Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal

Sistema de Información Científica

Miranda Montenegro, Iván Ricardo Insights on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education: A Sociolinguistic Perspective Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, vol. 17, núm. 3, septiembre-diciembre, 2012, pp. 263-272 Universidad de Antioquia Medellín, Colombia
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=255025411004

Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, ISSN (Printed Version): 0123-3432 ikala@quimbaya.udea.edu.co Universidad de Antioquia Colombia

How to cite

Complete issue

More information about this article

Journal's homepage

www.redalyc.org
Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative

InsIghts on BIlIngualIsm and BIlIngual EducatIon: a socIolInguIstIc PErsPEctIvE
[Percepciones sobre el bilingüismo y la educación bilingüe: una perspectiva sociolingüística]
Iván Ricardo Miranda Montenegro holds a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics to EFL Teaching from Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Colombia. He currently works as assistant professor at Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia. Mailing address: Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Instituto Internacional de Idiomas, Calle 4 sur No 15-134 Sogamoso, Boyacá, Colombia. E-mail: ivan.miranda@uptc.edu.co

Abstract
This paper is primarily intended to present some major considerations about bilingualism and bilingual education from a sociolinguistic perspective. In the first instance and due to the high complexity of the issue, I will deal with major definitions of these concepts. Furthermore, I will highlight features of individual and social bilingualism as well as some of their most common effects on individuals and on communities. Lastly, some conditions for the establishment of bilingual communities are put forward, followed by a reflection upon the kind of bilingualism within foreign language (FL) settings referring particularly to the Colombian case. Keywords: bilingualism, bilingual education, sociolinguistics, FL communities

Resumen
El presente artículo expone algunas reflexiones sobre el bilingüismo y la educación bilingüe desde una perspectiva sociolingüística. En primer lugar, y dada la inmensa complejidad del tema, es necesario discutir algunas definiciones acerca de estos dos conceptos. También se resaltan las características del bilingüismo individual y social y algunos de sus efectos en los individuos y en las comunidades. Finalmente, se presentan algunas condiciones para la implementación de comunidades bilingües seguida de una reflexión acerca del bilingüismo que se manifiesta dentro de las comunidades con lengua extranjera (LE) haciendo hincapié en el caso colombiano. Palabras clave: bilingüismo, educación bilingüe, sociolingüística, comunidades lengua extranjera

263

Received: 11-08-11 / Reviewed: 07-17-12 / Accepted: 10-18-12 / Published: 12-01-12

Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura
Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala
1. INTRODUCTION Talking about bilingualism and bilingual education is a very intricate matter. In some regions, however, it has been taken so simplistically that it may lead to serious misunderstandings, particularly in the determination of what bilingualism and bilingual education might mean for a specific community and what policies should be devised, adopted and enacted. Even the establishment of a thoughtfully designed and defined linguistic policy has repeatedly proved to have serious difficulties from its very conception up to its implementation and often becomes an expensive and frustrating failure (Spolsky, 2005). As a matter of fact, conceptions about sociolinguistic situation, ethnic and identity perceptions, globalization trends, multilingual and multicultural communities, and language as a recognized human and civil right are some of the constructs that have to be considered as salient components of an inclusive discussion on bilingualism and bilingual education.

iVán riCardo Miranda Montenegro

understood in some contexts, as may happen in the Colombian case. Further, I move toward the field of bilingual education within the foreign language setting with special reference to the Latin American situation. Finally, I provide some insights for bilingual education in Colombia. Here, I describe the bilingual situation of the country, highlighting the case of indigenous and minority communities which have been persistently neglected by the educational policies. 2. CONsIDeRaTIONs ON BIlINgUalIsm

