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

Case Studies

Research Sample

The families described in the case studies below have used a variety of methods to raise their children bilingual. For clarity in my analysis of the factors supporting successful bilingualism, I have limited the types of families studied. Only bilingual (as opposed to tri- or multilingual families) have been included. In all the families, children have been raised bilingual from birth or shortly thereafter. In addition, children from bilingual or immigrant communities have not been included, as the focus is on children being raised bilingual in monolingual communities. However, immigrant families who are not surrounded by other speakers of their language, but may have some minority language speaking friends or family, have been included. I have also excluded families who have moved for extended periods of time to the minority language country, or who have moved permanently from the majority language to the minority language country. Finally, where possible, my analysis will be limited to the establishment of bilingualism in the first years of a child's life, prior to starting primary school (around five years of age).

Case Studies: Successful Bilingual Acquisition

All of the bilingual case studies described here are summarised in Table 1 (pp. 8-10). They are arranged with the examples of success at the top and examples of least success at the bottom, divided by a thicker line. They are further arranged with OPOL families listed first, with mothers using the minority language first, followed by fathers, followed by

Table 1. Summary of Case Studies

Key: ml-minority language; ML=majority language; BL=bilingual

minority language at home and mixed strategies. I will describe these case studies in the order presented in the table.

Taeschner (1983) offers one of the more detailed accounts available in a case study of her efforts to raise her daughters as German-Italian bilinguals in Italy . For the first two years of the first child, Lisa's life, Taeschner, who is a native German speaker, stayed home during the days and thus Lisa had greater exposure to German than Italian. When Lisa was 1;1, her sister Giulia was born. By 1;6 Lisa was showing equal output in both languages (as measured by number of words uttered in each). However, at 1;11 after a time of greater Italian input, she showed a slight dominance in Italian. By the time Lisa was 2;0, her output was again balanced. It is at this point that her knowledge of German began to outstrip that of her father, and he understood less and less of her German. From 2;0 to 2;2, after a visit with her maternal grandparents, Lisa's German showed clear dominance. However, after more intense contact with Italian from 2;7 to 2;10, her Italian began to dominate. At 2;9 Taeschner began to pretend not to understand Italian some of the time, asking “Wie?” until Lisa responded in German, and also began to use German exclusively with the girls, even when monolingual Italians were present. Within two months of these new initiatives, Lisa's languages were again balanced. From age 3;1 to 3;2 Lisa had a one-month visit by a German-speaking aunt and uncle, and by then was capable of speaking entirely in German. By 3;3, Lisa was aware that her mom spoke Italian, but had grown accustomed to speaking German with her, and would seem surprised if she spoke Italian. It was at this age that she began Italian nursery school. However, her German continued from this point without problems. After a two-month visit to Germany to stay with her grandparents at age 4;0, Taeschner noted that Lisa's syntax and morphology was not significantly different than before the trip, although she did show some lexical improvement. It seems that by this age, her use of German was stabilised and although visits of relatives and trips to Germany were good for language maintenance and lexical improvement, Taeschner had successfully negotiated Lisa through early resistance and greater exposure to Italian through nursery school. The story of Lisa's upbringing demonstrates that her language output was clearly related to her language input, at least in her first years. Second, it demonstrates the effectiveness of the “Wie?” technique in encouraging her minority language use. Finally, it demonstrates the importance of her visits by minority language relatives and to the minority language country in developing and stabilising her minority language skills.

Barron-Hauwaert (2004) wrote the case study of Cornelia and Denis, a German-French couple living in France and practicing OPOL with their one daughter, Ophélia, who was six at the time of reporting. Both parents could speak the other's language, however the parents used French between themselves. For the first three years of Ophélia's life, they had an Algerian, French-speaking nanny while Cornelia worked. However, this French exposure was somewhat balanced by three annual trips to Germany each year. Unfortunately, by age three, Ophélia was rather unwilling to use German. At this point, her parents enrolled her in an International School two days a week (presumably with classes in German), and she attended a French school the remaining days. It was this influence, and getting to know other bilingual children, that finally turned the tide. In addition, they hired a German au pair and continued to have German au pairs until the time of reporting. By age six Ophélia was at a stable state of bilingualism, feeling very comfortable even while in Germany, allowing her mother to relax about her German language skills

Ronald and Martine, an American-French couple living in England , had two children, ages three and five at the time of reporting (Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003). While the parents spoke French together, they practiced OPOL with the children. Both children attended nursery school from the age of 14 months. Anne, their older child, had delayed speech and was originally dominant in English, but after various trips to France for six weeks in which she stayed with her grandparents and spoke only French, she became a balanced bilingual. After these trips, she even spoke French to her Anglophone father. Their younger child, Dominic, was also described as bilingual by his parents.

