I'm a native English speaker and not bilingual so feel like an outsider looking in here but this is an area I find interesting. For one, I kind of wish I was bilingual. I suspect this is much easier to achieve as a non-English speaker for several reasons:
- The pervasiveness of English as a first or second language
- As much as people complain about English, in the transition from Old English to Middle English when English was not the court language of England, English lost a lot of what I like to call the grammatical bullshit (eg gender of nouns, cases, agreement of case, number, adjective and article and so on).
Anyway, this article made one claim that resonates with my observations:
> But parents should not assume that young children’s natural language abilities will lead to true grown-up language skills without a good deal of effort.
How many people do you know that have done 12 years of Italian or French or German or Spanish through school and can maybe remember how to count to 10? I know quite a few.
Another claim the article makes is that bilingual children are less fluent in each language than a child who only knows one language. I've often wondered if this is the case for a similar reason: language ability seems to largely be a function of exposure and there's only so much time to go around.
If true, I wonder how this has affected the development of English-speaking countries, which are particularly mono-lingual. Is it an advantage? A disadvantage? A bit of both?