BILINGUALISM
Bilingualism is the ability to speak or write fluently in 2 languages. In Canada the term has taken on a more particular meaning: the ability to communicate (or the practice of communicating) in both of Canada’s official languages, English and French. It has been formalized in LANGUAGE POLICY in an attempt by government to respond to a difficult social question: to what extent is it possible to make legal and practical accommodations that will allow the 2 official language communities to preserve their cultural distinctiveness and at the same time pursue common goals? “Institutional bilingualism” refers to the capacity of state institutions to operate in 2 language and should not be confused with a requirement that everyone be bilingual.
Historically, institutional bilingualism has recognized the facts of Canada’s settlement and development. Implicit in the founding of the Canadian federation was the idea that English-and French-speaking communities should not only coexist but should complement each other. THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT of 186 established English and French as legislative and judicial languages in federal and Quebec institutions. It also set out the right to denominational schooling, which at that time was closely associated with Anglophone (Protestant) and francophone (Roman Catholic) linguistic and cultural traditions.
The development of the bilingual and bicultural nature of the Canadian federation soon experienced setbacks, partly as a result of the uneven application of principles and partly from a simple lack of linguistic tolerance. Although the British North America Act and the Manitoba Act (1870) accorded the French language official status in Quebec and Manitoba, no such recognition was granted to the substantial French-speaking populations of Ontario and New Brunswick. Furthermore, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a series of legislative enactments across Canada seriously French-language education and virtually eliminated the use of French in provincial legislatures and courts outside Quebec. So FRENCH IN THE WEST.
Although the effects of these and other measure, understandably linger in the minds of many Canadians, Canada has, since WWIL found a new concern for the official status of English and French and the destiny of minority language communities throughout the country. At the same time, demographic patterns, and particularly the tendency of Francophones outside Quebec to become assimilated to the English-speaking community, have increased the polarization between the official language groups. This in turn has brought attention to the relationship of linguistic justice and national unity. Increasingly the enhancements of the French language and culture in Canada and a reaffirmation of the rights of the English language and culture in Quebec are seen as fundamental to maintaining a reasonable degree of national integrity.
The problems and demands of bilingualism within the national framework were clearly set forth by the Royal Commission on BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM (1963-69). Central to the Commission’s recommendations was the premise that the English and French minorities throughout Canada, when of reasonable size, should be ensured public service in their own language and afforded as much opportunity as possible to use their mother tongue. The commission also urged that French become a normal language of work, together with English, in the federal administration and that government documents and correspondence be generally available in both languages. Moreover, the Commission stressed that there was room within an officially bilingual state for other forms of linguistic and cultural pluralism, so that bilingualism and MULTICULTURALISM might complement each other.
The Commission’s work culminated in the adoption of the federal OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT (1969) (see OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT (1988)), designed to be the cornerstone of institutional bilingualism in Canada. The Act, which declares the “equality of status” of English and French in Parliament and the Canadian public service, applies to all federal departments judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and administrative agencies and crown corporations established by federal statute.
In addition to prescribing federal reforms and establishing the office of Commissioner of Official Languages to see that they are carried out, the act has prompted initiatives beyond the federal administration. With encouragement and financial assistance from Ottawa, provincial governments and parts of para-public and private sectors have begun to re-examine their linguistic policies, at least in the service they offer and have made some effort to pursue a policy of institutional bilingualism. A new act was adopted in 1988 (see OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT (1988)).
PROVINCIAL POLICIES
The success of any Canadian policy in bilingualism is closely tied to the cooperation of the provinces. Provincial powers in the fields of justice public service and education can be influenced only indirectly by federal policies. To complete the picture, numerous administrative, judicial, social and education services need to be provided by municipal and provincial authorities in regions where there are large minority-language populations.
New Brunswick passed and Official Languages Act in1969, giving equal status, rights and privileges to English and French; since the early 1970s, Ontario has increased the use of French in its courts and has passed a bill guaranteeing French services in those areas of the province where the majority of French-Ontarians live and Manitoba, as a result of a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, is moving towards the translation of its statutes into French and the transformation of its courts into bilingual institutions. The extent of Manitoba’s compliance with its constitutional requirements has become the focus of a heated political debate both inside and outside the province, and in 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada gave the province 3 years to translate its laws.