Harding-Esch & Riley (2003) also reported on Peter and Anne Marie, an English-French couple living in France . Their children were three and eight at the time of reporting. They practiced OPOL and spoke French together, although the mother understands English. Both children first spoke French to both parents, but at 3;9, their older child began speaking to her father in English during a trip to England . The father made a particular effort to expose the children to English, through conversation, books, records, songs, and rhymes. At the time of reporting, the parents described their older child as bilingual, and said that she enjoyed being so and found it useful for speaking to her cousins in England.

The final couple described by Harding-Esch & Riley (2003), Jan and Liisa, are both Finnish and live in Finland, but Jan comes from a Swedish background. They practiced OPOL with their two children, ages three and five at the time of reporting, although Liisa understands Swedish. The children also had frequent contact with their grandmother, who also spoke Swedish with them, as well as exposure to Swedish TV and radio. However, they had virtually no peer contact in Swedish. Their older child mixed both languages until age four, but afterwards was able to separate them and learned to read in both. At age three, the younger child was still mixing languages, and putting Swedish words into Finnish constructions, but presumably would follow the path of the older child.

Saunders (1988) wrote a very detailed account of the bilingual upbringing of his three children. An Australian with an excellent, albeit non-native command of German, he was the sole regular speaker of German in the children's lives until they spent six months in Germany at ages 10;7 (Thomas), 8;9 (Frank), and 3;4 (Katrina). Their mother was also a fluent German speaker, but the family always practiced OPOL, with the mother using English. By the age of five, all of Saunders' children could be described as bilingual, and used exclusively German with their father, although they were clearly dominant in English and were less accurate and fluent in German when he tested them periodically. When tested at age five, the children made more errors in German (4.7 – 8.3) than in English (0.7 – 1.5), and also produced fewer words in the same space of time. However, they did score between the 71 st and 98 th percentiles (as compared to monolingual English speakers) in vocabulary tests of English and German, exhibiting a high level of both.

Saunders' was particularly strict and exacting in his use of OPOL, never mixing languages and always looking for and sometimes inventing new words in German in order to keep the language pure. When Anglophone children were visiting, he would use German to his children and translate, if necessary, for the other children. He also taught his children to read and write in German, although only Katrina started to learn before beginning school. His children also adopted this strict view of language separation, and were speaking to him primarily in German by the ages of 3;9, 3;0, and 2;6 (oldest to youngest). Although the children used primarily English together, there were times when Thomas used German with Frank to aid his father combat the younger boy's language resistance, and when the two older boys spoke with their younger sister in German, because of the novelty of her understanding it and being able to do tricks in response.

Saunders' attributes his ultimate success in raising his children actively bilingual to the efforts he made when the two older children offered resistance to German (the third never showed any resistance). In fact, until the age of 4;9, Saunders insisted to his oldest child Thomas that he only understood German (despite him speaking English with their mother). What is particular noteworthy about this story is that the children became bilingual with a much greater input in English than in German. Saunders estimates that the children heard three times more English than German before starting school and six times more afterwards (at ages 4;3, 3;4, and 4;0). However, Thomas and Katrina did have the opportunity to be exposed to German speakers outside the family during their younger years. At 3;8 Thomas was enrolled in a German kindergarten for two and a half hours on Saturday mornings. From age 2;6, Katrina attended a German playgroup one afternoon/month. Contrary to most accounts of bilingual children in a monolingual society, the children involved in this playgroup would speak German together when they met on other occasions. Katrina also benefited from the family's trip to Germany during her younger years (3;4 to 3;10). However, she would not speak to any adult other than her father in German during the entire six months. She did attend kindergarten for two hours a week and was exposed to other children for a few more hours a week on a casual basis, and would use German with these children.

