Page 47

Chapter 4: Fractional and holistic realities outside of academia

The disparity between the fractional and holistic views marks an important

difference of opinion and school of thought. We may even theorise that such divergences

in the conceptualisation of bilingualism are to result in political or educational realities. In

certain parts of the world bilingualism is viewed as the norm whereas some countries (such

as the United Kingdom or the United States of America) have a global cultural view of

monolingualism as the standard. After having discussed the concept of bilingualism with

respect to its relevance to academia, we will now discuss its effects on the outside world.

For instance, Rampton (1995) and Pujolar (2000) suggest bilingualism to be the central

cog in a complex mechanism of identity and power, where dominant and marginalised

groups are formed according to their language abilities and their respective sociolinguistic

value. In order to further debate this suggestion, this dissertation will closely follow the

rhetoric of Monica Heller's Bilingualism and Identity in the Postmodern World (2000).

Bilingualism reflects both the dominant and the marginalised beliefs of society and the

positions of their members (ie monolinguals, balanced and dominant bilinguals) according

to their linguistic status.

As previously suggested, bilingualism may be both a method of holding power and

a way of opposing it. As such, we will debate the issue from a number of perspectives. In

order to successfully do so, one must understand what aspects of bilingualism are valued

and what body gives it power. Bilingualism is becoming increasingly valued in the

postmodern world, with a growing emphasis being put on linguistic skill. Its growing value

appears to be directly related to aspects of language that are highly rated by traditionally

monolingual ideology (see Grosjean, 1989:5; Heller, 2000:10). As the separation of

linguistic practices is a concept that is put forth by such an ideology, a valued bilingual is

one that is composed of two monolinguals. As this standard becomes increasingly

reinforced, it appears that the postmodern perception of bilingualism reflects a dated

language ideology that is being only, if at all, ostensibly challenged.

Since only the bilinguals who reflect a monolingual's ability are positively valued,

Heller explores the original concepts of such an influence. The reason why one must

research the meaning of bilingualism in the postmodern world is to discover who or what

power decides upon its value and to unearth which types of bilingual practice are the most

esteemed. This is done with the aim of developing a new view of bilingualism which will

clarify the societal distribution of power and resources. We propose the distribution of

power and resources to run parallel with globalisation and the development of new

economic systems (see Bauman, 1997; Castells, 2000; Heller, 2000). In Europe as well as

Page 48

North America, we find that certain languages are used for operating in the nation-States

and others for producing and sharing resources (Heller, 2000:11). This phenomenon, which

revolves around English being used as a lingua franca for the purpose of business, is the

root of a language power struggle, the opponents being the multilinguals who have the

linguistic knowledge to operate on an international level and the monolinguals, who

represent the local populace.

Interestingly, these concepts of control and resistance can be tied to either

opponent. For instance, we may describe a tendency to see multilingualism as a

fashionable and practical way of staying on the international 'scene' (e.g. any European

monolingual speaker learning English as a lingua franca). In contrast to this we may also

describe the actions of international corporations such as McDonald's and Starbucks as

essentially monolingually colonising the world through the exclusive use of English. In

comparison, we may also describe multilingualism as a method of resistance against a

monolingual power system. For example in certain parts of Canada, immigrants and

English speakers use bilingualism to undermine the French-speaking state's control (see

Heller, 2000:11-12).

Heller describes the aforementioned as the first of three parameters for language

control (Heller, 2000:13). The second parameter is concerned with the local and global

control of language. That is, the debate as to whether or not the decisions should form part

of a top-down or bottom-up system of language control. For example, should decisions be

made through a central organization for the good of the masses or should the smaller

groups have the power to decide on their language use and appropriacy. In order to

illustrate this point, we may ask the following question: Does Argentina have a say in what

is Spanish or should the decision be left to the Castilian and Spanish capital of Madrid?

The final parameter for language control described by Heller (2000) concerns

language in its local setting. The local aspect of language learning is very important as it

pertains to its accessibility and the linguistic standards that ensue. Meaning that in this

setting, the access to bilingual education and the social acceptance of linguistic varieties

(certain vernacular, local dialects and international norms) will vary. While the latter is an

issue of linguistic identity, the former represents an important problem on a potentially

international scale: the allocation of and regular access to bilingual linguistic resources

(see Heller, 1999; Makropoulos, 2000). Discussion at this level about the value of

monolingualism and bilingualism will affect how they are distributed locally.

