Language Learning 48:4, December 1998, pp.

497518

Coming of Age in Applied Linguistics

Ellen Bialystok
York University

I argue that further progress in applied linguistics and

second language acquisition (SLA) will be achieved
through collaboration with researchers in other fields. I
give 3 examples of research problems that would profit
from collaboration with applied linguists: the definition of
language proficiency, the neural basis of language functioning, and the relation between cognitive and language abilities, especially in education. These issues are being
investigated by specialists in other fields who lack the
necessary expertise in bilingualism, SLA, and representation of multiple languages. I identify specific areas of
expertise that applied linguists could bring to these research programmes.

Disciplines are like peoplethey begin life with a few tentative steps, exert excessive bravado through an unformed adolescence, gobble up the world in the excitement of young adulthood,
and learn humility and respect in middle age, retreating eventually into a wise and aged twilight. The pattern is ancient and
universal, but it is impossible to persuade people, or the practitioners of the discipline for that matter, that their stage is inevitable
and their path is determined. People prefer the illusion of uniqueness and control of their destiny. But it is just thatillusion, and

Correspondence concerning this paper may be addressed to the author at

Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3; Internet: ellenb@yorku.ca

497

498

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

the fiction eventually succumbs to the larger forces that impose

order on everything, as people realise that they have simply lived
out the natural stages of evolution. Development has its own
rhythm, and humans are slaves to it. The fiftieth anniversary of
Language Learning, a journal central to the discipline of second
language acquisition (SLA) and applied linguistics, signals the
arrival of middle age and the attendant virtues of wisdom and
maturity. Although people cannot avoid passage into middle age,
they can prepare for it and assure its productivity and rewards. It
is fitting, then, to reflect on life to this point, to take stock of the
issues, and to set priorities for attention. It is a coming of age.

Beginning in Childhood: The Development of a Field

Childhood is a time of wonder and self-absorption. It is also
a time of unreflective action, responses to immediate needs, attention to the brightest details, and impatience with abstractions. It
is a life rooted in the here and now. The childhood of research in
applied linguistics was like this.
Much of the incentive for early studies in applied linguistics
was created by a practical problem: How can educators improve
foreign language teaching? Many of the early contributors to the
field were language teachers who had encountered problems that
needed to be solved. They found no ready solutions and so were
forced to critically explore the issues and create their own. Childhood is a time spent finding out about the immediate world, and in
this childhood of the field, much effort was spent in noticing and
documenting the course of language learning, both in natural and
educational environments. The great diary studies, such as
Leopolds (e.g., Leopold, 1939), are still foundations to the field.
How does one move on from childhood? Few developmental
psychologists have even attempted to address this most intractable of all problems: mechanism. How does change happen? The
literature is full of descriptions documenting the achievements
characteristic of each developmental stage, but it is relatively
silent on how and why this evolution takes place. The most famous

Bialystok

499

exception to this is Piagets developmental theory. He considered

knowledge to be subject to the same evolutionary forces as any
organic matter. It evolved and grew because it was a dynamic
construction, just as cells evolve and organisms grow. With growth,
there is increasing structure and richness. This applies equally to
single-celled aquatic organisms and the conceptual world of the
child. It may also apply to scientific disciplines. The knowledge
itself propels researchers into higher levels of abstraction and
more richly organised structures of information. As knowledge
grows, development becomes inevitable.
The process of change through the accumulation of knowledge guided the discipline into its adolescence. The fragments that
had emerged during childhood began to take shape as coherent
theories and reasoned arguments. There was a proliferation of
theories that did not simply import the models and methods from
other fields but rather designed solutions to specific problems.
New methodologies, sensitive to the special circumstances of research in applied linguistics, developed for both basic and applied
settings. Moreover, a level of abstraction and sophistication was
achieved in thinking through the problems and issues.
In spite of these significant accomplishments, the field was
still clearly adolescent: It was inward looking and defensive, was
self-absorbed, and lacked a perspective that placed it in a wider
context. This self-indulgence and egocentrism of adolescence is
probably an adaptive trait; it allows a single-minded pursuit of
the matters most relevant to the self. One is not distracted by the
problems of the world or the global economy. Adolescents are
forgiven for excessive focus on self and uncompromised attention
to the immediate issues at hand because they are establishing
their presence and forming their identity. However, eventually it
is time to move on.

