Family Language Policy: Children’s Perspectives [1st ed.] 9783030524364, 9783030524371

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xvii
Heritage Speakers, FLP and Emotional Challenges (Sonia Wilson)....Pages 1-42
Conducting In-depth Case Studies Among Multilingual Families (Sonia Wilson)....Pages 43-56
Childhood Experiences of FLP: 6 Case Studies of French Heritage Speakers in England (Sonia Wilson)....Pages 57-151
Fostering Harmonious Bilingual Development Through Family Language Policy (Sonia Wilson)....Pages 153-171
Conclusion (Sonia Wilson)....Pages 173-177
Back Matter ....Pages 179-200

Citation preview

Family Language Policy Children’s Perspectives

Family Language Policy

Sonia Wilson

Family Language Policy Children’s Perspectives

Sonia Wilson Milton Keynes, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-52436-4 ISBN 978-3-030-52437-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Liam, Mia and Si.

Preface

Post-modern society has been marked by the development of transnational links in the form of multinational corporations, free trade agreements and politico-economic alliances such as the European Union. Although the notion of transnationalism originated from the spheres of international economics and diplomacy, it has recently been used to refer to individuals moving between two or more social spaces while preserving cultural attachments across geographical borders, time and generations (Hirsch and Lee 2018; King 2016). This new terminology, in contrast to more traditional terms such as first- and second-generation immigrants (Lee and Suarez 2005), reflects the increasing international mobility that has led to the formation of transcultural families and the appearance of linguistic superdiversity (Blommaert and Rampton 2011). Relocating to a new country is not only a life-changing experience for first-generation migrants, but it also establishes a multilingual and multicultural home environment for second-generation transnationals. The increasing number of multilingual families has raised concerns among education policymakers over the majority language development and academic performances of children from an immigrant background (Tsimpli 2017). Thus, childhood bilingualism has traditionally been examined within the formal classroom setting while language acquisition through socialisation within the home environment has received little attention. Fortunately, the emerging field of Family Language Policy

vii

viii

PREFACE

(henceforth FLP) has finally been drawing attention to transnational children’s potential for dual language acquisition through family language practices. FLP has been defined as the explicit and implicit planning of language and literacy practices within the home and between family members (King et al. 2008; Curdt-Christiansen 2009). The promotion of bilingualism and its cognitive and social benefits, over the past two decades, has created enthusiasm for bilingual childrearing among academics and the wider society. As a result, the search for effective parental language strategies encouraging the development of the minority language among second-generation speakers has rapidly become the basis for FLP research. If it is now widely accepted that preserving minority languages within bilingual households provides children with the opportunity to embrace their multicultural heritage (Melo-Pfeifer 2015), it is also essential to recognise the complex and demanding nature of language management within transnational families (Okita 2002). The formation of a transcultural family entails negotiating divergent, and sometimes conflicting, cultural values and identities, which poses challenges to all family members (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; Little 2017). Hitherto, the way in which parents and children experience the minority–majority language reality has been largely overlooked (Schwartz 2010). While the field of FLP has seen an increasing number of publications examining the efficiency of given parental language management strategies, the impact of such language strategies and their concomitant expectations has rarely been studied (Piller 2002). More importantly, and in order to support multilingual families, the effects of these language planning choices on the bilingual experiences of children must be investigated. Finally, a growing interest in childhood bilingualism among the public and academics has been conducive to further research in dual language acquisition and FLP with a view to nurturing the benefits that bilingualism may confer to children. This positive attention, however, seems to have rapidly turned into a quest for optimal heritage language (henceforth HL) development through parental language management. It is now essential to redirect the discussion on FLP around the well-being of the transnational family and the experiences of children growing up in a multilingual and multicultural home environment. To this end, I chose to give voice to young heritage speakers and help them express their perspectives on their bilingual experiences through creative research methods. Following a few recent studies

PREFACE

ix

calling for academics to explore multilingualism as experience (Zhu and Li 2016; Busch 2017), this book contributes to moving the focus away from optimising children’s bilingual proficiency, towards understanding what is really happening within transnational families. The present study examines a variety of FLP approaches among French–English bilingual families in the UK and describes the possible impact of such language approaches on the bilingual experiences of children and their relationships with their minority-language parents. Through this research, I argue that children’s experiences of growing up bilingually must be considered as a crucial indicator of FLP success—more so than their level of HL proficiency. Milton Keynes, UK

Sonia Wilson

References Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21. Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of spracherleben—The lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351–375. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean multilingual families. Journal of Multiculturalism and Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 694–709. Hirsch, T., & Lee, J. S. (2018). Understanding the complexities of transnational family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1454454. King, K. (2016). Language policy, multilingual encounters, and transnational families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 726–733. King, K., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922. Lee, J. S., & Suarez, D. (2005). A synthesis of the role of heritage language in the lives of children of immigrants: What educators need to know. In T. G. Wiley, J. S. Lee, & R. W. Rumberger (Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

x

PREFACE

Little, S. (2017). Whose heritage? What inheritance? Conceptualising family language identities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1348463. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). The role of the family in heritage language use and learning: Impact on heritage language policies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 26–44. Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Schwartz, M. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1, 171–192. Tsimpli, I. M. (2017). Multilingual education for multilingual speakers. Languages, Society & Policy. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9803. Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 655–666.

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of a three-year-research study to which many inspiring people contributed. First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the friendly parents and children who participated in this study. I have been touched by these families’ generosity with their time and hospitality. They embraced vulnerability as they shared their thoughts, feelings and experiences with me. I am most indebted to Dr. Timothy Lewis and Dr. Maria Secova, whose constructive criticism and encouragement helped me pursue academic rigor and made this research project a gratifying experience. I would also like to thank Professor Zhu Hua and Professor Dewaele, who not only have inspired me with their commitment to academic excellence but who have also been remarkably generous with their time and knowledge. Finally, I am indebted to the support and understanding of the Palgrave Macmillan staff, especially, Cathy Scott, Alice Green and Geetha Chockalingam.

xi

A Note to Readers

The following articles have been published and contain part of the research data presented in this book. • Sonia Wilson. (2020). To Mix or not to Mix: Parental Attitudes Towards Translanguaging and Language Management Choices. International Journal of Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1177/136700692 0909902. • Wilson, S. (2019). Family Language Policy Through the Eyes of Bilingual Children: The Case of French Heritage Speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–19, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2019.1595633.

xiii

Contents

1

2

3

1

Heritage Speakers, FLP and Emotional Challenges Transnationalism, Intermarriage and Multilingual Families Family Language Policy (FLP): Concept and Field of Research Parental Language Ideologies Growing up as a Heritage Speaker FLP and Emotional Challenges References

3 12 15 23 31

Conducting In-depth Case Studies Among Multilingual Families Interviews with Parents Doing Research with Children Observation and Recording of Family Interactions Data Analysis Participants and Research Sites Generalisability and Limitations of the Study References

43 44 45 48 49 51 52 54

Childhood Experiences of FLP: 6 Case Studies of French Heritage Speakers in England Case Study A: Hélène (9) and Antoine (16) Collins

57 58

1

xv

xvi

CONTENTS

Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study References 4

5

B: Eric (11) and Ella (13) Bradford C: Alain Bertrand (6) D: John Wheeler (6) E: Marc Watson (10) F: Aurore Hall (8)

Fostering Harmonious Bilingual Development Through Family Language Policy Discussing Family Language Policy with Children Children’s Language Attitudes vs. Language Preferences Childhood Bilingualism as a Holistic and Individual Experience The Impact of Imposing the Minority Language on Children References Conclusion References

67 81 98 116 132 151

153 153 157 159 164 170 173 176

Appendix: Interview with Children: Examples of Picture Items for Language Scenarios and Facial Expression Visual Stimuli

179

References

183

Index

199

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Hélène’s language portrait Antoine’s language portrait Ella’s language portrait Eric’s language portrait Alain’s language portrait John’s language portrait Marc’s language portrait Aurore’s language portrait

68 69 79 81 97 114 133 150

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Heritage Speakers, FLP and Emotional Challenges

Abstract This chapter presents the sociolinguistic context in which members of the multilingual family interact and establish language patterns. It describes and analyses the concept of Family Language Policy (FLP) and examines the traditional focus of FLP research on children’s bilingual proficiency development through particular parental strategies. Finally, this chapter highlights the possible impact of FLP on children’s experiences of growing up bilingually. Keywords Child bilingualism · Family Language Policy · Heritage speakers

Transnationalism, Intermarriage and Multilingual Families An important by-product of transnationalism is the creation of languagecontact situations at society level but also within the intimate context of family. An additional layer of complexity linked to geographical mobility appears when individuals from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds form a relationship and establish a transcultural family. In this book, I use the terms interlingual and linguistically exogamous families interchangeably to describe families in which parents have different native languages (Guardado 2017). © The Author(s) 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1_1

1

2

S. WILSON

If migrant partners with a common language and cultural background also face the challenge of raising children in the host country while maintaining the minority language, family language planning within interlingual families seems all the more intricate (Okita 2002). Choosing a home language may certainly be less problematic for linguistically endogamous couples whereas competing languages may affect the language policies of interlingual families. When both parents are transnationals from two different countries, decisions regarding which languages to speak to the family may be highly political since they may influence the children’s relationships with each parent’s extended family. In cases where one of the partners is a native speaker of the host country’s language, there is an apparent imbalance due to the predominance of the society language in the family’s environment. The latter configuration is examined in the present study in which each family includes a French parent, as the minority language speaker, and a British parent, as the majority language speaker. Research on FLP among linguistically exogamous families has highlighted the role of mothers in such family settings (Okita 2002). Although maternal and paternal roles in childrearing activities have evolved over the years, women have remained the main caregivers. Traditional gender dynamics may explain why most FLP research on interlingual families concerns couples composed of a minority-language speaking mother and a majority-language father in the host country. In many instances, this can be explained by the fact that mothers are more likely than fathers to give up full-time employment in order to provide childcare (Lyon 1996). As a result, and as Guardado (2017: 5) points out, “one of the parents is often positioned in an unfavourable position in the relationship, be it as non-native speaker, migrant, female, economically dependent, or other positionings based on national and cultural background, or all of the above”. While gendered power relations within transnational families is beyond the scope of this study, it is essential to take keep in mind the dynamics produced by the majority and minority-language parents’ roles. It is also important to note that, as most of the research in FLP, the case studies presented in this book concern a traditional nuclear family structure and may not be representative of other family settings such as same sex unions or adoptive families.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

3

Family Language Policy (FLP): Concept and Field of Research In the last decade, the concept of FLP has attracted significant interest from psycholinguists and sociolinguists and, as a result, it has developed into a field of research in its own right (Fogle and King 2013). FLP has been defined as the explicit and implicit planning of language and literacy practices within the home and between family members (King et al. 2008). Whilst the notion of FLP was only recently formalised through Spolsky’s (2004) 3-component model (language practice, management and ideology), the idea of shaping children’s language practice through parental management can be traced back to the early 1900s. French linguist Grammont’s (1902) book titled Observation sur le langage des enfants (Observations of children’s language), introduced the concept of one person; one language (OPOL) as an effective strategy to manage bilingual acquisition. Soon after, Ronjat (1913) implemented Grammont’s recommendations and recorded his son’s acquisition of German and French over a four-year period. Similarly, Leopold’s (1994) documented his daughter Hildegard’s acquisition of English and German through a language diary (1939–1949). While these early studies marked the first step towards examining childhood bilingualism within the context of family, no other significant research immediately followed Leopold’s longitudinal investigation of language development within bilingual families. In the 1980s, a revival of interest in childhood bilingualism led a few researchers to further investigate childhood bilingualism within the home context by following Grammont’s OPOL approach (Saunders 1982; Döpke 1998; Lanza 1997) rather than exploring alternative language practices existing within multilingual families. It was only in 2003 that the notion of FLP was first mentioned in Luykx’s (2003) study of the language practices of Aymara-Spanish families in Bolivia: While these efforts [minority language schools] are laudable [. . .], it is the gradual displacement of Aymara by Spanish in functions that have traditionally been the former’s stronghold (i.e. the domestic ones) that may prove definitive for the future survival of the language. For this reason, it is necessary to expand our current conception of ‘language policy’ to include not only the sphere of official state actions, but also decisions made at the community and family level. Such decisions are often implicit and unconscious, but they are no less crucial to determining the speed and direction

4

S. WILSON

of language shift. In this regard we may refer to family language policy as an important area for both research and activism. (Luykx 2003: 39)

Luykx identified the home domain as a major factor, if not the most essential, in minority language maintenance and shift. If the term language policy has traditionally been reserved for political decisions affecting the use and status of one or more languages within a society (King et al. 2008; Nicoladis and Montanari 2016), Luykx (2003), and later Spolsky (2004), argue that the concept can be expanded to individual families. Whilst language policy, at a macro level, is concerned with language use in public spaces and the impact of policies on language shift, FLP research deals with parental language ideologies and decisions within multilingual families and how they shape children’s language use and acquisition. Spolsky defines FLP through three components: language practices – the habitual pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire; its language beliefs or ideology – the beliefs about language and language use; and any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning or management. (Spolsky 2004: 5)

According to Spolsky’s model, language practice refers to how families use language in their daily interactions, that is the choice of one particular language in a given situation as well as translanguaging practices. The second component, ideology, makes reference to parents’ beliefs about language and language use. Although the notion of ideology is often interpreted as false belief (Piller 2002), I use the terms ideology and belief interchangeably to simply refer to the parents’ stance and without providing any judgement of the truth value of their beliefs. Language ideologies have often been studied with a view to understanding the influence of macro-political decisions on parental beliefs regarding the social status of the minority language and the value of bilingualism (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; Zhang and Slaughter-Defoe 2009; Baker and Wayne 2017). Another aspect of language ideology concerns parental beliefs about multilingualism and raising children bilingually (De Houwer 1998; Pérez Báez 2013). Although Spolsky’s (2004) original definition of the term language ideology referred to explicit parental beliefs, some researchers have highlighted the need to expand the concept and include the implicit ideologies that may shape parental decisions (Okita 2002;