Page 49

These three parameters revolve around the concept that globalisation has moved

into a new economic dimension, one that is largely based on services and information

(Heller, 2000:13; Heller, 2003:478). For example, tourism is a particularly important and

lucrative industry, especially for struggling economies (see Craik, 1997). It is a good source

of employment which also promotes the preservation of local culture. Information

technology (IT) and telecommunications are other industries which are increasingly

growing internationally. Most importantly, language is central to the aforementioned

industries. As it is proposed by Bauman (1997), Castells (2000), Giddens (1990) and Heller

(2000), we may argue that language is the principle resource of the new economic system.

Moreover, as language increasingly becomes the linchpin of globalised economies, it is

also commodified as a tradable asset. In order to further understand the valuation system

that is put upon multilingualism, we must first understand and explain how the political, the

economic, the cultural and the social are all intertwined. The aforementioned sectors are

also intrinsically tied to the global and local.

Heller believes the modern valuation of bilingualism that is seen today has been put

upon us by the economic elite (Heller, 2000:14). Bilingual speakers are expected to have

English as one of their languages. According to this ideology, the speaker should

essentially consist of two monolinguals in one person (see the fractional approach in

previous chapters) and would therefore most likely fit the profile of the balanced bilingual.

He or she must demonstrate a native-like ability in both languages and be able to use them

on the international marketplace (Heller, 2000:14). Furthermore, the postmodern bilinguals

are required to speak their language in standard or prestigious dialects. Not only does this

language practice reflect an elitist, unrealistic and perhaps unfair fractional view of

bilingualism, it furthermore does not conform with the rest of the world's (ie the vast

majority) speakers and their respective discourses. This, one can argue, further

stigmatises forms of language that are different to the standards (e.g. semilingualism).

Because of this elitism, linguistic minorities around the world have been led to

forms of language nationalism (see Heller, 2000; Heller, 2003; Wright, 2003). This is

exemplified in Quebec, Wales and Brittany as forms of territorial nationalism, where the

minority language is supported by both the State and the ethnic community. However,

when it is impossible to establish a geographical domain for the language, the fight for its

preservation becomes institutionalised. Heller uses the rest of Canada (and the world) as

an example of institutionalised linguistic nationalism. While some parts of the world fight for

territorial and linguistic independence, other communities attempt to further the

establishment of monolingual institutions in order to preserve their language. This was the

Page 50

case for one of Heller's previous studies (Heller, 1999) in Ontario. The concept offers

students the opportunity to join a monolingual school which provided them with the

opportunity, input and time to hone their language skills (here, French). This illustrates yet

another attempt to produce students that are two monolingual speakers in one person, with

the greater ideology of furthering the French language on the international business

market. The result of such an ideology, as previously mentioned, is the social and political

expectancy for speakers to use English as their first language (L1) and at a native level. As

Kjolseth (1983) argues, our globalised society values the balanced bilinguals with great

aplomb while at the same time, condemning speakers whose first language is not English.

As a matter of course, this fractional ideology means that the speakers are expected to

produce a native-like proficiency in both languages (Heller, 2000:14). If a speaker is to be

bilingual, then this should be achieved in a balanced manner with a native ability being

demonstrated in both first and second languages (L1 and L2).

As a result of the English language and its predominance in the international

business market, linguistic nationalism reflects a system that holds power or in some

cases, attempts to resist it. Either use appears to result in the condemnation of supposedly

'imperfect' language. Furthermore, a monolingual bias towards bilingualism emerges

through a fractional ideology. One may also perceive linguistic nationalism as yet another

form of linguistic purism which leaves little space for the supposedly lesser forms of

multilingualism such as dominant bilingualism or 'semilingualism'.