The Challenges of Adulthood

The maturity of adulthood is marked by the ability to place
oneself in a perspective larger than ones immediate world. People

500

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

become outward looking and are no longer consumed solely by

parochial matters. They stop apologising for who they are, losing
some of their defensiveness as they accept their natural limitations. There is a gain in respectability and a loss of innocence.
Applied linguistics has reached the stage of adulthood. As an
adult member of the scientific community, it must take its place
on a wider stage to develop meaningful connections to other
disciplines and forge areas of co-operation with them. Applied
linguists must become partners in an effort to solve the larger
problems, those that may exceed the narrow boundaries of the
discipline but indisputably involve it. Applied linguistics has
much to gain from such a partnership. It must adapt methodologies created for different problems and integrate the theories and
concepts developed in independent areas to achieve a more profound and broadly based understanding of language. At the same
time, applied linguistics has much to contribute. Its understanding of language functioning in the large sense, including the
relation between first and second language (L1 and L2), the effects
of instructional alternatives, the role of individual learner characteristics, the impact of formal linguistic structure on learning an
L2, to name but a few issues, is arguably the most comprehensive
and well-articulated in any language-related field. The current
challenge facing language studies is to make this collaboration
work.
The responsibility for applied linguists now is to become
involved in discussions that require interdisciplinary solutions.
The challenge facing the field in the immediate future is to become
full collaborators with researchers from other areas in order to
jointly raise the level of debate and find solutions to more complex
problems. Over the past two decades, the tenets of applied linguistics have had a subtle but profound influence in areas that had
previously resisted acknowledgement of the fields agenda. It has
become increasingly impossible for researchers in other areas to
ignore the perspective of SLA in studies of L1 acquisition. The
monolingual English speaker has lost ground as the quintessential purveyor of language. Researchers are more likely to

Bialystok

501

acknowledge the messy conditions of language use, such as

pragmatic context, social pressures on dialect, motivation, and
other intrusions on language competence. Building on this momentum, applied linguists are in a position to confront some of the
major problems in language and cognition.
The new frontier for applied linguistics is to enter the complex realm of language studies in the broader sense and to take
on the issues that are not confined to single contexts or narrow
boundaries. To do this, applied linguists must become conversant
with the theories and methods from other disciplines, just as they
must teach their own techniques to others. I will give three
examples of issues that will only be solved through collaboration
and that will have an impact on research and thinking in a variety
of both basic and applied areas. These are the definition of language proficiency, the neural basis of language functioning, and
the relation between cognitive and language abilities, especially
in education.
The Context of Proficiency

Linguists talk about language as though it had concrete

existence and could be measured by scientific instruments, describing its acquisition as though people moved irrevocably from
a state of innocence to one of mastery along a predictable path.
They identify language impairment, language delay, and language
precocity without ever specifying the standard against which
these cases are to be judged. Experimenters use language in
research designs as both a dependent and an independent variable, choosing fragments to serve as stimuli but concluding truths
that define the domain. But what is the norm for language competence? What does language proficiency mean? What are its
components and what is the range of acceptable variation? Although these questions may seem prior to any use of language as
a research instrument or conclusion about language ability in
individuals, linguists almost never address them explicitly. It is
time to confront this challenge.