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

5

King and Fogle 2006; Curdt-Christiansen 2009). FLP research has traditionally focused on so-called elite bilinguals—that is, middle class families with a prestige Western European language as the minority language (Aronoff 2017)—who tend to carefully consider whether and how to raise their children bilingually (Piller 2001). However, for families from a less privileged background, bilingualism is not always “a planned affair” (Grosjean 1982). It is therefore important to recognise the implicit and unplanned language decisions and ideologies influencing an FLP, and which arguably exist in every family, regardless of its socio-economic situation. King and Fogle (2006) provided valuable insight into covert beliefs that may shape parental language planning and demonstrated that some parents’ decision to raise their children bilingually could be influenced by their perception of what constitutes being “a good parent”. Such beliefs might not always be overtly expressed, and parents themselves may not be necessarily aware of some of the ideologies motivating their family practices. Moreover, parents’ language ideologies may also be shaped by their personal sense of identity and the image that they aspire to project within their social circle (Baker and Wayne 2017). The third component of Spolsky’s FLP model is language management, also previously described by Piller (2001) as “language planning”. As Baker and Wayne (2017) point out, in families where more than one language is available, language choices will need to be made. Language management refers to the language strategies, employed by parents, to influence children’s language use and acquisition. Similar to the language ideology component, the concept of language management has evolved from Spolsky’s orginal proposition, in order to reflect the latest research findings. Spolsky’s FLP model and the idea of parental language management were described as too rigid and overly simplistic as they define parents as language policy makers and children as the mere recipients of the FLP. Recent studies have revealed that family language practices are not the direct results of parental language management since children play a significant role in shaping the FLP through their language and identity choices (Fogle and King 2013; Gafaranga 2010). As a result, researchers in the field have been calling for a more dynamic approach to FLP as a multi-actor phenomenon. More specifically, a few scholars have drawn attention to the concept of child’s agency in FLP (Fogle and King 2013; Kopeliovich 2013; Palviainen and Boyd 2013). For instance, in her study of three adoptive families in the USA, Fogle (2012) proposed the

6

S. WILSON

notion of “bi-directional process-agency” to describe how both parents and children are able to shape the interaction context. In light of the early OPOL studies which set the path for FLP research (Grammont 1902; Leopold 1994) and the ample subsequent literature documenting the effect of family language practices on children’s bilingual acquisition, it is clear that underlying the field of FLP is the elemental question of how to maximise children’s heritage language development through parental management. As a result, it is not surprising that language practice, ideology and management have been studied essentially in terms of their impact on children’s bilingual development. Family Language Practices Many psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic studies investigating bilingual language practices have been concerned with measuring the amount of HL input received by children and how quantity of input affects their language skills (Biedinger et al. 2015; Cohen 2015; De Houwer 2009; Schwartz 2008). However, while there seems to be a logical relationship between the amount of language exposure and language development (Unsworth 2016), establishing a direct link between a particular quantity of input and language proficiency remains a challenging task. De Houwer’s key research (2003, 2007, 2009) on childhood bilingualism focused on ‘absolute input frequency’—how often the child hears the language spoken—and its effect on children’s acquisition of the minority language. De Houwer’s (2009) large-scale study of 2250 bilingual households concluded that in families where the minority language was spoken exclusively by one parent, and the majority language by the other, 73% of children had become active bilinguals. In cases where the minoritylanguage parent spoke both the minority and majority languages at home, the proportion of actively bilingual children fell to 34%. It is important to point out that De Houwer’s study does not define what constitutes bilingualism and, as Schwartz and Verschik (2013) recently highlighted, and since ideas of successful bilingualism are closely linked to language ideologies, the need to discuss the notion of success in FLP research has become compelling. De Houwer’s (2009) study reflects the long-running debate on whether bilingual parents should interact with their children in one language only or whether they should incorporate the majority language and translanguaging into their practices. The terms translanguaging and code-mixing are often used interchangeably to describe the alternation

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

7

between two or more language varieties within a single conversation and according to grammatical and interactional rules (Li 2018). However, the concept of translanguaging goes beyond bilingual practices and defines language as a meaning-making resource in which the multilingual speaker deploys his or her “full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (Otheguy et al. 2015: 281). In this book, and with a view to espousing the more recent approach to language as a multimodal resource, I use the word translanguaging to refer to a family language practice, while the term code-mixing is employed to describe language alternation during a particular communicative event. Although most of FLP research has been conducted on the premise that maximising exposure to the HL favours children’s multilingual development (Smith-Christmas 2016; Unsworth 2016), many studies have also demonstrated that bilingual parents tend to speak both the minority and majority languages at home (Frese and Ward 2015; Schwartz 2008). For instance, in the “New Irish Families Project” examining the challenges of HL development among second-generation transnational children, Frese and Ward (2015) concluded that English was commonly used even within families where both parents were immigrants. Family Language Management Raising a transnational family within a monolingual country involves making language decisions, whether explicit or implicit (Baker 2014). The various parental strategies employed to influence language practices within the family are what Spolsky (2004) refers to as “language management”. Through her discourse analysis of multilingual Singaporean Chinese families, Curdt-Christiansen (2013) described three main types of parental approaches: “highly organised with regular monitoring of the child’s bilingual development, unreflective parental adaptation and total laissez-faire, permitting the two-code practice in mother-child interactions”. Curdt-Christiansen’s description of parental discourse strategies is in line with Lanza’s (2007) original categorisation of parental language management. In a study of English-Norwegian bilingual families (2007), Lanza identifies five policies: “minimal grasp”—the adult states that she/he does not understand the child’s language choice—“expressed guess strategy”—the adult asks a question in the other language—“adult repetition”—the adult translates and repeats the child’s utterance in the

8

S. WILSON

other language—“move-on strategy”—the adult does not intervene and lets the conversation take its course—and “adult code-switching”—the adult uses both languages. Lanza and Curdt-Christiansen’s studies reveal that parental language management lies on a continuum between acceptance and rejection of translanguaging practices. Lanza (2004) proposes that children’s acquisition of the minority language is best encouraged through the “minimal grasp strategy”. It is difficult to see, however, how such a strategy could be sustained in the long term as children realise that the parent does speak the majority language. Other scholars in the field have advocated a low tolerance to translanguaging as a necessary condition to develop and maintain the minority language within the family (Arriagada 2005; Döpke 1992; Gafaranga 2010; Takeuchi 2008; Yates and Terraschke 2013). Such language management requires that parents create a monolingual environment with a view to producing bilingualism (Gafaranga 2010). This approach is consistent with a monoglossic understanding of bilingualism according to which the children would function as “two monolingual persons in one” (Grosjean 1989). The monoglossic language ideology has long dominated the field of linguistics and has led to the study of bilingualism as “parallel monolingualism” (Baker 2003)—that is the co-existence of two whole and separate autonomous linguistic systems (García 2009). Language separation strategies seem to be in contradiction with the more contemporary heteroglossic theory of language which defines bilingualism as the concurrent use of various forms and signs “without diglossic functional separation” (García 2007). The translingual ideology views the multilingual speaker’s language varieties as closely interwoven and combining in an infinite number of ways depending on the context and the speaker’s position (Bailey 2007). Whilst the latter approach to bilingualism has now become accepted among scholars, a long legacy of monoglossic ideas have led many parents and researchers to endorse language separation as the most suitable language strategy in the home. As mentioned in this section, a significant number of studies have advocated consistency of language choice in parent-child interactions. More particularly, the one person-one language method (OPOL) has received significant attention and support from researchers and has become popular among middle-class transnational families as a result.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

9

OPOL: The Holy Grail of Language Planning The one person-one language (OPOL) strategy consists in enforcing strict boundaries in terms of the suitability of each language in a particular interaction (Lanza 1997). Since this language management method involves a high level of parental planning and awareness of the desired linguistic outcomes, it is more commonly used by educated, middle-class parents. As Hamers and Blanc (2000) point out, the fundamental idea behind OPOL is that it will “enhance bilinguistic acquisition, whereas a mixed context will hinder acquisition and induce confusion and interference”. Many studies in the 1990s contributed to the popularity of OPOL by concluding that the method was conducive to the active use of both languages (Baker 2001; Döpke 1992, 1998; Hulk and Van der Linden 1996; Meisel 1990; Paradis and Genesee 1996; Romaine 1995). Whilst most of this research concerned children between one and five years old, and who seemed to be acquiring two languages in a balanced way (Kasuya 1998; Genesee and Nicoladis 1995), there has been little data on the bilingual development of school-age children whose exposure to the heritage language greatly decreases once they enter formal schooling (Montrul 2010; Rothman 2009). One of the few pieces of literature dealing with school-age heritage speakers is Barron-Hauwaert’s (2004) book focusing on OPOL which she describes as an ‘almost mythological approach’ (2004: 9) to bilingual child-rearing. The author draws on two of her research projects consisting of a questionnaire study of 93 bilingual families claiming to implement OPOL and a qualitative investigation of 10 trilingual families. Barron-Hauwaert’s methodology was designed with a view to identifying the factors leading to a successful OPOL strategy and comprising ten research questions including “Should the family follow a strict OPOL strategy or mix languages when talking to the child?” and “What kind of resources and language teaching should parents do to ensure a balanced input and active use of both languages?” Although none of the research methods involved measuring the participating children’s proficiency in the heritage language in order to establish a correlation between OPOL and language competence, the efficiency of this language strategy is promoted throughout the book. Besides, her approach to FLP positions children as mere recipients of the parental management while adults enforce ‘policing’ in the home (34). In order to maximise input in the HL, Barron-Hauwaert proposes solutions such as hiring HL-speaking nannies or frequent visits the extended family. Such

10

S. WILSON

actions require substantial private means and might reinforce the divide between so-called elite and folk bilingualism, while other scholars are calling for more Government measures supporting bilingualism among all linguistic communities (Piller 2005; García and Kleifgen 2010). BaronHauwaert’s work on OPOL (2004) is one of many recent books dealing with bilingual parenting (Baker 2014; Braun 2014; Festman et al. 2017). These publications respond to an increasing demand for professional advice among transnational families (Soler and Zabrodskaja 2017) and generally consist of a combination of academic literature and parental guidance. The rising popularity of parental guidebooks entails the risk of generalisation which may not reflect the unique experiences of every multilingual family. Besides, they generally focus on parental linguistic goals and desires and, therefore, overlook the perspectives of children. Other scholars highlighted the variability of linguistic outcome among children exposed to the OPOL method and attributed its failure or success to parents’ level of consistency in language choice (Yates and Terraschke 2013; Smith-Christmas 2016). For example, in Takeuchi’s (2008) study examining the OPOL language strategy of 25 JapaneseEnglish bilingual parents in Australia, only five families succeeded in developing and maintaining the active use of Japanese. Despite the inconclusive results, Takeushi proposed that OPOL was an efficient language management method on condition that parents commit to strict consistency in language use. Whilst OPOL research provided valuable sociolinguistic insights, there is still no strong psycholinguistic evidence of the effect of this language separation strategy on children’s language development (Hamers and Blanc 2000). De Houwer’s (2009) work on Flemish bilingual families (n = 1450) remains one of the few studies providing significant data on the link between language separation strategies and children’s HL development. It revealed that in families where both parents used the two languages, 79% of children were active bilinguals, as opposed to 73% for families using OPOL, and 59% for children exposed to a mixture of the two methods. De Houwer’s findings indicate that OPOL does not necessarily produce better results than a flexible approach given that over a quarter of children do not become active bilinguals through this policy. It is important to note that in most OPOL studies (Takeuchi 2008; Yates and Terraschke 2013; Smith-Christmas 2016), mothers seem almost entirely responsible for transmitting the minority language to their offspring, with limited or no support from their partners and the wider

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

11

society. This aspect of the OPOL strategy has been investigated by some researchers (Okita 2002; De Houwer 2013) and has been the object of strong criticism (Hamers and Blanc 2000; Piller 2001). Okita’s (2002) book dealing with Japanese-English couples in the UK remains one of the most noteworthy studies of the difficult and ‘invisible work’ of mothers raising their children bilingually through OPOL. The author provides an authentic insight into the pressure experienced by mothers striving to ensure that their children meet given language expectations and anxious to conform with a certain idea of good parenting. Okita’s study revealed that the demanding nature of OPOL put a strain on mothers’ already challenging parenting responsibility and may affect their well-being (Yates and Terraschke 2013). Besides, other researchers have highlighted the link between some parents’ feelings of failure and anxiety and the high expectations of HL proficiency often associated with the language separation method (King and Fogle 2006). The idea of parental language management based on a strict adherence to language consistency was also described by many scholars as unrealistic, difficult to attain (Hamers and Blanc 2000; Schwartz 2008; Doyle 2013; Smith-Christmas 2016; De Houwer and Bornstein 2016) and atypical of bilingual interactions (Piller 2001). For example, in their study of Finnish-Russian intermarried families, Moin and her colleagues (2013) demonstrated that even parents who reported being strongly committed to OPOL and disapproving of translanguaging sometimes used the “wrong” language. Language planning involving consistency in language use requires that parents “stick to their guns” (Smith-Christmas 2016) in the long-term and, therefore, does not allow any room for adjustment to the family’s changing circumstances (García and Li 2014). Translanguaging as a Family Language Practice As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the field of FLP has developed around the core objective of HL input maximisation through well-defined family language management and practices. On the other hand, few academics have studied families who have consciously opted for a more flexible approach to bilingualism. This might suggest that translanguaging has not been traditionally perceived as a legitimate family language practice in itself but rather as a mere lack of parental discipline. Interestingly, a significant amount of data on translanguaging practices at home was produced within families who claimed to follow a language

12

S. WILSON

separation strategy but did not always succeed in doing so (Schwartz 2008; Doyle 2013; Smith-Christmas 2016). That being said, a few recent studies have finally brought attention to the role of parental flexibility in creating successful FLPs (Schwartz and Verschik 2013). For example, Doyle (2013) investigated the FLPs of 11 bilingual families in Estonia and showed that parent’s relaxed attitudes towards language use at home was conducive to their teenage children’s active use of both languages. Whilst parents may commit to rigorous language management methods, research has revealed that actual parental language choice is often flexible “depending on sociolinguistic, situational and interpersonal factors in unique moments of interaction” (Palviainen and Boyd 2013). Similarly, in an ethnographic study of three Spanish Estonian families, Soler and Zabrodskaja (2017) demonstrated that parents, despite reporting a strong commitment to OPOL, actually engaged in a considerable amount of code-mixing. Their findings also suggest that some parents support the OPOL method simply because it provides them with a theoretical basis to establish order and coherence within their linguistically complex environment. As a result of their findings, Soler and Zabrodskaja called for a more positive attitude towards translanguaging among both parents and academics.