In order to preserve language, schools (e.g. Heller's 1999 study) create a

monolingual safe zone with the hope of producing a fully bilingual workforce. This follows

the popular concept of making the students more marketable while also helping them

preserve a language that is a fundamental and cultural aspect of their society (e.g. being

Canadian and speaking French). The dissertation's principle issue with this is an apparent

contradiction in principles. Using Heller's 1999 study as an example, we may argue that the

fractional view causes many forms of language to be stigmatised. The schools are limited

to teaching an internationally recognised version of French, that is a geographically and

socially neutral (Heller, 2000:17), therefore leaving no room for the preservation of local

dialects. We can therefore argue that while these schools invest into a new economic

system which will undoubtedly herald lucrative results and a marketable, commodified

national workforce, the language that is preserved by these institutions (both in Canada

and around the world) is of an international and standardised variety which will only further

stigmatise other language forms and contribute to the progressive extinction of local

dialects. We may also suggest that, in order for the schools to produce reliable and

Page 51

accurate results, the teaching style is expected to be exclusive of all other forms of

language that do not meet that standard.

In other words, while, in principle, institutionalised language nationalism presents a

valid plan for linguistic preservation, we find that in practice it only furthers a fractional,

elitist and standardised form of bilingualism which further contributes to the loss of culture

and specific language forms (e.g. dialects). If we are to understand these institutional

changes as a global trend around the world, then it is possible to argue that education as a

whole, is the distributor of commodified language. After all, the linguistic capital of a country

not only represents its cultural heritage, but also, for those who are privileged, it can grant

access to great economic resources. As previously stated in this dissertation, the debate

surrounding the fractional and holistic approaches to bilingualism will not only impact

research and its subsequent findings, it is also shaping the way it is conceptualised and

therefore used.

While our linguistic knowledge on bilingualism and its effects increases year after

year, Cummins believes that most countries around the world dismiss recent research

findings and instead, promote a monolingual curriculum that offers little opportunity of

developing bilingual abilities (Cummins in Dewaele et al., 2003:56). He further argues that

such curricula are specially designed and put in place in order to counteract the bilingual

development of immigrants. As previously stated, some standardised forms of bilingual

education are being implemented in certain countries in order to preserve national

language minorities or in order to further commoditise bilingualism. However according to

Cummins, non-national linguistic minorities are being targeted by states in order to

preserve their statuses as monolingual countries.

It is the view of Cummins that English-French bilingual immersion schools and

French international schools are a success in countries such as Canada because they

represent and fulfil the interests of the dominant groups. Contrastingly, Cummins suggests

that the development of programmes with the aim of promoting multilingualism among

linguistic minorities, especially if the languages in question are 'non-national', is met with

considerable resistance (Cummins in Dewaele et al., 2003:59). While research findings on

bilingual education have been consistently encouraging, Cummins believes the media to

be largely responsible for the widespread misinformation we find in today's discourse about

bilingualism (Cummins in Dewaele et al., 2003:59-60). As Baetens Beardsmore argues, the

principle fears of bilingualism are a reflection of societal preoccupation. Furthermore, we

may suggest that these societal fears stem from political and educational ideological

standpoints (see Baetens Beardsmore in Dewaele et al., 2003:11; Heller, 2000:13).

Page 52

Value is put on the internationality of company and its employees. As a

consequence of this, a bilingual workforce becomes a desirable one. With qualified

workers expected to have native-like prowess in both languages (ie the fractional approach

or balance theory), the dominant powers are intent on exploiting their economic and

political prospects by standardising language and regulating it throughout the world.

Another impact to consider becomes education, where scholastic programs that offer

standardised forms of languages are likely to thrive in this fractional educational setting

(see Kjolseth, 1983). These educational reforms are likely to continue promoting a

monolingual bias and further the stigmatism of all other forms of bilingualism.

The debate between the fractional and holistic approach no longer appears to be,

or perhaps never was, specific to theoretical linguistic research. We may argue that many

parents, teachers, politicians and citizens at large prefer to represent bilingualism in the

image of Baker's weighing scales or language balloons, as described in chapter two

(Baker, 2001:164). This popular belief ties in with Cummins' (1982) proposal of the

Separate Underlying Proficiency Model of Bilingualism that is convincingly argued by the

latter as a naive attempt to represent bilingualism in the brain. This flawed representation,

it appears, has been adopted as the fractional concept and is to be found in many aspects

of linguistics as well as outside of the academic field, in politics as well as business and

educational circles.

