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

Abstract

This article examines the perceived effectiveness of multilingual upbringing strategies and ways of communication adopted by families where the parents are of two different nationalities. The theoretical introduction presents an overview of the most important issues related to the linguistic development in bi-/multilingual children, debunking common myths and misconceptions surrounding the notions of bi-/multilingualism. The empirical part analyses the results of a survey conducted among parents who raise their children multilingually, looking at the strategies of communication adopted, the perceived effectiveness thereof, and whether the respondents would have changed or improved anything if they had been given a ‘second chance’. The results show that the most frequently implemented method is the one parent-one language approach, whose usefulness the majority assessed positively. Other practical conclusions concerning multilingual upbringing are also drawn.

Full text

Perceived effectiveness of language acquisition in the process of
multilingual upbringing by parents of different nationalities
MichałB. Paradowski
a,b
and Aleksandra Bator
c
a
Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland;
b
Department of Second Language Studies,
Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA;
c
Department of Applied Linguistics and Communication,
Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK
ABSTRACT
This article examines the perceived effectiveness of multilingual
upbringing strategies and ways of communication adopted by families
where the parents are of two different nationalities. The theoretical
introduction presents an overview of the most important issues related
to the linguistic development in bi-/multilingual children, debunking
common myths and misconceptions surrounding the notions of bi-/
multilingualism. The empirical part analyses the results of a survey
conducted among parents who raise their children multilingually,
looking at the strategies of communication adopted, the perceived
effectiveness thereof, and whether the respondents would have
changed or improved anything if they had been given a ‘second
chance’. The results show that the most frequently implemented
method is the one parent-one language approach, whose usefulness the
majority assessed positively. Other practical conclusions concerning
multilingual upbringing are also drawn.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 November 2015
Accepted 15 June 2016
KEYWORDS
Multilingual upbringing;
bilingual acquisition;
childhood bilingualism;
communication strategies;
bi/multinational families;
childhood bi/multilingualism;
parental perspectives;
parents of bilingual children
1. Introduction
The majority of the peoples on earth are multilingual, not mono- or even bilingual (Bagga-Gupta
2013, 36). In many corners of the world people have long been growing up speaking more than
merely two tongues (think for example the 4 official languages of Singapore, the 11 of South
Africa, the 22 scheduled languages in India, with 234 tongues spoken natively by at least 10,000
people, the 60+ languages spoken in Pakistan, the 68 indigenous languages of Mexico, the 182
living languages of the Philippines, or the 706 or so of Indonesia …). In the scientific literature
today, too, bilingualism is seen as a specific–not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively different
–case of multilingualism, rather than vice versa (Herdina and Jessner 2002; Jessner 2006, 35). This has
led some researchers (e.g. Widła2015) to talk of the twilight of bilingualism in favour of multilingu-
alism. Multilingual and multicultural couples are no longer surprising or shocking. An increasing
number of people choose to spend their life with a person of a different nationality, who very
often also speaks a different mother tongue. Such a relationship may cause some difficulties with
regard to raising children, as the situation typically demands the introduction of multilingual
upbringing.
The article aims at presenting, assessing and discussing the effectiveness of the methods that the
parents may choose if their aim is to raise their children multilingually. The theoretical foray focuses
on the early development of bilingualism with the emphasis on the role of the parents and the possible
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT MichałB. Paradowski m.b.paradowski@uw.edu.pl
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been amended. Please see Corrigendum (https://doi.org/10.1080/
13670050.2017.1310982)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
2018, VOL. 21, NO. 6, 647–665
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203858

models of education that they may introduce in their households. It also dispels some widespread
myths and misconceptions surrounding the notions of bi-/multilingualism and bi-/multilingual edu-
cation. The subsequent empirical section presents the results of a survey conducted among 37 multi-
lingual families in which the parents are of two different nationalities, in 36 of which the spouses/
partners did not share a mother tongue (Paradowski, Bator & Michalowska 2016).
2. Becoming bi-/multilingual
Some may claim that the most natural surrounding for a child is a unilingual environment. This is a
widespread stereotype, especially in countries with a mainstream culture characterised by monolingu-
alism, such as the United States (Pearson2008, 4). However, contrary to this view it has been shown that
it is ‘pure’monolinguals who are an exception in the field, not the other way round (Pearson 2008,4).
Examples of people using one language exclusively are relatively rare and ‘now hard to find even in the
mountains of Papua New Guinea’(Cook 2002, 23). In some regions of the world, such as Singapore,
families are accustomed to using two or three languages in their households interchangeably and
from the very beginning in order to promote their children’sproficiency in more than one language,
and it is the usage of one language that turns out to be exceptional there (Gupta 1994,161).
Hence, on a global scale encountering a monolingual child in a kindergarten would be statistically rare.
It is vital to mention that in order to raise a bilingual or multilingual child, the parent does not need
to be bilingual her-/himself. The growing culture of globalisation permits the application of many
means which render the task feasible, even if the parent does not know the language of concern
(Pearson 2008, 5). For instance, an increasing number of parents decide to hire a caregiver speaking
the language, hence the growing popularity of foreign nannies and au pairs. Increased mobility in the
modern world also permits taking the offspring abroad, which can be a perfect opportunity to show-
case the variety of cultures and languages and to spark the motivation to learn foreign languages.
Many people wrongly believe that multilingualism can be accomplished only if the acquisition of
languages begins in childhood. It may indeed be easier when the process starts early, but a later age
of onset is not an excluding factor; what matters is the actual experience in using the language (cf.
e.g. Luk, de Sa, and Bialystok 2011; Consonni et al. 2013; Sheng et al. 2013; Gibson, Peña, and Bedore
2014; Unsworth et al. 2014; de Carli et al. 2015). Life circumstances such as migration, education, or
intermarriage force many to adjust to the new situation, and an adult may attain a level of linguistic
proficiency comparable to that of a child who has been acquiring her/his languages all life long, with
the possible exception of nativelike pronunciation (as the attainment here may depend on the indi-
vidual differences regarding the articulatory rehearsal component of working memory and phonetic
coding ability) –which in contexts for example of English used as a lingua franca may not be necess-
ary at all, given the lesser relevance of NS-oriented norms (Paradowski 2013). Likewise, bilingual
exposure from birth does not necessarily lead to a ‘balanced’bilingual, as De Houwer (2003,2007)
showed that around one in four bilingually raised infants will maintain productive proficiency in
only one language.
In the case of childhood bilingualism, the question arises when exactly the acquisition starts. Some
think that it only begins at birth, when it becomes possible for the baby to listen to others. Contrary to
this common belief, it has been shown that language acquisition commences already at the foetal
stage, as the foetus begins to respond to sound around the 19th–20th week of gestational age,
and after birth the infant is immediately able to differentiate the mother’s voice from others and
to discriminate sounds (Baker 2011, 95).
As far as early linguistic competencies are concerned, infants who are raised bilingually and mono-
lingually do not respond to the language in the same manner (Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés 1997).
Not only are four-month-olds capable of recognising the familiar language, they also respond differ-
ently depending on the language spoken to them, as reflected in the latencies of the responses
(Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés 1997, 63). A case study of an infant raised in a bilingual environment
showed that during the pre-verbal babbling stage (approximately between 6 and 12 months of
648 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