Quebec has recognized French as its sole official language since 1974. Although a number of government service are available in English (usually on request), the province has the peculiarity of being institutionally bilingual at the constitutional and federal levels while giving official recognition only to French at the level of provincial institutions.
All provinces, helped to some extent by federal Official Languages in Education Program, now have minority-language education programs. Furthermore, SECOND-LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION has made remarkable gains across Canada, most conspicuously through the expansion of French-immersion programs in primary schools.
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
In April 1982 the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREDOOMS came into forces. The Charter reinforces provisos constitutional principles language use in federal courts and the courts of Quebec and Manitoba, reaffirms the availability of bilingual services in the federal administration and confirms New Brunswick as the only completely bilingual province. It also breaks new ground by entrenching minority-language education rights in Canada, guaranteeing the right of children of Canadian citizens who find themselves in an official-language minority situation to an education in their own language wherever numbers warrant it. This guarantee represents a recognition that minority language educations rights may be the key to the survival of minority language communities across the country. The principles of NB law establishing the equality of its 2 official language communities were enshrined in the Charter in 1993.
SYNTEX
Jump to: navigation, search
Laboratorios Syntex SA was a pharmaceutical company formed in Mexico City in 1944 by Russell Marker to manufactures therapeutic steroid from the Mexican yam. Syntex was integrated into the Roche group in 1994.
PROMINENT RESEARCHERS
· Russel Marker left the company and took his notebooks in a disagreement over compensation.
· Gorge Rosenkranz had studied at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and was conducting pharmaceutical research in Cuba. He joined Syntex to replace Marker and hired Djerassi.
· Carl Djerassi went to work at syntax in 1949 as the associate director of chemical research.
· Alejandro Zaffroni developed procedures for identifying and separating steroids using paper chromatography while studying at the University of Rochester, and joined syntax as a research biochemist in 1951. He became vice-president in 1956, and was appointed president of syntax’s U.S subsidiary in Palo Alto, California in 1962.
· Luis E. Miramontes moved from UPAM to Syntex 1950 as a researcher under the direction of Djerassi. He performed the first synthesis of an orally active progestin on October 15, 1951. The steroid 19-nor-17 alpha-ethynyltestoste one, with the generic name of norethistrone or norethindrone was the first orally active progestin, which led to the development of the first first oral contraceptives.
· Jerzy Rzedowski worked as an explorer botanist. He later became the most prominent plant scientist in Mexico.
BIRTH CONTROL PILL
Syntex submitted their compound to a laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, for biological evaluation, and found it was the most active, orally effective progestational hormone of its time. Syntex submitted a patent application in November 1951. G.D Searle & Co. field for a patent for the synthesis of the double bond isomer 13 of market norethindrone called norethynodrel in August 1953. Norethyndrel is converted into norethindrone under acidic conditions, and their new patent didn’t infringe on Syntex’s. Searle obtained approval to market norethynodrel before syntax received their approval. By 1964, 3 companies including syntax were marketing 2 mg doses of Syntex’s norethindrone. Syntax chemist synthested cortisone from diosgenin, a phytosteroid contained in Mexican yams. This synthesis was more economical than the previous Merek & Co, synthesis.
Language use in the a bilingual community
Restricted item. Print thesis available in the University of Auckland Library or available through Inter-Library Loan. The status of Indonesian as the official, standard and national language has limited the use of Javanese. Yet, most Javanese people continue to speak their indigenous language, Javanese, and Indonesian, the national language of Indonesia. The present study investigates languages use in the Javanese community in Surabaya, East Java. The aim of this study is to establish who speaks what language to whom and when, in the Javanese community. It focuses on language shift seen from three family types. A questionnaire was distributed to sixty families, and a total of two hundred and forty respondent. This study records respondent profiles, reported language proficiency, language use, domains of language use and language altitudes towards Javanese and Indonesian. The findings of this study indicate that language shift towards Indonesian is gradually occurring in the Javanese community. Proficiency in Javanese is lower than proficiency in Indonesian. The use of Javanese is dominant only in the home, place of worship and in school among friends. Javanese is often used to communicate with in-group members and the older generation. The shift is clearly seen when four factors are considered family type gender, generation and gender by generation. This study reveals that the group contributive most to language shift in the Javanese community are mixed marriage families and the younger generation. This study also reveals that Javanese is no longer considered an effective language for written communication. Although the evidence indicates that language shift is gradually in progress this study shows that Javanese people attitudes towards their native language remains positive. Javanese people believe that their native language is the symbol of their identity. However, support from both the Javanese people and government are needed to maintain the language.