264

Basically, a bilingual person is someone who knows and uses two languages, or, more specifically, one who speaks, reads, or understands two languages equally well (Richards, J. Platt, & H. Platt, 1992). The term bilingualism has been defined from different perspectives. As a matter of fact, disciplines like linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics propose, according to their particular domain, a definition for bilingualism. In general terms, bilingualism is characterized by the alternation of two languages. The problem arises More studies need to be conducted so as to get a when one wants to define the extent of language clearer depiction of the nature of language contacts competence a person must have to be called that seek to understand language dynamism1. More bilingual. emphasis should be put upon the epistemological element of language policy in order to illuminate The best known definitions of bilingualism, the panorama of likely endeavors in approaching the according to Moreno (2009), come from design and implementation of a bi or multi-lingual Bloomfield (1933), who states that bilingualism is the native mastery of two languages; Haugen community. (1953), who argues that bilingualism is the I begin this article with some basic considerations use of complete and meaningful sentences in on key definitions about bilingualism, both other languages, and from Weinreich (1952), individual and social. In other words, I consider for whom bilingualism occurs when “two or how bilingualism operates inside the individual, more languages… are used alternately by the and how a bilingual person may affect or may be same persons” (p. 1). Clearly, those definitions affected by bilingual communities. In the next (and others) may be situated along a continuum section, some insights on bilingual education are moving from a “radical” position to a more flexible presented remarking the fact that bilingualism one. For example, Macnamara (1967) describes and bilingual education may be erroneously a bilingual person as someone who, besides the

1

I found particularly well-reasoned the discussion put forward by Ricento (2000) in terms of understanding the evolution of language from a historical and theoretical standpoint.
Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala

insights on bilingualisM and bilingual eduCation: a soCiolinguistiC perspeCtiVe

skills in his or her first language, has skills in one of four modalities of the second language. This is the case of speakers of indigenous languages or speakers of languages that may get in contact, for example communities that live along country borders. This definition would cover a wide range of speakers around the world. In addition to the concepts above, we should also recognize some variations of bilingualism, for instance, semilinguism, (a concept introduced by Cummins and rejected by most scholars due to its discriminatory social connotations) which refers to the limited learning of one of the two languages; and multi/plurilinguism, when more than two languages are in use. Given this broad variation in the interpretation and definition of bilingualism, personal and social factors become a key element in establishing a more comprehensive yet nuanced definition of the term. 3. INDIvIDUal BIlINgUalIsm According to Siguán and Mackey (cited in Moreno, 2009) a bilingual person is someone “who, besides his/her L1, possesses a similar competence in a different language, and is able to use either of them within any circumstance with similar effectiveness” (pp. 17-18). The author states that such a definition may be considered as “perfect or ideal” —since what we actually find are individuals who approach this ideal to some extent. Also, he establishes some basic characteristics governing individual bilingualism. They are briefly summarized in the table below. Table 1: Characteristics of individual bilingualism Type Features Codes Clearly defined codes; automatic language independence separation Quick and effortless shift from one code to Alternation another Translation Expressing similar meanings in either code

have come into contact (in this case within the bilingual individual), established three types of bilingualism: a) Coordinate bilingualism: the bilingual speaker operates like two juxtaposed monolingual speakers. b) Compound bilingualism: two different referents for a single unit of meaning. c) Subordinate bilingualism: the dominated language is learnt and used through the dominant language. It is clear that the factors that intervene in the acquisition of a second code are affected by the individual characteristics of a learner and also by the environment where the performance (and acquisition) takes place. Roughly speaking, we can annotate that a subject may have an active or passive bilingualism, depending on the capacity an individual has to actively use the language skills (listening, reading, reading and speaking), for the former, and the capacity to understand (not produce), for the latter. 4. sOCIal BIlINgUalIsm From a social perspective, bilingualism also affects societies or speech communities; in that sense, a bilingual community may be defined as the environment where two languages are spoken, or where all or some of their members are bilingual. The most widely accepted forms of social bilingualism are those put forward by Appel and Muysken (1986, p. 10), schematically presented below: I II III

265

On the other hand, Weinreich (1952), considering Figure 1: Forms of social bilingualism (adapted the relationship between the languages that from Appel and Muysken, 1986)

Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala
For situation I, each language is spoken exclusively by separate groups; it deals with smaller monolingual communities which together make up a bilingual community which needs bilingual individuals for communication among the different language groups. For situation II, almost all of its members are bilingual. Situation III refers to the coexistence of a monolingual group, generally a dominant one from a social perspective. It is important to add that this typology has a theoretical character because it is infrequent to find communities that thoroughly fit one of the schemes.

iVán riCardo Miranda Montenegro

266

On the other hand, within bilingual (and monolingual) communities, it is customary to find different uses and social functions of a language. This phenomenon leads to recognition of what has been called diglossia. For Ferguson (1959) the term refers to “a specific relationship between two or more varieties of the same language in use in a speech community in different functions” (p. 232). For his part, Bright (1966) provides perhaps, the simplest definition and states that diglossia refers to the sharp differences in form and function between formal and informal style. Moreno (2009) understands diglossia like a functional disparity It is practically impossible to determine how in which some cultural factors (spread culture/ historical, cultural, political, and linguistic factors limited culture); socio-political factors (dominant combine to lead to a bilingual situation. However, group/dominated group); and linguistic factors Siguan and Mackey (cited in Moreno, 2009, (language distance, intelligibility, language p. 212) identify the historical factors that may diffusion, number of speakers) are involved. intervene to form bilingualism: Furthermore, Fishman (1979) provides a definition 1. Expansion: processes to expand territories of diglossia which has been lately accepted within where a different language is spoken. the sociolinguistic field. He asserts that there will 2. Unification: political processes to unify minor be diglossia as long as two linguistic varieties exist. territories to make bigger states. Usually more These varieties may be either dialects, registers of powerful groups try to spread and impose a same language or two different languages —to their linguistic habits. When this process faces which different functions have been assigned. resistance by a minority group, a linguistic Taking this interpretation of an ample diglossia, Rojo (cited in Moreno, 2009) suggests the conflict may appear. concept of adscription diglossia, which refers to 3. Post-colonial situations: independent the situation where the languages do not coexist territories or countries with a linguistically within the whole environment of a community. In varied population. other words, certain groups use a linguistic system for particular functions and other groups use a 4. Immigration: cities or countries that receive different system for the same functions. Generally, large numbers of people who speak a different those of a higher social stratum use a sort of language than that of their host. It is normal language for more prestigious and formal settings, that immigrants need to learn their host whereas those belonging to a lower social level will language to survive. However, they try to keep have limited access to those settings. their mother language to preserve their roots. It quite possible that second or third generation So far no study has been undertaken in Colombia may see their parents’ language as one of to establish whether these varieties of foreign “minor status” and a situation of subtractive language (English) have been described in bilingualism occurs. reference to our school communities. What is true is the fact that the learning of English as 5. Cosmopolitanism: places where international second/foreign language at bilingual institutions, contacts take place, especially for commercial mostly private ones, is more frequent than the and political purposes. learning of it in lower social strata establishments.
Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala

insights on bilingualisM and bilingual eduCation: a soCiolinguistiC perspeCtiVe

For instance, Mejia and Fonseca (2008) found that English is used (over 50%) as a medium of instruction and contact within international and national bilingual institutions in the country. Given the fact that a language is predominantly used with social purposes, it is also relevant to consider the concept of domain and communicative situation. The first one involves the place, the time of the communication, the participants, topics and pragmatic conditions. Within bilingual settings it is important to distinguish between public or formal domains (school, work, religion, etc.) and private or informal domains (family, friends). On the other hand and whatever the language, the economic, cultural, social, political, religious, and even affective factors will determine the level of language within a communicative situation. 5. effeCTs Of BIlINgUalIsm

acquisition of an L2 responds to a socio-economic need, and it supposes the separation or gradual loss of the L1, we face what is known as subtractive bilingualism (Moreno, 2009). 6. CONsIDeRaTIONs ON BIlINgUal eDUCaTION In some contexts where the teaching (and by inference the learning) of a language falls into the category of “foreign”, that is the target language (TL) is taught within instructional setting and with very limited and particular purposes, bilingualism tends to be confused with bilingual education. Broadly defined, bilingual education encompasses the use of the two languages as a means of instruction (Brisk, 2005). Some of the people in favor of bilingual education argue that only dual language programs that consist of instruction in both languages equally distributed during the day are accepted as bilingual education. Siguán and Mackey (1986) state that bilingual education is the system in which two languages are used as the means of instruction, and one of those languages is normally the students’ first language. The reality is that bilingual education may occur following particular circumstances, like the needs of the students and the availability of resources. However, some programs of education are misleadingly called “bilingual”, since within these programs L1 is the only means of instruction and the TL is seen like one more subject on the syllabus.

