1
SELECTED FACTORS DETERMINING LANGUAGE CHOICE
IN YOUNG BILINGUAL CHILDREN
by
Angela Dorn de Samudio
A Capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Arts in English as a Second Language
Hamline University
Saint Paul, Minnesota
March 2006
Committee:
Mary Diaz, Primary Reader
Julia Reimer, Secondary Reader
Holli Aparicio, Peer Reader
2
0.
- To the children I will one day parent.
3
Notes to the Reader
In keeping with general convention in the literature on child speech, the ages of the
children studied here are given in numerals in the following order: years, months (e.g.
2;5).
Pedro, Luis, Antonio, Benjamin and Juan, the names of the 2- to 3-year-old subjects in
this study, are abbreviated P, L, A, B and J, respectively, while M and F represent their
mother and father.
In the case where parents from one family are being compared to parents from another
family, all adult subjects are abbreviated first by family code, then by parent gender. For
example, H2M represents the mother from family H2.
Additionally, the abbreviations E and S represent English and Spanish, respectively.
Where translation is deemed necessary, it will be given in brackets.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Preliminary Study
Bilingualism in Children
Two Controversial Hypotheses
Advantages and Benefits
Challenges
Language Choice
Language Mixing, Code-switching and Codemixing
Parental Input
Language Separation
Language Plan
Parent Characteristics
Discourse Strategies
One Parent-One Language Approach
Summary
Chapter Three: Methodology
Research Paradigm and Rationale
Subjects & Data Collection: First Questionnaire
Data Collection: Observation & Interview
Coding
Coding of Language Types
Coding of Parental Discourse Strategies
Explicit Strategies
Implicit Strategies
Data Collection: Second Questionnaire
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
Demographic Questionnaire Results
Native English-Speaking Parents
Native Spanish-Speaking Parents
Demographic Questionnaire Discussion
Observation Results
Child Utterances
Parent Utterances
Individual Family Summaries
vi-vii
1
6
8
11
12
13
15
16
17
20
20
22
23
26
28
29
31
32
33
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
42
43
45
47
48
49
52
53
55
5
Family Summary: H1 (Pedro)
Family Summary: H2 (Luis)
Family Summary: H3 (Antonio)
Family Summary: H4 (Benjamin)
Family Summary: H5 (Juan)
Observation Discussion
Interview Results and Discussion
Bilingual Family Questionnaire Results
Bilingual Family Questionnaire Discussion
Chapter Five: Conclusion
Major Learnings
Limitations of the Study
Future Research
Using the Results
Appendices
Appendix A – Survey from Preliminary Study Distributed in Colombia
(English)
Appendix B – Survey from Preliminary Study Distributed in Colombia
(Spanish)
Appendix C – Demographic Questionnaire Used for the Present Study
(English)
Appendix D – Demographic Questionnaire Used for the Present Study
(Spanish)
Appendix E – Bilingual Family Questionnaire Used for the Present Study
(English)
Appendix F – Bilingual Family Questionnaire Used for the Present Study
(Spanish)
Appendix G – Demographic Questionnaires Completed by Participating
Parents
Appendix H – Bilingual Family Questionnaires Completed by
Participating Parents
References
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
76
80
81
82
84
85
87
88
90
93
95
97
102
105
116
137
6
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Language Input Environment for Seven Spanish-English Bilingual
Families Residing in Colombia
Table 2: The Advantages of Being Bilingual
Table 3: Demographic Information of Five Spanish-English Bilingual Families
Table 4: Percentage (%) of Native English-Speaking Parents who Choose
English, Spanish or Both Languages in a Variety of Settings
Table 5: Percentage (%) of Native Spanish-Speaking Parents who Choose
English, Spanish or Both Languages in a Variety of Settings
Table 6: Percentage (%) of Chosen Language Types by Children when Interacting
with Native English-Speaking Parent
Table 7: Percentage (%) of Chosen Language Types by Children when Interacting
with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Table 8: Percentage (%) of Each Discourse Strategy Used by Native EnglishSpeaking Parents
Table 9: Percentage (%) of Each Discourse Strategy Used by Native SpanishSpeaking Parents
Table 10: Remaining Information from Bilingual Questionnaire
Table 11: Language Input Environment for Five Spanish-English Bilingual
Children
Figure 1: The Relationship between Parental Beliefs/Attitudes and Children’s
Language Development in a Potentially Bilingual Input Condition
Figure 2: Percentage (%) of Native English-Speaking Parents who Choose
English, Spanish or Both Languages in a Variety of Settings
Figure 3: Percentage (%) of Native Spanish-Speaking Parents who Choose
English, Spanish or Both Languages in a Variety of Settings
Figure 4: Pedro’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Figure 5: Discourse Strategies Used by Pedro’s English-Speaking Parent
Figure 6: Pedro’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 7: Discourse Strategies Used by Pedro’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 8: Luis’ Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Figure 9: Discourse Strategies Used by Luis’ English-Speaking Parent
Figure 10: Luis’ Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 11: Discourse Strategy Used by Luis’ Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 12: Antonio’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
9
14
35
44
46
52
53
54
55
73
75
25
45
47
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
7
Figure 13: Discourse Strategy Used by Antonio’s English-Speaking Parent
Figure 14: Antonio’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 15: Discourse Strategy Used by Antonio’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 16: Benjamin’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Figure 17: Discourse Strategy Used by Benjamin’s English-Speaking Parent
Figure 18: Benjamin’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 19: Discourse Strategy Used by Benjamin’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 20: Juan’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Figure 21: Discourse Strategy Used by Juan’s English-Speaking Parent
Figure 22: Juan’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Figure 23: Discourse Strategy Used by Juan’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
While living in Bogotá, Colombia, one night my husband and I visited the house
of our friends, Mauricio and Laura, who are native speakers of Spanish and English,
respectively. It was around seven o’clock in the evening and their children were getting
ready for bed. As the four of us sat on the couches in the living room, we drank a freshly
brewed cup of coffee and enjoyed a conversation in Spanish. Their 5-year-old son David
was in his pajamas, playing with his toys on the coffee table among coffee mugs, a bowl
of sugar and pastries.
David turns to Mauricio.
David: Papi, tengo sed.
Mauricio: Pregúntale a tu mamá si puedes tomar algo antes de acostarte.
With feet planted on the floor, David simply turns his head to Laura.
David: Mom, can I have something to drink before bed?
It was during this conversation with our friends that my captivation with the
concept of language choice in bilingual children began. Linguistic interactions between
8
bilingual parents and their children continue to intrigue me. I am curious why little David
deliberately chooses English to speak to his mom when he lives in a Spanish-speaking
environment. He hears Spanish in his neighborhood, at preschool, at family gatherings,
and even in his own house, as it is the language his parents speak to each other. In
addition, Spanish was being spoken when he was playing at our feet that evening. So,
why is it that he continues to communicate in English with his mother when he knows
she also speaks Spanish?
Since that evening, I have observed many other similar incidents, and many
questions have surfaced as a result: What influences a child’s ability and decision to
choose one language over the other? What type of parental input does a child need to
become a bilingual? Is a child’s language choice dependent on a parent’s consistent
language choice? Is it dependent on the amount of time the child spends with each
parent? Is it dependent on what language is primarily used at home or between the
parents? Will the answers vary on a case-by-case basis, or can a universal conclusion be
formulated for all? Along with this myriad of questions, it has become apparent through
informal observation that every bilingual family is unique; each has its own style,
discourse strategies and way of communicating, language goals as well as linguistic
expectations for the children. There is definitely not just one way of creating a bilingual
family.
Harding-Esch and Riley (2003) conducted case studies of sixteen bilingual
families, each promoting bilingualism in a different way. One family consisted of both
parents speaking their native language (L1) while living in a society where another
9
language is spoken (L2). Yet another family consisted of one parent knowing two
languages, which resulted in the mother speaking her L2 to the children, while the father
spoke the only language he knew. There are clearly many different definitions of a
bilingual family. However, for the sake of consistency and clarity in this research, a
bilingual family will be defined as one that consists of two parents who are native
speakers of different languages. Additionally, it is understood that the linguistic
development of children can be influenced by the language choice of a number of
individuals, including someone other than the parent, such as an influential adult or
another interlocutor outside the home (de Houwer, 1999b; Lanza, 1992). In order to
maintain a clear focus in the current investigation, the author will only observe parentchild interactions; but it must be kept in mind that other individuals in the child’s world
do indeed impact her language choice.
Two years prior to the present investigation, the author conducted an unpublished
preliminary study due to personal interest. It included seven bilingual (Spanish-English)
families living in Bogotá, Colombia. A questionnaire was created in both Spanish and
English, distributed to bilingual families whose children attended the school where she
taught at the time, and anonymously returned to her. The objective of the study was to
obtain information through parental observation, reports and opinions regarding their
children’s exposure to both languages. As mentioned before, no two families are exactly
alike, and therefore, all participating families gave different answers. A more thorough
description of this study will be provided in the Literature Review (Chapter Two).
10
In her study, Kasuya (1998) was interested in clarifying the role of the amount of
input that influences a child’s language choice. She was concerned with the degree of
parents’ consistency in their language choice as a critical factor in promoting active
bilingualism in their children. In addition, Kasuya was interested in the specific kinds of
parental discourse strategies used when the parents spoke Japanese (the minority
language) to their children and in return, their children used English. She studied the
speech samples of four first-born preschool children from English-Japanese families by
first observing parent-child interactions and also collecting data from surveys completed
by the parents.
Although I plan to use Kasuya’s research as a guide to see if similar results can be
found with Spanish-English bilingual families in the United States where English is the
societal language, a few pieces will be different. The purpose of this study, then, is to
document the discourse strategies used by a selected group of parents who are raising
their children bilingually and to examine the extent to which their strategies influence
their child’s language choice. The current study will look specifically at 2- to 3-year-old
children, and record observations of both parents (Kasuya looked at only one parent)
interacting in their native language with the child on two separate occasions. Two key
questions will be kept in mind. First, what type of discourse strategy will the parent use in
response to the child when the child speaks in the parent’s L2? Second, what language
will the child continue to use? In other words, will the child’s language choice be
influenced by the parent’s choice of discourse strategy and overall use of language?
11
On a yearly basis, many thousands of marriages occur between individuals who
speak different languages (Schmidt-Mackey, 1971). Therefore, both nationwide and
across international borders, mixed language marriages are increasing (Baker, 2000;
Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003), making the number of bilingual families grow and an
overall desire in parents to raise their children bilingually rise (Malave, 1997).
Additionally, Harrison and Piette (1980) state that research conducted on the language
selection of bilingual children will benefit millions of children. This consequently implies
more bilingual children will be enrolled in schools all over. Parents and educators alike
will benefit from the results of this research. They will know how to better provide a
linguistically valuable environment for their children as well as develop a broad
understanding of the acquisition of bilingualism in children.
Like all fields of research, there is a myriad of terms used interchangeably. In the
area of bilingualism, some words are synonymous whereas others carry a slightly
different meaning. Instead of creating a glossary, terms used in the following chapters
will be defined and cited with the understanding that authors and experts elsewhere may
have used the same term to signify something different. The next chapter will describe in
more depth findings from recent studies conducted on bilingual children and parental
input as well as factors involved in determining language choice for children. In Chapter
Three, the methodology implemented for the current investigation will be described at
length. In Chapter Four, the results discovered from this study will be stated and
discussed. Finally, Chapter Five will be dedicated to the conclusions of the present study.
12
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the present investigation is to study parental discourse strategies
that determine language choice in bilingual children whose parents are native speakers of
different languages (English and Spanish). In her investigation, Kasuya (1998)
discovered how the consistency of parental language choice has the potential to
encourage active bilingualism in their children. She also looked at specific types of
discourse strategies Japanese-speaking parents used when their children spoke in English
(the language of their society). As a result, Kasuya discovered that consistent parental
input can play a key role in determining language choice in bilingual children. It is of
interest to look at how parental discourse strategies influence a child’s language choice in
English-Spanish bilingual families in order to contribute more to Kasuya’s results as well
as to the field of bilingualism in children.
13
More specifically, the present study focused on families that include a native
English-speaking parent and a native Spanish-speaking parent who together are raising
their children bilingually. The parents of these families were observed and the discourse
strategies they use were examined to further understand the extent to which their
strategies influence their child’s language choice. Two key questions were kept in mind.
First, what type of discourse strategy did the parent use in response to the child when the
child spoke in the parent’s L2? Second, what language did the child continue to use? In
other words, was the child’s language choice influenced by the parent’s choice of
discourse strategy and overall use of language?
Early bilingual development experts reported that bilingual children are
particularly sensitive to and aware of the linguistic patterns of their interlocutors (Hamers
& Blanc, 1989; Volterra & Taeschner, 1978). When children first differentiate which
language is spoken by which person, they tend to rigidly use the language they associate
with the speaker even though the speaker may express a willingness to use the other
language (Baker, 2000; Fantini, 1985; Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Jisa, 2000; Volterra &
Taeschner, 1978). In addition, children are very sensitive to the language use of those
around them as well as being influenced by language when it is addressed directly to
them (Harrison & Piette, 1980). According to these researchers and others, it is clear that
bilingual children are deliberate with and mindful of their language choice (Malave,
1997; Parke & Drury, 2001); however, there is a need to further study the factors that
surround these choices.
14
By identifying factors that indicate which language a bilingual child will choose,
the researcher hopes to provide for parents and educators relevant and practical
information that will allow them to enrich the linguistic development and bilingualism of
their children and students. This chapter will include descriptions of research from a
number of studies conducted and books written that are related to the present
investigation. The researcher conducted a preliminary study prior to the current
investigation, so it seems appropriate to begin the discussion with its information.
However, following the preliminary study, the remainder of the chapter will contain
literature concerning bilingualism in children, parental input, discourse strategies and the
one parent-one language approach.
Preliminary Study
Two years prior to the current study, a parent questionnaire was distributed to a
variety of bilingual English-Spanish families. The questionnaires were anonymously
returned to the author, and were then given an identification code (G1, G2, etc.). There
were seven families who completed the questionnaire, and together they had a total of 13
children, ranging from ages 3 years to 14 years. They all resided in Bogotá, Colombia,
and all children attended the American school where the author was employed. (See
Appendix A for the questionnaire in English and Appendix B for the questionnaire in
Spanish.) Table 1 describes the input environment that each family reported creating and
providing for their children. To clarify, mother is abbreviated “M,” and father is
abbreviated “F.”
15
Table 1. Language Input Environment for Seven Spanish-English Bilingual Families Residing in
Colombia
Language
Family ID Language Language Language
which
(Number of Father to Mother to
between
Spanish Input
English Input
child/ren
children)
child
child
parents
prefer*
80%
school, home,
G1
English
Spanish
church, home,
English/
books, videos,
both
(2)
(95-99%)
(100%)
M's family
20%
F's family
English
G2
(1)
G3
(1)
English
(100%)
English
(100%)
50%
Spanish/
50%
English
church, books,
movies, M's
family
music, school,
TV, movies,
radio, books,
F's family
English
Spanish
(100%)
100%
English
TV, home,
church, radio,
books, school,
music, M's
family
school, home,
books, music,
friends
both
TV, radio,
school, church,
movies, friends,
M's family
school, TV,
videos, movies,
F's family
12 yearoldEnglish; 9
& 4 yearoldSpanish
TV, church,
school, F's
family
home, school,
music, friends
English
Spanish
(70%)
G4
(3)
English
(70%)
Spanish
(85%)
50%
Spanish/
50%
English
G5
(2)
Spanish
(100%)
English
(98%)
2%
Spanish/
98%
English
16
G6
(2)
G7
(2)
Spanish
(100%)
Spanish
(100%)
English
(99%)
100%
Spanish
friends, TV,
neighborhood,
school, parent's
friends, F's
family
English
(100%)
1%
English/
99%
Spanish
church, TV,
friends,
neighborhood,
soccer, home,
F's family
school, videos,
books, email to
family in US,
both
school, books,
friends, videos,
M's family
English
* Parents tended to agree with each other regarding which language their children preferred speaking,
reading and using in general.
For the most part, many of the parents followed the “one parent-one language”
model (Ronjat, 1913), which is an approach many bilingual families adhere to where
each parent speaks their native language to the child. For those parents who reported
speaking their L1 less than 100% of the time, they chose to use their L2 when the people
around them did not speak their L1. The parents of G4 reported the lowest percentages (F
70% and M 85%) for L1 usage with their children, but were also the only two parents of
the 14 who both claimed to have advanced L2 skills.