age; in the study quoted examined from 10 to 15 months) he was differentiating languages, demon-
strating language-specific phonological features depending on whether he was babbling in the
company of his English-speaking mother or French-speaking father (Maneva and Genesee 2002).
Two-year-olds and even younger children are proficient enough to adjust the language to the situ-
ation or person and capable of switching between them fluently (Baker 2011, 96). Thus while for a lay
observer it may be difficult to precisely pinpoint the age of externally visible separation of languages
(as this varies considerably and depends on many factors, such as linguistic input, patterns of inter-
action –not only within the family, but also outside; the child’s self-awareness, personality, general
competencies, and ability to adjust; Baker 2011, 96), there is much consensus among researchers
today that there may be no initial stage of ‘fusion’and that, rather, bilingual children differentiate
languages from the very beginning.
3. Debunking the myths surrounding multilingualism
Many myths and much prejudice has grown around the notions of bi- and multilingualism. Before
proceeding further, it is essential to dispel some of the most commonly heard misconceptions.
One frequently encountered opinion, especially prevalent in territories marked (whether histori-
cally or contemporarily) by high linguistic homogeneity, is that bi- or multilinguals are exceptions
to the default monolingual norm (Paradowski 2011, 331f.). An example here may be current-day
Poland, where what tends to be forgotten is that before the aftermath of the Second World War,
the country had eternally been a melting pot of nationalities, religions, and languages, with a centu-
ries-old tradition of openness and tolerance towards other ethnic groups (Komorowska 2014). Under
the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Russia, Prussia, and Austria –with the
former kingdom consequently erased from the maps of Europe for 123 years –it was common for its
citizens to function in both the strongly defended native language and the imposed language of the
occupant (while learning Greek and Latin at school and modern languages at university; Schramm
2008, not to mention elite multilingualism, Otwinowska 2015). This pervasive monolingual bias
(Silverstein 1996,1998; Cook 2002; Auer and Wei 2007; Grosjean 2008) can be traced back to:
(1) the formation of nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the accompanying
imposition of nationalistic one country –one language policies aiming at linguistic unification of the
citizens and creation of a national identity centred around the majority/official language and culture
(Singleton and Aronin 2007; Mesthrie 2010), (2) the growth of colonialism, (3) the associated prestige
ascribed to the privileged languages, and (4) the Saussurean-Chomskyan linguistic tradition taking as
its reference point the idealised monolingual native speaker (Otwinowska 2015). Yet, the opposite is
true: multilingualism is a natural potential available to every typically developing human being;
monolingual speakers are but the consequence of environmental factors that have failed to
provide the opportunity to acquire another language (Paradowski 2011, 332).
Another misconception, going back to Bloomfield’s(1933, 56) definition that held sway over the
field for many decades, has been that in order to deserve the label ‘bi-/multilingual’, one needs to
have an equal, ‘perfect’,‘nativelike’command of both/all her/his languages (Grosjean 1996,2008).
Such a stance would at once imply that code-switching or a ‘foreign’accent are undesirable signs
of linguistic sloppiness or ‘contamination’(Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007). The still widespread fallacy
of the monolingual reference point means that despite using two or more languages on a regular
basis, many bilinguals themselves evaluate their own linguistic competences as inadequate and
do not perceive themselves as bilingual (cf. Cook 1999; Canagarajah 2004; Jenkins 2006;Grosjean
2008,224; De Houwer 2015). Nowadays most linguists have departed from this static fractional/coor-
dinate view of bi-/multilinguals as ‘many monolinguals in one person’with separate competencies
(Jessner 2006, 130) and identities (Gawinkowska, Paradowski, and Bilewicz 2013) in each language,
and from considering the aim of second language acquisition to be ‘learning how to behave mono-
lingually in the new language’(Ortega 2010; cf. Wei and Moyer 2008; De Houwer 2009), in favour of a
dynamic compound perspective on multicompetent users (Cook 1991,2008; Macaro 2009; Luk and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 649

Bialystok 2013), tilting towards less rigorous expectations. Unbalanced bilingualism is expected and
normal (cf. De Houwer 2009; Grosjean 2010; Paradis, Genesee, and Crago 2011), especially given
differential, probabilistic success even in native bilinguals, as opposed to guaranteed, categorical
success in all –healthy –monolinguals (Ortega 2014). Crystal points out that ‘people who have
perfect fluency in two languages do exist, but they are an exception, not a rule’(1987, 362), Grosjean
stresses the importance of frequency of use, defining bilinguals as ‘those who use two or more
languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives’(2010, 22), and even language policies recognise
that individuals are ‘social agent[s] who [have] gradually varying competences in several languages
and experience with several cultures’(Sauer and Saudan 2008, 5; emph. added), and that (Moore
2006)
the development of communicative competences in an individual’s different languages is tailored …to his/her
communication needs. Since each variety, each language that composes an individual’s repertoire fulfils
certain functions (the language used in the family, the language used at school, the language used at work,
etc.), they all develop differently and are not, in principle, interchangeable; they complement each other –their
use being dictated by circumstances, topic or interlocutor. (Hutterli 2012,50f.; emph. in original)
In Switzerland, this recognition is usually referred to by the term ‘functional plurilingualism’(cf. e.g.
Hutterli, Stotz, and Zappatore 2008, 107).
There are also several entrenched myths surrounding bilingual education. One is the belief that
childhood bilingualism may be detrimental to both linguistic and cognitive development (for a
summary, see e.g. Jessner 2008, 15) and consequently lead to poorer results at school. The prejudice
goes back to studies of bilingual children that had been carried out between the 1890s and 1950s and
suggested a ‘language handicap’or linguistic ‘confusion’affecting children’s intellectual develop-
ment and academic performance (Hakuta and Diaz 1985). These studies, however, suffered from
numerous methodological problems: (1) focusing on immigrants or inhabitants of economically
underdeveloped rural regions (such as Welsh bilinguals in Great Britain, immigrants in the United
States, or Francophones in Canada), while their monolingual peers were typically raised in families
of relatively higher SES, (2) phrasing the tests in the participants’less-fluent second language, (3)
using monolingual standards as measures, (4) inclusion of culture-bound items in the tests, and (5)
a political bias, as the aim of many of the studies was to bolster the respective governments’angli-
cisation policies towards immigrants and minorities (Baker 1988; Edwards 2004). Little wonder there-
fore that incipient research ignoring all the pertinent socioeconomic factors was only corroborating
the prevalent pernicious stereotypes considering users of two or more languages as linguistically or
even intellectually inferior ‘second-class’citizens (Paradowski 2011, 332f.). It was only with Peal and
Lambert’s rigorous landmark (1962) study carried out among Canadian schoolchildren that this nega-
tive outlook on bilinguals’mental abilities was reversed and bilinguals’advantage on measures of
both verbal and nonverbal intelligence began to be widely recognised and researched. Recent
studies have also suggested that the advantages reported for ‘true’multilingual children could be
shared by children speaking two or more dialects of the same language, with children who had devel-
oped bidialectal literacy in both the majority and minority written varieties of Norwegian achieving
higher scores than the national average in standardised tests in reading, arithmetic, and English
(Vangsnes, Söderlund, and Blekesaune 2015), and bidialectal children speaking both Cypriot Greek
and Standard Modern Greek exhibiting an advantage over monolingual children in holding and
manipulating information in working memory (Antoniou et al. 2016).
Some parents fear that exposing their child to more than one tongue may cause language impair-
ment or deficits, or that for children already diagnosed with impairments two languages mean too
much unnecessary pressure and effort (Haman, Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, and Wodniecka 2015).
The reality is that language impairments, if they do occur, are completely independent of bi- or multi-
lingualism (Bedore and Peña 2008; Paradis 2010); in fact, children diagnosed with specific language
impairment (SLI) who regularly use two or more languages have been shown to make significantly
fewer errors in certain areas of both their languages compared to age-matched monolingual SLI
650 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

