Esperanto and Education:
Toward a Research Agenda

SECTION I

First/Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism/Bilingual Development

Part I: First Language Acquisition

A. General Observations

First language acquisition research intensified in the 1960s in an unprecedented fashion. These new efforts led to increased understanding of theoretical underpinnings in language education, as well as the development of more effective approaches to teaching and learning. Although the distinction between teaching and learning normally required no explanation, it is only since the early 1970s that focus shifted from teaching to learning. Whereas pedagogy and teaching had formerly been the central focus, this shift meant a closer look at learners. In educational spheres, this has led to: (1) "learner-centered" educational approaches; (2) focus on learning to understand why even the best teaching methods and techniques sometimes fail; (3) awareness of learner variables (such as differences of personalities, motivations and learning styles); and (4) recognition that learners exert an active role in developing their own language competence.

B. The Research: An Overview

Connections between Ll and L2 Research

Over the past several decades, first language (L1) acquisition research has exerted enormous influence on the study of second language (L2) learning. On the theoretical side, earlier concepts of imitation and habit-formation (Skinner, 1957) were replaced by notions which stress the child's creativity in building knowledge of the language to which exposed (Chomsky, 1965). On the practical side, L1 researchers developed new techniques for collecting and analyzing children's speech, providing evidence about the sequences and processes involved. This work impacted on the more recently emerging field of L2 research. It also made it possible to contrast similarities and differences between L1 and L2 development. It is anticipated that researchers in both areas might eventually produce a theory of language development accounting for both L1 and L2 learning within a single framework.

A Shift from Behaviorism to Cognitive Code Theories

In general, Skinner's behaviorist theory was largely put aside because of its inadequacies in explaining the complexities involved in language development. Language is more than "verbal" behavior, and involves a complex system of underlying rules, a notion sometimes known as a "cognitive code theory." These rules which the child internalizes permits the speaker to create and understand an infinite number of sentences. In other words, we develop an underlying linguistic "competence" which accounts for the "performance" which we can actually observe (Chomsky, 1965).

Conversely, the child is not exposed directly to the rules but only to other people's speech (or performance) from which the rules are deduced. The learning task is therefore quite complex, perhaps more so than any other learning task that humans undertake. Yet it occurs early in life and with incredible speed. By ages 3 to 5, children have internalized most of the basic structures of their language. And although different children are clearly exposed to different actual speech, they arrive at the same underlying rules as other children in their community. This suggests that they pass through similar sequences in acquiring or constructing their rule systems which increasingly resemble the adult system. In other words, the child's language is shaped by external forces while also being creatively constructed from within. This "creative construction" hypothesis has significant implications for L2 development as well.

An Innate "LAD" and the "Optimal Age"

Other aspects of L1 research with implications for L2 development are: the fact that children are believed to be born with an innate capacity for acquiring language (the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD) (McNeill, 1970) which may already contain the "universal" features found in all languages (Bach & Harms, 1968), and the "critical or optimal age" hypothesis" (Lenneberg, 1967). If indeed an optimal age exists for language development -- peaking at about the age of 12 -- then variables affecting the L2 may be sought in other psychological factors, or in the nature of the learning situation itself.

L1 and Internal Cohesion

Finally, another aspect of L1 with implications for L2 learners is the view that children's language cannot be viewed from the perspective of fully developed adult systems but rather in terms of its own underlying system (Slobin, 1971). That is, at every stage of development the child's language is internally cohesive following its own underlying rule system, modified in stages until it eventually corresponds to that of the adult community. If this is so, then child (and adult learner) errors are significant not as "errors" but rather in what they reveal about the developmental stage of the moment and the underlying rules at that stage. This has tremendous implications for approaches to teaching languages.

To summarize, language educators now recognize that whereas past emphases have been almost entirely on pedagogy, approaches to teaching can only be improved when they arise from a fuller understanding of the learning process itself.

C. Implications

Research findings with regards to L1 acquisition should bear the same implications for learning both natural and constructed languages. The most significant implications seem to be that:

• the L1 is developed through a creative act rather than as the building up of complex habits;
• the learner develops a complex system of underlying rules (competence), deduced from the speech of others (performance);
• the learner comes equipped with an innate capacity for acquiring language (the LAD);
• the LAD accounts for different learners following similar developmental sequences (varying slightly by age and maturation);
• while we create our language constructively from within, the input is provided externally in the environment;
• our system tends toward internal cohesion at each stage of development and errors (or deviations from the adult model) reveal where we are at in the process;
• there may be a critical or optimal age for developing native-like ability;
• there are both similarities and differences between L1 and L2 development.

We may infer, therefore, that all of the above apply to individuals who acquire Esperanto as their L1. What is not clear, however, is whether the simplicity of Esperanto allows a child speaker to develop communicative abilities sooner and at earlier stages than a child acquiring some other language, or whether maturational constraints influence the process despite the simplicity of the system. For example, Esperanto is agglutinative, with almost no allophonic or allomorphic variations, with simplicity and regularity of grammar, and no multiple roots for the same concepts (Yaguello, 1991: 120). On the other hand, if an Esperanto-speaking child does indeed develop language ability earlier, an intriguing and related question might be accelerating effects this might have on the child's developing cognition.

Even where processes and ages may coincide between Esperanto and other tongues as a L1 where oral skills are concerned, learning to read and write may present a different slant. As Mario Pei has commented,

While there is no inherent ease or difficulty in spoken languages to those who acquire them from birth by the natural process, there is a very definite inherent ease or difficulty in writing systems, based upon their link to the language's spoken sounds . . . . [In other words,] despite the theoretical "equality" of all spoken tongues, practical considerations will narrow the range of choice . . . to comparatively few. (Pei, 1969: 10).

Part II: Second Language Learning

A. General Comments

Research into L2 learning, unlike L1 research, involves additional complicating factors. Whereas the child learner is a novice in terms of language habits and cognitive development, the L2 learner already possesses a native language, a set of habits, and has developed cognitively. Some of these factors may be helpful to the L2 task (positive transfer), whereas others may hinder the process (negative transfer or interference). What has not been generally investigated are similarities and/or differences involved in learning a "natural" language as opposed to a constructed one like Esperanto. In other words, are some languages more difficult or easier to learn than others? Let us start first with an overview and return to this question in the section which follows.

B. The Research: An Overview

Behaviorist Theory

From the behaviorist point of view, L2 learning consists largely in overcoming differences between L1 and L2 systems. For this reason, earlier teaching syllabi were normally based on a "contrastive analysis" of the two linguistic systems with the resultant teaching sequence organized according to a "hierarchy of difficulty" (Stockwell et al., 1965). The hierarchy is based on a comparison of linguistic choices the learner must make in his or her L1 and the L2 he or she is learning. The highest level of difficulty occurs when there is no choice at all in the learner's L1 but an obligatory choice in the L2. Although such analyses have served as basis for hundreds of L2 courses, the contrastive assumption has not always been upheld in fact. Put another way, linguistic "difference" and "difficulty" are not identical concepts. The former derives from linguistic description and the latter from psychological processes which may explain why there is no exact correlation. To this might be added a related behaviorist assumption which states that learner errors are reliable indicators of difficulty. Again, empirical evidence shows that this is not always the case and reasons have been provided to explain why this is so.

The "Creative Construction" Hypothesis and Learner Errors

In sharp contrast to the above, more recent L2 research puts forth the "creative construction" hypothesis. Under this model, errors in the child's speech (or in the speech of older L2 learners) are not seen as a faulty version of the adult's or of the native-speaker's speech. Rather, their developing language is recognized as having its own underlying system which can be described at every point on its own terms. More importantly, errors provide insights about their learning strategies and mechanisms. This shift in attitude based on emerging research required a concomitant shift in approaches to language teaching. Learner errors no longer were signs of failure but rather evidence of a system under development. Moreover, errors were viewed as of two types: interlingual errors (that is, those resulting from the transfer of rules from the L1), and intralingual errors (incorrect notions derived by direct reference to the target language [TL] itself). Errors represented the "product" of learning and also provided glimpses about the underlying "process" of learning.

Intralingual errors are normally instances of overgeneralization. Whereas generalization is a fundamental learning strategy in all domains (that is, we construct "rules" about categories of behavior and phenomena), our predictions are sometimes wrong because: (a) either the rule does not apply in a particular instance, or (b) the item belongs to a different category covered by another rule. Both transfer and overgeneralization are similar processes in that they represent aspects of the same underlying learning strategy. Both result from the fact that the learner uses what he or she already knows about language to make sense of a new experience (Corder, 1978).

