Upload
uw
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
For Peer ReviewPerceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the
process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities
Journal: International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Manuscript ID BEB-1535.R2
Manuscript Type: Paper
Keywords: Bilingual Acquisition, Childhood Bilingualism, Early Bilingualism, Language Acquisition, Multilingualism, Parents of Bilingual Children
Abstract:
This article examines the perceived effectiveness of multilingual upbringing strategies and ways of communication adopted by families where the parents are of two different nationalities. The theoretical introduction presents an overview of the most important issues related to the linguistic development in bi-/multilingual children, debunking common myths and misconceptions surrounding the notions of bi-/multilingualism. The empirical part analyses the results of a survey conducted among parents who raise their children multilingually, looking at the strategies of communication adopted, the perceived effectiveness thereof, and whether the respondents would have changed or improved anything if they had been given a ‘second chance’. The results show that the most frequently implemented method is the one parent-one language approach, whose
usefulness the majority assessed positively. Other practical conclusions concerning multilingual upbringing are also drawn.
Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of
multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities
This article examines the perceived effectiveness of multilingual upbringing
strategies and ways of communication adopted by families where the parents are
of two different nationalities. The theoretical introduction presents an overview
of the most important issues related to the linguistic development in bi-
/multilingual children, debunking common myths and misconceptions
surrounding the notions of bi-/multilingualism. The empirical part analyses the
results of a survey conducted among parents who raise their children
multilingually, looking at the strategies of communication adopted, the perceived
effectiveness thereof, and whether the respondents would have changed or
improved anything if they had been given a ‘second chance’. The results show
that the most frequently implemented method is the one parent-one language
approach, whose usefulness the majority assessed positively. Other practical
conclusions concerning multilingual upbringing are also drawn.
Keywords: multilingual upbringing; bilingual acquisition; childhood
bilingualism; communication strategies; bi/multinational families; childhood
bi/multilingualism; parental perspectives; parents of bilingual children
Introduction
The majority of the peoples on earth are multilingual, not mono- or even bilingual
(Bagga-Gupta 2013:36). In many corners of the world people have long been growing
up speaking more than merely two tongues (think e.g. the 4 official languages of
Singapore, the 11 of South Africa, the 22 scheduled languages in India, with 234
tongues spoken natively by at least 10,000 people, the 60+ languages spoken in
Pakistan, the 68 indigenous languages of Mexico, the 182 living languages of the
Philippines, or the 706 or so of Indonesia…). In the scientific literature today, too,
bilingualism is seen as a specific—not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively
different—case of multilingualism, rather than vice versa (Herdina and Jessner 2002;
Jessner 2006: 35). This has led some researchers (e.g. Widła 2015) to talk of the
Page 1 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
twilight of bilingualism in favour of multilingualism. Multilingual and multicultural
couples are no longer surprising or shocking. An increasing number of people choose to
spend their life with a person of a different nationality, who very often also speaks a
different mother tongue. Such a relationship may cause some difficulties with regard to
raising children, as the situation typically demands the introduction of multilingual
upbringing.
The article aims at presenting, assessing and discussing the effectiveness of the
methods that the parents may choose if their aim is to raise their children multilingually.
The theoretical foray focuses on the early development of bilingualism with the
emphasis on the role of the parents and the possible models of education that they may
introduce in their households. It also dispels some widespread myths and
misconceptions surrounding the notions of bi-/multilingualism and bi-/multilingual
education. The subsequent empirical section presents the results of a survey conducted
among 37 multilingual families in which the parents are of two different nationalities, in
36 of which the spouses/partners did not share a mother tongue.
1 Becoming bi-/multilingual
Some may claim that the most natural surrounding for a child is a unilingual
environment. This is a widespread stereotype, especially in countries with a mainstream
culture characterised by monolingualism, such as the United States (Pearson 2008:4).
However, contrary to this view it has been shown that it is ‘pure’ monolinguals who are
an exception in the field, not the other way round (ibid.). Examples of people using one
language exclusively are relatively rare and ‘now hard to find even in the mountains of
Papua New Guinea’ (Cook 2002:23). In some regions of the world, such as Singapore,
families are accustomed to using two or three languages in their households
interchangeably and from the very beginning in order to influence their children’s
Page 2 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
proficiency in more than one language, and it is the usage of one language that turns out
to be exceptional there (Gupta 1994:161). Hence, on a global scale encountering a
monolingual child in a kindergarten would be statistically rare.
It is vital to mention that in order to raise a bilingual or multilingual child, the
parent does not need to be bilingual her-/himself. The growing culture of globalisation
permits the application of many means which render the task feasible, even if the parent
does not know the language of concern (Pearson 2008:5). For instance, an increasing
number of parents decide to hire a caregiver speaking the language, hence the growing
popularity of foreign nannies and au pairs. Increased mobility in the modern world also
permits taking the offspring abroad, which can be a perfect opportunity to showcase the
variety of cultures and languages and to spark the motivation to learn foreign languages.
Many people wrongly believe that multilingualism can be accomplished only if
the acquisition of languages begins in childhood. It may indeed be easier when the
process starts early, but a later age of onset is not an excluding factor; what matters is
the actual experience in using the language (cf. e.g. Luk, de Sa and Bialystok 2011;
Consonni et al. 2013; Sheng, Bedore, Peña and Fiestas 2013; de Carli et al. 2014;
Gibson, Peña and Bedore 2014; Unsworth et al. 2014). Life circumstances such as
migration, education, or intermarriage force many to adjust to the new situation, and an
adult may attain a level of linguistic proficiency comparable to that of a child who has
been acquiring her/his languages all life long, with the possible exception of nativelike
pronunciation (as the attainment here may depend on the individual differences
regarding the articulatory rehearsal component of working memory and phonetic coding
ability) – which in contexts e.g. of English used as a lingua franca (ELF) may not be
necessary at all, given the lesser relevance of NS-oriented norms (Paradowski 2013).
Likewise, bilingual exposure from birth does not necessarily lead to a ‘balanced’
Page 3 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
bilingual, as De Houwer (2003, 2007) showed that around one in four bilingually raised
infants will maintain productive proficiency in only one language.
In the case of childhood bilingualism the question arises when exactly the
acquisition starts. Some think that it only begins at birth, when it becomes possible for
the baby to listen to others. Contrary to this common belief, language acquisition
commences already at the foetal stage, as the foetus begins to respond to sound around
the 19th
-20th
week of gestational age, and after birth the infant is immediately able to
differentiate the mother’s voice from others and to discriminate sounds (Baker
2011:95).
As far as early linguistic competencies are concerned, infants who are raised
bilingually and monolingually do not respond to the language in the same manner
(Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés 1997). Not only are four-month-olds capable of
recognising the familiar language, they also respond differently depending on the
language spoken to them, as reflected in the latencies of the responses (op. cit.:63). A
case study of an infant raised in a bilingual environment showed that during the pre-
verbal babbling stage (approximately between 6 and 12 mths of age; in the study quoted
examined from 10 to 15 mths) was differentiating languages, demonstrating language-
specific phonological features depending on whether he was babbling in the company of
his English-speaking mother or French-speaking father (Maneva and Genesee 2002).
