An Ever-expanding Horizon:
A State of the Art of the Study of Bilingualism in Neuro and Psycholinguistics
Ana Catalina Ardila Mejía Juan Sebastian Albañil García
Bachelor of Arts in the Teaching of Modern Languages Faculty of Communication and Language
Javeriana University Bogota, Colombia
November 2022
An Ever-expanding Horizon:
A State of the Art of the Study of Bilingualism in Neuro and Psycholinguistics
Ana Catalina Ardila Mejía Juan Sebastian Albañil García
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Teaching of Modern Languages
Advisor: Deyanira Sindy Moya Chaves
Bachelor of Arts in the Teaching of Modern Languages Faculty of Communication and Language
Javeriana University Bogota, Colombia
November 2022
Acknowledgments
I owe a deep sense of gratitude to God, who guided me to this university and this major, and has always looked after me.
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank my mother, Eva. Thank you for being my beacon in times of despair and for weaving the dreams that the three of us will accomplish.
To my father, Tomás, thank you for being my first teacher. I miss you every day.
To Gabriel, my brother, thank you for forging the path I walk.
My dearest friends, Lezli, Yulia, Estela and Linda, thank you for loving me unconditionally.
Ana Catalina
I would like to thank my mother, Carolina, who constantly supports me with everything I do.
To my grandparents Luis and Carmen, thank you for every drop of sweat, because thanks to you I have been able to reach this point.
I would like to express my deepest love to all the people who accompanied me in this process:
Pamela, Angie and Claudia. Thank you for your love and support. Finally, to my research partner, Catalina, who was always helping me to improve on this academic path.
Juan Sebastian
Finally, the completion of this dissertation could not have been possible without the expertise, patience and affectionate orientation of our advisor Sindy Moya.
Ana Catalina and Juan Sebastian
Abstract
The present state of the art aims to provide a comprehensive overview of what has been done so far in the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics regarding the study of bilingualism, along with the proposal of the adoption of concepts and methods associated with other disciplines, such as sociolinguistics. This work posits the transformative pathway of the notions of bilingualism held by the cognitive sciences of language. By identifying the most relevant shifts, trends and limitations in the history of said disciplines, we noticed that, over time, the focus on bilingualism fluctuated from an initial prescriptive, idealist and discipline-limited emphasis, to a more descriptive, pragmatic and inclusive one. After going through the conceptual change of bilingualism and its implications, we make a proposal with the future of the disciplines in mind: in order for neuro and psycholinguistics to develop and expand, they should adopt an inter/transdisciplinary stance and a different perspective of the bilingual.
Keywords: bilingualism, sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, interdisciplinary approach, transdisciplinary approach
Resumen
El presente estado del arte tiene como objetivo proporcionar una visión global de lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora en los campos de la neuro y la psicolingüística con respecto al estudio del bilingüismo, junto con la propuesta de la adopción de conceptos y métodos asociados a otras disciplinas, como la sociolingüística. Este trabajo plantea el camino de transformación de las nociones de bilingüismo que sostienen las ciencias cognitivas del lenguaje. Al identificar los cambios, tendencias y limitaciones más relevantes en la historia de dichas disciplinas, notamos que, con el tiempo, el enfoque en el bilingüismo cambió de ser inicialmente prescriptivo, idealista y confinado a los límites de las disciplinas, a ser uno más descriptivo, pragmático e inclusivo. Después formular el cambio conceptual del bilingüismo y sus implicaciones, hacemos una propuesta con el futuro de las disciplinas en mente: para que la neuro y la psicolingüística se desarrollen y expandan, estas deben adoptar una postura ínter/transdisciplinaria y una perspectiva diferente del bilingüe.
Palabras clave: bilingüismo, sociolingüística, neurolingüística, psicolingüística, enfoque interdisciplinario, enfoque transdisciplinario
Résumé
Le présent état de l’art vise à fournir un aperçu complet de ce qui a été fait jusqu’à présent dans les domaines de la neurolinguistique et de la psycholinguistique concernant l’étude du bilinguisme, ainsi que la proposition de l’adoption de concepts et de méthodes associés à d’autres disciplines, comme la sociolinguistique. Cette pièce pose la voie transformatrice des notions de bilinguisme que possèdent les sciences cognitives du langage.
En identifiant les changements, tendances et limites les plus pertinents dans l’histoire de ces disciplines, nous avons remarqué qu’au fil du temps, l’accent mis sur le bilinguisme est passé d’une orientation normative, idéaliste et limitée à la discipline, à une orientation plus descriptive, pragmatique et inclusive. Après avoir faire le parcours du changement conceptuel du bilinguisme et ses implications, nous faisons une proposition avec l’avenir des disciplines à l’esprit : afin que la neuro et la psycholinguistique se développent et se diversifient, elles devraient adopter une position inter/transdisciplinaire et une perspective différente du bilingue.
Mots clés : bilinguisme, sociolinguistique, neurolinguistique, psycholinguistique, approche interdisciplinaire, approche transdisciplinaire
Table of contents
Introduction... 1
Different approaches to the study of bilingualism ... 3
History of Neurolinguistics ... 4
History of Psycholinguistics ... 7
Chapter 1: From Categorical and Prescriptive… ... 9
How Has Bilingualism Been Defined? ... 10
How Has Bilingualism Been Categorized? ... 17
Chapter 2: To Relational and Descriptive... 27
The Finding of Language Juggling ... 28
Language Juggling ... 29
The Finding of Neuroplasticity ... 32
The Critical Period Hypothesis for L2 learning ... 33
The Finding of Neuroplasticity... 37
The Benefits of Bilingualism ... 40
Onset of the lifespan ... 40
During one’s lifespan ... 42
End of the lifespan ... 44
Conclusion... 45
Conclusions... 49
Integration: Individual vs. Collective ... 49
Different ontological positions ... 49
Criticisms ... 50
Inter/transdisciplinary perspective ... 52
An inter and transdisciplinary approach applied in the field ... 53
Conclusion... 56
References ... 58
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Spectrum of the definition of bilingualism ... 16 Figure 2: Standard categories by which the bilingual is understood ... 24 Figure 3: Common neuronal patterns activated in L2 users. ... 31 Figure 4: Overview of the main trends in present-day neuro and psycholinguistics. . 47
Table of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
CT Computed Tomography Scan
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
fMRI Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PET Positron Emission Tomography Scan
DTI Diffusion Tensor Imaging
CPH Critical Period Hypothesis
SLA Second Language Acquisition
Introduction
The phenomenon of bilingualism has been around for a long time in human history.