In contrast to (over)generalization is (over)simplification. This occurs when the learner takes confusing or complex linguistic data and renders them more manageable by fitting them into a framework of categories and rules that he or she already knows. A common form of simplification, for example, involves the omission of inflections and other morphemes and redundancy reductions (that is, elimination of items redundant to conveying the intended message, found in all languages).

To summarize, learner errors result from three types of strategies: (1) transfer of rules from L1; (2) generalization and overgeneralization of L2 rules; and (3) redundancy reduction by omitting elements of the L2. Other errors may result not from any underlying systems, but simply from superficial influences such as performance factors and the immediate communication strategies utilized. All speakers, even skilled native-speakers, make performance errors such as a "slip of the tongue," losing track of a complex structure, abandoning an utterance mid-stream, and so forth. However, the second type is more characteristic of a learner who is compelled to express himself on a topic for which he or she may not have adequate competence. It is not always possible to ascertain when an error results from this type of communicative challenge as opposed to an underlying rule incompletely learned. Finally, learner errors may also result from faulty instructional materials which do not adequately or appropriately explain the differences between two forms, resulting in learner confusion.

Interlanguage: Fossilization and the Internal Syllabus

Two other aspects of L2 research involve fossilization and the learner's internal syllabus. The first refers to the notion that although we expect a learner to progress along the learning continuum so that his or her "interlanguage" moves closer to the TL model, it often happens among adults that some errors never completely disappear. Such errors are described as "fossilized" (Selinker, 1972). Hence, we can distinguish between "transitional" errors (those in process of disappearing) and those which never disappear entirely.

The second concept, the learner's internal syllabus, arises from the creative construction hypothesis which recognizes that learners are endowed with an "internal syllabus" for learning language. If their natural processes are permitted to operate (active strategies for language learning, coupled with generalization and transfer), the internal syllabus will determine to a large extent the learning path followed. This internal syllabus may be in conflict with the external syllabus often determined by teachers when the L2 is learned in a classroom setting. Hence, the learning sequence may not match the teaching sequence. The result is that learners may either be helped or hindered by teaching, depending on the match. In a natural learning setting (that is, a "field situation") where tutoring is not involved, the learner of course is free to follow his or her own internal syllabus to the fullest. For this reason, we need to learn how to subject teaching to learning and not the reverse which, unfortunately, is more commonly the case.

The notion of an internal syllabus suggests that we need to know more about the natural sequence which learners follow, if one exists. By knowing more about the phases and stages of language development, in children as well as adults, educational practices can be designed to help more and hinder less. On the other hand, although most L2 research supports the notion of internal sequences and induction of the underlying systems for language, learners also adopt many unanalyzed formulas and prefabricated patterns (for example, greetings and salutations, simple commands and utterances, stock phrases, and the like). Routine formulae are often learned as unanalyzed units, rather than being generated from underlying rules. If this is the case, there seems to be a continuing role for some habit-formation and patterned drills in combination with newer approaches to language teaching.

C. Learning Variables

Learner Differences

Besides clarifying those aspects of language development which learners share, both L1 and L2 research also point to the differences among individual learners. The precise nature of these differences, however, has not yet been fully explored and it is not entirely clear the extent to which: (a) differences simply reflect how quickly, or how far, specific learners move along a common path; and (b) whether differences may also mean that learners sometimes progress along different paths of development. Evidence seems to support the first possibility. Whichever the case, however, both bear important implications for teaching.

Problems which make it difficult to arrive at firm conclusions are: (1) how to define and measure language "proficiency"; (2) how to measure non-linguistic factors which affect language learning (for instance, empathy, extroversion, etc.); (3) how to be sure that a direct cause-and-effect relationship is involved between the first two criteria; and (4) how to know which factor is the cause and which the effect. Non-linguistic factors believed to influence language development may be grouped in three categories: (1) motivation; (2) opportunity; and (3) language learning ability.

Motivation, Opportunity, Ability and Other Attributes

Considering the factor of motivation, three important aspects are relevant. First is the learner's communicative need for the L2 since the primary motive for learning a language is that it provides a means of communication with someone else. Secondly, attitudes of the learner towards speakers of the L2 community are important. Whether the learner wishes for more contact with L2 speakers, the purpose and nature of learning the L2, and feelings about the second culture and language, are all questions of attitude which influence L2 development. These attitudes often develop as a result of direct or indirect experience with the L2 community, but they may arise even in the absence of any experience. Nonetheless, both affect learning and proficiency. Finally, researchers posit a motivation continuum in which "instrumental" and "integrative" are at opposite ends (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The learner with integrative motivation has genuine interest in the L2 community and desires closer contact, whereas the learner with instrumental motivation is more interested in the utility which knowledge of the L2 provides in furthering other goals.

Even if a learner is motivated, a separate factor which may affect learning is an individual's opportunity for learning. Aspects of this factor include: (a) opportunities for using the L2; (b) the emotional climate of the learning situation (whether in the environment or the classroom); (c) linguistic input, or the type of language to which the learner is exposed; and (d) effects of formal instruction. These aspects all have direct implications for language teaching.

Finally, the learner's ability contributes another dimension to our consideration of learner variables. These include cognitive aspects (for instance, intelligence and aptitude) as well as considerations of personality, age and active strategies which learners adopt. The link between general intelligence (I.Q.) and L2 ability seems strong enough to merit using a school learner's average grades in other subjects as a good means of predicting L2 success (Pimsleur, 1968). However, the exact nature of language aptitude is unclear although abilities often included in this aptitude are: (1) the ability to identify and remember sounds; (2) the ability to memorize words; (3) the ability to recognize how words function grammatically in sentences; and (4) the ability to induce grammatical rules from language examples (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). Other cognitive differences may dispose learners to particular kinds of learning and thus place them at an advantage or disadvantage in certain types of instruction. For example, some learners may be more visually or auditorially inclined, others are happier in deductive approaches (proceeding from rules to examples) or in inductive approaches (discovering rules from examples).

Personality characteristics also influence the L2 learning task. However, these are easier to demonstrate in empirical studies rather than substantiate through other types of research. Qualities frequently cited are extroversion, assertiveness, adventuresomeness, self-esteem, tolerance for ambiguity, empathy, and so on (Tucker et al., 1976; Heyde, 1979; Naimen et al., 1978; Guiora et al., 1975).

Beyond the Optimal Age

It has long been held as axiomatic that children learn a L2 better than adults. The most common explanation for this has been the "critical period" (or "optimal age") when the brain is flexible and language learning occurs naturally and easily. This period ends around puberty which suggests that adolescents and adults can no longer avail themselves of these natural capacities. L2 learning, in contrast, is normally an artificial and laborious process. This notion is being increasingly scrutinized since experience shows that older learners can also acquire high levels of proficiency in an L2. Difficulties in comparing the learning ability of younger and older learners are related more often to time, attention, communicative need, opportunities for use, and the like. Moreover, it has even been suggested that older learners learn more efficiently (Snow & Hoefnagel-Hîhle, 1978). Given equal opportunities, younger learners may be superior only in pronunciation skills which may be attributed to psychological and cognitive aspects of older versus younger learners.

More recently, with the graying of our society, increasing attention has been placed on older learners and senior citizens. Several studies suggest that learning is indeed a life-long process and that people age 55 and beyond can still learn languages. These same studies do, however, point to specific traits and characteristics of older learners while suggesting appropriate teaching strategies. This has led to the notion of "andragogy" in contrast to "pedagogy," the latter deriving from a focus on younger individuals (pedia = "children" in Greek). (See Appendices I.A and I.B.)

Learner Strategies

Finally, researchers have identified active strategies commonly employed by learners which help them learn more effectively (Naimen et al., 1978; Wesche, 1979). These include, for example, repeating silently what is heard, thinking through one's own answer and comparing to the one given, memorizing dialogues, identifying oneself with one's foreign language identity, seeking opportunities for communication in the TL, and finding ways to widen the scope for social interaction.

The factors just described can be grouped into those which are internal and/or external to the learner himself. It is important for teachers, nonetheless, to help to foment those which are internal to the learner while also attending to the external factors which teachers normally control. Such ideas support movement toward learner-centered approaches, viewing learners as their own best resource, learner responsibility, and collaborative efforts among learners and between learners and teachers.