peers (Paradis, Crago, and Genesee 2006; Chilla 2008a,2008b; Armon-Lotem, Gordishevsky, and
Walters 2010; Peets and Bialystok 2010; Grosjean and Li 2012; Roeper 2012; Armon-Lotem, de
Jong, and Meir 2015; Jensen de López and Baker 2015). It is true that bi-/multilinguals fall behind
monolingual peers in some cognitive aspects:
(1) They achieve lower scores in receptive vocabulary tests in each of their respective tongues (Oller
and Eilers 2002)–but this vocabulary deficit only concerns home- and not school-related lexis
and the difference level is at approximately 10% (Bialystok et al. 2010);
(2) They are slower in vocabulary recall (lexical access time as measured in picture naming tasks; by
around 40 ms in their L
1
and 80–90 ms in their L
2
; Ivanova and Costa 2008, as well as in more
frequent experience of the ‘tip of the tongue’phenomenon; Gollan and Silverberg 2001;
Gollan and Acenas 2004). These are natural given the relatively lower input in each of the
languages and the necessity to suppress the influence of the other language(s) in cases of
lexical conflict as well as of the so-called emotion-related language choice (cf. Gawinkowska,
Paradowski, and Bilewicz 2013);
(3) They are later to develop some syntactic structures (Nicoladis 2006), depending on the language
combination and constructions involved.
However, with time bi/multilinguals manage to catch up (at least to a level where these deficits can
no longer be spotted in daily functioning), and overall the total lexical resources and linguistic reper-
toires of persons speaking more than one language are much larger than in monolinguals (Pearson,
Fernández, and Oller 1993; De Houwer 2009; Core et al. 2013).
Finally, it is some immigrant parents’opinion that the children do not have enough time to learn
both languages, therefore it is better if they only acquire the majority language (Haman, Otwinowska-
Kasztelanic, and Wodniecka 2015). This is again a harmful conviction, as will be made clear in the fol-
lowing sections.
4. The study
4.1. Methodology
4.1.1. Purpose
The aims of the survey (Paradowski, Bator & Michalowska 2016) were threefold. First of all, it was to
gather information on the methods of bilingual upbringing applied by parents and the behaviours of
the children. Investigated were also parents’opinions on the effectiveness of the chosen strategies as
manifested by visible progress in their children’s linguistic development. Finally, the survey
attempted to establish whether the parents would change anything if they had a chance to go
back in time.
4.1.2. Measuring instrument
The survey was conducted online in spring 2015, and announced on discussion forums and social
networking pages dedicated to parents raising children in more than one language and culture.
No remuneration or other reward was offered for participation. In order to facilitate extensive out-
reach, it was framed in English.
The survey consisted of 38 questions, divided into 2 parts. The first aimed at establishing general
information about the family. It consisted of 11 questions and focused on the parents. The respon-
dents were asked to indicate their current place of residence, mother tongue and nationality,
languages spoken, as well as the mother tongue and nationality of the spouse/partner. One question
concerned the parents’motives for bilingual or multilingual upbringing.
The second part, a more specific one, gathered information on the child(ren), the (non-exclusive)
methods applied in the process of upbringing (e.g. one parent –one language (OPOL), reading to the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 651

child, encouraging or rewarding the child for speaking more than one language, correcting mistakes),
and their effectiveness as evaluated by the parents. It asked about the age of the child(ren), the
environment (languages spoken, school), the time of onset of the acquisition of every language as
well as the motives for postponements thereof, if any. It also gathered information concerning the
child(ren)’s language skills. The parents were asked to indicate whether they had noticed behaviours
considered typical of multilinguals (code-switching, lexical, and grammatical transfer) and, if yes, to
briefly describe them, as well as to evaluate the comprehensibility of their speech and ability to com-
municate in different languages. This part included both Likert-scale and open-ended questions.
Six further questions focused on the methods applied by the parents. They were asked to assess
the absence or presence of the OPOL method and state whether they had been correcting their chil-
dren’s mistakes, encouraging them to speak different languages, or rewarding them for it. The section
also contained three questions on the readings that the children listened to and, if so, the languages
involved.
The last three questions served as a final wrap-up of the survey. The parents were asked to evalu-
ate their level of satisfaction with their children’s language skills and overall development, and to
justify their opinion. Finally, they were asked whether they would introduce any changes if they
were given a second chance.
Given the categorical (nominal) nature of most of the variables investigated as well as focal inter-
est in the open-ended questions and parents’additional commentary, the only statistical testing per-
formed on the data in this study involved Pearson’sr.
4.1.3. Families
The survey was completed by mothers from 37 bilingual or multilingual families (possibly fathers are
less likely to visit forums and websites devoted to bi/multilingual upbringing, or may be less willing to
fill out questionnaires devoted to the topic). The main condition was for the parents to be of different
nationalities. In only one case was the native language of both parents the same. In 23 families
(62.2%), the native language of either the mother or the father was also the dominant language
spoken in the community. Only two mothers indicated that they are monolingual. Among the
remaining 35 families, 11 mothers (29.7%) were bilingual and 24 (64.7%) multilingual.
It is vital to point out that 16 (43.2%) mothers who were filling in the questionnaire have higher
linguistic education, which may have contributed to the thoroughness of the observations and
answers given in the survey.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Reasons for multilingual upbringing
In the case of multinational marriages, it is obvious that one of the most important reasons for raising
children multilingually is mutual communication. Since in the majority of cases the parents also have
different mother tongues, the child is often required to know both of them on a communicative level
in order to be able to interact. [The] child [should] be capable of talking and exchanging information
[not only] with his or her parents, but also with other members of the community, whose dominant
language is often different from the ones already spoken at home. [Italicised fragments throughout
the text indicate excerpts from the mothers’responses.] However, in the survey only nine families
(24.3%) indicated this motive while answering the question about the reasons for the decision to
raise their children multilingually.
The reason that turned out to be the most common was the need to communicate with the rest of
the family from both sides. Even if the parents are themselves multilingual, it is rare for their relatives,
or even friends, to be able to also use multiple languages. In the questionnaire, 17 families (45.9%)
provided this reason as the one which convinced them to choose multilingual upbringing.
Language is more than just a means of communication; it is also part of [one’s] heritage. It is almost
never separated from the culture. When a child grows up in a country distant from the native one of
652 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

her/his parents, the latter often try to convey the culture of the country via the use of language and
encourage the child to remember her/his roots. It is also a natural thing to communicate with the
child in one’s own mother tongue, as it creates a more genuine connection; some mothers described
communication in a non-native tongue as ‘uncomfortable.’The reason involving one’s roots and
culture was indicated by twelve mothers (32.4%).
Being multilingual has many advantages and can be beneficial not only for children, but also
adults (Bialystok, Craik, and Freedman 2007; Paradowski 2011; Alladi et al. 2013). Being able to
use more than one language is in itself a very useful and valuable skill, but as we have seen in
Section 3, it also enhances the operation of the brain and favourably influences cognitive development
(cf. also Paradowski and Michałowska 2016). Multilingualism can also make people more open-minded
and capable of understanding different cultures and acknowledge their diversity. Additionally, knowl-
edge of many languages can play a crucial role in the future career, as it provides more possibilities
and paths, including education abroad, which may be better or less expensive than in the home
country. These benefits were listed as the reason for applying multilingual upbringing by 13
mothers (35.1%) (Figure 1).
4.2.2. Parents
The closest environment of the children in the study was culturally very rich from the beginning of their
lives. The mothers who filled in the survey present a total of 21 nationalities, their partners 19 (Table 1).
With all those nationalities comes a great linguistic variety. The mothers speak in total 18 different
native tongues, their partners 12 (Table 2). Among the 37 families in only two do the parents share
the same mother tongue; in one of these cases the father has two native tongues.
Only two mothers admitted that they are monolingual, but, interestingly enough, one of them
claimed to be using two different languages while communicating with the child. This may be
due to the fact that, as mentioned in Section 2, many people use very strict definitions of bilingualism
or multilingualism, and associate these labels with early language acquisition (the questionnaire did
not provide definitions of these terms). Such people often consider themselves monolingual, even if
they can justifiably be classified as late sequential bilinguals. Among the remaining 35 mothers, the
most frequent pattern is the knowledge of two or four languages (11 mothers –or 29.7% –each). A
slightly smaller number use three languages (8 mothers, 21.6%). Two mothers asserted that they
know five languages and three claimed they know six.
4.2.3. Linguistic environment
The number of languages that a child is exposed to depends on many factors. The first crucial one is
the language in use between the parents. In many cases, the mother tongue of one of the parents
already serves as a means of communication in the family. However, quite often parents
Figure 1. Popularity of the reasons for multilingual upbringing.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 653

