Page 2 of Promotion of Child Bilingualism in a Monolingual Society by Lindsey Parsons:

Issues in Bilingual Development

 Language Use Strategies

One of the most common and recommended methods for parents wishing to raise their children bilingual is the one person one language (OPOL) method (Grammont, 1902, cited in Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). This simply involves each parent speaking one language to their children. It may or may not be their own native language. Minority language parents (or non-community language parents) employing this method may differ in how strictly they apply it. Some will speak to their children in the minority language in any and every circumstance and provide a translation for monolingual speakers. Others will switch to the majority language in front of monolingual majority language speakers. As children grow older and parents feel more secure about their language abilities, parents may become less strict in the exclusive use of the minority language (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). While Romaine (1989) suggests that one of the most common outcomes of OPOL is receptive bilingualism only, many case studies show that active bilingualism is possible (Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003; Saunders, 1988; Taeschner, 1983; Zierer, 1977). However, as Romaine (1989) points out, most successful cases are with children from advantaged backgrounds.

Another common approach is called minority language at home (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). This is usually the natural tendency for immigrant families, but is also frequently used in mixed-language couples, where one parent uses their non-native language with the children so as to give them more exposure to the minority language.

Another approach to raising children bilingual has been called a mixed strategy (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004), where one or both parents switch frequently between two languages, known as code-switching. Code-switching may take place at the lexical level, mid-sentence or paragraph, or based on location or interlocutor. This approach is seen most commonly in bilingual and immigrant communities (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). Finally, some families choose strategies of time and place, with one or both parents speaking a minority language to their children in specific places (e.g., at home) or at designated times.

Stages in Bilingual Language Development

Volterra and Taeschner (1977) have documented three stages through which bilingual children pass as their speech develops. In the first stage, children use words from both languages, but will only identify any item with only one word from one language, with no corresponding word in the other. This is similar to the phenomenon with monolingual children in which they have few synonyms in their early vocabularies. As a result, when children in this stage begin to speak in short sentences, they will often contain words from both languages. Sometimes it will appear that children have a word in each language for the same thing, but it turns out that they may be associating, for example, the dresser in mommy's room with a word in one language, but the dresser in their room with a word in their other language. During this first stage, Saunders (1988) warns, some parents may begin to worry that the children are confused, or not learning one of the languages sufficiently. This can cause them to abandon their efforts, especially if given poor advice from doctors, teachers, or other outside observers.

In the second stage, Volterra and Taeschner (1977) found that the children they observed had begun to distinguish between the two languages, and had names for items in both languages, but they applied the same syntactic rules to both languages. However, Padilla & Liebman (1975) found to the contrary that the bilingual children they observed (ages 1.5-2.2 at the beginning of the study) showed differentiation between their languages at the phonological, lexical, and syntactic levels at a very young age. In this second stage, children also begin to be able to translate from one language to the other. When children in this stage attempt to use a word and do not meet with success in being understood, they will often try to use the same word from the other language (Saunders, 1988).

In the third stage, children speak both languages correctly both at the lexical and syntactic levels, although examples of interference may continue for a long time thereafter. At this point, they will be able to select the correct language based on the interlocutor (Saunders, 1988; Volterra & Taeschner, 1977).

Junker and Stockman (2002) found that bilingual German-English 24-27 month olds already had two separate languages, at least on the lexical level, demonstrating translation equivalents for 43.8% of the vocabulary for which they were tested. Ninety percent of the families in this study were practicing OPOL. When pooling the vocabulary from both languages, the bilingual children had a vocabulary comparable in size to that of the monolingual control groups. However, the community language was already dominant in the majority of cases, with many more lexical items than in the minority language.

Minority Language Exposure

Some case studies give detailed information on the percentages of minority and majority language exposure the children have had at various stages of their lives (Saunders, 1988; Taeschner, 1983). This may be an important factor in ultimate minority language attainment. Kamada (1997) notes that children with minority language mothers tend to have more success in becoming bilingual than those with minority language fathers. While she attributes this to the mothers' determination to pass on their own language, it seems more likely to be the result of the mothers spending more time talking with their children than the fathers, even if they work away from the home. Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, and Oller (1997, cited in Barron-Hauwaert, 2004), after studying toddlers aged eight months to two and a half years, concluded that children need to be exposed to the minority language 40-60% of the time in order to become a balanced bilingual.

