̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - language acquisition

Languages still a major barrier to global science, new research finds

fpjl2 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:04:57 +0000

English is now considered the common language, or 'lingua franca', of global science. All major scientific journals seemingly publish in English, despite the fact that their pages contain research from across the globe.

However, a new study suggests that over a third of new scientific reports are published in languages other than English, which can result in these findings being overlooked - contributing to biases in our understanding.

As well as the international community missing important science, language hinders new findings getting through to practitioners in the field say researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

They argue that whenever science is only published in one language, including solely in English, barriers to the transfer of knowledge are created.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge researchers call on scientific journals to publish basic summaries of a study's key findings in multiple languages, and universities and funding bodies to encourage translations as part of their 'outreach' evaluation criteria.

"While we recognise the importance of a lingua franca, and the contribution of English to science, the scientific community should not assume that all important information is published in English," says Dr Tatsuya Amano from Cambridge's Department of Zoology.

"Language barriers continue to impede the global compilation and application of scientific knowledge."

̽��ֱ��researchers point out an imbalance in knowledge transfer in countries where English is not the mother tongue: "much scientific knowledge that has originated there and elsewhere is available only in English and not in their local languages."

This is a particular problem in subjects where both local expertise and implementation is vital - such as environmental sciences.

As part of the study, published today in the journal PLOS Biology, those in charge of Spain's protected natural areas were surveyed. Over half the respondents identified language as an obstacle to using the latest science for habitat management.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge team also conducted a litmus test of language use in science. They surveyed the web platform Google Scholar - one of the largest public repositories of scientific documents - in a total of 16 languages for studies relating to biodiversity conservation published during a single year, 2014.

Of the over 75,000 documents, including journal articles, books and theses, some 35.6% were not in English. Of these, the majority was in Spanish (12.6%) or Portuguese (10.3%). Simplified Chinese made up 6%, and 3% were in French.

̽��ֱ��researchers also found thousands of newly published conservation science documents in other languages, including several hundred each in Italian, German, Japanese, Korean and Swedish.

Random sampling showed that, on average, only around half of non-English documents also included titles or abstracts in English. This means that around 13,000 documents on conservation science published in 2014 are unsearchable using English keywords.

This can result in sweeps of current scientific knowledge - known as 'systematic reviews' - being biased towards evidence published in English, say the researchers. This, in turn, may lead to over-representation of results considered positive or 'statistically significant', and these are more likely to appear in English language journals deemed 'high-impact'.

In addition, information on areas specific to countries where English is not the mother tongue can be overlooked when searching only in English.

For environmental science, this means important knowledge relating to local species, habitats and ecosystems - but also applies to diseases and medical sciences. For example, documents reporting the infection of pigs with avian flu in China initially went unnoticed by international communities, including the WHO and the UN, due to publication in Chinese-language journals.

"Scientific knowledge generated in the field by non-native English speakers is inevitably under-represented, particularly in the dominant English-language academic journals. This potentially renders local and indigenous knowledge unavailable in English," says lead author Amano.

" ̽��ֱ��real problem of language barriers in science is that few people have tried to solve it. Native English speakers tend to assume that all the important information is available in English. But this is not true, as we show in our study.

"On the other hand, non-native English speakers, like myself, tend to think carrying out research in English is the first priority, often ending up ignoring non-English science and its communication.

"I believe the scientific community needs to start seriously tackling this issue."

Amano and colleagues say that, when conducting systematic reviews or developing databases at a global scale, speakers of a wide range of languages should be included in the discussion: "at least Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and French, which, in theory, cover the vast majority of non-English scientific documents."

̽��ֱ��website conservationevidence.com, a repository for conservation science developed at Cambridge by some of the authors, has also established an international panel to extract the best non-English language papers, including Portuguese, Spanish and Chinese.

"Journals, funders, authors and institutions should be encouraged to supply translations of a summary of a scientific publication - regardless of the language it is originally published in," says Amano. ̽��ֱ��authors of the new study have provided a summary in Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese and French as well as Japanese.

"While outreach activities have recently been advocated in science, it is rare for such activities to involve communication across language barriers."

̽��ֱ��researchers suggest efforts to translate should be evaluated in a similar way to other outreach activities such as public engagement, particularly if the science covers issues at a global scale or regions where English is not the mother tongue.

Adds Amano: "We should see this as an opportunity as well as a challenge. Overcoming language barriers can help us achieve less biased knowledge and enhance the application of science globally."

