Introductory Remarks

Research interest in the linguistic phenomenon of multilingualism has been increasing over the last decades (see e.g. Edwards, 1994) and it has turned out that multilingualism is not only far more common than originally expected – and therefore of greater sociolinguistic importance – but research into multilingualism is expected to exert considerable influence on linguistic theory. Today an increasing number of opinions are voiced according to which linguistic research should no longer be modelled on the monolingual speaker but should take the bilingual as its point of departure (see Romaine, 1989; Cook, 1993a).

As the majority of the world's population is multilingual, research on linguistics should be centred on the multilingual speaker as the norm, not on the monolingual individual. As Cook (1993b: 245) suggests, basing psycholinguistics on the ideal monolingual speaker (homo monolinguis) in fact constitutes a misunderstanding of at least the majority of native speakers. It has become obvious that our conception of the speaker's language system has to be flexible enough to accommodate the command of more than one language. This requirement necessitates a reevaluation of the dominant conceptions of second language acquisition (henceforth SLA) within a multilingual context (see Kachru, 1994) and the reassessment of the relevant theories on the basis of crosscultural evidence (see Sridhar, 1994). Multilingualism therefore must not only be accepted as the linguistic norm, it must also be realised that it is closely linked to the concepts of personal identity, ethnicity and multiculturalism. We will, however, not touch upon this issue as we do not consider it important for our discussion here (see, e.g. Hamers & Blanc, 1989: 60–83).

The dynamic view outlined in this book attempts to provide a new model and a new set of concepts for the interpretation of psycholinguistic phenomena observed in speakers of more than one language. Although there is no immediate precedent to be found in psycholinguistic (or multilingualism) research – as the psychodynamics of multilingualism have only in part been addressed so far – a systems-theoretic approach as can be found in chaos and complexity theory has been with us in other sciences, such as biology and physics, where it has risen against the trend of reductionism for quite a while now (see Gleick, 1987).

It is probably true to say that recent research into multilingualism has raised rather more questions concerning the acquisition of languages and the nature of human language ability than it has provided answers. Traditional conceptions and explanations of language learning and resulting crosslinguistic effects have thus been called into question. On the basis of these findings it is suggested that our interpretations of language learning, what it is to know a language, etc. urgently require revision. The authors believe that a large number of theories currently discussed in research on language acquisition and multilingualism lack an overall theoretical foundation.

What distinguishes the systems-theoretic view from other approaches to multilingualism? The first claim made by the authors is that the dynamic systems approach, as outlined here, is a novel approach to the field, although the concept of language as a system is by no means a new one (see, e.g. Schweizer, 1979). The novel aspects introduced by the dynamic model include a psycholinguistic focus on the systems-theoretic approach that is based on research on the behaviour of living systems and a dynamic interpretation of the systems model. Whilst other models are satisfied to create a systems interpretation of the field of research, this model makes a point of a dynamic representation of multilingualism. In the dynamic model of multilingualism (henceforth DMM) it does not suffice to determine the relations between various factors within the system, but predictions concerning the typical development of these variables are also attempted.

A systems-theoretic interpretation as suggested by DMM allows a realistic view of the phenomenon of multilingualism, which transcends traditional approaches to multilingualism. This model not only takes into account the methodological insight into the fact that a bilingual speaker is more than two monolingual individuals joined together (see Grosjean, 1985) but also connects SLA research to an originally purely sociolinguistic approach to bi-/multilingualism by integrating knowledge of language learning from various strands of research. Thus on the basis of a closer investigation of multilingualism we obtain a number of research goals that have so far been ignored in linguistic research dominated by the monolingual paradigm. DMM is a psycholinguistic model which sees language change on an individual level as a function of time, that is, a focus is placed on the variability and dynamics of the individual speaker system, an aspect of multilingual learning hitherto largely ignored.

DMMtakes an innovative approach to the subject matter in at least two ways: firstly, and in accordance with systems-theoretic principles, DMM views a multilingual speaker as a complex psycholinguistic system comprising individual language systems (LS1, LS2, LS3, etc.) and consequently applies insights gained from the observation of the biological development and behaviour of living organisms to research on multilingualism. Secondly, DMM tries to create an explicit model of multilingualism specifying dependent and independent variables and making predictions about the development of multilingual systems.

Obviously this is a rather ambitious aim at this stage of research. The modelling provided does, however, fulfil the Chomskyan criterion of explicitness (see Chomsky, 1965: 4), a precondition of effective theory development, and also provides a framework within which hitherto inscrutable or insurmountable problems of multilingualism can be addressed. Whilst one might argue that this step is methodologically premature, it is certainly not methodologically naive. It is rather the counterargument that more empirical research has to be conducted prior to the construction of such models that stems from a certain naivety concerning the independence of experience or empirical findings of theoretical preconceptions. As all experience is necessarily theory-laden it is methodologically advisable to create an explicit model of the theoretical preconditions of research conducted in multilingualism, and it is this explicitness that in the authors' view research on multilingualism very often lacks (see Herdina, 1990).

The focus of the book is theoretical and the suggested model is intended to provide an essential and useful framework for future research, both...