Any time that two languages come into contact, inevitably they will affect both individuals and societies. From the point of view of people (a psychological perspective), and when the social conditions are not favorable to bilingualism (or to the bilingual individuals), a situation harmful to the individual’s personality could arise, a sense of social isolation, anomie, that causes anxiety (Beardsmore, cited in Moreno, 2009). Likewise, the limited competence and use of one of the languages may provoke avoidance of social activities. Conversely, it has been demonstrated that bilingualism may be helpful for improving intelligence test scores (Lamber & Tucker, 1972) and may meliorate some The implementation and execution of bilingual of the individual’s cognitive skills (Cummins, education programs is, no doubt, a complex 1976). phenomenon that involves not only linguistic, sociological, cultural and psychological factors but The social advantages of bilingualism are quite also educational and political issues. evident. For instance, the need to establish a number of diverse relationships to increase the 7. Types Of BIlINgUal eDUCaTION understanding and knowledge among people is crucial for the current world. When the acquisition It is important to reflect upon the linguistic aims of a second language which is prestigious (socially of a given educational system which are likely the recognized) is attained, and when that acquisition result of the state political decisions. According is taken as a personal gain, we are talking about to those purposes, a system may be interested an additive bilingualism. Conversely, when the in having its students fully competent in both
Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

267

Íkala languages or just in one of them leaving the other to a lower level of competence. It is also important to consider the place assigned to the use of the languages within the curriculum. It is likely a balanced distribution of subjects or that one of the languages receives a special attention whereas the other one is left in a secondary place. Fishman and Lovas (cited in Moreno, 2009) propose a fourlevel taxonomy of bilingual education: Table 2: Taxonomy of bilingual education Type of bilingual Main features education Transitory L1 to approach the L2 L1 for conversations and to teach some Mono-literacy subjects To teach writing and reading in both languages; L1 for particular issues of Partial the minority language, and L2 to teach scientific subjects L1 and L2 are to be used to teach with no Complete restriction

iVán riCardo Miranda Montenegro

b. Attitude dimension: linguistic attitudes may be affected by geographical factors, migration and by political and socio-economic situation of the country. c. Educational aims dimension: objectives proposed for minority and majority languages. d. Cultural dimension: level of literacy, mobility and contact among different groups within a territory. Undoubtedly, the existence of such varied and numerous factors make bilingual education a complex task to design and to apply. It is of pivotal importance that speech communities have to be considered. In this sense, Spolsky (2005) highlights that “language management remains a dream until it is implemented, and its potential for implementation depends in large measure on its congruity to the practices and ideology of the community” (p. 2161).

268

This insight supports the idea of the need for a policy design that stands on communities’ beliefs Additionally, model of immersion for bilingual and actual language use (I use communities in education programs is well known. In this regard, plural for the vast array of speech communities). we can talk about early immersion when all the In other words, a bottom-up approach would pick early instruction is done in a second language, and up more real sustenance to build non-exclusive late immersion, when the L2 is introduced in the language regulation. Although being logical, this is an ideal method based on social construction last years of primary instruction. which seems quite unlikely to happen especially in The relationship between the student’s language countries with strongly centralized governments. and the instruction language may lead to a conflictive model of education. For instance, when 7. BIlINgUalIsm IN fl seTTINgs the student’s language and the instruction language do not coincide and the educative model does not So far I have discussed some major issues regarding consider this imbalance, the instruction situation bilingualism and bilingual education in regions may become a failure. Anyhow, it is important to or territories where two languages meet. This fact take into account the linguistic origins and the implies that there may be a social need for the cultural and linguistic difference of the students. establishment of bilingual programs. However, this Lewis (cited in Moreno, 2009) points out four is not always the case, sometimes the language that international dimensions for bilingual education: is to be part of the bilingual community has the status of “foreign”, not “second language”, a slight a. Demographic-linguistic dimension: distribution semantic difference that has profound implications and effect of the bilingualism within urban and when talking about bilingual education. Roughly rural areas; sociological status of each language speaking, a “foreign” language is that which is not used for everyday communication among the of multilanguage nations.
Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala

