e x p l a i n the d i s c r e p a n t f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the performance of m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y language i n these second language programs. The f i r s t model proposes that s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c v alues of the s o c i a l m i l i e u are the major f a c t o r s a c counting f o r the success or f a i l u r e of the b i l i n g u a l program. Proponents of t h i s model advocate that the success of the French Immersion programs f o r E n g l i s h students i s due to the f a c t that the E n g l i s h language i s the m a j o r i t y language. E n g l i s h i s accepted and va l u e d i n the program and i n the community at l a r g e . E n g l i s h i s viewed as being the dominant and p r e s t i g i o u s language (Bruck, 1982). Furthermore, because of the v o l u n t a r y nature of the French Immersion programs, the p a r t i c i p a t i n g c h i l d r e n g e n e r a l l y have p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards l e a r n i n g French and towards m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r f i r s t language s k i l l s and c u l t u r e . They are t h e r e f o r e a b l e to add one or more languages to t h e i r home language without detriment to t h e i r n a t i v e language. Lambert (1980) termed t h i s " a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m . " Indeed, Tucker b e l i e v e s t h a t 34 where the home language i s h i g h l y valued by a l l members of the community, where parents do a c t i v e l y p r o v i d e encouragement and support f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of l i t e r a c y i n the mother tongue [and where i t i s known that the c h i l d w i l l succeed], i t would seem a p p r o p r i a t e to begin s c h o o l i n g i n the second language. ( c i t e d i n Friedman, 1980: 14) T h e r e f o r e , proponents of t h i s model a l s o b e l i e v e that i t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e to teach the c h i l d in a second language i f there does not e x i s t u n i f o r m l y high pressure w i t h i n the community to encourage l i t e r a c y and f i r s t language maintenance, and where many teachers i n the e d u c a t i o n a l system are unaware or i n s e n s i t i v e to the v a l u e s and t r a d i t i o n s of the m i n o r i t y group p u p i l s . (Tucker, c i t e d i n Friedman, 1980: 15) Lambert (1980) cl a i m s t h i s r e s u l t s i n " s u b t r a c t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m , " meaning that the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d l o s e s competency i n the n a t i v e language as a r e s u l t of attempting to master the p r e s t i g i o u s language. T h i s i s because l e a r n i n g a more p r e s t i g i o u s language o f t e n poses a t h r e a t to the m i n o r i t y c h i l d ' s p e r s o n a l and c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y (Engel, 1975; Lambert, 1980). T h i s may a l s o cause impeded p r o g r e s s i n the second language as w e l l . Cummins (1981) & Lambert (1977) note that the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d must have p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the second language and c u l t u r e he i s l e a r n i n g , as w e l l as p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards h i s own language and c u l t u r e , i f he or she i s to develop p r o f i c i e n c y i n the second language. However, Met (1984) b e l i e v e s that such p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the second language and c u l t u r e are enhanced only when the f i r s t language and c u l t u r e are valued. Again, t h i s shows the importance of m a i n t a i n i n g p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward the mother tongue. R e s u l t s from a recent study by Magiste (1984) somewhat 3 5 c o n t r a d i c t t h i s s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model. Using a s t a n d a r d i z e d E n g l i s h t e s t of grammar, reading and l i s t e n i n g comprehension, Magiste assessed t h e - E n g l i s h s k i l l s of grade e i g h t Swedish immigrants (most of them having F i n n i s h as t h e i r f i r s t language) and Swedish monolinguals. His r e s u l t s showed that those immigrants who had a p a s s i v e knowledge of t h e i r f i r s t language performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r i n E n g l i s h than the Swedish monolinguals. On the other hand, those immigrants who a c t i v e l y used t h e i r f i r s t language d a i l y had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower t e s t r e s u l t s i n E n g l i s h than the Swedish monolinguals. Thus, i t appears t h a t a c t i v e maintenance of the mother tongue i n t h i s case d i d not f a c i l i t a t e l e a r n i n g a t h i r d language, c o n t r a r y to what the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model would p r e d i c t . However, t h i s study cannot be c o n s i d e r e d c o n c l u s i v e because Magiste d i d not measure or d e f i n e " a c t i v e " and " p a s s i v e " use of language. He a l s o d i d not d e s c r i b e the language programs ( i . e . the amount of E n g l i s h taught and the method of language i n s t r u c t i o n were not d e s c r i b e d ) . 2. P s y c h o l i n q u i s t i c model The second t h e o r e t i c a l model put f o r t h to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n t performance of m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y c h i l d r e n i n second language programs i s the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model. T h i s model acknowledges the importance of the aforementioned f a c t o r s , but emphasizes c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s . S upporters of t h i s model b e l i e v e that c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c - a b i l i t i e s , r a t h e r than s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s , are the major p r e d i c t o r s of 36 success i n the second language classroom (Bruck, 1982). They b e l i e v e that i n order f o r second language programs f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n to produce r e s u l t s e q u i v a l e n t to those of the French Immersion programs f o r m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , i n s t r u c t i o n f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n should begin i n t h e i r mother tongue ( C a s s e r l y & Edwards, 1971-72; Cummins, 1981; Engel, 1975; Genesee, 1977; Guebert, 1984; Mattes & Omark, 1984; Met, 1984; Pau l s t o n , 1980; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976; Swain, 1981). These r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n o f t e n f a i l i n second language programs because of the lack of exposure to t h e i r f i r s t language; they have not a c q u i r e d competency i n t h e i r f i r s t language upon entry i n t o the program. E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, on the other hand, succeed in both languages because they have a l r e a d y a c q u i r e d competency in E n g l i s h p r i o r to e n t e r i n g the second language program. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with Cummins' "developmental interdependence h y p o t h e s i s , " which s t a t e s that the development of s k i l l s i n the second language i s a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of the c h i l d ' s f i r s t language competence at the time when i n t e n s i v e exposure to the second language begins. Cummins' hypothesis has been supported e m p i r i c a l l y by T r o i k e (1978) and by Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1977). T r o i k e noted t h a t Mexican c h i l d r e n who immigrated to the U n i t e d S t a t e s a f t e r grade s i x achieved a higher l e v e l of competency i n E n g l i s h than those immigrants who had been i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s s i n c e the f i r s t grade. He b e l i e v e s t h i s i s because the l a t t e r 37 c h i l d r e n d i d not have a chance f o r t h e i r f i r s t language s k i l l s to become s t a b i l i z e d before l e a r n i n g the second language. He concluded that competency i n the second language may be achieved only once the f i r s t language s k i l l s are w e l l developed. However, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s does not e x p l a i n how many c h i l d r e n are a b l e to a c q u i r e two languages from b i r t h when exposed to them s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . ' Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1976) found that the more competent the c h i l d was in h i s f i r s t language, the b e t t e r were h i s p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r l e a r n i n g the second language. These r e s e a r c h e r s s t u d i e d the f i r s t and second language a b i l i t i e s of F i n n i s h immigrants l i v i n g i n Sweden. T h e i r r e s u l t s showed that the F i n n i s h c h i l d r e n who moved to Sweden at age nine and ten ( i . e . a f t e r t h e i r f i r s t language s k i l l s had become s t a b i l i z e d ) l e a r n e d Swedish b e t t e r than those immigrants who were born i n Sweden or who moved to Sweden before school s t a r t e d . They concluded that i f immigrant c h i l d r e n are submerged i n another language before the age of ten, they w i l l not develop t h e i r f i r s t language adequately and w i l l t h e r e f o r e f a i l to a c q u i r e the second language. Although we have seen some support f o r Cummins' hypothesis from the T r o i k e (1976) and Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1977) s t u d i e s , these s t u d i e s are not f l a w l e s s . The authors assumed that the f i r s t language s k i l l s of c h i l d r e n who immigrated a f t e r age ten were w e l l developed simply because they immigrated at an age when most language development has been completed. However, because the f i r s t language s k i l l s were not measured p r i o r to the 3 8 c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g of the second language, i t i s erroneous to make such a c l a i m . These s t u d i e s a l s o ignored s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s . For example, the immigrant c h i l d r e n who moved to the host country at a l a t e r age may have had more p o s i t i v e and a c c e p t i n g a t t i t u d e s towards t h e i r f i r s t language than the immigrant c h i l d r e n who were r a i s e d i n the host country from an e a r l y age. T h i s c o u l d e x p l a i n why the former group was more ab l e to l e a r n the second language than the l a t t e r group. Thus, one cannot conclude that the poor performance i n the second language of the c h i l d r e n who immigrated before age ten was due p r i m a r i l y to the poor development of t h e i r f i r s t language s k i l l s . C o n s i s t e n t with the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model i s Cummins' second h y p o t h e s i s , the " t h r e s h o l d h y p o t h e s i s . " T h i s h y p o t h e s i s , l i k e the "developmental interdependence h y p o t h e s i s , " s t r e s s e s the importance of e a r l y education i n the n a t i v e language. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the " t h r e s h o l d h y p o t h e s i s " s t a t e s that there i s a minimal l e v e l of competence i n the f i r s t language which the b i l i n g u a l c h i l d must a t t a i n i n order to a v o i d the n e g a t i v e consequences of the second language i n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t , i f the c h i l d ' s f i r s t language s k i l l s are p o o r l y developed, i n t e n s i v e exposure to the second language w i l l impede the development of h i s f i r s t language s k i l l s , which i n t u r n w i l l l i m i t the development of h i s second language. Cummins p o s t u l a t e s that an even higher l e v e l of b i l i n g u a l competence must be a t t a i n e d before the b i l i n g u a l can experience enhanced l i n g u i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s , such as i n c r e a s e d f i r s t 39 language s k i l l s and increased metalinguistic awareness. There is some evidence to suggest that t h i s l a t t e r point may be true. Paulston (1980) c i t e s data from Manitoba on French speaking children showing that the pupils who did better in French, their f i r s t language, also did better in English and in the other academic courses. Carey & Cummins (1983) and Cummins (1981a) found similar r e s u l t s : grade three French Immersion students who were classi-fied as high French achievers performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the low French achievers on several measures of English and cognitive a b i l i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , Barik & Swain (1976) found that a f t e r three years of French Immersion, the I.Q. gain of the children who were considered to be high achievers in French was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than that of children considered to be low achievers in French. Although there i s some support for the "threshold hypothesis" there i s evidence which contradicts Cummins' claim that, i f the the c h i l d ' s f i r s t language s k i l l s are poorly developed, intensive exposure to a second language w i l l impede the development of the f i r s t language. Recall that in Bruck's study of 1982, the English s k i l l s of the language-impaired children in the French Immersion did not further deteriorate. Cummins' hypothesis would predict that given the language-impaired children's low l e v e l of f i r s t language competence, they would do poorly in French Immersion and the i r f i r s t language s k i l l s would be further weakened. Bruck concluded that the reason academic, cognitive and l i n g u i s t i c development of the language-impaired childr e n in French Immersion were not 40 n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t e d by the French i n s t r u c t i o n was because these c h i l d r e n were members of the m a j o r i t y c u l t u r e and language ( i . e . E n g l i s h ) and were thus taught i n an a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l environment. Her r e s u l t s t h e r e f o r e support the f i r s t model: s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , as opposed to f a c t o r s such as l i n g u i s t i c competence i n the f i r s t language, are the prime f a c t o r s d e t e r m i n i n g the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d ' s l a c k of success i n programs where t h e i r f i r s t language i s not the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n . Of course one c o u l d argue that both models can be used to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the performance of m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n second language programs. The s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model proposes that acceptance of the n a t i v e c u l t u r e and p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the f i r s t language are necessary f o r a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m to occur. Yet these are p r e c i s e l y the a t t i t u d e s which promote the development of the f i r s t language to the t h r e s h o l d l e v e l which Cummins c l a i m s i s necessary f o r a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m to occur. Because the f i r s t language i s w e l l developed as a r e s u l t of these s o c i a l -p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , the second language can be s u c c e s s f u l l y l e a r n e d and w i t h no detriment to the f i r s t language. Indeed, as Engel (1975: 310) s t a t e s , the "success of a b i l i n g u a l program i s r e l a t e d to a complex web of f a c t o r s , " such' as the r e l a t i v e p r e s t i g e of the two languages i n the l a r g e r s o c i e t y , the v a l u e s that are put on each language, the development of the f i r s t language and the i n s t r u c t i o n a l t echniques. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques of the 41 French Immersion programs versus the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h progams f o r the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n may a l s o be used to e x p l a i n the poorer performance of immigrant c h i l d r e n i n second language programs. For example, Swain (1981a: 19) f e e l s t h at the experience of young c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion c l a s s e s , even though t h e i r i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i s v i a an unknown language, has l i t t l e i n common with that experienced by m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n a t t e n d i n g school where i n s t r u c t i o n i s in the m a j o r i t y language. U n l i k e the teachers i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program, the teachers i n the French Immersion program develop the second language s k i l l s through context-embedded s i t u a t i o n s . The input i s t h e r e f o r e comprehensible to the c h i l d r e n (Krashen, 1984). The teachers i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program, on the other hand, do not p r o v i d e comprehensible input to the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . Because these teachers assume that most students understand E n g l i s h w e l l , they do not s i m p l i f y t h e i r speech or use context-embedded speech as do the French Immersion teachers (Krashen, 1984; Met, 1984). Because the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n are put i n c l a s s e s where the m a j o r i t y of the c h i l d r e n are n a t i v e speakers of the t a r g e t language, they f e e l i s o l a t e d . Such f e e l i n g s of i s o l a t i o n and i n f e r i o r i t y lower the m o t i v a t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g (Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976). T h i s i s i n c o n t r a s t to the French Immersion programs, where a l l c h i l d r e n are u s u a l l y at the same l e v e l i n the t a r g e t language. C h i l d r e n i n the French Immersion programs, t h e r e f o r e , do not f e e l i s o l a t e d from t h e i r peers. The French Immersion teachers are a l s o b i l i n g u a l and 42 t h e r e f o r e understand e v e r y t h i n g the c h i l d r e n say i n E n g l i s h . Teachers i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program o f t e n do not understand the immigrant c h i l d ' s f i r s t language and t h e r e f o r e are not able to respond r e l e v a n t l y to the c h i l d ' s q u e s t i o n s or statements in t h i s language, adding to c h i l d ' s f r u s t r a t i o n and thwarting the v alue of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . The c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion do not experience t h i s f r u s t r a t i o n because they are s t i l l a llowed to express themselves i n t h e i r n a t i v e language. Furthermore, the f a c t that the t e a c h e r s of the French Immersion o f t e n share the same e t h n i c background as the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n t h i s program puts these c h i l d r e n at an advantage to the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n who do not have the same e t h n i c background as t h e i r t eacher, f o r i t i s b e l i e v e d that the common e t h n i c background between teacher and c h i l d promotes a b e t t e r l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n (Engel, 1975; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976). So, although s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s appear to be most important f o r s u c c e s s f u l b i l i n g u a l i s m , one must not f o r g e t that the i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f o r e i g n language programs a l s o c o n t r i b u t e to the success or f a i l u r e of the student i n such programs. 