Bilingualism with minority languages: Why searching for unicorn language users does not move us forward

Abstract

This paper addresses several problematic scientific practices in psycholinguistic research. We discuss challenges that arise when working with minority languages, such as the notion of monolingual/monocultural normality and its historical origins, the stereotype of native-speakerism, the quest for testing people who fit specific profiles, the implications of the policy that urges scholars to match bilingual groups to monolingual comparison groups, and the use of powerful theoretical narratives that may evoke problematic labels and ableist terminology. These issues invest the field of psycholinguistics with questionable practices that contribute to the marginalization of groups that do not tick the standard normative boxes. Surveying some of the most widespread scientific practices in the field of psycholinguistics, our emphasis is on how several processes and policies may embody stereotypes that contribute to the exclusion of certain groups from the scientific literature, with grievous consequences for the visibility and the representation of some minoritized languages.

The role of minority language bilingualism in spotting agreement attraction errors: Evidence from Italian varieties

“…Indeed, language practices can influence the degree of “fusion” observed among the two co-existing varieties, leading to different processing outcomes. Thus, our findings corroborate the need for considering the sociolinguistic ecologies of bilingual communities [ 71 , 74 , 120 ], especially in situations where non-standard, minority, or regional varieties are involved, because these further invest the bilingual profile with significant variation. Devoting attention to the specific factors behind each bilingual experience could help us figure out where the cognitive effects of bilingualism stem from; an insofar open question with significant repercussions for the overall ability of the field to explain the results in terms of a coherent theory [ 22 ].…”

“…RQ II is motivated by a rich line of studies that stress the importance of considering social and sociolinguistic aspects of the bilingual experience while investigating the cognitive effects of bilingualism [ 71 – 74 inter alia ]. Considering different bilingual profiles may be the key to disentangling the role of factors such as proficiency, degree of use, social prestige, and personal attitudes towards different languages.…”

Towards a just and equitable applied psycholinguistics

“…The authors advocate for the use of frameworks such as usage-based linguistics and multicompetence that center the multidimensional experiences of bilinguals and embrace complexity and call for the research community to examine their designs and theories in order to dismantle the systems that marginalize heritage bilingualism in bilingualism research. Leivada et al (2023, this issue) discuss problematic scientific practices in psycholinguistic research when working with minority languages in their contribution titled “Bilingualism with minority languages: Why searching for unicorn language users does not move us forward.” The paper covers issues such as the notion of monolingual/monocultural normality and its historical origins, native-speakerism, the quest for testing people who fit specific profiles, the policy that urges scholars to match bilingual groups to monolingual comparison groups, and the use of theoretical narratives that may evoke problematic labels and ableist terminology. These issues contribute to the marginalization of groups that do not fit in the standard normative “boxes,” leading to the exclusion of certain groups from scientific literature and having negative consequences for the visibility and representation of minoritized languages.…”

“…How does our own positionality impact our research? By ignoring or avoiding these kinds of questions, we have spent several decades in pursuit of a “unicorn language” (see Leivada et al, 2023, this issue) – a mythical language dissociated from the complexity, diversity, and humanity of actual language. Ultimately, our “insincere intersectionality” has failed us (Tripp, 2023, this issue).…”

How bidialectalism affects non-native speech acquisition: Evidence from Shanghai and Mandarin Chinese

“…This percentage further increases in regions where multiple dialects are prevalent. However, there is a prevailing issue in English as a Second Language research that inaccurately portrays English learners as monolingual speakers, thus failing to represent the reality of English learners worldwide (Leivada et al, 2023). Therefore, the present study is among the few that confronts this bias through a comparative study between Chinese speakers in Beijing where the majority are monodialectal in Mandarin Chinese and Chinese speakers in Shanghai where individuals use two dialects (Mandarin and Shanghai Chinese) in their daily life.…”