Two-year-olds and even younger children are proficient enough to adjust the language
to the situation or person and capable of switching between them fluently (Baker
2011:96). While for a lay observer it may be difficult to precisely pinpoint the age of
externally visible separation of languages (as this varies considerably and depends on
many factors, such as linguistic input, patterns of interaction – not only within the
family, but also outside; the child’s self-awareness, personality, general competencies,
Page 4 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
and ability to adjust; ibid.), there is much consensus among researchers today that there
may be no initial stage of ‘fusion’ and that, rather, bilingual children differentiate
languages from the very beginning.
2 Debunking the myths surrounding multilingualism
Many myths and much prejudice has grown around the notions of bi- and
multilingualism. Before proceeding further, it is essential to dispel some of the most
commonly heard misconceptions.
One frequently encountered opinion, especially prevalent in territories marked
(whether historically or contemporarily) by high linguistic homogeneity, is that bi- or
multilinguals are exceptions to the default monolingual norm (Paradowski 2011:331f.).
An example here may be current-day Poland, where what tends to be forgotten is that
before the aftermath of World War II the country had eternally been a melting pot of
nationalities, religions and languages, with a centuries-old tradition of openness and
tolerance towards other ethnic groups (Komorowska 2014). Under the partitions of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Russia, Prussia and Austria—with the
former kingdom consequently erased from the maps of Europe for 123 years—it was
common for its citizens to function in both the strongly defended native language and
the imposed language of the occupant (while learning Greek and Latin at school and
modern languages at university; Schramm 2008, not to mention elite multilingualism,
Otwinowska 2016). This pervasive monolingual bias (Silverstein 1996, 1998; Cook
2002; Auer and Li 2006; Grosjean 2008) can be traced back to: i) the formation of
nation states in the 18th
and 19th
c. with the accompanying imposition of nationalistic
one country – one language policies aiming at linguistic unification of the citizens and
creation of a national identity centred around the majority/official language and culture
(Singleton and Aronin 2007; Mesthrie 2010), ii) the growth of colonialism, iii) the
Page 5 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
associated prestige ascribed to the privileged languages, and iv) the Saussurean-
Chomskyan linguistic tradition taking as its reference point the idealised monolingual
native speaker (Otwinowska 2016). Yet, the opposite is true: multilingualism is a
natural potential available to every typically developing human being; monolingual
speakers are but the consequence of environmental factors that have failed to provide
the opportunity to acquire another language (Paradowski 2011:332).
Another misconception, going back to Bloomfield’s (1933:56) definition that
held sway over the field for many decades, has been that in order to deserve the label
‘bi-/multilingual’, one needs to have an equal, ‘perfect’, ‘nativelike’ command of
both/all her/his languages (Grosjean 1996, 2008). Such a stance would at once imply
that code-switching or a ‘foreign’ accent are undesirable signs of linguistic sloppiness
or ‘contamination’ (Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007). The still widespread fallacy of the
monolingual reference point means that despite using two or more languages on a
regular basis, many bilinguals themselves evaluate their own linguistic competences as
inadequate and do not perceive themselves as bilingual (cf. Cook 1999; Canagarajah
2004; Jenkins 2006; Grosjean 2008:224; De Houwer 2015). Nowadays most linguists
have departed from this static fractional/coordinate view of bi-/multilinguals as ‘many
monolinguals in one person’ with separate competencies (Jessner 2006:130) and
identities (Gawinkowska, Paradowski, and Bilewicz 2013) in each language, and from
considering the aim of second language acquisition to be ‘learning how to behave
monolingually in the new language’ (Ortega 2010; cf. Wei and Moyer 2008; De
Houwer 2009), in favour of a dynamic compound perspective on multicompetent users
(Cook 1991, 2008; Macaro 2009; Luk and Bialystok 2013), tilting towards less rigorous
expectations. Unbalanced bilingualism is expected and normal (cf. De Houwer 2009;
Grosjean 2010; Paradis, Genesee, and Crago 2011), especially given differential,
Page 6 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
probabilistic success even in native bilinguals, as opposed to guaranteed, categorical
success in all – healthy – monolinguals (Ortega 2014). Crystal points out that ‘people
who have perfect fluency in two languages do exist, but they are an exception, not a
rule’ (1987:362), Grosjean stresses the importance of frequency of use, defining
bilinguals as ‘those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives’
(2010:22), and even language policies recognise that individuals are ‘social agent[s]
who [have] gradually varying competences in several languages and experience with
several cultures’ (Sauer and Saudan 2008:5; emph. added), and that (Moore 2006)
the development of communicative competences in an individual’s different
languages is tailored … to his/her communication needs. Since each variety, each
language that composes an individual’s repertoire fulfils certain functions (the
language used in the family, the language used at school, the language used at
work, etc.), they all develop differently and are not, in principle, interchangeable;
they complement each other – their use being dictated by circumstances, topic or
interlocutor. (Hutterli 2012:50f.; emph. in original)
In Switzerland, this recognition is usually referred to by the term ‘functional
plurilingualism’ (cf. e.g. Hutterli, Stotz, and Zappatore 2008:107).
There are also several entrenched myths surrounding bilingual education. One is
the belief that childhood bilingualism may be detrimental to both linguistic and
cognitive development (for a summary, see e.g. Jessner 2008:15) and consequently lead
to poorer results at school. The prejudice goes back to studies of bilingual children that
had been carried out between the 1890s and 1950s and suggested a ‘language handicap’
or linguistic ‘confusion’ affecting children’s intellectual development and academic
performance (Hakuta and Diaz 1985). These studies, however, suffered from numerous
methodological problems: i) focusing on immigrants or inhabitants of economically
underdeveloped rural regions (such as Welsh bilinguals in Great Britain, immigrants in
Page 7 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
the United States, or Francophones in Canada), while their monolingual peers were
typically raised in families of relatively higher SES, ii) phrasing the tests in the
participants’ less-fluent second language, iii) using monolingual standards as measures,
iv) inclusion of culture-bound items in the tests, and v) a political bias, as the aim of
many of the studies was to bolster the respective governments’ anglicisation policies
towards immigrants and minorities (Baker 1988; Edwards 2004). Little wonder
therefore that incipient research ignoring all the pertinent socioeconomic factors was
only corroborating the prevalent pernicious stereotypes considering users of two or
more languages as linguistically or even intellectually inferior ‘second-class’ citizens
(Paradowski 2011:332f). It was only with Peal and Lambert’s rigorous landmark (1962)
study carried out on Canadian schoolchildren that this negative outlook on bilinguals’
mental abilities was reversed and bilinguals’ advantage on measures of both verbal and
nonverbal intelligence began to be widely recognised and researched. Recent studies
have also suggested that the advantages reported for ‘true’ multilingual children could
be shared by children speaking two or more dialects of the same language, with children
who had developed bidialectal literacy in both the majority and minority written
varieties of Norwegian achieving higher scores than the national average in standardised
tests in reading, arithmetic, and English (Vangsnes, Söderlund, and Blekesaune 2015),
and bidialectal children speaking both Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek
exhibiting an advantage over monolingual children in holding and manipulating
information in working memory (Antoniou, Grohmann, Kambanaros, and Katsos 2016).