D. Models of L2 Learning

As researchers have added to knowledge about the processes by which L2s are learned, sequences in which they are learned, and factors which influence how well they are learned, others have attempted to integrate these findings into conceptual models. Two basic models have emerged: the "skill-learning" model and the "creative construction" model. Both have implications for teaching and, despite their contrasts, they can most probably be integrated into a single framework (Littlewood, 1984).

The Skill-learning Model

This model emphasizes the use of a L2 as a performance skill. As with other kinds of performance, it has both cognitive and behavioral dimensions. The cognitive dimension involves internalization of rules for appropriate behavior (for example, grammar rules, procedures for selecting vocabulary and social conventions governing speech). The behavioral dimension involves automation of these plans so they can be converted into fluent performance. This occurs mainly through practice. When a skill is being learned, component parts of the TL may be isolated and practiced in discrete units; at other times the total skill may be practiced. Division into part-skills is possible due to the hierarchical nature of language use. That is, using language involves performing tasks, each of which is composed of sub-tasks, each of which is composed of sub-sub-tasks, and so on. These assumptions underlie many of the teaching practices in vogue today which address parts of language on the expectation that these will eventually be integrated and available for future use.

The Creative Construction Model

In sharp contrast is the creative construction model which views L2 learning as a process of creative construction. It is based on the assumption that the learner constructs a series of internal representations of the L2 system. This occurs as a result of natural processing strategies and exposure to the L2 in communication situations. The learner's internal representation develops gradually, in predictable stages, and in the direction of the native speaker's competence. Evidence of this progress is seen through the learner's utterances, which suggest the rules which have been internalized through strategies previously described (for example, generalization, transfer, redundancy reduction and imitation). The internal processing mechanisms operate on the input from the language environment and are not directly dependent on the learner's attempts to produce the language alone. However, the learner's own utterances provide evidence of the rules (or "competence") being developed and internalized. Chief differences between this model and the skill-learning model lie in the role they attribute to the learner's own attempts to produce the language.

These models can be represented diagrammatically as follows:

Synthesis of the Two Models

Differences aside, both models make similar assumptions about the goal of language learning; that is, learners should eventually possess a set of cognitive structures ("competence") by which they can create language purposefully but flexibly ("performance") in response to communicative needs. However, the models also differ in that they draw attention to two kinds of learning: subconscious learning and learning which occurs through conscious effort. In the more general field of the psychology of learning, this is akin to contrasts between "informal" and "formal" learning, "spontaneous" and "controlled" learning, and "natural" and "didactic" learning environments. In the current literature, this distinction has led to the term "acquisition" used for subconscious aspects of learning, while the term "learning" is used for conscious aspects.

Other Related Aspects

Finally, there are several other considerations related to both models. The first such consideration is in viewing L2 as a process of "acculturation" in the sense that learning L2 promotes two types of need: function (ability to convey a message) and social (ability to use language in a socially acceptable way). The latter issue, that of social acceptance, suggests learner behavior which is increasingly acculturated toward the TL and target culture. The second general consideration here is in viewing L2 learning as the elaboration of a "simple code." In other words, this means that all attempts to learn a L2 resemble not only the early speech of children but also pidgin forms of language. All are "reduced" systems or "simple codes" which share similar features. Finally, the third consideration is in viewing L2 learning as a form of social learning. In other words, integration of both models into a single framework can also occur by placing them into a broader learning model of human development. According to recent work in social learning, learning depends on the same basic conditions mentioned above:

• motivation;
• internal representation of crucial features of the behavior to be learned;
• practice to convert this competence into performance; and
• feedback about the success of the resulting behavior.

E. Using an L2

L2 research has also shed some light on how learners use their L2 competence in order to communicate. When considering L2 use, three aspects are worth mentioning: (1) how learners vary their speech in the L2 according to the task or situation; (2) communicative strategies they use to compensate for gaps in their knowledge; and (3) how their speech is received by native speakers.

Variability in Speech

L2 learners are often inconsistent in their performance. This is a normal phenomenon since rules are mastered gradually over time rather than suddenly. Consequently, the frequency of correct forms and/or errors changes progressively over time (Pienemann, 1980; Dickerson & Dickerson, 1978). The "monitor model" (Krashen, 1982) suggests that conscious learning can aid unconscious learning by helping learners to monitor their speech based on linguistic knowledge learned by conscious means.

Communication Strategies

When learners are engaged in communicating through the TL, they often find it difficult to express certain notions because of gaps in their linguistic repertoire. Often they find alternative ways of getting their meaning across. The specific way of coping is what is known as a "communication strategy" (Tarone, 1980). A variety of strategies commonly identified by learners when they find themselves in such a situation include:

• avoidance of communicating;
• changing the topic;
• adjusting the message;
• paraphrasing;
• giving their best approximation of the idea;
• creating/inventing new words;
• switching to their L1;
• using non-linguistic devices (gestures, draw a picture, point, and so on); and
• seeking help.

Finally, a related aspect of a more empirical type of research focuses on the reactions of listeners to learners trying to express themselves in the L2. This is often tested by providing non-native speech samples and asking native speakers to judge their acceptability and intelligibility. Tentative results show that:

• errors have less effect on intelligibility than is normally assumed;
• intelligibility often depends not only on the nature of the error, but more commonly on the wider context which may help the listener to interpret meaning;
• vocabulary errors affect communication more than grammar errors;
• in grammar, "global" errors hinder communication more than "local" errors;
• learners who employ many communication strategies are more difficult to understand;
• speech which is heavily distorted by hesitations, false starts and self-corrections, makes understanding more difficult;
• errors are not all alike; some provoke more negative reactions than others;
• the amount of "irritation" caused by errors depends mainly on their effect on communication;
• native speakers are often more lenient than non-native language teachers; and
• native speakers do not form negative judgments about the intelligence and personality of learners on the basis of their shortcomings in linguistic or communicative ability.

L1 and L2 research has greatly enriched our understanding of learning processes, despite gaps in our knowledge. It provides a source of insights and ideas which can inform our experience and help in our constant search for better ways of teaching. The final criterion, nonetheless, may be not whether a concept is valid from a theoretical perspective, but whether it produces more effective practice (the "praxis" connection).

Research implications which have had profound significance for teaching second languages in the classroom are that:

• learning occurs both consciously and unconsciously;
• learning can occur without production;
• learners are disposed to follow natural sequences of development;
• communication can take place through a reduced system; and
• learning is affected by complex psychological factors.

F. Implications

In general, the findings of L1 and L2 acquisition/learning cited above derive from research involving many different languages. The principles outlined, therefore, are not language-specific and are assumed to apply to the development of all L2s. However, it is also assumed that the languages involved are "natural" languages. Given this situation, let us review the most significant implications and then consider what they may suggest about learning a constructed language, like Esperanto, as a second tongue.

Implications

There are a whole variety of implications for Esperanto teaching and learning to be derived from the existing research base on L2 teaching and learning. Specifically, these implications can be summarized as follows:

(1) With Regard to L2 learners

• L2 learning differs from L1 acquisition given additional complicating factors.
• individual learners differ in terms of motivation, opportunity, ability and attributes.
• individual differences are evident in terms of how quickly and how far individual learners progress in L2 development.

(2) With Regard to the L2 Content and Learning Process

• L2 learners deduce rules (competence) from other people's speech (performance), however formulaic aspects of speech may also be learned as unanalyzed segments.
• the learner's Ll may help or hinder L2 learning depending on their similarities and differences (a contrastive analysis).
• contrasts between linguistic structures are not always reliable guides as to areas of learner difficulties (that is, "difference" does not equate with "difficulty").
• the highest level of "difficulty" in the L2 occurs when the learner's L1 requires no choice, but obligatory choice exists in the L2.

(3) With Regard to Learner Errors

• learner errors reveal the current stage of development in a continuing process.
• errors may be either interlingual or intralingual.
• errors normally result from transfer of rules from L1, overgeneralization or simplification, and redundancy reduction (as well as from faulty or unclear materials or instructions).

(4) With Regard to Interlanguage

• learners possess an innate internal syllabus (or natural sequence) for processing language which determines their developmental stages or phases.
• fossilization of some items occurs within some learners developing through the interlanguage process.

(5) With Regard to Proficiency

• we need to define language "proficiency" better, and ways of measuring it.
• learners are often inconsistent in performance and vary over time.