502

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

The definition of language proficiency is completely entangled in theoretical attitude. For a formalist, language proficiency
is an ultimately unknowable abstraction that reflects the universal competence of native speakers (NSs). For a functionalist, it is
the outcome of social interaction with a linguistic environment.
The contradiction is less stark than it might appearthe two
theoretical approaches have simply defined the problem differently. Formal approaches attempt to explain language; functional
approaches attempt to explain communication. But where does
that leave language proficiency? The term appears to convey a
clear meaning in its nontechnical application; that is, in ordinary
language use. On closer inspection, its use as a scientific term
means very little.
There are both theoretical and practical reasons for coming
to some consensus about what is entailed by language proficiency.
The theoretical motivation is that there will never be meaningful
dialogue between those holding alternative conceptions of language (e.g., formal and functional views) until there is agreement
on what is meant by language proficiency. The practical reason is
that issues in education, language disability, and aphasia, to name
a few, require a clear definition of normal standards for language
proficiency.
Consider first the theoretical issues. At present, arguments
and explanations about language acquisition and use that are
expounded from different theoretical perspectives are incommensurate because they are not even addressing the same questions.
Language must entail both formal structure and communicative
application, it must evolve from a prepared mind and be nurtured
by a supportive context, it must set clear standards of use and
include disparate variations from the rules. Linguists need a way
of organizing this multiplicity of language skills and characteristics into a coherent statement about the human potential to
learn and use language. Language proficiency is the goal for
humans to achieve and linguists to describe. If there is no agreement about what is included in language proficiency, then any

Bialystok

503

explanation that attempts to probe some of the more profound

mysteries of language will be incomplete.
One method for achieving a proper definition for language
proficiency is through observation and description. Researchers in
L1 acquisition have made great progress in specifying the descriptive aspects of normal language development. In a large-scale
study, Fenson et al. (1994) documented the milestones of language
acquisition in a sample of more than 1800 children. Although
crucial, this is only a small part of what is required for a proper
definition for language proficiency, which must specify norms not
only for the acquisition of language by children but also for the
use of language by adults in a variety of social contexts, pragmatic
situations, and cultural milieus, using different languages alone
and in combination with each other. Descriptive norms must
include the range of language experiences encountered by children
being raised as bilingual and adults functioning in different languages for different purposes. An important starting point for
these descriptions is the comprehensive work compiled by Slobin
(e.g., 1985, 1992) in his series of crosslinguistic studies of language
acquisition. These descriptions must be analysed to extract the
essential properties of language proficiency across the variety of
situations, and this task is best handled by applied linguists who
are sensitive to the practical and experiential uses of language.
Language proficiency must also include details of the social
and cultural contexts in which language is used. Pinker (1994)
related the story of Dizzy Dean, a 1950s sports commentator, who
would use such phrases as He slood into second base. Using
formal and rigid criteria, one would be forced to conclude that
Dean suffered from some language disorder, or at the very least
that he possessed an unusually poorly developed mastery of English. But Pinker points out that such uses were an acceptable part
of his native Arkansas dialect. Dean, in other words, was a proficient speaker of a regional variant of English.
Rampton (1997) gives an example of the problem by illustrating how an overly-narrow definition of language competence,
especially in terms of gaps in that competence, has produced a

504

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

body of research on communication strategies for L2 learners that

fails to capture essential features. He demonstrates how changes
in the sociolinguistic context, absent in virtually all analyses of L2
communication, radically alter the perception of what the primary
communication strategies are and why learners select the ones
they do. He argues for a more liberal interpretation of language
use that includes these sociolinguistic dimensions as a central
element. The problem that Rampton identified is a direct consequence of researchers treating language proficiency in too rigidly
formal terms. If communicating in an L2 is to be considered as a
central aspect of language learning and use, as surely it must, then
linguists need to understand this communication in a more complete sense.
The need to solve the problem of defining language proficiency is not simply motivated by theoretical niceties or philosophical aesthetics. It is an issue with serious practical
implications to both research and practice in language studies. In
research in SLA and bilingualism, a proper definition of language
proficiency would present an identifiable standard against which
to describe the language skills of users in different contexts.
Harris and Nelson (1992) described some of the chaos that arises
in attempts to define bilingualism because there is no consensus
on what degree or type of proficiency in which language is required
for the label to apply. Research offers a myriad of examples of this
point. In a study of the cognitive effects of bilingualism in a
population of university students (an apparently homogenous
group of bilinguals), Lemmon and Goggin (1989) found a diverse
array of skills that distinguished among the bilinguals in categorical ways that were confirmed by factor analysis. Simple
conceptions of proficiency, even in the two languages, could not
capture the important ability differences among the population.
At the very least, an objective definition of language proficiency
would allow researchers to be more precise in stating the nature of
their participants competence. Undoubtedly, standardized descriptions of that type would immediately dispel countless apparently