Parental Language Ideologies Parental Perception of Multilingualism and the Heritage Language Value A considerable number of studies have focused on the parental ideologies that may influence their language decisions and, in turn, shape the family’s language practices. For many scholars, ideologies refer to first-generation transnationals’ perception of the value of the minority language and the social utility of multilingualism in a given society (Brown 2011; CurdtChristiansen 2016; Fedricks 2012; Lee and Suarez 2005; Frese and Ward 2015; Martin 2009; Nesteruk 2010; Zhang and Slaughter-Defoe 2009). Many studies have concluded that a majority of immigrant parents seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of transmitting the minority language to children, irrespective of their ethnolinguistic background (Ferguson 2013; Pauwels 2016). One of the most frequently reported motivations to maintain the HL among second-generation speakers is the transmission of a cultural and ethnic identity. For example, in Curdt-Christiansen’s

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

13

(2009) ethnographic study of ten Chinese families in Quebec, parents clearly view their children’s acquisition of Mandarin as a marker of their Asian identity. Ferguson’s (2013) qualitative research on Yemeni speakers in the UK revealed that their effort to transmit Arabic to secondgeneration heritage speakers was part of their aspiration to share not only a culture, but a religious heritage too. Another major factor contributing to parents’ decision to pass on the minority language is the desire to develop a bond between the children and their extended family, and more particularly the grandparents, in the homeland (Melo-Pfeifer 2015). While many researchers have reported positive parental ideologies about HL maintenance, a few scholars have pointed out that some parents have ambivalent attitudes towards the minority language. While immigrant parents may value their linguistic heritage, many are also aware that having a good command of the host country language is a precondition for social and economic success (Krashen 1998; Suarez 2002). As a result, the society language may carry more value than the minority language in some families, which might contribute to the loss of the HL among second-generation transnationals (Brown 2011). In some cases, societal ideologies may influence parental perceptions of the political, social and economic value of the minority language, and, in turn, shape parental their family language planning (Maguire and Curdt-Christiansen 2007; Canagarajah 2008). Parental Beliefs About Bilingualism In this book, the notion of parental language ideology refers to beliefs about how bilingual acquisition occurs and what constitutes bilingualism. In cases where FLP is planned, parents may have certain beliefs about how children develop bilingualism, which in turn, may influence their language management at home. Whilst it has been argued that explicit language planning is to be found mostly among elite bilinguals-namely ‘middle-class international couples, expatriates, academics who raise their children in a non-native language’ (Piller 2001), the increasing popularity of early childhood bilingualism, over the past decade, has made bilingual childrearing part of mainstream parenting. As a result, many parents across a variety of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds choose to raise their children bilingually in order to provide them with certain social and cognitive advantages (King 2016). Despite the rising enthusiasm for bilingual parenting, few researchers have focused on the parental

14

S. WILSON

beliefs about bilingualism that motivate them to opt for one language strategy over another. Among the few studies examining parents’ ideologies of dual language acquisition is Piller’s (2002) investigation of the FLPs of English-German bilingual couples. Drawing on qualitative interviews, she identified three main recurring ideas about bilingualism. First, all her participants believed that languages were best introduced as early as possible so that children could acquire them ‘unconsciously’. Secondly, the parents in Piller’s study firmly supported the idea that the simultaneous acquisition of two languages required carefully and consistently separating languages in their interactions with their children (Hamers and Blanc 2000). As a consequence of this belief, they also viewed translanguaging as a practice detrimental to HL development. Finally, many participants referred to balanced bilingualism as a measure of successful FLP and hoped that their children would achieve “native-like” proficiency in each language (see similar findings in Okita 2002; King and Fogle 2006). If few other scholars have discussed the notion of successful bilingualism which influence parental language expectations, Schwartz and Verschik (2013) recently raised the question of how successful FLP should be defined given the rarity of balanced bilingualism and proposed that a heteroglossic approach to bilingualism might produce more appropriate standards and a more realistic benchmark of success. Despite the popularity of language separation methods such as OPOL, some parents may choose to embrace the fluid nature of bilingualism and consciously engage in flexible language practices. Purkarthofer (2019) analysis of the language expectations of three intermarried couples expecting their first child revealed that they perceived FLP as an object of negotiation between all family members. The participants in her study described their children as free to make their own language choices and all accepted the possibility that their offspring might express themselves in a variety other than the parents’ preferred languages. Family Language Policy and Parenting Ideologies As Okita pointed out, language practice in transnational families is ‘deeply intertwined with the experience of childrearing’ (2002: 232) and parents’ ideologies regarding linguistic heritage are closely linked to their beliefs about parenting. The researcher describes how the recent appearance of positive societal attitude towards childhood bilingualism has led to include HL development as an integral part of “proper childrearing”.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

15

Earlier literature on bilingual childrearing already promoted the use of the minority language as being “in the best interest of the child” (Baker 1993). The link between language ideologies and parenting beliefs was thoroughly examined by King and Fogle (2006) who described how parents’ language decisions were closely intertwined with the notions of “good” or “bad” parenting, which are themselves shaped by cultural norms and societal discourse. For many participants in their study, ideologies of bilingualism were a manifestation of a wider approach to parenting as ‘cultivation of children’s talents and skills’ (2006: 707). The relationship between language beliefs and the notion of good parenting also raises the question of parents’ sense of responsibility for maintaining the minority language alive. In this regard, De Houwer’s (1998: 83) concept of “impact belief” is useful to understand parents’ perspectives and is defined as “the parental belief that parents can exercise some sort of control over their children’s linguistic functioning”. Parents with a strong impact belief feel highly responsible for and capable of influencing their children’s language development through their language management. As a result, they may endeavour to control their young ones’ language use or forbid certain linguistic practices. Curdt-Christiansen (2009) identified strong impact beliefs among Chinese parents in Quebec as they felt confident that they could create a home environment conducive to their children’s dual language development. Conversely, Pérez Báez’s (2013) study revealed that Zapotec speakers in California held a weak impact belief and, consequently, they did not attempt to shape their children’s language use through any particular strategies. The researcher also concluded that a weak impact belief reinforced family-external influences, eventually leading to language shift. Although the notion of impact belief is an interesting tool to gain insight into parents’ motivations for and experience of bilingual childrearing, it seems almost impossible to isolate this particular factor in order to gauge its real effect on children’s HL development.

Growing up as a Heritage Speaker Defining Heritage Speakers As transnationalism is rising in the UK and worldwide, multilingualism is developing on the ground with 4.2 million people in Britain (7.7% of the population) speaking languages other than English as their first

16

S. WILSON

language according to the latest national census (Office for National Statistics 2011). The native languages of first-generation transnational in Britain are commonly referred to as minority or community languages (Pauwels 2016). As for second-generation immigrants, most of whom were born in the UK, English is generally acquired as a first language, whereas the language they speak at home, with one or both parents, is commonly referred to as a heritage language (henceforth HL). Heritage Speakers’ (HSs) defining characteristic is their specific sociolinguistic environment: they grow up acquiring both the minority and majority languages and generally become dominant in the majority language as they become rapidly immersed in the mainstream education system (Polinsky 2016). HSs develop both languages early in life, in a naturalistic environment, and therefore, both the society language and the heritage language constitute native or first languages (Benmamoun et al. 2013). Despite this common characteristic, there is no “one sizefits-all” definition of a HS (Carreira 2004) since scholars have been disagreeing on the degree of HL proficiency necessary to qualify as a heritage speaker (Deusen-Scholl 2003). This book explores the experiences of HSs exposed to the HL in the home and with varying levels of HL proficiency. Therefore, the young participants in this study fit Valdés’ (2001) definition of a HS as an individual who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or merely understands the heritage language, and who is to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language. (Valdés 2001: 38)

As a general rule, HLs are not being present in mainstream schools which means that an overwhelming majority of HSs are not literate in their HL (Rothman 2009; Polinsky 2016). Another consequence of this is that, as children get older and socialize within the mainstream environment, the minority language becomes restricted to a few specific linguistic domains, essentially within the family and the HL community. As a result, HSs often end up possessing the vocabulary related to everyday life and family relationships but do not master the linguistic skills to operate within a more formal context (Myers-Scotton 2005; Fedricks 2012). HSs are characterized by the extremely wide range of HL proficiency levels, from poor receptive skills to native-like competence (Silva-Corvalán 2014). While native-like proficiency is possible, it

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

17

appears to be the exception rather than the norm (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Benmamoun et al. 2013). Polinsky (1995) described Heritage Speakers on the lower end of the proficiency spectrum as “terminal speakers”, while Sharwood Smith (1989) proposed the concepts of “incomplete learner” and “forgetter”. The latter idea has widely developed over the past ten years, particularly through Montrul’s extensive work on Heritage Grammar (Montrul 2008, 2009, 2016). In light of this approach to heritage languages as ‘faulty’ or ‘underdeveloped’ versions of given languages, it is not surprising that many psycholinguists have focused on comparing the language competence of HSs and native speakers’ in the homeland (Montrul and Sánchez-Walker 2013). Fortunately, a few scholars have rejected the notion of incomplete acquisition based on one essential argument. As Fuentes and Schmid (2015) explained, the language HSs are exposed to is a contact variety since it is essentially spoken by their parents, first-generation immigrants, whose L1 is itself affected by language attrition and the influence of the L2 (Schmid and Köpke 2007; Schmid 2013). Therefore, and as Rothman (2009) pointed out, the ‘baseline’ for HSs is qualitatively different from the standard language spoken in the home country, and therefore, HLs are not incomplete, but simply different. They are language varieties in their own right and HSs are native speakers too since they were exposed to the L1 since birth (Pascual y Cabo and Rothman 2012). Children’s Experiences of Bilingualism Whilst researchers in FLP have mostly focused on identifying optimum conditions and factors leading to HL development, a few scholars have recently turned their attention to the experiences of transnational families (Zhu and Li 2016). This new interest in the lived experiences of bilinguals has finally brought to light children’s emotional, psychological and relational experiences of bilingualism. For example, Geva and Jean (2012) explored the affective responses of 63 Canadian school-aged FrenchEnglish bilingual children towards speaking, listening, reading and writing in each of their two languages. The results show that most of the HSs associated positive affect with the majority language (English) across all language domains regardless of context, whereas they felt positively mainly about speaking and listening to the HL (French) in the home environment. The young participants’ reported justifications of their chosen affects revealed that they attributed their responses largely to their level of

18

S. WILSON

skills in French and English. These findings indicate that young children are aware of, and self-conscious about, their level of language. If Geva and Jean’s study (2012) addresses the pressing need for data regarding the perspectives of school-age HSs, its focus on the various language and literacy domains excludes a vital aspect of children’s bilingual experiences, that is the daily interactions and relationships within their families. Melo-Pfeifer (2015) took a more personal approach to child HSs’ experiences by investigating their emotional relationship to their HL through family. Through the use of drawings by Portuguese HSs in Germany, the researcher described the crucial role played by family in children’s attachment to their HL. Melo-Pfeifer’s (2015) findings suggested that most participants associated the nuclear family not only with language acquisition but also with identity development. Their emotional and cognitive relationship to Portuguese was also linked to the HL community, including grandparents who appeared to occupy a special place in the heritage transmission process. Another interesting result of Melo-Pfeifer’s study is Children’s apparent awareness of the sociolinguistic context as they described Portugal, their parents’ homeland, as a monolingual environment whereas they portrayed Germany as a heteroglossic space where translanguaging was an acceptable practice. These two studies offer a rare insight into young HSs’ perspectives and demonstrate that bilingual children are aware of and able to reflect on their wide linguistic resources. The fields of heritage languages and FLP would certainly benefit from future research placing the emphasis on bilinguals’ lived linguistic experiences (Busch 2017; Soler and Zabrodskaja 2017). Through her concept of spracherleben (the lived experience of language), Busch argues that in the current context of high mobility and transnationalism, the subjective aspect of language must be considered when studying linguistic communities. The focus must, therefore, be placed on the perspective of the experiencing subject as opposed to examining linguistic groups as fixed entities. Busch’s approach meets other scholars’ recent call for a more heteroglossic study of how young bilinguals construct their identities, making use of their entire linguistic repertoire to mark their belonging to a given social or cultural group. Bilingual Children’s Language Attitudes Whilst few researchers have explored bilingual children’s experiences in relation to FLP, many have examined their language attitudes towards

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

19

particular languages. Language attitudes can be defined as any cognitive evaluation or affective reactions towards different languages—including one’s own language—or speakers (Ryan and Giles 1982; Richards and Schmidt 2013). Rather than fixed frames of mind, they are complex psychological constructs which may vary across time (Baker 1988). Both cross-sectional studies among children of different ages (Miller 2017) and longitudinal research (Smith-Christmas 2016) have described language attitude as an evolving phenomenon. When investigating language attitudes among transnational children, it is important to bear in mind the particular status of heritage languages. HSs often have a personal connection to their HL, irrespective of their level of proficiency (Fishman 2001). Therefore, the complexity of HSs’ language attitudes may include the co-existence of both positive and negative feelings attached to the HL (Baker 1988). While some children may dislike speaking the minority language, they may still experience positive emotions towards it as it is spoken by their loved ones, including one or both parents (Miller 2017). Moreover, given that the HL is often present in the child’s life from birth, HSs’ language attitudes are likely to vary over the years (Baker 1988). Hitherto, most attitudinal research among HSs were carried out in classroom settings in either mainstream secondary schools, universities (Carreira and Kagan 2011) or supplementary schools (Blackledge and Creese 2008; Oriyama 2010; Otcu 2010). Many of these studies have shown positive attitudes towards the HL (Cho et al. 2004; Cho 2015; Nguyen et al. 2001). For instance, in a large-scale survey (n = 1732), Carreira and Kagan (2011) investigated the attitudes and goals of teenage and young adult heritage language learners (HLLs) across several regions of the United States. Participants reported overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards their respective HLs and associated their decision to learn the language with their desire to connect with their linguistic communities and families. A positive HL attitude also appears to be tied to a stronger sense of ethnic identity (Cho 2015; Tse 1998), and the will to preserve one’s sense of ethnic identity may, in turn, encourage HSs to use their HL (Pease-Alvarez 2002; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Suarez 2002). If attitudinal research in the classroom context can provide valuable insight, it is reasonable to expect that most adolescent or young adult students who have enrolled in a HL course are likely to hold positive attitudes towards their HLs. For this reason, data on HL attitudes within the more intimate and personal family environment may reveal more nuanced

20

S. WILSON

experiences among HSs. For instance, Zhang and Slaughter-Defoe (2009) describes how Chinese parents’ highly positive attitudes towards transmitting their native language contrast with second-generation speakers’ perception of Chinese as worthless or irrelevant when living outside their parents’ homeland. As children integrate the education system, and as they attempt to affiliate with the majority culture, their desire to fit in might create negative feelings towards their home language (Tse 1998). Little’s (2017) recent study of FLP experiences among transnationals also provides an interesting perspective by demonstrating how the amalgam of strong parental emotional attachment to the minority language and children’s negative attitudes to it may lead to conflicts within the family. There is a pressing need for further research into the impact of these variations in language attitude on the well-being of multilingual and multicultural families. The complexity of HSs’ language experiences and attitudes requires careful distinction between language attitude and language preference. As defined previously, language attitude reflects one’s feelings and opinions about a given language, whereas language preference, also referred to as language choice (Mishina-Mori 2011; Schwartz 2010), simply indicates ‘which of two languages or varieties is preferred for certain purposes in certain situations’ (Giles et al. 1983: 83). While language attitudes are emotionally charged, language preference is linked to the environmental context and particular speech activities (Fishman 1970; Caldas and CaronCaldas 2002) and can be assessed by using family audits to gauge the child’s language outputs (Curdt-Christiansen 2016), or through regular audio recording (Caldas and Caron-Caldas 2002). Language choices are often simply the result of the bilingual person’s level of proficiency in each language (Gee et al. 2009), and therefore, preference for a particular variety does not necessarily equate with negative attitudes towards the other language. For this reason, children’s preference for the majority language is compatible with a positive attitude towards the HL (Dweik and Hanadi 2015; Min Jung 2018). Pease-Alvarez’s (2002) longitudinal study of Mexican-American children showed that participants had positive attitudes towards Spanish, English and bilingualism in general. HSs’ preference for the society language, across various linguistic communities, has been widely reported and has been attributed to their level of language skills and familiarity with the local language and culture (Brown 2011; Cho 2015; Ferguson 2013; Pease-Alvarez 2002; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Soehl 2016).

