Minority language speaking students’ first and second language vocabulary

Abstract

In a futile attempt to determine the approximate range of the technical Danish vocabulary needed by an immigrant student attending the automechanical line of the Copenhagen Technical School, I found that some of the concepts pertaining to first and second language vocabulary need revision. This was especially true with regard to certain minority languages, and with respect to certain particular fields.

Of major importance, the distinction between so‐called ‘active’ and ‘passive’ vocabulary seems less relevant, and certainly less applicable, than a distinction between ‘vocabulary’ (words known) and ‘comprehension potential’. This becomes especially clear when considering second languages.

Additionally, the relationship between first‐language vocabulary and second‐language vocabulary (or better yet, comprehension potential) depends on the concept of ‘concept’. This of course involves a very old discussion in linguistics: is any concept of one language transferable to any other language? If a concept is immediately transferable between the first and second language in question, the relationship is one of different labelling. If there is no such immediate transferability, the relationship becomes more complex. This is obviously the case for such languages as (Western) Greenlandic when compared to Danish in fields involving modern technology.

The more or less linguistically determined choices of words have profound pedagogical implications—and are of no less importance for language planning.