The dominant bilingual's brain is found to have the ability to keep specific linguistic

systems separate (Peltola et al., 2012). We also find in political and educational systems,

realities such as the reinforcement of an anti-code switching dogma in immersion schools,

linguistic purism and a growing focus on monolingual values that reflect the fractional

approach. Unfortunately, as of yet it appears that there is no monetary value in what

linguists would describe as the unbalanced, non-fluent forms, such as dominant

bilingualism and semilingualism. For a number of reasons, there appears to be a

preference, both in and outside of academia, to separate the languages of bilingual

speakers. As there is monetary value in language for communities around the world,

perhaps the fractional approach is preferred for practical reasons while the holistic

approach may appear to be best suited to ethnographic, cultural, inclusive and descriptive

forms of research and language use.

This of course ignores the societies where the citizens have no choice over the

language that is learned. Whether this is due to financial reasons, the educational system,

or a particularly local or cultural development, many bilinguals around the world, though

reaching what linguists consider to be communicative competence, only achieve what

Page 53

other societies, linguists, schools or businesses deem to be semilingualism or unbalanced,

non-fluent, dominant forms of bilingualism. Another reaction to the 'perfect' bilingualism

prescription can be noticed in smaller communities such as Cataluña and Brittany (Heller,

2000:12). There, the people refuse to lose their local culture or language and instead, they

become bilingual (with the dominant language as well as their local dialect) in adversity or

protest to an ever growing monolingual (or bilingually standardised) global society. Instead

of suffering from subtractive bilingualism, they develop balanced forms of bilingualism, and

preserve the dialects that remain rich with local culture though economically or monetarily

unfavourable. The specific debate which arises is the relative need for the communities to

preserve their regional dialects and accents, which remains a rather sociolinguistic issue.

The central argument of this dissertation remains: there are educational, political and even

biological realities of the fractional approach outside of linguistic theory, and its impact on

the conceptualisation of bilingualism has a profound effect on the aforementioned domains.

Another debate which can be raised about the fractional approach revolves around

its origin. We may theorise on which appeared first: the theoretical approach or the political

and cultural realities. One might argue that early academic theory is still prevalent and

influences educational systems to focus on a 'double monolingualism'. Contrastingly one

could also argue that such linguistic approaches are influenced by their societal and

cultural surroundings. The rise of capitalism, industrialism and all concepts tied to raising

the economic status of a country, influence the cultures and societies around them. This in

turn influences the school systems to hold fractional views, which in turn further influences

the members of the society, who are the essential participants in forming the culture that

surrounds all the aforementioned factors.

The dissertation's premise remains the same: the fractional approach appears to be

a self reinforcing system and as such, one that provides many reasons and opportunities

for its widespread and often preferred presence. This, not only in the academic fields but in

education, business and politics. Moreover, there also appears to be a focus on what

people can do with language rather than on how much they know of it. The fixation on

fluency, which helps to commoditise bilingualism as an invaluable asset to the international

workforce, promotes the disdain and disapproval of all other forms of multilingualism. This

also includes balanced bilingualism or even trilingualism where the speakers have

acquired languages that are impractical or useless to the business world.

The fractional approach remains predominant in the rich monolingual cultures while

other multicultural societies might conceptualise bilingualism holistically. Researchers

could follow either a fractional or holistic approach when theorising about cognition, as

Page 54

either can be heralded over the other. However in terms of framing and defining what the

issues are, this dissertation suggests that the exigent demands of fractionality provide an

unrealistic assessment of what a bilingual speaker's abilities are in the world today. On the

other hand, the holistic approach which offers the alternative of keeping all forms of

bilingualism and monolingualism separate and categorised without prejudice, may provide

a level playing field in research. Though in doing so, it can be argued that the holistic

approach fails to appreciate the much coveted monetary value of the balanced bilingual.

Certain realities inhibit the holistic view to prosper, for instance, through the lack of

separate language assessments that are rarely (if ever) proposed to bilinguals in schools.

In education, dominant bilinguals are expected to perform at a monolingual's level of

fluency, in at least in one of their languages. Proficiency may vary to such a point that it is

not practical to compare linguistic fluencies strictly between bilinguals as each individual

will be at a different level of language acquisition. In order to gain further importance both

in and outside of academia, it can be argued that the holistic approach lacks practicality

and is already inhibited by the fractional realities of the educational or political ideology and

the new globalised economic system.

