Book Reviews

Macswan, J. (1999). A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York: Garland Publishing.( 329 pages)

Reviewed by

Terrence G. Wiley

California Polytechnic University, Pomona

As its title suggests, MacSwan's study is a rigorous linguistic work that will be of primary interest to serious scholars and graduate students. This study is most deserving of its inclusion in the Garland series of Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Despite its primary audience of those interested in linguistic aspects of code switching, this work is also worthy of serious consideration by those who are concerned with how notions of linguistic deficiencies are ascribed to language minority children.

MacSwan's study draws on contemporary Chomskyan theory to challenge and critique assumptions underlying popular ideas about semilingualism, bilingualism and language transfer, the relationship between languages in contact, and between community languages and standardized languages of schooling. It also identifies biases in common language testing practices that portray incipient bilingual children as "non-nons," that is, as semilinguals who are purported to have no language, despite the fact that these children are developmentally normal and function well in their home and community environments.

The central thesis of the book's six chapters is that, if it can be proven that the underlying linguistic competence of code switchers, i.e., bilinguals who mix two languages, is the same as that of monolinguals, ". . . then the stigma of code switching, together with its associated [school] tracking effects, should be indicted" (p. xxiv). The first chapter provides the basic arguments for the assumption that the underlying linguistic competence of monolinguals and that of bilingual code switchers is the same for the languages they speak. The fifth chapter presents a theoretical rationale for that assumption.

The second through fifth chapters are organized as standard dissertation fare. Chapter two provides a comprehensive literature review that has relevance primarily as background for MacSwan's analysis of Nahuatl and Spanish code switching. It focuses briefly on problems of defining bilingualism and then deals more specifically with code switching. After a short discussion of code switchings' social aspects, MacSwan provides a technical review of the literature on its grammatical aspects, including a detailed summary of findings on code switching corpora (see p. 54). Literature on language contact phenomena, including work on borrowings and calques, and on Creoles and Pidgins, is surveyed next. MacSwan also reviews and critiques relevant literature in syntactic theory, makes a case for the advantages of formalist approaches to the study of grammar, and defends Chomsky's (1995) minimalist proposal to restrict parameters of syntactic analysis to those of the lexicon. The remainder of the chapter outlines studies related to the Nahuatl and Spanish languages.

Chapter three delineates MacSwan's dissertation's design, research questions, data collection methods, and strategies for analysis and presentation of data. His primary question is: "What linguistic principles define code switching boundaries within sentences?" To this he adds seven additional questions. He relied on four consultants ranging in age from 17 to 38. MacSwan also collected data by means of experiments that elicited judgments from his consultants and by use of naturalistic observations.

Chapter four provides a detailed presentation of MacSwan's syntactic findings. The fifth chapter provides a justification for interpreting them by means of Chomsky's minimalist criteria. Here, MacSwan returns to a critique of the linguistic literature on code switching as he defends the approach. The chapter concludes with an impressive summary of the implications of his own findings as they relate to other studies, a detailed summary of syntactic findings, and a presentation of corroborative evidence for their grammaticality from other languages (pp. 232-234).

Of particular relevance to many BRJ readers are the first and sixth chapters. Chapter one reviews and critiques the notions of prescriptivism and semilingualism, the two intellectual traditions that ". . . have the potential to harm children" (p. 4). MacSwan charges that ". . . some researchers in bilingual education have at times played a role in promoting these false and potentially damaging ideas" (p. 4). As background, he analyzes teachers' beliefs about student code switching behavior in a sociopolitical framework and reviews literature on schooling, propaganda, and social class. MacSwan also chronicles the tradition of prescriptivism and its association with the notion of cognitive deficits, particularly as these have been applied to code switchers. Next, he attempts to defend Chomsky's (1965) notion of ideal speaker in his idealization of linguistic competence and explain its relevance for his study on code switching.

MacSwan revisits some of the recent history of the notion of semilingualism. He, with Skutnabb-Kangas (1981), notes the similarity between Hansegard's (1975) cognitive notion of language and Cummins' (1976) Threshold Hypothesis, as well as its reliance on Canale's (1981) four-fold definition of language proficiency as grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. MacSwan considers Cummins' (1981) incorporation of literacy as an aspect of communicative language proficiency to be particularly problematic. Following Macías (1993), MacSwan notes that such a view of language proficiency was consistent with changes in the legal definitions in Title VII programs, wherein "To be English proficient. . . a person had to be able to speak, understand, read, and write English, not just speak it [Macías, 1993, p. 232]'' (p. 17). Despite this consistency with the political nomenclature of the time, the incorporation of literacy into the construct of language proficiency in bilingual theory was troublesome. MacSwan argues that any definition of language proficiency that suggests literacy to be a "normal" part of language development is troublesome because language acquisition is usually different from literacy acquisition in a fundamental way. Language acquisition is something that happens to a child spontaneously, without overt instruction in supportive social contexts. However, literacy acquisition, as in the case of reading ". . . is dependent upon direct or tactic instruction, practice, and considerable effort, like success in other academic environments" (p. 17). Concurring with the pioneering work of Scribner and Cole (1981), MacSwan concludes astutely that ". . . taking literacy as an aspect of language proficiency suggests that members of non-literature cultures and societies have relatively low `language proficiency' whether they are monolingual or bilingual, in contrast to many of those "highly proficient" in Western cultures."