Though it is not entirely clear when it began, it can be rightfully assumed that it has its inception in the need for communication with someone -or a community- deemed a stranger. There are various reasons to learn another language. The rationale can go from sheer will to a violent political imposition. In between, the desire for a higher socioeconomic status might emerge.
Either way, bilingualism has been very much present in the past and even more nowadays. In fact, it is a rather common belief that most people are monolinguals, and that bilingualism is the exception to the rule. This could not be farther from the truth. Statistically, there are far more people that speak two or more languages or dialects than people who are competent in only one (Grosjean, 2013; Wei, 2000). This statistical fact renders the phenomenon of bilingualism even more important to analyze: it affects the day-to-day of a great deal of the world’s population.
This document emerged as a response to the problem of the inaccurate and almost casual defining of bilingualism and its related concepts by the sciences of language.
Throughout the development of this piece and the research we carried out, we noticed that some terms (namely, bilingualism, the bilingual individual, multilingualism, etc.) are used without much consideration of their definition. It should be clarified that we do not disprove of the different notions that, for instance, the concept of bilingualism might bring about, but the fact that said notions are not always clarified or explicitly stated. This lack of conceptual delimitation creates the idea that authors refer to the same phenomenon, taking place in the same context, when discussing bilingualism. Nonetheless, as we shall see later, there are a myriad of ways in which to describe this concept and it is essential that further pieces be explicit about what stance they take. On a different note, we wish to clarify some points about this
piece, regarding the language in which it is written and the context of its emergence. First, as for its language, we chose to write it in English and not in Spanish, which is our mother tongue and the language in which we developed our undergraduate major, due to the substantial amount of information of the topic in this language. Though there are investigations and books relevant to this piece in Spanish that we used, we found them limited and, in some cases, dated in comparison to the data presented in English. Furthermore, we wanted to avoid misinterpreting and mistranslating concepts that were core to the study of language in the brain.
We are aware, however, that persisting in the creation of knowledge in this sole language perpetuates the power and centralization that we, as a society, have attributed to the English language in the academic domain. That is why we contemplate the possibility that, once finished, this work be translated into Spanish. The ulterior translation of it could contribute to more knowledge being distributed in a language other than English, especially in such niche domains as neuro and psycholinguistics.
Secondly, concerning its context of emergence, this state of the art was created to provide a comprehensive outlook of the study of bilingualism through the lens of the cognitive sciences of language to our research group in Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, called Semillero de Neurobilingüismo. Since its creation, we have attempted to merge the educational perspective with neuro and psycholinguistic postulates in order to devise pedagogical strategies based on said principles. Although this thesis does not focus on a pedagogical and practical perspective, it does concentrate on the scientific pathway that scholars followed to come to the conclusions that we tackle in the research group.
We hope that the reader enjoys this piece and finds it useful to understand the history and current development of the study of bilingualism through the specific stance of neuro and psycholinguistics.
Different approaches to the study of bilingualism
Historically, bilingualism has been studied from an individual and collective or societal perspective. The first one, dealing with the cognitive and neurological processes a speaker has to go through to be competent in an L2, is addressed by the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics. The second alternative approaches bilingualism through a societal lens, that is, the outside processes that lead to L2 proficiency and its implications for a given society (Sampietro, 2011, p. 24). These analyses have been regarded as divided, dichotomized, and conflicting. Both branches have expanded their reach parallelly over the course of time, with their own theories and tenets; but rarely have they had a meeting point. Thus, each one has come to different conclusions and has different limitations. The purpose of this piece is to examine one of the sides, the individual one, identifying how the bilingual is portrayed, the limitations of this portrayal, and the way in which the other side can help settle the ground of misconceptions and misjudgments regarding bilingualism.
As was stated before, the individual approach to bilingualism is discussed in the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics. We will focus on these two. On the one hand, neurolinguistics is the area of knowledge that studies the relationship between language and the structure and functioning of the brain. It deals with topics such as neuroplasticity, brain localization of language, language attrition, brain lateralization, and language pathology. On the other hand, the field of psycholinguistics studies the psychological processes that allow language to emerge. It is concerned with the ways in which language is represented and processed mentally.
Some of its subjects of interest include language development, comprehension and disorders, and first and second language acquisition. These two approaches to language differ insofar as they deal with different angles of the same object. Neurolinguistics focuses on the biological aspect of language (e.g., where language is located in the brain), whereas psycholinguistics is
concerned with the mental processes involved in language. The dichotomy lies in physicality and abstraction.
We will dive into the history of each field in order to gather the main trends in the characterization of bilinguals and their respective limitations.
History of Neurolinguistics
To say that the study of the relationship between language and brain structure started at a particular point in time is rather ambiguous. One should go back to antiquity to examine the insights or, more precisely, the assumptions made regarding the topic. Instead, we choose to tell the story of neurolinguistics since its emergence as a discipline, in 1960. Following Eling (2015, p. 5), it can be said that neurolinguistics emerged as an attempt to explain language disorders with a stronger theoretical basis. Eric Lenneberg (1960, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 6) proposed the term “aphasiology” to refer to the field that studied language disorders; Trager (1960, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 6), nonetheless, coined the term neurolinguistics to address said topic along with the connection between the nervous system and language. Many more scholars began mentioning this designation and they set the purpose of establishing a unified theory of language and the brain. One of the first official written records that set out neurolinguistics as a field of study is Harry Whitaker’s Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics (1974, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 6). In it, he addressed lateralization, development, and bilingualism.
Broadly speaking, the conception of how the brain works has changed dramatically since it was first approached. Before relying on more technologically advanced methods, scholars hypothesized about the relationship brain-language. Language disorders were regarded as a problem related to memory loss. When people experienced language pathology
symptoms, they were told that they had to exercise their memory since they had forgotten the words to express their thoughts. Nonetheless, with the rise of the study of language disorders, performed mostly in corpses that had presented signs of language impediment, scholars began discriminating language as a distinct function of the brain. This framework allowed later neurolinguists to conjecture new hypotheses.
The nineteenth century was a period of debate in the field. The German physician Franz Joseph Gall believed that faculties were inborn and that each one had its own place in the brain.