insights on bilingualisM and bilingual eduCation: a soCiolinguistiC perspeCtiVe

people who share the same setting, and that it is commonly learned in classrooms during controlled times and for limited purposes (Graddol, cited in Garzón & Miranda, 2009, p. 110). Given this situation, we have to contemplate that that type of language (the foreign language) is seen not as an immediate need, and consequently necessary curricular adjustment has not been considered urgent. It is mistakenly believed that training language teachers to reach higher TL standards is enough to qualify a society as bilingual. I am not asserting that mastering the TL is not important, but rather that it is just one step towards the implementation of bilingual education programs. Most countries in South America, for instance, have decided to implement bilingual education programs2 to meet international standards in order to make those countries “more competitive” in terms of international markets.

do with programs targeted at students who are monolingual speakers of the dominant (official) language, and that manages the instruction of English as a foreign language (King, 2005). Hornberger (cited in Mejia, 2005) also highlights some of the major obstacles that the implementation of an enrichment bilingual education model may imply: 1. The development of appropriate pedagogical approaches and academic materials. 2. Moving beyond controversy concerning the dialect or variety to be used in instruction. 3. Addressing conflicting language ideologies within the community.

The above mentioned hindrances have to do with pedagogical, political and socio-cultural aspects involved in the complex issue of establishing a In this regard, it is important to consider that a bilingual education policy. This implies that such bilingual education model and bilingual education a policy should be a multiparty construction programs are not the same. The former deals with involving most of the actors of a society. In my linguistic, cultural, and societal goals whereas the opinion, in Colombia, only the language that will latter may be defined by features like students’ be part of the bilingual project (English) has so far population, language teachers and the program been decided. structure itself (King, 2005). Considerations for Bilingual Education in On the other hand, Hornberger (cited in Mejia, Colombia 2005) proposes a typology of bilingualism applied to the South American context. She ascertains In Law 115, article 21 (Ministerio de Educación that there are a number of bilingual education Nacional, 1994), the Ministry of Education of programs throughout South America, but that the Colombia states that the acquisition of reading bilingual education models may be categorized and conversation elements in a foreign language in two basic types: a) an enrichment model is a national educational objective; in article 22, that fosters language development and additive it again states that comprehension and capacity bilingualism —a model designed particularly for to express oneself in a foreign language is an the elite—; and b) a traditional model especially educational objective. Likewise, article 23 includes intended for the maintenance of indigenous humanities, Spanish and foreign language as languages that in the long run, would promote a fundamental and mandatory areas. There seems to subtractive bilingualism. In the Colombian case, be a tacit understanding that English is the foreign the efforts for developing a bilingual model may language, given its commercial and international fit the enrichment model since this type has to status although it is not explicitly stated in official
2

269

For further discussion see (ed.) Anne-Marie de Mejia´s motivating book: Bilingual Education in South America (2005).

Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala documents as evidenced in the legal support mentioned above. In the same vein, the Political Constitution of Colombia of 1991 proclaims that “Castilian [Spanish] is the official language of Colombia. Languages and dialects of ethnic groups are also official within their territories. Teaching within communities with their own linguistic traditions will be bilingual” (my translation) (Pineda, 2000, p. 18). It is clear then that our nation has a legal support to respect and even promote vernacular languages all over the nation. However, what it is not clear is how government is to implement measures to fulfill this policy. We have inevitably to refer to a more complex issue regarding the effects of contact between languages taking into account social relationships of power. In other words, although vernacular languages can be considered co-official within their own territories, there are wider contexts in the administrative and commercial life of the country that will limit the use of any indigenous language. On the other hand, the Law 115 also proposes education for the ethnic groups (Chapter 3). It defines it as the education offered to groups or communities that possess their own culture, language and traditions. In any case, this kind of education should be tied to the environment, production process, and social and cultural processes, always respecting their beliefs and traditions. Its main goal is to consolidate processes of identity, knowledge, socialization, protection and proper use of nature, organization criteria and practice, use of vernacular languages, teacher training and research within all domains of culture (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Decree 804, 1994). Nevertheless, those minority languages —deaf community languages, Afro-Colombian language and especially indigenous languages (around 64 languages and 300 dialectal varieties, according to Fundación Herrera [cited in Ayala & Alvarez, 2005]) also have their voices to be heard within the Colombian context. Policy-makers have overtly disregarded and disrespected the Universal

iVán riCardo Miranda Montenegro

Declaration of Linguistic Rights that calls for the preservation of everyone’s right to a linguist identity (Chacón, 2004). Whatever the case, it is clear that this issue deals with political decisions that do not always take social and cultural considerations into account when undertaking a project of such significance. On the other hand, it appears that the type of bilingualism to be implemented in Colombia would be likely aimed at developing individual additive bilingualism rather than a social bilingualism. There are a number of reasons to support this insight. Firstly, there is no decision made in terms of considering some basic guidelines as to promote necessary adjustments in curricula and syllabi. The actions undertaken so far are focused on evaluating secondary education language teachers and developing language teachers’ linguistic competences; however, the language proficiency level attained by teachers does not guarantee students’ expected foreign language acquisition. Furthermore, not all of the evaluated teachers are foreign language teachers, particularly those teaching at the primary education level, that is to say, that pedagogical and didactic drawbacks might hinder, to a great extent, the teaching and learning of the FL subject. Also, it is one thing that a language teacher possesses good language proficiency, but it is another thing entirely different that his/her learners will reach a similar level; in other words, teaching does not ensure learning. Secondly, I wonder whether our policy-makers are sufficiently qualified as anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, psychologists and sociologists so as to be competent in undertaking serious discussion of the field of language planning and policy. What one can perceive is that after over six years of life of the aforementioned bilingualism project the tangible results are far from those that were announced and promised. Thirdly, I am still not convinced that having better language (teachers) speakers, without the necessary changes in study plans (number of class hours per week, number of students per class, bilingualism-directed teaching, introduction of a FL-based general curriculum, implementation of new technology for communication and

270

Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala

insights on bilingualisM and bilingual eduCation: a soCiolinguistiC perspeCtiVe

information, etc.) would result in the expected success. In this regard, universities should start the training of language teachers to make them specialists in bilingual programs. This, of course, would demand a steady and costly investment, and would only be the very beginning strategy to establish a bilingual education endeavor.

Another issue which deserves special attention has to do with the evaluation of bilingualism and bilingual education programs. This means that the purposes and objectives of such plans must be particularly clear and attainable so that when the time for assessment and evaluation procedures comes (evaluation of on-going plans as well as results of the plans), the educational institution and the evaluation staff have the necessary foundations of judgment and the required tools. The evaluation should include elements to measure not only the use of the TL -linguistic competence, communicative competence, pragmatic competence and social competence, but also the effects of the bilingual program’s implementation process on individuals and on the communities. Finally, the road is long, intricate and sometimes treacherous, but is likely the compulsory route 8. CONClUsION we must take. What we cannot forget is that all language planning, policy and implementation What really matters is that within our current has to do not only with language but mainly with world, where distance is dramatically reduced people. if not eliminated, the introduction of bilingual and multilingual communities is an asset for 1. Ecuador (1980), Bolivia (1994), Brazil, most societies. Nevertheless, the design and Peru(1972), Argentina (1993) have defined, if implementation of such communities must be a not complete language policies, at least some question of informed decisions drawn from several regulations regarding the learning of foreign/ and diversified sources. It is true that education is second languages included in their education dependent upon political determination, but it laws. is not less true that linguistic, cultural, and social factors must be carefully intertwined, designed, 2. The results of the application of the QPT test tested and incorporated. This means that language showed that most of the tested teachers are teachers and the scholars’ communities, who under the desired proficiency level (out of are perhaps the most authorized people because 11.064 evaluated teachers just the 10% would of their expertise and experience in the field of have reached B2 level or higher, [Garzón & language teaching, have a major role to play. Miranda, 2009, p. 112]).