Over a third of new conservation science documents published annually are in non-English languages, despite assumption of English as scientific ‘lingua franca’. Researchers find examples of important science missed at international level, and practitioners struggling to access new knowledge, as a result of language barriers.

Language barriers continue to impede the global compilation and application of scientific knowledge

Tatsuya Amano

Quinn Dombrowski

Atypical welcome

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Opinion: How the British military became a champion for language learning

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:07:04 +0000

When an army deploys in a foreign country, there are clear advantages if the soldiers are able to speak the local language or dialect. But what if your recruits are no good at other languages? In the UK, where language learning in schools and universities is facing a real crisis, the British army began to see this as a serious problem.

In a new report on the value of languages, my colleagues and I showcased how a new language policy instituted last year within the British Army, was triggered by a growing appreciation of the risks of language shortages for national security.

Following the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military sought to implement language skills training as a core competence. Speakers of other languages are encouraged to take examinations to register their language skills, whether they are language learners or speakers of heritage or community languages.

̽��ֱ��UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence Centre for Language and Culture also offers training to NATO standards across the four language skills – listening, speaking, reading and writing. Core languages taught are Arabic, Dari, Farsi, French, Russian, Spanish and English as a foreign language. Cultural training that provides regional knowledge and cross-cultural skills is still embryonic, but developing fast.

Cash incentives

There are two reasons why this is working. ̽��ֱ��change was directed by the vice chief of the defence staff, and therefore had a high-level champion. There are also financial incentives for army personnel to have their linguistic skills recorded, ranging from £360 for a lower-level western European language, to £11,700 for a high level, operationally vital linguist. Currently any army officer must have a basic language skill to be able to command a sub unit.

A British army sergeant visits a school in Helmand, Afghanistan. Defence Images/flickr.com, CC BY-NC

We should not, of course, overstate the progress made. ̽��ֱ��numbers of Ministry of Defence linguists for certain languages, including Arabic, are still precariously low and, according to recent statistics, there are no speakers of Ukrainian or Estonian classed at level three or above in the armed forces. But, crucially, the organisational culture has changed and languages are now viewed as an asset.

Too fragmented

̽��ֱ��British military’s new approach is a good example of how an institution can change the culture of the way it thinks about languages. It’s also clear that language policy can no longer simply be a matter for the Department for Education: champions for language both within and outside government are vital for issues such as national security.

This is particularly important because of the fragmentation of language learning policy within the UK government, despite an informal cross-Whitehall language focus group.

Experience on the ground illustrates the value of cooperation when it comes to security. For example, in January, the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit urgently needed a speaker of a particular language dialect to assist with translating communications in an ongoing investigation. ̽��ֱ��MOD was approached and was able to source a speaker within another department.

There is a growing body of research demonstrating the cost to business of the UK’s lack of language skills. Much less is known about their value to national security, defence and diplomacy, conflict resolution and social cohesion. Yet language skills have to be seen as an asset, and appreciation is needed across government for their wider value to society and security.

Wendy Ayres-Bennett, Professor of French Philology and Linguistics, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Wendy Ayres-Bennett (Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) discusses the impact of the military's new language policy.

Defence Images

A British army sergeant visits a school in Helmand, Afghanistan.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Opinion: There are also drawbacks to being bilingual

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:17:08 +0000

̽��ֱ��ability to speak more than one language certainly has its perks. It enables you to work in another country, for example, interact with people while travelling, or consume foreign media.

Bilingualism is very common – current estimates are that more than half of the world’s population is bilingual and that this prevalence is rising.

Cognitive psychologists have been interested in how bilingualism shapes the mind for almost a century. There are those who suggest that in order to speak in one language, bilinguals have to suppress the influence of the other. Research from the past three decades has argued that this unique form of language processing “trains the brain” in the use of non-verbal abilities known as “executive functions” such as ignoring irrelevant information or shifting attention.

Bilinguals of different ages and cultural backgrounds have been shown to be faster and more accurate than their monolingual peers when performing cognitive tasks demanding these abilities. Furthermore, it has been argued that bilingualism may lead to a delayed onset of symptoms associated with dementia.

But the scientific community recently has become increasingly sceptical of the bilingual advantage hypothesis. One of the main points of criticism is that differences between monolinguals and bilinguals when it comes to executive function are not always apparent. This has generated a heated debate, especially in the Bilingualism Forum of the scientific journal Cortex, about whether bilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages or not.

Fresh challenge

It appears that research on bilingualism is at a turning point. We need to pursue a new approach to understand, beyond those individual examples of executive functions, how the bilingual mind works. We have attempted to address this challenge by testing whether bilinguals and monolinguals differ in terms of how accurately they can assess their own performance.

