After reading this week’s materials, I gained an understanding of how bilingualism should be understood, valued, and practiced. I also found the case study of Oscar both interesting and informative. Some key takeaways I have on bilingualism are that it should be seen as a lived, hybrid, and relational experience, and it is closely tied to family identity and interaction. Bilingualism is not simply the coexistence of two separate languages; we can’t really isolate one language from the other in a bilingual home.
García et al. (2018) described dynamic bilingualism as the flexible use of one’s entire linguistic repertoire to create meaning, rather than treating languages as separate, bounded systems (pp. 4-5). They compared bilingualism to an all-terrain vehicle, able to adapt fluidly to different contexts and communicative needs (p. 4). Similarly, the concept of translanguaging shows that bilingual speakers naturally move across languages, tones, and modes to express themselves and connect with others (p. 5). Yu (2016) helped me visualize this idea through the case study of Oscar’s family. Although the parents intended to raise Oscar in an English-only environment based on therapist suggestions, their everyday speech blended Chinese grammatical structure. They used phrases such as “eat rice” and “go sit nice,” which follows the tone and structure of Chinese grammar within English sentences (p. 430). This created a hybrid and culturally influenced English that reflected both their language background and emotional world. Oscar was able to understand and respond to these phrases by laughing/showing other emotions. Both articles show that bilingualism is not just the coexistence of two codes but a lived practice that connects family, emotion, and communication.
In addition, the discussion of monolingualism in treating autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in Yu’s article was very interesting. It made me reflect on my own summer internship at a bilingual special education center back home. The children there were taught and supported in both Chinese and English, rather than using only one language for communication. This contrasts with the English-only approach criticized in Yu’s study, where professionals discouraged Oscar’s family from using their home language (p. 428). In my experience, the bilingual practices adopted by the center were helpful for the children’s daily conversations. Since the students needed the most help with producing language, knowing two languages helped them communicate, focus, and feel comfortable expressing themselves, rather than constraining their language development. From my perspective, this opened more pathways for understanding and participation, and allowed adults to see how they could better support the children. Seeing teachers naturally translanguage between Chinese and English when facilitating their classes showed me how bilingualism can be an asset for social and cognitive development.