Rebekka Eckhaus, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan

The other day, I was chatting with other faculty members in the corridor at the university in Japan where I currently teach in the English language program. About half of my colleagues are English speakers from Anglophone countries, and the entire faculty has varying bi/multilingual competence. Because many teachers have children receiving education here in Japan, questions often arise about educating bilingual children. On this particular day, the conversation turned toward the myth of the “balanced bilingual.”

“The myth of the ‘balanced bilingual’?” asked one colleague.

Another language instructor explained what Grosjean eloquently describes as the view that “bilinguals [must] have equal and perfect knowledge of their languages” (Grosjean, 2012). In extension, “equal and perfect knowledge” would imply that “bilinguals are (or should be) two monolinguals in one person” (Grosjean, 1989).

Surprised, the first colleague, whose children were learning both English and Japanese, replied, “Yeah, a ‘balanced bilingual.’ Isn’t that what we’re all trying to do with our kids?”

Little was he aware that a balanced bilingual is extremely rare and debatably considered an impossible pursuit (Haugen, 1969, as cited in Grosjean, 2012).

My colleague holds a belief commonly held in popular culture: A bilingual can and should have equal capacity to comprehend, produce, and function—not only in two languages, but in two cultures (Grosjean, 2012). This image of a multilingual, which is based on a monoglossic judgment of a native speaker, perfect ideal (Fuller, 2018; García & Tupas, 2018), places unrealistic and unachievable expectations on multilanguage users (De Houwer & Ortega, 2018b; Grosjean, 1989, 2012; May, 2014b).

The preceding anecdote illuminates one of the biggest challenges in the area of bi/multilingualism: lack of knowledge about what it truly means to be multilingual. As language teachers, we try not to prescribe to the popular myths about language learning and use. However, at times even we may allow subconscious misconceptions to affect our teaching, administration, policy building, and, in this case, parenting.

How Then Could the Myth of the Balanced Bilingual Affect our Teaching and Administration on a More Practical Level?

In my previous job, I worked as a coordinator in a U.S.-based university English language program in Japan. As a newly established program, we had the task of implementing English language placement tests to incoming students, the majority of whom were Japanese-English bilinguals, Japanese being their dominant language. We offered three program tracks: an academic Intensive English Program (IEP), a general English program, and a program for business professionals. According to our stated mission, students were guided after placement to a specific track or combination of tracks depending on their individual goals.

The placement tests were developed in-house. Grammar and listening were scored by percentage correct; a writing sample was reviewed holistically by at least two readers; and an interview was rated by the same faculty member who conducted the interview. One aggregate score was determined based on the individual scores from all sections.

What Was the Result of This Placement Procedure?

Very quickly, an issue emerged with the placement procedures. How should we place those students who had widely divergent scores or demonstrated different strengths in their English competencies? In other words, what should happen to a student whose skills were “unbalanced”?

In our context, this imbalance was usually found in a very strong speaker with weaker writing skills or a strong writer with weak speaking and listening. The policy was clear—a student could only be placed at or slightly above the level of their weakest area.

Discussion ensued among the faculty. Was the policy fair to students? What if a student only wanted to improve specific skills? Was it necessary to have a balanced placement? How would changing the policy affect classroom dynamics for the teachers or other students?

How Was the Policy Adapted?

Eventually, the survival of the school forced the policy to change. Some students were dissatisfied with their placements. For example, in the original system, a strong speaker who wanted to improve his or her speaking skills had no option but to improve their weak writing before taking a speaking class. Not only were the writing classes expensive and time consuming, but they were also potentially irrelevant to the student’s goals.

In order to retain students, the policy had to account for these so-called “exceptions.” Therefore, an allowance was introduced—students could be placed based on the skill they wanted to improve on a case-by-case basis. The change essentially applied to part-time students outside of the IEP. The original policy remained intact for the IEP because all English language skill areas were considered essential for academic success in university studies taught in English.