There were a variety of responses in regards to the language parents chose to use
between each other and in the home. Two families speak all the time in Spanish (100%);
two families speak half in Spanish/half in English; one spoke 1% of the time in English;
and one spoke 2% of the time in Spanish. The English-Spanish ratio for the remaining
family was the most diverse among all the families (80%-20%).
All parents considered themselves bilingual to some degree. In the families
consisting of Spanish-speaking mothers, two mothers considered themselves at an
intermediate level in their English skills while the other two rated themselves as having
17
advanced English skills. The native English-speaking fathers, on the other hand, had a
slightly wider range. Two rated themselves at an advanced level in Spanish while the
other two were in between beginner and intermediate levels of Spanish skills.
In the families consisting of native English-speaking mothers, two of the mothers
classified themselves as advanced and the third mother considered herself at an
intermediate level while all three of the native Spanish-speaking fathers reported having
beginner to intermediate level English skills. Interestingly, regardless of the parent’s L1,
all mothers claimed to have attained an intermediate or advanced level in their L2 while
all the fathers rate themselves across all levels, ranging from beginner to advanced.
In regards to linguistic input from outside the home, there was quite a bit of
overlap with the most common responses for both languages being family, church,
school, books, friends, and media (movies, videos, music, TV, etc.).
Although this preliminary study was conducted strictly out of personal interest, it
sheds light on how different bilingual families can be. All of these families lived in the
same area, all knew each other, all sent their children to the same school, and yet their
responses varied on many levels, indicating quite different language practices across
families. Completing a random questionnaire with no direct benefit to the family
demonstrates a high level of interest on the parent’s part as well. It also shows that there
is a need for more research to be conducted in the area of bilingual families and their plan
or strategy to promote bilingualism in their children.
Bilingualism in Children
18
There are a number of factors involved in the broad field of bilingualism in
children. Baker (2000) believes that children are born ready to be bilingual. Research
shows that being exposed to more than one language as a child does not have a negative
effect on language acquisition (Genesee, 2002; Goodz, 1994) nor is there any evidence
that implies being exposed to two or more languages causes delays or disorders in
language development (de Houwer, 1999a; Döpke, 1992a; Genesee, 2002; Smith, 1935).
Although these claims somewhat comply with one another, there are still two very
controversial hypotheses related to bilingualism in children that need to be addressed and
considered here. The advantages and benefits as well as the challenges for a child to
become bilingual will be presented. Lastly, language mixing and language choice in
children are two areas that also deserve attention.
Two Controversial Hypotheses
Two controversial hypotheses regarding language acquisition in bilingual children
are given attention in a few studies, and have been given a variety of titles. The unitarylanguage system hypothesis (Genesee, 1989), the one-system approach (Redlinger &
Park, 1980) or the initial one system hypothesis (Döpke, 1992b) states children start with
one system that later will incorporate the two languages and only gradually will bilingual
children be able to differentiate the two. Additionally, it “assumes cognitive maturation to
be at the centre of the bilingual child’s ability to differentiate between the two languages,
[and that] the child should be able to do so either in both language environments or in
neither” (Döpke, 1992b, p.473). Under this hypothesis, it is believed that bilingual
19
children equally use items from both languages in all communicative situations
(Redlinger & Park, 1980; Taeschner, 1983; Vihman, 1985; Volterra & Taeschner, 1978).
Vihman (1985) also states that although a child increases his/her vocabulary using words
from both languages but does not yet combine them, it is safe to assume that he or she is
not concerned with the difference between language sources, contexts or interlocutors at
this point.
On the other hand, a variety of researchers mentioned throughout the present
investigation tend to agree with the second hypothesis. The differentiated-language
system hypothesis (Genesee, 1989), the two-system approach (Redlinger & Park, 1980),
or the immediate differentiation hypothesis (Döpke, 1992b) assumes that bilingual
children use items from both languages differentially based on person, place, time, topic
and activity. This hypothesis claims that the task of language differentiation occurs early
in the life of a young bilingual and is less gradual than the hypothesis previously
mentioned (de Houwer, 1990; Genesee, 1989; Goodz, 1989; Hamers & Blanc, 1989;
Schmidt-Mackey, 1971).
McLaughlin (1984) adds that children seem to effortlessly have the ability to
discriminate between the sounds they are exposed to in a bilingual environment. Also,
Lindholm & Padilla (1978, p. 334) state that “bilingual children are able, from an early
age, to differentiate their two linguistic systems.”
In mixed-lingual families, specifically where both languages are valued and are a
means of socialization, “the child learns that one class of social interactions
corresponding to one set of scripts can make use of two sets of linguistic rules according
20
to a number of situational variables, such as interlocutor, topic and context” (Hamers &
Blanc, 1989, p. 74). Bilingual children are aware of the existence of two distinct codes
and are, therefore, able to switch between the two long before they have mastered all of
the rules of the languages they are exposed to (Fantini, 1985; Hamers & Blanc, 1989;
Ronjat, 1913).
Advantages and Benefits
The advantages to becoming a bilingual as a child are numerous. Baker (2000, p.
2) summarizes well his beliefs of the advantages of being bilingual in the following chart.
Table 2. The Advantages of Being Bilingual
Communicative Advantages
1. Wider communication (extended family, community, international links,
employment).
2. Literacy in two languages.
Cultural Advantages
3. Broader enculturation, a deeper multiculturalism, and two ‘language worlds’
of experience.
4. Greater tolerance and less racism.
Cognitive Advantages
5. Thinking benefits (creativity, sensitivity to communication).
Character Advantages
6. Raised self-esteem.
7. Security in identity.
Curriculum Advantages
8. Increased curriculum achievement.
21
9. Easier to learn a third language.
Cash Advantages
10. Economic and employment benefits.
Additionally, authors and experts in the area mention the clear advantage of being
able to communicate with family on both sides (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Blum-Martínez,
2002; Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003). Close contacts with extended family in another
country are not only vital for a child’s development in both languages and both cultures,
but important for building relationships, which cannot be done without language
(Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003). Grandparents may play a key role in the linguistic
development of children, especially in the minority language, as it allows “for extra
language input and forms strong person-language bonds that will help them maintain
their languages” (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004, p. 88). Another obvious benefit is that the
child is socialized in both languages and both cultures, which contributes greatly to the
success of bilingual acquisition (de Houwer, 1999b; Parke & Drury, 2001).
Challenges
A very clear and obvious challenge to raising a child bilingually is the lack of a
strong linguistic community in one of the languages. As mentioned above, the linguistic
and cultural contribution the extended family can offer is a vital piece to successful
language acquisition (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). However, when one language is not used
in the community and when a bilingual family is geographically far from sources of the
22
minority language, parents “need to consider how to establish a richness of language
experience for their children in that particular language” (Baker, 2000, p. 15). In addition,
it is also necessary for parents to seriously consider how to create an experience that
involves extended family whether near or far because “intense contact with the weak
language is an essential factor” in the bilingual development for children (Jisa, 2000, p.
1364).
Cummins (2002) discussed the reality of some linguistically diverse classrooms in
the U.S. school system, and described it as a drawback for bilingual families who desire
to have their children educated in both English and Spanish. This is particularly true in
contexts where “societal racism [is] directed against the languages and cultures of
marginalized communities” (p. 196). He argued that bilingual programs deny children
equal access to both languages as well as academic advancement, although most
programs state such as their goals. Furthermore, children may lack a sense of self if
languages and cultures are not accurately represented at the school they attend.
Another possible drawback in the eyes of a parent who is trying to promote
bilingualism in his/her child is that one language may become more dominant than the
other, causing the other language to not be produced at the same breadth. A child may be
reluctant to speak one of the languages, and it is usually the one that is not the dominant
language of the community (Jisa, 2000; Saunders, 1982). The development and overall
strength of one’s two languages tend to vary over time (Baker, 2000). Although children
can keep both languages in balance (de Houwer, 1990; Meisel, 1989), language
dominance may be a result of other factors, such as progress in dual language acquisition
23
and exposure to adult language mixing (Goodz, 1994; McLaughlin, 1984), which will be
looked at in an upcoming section.
Language Choice
Research shows that bilingual children are not simply inclined to speak one
language over the other; they make a deliberate choice (Malave, 1997; Parke & Drury,
2001). Bilingual children are able to sort out languages in their mind, consciously choose
to use one or the other (Parke & Drury, 2001), and keep their languages in balance (de
Houwer, 1990; Meisel, 1989). It has also been said that they can choose their language
according to the intended recipient even when that person may not be present (Harrison
& Piette, 1980) as well as according to the setting or location in which the child heard the
language (Deuchar & Quay, 1999).
From as young as 1:7 years of age, Baker (2000) claimed that children can notice
a clear separation of languages. In fact, “prelinguistic infants are said to easily
differentiate their two languages, and they do this using differences in the prosody of
each language, such as intonation, stress, and rhythm as cues” (Genesee, 1989; Goodz,
1994, p. 63) as well as other subtle cues in their environment (Harrison & Piette, 1980).
A child has the ability to internalize “the degree to which the two languages are
interchangeable; that is, the child learns whether both languages can be used to address
the same or different interlocutors, to fulfil the same or different functions in the same or
different social contexts” (Hamers & Blanc, 1989, p. 75). Lastly, when growing up in a
home where bilingualism is encouraged, children are able to make the necessary
24
adaptations when they encounter new or unfamiliar linguistic environments (Parke&
Drury, 2001). Baker noted that “many bilingual children tend not to mix languages when
addressing monolinguals, but are aware enough of bilinguals to move between both
languages when addressing them” (2000, p. 31). Similar claims have been made by de
Houwer (1999b), Döpke (1992a) and Lanza (1992).
Language Mixing, Code-switching and Codemixing
In his research, Genesee (1989) discussed the term “language mixing” which is
the result of lack of language separation. It is further described as a bilingual’s
“indiscriminate combinations of elements from each language” (Redlinger & Park, 1980,
p. 337) because the speaker is not able to differentiate the two languages. The term
“code-switching” is often used to describe the bilingual’s ability to deliberately choose a
language according to the interlocutor, the context, etc. (Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Meisel,
1989; Schmidt-Mackey, 1971). Therefore, language mixing is often associated with
children and code-switching with the adult bilingual (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Jisa,
2000), even though they are different (Vihman, 1985). Finally, Nicoladis and Genesee
(1998) use the term “codemixing” to signify the use of two languages regardless of
whether or not the choice was deliberate. In the paragraphs to come, instead of using one
term throughout, the term used in the literature being cited is the term that will be used.
One way to avoid language mixing is to have each parent only speak one
language, often referred to as the “one parent-one language” approach (OPOL) (BarronHauwaert, 2004, p. 1; Goodz, 1994; Ronjat, 1913). Smith (1935) suggested that when
25
bilingual children are exposed to two languages, it is best that both sources be distinct
and separate. The reason for this is if, for example, a child is modeled a mixture of two
languages, she may not know that the two are really separate (Genesee, 1989).
Some researchers claimed that language mixing is not a sign of confusion for the
bilingual child (Goodz, 1989; Jisa, 2000) nor is it a valid indicator of a child’s lack of
bilingual awareness (Lanza, 1992). Rather, language mixing is usually a result of
language dominance (Baker, 2000; Goodz, 1994; Jisa, 2000). In other words, when the
bilingual child is speaking in the weaker language, he may have to borrow a term from
the stronger language simply because he lacks the appropriate vocabulary (Baker, 2000;
Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Goodz, 1989; Meisel, 1989). This is called lexical borrowing,
and as Fantini (1978) noted, it often stops when the child has acquired the appropriate
term in his other language.
In his study of Estonian-English bilingual children, Vihman (1985, p. 300)
reported a “steady increase in percentage of English vocabulary that had entered the
lexicon after or close to simultaneously with an Estonian counterpart.” Furthermore, he
discovered a significant decrease in language mixing at the age of two for reasons he
believed are associated with the development of a greater metalinguistic awareness or to
broader cognitive advances in the children participating in his study. Redlinger and Park
(1980) also discovered that rates of mixing in children decreased with advancing
linguistic development. “As the children developed linguistically, the ability to control
the languages separately also grew, resulting in a progressive decrease in language
mixing” (Redlinger & Park, 1980, p. 351). This, therefore, explains that mixing is
26
associated with a general inability of the child to differentiate between the two languages
(Redlinger & Park, 1980; Vihman, 1985).
Lanza (1992) suggested a bilingual child’s rate of codemixing may be influenced
by specific discourse strategies (code-switching, move-on strategy, adult repetition,
expressed guess, and minimal grasp) that parents use in conversing with their children.
She further noted certain parental utterances in response to a child’s codemixing that may
encourage continued codemixing while others may discourage it. Furthermore, Nicoladis
and Genesee (1998) discovered that the more bilingual discourse strategies parents used,
the less the children in their study codemixed. In both Nicoladis and Genesee (1998) and
Kasuya (1998), Lanza’s (1992) discourse strategies were used.
In conclusion, even though bilingual children may make more progress in one
language than the other (Goodz, 1994; McLaughlin, 1984; Vihman, 1985), bilinguals are
known to have obtained a greater metalinguistic awareness, implying that a bilingual
child has a large capacity to distinguish and separate sound and meaning (Döpke, 1992a;
Genesee, 1989; Goodz, 1994). This quality becomes very significant in the life of a
young bilingual because it enables her to differentiate which language is spoken by which
interlocutor (Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Volterra & Taeschner, 1978).
Parental Input
Although bilingual families are composed in a number of ways, it is what the
parents do to create a bilingual home that makes each one unique. The following section
will describe why parental input is crucial in becoming bilingual as a child, as discovered
27
by a number of researchers including de Houwer (1999b), Goodz (1994) and Kasuya
(1998). This section will address language separation, language plans for families and
common parent characteristics in bilingual families.
Language Separation
Responsibility for carrying out the one parent-one language (OPOL) approach lies
primarily in the hands of the parents. If parents have chosen to expose their children to
two different languages, they need to make sure both sources of language be distinct and
separate (Smith, 1935) especially in the early years of childhood when language
boundaries are particularly crucial (Baker, 2000). García (2000) even states that if
children are not exposed to the sounds within the first six months of life, they may lose
the ability to distinguish the sounds of the family’s two languages. “Keeping languages
separate with clear demarcation and boundaries between them will tend to make bilingual
development more efficient, more socially acceptable and feed the child’s language
memory and language repertoire” (Baker, 2000, p. 45). When there is a lack of parental
language separation in the linguistic environment, the result is language mixing in
children (Goodz, 1989; Harrison & Piette, 1980; Meisel, 1989; Ronjat, 1913), which was
discussed at length above.
In her article, Goodz (1989) described a variety of reasons why parental mixing,
or lack of language separation, may occur. One is that parents want to use terms their
child understands. Secondly, they are expanding or repeating their child’s two- or threeword utterances. And lastly, parents will mix languages to draw attention, to place
28
emphasis on something, or to discipline. Due to the context and the intention of the
parents, Goodz (1989) continued by stating children may be responsive to parental
mixing.
Another example in which parents may not adhere to keeping the languages
separate is when they choose to speak the L1 of monolinguals when a situation presents
itself. “The use of the minority language of the community between parents and children
in the presence of monolingual friends is one solution to the problem for those who feel
ill at ease with the approach which incorporates the use of the minority language plus
translation/explanation” (Saunders, 1982, p. 281). Harrison and Piette (1980, p. 220)
observed an example of this. By the age of four, Eiran, a Welsh-English bilingual boy,
had learned to replicate the strategy his older brother and mother had already adopted –
using Welsh in the family except when the monolingual father was present, in which case
they would all speak only English.
Language Plan
Li (1999) commented it is of utmost significance for parents to not only establish
a creative family language plan that coincides with both their child’s educational
achievements and bilingual education, but to remain steadfast and consistent with it. In
her study, Goodz noted that “parents need to give explicit consideration to their goals and
to the methods that might be used to accomplish them” (1994, p. 77). Some researchers
have even coined terms, for example, having “a language plan” established (Rosenberg,
1996), creating family “language policies” (Parke & Drury, 2001), implementing “home
29
determined approaches” (Malave, 1997) or “a parent-child plan” (Li, 1999) so that there
are common goals and methods that will ensure both languages will be developed and
maintained (Goodz, 1994).