(6) With Regard to Learner Strategies

• learners often develop their own strategies for learning and communicating in the TL.
• factors affecting learning may be of an internal and/or external nature.
• conscious learning can aid sub-conscious acquisition processes.

(7) With Regard to Learning Models

• aspects of both a "creative construction" and "skill-learning" approach may be useful.

(8) With Regard to Language and Cross-Cultural Processes

• learning an L2 also involves a process of "acculturation" (that is, initiates an intercultural process).

This aside, it must be recognized that any communication system, natural or constructed, also inherently provides a paradigm for perceiving and interpreting the phenomena of the world. Each language's structure is necessarily a system of categorization and classification, and so on, which affects and interacts with the L2 learner. Finally, the entire intercultural field which has gained prominence in recent years most certainly can contribute powerful insights to those factors about Esperanto and Esperanto culture which attract or repel individuals, and to the choices and resultant consequences which emerge when individuals choose to embark on a quest to learn Esperanto.

(9) With Regard to Learner's Speech

• certain aspects of the learner's speech produce more negative reactions than others.
• certain aspects of the learner's speech help or hinder intelligibility more than others.

Claims Specific to Esperanto Education

A few words are in order at this point with respect to the claims that are often offered specifically with respect to Esperanto. Because Esperanto strives to avoid the irregularities, inconsistencies and complexities of national/ethnic languages (while preserving the fullest linguistic expression), several assumptions are commonly made about its learnability, including (a) Esperanto is more learnable (that is, that any given level of proficiency can be achieved in Esperanto with less effort and in shorter time than with any national/ethnic language; and (b) its superiority in learnability is much greater than any inherent biases in its structure which favors speakers of some languages (for example, speakers of Indo-European languages) over others.

One item of research which alludes to the learnability of languages with "regularity of classifications." This is clearly the case of Esperanto. Lenneberg (1957), for example, found that "the similarity of a classification to the one used in one's own language has a minor impact on the learnability of that classification, but the regularity of the classification has a major (facilitative) impact." While this does suggest that Esperanto, with its regularity of classifications, should be an easier learning task than one which is more irregular, there may also be other support yet to be adduced from a more thoughtful review of the literature presented.

While this is the case, there is no reason meanwhile to exclude or deny ample empirical evidence which supports both claims stated above. For example, as an occasional teacher of Esperanto, I have regularly found that most features of its sixteen-rule grammatical system can be learned and mastered in but a few hours. The observed evidences become dramatic when compared with the number of hours required, for example, to achieve similar levels in English, Russian, Quechua, etc., or any other national/ethnic language. Clear proficiency scales, predictive charts, etc., can help to demonstrate the relative time required to achieve comparable levels across many languages in contrast with Esperanto.

Part III: Bilingualism and Bilingual Behavior

A. General Comments

B. Exploring Bilingual Behavior

Individual vs. Societal Bilingualism

Behavioral aspects of bilingualism can only be experienced by the individual person. In other words, at the outset we must distinguish "individual" from "societal" bilingualism. The incidence of individual bilingualism is surprisingly extensive around the world and in some areas, bilinguals outnumber monolingual speakers. Societal bilingualism, on the other hand, refers to groups in which more than one language is the norm. It does not necessarily follow, however, that "individuals" in those societies are also bilingual; in fact, in many cases, it is not uncommon to find resistance between the different speakers toward learning the language of the other group (for example, Canada, Belgium, the former U.S.S.R., South Africa, and so forth).

Many who live and work interculturally develop some degree of communicative ability in a L2; others, however, do not. Children, however, normally acquire the two or more languages to which they are exposed with little thought and no specific teaching as long as there is "clarity and consistency" of exposure (Fantini, 1985). For both child and adult, there are many paths to the development of bilingual abilities, resulting in varying degrees of proficiency and types of behavior. Hence, bilingual individuals present a variety of behavioral patterns.

Profiles of Bilingualism

Given their diversity, it is better to characterize individual behaviors as a profile rather than by a single definition. A profile would include aspects such as: (1) languages used; (2) types of languages involved (and the linguistic relation between them); (3) function, that is, the conditions of learning and use; (4) degree of proficiency in each language and in each of the skill areas; (5) alternation patterns, that is, the degree of switching across languages; and (6) interaction, that is, the ways in which the languages affect and influence each other.

Despite behavioral variations, most people idealize bilinguals as speakers with equal ability in each of the tongues involved and in all skill areas. Yet, "complete bilingualism" or "equalingualism" is an impossibility. Dual language use always involves dissimilar abilities, even when the speaker is perceived as native-like by others in each system.

C. Descriptors and Types of Bilingualism

To the continuum of bilingual behaviors, ranging from "incipient" behavior to that approaching equalingualism, can be added various qualifying descriptors such as "simultaneous" bilingualism (the concurrent development of dual systems), "passive" bilingualism (receptive abilities only, such as comprehension and reading, but not also speaking and writing which characterize "active" bilingualism), "balanced" bilingualism (suggesting native-like behavior in each), and so on.

Two other important descriptors are "coordinate bilingualism" and "compound bilingualism," given their implications with regards to developmental patterns and language use (see Albert & Obler, 1978: 227-236). Coordinate bilingualism typifies individuals developing dual systems from infancy, with each language acquired directly in a separate context (for instance, one language learned at home, another at school; or one from one parent and the second from another, etc.). The result is that the speaker generally has no explicit linguistic or mental connections bridging the two languages. This explains why bilinguals fluent in dual languages require training to become professional interpreters or translators.

Compound bilingualism, conversely, typifies individuals who have already acquired a L1 and eventually learn a L2 (often in a classroom setting). This situation commonly produces coordinate speakers in that the L2 is often learned in the context of the first and usually among peers sharing the same native tongue. Development of the L2 is characteristically through association with the L1, resulting in conscious linguistic connections between both. The speaker formulates thoughts in the L1, and then translates or converts these into L2 expression.

Bilingual Behavior as Differentiated Behavior

No matter how explained, bilingual behavior is always "differentiated" behavior. That is, bilingualism requires that at some point the speaker be able to choose between different linguistic sets since both cannot be used simultaneously. Appropriate language choices are contingent on the awareness and ability to separate languages so that language A can be used separately as needed from B, even though there may also be appropriate occasions when A and B are intermixed.

D. Language Choice and Social Variables

E. Patterns of Language Use

a. X1 >> A >> X2 // Y1 >> B >> Y2
Monolingual use of a native language; each set of speakers uses a single code.

b. Y1 >> AB >> X2
Monolingual use, even though the single code is derived from integration of dual language sources.

c. X >> A >> B >> Y
Compound use in which the speaker relies on the Ll to construct expression in the L2.

d. X1 -> A >> X2 // X1 -> B >> Y1
Coordinate use in which the speaker uses each of two languages directly without reference to the other) when speaking to persons of the same language background.

e. X1 >> A = B >> X2
Code switching, or alternation between the two languages available to the bilingual speaker.

f. X1 >> A <-> B >> Y1
Interference across languages, that is, inappropriate or unproductive code switching when speaking to someone who doesn't share both languages.

g. X1 >> A <-> B >> X2
Transference, that is, appropriate and productive code switching and/or mixing when speaking to someone who shares the same two languages, enriching the communicative process.

h. X1 >> A &/= B >> X2
Predominantly monolingual use of a single code, with only occasional transfer.

i. X1 >> C >> Y1
Use of a common tongue which is non-native to both parties involved.

j. X1 >> A (not B) >> Y1
Attempts to communicate in a language both parties do not share, most probably resulting in limited communication or miscommunication.

To reiterate, (a) represents communication patterns available to all speakers, including monolinguals, whereas (j) depicts a situation where limited or no communication transpires. The speaker's dual languages, however, permit additional options, represented in b. through i. Although some patterns are clearly more effective than others for communicating, options are normally sensitive to context variables.

It is interesting to note that just as bilinguals make language choices as appropriate to each situation, so too do all speakers when making choices among styles (or "registers") within the same language. Style within language refers to the various ways we modify and adapt speech behavior in accordance with setting, topic, interlocutors, and so on. When speaking to children, for example, we use a markedly different style from that used with an employer or supervisor; or when talking with a spouse we adapt our speech in a way which significantly differs from how we might talk with a total stranger. In this sense, monolingual speakers make stylistic choices as appropriate to each context in ways similar to how bilingual speakers choose between languages.