This ability is called metacognition and is associated with, but separate from, other areas where bilinguals have been shown to have an advantage. Surprisingly, however, we found that bilinguals had less insight into their performance than their monolingual peers.

Joining the dots

In an effort to find out whether bilinguals also display advantages in other cognitive abilities (beyond executive function), we evaluated metacognitive processing in young adult monolinguals and bilinguals. Metacognition is the ability to evaluate one’s own cognitive performance or simply to have “thoughts about thoughts”.

This ability is a crucial function of everyday life, when we have to make decisions where the outcomes are not immediate. For example, when an entrepreneur reviews their company’s performance, they need to take into account a variety of factors – including, for example, revenues and expenses – in order to evaluate whether the company is doing well. Confidence in their ideas and performance can be the determining factor in whether they decide to keep investing time in their company or give up and apply for another job (the so-called “exploitation exploration trade-off”).

In our research, we presented participants with a situation in which they had to observe two circles on a screen and guess which one contained more dots. Sometimes the difference was obvious, making the decision easy, while at other times the decision was very difficult (for example, one circle contained 50 dots and the other 49). Participants were then asked to determine how confident they were in their decision on a scale from less to more confident than normal.

Illustration of the metacognition paradigm employed by Folke et al., 2016. Folkes et al, 2016, Author provided

Over the course of two experiments, we found that bilinguals and monolinguals were equally likely to choose the circle containing the highest number of dots. However, monolinguals were better able than bilinguals to discriminate between when they were right and when they were wrong. In other words, bilinguals had less insight into their performance than monolinguals. This went against our initial predictions, as we expected to find a bilingual advantage in metacognitive processing. These results indicate that bilingualism may be associated with cognitive disadvantages as well as benefits.

What’s next?

̽��ֱ��Multilanguage & Cognition lab (MULTAC) at Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ�� is currently undertaking a three-year project funded by the Leverhulme Trust to enhance our understanding of the bilingual mind.

̽��ֱ��lab has already published evidence of cognitive advantages associated with bilingualism, suggesting that bilinguals are better at filtering out verbal interference as well as visual attention, specifically spotting the difference in a visuo-spatial working memory task.

This new research indicates that bilingual people may experience a disadvantage in metacognition. We hope that this new direction in bilingualism research will encourage further attention and enable us to resolve theoretical debate through the adoption of open-minded, empirically driven exploration of cognitive effects (both positive and negative) that may be associated with learning more than one language.

Julia Ouzia, PhD candidate in cognitive psychology, Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ�� and Tomas Folke, PhD candidate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Tomas Folke (Department of Psychology) and Julia Ouzia (Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ��) discuss the cognitive disadvantages that may be associated with learning more than one language.

R/DV/RS

Bilingual street name sign in Bangor, North Wales

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Cambridge to explore benefits of multilingualism with new AHRC research project

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:46:06 +0000

At a time when more than half the world’s population speaks more than one language in their daily lives, and almost one in five UK primary school pupils have a first language other than English, what does it really mean to be multilingual, and what are the opportunities and challenges of multilingualism for individuals and society?

These questions are amongst those to be answered by a new research project at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, thanks to an unprecedented £4million grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). ̽��ֱ��project, called Multilingualism: Empowering Individuals, Transforming Society, aims to not only understand people’s experiences of speaking more than one language, but also to change attitudes towards multilingualism and multiculturalism throughout society and amongst key policy-makers.

̽��ֱ��project is led by Professor Wendy Ayres-Bennett of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, who will work alongside co-researchers in Belfast, Edinburgh and Nottingham as well as international partners in the Universities of Bergen, Girona, Peking and Hong Kong.

Professor Ayres-Bennett said: “Our aim for this project is to create a cultural shift in the conception and practice of language learning. To achieve this, we will consider the value of multilingualism and multiculturalism to the individual, to society and to international relations. We want to have a transformative effect on language learning, as well as influencing the structures of education, society, culture, public services and policy.”

From increased job prospects and economic growth to international relations and diplomacy, there are many clear benefits to multilingualism, yet the strong presence of diverse languages within the UK is often overlooked. ̽��ֱ��multilingualism project at Cambridge will investigate the relationship between language, culture and identity and the opportunities and challenges multilingualism presents to individuals, communities and society in order to change people’s attitudes towards multilingualism, and to stimulate interest in language learning at all levels.