43 M i n o r i t y Language C h i l d r e n i n French Immersion From the preceding s e c t i o n , we see that the c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of E n g l i s h students i n French Immersion are s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of language m i n o r i t y students i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs. These d i f f e r e n c e s are r e f l e c t e d i n the d i s c r e p a n t f i n d i n g s emerging from the re s e a r c h of m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n second language programs. If the development of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t and second language s k i l l s i s not r e a d i l y promoted when these c h i l d r e n are immersed i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs, the q u e s t i o n then i s , w i l l these s k i l l s be promoted i n a French Immersion program, given the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s f o r m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n such programs? The r e s u l t s from the e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n have g e n e r a l l y been i n c o n c l u s i v e (Genesee, 1976; 1983). However, s e v e r a l r e l e v a n t s t u d i e s do e x i s t . The r e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . In t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , i t has been s t a t e d that there i s no reason to b e l i e v e that French Immersion would be harmful f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n (Cummins, 1981b; Genesee, 1976, 1978; S t e r n , 1982). S t e r n , f o r example, b e l i e v e s t h a t m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n would do w e l l i n French Immersion s i n c e these c h i l d r e n have p r e v i o u s languages to f a l l back on. St e r n , l i k e Cummins (1981b), c l a i m s that the experience with a d d i t i o n a l languages can a c t u a l l y f a c i l i t a t e the l e a r n i n g of other languages, and may i n f a c t i n h i b i t the t r a n s f e r of r u l e s from 44 one language to another ( i . e . would i n h i b i t i n t e r f e r e n c e ) . I t may a l s o be that the language s k i l l s t h a t are common to the d i f f e r e n t languages being l e a r n e d may be used i n p r o c e s s i n g any language (Genesee, 1 9 7 8 ) . Indeed, r e s e a r c h has shown that c h i l d r e n are a b l e to s u c c e s s f u l l y a c q u i r e more than two languages (Genesee, 1 9 7 6 ; Magiste, 1 9 8 4 ) . Genesee examined the language s k i l l s of grade two Jewish c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n a double-Immersion program (Hebrew-French) i n M o n t r e a l . E n g l i s h was the n a t i v e language of these c h i l d r e n . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that a f t e r three years of Hebrew-French Immersion, without formal E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t i o n , these c h i l d r e n had a c q u i r e d f u n c t i o n a l competence in French, Hebrew, and E n g l i s h . Only a d e f i c i t on the E n g l i s h word knowledge t e s t ( i . e . s i g h t vocabulary) was noted. However, r e c a l l that t h i s d e f i c i t has a l s o been found i n other Immersion programs d u r i n g the f i r s t two years when no E n g l i s h language a r t s are taught. Although t h i s study shows that l e a r n i n g more than two languages i s not d e t r i m e n t a l to the c h i l d , one must keep i n mind that the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study were not m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , s i n c e E n g l i s h was t h e i r n a t i v e language and E n g l i s h was the dominant language i n t h e i r community. Magiste ( 1 9 8 4 ) , however, d i d study m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to a c q u i r e a t h i r d language. R e c a l l that h i s r e s u l t s showed that immigrant c h i l d r e n who had a p a s s i v e knowledge of t h e i r f i r s t language found l e a r n i n g a t h i r d language e a s i e r than d i d monolingual c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g a second language. 45 Stern (1982) suggests that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n would be a b l e to cope with French Immersion without s u f f e r i n g any d e f i c i t s to t h e i r E n g l i s h or n a t i v e language s k i l l s , not only because they have a wider language experience, but a l s o because they would i n i t i a l l y be at the same l e v e l i n French as t h e i r E n g l i s h speaking peers. T h i s would e l i m i n a t e any f e e l i n g s of i s o l a t i o n or i n f e r i o r i t y which c o u l d i n h i b i t language l e a r n i n g . Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukamaa (1977) p o s t u l a t e that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n would do w e l l i n a French Immersion program because the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion would perhaps be more t o l e r a n t of the m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n ' s f i r s t language, as they themselves are l e a r n i n g another language. These p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion would h e l p these c h i l d r e n add another language to t h e i r r e p e r t o i r e , without detriment to t h e i r other languages ( i . e . would f a c i l i t a t e " a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l i s m " ) . One of the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of French Immersion f o r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n Canada was c a r r i e d out by Egyed i n 1973 (summarized by C a s s e r l y & Edwards, 1973). The m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d by Egyed were I t a l i a n . Egyed assessed the e f f e c t s of three d i f f e r e n t k i n d e r g a r t e n Immersion programs on these c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h language s k i l l s . One group of k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n attended an E n g l i s h - o n l y program a l l day. The second group of c h i l d r e n attended a program with h a l f a day i n E n g l i s h and h a l f a day i n French ( t h i s i s "double Immersion" as n e i t h e r language i s the n a t i v e language of the c h i l d r e n ) . The t h i r d group of c h i l d r e n 46 attended a program with h a l f a day i n E n g l i s h and h a l f a day i n I t a l i a n . The c h i l d r e n were e n r o l l e d i n each program by random s e l e c t i o n and n e i t h e r E n g l i s h nor French was spoken at home. These c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s were t e s t e d u s i n g an E n g l i s h s t o r y c r e a t i o n t e s t and subtest of the I l l i n o i s T e s t of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s . R e s u l t s showed t h a t the I t a l i a n c h i l d r e n i n the "double Immersion" ( E n g l i s h - F r e n c h program) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the E n g l i s h language t e s t s than the I t a l i a n c h i l d r e n i n the other two programs. However, these r e s u l t s can be c o n s i d e r e d as i n c o n c l u s i v e , "given the tendency f o r t e s t r e s u l t s at the k i n d e r g a r t e n l e v e l to be u n r e l i a b l e " (Genesee, 1976: 507). Edwards & C a s s e r l y (1973) a l s o a s s e s s e d the e f f e c t of p r e s c h o o l language background on c h i l d r e n ' s performance i n French Immersion. T h e i r study was p a r t of a l a r g e r study which compared the language a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n i n a French Immersion program with those of c h i l d r e n i n a core French program (a program where French i s the medium of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r 75 minutes per day). In t h e i r a n a l y s i s , the c h i l d r e n i n both programs were d i v i d e d i n t o three groups a c c o r d i n g t o language background: 1) E n g l i s h , 2) French, and 3) Other ( i . e . n e i t h e r E n g l i s h nor French was spoken i n the home). R e s u l t s at the end of grade one and at the end of grade two showed that a l l the c h i l d r e n whose p r e s c h o o l background was e x c l u s i v e l y E n g l i s h scored higher on the E n g l i s h and French t e s t s of a u d i t o r y comprehension, and spoken language than the c h i l d r e n from t h i r d language backgrounds (as measured by 47 achievement t e s t s and s u b t e s t s of the I.T.P.A.). Edwards & C a s s e r l y suggested that these t h i r d language c h i l d r e n may r e q u i r e upgrading of t h e i r E n g l i s h s k i l l s more than they r e q u i r e an i n t e n s i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n to the French language at t h i s l e v e l . However, they noted that the d i f f e r e n c e s between the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n and the t h i r d language c h i l d r e n might have been due to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n c e s i n language a b i l i t y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , l i k e Egyed's r e s u l t s , C a s s e r l y & Edward's r e s u l t s remain i n c o n c l u s i v e r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of French Immersion on m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s . T h e i r r e s u l t s are i n c o n c l u s i v e because when they compared the c h i l d r e n ' s d i f f e r e n t language backgrounds, they d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e the groups of c h i l d r e n i n the French Immersion program from those i n the 75 minute core program. Furthermore, because most of the t h i r d language c h i l d r e n were I t a l i a n , and tended to be from the working c l a s s , the language background was confounded by s o c i a l c l a s s . More recent s t u d i e s examining the e f f e c t s of language background on c h i l d r e n ' s performance i n French Immersion have y i e l d e d f i n d i n g s c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o those of Egyed (1973) and Edwards & C a s s e r l y (1973). Carey & Cummins (1983) examined the E n g l i s h and French language a b i l i t i e s of Francophone, Anglophone, and mixed subpopulations of students i n French Immersion programs. The c h i l d r e n i n the experimental group were grade f i v e students i n three s c h o o l s of the Edmonton C a t h o l i c School System. They were a s s i g n e d to one of four groups a c c o r d i n g to language background: 1) Francophone (n=26), 48 c h i l d r e n who speak French most of the time at home; 2) Anglophone (n=41), c h i l d r e n who speak E n g l i s h most of the time at home; 3) Mixed (n=30), c h i l d r e n who speak E n g l i s h and French at home or who speak E n g l i s h at home, but have parents who speak French; and 4) Other (n=7), c h i l d r e n who speak a language other than French or E n g l i s h at home. Group assignment was performed on the b a s i s of responses to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which looked at the p r e f e r e n c e and frequency of usage of language with each of the c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t s , s i b l i n g s , teachers and f r i e n d s w i t h i n the s c h o o l , the home, and the community. The experimental c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h language s k i l l s were compared to those of E n g l i s h students e n r o l l e d i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs in Edmonton. The E n g l i s h language s k i l l s were measured u s i n g the E n g l i s h Cloze t e s t and the reading and vocabulary s u b t e s t s of the Canadian T e s t s of Basic S k i l l s . In the Cloze t e s t , every seventh word i s d e l e t e d from a passage of prose and the students are asked to supply the m i s s i n g words. Carey & Cummins (1983: 161) c l a i m t h a t t h i s t e s t p r o v i d e s "both an e f f i c i e n t and comprehensive measure of language comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . " R e s u l t s of these t e s t s showed no d i f f e r e n c e s among the groups. The Francophone, Mixed and Other groups performed as w e l l as the E n g l i s h students i n the French Immersion and as w e l l as the E n g l i s h students i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program. R e s u l t s of t h i s study should be regarded as tenuous because of the few number of s u b j e c t s comprising the t h i r d language group ( i . e . the Other group), because S.E.S. was not c o n t r o l l e d f o r and 49 because the oral/aural language testing was not comprehensive. Furthermore, the type of French Immersion program was not specified, so that one does not know the children's r e l a t i v e amount of exposure to English and French. In a la t e r study, Carey & Cummins (1984) assessed the English language a b i l i t i e s of younger children from d i f f e r e n t language backgrounds in French Immersion. They assessed forty-three children in the grade three classes of the Edmonton bi l i n g u a l schools (French-English). The children were c l a s s i f i e d into English, French, and mixed French-English home backgrounds according to their teachers' responses on a questionnaire that followed the same format as the one used in their 1983 study. Twenty-four children came from English homes, ten from French homes, and nine from mixed French-English homes. English a b i l i t i e s were assessed using the Gates McGinite Reading Test and Vocabulary and Comprehension Scales and a test of English syntax comprehension developed by Tremaine (1975). Results showed that the Francophone group performed more poorly than the Anglophone group on the Gates Comprehension Test. They also performed more poorly than both of the other groups in their comprehension of passives on the English syntax test. The children from mixed English and French home backgrounds performed worse than the Anglophone children in the understanding of di r e c t and indire c t objects in th i s syntax te s t . The results of this study and Carey & Cummins' study in 1983 suggest that the English s k i l l s of children from French language backgrounds and from mixed French-English language 50 backgrounds i n i t i a l l y l a g behind those of E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n s i m i l a r French Immersion programs, but c a t c h up with those of Anglophone c h i l d r e n by grade f i v e . However, the c h i l d r e n t e s t e d in t h i s study of 1984 are not m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n the s t r i c t sense, s i n c e a t t i t u d e s towards the French language are presumably d i f f e r e n t from those towards a language other than French and E n g l i s h , the two o f f i c i a l languages of Canada. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s study does not d i r e c t l y address the qu e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g the performance of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion. More d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d i s a study by Orpwood (1980). R e s u l t s of Orpwood*s study showed that the E n g l i s h language s k i l l s of t h i r d language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion were a c t u a l l y b e t t e r than those of E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion. Orpwood examined the French, E n g l i s h , and mathematics achievement l e v e l s of grade two and grade four t r i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n i n a French Immersion program. There were t h i r t y s t u d e n t s i n each grade. The s u b j e c t s i n each grade were a l l i n the same c l a s s and were a l l of " f a i r l y h i g h S.E.S." (Orpwood, 1980: 6). E i g h t of these t h i r t y s t udents i n each grade had c o n t a c t with a t h i r d language at home. The languages spoken i n these s i x t e e n homes i n c l u d e d L a t v i a n ( 2 ), E s t o n i a n (2), Greek ( 2 ) , German (4), Hungarian (1), Chinese (1), Spanish (1), H i n d i ( 1 ) , and Hebrew ( 4 ) . Although the percentage of home use of these languages v a r i e d from 5% to 100%, i n nine of the f a m i l i e s , the use of the n a t i v e language was estimated by the parents t o be more than 60% of home communication. Only s i x of 51 these s i x t e e n c h i l d r e n used t h e i r n a t i v e language e x c l u s i v e l y at home (although seven had before they entered s c h o o l ) ; the remaining ten h a r d l y ever spoke the t h i r d language at home. However, eleven r e g u l a r l y attended p r i v a t e n a t i v e language c l a s s e s on t h e i r own time. T h e r e f o r e , on the whole, these c h i l d r e n ' s n a t i v e languages and c u l t u r e s were being a c t i v e l y promoted. Orpwood (1980) compared these c h i l d r e n ' s performance on t e s t s of academic s k i l l s i n both French and E n g l i s h w i t h the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d in the same French Immersion c l a s s . Her t e s t s f o r the grade two c h i l d r e n i n c l u d e d : the Canadian Test of B a s i c S k i l l s , which assesses "word a n a l y s i s , " r e a d i n g , math concepts and math problem s o l v i n g . The other t e s t s were a French Comprehension T e s t , (developed by O.I.S.E.), a "Test de L e c t u r e " ( a l s o developed by O.I.S.E.), and a "Test de Rendement." Her t e s t s f o r the grade four c h i l d r e n i n c l u d e d these two l a t t e r t e s t s as w e l l as the Canadian T e s t of B a s i c S k i l l s , which assessed vocabulary, s p e l l i n g , r e a d i n g , math concepts, and math problem s o l v i n g . Her r e s u l t s showed that the average s c o r e s of c h i l d r e n who had exposure to a t h i r d language were c o n s i s t e n t l y higher on each t e s t than the average scores of the whole Immersion c l a s s . However, t h i s was only a s u b j e c t i v e comment as the r e s u l t s were not analyzed s t a t i s t i c a l l y . Orpwood concluded from her r e s u l t s that when c h i l d r e n ' s n a t i v e language and c u l t u r e are a c t i v e l y promoted, knowledge of a t h i r d language "does no harm and may indeed be b e n e f i c i a l f o r French Immersion s t u d e n t s " (p. 1). T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the c l a i m that the 52 experience with a d d i t i o n a l languages can f a c i l i t a t e the l e a r n i n g of s t i l l other languages (Cummins, 1981b; Stern, 1982). However, because of the l i m i t e d number of t r