ChapterPDF Available

Developmental Perspectives on Parents' Use of Discourse Strategies with Bilingual Children

October 2021

DOI:10.4324/9781003125815-4

License
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

In book: Multilingualism across the Lifespan (pp.31-55)

Authors:

Annick De Houwer

Harmonious Bilingualism Network

Janice Nakamura

Kanagawa University

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.

Studies of Parental Discourse Strategies in Dyadic Parent-Child Interactions With BFLA Children

…

Figures - uploaded by Annick De Houwer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Annick De Houwer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Annick De Houwer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Multilingualism across

the Lifespan

Edited by Unn Røyneland

and Robert Blackwood

First published 2022

by Routledge

605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

and by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa

business

Blackwood; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of Unn Røyneland and Robert Blackwood to be identiﬁed

as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their

individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77

and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The Open Access version of this book, available at www .taylorfrancis .

com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks

or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and

explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978-0-367-64682-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-64686-8 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-003-12581-5 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003125815

Typeset in Sabon

by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

List of Illustrations ix

List of Contributors x

Preface xvi

Acknowledgements xviii

Introduction 1

UNN RØYNELAND AND ROBERT BLACKWOOD

PART I

Bilingual Acquisition: Methodological and Theoretical Advances 9

1 Child Language Assessment across Different Multilingual

Contexts: Insights and Challenges from South and North 11

HANNE GRAM SIMONSEN AND FRENETTE SOUTHWOOD

2 Developmental Perspectives on Parents’ Use of Discourse

Strategies with Bilingual Children 31

ANNICK DE HOUWER AND JANICE NAKAMURA

3 The Role of the Input in the Acquisition of Code-Switching 56

SHANNON PHILLIPS AND MARGARET DEUCHAR

PART II

Language Practices and Policies in the Family 81

4 Language Development, Discourse, and Politics: Family

Language Policy Foundations and Current Directions 83

KENDALL A. KING AND XIAO LAN CURDT-CHRISTIANSEN

Contents

Contributors xi

Ng Bee Chin works in the area of bilingualism and multilingualism with

a focus on the impact of language contact on individuals and the com-

munity they live in. Her research approach is to explore both cognitive

and social aspects of language use. Currently, she is working on language

and emotion in multilinguals, language attitudes, identity and social cat-

egorisation, and communicative aspects of ageing. A common thread

running through her research is the connection between the self and the

social. The self (person) and the community is intricately bound, and to

fully understand language use we need to understand the communities

we live in. Invariably, our social interactions will have an impact on the

way information is organised cognitively, and Ng continues to navigate

the nexus between these two ﬁelds. She is currently Associate Professor

in Linguistics and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies in the College

of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore.

Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen is Professor in Applied Linguistics at the

Department of Education, University of Bath, UK. Her research inter-

ests encompass ideological, socio-cognitive, and policy perspectives

on children’s multilingual education and biliteracy development. She

has examined bi/multilingual community–home–school contexts in the

UK, Canada, France, and Singapore on topics of curriculum policy,

language-in-educational policy, and family language policy. Her most

recent research project is entitled Family Language Policy: A Multi-Level

Investigation of Multilingual Practices in Transnational Families, funded

by The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Annick De Houwer’s pioneering research on bilingual children’s language

development has been highly inﬂuential. In addition to many journal arti-

cles and book chapters, she has published four books on bilingual chil-

dren (two with Cambridge University Press and two with Multilingual

Matters), the latest of which is entitled Bilingual Development in

Childhood. She is the co-editor (with Lourdes Ortega) of the Cambridge

Handbook of Bilingualism. Dr De Houwer directs the Harmonious

Bilingualism Network (www .habilnet .org). HaBilNet aims to support

and stimulate scientiﬁc research into harmonious bilingualism and to

make sure the results of that research are widely disseminated among

families and educators.

Margaret Deuchar is Emeritus Professor in Linguistics at Bangor University

and Afﬁliated Lecturer in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics,

University of Cambridge, UK. She did her PhD on British Sign Language

and later worked on the bilingual acquisition, publishing Bilingual

Acquisition: Theoretical Implications of a Case Study (with S. Quay,

Contributors xiii

published, and she regularly engages in community outreach and ser-

vice in schools locally, nationally, and internationally. She was an editor

of the journal Language Policy and currently serves as President of the

American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL).

Pia Lane is Professor of Multilingualism at the Center for Multilingualism in

Society across the Lifespan (MultiLing) at the University of Oslo, Norway.

Her research focuses on multilingualism in Northern Norway, with a

particular emphasis on language policy, language shift, language revitali-

sation in relation to Indigenous and minoritised languages. Her publica-

tions include Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies

of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery, Routledge (co-

edited with James Costa and Haley De Korne, 2017) and Negotiating

Identities in Nordic Migrant Narratives – Crossing Borders and Telling

Lives, Palgrave (co-edited with Bjørghild Kjelsvik and Annika Bøstein

Myhr 2022). She is co-editor-in-chief of LME Linguistic Minorities in

Europe Online (LME), published by De Gruyter.

Minna Lehtonen is Professor at the Department of Psychology and Speech

Language Pathology at the University of Turku, Finland, and Professor

II at the Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan at the

University of Oslo, Norway. Previously, she has worked at Åbo Akademi

University and the University of Helsinki in Finland, as well as the

University of Maryland in the USA. She has authored a number of arti-

cles on psycho- and neurolinguistics of bilingualism. She has published

on topics related to the advantages and costs of bilingualism, cognitive

control in language processing and switching, and the neurocognitive

basis of morphological processing.

Janice Nakamura is Associate Professor at the Department of English,

Kanagawa University, Japan. She investigates child bilingualism and

family language policy within the Japanese context and has worked with

more than 100 intermarriage families in the past 14 years. Her research

articles have appeared in journals such as the International Journal

of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, International Multilingual

Research Journal, and Multilingua. Her recent work on receptive child

bilingualism and monolingual children’s “language regrets” draws atten-

tion to the importance of fostering children’s bilingualism in the home.

Monica Norvik shares her time between clinical work with individuals with

aphasia and PPA at Statped, Oslo, as a researcher at MultiLing (Center

for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan) at the University of

Oslo, and as Adjunct Associate Professor at the Norwegian University of

Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Her main academic inter-

ests include clinical linguistics, in particular, language disorders in adults

with aphasia and dementia, assessment, and treatment of multilingual

individuals, and how working with multilingual individuals with aphasia

1 Introduction

In likely the ﬁrst systematic study of language choice by a bilingual child, De

Houwer (1983) found that already between the ages of 2;7 (years;months)

and 3;4, Dutch–English Kate adjusted her language choice according

to whom she was addressing.1 Kate spoke English to her mother (whose

Dutch proﬁciency was minimal), Dutch to her monolingual Dutch-speaking

grandparents, and mostly Dutch but also some English to her father and

the investigator. Both Kate’s father and the investigator addressed Kate in

Dutch but also spoke ﬂuent English, as the child had often overheard. On

the few occasions (38 in a corpus of over 6000 exchanges collected over

nine months) that the adults did not speak the language they normally used

with Kate, she usually replied in the same ‘unusual’ language, thus following

the Convergent Choice Principle or CCP (De Houwer 2019).

Indeed, following the CCP is the default. Bilinguals tend to speak the

same way as their interlocutors, either speaking the same single language

or using a mixture of the same languages, depending on what pattern has

been established in their interaction history. The marked case occurs when

bilinguals sharing the same set of languages consistently speak a different

language to each other (De Houwer 2019), in what we term dual-lingual

conversations.

By age 3, Kate addressed people she mostly heard speaking just a single

language in that same language. This makes sense, given that even very

young children want to make sure they are understood. However, with peo-

ple she knew to be ﬂuent speakers of the same two languages she spoke,

Kate would use either language. She did not have to monitor so much which

language she spoke (De Houwer 1983): She could assume bilingual speak-

ers would understand her. Thus, it was unnecessary to stick to just one

language. However, Kate still addressed her bilingual interlocutors mostly

in Dutch, the language they mostly spoke with her.

How did Kate learn to do so? She was likely socialized into this pattern

of response when she was younger. Elizabeth Lanza was the ﬁrst to present

a comprehensive analysis systematically addressing socialization patterns

Developmental Perspectives

on Parents’ Use of

Discourse Strategies with

Bilingual Children

Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

DOI: 10.4324/9781003125815-2

10.4324/9781003125815-2

32 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

regarding language choice in conversations between a bilingual parent

and a bilingually raised young child. Henceforth, we refer to this analy-

sis as Lanza’s “bilingual family interaction model”, BIFIM for short and

explained below (in an email on January 7, 2015, Lanza gave De Houwer

the permission to use this term in reference to her work).

The ﬁrst author ﬁrst learned about Lanza’s pioneering work in (1987)

at her conference presentation on “Code-Mixing and Code-Switching in

the Bilingual Infant’s Discourse”, which proposed a ﬁrst partial version

of BIFIM. Lanza (1988) was the ﬁrst publication relating to the model. It

focused on interactions between Norwegian–English Siri at 2;2 and her

bilingual parents. Lanza (1992) was based on more extensive data from Siri

between ages 2;0 and 2;7, and included the ﬁrst comprehensive publication

regarding BIFIM. More detailed analyses of the Siri data formed the bulk

of the empirical study in Lanza’s dissertation (1990), which additionally

discussed data from Norwegian–English Tomas, who was studied for nearly

four months after his second birthday. Lanza’s dissertation was the basis

for her book (1997b; reprinted in 2004 with slight modiﬁcations and a new

Afterword). Lanza (1997a) and Lanza (2001) also discussed data for Siri

and/or Tomas. Both children’s families were middle class and consisted of

a Norwegian father and an American mother. They lived in Oslo, Norway.

All four parents were Norwegian–English bilinguals.

BIFIM was developed for children who acquire two languages (Language

Alpha and Language A) simultaneously in the home from birth (Bilingual

First Language Acquisition or BFLA). BFLA children may use unilingual

utterances in either Language Alpha or Language A. They may also use

mixed utterances, which combine morphological elements from both lan-

guages (De Houwer 2009, 2019). BIFIM was proposed to describe how

parents respond to BFLA children’s language mixing, deﬁned as their use of

two languages within a conversation or utterance (Lanza 1997b, 3). It thus

describes how, within a single conversation, parents who speak Language A

respond to children speaking Language Alpha or using a mixed utterance.

Figure 2.1 presents BIFIM. As in De Houwer (2009), it has been slightly

adapted from Lanza (1997b, 261–269). Lanza’s term “code-switching” was

changed to “Language-Switching” since “code-switching” can have differ-

ent meanings depending on particular theoretical perspectives, a problem

Lanza also acknowledges.

The top of Figure 2.1 shows that parents speaking Language A to chil-

dren can ask for clariﬁcation if children used Language Alpha instead of

Language A (Minimal Grasp Strategy, MGS). This may encourage chil-

dren to switch to Language A (children need not interpret such clariﬁca-

tion requests this way; see Lanza 1997b, 305). Below we treat translation

requests as in What does Shelly say? (Chevalier 2015) as instances of MGS.

Next, children may also be asked to conﬁrm the Language A alternative

offered by parents (Expressed Guess Strategy, EGS). MGS and EGS encour-

age children to speak the same language as their parents. Thus, they are

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 33

monolingual discourse strategies. Simply repeating in Language A what

children said in Language Alpha (Adult Repetition, AR) can be taken as

(1) a correction of child language choice (a monolingual strategy), (2) a

conﬁrmation of the contents of an utterance (neutral as to language choice),

or (3) a teaching strategy showing children what their utterance translates

as (also neutral). Because of its ambiguity, AR is neither a monolingual nor

a bilingual strategy (but see Section 2 when we discuss children between

ages 2 and 4). Bilingual strategies consist of parents just continuing to use

Language A without paying attention to children’s use of Language Alpha

(Move On Strategy, MOS), and, indeed, of parents changing to Language

Alpha themselves (Language-Switching, LS). As Lanza (1997b, 261) recog-

nizes, BIFIM forms only part of the totality of discourse strategies parents

use in interaction with their children.

BIFIM is not just a descriptive model. It also helps explain why not all

young, bilingually raised children speak two languages. Lanza (1997b, 321–

324) compared mother–child interactions involving Siri, on the one hand,

and Tomas, on the other. Through monolingual discourse strategies and her

use of only English, Siri’s mother negotiated a monolingual context with

Siri. Lanza (1988, 75) notes, “Siri’s mother was competent in Norwegian,

but the role of being a bilingual can be negotiated in ongoing interaction as

Figure 2.1 Lanza’s (1992, 1997b) bilingual family interaction model (BIFIM)

34 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

the mother feigns the role of a monolingual speaker”. Siri responded to her

mother’s monolingual discourse strategies by speaking mostly English with

her, although Siri could also speak Norwegian. Tomas’ mother negotiated

a bilingual context with Tomas through her use of bilingual discourse strat-

egies. Furthermore, she spoke mainly English but also some Norwegian.

Tomas hardly spoke any English with her.

While other factors also contribute to children’s active bilingual use

(e.g., amount and source of language exposure; De Houwer 2020), Lanza

(1992, 1997b, 2004) proposed that parental discourse strategies (hence-

forth simply: strategies) constitute negotiations that socialize children into

speaking a particular language. As such, they are important in developing

active bilingualism. Many have argued that each parents’ use of a single but

different language consistently to their children (in what is known as the

one parent, one language (1P/1L) setting) is crucial for fostering children’s

use of two languages. However, the actual experiences of many parents

using 1P/1L can be quite different. Many are puzzled and upset to ﬁnd that

children speak only a single language, viz. the societal language (SocLang)

used at (pre-)school, and that they understand but do not speak the non-

societal language (NonSocLang). A large survey (De Houwer 2007) showed

that only 73% of 1P/1L families had children who spoke both languages at

home.

Lanza’s hypothesis regarding the role of BIFIM in early bilingual devel-

opment was based on just two 2-year-olds. Below we explore additional

studies that have either implicitly or explicitly addressed BIFIM and its role

in encouraging the use of two languages. We expand the coverage to studies

of bilingually or trilingually raised children between ages 1 and 12.

BFLA children exposed to the SocLang from birth usually speak that

language, so it is not ‘at risk’ (De Houwer 2009). This explains our focus on

what strategies, if any, can support children’s use of the NonSocLang. Most

studies also focus on the NonSocLang.

2 Observational Studies of Parent–Child

Interaction in Language Contact Situations

This section reviews research on strategies and child bilingual use. We focus

on observational studies with micro-level analyses of dyadic parent–child

interactions. Dyadic interactions most clearly reveal how individual chil-

dren are socialized in terms of language choice (cf. Lanza 2001). Table 2.1

shows a selection of studies arranged according to BFLA children’s ages

at the start of data collection, i.e., before age 2, between ages 2 and 4,

and starting at age 4. Some BFLA children started hearing a third language

later. Studies observed adult–child interactions for periods between 1 and

35 months. When adults are said to speak a particular language, this mostly

refers to the NonSocLang they habitually spoke to children. Most adults

also understood (and possibly spoke) the SocLang.

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 35

Table 2.1 Studies of Parental Discourse Strategies in Dyadic Parent–Child Interactions With BFLA Children

Societal

language(s)

Non-societal

language(s)

N children Children’s names and

ages (year;month)

Duration of

studya (months)

(1) Studies involving children prior to age 2;0 (and beyond, as the case may be)

*Quay (2012) Japanese German and English 1 Freddy (1;0–1;10) 10

Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2001) Catalan English 1 Andreu (1;3–4;2) 35

*Nibun and Wigglesworth (2014) English Japanese and German 1 Michael (1;4–1;9) 6

Deuchar and Muntz (2003) English Spanish 1 M (1;7–2;6) 11

Slavkov (2015) English Bulgarian 1 Sophie (1;7–2;3) 8

Filipi (2015) English Italian 1 Cassie (1;6–2;0) 7

*Montanari (2009) English Tagalog and Spanish 1 Kathryn (1;9–2;4) 7

Mishina (1999) English Japanese 1 Ken (1;10–2;2) 4

(2) Studies involving children between ages 2;0 and 4;0

Lanza (1997b) Norwegian English 2 Siri (2;0–2;7)

Tomas (2;0–2;3) 7

Döpke (1992) English German 5 Fiona (2;4–2;9)

Keith, Alice, Jacob

and Agnes (2;8–3;2)

6 each

*Quay (2012) Japanese English and Chinese 1 XiaoXiao (2;0–2;1) 1

*Chevalier (2013) German English, French, and

Swiss-German 1 Lina (2;0–3;0) 12

*Chevalier (2015) German English, French, and

Swiss-German 2 Lina and Elliot

(2;0–4;0) 24 each

Mishina-Mori (2011) English Japanese 2 Ken (2;3–3;2)

Rie (2;5–3;3) 12

Kasuya (1998) English Japanese 4 Dan, Kyle, Ray,

and Sho (2;10–4;1) 15 each

(Continued)

36 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

Table 2.1 (Continued)

Societal

language(s)

Non-societal

language(s)

N children Children’s names and

ages (year;month)

Duration of

studya (months)

(3) Studies involving children aged 4;0 and older

Haskell (1998) Japanese English 1 Shakthi (4;3–5;6) 15

Takeuchi (2000) English Japanese 4 Chie (5;0–6;0)

Erika (5;1–5;10)

Naomi (6;5–7;5)

Maria (6;9–7;9)

Nakamura (2018) Japanese

Japanese Italian

English 2 Nina (4;6–4;7)

Max (7;10–8;6) 1

*Kheirkhah and Cekaite (2015) Swedish Farsi and Kurdish 1 Mona (7) no information

Curdt-Christiansen (2013) English and

Mandarin not applicable Jenny (6)

Cheng (8)

Kevin (11)

Gyoji (2015) English Japanese 1bNaomi (12) 5

* Studies on trilingual children.

a When studies did not clearly describe the duration, we calculated estimates based on other information provided.

b In addition, this study observed 12-year-old Shoko for ﬁve months; Shoko started learning English only at age 11.

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 37

Some children well under the age of 2 can already adjust their language

choice to their interlocutor (e.g., Sinka and Schelletter 1998). However,

given that in the second year of life children are just learning to speak,

many still need to learn when to use which language. Discourse strategies

may play a crucial role in these early stages by socializing children into

using habitual patterns of language choice. At age 1;6 English–Italian Cassie

was unresponsive to her English-speaking father’s use of MGS and AR, but

just one month later she was able to produce the English words after he

modeled them (Filipi 2015). Well before German–Japanese Michael turned

two, his parents most frequently used MGS and never switched languages

when he used the unexpected language (Nibun and Wigglesworth 2014). In

response, Michael generally spoke the expected language, i.e., German to his

father and Japanese to his mother. Although he knew many more Japanese

than German words, he seldom used Japanese words with his father. This

was possibly related to a combination of strategies: When Michael used

Japanese, his father would ﬁrst engage MGS. When Michael could not

repair his utterance, paternal EGS or AR followed to provide him with the

necessary vocabulary. By using these strategies, Michael’s father signaled

that he did not wish Michael to speak Japanese while providing him with

the necessary input for producing German.

Use of AR can also encourage the use of the expected language. Adults

interacting with Spanish–English M used AR quite a bit after M produced

mixed utterances or the unexpected language (Deuchar and Muntz 2003).

M’s usual reaction after AR was to switch to the expected language. In con-

trast, after the monolingual strategy MGS, the child mainly continued to use

mixed utterances or the unexpected language; unlike most other parents in

the studies in Table 2.1, M’s parents both routinely spoke both languages to

her, depending on where they were. (Before age 1;11 M used mixed utter-

ances or the unexpected language in about 25% of her utterances; after this

age that proportion dropped to only about 10%; see Table 2.4 in Deuchar

and Muntz 2003).

The frequent use of bilingual strategies may encourage young chil-

dren to choose Language Alpha even when they know the corresponding

words in Language A. At 1;9, English–Spanish–Tagalog Kathryn often said

English words to her Spanish-speaking caregivers even when she knew the

equivalent Spanish (Montanari 2009). Her caregivers paid no attention to

these English words and responded mostly using AR or MOS, thus signal-

ing to Kathryn that her English was understood and accepted. Likewise,

English–Japanese Ken used English in nearly half the time in interactions

with his Japanese-speaking mother, who tended to insert Ken’s English

words in her Japanese clariﬁcation requests, i.e., she used LS (Mishina

1999). In contrast, Ken’s use of Japanese with his English-speaking father

never exceeded 10% of his utterances. Ken’s father usually engaged MGS

when Ken used Japanese. When Ken did not respond to the MGS, his father

changed the topic in his next turn. This maintained a monolingual context

38 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

and may have contributed to Ken’s even lower level of Japanese use with his

father when he was older (see below).

The studies of children under the age of 2 thus generally support BIFIM.

So do studies of children between age 2 and 4. Four English–Japanese boys’

language choice was Japanese 45% to 68% of the time right after their

Japanese-speaking parents used “explicit” strategies, including MGS, but

was only 11% to 52% of the time after “implicit” strategies, including AR

and MOV, were used (Table 2.9, Kasuya 1998). In Chevalier (2013, 2015),

trilingual Lina’s English-speaking aunt’s predominant use of monolingual

(MGS and EG) and neutral (AR) strategies (41% and 44% of strategies used

respectively) likely contributed to Lina’s active English production. More

than half of Lina’s utterances to her aunt were in English. Contrastively,

Lina’s French-speaking father used monolingual strategies minimally (7%

of discourse strategies). His frequent use of bilingual strategies, i.e., MOS

and CS (45% and 13% of strategies used respectively) failed to encourage

French production; only 13% of Lina’s utterances to him were in French.

Likewise, Ken’s parents’ contrasting use of strategies from early on (see

above) is reﬂected in Ken’s use of English about half of the time with his

Japanese-speaking mother and his nearly absent use of Japanese with his

English-speaking father after age 2 (Mishina-Mori 2011). At this point,

Ken’s father hardly needed to engage any monolingual strategies because

Ken hardly spoke any Japanese with him. Rie, another child studied by

Mishina-Mori (2011), hardly spoke any English to her Japanese-speaking

mother. Her mother’s use of MGS likely helped Rie make the expected lan-

guage choice.

The effect of strategies on child language choice is most clearly eluci-

dated by Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2001). They demonstrated how a

change in parental use from bilingual to monolingual strategies can dra-

matically increase NonSocLang use. Between ages 1;3 and 2;5, Catalan–

English Andreu frequently spoke Catalan with his English-speaking father,

who relied heavily on MOS, thus negotiating a bilingual context. However,

starting from when Andreu was 2;5, his father intentionally started increas-

ing MGS. Questions such as How does daddy say that?, which were

most frequently engaged between ages 3;1 and 3;3, dramatically reduced

Andreu’s Catalan use with his father, particularly from age 3;5 onwards.

Whenever Andreu was unable to respond to MGS, his father followed up

with EGS or AR (cf. Nibun and Wigglesworth 2014). Furthermore, Andreu

was happy to accept that a puppet spoke just English. With the puppet’s

help, Andreu’s father managed to get Andreu to speak more English. These

monolingual strategies had a lasting effect even though they were used

intensively for only a few months. After age 3;3, Andreu hardly addressed

his father in Catalan even when the latter did not use monolingual strate-

gies as often as he had before. This suggests that earlier used monolingual

strategies may help establish a long-term pattern of parent–child interaction

in the NonSocLang. Earlier, Taeschner (1983) also documented how her

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 39

Italian–German pre-school-age daughters spoke more German to her after

she used more MGS.

