LING 560: Seminar on Bilingualism
Fall 2003
G 96 FLB, 1-2.20 p.m.
Instructor: Rakesh Bhatt
Office: 4072B FLB
Phone: 333-7017, 265-6308
e-mail: rbhatt@uiuc.edu
Office hours: T: 3-4.30
COURSE DESCRIPTION
“Bilingualism is for me the fundamental problem of linguistics” (Jacobson 1953)
Bilingualism can—at least less problematically—be broadly defined as the alternate use of two (or more) languages. The goal of this seminar is to present a theorized understanding of the complexity underlying the management of bi- or multi-lingualism. The studies introduced in the semester will ultimately address this goal by specifically asking (the question) how and why people use two (or more) languages the way they do? The theoretical and empirical scope of this seminar will largely be restricted to three inter-related sociolinguistic issues: language maintenance, language shift and language convergence. Students are required to come prepared with the required readings and are urged to come to class with an open mind to be able to discover the opportunities and challenges that the study of bilingualism has to offer.
COURSE EVALUATION
Class Presentation: 30%
Research Paper: 70%
COURSE TEXT:
Required: Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge.
Papers available on e-reserve and Linguistics Department Library, 4100 FLB..
Recommended:
(i) Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Blackwell.
(ii) Musken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge.
(iii) Milroy, L. & P. Musken (eds.) 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages. Cambridge.
(iv) Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Codeswitching. Oxford.
(v) Wei, Li (ed.) 2000. The Bilingualism Reader. Routledge.
(vi) Heller, M. (ed.) 1988. Code-switching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter.
(vii) Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. Mouton.
COURSE SCHEDULE
Aug. 28. Introduction: Scope of this course
Sept. 2-4. Description and Dimensions of Bilingualism
Clyne, M. Chapter 1.
Mackey, W. 1962 The description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7. 51-85.
Wei, Li. 2000. Dimensions of bilingualism. In Li Wei (ed.) The Bilingual Reader. London: Routledge. 3-25.
Sept. 9-11. Seminal Works
*Ferguson, Charles. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325-40.
*Fishman, Joshua. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23. 29-38.
*Fishman, Joshua. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique 2. 67-88.
*Gumperz, John, and Robert Wilson. 1971. Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Dell Hymes (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: CUP. 151-167.
Sept. 16-18. The Bilingual: Theoretical and Methodological Issues
*Grosjean, François. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 26. 349-355.
Kachru, Braj. 1987. The bilingual’s creativity: Discoursal and stylististic strategies in contact literatures. In Larry Smith (ed.) Discourse Across Cultures. London: Pergamon. 125-139.
*Grosjean, François. 1998. Studying bilinguals: methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1. 131-149.
Wei, Li. 2000. Methodological questions in the study of bilingualism. In Li Wei (ed.) The Bilingual Reader. London: Routledge. 475-486.
Sept. 23-25. Bilingualism, Linguistic Justice, and Individual Linguistic Rights
*Parijs, Van. 2002. Linguistic justice. Philosophy, Politics, Economics 1. 59-74.
* Laitin, D. & R. Reich. 2003. A liberal democratic approach to language justice. In W. Kymlicks & J. Patten (eds.) Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: OUP. 80-104.
*Rubio-Marín, R. 2003. Language rights: Exploring the competing rationales. . In W. Kymlicks & J. Patten (eds.) Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: OUP. 52-79.
*Green, L. 1987. Are language rights fundamental. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 25. 639-669.
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 Language Policy, Language Maintenance and Shift
*Patten, A. 2001. Political theory and language policy. Political Theory 29. 683-707.
*Davis, K. A. 1999. The sociopolitical dynamic of indigenous language maintenance and loss: A framework for language policy and planning. In T. Huebner & K. Davis (eds.) Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy and Planning in the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 67-97.
*Bourhis, R. 2001. Acculturation, language maintenance, and language shift. In Klatter-Folmer, J. and P. Van Avermaet (eds.) Theories on Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages: Towards a More Integrated Explanatory Framework. Münster: Waxman. 5-37.
*Pennycook, A. 2002. Mother tongues, governmentality, and protectionism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 154. 11-28.
Oct. 7-9 Theoretical Perspectives on Language Maintenance and Language Shift
*Milroy, L. 2001. Bridging the micro-macro gap: Social change, social networks and bilingual repertoires. In Klatter-Folmer, J. and P. Van Avermaet (eds.) Theories on Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages: Towards a More Integrated Explanatory Framework. Münster: Waxman. 39-64.
*Stoessel, S. 2002. Investigating the role of social networks in language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153. 93-131.
*Schiffman, H. 1993. The balance of power in multiglossic languages: Implications for language shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 103. 115-148.
*Giles, H. and P. Johnson. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68. 69-99.