In her study, Li (1999) revealed a number of language plan examples: provision
of preschool activities in both languages, use of music, television and books in both
languages, encouragement of reading, writing and speaking in both languages and
exposure to other influential adults who speak either or both languages. García (2000)
added that enrolling the child in a bilingual school or starting a play group with other
families who desire bilingualism for their children are a couple of examples of what a
family language plan could include. Regardless of the form, it is the parents who
carefully reflect on their children’s development of two languages, and remain committed
to their children’s bilingual growth, who tend to find raising children bilingually a
success (Rosenberg, 1996.)
Parent Characteristics
As mentioned before, parental input is crucial to language acquisition in children,
and as Malave (1997) pointed out, so are the characteristics of parents as well as the
extent to which parents deliberately choose certain strategies for promoting bilingualism
(Kasuya, 1998; Lanza, 1992; Nicoladis & Genesee, 1998). When children are given “full
normal linguistic opportunities (access to input from adults, a range of conversational
partners, experience of its use in society),” they have the essentials for normal language
development (Parke & Drury, 2001, p. 124). It is necessary then to look at some specific
30
examples of those “full normal linguistic opportunities” in order to further understand
factors that may influence a child’s bilingual development.
If children witness the complementary use of the two languages and cultures of
their parents, the children themselves will be greatly impacted in terms of being
motivated to become bilingual (Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Li, 1999; Malave, 1997;
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2001). The simultaneous use of two languages ignites a child’s
discovery and realization of metalinguistic similarities and differences between the two,
and if children can grasp such patterns in their parents’ languages, their bilingual
acquisition will be facilitated (Li, 1999). As was discussed earlier, with a realization of
metalinguistic awareness and broader cognitive advances, language mixing in children
decreases (Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Vihman, 1985).
There are a number of ways this can be achieved. It can be achieved through
exposure to models of language and language behavior (Hamers & Blanc, 1989) and
encouraging the need to use both languages regularly (de Houwer, 1999b; Li, 1999). In
order for a child to use both languages regularly, parents need to provide opportunities
for children to be “active participants in conversational exchanges in a variety of
contexts” (Goodz, 1994, p. 78; Malave, 1997), including “intense contact with the weak
language” (Jisa, 2000, p. 1364). This may include involving other influential adults, such
as relatives, by calling them, visiting them and playing games with other target language
speakers (Malave, 1997).
The study of parental beliefs and attitudes is a well-researched topic. It will not be
discussed in depth here nor will it be taken into consideration in this study; however, it
31
does need to be considered in the grand scheme of things, and is yet another factor that
determines language choice in children. De Houwer (1999b) proposed the three-tiered
framework in Figure 1. “Parents’ beliefs about how children learn language and their
attitudes to particular styles of language use, particular linguistic varieties and particular
languages affect whether parents will use a particular style, variety or language in
addressing their children and how they will speak to their children” (de Houwer, 1999b,
p. 85).
Parental beliefs and attitudes
Parental linguistic choices and interaction strategies
Children’s language development
Figure 1. The Relationship between Parental Beliefs/Attitudes and Children’s Language
Development in a Potentially Bilingual Input Condition, de Houwer (1999b, p. 86)
In continuing with parent characteristics, Malave (1997) found that the first
language, second language, dominant language, birth place and age of arrival to the US,
occupation and educational level of parents and children were all relevant characteristics
that played a role in influencing a child’s bilingualism. Having high educational
aspirations for their children as well as retaining and maintaining their linguistic and
32
cultural heritage are other important characteristics parents need to keep in mind when
creating a bilingual family (Parke & Drury, 2001). In addition to maintaining their
linguistic heritage, it is important for parents to increase their own L1/L2 bilingualism
(Malave, 1997).
Discourse Strategies
Kasuya (1998) states there is more to input than simply the amount one has been
exposed to a language. De Houwer writes, “children must be regularly and frequently
exposed to two or more languages, and must be growing up in a situation in which active
use of these languages by the child is necessary for socio-communicative purposes”
(1999b, p. 91). Genesee (2002) makes a similar claim in that he believes it is necessary
that parents provide “systematic exposure” to both languages. Li (1999) states children
need to use both languages regularly. Malave (1997) found parents who were concerned
with raising children bilingually provided their children with opportunities for becoming
actively engaged in meaningful and direct communicative acts with native speakers of the
target languages. Furthermore, Baker advises that a child’s attitude towards both
languages needs to be encouraged as does his or her “language ego,” providing “a variety
of pleasurable environments for language growth” (Baker, 2000, p. 26-27). Clearly, there
a number of important strategies for parents to utilize when raising children bilingually.
33
The linguistic strategies parents use in the home are crucial to understanding the
early language socialization of bilingual children (Goodz, 1994; Hamers & Blanc, 1989;
Li, 1999; Malave, 1997; Parke & Drury, 2001; Rosenberg, 1996). Lanza (1992) and
Döpke (1992a) both conducted studies on parental discourse strategies and identified
various strategies parents use when responding to their children. Kasuya (1998) combines
some of their strategies together, and therefore creates a simple coding system, which
will be used in the present investigation as well. She includes two explicit strategies,
which both occur when the parent is speaking his/her L1. One occurs when the parent
literally instructs (INS) the child to say something in the parent’s L1. The other happens
when the parent corrects (COR) the child’s English utterance by stating the Japanese (or,
in this case, Spanish) equivalent, or vice versa, depending on the parent’s L1.
Kasuya (1998) also lists four implicit strategies; however, the researcher
conducting this study makes it into a list of five total implicit strategies. Translating
(TRA) occurs when the bilingual parent says the same information in both languages one
after the other. Repeating or rephrasing (REP) occurs when the bilingual parent repeats
the content of the child’s utterance in either language. The ‘move-on strategy’ (MOV) is
where the parent continues the conversation in language X regardless of when the child
begins to speak language Y. A strategy is classified as ALTES when the parent alternates
the use of, or mixes, English and Spanish in the same utterance. In current literature and
research, this is often referred to as code-switching. In order to include complete phrases
uttered by the parent in his/her L2 and that did not fall under any of the previous
34
strategies, the abbreviations USEN (for using English) or USSP (for using Spanish) were
added by the author in the present study.
In her study, Kasuya (1998) did not look at which strategy was more effective
than the other. However, it was noted that the explicit strategies had the highest success
rate in terms of encouraging the child to choose the parent’s L1, but in terms of the most
commonly chosen strategy, parents chose the implicit repeating strategy (REP) more than
any of the other discourse strategies. Kasuya’s intention, though, was to see if the
children participating in her research would choose the minority language when
addressing their minority-language-speaking parent, specifically observing the parent’s
choice of discourse strategies. She concluded that in order to have an impact on their
child’s bilingualism, parents need to provide a rich linguistic environment, including the
use of the discourse strategies referred to in her study.
One Parent-One Language Approach
The “one parent-one language” approach is often abbreviated OPOL. It has also
been referred to as “The Rule of Grammont,” which French linguist Jules Ronjat named
after the advice his colleague, Maurice Grammont, once gave him (as cited in BarronHauwaert, 2004; Genesee, 1989; McLaughlin, 1984). Grammont advised Ronjat that
“each language must be represented by a different person” and that those roles once
established should never be reversed (cited in Barron-Hauwaert, 2004, p. 2 and in
McLaughlin, 1984, p. 74; Ronjat, 1913; Schmidt-Mackey, 1971; Smith, 1935). OPOL is
a concept that seems to be one of the most commonly mentioned approaches in research.
35
Döpke (1992a, p. 1) mentions it has been termed ‘elitist’ bilingualism since it is usually
followed by those who belong to a higher socioeconomic class, and by those who follow
this particular method due to choice rather than necessity. Malave (1997) plainly states
that an effective way to develop bilingualism in children is when parents choose to use
two different languages. García (2000) believes that parents should speak to their
children in the language they speak best. Others state that each adult in the home should
remain consistent by speaking the same language to the children at all times (Baker,
2000; Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Smith, 1935).
Malave (1997) and Goodz (1994) conducted studies involving parents who
claimed to have used the OPOL method, yet what they discovered was very different.
Malave (1997) discovered that the parents tended to use only one language in the early
years, and waited until later to introduce and use the second language. Goodz found that
the majority of the parents were not able to completely follow the one parent-one
language method, regardless of how dedicated they were. This happened mostly in social
situations where those present did not speak the L1 of the parent, therefore forcing the
parent to speak his L2 (Goodz, 1994).
Summary
The literature reviewed in this chapter made connections between the research
question and the following categories: Bilingualism in Children, Parental Input,
Discourse Strategies, and One Parent-One Language Approach. Each section included
descriptions of studies that have been conducted in the recent years, although some
36
research that is foundational in the field is dated to the 1900’s. The literature reviewed
here provides a significant starting point for understanding what can influence a child’s
overall language choice, especially including parental discourse strategies. However, the
current literature clearly leaves ample room for further research in the area of
bilingualism in children and the factors influencing language choice in children. The
following chapter will describe the subjects involved in the present investigation, how the
data was collected and how the research will attempt to confirm factors that determine
language choice in bilingual children. It will also present the research paradigm and give
a thorough description of the instruments used.
37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The present investigation looks at a selected number of factors that determine
language choice in children. However, as previously discussed, researchers have found
that the type and amount of parental input plays a crucial role in successful bilingual
acquisition in children. De Houwer (1999a) states children do not just “pick up” a
language, but need the provision of a rich environment as well as strong parental support.
Parents and educators become key players in providing such an environment; but, only
the role of parental input will be considered here. Studies conducted thus far have left
room for further investigating the input factors involved in bilingual acquisition for
children (de Houwer, 1999b; Goodz, 1989, 1994; Kasuya, 1998; Lanza, 1992).
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to carefully examine the discourse
strategies used by native Spanish-speaking individuals married to native Englishspeaking individuals who together parent a 2- to 3-year-old child. Two main questions
38
will be investigated: First, what type of discourse strategy will the parent use in response
to the child when the child speaks in the parent’s L2? Second, what language will the
child continue to use? In other words, will the child’s language choice be influenced by
the parent’s choice of discourse strategy and overall use of language?
The following section will describe in detail the methodology that will be used in
the present investigation. Kasuya’s (1998) study revealed interesting results. Kasuya
researches how the role of parental input may influence a bilingual child’s language
choice. Kasuya discovered there was a correlation between a child’s choice of speaking
Japanese and the consistency of the Japanese-speaking parent choosing to speak Japanese
with the child. It is of interest to look at how parental discourse strategies influence a
child’s language choice in English-Spanish bilingual families to compare the results with
Kasuya’s study. For that reason, much of the methodology used in her study will be
replicated here.
Research Paradigm and Rationale
The data collected for the current study demonstrated triangulation through two
separate questionnaires completed by each parent, an observation of parent-child
interaction, and an interview of parents, in that order. Therefore, research was gathered
both qualitatively and quantitatively. Gathering data through three different means of
research provided the current study with more convincing results. Triangulation also gave
the study credibility and dependability (Brown & Rodgers, 2002) by showing
consistencies (or inconsistencies) with participant’s responses.
39
Since the families involved in the present study participated voluntarily, it was
important the researcher kept this in mind when creating the questionnaires. In other
words, it was her intention to keep the questionnaires concise and interesting, but not
overwhelming or demotivating. When written well, obtaining information through
questionnaires can be an easy way to collect data. Those completing the questionnaire
can respond quickly to close-ended questions, since they are usually in the format of
checking boxes or numbers on a scale (Brown & Rodgers, 2002). If there happens to be
open-ended questions, participants have the luxury of taking their time with their answer.
Questionnaires can be very effective ways of obtaining a wealth of information.
However, it is important to remember information received from parental report may not
accurately represent their true interactions with their child (Goodz, 1994).
In many studies, naturalistic observation was used as the means of collecting data
(Goodz, 1989, 1994; Kasuya, 1998; Lanza, 1992). It is appropriately termed naturalistic
because it does not place any pressure on the parents or child to act a certain way while
being observed. Rather, they simply do what comes naturally for them, oftentimes
allowing the child to choose the activity. This form of data collection seemed to fit with
the researcher’s intentions to gather authentic speech samples of both parent and child.
Interviews mostly consist of open-ended questions, according to Brown and
Rodgers (2002). With that in mind, the researcher wanted to include a brief interview at
the end of her observations in order to get a clear and thorough answer to one very
important question – the parent’s plan or method to carry out bilingualism in their child.
It is a question that could have been included on either of the questionnaires; however,
40
due to its nature, it was her preference to ask the opinion of each of the parents, assuming
it would be much easier to talk it out than write it out.
Subjects & Data Collection: First Questionnaire
The individuals participating in this study consisted of five bilingual families in
which the two parents are native speakers of different languages (English and Spanish).
The bilingual researcher chose to study English-Spanish bilingual families both because
she is fluent in English and Spanish, and because of personal interest. Both the parents
and their 2- or 3-year-old child are the subjects in this study, for a total of 15 people (10
parents and 5 children). In three of the five families, native English-speaking women are
married to native Spanish-speaking men. In families H1 and H5, however, the native
Spanish-speakers are females who married native English-speaking males. In all five
families, the parents have completed at least an undergraduate degree, and are currently
pursuing more education, are working professionals, or are stay-at-home parents. Two of
the families are friends of the researcher and her husband, and the third family is the coworker of the researcher’s friend. The latter family provided the researcher with the
remaining two families.
In regards to the children, all five are male; the son from family H1 is currently an
only child whereas the child from family H4 is the first born son who has one younger
sibling. The three other children from families H2, H3 and H5 are second born sons, and
are currently the youngest. They were all born in the United States, and have all been
exposed to both the English and Spanish languages since birth. As Table 3 describes
41
below, all of the children have made visits to Spanish-speaking countries, but none of the
children have lived outside of the United States.
Table 3 provides information that was obtained through a demographic
questionnaire both in English (Appendix C) and in Spanish (Appendix D), which was
completed separately by each parent prior to the first observation (Appendix G). To
clarify, mother and father are abbreviated “M” and “F,” respectively. English and
Spanish are abbreviated “E” and “S,” respectively. Although the information provided in
the column labeled “Age exposed to S and E” may seem obvious, de Houwer (1995)
suggests it is necessary for researchers to specify when their bilingual subjects were first
consistently exposed to two or more languages in order to further understand the role of
input.
Table 3. Demographic Information of Five Spanish-English Bilingual Families
Family
L1 and
ID
Gender
Country
Country
OccupaEducaChild’s
of 2-3of Birth
Name
of Birth
tion of
tional Level
yearof
of Child
(Number
Parents
of Parents
old child
of
Parents
Children)
F – TV
F–
F – E,
CommerH1
UndergradUSA;
cial
Male
USA
Pedro
uate; M –
M – S,
Producer;
Undergrad(1)
ColoM–
uate
mbia
Teacher*
F–
F–
F – S,
H2
Assistant
UndergradEcuador;
Male
USA
Manager;
Luis
uate; M –
M – E,
(2)
M–
Graduate
USA
Teacher
F–
F–
F – S,
H3
Student;
Graduate;
Bolivia;
Male
USA
M–
Antonio
M–
M – E,
(2)
FundraisGraduate
USA
ing
Countries
Child has
lived in
Age of
Exposure
to S & E
USA
Birth
USA
Birth
USA
Birth
42
H4
Benjamin
(2)
F – S,
Honduras;
M – E,
USA
F–
Teacher;
M–
Marketing
F–
Undergraduate; M –
Graduate
Male
USA
USA –
with visits
to
Honduras
**
Birth
F–
F–
Contractor;
H5
UndergradM–
uate; M –
Male
USA
USA
Birth
Juan
Teacher/
(2)
UndergradHomeuate
maker*
* These two mothers were trained and educated as teachers, but are not currently teaching.
** All five families have traveled to the country of the native Spanish-speaking parent, however, only
one parent mentioned it on the demographic questionnaire; the other parents mentioned it in the
interview.
F – E,
USA;
M – S,
Guatemala
Data Collection: Observation & Interview
Speech samples from the five bilingual families were collected during two visits
to their homes. Ages of the children at the time of collection were 2;4 (Pedro from H1),
2;1 (Luis from H2), 2;3 (Antonio from H3), 2;9 (Benjamin from H4) and 3;11 (Juan from
H5). One session consisted of an observation of the mother and child interacting, and on
a separate occasion, the father and child were observed. Both sessions were audiorecorded. The observation was considered “naturalistic” (Goodz, 1989, 1994; Kasuya,
1998; Lanza, 1992) because parents were advised to participate in activities that are usual
and comfortable for them (i.e. playing, talking through a picture book). This dual
structure of an “English context” and a “Spanish context” was chosen to observe the
language choice of the parents, and specifically which language strategies they would use
when their child would speak in the parent’s L2. These contexts were also intended to
obtain as many taped and spontaneous speech samples as possible from the children in
43
both languages. The researcher took thorough notes during each observation. Each
session lasted a maximum of one hour.