Caldas and Caron-Caldas (1992), an American-Quebecois couple wrote about their experience raising their son bilingual in Louisiana . They began using the OPOL approach, but as their son attended English-speaking day care from 0;3 and was also exposed to English through TV, relatives, and neighbours, they soon realised that his French input was insufficient. When he was 1;6 they decided to practice a strict minority language at home approach. Their son began speaking quite a bit by age 2;0, initially using a mix of French and English. Within several months he clearly differentiated between the two languages, and rarely mixed after that. Shortly after this third birthday, the family travelled to Quebec for two weeks. While previous to this visit the parents had noted a preference for English, after this visit they noted a preference for and improvement in his French. This preference lasted until he started day care again in the fall, after which point most of his utterances to his parents and new twin sisters were again in English. As a consequence, the parents planned another trip to Quebec at age 4;0. John stayed with French-speaking relatives for the entire two-week trip. After this trip, John completely abandoned his use of English at home and by five years of age, his parents felt that he spoke both languages equally well. Caldas and Caron-Caldas added that they were living in an atmosphere in Louisiana in which there is nostalgia for the rapidly disappearing French language, and as a consequence, the positive attitudes towards their son's bilingualism may have made him more comfortable using the language. This case study demonstrates how important and influential minority language country visits can be in the development and maintenance of bilingualism.

Kamada (1997) interviewed several families in Japan regarding their experiences raising their children bilingual. The first family were missionaries from New Zealand who met, married, and raised their children in Japan , except for occasional furloughs to New Zealand . They spoke English at home, except when there were Japanese guests. Neither of their children, Paul and Leah, left Japan until a furlough in New Zealand at ages seven and five. After this furlough, the children's language to each other changed permanently from Japanese to English. Because they were home schooled by their mother, they ultimately came to be balanced bilinguals with dominance in English literacy.

The second family described by Kamada (1997) is that of Leah (the daughter from case study above), who married a Japanese national. Because Leah worked full-time during the first two years of Willy's life and he had Japanese-speaking baby-sitters for 10-11 hours a day, his Japanese input was clearly dominant by age 2;6. At this point, Leah stopped working and the family decided that they would begin a minority language at home strategy, although the father sometimes had to resort to Japanese to express himself. Leah made an effort to spend a lot of time speaking and reading to Willy in English. She also pretended not to understand Japanese, or cued Willy to respond in English. At age 2;9, the family took a three and a half week trip to New Zealand, during which Willy attended a playgroup two to three mornings a week, and also spent time with English-speaking relatives. After this trip, his English output and quality continued to increase. At the time of the interview, Willy, who was 4;3, was described by his mother as a more or less balanced bilingual with near-peer level ability in both languages.

The final family interviewed by Kamada (1997) was a Chinese couple who met and married in Japan . Their son Rui was cared for by his grandmother until 0;6 entirely in Chinese, and after that time entered Japanese day care. The parents tended to mix languages at home, speaking about sixty percent Chinese and forty percent Japanese. By 0;10 Rui began speaking in both Chinese and Japanese, but Japanese soon became dominant. At 1;3 when the family first visited China , Rui was not speaking Chinese at all. After six weeks there, he returned speaking Chinese, however, it was described as foreign by his father. Each subsequent year the family has gone to China for about six weeks, and each time his language has improved. By 3;6, his father no longer found his Chinese foreign-sounding. At five years old, the parents consider Rui bilingual, but with clear dominance in Japanese, and with Chinese at less than peer level. Normally, Rui speaks Chinese about 60-70% of the time with his parents, however he uses exclusively Chinese for about a month after his visits to China .

The final of the successful case studies (Arnberg, 1987) is of Ulf and Nancy, a Swedish-American couple living in Sweden . As Ulf is very proficient in English, the family uses a minority language at home strategy. Amy, their first child, originally started speaking in Swedish, but after a one-week stay with her American grandparents, she began speaking English consistently and has continued to do so until the time of reporting at age five. A second daughter was born when Amy was 2;6. The parents not only use English with the children but when they hear the girls speaking Swedish together, ask them to switch to English. As a result, the children speak both languages regularly to each other, however they do use more Swedish than English. The English-speaking grandparents visit the family for three to four weeks every summer, and the family has taken two visits to the U.S. during Amy's life.