Linguistic And Communicative Competence
I shall show that because of the significant incompatibility between Chomsky’s and communicative views of language the communicative should not employ communicative competence as a legitimate basis to helping students produce target language, effectively. Let me immediately state some of the prominent and enduring applied linguistic views of communicative competence.
It is to ideas of Savignon (1985, p. 130) and Canale and Swain (1980,pp.27-31) that I turn, in order to perform my initial task.Savignon views communicative competence as :
…the ability to function in a truly communicative setting-that is the dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informations input, both linguistic and paralinguistic of one or more interlocutors. Communicative competences includes grammatical competence (sentence level grammar), socio-linguistic competence( an understanding of how utterances are strung together to form a meaningful whole ), and strategic competence ( a language user’s employment of strategies to make the best use of what she knows about how a language works in order to interpret, express, and negotiate meaning in a given context).
Canale and Swain communicative competence is composed minimally of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and communicative strategies or strategic communicative. The first include knowledge of the lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar, semantics, phonology. The second consists of two sets of rules, socio-cultural rules of use and rules of discourse, knowledge of both of which, is crucial to interpreting utterances for social meaning particularly when “there is a low level of transparency between in the literal meaning of an utterance and the speaker’s intention.
Strategic competence consists of verbal and non-verbal strategies of communication that may be employed to compensate for communication breakdown attributable to “performance variables or to insufficient competence”. Communication strategies are of two kinds: those that are relevant, mainly to grammatical competence and thoise that relate more to sociolinguistic competence. An example of the first kind is to paraphrase grammatical forms that a person has not mastered or cannot recall momentarily, while examples of the second would be the various role playing strategies such as how a stranger should be addressed by someone who is uncertain about the stranger’s social status.
Other applied linguistics, notably, Bachman (1990) and Blum-Kulka and Levenston (1983, p.120), have offered additional extensions to communicative competence. Blum-Kulka view semantic competence as consisting of:
- awareness of hyponmy, aalonymy, converseness, and other possible systematic links between lexical items. By means which, the substitution of the lexical item for another can be explained in particular contexts.
- Ability to avoid using specific lexical items by means of circumlocution and paraphrase.
- Ability recognize degrees of paraphrasic equivalence.
Bachman jas posited two core aspects of linguistics competence, organizational competence which subsumes grammatical and discourse competence, as well as, pragmatic competence which encompasses illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence.
In describing what she regards as conceptual expansion, Kasper (1997,p.345) notes that strategic competence operates at the levels of pragmatic and organizational competence but in a broader sense than that proposed by Canale and Swain. While the ability to solve receptive and productive problems due to lack of knowledge or accessibility remains an aspect of strategic competence, it is now more generally thought of as the ability to use linguistic knowledge efficienly. She adds that the extensions is compatible with the view that language use, a version of goal oriented behaviour, is always strategic.
It is the American anthropologist, Dell Hynes, in the early seventies, who first put forth the idea of communicative competence. Schacter (1990, pp. 39-40) notes that the “ model” of communicative competence proposed initially by him gave tremendous impetus linguists frustrated by principal focus on grammatical competence. Two of those linguists, Tarone and Yule (1989, p.17) identify a major shift in perspective within the second language teaching profession.
In relatively simple terms, there has been a change of a emphasis from presenting language as a set of forms (grammatical, phonological, lexical) which have to be learned and practiced, to presenting language as a function system which is used tio fulfill a range of communicative purposes. This shift in emphasis has largerly taken place as a result of fairly convincing arguments, mainly from ethnographers and others who study language on its context of use, that ability to use a language should be described as communicative competence.