Since the researcher did not need the assistance of an interpreter, she was present
at all the data collection sessions. If the session was with the English-speaking parent and
the child would talk to the researcher, she would respond in English. If the session was
with the Spanish-speaking parent and the child would talk to the researcher, she would
respond in Spanish.
Immediately following the parent-child observation, the researcher conducted a
brief interview with the parent. In one case (H4), both parents were present at the time of
the second observation. In the other four families, each of the parents was asked
individually. The question parents were asked was regarding the family’s plan, strategy
or method of promoting bilingualism in their child. It was assumed by the researcher that
a question of this nature would be best explained verbally versus requesting the parent
describe it on paper. This interview was audio-recorded as well.
Coding
Within one week of the home visit, each observation recording was listened to at
least two times; once to count child utterances and categorize them as “language types”
(Kasuya, 1998), and once to count parent utterances to categorize them as “parental
discourse strategies” (Kasuya, 1998). It was necessary to listen to a few recordings more
than two times in order to get an accurate count of the total utterances.
44
Coding of Language Types
In order to properly assess language choice, the researcher coded all of the child
utterances for language. An utterance that contained only English was coded as “E”; an
utterance that contained only Spanish was coded “S”; a mixed utterance containing both
languages was coded as “Mixed”; and an unintelligible utterance associated with either or
neither language was coded as “NonSE.”
In both the English and Spanish languages, the word “no” carries the same
meaning. It is also a word that many young children use. With that in mind, the following
applied to child utterances containing this specific word. When the parent asked the child
a yes/no question in English, and the child replied, “No,” the utterance was counted as
English utterance. Likewise, when the parent asked the child a yes/no question in
Spanish, and the child responded, “No,” the utterance was counted as a Spanish
utterance.
An example of a mixed utterance containing both languages is “I build otro.” This
example is clearly one single utterance, but it includes a word or words from both English
and Spanish.
Unintelligible utterances were classified as such when the researcher could not
understand according to the context of conversation, the particular situation at the
moment, or if from the actual recording the utterance could not be easily understood in
either language. It is also important to note that some of the child’s utterances classified
as unintelligible may include onomatopoeia (i.e. “choo-choo” or “honk honk”) as
suggested in Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis (1995).
45
Coding of Parental Discourse Strategies
All of the child utterances given in English that were instantaneously followed by
a verbal response from the Spanish-speaking parent were coded as belonging to one of
the first six categories of discourse strategies. Likewise, the child utterances given in
Spanish that were followed by a verbal response from the English-speaking parent were
coded as belonging to one of first six categories of discourse strategies. The seventh
discourse strategy mentioned was expected to be the most frequently chosen when
parents are not using the previous six, since it includes normal conversation in either
language. Examples in italics follow each definition.
Explicit Strategies:
1.
INS – Instructing the child to say something in English/Spanish by explicitly
using words such as “say” or “tell”. Parent: “Say ‘blue house’.”
2.
COR – Correcting the child’s English utterance by stating the Spanish
equivalent, or vice versa. Child: “Quiero jugar.” Parent: “I want to play.”
Implicit Strategies:
3.
TRA – Translating the same information in both languages. Parent: “‘Good
Morning’ in English and ‘Buenos Días’ en español.”
4.
REP – Repeating or rephrasing the content of the child’s utterance in the
parent’s L1. Child: “Tengo sueño.” Parent: “So, you are tired?”
46
5.
MOV – Using the ‘move on strategy’ (Lanza, 1992), where the parent
continues the conversation in language X regardless of whether the child
begins to speak language Y.
6.
ALTES – Alternating the use of, or mixing, English and Spanish in the same
utterance (code-switching). Parent: “Let’s go to the supermercado.”
7.
USEN/USSP – Using complete phrases in English or in Spanish (and that do
not fall under the previous six categories).
Data Collection: Second Questionnaire
A second more detailed questionnaire focusing on the input environment of the
child was distributed in both English (Appendix E) and in Spanish (Appendix F). Parents
were encouraged to complete it in their native language and to not discuss their answers
with each other until they were submitted to the researcher. The demographic
questionnaire mentioned above and this questionnaire were distributed at two different
times so that the observations of parent and child interaction would be natural. The
second questionnaire was intentionally distributed at the very end of the data collection
process so that parent-child interactions would not be influenced by the strategies listed
on the questionnaire.
Through the second questionnaire, parents were given the opportunity to rate
themselves in their L2 as being a beginner, intermediate or advanced in the following
areas: vocabulary, grammar, listening comprehension, reading, writing and speaking
intelligibility. Both parents were asked to calculate the daily and weekly hours their child
47
is exposed to English and Spanish in a variety of settings. Rather than only asking the
English-speaking parent his/her perspective on how many hours the child is exposed to
English, or vice versa, it was of interest to obtain the opinion of both parents on exposure
to both languages to see if there would be congruency. For this particular question, the
parents were given the following settings: home, neighborhood, family gatherings,
religious institution, daycare, community errands (i.e. bank), and a space to add another
setting, if necessary. The child’s preferred language was based on parental opinion in
each of the above-mentioned settings as well. The daily and weekly hours the child
spends with each parent was determined by time spent in the following categories: play,
read, eat, watch TV/videos, exercise, run errands or other. Parents were also asked to list
any individuals in their child’s life who contribute to the development of his English or
Spanish.
Additionally, parents were asked to rank themselves anywhere from “very often”
to “never” regarding the use of the seven discourse strategies mentioned above as well as
how often their child hears English/Spanish, how often their child hears a mixture of
English and Spanish, among others. (See Appendix E for questionnaire in English and
Appendix F for questionnaire in Spanish.) There were three separate sections of
statements with the following headings: your child, your child and you, and your child
and you in the presence of others. The objective of asking parents what strategy they use
with their child was so that the researcher could later compare their answer on paper with
what was observed in person.
48
Lastly, parents were asked to share any exceptions to any of the listed statements.
For example, in respect to the statement, “I speak Spanish to my spouse,” a parent might
answer “often” with a note at the bottom describing the exception to that answer (i.e.
depending on if there are monolinguals present).
The following chapter will include a discussion of the results from the present
study. Since data collection demonstrated triangulation in this study, results from both
parent questionnaires, parent interviews and parent-child dyad observations will be
discussed at length. In addition, each family will be looked at separately and collectively.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The current study looks at the discourse strategies used by a selected group of five
English-Spanish bilingual parents who are raising their children bilingually and examines
the extent to which their strategies influence their child’s language choice. The five
families participating in this study have a 2- to 3-year-old child, and were observed in
parent-child dyads in order to investigate and document the parental discourse strategies
as well as the child’s language choice.
The following two questions further describe the purpose of this study:
1. What type of discourse strategy will the parent use in response to the child
when the child speaks in the parent’s L2?
49
2. What language will the child continue to use? In other words, will the child’s
language choice be influenced by the parent’s choice of discourse strategy and
overall use of language?
Kasuya (1998) researched how the role of parental input may influence a bilingual
child’s language choice. She discovered there was a correlation between the consistency
of the Japanese-speaking parent choosing to speak Japanese with the child and the child’s
choice of speaking Japanese. Since it is of interest to look at similar patterns of both
native English-speaking individuals married to native Spanish-speaking individuals,
much of the methodology used in her study will be replicated here.
This study demonstrates triangulation in the following ways: two questionnaires
(Appendices C through F) per parent, one observation per parent-child dyad and one
interview per parent. Therefore, there were a total of twenty questionnaires collected, ten
parent-child dyads observed, and ten parents interviewed. Below each of the following
sections there will be a summary of the data collected as well as a discussion of the
results.
Demographic Questionnaire Results
The individuals participating in this study consisted of five bilingual families in
which the two parents are native speakers of different languages (English and Spanish). A
total of 15 people participated in this study (10 parents and 5 children). In three of the
five families, native English-speaking women are married to native Spanish-speaking
men. In the other two families, however, the make-up is just the opposite: the native
50
Spanish-speakers are females who married native English-speaking males. Four of the
five native Spanish-speaking individuals arrived in the United States between the ages of
21-30, while one individual (H3F) arrived before turning 21. In all five families, the
parents have completed at least an undergraduate degree, and are currently pursuing more
education, are working professionals or are stay-at-home parents.
All five children participating in this study are males who were born in the United
States, although each has been to a native Spanish-speaking country at least once since
birth. All five children have been exposed to both the English and Spanish languages
since birth. One child is currently the only child; one child is currently the oldest sibling
of two; and the remaining three children are currently the youngest sibling of two.
Parents were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire which
provided the researcher with the information mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
However, the results from one particular question would be best presented in the form of
a chart and a graph. The question states: What is your preferred language in the following
settings? The results from the first chart and graph (Table 4 and Figure 2) were taken
from the demographic questionnaires submitted by the native English-speaking parents.
(To view the completed questionnaires, see Appendix G.)
Table 4. Percentage (%) of Native English-Speaking Parents who Choose English, Spanish or Both
Languages in a Variety of Settings
Chooses
English
Chooses
Spanish
Chooses
Both
Not
Applicable
At work
100%
0%
0%
0%
At home with spouse
20%
40%
40%
0%
At home with your child/ren
40%
0%
60%
0%
In public with your spouse
20%
20%
60%
0%
51
In public with your child/ren
20%
20%
60%
0%
With your friends
60%
0%
40%
0%
At a religious institution
80%
0%
0%
20%
In the neighborhood/community
60%
0%
40%
0%
At family gatherings
80%
0%
20%
0%
Figure 2. Percentage (%) of Native English-Speaking Parents who Choose English, Spanish or Both
Languages in a Variety of Settings
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Chooses English
40%
Chooses Spanish
30%
Chooses Both
Not Applicable
20%
10%
0%
s
s
n
e
n
n
se
us
nd
ity
re
/ re
ing
tio
ou
po
un
er
rie
ld/
ild
itu
sp
f
i
s
h
t
h
t
r
m
h
r
s
c
u
c
u
n
ith
ga
om
ur
yo
si
yo
ur
ily
yo
ew
d/c
ou
th
yo
it h
gi
th
oo
am
wi
om
i
th
i
f
W
i
l
h
h
c
r
e
w
i
w
At
bl
bo
ic
At
ar
me
bl
pu
igh
At
ho
pu
In
ne
t
n
e
I
A
th
In
At
rk
wo
Native English-Speaking Parents
52
In terms of native English-speaking parents preferring to use their L1, the
information shows that 60% of parents chose English in over half of the settings (5 of 9
total settings). Only 40% of parents say that they prefer to use English at home with their
child/ren. In terms of L2 use, at least 20% of the native English-speaking parents
preferred to use Spanish at home with their spouse, in public with their spouse and in
public with their children. Lastly, looking at use of both English and Spanish, more than
half of the native English-speaking parents state they use a combination of both
languages when speaking with their children. It is clear from the above information that
between 20-60% of native English-speaking parents choose both languages in the
majority of the settings (7 of 9 total settings). The results presented in the second chart
and graph (Table 5 and Figure 3) were taken from the demographic questionnaires
submitted by the native Spanish-speaking parents. (To view the completed
questionnaires, see Appendix G.)
Table 5. Percentage (%) of Native Spanish-Speaking Parents who Choose English, Spanish or Both
Languages in a Variety of Settings
Chooses
English
Chooses
Spanish
Chooses
Both
Not
Applicable
At work
0%
20%
60%
20%
At home with spouse
20%
20%
60%
0%
At home with your child/ren
0%
60%
40%
0%
In public with your spouse
40%
40%
20%
0%
In public with your child/ren
0%
80%
20%
0%
With your friends
40%
20%
40%
0%
At a religious institution
60%
0%
0%
40%
In the neighborhood/community
40%
0%
60%
0%
At family gatherings
0%
20%
80%
0%
53
Figure 3. Percentage (%) of Native Spanish-Speaking Parents who Choose English, Spanish or Both
Languages in a Variety of Settings
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Chooses English
30%
Chooses Spanish
Chooses Both
20%
Not Applicable
10%
In
th
e
Native Spanish-Speaking Parents
in
ig
st
hb
itu
or
tio
ho
n
od
/c
om
m
A
un
tf
ity
am
ily
ga
th
er
in
gs
ne
A
ta
re
lig
io
us
nd
s
n
yo
ur
fri
e
hi
ld
/ re
W
it h
yo
ur
c
po
us
e
In
In
pu
bl
ic
w
pu
bl
ic
w
ith
ith
yo
ur
s
ch
ild
/re
n
sp
ou
se
ith
yo
ur
w
ith
w
th
om
e
A
A
th
om
e
A
tw
or
k
0%
54
In regards to the native Spanish-speaking parents preferring to use their L1, there
is a range from 20-80%. At least 20% use Spanish at work, at home with their spouse,
with their friends and at family gatherings. Between 40-80% of parents use Spanish at
home with their children, in public with their spouse and in public with their children. In
terms of L2 usage, at least 40% of native Spanish-speaking parents prefer to use English
in less than half of the settings (4 of 9 total settings) with one particular setting peaking at
60%, which was at a religious institution. Considering the use of both Spanish and
English, it is evident from the information presented that in the majority of settings (6 of
9 total settings) more than 40% of native Spanish-speaking parents prefer to use both
languages.
Demographic Questionnaire Discussion
Overall, the native English-speaking parents prefer to use English in the majority
of their daily life. These parents also have much use for Spanish (with their spouse at
home and in public, with their children at home and in public, with friends, in the
neighborhood/community and at family gatherings). This indicates that they have a use
for both languages regularly.
Although living in an English-speaking society, the native Spanish-speaking
parents have certainly established many outlets through which they use their L1. For
example, 20% use Spanish at work, and another 60% use both English and Spanish in the
workplace. This shows both intentional job selection and a high priority for language
and/or cultural maintenance.
55
Many researchers have pointed out how essential it is that children growing up
with two languages sense a need to use both languages, and on a regular basis (de
Houwer, 1999b; Goodz, 1994; Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Li, 1999; Saunders, 1982). Given
the above information is accurate, both sets of parents participating in the present study
regularly demonstrate use for both languages, and have provided their children with
opportunities to actively use the two languages for socio-communicative purposes,
according to a variety of researchers (Baker, 2000; de Houwer, 1999b; Genesee, 2002;
Li, 1999; Malave,1997).
Although never asked directly about their beliefs and attitudes towards
bilingualism, it is clear from both Figures 1 and 2 that the native English-speaking
parents and the native Spanish-speaking parents use both languages in a variety of
contexts and feel comfortable using the languages in a variety of contexts (de Houwer,
1999b), thereby indirectly modeling a positive attitude towards L2 use. If parents model a
positive attitude towards their L2 and its culture by preferring to speak it, they are helping
their children become successful in the acquisition of two languages (de Houwer, 1999b;
Li, 1999; Rosenberg, 1996).
Observation Results
Each parent-child dyad was observed and audio-recorded for a maximum of one
hour. The researcher took notes during the observation in order to supplement the
recording. Within a week of the observation, the researcher listened to each recording at
least twice. The first time was to count and classify the child utterances into four different
56
language types, as described by Kasuya (1998). An utterance that contained only English
was coded as “E”; an utterance that contained only Spanish was coded “S”; a mixed
utterance containing both languages was coded as “Mixed”; or an unintelligible utterance
associated with either or neither language was coded as “NonSE.”
The second time the recording was reviewed, the parent utterances were counted
and classified into seven different discourse strategies (listed below). All of the child
utterances given in English that were instantaneously followed by a verbal response from
the Spanish-speaking parent were coded as belonging to one of the first six categories of
discourse strategies listed below. Likewise, the child utterances given in Spanish that
were followed by a verbal response from the English-speaking parent were coded as
belonging to one of first six categories of discourse strategies listed below. Utterances
that did not fall under any of the first six categories were coded as belonging to the
remaining discourse strategy as it includes normal conversation in either language. Only
on a few occasions did a recording need to be listened to a third time, and then it was for
counting clarification purposes only.