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

21

Heritage Language Anxiety As part of their experience of growing up bilingually, and in light of their limited exposure to the HL, many young heritage speakers are susceptible to feel some degree of anxiety when using the minority language (Dewaele and Sevinç 2017). Horwitz et al. (1986) define language anxiety as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviours related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of language learning experience” (128). While the original idea of language anxiety was proposed in relation to language learning within a school environment and involving potential fear of negative evaluation and test anxiety (Horwitz et al. 1986), later research emphasised the necessity to investigate situation-specific language anxiety (Gardner and MacIntyre 1993; Tallon 2009). As a result, Tallon presented the notion of Heritage Language Anxiety (HLA) to account for the particular situation of heritage speakers and distinguish them from foreign language learners. Language anxiety generally translates into specific psycho-physiological effects including apprehension, nervousness, panic or ‘freezing up’ (Horwitz et al. 1986; Young 1990) and it is likely to have a negative impact on language learning (Tran et al. 2013; Yan and Kolker Horwitz 2008). Since developing a HL within a predominantly monolingual society is challenging (De Houwer 2009; Schwartz 2008; Smith-Christmas 2016), children who grow up bilingually may not always possess the language skills necessary to comfortably communicate with native speakers of the HL, including their parents, grandparents and close relatives (Braun 2012), and they may suffer from HL anxiety as a result. Moreover, heritage speakers are often perceived and described as native speakers of the HL by their parents, the extended families and the minority-language speaking-community, often leading to high expectations of their language proficiency (Piller 2001). Such high expectations may magnify children’s feelings of insecurity and cause them to question their ability to maintain a certain image or identity (Labov 1972). Unfortunately, there has been limited research on the daily experiences of young heritage speakers within their families and linguistic communities. Whilst a few researchers have followed Tallon’s initiative by examining bilingual children’s language anxiety in the context of HL classes in US schools (Luo 2015; Xiao and Wong 2014), it is not clear whether the

22

S. WILSON

anxiety experienced by the HSs in their studies is simply linked to the fact that they find themselves in a formal classroom setting or whether it is intrinsically related to their HS status. Cho’s (2015) investigation of second-generation Korean-American adolescents offers some elements of a response as to the factors that may trigger HLA. Many HSs in Cho’s study declare that they have experienced language anxiety within the Korean community, and more particularly, adolescents with low HL proficiency reported being fearful of criticism by first-generation Korean speakers. Participants describe native speakers’ negative comments on their HL skills as a source of shame and anxiety. According to Cho’s results, HL anxiety may negatively affect children’s self-esteem and lead them to feel alienated from the HL community and reject their HL as a result. Julie, one of the teenagers interviewed, expresses her frustration as follows: They [fluent Korean speakers] are very disrespectful and mean to me for not speaking Korean well. Korean people, even those who live in the U.S., are very cruel to me for not knowing Korean. I am nice to foreigners, but they [Korean native speakers] are mean to me. That’s the reason that I don’t want to associate with them. Many times, I pretend that I am Chinese because people think I look Chinese, and I don’t want to bother to correct their perception (…).

Julie’s comments echo Krashen’s (1998) notion of heritage speakers’ ‘language shyness’. According to the Krashen, because HL speakers are part of the HL group, their imperfections are very salient to more proficient speakers, who may respond by correcting and even with ridicule. Such responses can be devastating to less proficient HL speakers. Error correction and criticism do not help them; they have the opposite effect: Rather than risk error, they interact less in the HL. (41)

The literature reviewed in this section highlights the complexity of the sociolinguistic environment in which HSs are growing up. The intricate relationship between language, culture and identity often means that FLP is likely to amplify the emotional challenges created by the language contact situation.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

23

FLP and Emotional Challenges FLP, Language and Identity As discussed in the previous section, heritage speakers’ degree of attachment to their heritage language may differ from their parents’ relationship to it (Little 2017; Wilson 2019). This implies that the role of the heritage language and culture in children’s identity construction is likely to significantly contrast with first-generation speakers’ sense of cultural affiliation. The link between language and identity has aroused the interest of some academics since the 1970s (Lambert 1975; Norton Peirce 1995) and has led essentially to the study of the link between language and identity among second-language learners (Canagarajah 1993) and first-generation migrants (Block 2007; Norton Peirce 2013). Norton Peirce’s foundational work on language and identity was paramount to understand the role of language in identity formation and the versatile nature of identity (Darvin and Norton Peirce 2015). She defines identity as … how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is structured across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future. (Norton Peirce 2013: 45)

Norton Peirce (2013) put forward the concept of ‘investment’ according to which individual agency and identity determine whether a person invests in learning a given language. Language learners may choose to ‘invest’ their effort into learning a language with a view to ‘mov[e] toward’ the identity that they have envisioned and its associated imagined community. Norton Peirce’s notions of investment and imagined communities have recently been applied to research studies concerned with identity construction and expression among first, second and third-generation transnationals (Blackledge and Creese 2008; Duff 2015; Little 2017; Mu 2014; Mu and Dooley 2015). For instance, Li and Zhu (2013) analysed the language ideologies and cultural identities of five second-generation Chinese university students in Britain and highlighted the complexity and unique aspect of each of these young adults’ identity choices. As ‘transnationally affiliated individuals’ (Hornberger 2007), the participants in Li and Zhu’s study were uncomfortable with describing themselves in welldefined linguistic or cultural categories. Instead, they viewed themselves as a unique combination of cultural influences reflecting their personal

24

S. WILSON

histories. Besides, two of the young men explained that the way they identified themselves also varied according to context. For instance, one of them revealed that although he identified as Chinese around non-Chinese individuals due to their perception, he did not feel ‘Chinese Chinese (…) from China’. These second-generation Chinese students defined themselves through a mix of their respective transnational experiences in Britain, Singapore, New Zealand and China and each had constructed a unique transnational identity through which they both embraced their ethnic and linguistic heritage and welcomed their transnational experiences, despite being exposed to various ideologies within society and within their families. Li and Zhu’s findings also show how such transnational identities are expressed through translanguaging practices, which they define as a ‘variety of identity articulations and negotiations within newly created social spaces’ (532). Similarly, Blackledge and Creese’s (2008, 2010) research demonstrated how heritage speakers in various UK supplementary schools negotiated their identities through flexible linguistic practices. Understanding the role of translanguaging is essential when investigating the link between cultural identities and bilingual practices within transnational families. Blommaert and Rampton (2011) also associated translanguaging practices to their concept of ‘sociolinguistics of mobility’ which focuses on ‘language-in-motion’ (5). The two scholars propose that language should be approached as the interaction of multiple linguistic patterns formed through various periods of time and locations, and therefore, the language practices of transnational individuals reflect the wide range of resources that make up their linguistic repertoires (Busch 2012; García 2009; Li and Zhu 2013; Otheguy et al. 2015). Transnational family members use their linguistic resources as a way to define themselves culturally and in relation to other family members (King 2016), and since the impact of cultural identity on one’s language choices is unique to every individual, there is likely to be a variety of approaches to language within the same multilingual family (Curdt-Christiansen 2016; Czubinska 2017). Whilst minority-language parents tend to gear their language management towards transmitting a linguistic heritage often associated with their emotional bond to the home country, their children, as second-generation immigrants, might not share such a deep connection with the heritage culture and their language choices may differ from their parents’ as a result (Czubinska 2017).

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

25

The co-existence of various approaches to identity and language within a same home calls for the problematisation of the notion of heritage in FLP research. As Blackledge and Creese (2010) pointed out, the concept of heritage is more complex than simply ‘passing on’ a parent’s language and culture as it is closely connected to the role played by the minority language in each individual’s identity formation. The question of Heritage language transmission in transnational families has been approached in relation to Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of ‘capital’ (Mu 2014; Mu and Dooley 2015)—that is the collection of social assets and symbolic elements including linguistic capital, education, intellect and material belongings—which is developed in early childhood and arises from parents’ desire to transmit such capital. In most families, language is transmitted to next generation as part of its cultural capital, and it is assumed that it will be part of their collective or individual identity construction process (Blackledge and Creese 2008; May 2005; Nicholls 2005). However, in some instances, and more particularly in the case of heritage speakers, children’s identification with their parents’ cultural and linguistic heritage cannot be taken for granted (Bourdieu 2000; Mu and Dooley 2015). Instead, heritage values ‘may be transmitted, accepted, contested, subverted, appropriated, and otherwise negotiated’ (Blackledge and Creese 2008). While some parents expect their children to maintain or preserve a linguistic, ethnic or cultural identity by acquiring the minority language (Lee 2002), many scholars have argued that heritage is not a fixed entity (Bourdieu 2000; Blackledge and Creese 2008), but rather a ‘process or performance that is concerned with the production and negotiation of cultural identity, individual and collective memory, and social and cultural values’ (Smith 2007). This approach to heritage implies that HL ought to be explored as ‘experienced individually and separately by different family members’ (Little 2017). Drawing on Skype interviews with ten multilingual families from a variety of linguistic backgrounds, Little (2017) describes how parents’ and children’s use of the minority language may be linked to their sense of identity. Her findings suggest that unlike what many parents assume, children do not simply inherit their cultural identity and some HSs in transnational families may reject their linguistic heritage, in more or less subtle ways. Whilst Little’s study provides an interesting and rare insight into young children’s perspectives on family language practice, data drawing from in-depth individual, face-to-face conversations with transnational children

26

S. WILSON

are much needed to further understand the bilingual experiences of young HSs. FLP, Well-Being and Emotional Challenges The studies discussed in the previous paragraph reflect a growing interest in the unique experiences of transnationals and how they may translate into a variety of cultural identities within a multilingual family. The coexistence of different approaches to the minority language and culture involves emotional challenges specific to multilingual families. Since language choices are rarely neutral (De Houwer 2009), the language contact situations in which transnational families operate may positively or negatively affect interrelationships, which, in turn, may have an impact on the well-being of the family and its individual members (Chuang 2005). The notion of Well-being cannot be easily defined in broad terms since it includes a wide range of phenomena such as a person’s subjective assessment of life satisfaction, cultural experience or personal emotional responses (Diener et al. 1999). That being said, in the particular context of FLP and bilingualism, well-being can be defined and explored through the lens of De Houwer’s (2013) concept of ‘Harmonious Bilingual Development’ (HBD). She defines HBD as ‘the absence of negative experiences attributed to the linguistically diverse situation’ within a multilingual family (De Houwer 2007). HBD, therefore, occurs when parents and children do not experience any relational problems caused by the language contact situation. Non-harmonious bilingual development can be described as conflictive bilingual development (De Houwer 2013). Since HBD involves an affective component (Warr 2012), it remains difficult to measure it and it would be unreasonable to expect that researchers can determine with any certainty whether individuals within a family are experiencing HBD (De Houwer 2013). Besides, and as argued in the previous sections, any generalisation of the factors contributing to HBD would be irrelevant given the singularity of experiences among and within transnational families. It is possible, however, to assess whether a family experiences a high number of conflicts related to language use or if any of its members expresses negative thoughts or emotions towards bilingualism, the languages involved or the FLP. Recurrent conflicts due to individual language choices and preferences are likely to have a negative effect on the transnational family’s well-being (De Houwer 2013).

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

27

Although there have been no systematic studies of well-being within bilingual families, De Houwer (2013) identifies a few factors as either conducive to HBD or associated with conflictual bilingual development. According to her review of existing studies from a variety of perspectives on HL development (Gafaranga 2010; Wong Fillmore 2000; Portes and Hao 1998; Tseng and Fuligni 2000), De Houwer proposes that the use of a single common language during parent-child interactions would be conducive to HBD whereas di-lingual conversations (SavilleTroike 1987)—that is when each interlocutor speaks a different language but understands both languages involved in the interactions—would ultimately be a source of tensions. The scholar also suggests that a child’s active use of both the HL and society language is an essential factor in HBD whereas a much lower proficiency in the HL may create conflictive bilingual development as it would impair communication with the minority-language parent and with part of the extended family. De Houwer argues that poor skills in the HL may harm the emotional connection between transnational parents and their children and may result in young HSs losing part of their cultural identity. The potential factors of HBD put forward by De Houwer seem to revolve intrinsically around a child’s ability to actively use the HL as the key to achieving harmony within the multilingual family. In this book, I argue that it seems somewhat unreasonable or even unfair to confer such responsibility on the children and that parental language ideologies and expectations are more likely to influence a family’s experience of multilingualism and transnationalism. Besides, the idea that monolingual interactions are necessary to favour harmony within bilingual families is at odds with recent studies describing translanguaging practices as a crucial aspect of the transnational identity formation process (García 2009; Li 2018). The current research literature has also emphasised the importance of parental flexibility as a condition for a positive experience of FLP (Schwartz and Verschik 2013; Doyle 2013; Palviainen and Boyd 2013; Soler and Zabrodskaja 2017) and is calling for a more positive attitude towards translanguaging, among parents and academics. For instance, following a longitudinal ethnographic study involving her four children, Kopeliovich (2013) proposes a child-centred approach to bilingual parenting and argues that children’s multilingual repertoire ought to be perceived as an asset rather than a problem. The researcher promotes the ‘happylingual approach’ which she describes as the ‘positive emotional colouring of the complex processes related to the heritage language transmission, a special emphasis

28

S. WILSON

on the linguistic aspects of childrearing, unbiased attitudes to diverse languages that enter the household, and respect for the language preferences of the children’ (Kopeliovich 2013). Kopeliovich’s happylingual approach advocates moving away from the pressure of linguistic purism and embracing flexible bilingual parenting in which language mixing is perceived positively. The ample research on bilingual parenting has highlighted the fact that HLs carry a stronger emotional resonance than languages learned through formal education (Melo-Pfeifer 2015; Pavlenko 2007). The high emotionality linked to HLs means that the minority language within a transnational family is likely to play an important role for some or all FLP actors (Pavlenko 2007, 2012; Little 2017; Hirsch and Lee 2018). Melo-Pfeifer’s (2015) study of young Portuguese HSs in Germany clearly demonstrated children’s strong positive emotional attachment to their HL which they associated with their grand-parents and extended family. Besides, the HL may also play a crucial role when it is associated with ethnic identity (He 2010; Li and Zhu 2013) and contributes to reinforce a sense of belonging to the ethno-linguistic community. It is therefore evident that the minority language can play a positive role within transnational families by conveying a sense of kinship and cultural belonging. However, growing up as a heritage speaker entails notable challenges and FLP itself may become the source of family conflicts. For this reason, as we celebrate bilingualism as a result of transnationalism, it is also essential to identify and discuss its challenges. Exploring the difficulties experienced by multilingual families should not be perceived as a pessimistic approach to bilingual childrearing (Okita 2002) but rather as a necessary step towards an integrative approach to FLP research. There has been a considerable amount of research reporting parents’ emotional and practical difficulties in relation to implementing given language policies at home. Among them, Okita’s (2002) ethnographic investigation of English-Japanese bilingual families in Britain describes the pressure experienced by mothers to develop their children’s HL skills and meet self-imposed expectations which require a significant amount of emotionally demanding and ‘invisible work’. While the mothers in Okita’s study would like their children to learn Japanese ‘naturally’, they also find themselves managing their time and activities in order to prioritise the use of the HL at home. Moreover, they are divided between their desire to create a relaxed communication environment for their offspring