Bialystok

505

contradictory results caused by different abilities in the research

participants.
Another application of a proper definition of language proficiency is in the identification of abnormal patterns of language use
and development. At present, the criteria are generally presented
in terms of negative features, a list of what is not part of the profile
of the language-disabled child. Leonard (1998), for example, stated
that children with SLI experience significant limitations in language ability that cannot be attributed to problems of hearing,
neurological status, nonverbal intelligence, or other known factors (p. 25). He went on to point out that the resulting classification yields an extremely heterogeneous group who differ from each
other in the aspect of language that poses difficulty, their relative
skills in comprehension and production, and other details of
language use. Although the field of SLI (specific language impairment) is ostensibly concerned with language use, it seems that
there are no formal linguistic criteria for defining the field. It is
not surprising to encounter the level of controversy that surrounds
such designations as SLI when the classifications are made in the
absence of a priori linguistic abilities. SLI, if it exists as an
identifiable condition, must be defined in terms of the structure of
language proficiency. The same is true for the opposite side of the
dimension, namely, the identification of linguistic precocity. Although far less research attention has been devoted to precocious
children (but see Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1992; Dale, CrainThoreson, & Robinson, 1995), such research suffers as well from
an imprecision in defining the population. Creating criteria for a
proper definition of language proficiency would contribute enormously to these pursuits. These are issues with significant social
and educational impact.
Connecting to the Brain

The collaboration between neuroscience and cognitive psychology has begun to impart irreversible changes in the direction
pursued by both fields. The impetus for the research was probably

506

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

driven by technological opportunity rather than theoretical logic:

It became possible to watch the brain while it was thinking. The
collaboration was necessary because the neuroscientists wanted
to know what they were looking at, and the psychologists wanted
to know how to see the processes they had speculated about. The
excitement about the possibilities created by this new access to
the unknown was unconstrained, and the early applications of the
techniques were less scientifically motivated than they perhaps
should have been. The research is now beginning to focus in more
theoretically motivated ways on issues that would profit immensely from the contributions of applied linguists.
There are three major techniques for observing the brain
while it is functionally engaged. The one with the longest history
is event-related potential (ERP), a method for determining electrical activity during cognitive tasks. The data provide general
information about the brain region in which the activity occurs
and fairly accurate information about the length of time required
to activate the process. The spatial information about the cortical
region in which the activation is occurring is less precise. The
second technique, positron emission tomography (PET), uses radioactive tracers to locate the cortical regions involved during
specific cognitive processes. Although the spatial resolution is
good, the temporal indices are weak; if several processes occur in
rapid sequence, the PET simply indicates a simultaneous activation. Finally, the most recent addition to the arsenal is functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the most sophisticated and
the most costly technique, which makes use of magnetic fields to
identify activated cortical regions. It provides better images than
PET but places greater constraints on what the person can do
while being scanned and what kinds of tasks can be presented. All
three methods have a contribution to make, and each has its own
unique balance of advantages and disadvantages. At this point,
the data from all three must be treated with a measure of scepticism, but they have already changed the way in which many
cognitive processes are conceptualised and their ultimate potential contribution to research in human cognition is exciting.

Bialystok

507

The domain of language processing quickly became a popular

area in which to test the limits of these technologies and attempt
to resolve some of the questions that have wallowed in perennial
dispute. Some of this research included investigations of cognitive
processing carried out during L2 use as well as comparisons of
monolingual and bilingual populations on various tasks. The
problem is that the studies and the interpretations of the data
were not grounded in any of the theoretical or empirical principles
that have been developed in applied linguistics. It is time for
researchers who are knowledgeable in SLA to become more involved and to assume a directing role in conducting research of
this type. It will be impossible to design the proper study or to
correctly understand the results without a thorough knowledge of
the behavioural aspects of learning and using an L2.
Two examples of research have used neuroimaging to address questions in SLA and L2 use but have suffered from an
inadequate understanding of the field. The first question is the
nature of representation for two languages; the second is the effect
of age of acquisition on attainment of an L2.
Ardal, Donald, Meuter, Muldrew, and Luce (1990) used ERP
as a means of deciding whether bilinguals representations of their
two languages were stored separately for each language or in a
combined representation. They presented monolingual and bilingual participants with a semantic processing task in which they
had to detect incongruity. The patterns of ERP responding for this
task are well known, so the question was to determine how
bilinguals would compare to monolinguals and whether the bilinguals two languages would elicit different patterns. The experimenters reasoned that if bilinguals were scanning a combined
representation for two languages, as would be the case if the two
languages were stored in a shared system, then the time needed
by the bilinguals to solve the problem in both languages would be
longer than that needed by comparable monolinguals. A delay only
in the weaker L2 would mean that the languages were represented
separately and that processing was more efficient in the stronger
language. The results actually revealed a third pattern: The