The following is a brief description of the explicit and implicit strategies looked at
during the observations. Authentic speech samples taken directly from the observations
are below each strategy. To clarify, the abbreviations below are consistent with the tables
and charts throughout this study. For example, H3F refers to a comment made by the
father (F) from family H3. Where necessary, the translation is in brackets.
Explicit Strategies:
57
1. INS – Instructing the child to say something in English/Spanish by explicitly
using words such as “say” or “tell”.
H3F: Dile ‘Angela, mira mi torre.’ [Say ‘Angela, look at my tower.’]
2. COR – Correcting the child’s English utterance by stating the Spanish
equivalent, or vice versa.
• B: A ladybug.
H4F: Una mariquita. [A ladybug.]
• P: He talks.
H1M: El robot habla. [The robot talks.]
Implicit Strategies:
3. TRA – Translating the same information in both languages.
B: Where’s the book?
H4M: No sé donde está. I don’t know where it is.
4. REP – Repeating or rephrasing the content of the child’s utterance in either
language. For example, when the child says something in the parent’s L2, the
parent repeats or rephrases that utterance in the parent’s L1.
• J: You mean one hundred and one.
H5M: Ah, si. Eso es cierto. Son ciento uno. [Ah, yes. That is true. There
are one hundred and one.]
• A: Big blocks.
58
H3F: No – quieres jugar con bloques. [No – you want to play with blocks.]
5. MOV – Using the ‘move on strategy’ (Lanza, 1992) where the parent
continues the conversation in language X regardless if the child begins to
speak language Y.
L: Please papa.
H2F: Ven, ayuda al Papá. [Come, help Dad.]
6. ALTES – Alternating the use of, or mixing, English and Spanish in the same
utterance (code-switching).
P: Horsey.
H1M: ¿Quieres jugar con el horsey? [Do you want to play with the
horsey?]
7. USEN/USSP – Using complete phrases in English or in Spanish (and that do
not fall under the previous six categories).
Child Utterances
The results for the parent-child dyads are presented in the charts that follow. First,
Table 6 shows the percentages of language types the children chose when they were
interacting with their native English-speaking parent. The total number of child
utterances ranged from 10 to 188. Four of five children chose more English than Spanish.
Benjamin and Juan did not speak any complete utterance in Spanish during this particular
observation with their English-speaking parent. Antonio was the only one who chose
59
more Spanish over English. The range of percentage of unintelligible utterances (NonSE)
was relatively small (roughly 20-40%). Only Pedro and Juan used mixed utterances.
Table 6. Percentage (%) of Chosen Language Types by Children when Interacting with
Native English-Speaking Parent
Family
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
Total
Pedro
18.30% (28)
52.94% (81)
21.57% (33)
7.19% (11)
153
Luis
4.44% (6)
54.07% (73)
41.48% (56)
0.00% (0)
135
Antonio
50.00% (5)
20.00% (2)
30.00% (3)
0.00% (0)
10
Benjamin
0.00% (0)
80.49% (66)
19.51% (16)
0.00% (0)
82
Juan
0.00% (0)
78.19% (147)
19.68% (37)
2.13% (4)
188
Secondly, Table 7 shows the results of the language types chosen by children
when they were interacting with their native Spanish-speaking parent. The total number
of child utterances ranged from 72 to 204. Unlike the interaction with their native
English-speaking parent, all the children spoke both English and Spanish. Juan was the
only one who chose to speak more Spanish than English. However, Pedro and Luis chose
Spanish roughly 30% of the time. The rate of unintelligible utterances was slightly lower
than when they were with the other parent (approximately 15-38%). Four of the five
children used mixed utterances; Benjamin was the only one who did not use any. Some
examples are given here. The translation is provided in brackets.
P: Where’s otro pig? [Where’s the other pig?]
J: En la house. [In the house.]
Table 7. Percentage (%) of Chosen Language Types by Children when Interacting with
Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Family
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
Total
Pedro
30.26% (59)
51.28% (100)
16.92% (33)
1.54% (3)
195
Luis
32.35% (66)
42.16% (86)
23.53% (48)
1.96% (4)
204
Antonio
12.50% (9)
45.83% (33)
38.89% (28)
2.78% (2)
72
60
Benjamin
13.68% (16)
70.94% (83)
15.38% (18)
0.00% (0)
117
Juan
72.55% (111)
9.15% (14)
15.03% (23)
3.27% (5)
153
Parent Utterances
In reference to the parent utterances, Table 8 describes the percentages of each
discourse strategy that was used by the native English-speaking parents when they were
interacting with their child. The total utterances for the native English-speaking parents
ranged from 125 to 205 as did their use of the various discourse strategies. The COR
strategy was not used by any of the parents. The MOV strategy was used by one parent
(H5F). The INS and REP strategies were each used by two parents (H3M & H4M and
H3M & H5F, respectively). The most commonly used strategy was TRA, which was used
by three parents (H2M, H3M & H4M), but still only being a total of 10 utterances. Three
parents had mixed utterances (ALTES), but at a very low rate of only three total
utterances among the three of them.
In regards to L1 and L2 usage, four of the five native English-speaking parents
used English more than they used Spanish. In fact, three of those four only used Spanish
0-3% of the time. The remaining two parents used either a mix of Spanish and English or
mostly Spanish.
Table 8. Percentage (%) of Each Discourse Strategy Used by Native English-Speaking Parents
Family
H1
H2
H3
H4
INS
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
2.22%
(3)
0.55%
(1)
COR
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
TRA
0.00%
(0)
0.98%
(2)
5.19%
(7)
0.55%
(1)
REP
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.74%
(1)
0.00%
(0)
MOV
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
ALTES
0.80%
(1)
0.49%
(1)
0.74%
(1)
0.00%
(0)
USEN
82.40%
(103)
96.10%
(197)
17.04%
(23)
97.79%
(177)
USSP
16.80%
(21)
2.44%
(5)
74.07%
(100)
1.10%
(2)
Total
125
205
135
181
61
H5
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.63%
(1)
0.63%
(1)
0.00%
(0)
98.73%
(156)
0.00%
(0)
158
Table 9 shows the percentages of each discourse strategy used by the native
Spanish-speaking parents when interacting with their child. The total number of
utterances had a much larger range, from 165 to 388 total utterances. The native Spanishspeaking parents chose to use more of the discourse strategies than their spouses. The
REP strategy was only used by one parent (H1M). The INS and COR strategies were
each used by three parents (H2F, H3F & H4F and H3F, H4F & H5M, respectively). Four
of the five parents had mixed utterances (ALTES) for a total of 11 utterances; H5M did
not mix at all. The most commonly used strategy was MOV, which was used by all five
parents for a total of 15 utterances.
Table 9. Percentage (%) of Each Discourse Strategy Used by Native Spanish-Speaking Parents
Family
INS
COR
TRA
REP
MOV
ALTES
USEN
USSP
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
0.00%
(0)
0.81%
(2)
1.21%
(2)
1.77%
(4)
0.00%
(0)
0.91%
(3)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
1.77%
(4)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.00%
(0)
0.61%
(1)
3.10%
(7)
0.00%
(0)
1.22%
(4)
0.00%
(0)
1.21%
(2)
0.00%
(0)
1.03%
(4)
1.52%
(5)
0.81%
(2)
0.61%
(1)
0.44%
(1)
1.55%
(6)
1.22%
(4)
0.81%
(2)
0.61%
(1)
1.77%
(4)
0.00%
(0)
4.86%
(16)
1.22%
(3)
6.06%
(10)
61.95%
(140)
1.03%
(4)
90.27%
(297)
96.34%
(237)
89.70%
(148)
29.20%
(66)
96.39%
(374)
Total
329
246
165
226
388
In terms of L1 and L2 usage, like their spouses, four of the five native Spanishspeaking parents used their L1 (Spanish) more than they used their L2 (English). The
62
four of them only used English 1-6% of the time. The remaining parent (H4) used more
English than Spanish.
Individual Family Summaries
On the following pages is a series of pie charts (Figures 4-23). A pie chart
describing the child’s choice of language is presented on the same page as the parent’s
selection of discourse strategies. They are placed in order from family H1 to H5 with data
gathered from the native English-speaking parent-child dyad presented before the data
gathered from the native Spanish-speaking parent-child dyad. In simpler terms, each page
represents one parent-child dyad, and on each page, a brief discussion will be provided
for each dyad. It should be noted that where it reads, “Pedro with F:E,” for example, it is
to be understood that the information presented is regarding Pedro’s interaction with his
native English-speaking (E) father (F). A more comprehensive observation discussion
immediately follows the figures.
Family Summary: H1 (Pedro)
Figure 4. Pedro’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Pedro with F:E
NonSE
21.57%
Mixed
7.19%
Spanish
18.30%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
52.94%
63
Both parent and child used a majority of English during their interaction. The
amount of Spanish used by both individuals is comparable. What is interesting to note,
however, is that both spoke mixed utterances. Recalling the information presented in
Table 6, Pedro was only one of two children who mixed. Goodz (1989) and Genesee
(1989) say that when parents model mixing to their children, their main motivation is to
encourage language behavior regardless of its form or to get the child’s attention, but that
the child has no way of knowing that the end goal is a separation of the two languages.
Figure 5. Discourse Strategies Used by Pedro’s English-Speaking Parent
H1F
ALTES
0.80%
USSP
16.80%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
82.40%
USEN
USSP
Figure 6. Pedro’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Pedro with M:S
NonSE
16.92%
Mixed
1.54%
Spanish
30.26%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
51.28%
64
Although his mother spoke mostly Spanish, Pedro chose to speak mostly English.
He did, however, speak more Spanish with his mother than with his father. Goodz (1994)
found that most mixing happened when the language of the conversation was the child’s
less proficient language. According to Pedro’s parents, he is either equally proficient only
in English or in both languages (see Table 10). What Goodz found may be the case here,
too. It is important to take into account that more than 50% of his mother’s utterances
were in English, which could also play a role in Pedro’s choice of English.
Figure 7. Discourse Strategies Used by Pedro’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
H1M
REP
1.22%
M OV
1.52%
ALTES
1.22%
USEN
4.86%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USSP
90.27%
USEN
USSP
Family Summary: H2 (Luis)
Figure 8. Luis’ Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
65
Luis with M:E
Mixed
0.00%
NonSE
41.48%
Spanish
4.44%
Spanish
English
NonSE
English
54.07%
Mixed
Luis chose to speak more English than Spanish, and no mixed utterances were
present during his interaction with his mother, although his mother did mix very
minimally herself (0.49%) and used some Spanish (2.44%). Perhaps because of his age
(2;1 at the time of observation with his mother), he had the highest number of
unintelligible utterances among all the children participating in this study.
Figure 9. Discourse Strategies Used by Luis’ English-Speaking Parent
H2M
TRA
0.98%
ALTES
0.49%
USSP
2.44%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
96.10%
USEN
USSP
Figure 10. Luis’ Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
66
Luis with F:S
Mixed
1.96%
NonSE
23.53%
Spanish
32.35%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
42.16%
In the case where Luis interacted with his father, Luis produced more Spanish
than when with his mother. However, he chose English slightly more than Spanish
(42.16% to 32.35%). The percentage of mixed utterances by his father was a little higher
than his mother’s, possibly explaining why Luis’ mixed utterances increased as well
while with his father. This is possibly because English is Luis’ more proficient language,
according to his parents (see Table 10), and mixing occurs in situations where the less
dominant language is not the language of conversation (de Houwer, 1999b; Goodz, 1994;
Lanza, 1992).
Figure 11. Discourse Strategy Used by Luis’ Spanish-Speaking Parent
H2F
M OV
0.81%
ALTES
0.81%
INS
USEN
1.22%
INS
0.81%
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
USSP
96.34%
USSP
67
Family Summary: H3 (Antonio)
Figure 12. Antonio’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Antonio with M:E
NonSE
30.00%
Mixed
0.00%
Spanish
English
Spanish
50.00%
NonSE
Mixed
English
20.00%
Antonio is an interesting case because as his mother described in the interview, he
is not producing much Spanish presently, so both parents have intentionally incorporated
more Spanish in their interaction with him. As a result, his mother spoke mostly in
Spanish, although she is the native English speaker. Consequently, Antonio produced
more Spanish than English during this interaction, although he only uttered a total of 10
utterances during the entire observation, the lowest amount of all the children. His mother
said that his lack of speech could be due to time of day (i.e. just waking up from a nap).
Figure 13. Discourse Strategy Used by Antonio’s English-Speaking Parent
H3
INS
2.22%
TRA
5.19%
REP
0.74% ALTES
0.74%
USEN
17.04%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USSP
74.07%
USEN
USSP
68
Figure 14. Antonio’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Antonio with F:S
Spanish
12.50%
Mixed
2.78%
NonSE
38.89%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
45.83%
In Antonio’s case, both parents spoke more Spanish than English, and with his
mother he spoke more Spanish than English. With his father, he spoke more English than
Spanish although his father’s use of English was very minimal (6.06%). Both Antonio
and his father mixed, but not much at all. Again, this is due to Antonio’s dominant
language being English, and mixing occurs in situations were English is not the language
of conversation (de Houwer, 1999b; Goodz, 1994; Lanza, 1992).
Figure 15. Discourse Strategy Used by Antonio’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
H3
TRA
0.61%
INS
1.21%
REP M OV
1.21% 0.61%
ALTES
0.61%
INS
COR
USEN
6.06%
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
USSP
89.70%
USSP
69
Family Summary: H4 (Benjamin)
Figure 16. Benjamin’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Benjamin with M:E
Spanish
0.00%
NonSE
19.51%
Mixed
0.00%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
80.49%
Benjamin chose English over mixing and speaking any Spanish. In fact, Benjamin
was the only child who did not mix in either interaction with his mother and with his
father. Like his mother (97.79%), he spoke the majority of the time in English (80.49%).
Although his mother’s use of Spanish was small (1.10%), Benjamin did not choose to use
it at all.
Figure 17. Discourse Strategy Used by Benjamin’s English-Speaking Parent
H4M
USSP
1.10%
INS
0.55%
TRA
0.55%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
97.79%
USEN
USSP
70
Figure 18. Benjamin’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Benjamin with F:S
NonSE
15.38%
Mixed
0.00%
Spanish
13.68%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
70.94%
Again, Benjamin was the only child who did not mix in either interaction with his
mother and father, although his father did mix. Here, there is a strong correlation between
his father speaking the majority in English (61.95%) and the child speaking the majority
in English (70.94%). Interestingly, the proportion of Spanish spoken for each is
comparable as well (F=29.20% and B=13.68%).
Figure 19. Discourse Strategy Used by Benjamin’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
H4F
USSP
29.20%
INS
1.77%
TRA
COR
1.77% 3.10%
M OV
0.44%
ALTES
1.77%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
61.95%
USEN
USSP
71
Family Summary: H5 (Juan)
Figure 20. Juan’s Language Choice with Native English-Speaking Parent
Juan with F:E
NonSE
19.68%
Mixed
2.13%
Spanish
0.00%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
English
78.19%
Juan chose to speak mostly in English, and did not use Spanish at all during this
interaction. His native English-speaking father also did not use any Spanish or any mixed
utterances. Children who have minimal mixed-language utterances choose their language
according to their interlocutor (Vihman, 1985). Although Juan did mix a little, it was
minimal (2.13%).
Figure 21. Discourse Strategy Used by Juan’s English-Speaking Parent
H5F
REP
0.63%
M OV
0.63%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USEN
98.73%
USEN
USSP
72
Figure 22. Juan’s Language Choice with Native Spanish-Speaking Parent
Juan with M:S
NonSE
15.03%
Mixed
3.27%
English
9.15%
Spanish
English
NonSE
Mixed
Spanish
72.55%
Juan’s parents are clearly committed to abiding by the OPOL plan. His mother
spoke the majority of the interaction in Spanish with very little English (1.03%) and no
mixed utterances. Juan, in turn, chose to speak mostly Spanish (72.55%) with her. His
choice of Spanish was higher than any of the other children. Again, age may be a factor
in this case; at the time of the observation, Juan was close to turning four years old.
Figure 23. Discourse Strategy Used by Juan’s Spanish-Speaking Parent
H5M
REP
1.03%
M OV
1.55%
USEN
1.03%
INS
COR
TRA
REP
M OV
ALTES
USSP
96.39%
USEN
USSP
73
Observation Discussion
It is of significance to take into account Döpke’s (1992a) findings. The language
children use is often a result of the activity that is chosen. “Children in bilingual homes
are, therefore, likely to be exposed to different interactive strategies in the two languages
of their two parents” (1992a, p. 108). All of the parents in the current study asked their
child what he wanted to do during the time of the observation. It is true for the present
investigation that more fathers (three) than mothers chose either outside activities
(playing in the inflatable pool or jumping on the trampoline, for example) or non-childcentered activities (selecting music from a large CD collection or entertaining the visiting
neighbor).