He founded the school of Phrenology based on this principle. In general terms, Phrenology was a discipline, now considered a pseudoscience, which involved the connection between particular physical features of the brain and people’s personality traits. The scientific community heavily criticized this theory at the time, especially by Paul Broca (1861, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 8). He discarded Gall’s tenet, arguing that it generalized beyond empirical knowledge. In turn, Broca, based on studies he made in brains that had demonstrated language production disorders, put forward the possibility that language was located in the posterior inferior frontal gyrus (pars triangularis) (BA45) of the brain (Broca, 1861, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 9).
German physician Carl Wernicke (1905, cited in Eling, 2015, p. 9) took the next step in language localization. He believed that, on top of language production impairment, patients could also suffer from language comprehension impairment. He gathered people who had trouble understanding language and carried out some experiments. His conclusion was that there are different language centers in the brain, some in charge of production, and others of comprehension. The brain area he discovered is called the Wernicke area and it is Brodmann area 22, which is located in the superior temporal gyrus in the dominant cerebral hemisphere.
Both of these zones (Broca and Wernicke) are positioned in the left hemisphere of the brain, which is why the faculty of language is normally believed to be residing there.
The twentieth century brought about a change in the field of neurolinguistics. The opposition to the simplistic approach of localization expounded above characterized it.
Scholars such as Pierre Marie, Von Monakov, and Goldstein began contesting the idea that there was such a thing as a strict localization of faculties in the brain. Instead, they proposed a holistic way of conceptualizing the brain. They considered that language was spread all over the brain; when certain topics were said, read, heard, or written, a particular area of the brain was activated. In modern times, nonetheless, the study of the relationship between language and the structure of the brain changed dramatically with the emergence of neuroimaging techniques like Computed Tomography Scan (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Positron Emission Tomography Scan (PET) and Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI); nowadays, there is no need to examine corpses in search of brain injury. Moreover, the participants who partake in the studies can be healthy and have regular linguistic development processes.
After briefly going through a historical outlook of the field of neurolinguistics, it is important to note some trends in the conceptualization of language. It can be highlighted that rarely did any scholar address the social function of language. It was normally considered to be an inborn faculty, not an ability that developed with the crucial element of a society or a human circle. Following this thread of thought, language was always regarded as the product of developmental evolution rather than the result of social interaction. Due to the nature of the main subject matter that neurolinguistics deals with -language pathology-, a major focus was put on the eradication of anomalous linguistic conduct. For this reason, scientists resorted to brain biopsy to attempt to explain the reasoning behind language impairment. As happens today in the field of medicine, the late participants and even the ones who were still alive were regarded merely through the lens of disorder and impairment. During the interviews prior to the examination, researchers did not inquire about the person’s social background or the life
circumstances that had led them to the pathology. Patients were categorized by their condition and no other factor was borne in mind.
Nowadays, thanks to the severe evolution in technology that the field of neurolinguistics has experienced, it can be asserted that it went through a theoretical transformation. At its inception, this discipline considered that the brain was a strictly organized place, which had a “drawer” for each faculty. However, this notion grew broad enough to think that the whole brain was involved in the capacity for language. It mutated from meticulous organization to holism. Some researchers contemplate that this change in the framework is the last massive transformation from which the field of neurolinguistics will suffer. Yet, the integration of a more socially oriented approach has been conspicuously absent in the history of the discipline.
History of Psycholinguistics
Similar to neurolinguistics, the field of psycholinguistics was defined by two moments in history: the rudimentary beginning of the practice and investigation in the psychology of language and its official point of departure as a discipline. The first one is characterized by the endeavor of groups such as the Greeks and the Egyptians, with work surrounding head injury and language breakdown following physical trauma. Despite pioneering in the work of language aphasia, these cultures did not expand their knowledge about the internal processes that occur inside the brain to produce language since they did not accord much importance to the brain: The Egyptians used to scrape it through the nose and the Greeks focused on the philosophy of language (Altmann, 2006). Over the centuries, however, the second point in time in the history of psycholinguistics came about: in the 19th century, the first systematic studies dealing with the relationship between language and brain were carried out.
It is at this point that the history of neurolinguistics and that of psycholinguistics converge, for many scholars consider that these disciplines were born at the same time, with the same brain-language
conception, but bearing upon different sides of it. Neurolinguistics is associated with the physiological aspect regarding the brain-language notion, whereas psycholinguistics deals with a more abstract version of it: the mind. Evidently, the issue of what the boundaries between disciplines are is related to the question of the degree of influence the brain has over the mind and vice versa. If the biological features of the brain affect the way in which the mind functions, or if the mind changes the brain, then both disciplines are interconnected and cannot be separated. In that way, the history of neurolinguistics is also the history of psycholinguistics. In fact, when putting together the historical events that led to the creation of the discipline, neurolinguists and psycholinguists refer to virtually the same elements:
Broca and Wernicke’s work, phrenology, the technological developments that have taken place lately, etc. (Altmann, 2006).
Regardless of their similarities, there is a set of topics that are exclusively addressed by psycholinguists, due to their abstract and psychological character: language acquisition, language learning, spoken word recognition, sentence comprehension, sentence production, message construction, memory limitations, cross-linguistic comparisons, conversational interaction, figurative language, text comprehension, child language disorders, gesture, prosody, animal communication, and language evolution, among others (MacWhinney, 2001).
This memoir tells the story of the study of bilingualism by the cognitive sciences of language and is divided into two chapters: From Categorical and Prescriptive… to Relational and Descriptive. The reader can think about them as different moments in the history of bilingualism, which were split by the rapid technological development of neuro and psycholinguistics. Thus, in Chapter 1, we discuss the investigations that were developed before the technological catalyst, and in Chapter 2, how research is currently being carried out. As part of our conclusions, though, we posit a humble proposal for the future of the disciplines and the study of bilingualism.
Chapter 1: From Categorical and Prescriptive…
The complexity of the phenomenon of bilingualism allows it to be tackled from various perspectives. It can be thought about from a collectivist and individual standpoint, as mentioned before. The first one encompasses an array of topics that address the relationship between language and identity, such as language prestige, and different policies regarding language regulation, among many others. The second one refers to bilingualism seen from a biological and cognitive angle, that is, employing the disciplines of neuro and psycholinguistics (Sampietro, 2011, p. 28). Although these perspectives help us to have a broader view of this phenomenon, it is important to emphasize that just one discipline or area of knowledge could not give a complete definition or categorization that suits the bilingual individual. In fact, the mere act of thinking of the bilingual as an object destined to fit into a single definition or a single categorization seems not to be enough when studying this phenomenon. Seeing the bilingual as an object to be categorized, arranged, classified or even defined is problematic in and of itself, for being proficient in an L2 is just one trait that partakes in a bigger web of life circumstances.