F. Developing Bilingualism in Adulthood

It has been suggested that an optimal age exists for acquiring dual languages in a native-like fashion. Nonetheless, it is also well known that many individuals develop significant skill in a L2 well beyond puberty. Educators and researchers often compare development in child and adult language in hopes of improving approaches to teaching and learning other languages. At times, the similarities in their development have been highlighted; and at others, their differences. Both similarities and differences, of course, exist.

Contrasts between L1 and L2 development can be grouped around several themes: (1) time (that is, essentially how much time children and adults spend in the process of developing the L2); (2) exposure patterns (for example, whether the learner is active or passive, immersed in L2, or has only occasional contact, etc.; (3) context or setting (for instance, whether a classroom or a real life situation); (4) developmental sequences (variations between L1 and L2 processes); (5) cognitive aspects; (6) biological factors; (7) sociological factors; (8) psychological factors; (9) learning strategies; (10) teaching methods or other interventions employed; (11) areas of communicative competence to which individuals are exposed (for example, linguistic, paralinguistic, extralinguistic, sociolinguistic aspects); and (12) whether or not the languages under development are related to their cultural context. Each of these factors can be further viewed in terms of how they help or hinder development of dual languages. For the adult, unfortunately, more factors may potentially hinder than for the child. Understanding both the similarities and differences will help both teachers and learners to engage more effectively in second or foreign language development at each stage throughout life.

G. Bilingualism and Biculturalism

It seems impossible to develop a L2 without also being affected culturally in some way. The extent to which one becomes bicultural while becoming bilingual depends in part on the level of proficiency attained in the L2 and the degree of experience one has with L/C2 speakers. Generally speaking, one might expect coordinate speakers to be more bicultural than compound speakers; however, even compound speakers will have had their native cultural paradigm, or worldview, affected to some degree. If the L2 is learned in a classroom, its cultural content and context may be maximized or minimized (more commonly the latter) depending on how it is taught. Unfortunately, language educators often treat the L2 culture as incidental to linguistic instruction. Currently, this may be changing as more teachers become aware of the importance of culture to the development of communicative competence.

H. Cross-Cultural Effectiveness

A second language option permits the possibility of conceptualizing, expressing and interacting in alternative ways which most monolingual speakers would find hard to imagine. In the words of Joshua Fishman,

. . . not only does the bilingual master two different codes but he masters two different selves, two different modes of relating to reality, two different orders of sensitivity to the wonders of the world. (Fishman, 1966)

Although two languages expand the basic paradigm, bilinguals can also polarize the world in terms of the contrasts they know. Bilinguals, of course, can still argue and disagree; and like the monolingual, they may still hold on to certain prejudices (possibly those common to the speakers of each of the two languages they know). In other words, bilingualism is not a guarantee necessarily of greater acceptance of differences, yet the paradigm is expanded just a bit further. On the other hand, increasing studies speak of "cognitive flexibility" while other reports on cross-cultural effectiveness point to increased curiosity, tolerance, and understanding of differences. If this is so, then surely three (or more) languages may help move speakers even further in these directions. Whereas bilinguals may have moved from a mono-vision of the world, they may also tend to polarize the world in terms of the two views they now hold. Some believe that learning a L3 or L4 helps individuals even more toward extrapolating not only differences but also commonalities among the peoples of the world, and ultimately toward a better understanding of our common humanity.

The development of competence in other languages for cross-cultural effectiveness is obvious. "If you want to know about water, don't ask a goldfish," someone once said. In other words, the monolingual/monocultural individual has no perspective on him or herself, no way to look back on what she or he has always taken for granted. This becomes clearer as one understands bilingual behavior more fully. It is extremely ethnocentric to think that one can be interculturally effective while remaining only in one's L1. Yet many interculturalists do just this. Although it is true that one can use a language of wider communication like English, for example, in a multitude of situations abroad, one is nevertheless disenfranchised from an inside view of another culture (an "emic" as opposed to an "etic" view) without knowing the language which is its principal reflection, encoding its collective wisdom, and serving as the repository for the thoughts of generations of speakers of that language.

Coupled to cultural access and insights which the L2 provides is the experience one undergoes when dealing with others in a language which is not one's own. Efforts to make oneself understood with limited fluency is often a humbling experience which helps build empathy and understanding. Finally, it would be arrogant and narrow-minded for those living and working in a multicultural context to think they can be effective interculturalists without making an effort to learn about other people on their own terms. Bilingual and multilingual abilities, then, are integral to intercultural communicative competence and fundamental to cross-cultural effectiveness.

I. Implications

Research on bilingualism and biculturalism presents good cause for bolstering attempts to have individuals develop a L2. These notions apply as well to Esperanto education. Following are highlights with discussion of the implications for Esperanto education:

(1) With Regard to the Phenomenon of Bilingualism

• individual bilingualism is different from societal bilingualism.
• bilingualism is a complex phenomenon and not well understood.
• bilingualism involves a continuum, from incipient to the theoretical level of equalingualism.
• children exposed to two languages will automatically develop bilingually; this is not necessarily so for adults.

(2) With Regard to Bilingual Development

• bilingual development involves attitude, as much as knowledge, and skill.
• there are many paths to bilingualism; no two cases are alike.
• developing an L2 (that is, bilingualism) in adulthood is both similar to and different from bilingual development in the child.

(3) With Regard to Bilingual Behavior

• there are many different types of bilinguals.
• bilinguals may have differing proficiency levels in each of the skill areas.
• bilinguals are best described through a profile of characteristics.

(4) With Regard To Dual Language Use

• bilingual behavior is differentiated behavior.
• bilinguals have various options; for example, to code switch codes or code mix.
• the patterns of dual language use can be defined in finite patterns.
• the choice of patterns depends on context and social variables.

(5) With Regard To Bilingualism and Intercultural Competence

• bilingualism generally insures biculturalism, whereas the reverse is not necessarily true.
• bilingualism fosters an emic as opposed to an etic cultural view.
• bilingualism aids intercultural competence and is integral to it.

Selected References for Section I

Albert, Martin, and Obler, Loraine. 1978. The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. New York: Academic Press.

Bach, E., and Harms, R. T. 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E., ed. 1991. Language Processing in Bilingual Children. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, J. B., and Sapon, S. 1959. Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Chastain, Kenneth. 1976. Developing Second Language Skills: Theory to Practice, 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Corder, S. P. 1978. Language-learner language. In Richards, Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning, pp. 71-93.

Dickerson, L. J., and Dickerson, W. B. 1978. Learning to pronounce: Research responses to classroom concerns. English Teaching Forum 16, 4: 13-15.

Fantini, Alvino E. 1992. Exploring bilingual behavior. In Interperspectives: Proceedings from the CISV Symposium, Seoul, Korea. In press.

Fantini, Alvino E. 1991. Becoming better global citizens: The promise of intercultural competence. Adult Learning (February): 15-19.

Fantini, Alvino E. 1989. Language and worldview. The Journal of Baha'i Studies 2, 2: 13-18.

Fantini, Alvino E. 1985. Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1966. The implications of bilingualism for language teaching and language learning. In Valdman, Trends in Language Teaching, pp. 121-132.

Gardner, R. C., and Lambert, W. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guiora, A. Z.; Paluszny, M.; Beit-Hallahmi, B.; Catford, J. C.; Cookley, R. E.; and Dull, Y. C. 1975. Language and person: Studies in Language Behavior. Language Learning 25, 1: 43-61.

Hakuta, K. 1986. Mirror of Language. New York: Basic Books.

Hamers, J. F., and Blanc, M. H. A. 1989. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Harley, Birgit; Allen, Patrick; Cummins, Jim; and Swain, Merrill. 1990. The Development of Second Language Proficiency. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hatch, E., ed. 1978. Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Heyde, A. 1979. The Relationship between Self-Esteem and the Oral Production of a Second Language. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan.

Hyltenstam, K., and Obler, L., eds. 1989. Bilingualism Across the Lifespan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, L. G., ed. 1969. Description and Measurement of Bilingualism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Krashen, Steven. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 1991. Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly 25, 2: 315-350.

Larsen-Freeman, D., and Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.

Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lenneberg, E. 1957. A probabilistic approach to language learning. Behavioral Science 2: 1-12.

Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McNeill, D. 1970. The Acquisition of Language. New York: Harper and Row.