Minority Language Resistance and Techniques for Reinforcement

At some point during their early development, bilingual children will likely show some resistance to speaking the minority language. This may appear in one of several forms: responding in the majority language, avoiding minority language speakers, using only gestures, or using only one word answers (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). For Saunders' (1988) two eldest children, the peak of this resistance occurred at ages 3;5 and 2;7. For Taeschner's (1983) two children, this occurred around ages 2;9 and 2;4. At this point, Taeschner theorises that children attempt to use various words from each language. If they are only exposed to monolingual speakers in the majority language, they discover that words in the majority language are understood by everyone, while words in the minority language only work with one or very few people. As a consequence, they begin to use more and more of the majority language. It is at this stage that both Saunders and Taeschner documented their efforts to encourage greater minority language usage. For Taeschner, this consisted of simply asking “Wie?” (What) repeatedly in German, each time her children said something in Italian. Soon they came to realise that this meant to switch languages. However, she warns that this technique should only be used when children have reached stage two, and actually possess vocabulary in both languages. It is also best used when the children are interested in talking about something and they are not tired or in a hurry. She also did not continue to pursue this technique when her girls were recounting things experienced primarily in the majority language, as it usually resulted in a return to the majority language or an end to the conversation.

When Saunders' children began to show resistance, his technique was to either to pretend not to understand the majority language, or to prompt the children with questions in the minority language. In response to his second child's dominance in English, he also established a German only afternoon once a week for the two boys beginning at ages 2;1 and 4;0. Saunders believes that had he not persisted in insisting that the boys speak German at this stage, they would have become only receptive bilinguals.

Juan-Garau and Perez-Vidal (2001, cited in Barrow-Hauwaert, 2004) used a similar technique to encourage their son to use more of his rapidly vanishing English at age three. After spending three weeks in England , the father became strict in asking for translations and clarifications when his son used Catalan. He also bought two puppets and told his son that they only spoke English. After imposing this strategy, his son's English levels improved dramatically.

Supporting the importance of a strategy to counter resistance, Döpke (1992a, cited in Barron-Hauwaert, 2004) believes that there are two main factors for successful bilingualism: parents consistently adhering to the appropriate language and their insistence that children do as well. Of the six German-English bilingual families Döpke studied in Australia , the children of the highest proficiency were those whose parents showed consistency and separation in their language use. Probably not coincidentally, these parents also were those who made the greatest effort to bring the children into contact with the minority language through books, music, other people, and trips to Austria .

Although some type of false monolingual strategy can not be continued long-term, and eventually the children will be old enough to realise that their parents do in fact speak the majority language, normally children will settle into a pattern of language usage with each parent. Once a certain language is established, a child normally will feel uncomfortable speaking a different language with their parents (Saunders, 1988). The primary exception to this is in mixed strategy families, in which children typically take on the manner of speaking of their parents, freely switching between languages (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004).

Minority Language Relatives and Country Visits

For many families, frequent visits from monolingual relatives and/or visits to the minority language country seem to be an important factor in the children's ultimate attainment of bilingualism. Hoffmann (1985) suggests that around the age of five, when children are beginning primary school and looking more toward their peers for models of behaviour, a visit to the minority language country may be an important reinforcement of that language. Kamada (1997) reports of one English-speaking family living in Japan whose children spoke Japanese together until a one-year furlough in New Zealand at ages 5 and 7, after which time the children spoke English together. Similarly, a visit to the minority language country during the earlier period of minority language resistance can also prove a significant boost to minority language production. Kamada (1997) reports on another couple in Japan (both bilingual, one dominant in Japanese, one in English) whose son by age 2;6 was producing Japanese almost exclusively. A visit to New Zealand around age three for three and a half weeks initiated a marked improvement in his English output. During his stay, he spent two to three mornings a week in a playgroup, as well as time with relatives. By age three and a half his output in Japanese and English was about equal. Arnberg (1987) cited an example of a bilingual child whose English went from 12% to 73% during her observations after a visit to an Anglophone country where he attended a summer day camp. Kamada (1997), based on multiple case studies she conducted (some of which are described below) has concluded that either frequent or less frequent but longer trips overseas are important in acquiring bilingualism.