In order to analyze in greater detail the categorical, in the sense of categorizing and arranging phenomena, and the prescriptive standpoint of neuro and psycholinguistics, we intend to navigate into those theories, hypotheses and studies where it can be seen how bilinguals have been historically defined and categorized. Consequently, it is paramount to understand how the different perspectives on bilingualism can begin not only to complement each other, suggesting the integrality of bilingual studies, in regards to the different variables and factors that affect each individual, but also trying to show their limitations. At one point in the conceptual development of this individual approach to bilingualism, the need for the correspondence of the collectivist side of the discussion becomes self-evident. We stress the
importance of bearing in mind that the categories that will be discussed in the second part of this chapter be seen as factors of research and not as boxes in which to arrange bilinguals. The efforts of scholars who belong to the cognitive neurosciences are not futile but need to be seen through a different framework.
How Has Bilingualism Been Defined?
The phenomenon of bilingualism has always been hard to define; in fact, in 2006, Birkbeck, University of London, carried out a study about general perceptions surrounding the term “bilingual”. Jennifer Sia and Jean-Marc Dewaele gathered participants from various countries, such as Argentina, Bolivia, China, Japan, the UK, the USA and Venezuela, and asked them the apparently simple question “Are you bilingual?”, among other inquiries regarding their second language proficiency and education history. Their purpose was to further develop the picture of bilingualism by investigating the distinction between those who identified with the label and those who did not. What these researchers found was of utter interest for the field of bilingualism, particularly for its core definition: Almost nobody considered themselves to be bilingual. Tellingly, on the one hand, people who did identify with the term followed some patterns. They were either living or had lived abroad for a fair amount of time, had already finished their second language studies, and thought highly of their linguistic skills. On the other hand, the self-called not bilinguals had never traveled abroad, were still in their language learning process, and did not consider that their competence in the four linguistic abilities (classification proposed by the authors of the study) was fully developed. Apparently, they thought calling themselves bilingual would be premature.
The significance of this study lies in the fact that there is no formal agreement that dictates what bilingualism means, as happens in many other domains, like those from the
humanities. This lack of definition affects both nonprofessionals and language researchers since the former cannot position themselves as being bilingual or not with full certainty, and the latter can make misjudgments in the analysis of their linguistic data, which might need further evidence to be reliable (Grosjean, 2013, p. 35). We believe that the concept of bilingualism needs to be rethought based not on misconceptions but on analyzing the experiences of each community or group of bilinguals that may be influenced by different variables, and thus shedding light on current studies. Following that thread of thought, in this section, we will dive into the different theoretical definitions of the term, and we will examine to what extent they match the preconceptions and misconceptions found in the study.
The definition of the term in bilingual studies has been long held forth by scholars. Over the years, the main discussion lies in whether individuals should hold remarkable and identical dexterity in their languages, as well as daily use of it, to be labeled as bilinguals or not. As it might be assumed, all of these questions refer to a prescriptive notion of bilingualism, rather than a descriptive one. With the aim to revise what theoreticians have asserted about this subject historically, we will refer to five authors, in chronological order, who demonstrate a partial broadening in the understanding of this phenomenon. Roughly speaking, there is a myriad of definitions of the term, and, though they are different in some respects, they share some core similarities that allow us to place them in a spectrum, which goes from a rigid to a loose perspective regarding language ability, usage, number, and parity. In the rigid end, we find, primarily, Bloomfield (1933, p. 70), a pioneer in defining bilingualism. In the loose end, we will analyze Dewaele’s (2015, p. 16) standpoint. Nonetheless, the majority of authors we propound belong to the middle ground of these two ends, as we consider that each standing point postulates valid points for the understanding of the different variables and factors that can affect the bilingual. Said stances should not be overlooked to comprehend how
bilingualism has been defined by the individual approach. Among these scholars, we note Mackey (2000), Wei (2000) and Grosjean (2013).
At its inception, bilingualism was defined by Bloomfield (1933), a renowned American linguist, in his Set of Postulates for the Science of Language as the “native-like control of two languages” (p. 56). In other words, it meant exemplary linguistic conduct in only two languages, thus the prefix bi. It is important to underscore that this is the first definition of bilingualism there is, so it served as a starting point for later modifications and the ones that are still missing. For Bloomfield, being bilingual is a designation that implies meeting some demanding criteria, such as holding even and complete proficiency in two languages and employing both of them every day. This suggests that a bilingual should devote a considerable amount of time to the usage of both languages, which, essentially, implies that they live in a context that facilitates this. Moreover, this definition indicates that language is a unit rather than an ensemble of skills, and that it is a static object, which can be learned completely. Some of the critics of Bloomfield’s perspective are based on its narrowness and tightness since it fails to encompass the behavior of the majority who credit themselves or are credited by external agents, as bilinguals (Grosjean, 2013, p. 7).
Almost half a century later, in an attempt to reformulate and broaden the traditional views on bilingualism, which he asserts were present in the language dictionaries of the time, Mackey (2000, p. 10) integrated the shift of describing bilingualism rather than just defining it. This seemingly subtle change conveys a lot about the author’s way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. For him, the bilingual phenomenon could only be approached if it first described the components that incorporated it. Thus, he proposed the concepts of degree, function, alternation and interference, them being, according to Mackey, the main elements of bilingualism. First, the notion of degree concerns the level of linguistic proficiency of the individual, which might vary from one skill to the other. He considered that bilinguals are not
static subjects, but individuals whose degree of proficiency in an L2 may vary from one skill to the other. Second, he introduced the element of function to refer to the different purposes and intentions that justify the use of the L2 by the bilingual. Third, Mackey (2000, p. 11), with the objective of classifying the bilingual, considering it as an object of study rather than a complex subject, posited the concept of alternation, which concerns the extent to which someone uses their L2 in their everyday life. Finally, the author proposes the component of interference, or how much the L1 is in contact with the L2.
