Download pdf - Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities

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


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’


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,


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


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,


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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%).


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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:


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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:



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.


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.
