Ребята, лингвисты и хорошо знающие английский язык, помогите пожалуйста перевести этот текст (желательно дословно и легко читаемо).


Subdivisions: speaking skill, for example, includes what may be quite divergent levels of expression in vocabulary, grammar, and accent. There is thus a substantial number of elements here, all of which figure in the assessment of bilingualism; it does not follow that strength in one means strength in another: a pupil may be able to understand spoken English and Welsh, speak English fluently but Welsh only haltingly, read in Welsh with a reading age of six and in English with a reading age of eight, write poorly in English and not at all in Welsh. Is that pupil bilingual? (Baker,1988,p.2)
In general, given both the basic skills, and their subdivisions, there are at least twenty dimensions of language which could or should be assessed in order to determine bilingual proficiency. It may be, as Weinreich observed , that a rough gauge of relative proficiency may be easily accomplished, that in many cases we can with some certainty say which language is dominant, but these matters are not always simple, and a rough reckoning may be quite inadequate if we wish, say, to compare groups of bilingual individuals, or if we wish to study the relationship between bilingualism and other personality traits. Many tests have been used to measure bilingualism; these include rating scales and fluency, flexibility, and dominance tests. The first of these can involve interviews, language usage measures, and self-assessment procedures. In some ways, relying upon self-rating has a lot to recommend it, but the strengths here rest upon the capacity of an individual to self-report accurately, a roughly equivalent sense across individuals of what competence means, and a disinterested and unbiased willingness to communicate proficiency levels. None of these can be taken for granted, and the inaccuracies of census information about languages (as an illustrative example) often rest upon self-assessment difficulties. Indeed, some of the problems here can also affect the apparently more objective tests of fluency and flexibility. We might, for example, ask people to respond to instructions in two languages, measure their response times and, on this basis, try to ascertain dominance. Or we could present picture-naming or word-completion tasks, we could ask subjects to read aloud, or we might present a word which occurs in both languages (pipe, for example, occurs in both French and English) and see how it is pronounced. We could simply test for extent of vocabulary, or see how many synonyms for a given word a person can come up with. Yet, although the results of such tests often intercorrelate, they are clearly far from perfect.
Apart from the hazards already noted, it can easily be seen that factors such as attitude, age, sex, intelligence, memory, linguistic distance between the two languages, and context of testing are all potentially confounding. Furthermore, even if we were able to gauge with some accuracy, there would remain problems of adequate labeling; that is, it is hardly to be expected hat measured individuals would neatly fall into one, or two, or four neat categories of ability, or degrees of bilingualism. There even remains confusion as to what term ought to be applied to those much sought-after individuals whose bilingual capacities are great: are they to be known as balanced bilinguals, or ambilinguals, or equilinguals (to cite only three such terms)? Baetens Beardsmore (1986) described the ambilingual as a person who, in all contexts, can function equally well in either language, and who shows no trace of language A when using B. Given, howewer, that such individuals constitute s “ rare if not nonexistent species” (p.7), the term “balanced bilingual” (or, less commonly, “equilingual”) is reserved for those whose mastery of both varieties is more roughly equivalent. What we see here, in effect, is a continuation of those difficulties and hazards, of those confounding factors, to the very highest levels of ability. What is clear, however, is that the vast number of those to whom the term “bilingual” can be at all reasonably applied fall into the category of “non-fluent” bilingualism.
There are some other basic matters that cut across the larger topic of degree of fluency,


Буду благодарна за помощь