On the basis of Mackey’s categorization of the elements that describe the phenomenon of bilingualism, it is possible to conclude the following: regarding the first item, degree, one can assume that the author’s position in relation to complete language proficiency is much more unconstrained than Bloomfield’s, as he broadened the window of possibilities to different types and levels of language skill. Next, although putting forward the notion of function is not in direct contradiction to the traditional views of bilingualism, it does open the conversation to the multiple purposes that becoming bilingual might conceal. In turn, said purposes shelter contexts that will determine someone’s level and area of expertise in a given language. As for alternation, the fact of inquiring about how much someone can use their L2 in their day-to-day life, once more, discards the axiom of total usage, underscored by Bloomfield. Lastly, the concept of interference is the one that contravenes the long-established idea of the independence of language systems the most, for it conjectures that languages can interact with one another, changing the seemingly static proficiency levels necessary to be called bilingual by the traditional school. Nonetheless, in view of the unfavorable connotation that the word interference might hint at, we believe it could be changed to interaction since learning a new language does not necessarily obstruct the knowledge of an already acquired one. Instead, it creates a greater language system that is nourished by various language codes (Sampietro, 2011, p. 29). In conclusion, Mackey disavows the conventional definition of bilingualism by
describing the main features of the bilingual individual, that is, placing them in a spectrum, rather than resorting to a binary conception of the term. This was, at that time, a revolutionary framework to propose. However, this definition is still denying the broad range of language variables for an individual to be considered bilingual.
In conjunction with Mackey, Wei (2000, p. 3) puts forward the conception of bilingualism as a semi-neutral term that can be modified by different individual features, but that is not defined by them. Consequently, he presents multiple types of bilinguals in an attempt to assert that, regardless of the abounding labels he creates to classify them, they are all part of the bilingual community. In his Variety of bilinguals (p. 4-5), he introduces divisions based on age of acquisition, level of proficiency, context of acquisition, nature of the language, degree of use, among others (further explanation concerning the types of bilinguals will be provided in the next section). Hence, for instance, we can have late or early bilinguals, balanced bilinguals, co-ordinate or compound bilinguals, diagonal or horizontal bilinguals, and dormant bilinguals, respectively. The bottom line is that all of these classifications refer to bilinguals, notwithstanding their discrepancies. Wei’s work (2000) adds reality and subtracts idealization from the equation of bilingualism. That is, it provides a more nuanced stance, as Mackey (2000) did. Even so, it should be borne in mind that, although categories are extremely useful to the neuro and psycholinguistic study of bilingualism, individual differences represent one of its limitations. This is due to the fact that many individual characteristics -whether biological or learned- modify the bilingual experience and therefore alter the different categories that have been used in several studies.
In the same vein as the authors that attempt to broaden the traditional stance, Grosjean (2013) construed a definition of bilingualism that incorporates the matters and critiques expounded above. According to him, the term bilingualism refers to “the regular use of two or more languages (or dialects)” (p. 10). In his work, Grosjean examines the history of bilingual
studies, dividing it into two primary standpoints: the Fractional and Wholistic view of bilingualism. The former refers to Bloomfield’s position of exemplary linguistic conduct and separateness of languages, while the latter, conceived by the author, concerns a more -but not completely- inclusive and descriptive definition of the term. Grosjean’s way of looking at the phenomenon merges the former points, developed in Mackey (2000) and Wei (2000), insofar as it underscores, first, the “regular use” of the L2 over full linguistic dexterity in it; second, the fact that the presence of the L2 in the bilingual individual should be regular, but not necessarily ever-present; third, the integration of dialects to the definition, which leads to the inclusion of many more people to the category, and, fourth, though less controversial, the clarification that, in spite of the prefix bi, the phenomenon of bilingualism does not only refer to the use of strictly two languages but it can encompass multiple ones. Grosjean neglects specificity in his definition by vaguely describing how much usage of the L2 a bilingual should have to be called so. Therefore, anyone who considers their practice in the language to be regular can adopt the term, again, without full certainty.
Conversely, authors like Dewaele (2015) offer a far more flexible interpretation of bilingualism, arguing that the true defining trait of it is the mere presence -frequent or not- of the languages in the users’ lives and not its regular use or their level of proficiency. We are faced with Bloomfield’s polar opposite in the matter. Dewaele, in contrast with Grosjean (2013), focuses on a sole feature instead of merging the concerns that other scholars and even laymen have put forward. Notwithstanding the fact that his definition might be considered vague and fragmentary, it is important to highlight that he set the limit for how loose the criteria for being labeled as bilingual should be, according to the individual approach to bilingualism.
Evidently, Bloomfield’s perception was exclusive, but Dewaele’s could be considered too unconstrained; ultimately, both are, in their own way, essential to the process of defining bilingualism, at least to the limited individual approach. All in all, the enterprise of defining
such an elusive phenomenon is rather complex, so much so that there are some authors that even choose to decouple from the discussion of what term to use in their papers. Consequently, Cook (2003) prefers not to employ the word bilingual due to the ethnocentric background it carries and decides to apply L2 user instead.
Figure 1: Spectrum of the definition of bilingualism Source: own elaboration
After this brief outlook of scholars’ interpretations of bilingualism (see Figure 1 for the representation of the spectrum), it ought not to be unnoticed that all definitions are limited, for every bilingual has a particular set of skills, features, and contexts that characterize them and that influence their language process. The definitions we have analyzed are very clear regarding their conception of bilingualism and bilinguals: the first is a phenomenon that can be simplified and conceptually dismembered, while the second, though real people with real life circumstances, refers to mere objects of study whose most important feature is to be competent in an L2.
As a final thought, it is essential to make the distinction between the terms trilingualism, plurilingualism, multilingualism and bilingualism for unified terminology purposes. To dismiss what is evident first, trilingualism only refers to having certain command over three languages; there is no other underlying meaning. Thereafter, to define the remaining two
concepts, one can resort to the field of sociolinguistics for a preliminary position. From a sociolinguistic standpoint, there is a significant difference between plurilingualism and multilingualism. The former refers to the variety of languages spoken by an individual, while the latter concerns the languages of a community. The neuro and psycholinguistic domains, however, use plurilingualism, multilingualism and bilingualism interchangeably to allude to Grosjean’s definition (Edwards, 2013; Dewaele, 2015).