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

29

while having to continuously remind their children to speak the minority language. These mothers’ continuous efforts to develop their children’s HL are also a source of tensions in their relationships with their British partners who often feel neglected and marginalised as they seem unaware of the work involved in bilingual childrearing. Okita’s findings were echoed in numerous studies describing the struggles of minority-language parents across various linguistic backgrounds (Caldas and Caron-Caldas 2002; King and Fogle 2006; Nesteruk 2010). Other scholars have analysed the fundamental reasons for FLP-related conflicts between parents and children. As Blackledge and Creese (2010) point out, the heritage language often plays a different role for first and second-generation speakers, which may be a cause of friction between them. One major explanation for these inter-generational differences lies in the idea of homogeneous linguistic communities and languages attached to given nations (De Fina and Perrino 2013). If immigrant parents generally link their native language to their cultural roots and their childhood in the homeland, transnational children do not necessarily associate their heritage language with a geographic or cultural territory. Accordingly, HSs’ relationship to the HL must be examined through the concepts of ‘deterritorialization’ and ‘decentering’ of languages and cultures (De Costa 2016: 15) since most second-generation immigrants acquire their HL outside of their parents’ country of origin. Heritage speakers may, therefore, not share their parents’ emotional attachment to the minority language, hence the potential for confusion and conflicts within transnational families (Czubinska 2017). Conversely, parents may not always bear in mind that their children are growing up in a different sociolinguistic context and, as a result, they may not identify with the heritage culture and may define themselves essentially through the majority culture and language. When this is the case, parents’ insistence on preserving a cultural heritage by imposing a language policy and setting proficiency expectations are sometimes contested or rejected by second-generation transnationals (Duff 2015). That said, it is important to mention that not all parents have a strong emotional attachment to their native languages, and some might make language management decisions based purely on practical motivations (Gogonas and Kirsch 2016). In a recent study, Little (2017) explored perceptions of the HL among and within multilingual families and proposed a conceptual framework of heritage language identities outlining the possible explicit and implicit

30

S. WILSON

motivations of both parents and children for developing the minority language. She describes individual family member’s motivations on a spectrum ranging from pragmatic to emotional incentives. For instance, parents with strong emotional motivations may promote the HL with a view to facilitating communication between the children and their grandparents. On the other hand, caregivers with a more pragmatic approach are more likely to shape the FLP according to social and professional prospects. Differences in parents and children’s attitudes toward the minority language are not the only source of family conflicts, and tensions between the two parents may also occur due to their different approaches to FLP (Little 2017). More particularly, in intermarried families, whilst majority-language parents often endorse the decision of raising children bilingually, they do not share the minority-language parent’s emotional connection to the HL. Little’s framework for categorising individual positions can be a useful tool to identify factors of disharmony within multilingual families. However, the complexity and singularity of transnational experiences require a more in-depth investigation of the challenges of multilingual families and an integrative approach to FLP including children’s perspectives. The literature discussed in this chapter shows that the emerging field of FLP has mostly addressed both researchers’ and parents’ concern with encouraging the development of heritage speakers’ bilingualism. However, it also clearly indicates a recent shift of focus towards a more holistic approach to the bilingual experiences of transnational families. This new perspective has also led some scholars to reconsider the notion of success in FLP research (Schwartz and Verschik 2013), which has traditionally been defined by children’s level of proficiency in the HL. The present study proposes that the subjective experiences of children are an essential criterion determining the success of a FLP. The overarching aim of this investigation is to contribute to this new direction in FLP research, by highlighting the variety of approaches and experiences among and within multilingual families. To this end, this study proposes an integrative and dynamic investigation of FLP including both parents’ and children’s views, and thereby addresses the lack of literature on children’s perspectives. The aim of present study is twofold: first, to gain an insight into how bilingual children perceive FLP; and secondly, to understand the impact of FLP on children’s experiences of growing up bilingually.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

31

References Aronoff, M., & Janie, R.-M. (Ed.). (2017). The handbook of linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Arriagada, P. A. (2005). Family context and Spanish-language use: A study of Latino children in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 599– 620. Bailey, B. (2007). Heterglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 257–276). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (16 vols., p. 319). Clevedon, UK: Multilingualism Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2003). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, C. (2014). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C., & Wayne E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism language arts and disciplines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The oneparent-one-language approach (p. 220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181. Biedinger, N., Becker, B., & Klein, O. (2015). Turkish language ability of children of immigrants in Germany: Which contexts of exposure influence preschool children’s acquisition of their heritage language? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(9), 1520–1538. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: Negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 533–554. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective (p. 255). Bloomsbury Publishing. Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal, 91, 861–874. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

32

S. WILSON

Braun, A. (2012). Language maintenance in trilingual families—A focus on grandparents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 423–436. Braun, A. (2014). Language strategies for trilingual families parents’ perspectives: Parents’ and teachers’ guides (p. 120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brown, C. L. (2011). Maintaining heritage language: Perspective of Korean parents. Multicultural Education, 19, 31–37. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523. Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—The lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358. Caldas, S. J., & Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 490–514. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 40–64. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 601–626. Canagarajah, S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 1–34. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “heritage language learner”. Heritage Language Journal, 2(1). http://www.heritagelanguages.org. Cho, G. (2015). Perspectives vs. reality of heritage language development: Voices from second-generation Korean-American high school students. Multicultural Education, 22(2), 30–38. Cho, G., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2004). What do we know about heritage languages? What do we need to learn about them? Multicultural Education, 11(4), 23–26. Chuang, Y. (2005). Effects of interaction pattern on family harmony and wellbeing: Test of interpersonal theory, relational-models theory, and Confucian ethics. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 272–291. Cohen, C. (2015). Relating input factors and dual language proficiency in French-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. To be announced. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351–375. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Negotiating family language policy: Doing homework. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Ed.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

33

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean multilingual families. Journal of Multiculturalism and Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 694–709. Czubinska, G. (2017). Migration as an unconscious search for identity: Some reflections on language, difference and belonging. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 33(2), 159–176. Darvin, R., & Norton Peirce, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. De Costa, P. I. (2016). Scaling emotions and identification: Insights from a scholarship student. Linguistics and Education, 34, 22–32. De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2013). Transnational identities. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 509–515. De Houwer, A. (1998). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–96). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 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, 283, 411–424. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (p. 432). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. De Houwer, A. (2013). Harmonious bilingual development: Young families’ well-being in language contact situations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 169–184. De Houwer, A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Bilingual mothers’ language choice in child-directed speech: Continuity and change. Journal of Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 680–693. Deusen-Scholl, V. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211–230. Dewaele, J.-M., & Sevinç, Y. (2017). La double anxiété langagière des immigrants. Babylonia Journal of Language Education, 1, 26–29. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. Döpke, S. (1992). One parent, one language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Döpke, S. (1998). Can the principle of ‘one person-one language’ be disregarded as unrealistically elitist? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 41– 56. Doyle, C. (2013). To make the root stronger: Language policies and experiences of successful multilingual intermarried families with adolescent children

34

S. WILSON

in Tallinn. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy (pp. 145–75). Dordrecht: Springer. Duff, P. (2015). ‘Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity’ Patricia A. Duff. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 57–80. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S026719051400018X. Dweik, B. S. I., & Hanadi, A. Q. (2015). Language choice and language attitudes in a multilingual Arab Canadian community: Quebec-Canada: A sociolinguistic Study. British Journal of English Linguistic, 3(1), 1–12. Fedricks, K. (2012). Attitudes of heritage language speakers language, language practices and its maintenance: Case of Sinhalese in Southern California. In The Asian Conference on Education 2012, California State University at Long Beach, USA. Ferguson, G. R. (2013). Language practices and language management in a UK Yemeni community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(2), 121–135. Festman, J., Poarch, G., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Raising multilingual children: Parents’ and teachers’ guides (p. 309). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (1970). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction (p. 126). Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Newbury House. Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fogle, L. (2012). Second language socialization and learner agency: Adoptive family talk. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fogle, L., & King, K. (2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. Frese, C., & Ward, M. (2015). New Irish families: Successes and challenges in heritage language acquisition for second generation migrant children. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin. Fuentes, U., & Schmid, M. (2015). The nature and nurture of heritage language acquisition. Lingua, 164, 239–250. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2), 241–270. García, O. (2007). Foreword. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. xi–xv). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 140– 58). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emerging bilinguals: Policies, programmes and practices for English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

35

García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. In S. G. Mateus (Ed.), (pp. 366–369). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contribution to second language learning: Part II, affective factors. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (1995). Language development in bilingual preschool children. In E. G. B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 18–33). New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, G., Walsemann, K., & Takeuchi, D. (2009). English proficiency and language preference: Testing the equivalence of two measures. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 563–569. Geva, E., & Jean, M. (2012). Through the eyes and from the mouths of young heritage language learners: How children feel and think about their two languages and why. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 49–80. Giles, H., Hewstone, M., & Ball, P. (1983). Language attitudes in multilingual settings: Prologue with priorities. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, 4(2&3), 81–96. Gogonas, N., & Kirsch, C. (2016). In this country my children are learning two of the most important languages in Europe: Ideologies of language as a commodity among Greek migrant families in Luxembourg. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 1–13. Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Antoine Meillet (pp. 61–82). Paris: Melanges Meillet. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism (p. 370). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware: The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. Guardado, M. (2017). Heritage language development in interlingual families. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education. Berlin: Springer. Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. He, A. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66–82. Hirsch, T., & Lee, J. S. (2018). Understanding the complexities of transnational family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1080/01434632.2018. 1454454. Hornberger, N. H. (2007). Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity: Trajectories across time and space. Linguistics and Education, 8, 325–334.

36

S. WILSON

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. Hulk, A., & Van der Linden, E. (1996). Language mixing in a French-Dutch bilingual child. Eurosla VI. A Selection of Papers. Toegepaste Taalwetensshap, 55, 89–103. Kasuya, H. (1998). Determinants of language choice in bilingual children: The role of input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2(3), 327. King, K. (2016). Language policy, multilingual encounters, and transnational families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 726– 733. King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712. King, K., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922. Kopeliovich, S. (2013). Happylingual: A family project for enhancing and balancing multilingual development. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 249–275). Netherlands: Springer. Krashen, S. (1998). Language shyness and heritage language development. In S. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 41–49). Culver City, CA, USA: Language Education Associates. Labov, W. (1972). The linguistic consequences of being a lame. In W. Labov (Ed.), Language in the Inner City (pp. 255–292). Philadelphia, PA, USA: University of Pennsylvania. Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Lanza, E. (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Lanza, E. (2004). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism in the family. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 45–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133. Lee, J. S., & Suarez, D. (2005). A synthesis of the role of heritage language in the lives of children of immigrants: What educators need to know. In T. G. Wiley, J. S. Lee, & R. W. Rumberger (Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

37

Leopold, W. (1994). Speech development of a bilingual child. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference? https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-code-switching-differ ence/. OUPBlog 2018. Li, W., & Zhu, H. (2013). Translanguaging identities: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 34, 516–535. Little, S. (2017). Whose heritage? What inheritance? Conceptualising family language identities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1348463. Luo, H. (2015). Chinese language learning anxiety: A study of heritage learners. Heritage Language Journal, 12(1), 22–47. Luykx, A. (Ed.). (2003). Weaving languages together: Family language policy and gender socialization in bilingual Aymara households. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lyon, J. (1996). Patterns of parental language use in Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 165–183. Maguire, M., & Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2007). Multiple schools, languages, experiences and affiliations: Ideological becomings and positionings. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 50–78. Martin, N. (2009) Arab American parents’ attitudes toward their children’s heritage language maintenance and language practice (Doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina. May, S. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 319–347. Meisel, M. (1990). Inflection: Subjects and subject-verb agreement. In J. Qrgen & M. Meisel (Eds.), In two first languages, early grammatical development in bilingual children (pp. 237–298). Dordrecht: Foris. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). The role of the family in heritage language use and learning: Impact on heritage language policies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 26–44. Miller, L. (2017). The relationship between language proficiency and language attitudes: Evidence from young Spanish-English bilinguals. Spanish in Context, 14(1), 99–123. Min Jung, J. (2018). Heritage language proficiency in relation to attitudes, motivation, and age at immigration: A case of Korean-Australians. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(1), 70–93. Mishina-Mori, S. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of language choice in bilingual children: The role of parental input and interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3122–3138.

38

S. WILSON

Moin,V., Protassova, E., Lukkari, V., & Schwartz, M. (2013). The role of family background in early bilingual education: The Finnish-Russian experience. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Ed.), Successful family language policy. Multilingual Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2009). Incomplete acquisition of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. Special Issue of the International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3–23. Montrul, S. (2016). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 530–546. Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. Mu, G. M. (2014). Learning Chinese as a heritage language in Australia and beyond: The role of Capital. Language and Education, 28(5), 477–492. Mu, G. M., & Dooley, K. (2015). Coming into an inheritance: Family support and Chinese Heritage Language learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 501–515. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism (pp. p. 472). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(3), 271–286. Nguyen, A., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2001). Development of the first language is not a barrier to second-language acquisition: Evidence from Vietnamese immigrants to the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3, 159–164. Nicholls, C. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts: Indigenous language bilingual education programmes in the Northern territory of Australia, 1972–1998. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 160–177. Nicoladis, E., & Montanari, S. (Eds.). (2016). Bilingualism across the lifespan: Factors moderating language proficiency. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. Norton Peirce, B. (2013). Identity and language learning (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2011). 2011 Census: Languages in England and Wales. London: ONS.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

39

Okita, T. (2002). Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Oriyama, K. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and Japanese identity formation: What role can schooling and ethnic community contact play? Heritage Language Journal, 7 (2), 76–111. Otcu, B. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and cultural identity formation: The case of a Turkish Saturday school in New York City. Heritage Language Journal, 7 (2), 112–137. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. Palviainen, A., & Boyd, S. (2013). Unity in discourse, diversity in practice: The one person one language policy in bilingual families. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction multilingual education (pp. 223–248). Netherlands: Springer. Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or independent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–15. Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2012). The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450–455. Pauwels, A. (2016). Language maintenance and shift: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2012). Multilingualism and emotions. New York: Routledge. Pease-Alvarez, L. (2002). Moving beyond linear trajectories of language shift and bilingual language socialization. Conversations within Mexican-descent families: Diverse contexts for language socialization and learning. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(2), 114–137. Pérez Báez, G. (2013). Family language policy, transnationalism, and the diaspora community of San Lucas Quiaviní of Oaxaca, Mexico. Language Policy, 12(1), 27–45. Piller, I. (2001). Private language planning: The best of both worlds? Estudios de sociolinguistic, 2(1), 61–80. Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Piller, I. (2005). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parentone-language approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(6), 614–617.

