Thoughts on Psychology

Hah, brief.

One potential benefit of having a blog up and running at the start of my final year of study is that it gives me a forum to voice my thoughts. My years here, although intensely enjoyable, have been marred by regular frustration drawing from my regret at having chosen such a soft science. Almost everything I have real curiosity about stems from the big three (Bio, Chem and Phys) or from the applied frontier of computing studies. Ask me if Wifi signals transmit successfully through gel or water. I've got no bollocking idea. I'm not even sure how Wifi works let alone the tenacity of its transmissions. Despite this, I damn well want to know. On that subject alone I'd happily go much further than Wikipedia can take me.

I have friends who study detailed subjects such as anatomy. I've been told of fascinating (albeit incredibly freaky) explorations inside the human body, aided by a sharp bugger of a knife and a direct passion to see for real how it all works. Similarly, I'd like to know how to fix bust hardware using a technique more measured than whapping out the BIOS battery and hoping that makes all the problems go away.

Sometimes I think, 'I have come to uni to study how to be a student.' I've woken up, more than once, to the terrible fear that I might never have any skills to offer. I know a bit about various areas of psychology, but I've been taught by academics, not practical demonstrators. They chose the honourable and infinitely useful path to teach and to research, but I'm not studying to become a teacher. If I want to learn how to investigate a witness, aid an individual with mental problems, give dietary advice or uncover a repressed memory; I am on the wrong course. I know the theory - but I can't do it. Yet.

And I suppose that's the real issue about an undergraduate degree in psychology. It's a stepping stone. Further qualifications are required in order to know enough about anything to be effective in the real world. Indeed the British Psychology Society require psychologists to take it up a notch before they can call themselves chartered psychologists. Fair enough! I wouldn't want to be attended by me in a mental health ward. With other undergrad courses offering students all they need to succeed, I sometimes feel like I'm running a race but my lane is a treadmill.

-----------

After all that, I definately have to start from day 21 again. My course isn't all bad. If we're speaking purely of the educational aspect, I've have some tremendous tutors and some subjects that have really stuck with me. More than anything else, I feel perfectly prepared to undertake a serious research study and deal with very difficult statistical problems. I'd like to give a basic overview of one area which made me feel like I could contribute something to a dinner conversation and feel proud for having done so.

This January I had the pleasure of writing an essay on the benefits / detriments of bilingualism in children. At the time I was dating a woman from Germany and had been making an effort to learn some of the language. Anyone who has tried starting a second language at 20 will know about that ordeal! I compared case studies of single language and bilingual children and examined the differences in their language development in five different areas: Phonology (sounds), semantics (meanings), syntax (grammar), pragmatics (social rules) and vocabulary. At the beginning I stressed the massive benefit of starting life with a free language, and that only severe detriments could counter-balance that advantage.

Oller et al. (1997) studied both dual and single language learners from age 4 to 18 months, examining their sound development. Correct syllable formation occured at the same rate and the proportion of syllables to vowels were the same. So far so good. Fennel et al. (2002) found that bilingual children had difficulty applying new labels to an old object if the labels only differed by one consonant. Where single learners became proficient in this at around 17 months, dual learners were delayed by about 3 more. Bell et al. (2001) believed the problem to be a matter of exposure. In their study they noticed that English-Welsh learners were quicker in establishing correct usage of the Welsh 'Trill-r' the more exposure to the language they had. (More exposure = better understanding? Brilliant piece of detective work there guys.)

Dopke (1998) and a horde of other researchers found that dual learners had difficulty in using different word orders or grammatical rules (like french irregular verbs). Again this was dependent at least partially on exposure levels, but Paradis and Genesee (1996) were unsure whether low exposure limited actual development of complex syntax, or just the confidence to use it. Pearson et al. believed first words were learned at approximately the same age (1997), and that the rate and pattern of vocabulary development was similar in both groups (1994). With both languages combined, dual-learners had a much larger vocabulary than singles. (I initially would have believed that capacity would be limited by having to learn two words for each meaning, but apparantly not.)

Bilingual code-mixing is the act of combining the rules of two different languages in the same utterance or conversation. It's practically always grammatically inconsistent and is usually used intentionally as a form of slang amongst experienced bilinguals. In earlier development it can be used to fill gaps in one language (e.g. "a schon rabbit" could be used if the child forgot the english word for beautiful.) You can work out the many uses for the skill without too much thought. Mixing occurs in a particularly rough way if dual learners learned one of both languages in a sloppy fashion; but more often children know which language to use when, and when to mix. Deuchar and Quay (2000) noted that children found mixing each language system both natural and easy.

The plus sides are huge, and there were only a few down sides that happened in only some situations.The main one was called subtractive bilingualism. This occurs when the second language replaces the first due to a much larger cultural impression. This can happened through sudden exposure through trade, immigration or conquest (e.g. Wright et al. (2000) found Canadian Inuits taught only in English and French at school soon forgot how to speak their native tongue despite the actions of their parents.) Moving to an english-centered country like the USA can general overwhelm languages only used by two parents of the young child.

The summary? Dual language learning is just as natural and achieveable as learning a single language, but results in a pretty incredible social advantage. Cases of subtractive bilingualism are arguably more a concern for social scientists attempting to slow the decline of languages used only by smaller populations. They are unfortunate, but as the children learn the language most used in their current society, they are not exactly at a developmental disadvantage. So parents considering teaching their children two languages: So long as you expose them to both, you've got nothing to fear and plenty to gain.

Phew. That's enough for tonight I reckon. Bring on more subject material like this in fourth year and I may get back to you with a more positive outlook :). If you're keen to read any of the sources mentioned above, please send an email and I'll send you the full reference.