Minority Language Childcare and Playgroups

Three other methods of reinforcing the minority language are minority language babysitters, day care/preschool, and playgroups. In one case study, a child whose minority language production was minimal until age three began to blossom after her parents enrolled her in a minority language international school two days a week and switched from majority to minority language au pairs (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004).

Arnberg (1984) studied the effectiveness of English-language and Serbo-Croation language playgroups in Sweden . Despite several problems and obstacles with the groups, including a wide range of ages (2-6), a wide range of home language use patterns, and the children using Swedish as soon as the adults were not present, the playgroup seemed to have helped with minority language output at home. One third of the parents reported that there was much more English used at home following group meetings, and for the rest, slightly more. The parents in the English-language playgroup decided that it was best to have a non-parent that the children were led to believe was a monolingual English speaker lead the group, as otherwise the children were tempted to use Swedish with them. Sometimes the primary benefit of these playgroups is to inspire the parents to persist in using the minority language at home, when they see other parents addressing their children in the minority language (M. Levy, personal communication, April 20, 2005 ).

Bilingual and minority language day care or preschool/kindergarten is also a good supplement to in-home language use that, like minority language playgroups, has the additional positive effect of exposing children to other children who speak the minority language. This exposure can help with children's self-confidence, as bilingual children may be sensitive to being different from other children or embarrassed about their minority language parent (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Saunders, 1988). The parents in Arnberg's (1984) playgroup study reported positive results in their children's willingness to use the language and pride in their abilities.

Language Prestige and Support

Two factors that have come to light in various studies are the support for and prestige of the minority language. If friends, family, and neighbours are unsupportive or even hostile to bilingualism, then it is possible that such factors will inhibit a child's ultimate attainment in the minority language, or may even lead to the parents giving up their efforts to raise their child bilingual. Sondergaard (1981) recounts his family's attempt to raise their son bilingual in Danish and Finnish in Denmark . A combination of delayed speech, lack of production of Finnish and the severe pressure from monolingual Danish family members to give up their efforts finally led the family to do so at age three. These family members felt that the child would suffer permanent damage from their efforts, and the parents did not know how to refute these allegations at the time. Sondergaard also comments on the lack of prestige of the Finnish language in Denmark , and how he felt that it would ultimately have become an obstacle to his child, who turned out to be lacking in self-confidence and showed a great need for conformity. Even as a monolingual Danish speaker, his son eventually suffered teasing for his “half-Finnishness” (p. 301). This was clearly connected to political/economic issues, as other children suggested his mother was a “ ‘guest worker' who took jobs from Danes” (p. 301). Romaine (1989) supports this theory in her analysis of families using the OPOL strategy. She only found success in bilingual acquisition in children from advantaged backgrounds and in which the minority language was not stigmatised.

Christian (1977) theorises that there are several ways to bring prestige to a minority language in the eyes of a child. The first is connected to the person who uses the language with the child, with the father being the person of greatest prestige and the family servant the person of least prestige. Secondly, he emphasises the importance of developing literacy in the minority language, with abundant exposure to written materials in that language. Thirdly, he regards restricting the use of mass media, especially television in the majority language, and exposure to television in the minority language, if available, to be important in increasing the language's prestige. Finally, he postulates that because academic subjects, as opposed to those with artistic or emotive sensitivity, hold higher prestige in the United States , a child should be taught academic subjects, other than just the language itself, in the minority language. He attempted to use these principles in raising his daughter. As a non-native Spanish speaker in the U.S. married to a native speaker, they practiced minority language at home, kept no TV in the house, and had begun to teach their daughter to read Spanish by 36 months. At that age, and after several visits to Spanish-speaking countries, she showed a clear dominance in Spanish. However, because the article ends at age 36 months, the ultimate usefulness of his theories is not verifiable.