All things considered, we believe that, within the individual approach framework, Grosjean's definition is the best there is since it merges such fundamental elements as the ones we have discussed in this section, namely, it does not tap into native-like proficiency nor does it exclude dialects, it fuses regular use of the L2, and it is the most widely used assertion in specialized texts. Nonetheless, it is instrumental to highlight that this definition is the peak and most inclusive one that the cognitive sciences are willing to adapt to, due to the nature of their discipline. These sciences think about language as a faculty that can be divided, arranged, examined -or dismembered. It is only reasonable that Grosjean's definition is the one used in psycholinguistic experiments. We consider that there is a longer and deeper path to the definition of bilingualism, but it will only be available once the cognitive and social sciences converge.
How Has Bilingualism Been Categorized?
In this second section of the chapter, we discuss how bilingualism has been classified.
We consider that this section, and the first one, are intimately related; their importance lies in the fact that the inquiry about the type of bilingual enables several conditions in the investigation of the individual side to this phenomenon to be clarified. Also, understanding how bilinguals have been classified by this approach allows us to acknowledge that existing
categories are mere factors to bear in mind when studying the bilingual, rather than perennial labels. Having a structured outline of the psycholinguistic identity of the bilinguals enables their detailed and meticulous study and, consequently, the recollection of more precise results.
Thus, establishing a typology is in accordance with the postulate in the first question How has bilingualism been defined? Insofar as it functions as a spectrum of nuances of bilingualism.
That is, as we have discussed, bilingualism cannot be defined under a binary lens but under a multiplicity of nuances. The common denominator among classifications will always prevail, just with a broader outlook (Wei, 2000).
As mentioned before, the study of bilingualism has been generally approached from two different angles: individual and societal. The first evokes the processes, both psychological and neurological, that happen inside the bilingual brain. The second framework focuses, on the contrary, on the phenomena that exist in the exterior world. Thus, the individual study of bilingualism deals with topics such as language acquisition, language interaction, the way in which particular life circumstances, like immigration, might affect the L2 learning process, language attrition, brain lateralization, and neuroplasticity, among various other discussions.
The societal approach, examining the debates that people face as communities, can deal with, for instance, the implications that linguistic prestige might entail for a particular group of speakers, the concealed preconceptions and purposes behind linguistic policy, how two or more linguistic groups interact with each other, etc. (Sampietro, 2011). Overall, though these approaches might differ, they go hand in hand in the holistic study of bilingualism. The societal angle provides the circumstances in which the bilingual’s brain will develop and, in turn, the conditions that the brain creates will alter, to a greater or lesser extent, the outside environment of the speaker.
In the first part of this section, we will address the classifications that the individual standpoint of the study of bilingualism has attributed to it. Broadly speaking, bilingualism has
been categorized according to the variables of age of acquisition, order of language acquisition, language proficiency, the hypothesized cognitive organization of languages in the brain, and the interaction of the L1 and L2. In the second one, the classifications pertaining to the societal approach will be briefly outlined so as to provide a wider look at what scholars have developed concerning the whole phenomenon of bilingualism. Particularly, we will present the notions of language prestige, heritage languages and diglossia as axes of categorization.
To start with, the individual perspective posits that bilinguals can be divided into two groups according to the age at which they acquired their L2. The notion of age is markedly significant to the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics; therefore, virtually every existing classification incorporates it. This might be due to the fact that brain maturation is an utterly important factor in relation to linguistic ability and comprehension since it brings about evolution in biological processes, in this respect, linguistic development, at least in the majority of cases. Giving value to the age factor has meant attributing characteristics to particular groups pertaining to a certain period of life, be they either positive or negative. This has created an implicit stigma for belonging to the specific group of older learners, which is considered to be inferior in proficiency or even opportunity of learning and developing an L2. In this way, a myriad of scholars from the cognitive sciences, pioneered by Baetens Beardsmore (1986), agree that, regarding age, bilinguals can be arranged in early and late.
Being an early bilingual means that the acquisition of the L2 happened before puberty.
On the contrary, late bilinguals acquired it after this period. This categorization has its inception in Lenneberg’s (1963) tenet regarding the unlikelihood of acquiring an L2 after puberty. He argued that the age of puberty -from eight years old on- was of considerable significance for L2 acquisition, as the child’s brain finishes the process of brain lateralization, which means that the brain completes the division of functions between hemispheres (Chara,
2020, p. 3). In neuro and psycholinguistics, these notions are known as the Critical Period Hypothesis, which we will dive into in Chapter 2. Evidently, we can all agree, contravening Lenneberg, that there is nothing impossible about acquiring/learning an L2 after puberty.
Nonetheless, the concept of brain lateralization, along with puberty, became very popular in the academic community, so scholars decided to use it as a benchmark for classification. As to the insights that are attributed to each category, it can be said that early bilinguals are mainly regarded as being able to attain native-like proficiency in the two languages, whereas late bilinguals are usually appraised as non-native speakers. That is to say, users who have not yet reached complete competence of an L2. Following this thread of thought, if given the opportunity, people would choose to be part of the early bilingual community rather than the late one. Thus, being early is considered superior in terms of language proficiency, and, though this has been widely proven to be false (see e.g., Birdsong, 1999), the category itself places one label on top of the other.
The second axis of analysis of bilingualism has been the order in which the languages were learned. Altogether, authors like Castrillón (2016, p. 30) and Moradi (2014, p. 7) put forward two types of bilinguals, simultaneous and successive. The former refers to individuals who acquired two or more languages at the same time, normally in early childhood. The latter addresses bilinguals who first established their mother tongue and then continued with another language. Ordinarily, people who are simultaneous are also early bilinguals and can have two languages be their L1. In the same way, successive bilinguals are generally labeled as late.
These fabricated categories start to converge and, over again, the classification itself provides positive and negative aspects to being part of each one. In this case, it is preferable to be a simultaneous bilingual rather than a successive one because the former is believed to imply an advantage in proficiency and less struggle with the concept of interference with the L1. These labels just ignite confrontation among what should be thought of as just characteristics of the
bilingual. Indeed, a factor of the language history of an individual should be just that, and not a defining attribute.