Though the policy was adjusted for the reality of the school’s context, the process of deciding whether to allow for imbalanced English language competencies was fraught with lively discussion and plenty of disagreement. Without a doubt, adapting an ESL program based in an Anglophone context to an EFL context in which English is not the majority language is a complex process. However, a closer look at a foundational attitude regarding multilingual students may help inform future administrative and instructional practices.

What Does This Mean for Teachers and Administrators?

In this case, the initial placement decision was founded on at least one basic misconception: All aspects of a bilingual’s language must be balanced in order to be considered truly competent in that language. Moreover, the language benchmark for English (and, therefore, also for Japanese) was the same as a highly skilled monolingual in academic register and style. In other words, our administration set a very narrow monolingual standard as the “perfect” or “ideal” language user (Grosjean, 1989).

The impossibility of directly comparing a bilingual to a monolingual in each language has been criticized extensively in modern multilingual research (Cruz-Ferreira, 2010; De Houwer & Ortega, 2018a; Fuller, 2018; Grosjean, 1989, 2012; May, 2014a; Ortega, 2014). When teachers and administrators embrace a monoglossic deficit posture toward our bilingual students, we may limit the ways in which we can adapt our programs and lessons to meet their needs, and we might drive our students to imagine themselves in a perpetual game of catch-up with their monolingual peers—regardless of whether they can successfully accomplish tasks utilizing their diverse linguistic and/or cultural resources.

As educators, a better approach would be focusing less on what our students cannot do in English and more on how well they can communicate and express themselves in the specific contexts and/or registers in which they need. From there, we can help them build their language resources so that they can more efficiently and effectively achieve their goals. Cook (2002) recommends moving away from the detrimental notion of “language learners” to a more constructive approach, regarding multilinguals as “language users.”

As administrators and teachers then, perhaps we should give the particular needs and goals of our students more weight when designing curricula, including questions of course goals, material selection and development, assessment, and placement.

In order to realize change as a profession, our first adjustment must be attitudinal. We must understand bi/multilingualism as a separate phenomenon from monolingualism (Grosjean, 1985). We should make efforts to establish administrative and instructional expectations that match the needs and goals of the multilingual individuals who attend our classes. The second adjustment is practical. We must ensure that our policies and practices reflect a research-based approach to multilingualism, eschewing pop culture myths about speakers of multiple languages.

Despite the demands of powerful stakeholders who may not embrace an inclusive approach to multilingualism, educators have a duty to establish a more objective method of analysis, which in turn will lead to a more equitable process of decision-making. We are all susceptible to subconscious biases that may affect the impartiality of our decisions. Therefore, we must engage in a reflective learning process, first recognizing our own beliefs, identifying and correcting any errors of understanding, and then espouse evidence-based approaches. In the area of bi/multilingualism where myth is often confused for fact, we must become advocates dedicated to enriching our students’ education and promoting a deeper understanding of multilingualism in broader society.

References

Cook, V. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits of the L2 user (Vol. 1). Multilingual Matters.

Cruz-Ferreira, M. (2010). Multilinguals are ...? CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

De Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (2018a). Introduction: Learning, using, and unlearning more than one language. In A. De Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (1st ed., pp. 1–12). doi:10.1017/9781316831922

De Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2018b). The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (1st ed.). doi:10.1017/9781316831922

Fuller, J. M. (2018). Ideologies of language, bilingualism, and monolingualism. In A. De Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (pp. 119–134). doi:10.1017/9781316831922.007

García, O., & Tupas, R. (2018). Doing and undoing bilingualism in education. In A. De Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (1st ed., pp. 390–407). doi:10.1017/9781316831922

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker‐hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(6), 467–477. doi:10.1080/01434632.1985.9994221

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5

Grosjean, F. (2012). Bilingual: Life and reality. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=456333

May, S. (2014a). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

May, S. (Ed.). (2014b). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.