Some parents fear that exposing their child to more than one tongue may cause
language impairment or deficits, or that for children already diagnosed with
impairments two languages mean too much unnecessary pressure and effort (Haman,
Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, and Wodniecka 2015). The reality is that language
Page 8 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
impairments, if they do occur, are completely independent of bi- or multilingualism
(Bedore and Pena 2008; Paradis 2010); in fact, children diagnosed with SLI who
regularly use two or more languages have been shown to make significantly fewer
errors in certain areas of both their languages compared to age-matched monolingual
SLI peers (Paradis, Crago, and Genesee 2006; Chilla 2008a, b; Armon-Lotem,
Gordishevsky, and Walters 2010; Peets and Bialystok 2010; Grosjean and Li 2012;
Roeper 2012; Baker and Jensen de López 2015; Armon-Lotem, de Jong, and Meir
2015). It is true that bi-/multilinguals fall behind monolingual peers in some cognitive
aspects:
(i) They achieve lower scores in receptive vocabulary tests in each of their
respective tongues (Oller and Eilers 2002) – but this vocabulary deficit only
concerns home- and not school-related lexis and the difference level is at
approximately 10% (Bialystok, Luk, Peets, and Yang 2010);
(ii) They are slower in vocabulary recall (lexical access time as measured in
picture naming tasks; by around 40ms in their L1 and 80-90ms in their L2;
Ivanova and Costa 2008, as well as in more frequent experience of the ‘tip of the
tongue’ phenomenon; Gollan and Silverberg 2001, Gollan and Acenas 2004).
These are natural given the relatively lower input in each of the languages and
the necessity to suppress the influence of the other language(s) in cases of
lexical conflict as well as of the so-called emotion-related language choice (cf.
Gawinkowska, Paradowski, and Bilewicz 2013)’
(iii) They are later to develop some syntactic structures (Nicoladis 2006),
depending on the language combination and constructions involved.
Page 9 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
However, with time bi/multilinguals manage to catch up (at least to a level where these
deficits can no longer be spotted in daily functioning), and overall the total lexical
resources and linguistic repertoires of persons speaking more than one language are
much larger than in monolinguals (Pearson, Fernández, and Oller 1993; De Houwer
2009; Core, Hoff, Rumiche, and Señor 2013).
Finally, it is some immigrant parents’ opinion that the children do not have
enough time to learn both languages, therefore it is better that they only acquire the
majority language (Haman, Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, and Wodniecka 2015). This is
again a harmful conviction, as will be made clear in the following sections.
3 The study
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Purpose
The aims of the survey were threefold. First of all, it was to gather information on the
methods of bilingual upbringing applied by parents and the behaviours of the children.
Investigated were also parents’ opinions on the effectiveness of the chosen strategies as
manifested by visible progress in their children’s linguistic development. Finally, the
survey attempted to establish whether the parents would change anything if they had a
chance to go back in time.
3.1.2 Measuring instrument
The survey was conducted online in spring 2015, and announced on discussion forums
and social networking pages dedicated to parents raising children in more than one
Page 10 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
language and culture. No remuneration or other reward was offered for participation. In
order to facilitate extensive outreach, it was framed in English.
The survey consisted of thirty-eight questions, divided into two parts. The first
aimed at establishing general information about the family. It consisted of eleven
questions and focused mainly on the parents. The respondents were asked to indicate
their current place of residence, mother tongue and nationality, languages spoken, as
well as the mother tongue and nationality of the spouse/partner. One question concerned
the parents’ motives for bilingual or multilingual upbringing.
The second part, a more specific one, gathered information on the child(ren), the
(non-exclusive) methods applied in the process of upbringing (e.g. OPOL, reading to
the child, encouraging or rewarding the child for speaking more than one language,
correcting mistakes), and their effectiveness as evaluated by the parents. It asked about
the age of the child(ren), the environment (languages spoken, school), the time of onset
of the acquisition of every language as well as the motives for postponements thereof, if
any. It also gathered information concerning the child(ren)’s language skills. The
parents were asked to indicate whether they had noticed behaviours considered typical
of multilinguals (code-switching, lexical and grammatical transfer) and, if yes, to briefly
describe it and indicate their level of satisfaction with the child(ren)’s language skills, as
well as to evaluate the comprehensibility of their speech and ability to communicate in
different languages. This part included both Likert-scale and open-ended questions.
Six further questions focused on the methods applied by the parents. They were
asked to assess the absence or presence of the one parent – one language (OPOL)
method and state whether they had been correcting their children’s mistakes,
encouraging them to speak different languages, or rewarding them for it. The section
Page 11 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
also contained three questions on the readings that the children listened to and, if so, the
languages involved.
The last three questions served as a final wrap-up of the survey. The parents
were asked to evaluate their level of satisfaction with their children’s language skills
and overall development, and to justify their opinion. Finally, they were asked whether
they would introduce any changes if they were given a second chance.
Given the categorical (nominal) nature of most of the variables investigated as
well as focal interest in the open-ended questions and parents’ additional commentary,
the only statistical testing performed on the data in this study involved Pearson’s r.
3.1.3 Families
The survey was completed by mothers from 37 bilingual or multilingual families
(possibly fathers are less likely to visit forums and websites devoted to bi/multilingual
upbringing, or may be less willing to fill out questionnaires devoted to the topic). The
main condition was for the parents to have different nationalities. In only one case was
the native language of both parents the same. In 23 families (62.2%) the native language
of either the mother or the father was also the dominant language spoken in the
community. Only two mothers indicated that they are monolingual. Among the
remaining 35 families, 11 mothers (29.7%) were bilingual and 24 (64.7%) multilingual.
It is vital to point out that in 16 (43.2%) mothers who were filling in the
questionnaire have higher linguistic education, which may have contributed to the
thoroughness of the observations and answers given in the survey.
Table 1: Countries of residence of the families
Country Number of families
Australia 1
Belgium 2
Page 12 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Canada 4
Croatia 1
Czech Republic 1
Finland 1
France 1
Germany 2
Greece 2
Japan 1
Lebanon 1
Mexico 1
Netherlands 1
Norway 1
Poland 1
Spain 1
Turkey 1
United Arab Emirates 1
United Kingdom 4
United States 9
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Reasons for multilingual upbringing
In the case of multinational marriages it is obvious that one of the most important
reasons for raising children multilingually is mutual communication. Since in the
majority of cases the parents also have different mother tongues, the child is often
required to know both of them on a communicative level in order to be able to interact.
[The] child [should] be capable of talking and exchanging information [not only] with
his or her parents, but also with other members of the community, whose dominant
language is often different from the ones already spoken at home [italicised fragments
throughout the text indicate excerpts from the mothers’ responses]. However, in the
survey only nine families (24.3%) indicated this motive while answering the question
about the reasons for the decision to raise their children multilingually.
The reason that turned out to be the most common is the need to communicate
with the rest of the family from both sides. Even if the parents of the child are
themselves multilingual, it is rare for their relatives, or even friends, to be able to also
Page 13 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
use multiple languages. In the questionnaire, seventeen families (45.9%) provided this
reason as the one which convinced them to choose multilingual upbringing.
Language is more than just a means of communication; it is also part of [one’s]
heritage. It is almost never separated from the culture. When a child grows up in a
country distant from the native one of her/his parents, they often try to convey the
culture of the country via the use of language and encourage the child to remember
her/his roots. It is also a natural thing to communicate with the child in one’s own
mother tongue, as it creates a more genuine connection; some mothers described
communication in a non-native tongue as ‘uncomfortable.’ The reason involving one’s
roots and culture was indicated by twelve mothers (32.4%).