Table 1. Nationalities of the parents who took part in the survey.
Nationality # mothers # fathers # parents
American 3 6 9
Australian –11
Brazilian 1 –1
British 2 4 6
Bulgarian 2 –2
Canadian 2 5 7
Chinese 1 –1
Croatian 1 –1
Danish 1 –1
Dutch 1 2 3
Estonian 1 –1
Finnish –11
Finnish/ Turkish 1 –1
French 1 2 3
German 2 3 5
Greek 1 2 3
Greek/Moroccan –11
Icelandic 1 –1
Indonesian 1 –1
Irish –11
Italian 2 –2
Japanese –11
Lebanese –11
Mexican 4 1 5
Peruvian 1 1 2
Polish 4 –4
Serbian 1 –1
Slovak –11
Spanish 2 1 3
Spanish/ Venezuelan –11
Swedish 1 –1
Turkish –22
Table 2. Native languages of the parents.
Language # mothers # fathers # parents
Arabic –22
Bulgarian 2 –2
Cantonese 1 –1
Danish 1 –1
Dutch 1 1 2
Dutch/English –11
English 7 16 23
English/French –11
English/German –11
Estonian 1 –1
Finnish –11
French 2 2 4
German 2 1 3
Greek 1 2 3
Icelandic 1 –1
Italian 2 –2
Indonesian 1 –1
Japanese –11
Polish 4 –4
Portuguese 1 –1
Serbian 1 –1
Slovak –11
Spanish 6 4 10
Spanish/Catalan 1 –1
Swabian –11
Swedish 1 –1
Turkish 1 2 3
654 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

communicate in a third language, different from their native ones, but which is known to both of
them. Another key factor here is location. Depending on where the family currently reside, the
child can be exposed to a higher or lower number of languages. If in the area where the family
live one of the languages used at home is at the same time the dominant language of the commu-
nity, the number is reduced, unless the concerned country or region is bi-, tri- or quadrilingual, in
which case the number of languages the child is exposed to rises considerably. In the case of this
survey, the children are exposed to two, three, four, five, six, or seven languages (Figure 2). There
is a moderate positive Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (.6259; p< .001) between
the number of languages spoken by the mother and the number of languages the child has
contact with.
Most of the mothers choose to use either one or two languages while communicating with the
children. Seventeen (45.9%) use only one language as the means of communication, which in
most cases (88.2%) is their mother tongue. Fourteen (37.8%) use two different languages. In two
cases, the second language occurs only when a third person is involved in the conversation and
there is a possibility that s/he will not understand what has been said. Only six mothers (16.2%)
use three languages to communicate with their children. However, sometimes the second or third
language occurs only rarely, to provide some exposure; for instance, one mother would purportedly
use a language other than her L
1
only when providing a translation of what she has just said in Bul-
garian into English or Japanese.
The total number of languages that the children have contact with is 30 (Table 3), whereas all the
parents concerned have in total only 24 different native tongues. Exposure to parents’non-native
tongues is quite common (23 families; 62.1%) and, interestingly enough, not always connected
with the family’s domicile (Table 4; in only 8 cases among these [34.8%] are the relevant languages
spoken in the family’s place of residence). It is important to mention that in all 37 families the children
have contact with English, which underlines the importance and role of this language in today’s
world (Paradowski 2008). This result may have also been influenced by the fact that English was
the language of the survey.
A good opportunity for the child to be exposed to different languages and, at the same time, to
have contact with peers who also communicate in those languages is sending her/him to bilingual
kindergarten or school. However, among the families who took part in the survey only eight
(21.6%) decided to choose this kind of educational institution. This may be due to financial
reasons: despite their growing popularity, the tuition fees at such establishments tend to be
quite steep.
4.2.4. Profile of the children
The survey took into consideration 48 children in total. In 29 cases (78.4%), there is only one child in
the family. In five (13.5%) there are two children, and in three cases three.
Figure 2. The number of languages the children are exposed to in each family.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 655

All the families claimed that their children had had contact with at least two different languages
from the first days of life, but in six families (16.2%) contact with the third or latter languages was
postponed. The mothers gave diverse reasons for this. In three cases, they claimed that the later
languages came naturally with the beginning of nursery, kindergarten, or school –a perfect
example of sequential multilingualism. One mother does not talk in Greek to her child because it
is not her native language and she is afraid of transferring her accent, so waiting until the beginning
Table 3. Languages the children are exposed to.
Language # families
Arabic 3
ASL 1
Bulgarian 2
Cantonese 1
Catalan 1
Croatian 1
Czech 1
Danish 1
Dutch 6
English 37
Estonian 1
Finnish 1
French 11
German/Hochdeutsch 8
Greek 4
Icelandic 1
Indonesian 1
Italian 2
Japanese 1
Norwegian 1
Polish 4
Portuguese 1
Russian 1
Serbian 1
Slovak 1
Spanish 15
Swabian 1
Swedish 1
Turkish 3
Table 4. Countries of residence of the families.
Country Number of families
Australia 1
Belgium 2
Canada 4
Croatia 1
Czech Republic 1
Finland 1
France 1
Germany 2
Greece 2
Japan 1
Lebanon 1
Mexico 1
Netherlands 1
Norway 1
Poland 1
Spain 1
Turkey 1
United Arab Emirates 1
United Kingdom 4
United States 9
656 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