The principal of etnographers is of course, Hyme (1971a,1972,1977,1988) whom Ellis and Roberts (1987,pp.18-19) claim was interested in : what degree of competence speaker/ hearers needed in order to give themselves membership of particular speech communities. He examined what factors-particularly socio-cultural ones-in addition to “grammatical competence” are required for speaker / hearers to participate in meaningful interaction.
Ellis and Roberts add that not only did Hymes “set the socio-cultural ball rolling” but he also demonstrated how language variations correlated with social and cultural norms of speech events or certain defined public interactions. And in one his earliest statements about the broad version of competence Hymes (1971b, pp.5-10) says the purpose the linguist to account for the fact that a “normal child” acquires much more than grammatical knowledge of sentences.
The linguist’s problem is to explain how the child comes rapidly to be able to produce and understand (in principle) any and all of grammatical sentences of language. If we consider a child actually capable of producing all possible sentences. He would probably be institusionalised particularly not only the sentences but also the speech or silence were random or unpredictable. We then have to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as appropriate. This is not accounted for in transactional grammar which divided linguistic theory into two parts: linguistic competence and linguistic performance.
Hymes add that children acquire repertoires of speech acts and are capable of participating in the performance. Of speech acts, as well as. Evaluating the speech acts of others.
Hymes is talking about competence which is integral to attitudes and values concerning language and other codes of communication. Here is reference to :social factors” which he exemplifies positive productive aspect of linguistic engagement in social life: there are rules of use without which rules of grammar would be useless.
Criper and Widdowson (1978,pp. 154-157, to principal protagonists of communicative language teaching, adopt a similar stance. They note Chomsky’s distinction between competence (the ideal language user’s knowledge of grammatical rules) and performance ( actual realization of the knowledge in utterances) and add the he has made the latter a prime object of linguistic study. Such choice-they claim-has allowed him to define linguistics by restricting the kind of information about language which has to be accounted for within his theoretical frame work.
They characterize the choice as a necessary investigative step in confronting limited problems and achieving their partial or complete solutions prior to increasing the complexity of data studied. This approach is, however, too limited for the language teacher who is concerned, simultaneously, with competence in describing or contrasting language systems and ways of using the systems. In a particular reference to language learning, they say it means learning rules of use, as well as, rules of formal linguistic systems.
Until learners know how to use grammatical resources for sending meaningful messages in real life situations, they can not be said know a language. It is essential that they know what varieties of language are used in specific situations. How to vary styles according to their addresses, when they should speak or be silent, what types of gestures are needed from different forms of speech. They insist that the very essence of language is it serves as means of communication. Language use involves social interaction.
Thus, knowing a language means knowing how it fulfils communicative function. And in what is, surely expressions of preference for the broad version of the competence, they state that it is inadequate for the persons to possess knowledge about rules of sentence information, they must also know how to unilise rules for the purpose of producing appropriate utterances.
The Hymesian position is endorsed, also by hudsor (1980, pp.219-220) who regards communicative competence as much more broadly based than “the ‘linguistic competence’ of Chomsyan linguistics”. Communicative competence includes knowledge of linguistic forms ,and ability to use the forms appropriately.
If all of the aforementioned references to competence are appropriate indicators of the broad version, then it would appear that this version could be of dual significance to communicativists. Not only is then indication, within this version. That action is meaningful, it seems, also, to be a version which is entirely compatible with the communicative aim of assisting students to produce target language as central feature of their social interaction. Hence, the broad version could be employed to help learners. And according the Stern (1990, pp. 94-95) interest in communicative language teaching has grown and spread since the late nineteen seventies. “Communication and communicative competence has come to be viewed as the main objective of language teaching: at the same time, communication has increasingly been seen as the instrument, the method, or way of teaching.”
Quite apart fron. Stern’s position, Canale and Swain (1980,pp. 35-36) imply, very strongly, that communicative competence could be used as a significant basis to helping students produce target language as a central feature of their social interaction. They state that one of the many aspect of communicative competence which must be investigated, more rigorously, before a communicative approach can be implemented fully in the areas of second language teaching and testing is: development of administratively feasible classroom activity that can be use to encourage meaningful action in target language use.