Being multilingual has many advantages and can be beneficial not only for
children, but also adults (Bialystok, Craik, and Freedman 2007; Paradowski 2011;
Alladi et al. 2014). Being able to use more than one language is in itself a very useful
and valuable skill, but as we have seen in section 2, it also enhances the operation of the
brain and favourably influences cognitive development (cf. also Paradowski and
Michałowska 2016). Multilingualism can also make people more open-minded and
capable of understanding different cultures[,] and acknowledge their diversity.
Additionally, knowledge of many languages can play a crucial role in the future career,
as it provides more possibilities and paths, including education abroad, which may be
better or less expensive than in the home country. These benefits were listed as the
reason for applying multilingual upbringing by thirteen mothers (35.1%).
Page 14 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer ReviewFigure 1. Popularity of the reasons for multilingual upbringing
3.2.2 Parents
The closest environment of the children in the study was culturally very rich from the
beginning of their lives. The mothers who filled in the survey present a total of 21
nationalities, their partners 19 (Table 2).
Table 2: Nationalities of the parents who took part in the survey
Nationality # mothers # fathers # parents
American 3 6 9
Australian – 1 1
Brazilian 1 – 1
British 2 4 6
Bulgarian 2 – 2
Canadian 2 5 7
Chinese 1 – 1
Croatian 1 – 1
Danish 1 – 1
Dutch 1 2 3
Estonian 1 – 1
Finnish – 1 1
Finnish/
Turkish 1 – 1
French 1 2 3
German 2 3 5
Greek 1 2 3
Greek/
Moroccan – 1 1
Icelandic 1 – 1
Indonesian 1 – 1
The need to communicate with the rest of the family from both sides
Cognitive benefits, greater tolerance, richer career opportunities
Language to convey the culture of the country and as a part of the heritage
The need to communicate with the parents and other members of the local community
Page 15 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Irish – 1 1
Italian 2 – 2
Japanese – 1 1
Lebanese – 1 1
Mexican 4 1 5
Peruvian 1 1 2
Polish 4 – 4
Serbian 1 – 1
Slovak – 1 1
Spanish 2 1 3
Spanish/
Venezuelan – 1 1
Swedish 1 – 1
Turkish – 2 2
With all those nationalities comes a great linguistic variety. The mothers speak
in total 18 different native tongues, their partners 12 (Table 3). Among the 37 families
in only two do the parents share the same mother tongue; in one of these cases the father
has two native tongues.
Table 3: Native languages of the parents
Language # mothers # fathers # parents
Arabic – 2 2
Bulgarian 2 – 2
Cantonese 1 – 1
Danish 1 – 1
Dutch 1 1 2
Dutch/
English – 1 1
English 7 16 23
English/
French – 1 1
English/
German – 1 1
Estonian 1 – 1
Finnish – 1 1
French 2 2 4
German 2 1 3
Greek 1 2 3
Icelandic 1 – 1
Italian 2 – 2
Indonesian 1 – 1
Japanese – 1 1
Polish 4 – 4
Portuguese 1 – 1
Serbian 1 – 1
Page 16 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Slovak – 1 1
Spanish 6 4 10
Spanish/
Catalan 1 – 1
Swabian – 1 1
Swedish 1 – 1
Turkish 1 2 3
Only two mothers admitted that they are monolingual, but, interestingly enough,
one of them claimed to be using two different languages while communicating with the
child. This may be due to the fact that, as mentioned in section 2, many people use very
strict definitions of bilingualism or multilingualism, and associate these labels with
early language acquisition (the questionnaire did not provide definitions of these terms).
Such people often consider themselves monolingual, even if they can justifiably be
classified as late sequential bilinguals. Among the remaining 35 mothers, the most
frequent pattern is the knowledge of two or four languages (11 mothers – or 29.7% –
each). A slightly smaller number use three languages (8 mothers, 21.6%). Two mothers
asserted that they know five languages and three claimed they know six.
3.2.3 Linguistic environment
The number of languages that a child is exposed to depends on many factors. The first
crucial one is the language in use between the parents. In many cases the mother tongue
of one of the parents already serves as a means of communication in the family.
However, quite often parents communicate in a third language, different from their
native ones, but which is known to both of them. Another key factor here is location.
Depending on where the family currently reside, the child can be exposed to a higher or
lower number of languages. If in the area where the family live one of the languages
used at home is at the same time the dominant language of the community, the number
is reduced, unless the concerned country or region is bi-, tri- or quadrilingual, in which
case the number of languages the child is exposed to rises considerably. In the case of
Page 17 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
this survey, the children are exposed to two, three, four, five, six or seven languages
(Fig. 2). There is a moderate positive Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
(.6259; p<.001) between the number of languages spoken by the mother and the number
of languages the child has contact with.
Figure 2. The number of languages the children are exposed to in each family
Most of the mothers choose to use either one or two languages while
communicating with the children. Seventeen (45.9%) use only one language as the
means of communication, which in most cases (88.2 per cent) is their mother tongue.
Fourteen (37.8%) use two different languages. In two cases the second language occurs
only when a third person is involved in the conversation and there is a possibility that
s/he will not understand what has been said. Only six mothers (16.2%) use three
languages to communicate with their children. However, sometimes the second or third
language occurs only rarely, to provide some exposure; for instance, one mother would
purportedly use a language other than her L1 only when providing a translation of what
she has just said in Bulgarian into English or Japanese.
The total number of languages that the children have contact with is thirty
(Table 4), whereas all the parents concerned have in total only twenty four different
native tongues. Exposure to parents’ non-native tongues is quite common (23 families;
62.1%) and, interestingly enough, not always connected with the family’s domicile (in
only 8 cases among these [34.8%] are the relevant languages spoken in the family’s
Two languagesThree languagesFour languagesFive languagesSix languagesSeven languages
Page 18 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
place of residence). It is important to mention that in all 37 families the children have
contact with English, which underlines the importance and role of this language in
today’s world (Paradowski 2008). This result may have also been influenced by the fact
that English was the language of the survey.
Table 4: Languages the children are exposed to
Language # families
Arabic 3
ASL 1
Bulgarian 2
Cantonese 1
Catalan 1
Croatian 1
Czech 1
Danish 1
Dutch 6
English 37
Estonian 1
Finnish 1
French 11
German/Hochdeutsch 8
Greek 4
Icelandic 1
Indonesian 1
Italian 2
Japanese 1
Norwegian 1
Polish 4
Portuguese 1
Russian 1
Serbian 1
Slovak 1
Spanish 15
Swabian 1
Swedish 1
Turkish 3
A good opportunity for the child to be exposed to different languages and, at the
same time, to have contact with peers who also communicate in those languages is
sending her/him to bilingual kindergarten or school. However, among the families who
took part in the survey only eight (21.6%) decided to choose this kind of educational
Page 19 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
institution. This may be due to financial reasons: despite their growing popularity, the
tuition fees at such establishments tend to be quite steep.
3.2.4 Profile of the children
The survey took into consideration 48 children in total. In 29 cases (78.4%), there is
only one child in the family. In five (13.5%) there are two children, and in three cases
three.