Multilingualism: Empowering Individuals, Transforming Society is one of four projects being funded by the AHRC as part of the Open World Research Initiative, which aims to explore the central role languages play in relation to contemporary issues such as social cohesion, migration, security, business and diplomacy, and to have a substantial impact on the study of modern languages in the UK. ̽��ֱ��Cambridge project, together with other AHRC programmes at the ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford, Manchester ̽��ֱ�� and King’s College London, will work with over 100 partners ranging from schools and sixth form colleges to the BBC and government departments in the UK and abroad. ̽��ֱ��combined research will span 22 languages and 18 academic disciplines.

Professor Ayres-Bennett said: “One of the strengths and distinguishing features of this project is that it will bring together researchers from a range of different subjects, from education, linguistics and literary studies to cognitive psychology and neuroscience.”

̽��ֱ��AHRC’s Chief Executive, Professor Andrew Thompson, stated: “ ̽��ֱ��Open World Research Initiative has an ambitious set of aims. As a major, multi-million pound investment, it seeks to raise the profile and visibility of modern languages and the crucial role they play – within their universities, within the arts and humanities, and within society more widely. ̽��ֱ��AHRC’s flagship Open World Research Initiative will make a vital contribution to our understanding of how modern languages in the UK can best develop to meet the needs of global society over the coming years.”

̽��ֱ��Cambridge project will also examine the relationship between multilingualism at home and language learning in school and university, moving beyond the “traditional” divisions between European and non-European languages to reinvigorate interest in language education. Professor Ayres-Bennett commented “the decline in pupils taking language GCSE and A-levels is a matter of concern, whilst the number of children with English as an additional language is often portrayed negatively. Conversely, the value of community and minority languages is underestimated. We can learn much from looking at these issues together.”

Summing up the aims of the project, Professor Ayres-Bennett said: “In short, we wish multilingualism to come to be considered the norm in the UK, as it already is for speakers of community languages. We will learn much from researching multilingualism within and outside of the UK, and so our findings will have international impact and demonstrate how languages can help us respond to the key issues of our time”.

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge is to launch a major new research project to study the benefits of multilingualism to individuals and society, and transform attitudes to languages in the UK, as part of the AHRC’s Open World Research Initiative.

We want to have a transformative effect on language learning, as well as influencing the structures of education, society, culture, public services and policy

Wendy Ayres-Bennett

Quinn Dombrowski

Atypical welcome

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

̽��ֱ��communicative brain

lw355 — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:00:57 +0000

̽��ֱ��ability to communicate using language is fundamental to the distinctive and remarkable success of the modern human. It is this capacity that separates us most decisively from our primate cousins, despite all that we have in common across species as intelligent social primates.

A major challenge for the cognitive neurosciences is to understand this relationship: what is the neurobiological context in which human language and communication have emerged, and what are the special human properties that make language itself possible?

For the past 150 years, scientific thinking about this relationship has been dominated by the concept of a single, central language system built around the brain’s left hemisphere. Pioneering 19th-century neurologists Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke noticed that patients with left hemisphere brain damage had difficulties with language comprehension and language production. Two areas of the left frontal and temporal lobes, Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, and the bundle of nerve fibres connecting them, were identified as critical for speaking and understanding language.

Recent research in our laboratories suggests major limitations to this classic approach to language and the brain. ̽��ֱ��Broca–Wernicke concept captures one important aspect of the neural language system – the key role of the left hemisphere network – but it obscures another, equally important one. This is the role of bi-hemispheric systems and processes, whereby both left and right hemispheres work together to provide the fundamental underpinnings for human communicative processes.

A more fruitful approach to human language and communication will require a dual neurobiological framework in which these capacities are supported by two intersecting but evolutionarily and functionally distinguishable subsystems. ̽��ֱ��historical failure to make this separation has, we suggest, severely undermined scientific attempts to understand language, both as a neurocognitive phenomenon in the modern human, and in terms of its evolutionary and neurobiological context.

Dual systems

A strong evolutionary continuity between humans and our primate relatives is provided by a distributed, bi-hemispheric set of capacities that support the dynamic interpretation of visual and auditory signals in the service of social communication. These capacities have been the object of intensive study in monkeys and apes, and there is good evidence that their basic architecture underpins related communicative functions in the human.

In the context of human language comprehension, the bi-hemispheric systems support the ability not only to identify the words a speaker is producing – typically by integrating auditory and visual cues in face-to-face interaction – but also to make sense of these word-meanings in the general context of the listener’s knowledge of the world and of the specific context of speaking.