BIFIM also plays a role for children aged 4 and up. Haskell’s (1998)

examples suggest a link between English–Japanese Shakthi’s frequent use

of Japanese with her English-speaking father and his tendency to use MOS,

which established a bilingual context. Discourse strategies were apparently

able to counter the effect of increased exposure to English at school in

four older English–Japanese children with mothers who consistently spoke

Japanese to them (Takeuchi 2000). While MGS was rarely used and not

found to be effective, maternal use of EGS or AR was quite successful in

eliciting Japanese from the children’s next conversational turn. For three

of these children (ages 5 to 7), the occasional maternal use of MOS did not

matter much because they rarely spoke English and were already actively

interacting with their mothers in Japanese. However, for the 5-year-old who

spoke more English, her mother’s frequent use of bilingual strategies did

little to promote her Japanese use. The girl only replied in Japanese 19.4%

and 3.3% of the time that MOS and LS were used, respectively.

Data from an unusual longitudinal and observational large study con-

ﬁrm that strategies are important even for school-aged children. Based on

analyses of parent–child story-telling interaction in bilingual families in the

United States, Park et al. (2012) traced the use and proﬁciency in Cantonese

or Mandarin by 68 children who were 6 years old at Time1 and nearly 7.5

years old at Time2. Parents who used monolingual strategies and consist-

ently spoke a NonSocLang with children at Time1 had children who were

proﬁcient in that language at Time2. Parents who used more bilingual strat-

egies at Time1 had children with limited proﬁciency in the NonSocLang

at Time2. Furthermore, parents of children who were less proﬁcient in

the NonSocLang at Time1 provided less support for the NonSocLang at

Time2. Park et al.’s (2012) study shows the many transactional processes

(see Section 3.1 below) transpiring in parent–child interaction over time.

MOS may become a permanent feature of parental discourse style with

older receptive bilingual children (children who understand two or more

languages but speak only one). Nakamura (2018) studied two such children

(ages 4 and 7). They used mostly Japanese with their Italian-speaking and

English-speaking fathers, respectively. Regardless of the fathers’ consistency

in speaking the NonSocLang with their children, the children mainly spoke

Japanese, the SocLang. The fathers’ prevalent use of MOS perpetuated dual-

lingual interactions. The few monolingual strategies that they used did little

to elicit a NonSocLang response. Likewise, but now for Japanese as the

NonSocLang, 12-year-old Naomi spoke almost exclusively English with her

Japanese-speaking mother, who used MOS whenever Naomi spoke English,

resulting in mostly dual-lingual conversations (Gyoji 2015).

The case studies of BFLA children discussed so far suggest that the use

of mostly bilingual strategies by NonSocLang-speaking parents with young

children hampers children’s NonSocLang development, thus conﬁrming

40 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

Lanza’s (e.g., 1997b) results for Tomas. Meng and Miyamoto’s (2012)

study of 2-year-old Xin, who had ﬁrst only heard Chinese and after a move

to Japan started hearing Japanese through daycare, suggests that strategies

also play a role for sequential bilingual children. Although Chinese was the

home language, Xin’s mother’s frequent use of MOS after Xin’s Japanese

utterances led to only 20% child production of Chinese utterances by the

time she was 3. A unique longitudinal study of children who had supposedly

only heard Ukrainian from birth (see Section 3.2) but added English from

daycare and school suggests that bilingual strategies can affect long-term

NonSocLang maintenance. Ten mothers of 3-year-olds often used MOS

when children spoke English to them (Chumak-Horbatsch 1987). At age 3,

the children spoke Ukrainian at age-appropriate levels. At age 13, the same

children were very close to losing Ukrainian (Chumak-Horbatsch 1999).

Chumak-Horbatsch blames this partly on the use of some English in the

home in the pre-school years and on mothers using bilingual strategies at

that time.

As Taeschner (1983) and Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2001) showed, a

switch to monolingual strategies can help turn things around and encourage

NonSocLang use in BFLA pre-schoolers. The case studies in Table 2.1 do

not furnish sufﬁcient information for conclusions as regards older children.

As we discuss below, children’s agency may be an important factor here.

3 Factors Moderating Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies

Section 2 shows how BIFIM contributes to bilingual children’s NonSocLang

use and development. Here we explore what factors might help explain par-

ents’ use of bilingual rather than monolingual strategies in interactions with

children.

3.1 Transactional Parent and Child Effects

Bornstein’s (2009, 145) three-term transactional model of child develop-

ment and parenting posits that “the child changes the parent and is in turn

changed by the changed parent, or the parent changes the child who in turn

changes the parent”. Given this transactional model, the use of parental

discourse strategies is also considered transactional: Its use is crucially and

fundamentally about parents’ language behavior in relation to their chil-

dren’s and vice versa.

Transactional relations are present from the beginning. BFLA infants

may already react to parental language choice. Four-month-old bilinguals

responded annoyedly when their mother, who had spoken Portuguese to

them all day, addressed their father in Swedish at the end of the day (Cruz-

Ferreira 2006, 62). Arnberg (1979, 109) describes how a Swedish–English

infant placed his hands over his Swedish-speaking father’s mouth whenever

he tried to speak English. Three-year-old Dutch–English Susan cried when

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 41

her Dutch-speaking mother inadvertently addressed her in English, leading

her mother to quickly switch back to Dutch (De Houwer 2009). Another

3-year-old, Finnish–Swedish Sara, refused to accept her Finnish-speaking

father’s Swedish utterance and declared that Swedish was her mother’s lan-

guage (Palviainen and Boyd 2013).

Very young bilingual children learn everything from scratch, including

awareness about language choice. Lanza (1988) pointed out that parents

who ask children for translations are fostering their bilingual awareness:

“the metalinguistic input in various strategies used by the parents may

contribute to bilingual awareness in these children” (Lanza 1988, 82).