Table 5: Ages of the described children
Age # children
1 2
1.5 1
2 2
2.5 1
3 8
3.5 2
4 6
4.5 2
5 8
6 4
7 3
7.5 1
8 2
9 3
13 1
15 1
18 1
All the families claimed that their children had had contact with at least two
different languages from the first days of life, but in six families (16.2%) contact with
the third or latter languages was postponed. The mothers gave diverse reasons for this.
In three cases they claimed that the later languages came naturally with the beginning of
nursery, kindergarten or school – a perfect example of sequential multilingualism. One
mother does not talk in Greek to her child because it is not her native language and she
was afraid of transferring her accent, so waiting until the beginning of school seemed a
solution. In two cases the acquisition of a new language resulted from moving countries.
Page 20 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Two families deliberately put off the acquisition of the third language as they had
thought it could turn out to be too confusing for the children, but one of them (even
though the child is just 18 months old) began regretting the decision and started to
introduce the third language, while another wished to expose her child to two more
languages, but this was hindered by unfavourable conditions (as she did not have a
driving licence and was unable to take the child around and facilitate contact with native
speakers).
3.2.5 Methods applied in the process of upbringing
The one parent – one language method is applied by only 23 families (62.2%), 11 of
whom (47.8%) do not apply the ‘pure’ version, since the mothers claim to use more
than one language while communicating with their children.
Another method is reading to the child. Not only does it provide a joyful time
for both the child and the parent that serves to reinforce family ties, but it is also a great
opportunity to provide input in a chosen language. The analysis showed that only one
family does not use readings. All the mothers read in their native language(s), but
additionally 27 (73%) read in non-native tongues as well. Interestingly enough, 16 of
those 27 (59.3 %) declare that they are applying the OPOL method (but see the note in
the previous paragraph). In the remaining nine cases, in which the mothers read only in
their native tongues, all the children also listen to stories read in (an)other language(s).
There is a moderate positive correlation (.5423; p<.001) between the presence of
reading performed by the mother and the child’s perceived ability to communicate
effectively with the mother’s family in the mother’s native language.
Among the other methods, the survey asked about error correction,
encouragement and rewards. Correcting errors is applied by 33 families (89.2%).
Encouraging the child to speak more than one language is only a little less common (31
Page 21 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
families; 83.8%). Rewarding children for speaking more than one language has few
supporters – only four families (10.8%).
One of the mothers, living in Washington, DC, mentioned another method that
she considers effective in the process of multilingual upbringing: in order to provide
extra exposure to German, she hired an au pair who speaks German exclusively. She
has also introduced German play times. The mother claims the method to be effective,
as the father also uses German and additionally English while communicating with the
child.
3.2.6 Children’s linguistic skills and behaviours
The most important outcome of language acquisition is the ability to communicate. In
the case of the families who took part in the survey it was also the main reason for
which they had decided to apply bilingual or multilingual upbringing – to render
possible communication between them, their children, and families. The analysis has
shown that, in general, in their eyes they have succeeded. Among the 37 families, only
three mothers reported having problems with understanding their children’s speech, and
only two evaluated communication with their families in their native languages as
unsuccessful. In one case the child does not have contact with this side of the family.
The situation is very similar when it comes to the father’s family: in this case 33
mothers (89.2%) claimed that communication with this side of the family in the fathers’
native language is successful, and only one mother admitted otherwise. In three cases
children do not have contact with the father’s family.
The methods applied by the families turned out to be effective not only with
regard to communicative skills, but also general linguistic skills. 21 mothers (56.8%)
claimed to be content with their children’s writing skills. Among them 14 (37.8%)
described themselves as very satisfied and 7 (18.9%) as satisfied. There is a moderate
Page 22 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
positive correlation (.4472; p=.042) between the level of satisfaction and parents’
patience. In the remaining 16 cases (43.2%) the children had not yet developed a written
form of the language. Regarding speaking, only one mother was not happy with her
child’s speaking skills. 26 (70.3%) claimed to be very satisfied, 8 (21.6%) satisfied, and
3 to be neutral about it. As far as pronunciation is concerned, also only one mother
admitted not being content with her child’s performance (but still remains neutral about
it), and the remaining mothers were either very satisfied (21 mothers; 56.8%), satisfied
(12 mothers; 32.4%), or neutral (3 mothers). Children’s vocabulary was widely
appreciated as well. In this case again only one mother was not happy. Among the
remaining mothers 24 (64.9%) were very satisfied, 9 (24.3%) satisfied, and the
remaining 4 (10.8%) neutral. Grammar was also satisfactory; 16 mothers (47.1%)
described themselves as very satisfied, 11 (32.4%) as satisfied and 7 (20.6%) as neutral
towards the issue. Three mothers refrained from answering the question and one
claimed she was not content with her child’s performance.
The questionnaire also tackled three issues concerning children’s linguistic
behaviour: code-switching, lexical transfer, and grammatical transfer. One mother
refrained from answering. 19 elaborated on the topic and cited examples from their
children’s idiolects. Code-switching was observed in exactly 50 per cent of the cases
(18 families), lexical transfer in 20 families (55.5%) and morphosyntactic transfer in 19
families (52.8%).
Code-switching appeared in all possible forms – as a shift for a word, phrase or
sentence. The mothers noted that this takes place when the child is unable to find the
word in the language currently spoken or when a notion is better expressed in another
language – reasons coherent with those enumerated by scholars. For example:
Page 23 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
‘Mommy, can I please comer fresas, por favor?’ standing for ‘Mommy, can I please eat
some strawberries, please?’ or ‘Adriana has long cabello!’ for ‘Adriana has long hair.’
Among the examples of lexical transfer—the most commonly reported
behaviour of all three—there are: ‘Mummy, I told you to leave my room en paz,’
standing for ‘Mummy, I told you to leave my room alone’ or ‘Mama I want some eau,’
for ‘Mummy, I want some water.’ One child uses the Italian verb tornare, which means
to return, with the meaning of the French verb tourner, meaning to turn. Very common
are also calques, for example ‘mam zimno’ (I have cold) instead of ‘jest mi zimno’ (I
am cold). There is a moderate, but likely spurious negative correlation (–0.4000;
p=.016) between the presence of lexical transfer and the acquisition of languages from
birth.
Grammatical transfer, only a little less ubiquitous than lexical transfer, was also
keenly described by the mothers, with the examples even more numerous than in reports
of the previous two behaviours. Just to name a few: children finish Spanish sentences
with a preposition, which is common in English, apply Turkish Subject–Object–Verb
sentence structure while speaking Finnish, or Finnish SVO order while speaking
Turkish. One child tends to use the English progressive –ing suffix with French verbs in
French sentences. There is a moderate positive correlation between observed lexical
transfer and observed grammatical transfer (.4976; p=.002).
The mothers also mentioned some other behaviours. For example, one child
tends to use two words, one after the other, in both languages (‘mleko [milk] – melk’).
One mother reported her observation that her daughter code-switches and applies lexical
transfer only while talking with her or her husband, never with other people, probably
because she knows that both her parents speak those languages and will understand her
without difficulty. Finally, one mother stated that the whole family code-switch and
Page 24 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
apply lexical transfer, not only her daughter. She also underlined that sometimes this
was used as an inside joke.