Naimen, N. M.; Fröhlich, M.; and Stern, H. H. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Pei, Mario. 1969. Wanted: A World Language. Public Affairs Pamphlet no. 434. New York: Public Affairs Pamphlets.

Peinemann, M. 1980. The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix.

Pool, J. 1992. Preliminary Report on Esperanto Education. Letter dated 26 June.

Richards, J., ed. 1978. Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ritchie, William, ed. 1978. Second Language Acquistion Research: Issues and Implications. New York: Academic Press.

Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. The International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-23l.

Simões, António, Jr., ed. 1976. The Bilingual Child/El niño bilingüe. New York: Academic Press.

Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Snow, C., and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. 1978. Age differences in second language acquisition. In Hatch, Second Language Acquisition, pp. 333-344.

Ståhlberg, S. 1992. Eksperimenta projeko pri alfabetigo en Esperanto. Esperanto 1034, 2: 35.

Stockwell, R.; Bowen, J. Donald; and Martin, John W. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tarone, E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30, 2: 417-431.

Tucker, G. R.; Hamayan, E.; and Genesee, F. H. 1976. Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review 32, 3: 214-226.

Valdman, A., ed. 1966. Trends in Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vann, R., and Abraham, R. 1990. Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly 24, 2: 177-198.

Yaguello, M. 1991. Lunatic Lovers of Language: Imaginary Languages and Their Inventors. London: Athlone Press.

SECTION II

Teaching and Learning Esperanto: The Research Base

A. Background

B. The Claims Made for Esperanto

. . . many of its [Esperanto's] supporters make much wider claims for Esperanto. A quasi-religious fervour is often associated with the language, and Esperanto is frequently linked by its speakers with the cause of world peace. (Forster, 1982: 3)

1. Esperanto is easier, and faster, to learn than are national/ethnic languages. This claim is most commonly manifested in comparisons of the learning time involved in acquiring competence in Esperanto with that needed for a national/ethnic language, although the regularity of Esperanto's structure is also often used to support the claim that it is easier to acquire than a national/ ethni language (see Esperanto Handbook, 1988; Falgier, 1959; Glossop, 1991, 1988; Leon-Smith, 1987; Markarian, 1964; Sherwood, 1982a, 1983; Sonnabend, 1979; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
2. Esperanto, because of its logical and a priori nature, can be taught more efficiently and explicitly than can national/ethnic languages. The basic idea here is that while national/ethnic languages are generally best taught inductively (see Section I of this report), this is not necessarily the case with Esperanto, and, further, that direct, explicit instruction will make both teaching and learning more efficient. The fundamental idea here is that because Esperanto strives to avoid the irregularities, inconsistencies and complexities of national/ethnic languages (while at the same time preserving the fullest possible degree of linguistic expression), several assumptions are commonly made about its learnability. Specifically, it is often assumed that (a) Esperanto is more learnable (that is, that any given level of proficiency can be achieved in Esperanto with less effort and in shorter time than with any national/ethnic language, and (b) that its superiority in terms of learnability is much greater than any inherent biases in its vocabulary or structure that would favor speakers of some languages (for example, speakers of Indo-European languages) over others.
   
   
3. The learning of Esperanto has propaedeutic effects with respect t the learning of other languages, and perhaps even other subject matter. In other words, the learning of Esperanto will reduce the time needed for the learning of other languages (and perhaps other subject matter, such as geography, mathematics, etc.). As an investment, in short, learning Esperanto may have significant benefits unrelated to the acquisition of the international language itself (see Aronson, 1991; Esperanto Handbook, 1988; Falgier, 1959; Fisher, 1921; Frank, 1987a, 1987b; Halloran, 1952; Leon-Smith, 1987; Markarian, 1964; Richardson, 1988; Sherwood, 1983; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
4. The learning of Esperanto has positive benefits for students' knowledge and understanding of their own language, as well as of language in general. The argument here is essentially the same as that offered for foreign language study in general: in many cases, students learn the basic concepts of grammar as these relate to their own language through the study of other languages (see Aronson, 1991; Esperanto Handbook, 1989; Falgier, 1959; Markarian, 1964; Richardson, 1988; Sherwood, 1982a, 1983; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
5. The learning of Esperanto has a positive effect on students' self-confidence. As a result of successful learning of Esperanto, students will feel more competent and empowered, and this will result in a higher level of self-confidence (which, in turn, can result in improved learning in other areas) (Aronson, 1991; Leon-Smith, 1987; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
6. The learning of Esperanto offers an effective way of countering ethnocentrism and encouraging an attitude of toleration of cultural differences in students. An important theme in schooling in a growing number of societies, and especially in the United States, during the last two decades has been the concern with the promotion of multicultural education and the concomitant concern with reducing ethnocentrism. It has been suggested that learning Esperanto will have a positive effect with respect to these goals (see Esperanto Handbook, 1989; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
7. The learning of Esperanto facilitates the development of a more global perspective, and provides access to an international cultural community. Especially common in this regard are claims related to the use of international correspondence, pen pals and so on (see Bauer, 1987; Esperanto Handbook, 1988; Glossop, 1988, 1991; Leon-Smith, 1987; Richardson, 1988; Sherwood, 1982a, 1983; Symoens, 1989).
   
   
8. Learning Esperanto is especially appropriate for students with special needs (including both gifted/talented students and those with learning disabilities). Although different arguments are used, claims have been made that students at both extremes of the population may have greater interest in and success with Esperanto than with other types of subject matter (see, e.g., Glossop, 1988; Jordan, n.d.; Markarian, 1964; Symoens, 1989; Wood, 1975).
   
   
9. The learning of Esperanto will encourage students to learn other languages. This claim is essentially the affective counterpart to claim (3) above: not only will the study of Esperanto have a positive effect on the acquisition of other languages, but by studying Esperanto, students will also be more likely to wish to study additional languages (Aronson, 1991).

C. The Research Base

The Teachers College Study (1924-1935)

The Teachers College Study actually consists of three related experimental studies, taking place in 1924, 1928 to 1931 and 1934-1935, respectively (see Charters, n.d.; Division of Psychology, 1933). Directed and supervised by the well-known educational psychologist Edward L. Thorndike, and involving the assistance of Drs. Laura Kennon and Helen Eaton, the Teachers College Study focused on such issues as the learnability of auxiliary languages in general (and Esperanto in particular), as well as on the propaedeutic effects of Esperanto study on future language learning. Involving subjects ranging in age from 8 to 65, in a variety of different types of classroom settings, the Teachers College Study results indicated that, given the same amount of exposure, students will learn more Esperanto than they would of a national/ethnic language. In fact, the 1933 report included the claim that:

An average college senior or graduate in twenty hours of study will be able to understand printed and spoken Esperanto better than he understands French or German or Italian or Spanish after a hundred hours of study. (Division of Psychology, 1933: 6-7)

On the whole, with expenditures of from ten to a hundred hours, the achievement in the synthetic language will probably be from five to fifteen times that in a natural language, according to the difficulty of the latter. (Division of Psychology, 1933: 7)

Two facts are certain. Any one of the reputable "synthetic" languages is very much easier to learn than any natural language; but its learning is none the less a very substantial task. (Division of Psychology, 1933: 6)

So at the end of two years the English scores are more or less the same, though slightly higher for the Esperanto group; the French scores show 9.7 points more progress for the Esperanto group, which had studied French during one of the two years, than was made by the non-Esperanto group, which had studied French during the two years ... (Division of Psychology, 1933: 30)

The Denton Grammar School Study

The Denton Grammar School was the site of a twenty-five year study of the propaedeutic effects of Esperanto study, conducted by the school's headmaster, Norman Williams. In the midst of this twenty-five year period, from 1947 through 1951, a more limited four-year study was conducted by a specialist from Sheffield University (Halloran, 1952). The results of both Williams (1965) and Halloran (1952) were, on the whole, supportive of the claim that Esperanto study has a positive effect on further language study, though Halloran did find that more academically gifted students tested slightly better in French if they had four years of French instruction rather than a year of Esperanto followed by three years of French. Williams (1965) argued, however, that Halloran's approach was actually biased against the Esperanto group, and that no students were disadvantaged by taking Esperanto first. Halloran and Williams both found that less academically able students benefitted from initial Esperanto instruction. Although a number of methodological problems and limitations in the studies of Halloran and Williams can be raised, it would appear that their results are for the most part reasonable representations of the Denton experience, and would tend to support the claims for the propaedeutic effects of Esperanto study, as well as those concerned with the positive effects of Esperanto study for special needs students.