In chapter 2-5, MacSwan establishes a theoretical and empirical basis for interpreting code switching as behavior that is reflective of normal linguistic competence. He does this through an extensive review of the literature and by means of his own analysis of Spanish-Nahautl code switching. In chapter six, MacSwan returns to the issues raised earlier in the book. He argues that "If teachers believe that code switching relates to an inherent disability in children which might be remedied with sufficient instruction, then the children's perceptions of their own `natural abilities' as severely limited, conveyed by classroom teachers, will impact upon their success in school …" (p. 249). For this to be avoided, MacSwan concludes that more than teachers' attitudes will have to be changed. He contends that semilingualism and prescriptivism must be rejected, particularly as they are applied to the curriculum. To do this, he proposed to revise Cummins' (1981) Threshold Hypothesis, which distinguished between limited, partial, and proficient bilingualism. MacSwan's concerns here recall some of those that were raised previously (see for example, Edelsky, Hudelson, Flores, Barkin, Altweger, & Kristina, 1983; Edelsky, 1986; Edelsky, 1994; Marin-Jones & Romaine, 1986; Romaine, 1989; Troike, 1984; Wald, 1984; and Wiley, 1996) to which Cummins has offered several replies (see Cummins, 1983; 1984 and Cummins, forthcoming).

MacSwan's analysis adds a fresh linguistic critique to those previously offered as well as a positive suggestion. First, he argues that if literacy is considered part of language proficiency, then "…children on the lower threshold could be individuals who cannot read or write" (p. 252). He adds: "Applying similar concerns…Cummins may have intended to postulate `low level' of literacy in a child's native language as the source of trouble (producing negative `cognitive effects') in second language reading and content instruction" (p. 254). Thus, the distinction between `low or poor language ability' is a crucial one which Cummins' ,model unfortunately does not make. The relationship between the development of first language literacy and academic success could be represented graphically without assuming that some bilingual children have the special status of `limited bilinguals' or `semibilinguals.' …[p.254]

MacSwan maintains that the "…level of bilingual proficiency (or type of bilingualism) may not be the relevant variable at all," suggesting that "…years of L1" are "… the best predictor of success for English language learners" (p.254). He concludes, "Transfer…follows from general principles of psychological modularity…" because "…knowledge of content and skills is independent of knowledge of language" (p.268). As a corrective to popular theory, MacSwan offers the following useful revision of Cummins' Transfer Hypothesis, particularly as it relates to the linguistic Interdependence Principle: To the extent that instruction in L_x is effective in promoting proficiency in L_x, transfer of this proficiency to L_y will occur provided there is adequate exposure to L_y (either in school or in the environment) an adequate motivation to learn L_y. Language is independent of literacy and content area knowledge [p. 268, italics MacSwan's].

By making these prudent suggestions, MacSwan's study makes an important linguistic contribution to contemporary bilingual education theory. However, because this study's more technical chapters are not easily accessible for non-linguistics students, a revision of this work for a broader audience would be very welcome. This consideration noted, this study's critical perspective, which challenges several of the widely accepted tenets of popular bilingual theory, is deserving of a much wider reading.

References

Canale, M. (1981). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. (pp. 2-27) In J. Rickford & R. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication. New York: Longman.

Chomsky (1965). Aspects of the theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of the research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working papers on Bilingualism 9: 1-43. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Policy Studies.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. (pp. 3-49) In Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education, Schooling and Language minority education: a theoretical framework. Sacramento: State Department of Education.

Cummins, J. (1983). Analysis-by-rhetoric: Reading the text or the reader's own projections? A reply to Edelsky et al. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 23-41.

Cummins, J. (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement revisited: A response (pp.71-76). In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (forthcoming). Putting Language Proficiency in Its Place: Responding to Critiques of the Conversational/Academic Language Distinction. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner, (Eds.) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Había una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Edelsky, C. (1994). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education, 2^nd Ed. London: Taylor & Francis.

Edelsky, C., Hudelson, S., Flores, B., Barkin, F., Altweger, B., & Kristina, J. (1983). Semilingualism and language deficit. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 3-22.

Hansegard, N. E. (1975). Tvasprakighet eller halvsprakighet? Invandrare och Minoritleler 3:7-13.

Macías, R. F. (1993). Language and ethnic classification of language minorities: Chicano and Latino students in the 1990s. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15 (2): 230-57.

Martin-Jones, M., & Romaine, S. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 7 (1): 26-38.

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not? The education of minorities. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Troike, R. C. (1984). SCALP: Social and cultural aspects of language proficiency (pp. 44-54). In C. Riviera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Wald, B. (1984). A sociolinguistic perspective on Cummins' current framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement (pp. 55-70). In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, D. C. & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.