The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues
The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues
复制标题
多语言的语言：一些概念和术语问题
DOI：
10.1515/iral.2010.005
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Hammarberg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Hammarberg
摘要近年来，关于个体多语言和第三语言习得的研究有了很大的发展。与此相关的一个理论是认识到这样一个事实，即人类本质上可能是多语言的，多语言是语言能力的默认状态，这反过来又对语言能力、使用和习得的适当理论产生了影响。传统的二语习得研究通常将所有非母语学习者视为第二语言学习者。近年来对第三语言习得的关注意味着人们开始考虑多语言学习者语言背景的复杂性。这引起了对该领域目前使用的一些基本术语的反思，特别是如何理解第一、第二和第三语言的概念。这些术语在文献中经常使用。一种方法是，通常的做法是沿着线性时间尺度将多语种的语言标记为L1、L2、L3、L4等，在这里，这一概念是站不住脚的，因为它所依据的是一种不适当的多语制概念。一种不同的、可以说是更令人满意的方法是基于传统的L1（在婴儿期建立）与L2（在婴儿期之后增加）的二分法，并将L3的概念与更复杂的语言背景相联系。本文讨论了三阶层次结构的局限性，并将其作为一个工作假设，有待进一步研究。最后，随着第三语言习得研究的出现，第一、第二和第三语言的表达问题也越来越明显。也许是时候改变这些既定的条件了？作为可能的替代，小学，中学和高等教育的语言被提出来讨论。本文强调需要从多语言使用者和学习者的角度重新考虑和澄清L1、L2和L3的概念。
Abstract Research on individual multilingualism and third language acquisition has expanded greatly in recent years. A theoretical correlate of this is the recognition of the fact that humans are potentially multilingual by nature, that multilingualism is the default state of language competence, and that this in turn has implications for an adequate theory of language competence, use and acquisition. Traditional second language acquisition (SLA) research usually treats all non-first language learners as second language (L2) learners. The recent focus on third language (L3) acquisition means that one has begun taking the complexity of multilingual learners' language background into account. This gives raise to reflection about some of the currently used basic terminology in the field, in particular how the concepts first, second and third language are understood. These terms are used variably in the literature. One approach, the common practice of labelling a multilingual's languages along a linear chronological scale as L1, L2, L3, L4 etc., is shown here to be untenable, being based on an inadequate conception of multilingualism. A different and arguably more satisfactory approach is based on the conventional dichotomy of L1 (established during infancy) versus L2 (added after infancy) and relates the notion of L3 to the presence of a more complex language background. The limitation to a three-order hierarchy involving the distinction between the concepts of L1, L2 and L3 is discussed and adopted as a working hypothesis, awaiting further research on this issue. Finally, the problems with the expressions first, second and third language have become more apparent with the emergence of research on L3 acquisition. Maybe the time is ripe to work for a change of these established terms? As possible replacements, primary, secondary and tertiary language are put forward for discussion. The paper stresses the need for reconsideration and clarification of the concepts L1, L2 and L3 from the point of view of multilingual language users and learners.