Thirdly, regarding their level of proficiency, authors tend to take one of two paths: the first is to compare the level of proficiency held in the L1 with the one of the L2; the second is to classify the bilingual according to, solely, their dexterity in the L2. Peal and Lambert (1962, p. 6), who belong to the first group, divide bilinguals into two categories: balanced and unbalanced. On the one hand, the category of balanced refers to bilinguals who acquire similar degrees of proficiency and mastery in their languages, maintaining a balance between the two -or more- of them. On the other hand, unbalanced bilinguals’ proficiency in one language is higher than in the other. The other way of looking at bilingualism through proficiency is to categorize speakers according to their level of linguistic accuracy in only their second language. Thus, Abarca (1981, p. 15), posits the existence of minimal and maximal bilinguals.
Minimal bilinguals hold the least competency in the language to be called bilingual, while maximal users are the opposite. Tellingly, both alternatives evoke Bloomfield’s notions of bilingualism: native-like control of two languages. This author overstated that not only does the speaker ought to have identical linguistic conduct in two languages, but it should also be impeccable. In line with Bloomfield (1933), all bilinguals should be balanced and maximal.
The fourth item of arrangement is the hypothesized cognitive organization of linguistic systems when learning a language. This category is significant in the neuro and psycholinguistic work since the attainment of a second language is the result of neurological maturation, that is, the creation of new and more elaborate lexical networks and storage models (Castrillón, 2016, p. 30; Almeida-Basso and Rotta, 2007, p. 7). There have been many discussions about language processing in the brain, and one of them is the way in which bilinguals store their linguistic codes. Do they think of a concept and then the words that relate to it appear in both languages? Or do they think only think in one and then translate it? These
inquiries led Weinreich (1953, p. 4) to classify bilinguals according to the hypothetical representation that each language has in the users’ minds into three groups: compound bilinguals, coordinate bilinguals, and subordinate bilinguals (Diller, 1970).
First, this author, along with Da Silva and Signoret (2010, p. 10), states that compound bilinguals are speakers who store two or more sets of linguistic codes in one unit of meaning.
That is to say, this bilingual is not able to discern the marked conceptual differences between the two languages, but rather needs both of them to think and communicate. For example, they store the words ‘Cat’, ‘Gato’, ‘Chat’ together, without discriminating the language to which they belong. Moreover, Castrillón (2016, p. 35) points out that the neurological storage of this bilingual is large and extended, and contains components of both languages. Since it works with the same neural mechanisms, in case of damage, the two linguistic systems would be affected. Interestingly, it has been shown that, in some cases of aphasia, the L2 can be recovered first. In 2006 (p. 89) García, García, González, et al. reported a case of a bilingual whose mother language had been affected by a right capsulo-putaminal infarct. She presented uncommon language patterns, later described as subcortical aphasia. Surprisingly, the patient demonstrated fluent and spontaneous speech in her L2, rather than in her L1 as would be expected. Without diving in deeper, her case might prove that the conscious learning of a language can result in different linguistic and neurological storage.
Second, concerning coordinate bilinguals, they separate units of meaning depending on the language spoken. In this sense, it can be said that ‘Cat’ is not part of the same linguistic system as ‘Chat’ or ‘Gato’. Da Silva & Signoret (2010, p. 11) argue that coordinate bilinguals are able to develop two parallel linguistic systems, in which each word has a signifier and a meaning per language. Individuals who belong to this category can speak two languages as if they were monolingual in each of them (Paradis, 1987, 2004). In addition, Paradis (1981) confirms, in his psychoneurological studies, that each language does, in fact, have a distinct
neurological storage on its own, using its own mechanisms despite being located in the same brain area of language (to be further discussed in Chapter 2).
Third, subordinate bilinguals are assumed to understand and interpret their second language (or languages) through their mother tongue (Weinreich, 1953, p. 5). In this way, they only have one meaning of unit, which allows them to access all the other ones. To better illustrate this, the word ‘Cat’ would be used as a referent to get to the words ‘Gato’ and ‘Chat’.
Besides, according to Da Silva & Signoret (2010, p. 12) in subordinate bilingualism, the world is perceived through the L1 and the neuronal storage process is performed in the same location, as happens in monolinguals’ cases. It is also crucial to mention that the individual notices unidirectional transfers from L1 to L2. Thus, translation becomes a necessity for communication, something that does not allow clear differentiation of the two linguistic systems (Paradis, 1987). On the whole, it should not be overlooked that this classification is a hypothesized one. As we noted earlier, it is but an attempt to understand language processing.
The endeavor of ensuring that each and every bilingual process their languages following one of the three systems is burdensome. We advocate, instead, for the individual analysis of the myriad of variables present in every bilingual.
By the same token, Peal and Lambert (1972, p. 5) classify bilingualism by looking at how the L2 influences the retention of the L1. In this respect, bilinguals can be labeled as additive and subtractive. On the one hand, bilinguals who can improve their L2 without losing their L1 proficiency are called additive bilinguals. In additive bilingualism, individuals add a new language without interfering with or harming the L1, so both languages develop individually without any complications. On the other hand, in subtractive bilingualism, the acquisition of the second language is done to the detriment of the mother tongue, causing, in an extreme case, its replacement by the most prestigious language in a given context. In other words, subtractive bilingualism occurs when an individual learns the L2 at the expense of the
L1. In this case, the competence and mastery of the L1 diminish, while the proficiency and mastery of the L2 (usually the dominant language) augments. The mere existence of this axis of arrangement deals directly with the belief that the accumulation of languages might result in complications for the mother tongue, a notion that we regard as narrow. Considering that learning/acquiring an L2 might be critical for the L1 not only disregards current cognitive findings but also can prevent people from opening up their linguistic horizon. Moreover, it overlooks the reality of many people who, often compelled by their life circumstances, learn/acquire an L2 and do not neglect nor lose their L1 -because it might affect their cultural identity-, such as heritage language speakers (see Figure 2 for an outlook of the standard categories that have been used to understand the bilingual individual).
Figure 2: Standard categories by which the bilingual is understood
The next part of this section focuses on presenting the societal classifications of bilingualism. As for sociolinguistic aspects, Fishman (1977, p. 10), classifies bilinguals regarding the perceived prestige of the languages in question. To begin with, he posits the notion of elite bilinguals or bilinguals who are users of a language with high prestige in a given society. While elite bilinguals are a majority, folk bilinguals belong to minority groups. In this regard, elite bilinguals have many more spaces to produce and receive input of the language, whereas folk users have particular places and situations where they are allowed to employ their language. Another concept that has been of notable interest to the field of sociolinguistics regarding bilingualism is that of diglossia. According to Fishman (1972, p. 8), it refers to the coexistence of two dialectal varieties or two languages in the same society. One of the languages is perceived to pertain to a high variety, while the other is considered of low prestige.
Furthermore, considering what was proposed by Montrul (2013, p. 18), it is necessary to talk about those speakers who have a very delimited or pre-established linguistic interaction, which is given by their context. The heritage speakers, defined as individuals who have been exposed to an immigrant or a minority language since childhood and are also very proficient in the majority language spoken in the wider speech community, are bilinguals characterized by the complex interaction of all these factors (Montrul, 2013, p. 18). This type of bilingual uses two linguistic systems that depend on different factors, strictly related to their contextual needs. In this sense, languages acquire a sense of belonging to a place or social group. Likewise, we would speak of dominant bilinguals in one of the two languages (heritage language or dominant language) and incipient bilinguals of the majority language. The recognition of this group of bilinguals allows us to open new perspectives in relation to the processes of acquiring a language, regarding the moment of acquisition and the impact of its input.
All in all, there are many categories through which bilingualism has been generally understood by the individual approach. The need of the cognitive sciences for categories and stale definitions has created experiments that exclude the distinctiveness of the bilingual. They are not seen as subjects but rather as objects of study. As a result, they can be arranged, divided, classified, labeled and even fated. Paradoxically, the individual approach could not be less individual. Laymen, moved by the assertions made by neuro and psycholinguists, do not consider themselves as bilinguals; make real-life decisions based on what has been considered preferable in cognitive terms, and might resent their linguistic journey for not accommodating to what is ideal, that is, being an early, simultaneous, additive, maximal, balanced and compound bilingual, who uses their L2 on a regular basis.
This first Chapter demonstrates, among many things, that the study of bilingualism by neuro and psycholinguistics has been one of transformation and evolution. On the basis of Bloomfield’s assertions around bilingualism, scholars began expanding the conception of bilingualism and the bilingual individual, reaching converging defintions. We make the case that said transformation -and those that remain- resemble walking towards a horizon, hence, the title of this document. Questioning stances in these disciplines has led to new knowledge being generated… and, in turn, challenged.
Chapter 2: To Relational and Descriptive
In Chapter 1, we described the definitions and classifications that prevailed in most data about bilingualism in the cognitive sciences. It was noticeable that that period of analysis focused mainly on a prescriptive view of the phenomenon. In other words, theoreticians generally concentrated their work in describing the ideal bilingual and the archetypal brain processes they followed to attain proficiency in an L2. As the cognitive sciences (neuro and psycholinguistics in this case) evolved and developed new technologies to study the brain, something very thought-provoking began to happen. In their own way, these disciplines broadened their scope of understanding of the bilingual. For instance, when Bloomfield (1933) postulated his definition of the bilingual as being an exemplary speaker, little did other scholars wait to contradict him. Thus, we see the authors explored in the previous Chapter attempting to widen the study of bilingualism as much as their discipline allowed them to. By the same token, classifications of the bilingual, such as early/late, additive/subtractive, maximal/minimal, etc., were created and considered legitimate when conducting experiments and formulating theories surrounding the ability of learning an L2. Nonetheless, as happened with Bloomfield’s rationale, these categorizations are now being questioned by the present-day technological developments of the cognitive sciences.
In this Chapter, we will explore three ongoing trends in research of the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics: language juggling, neuroplasticity and the benefits of bilingualism. We chose them because, apart from being the current leading lines of investigation of the cognitive sciences that we discuss in this piece, they contravene each classification of the bilingual put forward in the previous Chapter. Interestingly, the long-held categories of bilingualism are currently being deemed problematic by the same disciplines that created them. Conceptual
transformation and expansion happen frequently in science and the study of bilingualism is no exception.
The Finding of Language Juggling
Before the rapid development of new technologies, the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics had generally concentrated on describing the relationship between the brain/mind and language in a particular group of subjects: monolinguals with no brain injury.
Thus, the findings that were obtained by studying them could only represent what happened in the brain/mind of a neurologically healthy monolingual. The individuals that did not identify with these two traits were casted out into the group of Special Cases, which were not the subjects of most studies carried out in the cognitive sciences. Bilinguals and patients suffering from aphasia would be the leading characters of a more technologically advanced version of neuro and psycholinguistics. As for bilingualism, the fact of labeling it as a Special Case was inconsistent with the reality of millions of users since, contrary to popular belief, there are far more bilinguals in the world than monolinguals (Grosjean, 2013). Bilingualism is the rule and monolingualism is the exception.
The most important consequence of monolingualism being in the focus of the cognitive sciences was that, when bilingualism started being studied, it could only be thought of in terms of monolingual conduct. In other words, the monolingual lens reached the phenomenon of bilingualism, as well as the theories that could be concluded from it. Thus, following Grosjean (2013), one bilingual was contemplated as two monolinguals. He called this perspective of bilingualism The Fractional View. Holding this stance implied two things, among many others:
first, that bilingual and monolingual linguistic processes are to be extrapolated without much adjustment, and second, that different languages are to be studied as separate entities in the
brain. In fact, the Fractional View of bilingualism brought about studies on brain localization and the impact of the L1 on the L2. As languages were considered as distinct systems, it was only logical that research on language localization and L1 interference would be carried out.
Nonetheless, the recent technological development rendered it impossible to ignore that a new paradigm to study bilingualism was needed. Among the ground-breaking findings that are currently helping to reshape the structure of neuro and psycholinguistics we observe what has been called Language Juggling.
Language Juggling
Deviating from what had previously been established in the fields of neuro and psycholinguistics, Language Juggling refers to a primary feature of the bilingual’s way of processing language. In general terms, Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski and Kroff (2012) define the bilingual individual as being a language juggler, that is, a speaker who switches languages, presumably at will, according to context of usage and need. So far, there is nothing in the theory. It was already known that the bilingual must make certain linguistic decisions that are adapted to the context in order to be considered competent. Nonetheless, the belief that languages work as separate entities in the brain started to be questioned when said scholars, among many others like Bialystok, Craik, Klein and Viswanathan (2004), found that, regardless of bilingual’s will and the context of usage, both languages (in the case of someone who speaks two languages) are always active in the brain. In this regard, the fact that a language is neurologically active means that it is accessible for the speaker to use at any given moment without needing to go through conscious mental processes, such as switching by reading, listening, writing, or speaking in it, to render the information available (Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski and Kroff, 2012).