Where we see divergence between humans and other primates is in the domain of grammatical (or syntactic) function. Primate communication systems are not remotely comparable to human language in their expressive capacities. Human language is much more than a set of signs that stand for things. It constitutes a powerful and flexible set of grammatical devices for organising the flow of linguistic information and its interpretation, allowing us to represent and combine abstract linguistic elements, where these elements convey not only meaning but also the subtle structural cues that indicate how these elements are linked together.

It is the fronto-temporal network of regions in the left hemisphere that mediates these core grammatical functions in humans. This is a network that differs neuroanatomically from those of the brains of other primates, showing substantial increases in size, complexity and connectivity.

Although it’s not yet understood just how these evolutionary changes in the left hemisphere provide the neural substrate on which grammatical functions depend, it is clear that they are essential. When the left hemisphere system is damaged, the parallel right hemisphere regions cannot take over these functions, even when damage is sustained early in childhood.

Critically, however, the left hemisphere system that has emerged in humans neither replaces nor displaces the bi-hemispheric system for social communication and action found in both humans and other primates. It interacts and combines with it to create a co-ordinated process of linguistically guided communication and social interaction.

Functional separability

̽��ֱ��most direct evidence for a dual system approach is the ability to separate these systems in the modern human. Using a combination of behavioural and neuroimaging techniques, we have been able to demonstrate this both in patients with left hemisphere brain damage and in unimpaired young adults.

In the research with patients (conducted with Dr Paul Wright in the Department of Experimental Psychology and Dr Emmanuel Stamatakis in the Division of Anaesthesia) we focus on the comprehension of spoken words and spoken sentences. In initial testing, patients perform classic measures of syntactic function, where they match different spoken sentences to sets of pictures. Shown three pictures – a woman pushing a girl, a girl pushing a woman and a woman teaching a girl – patients will correctly match the sentence ‘ ̽��ֱ��woman pushed the girl’ to the first picture but will incorrectly match the passive sentence ‘ ̽��ֱ��woman is being pushed by the girl’ to the same picture. ̽��ֱ��second sentence requires the use of syntactic cues to extract the right meaning – just using the order of words is not sufficient.

These behavioural tests of syntactic impairment are linked, in the same patients, to their performance in the neuroimaging laboratory, where they hear sentences that vary in their syntactic demands, and where the precise extent of the injury to their brains can be mapped out. When we put these different sources of information together, we see that damage to the left hemisphere system progressively impairs the syntactic aspects of language processing – the more damage, the worse the performance.

Critically, however, the amount of left hemisphere damage, and the extent to which it involves the key fronto-temporal circuit, does not affect the patients’ ability to identify the words being spoken or to understand the messages being communicated – so long as syntactic cues are not required to do so. These capacities are supported bi-hemispherically, and can remain relatively intact even in the face of massive left hemisphere damage.

In work carried out with Dr Mirjana Bozic, then based at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge, we have been able to delineate these systems in the undamaged brain, using functional neuroimaging to tease out the different processing regions that are engaged by speech inputs with different properties.

Listeners hear either words that are specifically linguistically complex (words like played, which have the grammatical inflection ‘ed’), or words that make more general demands on the language processing system (words like ramp, which have another word, ram, embedded in them). Using an analysis technique that identifies the separate dimensions of the brain’s response to these sets of words, we see that the linguistically complex words activate a response component that is restricted to the left fronto-temporal region. By contrast, words that are perceptually complex, due to increased competition between the whole word and the embedded word, activate a strongly bi-hemispheric set of regions, partially overlapping with the linguistic component. Even in the intact brain, therefore, we can see the dynamic allocation of processing resources across the two systems, as a function of their joint roles in the communicative process.

Implications

A dual systems account of the ‘communicative brain’ is likely to have important and illuminating consequences for the sciences of language and its disorders.

In the context of left hemisphere brain damage we can better appreciate – and build upon for rehabilitation – the substantial bi-hemispheric communicative capacities the patient may still possess. In first- and second-language acquisition, we can better understand the learning trajectories that lead to language proficiency in terms of the relative contributions of these two aspects of communicative function.

̽��ֱ��approach also provides a new perspective on the variation between languages, where different languages may load more or less heavily on the different computational resources made available by the two systems. Most importantly, it enables us to clarify and focus the core issues for a neurobiological account of language and communication, a scientific domain clouded by ideology and inconsistency.

What is it about the human brain that makes language possible? Two evolutionary systems working together, say neuroscientists Professor William Marslen-Wilson and Professor Lorraine Tyler.

William Marslen-Wilson and Lorraine Tyler

Functional neuroimaging of the human brain

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes