Table 11 - uploaded by Janice Nakamura
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Some bilingual children speak only one language despite being exposed to two
languages from birth. When parents and children speak different languages to each
other, their interactions become dual-lingual. This study examines how parental
discourse strategies are used in dual-lingual interactions with receptive bilingual
children. Naturalistic audi...
Similar publications
This article attempts to dispel the myths surrounding the raising of bilingual children that been prevalent in many contexts throughout Japan. I first discuss the typical patterns of bilingual family interaction and the effects these have on children’s language development. I then examine the extensive research on bilingualism from infancy and the...
Citations
... Additionally, expectations within the home may align with child language preferences and strengths, becoming increasingly pro-societal language as they get older. Parents may have reduced pro-heritage language promotion strategies to help ensure that communication at home is harmonious and that family members are able to express themselves easily (Kheirkhah and Cekaite 2015;Nakamura 2018). In line with this proposition, it is reasoned that parents of older children were more likely to ask their child to use English to clarify what they said in Hebrew because older children were using Hebrew more frequently. ...
Family language policy (FLP) provides a critical framework to explain the planning of language use in the home. It constitutes a dynamic construct that sheds light on variations in the language acquisition of bilingual children, potentially explaining the shifts that may occur in language dominance and preference. The environment and life experiences are thought to shape FLP, yet little is known about the function of age. This study examines the association of FLP with children’s chronological age and the age they become bilingual. Data were collected via questionnaires from parents and their bilingual children (n = 82) aged 5.08–14.08 (M = 8.98, SD = 3.27) speaking English (heritage language) and Hebrew (societal language). Correlations and logistic regressions indicate a relationship between FLP and dimensions of age. Findings reveal that age may have repercussions for parent language beliefs, patterns of language use within the home, and the adoption of language promotion strategies. Younger children and children with a later age of onset of bilingualism are associated with families who lean towards a pro-heritage language FLP. Considering dimensions of age enhances our understanding of FLP and may offer a greater insight into how languages are supported in the bilingual home.
... Genesee (2002) suggested the necessity of a "more serious research attention to parental input in the form of bilingual mixing as a possible source of influence in children's mixing". However, parental strategies as an influential source of bilingual children's development are mainly discussed in terms of the development of oral skills or do not differentiate between oral and literacy skills (Brito et al., 2021;Fernandes, 2019;Genesee, 2002;Naeem et al., 2018;Nakamura, 2018). Bilinguals' parents play an enormous role in building a child's self-confidence in being bilingual and biliterate. ...
Background
The importance of biliteracy in bilingual children’s development has been widely investigated and discussed for the last several decades, suggesting beneficial effects of writing and reading in two languages for bilingual children as well as for adult second language learners.
Objective
To analyze research on the link between bilingualism and literacy development in two or more languages and the factors that may influence a successful or problematic biliteracy acquisition. RQ (1): What is the relationship between bilingualism and literacy of bilingual children? RQ (2): What strategies are used to develop biliteracy?
Design
The review analyzes 50 studies of literacy development in bilingual children. The selected articles have been separated based on their methodology: 25 articles gave a critical analysis of more than 1,100 studies on the topic, strengthening the theoretical basis of existing research, and 25 other articles were empirical research articles demonstrating practical evidence for the former.
Results
Our analysis revealed that literacy in bilinguals, or biliteracy, can be seen as a necessary condition for fluent development of bilingualism, though it is not a necessary condition (which is explained by the difference between structures of specific languages and writing systems, instruction in literacy, and cognitive baggage invoked by the task used to measure the skill) (Bialystok, 2002). Research suggests that bilingualism impacts children’s ultimate acquisition of literacy via the beneficial effects of bilingualism overall: advanced biliteracy boosts the development of phonological and phonemic awareness and metacognitive abilities. Thus, biliteracy can be considered as an advantage in terms of maintaining bilingual acquisition in general and developing writing skills in particular.
Conclusion
There is a lack of studies on the development of writing skills in different educational contexts, across countries and cultures, which must be addressed and complemented by new empirical research. Research will enable policymakers to improve educational programs in accordance with the needs of bilingual children, who are the majority in the current global population.
... Also of interest to these studies were how such discourse strategies were constructed and negotiated in interaction. Lanza's studies, and others in a similar vein (e.g., Curdt-Christiansen, 2013; Gyogi, 2015;Juan-Garau & Pérez-Vidal, 2001;Nakamura, 2018;Slavkov, 2015) highlight how children are socialised both to and through language in bilingual settings. ...
This doctoral dissertation examines the family language practices of Swedish-English families using an interdisciplinary and mixed-method approach. The principal aim is to empirically document what these practices are, as well as how practices interact with various ideological, conceptual, and contextual factors.
The dissertation is composed of four empirical studies and a comprehensive summary with seven chapters. In order to engage with the complex, multidimensional nature of bilingual family language practices, the empirical studies adopt four different theoretical and methodological frameworks. Study I uses a large-scale quantitative approach to investigate the connection between declared family language practices and macro societal factors. Study II adopts a conversation analytic approach to examine the local sequential context of family language practices. Study III uses a rhizomatic discourse analytic approach, which considers how family language practices can be conceptualised as an assemblage of semiotic resources, objects, space, and time. Finally, Study IV focuses on the affective and psychological dimensions of language practices by adopting an interpretative phenomenological approach that explores participants’ thoughts, feelings, and their lived experiences with language.
The chapters of the comprehensive summary discuss the four empirical studies in relation to an expanded theoretical framework and in relation to each other. Although the epistemological and theoretical perspectives adopted in the four studies are different, they all consider how language practices are fundamentally situated in the local context of occurrence. Each study illuminates a portion of this local context, which, when triangulated, leads to a richer understanding of language practices than would be obtained with a single approach alone. In addition, the findings emphasise and exemplify how the context-sensitive dimensions of agency, identity, and emotion are inherently connected to language practices in bilingual families.
... This type of dilingual conversations (De Houwer, 2009) result in more mixing and less active use of the minority language because they do not create the need for it. Further evidence of this correlation can be seen in Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2001), or Nakamura (2018). ...
Non-Native Bilingual Parenting (NNBP) is an emergent type of bilingual family setting where parents decide to raise their children bilingually in their second language, despite living in monolingual communities where their native language is spoken. However, research into family bilingualism has not yet given it much attention aside from a few published case studies. The present survey study aimed to shed light on the complex landscape of NNBP by exploring the Family Language Policy (FLP) of NNB families and the key factors that shape their attitudes and linguistic practices; specifically the parents’ competence in the target language. Data were collected in April 2021 by means of a parental self-report questionnaire and processed using IBM SPSS statistics software. The final sample included 62 families. Descriptive statistics revealed that One Parent One Language (OPOL) was the most common interaction strategy and that most parents used majority language with each other. Besides, the most frequent language socialization practices for this group were identified as well as their common ideologies. Most notably, low reported rates of code-mixing, a very strong impact belief and moderate concern about their non-native model. Nonparametric tests found that the parents’ level of competence in the target language affected some of their attitudes and practices. These insights invite further exploration of the field of family bilingualism.
... 2.1.3). Recenti studi (De Houwer 2014, 2018Marchman et al. 2016) danno un'importanza crescente, non solo alla quantità di input, ma alla sua frequenza in relazione all'output bilingue, in accordo con Silva-Corvalán (2014). ...
... Unsurprisingly, P was mixing more when interacting with DE-speaking F. The child had a minimal amount of active DE vocabulary and phrases. Receptive bilingualism does not necessarily mean zero production, and, in line with findings by Nakamura (2018Nakamura ( , 2019, this scarce minority language output was mainly of re-active origin, meaning that it consisted mostly of non-original, imitated or routine words and phrases in reaction to what F was saying. P was not using DE independently and had not moved beyond the two-word utterances level in it. ...
Whereas many children in bilingual settings do not speak the minority language, very little is known about receptive bilingualism from the onset of speech and about such bilinguals activating their dormant language. Drawing on longitudinal ethnographic data, this paper reports on a case study of a receptive simultaneously bilingual Lithuanian-German boy who later started speaking both of his languages. Parents can do much for their children's bilingualism, but the child's agency is very important as well. The latter is much determined by the macro-socialisation factors, primarily by the communicative motivation of the child to use the minority language outside the bilingual home. Next to confirming possible insuf-ficiency of the OPOL model, the paper demonstrates how quickly passive languages can be activated and highlights the importance of continuity of input and the value of receptive bilingualism.
... Two-year-old Tomas did not interpret the few instances of MGS used by his mother as a cue to switch to English (Lanza 2004). Likewise, even at the much older age of 4;7, receptive bilingual Nina treated her English-speaking father's occasional use of EGS as genuine clarification requests and did not repair her Japanese utterances (Nakamura 2018). The "plurifunctionality of requests for clarification" (Lanza 2004, p. 305), coupled with parents' limited use of monolingual strategies, likely makes some children less aware that clarification requests may be prompts to switch languages. ...
... Yet, despite having a strong impact belief, some parents may decide not to press the issue of language choice because they are worried about communication breakdowns. The fathers in Nakamura (2018) prioritized communication with their receptive bilingual children, so they interacted with them dual-lingually. However, parents who use monolingual strategies do not report communication failures; neither do the observational examples from children's reactions to MGS or EGS give the impression that communication was hampered. ...
... At the same time, the advice to continue speaking the NonSocLang is important encouragement because if parents switch to the SocLang, children will be even less likely to use the NonSocLang. However, while modelling the NonSocLang is necessary, it is insufficient to support children's active NonSocLang use, particularly when parents frequently use MOS (Nakamura 2018). ...