This developing awareness may affect children’s responsiveness to strat-

egies. Children must know that it is their language choice that is being

queried when parents use MGS. By age 2 and a half most actively bilingual

children are able to repair their language choice after being prompted (De

Houwer 2017). Section 2 shows that some children can do so much earlier,

but other children apparently cannot. Low awareness may be one reason

why some children do not repair their language choice when prompted.

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 “plu-

rifunctionality 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.

Children may also actively resist such prompts. At around 1;7, after

starting English daycare, Sophie ignored her Bulgarian-speaking father’s

requests for translation of her English into Bulgarian, a language she had

spoken quite well for her age earlier. Instead, she moved on with the con-

versation, declined invitations to switch languages, and displayed negative

emotions whenever her father used monolingual strategies (Slavkov 2015).

In contrast to Sophie, Japanese–Mandarin–English Xiaoxiao spoke three

languages at age 2;0 despite having a Chinese-speaking mother who pre-

dominantly used MOS in response to Xiaoxiao’s use of Japanese and mixed

utterances (Quay 2012). Unlike Quay’s other trilingual subject, Freddy,

who preferred to speak Japanese both at home and in daycare, Xiaoxiao

was more eager to please her parents. Quay surmised that child personality

and socio-psychological factors are one possible explanation for Xiaoxiao’s

willingness to accommodate her parents by using their respective languages.

For slightly older Japanese–Mandarin–English trilingual Y (age 2;6), such

factors were probably also at play. Y was fully aware that her grandpar-

ents were monolingual Mandarin speakers, but used non-verbal cues to help

them decode her non-Mandarin speech and only switched to Mandarin as

a last resort (Zhan 2020). The underlying child-related factors contributing

42 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

to young children’s accommodation or resistance to their interlocutors’ lan-

guage choice need further investigation.

At older ages, children exercise greater agency related to language choice.

Primary school-aged children growing up with Kinyarwandan and French

responded to their parents’ use of Kinyarwandan just through French, the

SocLang (Gafaranga 2010; this study concerns mainly multi-party interac-

tions). At ages 5 and 6, children used MGSs themselves, e.g., the French

question quoi? (what?). This question mirrored parental MGSs and signaled

the children’s preference for French. In comprehension checks, a 7-year-

old used an EGS or AR by repeating a parent’s Kinyarwandan utterance in

French. Seven-year-old trilingual Mona (Kheirkhah and Cekaite 2015) often

complied with her parents’ insistence that she speak just the NonSocLang

(Farsi or Kurdish), requests for translations and explicit teaching of the

NonSocLang (see also Meyer Pitton’s (2013) examples of dinner conversa-

tions in three Russian–French families in Switzerland). However, Mona also

occasionally showed negative affect where she insisted on using Swedish, the

SocLang, and explicitly stated that she did not know Farsi and Kurdish well

enough. Her parents, eager to keep family life harmonious, often stopped

insisting on NonSocLang use when Mona got angry. In less tense situations,

they would pretend they did not understand a Swedish word Mona used in

order to prompt her to say the word in the NonSocLang. Naomi, 12 years

old, was able to articulate why she used English or Japanese, citing pho-

nological or semantic factors. In interactions with her Japanese-speaking

mother, she used mainly English but also some Japanese, against her moth-

er’s wish for purely Japanese interactions (Gyoji 2015). Her mother did not

argue the point but persisted in using Japanese.

In a study of 44 Chinese–American families with pre-schoolers in the

United States, Kuo (1974) noted that parents may use more English (LS)

rather than just Chinese in response to children speaking more English. In

addition to children’s language choice per se, their use of passive resist-

ance to the NonSocLang from a young age through monolingual strategies

favoring the SocLang and at older ages through more explicit negotiations

of language choice shows that their developing agency may counter paren-

tal strategies aimed at supporting the NonSocLang. Children’s monolin-

gual strategies favoring the SocLang thus may push parents to speak the

SocLang too (Gafaranga 2010). However, children who earlier exercised

their agency and rejected the NonSocLang may later regret that they are

unable to speak the NonSocLang (Nakamura 2020). In young adulthood,

some may ask their parents to speak the NonSocLang to them or may enroll

in NonSocLang classes.

Despite showing resistance to the NonSocLang, children may use it selec-

tively for achieving speciﬁc communicative goals. Said and Zhu’s (2017)

study of multi-party family interaction in the United Kingdom involving

two brothers aged 6 and 9 showed how they used Arabic to gain the atten-

tion of their English-and-Arabic-speaking parents and to challenge their

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 43

mother’s authority. Likewise, an English–Gaelic 7-year-old used Gaelic, the

NonSocLang, to request something, attract attention, or mitigate admon-

ishments (Smith-Christmas 2016). Thus, as Lanza (e.g., 2004, 333) also

acknowledged, children are co-constructive agents in socialization contexts

for language choice. Children’s developing maturity may help determine

how successful they are in pushing their own agenda. However, parents’

reactions to children’s agency are just as important. These reactions will

partly depend on parental levels of language awareness (see below).

3.2 Parental Language Awareness

As a bilingual investigator, De Houwer (1983) had to make a conscious

effort to only speak Dutch to Kate. When Kate addressed her in English in

an early recording, De Houwer responded in English twice before switching

to Dutch. As an investigator, she was acutely aware of linguistic choices.

However, caregivers may be quite unaware of their linguistic choices or the

strategies they use (Lanza 1997b). This helps to explain why there may be

a mismatch between what language(s) parents say they speak to children

and what they actually speak. The ten mothers interviewed by Chumak-

Horbatsch (1987) ﬁrmly believed that they only spoke Ukrainian at home.

Yet extended recordings of mother–child interactions in the home showed

quite a bit of English present in mothers’ language use, of which they were

unaware. Moreover, mothers paid little attention to their children’s English

use and always used MOS.

Not only may parents be unaware of their language choice behavior.

They may also be unaware that their language choice behavior may matter.