Page 55

Conclusion

In this dissertation we argue that the fractional view reflects a monolingual bias in

terms of the conceptualisation and assessment of bilingualism. Furthermore, we argue that

the holistic approach has an impracticability for the business and political worlds. The

holistic approach has also been recognised as the fairer method of research, though it may

yield inconclusive or underwhelming results. In this work, fractional realities have been

revealed in the way the brain is organised. Therefore, although it can be deemed as an

unfair approach for research, the fractional view remains practical in terms of methodology

and can be argued to hold certain aspects of truth, through the biological realities that have

been found, although they do not coincide perfectly with the approach's rationale. This

dissertation promotes the use of the holistic approach in cognitive research in an attempt to

rid academia of its monolingual bias. The way that bilingualism is conceptualised, is heavily

influenced by the fractional approach, both in research and outside of academia. This has

had and will continue to have a great impact on future academic research, bilingual

education and policy making. Educational policies in multilingual countries have been

found to reinforce a fractional dogma as this favours monetary gain for the governing

States.

With the fractional approach's predominance in research, education and politics,

the holistic view has struggled to gain significant importance. While it is methodologically

easier to promote the fractional approach, it is arguably a wiser choice, both ethically and

reflexively, to promote the holistic approach. While there are many justifiable or positive

reasons to promote the fractional view, such as its monetary value, practicality and certain

(albeit unpredicted) biological realities, we may also argue and further prove that its

monolingual bias directly contributes to an ideology in which all other forms of bilingualism

become stigmatised and undervalued. The result being that such forms are not accurately

or favourably represented in academic research. Moreover, this dissertation maintains the

suggestion that the fractional approach is a significant factor behind language loss.

Through the promotion of standardised international forms of language, local dialects are

becoming stigmatised, further promoting their extinction rather than their preservation.

The fractional approach provides a more clinical take on bilingualism which enables

its conceptualisation to be more adaptable to the business world or other environments

outside of academia. While this is necessary in the globalised world, this dissertation

argues that the holistic approach is equally so. If we are to have any hope of a seeming

balance, the holistic approach should be favoured academically, as it provides a reflexive

and impartial account in the conceptualisation of bilingualism in research. While a strong

Page 56

monolingual bias results in the disdain of dialects, non standardised forms of language and

'other' forms of bilingualism, the holistic approach provides linguistic research with a much

needed descriptive approach. While it was previously argued that the holistic approach is

an ethical choice over one of practicality or monetary value, we may also propose that it

provides accurate, informative and objective data in research as it is arguably separate

from non-academic agendas and the monolingual bias.

Considering future research in the field of Linguistics, this dissertation calls for

further implementation of holistic research, and the promotion of its principles in education

and policy making. This dissertation denounces the unjust assessment of bilinguals in

monolingual schools and further advocates a graded and fair assessment of their separate

languages. Bilingualism is more than just a monetary asset, it is a useful tool in

neuroscience and also represents a very important part of cultural and societal aspects in

the world today. It also becomes apparent that the fractional approach is to be praised

rather than discredited, as such a view is needed in the business world of today.

Accordingly, the holistic view reflects an approach that is just as necessary, in order to

preserve the balance and reflexivity to counteract a biased conceptualisation of

bilingualism which consequently, has a direct impact on academic research and policy

making, both for education and the recruitment of a bilingual workforce. Finally, this work

condones the implementation of bilingual education throughout the world but denounces its

prescription of standardised forms of speech as this, through a fractional approach,

promotes a monolingual bias and further contributes by and large to the deterioration of

local dialects and further stigmatises the 'other' forms of bilingualism.

Page 57

Bibliography

Abe, N.; Suzuki, M.; Mori, E.; Itoh, M.; Fujii, T. (2007) Deceiving others: distinct neural responses of the prefrontal cortex and amygdala in simple fabrication and deception with social interactions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, p287– 295.

Adler, M. (1977) Collective and Individual Bilingualism: a sociolinguistic study. Helmut Buske Verlag: Hamburg.

Altarriba, J.; Santiago-Rivera, A.L., (1994) Current perspectives on using linguistic and cultural factors in counselling the Hispanic client. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 25, p388–397.

Ansburg, P. I. & Hill, K. (2003) Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences 34, p1141-1152.

Arnberg, L. (1987) Raising Children Bilingually: The Preschool Years. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Ash, I. K. & Wiley, J. (2006) The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, p66-73.

Ash, I. K. & Wiley, J. (2008) Hindsight bias in insightful and mathematical problem solving: Evidence of different reconstruction mechanisms for metacognitive versus situational judgments. Memory & Cognition 36, p822-837.