i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n t e s t e d , Orpwood d i d not analyze her r e s u l t s s t a t i s t i c a l l y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e r e f o r e , her c o n c l u s i o n s must be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . Summary In t h i s chapter, we have seen that French Immersion i s a s u c c e s s f u l means of educating m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ( i n t h i s case E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n ) . On the other hand, we have seen that immersing m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs i s not as s u c c e s s f u l . These c h i l d r e n o f t e n do not l e a r n the second language w e l l and sometimes even l o s e competency in t h e i r f i r s t language. Two t h e o r e t i c a l models have been put f o r t h i n attempts to account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance of these two groups of second language l e a r n e r s : the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model and the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model. The p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model assumes that the success a c h i l d has i n l e a r n i n g an a d d i t i o n a l language i s p r i m a r i l y dependent on how w e l l the f i r s t language s k i l l s are developed. Proponents of the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model, on the other hand, view a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r s as being more important in second language l e a r n i n g . Supporters of t h i s model c l a i m that E n g l i s h language c h i l d r e n do w e l l i n French Immersion because t h e i r f i r s t language and c u l t u r e are w e l l accepted by themselves and by the community. These r e s e a r c h e r s c l a i m that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n o f t e n do 53 p o o r l y when p l a c e d i n r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s because these c h i l d r e n ' s home language i s u s u a l l y not h i g h l y valued by a l l members of the community, and because o f t e n the p a r e n t s , i n t r y i n g to o b t a i n f l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h themselves, do not encourage t h e i r c h i l d r e n to develop p r o f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r f i r s t language ( i . e . p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards the mother tongue and c u l t u r e are not a c t i v e l y promoted). Although there i s e m p i r i c a l support f o r both models, there appears to be stronger evidence f o r the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model. T h i s model serves as the b a s i s f o r my hypotheses. Whether or not French Immersion i s a s u c c e s s f u l means of educating m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i s s t i l l an open q u e s t i o n . The r e s e a r c h to date appears to be i n c o n c l u s i v e r e g a r d i n g these c h i l d r e n ' s performance in such a program. The e a r l i e r s t u d i e s suggest that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n o b t a i n lower scores on t e s t s of E n g l i s h language s k i l l s than m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n French Immersion. However, the more recent s t u d i e s by Orpwood (1980) and by Carey & Cummins (1983) c o n t r a d i c t these f i n d i n g s . These r e s e a r c h e r s found that the E n g l i s h language s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion were as good as, or b e t t e r than, those of m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion. Yet, these f i n d i n g s remain s p e c u l a t i v e because n e i t h e r of these s t u d i e s s p e c i f i e d whether t h e i r groups of c h i l d r e n were s i m i l a r i n i n t e l l i g e n c e , and because there were so few s u b j e c t s comprising the group of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . We have seen that there are r e s e a r c h e r s of second language 54 l e a r n e r s who c l a i m that French Immersion would not be harmful fo r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . Indeed, some r e s e a r c h e r s have suggested that l e a r n i n g more than one language may f a c i l i t a t e the l e a r n i n g of a d d i t i o n a l languages. Furthermore, s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have shown that l e a r n i n g more than one language can l e a d to a g r e a t e r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. Given such s t u d i e s , i t has been hypothesized that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n may b e n e f i t from French Immersion j u s t as much as E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n do, and may i n f a c t do b e t t e r . However, the s o c i a l -p s y c h o l o g i c a l model would p r e d i c t t h a t the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s of French Immersion accrued to E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n might accrue to m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n only i f t h e i r n a t i v e language and c u l t u r e are p o s i t i v e l y v alued and a c t i v e l y promoted i n the home. The purpose of t h i s study then, i s to assess the E n g l i s h language a b i l i t i e s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, as w e l l as the a t t i t u d e s towards the m i n o r i t y language to f i n d evidence f o r or a g a i n s t t h i s . The n u l l hypotheses t e s t e d by the data from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e : 1. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between French Immersion program E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s competence in E n g l i s h , as demonstrated by a. r e c e p t i v e s k i l l s . b. p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s . c. m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s . 2. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s of E n g l i s h language competence of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n a French Immersion program and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n a monolingual E n g l i s h program, as demonstrated by a. r e c e p t i v e s k i l l s b. p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s c. m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s 3. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s of E n g l i s h 55 language competence of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s are p o s i t i v e l y valued and maintained and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s are n e g a t i v e l y valued and not maintained. 56 CHAPTER III METHOD Design To determine the e f f e c t s of e a r l y French Immersion on the E n g l i s h s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , these c h i l d r e n ' s performance on t e s t s of E n g l i s h comprehension, p r o d u c t i o n , and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s was compared to that of two other groups of c h i l d r e n : E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s : m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n e a r l y French Immersion. M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s : s i m i l a r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n in a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program ( i . e . not i n French Immersion). Comparison of the E n g l i s h language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion with the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s allows us to determine whether knowledge of a t h i r d language i s b e n e f i c i a l f o r French Immersion students, i n terms of a c q u i r i n g competency i n the m a j o r i t y language. Comparison of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion with the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s allows us to determine the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of French Immersion on m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h language s k i l l s . E v a l u a t i n g the a t t i t u d e s of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , t h e i r parents, and t h e i r teachers towards the m i n o r i t y language 57 and c u l t u r e allows us to determine t o what extent s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s a f f e c t l e a r n i n g the m a j o r i t y language of the community. Subject s T h i r t y grade one c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study, ten in each group. These c h i l d r e n were s e l e c t e d from two sc h o o l s w i t h i n the Vancouver School Board, and from two s c h o o l s w i t h i n the Richmond School Board. The c h i l d r e n were a s s i g n e d to one of three groups on the b a s i s of t h e i r p a r e n t s ' responses to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s regarding frequency of usage of languages i n the home and i n the community. These groups a r e : Experimental group: m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion. E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s : E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion. M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s : m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n an a l l E n g l i s h program ( i . e . not i n Fr e n c h Immersion). Experimental group C h i l d r e n comprising the ex p e r i m e n t a l group s a t i s f i e d the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : they were a l l c o n s i d e r e d by t h e i r parents to have l e a r n e d a language other than French or E n g l i s h b e f o r e they were three years o l d . T h i s language i s co n s i d e r e d the " m i n o r i t y language" as i t i s not spoken by the m a j o r i t y of people i n Vancouver. A l l of these c h i l d r e n i n the experimental group were using the m i n o r i t y language at home b e f o r e they s t a r t e d s c h o o l . At the time t h i s study was undertaken, the c h i l d r e n were s t i l l u s i n g t h i s m i n o r i t y language at home, although to a l e s s e r extent f o r some of them. A l l of the c h i l d r e n ' s parents were 58 non-native speakers of E n g l i s h . The m i n o r i t y language was estimated to be spoken i n the home at l e a s t 50% of the time by at l e a s t one of the p a r e n t s . As t a b l e 2 shows, languages spoken i n the home by these m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n c l u d e d Chinese (5), P e r s i a n (2), German ( 1 ) , Czech ( 1 ) , Spanish ( 1 ) , and G u j a r a t i ( 1 ) , a language of West I n d i a . (The numbers t o t a l to eleven because one of the c h i l d r e n spoke two d i f f e r e n t languages at home—Chinese and German.) In a d d i t i o n to having another language spoken i n the home, a l l of the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s group were a l s o e n r o l l e d i n an e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program. A l l of them had been in' the program s i n c e k i n d e r g a r t e n . M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s The c h i l d r e n comprising the group of m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s met the same c r i t e r i a as the experimental group, but were e n r o l l e d i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program. These c h i l d r e n were not r e c e i v i n g s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n E n g l i s h as an a d d i t i o n a l language ( i . e . were not in E.S.L. c l a s s e s — E n g l i s h as a Second Language). The languages spoken i n these . c h i l d r e n ' s homes i n c l u d e d Chinese (5), Punjabe (2), Korean ( 1 ) , I t a l i a n ( 1 ) , and Greek ( 1 ) . A d d i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p e r t a i n i n g to the language background of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n both of these groups w i l l be e l a b o r a t e d on i n the r e s u l t s c h a p t e r . 59 E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s The E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s spoke only E n g l i s h at home and i n the community. T h e i r parents spoke only E n g l i s h i n the home. L i k e the c h i l d r e n i n the experimental group, these c h i l d r e n were a l l e n r o l l e d i n an e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program, and had been s i n c e k i n d e r g a r t e n . French Immersion programs The French Immersion programs were s i m i l a r i n a l l four schools from which the experimental and E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d : French was the language of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r 100% of the time d u r i n g k i n d e r g a r t e n through grade two. ( I t i s not u n t i l grade three that E n g l i s h language a r t s i s introduced.) P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these French Immersion programs was v o l u n t a r y . The number of s u b j e c t s and schools from which they were s e l e c t e d are shown i n t a b l e 1. Because there were few c h i l d r e n who met the c r i t e r i a f o r the experimental group, i t was necessary to s e l e c t s u b j e c t s from more than one sch o o l and from more than one school board. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , due to the v o l u n t a r y nature of the study i t was not p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n an equal number of s u b j e c t s from each sc h o o l f o r each group, as d e s i r e d . M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s were not s e l e c t e d from W i l l i a m Bridge School or l ' e c o l e b i l i n g u e as these two schools housed French Immersion programs e x c l u s i v e l y , and no r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . 60 Matching of experimental s u b j e c t s with c o n t r o l s Once the experimental s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d , they were each matched as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e to a s u b j e c t i n the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group and to a s u b j e c t i n the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group a c c o r d i n g to age ( i n months), sex, academic performance, socioeconomic s t a t u s (S.E.S.), and language used at home. Academic performance was r a t e d by the c h i l d ' s teacher as being high, average, or below average. An index of S.E.S. was based on the parents' answers on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e g a r d i n g t h e i r occupation and e d u c a t i o n . S.E.S. was c o n s i d e r e d to be high only i f one or both of the parents' o c c u p a t i o n was a t e c h n i c a l or p r o f e s s i o n a l p o s i t i o n , and i f t h e i r e d u c a t i o n exceeded high s c h o o l . Anything other than t h i s was c o n s i d e r e d to be low S.E.S. T h i s d e s c r i p t i v e data of the s u b j e c t s i s presented i n t a b l e 2. 61 Table 1. Number of subjects and schools from which they were selected* School Group Vancouver School Board Sir James Douglas L'ecole bilingue Richmond School Board William Cook William Bridge Experimental (n = 10) 2 Ss. #1A ink k Ss. #3A #5A #6A 2 Ss. #7A #8A 2 Ss. #9A #10A English control (n = 10) 2 Ss. #7B #9B 5 Ss. #2B #3B #4B #5B #6B 3 Ss. #1B #8B #10B Minority control (n = 10) 7 Ss. //IC #2C #3C #4C #7C #8C #9C 3 Ss. #5C #6C #10C Ss. # refers to the subject numbers presented in the results section. 62 Table 2. Descriptive data on subjects 3 Mean Academic Performance S.E.S. Language(s) Sex Age (mo.) High Average Low High Low Used at home Males Females Experimental 82.5 6 1 3 10 0 Chinese - 5 3 7 Persian - 2 German - 1 Czech - 1 Spanish - 1 Gujarat! - 1 English control 82.3 5 2 3 9 1 English 4 6 Minority control 83.1 6 3 1 6 4 Chinese - 5 3 7 Punjabe - 2 Korean - 1 Italian - 1 Greek - 1 a numbers to the right of the foreign language refer to the number of subjects that speak that language. 63 Procedure At the end of grade one, the c h i l d r e n i n a l l three groups were a d m i n i s t e r e d a b a t t e r y of t e s t s to measure t h e i r comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n of E n g l i s h , as w e l l as t h e i r m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s i n E n g l i s h . A l l c h i l d r e n were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y in a q u i e t room w i t h i n t h e i r s c h o o l , with the exception of subject 10A, who was t e s t e d i n her home. The c h i l d r e n were a l l t e s t e d by the same experimenter: a second year M.Sc. student i n speech-language pathology. The t e s t s were ad m i n i s t e r e d in two s e s s i o n s , the f i r s t s e s s i o n l a s t i n g approximately t h i r t y minutes, and the second s e s s i o n l a s t i n g approximately f o r t y - f i v e minutes. A l l t e s t s were ad m i n i s t e r e d in the same order f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . A d e s c r i p t i o n and procedure f o r each of these t e s t s f o l l o w s . E n g l i s h Comprehension T e s t s Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) T h i s a s t a n d a r d i z e d r e c e p t i v e vocabulary t e s t . I t r e q u i r e s the s u b j e c t to p o i n t to the one p i c t u r e of four d e p i c t i n g the vocabulary item spoken by the experimenter. T h i s t e s t took approximately f i f t e e n minutes to a d m i n i s t e r . Token Test f o r C h i l d r e n (DiSimoni, 1978) T h i s a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t designed to screen c h i l d r e n ' s r e c e p t i v e language f u n c t i o n . The t e s t r e q u i r e s the c h i l d to manipulate tokens, l a r g e and small c i r c l e s and squares of v a r i o u s c o l o r s , i n response to the examiner's commands. The t e s t i s d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e p a r t s , each part p r e s e n t i n g 64 p r o g r e s s i v e l y longer and more complex commands, f o r a t o t a l of s i x t y - o n e items. A l l f i v e p a r t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n c o n s e c u t i v e order, t a k i n g approximately f i f t e e n minutes. E n g l i s h Production T e s t s Clark-Madison Test of O r a l Language (Clark & Madison, 1981) T h i s i s a s t a n d a r d i z e d language t e s t designed to examine c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to produce s p e c i f i c m o r p h o l o g i c a l and s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n given semantic and s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s . There are 97 items in t o t a l . S i x t e e n of the items examine the c h i l d ' s use of s i x t e e n t a r g e t s t r u c t u r e s i n the area of syntax. Twenty-one of the items examine the c h i l d ' s use of m o d i f i e r s , determiners, and p r e p o s i t i o n s . E i g h t e e n items examine the usage of i n f l e c t i o n s of nouns, verbs, a d j e c t i v e s , and adverbs. Twenty-one items examine verb forms; t h i r t e e n of these are forms of the verb "to be", and e i g h t are s t r u c t u r e s concerned with the use of verb tense, examining e i g h t verb forms in t o t a l . Twenty-one items examine the use of pronouns i n the three c a s e s : s u b j e c t , o b j e c t , and p o s s e s s i v e . T h i s t e s t uses a n o n i m i t a t i v e technique to e l i c i t the aforementionned s y n t a c t i c and m o r p h o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s ; i t r e q u i r e s the c h i l d to depend on a former statement of the examiner to generate the c o r r e c t response to a subsequent p i c t u r e For example, the examiner shows the p i c t u r e and says, " L i s t e n . He u s u a l l y p a i n t s one p i c t u r e . " The examiner then turns to a second p i c t u r e and says to the c h i l d , " T e l l me. But yesterday ... " t o e l i c i t the s t r u c t u r e , "He p a i n t e d two p i c t u r e s . " The t e s t , a d m i n i s t e r e d i n i t s 65 e n t i r e t y , took about t h i r t y minutes to complete. E l i c i t a t i o n of spontaneous speech A ten to f i f t e e n minute language sample was o b t a i n e d from each c h i l d . The sample was e l i c i t e d by p r e s e n t i n g two p i c t u r e s . The c h i l d r e n were f i r s t presented with the Cookie T h e f t P i c t u r e from the Boston D i a g n o s t i c Aphasic Examination, and were asked to t e l l a l l they c o u l d about that p i c t u r e . They were then presented with a second p i c t u r e d e p i c t i n g an e l f t a l k i n g to some animals. The c h i l d r e n were asked to t e l l the experimenter the st o r y t h a t the e l f was t e l l i n g the animals. They were t o l d t h a t they c o u l d make up a s t o r y . I f t h i s d i d not e l i c i t speech from the c h i l d , he or she was t o l d to r e t e l l a s t o r y that he or she was f a m i l i a r with. These language samples were subsequently analyzed u s i n g the Systematic A n a l y s i s of Language T r a n s c r i p t s (S.A.L.T.), a computer program designed by M i l l e r & Chapman (1983). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Tasks M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Tasks 1 a and 1b These r e p l i c a t e d two tasks used by P r a t t , Tunmer, & Bowey (1984). These two ta s k s were designed to t e s t the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to c o r r e c t sentences c o n t a i n i n g grammatical r u l e v i o l a t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the t a s k s . 66 M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Task 1a: Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n T h i s task r e q u i r e d the c h i l d r e n to c o r r e c t simple sentences, each having a morpheme d e l e t e d or changed. The morphemes manipulated were a l l morphemes that are spontaneously produced by normal c h i l d r e n of ages f i v e to seven y e a r s , and were ones that d i d not c o n t r i b u t e g r e a t l y to the meaning of the sentence (de V i l l i e r s & de V i l l i e r s , 1973, c i t e d i n P r a t t et a l . , 1982). Twelve sentences were used i n t h i s t a s k . These sentences and the morphemes manipulated to produce them are presented i n t a b l e 3. As t a b l e 3 shows, s i x types of morpheme d e l e t i o n s were i n v o l v e d , with two t e s t items c o m p r i s i n g each type. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Task 1b: Word Order C o n d i t i o n T h i s task r e q u i r e d the c h i l d r e n to c o r r e c t sentences which v i o l a t e d the grammatical r u l e s governing word order i n E n g l i s h . There were twelve sentences: s i x sentence types with two items of each type (see t a b l e 4 ) . Three of the sentence types were produced by r e a r r a n g i n g the order of the su b j e c t (S), verb (V), and o b j e c t ( 0 ) , to produce ungrammatical s t r i n g s (items #1-6). The remaining three types i n v o l v e d manipulations of word order w i t h i n the s u b j e c t (items #7 & #10), w i t h i n the o b j e c t (items #8 & #9), and w i t h i n the verb c o n s t i t u e n t s (items #11 & #12). Object r e v e r s a l s r e s u l t i n g i n s e m a n t i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e sentences were avo i d e d . Thus, sentences l i k e "Mary chased the dog" were not used i n c o n j u c t i o n with an SVO OVS r e o r d e r i n g , as the r e s u l t i n g sentence, "The dog chased Mary" i s s t i l l grammatical. 67 Table 3. Test items for metalinguistic task l a — Morpheme Correction Condition (Pratt, Tunmer & Bowey, 1984) Item Morpheme Change Practice Items 1. I t i s Jim book. 2. Bruce saw cat. Possessive -s deleted A r t i c l e omitted Test Items 1. Andrew drink juice every day* 2. S a l l y make mud pies. 3. Sandra i s paint a picture. 4. Susan are sucking a l o l l y . 5. Yesterday John bump his head. 6. Yesterday Sue cook a chicken. 7. I t i s Jack bike. 8. Mary dog was l o s t . 9. G i r l painted a picture. 10. The boy kicked b a l l . 11. Six g i r l ran a race. 12. Tom has two k i t t e n . Third person singular -s omitted Present progressive -ing omitted i s •» are Regular past tense -ed deleted Possessive -s deleted A r t i c l e omitted P l u r a l -s omitted 6 8 Table 4. Test items for metalinguistic task l b — Word Order Condition (Pratt, Tunmer & Bowey, 1984) Item Word Order Change Practice Items 1. Ate the b i s c u i t Sally. 2. Lady the sang a song. svo -»• vos a r t . + N -> N + a r t . Test Items 1. Patted B i l l the dog. 2. Wrote Peter his name. SVO •* VS0 3. Susan the bike rode. 4. Tim the juice drank. SVO •+ SOV 5 . Kicked his b a l l Stephen. 6 . Chased the cat Jim. SVO -*• VOS 7. Teacher the read a story. subject 8. The ca+ chased b i r d the. object, art. + N -* N + art, object -j V adj . + N -» N + adj 10. A lady pretty l i v e s next subjectJ His dad has a car blue. lac door, 11. 12. Dad d r i v i n g i s the car. verb j AUX. + V -> V + AUX. Susan baking i s some cakes. 69 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c tasks For both of these tasks the sentences were presented to the c h i l d r e n u sing two handpuppets (one f o r each c o n d i t i o n ) , which were operated by the experimenter. The experimenter i n t r o d u c e d these tasks by s a y i n g : "I've got some puppets here who haven't q u i t e l e a r n e d how to t a l k p r o p e r l y . What they say i s wrong. I want you to show them what to say, okay?" • F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the a d u l t i n t r o d u c e d the c h i l d to the puppet f o r the a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n . Task 1a—Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n "This i s Jane." (Jane says, " H e l l o , how i s you?") "With Jane, you can t e l l what she's t r y i n g t o say. You can understand her, but she says t h i n g s a b i t wrong. You see i f you can f i x i t up." Each c h i l d was then presented with the two p r a c t i c e items where c o r r e c t i v e feedback was p r o v i d e d to give the c h i l d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o understand what the task i n v o l v e d . I f the c h i l d d i d not respond c o r r e c t l y , the item was repeated at the end of the p r a c t i c e t r i a l s . F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the twelve items were presented without feedback. Task 1b—Word Order C o n d i t i o n "This puppet's c a l l e d F r e d . " (Fred says, " H e l l o . How you a r e ? " ) . "Fred can't t a l k p r o p e r l y . He says t h i n g s a l l jumbled up and he wants you to t r y to unjumble them f o r him." P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey (1984) argue that by not making the c h i l d r e n decide whether a sentence i s grammatical or not, and by d e s c r i b i n g the nature of the puppet's d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s way, the c h i l d r e n are more focussed on making grammatical e v a l u a t i o n s 70 of the u t t e r a n c e s as opposed to making e v a l u a t i o n s of the ut t e r a n c e s based on the sentences' content or on p e r s o n a l experience. The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of these two tasks was balanced a c r o s s a l l of the s u b j e c t s i n each of the three groups of s u b j e c t s : h a l f of the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each group r e c i e v e d the Morpheme C o n d i t i o n f i r s t and h a l f r e c e i v e d the Word Order C o n d i t i o n f i r s t . Within each t e s t c o n d i t i o n the items were arranged i n a quasi-random order and the order of p r e s e n t a t i o n was counterbalanced a c r o s s the c h i l d r e n i n each group. Both c o n d i t i o n s were presented c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h i n the same' s e s s i o n , which l a s t e d approximately f i f t e e n to twenty minutes. S c o r i n g of m e t a l i n g u i s i t i c tasks 1a and 1b The c h i l d r e n ' s responses to the t e s t items of these two tasks were recorded on response s h e e t s . The s c o r i n g of responses as c o r r e c t was somewhat d i f f e r e n t from that used by P r a t t , Tunmer, & Bowey (1984). In the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n P r a t t et a l . counted the c h i l d r e n ' s responses as c o r r e c t i f the c h i l d r e n c o r r e c t e d the sentences grammatically without "producing any fundamental change i n meaning" (1984: 137). However, as these authors noted, there are s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t ways i n which the sentences can be r e t u r n e d grammatical (e.g. the t e s t item "Andrew d r i n k j u i c e everyday" can be changed to "Andrew d i d d r i n k j u i c e everyday," "Andrew was d r i n k i n g j u i c e everyday," "Andrew drank j u i c e , " e t c . ) . In s c o r i n g i t was f e l t t h a t the c r i t e r i o n P r a t t et a l . set f o r 71 c o r r e c t responses was not e x p l i c i t enough f o r our purposes. Some responses which were counted as c o r r e c t , using P r a t t et a l . ' s c r i t e r i o n , appeared to be more c o r r e c t than other responses f a l l i n g i n t o t h i s c o r r e c t category ( i . e . these responses showed more m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness). T h e r e f o r e , an a l t e r n a t e system f o r s c o r i n g was d e v i s e d . Responses were counted as c o r r e c t under a s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n and a l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . Under the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , responses were counted as c o r r e c t i f the sentence was r e t u r n e d grammatical by adding or changing morphemes only where r e q u i r e d . No a d d i t i o n of words was allowed other than those morphemes used to r e t u r n the sentence to grammatical s t a t u s . No s u b s t i t u t i o n or d e l e t i o n of words was allowed under t h i s s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n . For example, with " S a l l y make mud p i e s , " " S a l l y makes apple p i e s " would not be accepted as c o r r e c t a c c o r i n g to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , but would be c o r r e c t under the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . In a d d i t i o n , under the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , responses c o u l d not d e v i a t e from the tense i f the tense was s p e c i f i e d i n the t e s t item. For example, with "Sandra i s p a i n t a p i c t u r e , " "Sandra p a i n t e d a p i c t u r e " or "Sandra was p a i n t i n g a p i c t u r e " were scored as i n c o r r e c t under the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , but were c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t under the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . S i m i l a r l y , with "Susan are sucking a l o l l y , " "Susan was sucking a l o l l y " was not accepted as c o r r e c t under the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n as the tense of the t e s t item i s s p e c i f i e d as present p r o g r e s s i v e , not p a s t . T h i s response would only be scored c o r r e c t under the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . Responses which i n v o l v e d a major change i n semantics or syntax, but which were 72 grammatical were scored as i n c o r r e c t a c c o r d i n g to both c r i t e r i a . For example, with " I t i s Jack b i k e , " the response "Jack i s r i d i n g a b i k e " would be c o n s i d e r e d a major change i n semantics and syntax and would t h e r e f o r e be i n c o r r e c t f o r both c r i t e r i a . For each s u b j e c t , responses such as these and other i n c o r r e c t responses were t a b u l a t e d i n t o f i v e mutually e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s : ( 1 ) Sentence changed but g r a m m a t i c a l — w i t h major changes i n syntax and/or semantics. ( 2 ) Sentence changed, but u n g r a m m a t i c a l — c o r r e c t morpheme s u p p l i e d , but an e r r o r produced elsewhere i n the sentence. ( 3 ) Sentence changed, but ungrammatical—no morpheme or an i n c o r r e c t morpheme s u p p l i e d . ( 4 ) Test item repeated e x a c t l y . (5) No response. In the Word Order C o n d i t i o n items were a l s o s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g to both s t r i c t and l e n i e n t c r i t e r i a , as they were i n the study by P r a t t , Tunmer, & Bowey ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Under the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , responses were counted as c o r r e c t only i f the words rearranged to make the sentence grammatical were the exact same words as given i n the t e s t item. T h i s i s i d e n t i c a l to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n used by P r a t t et a l . Our l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n , however, d i f f e r e d from these authors' l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . P r a t t et a l . counted responses as c o r r e c t under the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n i f the c h i l d r e n e i t h e r reordered the words presented as i n the s t r i c t c i r t e r i o n , or produced a paraphrased v e r s i o n which was not r e s t r i c t e d only to the words presented but which r e s o l v e d the word order v i o l a t i o n without a l t e r i n g the meaning of the sentence. (p. 137) 73 However, as i n the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n , i t was f e l t t hat some responses f a l l i n g i n t o t h i s c o r r e c t category were more c o r r e c t than o t h e r s , and t h e r e f o r e showed more m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness than the other responses i n t h i s c o r r e c t ( l e n i e n t ) c a t e g o r y . For example, f o r the t e s t item "Patted B i l l the dog," the responses " B i l l p a t t e d a dog," or "Paul p a t t e d the dog," show more m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness than the response "Pet the dog" as only one word i s s u b s t i t u t e d i n the two former responses. Thus, the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n was r e d e f i n e d as the f o l l o w i n g . T h i s c r i t e r i o n was the same as the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n with the f o l l o w i n g e x c e p t i o n s : the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e c o u l d be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e ; pronouns c o u l d be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r proper names (e.g. "he" f o r " B i l l " ) ; the p o s s e s s i v e pronouns " h i s " and "her" c o u l d r e p l a c e "the"; proper names c o u l d be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r other proper names; "the" c o u l d be omitted before the word "t e a c h e r " (because c h i l d r e n o f t e n use the word "teacher" as a proper noun). In a d d i t i o n , the response "Susan rode the bike on the road" was counted as c o r r e c t f o r the t e s t item, "Susan the b i k e rode," due to the ambiguity of the word "rode" (road/rode). As i n the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n , the other types of responses given by the c h i l d r e n were t a b u l a t e d i n t o mutually e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s . In the Word Order C o n d i t i o n there were s i x of these c a t e g o r i e s : (1) Sentence changed, but grammatical—word order r e s o l v e d with minor changes i n syntax and/or semantics: In t h i s c a tegory, responses were counted as c o r r e c t i f they d i d not change the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e or meaning of the t e s t item. Omission or a d d i t i o n of some words was accepted. For example, f o r "A lady p r e t t y l i v e s next door", the response "A 74 lady that i s p r e t t y l i v e s next door" would be i n c l u d e d in t h i s category. S i m i l a r l y , f o r "His Dad has a car blu e , " the responses Dad has a car p a i n t e d b l u e " and "His Dad's car i s blue , " would a l s o be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category. (2) Sentence changed, but grammatical—word order not r e s o l v e d due to a major change i n semantics and/or syntax: For example, f o r "Wrote Peter h i s name," the response "Peter i s h i s name" would be c o n s i d e r e d a major change i n the t e s t item and would thus be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category. S i m i l a r l y , f o r "Patted B i l l the dog," the response "Pet the dog" would be i n c l u d e d under t h i s category. (3) Sentence changed, but ungrammatical—word order c o r r e c t e d , but e r r o r elsewhere: A response i n c l u d e d in t h i s category would be one such as "Tim dranked the j u i c e , " f o r the t e s t item, "Tim the j u i c e drank." (4) Sentence changed, but ungrammatical—word order not c o r r e c t e d : a response i n c l u d e d i n t h i s category would be one such as "Dad d r i v e s the car bl u e " f o r the t e s t item, "His Dad has a c a r blu e . " (5) Sentence repeated e x a c t l y . (6) No response. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 2: Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task T h i s task was a r e p l i c a t i o n of one of the tasks used by Rosner & Simon ( 1 9 7 1 ) . I t r e q u i r e d the c h i l d to repeat a spoken word, then repeat i t again without a s p e c i f i e d phoneme. The t e s t items were twelve monosyllabic words. These are shown i n t a b l e 5 . In s i x of these words, the i n i t i a l phoneme was to be e l i m i n a t e d , and i n the other s i x words the f i n a l phoneme was to be e l i m i n a t e d . The e l i m i n a t e d phoneme i s i n d i c a t e d by parentheses i n t a b l e 5 . At the time of t e s t i n g , each c h i l d was given two p r a c t i c e items with c o r r e c t i v e feedback. For the f i r s t p r a c t i c e item, the experimenter t o l d the c h i l d to repeat the word "mad." A f t e r the c h i l d responded, the experimenter t o l d the c h i l d to say t h i s 75 word a g a i n but w i t h o u t the /m/ sound. Note t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r d i d not use the l e t t e r name t o r e f e r t o the sound t o be e l i m i n a t e d . The same pr o c e d u r e was c a r r i e d out f o r the second p r a c t i c e i t e m , except t h a t the word was t o be r e p e a t e d w i t h o u t the l a s t phoneme. The t e s t items were p r e s e n t e d t o the c h i l d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e s e two p r a c t i c e i t e m s . The o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e s e t e s t items was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d ; h a l f of the c h i l d r e n i n each group f i r s t r e c e i v e d the words where the i n i t i a l phoneme was t o be d e l e t e d , and h a l f r e c e i v e d the words where the f i n a l phoneme was t o be d e l e t e d . W i t h i n each word l i s t , t he items were a r r a n g e d i n a quasi-random o r d e r so t h a t the o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n was d i f f e r e n t f o r each c h i l d i n each group. 