3.3 Parents’ opinions
Overall the parents seem to be very content with the applied methods and their
outcomes. Despite some inconsistencies highlighted above, in the vast majority of the
cases the upbringing process was reported as effective (Fig. 3). The mothers describe
their children as very bright and keen learners who are curious and inquisitive. In
general, the children are able to communicate fluently and efficiently in two, three or
four languages, have rich vocabulary and learn new words, rules and languages quite
fast and with ease. The mothers also claim that the children have no foreign accent in
their speech. One mother believes that her daughter’s skills in every single one of her
three languages do not differ from those of her monolingual peers; another asserted that
her daughter’s Norwegian is not worse than her classmates’. Some children are
considered even more advanced than their peers – in one case a boy’s communicative
skills were evaluated as better that the other children’s in the playgroup. The children,
even very little ones, also understand that different people may speak different
languages and have to be addressed accordingly. With passing time, children also tend
to mix languages less. The mothers feel proud of their children and confident about their
further linguistic development or success in adult life. None of the mothers judged the
early exposure to more than two languages to be problematic or confusing. On the
contrary, one mother claimed that it was the delayed introduction of the third language
that turned out to be challenging. Parents who refrained from introducing further
languages at the beginning claimed they would not delay the introduction of a new
language again.
Page 25 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Figure 3. Level of mothers’ satisfaction
In language acquisition in general, children begin to understand a language
when they are not yet able to produce it. Production comes with time and the ability to
understand a given language is already a step towards effective and fluent
communication. Some multilingual children may experience a speech delay, but those
who did have problems with this at the beginning caught on quickly and do not have
further difficulties because of their multilingualism.
The last question, about possible changes if there were a chance to go back in
time, again made it clear that in general the parents are satisfied with their methods and
their children’s progress. 26 mothers (70.3%) answered confidently that they would not
have changed anything at all in the process. One mother claimed she was not sure about
the answer, and two did not answer the question. The remaining eight mothers had two
main ideas. Three admitted that they should have put more emphasis on their native
tongues, by either more frequent exposure, or stronger encouragement to learn the
language. Three mothers underlined that they would definitely have introduced the third
language earlier on. One declared that she should have applied a tighter schedule and a
‘more structural approach’. Finally, one mother declared that she found the introduction
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Page 26 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
of three languages very effective, but that if given a second chance, she would have
been more patient with her son’s speaking skills.
Discussion
Parental language input patterns are among the most crucial factors determining the
languages the child will speak, as exposure to more than one tongue from birth and a
natural bilingual environment outside the home may not suffice to reach ‘balanced’
bilingualism. Parents’ active use of the minority language at home per se is not a
satisfactory condition, either. De Houwer (2003, 2007) showed that around one in four
bilingually raised infants will maintain productive proficiency in only one language. In
her data collected in Flanders (with Dutch as the official and majority language, but also
high ethnic diversity, the presence of many immigrants, and historical importance of
French) two patterns seemed the most successful in transmitting the minority language:
both parents using only the minority language, or one speaking only the minority
language and the other using both (thus, use of the majority language by one of the
parents did not threaten the transmission of the minority language as long as the latter
was still used by both parents). The least successful patterns were where one parent
spoke the majority language and the other used both, and when both parents spoke both
languages – with the minority language failing to transmit in over one quarter of these
cases. These findings showed that the formerly praised and commonly practised one
parent – one language method is “neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition” in
transmitting the minority language (2007:420).
In our study, the OPOL method was used in 62% of the families. While
interpreting the results it must be remembered, however, that firstly, 45 of the 48
children reported on were under 10 years old (which makes sense given that once
teenagers leave home to go to college or university, the parents are less likely to
Page 27 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
contribute to surveys such as this one), thus below the age when language systems
stabilise and at a time when they are highly vulnerable to attrition and may rapidly
deteriorate with lack of sustained exposure and practice (cf. e.g. Pallier 2007; Montrul
2008, 2009; Bylund 2009; Schmid 2012). With increased contact with outside
environment (school, street, playground, etc.) the proportions of the language inputs are
likely to alter, and so may the learners’ acquisition trajectories (for further studies on the
typical shift to L2-dominance in minority bilingualism cf. e.g. Birdsong 2014; Sheng,
Lu, and Gollan 2014; Silva-Corvalán 2014, and Silva-Corvalán and Treffers-Daller
2015). Secondly, our questionnaire relied only on highly subjective parental perceptions
of the effectiveness of their upbringing methods, without correlating them – for reasons
of geographical distance as well as inter-subject differences in the many potential
explanatory variables (age, age of onset, number and configuration of languages,
schooling, presence or absence of formal instruction, context of acquisition, types and
amounts of exposure, siblings, families’ socioeconomic status, etc.) rendering any
attempt at a systematic comparison untenable – with an independent standardised
assessment of the children’s actual proficiency in the respective languages.
One further important factor in bilingual upbringing may be Yamamoto’s
(2001:128) “principle of maximal engagement with the minority language”, which
states that the child’s chances of actively using the minority language depend on her/his
dedication to it. This may explain the existence of families where the child fails to use
the minority language at home despite the provided input. Again, this factor was beyond
the scope of interest of the current study.
Conclusion
It goes without saying that nowadays knowledge of languages is very important. Even
though multilingualism is a widespread phenomenon, its advantages are most easily
Page 28 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
accessible to people whose parents are of different nationalities. Nonetheless, the
process of multilingual upbringing is complex and demanding, and its success is not a
given, but greatly depends on parents’ persistence and dedication.
This article aimed at presenting, discussing and assessing the perceived
effectiveness of some of the methods which parents may choose if they wish to raise
their children multilingually. It focused on families in which the parents are of two
different nationalities. Taken into consideration were examples of both simultaneous
and sequential multilingualism. All of the children concerned are simultaneous
bilinguals, but some acquired a third or latter languages sequentially. The analysis of the
results showed that, according to the parents, neither simultaneous nor sequential
multilingualism leads to confusion or further problems with communication. The
children are able to communicate not only with their parents and the parents’ families in
the parents’ native languages, but also with the local community. Additionally,
sequential acquisition does not necessarily lead to lesser proficiency, at least if it begins
relatively early.
One of the most important factors in a successful development of
multilingualism turned out to be the environment. Both linguistic and social aspects
should be taken into consideration. Parents who are of different nationalities normally
expose their children to at least two languages at home; some introduce three or more,
simultaneously or sequentially. Often the language of the community differs from those
already used at home. In the case of input there are two most important factors – quality
and quantity. If it is to result in the child becoming actively multilingual, the
environment ought to afford many opportunities to use the language.
Since parents are role-models for their offspring, both their language and their
attitude play an important role. While the patterns of linguistic input should be adjusted
Page 29 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
to the circumstances (for instance reducing the ratio of the majority language at home in
favour of the minority language, which is liable to lapse), the attitude is equally crucial.
The parents need to believe in the idea of multilingualism if they really want their
children to become multilingual, and they should motivate their children.
It is not possible to choose one silver-bullet method suitable for all families.
However, some models and techniques can be indicated as generally effective. The one
parent – one language method, very popular among the multinational couples, in most
cases leads to reported successful acquisition of at least two languages, even if the strict
separation of the languages is not respected in the interactions. The parents are also
content about the opportunity to ascribe one language to one person, which makes the
differentiation between languages and cultures easier. Due to the fact that all the
children concerned are simultaneous bilinguals, none of the cases involved the minority
language at home method. However, in all the cases the minority language was present
at home and the children’s active bilingualism shows that in parents’ perception this
technique is effective (but see the comments in the Discussion section above).
