BICS and CALP: The dichotomy between academic and conversational competencies in second language acquisition

As we know, the issue of defining the concept of “language proficiency” is controversial. In light of this, the term «bilingual», which depends on the subjective views of experts and various linguistic factors (grammatical understanding/vocabulary), is also exposed to ambiguous interpretations. On the other hand, contrary to Grosjean's point that a monolingual view of bilingualism should be abandoned, researchers and educators often focus on the abilities of «native speakers» in defining and measuring language proficiency. In this context, the main purpose of the article is to reveal the difference between academic language (CALP) and everyday spoken language (BICS), which was first described in 1979 by Jim Cummins. Special attention is devoted to the consideration of this phenomenon through the prism of Spanish-English bilingualism, which demonstrates the fact of processing certain language elements at the BICS and CALP levels, as well as the role of explicit and implicit memory in the formation of conversational and academic competencies. In addition, through methods of linguistic description, comparison and theoretical interpretation, a review of the scholars' arguments who consider language competence to be part of a single cognitive system with a clear separation of conceptual and linguistic aspects of discourse ability is conducted. Based on the idea of “linguistic interdependence”, the case studies under consideration (Revised Hierarchical Model of Kroll. J.F and BICS/CALP/CUP model of Francis. N) demonstrate how, in sequential bilingualism, fundamental linguistic and metalinguistic skills are made available to L2 through the mother tongue (L1). Consequently, the study revealed differences in the acquisition and development of basic spoken and academic language competence, which, in our opinion, is important for teachers in modeling foreign language lessons. However, it is also necessary to take into account learners' previous language experience, i.e. Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP), which can influence the development of competence in a foreign language. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References