This chapter revisits Elizabeth Lanza's seminal ideas (1988, 1992, 1997b) on parents' use of discourse strategies with bilingual children. Her work showed how parents can affect two-year-olds' language choice through the way they interact with them. We add a developmental perspective by reviewing the application of Lanza's bilingual family interaction model (BIFIM) in studies of bilingual parents' interaction with children aged 1 to 12. However, following the transactional model of child development, not only do parents affect their children, but children also affect their parents. This highlights children's agency as a factor, which in turn relates to their level of maturity. We also consider how bilingual parents' language awareness and language-related impact beliefs may influence the way they interact with their children. Finally, we investigate the extent to which research findings on BIFIM have been disseminated as advice in bilingual parenting resources.
... Two-year-old Tomas did not interpret the few instances of MGS used by his mother as a cue to switch to English (Lanza 2004). Likewise, even at the much older age of 4;7, receptive bilingual Nina treated her Englishspeaking father's occasional use of EGS as genuine clarification requests and did not repair her Japanese utterances (Nakamura 2018). The "plurifunctionality of requests for clarification" (Lanza 2004, 305), coupled with parents' limited use of monolingual strategies, likely makes some children less aware that clarification requests may be prompts to switch languages. ...
... The fathers in Nakamura (2018) prioritized communication with their receptive bilingual children, so they interacted with them dual-lingually. However, parents who use monolingual strategies do not report communication failures; neither do the observational examples from children's reactions to MGS or EGS give the impression that communication was hampered. ...
... At the same time, the advice to continue speaking the NonSocLang is important encouragement because if parents switch to the SocLang, children will be even less likely to use the NonSocLang. However, while modeling the NonSocLang is necessary, it is insufficient to support children's active NonSocLang use, particularly when parents frequently use MOS (Nakamura 2018). ...
This chapter revisits Elizabeth Lanza's seminal ideas (1988, 1992, 1997b) on parents' use of discourse strategies with bilingual children. Her work showed how parents can affect two-year-olds' language choice through the way they interact with them. We add a developmental perspective by reviewing the application of Lanza's bilingual family interaction model (BIFIM) in studies of bilingual parents' interaction with children aged 1 to 12. However, following the transactional model of child development, not only do parents affect their children, but children also affect their parents. This highlights children's agency as a factor, which in turn relates to their level of maturity. We also consider how bilingual parents' language awareness and language-related impact beliefs may influence the way they interact with their children. Finally, we investigate the extent to which research findings on BIFIM have been disseminated as advice in bilingual parenting resources.
... The establishment of such conversations may have become a habit since children were preschoolers. Regardless of their feelings about them, parents may have adjusted to such conversations, as shown in Nakamura's (2018) study of an Italianand an English-speaking father in Japan whose school-aged children spoke mainly Japanese with them. A longitudinal and observational group study of parent-child story-telling interaction in bilingual families in the United States similarly suggests such adjustment. ...
... Thus, children's monolingual language use in a bilingual environment detracts from Harmonious Bilingual Development (De Houwer 2015a), the experience of well-being in a language contact situation involving young children and their families. The fact that children may not speak one of the languages that either parent speaks to them means they might develop communication patterns in which the child speaks language X and the parent language Y, as exemplified in Nakamura (2018). Research with adolescents in the United States has shown that these sorts of divergent language choices create an undesirable emotional distance between children and their parents (Tseng/Fuligni, 2000). ...
De Houwer, Annick (2020), Why do so many children who hear two languages speak just a single language? Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 25: 1, 7-26. http://tujournals.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/index.php/zif Jahrgang 25, Nummer 1 (April 2020), ISSN 1205-6545 25 Jahre ZIF-ein Grund zum Feiern! Themenschwerpunkt: Mehrsprachigkeit in der Familie Abstract: Twenty years ago De Houwer (1999) asked why young children reared with two languages speak just a single language. At the time, there was little research that could address the question. This contribution reviews research from the last two decades that either directly or indirectly addresses the problem of single language use by bilingually raised children. Amongst others, it focuses on the role of parental input patterns, the quantity and quality of language input, parental discourse strategies, the role of institutions such as day care centers and preschools, and child agency. Vor zwanzig Jahren stellte De Houwer (1999) die Frage, warum junge Kinder, die in zwei Sprachen erzogen wurden, nur eine Sprache sprechen. Zu jener Zeit gab es kaum Forschung, die dieser Frage nachging. Dieser Beitrag blickt zurück auf die Forschung der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte, die direkt oder indirekt das Problem der Einsprachigkeit bei zweisprachig erzogenen Kindern behandelt. Besprochen werden, u.a., die Rolle der sprachliche Input-Muster der Eltern, die Quantität des Inputs, die elterlichen Diskursstrategien, die Spracheinstellungen von Kindern und die Rolle von Institutionen wie Tagesstätten und Vorschulen.