This point is elaborated in the next subsection.

3.3 Parental Beliefs and Other Factors

While the studies reviewed in Section 2 underscore the importance of mono-

lingual strategies for encouraging child bilingualism, the extent to which

parents use such strategies is arguably affected by their impact belief or the

conviction that they can “exercise some sort of control over their children’s

linguistic functioning” (De Houwer 1999, 83). Parents with a strong impact

belief may engage monolingual strategies more often to inﬂuence children’s

language choice. Parents who use bilingual strategies may have a weak(er)

impact belief; that is, they may be unaware that how they talk to children

can inﬂuence their bilingual development.

Parents of English–Japanese bilingual children in Japan who had a

strong impact belief reported that they spoke English consistently to their

children and expected their children to do the same, likely signaling this

through monolingual strategies (Nakamura 2019). Yet, despite having a

strong impact belief, some parents may decide not to press the issue of lan-

guage choice because they are worried about communication breakdowns.

44 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

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 commu-

nication failures; neither do the observational examples from children’s

reactions to MGS or EGS give the impression that communication was

hampered.

Parents have different perspectives on their role in children’s development

and have different general parenting styles, varying between leaving chil-

dren free to do whatever they like and being quite authoritarian. Parenting

styles also affect the degree to which parents use speciﬁc strategies. Styles

of parenting and corresponding use of strategies may be related to culture.

For instance, while EGS is a common caregiver style of interaction in North

American middle-class monolingual families, Western Samoan caregivers

do not engage it because they tend not to participate in perspective-taking

when talking to children (Ochs 1984).

4 BIFIM and Research on Input, Family Language

Policy, and Language Maintenance

Our discussion so far has conﬁrmed the importance of Lanza’s (e.g., 1997b)

foundational ideas on the link between parent–child interaction and chil-

dren’s bilingual production. One would think that this area of research

belongs to both the more psycholinguistically oriented ﬁeld studying lan-

guage input in bilingual acquisition and the more sociolinguistically ori-

ented ﬁeld known as Family Language Policy. Surprisingly, neither of those

ﬁelds pays much attention to it. Ours is the ﬁrst overarching review of

BIFIM. Explanations for why children do not speak a NonSocLang should

also interest scholars working on intergenerational language maintenance.

Also, in that ﬁeld there is little attention to BIFIM.

It is quite puzzling that none of the three research ﬁelds pay much atten-

tion to BIFIM. The reason might have to do with methodological difﬁ-

culties: After all, strategies can only be studied based on time-consuming

observations of natural interaction. Yet, in observational studies (mostly

in the bilingual acquisition literature), there is hardly any attention to dis-

course strategies. Do we ﬁnd any reference to BIFIM in the general literature

on bilingual parenting? We consider this in Section 5.

5 Parental Discourse Strategies in

Bilingual Parenting Resources

Bilingual parenting resources have become more widely available than

ever before. Many parents refer to them when making bilingual parent-

ing decisions. Such advice can thus inﬂuence children’s bilingual develop-

ment. As reviewed above, studies addressing BIFIM have demonstrated how

parental discourse strategies can help promote children’s active use of the

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 45

NonSocLang (in addition to the SocLang). Are parents generally informed

that their discourse strategies may affect children’s bilingualism?

An important but now-defunct channel, the Bilingual Family Newsletter

(see Table 2.2, Part 2.2.1), made very little reference to parental discourse

strategies, and none to BIFIM. In contrast, an early internet-based article

commissioned by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington DC (De

Houwer 1999, Table 2.2, Part 2.2.4) endorsed monolingual strategies and

compared them to other common parental socialization efforts:

If you feel strongly about your children using one particular language

with you, encourage them to use it in all of their communication with

you. Try to discourage their use of another language with you by ask-

ing them to repeat what they said in the preferred language or by gently

offering them the appropriate words in the language you want them to

use. It is no more cruel than asking your child to say “please” before

giving her a cookie. [our emphasis]

There are also numerous books on bilingual parenting written by academ-

ics and non-academics alike (the latter may be carrying out independent

research). Some inform parents of empirical ﬁndings from child bilingual-

ism research. Others rely mainly on anecdotes, parent interviews, and/or

personal experience. To determine the extent to which BIFIM has been dis-

seminated as bilingual parenting advice, we reviewed 23 English books and

11 books written in Dutch, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish (listed

in Table 2.2, Parts 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, respectively). We focused on publica-

tions after 2000 to make sure authors had had a chance to refer to Lanza’s

1992 and 1997 BIFIM publications.

Only 6 of the 33 books expressly mentioned BIFIM (bold titles,

Table 2.2). In her popular book, Elke Montanari (2002) explained how

parents can coax young children into responding in the expected language

and strongly endorsed the use of MGS. The parents she interviewed also

found other methods helpful, such as asking children to please speak lan-

guage X, because, as they explained to children, it matters to parents. This

strategy does not feature in BIFIM, perhaps because Lanza’s 2-year-old sub-

jects were too young to understand requests which require a fair amount of

metalinguistic awareness. Orioni (2015, 96 ff.) likewise presented MGS as

an important strategy for fostering children’s speech in two languages. Use

of MGS worked well with her children, and they still complied with her use

of MGS in their teens. Child bilingualism scholar Barbara Pearson (2008,

149–151) strongly endorsed BIFIM and suggested parents “may have to

insist” (p. 151) on children speaking the “right” language, much like when

they insist on music lessons. Several parents surveyed for her book reported

that their children still readily accepted the ﬁction that their parents did not

understand the language they happened to use. Barron-Hauwaert (2004,

14) suggested that AR would work well with younger children who are

46 Annick De Houwer and Janice Nakamura

Table 2.2 Bilingual Parenting Resources Reviewed for Reference to Lanza (1992, 1997b) and/or BIFIM*

2.2.1 The Bilingual Family Newsletter (BFN)

Multilingual Matters published the now defunct quarterly Bilingual Family Newsletter (BFN) between 1984 and 2010

(archived in https :/ /ww w .mul tilin gual- matte rs .co m /pag e /bil ingua l -fam ily -n ewsle tter/ ). As also noted by Lanza (2020), it was

an important and inﬂuential forum for sharing bilingual parenting experiences and disseminating expert advice on bilingual

parenting, a function now taken over by blogs and websites. In the 92 BFN issues from Volume 5 (1988) to ﬁnal Volume

27 (2010), there was very little reference to parental discourse strategies, and none to BIFIM. We only found some in early

editions, where contributors explained what had worked well for their family: Susanne Döpke did so in 1990 (Volume 7:3)

and BFN editor George Saunders in 1992 (Volume 9:1–2). An article in 1990 (Volume 7:3) mentioned a study by Leena

Huss that had grouped parents’ reactions to young Swedish-Finnish children into BIFIM-like categories. Saunders reviewed

Döpke’s (1992) book with information on strategies in 1994 (Volume 11:2). Finally, in 1999 (Volume 16:4, in an article

entitled “You’re no fun – I will talk to mom instead”) Laura Sager suggests that parental use of MGS may annoy children

and make them share their experiences with the other parent instead.

2.2.2 Books Published in English

1.* Baker, Colin. 2014. A Parents’ & Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. 4th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [2nd ed. published

2000; 3rd ed. in 2007]

2. Barron-Hauwaert, Suzanne. 2004. Language Strategies for Bilingual Families. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

3. Barron-Hauwaert, Suzanne. 2011. Bilingual Siblings: Language Use in Families. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

4. Beck, Adam. 2016. Maximize Your Child’s Bilingual Ability. Hiroshima: Bilingual Adventures.

5.* Braun, Andreas, and Tony Cline. 2014. Language Strategies for Trilingual Families. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

6. Bourgogne, Annika. 2013. Be Bilingual: Practical Ideas for Multilingual Families. n/a: Annika Bourgogne.

7.* Cunningham-Andersson, Una, and Staffan Andersson. 2004. Growing Up with Two Languages. A Practical Guide. 2nd ed.

London: Routledge. [4th modiﬁed ed. by the ﬁrst author published 2020]

8. Dippel, Lennis. 2015. Trilingual by Six: The Sane Way to Raise Intelligent, Talented Children. San Antonio: Lennis Dippel.

9.* Festman, Julia, Gregory J. Poarch, and Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2017. Raising Multilingual Children. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

10. Harding-Esch, Edith, and Phillip Riley. 2003. The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents. Cambridge: Cambridge

University.

11. Jernigan, Christine. 2015. Family Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

12.* King, Kendall, and Alison Mackey. 2007. The Bilingual Edge. New York: Collins.

13.* Meisel, Jürgen. 2019. Bilingual Children. A Guide for Parents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14. Myles, Carey. 2003. Raising Bilingual Children. Los Angeles: Parent’s Guide Press.

15.* Pearson, Barbara Zurer. 2008. Raising a Bilingual Child. A Step-by-Step Guide for Parents. New York: Living Language.

16. Raguenaud, Virginia. 2009. Bilingual by Choice: Raising Kids in Two (or More!) Languages. Boston: Nicholas Brealey.

17. Rosenback, Rita. 2014. Bringing Up a Bilingual Child. Surrey: Filament.

18. Soto, Roxana A., and Ana L. Flores. 2012. Bilingual Is Better. United States of America: Bilingual Readers.

19. Steiner, Naomi, and Susan Hayes. 7 Steps to Raise a Bilingual Child. New York: Amacom.

20. Thomas, Claire. 2012. Growing Up with Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

21. Tokuhama-Espinosa, Tracey. 2001. Raising Multilingual Children. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

22. Wang, Xiao-Lei. 2008. Growing Up with Three Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

23. Wang, Xiao-Lei. 2011. Learning to Read and Write in the Multilingual Family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

2.2.3 Books Published in Languages Other than English

DUTCH

1.* Montanari, Elke Burkhardt, Jeroen Aarssen, Petra Bos, and Erin Wagenaar. 2004. Hoe Kinderen Meertalig Opgroeien [How

Children Grow Up Bilingually]. Amsterdam: PlanPlan.

2. Orioni, Marinella (2015). Meertalig Opvoeden: Uw kind Zal U Dankbaar Zijn [A Bilingual Upbringing: Your Child will be

Grateful to You]. Amsterdam: Van Gennep. [reprinted 2016]

FRENCH

3.* Abdelilah-Bauer, Barbara (2008). Le Déﬁ des Enfants Bilingues: Grandir et Vivre en Parlant Plusieurs Langues [The Challenge

of Bilingual Children: Growing Up and Living with Several Languages]. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.

GERMAN

4.* Montanari, Elke. 2002. Mit zwei Sprachen groß werden: Mehrsprachige Erziehung in Familie, Kindergarten und Schule

[Growing Up with Two languages: Bilingual Education in the Family, Preschool and School]. München: Kösel. [frequently

reprinted up to 2017]

JAPANESE

5. Oda, Setsuko (小田せつこ). 2019. 子どもの未来を広げる「おやこえいご」: バイリンガルを育てる幼児英語メソッド

[‘Parent-Child English’ to Broaden Your Child’s Future: English Methods for Raising Bilingual Children]. Tokyo: Petite Lettre.

6. Oketani-Lobbezoo, Hiromi (桶谷仁美). 2007. 家庭でバイリンガルを育てる:0歳からのバイリンガル教育 [Raising Children as

Bilinguals: Bilingual Education from Age Zero]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

7. Sakae, Yoko（栄陽子). 2019. 子どもを“バイリンガル”にしたければこう育てなさい! [If You Want Your Children to be

Bilinguals, Raise them Like This!]. Tokyo: Fusosha.

8. Sampei, Mari（三幣真理). 2016. バイリンガルは5歳までにつくられる [Making Bilinguals up to the Age of 5]. Tokyo: Gentosha.

(Continued)

Parents’ Use of Discourse Strategies 47