Oct. 14-16 Language Maintenance: A Case Study
Oct 14: Guest Lecture: Eda Darhemi
Oct. 16: NO CLASS. Suggested Reading:
Myers-Scotton, C. 1990. Elite closure as boundary maintenance: The case of Africa. In B. Weinstein (ed.) Language Policy and Political Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 25-42.
Oct. 21-23 Dynamics of Language Shift
Clyne, M. Chapter 2.
*Paulston, C. 1994. Social factors in language shift. In C. B. Pauston Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Philadelphia; John Benjamins. 9-24.
*Sasse, H-J. 1992. Theory of language death. . In M. Brenzinger (ed.) Language Death. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 7-30.
*Myers-Scotton, C. 1992. Codeswitching as a mechanism of deep borrowing, language shift, and language death. In M. Brenzinger (ed.) Language Death. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 31-58.
Oct. 28-30. Language Shift: Case Studies
*Craig, C. 1992. Language shift and language death: the case of Rama in Nicaragua. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 93. 11-26.
*Srivastava, R. N. 1989. Perspectives on language shift in multilingual settings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 75. 9-26.
*Buchheit, R. 1988. Language shift in the concentrated Mennonite district of Kansas. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 69. 5-18.
*Gorter, D. 1987. Surveys of the Frisian language situation: some considerations of research methods on language maintenance and language shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68. 41-56.
Wei, Li. 2000. Towards a critical evaluation of language maintenance and shift. Sociolinguistica 14. 142-147.
Nov. 4-6 Identity, Politics, and Codeswitching
*Gal, S. 1988. The political economy of code choice. In M. Heller (ed.) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 345-367.
*Blommaert, J. 1992: Codeswitching and the exclusivity of social identities: some data from Campus Kiswahili. In C. Eastman (ed.) Codeswitching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 57-70.
*Canagarajah, S. 1995: The political economy of code choice in a revolutionary society: Tamil/English bilingualism in Jaffna. Language in Society 24. 187-212.
*Heller, M. 1995: Language choice, social institutions, and symbolic domination. Language in Society 24. 373-405.
Nov. 11-13 Contact and Convergence
Dynamics of convergence and transference: Clyne, M. Chapters 4
Dynamics of transversion: Clyne, M. Chapter 5
Nov. 18-20 Convergence, Creativity, and Linguistic Hybridity
*Sridhar, S. N. 1981. Linguistic convergence: Indo-Aryanization of Dravidian languages. Lingua 53. 199-220.
*Hock, H. 1988. Historical implications of a dialectological approach to convergence. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Historical Dialectology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 283-328.
*Bhatt, R. 2003. Venerable discourses, local practices, and hybridity: The case of Indian Englishes. In S. Canagarajah (ed.) Negotiating the Global and Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Lee, J. 2003. The linguistic construction of modernity: Korean-English mixing in TV commercials. MS.
Nov. 25-27 FALL BREAK FALL BREAK FALL BREAK
Dec. 2-4 Dynamics of Cultural Values in Contact Discourse
Clyne, M. Chapter 7.
Dec. 9-11 Towards a Synthesis
Semester summary: What did we learn and where do we go from here?
Clyne, M. Chapter 8.
* indicates student presentation.
RESEARCH PAPER DUE: DECEMBER 19
STRUCTURE of the RESEARCH PAPER
Abstract
• 100-200 words
• Should contain elements from all 4 sections of report:
1: 2-3 sentences on the importance of study followed by succinct statement of
study’s chief purpose (no references).
2: Brief statement of methods: e.g., # of Ss and cursory definition of variables.
3: Putative results presented as they relate to primary objective of study. (no
numbers)
4: Conclusions of study: What is the primary contribution of study?
Introduction
• Briefly describe general problem area, why this study is important.
Literature Review
• Needs to communicate the purpose of the study and why this is important
• Needs to motivate variables of study, if any.
• Demonstrates what other researchers have found on the topic (history on topic)
• Outlines theoretical framework, if necessary, and discusses how it generates specific hypotheses on your focus.
• Needs to stay focused, relevant to study
• Ends with specific statement on purpose of study or hypotheses. Must be a logical endpoint (or next step) for entire lit review to that point.
Methods
• To describe your data collection procedures as clearly as possible, stating HOW the study will be carried out.
• To convince readers that study is valid and results reliable, to allow others to replicate, thus making your claims (argument) stronger.
1: Subjects: who, when, why, etc. (show how subjects-related variables were manipulated)
2: Items/instruments: target constructions (show how items-related variables were manipulated)
3: Procedures: what researcher(s) did, what subjects did, how groups were assigned, how, when, and on what subjects were measured.
Results and Discussion
• Need to summarize your findings (support of your hypotheses or not) and then interpret them in terms of the theoretical framework used—what the results are and what do they mean.
Conclusions and Implications
• Summarize the main arguments (hypotheses, results, and discussion) and discuss what theoretical, methodological and empirical implications the study has for our understanding of the interaction of language and society.