76 Table 5. Test items for metalinguistic task 2 -- Phoneme Deletion (Rosner & Simon, 1971) a Practice items 1. (m)ad 2. boa(t) F i n a l phoneme deleted 1. bel(t) 2. to(ne) 3. stea(k) 4. plea(se) 5. ti(me) 6. ro(de) I n i t i a l phoneme deleted 7. (m)an 8. (s)our 9. (1)end 10. (g)ate 11. (sc)old 12. ( w ) i l l agraphemes i n parentheses represent phonemes to be deleted. 77 Interview and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Data Before a d m i n i s t e r i n g any of these t e s t s to the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , a short i n t e r v i e w was conducted with each of these c h i l d r e n at the beginning of the f i r s t s e s s i o n of t e s t i n g . The q u e s t i o n s asked i n the i n t e r v i e w are presented i n Appendix A. These q u e s t i o n s were compiled and adapted from Orpwood (1980). The i n t e r v i e w was designed to assess the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s language background and a t t i t u d e s toward the m i n o r i t y language. The a t t i t u d e s of these c h i l d r e n ' s teachers and parents toward the m i n o r i t y language and c u l t u r e were a l s o assessed. These were assessed using a short q u e s t i o n n a i r e , adapted from Lambert & Tucker (1972), Marjoribanks (1979), and Orpwood (1980). A l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e were q u e s t i o n s designed t o e v a l u a t e the home background and f o r e i g n language usage of a l l c h i l d r e n — b o t h m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . These q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are pre s e n t e d i n Appendix B and C r e s p e c t i v e l y . 7 8 C H A P T E R I V . R E S U L T S E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e C o m p r e h e n s i o n  P e a b o d y P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t T h e s c o r e s o n t h i s t e s t w e r e f i r s t t r a n s f o r m e d u s i n g a p o w e r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e h o m o g e n i t y o f v a r i a n c e . A 3 ( g r o u p ) x 2 ( S . E . S . ) a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w a s t h e n p e r f o r m e d o n t h e d a t a . S . E . S . w a s u s e d a s o n e o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n y d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s c o u l d b e d u e t o i n i t a l l y n o t m a t c h i n g t h e c h i l d r e n p e r f e c t l y o n S . E . S . R e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s p e r f o r m e d o n t h e t r a n s f o r m e d d a t a r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t f o r g r o u p ( F ( 2 , 2 5 ) = 5 . 5 5 , p <C . 0 1 ) . T h e r e w e r e n o s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t s f o r S . E . S . , a n d t h e r e w e r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s , s h o w i n g t h a t S . E . S . w a s n o t a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s . T h e m e a n s c o r e s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s f o r t h i s t e s t a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e 6 . S c h e f f e t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r ( p <^  . 1 0 ) t h a n t h e E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s o n t h i s r e c e p t i v e v o c a b u l a r y t e s t . N o o t h e r g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 79 Token Test f o r C h i l d r e n The s c o r e s f o r subtests II and I I I of t h i s t e s t r e q u i r e d a power t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n order to s a t i s f y the c o n d i t i o n of homogenity of v a r i a n c e . A 3 x 2 ANOVA (group x S.E.S.) was then c a r r i e d out on the scores f o r each of these s u b t e s t s of t h i s comprehension t e s t . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean scores between the three groups on the f i r s t two s u b t e s t s of the Token T e s t . However, there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups on s u b t e s t I I I (F(2,25)=6.53, p < .005), subtest V (F(2,25)=7.36, p <.003) and on the o v e r a l l score of t h i s t e s t (F(2,25)=6.10, p < .007). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r S.E.S., and no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s . A posthoc comparison u s i n g S c h e f f e ' s method i n d i c a t e d that the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s ' o v e r a l l s c o r e s and scores on s u b t e s t I I I were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s (p <C .10); t h e i r mean scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those of the experimentals. However, the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s ' scores on s u b t e s t V proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower (p <C .10) than those of both g r o u p s — t h e experimentals and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s ( t h i s f i f t h s u b t e s t c o n t a i n s the l o n g e s t and most complex commands of a l l the s u b t e s t s ) . I t should be noted that scores w i t h i n the range 495-505 i n d i c a t e normal E n g l i s h comprehension and any score below t h i s i n d i c a t e s a comprehension d e f i c i t . As t a b l e 6 i n d i c a t e s , the e x p e r i m e n t a l group and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s score w i t h i n t h i s , r a n g e . The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s score below. The means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , and p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s f o r the three groups 80 of c h i l d r e n f o r these s p e c i f i c s u b t e s t s are presented i n t a b l e 6, along with those of the PPVT. 81 Table 6. Mean Scores and standard deviations for the English comprehension t e s t s 3 VOCABULARY TEST TOKEN TEST (P.P.V.T.) Subtest III Subtest V Overall Score Group M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. Experimental 98.2 17.7 499.2 English control 109.7 6.3 502.5 Minority control 89.9* 10.4 493.3** 6.2 497.9 4.1 497.9 4.6 2.7 500.8 4.4 500.8 3.4 8.8 493.6*** 3.2 493.9+ 5.5 a Scores represent standardized scores which have been derived by way of age norms; they are shown untransformed. Significance levels were calculated using transformed scores. * significant at the p<.01 level (relative to the English control group). ** significant at the p<.005 level (relative to the English control group). *** significant at the p<.003 level (relative to the experimental group and the English control group). + significant at the p<.007 level (relative to the English control group). 82 E n g l i s h Speaking S k i l l s  Clark-Madison Test of O r a l Language The scores on t h i s t e s t were a l s o s ubjected to a 3 x 2 a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . The r e s u l t s y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the three groups' mean scores on t h i s t e s t of E n g l i s h p r o d u c t i o n (F ( 2 , 25) =5 . 05 , p < .01). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r S.E.S. and no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n . Table 7 shows the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each of the three groups. S c h e f f e t e s t s showed that the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on t h i s t e s t than both of the other two g r o u p s — t h e E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s and the experimentals (p *C .10). The mean scores of the experimentals and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Language samples The a n a l y s i s of the language samples suggested that the experimentals and the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s tended to make more morp h o l o g i c a l and s y n t a c t i c e r r o r s than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . Thus, f o r the experimental group, the language samples appeared to r e v e a l more l i n g u i s t i c e r r o r s than d i d the Clark-Madison T e s t . In terms of s y n t a c t i c complexity (as measured by percentage of complex sentences) and vocabulary d i v e r s i t y (as measured by the type-token r a t i o ) , the three groups of c h i l d r e n d i d not appear d i f f e r e n t . A d e s c r i p t i o n of these r e s u l t s appears i n Appendix D. These r e s u l t s were analyzed d e s c r i p t i v e l y , r a t h e r than s t a t i s t i c a l l y due to the many extraneous f a c t o r s t hat can a f f e c t the type of language e l i c i t e d 83 from each c h i l d , i n v a l i d a t i n g s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons of the groups. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Tasks  M e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 1a: Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n . Responses to t h i s task were t a b u l a t e d f o r each subject i n t o the seven m u t a l l y e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter I I I . These responses are shown in t a b l e 8. A two-way ANOVA was performed on the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n scores obtained u s i n g the s t r i c t s c o r i n g c r i t e r i o n . The a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r group (F(2,25)=3.70, p *C .04), but no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r S.E.S. The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t (S.E.S. x group) was not s i g n i f i c a n t . S c h e f f e posthoc group comparisons showed that the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s ' s c o r e s , marked using t h i s s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s (p ^ .10). These two groups were the only two groups whose scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups f a i l e d to reach s i g n f i c a n c e (p ^ .08) when the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n was scored a c c o r d i n g to the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n (these scores i n c l u d e those i n the s t r i c t category p l u s those i n the " a d d i t i o n a l c o r r e c t , l e n i e n t " c a t e g o r y ) . The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h i s t ask, f o r both s t r i c t and l e n i e n t c r i t e r i a , are given i n t a b l e 9. 84 Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviations for the test of English o r a l language ( t o t a l = 97) Clark-Madison Test of Oral Language Group Mean score Standard deviation Experimental 81.0 7.45 English control 83.6 6.08 Minority control 72.9* 7.87 * s i g n i f i c a n t at the p<.01 l e v e l ( r e l a t i v e to the English control group and the experimental group). 85 Table 8. Responses to Morpheme Correction Condition (total = 12) (categories are mutually exclusive so that for each subject there i s a total of 12 responses across categories). Sentence Sentence changed changed but but UNGRAMMATICAL GRAMMATICAL # # with major Appropriate Incorrect Sentence No Correct Additional changes in morpheme morpheme; repeated Response (strict) Correct syntax and/ supplied no morpheme exactly (lenient) or semantics but error supplied Group elsewhere Experimental Ss# la 4 1 2 - 3 1 1 2a 12 - - - - - -3a 10 2 - - - - -4a 11 1 - - - - -5a 10 - - 1 . - - 1 6a 9 1 - - 1 1 -7a 7 1 - - 3 1 -8a 9 1 - 2 - -9a 7 2 - - 3 - -10a 10 2 - - - - -English control lb 9 1 - - 2 - -2b 9 - - - 1 2 -3b 8 2 - 1 - 1 -4b 12 - - - - - -5b 11 1 - - - - -6b 12 - - - - - -7b 11 - - - 1 - -8b 9 - 1 - - -9b 11 - - 1 - - -10b 9 3 - - - - -Minority control l c 3 3 - - 6 - -2c 9 1 - l - - 1 3c 8 2 - 2 - - -4c 9 1 - - - 1 1 5c 9 1 - - 1 - 1 6c 6 2 - - 1 1 2 7c 7 3 - - 1 1 -8c 5 1 1 2 1 - 2 9c 1 - - - 1 9 1 10c 11 - - - - - 1 86 Table 9. Mean number of correct responses ( t o t a l = 12) for each group for the Morpheme Correction Condition 3 Morpheme Correction Condition Group Mean score Standard deviation Experimental 8.9(10.0) 2.3 (2.3) English control 10.1 (11.0) 1.5 (1.1) Minority control 6.8 (8.2) 3.1 (3.1) a The means and standard deviations for the lenient c r i t e r i o n ( t o t a l correct) are i n parentheses. 87 An ANOVA a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y more "no responses" d u r i n g t h i s task than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s d i d , (F(2,25)=12.05, p < .0002). The groups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the number of responses under the other four c a t e g o r i e s : 1) sentence changed, but gammatical with major change i n semantics, 2) a p p r o p r i a t e morpheme s u p p l i e d , but e r r o r elsewhere, 3) i n c o r r e c t or no morpheme s u p p l i e d , and 4) sentence repeated e x a c t l y . A three-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (group x S.E.S. x morpheme change) was performed on each of the group's e r r o r s to determine i f one group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e r r o r s on one of the s i x types of morpheme d e l e t i o n s represented by the t e s t items (the types of morpheme d e l e t i o n s are shown i n t a b l e 3). The r e s u l t s showed that the s i x types of morpheme d e l e t i o n s were of equal d i f f i c u l t y f o r each of the three groups of c h i l d r e n (p<.147). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Task l b : Word Order C o n d i t i o n As i n the Morpheme c o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n , responses to t h i s task were t a b u l a t e d f o r each s u b j e c t i n t o mutually e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r e s . Table 10 shows these responses. Scores f o r t h i s task were a l s o analyzed u s i n g a two-way ANOVA. The a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t the mean scores d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between the groups when the task was scored a c c o r d i n g to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n (p ( .18). Nor d i d they d i f f e r when the task was scored a c c o r d i n g to the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n (p < .28). See t a b l e 11 f o r the mean number of c o r r e c t responses and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r both l e n i e n t and s t r i c t s c o r e s . 88 Table 10. Responses to Word Order Condition (total = 12) (categories are mutually exclusive, so that for each subject there is a total of 12 responses across categories). If Correct (strict) # Additional Correct (lenient) Group Sentence changed but GRAMMATICAL Word Order resolved with minor changes in semantics and/or syntax Word Order not resolved - major change in semantics and/or syntax Sentence changed but UNGRAMMATICAL Word Order corrected, error elsewhere Word Order not corrected Sentence repeated exactly No Response Experimental Ss# la 8 - 1 - 1 2 - -2a 12 - - - - - - -3a 12 - - - - - - -4a 6 1 3 1 - - - 1 5a 5 2 2 - 2 - - 1 6a 8 1 1 - - 1 - 1 7a 10 - - - - 1 1 -8a 6 - 4 - - 2 - -9a 9 1 - - - 2 - -10a 6 2 2 1 - - - . 1 English control • lb 6 1 1 - 1 2 _ 1 2b 6 2 ? 1 - - - 1 3b 4 1 3 - 1 2 - 1 4b 10 - 1 - - - - 1 5b 6 1 1 - - - - 2 6b 8 1 I - - 1 - 1 7b 9 - - - - - - 3 8b 10 - 2 - - - - -9b 10 - - - - 1 - 1 10b 6 1 1 - - 4 - -Minority control lc 4 1 3 1 - 3 _ -2c 6 - 2 - 1 - - 3 3c 5 3 2 2 - - - -4c 8 - 1 - - - - 3 5c 5 2 - - - 3 - 2 6c 4 2 1 - 1 1 3 -7c 7 2 2 - - 1 - -8c 10 - 1 - 1 - - -9c 2 1 - - - 4 5 -10c 8 2 - - 1 1 ' - -89 Table 11. Mean number of correct responses ( t o t a l = 12) for each group for the Word Order Condition 3 Word Order Condition Group Mean score Standard deviation Experimental 8.2 (8.9) 2.5 (2.1) English control 7.5 (8.2) 2.2 (1.7) Minority control 5.9 (7.2) 2.4 (2.3) a The means and standard deviations for the lenient c r i t e r i o n ( t o t a l correct) are i n parentheses. 90 No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups were found using an even more l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . That i s to say, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups were s t i l l not found when the t o t a l number of c o r r e c t responses i n c l u d e d those responses i n the s t r i c t and l e n i e n t c a t e g o r y , as w e l l as those i n the c a t e g o r y e n t i t l e d , "sentence changed, but grammatical, with only minor changes in syntax and/or semantics" ( t h i s c ategory i s most l i k e l y the one used by P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey, 1984, as t h e i r " l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n " ) . T h i s would be expected s i n c e no d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups were found when the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n was used f o r s c o r i n g . Each group's e r r o r s on the Word Order C o n d i t i o n were a n a l y z e d , as i n the Morpheme c o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n , to determine i f some sentence change types were more d i f f i c u l t than o t h e r s . R e s u l t s of a three-way ANOVA (group x change x S.E.S.) y i e l d e d a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r change (F(5,150)=13.99, P<\00001), but no other s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . Thus, f o r a l l t h r e e groups, the type of sentence change made a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the c h i l d r e n ' s responses. A S c h e f f e t e s t (p^.05) i n d i c a t e d t h a t sentence change types f i v e and s i x ( A d j . + N — ^ N+ad j .; AUX. + V —5>v + AUX) produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e r r o r s than the sentence change types three and four (SVO-^>VOS; ART+ N -> N 4- ART) . A 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA (group x S.E.S. x task) was c a r r i e d out to determine whether the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n was e a s i e r f o r the c h i l d r e n than the Word Order C o n d i t i o n . The l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n was used f o r both t a s k s . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a 91 s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r task (F(1,50) =8 .02, p ^ .007) and f o r group (F(2,50)=3.28, p <C .05), showing that a l l groups of c h i l d r e n made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e r r o r s on the Word Order C o n d i t i o n than on the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n . A l l i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . M e t a l i n g u i s t i c task 2: Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task Scores f o r both the i n i t i a l and f i n a l phoneme d e l e t i o n task were transformed, using a power t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . The two-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e that was subsequently performed r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betweeen the groups f o r the f i n a l phoneme c o n d i t i o n (p <T .25), or f o r the i n i t i a l phoneme c o n d i t i o n (p K .85). The mean number c o r r e c t and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each group are i l l u s t r a t e d i n t a b l e 12. To determine the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of the i n i t i a l phoneme c o n d i t i o n and the f i n a l phoneme c o n d i t i o n , a three-way ANOVA (group x task x S.E.S.) was performed. No s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s were found, suggesting that a l l three groups of c h i l d r e n found the two c o n d i t i o n s e q u a l l y d i f f i c u l t . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group S.E.S. i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t (F(1,50)=4.14,' . However, r e s u l t s of the S c h e f f e t e s t at the .10 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f a i l e d to separate out these two e f f e c t s . 92 Table 12. Mean number of correct responses for the Phoneme Deletion Task ( t o t a l = 6, for each part), shown as raw scores and percentages (%) I n i t i a l Phoneme F i n a l Phoneme Group M S.D. M S.D. Experimental 5.4 (89.9%) (16.1) a 5.4 (89.9%) (11.7) English control 5.1 (84.9%) (30.9) 4.7 (78.3%) (33.4) Minority control 4.6 (76.6%) (29.6) 4.1 (68.3%) (44.1) a Standard deviation i s based on %. Scores and standard deviations are shown untransformed. 1 93 Home Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s u l t s Language Background The survey of the c h i l d r e n ' s language background from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : Experimentals None of the c h i l d r e n were born i n the country where t h e i r n a t i v e language was spoken. A l l of the experimental c h i l d r e n were born i n Canada, except two. One of these c h i l d r e n was born in S w i t z e r l a n d , but moved to an E n g l i s h speaking country at seven months of age. The other c h i l d was born i n the U.S.A. A l l of these c h i l d r e n ' s parents had emigrated to Canada. Within each set of parents both came from the same language and c u l t u r a l background, except i n one case. (One c h i l d ' s mother was Chinese, whereas her f a t h e r was German.) Eleven of the parents c o n s i d e r e d themselves to be f l u e n t speakers of E n g l i s h ; nine of the parents c o n s i d e r e d themselves to speak E n g l i s h f a i r l y w e l l . A l l of the c h i l d r e n i n the experimental group were spoken to i n the m i n o r i t y language by t h e i r c a r e t a k e r s before they s t a r t e d s c h o o l . The percentages of home use of the m i n o r i t y language v a r i e d from 50% to 100%. Out of these ten c h i l d r e n , s i x spoke only the m i n o r i t y language b e f o r e s t a r t i n g s c h o o l . The other four c h i l d r e n spoke both E n g l i s h and the m i n o r i t y language before s t a r t i n g s c h o o l . P r e s e n t l y , o n l y one of the c h i l d r e n uses e x c l u s i v e l y the m i n o r i t y language at home. However, four more c h i l d r e n 94 p r e s e n t l y speak the m i n o r i t y language most of the time at home, and f i v e of the c h i l d r e n speak both E n g l i s h and the m i n o r i t y language at home. Only one of the c h i l d r e n h a r d l y every speaks the m i n o r i t y language at home. Hal f of these c h i l d r e n can read and w r i t e t h e i r m i n o r i t y language. Three c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d p r i v a t e c l a s s e s where t h e i r m i n o r i t y language i s taught. M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s Only one of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n was born i n the country where h i s n a t i v e language was spoken. T h i s c h i l d l i v e d i n t h i s country f o r approximately three years p r i o r to coming to Canada ( s u b j e c t #9A). A l l of the c h i l d r e n ' s parents had emigrated to Canada. For a l l s e t s of paren t s , each p a i r was of. the same language and c u l t u r a l background. Only one set of parents c o n s i d e r e d themselves to be f l u e n t speakers of e n g l i s h . Six s e t s of parents f e l t t h a t they spoke E n g l i s h f a i r l y w e l l , and the remaining three s e t s of parents claim e d to speak E n g l i s h only "a l i t t l e . " A l l of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n the c o n t r o l group were spoken to i n t h e i r m i n o r i t y language by t h e i r c a r e t a k e r s before they s t a r t e d s c h o o l . However, three of these c h i l d r e n a l s o attended E n g l i s h daycare p r i o r to beginning s c h o o l . The percentage of home use of the m i n o r i t y language v a r i e d from 50% to 97%. Out of these ten c h i l d r e n , f i v e spoke only the m i n o r i t y 95 language before s t a r t i n g s c h o o l . The other f i v e c h i l d r e n spoke both E n g l i s h and the m i n o r i t y language before s t a r t i n g s c h o o l . P r e s e n t l y , none of the c h i l d r e n use only the m i n o r i t y language at home. However, f i v e of the c h i l d r e n use mostly the m i n o r i t y language at home. Four c h i l d r e n speak both E n g l i s h and the m i n o r i t y language at home. Only one of the c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y h a r d l y ever speaks the m i n o r i t y language at home. H a l f of these c h i l d r e n can read and w r i t e t h e i r m i n o r i t y language. Four c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d p r i v a t e c l a s s e s where t h e i r m i n o r i t y language i s taught. A t t i t u d e s Experimentals The m i n o r i t y language was being used f o r m a i n t a i n i n g c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e "very o f t e n " i n four of the f a m i l i e s , "sometimes" i n f i v e of the f a m i l i e s , and " r a r e l y " i n only one of the f a m i l i e s . E i g h t s e t s of paretns f e l t t h a t i t was important that t h e i r n a t i v e language be maintained i n the f a m i l y and that t h e i r c h i l d speak i t f l u e n t l y . One set of parents f e l t i t was more important f o r t h e i r c h i l d to understand t h e i r n a t i v e language than t o speak i t f l u e n t l y . The other set of parents d i d not r e a l l y c a r e i f t h e i r n a t i v e language was maintained i n the home. 96 M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s The m i n o r i t y language was being used f o r m a i n t a i n i n g c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e "always" by two of the f a m i l i e s , "sometimes" by seven of the f a m i l i e s , and " r a r e l y " by only one of the f a m i l i e s . E i g h t s e t s of parents f e l t that i t was important that t h e i r n a t i v e language be maintained i n the family' and that t h e i r c h i l d speak i t f l u e n t l y . The other parents d i d not r e a l l y care i f t h e i r n a t i v e language was maintained or not. Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s u l t s The t e a c h e r s ' responses to t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s : Experimentals 1. 9/10 t e a c h e r s d i d not speak the n a t i v e language of the m i n o r i t y language student. 2. The m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e was not s t u d i e d i n the c l a s s to a great extent (4/10 teachers claimed to teach about the m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e s i n c l a s s ) . 3. The h o l i d a y s of the m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e were not c e l e b r a t e d to a great e x t e n t . 4. The m a j o r i t y of the t e a c h e r s would allow the c h i l d to speak the m i n o r i t y language in c l a s s i f p o s s i b l e . 5. Most of these m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n had an o p p o r t u n i t y to speak t h e i r language at school (during recess or l u n c h ) . 6. 6/10 t e a c h e r s knew the occupation of the experimental c h i l d r e n ' s p a r e n t s . 97 M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s 1. None of the teachers spoke the m i n o r i t y language. 2. The m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e was being s t u d i e d in the c l a s s by s i x of these c h i l d r e n . 3. The h o l i d a y s of the m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e were being c e l e b r a t e d to a c e r t a i n extent (5/10 t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d that they c e l e b r a t e d the m i n o r i t y c u l t u r e i n c l a s s ) . 4. The m a j o r i t y of the t e a c h e r s would allow the c h i l d to speak the m i n o r i t y language i n c l a s s , i f p o s s i b l e . 5. A l l of the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s had an o p p o r t u n i t y to speak t h e i r n a t i v e language at s c h o o l ( d u r i n g recess and l u n c h ) . 6. The occupation of these c h i l d r e n ' s parents was unknown to most of the t e a c h e r s . 98 C h i l d r e n ' s Interviews The m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s responses d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s : Experimentals 1. 5/10 c h i l d r e n l i k e d speaking E n g l i s h b e t t e r than t h e i r n a t i v e language, and 5/10 of these c h i l d r e n l i k e d speaking E n g l i s h and t h e i r n a t i v e language e q u a l l y w e l l . 2. A l l but one c h i l d f e l t t h a t they would encourage t h e i r own c h i l d r e n to l e a r n t h e i r n a t i v e language.' M i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s 1. 6/10 c h i l d r e n l i k e d speaking E n g l i s h b e t t e r than t h e i r n a t i v e language, and 4/10 of these c h i l d r e n l i k e d speaking E n g l i s h and t h e i r n a t i v e language e q u a l l y w e l l . 2. A l l but two of the ten c h i l d r e n f e l t that they would encourage t h e i r own c h i l d r e n to l e a r n t h e i r n a t i v e language. Summary of the R e s u l t s For ease of r e f e r e n c e , the n u l l hypotheses s t a t e d i n chapter II are r e s t a t e d h e r e : 1. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s competence i n E n g l i s h , as demonstrated by a. r e c e p t i v e s k i l l s b. p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s c. m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s 2. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s of E n g l i s h language competence of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n a French Immersion program and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n a monolingual E n g l i s h program, as demonstrated by a. r e c e p t i v e s k i l l s b. p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s c. m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s 3. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s of E n g l i s h language competence of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s are p o s i t i v e l y valued and maintained 99 and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s are n e g a t i v e l y valued and not maintained. Comprehension of E n g l i s h Receptive vocabulary (Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test) The experimentals were s i m i l a r to the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s and the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s i n t h e i r knowledge of E n g l i s h . The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on t h i s t e s t . Comprehension of commands (Token Test) The experimentals scored as w e l l as the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on a l l of the s u b t e s t s of t h i s t e s t of E n g l i s h comprehension. The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on s u b t e s t III and on the o v e r a l l score of t h i s t e s t , but on subtest V (which c o n t a i n s the most d i f f i c u l t commands) they scored lower than both the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s and the e x p e r i m e n t a l s . On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s , with the e x c l u s i o n of s u b t e s t V, we must accept the f i r s t two n u l l hypotheses r e g a r d i n g comprehension s k i l l s (although t a k i n g subtest V of the Token Test s e p a r a t e l y , we would r e j e c t the second n u l l h y p o t h e s i s ) . E n g l i s h Speaking S k i l l s Clark-Madison Test of O r a l Language The experimentals d i d j u s t as w e l l as the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on t h i s t e s t . The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored lower on t h i s t e s t of E n g l i s h p r o d u c t i o n than both of the other two g r o u p s — t h e 100 E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s and the experimentals. Language samples Both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n tended to make more morp h o l o g i c a l arid s y n t a c t i c e r r o r s than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . The r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the t e s t of o r a l language p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e us to accept the f i r s t n u l l h y p o t hesis r e g a r d i n g p r o d u c t i o n s k i l l s , but to r e j e c t t h i s second n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . E n g l i s h M e t a l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t i e s Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n When the scores were marked a c c o r d i n g to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s s c o r e d lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s (but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the e x p e r i m e n t a l s ) . The experimental's scores d i d not d i f f e r from those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . A l l groups performed s i m i l a r l y when the scores were marked a c c o r d i n g to the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . Word Order C o n d i t i o n A l l groups performed s i m i l a r l y on t h i s task, when the scores were marked a c c o r d i n g to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , and a l s o when marked a c c o r d i n g to the l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n . T h i s c o n d i t i o n was more d i f f i c u l t than the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n f o r a l l three groups. Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task A l l three groups obtained s i m i l a r scores on t h i s task, the average scores being very good f o r each group. The i n i t i a l 101 phoneme d e l e t i o n task proved to be j u s t as d i f f i c u l t as the f i n a l phoneme d e l e t i o n task f o r a l l three groups. The f i r s t two n u l l hypotheses re g a r d i n g m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s are accepted based on the r e s u l t s of these three m e t a l i n g u i s t i c t a s k s . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s u l t s O v e r a l l , the responses on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n d i c a t e d that the f a m i l i e s of both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n were making an e f f o r t to maintain and promote the m i n o r i t y language c u l t u r e and language in the home. Thus, the p i c t u r e t h a t emerges i s one where the m i n o r i t y language and c u l t u r e are being p o s t i v e l y v a l u e d by both the experimental and the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l groups. The two groups do not d i f f e r g r e a t l y i n t h i s r e s p e c t . T h i s i s supported by the answers given by the p a r e n t s , by the t e a c h e r s , and by the c h i l d r e n themselves. One d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups i s the p a r e n ts' assessment of t h e i r own l e v e l of competence in E n g l i s h . While the r e s u l t s suggest t h a t o v e r a l l there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the l e v e l s of E n g l i s h language competence of both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s are p o s i t i v e l y valued and maintained, the nature of t h i s study d i d not make i t p o s s i b l e to determine whether such c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h language competence would be d i f f e r e n t from those of s i m i l a r c h i l d r e n whose languages and c u l t u r e s were n e g a t i v e l y valued and not maintained. Thus, t h i s t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s can n e i t h e r be accepted nor r e j e c t e d . 1 02 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The main purpose of the study was to determine the l e v e l of E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n an e a r l y t o t a l French Immersion program. The r e s u l t s demonstrate that these c h i l d r e n f u n c t i o n l i k e E n g l i s h monolingual c h i l d r e n in French Immersion, i n terms of t h e i r E n g l i s h comprehension, p r o d u c t i o n , and m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . The r e s u l t s a l s o show that these m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from the c o n t r o l m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n (educated i n a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program) i n terms of E n g l i s h m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s or r e c e p t i v e v o c a b u l a r y . However, i n terms of E n g l i s h p r o d u c t i o n and comprehension of complex commands, the experimental m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than the c o n t r o l m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . These r e s u l t s support our hypotheses s t a t i n g that 1) the o r a l / a u r a l E n g l i s h language s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n in French Immersion would be at l e a s t as good as those of E n g l i s h speaking c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, i f the m i n o r i t y language was p o s i t i v e l y v alued and maintained, and th a t 2 ) these m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s a u r a l / o r a l E n g l i s h language s k i l l s 103 would be at l e a s t as good as those of s i m i l a r m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n educated in a r e g u l a r E n g l i s h language program. The r e s u l t s a l s o c o r r o b o r a t e those of Carey & Cummins (1983) and those of Orpwood (1980) who showed that the E n g l i s h s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion were as good as those of m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n the same program. My study not only r e p l i c a t e d the r e s u l t s of the Carey & Cummins and Orpwood i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , but a l s o c o n t r o l l e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n academic a b i l i t i e s and S.E.S.