Ash, I. K.; Cushen, P. J.; Wiley, J. (2009) Obstacles in investigating the role of restructuring in insightful problem solving. The Journal of Problem Solving 2, p7-42.

Baker, C. (2000) The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd edition) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bauman, Z. (1997) Postmodernity and its Discontents. London: Routledge.

Ben-Zeev, S. (1977) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child development 48, p1009-1018.

Bialystok, E. (1988) Levels of Bilingualism and Levels of Linguistic Awareness. Developmental Psychology 24, p560-567.

Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok E; Craik F.; Freedman M. (2007) Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia 45(2), p459-464.

Bialystok, E.; Craik, F.; Klein, R.; Viswanathan, M. (2004) Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging 19, p290- 303.

Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994) In other words: the Science and Psychology of Second- Language Acquisition. New York: BasicBooks.

Page 58

Bloomfield, L. (1927) Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech 2, p432-439.

Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Bond, M. H. & Lai, T. (1986) Embarrassment and code-switching into a second language. Journal of Social Psychology 126, p179-186.

Caldwell-Harris, C. & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, A. (2009) Emotion memory effects in bilingual speakers: A levels-of-processing approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, p291-303. Castells, M. (2000) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

Christopherson, P. (1948) Bilingualism. Methuen: London.

Cook, V. (1991) The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second language research 7(2), p103-117.

Cook, V. (1992) Evidence for multicompetence. Language learning 42 (4), p557-592.

Cook, V. (1995) Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language Culture and Curriculum 8, p93-98.

Costa, A.; Miozzo, M.; Caramazza, A. (1999) Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language 41, p365-397.

Craik, J. (1997) The Culture of Tourism. In Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (Editors). Touring Cultures Transformations of Travel and Theory, p113-136. London: Routledge.

Craik, F.; Bialystok, E.; Freedman, M. (2010) Delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease: bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology 75, p1726-1729.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Editor), Handbook of creativity, p313–335. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, p1-43.

Cummins, J. (1978). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of cross-cultural psychology 9, p131-149.

Cummins, J. (1982) Interdependence and Bicultural Ambivalence: Regarding the Pedagogical Rationale for Bilingual Education. Arlington: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. & Mulcahy, R. (1978) Orientation to language in Ukrainian-English bilingual children. Child Development 49, p1239-1242.

Cushen, P.J. & Wiley, J. (2011) Aha! Voila! Eureka! Bilingualism and insightful problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences 21, p458-462.

Dawe, L. C. (1982) The influence of a Bilingual Child's First Language Competence on Reasoning in Mathematics. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Page 59

Dawe, L. C. (1983) Bilingualism and mathematical reasoning in English as a second

language. Educational Studies in Mathematics 14 (1), p325-353.

De Angelis, G. (2007) Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

De Houwer, A. (1995) Bilingual Language Acquisition. In Fletcher, P. and MacWhinney, B. (Editors) The Handbook of Child Language p219–250.Oxford: Blackwell.

De Martino, B.; Kumaran, D.; Seymour, B.; Dolan, R. J. (2006) Frames, biases and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313, p684–687.

Dewaele, J. M.; Baetens Beardsmore, H.; Housen, A.; Wei, L. (2003) Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

De Zulueta, F. (1995) Bilingualism, Culture and Identity. Group Analysis 28 (2), p179-190.

Edwards, J. (2009) Language and Identity: An Introduction. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, N. (1983) Automatic and controlled processes in the first- and second-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition 11, p565– 574.

Garbin, G.; Costa, A.; Sanjuan, A.; Forn, C.; Rodriguez-Pujadas; A., Ventura; N. (2011) Neural bases of language switching in high and early proficient bilinguals. Brain & Language 119, p129–135.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Gollan, T. H.; Salmon, D. P.; Montoya, R. I.; Galasko, D. R. (2011) Degree of bilingualism predicts age of diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in low-education but not in highly educated Hispanics. Neuropsychologia 49, p3826–3830

Green, D. (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico–semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, p67-81.

Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, p467-477.

Grosjean, F. (1989) Neurolinguists, Beware! The Bilingual Is Not Two Monolinguals in One Person. Brain and Language 36, p3-15.

Grosjean, F. (1992) Another View of Bilingualism. Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V

Grosjean, F. (1994) Individual bilingualism. In R.E. Asher and J.M. Simpson (Editors) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 3. Oxford: Pergamon.