of school seemed a solution. In two cases, the acquisition of a new language resulted from moving
countries. Two families deliberately put off the acquisition of the third language as they had thought
it could turn out to be too confusing for the children, but one of them (even though the child is just
18 months old) began regretting the decision and started to introduce the third language, while
another wished to expose her child to two more languages, but this was hindered by unfavourable
conditions (as she did not have a driving licence and was unable to take the child around and facili-
tate contact with native speakers).
4.2.5. Methods applied in the process of upbringing
The OPOL method is applied by only 23 families (62.2%), 11 of whom (47.8%) do not apply the ‘pure’
version, since the mothers claim to use more than one language while communicating with their
children.
Another method is reading to the child. Not only does it provide a joyful time for both the child
and the parent that serves to reinforce family ties, but it is also a great opportunity to provide input in
a chosen language. The analysis showed that only one family does not use readings. All the mothers
read in their native language(s), but additionally 27 (73%) read in non-native tongues as well. Inter-
estingly enough, 16 of those 27 (59.3%) declare that they are applying the OPOL method (but see the
note in the previous paragraph). In the remaining nine cases, in which the mothers read only in their
native tongues, all the children also listen to stories read in (an)other language(s). There is a moderate
positive correlation (.5423; p< .001) between the presence of reading performed by the mother and
the child’s perceived ability to communicate effectively with the mother’s family in the mother’s
native language.
Among the other methods, the survey asked about error correction, encouragement and rewards.
Correcting errors is applied by 33 families (89.2%). Encouraging the child to speak more than one
language is only a little less common (31 families; 83.8%). Rewarding children for speaking more
than one language has few supporters –only four families (10.8%).
One of the mothers, living in Washington, DC, mentioned another method that she considers
effective in the process of multilingual upbringing: in order to provide extra exposure to German,
she hired an au pair who speaks German exclusively. She has also introduced German play times.
The mother claims the method to be effective, as the father also uses German and additionally
English while communicating with the child.
4.2.6. Children’s linguistic skills and behaviours
The most important outcome of language acquisition is the ability to communicate. In the case of the
families who took part in the survey, it was also the main reason for which they had decided to apply
bilingual or multilingual upbringing –to render possible communication between them, their chil-
dren, and families. The analysis has shown that, in general, in their eyes they have succeeded.
Among the 37 families, only three mothers reported having problems with understanding their chil-
dren’s speech, and only two evaluated communication with their families in their native languages as
unsuccessful. In one case, the child does not have contact with this side of the family. The situation is
very similar when it comes to the father’s family: in this case 33 mothers (89.2%) claimed that com-
munication with this side of the family in the fathers’native language is successful, and only one
mother admitted otherwise. In three cases, children do not have contact with the father’s family.
The methods applied by the families turned out to be effective not only with regard to commu-
nicative skills, but also general linguistic skills. Twenty-one mothers (56.8%) claimed to be content
with their children’s writing skills. Among them 14 (37.8%) described themselves as very satisfied
and 7 (18.9%) as satisfied. There is a moderate positive correlation (.4472; p= .042) between the
level of satisfaction and parents’patience. In the remaining 16 cases (43.2%), the children had not
yet developed a written form of the language. Regarding speaking, only one mother was not
happy with her child’s speaking skills. Twenty-six (70.3%) claimed to be very satisfied, 8 (21.6%) sat-
isfied, and 3 to be neutral about it. As far as pronunciation is concerned, also only one mother
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 657

admitted not being content with her child’s performance (but still remains neutral about it), and the
remaining mothers were either very satisfied (21 mothers; 56.8%), satisfied (12 mothers; 32.4%), or
neutral (3 mothers). Children’s vocabulary was widely appreciated as well. In this case again only
one mother was not happy. Among the remaining mothers, 24 (64.9%) were very satisfied, 9
(24.3%) satisfied, and the remaining 4 (10.8%) neutral. Grammar was also satisfactory; 16 mothers
(47.1%) described themselves as very satisfied, 11 (32.4%) as satisfied, and 7 (20.6%) as neutral
towards the issue. Three mothers refrained from answering the question and one claimed she was
not content with her child’s performance.
The questionnaire also tackled three issues concerning children’s linguistic behaviour: code-
switching, lexical transfer, and grammatical transfer. One mother refrained from answering. Nineteen
elaborated on the topic and cited examples from their children’s idiolects. Code-switching was
observed in exactly 50% of the cases (18 families), lexical transfer in 20 families (55.5%), and morpho-
syntactic transfer in 19 families (52.8%).
Code-switching appeared in all possible forms –as a shift for a word, phrase, or sentence. The
mothers noted that this takes place when the child is unable to find the word in the language cur-
rently spoken or when a notion is better expressed in another language –reasons coherent with
those enumerated by scholars. For example: ‘Mommy, can I please comer fresas, por favor?’standing
for ‘Mommy, can I please eat some strawberries, please?’or ‘Adriana has long cabello!’for ‘Adriana has
long hair.’
Among the examples of lexical transfer –the most commonly reported behaviour of all three –
there are: ‘Mummy, I told you to leave my room en paz,’standing for ‘Mummy, I told you to leave
my room alone’or ‘Mama I want some eau,’for ‘Mummy, I want some water.’One child uses the
Italian verb tornare, which means to return, with the meaning of the French verb tourner, meaning
to turn. Very common are also calques, for example ‘mam zimno’(I have cold) instead of ‘jest mi
zimno’(Iam cold). There is a moderate, but likely spurious negative correlation (−.4000; p= .016)
between the presence of lexical transfer and the acquisition of languages from birth.
Grammatical transfer, only a little less ubiquitous than lexical transfer, was also keenly described
by the mothers, with the examples even more numerous than in reports of the previous two beha-
viours. Just to name a few: children finish Spanish sentences with a preposition, which is common in
English, apply Turkish Subject–Object–Verb sentence structure while speaking Finnish, or Finnish SVO
order while speaking Turkish. One child tends to use the English progressive –ing suffix with French
verbs in French sentences. There is a moderate positive correlation between observed lexical transfer
and observed grammatical transfer (.4976; p= .002).
The mothers also mentioned some other behaviours. For example, one child tends to use two
words, one after the other, in both languages (‘mleko [milk]–melk’). One mother reported her obser-
vation that her daughter code-switches and applies lexical transfer only while talking with her or her
husband, never with other people, probably because she knows that both her parents speak those
languages and will understand her without difficulty. Finally, one mother stated that the whole
family code-switch and apply lexical transfer, not only her daughter. She also underlined that some-
times this was used as an inside joke.
4.3. Parents’opinions
Overall the parents seem to be very content with the applied methods and their outcomes. Despite
some inconsistencies highlighted above, in the vast majority of the cases the upbringing process was
reported as effective (Figure 3). The mothers describe their children as very bright and keen learners
who are curious and inquisitive. In general, the children are able to communicate fluently and effi-
ciently in two, three, or four languages, have rich vocabulary, and learn new words, rules, and
languages quite fast and with ease. The mothers also claim that the children have no foreign
accent in their speech. One mother believes that her daughter’s skills in every single one of her
three languages do not differ from those of her monolingual peers; another asserted that her
658 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

daughter’s Norwegian is not worse than her classmates’. Some children are considered even more
advanced than their peers –in one case a boy’s communicative skills were evaluated as better
that the other children’s in the playgroup. The children, even very little ones, also understand that
different people may speak different languages and have to be addressed accordingly. With
passing time, children also tend to mix languages less. The mothers feel proud of their children
and confident about their further linguistic development or success in adult life. None of the
mothers judged the early exposure to more than two languages to be problematic or confusing.
On the contrary, one mother claimed that it was the delayed introduction of the third language
that turned out to be challenging. Parents who refrained from introducing further languages at
the beginning claimed they would not delay the introduction of a new language again.
In language acquisition in general, children begin to understand a language when they are not yet
able to produce it. Production comes with time and the ability to understand a given language is
already a step towards effective and fluent communication. Some multilingual children may experi-
ence a speech delay, but those who did have problems with this at the beginning caught on quickly
and do not have further difficulties because of their multilingualism.
The last question, about possible changes if there were a chance to go back in time, again made it
clear that in general the parents are satisfied with their methods and their children’s progress.
Twenty-six mothers (70.3%) answered confidently that they would not have changed anything at
all in the process. One mother claimed she was not sure about the answer, and two did not
answer the question. The remaining eight mothers had two main ideas. Three admitted that they
should have put more emphasis on their native tongues, by either more frequent exposure, or stron-
ger encouragement to learn the language. Three mothers underlined that they would definitely have
introduced the third language earlier on. One declared that she should have applied a tighter sche-
dule and a ‘more structural approach’. Finally, one mother declared that she found the introduction of
three languages very effective, but that if given a second chance, she would have been more patient
with her son’s speaking skills.
5. Discussion
Parental language input patterns are among the most crucial factors determining the languages the
child will speak, as exposure to more than one tongue from birth and a natural bilingual environment
outside the home may not suffice to reach ‘balanced’bilingualism. Parents’active use of the minority
language at home per se is not a satisfactory condition, either. De Houwer (2003,2007) showed that
around one in four bilingually raised infants will maintain productive proficiency in only one
language. In her data collected in Flanders (with Dutch as the official and majority language, but
also high ethnic diversity, the presence of many immigrants, and historical importance of French)
two patterns seemed the most successful in transmitting the minority language: both parents
Figure 3. Level of mothers’satisfaction.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 659