On the other hand, all of the mothers chose to interact with their child in a
physically-confined space, mutually engaging in a child-centered activity (reading
through a picture book, drawing or painting, block building, or playing imaginative
games with toys). Consequently, language was produced by the child more in father-child
interactions than in mother-child interactions (734 to 575 total utterances).
The only two boys who mixed when with the English-speaking parent are both
sons of mothers who are the native Spanish speakers, who strictly enforce Spanish only
with them. Language mixing is usually a result of language dominance (Baker, 2000;
Goodz, 1994; Jisa, 2000). In other words, when the bilingual child is speaking in the
weaker language, he may have to borrow a term from the stronger language simply
because he lacks the appropriate vocabulary (Baker, 2000; Barron-Hauwaert, 2004;
Goodz, 1989; Meisel, 1989). In the case of these two boys, they had higher rates of
74
mixing than the other children participating in this study perhaps because their mothers
adhere to the OPOL approach by keeping the languages separate and distinct (Smith,
1935).
More child mixed utterances were seen during the interaction with the native
Spanish-speaking parent. Four out of five children, in fact, mixed with this particular
parent. According to the second questionnaire that was distributed, which will be
reviewed below, at least one parent of all five children claim English is his language of
preference, or his dominant language. This sheds light to conclusions drawn by Goodz
(1994), Lanza (1992) and de Houwer (1999b). They have stated that mixing occurs when
children are engaged in a conversation or interaction that is in their less proficient or less
dominant language.
Lastly, once the recordings were reviewed and the utterances were counted and
categorized, it became apparent that although the list of parental discourse strategies
contains seven different strategies, there are indeed other strategies parents use that are
not listed here. Aside from the strategies looked at in this study, a quite commonly-used
strategy was that of simply repeating exactly what the child said. Here are two examples:
1. Pedro: Otro.
H1F: Otro?
2. Luis: Again.
H3F: Again?
The example in number 1 is of a native English-speaking father responding in
Spanish to his son producing Spanish. The example in number two is just the opposite;
75
the father is the native Spanish-speaker, and responding in English to his son’s
production in English. In fact, the father in family H1 did not use any of the strategies
mentioned above, but rather used the latter quite frequently. Goodz (1989, p. 41) states
“once a child has produced an utterance, be it one, two or three words, the adult’s need to
repeat or expand the utterance appears to be irresistible.” This was most definitely
observed in nearly all of the parent-dyad interactions.
Interview Results and Discussion
A brief interview of each parent was conducted immediately following the
observation. The interview had one objective, and that was to allow the parent to describe
how together with his/her spouse a plan for promoting bilingualism in their children was
decided upon, executed and, if necessary, changed. Once the parent was asked, the
researcher began audio-recording the response while taking notes.
Each married couple had indeed discussed how to promote bilingualism in their
children. In most cases, this had been previously thought through before having children,
or at least during pregnancy. All of the families had considered at one time or another to
use the one parent-one language (OPOL) strategy. However, due to circumstances, lack
of consistency on the parent’s part, lack of the child producing one of the languages or
other life events, very few families have maintained the use of this method. In fact, only
families H2 & H5 have maintained their original plan.
In addition, many of the parents mentioned how difficult it is to find linguistic
access to Spanish, the minority language for the families in the current study. They
76
agreed with one another in that a clear advantage to promoting bilingualism in their
children is the fact that their children would be able to communicate with family on both
sides, like Blum-Martínez (2002), Barron-Hauwaert (2004) and Harding-Esch & Riley
(2003) suggest. However, due to geographical distance, many of the families in the
current study lack a strong linguistic community in Spanish. As mentioned earlier, the
linguistic and cultural contribution the extended family can offer is a vital piece to
successful language acquisition (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004).
Although de Houwer (1999b) states the attitudes and beliefs articulated during an
interview may not necessarily reflect the true attitudes and beliefs of the individuals, the
researcher of the present study thought differently. From the observation results, one can
see that many of the families are not currently following the OPOL plan on a consistent
basis. Overall, there was a wide spectrum of what OPOL meant to the families; some
were very consistent in language separation, and some maintained the general OPOL
principle but were more open to language mixing in their own speech.
Many of the native Spanish-speaking parents commented that even though they
speak to their child in Spanish, their child is still producing more English than Spanish,
and will often respond in English. Such parents have attributed this response to the
child’s greater exposure to English (daycare is in English, neighborhood friends speak
English, etc.). However, Goodz (1994) reports that the relationship between a child’s
proficiency in either language and the language of daycare, the maternal language or the
language of the neighborhood is not straightforward, and therefore, requires more
research.
77
The researcher did discover that the interview was an essential piece to the
research paradigm presented in this study. Parents did not seem to have difficulty sharing
their experiences nor describing their individual family plans for promoting bilingualism
in their children. The information given during the interviews gave the researcher a better
idea of how the parents feel regarding the use of both languages. The interview also
served as a means to complement what was observed in person by the researcher and
what was disclosed on the questionnaires by the parents.
Bilingual Family Questionnaire Results
A second more detailed questionnaire was created and distributed in either
English (Appendix E) or Spanish (Appendix F), according to the native language of the
parent. This questionnaire focused primarily on the input environment of the child. It was
intentionally distributed at the very end of the data collection process so that parent-child
interactions would not be influenced by the strategies listed on the questionnaire.
Through the second questionnaire, parents were given the opportunity to rate
themselves in their L2 as being a beginner, intermediate or advanced in the following
English/Spanish proficiency skills: vocabulary, grammar, listening comprehension,
reading, writing and speaking intelligibility. All the parents considered themselves
bilingual to varying degrees. Since there were six different proficiency skills to choose
from, it was typical to see a wide range in an individual parent’s response, and obviously
across all parent responses. In Pedro and Juan’s family, the mothers are the native
Spanish-speakers whereas in Luis, Antonio and Benjamin’s families, the fathers are
78
native Spanish-speakers. All native Spanish-speaking fathers ranked themselves from an
intermediate to an advanced English level across all areas, while their English-speaking
spouses classified themselves the same, from an intermediate to an advanced Spanish
level. Both native Spanish-speaking mothers ranked themselves from a beginning to an
advanced English level across all areas, while their English-speaking spouses classified
themselves the same, from being beginner to intermediate Spanish speakers. Although
the overall range is wide, all of the husbands and wives have a relatively similar range in
proficiency skills as their spouses. (See Table 10.)
The questionnaire also asked the parents to identify which language is mostly
spoken between the father and mother. In four of the five families participating in this
study, the language the couples speak between themselves happens to be the native
language of the husband. In other words, two families (H2 & H3) speak Spanish since the
husband is a native Spanish speaker, and two families (H1 & H5) speak English since the
husband is a native English speaker. Family H4 speaks a combination of both Spanish
and English. All families mentioned that they try to be sensitive when monolinguals are
present and, therefore, intentionally choose to speak the language of the monolingual.
This, therefore, shows a lack of adhering to OPOL. As Saunders states, “The use of the
minority language of the community between parents and children in the presence of
monolingual friends is one solution to the problem for those who feel ill at ease with the
approach which incorporates the use of the minority language plus
translation/explanation” (1982, p. 281).
79
Parents stated their opinion of the child’s preferred language in a number of
settings (at home, in public, etc.), and parents believed that it is mostly English. In some
cases, it is Spanish, and in some cases, it is both. In the cases where the child’s preferred
language may be either Spanish or both, parents noted specific settings. For example,
according to H3F, Antonio prefers English. According to H3M, Antonio prefers English
in the neighborhood and at daycare/preschool, but has a preference for both languages
everywhere else. Table 10 summarizes the information given in the last few paragraphs.
It is important to note that in the “L2 Level of Parent’s” column, there are abbreviations
for the six L2 proficiency skills. The abbreviations are as follows: “V” for vocabulary,
“G” for grammar, “LC” for listening comprehension, “R” for reading, “W” for writing
and “SI” for speaking intelligibility. Where there are no abbreviations mentioned, the
parent classified himself/herself at the same level for all L2 proficiency skills.
80
Table 10. Remaining Information from Bilingual Questionnaire
Name
(Family ID)
L2 Level of Parents
Language
between parents
Child’s Preferred
Language
Pedro
(H1)
F – Intermediate;
M – Beginner
(G, W)/
Intermediate (V)/
Advanced (LC, R, SI)
Mostly E*
F – Both
M – E **
Luis
(H2)
F – Advanced;
M – Advanced
Mostly S*
mostly E, but S
with Spanish
speakers
E&S*
mostly E, but both
at home, in the
neighborhood and
in the community
E & S*
E
Antonio
(H3)
Benjamin
(H4)
F – Intermediate
(G, W)/
Advanced
(V, LC, W, SI);
M – Intermediate
(G, W)/
Advanced
(V, LC, R, SI)
F – Advanced;
M – Intermediate
(LC, R)/
Advanced
(V, G, W, SI)
F – E; M – E in
the neighborhood
Juan
and at
E*
daycare/preschool;
(H5)
Both everywhere
else
* These families are sensitive when monolinguals are present, and will
deliberately choose to speak the language of the monolingual.
** Here the father stated that his child has a preference for both languages in all
settings where the mother stated the child had a preference for only English in all
settings.
F – Beginner
(G, R, W)/
Intermediate
(V, LC, SI);
M – Advanced
Parents were also asked to calculate the daily and weekly hours their child is
exposed to English and Spanish in a variety of settings. Rather than only asking the
English-speaking parent his/her perspective on how many hours the child is exposed to
English, or vice versa, it was of interest to obtain the opinion of both parents on exposure
to both languages to see if there would be congruency. For the most part, parents agree
81
with one another in regards to how many hours they believe their child is exposed to both
English and Spanish. With that said, many of the children are exposed to substantial
amounts of both English and Spanish regularly, according to parental report. Again, here
it is important to remember that reports generated from parents may not always give an
accurate description of what is really happening (Goodz, 1994).
The information presented in the following chart, Table 11, is in regards to the
language input environment of the children participating in this study, all of which was
described in the previous paragraph. Specifically, it represents the number of hours they
are exposed to English and Spanish as well as number of hours spent with mother and
father in their native languages. Where a column reads E: F, for example, it signifies
exposure to English (E) according to the father (F).
82
Table 11. Language Input Environment for five Spanish-English Bilingual Children
Daily/
Weekly
time with
Parent
(L1=S)
18 hours
daily; 128.5
hours
weekly
Name
(Family
ID)
Daily/
Weekly
exposure to
E: F
Daily/
Weekly
exposure to
E: M
Daily/
Weekly
exposure to
S: F
Daily/
Weekly
exposure to
S: M
Daily/
Weekly time
with Parent
(L1=E)
Pedro
(H1)
11 hours
daily; 73.5
hours
weekly
14 hours
daily; 89
hours
weekly
11 hours
daily; 90
hours
weekly
13 hours
daily; 93
hours weekly
6 hours
daily; 47
hours weekly
Luis
(H2)
7 hours
daily; 49
hours
weekly
8.5 hours
daily; 70
hours daily
5 hours
daily; 35
hours
weekly
6 hours
daily; 32
hours weekly
11 hours
daily; 80
hours weekly
7.5 hours
daily; 52.5
hours
weekly
Antonio
(H3)
9.3 hours
daily; 59.1
hours
weekly
2.5 hours
daily; 31
hours
weekly
2.4 hours
daily; 16.8
hours
weekly
.5 hours
daily; 3
hours weekly
4 hours
daily; 54
hours weekly
4.1 hours
daily; 28.7
hours
weekly
Benjamin
(H4)
11.5 hours
daily; 82.5
hours
weekly
13 hours
daily (+12
additional*);
89 hours
weekly
1 hour daily;
10 hours
weekly
.5 hours
daily (+10
hours
additional*);
3 hours
weekly
5 hours
daily; 45
hours weekly
5.8 hours
daily; 32
hours
weekly
11.5 hours
6 hours
3.5 hours
10 hours
9.8 hours
3.5 hours
daily; 80.5
daily; 52
daily; 7.5
daily; 82
daily; 69
daily; 32.5
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours weekly hours weekly
weekly
weekly
weekly
weekly
NOTE: Where it says “Daily/Weekly exposure to E: F”, for example, it refers to the number of
daily/weekly hours child is exposed to English according to the father.
Juan
(H5)
* H1F reported that when they are in Colombia, child is exposed to an additional 12 hours daily and 84
hours weekly of Spanish. Likewise, H4M reported that when they are with M’s family, child is exposed
to an additional 12 hours daily of English. When they are with F’s family, child is exposed to an
additional 10 hours daily of Spanish. Neither family mentioned how often they are with said families.
The questionnaire also included a question requesting the parent list any
individuals in their child’s life who contribute to the development of his Spanish or
English. In terms of additional exposure to English, answers varied from native Englishspeaking family (grandma was mentioned twice) to neighbors and other friends. For
exposure to Spanish, family H5 is the only family who has native Spanish-speaking
relatives in the area.
83
Lastly, parents were asked to rank themselves anywhere from “very often” to
“never” regarding their own use of the eight discourse strategies (mentioned above on pp.
49-50) as well as how often their child hears English/Spanish, how often their child hears
a mixture of English and Spanish, among others. There were three separate sections of
statements with the following headings: your child, your child and you, and your child
and you in the presence of others. (See Appendix E for English and Appendix F for
Spanish.) The objective of asking parents what strategy they use with their child was so
that the researcher could later compare their answer on paper with what was observed in
person. In fact, nearly all of the responses were not in accordance with what the
researcher observed in each of the parent-child dyads. One parent, for example, said that
he used the INS strategy “very often” when during the observation, he did not use that
particular strategy at all. There were numerous examples like this. Only one parent
accurately estimated on four (of eight) strategies. (See individual bilingual questionnaires
in Appendix H for parent responses.)
Bilingual Family Questionnaire Discussion
In terms of hours the child is exposed to English and Spanish, there was not much
congruency in numbers between parents. In other words, parents did not agree with one
another with regards to the number of hours the mother and father believe their child is
exposed to either language. Interestingly, on most questionnaires, parents recorded their
child was exposed more to that particular parent’s L1 than that of his/her spouse. For
example, native English-speaking mothers tended to record that their child is exposed to
84
more English than Spanish, while their native Spanish-speaking spouses recorded just the
opposite (more Spanish than English). Since this was the case, it can be concluded that
either the parents were recording what they want to be true rather than what is really
happening (Goodz, 1994), or that the question needs to be rephrased all together. The
working parents also admitted to having difficulty estimating the number of hours his/her
child is being exposed to either language when the other parent is caring for the child.
Parents were also asked to record their child’s general preference for language.
Unlike the previous question, overall parents tended to agree with one another.
Additionally, the similarities in their answers were consistent with what the researcher
observed in each parent-child dyad. In other words, when the parents believed that
English was their child’s language of preference, for example, it was also clearly noted
during observation with both mother and father that this was an accurate answer.
Each mother and father were asked to give an approximation of how many daily
and weekly hours s/he spends with his/her child. The initial problem here was with the
calculation of total hours. Oftentimes, the number of hours a parent recorded turned out
to be more hours in a day or week. The researcher made a brief phone call to those
parents who had some discrepancy with their numbers, explained the issue, and rerecorded new numbers. However, in some cases, the numbers still seemed unrealistic (i.e.
not including sleep time). Again, perhaps the parents were not recording what is really
happening in the home (Goodz, 1994), or the question should be worded differently.
Where parents had the opportunity to list any other people who influence their
child’s linguistic development, it was interesting that none mentioned siblings given that
85
at the time of observation, three of the five children had siblings. Although the arena of
siblings was not considered here, it is clearly a factor when looking at what determines
language choice in children, and is a context worthy of study (Genesee, 1989).
In terms of the discourse strategies used in the study, the researcher found them to
be very helpful. The strategies developed by Lanza (1992) and Döpke (1992a), and later
used in Kasuya (1998) created a very thorough yet simple coding system, allowing the
researcher to confidently compile and analyze her data. Although the list is thorough, the
researcher discovered there are indeed other discourse strategies parents use while
interacting with their children. One particular strategy that was seen a number of times
was simply repeating what the child said exactly how the child said it. (There was a
repeating strategy used in the current study, however, it entailed the parent repeating
what the child said but in the parent’s L1.)