Grosjean, F. (1997) The bilingual individual. Interpreting 2(1), p163-187.

Grosjean, F. (2001) The bilingual's language modes. In Nicol, J. (Editor). One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing p1-22. Oxford: Blackwell.

Grosjean, F. (2004) Le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme: quelques notions de base. In Billard, C.; Touzin, M. and Gillet, P. (Editors). Troubles spécifiques des apprentissages: l'état des connaissances. Paris: Signes Editions.

Page 60

Hansegård, N. E. (1972) Tvasprakighet eller halvsprakighet? Aldus, Series 253, Stockholm: Hovdhaugen (3rd edition).

Heller, M.; with the collaboration of: Campbell, M.; Dalley, P.; Patrick, D. (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman.

Heller, M. (2000) Bilingualism and identity in the post-modern world. Sociolinguistic Studies. Estudios de Sociolingüística 1(2), p9-24.

Heller, M. (2003) Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4), p473-492.

Hermans, D.; Ormel, E.; Van Besselaar, R.; van Hell, J. (2011) Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production is dynamic: How language ambiguous words can affect cross-language activation. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, p1687- 1709.

Hoffmann, C. (1991) An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman

Hong, Y.-Y.; Chiu, C.-Y. ; Kung, T. M. (1997) Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In Leung, K., Kashima, Y.; Kim, U.; Yamaguchi, S. (Editors). Progress in Asian social psychology 1, p135–146.. Singapore: Wiley.

Hong, Y.-Y.; Morris, M. W.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Benet-Martínez, V. (2000) Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist 55, p709–720.

Houston, S. H. (1972) Bilingualism: naturally acquired bilingualism. A Survey of Psycholinguistics. Mouton: The Hague, p203-205.

Kahneman, D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58, p697–720.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2006) Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, p45–46.

Keysar B.; Hayakawa S. L.; An, S.G. (2012) The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases. Psychological Science 23 (6), p661- 668.

Kharkhurin, A. V. (2010) Sociocultural Differences in the Relationship Between Bilingualism and Creative Potential. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 41, p776-783.

Kjolseth, R. (1983) Cultural Politics of Bilingualism. Society 20 (4), p40-48. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Klein, D.; Milner, B.; Zatorre, R. J.; Meyer, E.; Evans, A. C. (1995) The neural substrates underlying word generation: A bilingual functional-imaging study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92, p2899–2903.

Kozel, F.A., Padgett, T.M., George, M.S., (2004) A replication study of the neural correlates of deception. Behavioral Neuroscience 118, p852–856.

Kroll, J.; Bobb, S.; Wodniecka, Z. (2006) Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9, p119-135.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. & Gerton, J. (1993) Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin 114, p395–412.

Page 61

Lambert, W. E. (1974) Culture and Language as Factors in Education, in Aboud, F. & Mead, R. D. (Editors) Cultural Factors in Learning. WA: Washington State College, Bellingham.

Lasagabaster, D. (2000) The effects of three bilingual education models on linguistic creativity. International Review of Applied Linguistics 38, p213-228.

Lee, H.; Kim, K. (2011) Can speaking more languages enhance your creativity? Relationship between bilingualism and creative potential among Korean American students with multicultural link. Personality and Individual Differences 50, p1186- 1190.

Lenneberg, E.H. (1967) Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Leung, A. K.; Maddux, W. W.; Galinsky, A. D.; Chiu, C. (2008) Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist 63, p169-181.

Mackey, W. F.(1970) The Description of Bilingualism, in J. Fishman (Editor) Readings in the Sociology of Language p554-584. Mouton: The Hague.

Macnamara, J. (1969) How can one measure the extent of a person's bilingual proficiency?, in L. Kelly (Editor) (1969) Description and Measurement of Bilingualism, University of Toronto Press, p80-98.

Maddux, W. W. & Galinsky, A. D. (2009) Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, p1047-1061.

Maddux, W. W.; Adam, H.; Galinsky, A. D. (2010) When in Rome... learn why the Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences enhance creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36, p731-741.

Makropoulos, J. (2000) The Status of the French language and the development of French immersion education. Unpublished MA thesis. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Mårtensson, J.; Eriksson, J.; Bodammer, N. C.; Lindgren, M.; Johansson, M. Nyberg, L.; Lövdén, M. (2012) Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning. NeuroImage 63, p240–244.

