Abstract:In this paper we examine the topic of the language development of three young bilingual children at both home and school. Our aim is to consider the language issues that arise in such children, taking into account their parents' language background and experience of school systems, language practices and 'policy' in the home, and the children's experience of a year of nursery school as reported by their teachers. We try to show how different strands of the children's experience t together; their 'mother tongue… Show more
“…Parental language choice in bilingual families has been studied from many different perspectives and using different methodologies (compare, for instance, Curdt-Christiansen 2009, De Houwer 2007, Lanza 1997, Li Wei 1994 and Zhu Hua 2008). All of these perspectives can be subsumed under the heading of "Family Language Policy" or FLP (King, Fogle and Logan-Terry 2008, Lanza 2014, Parke and Drury 2001). The present study aims to contribute to FLP by considering the degree to which parental language choice in addressing young bilingual children varies across time or fundamentally remains the same.…”
An important aspect of Family Language Policy in bilingual families is parental language choice. Little is known about the continuity in parental language choice and the factors affecting it. This longitudinal study explores maternal language choice over time. Thirty-one bilingual mothers provided reports of what language(s) they spoke with their children. Mother-child interactions were videotaped when children were pre-verbal (5M), producing words in two languages (20M), and fluent speakers (53M). All children had heard two languages from birth in the home. Most mothers reported addressing children in the same single language. Observational data confirmed mothers' use of mainly a single language in interactions with their children, but also showed the occasional use of the other language in over half the sample when children were 20 months. Once children were 53 months mothers again used only the same language they reported speaking to children. These findings reveal a possible effect of children's overall level of language development and demonstrate the difficulty of adhering to a strict “one person, one language” policy. The fact that there was longitudinal continuity in the language most mothers mainly spoke with children provided children with cumulative language input learning opportunities.
“…Parental language choice in bilingual families has been studied from many different perspectives and using different methodologies (compare, for instance, Curdt-Christiansen 2009, De Houwer 2007, Lanza 1997, Li Wei 1994 and Zhu Hua 2008). All of these perspectives can be subsumed under the heading of "Family Language Policy" or FLP (King, Fogle and Logan-Terry 2008, Lanza 2014, Parke and Drury 2001). The present study aims to contribute to FLP by considering the degree to which parental language choice in addressing young bilingual children varies across time or fundamentally remains the same.…”
An important aspect of Family Language Policy in bilingual families is parental language choice. Little is known about the continuity in parental language choice and the factors affecting it. This longitudinal study explores maternal language choice over time. Thirty-one bilingual mothers provided reports of what language(s) they spoke with their children. Mother-child interactions were videotaped when children were pre-verbal (5M), producing words in two languages (20M), and fluent speakers (53M). All children had heard two languages from birth in the home. Most mothers reported addressing children in the same single language. Observational data confirmed mothers' use of mainly a single language in interactions with their children, but also showed the occasional use of the other language in over half the sample when children were 20 months. Once children were 53 months mothers again used only the same language they reported speaking to children. These findings reveal a possible effect of children's overall level of language development and demonstrate the difficulty of adhering to a strict “one person, one language” policy. The fact that there was longitudinal continuity in the language most mothers mainly spoke with children provided children with cumulative language input learning opportunities.
“…This notion of complexity is common in much of the literature concerning FLA and SLA; Soderman and Oshio (, p. 298) consider FLA “complex”, and Clark writes that “second‐language acquisition is as complex as the acquisition of the first language but with a wide variety of variables added in” (Clark, , p. 184), this being one factor leading, presumably, to the “complexity of early years pedagogy” (Bligh, , p. 12). Yet the nature of FLA, and the theories associated with it, are sometimes seen as unproblematic for understanding SLA; Parke and Drury, for example, merely note that a “full, ‘normal’ linguistic environment … is essential for the development of language in young children” (Parke & Drury, , p. 125), leading them to the conjecture that “it does look as though there is a common storage of languages in the mind” (Parke & Drury, , p. 126). Another example which sees the relationship between FLA and SLA as largely unproblematic comes from Clarke (), who writes: The first language … forms the foundation for all later language development (Clarke, , p. 9).Similarly, in relation to language acquisition, Soderman and Oshio write: The process of becoming competent in a first language requires very young children to master: phonology (the sounds of the language); vocabulary (the words of the language); grammar (the way the words are ordered and put together); discourse (the way the sentences are put together); and pragmatics (the rules of how to use the language) … Though complex, a child's initial foray into language development begins at birth as the child interacts with others, building both a receptive vocabulary and a phenomenal ability to express all of the other important pieces of their language in a fairly competent manner by the age of five (Soderman & Oshio, , p. 298).Quite how children do ‘master’ phonology, grammar, discourse and pragmatics is left unexplained.…”
This paper considers the use made of Vygotsky's work by many who take a sociocultural perspective and, in particular, by those who use his work to advance a particular view of second language acquisition and the 'silent period'. It is argued that Vygotsky's account as represented in Thought and Language (Vygotsky, 1986) needs to be thought of as consisting of two distinct aspects: first, the observations he made (or claimed to have made) and, second, the theoretical account he proposed to explain them. It is shown that some of Vygotsky's observations are problematic but that, even if they are accepted, Vygotsky's theoretical account suffers from fundamental difficulties. Thus the support claimed from Vygotsky in accounts of second language acquisition is misplaced, first because of those difficulties and, second, because many who claim support from Vygotsky, do not need or even use his theory but instead focus their attention on his empirical observations and assume incorrectly that if their own empirical observations match Vygotsky's, then Vygotsky's theory can be accepted.Wittgenstein's later philosophy is shown to provide a perspective which dispels confusions about, and gives us a clearer insight into, the issues.
“…Many factors may or may not have an effect upon the speed at which a child passes through the silent period, including the consequences of psychological withdrawal or an interruption in the child's expected 'language acquisition processes' (Parke and Drury, 2001). Kagan (1989) suggests that children who are temperamentally inhibited will be more cautious, less sociable and perhaps less willing to try; they may be fearful (with no one to share their mother tongue) of making a mistake, therefore prolonging the transition through the silent period.…”
This paper draws together the research findings from two ethnographic studies (Drury, 2007;Bligh, 2011) as a means to problematize the 'silent period' as experienced by young bilingual learners in two English speaking early years settings in England. Most teachers and senior early years practitioners in England are monolingual English speakers. The children (regardless of their mother tongue) are taught through the medium of spoken and written English in and through all subject areas. Bilingual learning through the mother tongue is not only disregarded in most schools in England but is actively discouraged in some.Three emergent bilingual learners were re-examined as case studies. Suki and Adyta (Bligh, 2011) of Japanese and Punjabi decent and Nazma (Drury, 2007) of Kashmiri descent were observed whilst they each negotiated new ways of knowing within and through an English pre-school setting. Sociocultural insights into how these young children employ their silenced mother tongue to negotiate their learning creates a fuller and richer portrait of the emergent bilingual learner both in and outside of preschool.These collaborative research findings present the silent period as agentive (Drury, 2007) and as a crucial time for self-mediated learning (Bligh, 2011) within the early years community of practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