using only the minority language, or one speaking only the minority language and the other using
both (thus, use of the majority language by one of the parents did not threaten the transmission
of the minority language as long as the latter was still used by both parents). The least successful pat-
terns were where one parent spoke the majority language and the other used both, and when both
parents spoke both languages –with the minority language failing to transmit in over one quarter of
these cases. These findings showed that the formerly praised and commonly practised OPOL method
is ‘neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition’in transmitting the minority language (2007, 420).
In our study, the OPOL method was used in 62% of the families. While interpreting the results it
must be remembered, however, that firstly, 45 of the 48 children reported on were under 10 years old
(Table 5; which makes sense given that once teenagers leave home to go to college or university, the
parents are less likely to contribute to surveys such as this one), thus below the age when language
systems stabilise and at a time when they are highly vulnerable to attrition and may rapidly deterio-
rate with lack of sustained exposure and practice (cf. e.g. Pallier 2007; Montrul 2008,2009; Bylund
2009; Schmid 2012). With increased contact with outside environment (school, street, playground,
etc.), the proportions of the language inputs are likely to alter, and so may the learners’acquisition
trajectories (for further studies on the typical shift to L
2
-dominance in minority bilingualism cf. e.g.
Birdsong 2014; Sheng, Lu, and Gollan 2014; Silva-Corvalán 2014; Silva-Corvalán and Treffers-Daller
2015). Secondly, our questionnaire relied only on highly subjective parental perceptions of the effec-
tiveness of their upbringing methods, without correlating them –for reasons of geographical dis-
tance as well as inter-subject differences in the many potential explanatory variables (age, age of
onset, number and configuration of languages, schooling, presence or absence of formal instruction,
context of acquisition, types and amounts of exposure, siblings, families’socioeconomic status, etc.)
rendering any attempt at a systematic comparison untenable –with an independent standardised
assessment of the children’s actual proficiency in the respective languages.
One further important factor in bilingual upbringing may be Yamamoto’s(2001, 128) ‘principle of
maximal engagement with the minority language’, which states that the child’s chances of actively
using the minority language depend on her/his dedication to it. This may explain the existence of
families where the child fails to use the minority language at home despite the provided input.
Again, this factor was beyond the scope of interest of the current study.
6. Conclusion
It goes without saying that nowadays knowledge of languages is very important. Even though multi-
lingualism is a widespread phenomenon, its advantages are most easily accessible to people whose
Table 5. Ages of the described children.
Age # children
12
1.5 1
22
2.5 1
38
3.5 2
46
4.5 2
58
64
73
7.5 1
82
93
13 1
15 1
18 1
660 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

parents are of different nationalities. Nonetheless, the process of multilingual upbringing is complex
and demanding, and its success is not a given, but greatly depends on parents’perseverance and
dedication.
This article aimed at presenting, discussing, and assessing the perceived effectiveness of some of
the methods which parents may choose if they wish to raise their children multilingually. It focused
on families in which the parents are of two different nationalities. All of the children concerned are
simultaneous bilinguals, but some acquired a third or latter languages sequentially. The analysis of
the results showed that, according to the parents, neither simultaneous nor sequential multilingual-
ism leads to confusion or further problems with communication. The children are able to communi-
cate not only with their parents and the parents’families in the parents’native languages, but also
with the local community. Additionally, sequential acquisition does not necessarily lead to lesser pro-
ficiency, at least if it begins relatively early.
One of the most important factors in a successful development of multilingualism turned out to be
the environment. Both linguistic and social aspects should be taken into consideration. Parents who
are of different nationalities normally expose their children to at least two languages at home; some
introduce three or more, simultaneously or sequentially. Often the language of the community differs
from those already used at home. In the case of input there are two most important factors –quality
and quantity. If it is to result in the child becoming actively multilingual, the environment ought to
afford many opportunities to use the language.
Since parents are role-models for their offspring, both their language and their attitude play an
important role. While the patterns of linguistic input should be adjusted to the circumstances (for
instance reducing the ratio of the majority language at home in favour of the minority language,
which is liable to lapse), the attitude is equally crucial. The parents need to believe in the idea of multi-
lingualism if they really want their children to become multilingual, and they should motivate their
children accordingly.
It is not possible to choose one silver-bullet method suitable for all families. However, some
models and techniques can be indicated as generally effective. The OPOL method, very popular
among the multinational couples, in most cases leads to reported successful acquisition of at least
two languages, even if the strict separation of the languages is not respected in the interactions.
The parents are also content about the opportunity to ascribe one language to one person, which
makes the differentiation between languages and cultures easier. Due to the fact that all the children
concerned are simultaneous bilinguals, none of the cases involved the minority language at home
method. However, in all the cases the minority language was present at home and the children’s
active bilingualism shows that in parents’perception this technique is effective (but see the com-
ments in the ‘Discussion’section).
Another method that turned out to be common is error correction. Only a few parents do not apply
it, as most of them believe it is an effective way of enhancing the child’s linguistic skills (despite scho-
larly literature indicating otherwise in the case of first language acquisition). Parents also gladly encou-
rage their children to speak different languages and some of them asserted that the children, even
small ones, already show that they are proud of their multilingualism. Reading is another method
that boosts input and, additionally, reinforces the bond between parents and children.
The fact that most of the parents would not change anything given a second chance implies that
the methods they apply are judged as not only effective enough, but also satisfying. However, it is
vital to remember the importance of patience, which some parents tend to forget. Sometimes it is
necessary to wait a little longer for observable results.
Although some may still claim that introducing more than one language is confusing and disad-
vantageous for the children, evidence dispels this common myth. The multilingual upbringing by
parents of different nationalities was regarded as effective and beneficial. Children raised multilin-
gually are at an advantage compared with monolinguals, and although the process is demanding
for both parents and children, it is worth taking the chance, especially when the final effect is so
rewarding.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 661

