Theoretical Framework

Considering that language brokering thrives in a social context and in bilingualism, the theory I will follow on this website is the educational sociology of language as developed by Joshua Fishman in 1972. In fact, this theory was used to study and analyze the relationship between languages and society, especially the effects of languages on a society. Of course, there are many effects in a language. According to Baker (2006), learning a language implies learning of its culture. When it comes to the case of many children who translate from one language to another for their parents Baker (2006), Buriel, Perez, De Ment, Chavez, & Moran (1998), and De Jong (2011) state that those children not only translate, explaining sentences or words, but also they interpret and explain mainstream culture and society to their parents. In other words, they are cultural ambassadors to their family members. As applied to this website, using the educational sociology of language theory, I will be able to demonstrate how parents receive mainstream American cultural inputs through the great labor of their bilingual children brokers.

References

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4^th. Ed.).Buffalo; Multilingual Matters.

Buriel, R., Perez, W., De Ment, T., Chavez, D. V. & Moran, V. (1998). The relationship of language brokering to academic performance, biculturalism, and self-efficacy among Latino adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 20 (3), 283-297. doi:10.1177/07399863980203001

De Jong, E. J. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in Education: From Principles to Practice. Caslon Publishing.

Fishman, J. A. (1972). The Sociology of Language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Orellana, M. F. (2009). Translating childhoods immigrant youth, language, and culture. New Brunswick, N. J.:     Rutgers University Press.

Module 1: Language Brokering: Issues

Introduction: Module 1 consists of defining ‘language brokering’ and giving a brief research panorama based on literature review or previous research on children brokers.

Objective: The objective of this module is to introduce the educator into the “language brokering” practices through some studies that have been conducted, studies which focused specifically on the children brokers. 

Literature review: Many children translate for their parents or relatives in a broad range of situations (Baker, 2006). There are many framing translations that were proved in clinical psychology in regards to children brokers: ‘parentified child’, ‘adultification’, ‘parentification’ of children, role reversal, weakness of parental authority, etc. (Love & Buriel, 2007; Orellana, 2009). Other studies examined the relationship between brokering practices and children’s academic performance, academic self-efficacy, biculturalism, social self-efficacy, biculturalism, mental health and risky behavior. The findings show a possible acceleration of academic and socio-emotional development on one hand (Buriel, Perez, De Ment, Chavez, & Moran, 1998), and a reduction of acculturation stress in family with alcoholic behavior (Kam, 2011). Even though language brokering has been negatively portrayed because of excessive responsibilities on young people, monolingual speakers’ point of view is positive to brokering. For bilingual speakers with brokering experience, it’s a normal and appreciable activity (Cline, Crafter, O’Dell, & Guida de Abreu, 2011) that they do only to help the family (Orellana, 2009).

In contrast, in a study conducted by Martinez Jr., Heather, & Eddy (2009), a higher demand of language brokering reveals higher levels of family stress and poor academic achievement for brokers. In another survey study, when language brokering is practiced in a dysfunctional family, children feel angry, scared, ashamed, embarrassed, nervous, uncomfortable, and obligated (Weisskirch, 2007).