Speaking a second language can change everything from problem-solving skills to personality. It is almost as if you are two people, says Catherine de Lange.
“Mon espirit paratage — My two minds”, appeared in the New Scientist of May 5th, 2012. The Washington Post included her article online:
■Educators once opposed raising bilingual children. Experts now say it’s beneficial.
Ms. de Lange’s purpose was to compare monolingual and bilingual children in tests on ■syntax. She wrote:
Both monolinguals and bilinguals could see the mistake in phrases such as “apples growed on trees”, but differences arose when they considered nonsensical sentences such as “apples grow on noses”. The monolinguals, flummoxed by the silliness of the phrase, incorrectly reported an error, whereas the bilinguals gave the right answer.
Children yet get to hear or read fairy tales. Whether the kid speaks one or more languages, it is only important that he or she comprehends the words:
… there was a fairy land, a long time ago, where apples grew on noses …
Ms. de Lange did not present her tasks in the article. She possibly had misconstrued them ■deictically. The children did not know what noses the talk was about, whether to focus on syntax or ■pragmatics, that is, talk in context and about this real world.
Let us consider an example of a deictically misconstrued question. How many beaks do we have here? Chocolate wrappings prove already, a thing in a picture is not the thing itself.
To compare Polish, the boat, the Toucan, and the teapot — all have a “beak”, for the furthest fronted part. Uneven skin would depart from a planar border within; hence, changes considered deep may become called “dzioby”. They do not have to be anything really much. Skin is precious.
Matters do not come easier for multilingual children. Boat or aircraft “beaks” in Polish become “noses” in English, whereas maple has “keys”. In Polish, these maple winged things are “noses”.
Without information about the context and requirements, we cannot tell if a beaker counts as the “beak”, though the tiny little nosey of a kid is a nose, only for real.
A child may take up a task without telling there is a problem. For a grown-up to do the same is unbecoming.
What the world would be like
Ms. de Lange wrote she spoke English and French. Let us think what the world would have to become, to follow her study.
Monolingual speakers of French would carry shields instead of umbrellas, for heavy rain. They would belong with the people who get “flummoxed” with figures of speech, and it rains halberds in French, when it rains cats and dogs in English — in which case we would have to think monolingual people cannot keep appointments, staying home:
■Larousse online, Il tombe hallebardes, it’s raining cats and dogs.
In Polish the imagery is as for pouring water out of a big vessel in one, wide and neat swing: “leje jak z cebra”. Wiktionary, ■ceber.
More, we would have to dread multilingual medics. They would be the people not to care what words mean literally, and a cardiac case might be just emotional:
■American Heritage Dictionary, changes of the heart.
The world as-is
Both the languages, English and French, have spoken and written forms. What we write as bread in English is un pain in French. What we write as pain in English, is nothing even potentially pleasant, whatever the language.
■A boy eating bread, photo credit: Petr Kratochvil, Public Domain Pictures Net.
■Larousse online: the word shape “pain” means “bread” in French.
Speakers of English and French have had much contact, in history as well. It must be that word shape alone is not sufficient to make the psychological reality of language, and people rely on semantics, that is, word sense. Otherwise, either the French or the English, or both the peoples would have changed their words. It depends on deictics, if we say a word has another meaning.
Really good exercises
Speaking more than one language does not bring confusion. From my experience, I would say it strengthens semantics. The brief ■introduction here can help exercise syntax. People are not likely to differ because they speak one or more languages because words are not real; only the grammar for the syntax is.
Children happen to invent virtual words spontaneously.
Ethics
If we pattern after natural language acquisition, we are not experimenting, because we follow natural behavior. To provide such exercises is as an equal opportunity in life. Kids would be lagging behind only without relax enough a given time, to think.
Virtual words should be only play, most often without writing, as naturally they are such play. The child should never be coerced, and virtual words should not be required. If a kid does not like virtual words, may he or she just not use them.
Ms. de Lange yet reports infant brain scans for experimental purposes. There is no way to obtain informed consent from an infant, and such scans cannot bring linguistic discernment as — obviously — infants do not speak.
It is more of the Keynesian idea taken backwards — if you break a window, the glass fellow has something to do for a pay. An infant might live healthy and sound without medics; but if you recommend scans, the scan fellow has a job.
If I got it right, and this is possible, Keynes would have such things for counter indicative of economic progress. Employment has been a way to shape the purchasing power, yet the power itself does not require employment.