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the mothers who took their time to fill out the questionnaires, and the anonymous reviewers
who provided helpful and exhaustive commentary. All the usual disclaimers apply.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
MichałB. Paradowski is an assistant professor at the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, and a visiting
scholar at the Department of Second Language Studies, Indiana University Bloomington. His publications number over
60, focusing mainly on issues related to second and third language acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, foreign
language instruction, bi- and multilingualism, psycholinguistics, and complexity science. His recent edited volumes
are Teaching Languages off the Beaten Track (2014) and Productive Foreign Language Skills for an Intercultural World (2015).
Aleksandra Bator obtained her Bachelor’s degree from the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw. As part
of her teacher training she completed an internship in a bilingual kindergarten, where she was working with children
aged three to five, while during her gap year she worked as a tutor to a three-and-a-half-year-old English boy, introducing
him to French as a second language. She is currently a graduate student at the Department of Applied Linguistics and
Communication, Birkbeck, University of London. Her interests concentrate around multilingual upbringing and
education.
ORCiD
MichałB. Paradowski http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0710-3075
References
Alladi, A., J. A. Mortimer, T. H. Bak, V. Duggirala, B. Surampudi, M. Shailaja, A. K. Shukla, J. R. Chaudhuri, and S. Kaul. 2013.
“Bilingualism Delays Age at Onset of Dementia, Independent of Education and Immigration Status.”Neurology 81 (22):
1938–1944.
Antoniou, K., Grohmann, K. K., Kambanaros, M., and N. Katsos. 2016.“The Effect of Childhood Bilectalism and
Multilingualism on Executive Control.”Cognition 149: 18–30.
Armon-Lotem, S., J. de Jong, and N. Meir, eds. 2015.Assessing Multilingual Children. Disentangling Bilingualism from
Language Impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Armon-Lotem, S., G. Gordishevsky, and J. Walters. 2010.“Instructive Bilingualism: Prepositions in the Hebrew of Bilingual
Children with SLI.”In Proceedings of GALA 2009: Language Acquisition and Development, edited by J. Costa, A. Castro, M.
Lobo, and F. Pratas, 1–12. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Auer, P., and L. Wei. 2007.Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Göttingen: Hubert.
Bagga-Gupta, S. 2013.“The Boundary-turn: (Re)locating Culture, Identity and Language through the Epistemological
Lenses of Time, Space and Social Interactions.”In Alternative Voices: (Re)searching Language, Culture, Identity…,
edited by S. I. Hasnain, S. Bagga-Gupta, and S. Mohan, 28–49. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Baker, C. 1988.Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2011.Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bedore, L. M., and E. D. Peña. 2008.“Assessment of Bilingual Children for Identification of Language Impairment: Current
Findings and Implications for Practice.”International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11 (1): 1–29.
Bialystok, E., F. I. Craik, and M. Freedman. 2007.“Bilingualism as a Protection against the Onset of Symptoms of
Dementia.”Neuropsychologia 45 (2): 459–464.
Bialystok, E., G. Luk, K. F. Peets, and S. Yang. 2010.“Receptive Vocabulary Differences in Monolingual and Bilingual
Children.”Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13 (4): 525–531.
Birdsong, D. 2014.“Dominance and Age in Bilingualism.”Applied Linguistics 35 (4): 374–392.
Bloomfield, L. 1933.Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bosch, L., and N. Sebastián-Gallés. 1997.“Native-language Recognition Abilities in 4-month-old Infants from Monolingual
and Bilingual Environments.”Cognition 65 (1): 33–69.
Bylund, E. 2009.“Maturational Constraints and First Language Attrition.”Language Learning 59 (3): 687–715.
Canagarajah, S. 2004.“Subversive Identities, Pedagogical Safe Houses, and Critical Learning.”In Critical Pedagogies and
Language Learning, edited by B. Norton and K. Toohey, 116–137. New York: Cambridge University Press.
662 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

de Carli, F., Dessi, B., Mariani, M., Girtler, N., Greco, A., Rodriguez, G., Salmon, L., and M. Morelli. 2015.“Language Use
Affects Proficiency in Italian–Spanish Bilinguals Irrespective of Age of Second Language Acquisition.”Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 18 (2): 324–339.
Chilla, S. 2008a.Erstsprache, Zweitsprache, Spezifische Sprachentwicklungsstörung? Eine Untersuchung des Erwerbs der
deutschen Hauptsatzstruktur durch sukzessiv-bilinguale Kinder mit türkischer Erstsprache. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Chilla, S. 2008b.“Störungen im Erwerb des Deutschen als Zweitsprache im Kindesalter–eine Herausforderung an die
sprachpädagogische Diagnostik.”Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 3 (3): 277–290.
Consonni, M., Cafiero, R., Marin, D., Tettamanti, M., Iadanza, A., Fabbro, F., and D. Perani. 2013.“Neural Convergence for
Language Comprehension and Grammatical Class Production in Highly Proficient Bilinguals Is Independent of Age of
Acquisition.”Cortex 49 (5): 1252–1258.
Cook, V. J. 1991.“The Poverty-of-the-stimulus Argument and Multicompetence.”Second Language Research 7 (2): 103–117.
Cook, V. 1999.“Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.”TESOL Quarterly 33 (2): 185–209.
Cook, V. 2002.“Background to the L2 User.”In Portraits of the L2 User, edited by V. Cook, 1–28. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Cook, V. 2008.“Multi-competence: Black Hole or Wormhole for Second Language Acquisition Research?”In
Understanding Second Language Process, edited by Z. H. Han, 16–26. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Core, C., E. Hoff, R. Rumiche, and M. Señor. 2013.“Total and Conceptual Vocabulary in Spanish–English Bilinguals from 22
to 30 Months: Implications for Assessment.”Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56 (5): 1637–1649.
Crystal, D. 1987.The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
De Houwer, A. 2003.“Home Languages Spoken in Officially Monolingual Flanders: A Survey.”Plurilingua 24: 71–87.
De Houwer, A. 2007.“Parental Language Input Patterns and Children’s Bilingual Use.”Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (3): 411–424.
De Houwer, A. 2009.Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
De Houwer, A. 2015.“Harmonious Bilingual Development: Young Families”Well-being in Language Contact Situations.”
International Journal of Bilingualism 19 (2): 169–184.
Edwards, J. V. 2004.“Foundations of Bilingualism.”In The Handbook of Bilingualism, edited by T. K. Bhatia and W. C. Ritchie,
7–31. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gawinkowska, M., M. B. Paradowski, and M. Bilewicz. 2013.“Second Language as an Exemptor from Sociocultural Norms.
Emotion-related Language Choice Revisited.”PLoS ONE 8 (12): e81225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081225.
Gibson, T. A., Peña, E. D., and L. M. Bedore. 2014.“The Relation Between Language Experience and Receptive-expressive
Semantic Gaps in Bilingual Children.”International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17 (1): 90–110.
Gollan, T. H., and L.-A. R. Acenas. 2004.“What Is a TOT? Cognate and Translation Effects on Tip-of-the-tongue States in
Spanish-English and Tagalog-English Bilinguals.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 30 (7): 246–269.
Gollan, T. H., and N. Silverberg. 2001.“Tip-of-the-tongue States in Hebrew-English Bilinguals.”Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 4 (1): 63–83.
Grosjean, F. 1996.“Living with Two Languages and Two Cultures.”In Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf
Experience, edited by I. Parasnis, 20–37. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grosjean, F. 2008.Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grosjean, F. 2010.Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F., and P. Li. 2012.The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. New York: Wiley.
Gupta, A. F. 1994.The Step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hakuta, K., and R. M. Diaz. 1985.“The Relationship Between Bilingualism and Cognitive Ability: A Critical Discussion and
Some New Longitudinal Data.”In Children’s Language, Vol. 5, edited by K. E. Nelson, 319–344. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haman, E., Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, A., and Z. Wodniecka. 2015.“Dwujęzyczność w warunkach naturalnych:
Psycholingwistyczny rachunek zysków i strat. Plenary lecture, Konferencja Naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa
Neofilologicznego ‘Wielojęzyczność imiędzykulturowość w glottodydaktyce’.”University of Warsaw, September 9.
Herdina, P., and U. Jessner. 2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hutterli, S., ed. 2012.Coordination of Language Teaching in Switzerland. Current Status –Developments –Future Prospects.
Biel: Ediprim.
Hutterli, S., Stotz, D., and D. Zappatore. 2008.Do you parlez andere lingue? Fremdsprachen Lernen in der Schule. Zurich:
Pestalozzianum.
Ivanova, I., and A. Costa. 2008.“Does Bilingualism Hamper Lexical Access in Speech Production?”Acta Psychologica 127
(2): 277–288.
Jarvis, S., and A. Pavlenko. 2007.Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2006.“Points of View and Blind Spots: ELF and SLA.”International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16 (2): 137–162.
Jensen de López, K., and A. E. Baker. 2015.“Executive Functions in the Assessment of Bilingual Children with Language
Impairment.”In Assessing Multilingual Children. Disentangling Bilingualism from Language Impairment, edited by S.
Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong, and N. Meir, 275–298. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jessner, U. 2006.Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jessner, U. 2008.“Teaching Third Languages: Findings, Trends and Challenges.”Language Teaching 41 (1): 15–56.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 663

Komorowska, H. 2014.“Analyzing Linguistic Landscapes. A Diachronic Study of Multilingualism in Poland.”In Teaching
and Learning in Multilingual Contexts: Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives, edited by A. Otwinowska and G.
De Angelis, 19–31. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Luk, G., and E. Bialystok. 2013.“Bilingualism is not a Categorical Variable: Interaction Between Language Proficiency and
Usage.”Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25 (5): 605–621.
Luk, G., E. de Sa, and E. Bialystok. 2011.“Is There a Relation Between Onset Age of Bilingualism and Enhancement of
Cognitive Control?”Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14 (4): 588–595.
Macaro, E. 2009.“Teacher Use of Code-switching in the Second Language Classroom: Exploring Optimal Use.”In First
Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, edited by M. Turnbull and J. Dailey O’Cain, 35–49. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Maneva, B., and F. Genesee. 2002.“Bilingual Babbling: Evidence for Language Differentiation in Dual Language
Acquisition.”In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 1,
edited by B. Scarabela, S. Fish, and A. H.-J. Do, 383–392. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Mesthrie, R. 2010.“Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language.”In The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, edited by B.
Spolsky and F. M. Hult, 66–82. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Montrul, S. 2008.Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S. 2009.“Reexamining the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. What Can Early Bilingualism Tell Us?”Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 31 (2): 225–257.
Moore, D. 2006.Plurilinguismes et école. Paris: Didier.
Nicoladis, E. 2006.“Cross-linguistic Transfer in Adjective-noun Strings by Preschool Bilingual Children.”Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 9 (1): 15–32.
Oller, D. K., and R. E. Eilers, eds. 2002.Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ortega, L. 2010.“The Bilingual Turn in SLA.”Plenary Address, 2010 AAAL Conference, Atlanta, GA, March 8.
Ortega, L. 2014.“Experience and Success in Late Bilingualism.”Plenary Address, 17th AILA World Congress ‘One World,
Many Languages’, Brisbane, August 11.
Otwinowska, A. 2015.Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use: Attitudes, Awareness, Activation. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Pallier, C. 2007.“Critical Periods in Language Acquisition and Language Attrition.”In Language Attrition: Theoretical
Perspectives, edited by B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. C. J. Keijzer, and S. Dostert, 155–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, J. 2010.“The Interface Between Bilingual Development and Specific Language Impairment.”Applied
Psycholinguistics 31 (2): 227–252.
Paradis, J., Crago, M., and Genesee, F. 2006.“Domain-general versus Domain-specific Accounts of Specific Language
Impairment: Evidence from Bilingual Children’s Acquisition of Object Pronouns.”Language Acquisition 13 (1): 33–62.
Paradis, J., F. Genesee, and M. B. Crago. 2011.Dual Language Development & Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism &
Second Language Learning. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Brookes.
Paradowski, M. B. 2008.“Winds of Change in the English Language –Air of Peril for Native Speakers?”Novitas-ROYAL
(Research on Youth and Language) 2 (1): 92–119.
Paradowski, M. B. 2011.“Multilingualism –Assessing Benefits.”In Issues in Promoting Multilingualism. Teaching –Learning
–Assessment, edited by H. Komorowska, 335–354. Warsaw: Foundation for the Development of the Education System.
Paradowski, M. B. 2013.“Understanding English as a Lingua Franca: A Complete Introduction to the Theoretical Nature
and Practical Implications of English Used as a Lingua Franca. Barbara Seidlhofer [Review Article].”The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer 7 (2) [Special Issue: English as a Lingua Franca. Implications for Translator and Interpreter Education]:
312–320.
Paradowski, M. B., and M. Michałowska. 2016.“Establishing a Bilingual Home: Parents’Perspective on the Effectiveness of
the Adopted Communication Strategies.”Lingwistyka Stosowana 17 (2): 43–65.
Paradowski, M. B., A. Bator, and M. Michałowska. 2016.“Multilingual Upbringing by Parents of Different Nationalities:
Which Strategies Work Best?”In Advances in Understanding Multilingualism: A Global Perspective, edited by S.
Grucza, M. Olpińska-Szkiełko and P. Romanowski, 121–143. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Peal, E., and W. E. Lambert. 1962.“The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence.”Psychological Monographs: General and
Applied 76 (27): 1–23.
Pearson, B. Z. 2008.Raising a Bilingual Child. New York: Living Language.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., and D. K. Oller. 1993.“Lexical Development in Bilingual Infants and Toddlers: Comparison
to Monolingual Norms.”Language Learning 43 (1): 93–120.
Peets, K. F., and E. Bialystok. 2010.“An Integrated Approach to the Study of Specific Language Impairment and
Bilingualism.”Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2): 315–319.
Roeper, T. 2012.“Minimalism and Bilingualism: How and Why Bilingualism Could Benefit Children with SLI.”Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 15 (1): 88–101.
Sauer, E., and V. Saudan. 2008.“Aspects of a Didactic of Plurilingualism.”Terminological Proposals. http://www.
passepartout-sprachen.ch/services/downloads/download/664/.
Schmid, M. S. 2012.“The Impact of Age and Exposure on Bilingual Development in International Adoptees and Family
Migrants: A Perspective from Holocaust Survivors.”Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (2): 177–208.
664 M. B. PARADOWSKI AND A. BATOR

Schramm, E. 2008.Dzieje nauki języka angielskiego i innych języków nowożytnych w Polsce w okresie zaborów. Warsaw:
Fraszka Edukacyjna.
Sheng, L., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., and C. Fiestas. 2013.“Semantic Development in Spanish–English Bilingual Children:
Effects of Age and Language Experience.”Child Development 84 (3): 1034–1045.
Sheng, L., Y. Lu, and T. H. Gollan. 2014.“Assessing Language Dominance in Mandarin–English Bilinguals: Convergence
and Divergence Between Subjective and Objective Measures.”Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (2): 364–383.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2014.Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C., and J. Treffers-Daller, eds. 2015.Language Dominance in Bilinguals: Issues of Measurement and
Operationalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, M. 1996.“Monoglot ‘Standard’in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.”In The
Matrix of Language, edited by D. Brennels and R. Macaulay, 284–306. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Silverstein, M. 1998.“Contemporary Transformations of Local Linguistic Communities.”Annual Review of Anthropology 27:
401–426.
Singleton, D., and L. Aronin. 2007.“Multiple Language Learning in the Light of the Theory of Affordances.”Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 83–96.
Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A., and I. Tsimpli. 2014.“The Role of Age of Onset and Input in Early
Child Bilingualism in Greek and Dutch.”Applied Psycholinguistics 35 (4): 765–805.
Vangsnes, Ø. A., G. B. W. Söderlund, and M. Blekesaune. 2015.“The Effect of Bidialectal Literacy on School Achievement.”
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 18. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1051507.
Wei, L., and M. G. Moyer, eds. 2008.The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Widła, H. 2015.“Zmierzch bilingwizmu i jego skutki. Plenary talk, Konferencja Naukowa Polskiego Towarzystwa
Neofilologicznego ‘Wielojęzyczność imiędzykulturowość w glottodydaktyce’.”University of Warsaw, September 8.
Yamamoto, M. 2001.Language Use in Interlingual Families: A Japanese–English Sociolinguistic Study. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 665