40

S. WILSON

Polinsky, M. (1995). Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1–2), 87–123. Polinsky, M. (2016). Bilingual children and adult heritage speakers: The range of comparison. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(17). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1367006916656048. Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E pluribus unum: Bilingualism and language loss in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269–294. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Purkarthofer, J. (2019). Building expectations: Imagining family language policy and heteroglossic social spaces. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 724–739. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Ronjat, J. (1913). Le developpement du langage observe chez un enfant bilingue. In M. West (Ed.), Bilingualism, supplementary report. Rothman, J. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 155–163. Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (1982). Attitudes towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold. Saunders, G. (1982). Bilingual children: Guidance for the family. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Dilingual discourse: The negotiation of meaning without a common code. Linguistics, 25, 81–106. Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2007). Bilingualism and attrition. In B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (p. 258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition: Benjamins current topics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schwartz, M. (2008). Relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second-generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(9), 400– 418. Schwartz, M. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1, 171–192. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (2013). Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction education (p. 295). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Sharwood Smith, M. A. (Ed.). (1989). Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1

HERITAGE SPEAKERS, FLP AND EMOTIONAL CHALLENGES

41

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Smith, L. (2007). General introduction. In L. Smith (Ed.), Cultural heritage. London: Routledge. Smith-Christmas, C. (2016). Family language policy: Maintaining an endangered language in the home. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Soehl, T. (2016). But do they speak it? The intergenerational transmission of home-country language in migrant families in France. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(9), 1513–1535. Soler, J., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2017). New spaces of new speaker profiles: Exploring language ideologies in transnational multilingual families. Language in Society, 46, 547–566. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Suarez, D. (2002). The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(6), 512–530. Takeuchi, M. (2008). Raising children bilingually through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach: A case study of Japanese mothers in the Australian context. New York: P. Lang. Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 112–137. Tran, T., Baldauf, R. B., & Moni, K. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Understanding its status and insiders’ awareness and attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 216–243. Tse, L. (1998). Ethnic identity formation and its implications for heritage language development. In S. D. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 15–29). Culver City, CA, USA: Language Education Associates. Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 622, 465–476. Unsworth, S. (Ed.). (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/APA. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Warr, P. (2012). How to think about and measure psychological well-being. In M. Wang (Ed.), Research methods in occupational health psychology. New York: Psychology Press and Routledge.

42

S. WILSON

Wilson, S. (2019). Family language policy through the eyes of bilingual children: The case of French heritage speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 2. Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 394, 203–210. Xiao, Y., & Wong, K. F. (2014). Exploring heritage language anxiety: A study of Chinese heritage language learners. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 589– 611. Yan, X., & Kolker Horwitz, E. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58, 151–183. Yates, L., & Terraschke, A. (2013). Love, language and little ones: Successes and stresses for mothers raising bilingual children in exogamous relationships. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.) Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 105–125). Dordrecht and New York: Springer. Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539–553. Zhang, D., & Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (2009). Language attitudes and heritage language maintenance among Chinese immigrant families in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(2), 78–93. Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 655–666.

CHAPTER 2

Conducting In-depth Case Studies Among Multilingual Families

Abstract The present FLP study is primarily centred on in-depth case studies involving French-English bilingual families in the UK. This chapter describes the qualitative research methods that allowed me to gain insight into the bilingual experiences of eight children within six families. I will discuss my choice of methodological tools and why they were well suited for doing research with multilingual children. Keywords Case studies · Language portraits · Child participant

Over the past two decades, the increasing interest in childhood bilingualism among the public and academics has been conducive to a significant amount of research in dual language acquisition with a view to nurturing the benefits that bilingualism may confer to children. However, and as discussed in the previous chapter, most of the data on FLP has been produced through research with adult participants, and more particularly with parents of HSs. In order to contribute to a change of focus towards children’s perspectives, I selected a number of qualitative methods that would be suited to give voice to young HSs and help them express their thoughts and bilingual experiences. While the present FLP study was design with a view to understanding the way children perceived bilingualism and their parents’ effort to transmit a linguistic and cultural heritage, it was important to adopt an integrative approach and © The Author(s) 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1_2

43

44

S. WILSON

include parents’ approaches so as to gain a more thorough and authentic insight of children’s family environment an experiences. For this reason, I adopted multiple case studies as a methodological approach that would allow me to investigate the individual views of various family members and understand children’s experiences as separate from their parents’. Besides, case study research involves in-depth and comprehensive investigation which may unveil some implicit ideas and motivations that may be invisible to the participants themselves (Okita 2002). Case studies are also a suitable approach for comparing contrasting results between the various participating families’ and individuals’ experiences (Yin 2009). According to Yin (2003), case study research depends for its quality on the integration of multiple sources of information to gather rich and comprehensive data and, as a result, contribute to strengthen the validity of the study. For this reason, I chose to employ qualitative tools for each case study, including semi-structured face-to-face interviews, email interviews, recorded observations of family interactions (self-recording in one case) and language portraits. The six case studies presented in this book are part of a larger study on FLP among transnational French-English families in the UK. The original research project included an online survey (n = 164) distributed via 22 French supplementary schools throughout the UK, and through which respondents were given the option to take part in case study research, together with their partners and children. The selection of six families was made with a view to representing a variety of FLPs, as well some degree of geographic diversity.

Interviews with Parents In order to better gauge these families’ language practices and understand the language policy to which children were exposed, I conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews with each of the six French parents. Every interview lasted one hour in average and the total recording time was 7.5 hours. In the first section of the interview, I asked participants to provide details about the language practices of all family members. The second part of the discussion focused on parents’ management of languages at home, the strategies they employed to shape their children’s HL use and development, and their expectations of children’s proficiency in French. Finally, participants answered questions about their beliefs regarding the acquisition of two languages in childhood, as well as what it meant to be bilingual. Being interviewed about personal topics such as

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

45

FLP and childrearing may be a difficult experience for some parents who may fear being judged on their parenting methods. For this reason, and in order to promote a relaxed and open exchange, I shared with the participants some personal concerns and struggle with raising my own children in a multilingual and multicultural family. All British parents in the study reported being English monolingual speakers, and therefore, most felt that they were too inept to discuss bilingual parenting. In order to accommodate them and encourage them to share their perspectives, interview questions were sent to nonFrench parents via email. This asynchronous interviewing technique was successful with getting them on board and made it possible for them to reflect on a topic to which they might have given little thought until that point (Opdenakker 2006). Another advantage of email interviewing is the fact that research participants are less likely to provide socially desirable answers than participants in face-to-face interviews (Opdenakker 2006). The email questions were designed to gain an understanding of the British parents’ attitudes towards bilingualism, their perceived level of involvement in their children’s bilingual development, as well as their perspectives on their French spouse/partner’s approach to HL transmission.

Doing Research with Children As discussed in the previous chapter, there is a limited amount of information available to date on children’s views on FLP, which may be explained by the difficulty of applying traditional methods such as questionnaires and interviews to young research participants. However, and as a few FLP researchers pointed out, it is high time we incorporate children’s perspectives in the data (Fogle and King 2013; Melo-Pfeifer 2015). To this end, a few scholars have proposed more creative tools that may suit children’s familiar environment and activities. For instance, Melo-Pfeifer (2015) encouraged Portuguese-German bilingual children to describe their bilingual experiences and the concept of translanguaging through their drawings. Drawing, as a familiar, non-verbal mode of expression (Busch 2012), may be particularly adapted for young research participants as it allows the ‘mise en movement d’un imaginaire’ (Moore and Castellotti 2011: 122). In this study, I investigated children’s perspectives through two main methods: face-to-face semi-structured interviews with visual stimuli and language portraits.

46

S. WILSON

Semi-structured Interviews with Visual Stimuli Given their formal and pre-planned nature, semi-structured interviews with children are somewhat challenging. However, rather than discarding interviewing as a method of research with children, I attempted to employ more child-friendly interviews that would motivate the youngest children to share their thoughts and feelings. Drawing on Geva and Jean’s (2012) study of school-age bilingual Canadians, I used pictures of gender-matched characters as stimuli to both engage children and help them report their language practices and attitudes by visualising the hypothetical interaction context I described (Frostig and Maslow 1979). Moreover, I also provided the young participants with positive, neutral, or negative facial expression stimuli in order to help them describe the affect they associated with each of their languages. The visual prompts consisted of a series of nine picture items depicting different scenarios in which a child character engaged in daily activities and interactions in public spaces (at the shop, at the park) and at home. In addition to the pictures, I offered images of positive, neutral and negative facial expressions (similar to emoji) to children who struggled to describe their emotions through words. Another innovative approach to interviewing children consisted in joint sibling interviews in 2 of the 6 families, and with a view to making the participants more relaxed and comparing their perspectives. My first meeting with the children took place on a Saturday, at their respective supplementary schools. I selected a familiar environment as the interview location in order to put the participating families at ease and give them the opportunity to get to know me before our second encounter in their home. The interview questions were organised in two sections. I first asked children about their daily language use with different members of the family, in various contexts such as while doing homework, at the dinner table and in public places. The second part of the discussion was conducted with an intention to gauge children’s attitudes towards the HL and bilingualism in general, as well as their perspectives on their parents’ language management methods. Questions regarding language attitudes reflected Baker’s three-component model (1993) including cognitive elements (e.g. the perceived advantages of being bilingual), affective elements (e.g. the level emotional attachment to a language), as well as the individual’s readiness for action (e.g. refusing to speak a given language).

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

47

While the use of interviews to investigate bilingual language practices and beliefs poses questions of validity and accuracy of the data, regardless of the participants’ age, it is fair to expect that children are less likely than adults to provide socially acceptable or desirable answers. Besides, comparing interview data and recordings of family interactions can give an indication of the level of accuracy of children’s and parents’ reports of their language practices. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to presume that children’s beliefs may be influenced by their parents’ ideologies and the desire to meet their expectations. For this reason, building a good rapport with the children was an essential part of the interview schedule. My first encounter with every child started with a thirty-minute casual talk, unrelated to the interview topic, and revolving around the participant’s interests. During this first half-hour, teenage HSs would chat about friends, their schools and extra-curricular activities, while younger children told me about their favourite activities and games, while doing some drawing or colouring. Given that the interviews took place at the children’s French supplementary schools, I decided to introduce myself in English in order to distance myself from the authority figures in the school. Furthermore, speaking English upon meeting the young participants was intended to avoid any apprehension about performing in their heritage language. My first meeting with the children took place either in a private classroom or in a more public area such as the school café or staff room, according to each participant’s preference. After our initial casual discussion, I reminded each child of the goal of my research project and asked them to sign an assent form. I proceeded to ask the participant whether he/she would rather be interviewed in French or in English and emphasised, on two occasions, that he/she was free to speak English or French, and to switch or mix the two varieties at any point during the conversation. All interviews were audio-recorded and provided 5 hours of data. Children’s Language Portraits The Language Portrait is a fairly recent research method which has been used essentially by a few Austrian linguistic and educational scholars (Busch 2006; Krumm and Jenkins 2001). This creative tool helps children speak about their bilingual experiences and encourages researchers to ‘slow down the adult’s journey to deciding upon meaning’ (Cook and Hess 2007: 42). Language portraits allow bilingual speakers to

48

S. WILSON

describe how their various linguistic varieties interact across time and space (Bakhtin 1981; Blackledge and Creese 2010; Busch 2012; Li 2018) and are thus in agreement with a heteroglossic understanding of multilingualism, in which this study positions itself. This research method goes hand in hand with the concept of linguistic repertoire referring to the complex linguistic resources that people possess and make use of in a given communication situation, and which ‘reflects the fragmented and highly diverse life-trajectories and environments’ (Blommaert and Rampton 2011: 8). In this study, I employed language portraits to gain insight into each young participant’ unique interplay between family, bilingualism and cultural identity. The children created their language portraits during our second encounter, at their home. I provided each child with a printed body silhouette and, following Busch’s suggestions (2018), I gave the following instructions: This is your body. Think of all the languages present in your life. Pick a colour for each of these languages. Through your colouring and drawing, you can show: How you experience these languages every day, what these languages mean to you. You can think of the different situations or people with whom you speak. You cannot do anything right or wrong when drawing. You can take all the time you want. You can add captions or just explain what you did.

After completing their language portraits, children described and explained them verbally, including the choice of colours, symbols, captions and the use of space. I asked participants for additional details where necessary. All descriptions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis of the children’s comments was carried out in order to identify common themes among the various language portraits.

Observation and Recording of Family Interactions In order to further explore families’ language practices and management, I conducted audio recorded observations in 5 of the 6 households, while one of the families self-recorded some of their interactions. The investigation of interactions in a naturalistic environment allows for a comparison

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

49

between reported and recorded or observed practices, and it can also reveal some group dynamics that may not be apparent through participants’ accounts. Besides, observational data is less likely to be affected by participants’ ideologies than self-report data (Hakuta and D’Andrea 1992). Considering that video recording of family conversations could have been intrusive, I took notes during the observations and documented any interesting non-verbal behaviour, including eye contact and tone of voice. As a research participant, being observed within the intimate environment of one’s home may feel unpleasant. For this reason, I proposed two scenarios to each of the six families, depending on which was more comfortable for all family members: either being observed and recorded during a family meal, or while doing homework with the children. For many middle-class families, mealtime is a moment when all members gather around the dinner table and share their daily experiences. It is therefore an interesting context for the study of bilingual family interactions as it may highlight the different language patterns and choices among the various family members. Blum-Kulka’s (1997) extensive work on family dinner conversations shows that mealtimes constitute important sites of language socialisation in which parents socialise children into ‘local cultural practices regulating conversation, such as the choice of topics, rules of turn taking, modes of storytelling, rules of politeness, and choice of language’ (Blum-Kulka and Snow 2002). The context of homework was suggested to participants who were reluctant to be observed and recorded during a family dinner, and was selected by two of the six participating families. As with family meals, homework time can involve interesting language choices from various family members, however it is a less intimate context. During the observations, I remained at a distance which would allow me to observe and record the interaction, while causing minimum disruption to the ongoing conversations (De Houwer and Bornstein 2016). Whilst, at first, my presence may have made some of the participants feel self-conscious, the routine and familiar nature of the interactional contexts (family dinner and homework) led families to rapidly fall back into their habitual interactional and language practices.