The "Five-Country" Experiments (1971-1977)

The first of the two "five-country" experiments, which took palce between 1971 and 1974, was conducted in central and eastern Europe (the five countries involved were Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Serbia and Slovenia in Yugoslavia) under the supervision of Istvan Szerdahelyi, Professor of Esperanto and Interlinguistics at the Lorand Eotvos University in Budapest. The primary objective of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness and ease of teaching Esperanto. A total of nearly 1000 students in some 32 schools were taught Esperanto as their first foreign language, utilizing a common textbook, over a three year period. Testing was conducted at the end of the first and second years of the experiment to compare the success of the Esperanto groups with comparable groups studying English, Russian, German and Italian, and the results, which Szerdahelyi evaluated in terms of what he called "success coefficients," were generally favorable to the Esperanto group (Szerdahelyi, 1975). In other words, in a comparable classroom setting students are likely to learn more Esperanto than they would a national/ethnic language. No testing was conducted at the end of the third year, but, as Wood notes,

[Students'] competence in the language was thereafter subjected to a practical test when 85 of the participants, not selected for their academic success . . . attended a vacation school program in the most centrally located and politically neutral participating country, Yugoslavia, at the resort of Primosten, where the organized Esperanto movement holds regular cultural and recreational events. At Primosten the students of diverse language backgrounds continued to be taught, jointly, in [Esperanto], which is the vehicle for all communication at the vacation camp. They studied and played together in it. An international pedagogical Board of Visitors, numbering seven, observed the experiment, noting the use of [Esperanto] in the classroom and play settings, and conversing in Esperanto with the children. (Wood, 1975: 64)

The second of the "five-country" experiments took place between 1975 and 1977, and involved students in France, Belgium, West Germany, Greece, and the Netherlands (see Sonnabend, 1979). The results of the tests conducted during this study were strongly supportive of claims about the ease and speed of learning Esperanto. However, only for the German classes were control groups included in the study, so these results are less compelling than they might otherwise have been. The evidence on the German classes, though, is quite powerful, as Maxwell notes in his critique of the study:

Children learning Esperanto were able to learn more in two years than other children learning English in three or four years . . . the Esperanto groups would require a total of 2.5 years to obtain 100% mastery of the material presented in this test, whereas the English groups would require 5.3 years to achieve a corresponding result. (Maxwell, 1988: 58)

The Paderborn Studies

The Instituto pri Kibernetika Pedagogio (Institute for Cybernetic Pedagogy) at the University of Paderborn, under the leadership of Professor Helmar Frank, has been one of the more productive centers for research on the teaching and learning of Esperanto. Much of the work of the Instituto pri Kibernetika Pedagogio has focused on the relative ease of learning Esperanto in contrast with national/ethnic languages, as well as on the role of Esperanto in promoting language awareness and the propaeduetic effects of Esperanto on the study of national/ethnic languages (see Frank, 1987a, 1987b, 1978; Frank & Barandovska, 1991; Geisler, 1979; Meder, 1978; Meinhardt, 1978). The results obtained by the researchers at the Instituto pri Kibernetika Pedagogio are of quite high quality, and generally appear to support both claims about the ease of learnability of Esperanto and claims about its propaedeutic benefits. Perhaps most interesting publications of the Instituto pri Kibernetika Pedagogio have been Professor Frank's work on the development of a cybernetic-pedagogical representation of the relative propaedeutic benefits of Esperanto, as illustrated in Figure 1 (taken from Frank, 1987a: 218; a Polish language version is found in Frank, 1987b: 130).

< Figure 1 not currently available. >

D. Analysis

... there is no clear consensus among linguists about the matter. Yet in many areas of academic life, where there is no clear consensus a lively debate on the subject ensues. This does not seem to happen very much in the case of Esperanto. Esperanto might merit the occasional paragraph in a book or mention in a lecture, but there is little serious investigation. (Forster, 1987: 208)

Based on the research that has been conducted thus far on the teaching and learning of Esperanto, a number of conclusions can be drawn with reasonable certainty. The empirical evidence, though far from incontrovertible, is generally in accord with anecdotal evidence with respect to claims about the ease of learnability of Esperanto, its propaedeutic effects on learning additional languages, its use in teaching students about the nature of language in general, and its positive affective benefits for students.

Claims for which there does not appear to be substantial, clear empirical evidence include the claim that the study of Esperanto will increase students' knowledge of and aptitude in their own native language, that the study of Esperanto will result in a countering of ethnocentrism and the development of an attitude of tolerance on the part of students, that there may be non-language related propaedeutic effects from the study of Esperanto, that the study of Esperanto will result in a more global perspective on the part of students, the claim that Esperanto is especially appropriate for students with special needs, that the study of Esperanto will encourage students to study other languages, and that Esperanto may be able to be taught more efficiently and explicitly than can national/ethnic languages. It is important to note that the lack of empirical evidence with regard to these claims in no way suggests that they are untrue; rather, we are left in these cases with (sometimes quite compelling) anecdotal evidence and personal experience in evaluating them. Further, the lack of empirical research on some of these topics gives us insight into where future research studies might best be conducted, as will be discussed in Section VI of this report. It is worth noting at this point, incidentally, that many of the areas in which further research is needed would in fact be difficult, if not impossible, to adequately address using traditional, quantitative research approaches. They would, however, be ideal topical areas for researchers utilizing qualitative and naturalistic research methodologies (see, for example, Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Burgess, 1985; Fetterman, 1984; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990; Yin, 1984). Further, while the research base with respect to the teaching and learning of Esperanto suffers from some serious shortcomings, the same could be argued with respect to the teaching and learning of virtually all other languages (see Hatch, 1978; Richards, 1978; Ritchie, 1978; see also Section I of this report), especially in the cases of what are sometimes called the "less commonly taught languages" (see Crookes et al., 1991).

Selected References for Section II

Auld, William. 1988. La Fenomeno Esperanto. Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.

Bauer, Norman. 1987. American education and global interdependence: On the need for a transcendent language. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Educators and Scholars, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, 2-3 October.

Behrmann, Hermann. 1973. Esperanto en Lingvolaboratorio. Loehne, Germanio: Esperanto-eldonejo.

Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allen & Bacon.

Burgess, R. G., ed. 1985. Strategies for Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Charters, Duncan. N.D. Teaching Culture: The Global Context. Unpublished pamphlet.

Church, John. 1992. Intrigo, losilo por estigi apogon pri Esperanto-instruado en Usonaj lernejoj. (mimeo.).

Crookes, Graham; Sakka, Raine; Shimora, Stacy; and Ye, Lei. 1991. Towards a generic curriculum for the less commonly taught languages. (Research Note No. 1) Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Division of Psychology, Institute of Educational Research, Teachers College, Columbia University. 1933. Language Learning: Summary of a Report to the International Auxiliary Language Association in the United States. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Dodge, Ernest. 1941. Esperanto: Instrument of mental training. Education 61: 301-317.

Edwards, Jane. 1986. Esperanto and an international research context. In Humphrey Tonkin and Karen Johnson-Weiner, eds., The Idea of a Universal Language: Report of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems (New York: CRDWLP), pp. 97-107.

Edwards, John, and MacPherson, Lynn. 1987. Views of constructed languages, with special reference to Esperanto: An experimental study. Language Problems and Language Planning 11, 3: 283-304.

Esperanto Handbook for Teachers: Guide to the International Language. 1988. El Cerrito, CA: Esperanto League for North American and the California Esperanto Education Commission.

Falgier, George. 1959. Is Esperanto needed in the school language program? This teacher says YES! School and Community (Missouri State Teachers Association) (October).

Fetterman, David, ed. 1984. Ethnography in Educational Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fisher, A. 1921. Modern languages by way of Esperanto. Modern Languages 2: 179-182.

Forster, Peter G. 1987. Some social sources of resistance to Esperanto. In Serta Gratvlatoria in Honorem Juan Régulo, II (Esperantismo) (La Laguna: University de La Laguna), pp. 203-211.

Forster, Peter G. 1982. The Esperanto Movement. The Hague: Mouton.

Frank, Helmar. 1987a. Propedeutika valoro de la internacia lingvo: Kibernetika teorio kaj empiriaj rezultoj de la lingvo-orientiga instruado de la Internacia Lingvo kiel bazo de pli posta lernado de etnaj lingvoj. In Serta Gratvlatoria in Honorem Juan Régulo, II (Esperantismo) (La Laguna: University de La Laguna), pp. 213-222.