508

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

bilinguals were slower than the monolinguals (suggesting a combined representation), but there was a significant difference between the stronger and weaker languages, with faster processing
being observed in the stronger language (suggesting separate
representation). These results suggest a complex pattern in which
language representations are autonomous but processing differences distinguish the bilingual from the monolingual, even in the
stronger language. However, Neville and Weber-Fox (1993) also
used ERP measures to examine performance on acceptability
judgments by bilinguals. When the task was to judge semantic
acceptability, their results replicated Ardal et al. (1990). For syntactic acceptability, however, they found a different pattern.
A second example is in the use of imaging to shed light on the
question of a critical period for SLA. Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch
(1997) used fMRI to identify the processing regions involved in
using an L1 or L2 for bilinguals who learned the L2 before or after
early adulthood. Their participants were 12 individuals, 6 of whom
had learned the L2 in childhood and 6 at a later age. They reported
that the two languages were represented differently in Brocas
region for late bilinguals but were represented the same in
Wernickes area. Early bilinguals showed no differences on any of
the measures, and assessments taken from Wernickes area
showed no differences. Kim et al.s conclusion, however, builds
from this difference in Brocas region and is quite dismissive of the
rest of the data. Similar results were reported by Perani et al.
(1996). For 9 participants who were exposed to English as a second
language after 7 years old, PET scans revealed different cortical
areas involved in a listening task for English and Italian, their L1.
Conversely, Klein, Zatorre, Milner, Meyer, and Evans (1995) used
PET scans with participants who had learned the L2 after 5 years
old, and found no differences in representation on any measure.
They concluded with a strong statement disavowing any differences in the representation of language as a function of either age
of learning or the two languages themselves.
These studies illustrate a situation in which the exclusion of
L2 researchers from the investigation led to a completely avoidable

Bialystok

509

confusion. The first error in research of this type is in defining the

participating population. The term bilingual is often used as a
grouping factor with virtually no acknowledgement of the multiplicity of meanings and degrees it entails. When studies yield
conflicting results using bilingual participants, the first source to
investigate for the conflict is in the definition of the participants.
Applied linguists have spent decades defining the complex relationships between proficiency in two languages and the connections between mastery of each language and that of a monolingual
speaker. The categorical decision that an individual is bilingual is
bound to lead to conflicting results if details of their language
proficiency are not provided. Virtually none of these studies explains the nature of the participants bilingual proficiency. This is
especially problematic in the research addressing the critical
periodit reports almost nothing about when the participants
learned the L2, the circumstances in which they learned it, and
the levels of proficiency they achieved. Applied linguists are not
surprised that differences in these factors lead to different profiles
of proficiency and use.
Second, researchers familiar with the complexity of language
would know the danger of generalising from evidence based only
on one facet of language. The fact that results from semantic
processing did not replicate for a syntactic task would not surprise
anyone who had experience in studying the multidimensional
nature of language proficiency. Researchers who are not language
specialists but conduct language-related research tend to make a
simplifying assumption about the monolithic nature of language.
It is incumbent upon applied linguists to inform research in
related areas to bring the conceptions of language in line with
current theorising.
The rich literature on many of these questions is essentially
ignored in studies of neuroimaging. Determining the representation for two languages, for example, has been a perennial
question in applied linguistics since the earliest speculations of
Weinreich (1953/1968). A detailed literature has built up on this
topic, and linguists know a great deal about the complexity of those