—which these two s t u d i e s d i d n o t — a n d used a s l i g h t l y l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . Thus my study p r o v i d e s even s t r o n g e r support f o r the above f i n d i n g s . Stern (1982) p o s t u l a t e d that the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion should perform even b e t t e r than t h e i r E n g l i s h language c o n t r o l s , because of the p o s i t e d language-, l e a r n i n g advantages of a c q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n a l languages. T h i s p r o p o s a l was not supported by the r e s u l t s of my study. One p o s s i b l e reason f o r t h i s i s that the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of such a b i l i n g u a l education might not appear u n t i l the c h i l d r e n are o l d e r . A l o n g i t u d i n a l study would perhaps i n d i c a t e that these c h i l d r e n e v e n t u a l l y outperform t h e i r E n g l i s h c o u n t e r p a r t s . (In any case they should e v e n t u a l l y do b e t t e r than t h e i r monolingual E n g l i s h peers. Note that the experimental group i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was not compared with a monolingual E n g l i s h c o n t r o l group, i . e . E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n i n the usual E n g l i s h language schools.) On the other hand, the r e s u l t s might r e v e a l e r r o r s i n these c h i l d r e n ' s 1 04 E n g l i s h which the present t e s t i n g d i d not, simply because the language f u n c t i o n s c a l l e d upon i n the higher grades become i n c r e a s i n g l y more complex. In any case, a l o n g i t u d i n a l study would be necessary to see i f the r e l a t i v e performance l e v e l s shown i n t h i s study are long-term or short-term. While t h i s study showed that the experimental c h i l d r e n d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s on a l l of the E n g l i s h t e s t s which were administered, i t a l s o showed t h a t the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored c o n s i s t e n t l y lower on these t e s t s than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with those of s e v e r a l s t u d i e s showing that m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n , when educated i n a m a j o r i t y language program (such as i n the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs), are not always s u c c e s s f u l i n a c q u i r i n g competency i n the m a j o r i t y language. In t h i s study i t was hypothesized that s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s were the primary p r e d i c t o r s of a c h i l d ' s success i n the m a j o r i t y language. Why then d i d the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s score lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , whereas the expe r i m e n t a l s d i d not, when both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n were shown (by the responses on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ) to value t h e i r f i r s t language to the same extent? There are s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s which c o u l d account f o r t h i s . F i r s t , i t c o u l d be that the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of E n g l i s h that the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s were exposed to was not as good or as much as that of the experimentals. As the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n d i c a t e d , more of the parents of the c h i l d r e n i n the experimental group c o n s i d e r e d themselves to be f l u e n t speakers 105 of E n g l i s h than the parents of the c h i l d r e n i n the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l group. Although both groups of parents spoke mostly the m i n o r i t y language at home, sometimes they a l s o spoke E n g l i s h . Thus, perhaps the E n g l i s h models p r o v i d e d by the parents of the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s were not as good as those p r o v i d e d by the parents of the experimental c h i l d r e n . Another second p o s s i b l e f a c t o r e x p l a i n i n g why a d i f f e r e n c e i n E n g l i s h s k i l l s was found between the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , but not between the experimentals and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , concerns the extent to which the f i r s t and second languages were mixed in the homes. The extent to which the m i n o r i t y language and E n g l i s h were kept separate i n the homes of the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ( i . e . spoken i n separate c o n t e x t s or by separate people) was not a s s e s s e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s w e l l documented that a t t a i n i n g b i l i n g u a l competence i s more d i f f i c u l t f o r the c h i l d when the two languages are mixed. The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s p o s s i b l y had more mixing of the two languages than the e x p e r i m e n t a l s , c a u s i n g them to score s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . Indeed, the parents of the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s may not be aware of the c o n d i t i o n s necessary f o r s u c c e s s f u l language l e a r n i n g to the same extent as the other two groups of p a r e n t s . Although both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n had t h e i r f i r s t language a c t i v e l y promoted i n the home and had p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards t h i s language, i t c o u l d be that the parents of the experimentals had more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards language l e a r n i n g and education i n g e n e r a l than the parents of the 106 m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s . The f a c t that the experimental group's parents have e n r o l l e d t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion i s evidence t h a t they are aware of the importance of l e a r n i n g a d d i t i o n a l languages. A home environment, such as t h i s which i s conducive to language l e a r n i n g , can perhaps e x p l a i n why the e x p e r i m e n t a l s were able to l e a r n E n g l i s h to a l e v e l of competency s i m i l a r to that of the E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n , whereas the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s were not. T h i s r a i s e s the more g e n e r a l problem of e v a l u a t i n g a t t i t u d e s . Because of the s u b j e c t i v i t y of the q u e s t i o n s a s s e s s i n g a t t u t u d e s toward the f i r s t language, the experimental group and the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s may have a c t u a l l y d i f f e r e d more in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards the m i n o r i t y language than the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e v e a l e d — t h e experimentals perhaps v a l u i n g t h e i r n a t i v e language to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t . In a d d i t i o n , as a l r e a d y mentioned', the c h i l d r e n ' s competency i n t h e i r f i r s t language may have been a f a c t o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i r competence i n E n g l i s h . The m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s may have had poorer f i r s t language s k i l l s than the experimental c h i l d r e n . T h e r e f o r e , they were not able to reach the same degree of competence i n E n g l i s h as were the experimentals, assuming t h a t the " t h r e s h o l d h y p o t h e s i s " i s c o r r e c t . In the cases where the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than both groups of c h i l d r e n , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the French Immersion program themselves may be the cause. As was seen i n Chapter I, the e d u c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the French Immersion program are q u i t e 1 07 d i f f e r e n t from those of the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h program (see p. 41-42). The d i f f e r e n c e s between the two programs may be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the poorer performance of the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l s on the E n g l i s h comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n t e s t s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might i n d i c a t e whether some of the e d u c a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the French Immersion programs should be i n c o r p r a t e d i n t o the r e g u l a r E n g l i s h programs i n order to improve the E n g l i s h s k i l l s of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . In cases where no d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the groups, such as on two of the m e t a l i n g u i s t i c t a s k s , the tasks themselves may be at f a u l t . The Phoneme D e l e t i o n Task appeared r e l a t i v e l y easy for a l l three groups of c h i l d r e n , perhaps c a u s i n g a c e i l i n g e f f e c t to occur. On the other hand, the Word Order Task may not have been a p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e task f o r b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n , f o r the scores of these three groups of c h i l d r e n were q u i t e s i m i l a r to those of the grade one E n g l i s h monolinguals s t u d i e d i n 1984 by P r a t t , Tunmer & Bowey (using h i s s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n and our l e n i e n t c r i t e r i o n f o r comparison). T h i s would be c o n s i s t e n t with I a n c o - W o r r a l l ' s c l a i m that b i l i n g u a l i s m can f a c i l i t a t e c e r t a i n m e t a l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s , but not a l l . Since there are d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness, i t i s perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g that no d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups were found f o r the Word Order Task, but were found f o r the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n Task. Although a l l three groups found the Word Order Task more d i f f i c u l t than the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n Task (as P r a t t ' s English-monolingual c h i l d r e n d i d ) , when the scores were marked a c c o r d i n g 108 to the s t r i c t c r i t e r i o n , t h i s l a t t e r task appeared to cause both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n more d i f f i c u l t y than the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n . (Although the e x p e r i m e n t a l s ' scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y below those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s , they were nonetheless lower.) The d i f f e r e n c e s between groups appear to be l i n g u i s t i c a l l y based. The lower s c o r e s of both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n on the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n Task are c o n s i s t e n t with the r e s u l t s from the language samples and the Clark-Madison Test of O r a l Language. ( R e c a l l t h a t while the d i f f e r e n c e between the experimentals and the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s was not s i g n i f i c a n t , the experimentals' s c o r e s on t h i s t e s t of p r o d u c t i o n were nonetheless lower.) The language samples in p a r t i c u l a r showed that both groups of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n tended to make more m o r p h o l o g i c a l e r r o r s than the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . Because the m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n tend to make more mo r p h o l o g i c a l e r r o r s when speaking E n g l i s h i t f o l l o w s t h a t they would have problems r e f l e c t i n g on sentences with m o r p h o l o g i c a l e r r o r s i n order to render them c o r r e c t , as was r e q u i r e d by the Morpheme C o r r e c t i o n Task. The r e s u l t s from t h i s study do not l e n d c l e a r support f o r e i t h e r the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model or the s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l model. The m i n o r i t y language and experimental groups d i d not appear to d i f f e r from each other i n the extent to which the f i r s t language was v a l u e d and promoted i n the home, yet the m i n o r i t y c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d from the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s i n t h e i r E n g l i s h s k i l l s , w h i l e the experimental c h i l d r e n d i d not. 109 Thus, i t appears the p o s i t i v e l y v a l u i n g the f i r s t language i s not the only f a c t o r determining the success i n the m a j o r i t y language ( i . e . E n g l i s h ) . I t may be that competency i n the f i r s t language i s a l s o a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r , which i s what the p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model p r e d i c t s . There i s no evidence to r e j e c t t h i s model because the c h i l d r e n ' s l e v e l of competency i n the f i r s t language was not a s s e s s e d . L i k e w i s e , there i s no evidence to r e j e c t the s o c i a l - • p s y c h o l o g i c a l model, f o r i t was shown that the E n g l i s h s k i l l s of the e xperimental c h i l d r e n , who w e r e ' p o s i t i v e l y v a l u i n g t h e i r n a t i v e language, were s i m i l a r to those of the E n g l i s h c o n t r o l s . Most l i k e l y , f e a t u r e s of both models are necessary i n order to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the performance of the m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y language c h i l d r e n i n second language programs. T h i s study i l l u s t r a t e s the complex nature of second language l e a r n i n g and emphasizes the f a c t that many v a r i a b l e s can a f f e c t the l i n g u i s t i c performance of c h i l d r e n i n b i l i n g u a l programs. As i s the case with many other s t u d i e s of second language l e a r n i n g , the r e s u l t s of t h i s present study are not e n t i r e l y c o n c l u s i v e because of the number and complexity of v a r i a b l e s inherent i n second language l e a r n i n g , and because of the s m a l l number of s u b j e c t s per group. V a r i a b l e s that l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of these r e s u l t s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g . The amount and q u a l i t y of E n g l i s h exposure c o u l d have v a r i e d g r e a t l y among the c h i l d r e n . S i m i l a r l y , the age at which the c h i l d r e n were exposed to the second or t h i r d language may have d i f f e r e d . Some c h i l d r e n may 1 10 have l e a r n e d one language before s t a r t i n g to l e a r n the second language (such as the E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion), whereas other c h i l d r e n may have l e a r n e d the two (or three) languages s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . D i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c e f f e c t s may r e s u l t from these two d i f f e r e n t b i l i n g u a l e x p e r i e n c e s . The amount that the f i r s t language was spoken i s no doubt another v a r i a b l e . " P a s s i v e " b i l i n g u a l i s m (where one comprehends the language much b e t t e r than one speaks i t ) i s l i k e l y to le a d to d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c r e s u l t s than " a c t i v e " b i l i n g u a l i s m (where the language i s a c t i v e l y used). These v a r i a b l e s were not adequately e v a l u a t e d with the q u e s t i o n n a i r e data o b t a i n e d . I t i s probable that an i n t e r v i e w format would be a b e t t e r way to assess such f a c t o r s . F i n a l l y , the d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques of the d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s , and of the d i f f e r e n t teachers w i t h i n the schools themselves may have a f f e c t e d the c h i l d ' s development of the m a j o r i t y language. Future s t u d i e s should keep i n mind these v a r i a b l e s . Throughout the preceding d i s c u s s i o n i t has been assumed that the instruments used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n to assess E n g l i s h comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n adequately t e s t what they purport to t e s t . However, these t e s t s merely sample the c h i l d r e n ' s language a b i l i t i e s and t h e i r r e s u l t s may not be e n t i r e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t i e s . For example, the Token Test, while p u r p o r t i n g to t e s t comprehension, only t e s t s the comprehension of commands of a f a i r l y l i m i t e d number of s y n t a c t i c types. While the use of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s 111 such as these i s p r e v a l e n t i n t r a d i t i o n a l r esearch methodology, t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s should be kept i n mind. Despite these shortcomings i t can be concluded from t h i s study that French Immersion i s an a p p r o p r i a t e method f o r t e a c h i n g second (or t h i r d ) language s k i l l s f o r both m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s , i t i s recommended that parents of m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n not h e s i t a t e t o - e n r o l l t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n French Immersion, provided t h e i r n a t i v e language and c u l t u r e continue to be v a l u e d and promoted i n the home. These m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n ' s E n g l i s h s k i l l s do not s u f f e r , p l u s they have the advantage over m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n not in French Immersion, of having a c q u i r e d a t h i r d language. 0 1 1 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bain , B. (1975). Toward an i n t e g r a t i o n of P i a g e t and Vygotsky: b i l i n g u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . L i n g u i s t i c s 160. 5-20. B a r i k , H. & Swain, M. (1976). A l o n g i t u d i n a l study of b i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e development. I n t e r n a t i o n a l  J o u r n a l of Psychology 11. 251-263. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977a). The e f f e c t of S p a n i s h - E n g l i s h b i l i n g u a l i s m i n c h i l d r e n from l e s s p r i v i l e g e d neighborhoods on c o g n i t i v e development and c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y . Working  Papers on B i l i g u a l i s m 14. 83-122. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977b). Mechanisms by which c h i l d h o o d b i l i n g u a l i s m a f f e c t s understanding of language and c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s . In P. Hornby (ed.), B i l i n g u a l i s m :  P s y c h o l o g i c a l , S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic P r e s s . Ben-Zeev, S. (1984). B i l i n g u a l i s m and c o g n i t i v e development. In M. M i l l e r (ed.), B i l i n g u a l i s m and Language D i s a b i l i t y :  Assessment and Remediation. San Diego: C o l l e g e H i l l Press, Inc. Bruck, M. (1978). The s u i t a b i l i t y of e a r l y French Immersion programs f o r the language d i s a b l e d c h i l d . Canadian Modern  Language Review 34. 