Saunders (1988) also emphasised literacy skills and exposure to books as important in creating prestige for the minority language in the eyes of his children, as a language that is only spoken will seem less important to children than a language that is both written and spoken. All Saunders' children ultimately learned to read and write in German, their minority language, two at the same time they learned to read in English, one before, starting at age 2;2. Past (1976, cited by Saunders, 1988) also used literacy skills to aid in his child's language development. Past and his wife, who were both non-native speakers of Spanish, taught their daughter Spanish with only 60-90 minutes exposure per day. However, they taught her to read in Spanish from age 1;11 and gave her opportunities to watch Spanish TV and play with Spanish-speaking children. By the time she started kindergarten, she was rated as a balanced bilingual on an Oral Language Dominance Measure.

While literacy and exposure to books may help with language prestige, it also is without question useful in the areas of vocabulary development, the introduction of formal register, and poetic uses of language (Saunders, 1988). Saunders also points out the utility of other audio-visual materials, such as videotapes and cassettes of songs and stories, for acquainting children with various accents and varieties of language.

Child-Centred Communication and Correction

Döpke (1986) adds another dimension to the question of successful bilingual acquisition through a study on discourse strategies in bilingual families. Borrowing from the literature on monolingual speech development, she theorises that success in eliciting the minority language will be more likely if the minority language parent uses more child-centred communication than the majority language parent. In her study of six German-English bilingual children ages 2;4-3;2 in OPOL families, a combination of child-centred communication strategies by the minority language parent and sociolinguistic factors (in this case, having many German friends and relatives visit regularly) drew the difference between the only two children who “originally and intentionally” (p. 499) used German during her two recordings. The minority language parents who met with greater success were more likely to be responsive to the child's contributions to the conversation, worked on maintaining already introduced topics, and were more oriented towards conversing with than controlling the child than their partner.

As with communication styles, correction strategies for speech disfluencies and/or stuttering can have an effect on the ultimate success of bilingualism. Johnson (1960, cited by Saunders 1988) offers advice for monolingual children, which can be applied to bilingual children as well. When stuttering or disfluencies arise, he recommends that you not criticise your child's mistakes in grammar or pronunciation, but help them by supplying words and by using books and other means to help them increase their vocabulary. The child should not be made to feel self-conscious or stuttering could become ingrained. While these stages usually pass without intervention, like monolingual children, bilingual children can have speech problems (Saunders, 1988).

Parents' Language Ability

There are two additional issues of interest with regard to the language ability of the parents. The first is whether it is possible to teach your child a language when you are not a native speaker of that language. Saunders (1988) is one of the best examples that this is possible, as he was not a native speaker of German but successfully raised three German-English bilingual children. However, he clearly had a very high level of German with only a very slight accent and a wide vocabulary. Nevertheless, he admitted to looking words up in the dictionary when necessary, and encouraging the children to do so as well. The children ultimately took on his accent and assumed it as proper, and found other German speakers' pronunciation quaint or amusing.

Past (1976, cited in Saunders, 1988) is another non-native minority language speaker, who along with his wife successfully brought up their child (at least to age five) as a Spanish-English bilingual with only 60-90 minutes of Spanish exposure per day. Past and his wife, who lived in the U.S. , took a Foreign Service Institute type Spanish language exam in which 5 indicates a native speaker and received scores of 2+ and 3+. However, because of additional language input from TV and Spanish-speaking playmates, it is hard to determine how much of their success can be attributed to the community versus the parents.

The remaining issue of interest is the language ability of the majority language parent, in OPOL families. It is clear from the literature that in most of the case studies in which a child becomes an active bilingual, both parents understood (at a minimum) the minority language. Harding-Esch & Riley (2003) offer the general rule that when “one parent does not understand one of the languages, attempts to maintain bilingualism in the family are most likely to fail” (p. 39). However, one would imagine that it would be possible to compensate for such a situation through other means, such as exposure to other minority language-speaking adults or children, or visits to the minority language country. Taeschner (1983) is one good example of this. Her Italian husband only understood minimal German, yet she succeeded in raising two bilingual daughters with the aid of German-speaking relatives, visits to Germany , and much persistence.

Click Here for page 3 of this paper.