510

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

representations and their interactive nature (e.g., Kroll & de

Groot, 1997; Schreuder & Weltens, 1993). Moreover, Grosjean
(1989) and Cook (1997) have argued convincingly that bilinguals
are not simply a mental combination of two monolinguals but
manifest a complex re-organization of language skills. The dichotomy posed in the question regarding a single or combined system
is obviously too simplistic. Similarly, the existence of a critical
period has been investigated and researchers have identified
many of the factors relevant to that issue as well (e.g., Birdsong,
in press; Harley & Wang, 1997; Singleton & Lengyel, 1995). The
complexities should have been predicted. Familiarity with the
research in applied linguistics would have led to more sophisticated hypotheses and more complex research designs.
This research is proliferating as the techniques become better known and the equipment more widely available. Language,
regardless of ones theoretical orientation, remains irrevocably at
the centre of cognition, and studies on thinking will inevitably
make use of language, as either the dependent measure for cognition or the means by which cognition is directed for the participant. Applied linguists have remained noticeably absent from
these research enterprises in the past, but it is time they were
included as full collaborators in order to shape the direction of this
research and apply it to the pressing issues in applied linguistics.
Cognition and Education

Linguists have come to know a great deal about language

acquisition, both for L1 and subsequent languages, but are still
relatively ignorant about how the development of knowledge interacts with language. Theories of cognitive development need to
be more informed by theories of language acquisition and guided
by standards for language proficiency. The precedent for leaving
language out of the cognition formula was set long ago by Piaget,
who believed that language was irrelevant to childrens emerging
cognitive structures. The view was not universally held even then;
Vygotsky (1962, 1978), working at approximately the same time,

Bialystok

511

placed the acquisition of language at the centre of his explanation

for the childs emerging cognitive system. Nonetheless, the separation between language and the rest of cognition was ensconced
in the field. This isolation of language acquisition from studies of
cognition and its development has impeded the study of both. The
challenge now is to bring them together in ways that integrate the
separate wisdom of each field to create more detailed understanding of human thought.
In more recent work in cognitive development, language is
again being placed at the centre. Nelson (1996), for example, has
developed an interesting and unusual perspective for exploring
the childs developing conceptual system and its interface with
language. She began with the work of Donald (1991), who proposed
four stages in the phylogenetic progression in the development of
representation. With each stage, a new representational ability is
added on to the system, but the older and more primitive ones are
not lost. Thus, phylogenetic development entails not only more
powerful systems for representation but also more diversity in the
possibilities for representation. These representational stages are
episodic, mimetic, mythic, and theoretic. Episodic representation
is the ability to encode objects and events, including perceptual
and other contextual details. The transition to mimetic representation takes place with the advent of social intelligence and
self-awareness. In this representational form, events or relationships can be replicated by means of a re-enactment, as distinct
from a literal imitation. The criteria for mimesis converge in many
respects with the requirements for representing language: intentionality, generativity, communicativity, reference, autocueing
(Donald, 1991, p. 171). The third stage is mythic representation,
based essentially on the narrative form: The mythic culture
enshrines a shared vision of both past and future that does not
simply reconstruct human experiences but attempts to explain
them in more encompassing terms (Nelson, 1996, p. 69). The final
stage of representational evolution leads to the theoretic stage.
This last development is attributed, not to biological change as
were the previous advances, but to cultural invention. Three

512

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

cognitive achievements led to the development of theoretic representation: graphic invention, external memory (especially written
language), and theory construction. Nelsons thesis is that these
four stages of representation apply equally to ontogeny, and therefore describe the progression in childrens conceptual development.
Central to this progression through the stages of representation is the mediating role of language in thought: Language
becomes part of thought as well as a tool to thought. This analysis
is similar to Vygotskys (1962, 1978) argument for the role of
language in directing thought through the use of egocentric speech
once language development has sufficiently advanced. Nelson
(1996) has acknowledged the parallel with Vygotskys claims. Part
of her evidence is from research showing how a change in semantic
memory organization in young children is responsible for their
ability to perform more complex cognitive tasks. The advance in
cognition is attributed to changes in language organization rather
than conceptual organization because, she argues, the logical
hierarchies are in the language, not in the physical or material
world (p. 250). Indeed, she appears to push the argument further
in subsequent work, stating, language is the key to critical aspects of cognitive change (Nelson, 1997, p. 112).
This conception of language as instrumental to thought
points to interesting questions about children being raised with
two languages during the formative years of cognitive development. Although Vygotsky (1962) mused briefly about the possible
enhancing effect of two languages on childrens reflections, Nelson
(1996, 1997) has not. Nonetheless, her theory clearly invites questions about the differences in development and the effects on the
evolution of these four stages of representation that would obtain
if children were developing two languages instead of just one. In
addition to the allegiance to a Vygotskian position in which language guides cognitive development, she has also subscribed to a
Whorfian interpretation of language: Learning words is thus
learning to think in cultural forms . . . to learn the language means
learning to think culturally (1996, p. 150). This kind of interpretation has clear implications for children learning two languages,