Lastly, parents were asked to rank themselves anywhere from “very often” to
“never” regarding their own use of the eight discourse strategies as well as other topics.
The objective of asking parents what strategy they use with their child was so that the
researcher could later compare their answer on paper with what was observed in person.
The responses the parents gave were not congruent with what was observed by the
researcher. There are a few explanations for this. The obvious first reason is that parents
may think they are using the strategies, when, in reality, they are not, or vice versa.
Therefore, how the strategies were worded on the questionnaire may have caused some
confusion. Another possibility is that only one observation of each parent may not be an
86
accurate glimpse of what occurs on a day-to-day basis. Lastly, the parents may not have
recorded what is really happening in the home, as Goodz (1994) suggests.
The following chapter will include the conclusions of the present investigation. It
will reflect on major learnings of the study and revisit the literature that was foundational
for this study. The chapter will also consider possible implications for the study as well as
limitations of the study. Finally, it will make recommendations for future research and
give ideas for how the results are to be used.
87
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
The present investigation focuses on the discourse strategies used by a small
sample of English-Spanish bilingual parents who are raising their children bilingually.
The five families participating in this study have a 2- to 3-year-old child, and were
observed in parent-child dyads in order to investigate and document the parental
discourse strategies as well as the child’s language choice. This study is specifically
concerned with two questions. What type of discourse strategy will the parent use in
response to the child when the child speaks in the parent’s L2? And, what language will
the child continue to use? In other words, will the child’s language choice be influenced
by the parent’s choice of discourse strategy and overall use of language?
The results found and discussed here are by no means limited to English-Spanish
families, as Kasuya (1998) concluded in her study, which included English-Japanese
bilingual families. English-Spanish bilingual families were chosen for this study strictly
for purposes of convenience and personal interest. The researcher presumes that studies
on other bilingual families residing in the United States (where English is the societal
language) could possibly conclude similar results, given similarities in characteristics in
the participating parents. Therefore, the results discussed in the paragraphs ahead may be
applicable to some families in which the two parents are native speakers of two different
languages.
88
Major Learnings
The most striking finding discovered in conducting this study is that when parents
keep a consistent and distinct language separation, children have minimal mixedlanguage utterances, and choose their language according to their interlocutor, which is a
finding that agrees with Vihman’s (1985). Likewise, when parents model some degree of
language mixing, their children tend to follow suit and mix as well, but still in small
numbers. As Lanza (1992) and de Houwer (1999b) discovered in their studies, a parent’s
linguistic choices influence their child’s linguistic choice. For example, in this study,
both of participant Juan’s parents strictly adhered to the one parent-one language (OPOL)
method, and as a result, Juan not only had low scores of mixed-language utterances in
both observations, he also spoke very little to none of his parent’s L2 when he was with
them.
As discussed in Chapter Two, both children and parents mix languages for a
variety of reasons. Oftentimes it is done by both children and parents to gain attention or
for emphasis (Goodz, 1989). Children may tend to language mix due in large part to
language dominance, and language dominance is the result of which language they have
had more exposure to (Baker, 2000; Goodz, 1994; Jisa, 2000). Parents may also choose
certain words they are sure their child will understand, even if these words are part of
their L2 lexicon (Goodz, 1989).
However, in the current study, parents did not seem concerned that their child was
mixing languages. Rather, a main concern shared during the interview was that Spanish
was not being produced to the level they desired. They, therefore, had to change their
89
language patterns, and original plan, which in most cases was adhering to the OPOL, in
order to encourage more production of Spanish. Goodz found something similar in her
study. “Although there was some variation in degree of parent-by-language separation
among the families, all the parents spoke both languages to their children under some
conditions. This was true even in parents describing themselves as firmly committed to
maintaining a clear parent-by-language distinction” (1989, p.32).
Limitations of the Study
Since bilingualism in children and parental input are two very large fields of
study, it would be difficult and unrealistic to address more than a few research questions
in any single investigation. Although this investigation is thorough in that it fulfilled its
purpose, it still is only making a very focused contribution to current research in these
areas. Therefore, there clearly are some limitations.
To begin with, the current study only looked at children between the ages of 2 and
3. Even though the age span is small, with two participants, Luis and Juan, there was
nearly a two-year gap in age. Luis had just turned two at the time of the first observation
and Juan was about to turn four at the second observation. Results for these two children,
for example, will obviously vary a great deal simply due to age difference.
In addition, although children of this specific age range are just starting to develop
self-awareness and linguistic sensitivity (Vihman, 1985), it makes sense to focus on this
age group in this particular study. However, as the results show, there are many other
social factors that can determine language choice (de Houwer, 1999b; Deuchar & Quay,
90
1999; Genesee, 1989; Goodz, 1994; Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Harrison & Piette, 1980;
Schmidt-Mackey, 1971) and perhaps starting observations at an earlier age and
continuing long past 2 and 3 years of age would provide a more complete picture of
language choice in children growing up in bilingual homes. This includes multiple
observations of and visits with the parent-child dyads and in a variety of social contexts
(daycare, friends, at the zoo or library, en route to those places) like Vihman (1985)
suggests.
An obvious limitation is the sample size. The present study only involved five
bilingual families. In order to draw more convincing conclusions, it would be necessary
to include a much larger sample size as well as an equal selection of like families. For
instance, this study included three families that consisted of a native Spanish-speaking
father married to a native Spanish-speaking mother, and only two of the opposite. It
would be ideal to have an equal number of like families as perhaps results would be more
credible.
Lastly, the present study did not consider the very important factor of language
use among siblings. Although it was not the focus here, it would have been difficult since
at the time of observation, two of the five children did not have any siblings. Interaction
with siblings and language choice among siblings, an inevitable language context in the
world of a bilingual family with multiple children, can have a major affect on language
dominance and overall language usage in children growing up in bilingual homes. It is in
language contexts such as interactions with siblings that Genesee (1989) suggests data
must be collected.
91
Future Research
As discussed in the previous section, the limitations to the present study have also
left ideas and ample room for further research in the area of language choice in bilingual
children. Since it has already been established that a variety of social factors determine
language choice, one area that requires further research then is the comparison of
bilingual families residing in an English-speaking society versus those residing in a
Spanish-speaking society. Results from a study of this nature would reveal the degree to
which social factors by setting or place are relevant, as suggested by Deuchar and Quay
(1999), Genesee (1989) and Schmidt-Mackey (1971).
The parents who contributed to the present investigation are all bilingual,
however, to varying degrees. In addition, no one admitted to grasping their L2 at an
advanced level in all areas (speaking, reading, etc.). (See Appendix G.) So, the parents
are still growing in their own bilingual development. For this very reason, it is necessary
to further investigate parental discourse strategies because as a parent’s bilingualism
changes, the strategies they will use towards their child’s choice of language will also
change (de Houwer, 1995).
Language mixing was a factor that surfaced in all parent-child dyads but one. It is
important then to further research how languages are used and to document in a detailed
manner a variety of linguistic input “in order to correlate the incidence and type of mixed
output with mixed input” (Genesee, 1989, p. 171). By studying the language input
environment of the bilingual child, the reasons for mixing will be better understood.
92
Using the Results
Since the researcher of this study plans to raise her children bilingually and is a
part of a large and growing community of individuals who intend to do the same, the
results of this study will undoubtedly be shared with her friends and any interested family
members. In addition, the families who contributed to the study will receive their own
copy of the results. In regards to society at large, this research will contribute to the
overall understanding of factors determining language choice in bilingual children, the
value of rich linguistic input in bilingualism, the composition and diversity of bilingual
families and the significance of parental discourse strategies. Additionally, educators will
have access to a domain they often do not know much about: the home. Educators will
perhaps learn to use parents as resources in promoting bilingualism in young children,
and also adapt some of the successful parental discourse strategies for application in their
own classrooms. Educators can also “communicate to parents what the research says
about the importance of first language (L1) development for children’s overall academic
progress …as to thereby make a positive difference in the lives of their students”
(Cummins, 2002, p. 200,210).
Overall, parents and educators alike will be able to take the results of this study to
further their knowledge of bilingualism in children. The literature reviewed, the research
conducted and the results found provide a wealth of valuable information for anyone
associated with bilingualism. Parents who are creating bilingual homes will know how to
better enrich the linguistic environment they are currently providing for their children.
They can become more active participants in the bilingual development of their children.
93
De Houwer (1995, p. 249) states “without a clear understanding of the particular input
situation the bilingual child is in many aspects of the child’s linguistic productions cannot
be satisfactorily explained.” Only parents and primary caretakers can provide researchers
with such vital information.
Li (1999) summarizes well some important reminders to those who are wishing to
raise their children bilingually; however, the following advice easily applies to educators
of bilingual children as well. First, she suggests that it is important to teach children that
no ethnicity or language is lesser or greater than others. Therefore, maintaining an open
mind, and being responsive and respectful to other languages and cultures is necessary
when raising children with two or more languages (Li, 1999). More than just Li agree
that parental attitudes toward L2 and its culture are also important in helping children
become successful in the acquisition of two languages (de Houwer, 1999b; Li, 1999;
Rosenberg, 1996). In fact, mastery of L1 and parental supportive attitude toward L2 will
facilitate a child’s acquisition of L2. In addition, Li comments that it is of utmost
significance to remain steadfast and consistent with the family language plan.
94
APPENDIX A – SURVEY FROM PRELIMINARY STUDY
DISTRIBUTED IN COLOMBIA (ENGLISH)
95
Questionnaire for the parent whose first language is English:
1. Circle which one describes your family:
a. an American man married to a Latina woman or
b. an American woman married to a Latino man.
2. Roughly, what percentage of the time do you speak English with your spouse?
On what occasions?
Are there specific things you and your spouse only discuss in English? Are there any
specific times when you only speak in English? If so, please list.
3. Roughly, what percentage of the time do you speak Spanish with your spouse?
On what occasions?
Are there specific things you and your spouse only discuss in Spanish? Are there any
specific times when you only speak in Spanish? If so, please list.
4. What language do you speak with your child/ren: English/Spanish?
Do you speak it 100% of the time? If not, roughly what percentage would you say?
Are there any exceptions? If so, please list.
5. Please list all of the outlets through which your child hears or gets exposure to the
English language.
6. Please list all of the outlets through which your child hears or gets exposure to the
Spanish language.
7. How would you personally rate your own Spanish skills? Place an X in the appropriate
column.
beginner
intermediate
advanced/fluent
vocabulary
_____
_____
_____
grammar
_____
_____
_____
listening comprehension _____
_____
_____
reading
_____
_____
_____
writing
_____
_____
_____
speaking intelligibility _____
_____
_____
96
8. How would you rate the English skills of your spouse? Place an X in the appropriate
column.
beginner
intermediate
advanced/fluent
vocabulary
_____
_____
_____
grammar
_____
_____
_____
listening comprehension _____
_____
_____
reading
_____
_____
_____
writing
_____
_____
_____
speaking intelligibility _____
_____
_____
9. From what you have observed, which language does/do your child/ren feel comfortable
speaking? Or does it depend on the situation? Please explain.
10. In which language does/do your child/ren seem to read better? Or is their level the same
in both languages? Please explain.
11. In which language does/do your child/ren seem to write better? Or is their ability the
same in both languages? Please explain.
12. Does/do your child/ren have other bilingual (Spanish/English) friends? If so, in which
language do they often prefer to communicate, based on what you observe? How can you
explain their preference?
13. Please mention any other relevant information that you think would be important.
14. Would you be willing to continue helping me with this study in the future (for example,
completing another questionnaire or letting me visit your home to observe and informally
interview)? If so, please write your names and phone number below.
15. Regardless of how you want to be involved in the future, would you like to be informed
of the results and conclusions of this questionnaire? If so, please write your email address
below.
97
APPENDIX B – SURVEY FROM PRELIMINARY STUDY
DISTRIBUTED IN COLOMBIA (SPANISH)
98
Cuestionario para el papá/la mamá cuyo primer idioma es español:
1. Escoja su situación familiar con un círculo:
a. un hombre americano casado con una mujer latina ó
b. una mujer americana casada con un hombre latino.
2. ¿Cuándo usted se comunica con su esposo/a, ¿qué porcentaje lo hace en inglés?
¿En cuales situaciones?
¿Hay cosas especificas en las cuales únicamente se comunican en inglés y momentos
cuando únicamente hablan en inglés? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor, haga una lista
general de estas cosas.
3. ¿Cuándo usted se comunica con su esposo/a, ¿qué porcentaje lo hace en español?
¿En cuales situaciones?
¿Hay cosas especificas en las cuales únicamente se comunican en español y momentos
cuando únicamente hablan en español? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor, haga una lista
general de estas cosas.
4. ¿Cuál idioma utiliza con su hijo/a: inglés ó español?
¿Lo habla 100% del tiempo? Si la repuesta es no, ¿cuál porcentaje aproximado diría?
¿Hay excepciones? Si la repuesta es sí, por favor haga una lista.
5. Por favor haga una lista de todos los sitios en los cuales su hijo/a escucha el inglés.
6. Por favor haga una lista de todos los sitios en los cuales su hijo/a escucha el español.
7. ¿Cómo calificaría sus habilidades en el inglés? Marque con una X la columna apropiada.
básico
intermedio
advanzado
vocabulario
_____
_____
_____
gramática
_____
_____
_____
escuchar y comprender _____
_____
_____
lectura
_____
_____
_____
escribir
_____
_____
_____
hablar y ser entendido _____
_____
_____
99
8. ¿Cómo calificaría a su esposo/a sus habilidades en el español? Marque con una X la
columna apropriada.
básico
intermedio
advanzado
vocabulario
_____
_____
_____
gramática
_____
_____
_____
escuchar y comprender _____
_____
_____
lectura
_____
_____
_____
escribir
_____
_____
_____
hablar y ser entendido _____
_____
_____
9. ¿De lo que ha observado, en cuál idioma se siente/n más cómodo su hijo/a hablando? ¿Ó
depende de la situación? Por favor, explique.
10. ¿En cuál idioma lee/n mejor su hijo/s? ¿Ó es su nivel en los dos idiomas más ó menos
igual? Por favor, explique.
11. ¿En cuál idioma escribe/n mejor su hijo/s? ¿Ó es su habilidad igual en ambos idiomas?
Por favor, explique.
12. ¿Tiene/n otros amigos bilingües (español/inglés) su hijo/s? Si la respuesta es sí, ¿en cuál
idioma prefieren comunicarse, según lo que ha observado usted? ¿Cómo puede usted
explicar su preferencia?
13. Por favor, escribe cualquier otra información relevante que usted cree que sería
importante para mi con relación a este tema.
14. ¿Usted sería disponible a ayudarme con este studio en un futuro (por ejemplo, completar
otro cuestionario ó dejarme visitor a su familia para observar y entrevistar
informalmente)? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor escriba sus nombres y número telefónica
abajo.
15. ¿A pesar de cómo quiere ser involucrado en un futuro, a usted le gustaría ser enterado
con los resultados y conclusions de este cuestionario? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor
escriba su dirección de e-mail abajo.
100
APPENDIX C – DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY (ENGLISH)
101
Demographic Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions.
1. What is your:
a. First language?
ˆ English
ˆ other: ____________________
b. Second language?
ˆ Spanish
ˆ other: ____________________
c. Country of Birth?
d. Occupation?
e. Educational Level? ˆ high school ˆ undergraduate ˆ graduate ˆ other: ________
2. What is your preferred language in the following settings? Select the appropriate column.
English
Spanish
At work
At home with your spouse
At home with your child/ren
In public with your spouse
In public with your child/ren
With your friends
At a religious institution
In the neighborhood/community (e.g. bank)
At family gatherings
Other setting not mentioned?
3. What is the native language of your spouse?
4. Please list the age, birth date, country of birth and gender of your children. Also indicate the age at
which your children were first consistently exposed to English and Spanish at the same time. Use the
space on the back, if necessary.
Country of
Gender
Age of
Age
Birth date
Birth
(M or F)
Exposure
First Child
Second Child
Third Child
Fourth Child
Fifth Child
5. Please list all the Spanish-speaking and English-speaking countries in which your family has lived as
well as the years lived in each. Use the space on the back, if necessary.