Case Studies: Unsuccessful Bilingual Acquisition

In the first case study where the level of bilingualism achieved was less than was hoped by the parents, two of the children in the family did eventually become balanced bilinguals, while two speak English as a second language (Cunningham-Andersson & Andersson, 2004). The authors have four children who at the time of writing ranged in age from 10 to 17, with the second and fourth children being balanced bilinguals. The mother, who is from Northern Ireland , is married to a Swede and they live in Sweden . The parents speak English together and practice OPOL. All the children were originally dominant in English, but after entering Swedish pre-school at age three, became Swedish dominant. It was only in later grades when two of the children attended bilingual schools that they became balanced (one in sixth grade, the other in primary school, grade not given). The two who did not attend bilingual schools will still answer their parents in English, and can speak English without interspersing Swedish words, but speak with a Swedish accent and were described as competent but not native by their parents. I would conjecture that had the parents reported on all their children at age five, they would not have described them as native-like. However, it is clear from this account that if there is a significant minority language input at some point during the children's lives, the base formed from the early years can be activated into a balanced bilingualism. The question that remains is the age by which that input must be achieved in order to become native-like.

The next case study (Arnberg, 1987) is of a Polish mother and Swedish father living in Sweden . At 2;6 the mother wrote the author for help due to the fact that her daughter was only replying to her in Swedish. At that time, the family was practicing OPOL, although the mother would use Swedish with her daughter in front of Swedes. The father spoke no Polish. The daughter was immersed in a Swedish-speaking environment, including nursery school, and hardly had any contact with other minority language speakers. Encouraged by Arnberg to continue speaking to her daughter in Polish, the mother wrote again at age six. At this point, the daughter could communicate at a very basic level in Polish, but with many grammatical errors, and continued to address her mother primarily in Swedish. However, during her grandmother's visits (age and duration not mentioned), she would speak Polish with her and use more of it with her mother, even serving as a translator for her father. However, after the visits, she would return to using Swedish with her mother. At the time of writing, the mother had resigned herself to the fact that Polish would only be a second language for her daughter.

The next case study by Kamada (1997) is of a Japanese – Japanese-American couple of which the mother, Ann, is a balanced bilingual (of bilingual parents whose parents were also bilingual) and the Japanese father is very fluent in English. The father uses English about 60-70% of the time with his wife, and the family practices OPOL (except in front of Japanese speakers) or when helping with Japanese schoolwork. Both girls were cared for by Japanese babysitters from birth until they entered Japanese kindergarten. The older daughter, Aiya, has had four one-month visits to the U.S. : twice in her first year and once at ages three and seven. The younger daughter, Eka, has had two one-month visits to the U.S. at ages one and five. Neither daughter produced English regularly until age six, and then primarily only in the presence of their English-speaking cousins or maternal grandparents (although the grandparents are bilingual). At the time of reporting the girls were 12;0 and 9;9, and responded to their mother in English twenty percent and five percent of the time, respectively. Ann described their English as well below peer level. However, she was not concerned about their language abilities, as she herself spoke little English before a year-long stay in the U.S. from ages six to seven , and she was planning for a similar trip for their family in the near future.

The final case study by Sondergaard (1981) is a striking example of what can happen when there is delayed speech and significant antagonism towards the idea of bilingualism. The author, a Danish man, married to a Finnish woman and living in Denmark , tells the story of their attempt and failure to raise their son bilingual. The family practiced OPOL, but the parents spoke Danish together, as the father had a poor command of Finnish. Although their son appeared to understand both languages, he had minimal linguistic activity until age 2;1. Once he began to talk, he never voluntarily said anything in Finnish. During the entire time the family attempted to raise their son bilingual, their Danish relatives put severe pressure on them to stop, insisting that their son would suffer permanently from this experiment. At the time, the parents did not have access to experts on this question, and as a result, gave up on their efforts just before age three. It seems that at some point they did take trips to Finland . However, the age of these trips is not given, and ultimately, their son did not end up speaking enough Finnish to communicate with his relatives in Finland using Finnish.

While there are not many case studies of failure to produce bilingualism in the literature, it is clearly very prevalent. In a study of 25 English-French families living in France , only 19 of the 42 children were described as bilingual (Métraux, 1965, cited in Arnberg, 1987). In another study of German-Australian marriages in Australia , in families with a German mother, only 4.4% of the children spoke German, and only 3.6% of those with a German father did so (Prace, 1977, cited in Saunders, 1988). Still another study in Australia of German-speaking families (presumably with two native parents), where the children were either born in Australia or arrived before age five, 23.2% of the children spoke no German to their parents.