Another method that turned out to be common is error correction. Only a few
parents do not apply it, as most of them believe it is an effective way of enhancing the
child’s linguistic skills (despite scholarly literature indicating otherwise in the case of
first language acquisition). Parents also gladly encourage their children to speak
different languages and some of them asserted that the children, even small ones,
already show that they are proud of their multilingualism. Reading is another method
that boosts input and, additionally, reinforces the bond between parents and children.
The fact that most of the parents would not change anything given a second
chance implies that the methods they apply are judged as not only effective enough, but
also satisfying. However, it is vital to remember the importance of patience, which
Page 30 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
some parents tend to forget. Sometimes it is necessary to wait a little longer for
observable results.
Although some may still claim that introducing more than one language is
confusing and disadvantageous for the children, evidence denies this common myth.
The multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities was regarded as
effective and beneficial. Children raised multilingually are at an advantage compared
with monolinguals, and although the process is demanding for both parents and
children, it is worth taking the chance, especially when the final effect is so rewarding.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the mothers who took their time to fill out the questionnaires, and the
anonymous reviewers who provided helpful and exhaustive commentary. All the usual
disclaimers apply.
References
Alladi, A., J.A. Mortimer, T.H. Bak, V. Duggirala, B. Surampudi, M. Shailaja, A.K.
Shukla, J.R. Chaudhuri, and S. Kaul. 2014. Bilingualism delays age at onset of
dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology 81(22):
1938–44.
Antoniou, K., Grohmann, K.K., Kambanaros, M., and N. Katsos. 2016. The effect of
childhood bilectalism and multilingualism on executive control. Cognition 149:
18–30.
Armon-Lotem, S., J. de Jong, and N. Meir, eds. 2015. Assessing Multilingual Children.
Disentangling Bilingualism from Language Impairment. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Armon-Lotem, S., G. Gordishevsky, and J. Walters. 2010. Instructive bilingualism:
Prepositions in the Hebrew of bilingual children with SLI. In: Costa, J., A. Castro,
M. Lobo, and F. Pratas, eds. Proceedings of GALA 2009: Language Acquisition
and Development. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 1–12.
Auer, P., and L. Wei. 2007. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual
Communication. Göttingen: Hubert and Co.
Bagga-Gupta, S. 2013. The boundary-turn: (Re)locating culture, identity and language
through the epistemological lenses of time, space and social interactions. In: S.I.
Hasnain, S. Bagga-Gupta, and S. Mohan, eds. Alternative Voices: (Re)searching
Language, Culture, Identity… Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 28–49.
Baker, C. 1988. Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism [5th
edn.]. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Page 31 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Bedore, L.M., and E.D. Pena. 2008. Assessment of bilingual children for identification
of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11(1): 1–29.
Bialystok, E., F.I. Craik, and M. Freedman. 2007. Bilingualism as a protection against
the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia 45(2): 459–64.
Bialystok, E., G. Luk, K.F. Peets, and S. Yang. 2010. Receptive vocabulary differences
in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
13(4): 525–31.
Birdsong, D. 2014. Dominance and age in bilingualism. Applied Linguistics 35(4): 374–
92.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bosch, L., and N. Sebastián-Gallés. 1997. Native-language recognition abilities in 4-
month-old infants from monolingual and bilingual environments. Cognition 65(1):
33–69.
Bylund, E. 2009. Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language
Learning 59(3): 687–715.
Canagarajah, S. 2004. Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical
learning. In: B. Norton, and K. Toohey, eds. Critical Pedagogies and Language
Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 116–37.
Chilla, S. 2008a. Erstsprache, Zweitsprache, Spezifische Sprachentwicklungsstörung?
Eine Untersuchung des Erwerbs der deutschen Hauptsatzstruktur durch
sukzessiv-bilinguale Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache. Hamburg: Verlag Dr.
Kovač.
Chilla, S. 2008b. Störungen im Erwerb des Deutschen als Zweitsprache im Kindesalter–
eine Herausforderung an die sprachpädagogische Diagnostik. Diskurs Kindheits-
und Jugendforschung 3(3): 277–90.
Consonni, M., Cafiero, R., Marin, D., Tettamanti, M., Iadanza, A., Fabbro, F., and D.
Perani. 2013. Neural convergence for language comprehension and grammatical
class production in highly proficient bilinguals is independent of age of
acquisition. Cortex 49(5): 1252–8.
Cook, V.J. 1991. The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second
Language Research 7(2): 103–17.
Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 33(2): 185–209.
Cook, V., 2002. Background to the L2 user. In: same, ed. Portraits of the L2 User.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1–28.
Cook, V. 2008. Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language
acquisition research? In: Han, Z.H., ed. Understanding Second Language Process.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 16–26.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
de Carli, F., Dessi, B., Mariani, M., Girtler, N., Greco, A., Rodriguez, G., Salmon, L.,
and M. Morelli. 2014. Language use affects proficiency in Italian–Spanish
bilinguals irrespective of age of second language acquisition. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 18(2): 324–39.
De Houwer, A. 2003. Home languages spoken in officially monolingual Flanders: A
survey. Plurilingua 24: 71–87.
De Houwer, A. 2007. Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use.
Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3): 411–24.
De Houwer, A. 2009. Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Page 32 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
De Houwer, A. 2015. Harmonious bilingual development: Young families’ well-being
in language contact situations. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(2): 169–
84.
Edwards, J.V. 2004. Foundations of bilingualism. In: T.K. Bhatia, and W.C. Ritchie,
eds. The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell, 7–31.
Gawinkowska, M., Paradowski. M.B., and M. Bilewicz. 2013. Second language as an
exemptor from sociocultural norms. Emotion-Related Language Choice revisited.
PLoS ONE 8(12): e81225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081225
Gibson, T.A., Peña, E.D., and L.M. Bedore. 2014. The relation between language
experience and receptive-expressive semantic gaps in bilingual children.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17(1): 90–110.
Gollan, T. H., and L.-A.R. Acenas. 2004. What is a TOT? Cognate and translation
effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish-English and Tagalog-English
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition 33 (7): 246–69.
Gollan, T.H., and N. Silverberg. 2001. Tip-of-the-tongue states in Hebrew-English
bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1), 63–83.
Grosjean, F. 1996. Living with two languages and two cultures. In: I. Parasnis, ed.
Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 20–37.
Grosjean, F. 2008. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grosjean, F. 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Grosjean, F., and P. Li. 2012. The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. New York: Wiley.
Gupta, A.F. 1994. The Step-Tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hakuta. K., and R.M. Diaz. 1985. The relationship between bilingualism and cognitive
ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In: K.E. Nelson, ed.
Children’s Language [Vol. 5]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 319–44.
Haman, E., Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, A., and Z. Wodniecka. 2015, Sep 9.
Dwujęzyczność w warunkach naturalnych: Psycholingwistyczny rachunek
zysków i strat. Plenary lecture, Konferencja Naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa
Neofilologicznego ‘Wielojęzyczność i międzykulturowość w glottodydaktyce’,
University of Warsaw.
Herdina, P., and U. Jessner. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives
of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hutterli, S., ed. 2012. Coordination of Language Teaching in Switzerland. Current
Status – Developments – Future Prospects. Biel: Ediprim.
Hutterli, S., Stotz, D., and D. Zappatore. 2008. Do you parlez andere lingue?