Data Analysis All interviews and language portrait descriptions were analysed through Thematic Analysis with the help of the software Nvivo 11. Additionally, I applied the three-component FLP model as an analytical framework

50

S. WILSON

to identify and report each of the participating families’ language practices, management and ideologies. Finally, I used some elements of Conversation Analysis to examine the observed family interactions. Thematic Analysis Braun and Clarke’s (2006) Thematic Analysis (TA) is a method for identifying, organising, describing and interpreting patterns within a data set. Unlike other qualitative data analysis methods, TA is not linked to any particular theory or epistemology and, therefore, can be a ‘contextualist’ analytical tool, suitable for a pragmatic research design, as is the case in this study. TA was conducted with a view to gaining a deeper understanding of children’s experiences of their respective FLPs and bilingualism. Crossanalysis of all children’s interview data was performed in order to identify codes, and subsequently, themes, independently of the research questions. Although TA is not attached to any specific theoretical perspective, it should, nonetheless, be applied as a rigorous analytical method, in order to ensure the credibility of the findings. In this study, I conducted TA following Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2013) six-stage framework: ‘become familiar with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define themes and write-up’. This TA analysis framework remains flexible, however, given that the various phases are not necessarily linear, and one may move back and forth between them (Maguire and Delahunt 2017). Besides, when identifying themes, the researcher also establishes what constitutes prevalence. It is thus essential to remain consistent in how the importance of a theme is determined. Given the small sample used for the present case studies, I described a theme as prevalent if it had been raised by at least three informants. In order to further ensure the validity of the derived themes, samples of the interviews were examined by two academics who verified that interpretations remained close to the data. Analysis of Family Interactions The FLP framework was applied to all audio recorded family interactions in order to gauge participants’ language practices, parental language management methods, as well as children’s responses or reactions to such methods. All conversations were transcribed verbatim and field notes

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

51

provided additional information on how non-verbal communication, such as body positioning signalling change of language and interlocutor, was used to implement parental language strategies. Additionally, I analysed observations by studying turn-taking sequences, meta-linguistic comments and how interlocutors responded to each other (Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008).

Participants and Research Sites Children in this study are school-aged French heritage speakers, born in the UK, within a Franco-British family. Following an anonymous Internet survey, distributed through 22 of the 54 French supplementary schools across the country, six of the families who had expressed an interest in discussing their approach to FLP with me were invited to take part in case study research. The six participating families were located in three areas: two in London, two in South East England and two in the West Midlands. These participants’ respective French supplementary schools were among the largest in Britain with around 300 children attending every Saturday. Three different geographical locations were selected in order to include a variety of socio-demographic environments in which parents raised children bilingually. London, as an exceptionally cosmopolitan area, has 22.1% of its population reporting speaking a first language other than English (UK 2011 Census). The geographic distribution of languages in the capital shows high concentrations of certain linguistic communities, such as speakers of European languages in Kensington and Chelsea (inner London borough) including French (4.9% of the 41,440 borough population as per 2011 UK census), Spanish (2.7%) and Italian (2.4%), or speakers of Yiddish in the borough of Hackney (75% of all self-reported Yiddish speakers in the UK). After London, the West Midlands saw the highest proportion of people (7%) who reported speaking English as their second language. The region has a particularly large Pakistani Pahari community with 49.5% of speakers living in this area. Finally, two of the six families who took part in the case studies were located in the county of Buckinghamshire in South East England. This area also has a diverse population with 6% of residents speaking a first language other than English (2011 Census of England and Wales). Asian British constitute the largest ethnic minority in Buckinghamshire comprising 8.6% of the county population compared to 7.8% in England, followed by the Afro-Caribbean community. There are also Poles, Czechs

52

S. WILSON

and Albanians communities which have been present in the region since the end of the second world war. Whilst all six families in this research lived in multicultural and multilingual environments, it is fair to expect that participants residing in London may have been exposed to greater ethnic and linguistic diversity and to a higher concentration of Western Europeans, including other French nationals. The study involved 8 school-aged children (6–17 years old), including two pairs of siblings. Further details about the participants are provided in the next chapter. The participation of minors made it essential to ensure that every child had provided inform consent. Thus, after obtaining consent from the caregivers, my main concern was to verify that no child had felt pressured into participating. Therefore, and owing to the limited level of literacy of the youngest participants (6 years old), I gave every child, before the interview, a verbal explanation of the research purpose. The eight young participants were then asked whether they had understood the research process and whether they agreed to take part. They proceeded to sign a consent form whose wording was appropriate to their age. Additionally, the children were told, on several occasions, that they were free to stop participating at any point during both the interview and the language portrait activity.

Generalisability and Limitations of the Study As regards the limitations of this research, the participants were part of a generally well-off minority in Britain and benefited from fairly positive societal attitudes towards their cultural and linguistic background. Overall, French nationals in the UK (around 300,000 according to the French Consulate in London) constitute a relatively educated community with 65% holding ‘higher level professions’ consisting of managers, directors and senior officials, professional and technical occupations (Standard Occupational Classification 2000 Volume 1, Office for National Statistics 2000) compared with 44% of the UK workforce as a whole. In 2017, 6% of French citizens in the UK worked in elementary occupations (blue-collar jobs) against 11% of the total UK workforce (Office for National Statistics 2015). The population studied in this research can, therefore, be described as middle to upper-middle class individuals with good proficiency in English. This implies that the participating

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

53

parents were more likely to reflect about their decision to actively pursue bilingual childrearing. It is important to point out that families from other socioeconomic, ethnic and linguistic communities may perceive and experience transnationalism and minority language transmission differently. Besides, it is clear that the French language has historically enjoyed strong political, cultural and economic prestige (Baker 2001; De Mejía 2013), which remains relevant today, despite the significant decrease of its popularity among secondary school students over the past few years (Tinsley et al. 2018). Moreover, since French has traditionally been one of the main foreign languages taught in British schools, alongside German and Spanish (Long et al. 2018), many people in the UK are familiar with it. For all these reasons, French native speakers in Britain seem to fit Fishman’s (1966) definition of elite bilinguals, as well as Valdés and Figueroa’s (1994: 12) concept of ‘elective’ bilingualism since they are proficient in English and may still choose to transmit the minority language to their offspring due to the perceived advantages it may provide. When it comes to transmitting the HL to second-generation speakers, families whose minority language is positively perceived in society are spared the additional obstacle that lower status varieties may be faced with. It is therefore essential to recognise that immigrant communities whose language varieties are generally, and unfairly, negatively perceived in the UK, may not relate to the bilingual experiences of the six families in the present study. However, it is also beneficial, when researching FLP, to overcome the dichotomy of high and low prestige bilingualism in order to appreciate the complex challenges and experiences of HSs in relation to today’s more global and mobile world (De Mejía 2013). As Hélot (2007: 38) suggests, it is possible to adopt an integrative approach and ‘think (…) together of middle-class children’s bilingualism and that of minority (children), analysing similarities, rather than differences’. Another limitation of this research lies in the small sample and, therefore, it does not claim to be representative of all intermarried families. Furthermore, as many other studies in FLP, this study concerns a traditional nuclear family structure and may not be representative of other family settings such as same sex unions or adoptive families. Details about the families’ backgrounds and language policies have been provided, in the next chapter, for readers to make a judgement on the transferability of the findings.

54

S. WILSON

References Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (16 vols., p. 319). Clevedon, UK: Multilingualism Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259–422) (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective (p. 255). Bloomsbury Publishing. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4), 431–435. Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (2002). Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London, UK: Sage. Busch, B. (2006). Language biographies for multilingual learning: Linguistic and educational considerations. In B. Busch, J. Aziza, & A. Tjoutuku (Eds.). Language biographies for multilingual learning. PRAESA Occasional Papers (pp. 5–17). Cape Town: PRAESA. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523. Busch, B. (2018). The language portrait in multilingualism research: Theoretical and methodological considerations (Paper 236 Working Paper in Urban Language and Literacy). Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective: Fun methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–46. De Houwer, A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Bilingual mothers’ language choice in child-directed speech: Continuity and change. Journal of Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 680–693. De Mejía, A.-M. (2013). Elite/folk bilingual education. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Ames, IA, USA and Hoboken: Iowa State University and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fishman, J. A. (1966). Bilingualism with and without diglossia. Journal of social issues, 23(2), 29–38.

2

CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH CASE STUDIES AMONG …

55

Fogle, L., & King, K. (2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. Frostig, M., & Maslow, P. (1979). Neuropsycholoical contributions to education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(8), 538–552. Geva, E., & Jean, M. (2012). Through the eyes and from the mouths of young heritage language learners: How children feel and think about their two languages and why. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 49–80. Hakuta, K., & D’Andrea, D. (1992). Some properties of bilingual maintenance and loss in Mexican background high-school students. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 72–99. Hélot, C. (2007). Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école. Paris, France: L’Harmattan. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 0745638651, 9780745638652. Krumm, H.-J., & Jenkins, E.-M. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachenlebendige Mehrsprachigkeit: Sprachenportraits gesammelt und kommentiert. Vienna, Austria: Eviva. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference? https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-code-switching-differ ence/. OUPBlog 2018. Long, R., Danechi, S., & Library, H.o.C. (2018). Language teaching in schools (England). London: House of Commons Library. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 1(3), 33–51. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). The role of the family in heritage language use and learning: Impact on heritage language policies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 26–44. Moore, D., & Castellotti, V. (2011). Dessins d’enfants, recherche qualitative, interprétation. Des poly-textes pour l’étude des imaginaires du plurilinguisme. In P. B. Chardenet (Ed.), Guide pour la recherche en didactique des langues. Approches contextualisées (pp. 118–132). Paris: France Éditions des Archives Contemporaines. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2000). Standard occupational classification. London: The Stationery Office. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2015). 3-year pooled annual population survey. Annual average from January 2013 to December 2015. London: The Stationery Office. Okita, T. (2002). Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

56

S. WILSON

Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7 (4), 1–13. Tinsley, T., Doležal, N., & Council, B. (2018). Language trends 2018: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England. London: British Council. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

CHAPTER 3

Childhood Experiences of FLP: 6 Case Studies of French Heritage Speakers in England

Abstract This chapter presents each of the six case studies in turn. Every case study report starts with a description of family’s language practices, parental language management style and methods, and parental language ideologies. In addition to these three FLP elements, I include the parents’ perception of their children’s language attitudes and the children’s attitudes towards the minority language and towards parental language management style. Keywords Case studies · Language portraits

Each case study report is based on the data obtained from the variety of methods presented in the previous chapter, namely face-to-face interviews with the French parents, email interviews with the non-French parents, interviews and language portraits of the children and audio recorded observations of family interactions. French and English names and surnames were replaced by French and English pseudonyms, respectively. Pseudonyms also contain the same number of syllables as participants’ actual names in order to remain as close as possible to an authentic

© The Author(s) 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1_3

57

58

S. WILSON

description of each participant. Translations into English are presented italic for clarity purposes.

Case Study A: Hélène (9) and Antoine (16) Collins Hélène, 9 and Antoine, 16, were born in the UK to a French mother, Rachel, and a British father, Allan. Their older brother, Florian, 18, recently left the family home to start university studies. Rachel is a French native speaker who has been living in the UK for 25 years and works as a part-time business administrator. Her husband, Allan, was born and raised in the UK and runs a tech company. He declares having some understanding of simple French conversation but no productive skills. Family Language Practices Interactions within the Collins Family follow a clear and consistent pattern. English is exclusively used between the children and their father who ‘understands a lot [of French] but does not speak it at all’. The children and their mother address each other exclusively in French, ‘whether at home, at the shop or in presence of friends’ (Rachel), and including when communicating by text messages. Hélène and Antoine speak mostly English to each other except on rare occasions when they visit family in France. As far as translanguaging is concerned, Rachel declares that she never or rarely mixes French and English, except on the rare occasions where no French equivalent could be found for an English term, such as ‘lunch bag’ or ‘nativity play’. Antoine also explains that he does not translanguage because he has ‘all the words’, while Hélène, on the contrary, reports mixing often and finding it ‘fun’. Language Management Rachel strictly implements the one person-one language strategy. She not only speaks the minority language consistently to her children, but she also imposes the use of French on Hélène and Antoine, in direct conversations with her. Antoine, 16, declares that he has never heard his mother speak a word of English to him. To the question of whether they would ever speak English to their mother, the children simply replied:

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

59

‘There’s no point. She won’t respond’. On occasions where they attempt to address their mother in English, Rachel describes her reaction as follow: COLL.1

Je dis: “J’comprends pas. qu’est-ce que tu veux me dire? » Alors peut-être: « est-ce que c’est…?” Et je leur donne l’expression française, et dans ce cas-là, j’essaie au moins de faire en sorte qu’ils répètent, dans l’idéal, sinon qu’ils me disent “Oui c’est ça que j’veux dire”, et donc j’leur dis en français. Je comprends pas ça veut dire je veux pas. […] “Non tu peux pas avoir de gâteau parce que tu m’as pas demandé en français [laughter]”. I say: “I don’t understand. What are you trying to tell me?” Or maybe, “Do you mean…?” And I give them the French equivalent, and in that case, I make sure that they repeat it at least, or that they tell me “Yes, that’s what I meant”, and then I tell them in French. I don’t understand means I don’t want to. […] “No, you can’t have any cake because you haven’t asked me in French [laughter]”.

Rachel’s language management remains rigorous in presence of nonFrench speakers, including the children’s school friends. COLL.2

Si j’ai des amis autour de moi, ou même avec leurs amis à eux, je ne parle que français. Et s’il y a quelque chose que je dis éventuellement deux fois, euh, tous ensemble, “Vous savez que vous n’avez pas à monter dans les chambres”, et je répète en anglais, après, pour les copains aussi. Comme ça je leur ai parlé, en les regardant eux, directement en français, et je regarde tous les autres quand je le dis en anglais [laughter]. (Rachel) And if I have friends around, or even with their friends, I only speak French. And if there’s something that I potentially say twice, euh, to everybody, “you know you’re not supposed to go in the bedrooms upstairs”, and I repeat it in English, afterwards, for the friends. This way, I looked at THEM and spoke to THEM directly in French, and I look at everyone else when I say something in English. (Rachel)

60

S. WILSON

A language separation strategy is also applied when the father, Allan, is present. Rachel addresses the children in French and subsequently translates for her husband. She also uses body language to signal that any comment in English is directed at Allan only, as she describes below. COLL.3

S’il y a des choses que je veux être sure qu’il ait compris, si je les ai disputé, si elle a pas son dessert parce qu’elle a pas fini son assiette, ou il a pas rangé sa chambre ou autre, j’lui dis en français et après, je me tourne vers mon mari et j’lui dis en anglais. Eux ils savent que si je le répète en anglais c’est pour lui, pour qu’il ait compris [laughter]. If I want to make sure he’s understood something (ref. to Allan), if I’ve told them off, if she’s not having her pudding because she hasn’t finished off her plate, or he hasn’t tidied up his room or anything else, I tell them in French, then I turn to my husband and tell him in English. They know that if I’m repeating in English it’s for him, so that he’s understood [laughter].