McArthur, T. (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLaughlin, B (2006) Differences and Similarities between first and second language learning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379, Issue 1, p23-32.

McLoyd, V. (1998) Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist 53 (2), p185-204.

Mohamed, F.B.; Faro, S.H.; Gordon, N.J.; Platek, S.M.; Ahmad, H.; Williams, J.M. (2006) Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation initial experience. Radiology 238, p679–688.

Nakamura, K.; Kouider, S.; Makuuchi, M.; Kuroki, C.; Hanajima, R.; Ugawa, Y. (2010) Neural control of cross-language asymmetry in the bilingual brain. Cerebral Cortex 20, p2244–2251.

Niu, W.& Sternberg, R. J. (2001) Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology 36, p225-241.

Page 62

Oestreicher, J. P. (1974) The early teaching of modern language, education and culture, Review of the Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe 24, p9-16.

Oskaar, E.(1983) Multilingualism and multiculturalism from the linguist's point of view, in T. Husén and S. Opper (Editors) Multicultural and Multilingual Education in Immigrant Countries, p17-36.

Paradis, M. (2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Paradis, M. (2008) Bilingualism and neuropsychiatric disorders. Journal of Neurolinguistics 21, p199–230.

Pavlenko, A. (2005) Emotions and multilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peltola, M. S.; Tamminen, H.; Toivonen, H.; Kujala, T.; Näätänen, R. (2012) Different kinds of bilinguals – Different kinds of brains: The neural organisation of two languages in one brain. Brain & Language 121, p261–266.

Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959) Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Poarch, G. & van Hell, J. (2012) Executive functions and inhibitory control in multilingual children: Evidence from second-language learners, bilinguals, and trilinguals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 113, p535–551.

Posner, M. & Fan, J. (2004) Attention as an organ system. In J. Pomerantz (Editor), Topics in integrative neuroscience: from cells to cognition (p 31-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pujolar, J. (2000) Gender and Heteroglossia. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Puntoni, S.; de Langhe, B.; van Osselaer, S. (2009) Bilingualism and the emotional intensity of advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research 35, p1012–1025.

Quartz, S. R. (2009) Reason, emotion and decision-making: Risk and reward computation with feeling. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, p209–215.

Ramírez-Esparza, N.; Gosling, S. D.; Benet-Martínez, V.; Potter, J. P.; Pennebaker, J. W. (2006) Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality 40, p99–120.

Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.

Rueda, M.; Fan, J.; McCandliss, B.; Halparin, J.; Gruber, D.; Pappert, L. (2004) Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia 42, p1029- 1040.

Schrauf, R.W., (2000) Bilingual autobiographical memory: experimental studies and clinical cases. Culture and Psychology 6, p387–417.

Schweizer, T.; Ware, J.; Fischer, C.; Craik, F.; Bialystok, E. (2012) Bilingualism as a contributor to cognitive reserve: Evidence from brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex 48 (8), p991-996.

Simon, J. & Rudell, A. (1967) Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology 51, p300-304.

Page 63

Simonton, D. K. (1997) Genius and creativity selected papers. Greenwich: Connecticut: Ablex.

Simonton, D. K. (2008) Bilingualism and creativity. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R. (Editors), An Introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes p147-166. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Stein, M.; Federspiel, A.; Koenig, T.; Wirth, M.; Strik, W.; Wiest, R.; Brandeis, D.; Dierks, T. (2012) Structural plasticity in the language system related to increased second language proficiency. Cortex 48(4), p458-465.

Torrance, E. P. & Sisk, D. E. (1997) Gifted and talented children in the regular classroom. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press.

Torrance, E. P. & Wu, T. (1981) A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative achievements of elementary school children identified as highly intelligent and as highly creative. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly 6, p71-76.

Torrance, E. P. (1998) The Torrance tests of creative thinking norm–technical manual figural forms: A & B. Bensenville, Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.

Valenzuela, M. & Sachdev, P. (2006) Brain reserve and dementia: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine 36 (4), p441-454.

Wei, L. (2000) The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge.

Weinreich, U. (1968) Languages in Contact, Mouton, The Hague.

Wright, S. (2003) Language policy and language planning: from Nationalism to Globalisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.