Country
Number of Years
__________________________
__________________________
______________
__________________________
______________
Please submit this form to me at the time of the first observation.—Thanks!
102
APPENDIX D – DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY (SPANISH)
103
Encuesta Demográfica
Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas.
6. ¿Cuál es su:
a. Primer idioma?
ˆ español
ˆ otro: ____________________
b. Segundo idioma?
ˆ inglés
ˆ otro: ____________________
c. Pais de nacimiento?
i. Marque la edad en la que llegó usted a USA.
ˆ 0-20 ˆ 21-30 ˆ 31-40 ˆ 41-50 ˆ 51-60
d. Ocupación?
e. Nivel de educación más alto? ˆ bachillerato ˆ universidad ˆ post-grado ˆ otro: ______
7. ¿Cuál es su idioma preferido en las siguientes situaciones? Seleccione la columna apropiada.
español
inglés
En el trabajo
En la casa con su cónyuge
En la casa con sus hijos
En el público con su cónyuge
En el público con sus hijos
Con sus amigos
En la institución religiosa
En el vecindario/la comunidad (ej. banco)
Las reuniones familiares
Otra situación no mencionada?
8. ¿Cuál es el primer idioma de su cónyuge?
9. Por favor complete la siguiente tabla con la edad, fecha de nacimiento, pais de nacimiento y género de
sus hijos. También, indique la edad en la cual sus hijos fueron expuestos consistentemente a inglés y
español al mismo tiempo. Use la parte atrás de la hoja, si es necesario.
Edad
Fecha de
Nacimiento
Pais de
Nacimiento
Género
(M ó F)
Edad de
Exposición
Primer Hijo
Segundo Hijo
Tercer Hijo
Cuarto Hijo
Quinto Hijo
10. Por favor haga una lista de todos los paises hispanohablantes e ingleshablantes en los cuales su familia
ha vivido y los años correspondientes. Use la parte atrás de la hoja, si es necesario.
Pais
Cantidad de Años
__________________________
______________
__________________________
______________
__________________________
______________
Por favor entregue esta encuesta en el momento de la primera observación.—Gracias!
104
APPENDIX E – BILINGUAL FAMILY QUESTIONNAIRE
USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY (ENGLISH)
105
Questionnaire
Bilingual Family
Please answer the following questions on your own. Do not discuss any of the questions with your spouse until this
questionnaire has been submitted to me. When a question includes “your child”, it refers to the 2- to 3-year old child
who participated in this study. When a column is labeled “Other”, feel free to include additional settings that are not
already mentioned. I recommend you first read the questionnaire in its entirety before proceeding. Use an additional
sheet of paper for your answers, if necessary.
106
1.
Besides English, do you speak any other languages? If so, which language(s)?
And, how would you personally rate yourself in the following categories in your second language? Place an X in
the appropriate column. (For additional languages, please use another sheet of paper.)
beginner
intermediate
advanced/fluent
vocabulary
_____
_____
_____
grammar
_____
_____
_____
listening comprehension
_____
_____
_____
reading
_____
_____
_____
writing
_____
_____
_____
speaking intelligibility
_____
_____
_____
2.
In which language do you and your spouse communicate? Does this change depending on the situation or certain
people present? If so, please describe.
3.
Please complete the chart below by writing the number of daily (D) and weekly (W) hours your child hears or gets
exposure to English and Spanish in the following settings. Write “N/A” when it is not applicable.
Home
Neighborhood
Family
Gatherings
Religious
Institution
Daycare
Community
Errands (e.g.
bank)
Other
Exposure to
English: D
Exposure to
English: W
Exposure to
Spanish: D
Exposure to
Spanish: W
4.
Given the same settings in #3, what is the preferred language of your child in each one?
Neighborhood
Home
Family
Gatherings
Religious
Institution
Daycare
Community
Errands (e.g.
bank)
Other
Preferred
Language
5.
Given the following categories, roughly how many hours do you spend with your child in English on a daily (D)
and weekly (W) basis?
Play
Read
Eat
Watch TV,
videos, etc.
Exercise
Run
Errands
Other
Other
Other
D
W
6.
Besides you and your spouse, are there any other influential adults in your child’s life who contribute to his/her
development of Spanish or English (e.g. Grandma)? If so, please describe who it is, what they do together and the
total number of hours your child spends with these individuals on a daily and weekly basis.
107
7.
Thinking in terms of your child’s entire day, please respond to the following statements by checking the
appropriate box. For the examples given, “C” represents child and “P” represents parent. If there are exceptions for
any of the statements below, make note of them in the space provided in question #8.
Very
SomeOften
Rarely
Never
Often
times
YOUR CHILD
a. My child hears English.
b. My child hears Spanish.
YOUR CHILD AND YOU
c. I speak English to my child.
d. I speak Spanish to my child.
e. I speak a mixture of English and Spanish to my
child in the same utterance. P: “Let’s go to the
supermercado.”
f. I translate my child’s utterances into both
English and Spanish. P: “‘Good Morning’ in
English’ and ‘Buenos Días’ en español.”
g. When/If my child uses Spanish, I correct
him/her by using the English equivalent. C:
“Quiero jugar.” P: “I want to play.”
h. When/If my child uses Spanish, I
repeat/rephrase the content of the utterance in
English. C: “Tengo sueño.”
P: “So, you are tired?”
i. When/If my child uses Spanish, I continue
talking in English as if to ignore it.
j. I encourage my child to say words only in
English when we are together, by explicitly using
words like “say” or “tell”.
P: “Say ‘blue house’.”
YOUR CHILD AND YOU
IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS
k. I speak English to all of my children.
l. I speak Spanish to all of my children.
m. I speak a mixture of English and Spanish to all
my children.
n. I speak English to my spouse.
o. I speak Spanish to my spouse.
p. I speak a mixture of English and Spanish to my
spouse.
q. I speak English to my friends and relatives.
r. I speak Spanish to my friends and relatives.
s. I speak a mixture of English and Spanish to
friends and relatives.
8.
Is there any more you would like to add about the statements above? Are there any exceptions to any of your
responses?
Please mail this form to me using the self-addressed stamped envelope.—Thanks!
108
APPENDIX F – BILINGUAL FAMILY QUESTIONNAIRE
USED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY (SPANISH)
109
Encuesta
Familia Bilingüe
Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas individualmente. No comente sobre ninguna pregunta con su
cónyuge hasta que la encuesta haya sido enviada a mi. Cuando una pregunta incluya “su hijo/a”, está
refiriendo a su hijo/a de 2 ó 3 años quien está participando en este estudio. Cuando una columna está
nombrada “Otro”, siéntase en libertad de incluir situaciones adicionales que no están mencionadas. Yo
recomiendo que usted primero lea la encuesta en su totalidad antes de comenzar a contestar. Use una hoja
adicional para sus respuestas, si es necesario.
110
1. Además de español, ¿habla usted otro idioma? Si la respuesta es sí, ¿cuál(es) idioma(s)?
Y, en términos de su segundo idioma, ¿cómo calificaría sus habilidades en las siguientes categorias?
Marque con una X en la columna apropiada. (Para los idiomas adicionales, por favor use otra hoja.)
básico
intermedio
avanzado
vocabulario
_____
_____
_____
gramática
_____
_____
_____
escuchar y comprender
_____
_____
_____
lectura
_____
_____
_____
escritura
_____
_____
_____
hablar y ser entendido
_____
_____
_____
2. ¿En cuál idioma se comunica usted con su cónyuge? ¿Su idioma depende de la situación ó la gente
presente? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor describa.
3. Por favor llene la tabla a continuación con el número de horas diarias (D) y semanales (S) que su hijo/a
está expuesto a inglés y español en las siguientes situaciones. Escriba “N/A” cuando no es aplicable.
Las Diligencias Otro
Las
La
de la
La
La
El VecinReuniones
Institución
Guardería Comunidad (ej.
Casa
dario
Familiares
Religiosa
el banco)
Expuesto a
inglés: D
Expuesto a
inglés: S
Expuesto a
español: D
Expuesto a
español: S
4. Usando las mismas situaciónes en #3, ¿cuál es el idioma preferido de su hijo/a en cada situación?
Las Diligencias
Otro
Las
La
La
La
El Vecinde la Comunidad
Reuniones Institución
Guardería
Casa
dario
(ej. el banco)
Familiares
Religiosa
Idioma
Preferido
5. Considerando las siguientes categorias, aproximadamente, ¿cuántas horas pasa usted con su hijo/a en
español diaramente (D) y semanalmente (S)?
Ver
Hacer
Hacer
Otro
Otro
Otro
Jugar
Leer
Comer
television,
ejerdilivideos, etc.
cicios
gencias
D
S
6. Aparte de usted y su cónyuge, ¿hay otros adultos influyentes en la vida de su hijo/a quienes
contribuyen al desarrollo de su inglés ó español (ej. la abuela)? Si la respuesta es sí, por favor describa
quién es, qué hacen juntos y el número total de las horas que su hijo/a pasa con estas personas
diariamente y semanalmente.
111
7. Pensando en términos de un día completo de su hijo/a, por favor asigne la columna apropiada para cada
una de las siguientes afirmaciones. Para los ejemplos dados, “H” representa el hijo/a y “P” representa el
padre. Si hay alguna excepción sobre cualquier afirmación, anótela en el espacio proveido en pregunta
#8.
Muy
FrequenteA
Casi
FrequenteNunca
mente
Veces Nunca
mente
SU HIJO/A
a. En general, mi hijo/a escucha el español.
b. En general, mi hijo/a escucha el inglés.
SU HIJO/A Y USTED
c. Yo hablo español a mi hijo/a.
d. Yo hablo inglés a mi hijo/a.
e. Yo hablo una mezcla de español e inglés a
mi hijo/a en la misma oración. P: “Vamos al
supermarket.”
f. Yo traduzco las oraciones de mi hijo/a a
ambos español y inglés. P: “‘Buenos Días’
en español, and ‘Good Morning’ in
English.”
g. Cuando/Si mi hijo/a usa inglés, yo le
corrigo usando el equivalente en español. H:
“I want to play.”
P: “Quiero jugar.”
h. Cuando/Si mi hijo/a usa inglés, repito el
contenido de la oración en español. H: “I am
tired.” P: “Entonces, ¿tienes sueño?”
i. Cuando/Si mi hijo/a usa inglés, yo
continuo hablando en español ignorándolo.
j. Yo animo a mi hijo/a a comunicarse en
español cuando estamos juntos, usando
palabras específicas como “di” ó “cuenta”.
P: “Di ‘casa azul’.”
SU HIJO/A Y USTED
EN LA PRESENCIA DE LOS DEMÁS
k. Yo hablo español a todos mis hijos.
l. Yo hablo inglés a todos mis hijos.
m. Yo hablo una mezcla de español y inglés
a todos mis hijos.
n. Yo hablo español a mi cónyuge.
o. Yo hablo inglés a mi cónyuge.
p. Yo hablo una mezcla de español y inglés
a mi cónyuge.
q. Yo hablo español a mis amigos y
familiares.
r. Yo hablo inglés a mis amigos y familiares.
s. Yo hablo una mezcla de español y inglés a
mis amigos y familiares.
8. ¿Hay algo adicional que usted le gustaría incluir sobre las anteriores afirmaciones? ¿Hay algunas
excepciones en algunas respuestas?
Por favor envíeme esta encuesta usando el sobre proveido.—Gracias!
112
APPENDIX G – DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRES
COMPLETED BY PARTICIPATING PARENTS
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
APPENDIX H – BILINGUAL FAMILY QUESTIONNAIRES
COMPLETED BY PARTICIPATING PARENTS
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
REFERENCES
Baker, C. (2000). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (2nd Ed.). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, LTD.
Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parentone-language approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, LTD.
Blum-Martínez, R. (2002). Parents as guardians of the mother tongue. In L. Diaz Soto
(Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of bilingual/bicultural children (pp.131142). New York: Peter Long Publishers.
Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T.S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cummins, J. (2002). Rights and responsibilities of educators of bilingual/bicultural
children. In L. Diaz Soto (Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of
bilingual/bicultural children (pp.195-210). New York: Peter Long Publishers.
de Houwer, A. (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Houwer, A. (1995). Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney
(Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp.220-250). London: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.
de Houwer, A. (1999a). Two or more languages in early childhood: Some general points
and practical recommendations. (Report No. EDO-FL-99-03). Flanders, Belgium:
University of Antwerp and Science Foundation. (CAL Digest No. ED-99-CO0008).
de Houwer, A. (1999b). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role
of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra and L. Verhoeven (Eds.),
Bilingualism and Migration (pp.75-95). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deuchar, M. & Quay, S. (1999). Language choice in the earliest utterances: A case study
with methodological implications. Journal of Child Language, 26(2), 461-475.
Döpke, S. (1992a). One parent-one language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.
145
Döpke, S. (1992b). A bilingual child’s struggle to comply with the ‘one-parent-onelanguage’ rule. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13(6),
467-85.
Fantini, A. (1978). Bilingual behavior and social cues: Case studies of two bilingual
children. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bilingualism (pp.283-301). Columbia,
SC: Hornbeam Press.
Fantini, A. (1985). Language acquisition of a bilingual child: A sociolinguistic
perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García, K. (2000). Raising bilingual kids. Hispanic.
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child
Language, 16, 161-179.
Genesee, F. (2002). Bilingual acquisition. Retrieved September 23, 2002, from
http://www.earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.cfm?FuseAction=Article&A=38
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E. & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early
bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611-631.
Goodz, N. (1989). Parental language mixing in bilingual families. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 10, 25-44.
Goodz, N. (1994). Interactions between parents and children in bilingual families. In. F.
Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole
curriculum, the whole community (pp.61-81). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hamers, J.F. & Blanc, M.H.A. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Harding-Esch, E. & Riley, P. (2003). The bilingual family: A handbook for parents (2nd
Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrison, G.J. & Piette, A.B. (1980). Young bilingual children’s language selection.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1(3), 217-230.
Jisa, H. (2000). Language mixing in the weaker language. Journal of Pragmatics, 32,
1363-1386.
Kasuya, H. (1998). Determinants of language choice in bilingual children: The role of
input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2(3), 327-346.
146
Lanza, E. (1992). Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language,
19, 633-658.
Li, X. (1999). How can language minority parents help their children become bilingual in
familial context? A case study of a language minority mother and her daughter.
Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2&3), 113-125.
Lindholm, K.J. & Padilla, A.M. (1978). Language mixing in bilingual children. Journal
of Child Language, 5, 327-335.
Malave, L.M. (1997). Parent characteristics: Influence in the development of bilingualism
in young children. NYSABE Journal, 12, 15-42.
McLaughlin, B. (1984). Simultaneous acquisition of two languages in childhood. In B.
McLaughlin, Second-language acquisition in childhood: Volume 1. Preschool
Children (2nd ed.) (pp. 72-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meisel, J.M. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In K.
Hystenstam & L. Obler, Bilingualism across the lifespan. Aspects of acquisition,
maturity and loss (pp. 13-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nicoladis, E. & Genesee, F. (1998). Parental discourse and code-mixing in bilingual
children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 85-99.
Parke, T. & Drury, R. (2001). Language development at home and school: Gains and
losses in young bilinguals. Early Years, 21(2), 117-126.
Redlinger, W.E. & Park, T.Z. (1980). Language mixing in young bilinguals. Journal of
Child Language, 7, 337-352.
Ronjat, J. (1913). Le developpement du langage observe chez un enfant bilinque. Paris:
Libraire Ancienne Championne. Also translated as “The development of
language; observation on a bilingual child”, Polygot, 1(2).
Rosenberg, M. (1996). Raising bilingual children. The Internet TESL Journal, 2(6),
Retrieved September 23, 2002, from
http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Rosenberg-Bilingual.html.
Saunders, G. (1982). Infant bilingualism: A look at some doubts and objections. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(4), 277-292.
Schmidt-Mackey, I. (1971). Language strategies of the bilingual family. In W.F. Mackey
& T. Andersson (Eds.), Bilingualism in early childhood (pp. 132-143). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
147
Smith, M.E. (1935). A study of the speech of eight bilingual children of the same family.
Child Development, 6, 19-25.
Taeschner, T. (1983). The sun is feminine: A study on language acquisition in bilingual
children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2001). Raising multilingual children: Foreign language
acquisition and children. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Vihman, M. (1985). Language differentiation by the bilingual infant. Journal of Child
Language, 12, 297-324.
Volterra, V. & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language in
bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 5(2), 311-326.