Discussion

Looking at the ensemble of case studies described above, it seems that any number of strategies can ultimately lead to success in raising bilingual children in a monolingual culture. However, the one that stands out the most is the influence of minority language family and minority language country visits during the formative language years (2-5). These visits appeared to be the determining factor in numerous case studies. However, absent additional strategies for language exposure or use, this alone did not appear to lead to success by age five. This seems particularly evident in OPOL families, in which the minority language parent is the only regular source of minority language input for the child. In those families, only those who employed additional means, such as a false monolingual strategy or minority language playgroups, schools, or babysitters, achieved success by age five. In contrast, for minority language at home families, trips to the minority language country or regular visits with minority language relatives appeared to be sufficient to lead to bilingualism. Nevertheless, it also seems clear from several case studies that bilingualism can be achieved after age five, if there is at least receptive bilingualism established by that age. But the evidence seems to point to the fact that the input after that point needs to involve a larger amount of immersion of longer duration if the children are ultimately to become native-like in their second language. On the whole, these case studies point to the importance of parental persistence in helping children to become bilingual. This persistence leads parents to continue using the minority language in the face of resistance, seek out help, change strategies, and employ new measures when they see that their children are not developing in their minority language use. Factors such as family and community support can ultimately influence parents in their persistence.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

While there are a large number of case studies of success available for examination, and reasonable conclusions can be drawn from analysis of these studies, future researchers could better contribute to this literature in more carefully documenting the factors contributing to success or failure in each case. Studies of this nature should include information on the percentage of minority language exposure at all ages; the languages use patterns between all parents and children; age and duration of minority language country visits; age and duration of minority language family visits; amount of exposure to minority language media; age and duration of use of minority language schooling or playgroups; age and duration of use of minority language au pairs or babysitters; prestige and support issues; and ideally, objective measures of language attainment at regular intervals during a child's early years. Many of the studies cited above lacked one or more of these details, which ultimately means that we can only make educated guesses about what led to success or failure in certain cases. In addition, because most of the studies lacked objective means of measurement of children's language skills, parental expectations and standards may have led some parents to underestimate their children's abilities, and others to overestimate them. It is entirely possible that there are cases described as failure to achieve bilingualism in which the child has language abilities similar to ones described as successful. In addition, more studies on failure to achieve bilingualism would greatly help to fortify the conclusions drawn from the few studies available in this area.

References

Arnberg, L. (1984). Mother tongue playgroups for pre-school bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,5 , 65-84.

Arnberg, L. (1987). Raising children bilingually: The pre-school years. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families. Clevedon , England : Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Caldas, S. J., & Caron-Caldas, S. (1992). Rearing bilingual children in a monolingual culture: A Louisiana experience. American Speech, 67 , 290-296.

Christian, C. C., Jr. (1977). Minority language skills before age three. In W. Mackey , & Andersson, T. (Eds.), Bilingualism in Early Childhood. (pp. 94-108). Rowley , MA : Newbury House.

Cunningham-Andersson, U., & Andersson, S. (2004). Growing up with two languages: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London : Routledge.

Döpke, S. (1986). Discourse strategies in bilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development., 7 , 493-507.

Harding-Esch, E., & Riley, P. (2003). The bilingual family: A handbook for parents. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Hoffmann, C. (1985). Language acquisition in two trilingual children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development., 6 , 479-495.

Junker, D. A., & Stockman, I. J. (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German-English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11 , 381-394.

Kamada, L. D. (1997). Bilingual family case studies (vol. 2). Monographs on Bilingualism (No. 5). Tokyo : Japan Association for Language Teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422750) .

Liddicoat, A. (1991). Bilingualism: An introduction. In A. Liddicoat (Ed.), Bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 1-20). Melbourne : National Languages Institute of Australia .

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second-language acquisition in childhood . Hillsdale , New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Padilla, A. M., & Liebman, E. (1975). Language acquisition in the bilingual child. Bilingual Review, 2 , 34-55.

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism . Oxford : Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual children: From birth to teens . Clevedon , England : Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Sondergaard, B. (1981). Decline and fall of an individual bilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2 , 297-302.

Taeschner, T. (1983). The sun is feminine: A study on language acquisition in bilingual children . Berlin : Springer-Verlag.

Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1977). The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5 , 311-326.

Zierer, E. (1977). Experiences in the bilingual education of a child of pre-school age. IRAL, 15 , 143-149.