Frank, Helmar. 1987b. Wartosc propedeutyczna jezyka miedzynarodowego. Miedzynarodowa Komunikacja Jezykowa/Internacia Lingva Komunikado: Materialy Konferencyjne -- IV. Lódz: Uniwersytet Lódzki, Zrzeszenie Studentow Polskich, Studenckie Kolo Naukowe Esperantystów, pp. 124-136.

Frank, Helmar. 1978. Grundlagen und sprachpädagogische Anwendung einer informationstheoretischen Transferanalyse. Grundlogenstudien aus Kybernetik und Geisteswissenschaft 19: 75-88.

Frank, Helmar. 1976. Mallonga enkonduko en la kibernetikan pedagogion/Kurze Einfuehrung in die Kybernetische Pädagogik. In H. Behrmann and S. Stimec, eds., Bildung und Berechnung/Klerigo kaj Prikalkulado (Alsbach: Leuchtturn-Verlag), pp. 9-55.

Frank, Helmar, and Barandovska, Vera. 1991. Lernpliffaciligo pro antaumetitaj lingvokursoj. Internacia Pedagogia Revuo 21, 4: 11-15.

Geisler, Evelyn. 1979. La unuaj mezuradoj pri la lernfaciligo internacia kaj angla lingvoj. Europa Dokumentaro 21: 9-10.

Glossop, Ronald. 1991. How to integrate language study and global education. Presented at the tenth annual Conference on Language and Communication in New York City, 13 December.

Glossop, Ronald. 1988. International child-to-child correspondence using Esperanto. Gifted International 5, 1: 81-84.

Goodman, Thomas H. 1978. Esperanto: Threat or ally? Foreign Language Annals 11, 2: 201-203.

Gregor, D. B. 1976. Der kulturelle Wert des Esperanto. In Reinhard Haupenthal, ed., Plansprachen, pp. 297-304.

Guerard, Albert. 1922. A Short History of the International Language Movement. London: T. F. Unwin.

Halloran, J. H. 1952. A four year experiment in Esperanto as an introduction to French. The British Journal of Educational Psychology 22: 200-204.

Hatch, Evelyn, ed. 1978. Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Haupenthal, Reinhard, ed. 1976. Plansprachen: Beitraege zur Interlinguistik. Darmstad: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Janton, Pierre. 1988. Esperanto: Lingvo, Literaturo, Movado. Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.

Jordan, David K. 1987. Esperanto and Esperantism: Symbols and motivations in a movement for linguistic equality. Language Problems and Language Planning 11, 1: 104-125.

Jordan, David K. N.D. Motivating the gifted high school student. Distributed by ELNA.

Large, Andrew. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Lenneberg, E. H. 1957. A probabilistic approach to language learning. Behavioral Science 2: 1-12.

Leon-Smith, G. 1987. The Role of Esperanto in the Teaching of Modern Languages. London: Esperanto-Asocio de Britujo.

Levin, Saul. 1986. Can an artificial language be more than a hobby? In Humphrey Tonkin and Karen Johnson-Weiner, eds., The Idea of a Universal Language: Report of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems (New York: CRDWLP), pp. 21-26.

Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maertens, Gregoire. 1986. La ideo de universala lingvo. In Humphrey Tonkin and Karen Johnson-Weiner, eds., The Idea of a Universal Language: Report of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems (New York: CRDWLP), pp. 13-18.

Majerczak, Maria. 1987. Optumalizacja naucania jezykow obcych a Esperanto. miedzynardoowa Komunikacja jezykowa/ Internacia Lingva Komunikado: Materialy Konferencyjne -- IV. Lódz: Uniwersytet Lódzki, Zrzeszenie Studentow Polskich, Studenckie Kolo Naukowe Esperantystów, pp. 137-148.

Markarian, Raif. 1964. The Educational Value of Esperanto Teaching in the Schools. Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.

Maxwell, Dan. 1988. On the acquisition of Esperanto. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 1: 51-61.

Meder, Brigitte. 1978. Efikoj de la lingvo-orientiga instruado al la lernsukceso en la mezgrada lernejo. Europa Dokumentaro 20: 15-18.

Meinhardt, Gard. 1978. Latent knowledge of vocabulary of the international language, arising from one's native language. Europa Dokumentaro 18: 13-15.

Moore, John. 1980. The structure of Esperanto. Babel: Journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teacher's Association 16, 1: 25-27.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pirlot, Germain. 1982. Oficiala situacio de la Esperanto-instruado en la mondo. In Ruediger Eichholz and Vilma Sindona Eichholz, comps., Esperanto en la Moderna Mondo/Esperanto in the Modern World (Bailieboro, Ontario: Esperanto Press,), pp. 414-429. Also available as, Situation officielle de l'enseignement de l'esperanto dans le monde (Documents sur l'espéranto 11-F). Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto- Asocio.

Pool, Jonathan. 1987. Thinking about linguistic discrimination. Language Problems and Language Planning 11, 1: 3-21.

Quick, Michelle. 1989. Does anyone here speak Esperanto? Gifted Child Today (May/June): 15-16.

Richards, Jack, ed. 1978. Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Richardson, David. 1988. Esperanto: Learning and Using the International Language. Eastsound, WA: Esperanto League for North America, win cooperation with Orcas Publishing.

Ritchie, William, ed. 1978. Second Language Acquistion Research: Issues and Implications. New York: Academic Press.

Sherwood, Bruce. 1983. The Educational Value of Esperanto: An American View (Esperanto Documents 31-A). Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.

Sherwood, Bruce. 1982a. The educational value of Esperanto. In Ruediger and Vilma Sindona Eichloz, comps., Esperanto en la Moderna Mondo/Esperanto in the Modern World (Bailieboro, Ontario: Esperanto Press,), pp. 408-413.

Sherwood, Bruce. 1982b. Parol-sintezado aplikata al lingvo-instruado/Speech synthesis applied to language teaching. In Ruediger Eichholz and Vilma Sindona Eichholz, comps., Esperanto en la Moderna Mondo/Esperanto in the Modern World (Bailieboro, Ontario: Esperanto Press,), pp. 430-447.

Sonnabend, Helmut. 1979. Esperanto: Lerneja Eksperimento. Pisa: Edistudio.

Ståhlberg, Sabira. 1992. Eksperimenta projekto pri alfabetigo en Esperanto. Esperanto 1034, 2: 35.

Stuttard, Mason. 1954. The Esperanto Teacher. Rickmansworth: EPC.

Symoens, Edward. 1989. The Socio-Political, Educational and Cultural Roots of Esperanto. Antwerpen, Belgium: Internacia Ligo de Esperantistaj Instruistoj.

Szerdahelyi, István. 1975. La internacia pedagogia-didaktika eksperimento kvinlanda: La rezultoj de la unua mezurado. In H. Behrmann, ed., Lehrplanerische Rationalisierung des Sprachunterrichts (Paderborn: Institut für Kybernetische Pädagogik).

Szerdahelyi, István. 1966. Esperanto et propédeutique linguistique. Langues Modernes 60, 3: 255-259.

Szerdahelyi, István, and Frank, Helmar. 1976. Zur pädagogischer Bestimmung relativer Schwierigkeiten verschiedener Sprachen. Grundlagenstudien aus Kybernetik und Geisteswissenschaft 17: 39-44.

Tonkin, Humphrey. 1988. Beyond the competitive edge: The peaceful uses of language study. Keynote address, Annual Conference of the California Foreign Language Teachers Association, 16 April.

Tonkin, Humphrey. 1977. Esperanto and International Language Problems: A Research Bibliography, 4th ed. Washington, DC: Esperantic Studies Foundation.

Vallon, Doris. 1968. Teaching the universal language. California Teachers Association Journal (May).

Williams, Norman. 1965. A language teaching experiment. Canadian Modern Language Review 22, 1: 26-28.

Williams, Walter. 1971. Social Policy Research and Analysis. New York: Elsevier.

Wood, Richard E. 1975. Teaching the interlanguage: Some experiments. Lektos: Interdisciplinary Working Papers in Language Sciences (Special Issue, Papers from the Seminar on Interlinguistics, Modern Language Association). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.

Yin, R. 1984. Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Go back to Table of Contents.

Esperanto Studies and Interlinguistics