Bialystok

513

even though she never explores them. Yet many children, perhaps
the majority in the world, advance through the representational
stages of cognitive development with more than one language, at
least to some degree of competence. If language has the guiding
force Nelson credits it with, then applied linguists and psychologists alike need to understand how knowledge of more than one
language, or incomplete knowledge of language, affects the important development of representational systems. Again, the expertise to examine this question is firmly and perhaps uniquely with
applied linguists.
There are also practical reasons that applied linguists need
to address the relation between language and cognition, especially
for educational settings. The most obvious domain in need of
guidance from insights on the language and cognitive factors in
learning is that of bilingual education programmes. There are
many configurations in which instruction is offered to bilingual
children, in one or both languages, and with or without the
intention of moving into the other (e.g., August & Hakuta, 1997).
Lacking is a rational means of determining the costs and benefits
of each type of programme for children with different configurations and proficiency levels in the two languages. For example, in
transitional bilingual education for Spanish-background children
in the United States, it is expected that children will move into
mainstream English programmes once their English skills have
achieved an adequate level of competence. However, there are no
objective means for determining what adequate competence is
(partly because there is no adequate definition of proficiency, as
discussed above), and there is no unequivocal evidence regarding
which language of instruction is more beneficial for children at
different stages of learning. It is possible, for example, that children would profit from spending much longer in an L2 environment while they learned the essentials of history, geography, and
mathematics, even though their English skills were formally
sufficient for them to be transferred out of the bilingual programme. These are empirical questions, and applied linguists are
the ones most able to answer them, already knowing what happens

514

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

when they leave such issues to others to solve: Penfield and

Roberts (1959) had no hesitation in pronouncing upon the correct
method and timing of foreign language instruction based only on
their incomplete research with the brain and personal anecdotes
about language classrooms. At least let the experts address the
issues!
Finally, research is needed into the ways in which knowledge
of languages and writing systems influence the acquisition of
literacy by young bilingual children. Research in early reading,
including the precursors of reading and the acquisition of skilled
reading, has been almost exclusively conducted on middle-class,
monolingual children learning to read English. Again, this research misrepresents the reality for a significant portion of children in schools. Educators need research into the acquisition of
reading when children have limited proficiency with the language
of instruction and restricted early experience in learning the
notational forms of written language. It is not even clear if knowledge of other languages and other writing systems is an advantage
or a liability in trying to figure out the principles of reading and
literacy. It may be prudent, for example, to instil literacy skills in
the childs strongest language irrespective of the language of the
school. These are empirical questions, but their investigation
requires a detailed understanding of how children achieve competence in two languages, the relation between proficiency in each
of those languages and the interaction of this linguistic knowledge
with cognition in the learning process. These are challenges that
applied linguists must face.