884-887. Bruck, M. (1982). Language-impaired c h i l d r e n ' s performance i n an a d d i t i v e b i l i n g u a l e ducation program. A p p l i e d  P s y c h o l i g u i s t i e s 3. 45-60. Blachman, B. (1984). Language a n a l y s i s s k i l l s and e a r l y reading a c q u i s i t o n . In G. Wallach & K. B u t l e r (eds), Language L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s i n School-Age C h i l d r e n . B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s & W i l k i n s . Carey, S. & Cummins, J . (1983). Achievement, b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s and te a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of francophone and anglophone Immersion students. A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of  E d u c a t i o n a l Research 29. 159-167. Cohen, A. (1975). S u c c e s s f u l Immersion education i n North America. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m 5. 39-45. Cummins, J . (1976). The i n f l u e n c e of b i l i n g u a l i s m on c o g n i t i v e growth: a s y n t h e s i s of r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and e x p l a n a t o r y hypotheses. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m 9. 1-43. 1 1 3 Cummins, J . (1978a). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c development of c h i l d r e n i n b i l i n g u a l education programs: data from I r i s h and Canadian U k r a n i a n - E n g l i s h Programs. In M. P a r a d i s ( e d . ) , Aspects  of B i l i n g u a l i s m . Columbia, S. C: Hornbeam P r e s s . Cummins, J . (1978b). C o g n i t i v e development of c h i l d r e n i n Immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review 5. 855-883. Cummins, J . (1978c). B i l i n g u a l i s m and the development of m e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness. J o u r n a l of C r o s s - c u l t u r a l  Psychology 9. 131-149. Cummins, J . (1981a). Research f i n d i n g s from French Immersion programs a c r o s s Canada: a parent's guide. In B.C.  M i n i s t r y of Ed u c a t i o n , E a r l y French Immersion: Teachers'  Resource Book. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n , B.C. Cummins, J . (1981b). B i l i n g u a l i s m and m i n o r i t y language c h i l d r e n . Language & L i t e r a c y S e r i e s . Toronto: O.I.S.E. Pr e s s . Cummins, J . & Carey, S. (1984). Communication s k i l l s i n Immersion programs. The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research 30. 270-284. Doyle, A. Champagne, M. & Sega l o w i t z , N. (1977). Some i s s u e s i n the assessment of l i n g u i s t i c consequences of e a r l y b i l i n g u a l i s m . Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m 14. 21-30. Edwards, H. S> C a s s e r l y , M. (1970-71; 1971-72). E v a l u a t i o n of Second Language Programs i n the E n g l i s h School Schools. Annual Report. Ottawa Roman C a t h o l i c Separate School Board. Edwards, H. & C a s s e r l y , M. (1973). E v a l u a t i o n of Second Language Programs i n the E n g l i s h Schools, Annual Report. Ottawa Roman C a t h o l i c Separate School Board. Engel, P. (1975). Language medium i n e a r l y s c h o o l years f o r m i n o r i t y language groups. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 45. 283-325. Feldman, C. & Shen, M. (1971). Some language r e l a t e d advantages of b i l i n g u a l 5 - y e a r - o l d s . J o u r n a l of Genetic  Psychology 118. 235-244. Friedman, H. & Friedman, H. (1980). Observations on education i n the p r o v i n c e of Quebec. I n t e g r a t e d E d u c a t i o n 18: 2-15. Genesee, F. (1976). The s u i t a b i l i t y of Immersion programs f o r a l l c h i l d r e n . Canadian Modern Language Review 32. 494-515. 1 1 4 Genesee, F. (1977). Summary and d i s c u s s i o n . In P. Hornby (ed.), B i l i n g u a l i s m : p s y c h o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l & e d u c a t i o n a l  i m p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic Press. Genesee, F. (1978). Schools, b i l i n g u a l i s m , & m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m . The J o u r n a l f o r the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r B i l n q u a l  Education 2. 17-25. Genesee, F. (1983). An i n v i t e d a r t i c l e — b i l i n g u a l education of majority-language c h i l d r e n : the Immersion experiments i n review. A p p l i e d P s y c h o l i n q u i s t i c s 4. 1-46. Genesee, F., Sheiner, E., Tucker, G., & Lambert, W. (1976). An experiment i n t r i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n . Canadian Modern  Language Review 32. 114-128. Genesee, F., Tucker, G., & Lambert, W. Communication s k i l l s of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development 46. 1010-1014. Gray, V. & Cameron, C. (1980). L o n g i t u d i n a l development of E n g l i s h morphology i n French Immersion c h i l d r e n . A p p l i e d  P s y c h o l i n q u i s t i c s J_. 169-181. Guebert, L. (1984). L e a r n i n g to read i n a second language. TESL Talk J_5. 52-59. H a r l e y , B. & Swain, M. (1977). An a n a l y s i s of verb form and f u n c t i o n i n the speech of French Immersion p u p i l s . Working  Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m 14. 33-44. I a n c o - W o r r a l l , A. (1972). B i l i n g u a l i s m & c o g n i t i v e development. C h i l d Development 42. 1390-1400. J a r v e l l a , R. & L e v e l t , W. (1978). The C h i l d ' s Conception of  Language. B e r l i n : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . Krashen, S. (1984). Immersion: why i t works & what i t has taught us. In Language & S o c i e t y : the French Immersion  Phenomenon. M i n i s t r y of Supply & S e r v i c e s : Ottawa. Lambert, W. (1977). The e f f e c t s of b i l i n g u a l i s m on the i n d i v i d u a l : c o g n i t i v e & s o c i o c u l t u r a l consequences. In P. Hornby (ed.), B i l i n g u a l i s m : P s y c h o l o g i c a l , S o c i a l , and  E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Academic Press. Lambert, W. (1980). The s o c i a l psychology of language: a p e r s p e c t i v e f o r the 1980's. In H. G i l e s , W. P. Robinson & P. Smith (eds.), Language: s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l  p e r s p e c t i v e s . Oxford, England: Pergamon P r e s s . Lambert, W. & Tucker, G. (1972). B i l i n g u a l Education of  C h i l d r e n : the St. Lambert experiment. Rowley: Newbury House. 1 1 5 Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (1984). Research update. In Language  & S o c i e t y : the French Immersion Phenomenon. M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s : Canada. Leopold, W. (1949). Speech Development of a B i l i n g u a l C h i l d . Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y . MacNamara, J . (1967). The e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a weaker language. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 23. 1 2 1 - 1 3 5 . Magiste, E. (1984). Learning a t h i r d language. J o u r n a l of  M u l t i l i n g u a l & M u l t i c u l t u r a l Development 5. 4 1 5 - 4 2 1 . Mattes, L. & Omark, D. (1984). Speech and Language Assessment  for the B i l i n g u a l Handicapped. San Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . McLaughlin, (1984). Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n i n Childhood:  Volume I. Preschool C h i l d r e n . New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , Inc. Met, M. (1984). Immersion & the language m i n o r i t y student. Wisconsin U n i v e r s i t y , Milwaukee, Midwest N a t i o n a l O r i g i n Desegregation A s s i s t a n c e Centre. Oren, D. (1981). C o g n i t i v e advantages of b i l i n g u a l c h i l d r e n r e l a t e d to l a b e l l i n g a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research 74. 163-169. Orpwood, S. (1980). T r i l i n g u a l C h i l d r e n i n a French Immersion Program. Unpublished manuscript, O.I.S.E.: Toronto, Canada. Pau l s t o n , B. (1980). B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n : T h e o r i e s and Issues. Rowley: Newbury House P u b l i s h e r s . P r a t t , C , Tunmer, W. & Bowey, J . (1984). C h i l d r e n ' s c a p a c i t y to c o r r e c t grammatical v i o l a t i o n s i n sentences. J o u r n a l of  C h i l d Language 2. 129-141. Roy, R. (1981). Richmond grade three French Immersion program: an assessment. Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Shapson, S. & Dey, E. (1982). A l o n g i t u d i n a l e v a l u a t i o n of an e a r l y French Immersion program i n B.C. J o u r n a l of  M u l t i l i n g u a l & M u l t i c u l t u r a l Development 1_. 1 - 1 6 . Shapson, S. & Kaufman, D. (1978). Overview of elementary French programs i n B.C. The Canadian Modern Language Review 3. 586-603. 1 16 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Toukomaa, P. (1976). Teaching migrant c h i l d r e n ' s mother tongue & l e a r n i n g the language of the host country i n the context of the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n of the migrant f a m i l y . Tutkimuksia Research Reports 15. F i n l a n d : UNESCO. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Toukomaa, P. (1977). The i n t e n s i v e t e a c h i n g of the mother tongue to migrant c h i l d r e n at p r e s c h o o l age. Tutkimuksia Research Reports 26. F i n l a n d : UNESCO. St e r n , H. (1982). Issues i n E a r l y Core French: a S e l e c t i v e &  P r e l i m i n a r y Review of the L i t e r a t u r e . Toronto Board of E d u c a t i o n , O n t a r i o Research Department. St e r n , H. (1984). A q u i e t language r e v o l u t i o n : second-language t e a c h i n g i n Canadian c o n t e x t s : achievements and new d i r e c t i o n s . Canadian Modern Language Review 40. 506-524. St e r n , H. (1984). The Immersion phenomenon. In Language and  S o c i e t y : the French Immersion Phenomenon. M i n i s t r y of Supply & S e r v i c e s , Canada. Swain, M. (1979). What does r e s e a r c h have to say about Immersion education? In B. Mlacak & E. I s a b e l l e (eds), So you want your c h i l d to l e a r n f r e n c h ! Ottawa: Canadian Parents f o r French. Swain, M. (1981a). B i l i n g u a l e ducation f o r m a j o r i t y & m i n o r i t y language, c h i l d r e n . S t u d i a L i n g u i s t i c a 1. 15-33. Swain, M. (1981b). Immersion e d u c a t i o n : a p p l i c a b i l i t y f o r nonvernacular t e a c h i n g to v e r n a c u l a r speakers. S t u d i e s i n  Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n 4^ . 1-17. Tremaine, R. (1975). Syntax & P i a g e t i a n O p e r a t i o n a l Thought. Washington D.C.: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . T r o i k e , R. (1978). Research Evidence f o r the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of  B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . A r l i n g t o n , Va.: N a t i o n a l C l e a r i n g h o u s e f o r B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n . Tsushima, W. S> Hogan, T. (1975). V e r b a l a b i l i t y & school achievement of b i l i n g u a l & monolingual c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research 68. 349-353. Tunmer, W. & M y h i l l , M. (1984). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c awareness & b i l i n g u a l i s m . In W. Tunmer, C. P r a t t , & M. Herriman (ed s ) , M e t a l i n g u i s t i c Awareness i n C h i l d r e n : Theory,  Research, and I m p l i c a t i o n s . B e r l i n : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . 1 1 7 Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought & Language. Cambridge: MIT P r e s s . Wightman, P. (1979). French Immersion: an e d u c a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e . In B. Mlacak & E. I s a b e l l e (eds), So you  want your c h i l d t o l e a r n French! Ottawa: Canadian Parents f o r French. 1 18 APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW FOR MINORITY LANGUAGE CHILDREN 1. Which language does your mother speak most to you? 2. Which language does your f a t h e r speak most to you? 3. Which language do you speak most to your mother? 4. Which language do you speak most to your f a t h e r ? 5. Which language do you speak to your: (1) b r o t h e r s , (2) s i s t e r s , (3) out of school f r i e n d s , (4) f r i e n d s at s c h o o l , and (5) others (grandma, e t c . ) ? 6. How much do you enjoy speaking these languages? 7. Do you l i k e speaking E n g l i s h b e t t e r than the other languages? 8. When you grow up, would you l i k e your c h i l d r e n t o l e a r n and use the language(s) that you speak at home? 1 1 9 APPENDIX B - QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS 1. Do you speak the n a t i v e language of t h i s c h i l d ? 2. Do you study t h i n g s i n c l a s s r e l a t e d to the c u l t u r e of t h i s c h i l d ? 3 . Do you c e l e b r a t e the h o l i d a y s p e r t a i n i n g to the c u l t u r e of t h i s c h i l d ? ( i n s i d e or o u t s i d e of the c l a s s ) . 4. Do you a l l o w the c h i l d to speak h i s n a t i v e language i n the c l a s s (with you or with h i s other c l a s s m a t e s ) ? 5 . Does t h i s c h i l d have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o speak h i s n a t i v e language a t s c h o o l d u r i n g recess or lunch? 6. Do you know what the c h i l d ' s parents do f o r a l i v i n g ? I f so, p l e a s e s t a t e . 120 APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS Thank you for taking the time to f i l l out t h i s questionnaire. Please f i l l i n the blanks or check one as required. If you have any questions, you may contact either Susan Davies (at 732-9483, af t e r 5 pm) or Carolyn Johnson (at 228-5696 or 228-5591, 9-5 pm, Monday to Friday). The answers to these questions w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l . Family Background 1. Name of c h i l d 2. Sex of c h i l d 3. Child's country of b i r t h a) If other than Canada, how long d i d your c h i l d l i v e i n t h i s country? b) When did your c h i l d move to Canada, or to some other English speaking country? c) How long has your c h i l d l i v e d i n an English speaking country? ; ; ; 4. Father's country of b i r t h 5. Mother's country of b i r t h 6. PLEASE CHECK ONE: Mother: Do you Not at a l l A l i t t l e F a i r l y Fluent Well a) speak English b) read English c) understand English PLEASE CHECK ONE: Father: Do you Not at a l l A l i t t l e F a i r l y Fluent Well a) speak English b) read English c) understand English 121 8. What i s your occupation? ( i f you emigrated to Canada, please state your present occupation as well as your occupation before coming to Canada.) Mother , Father 9. Did t h i s occupation require any sp e c i a l training? Please l i s t i f so. Mother Father 10. Would you l i k e to change your job or are you happy with t h i s job? Mother Father 11. What educational l e v e l d i d you reach? Please check. Less than primary school completed Finished primary school Some high school Finished high school High school plus college (or other) University degree Higher degree l e v e l 12. Do you read to your child? If so, how often? Please check. Mother Father No reading to c h i l d Not. very often (less than once a week) About once a week Nearly every day (3-5 times a week) In what language do you read to your child? Mother Father 13. When your c h i l d was small before he or she started school, did you read to him/her? If so, how often? Please check. Mother Father - No reading to c h i l d Not very often (less than once a week) About once a week Nearly every day (3-5 times a week) 122 In what language did you read to your child? Mother Father 14. What would you consider to be your.child's f i r s t language(s)? ( i . e . what language(s) did he learn before he or she was three years old?) If languages other than English are used i n the home, please  answer these questions: 1. Please l i s t languages regularly used i n your home. If there i s more than one, please l i s t , s t a r t i n g with the one that i s used most. Mother Father Always Very often Sometimes Rarely 2 . Please give an approximate percentage figure of how often the above languages are used i n your home and family. Mother Father 3. Is one or more of these languages used for s p e c i a l and d i s t i n c t purposes? (e.g. r e l i g i o n , family gatherings, c u l t u r a l groups, e t c . ) . If so, please l i s t these languages. 4. Does your c h i l d attend s o c i a l and l e i s u r e functions with other indiv i d u a l s from the same c u l t u r a l background as yours? If yes, how often? Please check one. Always Very often Sometimes Rarely 123 5 . Do you and your family celebrate the holidays of your homeland? 6. Do family members, other than the father, mother, and children l i v e your home? If so, please l i s t them and the languages they speak most often i n your home. 7 . Who took care of your c h i l d during the daytime before he or she started attending school? What language did t h i s person speak to the child? 8. How important i s i t to you that your language be maintained i n the family and that your c h i l d speak i t flu e n t l y ? Please check one. Mother Father Extremely important Important Not r e a l l y important ._ Don't care 9 . Do you wish that your c h i l d be more fluent i n English than i n your dominant language? Mother Father 10. Please write i n the languages i n the blank spaces provided, i f they apply to your c h i l d . My c h i l d spoke nothing but before s t a r t i n g school. My c h i l d speaks nothing but in the home. My c h i l d speaks mostly in the home. 11. Does your c h i l d attend s p e c i a l language classes outside regular school? If so, l i s t these languages. 12. Does your c h i l d read or write any languages other than the language used at school? If yes, please l i s t these languages. 124 APPENDIX D - RESULTS OF LANGUAGE SAMPLE ANALYSES Omitted bound % utterances^ Clark-morphemesa with both Madison total # % complex Type-Token expressed in syntactic & Oral Language Group utterances sentences Ratio % of obligatory semantic Scores context errors (total = 97) Experimental la 45 28.9 .40 2a c - -3a 33 48.5 .45 4a 17 52.9 .50 5a 49 42.9 .25 6a 54 16.7 .43 7a 70 24.6 .33 8a 66 6.0 .47 9a 66 3.5 .35 10a 58 24.1 .43 English control lb 29 41.3 .47 2b 51 17.7 .45 3b 45 44.4 .37 4b 50 34.0 .45 5b 18 16.7 .67 6b 26 11.5 .56 7b 17 35.3 .59 8b < 33 45.5 .48 9b 64 29.7 .42 10b 37 29.7 .47 Minority control l c 28 25.0 .37 2c 16 25.0 .56 3c 27 29.6 .52 4c 20 15.0 .54 5c 40 22.5 .43 6c 38 26.3 .43 7c 49 30.6 .38 8c 29 34.5 .44 9c 31 9.7 .50 10c 62 27.4 .40 - 22.1 76 - - 89 - 6.1 84 - 17.6 91 /s = 12; Iz = 27 20.4 77 /s = 17 7.3 68 - 14.2 78 /ed = 17; /s = 11 6.0 79 /3s = 50; /ed =9; 33.3 75 /s = 44 /s = 8 1.7 91 14.3 "x = 81.1 /'s = 14 6.8 86 1.9 89 - 2.2 69 - 10.0 87 - 11.0 84 - 11.4 77 - 11.8 85 - 17.1 85 - 3.1 86 - 5.4 88 = 8.1 x = 83 /s = 17 17.9 77 - 6.3 59 /3s = 17;/ed = 50 14.8 72 /ed = 33 10.0 73 /s = 10 23.0 74 /3s = 37 18.4 76 - 8.1 83 - 34.5 65 /ing = 17; /s = 17 3.2 66 /3s = 6 22.6 84 x" = 16.1 x" = 72, /s = plural; Iz = possessive; /'s = auxilliary; /3s = third person singular. semantic errors include word finding problems; syntactic errors include those such as incorrect tenses, a r t i c l e s , prepositions, and pronouns; omitted a r t i c l e s ; lack of subject-verb agreement. data for this subject are missing due to the poor quality of the tape recording. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096081/manifest

Comment

Related Items