Difference Between Social And Academic Language

1364 Words 5 Pages
other language structures such as phonology, syntax, semantics or pragmatics cannot be predicted at all.
The third hypothesis expressed by Krashen is the ‘monitor hypothesis’, and it implies that consciously learned language could be used to monitor the natural output of speech when the following three conditions are met: the learner has enough time, the learner must focus on the form and not just on meaning, and the learner knows the speech rules (Krashen, 1981). Krashen (1981) explains that while these three conditions are necessary, they are not sufficient for monitoring to happen since the learner might not use the previously acquired knowledge. Ellis (2003) criticizes that Krashen sees monitoring mainly as a post learning process or tool
…show more content…
However, Cummins’ theory to distinguish between social and academic language has been criticized by several researchers (Ovando & Combs, 2012). MacSwan and Rolstand (2003) are concerned that by theorizing a distinction between social and academic language the latter could be favored. Ovando and Combs (2012) explain that the implication of making the distinction between the types of language may lead to thinking that academic proficiency can be attained only at school, and not through home or family discussions. Another critique for Cummins’ theory is noted from Aukerman (2007) who questions the utility of this language distinction for teachers of ELLs since we should not blame their academic struggles on their lack of mastery of the correct type of …show more content…
On the other hand, students that belong to the majority language generally experience additive bilingualism since the school language is added to their native language (Lambert, 1974). Garcia (2009) suggests that bilingualism should not be seen as the additive (the balanced wheels of a bicycle) or subtractive (unicycle) models, but rather as an all-terrain vehicle that it is used by persons to adapt to the uneven topographies of communication. Current research developed by Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) proposes that bilingualism is ‘dynamic’ instead of linear, and that under this perspective languages should not be seen as independent systems that individuals possess, but as practices used by them. According to Garcia and Kleifgen (2010), “Dynamic bilingualism refers to the development of different language practices to varying degrees in order to interact with increasingly multilingual communities” (p. 42). Consequently, effective instruction for ELLs should be built on the full linguistic range of the students and also should include practices that are multiple and hybrid, and support the dynamic bilingual practices used by bilingual individuals to create knowledge and understanding (Garcia & Kleifgen,

Related Documents