I am convinced that it is through serious and supported research projects carried out throughout the country that encompass, catalogue and analyze the diversity of our society, that a project and a process for establishing bilingual education models may attain the desired and proclaimed success. In this regard, a number of undertakings have been being developed in some regions —especially in some major cities of the country. However, it seems to me that despite the fact that the goals of the Bilingualism National Plan (a State proposal for Colombia mainly aimed at public institutions) are quite clear: to have a bilingual literate society by the year 2019 (defined as eleventh graders who will achieve B1, university students B2, and university language students C1, language levels adapted from the Common European Framework [Garzón & Miranda, 2009, p. 115]), the procedures are somehow blurred and a definite bilingual state policy has not been set – for research, implementation and evaluation that guarantees the reach of that ambitious but needed goal.

271

Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala

Íkala
RefeReNCes
Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1986). Language contact and bilingualism. London, England: Edward Arnold. Ayala, J., & Alvarez, A. (2005). A perspective of the implications of the Common European Framework implementation in the Colombian socio-cultural context. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 7, 7-26 Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bright, W. (1966). Sociolinguistics. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Brisk, M. (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1-43. Chacón, R. (2004). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.

iVán riCardo Miranda Montenegro

King, K. (2005). Language policy and local planning in South America: New directions for enrichment bilingual education in the Andes. In A., Mejia, Bilingual Education in South America (pp. 1-14). Clevedon, England: Cromwell Press Ltd. Lamber, W., & Tucker, G. (1972). Bilingual education of children. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Macnamara, J. (1967). The bilingual’s linguistic performance: A psychological overview. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 59-77. Mejía, A. (2005). Bilingual education in South America. Clevedon, England: Cromwell Press Ltd. Mejía, A., & Fonseca, L. (2008). Orientaciones para políticas bilingües y multilingües en Lenguas Extranjeras en Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de Los Andes. Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (1994). Ley General de Educación. Bogotá, Colombia: MEN. Moreno, F. (2009). Principios de sociolingüística y sociología del lenguaje. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel Letras. Pineda, R. (2000). El derecho a la lengua. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196-213. Richards, J., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysa: Longman Siguán, M., & Mackey, W. (1986). Educación y bilingüismo. Madrid, Spain: Santillana Unesco Spolsky, B. (2005). Language policy. In C., James, K., McAlister, K., Rolstad, & J., MacSwam, (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1152-2164). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Weinreich, U. (1952). Languages in contact. The Hauge, Netherlands: Mouton

272

Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. En P., Garvin, & Y., Lastra (ed.), Antología de Etnolingüística y Sociolingüística (pp. 247-265). México D.F., México: UNAM. Fishman, J. (1979). The sociology of language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Garzón, E., & Miranda, I. (2009). Early reflections upon the Colombian National Program of Bilingualism in Boyacá. Enletawa Journal, 2, 109-118. Haugen, E. (1953). Language, planning theory and practice. In A., Graur (ed.), Actes du Xème Congres Internationales de la Linguistique (pp. 701 – 711), Bucarest, Romania: Edition D’Elacademie de la Republic Socialista de Roumaine.

How to reference this article: Miranda, I. (2012). Insights on bilingualism and bilingual education: A sociolinguistic perspective. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 17(3), 262-272.

Medellín – ColoMbia, Vol. 17, issue 3 (septeMber–deCeMber 2012), pp. 263-272, issn 0123-3432 www.udea.edu.co/ikala