Some of the activities have been developed by Tarone and Yule (1989,pp.68-128). They analyse and discuss means, as well as, instruments classroom teachers can utilize to determine student’s ability within areas of grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic competence.
It is these very areas which are analysed as come of the significants components in a Bilingual Proficiency Project, a highly ambitious effort ti provide what Schacter ( 1990. p. 39) views as empirical justification for a model of linguistic proficiency. This five year research project was conducted in the nineteen eighties at the Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies In Education, Canada. The main purpose of this project was to examine a group of educationally relevant issues concerned with the second language development of school age children. Three of the issues were the effect of classroom treatment on second language learning, the relation of social-environmental factors to bilingual proficiency, and the relation between age and language proficiency ( Allen, Cummins, Harley and Swain. 1990: p. 1)
While Schacter does express reservations about adequacy and clarity of the concept, communicative competence, as well as, its exemplification in the project, she does not recommend its rejection. She-in fact – endores Chomsky’s grammatical or linguistic competence, although she notes three issues of special relevance to the project. They are: what are the major constitutive components of communicative competence, whether-and to what extent-the components can be delineated clearly.
In responding to the concerns, not only do project researches, (Allen, Cummins, Harley, and Swain, 1990: p. 53) accept Chomsky’s linguistic competence, but they also claim to be demonstrating a broadening competence. An exchange between to the two parties about competence is quite revealing.
Schacter says that beyond the level of isolated sentences, confusion, disagreement and fragmentation are reflected in “the overall state of knowledge” about communicative competence. On the other hand, the researches emphasise toot grammar, discourse, and sociolinguistic constructs do not “represent everything that is involved in communicative competence.” They, However, express their research alms: isolate aspects of communicative competence they consider to be educationally relevan, test the hypothesis that the aspects would cinerge “as distinct components and would be differentially manifested under different task conditions and in different learning settings.”
It would not be unreasonable to state that efforts to identify some of the foregoing aspects take place bt examining communication strategies (CS) among foreign and second language users. Standing prominently among the investigators are: Yule and Tarone (1997), Poulisse (1997), Pampto (1997), Wilke-Gibbs(1997), Kasper and Kellerman (01997), Wagner and Firth (1997). There is doubtless, no single account of what constitutes communication strategies (CS). These strategies can, however, be classified under two broad categories, those delived from phsycholinguistic and interactional views of communication.
The phsycholinguistic or “intra-individual” perspective is neatly summarized by Kasper and Kellerman (1997, p. 2) who state that its proponents locate CS in models of speech production or cognitive organization and processing. Proponents of the interactive approach, on the other hand, locate CS within the social and contextually contingent aspects of language production which covers features of use characterized as “problematic” (0Wagner and Firth. 1997: pp. 325-327).
Crucial to understanding these problematic aspects is knowing about markers which indicate that speakers experience difficulty in expressing talk. Such speakers “flag” problems in discourse encoding, thus signaling the imminence of a CS. Flagging provides speaker/ hearers with information about how utterances are to be and acted upon and can be exemplified by such phenomena as pausing, change of voice quality, or intonation contour and rhythms.
Wagner and Firth note that what is essential to the interactional approach is investigating how communication is attained as a situated, contingent accomplishment. Interactionists regard CS as thing displayed publicy and made visible to an analyst via participants’ actions. Emphasis is on the social rather than, individual or cognitive processes underlying talk. Interactionists define instances of talk as CS, if and only if participants, themselves, make an encoded related problem public in the talk and, thus, engage, individually or collaboratively, in effort to resolve the problem. CS are available to analysts, only in so far as they are produced and reacted upon by parties to talk. Further, the encoding problem maybe either purely linguistic or a combination of the linguistic and conceptual.
References
1. Apple, R. and Muyskens, P. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. New York: Edward Arnold
2. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6 No. 2 pp.5-35.
3. Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatic: A multidisciplinary Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.
4. Culicover, P.W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press
5. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text : Aspect of Language in a social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Kadarisman, A.E. 2009. Mengurai Bahasa Menyibak Budaya. Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang.
7. Kearns, K. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Arnold
8. Steinberg, D.D. 1993. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Longman.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar