Definitions Pertaining to Multilingualism & Multiculturalism

Definitions Pertaining to Multilingualism & Multiculturalism

This page contains definitions that pertain to multilingualism and multiculturalism frequently used in the CSD fields.

Language Proficiency

Language proficiency “refers to skill or ability in a particular linguistic code” (Kohnert et al., 2020). Kohnert et al. (2020) assert the term ‘proficiency’ requires using a descriptive modifier to convey its whole meaning as a noun. For example, high proficiency or minimal proficiency can describe one’s level of fluency or performance in a language. Proficiency could be defined based on a binary system (i.e., high or low). However, it may be more useful to think of proficiency as a continuum from low to high, with the potential for movement in either direction for each language over time (Kohnert et al., 2020. This way of defining proficiency in a language may be more accurate since it allows for change and the influence other factors may have on one’s proficiency in a language (Kohnert et al., 2020). Additionally, since professionals might have different criteria for measuring and describing proficiency levels (i.e., “moderately proficient” could indicate various skills to different people), it is recommended to include concrete examples in reports whenever these terms are used.

L1 & L2

L1 refers to the home language of the speaker or the first language to which the speaker was exposed (UNIGLO, 2020).

L2 refers to the community language or the language used in formal education programs. L2 is the second language to which the speaker was exposed (UNIGLO, 2020).

Dominant Language & Non-Dominant Language

When referring to language proficiency in an individual, the dominant language refers to their more robust language (Hemàndez-Chávez, 1978). However, this may be an inaccurate way to describe language proficiency. Proficiency within a language can be context-specific. For instance, in one context (e.g., at school), one language could be more dominant; however, the other language could be more dominant in another context (e.g., at home). In a societal context, the term ‘dominant language’ may refer to the language of the mainstream culture.

The non-dominant language of a speaker refers to their weaker language (Hemàndez-Chávez, 1978). In a societal context, the term ‘non-dominant language’ may refer to a language that differs from the language of the mainstream culture. Due to these contextual distinctions, one should establish their meaning when using these terms.

BICS & CALP Distinction

The terms BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) were coined by Jim Cummins (1979). These terms are currently being used less frequently in favor of other terminology that incorporates language use in both languages. However, since the terms are still present in bilingual-focused literature, definitions are provided here.

Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) include the early introductory communication skills in L2 after an approximate 1-2 year period of exposure to the language (Cummins, 1979). Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) represents the higher level of proficiency established in L2 after a 5-7 year period of exposure to the language when an individual achieves academic skills appropriate for their developmental age (Cummins, 1979).

Kohnert et al. (2020) outline three constraints for applying the BICS-CALP distinction:

1. This distinction only examines L2 and does not address changes that may occur over time in L1.

2. BICS and CALP categories and time frames do not consider those areas of language and communication abilities that fall between the two categories.

3. There is a lack of evidence that the BICS and CALP framework applies to children who begin learning L2 at a young age versus children who learn L2 later in childhood when their L1 is more established.

Despite these constraints, the BICS-CALP distinction offers a vital reminder to educators and clinicians to avoid the assumption that the child’s basic L2 linguistic skills (i.e., the ability to converse with peers and teachers) reflect an accurate profile of abilities when cognitive or academic testing in L2 is administered (Cummins, 1984).

Code-Switching

Code-switching (also called code-mixing) occurs when an individual uses more than one language or dialect to communicate within a conversation (Kohnert et al., 2020). This phenomenon can occur within utterances or sentences, or between them. Code-switching can occur in any pair of languages, whether they are similar or distinct (Kohnert et al., 2020). Code-switching occurs more frequently in informal conversations in natural settings with familiar conversation partners (Zentella, 1999).

An example conversation with code-switching in English and Spanish:

Partner 1: Dime, when will you be home from work?

Partner 2: No sé, mi amor. I’ll call you when I get on the train.

Partner 1: Bueno, have a good day y hablamos más tarde.

Code-switching is a communication tool and is not evidence of disorder, delays, or deficits in children or adults (Kohnert et al., 2020). However, when young bilingual children engage in code-switching, it may be a strategy to fill lexical or linguistic gaps in one language with their knowledge in another (Greene et al., 2013).

Additive & Subtractive Bilingualism

The level of prestige and broad community support associated with a language, known as social status, influences the perception of multilingualism in various contexts (Kohnert et al., 2020). If the development of both or all languages reflects the goals of the social and educational system, additive bilingualism occurs (Kohnert et al., 2020). Within the child’s environment, additive bilingualism occurs when both languages are valued. An example of additive bilingualism would be the Spanish-speaking child who attends a French immersion school. Since French is considered a language of prestige and power, this situation would align with the community's goals.

Subtractive bilingualism reflects a situation where “development in one language is promoted at the expense of development in the other language” (Kohnert et al., 2020, p. 87). In a situation of subtractive bilingualism, there may be fewer opportunities and less social value for the development of the L1. Many bilingual children in schools in the U.S. fall into a situation where the broader community doesn’t value the L1. An example of subtractive bilingualism would be the child who recently immigrated to the U.S. and speaks Hmong (L1) but enters an English-only school where academic success relies upon the child’s acquisition of English (L2).

Acculturation

Acculturation describes the process of adopting traits, values, or beliefs of the majority of mainstream culture due to prolonged exposure (Kohnert et al., 2020). Kohnert et al. (2020) propose that acculturation can be considered in two dimensions: “(a) the degree to which individuals from the minority group acquire aspects of the majority (host) culture, and (b) the degree to which individuals retain aspects of the culture of origin” (p. 30). The acculturation process can also be seen as the continuum between monoculturalism and biculturalism.

Biculturalism

Biculturalism occurs when an individual is oriented towards both their minority culture and the majority culture (Kohnert et al., 2020). Biculturalism, also referred to as the integration profile of acculturation (Kohnert et al., 2020), leads to the most positive outcomes in immigrant youths, as opposed to being oriented towards one culture or the other (Berry et al., 2006). Studies show that a bicultural identity promotes positive adaptation socioculturally and psychologically (Berry et al., 2006).

Assimilation

Assimilation is the process in which individuals or groups of minority cultures “are absorbed into the dominant culture of a society” through taking on traits, values, or beliefs of the dominant culture (Pauls, 2019). By some, assimilation may be considered the utmost form of acculturation (Pauls, 2019). Assimilation may occur voluntarily or be forced through colonization (Pauls, 2019).

Historically, assimilation was considered the goal for immigrants. This pressure was brought on from the dominant society (i.e., government and social workers, teachers, and other people in positions designed to ‘help’ immigrants) to establish immigrants in their new environments. Evidence of this pressure to assimilate can be seen in terms such as the ‘melting pot’ of America. An alternative to this perspective would be to consider diversity in the United States as a ‘mosaic of cultures’ rather than a ‘melting pot.’

Original Contributor: Jerae Bjelland, 2009

Updated March 2022