Fremdsprachen Lernen in der Schule. Zurich: Pestalozzianum.
Ivanova, I., and A. Costa. 2008. Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech
production? Acta Psychologica 127(2): 277–88.
Jarvis, S., and A. Pavlenko. 2007. Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and
Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2006. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 16(2): 137–62.
Jensen de López, K., and A.E. Baker. 2015. Executive Functions in the assessment of
bilingual children with language impairment. In: Armon-Lotem, S., J. de Jong,
and N. Meir, eds. Assessing Multilingual Children. Disentangling Bilingualism
from Language Impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 275–98.
Page 33 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Jessner, U. 2006. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jessner, U. 2008. Teaching third languages: findings, trends and challenges. Language
Teaching 41(1): 15–56.
Klein, W. 1998. The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language
Learning 48(4): 527–50.
Komorowska, H. 2014. Analyzing linguistic landscapes. A diachronic study of
multilingualism in Poland. In: A. Otwinowska, and G. De Angelis, eds. Teaching
and Learning in Multilingual Contexts: Sociolinguistic and Educational
Perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 19–31.
Lanza, E. 1997. Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Luk, G., and E. Bialystok. 2013. Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction
between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25(5):
605–21.
Luk, G., de Sa, E., and E. Bialystok. 2011. Is there a relation between onset age of
bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 14(4): 588–95.
Macaro, E. 2009. Teacher use of code-switching in the second language classroom:
Exploring optimal use. In: M. Turnbull, and J. Dailey O’Cain, eds. First
Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 35–49.
Maneva, B., and F. Genesee. 2002. Bilingual babbling: Evidence for language
differentiation in dual language acquisition. In: B. Scarabela, S. Fish, and A.H.-J.
Do, eds. Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Boston University Conference on
Language Development, Vol. 1. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 383–92.
Mesthrie, R. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language. In: B. Spolsky, and
F.M. Hult, eds. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell, 66–82.
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age
Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S. 2009. Reexamining the fundamental difference hypothesis. What can early
bilingualism tell us? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2): 225–57.
Moore, D. 2006. Plurilinguismes et école. Paris: Didier.
Nicoladis, E. 2006. Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective-noun strings by preschool
bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9(1): 15–32.
Oller, D.K., and R.E. Eilers, eds. 2002. Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ortega, L. 2010, Mar 8. The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary address, 2010 AAAL
Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Ortega, L. 2014, Aug 11. Experience and success in late bilingualism. Plenary address,
17th
AILA World Congress ‘One World, Many Languages’, Brisbane.
Otwinowska, A. 2016. Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use:
Attitudes, Awareness, Activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pallier, C. 2007. Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In: B. Köpke, M.S. Schmid, M.C.J. Keijzer, and S. Dostert, eds. Language Attrition:
Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 155–68.
Paradis, J. 2010. The interface between bilingual development and specific language
impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(2): 227–52.
Page 34 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Paradis, J., Crago, M., and Genesee, F. 2006. Domain-general versus domain-specific
accounts of specific language impairment: Evidence from bilingual children’s
acquisition of object pronouns. Language Acquisition 13(1): 33–62.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., and Crago, M.B. 2011. Dual Language Development &
Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism & Second Language Learning [2nd
edn].
Baltimore: Brookes.
Paradis, M. 1997. The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In: A.M.B. De
Groot, and J.F. Kroll, eds. Tutorials in Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic
Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 331–54.
Paradowski, M.B. 2008, Apr. Winds of change in the English language – Air of peril for
native speakers? Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 2(1): 92–
119.
Paradowski, M.B. 2011. Multilingualism – assessing benefits. In: Komorowska, H., ed.
Issues in Promoting Multilingualism. Teaching – Learning – Assessment.
Warsaw: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, 335–54.
Paradowski, M.B. 2013. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca: A Complete
Introduction to the Theoretical Nature and Practical Implications of English used
as a Lingua Franca. Barbara Seidlhofer [review article] The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer 7(2) [Special Issue: English as a Lingua Franca. Implications
for Translator and Interpreter Education]: 312–20.
Paradowski, M.B., and M. Michałowska. 2016. Establishing a bilingual home: Parents’
perspective on the effectiveness of the adopted communication strategies.
Lingwistyka Stosowana 17(2): 43–65.
Peal, E., and W.E. Lambert. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence.
Psychological Monographs 76(27): 1–23.
Pearson, B.Z. 2008. Raising a Bilingual Child. New York: Living Language.
Pearson, B.Z. 2010. We can no longer afford a monolingual norm. Applied
Psycholinguistics 31(2): 339–43.
Pearson, B.Z., Fernández, S.C., and D.K. Oller. 1993. Lexical development in bilingual
infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning
43(1): 93–120.
Peets, K.F., and E. Bialystok. 2010. An integrated approach to the study of specific
language impairment and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(2): 315–19.
Roeper, T. 2012. Minimalism and bilingualism: How and why bilingualism could
benefit children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(1): 88–101.
Sauer, E., and V. Saudan. 2008. Aspects of a didactic of plurilingualism.
Terminological proposals. http://www.passepartout-
sprachen.ch/services/downloads/download/664/
Schmid, M.S. 2012. The impact of age and exposure on bilingual development in
international adoptees and family migrants: A perspective from Holocaust
survivors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(2): 177–208.
Schramm, E. 2008. Dzieje nauki języka angielskiego i innych języków nowożytnych w
Polsce w okresie zaborów. Warsaw: Fraszka Edukacyjna.
Sheng, L., Bedore, L.M., Peña, E.D., and C. Fiestas. 2013. Semantic development in
Spanish–English bilingual children: Effects of age and language experience. Child
Development 84(3): 1034–45.
Sheng, L., Lu, Y., and T.H. Gollan. 2014. Assessing language dominance in Mandarin–
English bilinguals: Convergence and divergence between subjective and objective
measures. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2): 364–83.
Page 35 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
For Peer Review
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014. Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the
First Six Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C., and J. Treffers-Daller, eds. 2015. Language Dominance in
Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and Operationalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, M. 1996. Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors
of linguistic hegemony. In: D. Brennels, and R. Macaulay, eds. The Matrix of
Language. Boulder, CO: Westview, 284–306.
Silverstein, M. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities.
Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 401–26.
Singleton, D., and L. Aronin. 2007. Multiple language learning in the light of the theory
of affordances. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching 1(1): 83–96.
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., and I. Tsimpli. 2014. On the
role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch.
Applied Psycholinguistics 35(4): 765–805.
Valdés, G. 2005. Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research:
Opportunities lost or seized? Modern Language Journal 89(3): 410–26.
Vangsnes, Ø.A., G.B.W. Söderlund, and M. Blekesaune. 2015. The effect of bidialectal
literacy on school achievement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism 18. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1051507
Wei, L., and M.G. Moyer, eds. 2008. The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Weinreich, U. 1963. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:
Mouton.
Werker, J.F., and K. Byers-Heinlein. 2008. Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in
perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(4): 144–51.
Widła, H. 2015, Sep 8. Zmierzch bilingwizmu i jego skutki. Plenary talk, Konferencja
Naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa Neofilologicznego ‘Wielojęzyczność i
międzykulturowość w glottodydaktyce’, University of Warsaw.
Page 36 of 36Paradowski, Michał B. & Aleksandra Bator (2016, under rev.) Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.