Setting the Agenda

The three areas of research identified here, namely, defining
proficiency, exploring neurocognitive dimensions of language use,
and confronting issues of education and development, are each
complex and multifaceted. Furthermore, each is currently inhabited by specialists from various fields, often incorporating several
different fields. Although applied linguists have contributed to

Bialystok

515

each of these areas in some measure, these questions have never

been their primary concern, and they have never been the principal investigators for this research. The new direction for applied
linguistics must be to move into these areas and become full
participants in the pursuit of answers to these complex interdisciplinary questions.
As research becomes more sophisticated and knowledge becomes more complex, progress is increasingly made by interdisciplinary teams of scholars working on common problems. Language
is at the centre of some of the most important new research in the
study of human learning and cognition, and the particular expertise of applied linguists is crucially needed in these enterprises.
The challenge for applied linguistics is to incorporate the knowledge accrued in the past into these directions. For developing
working models of language proficiency, applied linguists will need
to collaborate with theoretical linguists, educators, and language
acquisition researchers. For pursuing studies of brain imaging as
they relate to the acquisition and use of two languages, applied
linguists will need to collaborate with neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists. And for determining educational implications
of bilingualism in learning and development, applied linguists will
need to collaborate with educators, policy makers, and psychologists.
These are the new challenges for applied linguistics: to become part of the community of scholars tackling the most difficult
problems that face researchers in the areas of human intelligence;
to learn the most advanced technologies for investigating problems; to become acquainted with thinking in other fields and
allowing it to shape the way issues are construed. These are
difficult tasks and they require setting aside some preconceived
notions, safe habits, and conventional ideas. They are the responsibility of adulthood.

516

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

References
Ardal, S., Donald, M.W., Meuter, R., Muldrew, S., & Luce, M. (1990). Brain
responses to semantic incongruity in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 39,
187205.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language
minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (in press). New perspectives on the critical period hypothesis
for second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In
A.M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 279299).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P.S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421429.
Dale, P.S., Crain-Thoreson, C., & Robinson, N. (1995). Linguistic precocity and
the development of reading: The role of extralinguistic factors. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 16, 173187.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution
of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fenson, L., Dale, P.S., Reznick, J.S., Bates, E., Thal, D.J., & Pethick, S.J. (1994).
Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, (5, Serial No. 242).
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 315.
Harley, B., & Wang, W. (1997). The critical period hypothesis: Where are we
now? In A.M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 1951). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, R.J., & Nelson, E.M.M. (1992). Bilingualism: Not the exception any
more. In R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 314).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kim, K.H.S., Relkin, N.R., Lee, K.-L., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical
areas associated with native and second languages. Nature, 388, 171174.
Klein, D., Zatorre, R.J., Milner, B., Meyer, E., & Evans, A.C. (1995). The neural
substrates of bilingual language processing: Evidence from positron
emmsion tomography. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bilingual aphasia
(pp. 2336). Oxford: Pergamon.
Kroll, J.F., & de Groot, A.M.B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the
bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A.M.B. de Groot

Bialystok

517

& J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism (pp. 169199). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lemmon, C.R., & Goggin, J.P. (1989). The measurement of bilingualism
and its relationship to cognitive ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10,
133155.
Leonard, L.B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leopold, W. (1939).Speech development of a bilingual child:A linguists record.
Volume I. Vocabulary growth in the first two years. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: Emergence of the
mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, K. (1997). Cognitive change as collaborative construction. In E. Amsel
& K.A. Renninger (Eds.), Change and development: Issues of theory,
method, and application (pp. 99115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neville, H.J., & Weber-Fox, C.M. (1993). Cerebral subsystems within language. In B. Albowitz, K. Albus, U. Kuhnt, H.-Ch. Northdurft, & P. Wahle
(Eds.), Structural and functional organization of the neocortex. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Perani, D., Dehaene, S., Grassi, F., Cohen, L. Cappa, S.F., Dupoux, E., Fazio,
F., & Mehler, J. (1996). Brain processing of native and foreign languages.
NeuroReport, 7, 24392444.
Pinker (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New
York: William Morrow.
Rampton, B. (1997). A sociolinguistic perspective on L2 communication
strategies. In G. Kasper & K. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies:
Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 279303). London:
Longman.
Schreuder, R. & Weltens, B. (Eds). (1993). The bilingual lexicon. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Singleton, D., & Lengyel, Z. (Eds.). (1995). The age factor in second language
acquisition: A critical look at the critical period hypothesis. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Slobin, D.I. (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume
1. The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D.I. (1992). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume
3. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

518

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 4

Weinreich, U. (1968). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton. (First

published as Linguistic Circle of New York Publication No. 2, 1953, New
York: L.C.N.Y.)