In addition to her management of family language use at home, Rachel encourages the children’s acquisition of French through ‘immersion complète’ (full immersion) in France. The mother explains that the purpose of the children’s holidays in her homeland is not only to visit relatives but also to ‘disconnect from English’. Rachel explains that her two sons’ French skills have greatly improved through spending time alone with their French grandparents during the summer holidays. However, she reports less satisfaction with the progress of Hélène, 9, which she attributes to her daughter’s exposure to English via phones and tablets. As a remedy, Rachel sent Hélène to a summer camp where digital devices were not allowed. Overall, Hélène and Antoine are exposed to a highly structured and controlling parental language management approach. Observed Language Practices & Management Interactions between Allan, Rachel, Hélène and Antoine Collins were observed, at the family home, during dinner. The audio recorded exchanges between the 4 family members are coherent with the practices

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

61

reported by the children and their mother during their respective faceto-face interviews. During the recorded interaction, Rachel spoke to the children exclusively in French, while Antoine and Hélène used French or English depending on which parent they were addressing. At no point did Rachel engage in a topic unless the children would address her directly in French, as demonstrated in the conversation extract below: COLL.4

*Hélène: *Antoine: *Rachel (French mother): *Antoine:

*Allan (British father, basic French skills): *Antoine:

*Rachel:

What did daddy get you again? A jet ski. Vous parlez de quoi? What are you talking about? Papa, il va acheter un [hesitation][silence] Dad, he’s going to buy a [hesitation][silence] the Christmas present? [addressing his father] Yeah, you’re going to. A [inaudible] [brand of jet ski]. I would have liked it but hmm he said it was in stock, but it wasn’t. [addressing and looking at her husband Allan] Are you talking about the box he’s received today?

The recorded interactions also show that English dominates at the dinner table despite Rachel’s numerous attempts to bring the conversation back to French. Conversations initiated by the children were always held in English and directed at the group or at their father. Hélène and Antoine spoke French only in response to their mother’s direct questions, but never started a new topic that would involve directly addressing their mother in the minority language. Besides, their utterances in French always remained very brief and sometimes almost non-existent, as in the two conversation samples below:

62

S. WILSON

COLL.5

*Rachel (French mother):

*Antoine: *Rachel: *Antoine: *Rachel:

*Allan (British father, basic French skills): *Rachel:

*Antoine: *Rachel:

*Antoine: *Rachel: *Antoine: *Rachel: *Antoine:

Moi j’voulais t’emmener à [pause] j’voulais t’emmener au truc d’escalade à X (location), hein? I, I wanted to take you to [pause] I wanted to take you to the climbing thing in X, (location), hmm? Pourquoi? Why? Parce que t’es bon, t’aime bien. Because you’re good, you like it. Hmm Ben tu peux essayer et si ça t’plait on t’prend un abonnement. Well, you can try and if you like we get you a membership. That thing is expensive. It’s £35 per session. [addressing Antoine] (…) On peut t’emmener hein? Tous les soirs que tu veux comme ça. Quand t’as pas after-school. [addressing Antoine] We can take you, hmm? Any evening that you want. When you don’t have after-school. Hmm? Quand t’as pas after-school. When you don’t have afterschool. J’avais pas aujourd’hui. I didn’t have it today. Si t’avais aujourd’hui. Yes, you did today. Non. No. Ah ça a pas encore démarré? Oh, hasn’t it started yet? Si. It did.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

63

In the above conversation excerpt, Antoine’s answers remain minimal and often consist of the non-lexical filler ‘hmm’. In cases where Rachel’s questions in French would require a more detailed response (for example, ‘Oh, hasn’t it started yet?’ ), Antoine provides a simple yes or no answer. COLL.6

*Rachel (French mother):

*Antoine: *Rachel: *Antoine: *Rachel: *Rachel: *Hélène:

*Antoine:

*Allan (father, monolingual English speaker): *Antoine: *Allan: *Antoine: *Allan:

Qui a mis la bouilloire en route ? Who put the kettle on? Moi. Me. Pour quoi faire? What for? C’est moi. It’s me. Hmm I’m on my second. C’est bon. Is it good? Les pates [thumb up], le bacon [thumb down]. The pasta [thumb up], the bacon [thumb down]. [Addressing his father] How do you connect to this? [electronic device]. Huh? We can’t connect to that. We keep going over and over this. No, not with me. You haven’t got the right thing for it. It doesn’t exist on the one you’ve got.

In the above conversation extract, Hélène used body language (thumb up and thumb down), which allowed her to reduce the amount of French required to communicate with her mother. This sample also shows that both Hélène and Antoine initiated topics of conversation in English, whereas they did not seem keen to do so in the minority language during the entire duration of the meal.

64

S. WILSON

Minority Language Parent’s Ideologies Raising a child bilingually is… “difficult but rewarding” (Rachel). Rachel justifies her use of the OPOL method as follows: COLL.7

À la minute où [hesitation] un enfant comprend qu’il peut parler aux parents en anglais, et donc papa ou maman répond en français de toutes façons, ils arrêtent de parler français. Et donc le niveau baisse. From the moment when [hesitation] a child understands that she can speak English to her parents, and that dad or mum responds in French anyway, she stops speaking French. And, then, the proficiency level goes down.

The mother believes that speaking French exclusively to one’s child is not sufficient to develop their active use of the language. She, therefore, imposes the use of the minority language to her three children, through the various techniques described previously. Rachel is not only consistent in her daily language choices, but she reports she has also been sticking to her guns over the years and has applied the same approach to each child as she believes that “if one child does it, then the others follow”. Her beliefs about bilingual language acquisition seem to derive from witnessing the experiences of friends who “let their children speak English to them” and whose children stopped speaking the minority language as a result. As for translanguaging, Rachel describes this practice as “intellectual laziness”. She believes that parents often “anglicise” French syntax and that they should make “a conscious effort” to use the correct structure. Her negative perception of translanguaging is consistent with her language separation strategy at home. Parental Expectations of Children’s HL Proficiency Rachel’s rigorous language rules also come with high expectations of her offspring’s French proficiency. She reports that when the children were younger, “[she] had searched for courses so they [could] learn French at the same level as English”. She declares that their level of French is still inferior to their English and that “they could use some improvement”. Rachel is particularly dissatisfied with Antoine’s proficiency and she believes that he is not “a linguist by nature” and that people are naturally better or worse at learning languages. The mother, nonetheless,

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

65

maintains the same expectations for Antoine as for her other two children. She rationalises her approach to bilingualism through her beliefs about parenting and justifies her FLP as follows: COLL.8

En plaçant la barre haut [hesitation], c’est comme pour tout en élevant des enfants, on met l’idéal là [placing hand above head], et en fait quand on arrive là [placing hand at eye level], on pourrait être là [placing hand at waist level]. Donc on est content d’être là [placing hand at eye level]. By placing the bar high [hesitation], it’s like anything else when you’re raising children, here is your ideal scenario [placing hand above head], and when you actually get here [placing hand at eye level], but you could be here [placing hand at waist level]. So, you’re happy to be here [placing hand at eye level].

Rachel’s approach fits Piller’s (2002) description of commonly high expectations among elite bilingual parents implementing OPOL and her high expectations of HL proficiency are associated with high expectations in other aspects of her children’s lives, such as education. Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing Hélène and Antoine’s father, Allan, presented his perspective via an email interview in which his comments converged with his wife’s idea that she is entirely responsible for the children’s acquisition of French. His responses were particularly brief (with a word count of 65 as opposed to an average of 265 words for the other five British parents). Allan declares ‘agree[ing] with Rachel’s goals one hundred percent’. He also describes the FLP as “strict” but “worth it”. Parental Perception of Children’s Attitude According to Allan, both Hélène (9) and Antoine (16) have positive attitudes towards their French cultural and linguistic heritage. As for Rachel, she explains that she has tried to ensure her language management style would not be experienced negatively. She realises that “it annoys them” sometimes but she believes that their appreciation will come with maturity.

66

S. WILSON

Hélène and Antoine’s Attitude Towards the HL and Parental Language Management Both Hélène and Antoine show little enthusiasm towards their mother’s efforts to promote French within the family. The children’s reluctance to embrace an all-French language policy at home came to light during the audio-recorded family interactions in their home. As described previously, they seemed to avoid interactions that would require using the HL only, while they initiated conversations in English on many occasions. Hélène and Antoine declare that they prefer to speak the majority language, but they also accept the fact that their mother “won’t bother to respond if it’s in English”. Antoine appears resigned to the idea that he will never be able to use English with his mother and he accepts that “there’s no point trying because it’s just life”. On the other hand, Hélène (9) expresses feelings of resentment towards Rachel for ignoring her when speaking English. During the interview, she reports feeling “annoyed” on five occasions. Hélène describes her frustration as follows: COLL.10

I just feel annoyed cause I don’t understand French as much. Cause some words that she says I don’t understand. So [pause] they’re just confusing me and I get really annoyed, and I stop talking.

The young girl reports some level of discomfort in her interactions with her mother because she does not always have the necessary comprehension skills in French. Her heritage language skills limitation, along with Rachel’s categorical refusal to include any English in their conversations, sometimes result in Hélène shutting down communication with her mother. Both Hélène and Antoine have fairly positive attitudes towards their supplementary school. Although they find it difficult to “go to school on Saturdays”, Antoine sees it as an opportunity to achieve good grades in his school exams while Hélène has developed some strong friendships at the school over the years. Overall, the children’s attitude towards their mother’s language management appears to be strongly negative in Hélène’s case, and resigned, at best, as far as Antoine is concerned. Hélène and Antoine’s perceptions were also reflected in their responses to the last interview question:

3

COLL.11

*Interviewer: *Hélène: *Interviewer: *Hélène: *Antoine:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

67

And do you think that if you have children, you will teach them French? No. Why? [silence] No idea.

During our second encounter, Hélène and Antoine created language portraits to describe how they experienced the various language varieties present in their lives (Fig. 3.1). Hélène’s portrait reveals that she identifies as “half French” despite her negative attitude towards her mother’s language management choices. The text in the speech bubbles suggests that she strongly associates languages with the relationships that she values at this stage of her life, such as her grandparents and her friends. Interestingly, no mention is made of her mother despite the fact that she is her main source of input in French. Both languages seem closely intertwined on the portrait (Fig. 3.2). Antoine’s portrait seems straightforward but contains a touch of sarcasm. He reduces his appreciation of the French culture to the fact that he “enjoys baguettes”. Antoine used the French flag to represent “the French side of the family” while the British flag is a symbol for the English-speaking side of the family. As in his Hélène’s language portrait, each language is closely associated with family. Antoine also identifies as “half-French” and “half-English”. The obvious similarities between Antoine and Hélène’s figures may be due to the fact that they created their portraits sitting at the same table and may have, therefore, influenced each other.

Case Study B: Eric (11) and Ella (13) Bradford Eric (11) and Ella (13) were born in Britain and attend the same secondary school. They report getting along well, although they regularly engage in teasing behaviour, which transpires during their joint interview and the recorded family interactions. Their mother, Vanessa, was born and raised in France. She has been living in the UK for 23 years and works as a laboratory manager. Their father, Carl, is a British citizen of Indian descent, and does not speak any other languages than English fluently. Carl describes his French as just good enough to order food at a restaurant, or as his wife describes: “tourist’s level French”.

68

S. WILSON

Fig. 3.1 Hélène’s language portrait

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

Fig. 3.2 Antoine’s language portrait

69

70

S. WILSON

Family Language Practices As a general rule, Vanessa tends to address the children in French but she also reports translanguaging often. Eric and Ella also declare that Vanessa speaks “French and English (…) depend(ing) on how she is feeling”. The two siblings respond to their mother in English “90% of the time” according to Vanessa. The mother describes her interactions with her children as follows: BRAD.1

Ben l’anglais en fait vient assez facilement quand euh, parce qu’en fait Ils me repondent en anglais donc au bout d’un moment c’est “bon ben on va continuer en anglais”, c’est fatigant quoi. C’est souvent. Et après ils me répondent en anglais. Donc c’est vraiment un mélange quoi. Je commence en français généralement et ça finit en anglais quoi [laughter]. Well, English comes quite easily when euh, because, actually, when they respond to me in English, at some point it goes ‘Ok then we’ll continue in English’, it’s just tiring. It happens often. And then they respond to me in English. So, it’s really a mix yeah. I generally start off in French and it ends up being in English [laughter].

Vanessa also translanguages with her sister, bilingual colleagues and friends who live in the UK. She describes this practice as “using English words into a French conversation frequently”. Both Vanessa and the children declare that they use a mix of French and English between the three of them, in public places. In presence of the father, Carl, all family members speak English because “he understands very little French”, as explained by Eric and Ella. Between themselves, the children always speak English, except “if (they) don’t want anyone to know what (they)’re saying”, in which case they speak the HL. Parental Language Management Vanessa qualifies her approach to the transmission of the minority language as “relaxed”. Her language management methods vary from what Lanza (1997) describes as “move-on strategy”—the adult does not intervene and lets the conversation takes its course, to “adult

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

71

code-switching”—the adult uses both languages. The mother’s language management can be described as highly tolerant towards translanguaging and the use of English (Lanza 1997; Curdt-Christiansen 2013). She does not expressively ask Ella and Eric to use the minority language. Rather than language rules, Vanessa has established a “tradition” of speaking French in the car, on the family’s journey back from the supplementary school. Even on that occasion, the children do not seem to experience it as a constraining exercise, as Ella explains: “she doesn’t really mind if we don’t want to speak French. It’s like, it’s on us.” During visits to the extended family in France, Vanessa encourages the children to speak French in presence of their grandparents. The mother describes her method as follows: BRAD.2

Ils vont dire: “Oh j’connais pas le mot en français”. Donc je dis “Ben tu construis ta phrase en français et le mot que tu comprends pas ou tu ne sais pas comment dire, tu me le dis et puis j’te le dis”. They will say: “Oh but I don’t know that word in French”. So, I say “Well, construct your sentence in French and if there’s a word you don’t know or don’t know how to say, you tell me and I’ll tell you”.

Vanessa explains that her approach has been flexible since the children were little. When she realised that Eric and Ella preferred using English, she decided to adopt a “light” and playful approach to avoid creating tensions. She gives the following example of how she tends to deal with grammatical mistakes: BRAD.3

On essaie de garder un aspect positif. Même là, par exemple, ils font une erreur toute bête, “je suis faim”, je dis “Ah ben non, t’es pas très fin” [laughter]. Donc on se moque aussi de ça, donc pour garder l’esprit un peu léger. We try to look at the positive side of it. Even if, for example, they make a simple mistake. “Je suis faim” (instead of ‘J’ai faim’ = ‘I am hungry’), I say, “Ah ben non, t’es pas très fin” [laughter] (“Well, no, you’re not that fine”, ‘fin’ and ‘faim’ being homophones). So, it helps keep a cheerful mind.

72

S. WILSON

When Ella and Eric were toddlers, Vanessa decided that they would join a French supplementary school so that they learn the language through play and songs. She has, since then, referred to the Saturday school as “the club” in order to motivate the children. As they grew older, she realised that the supplementary school was essential for Ella and Eric to develop their French literacy as “it had become too complicated” to manage at home. The children show no interest in reading the books they receive weekly from the Saturday school. However, Vanessa has chosen not to force them to read in French as she does not want it to be a “chore” given that they are already reluctant to attend the school. Observed Family Language Practices & Management The observed interaction took place after school, on a weekday. Vanessa, Eric and Ella discussed one of Eric’s school assessments given by his French teacher. Their language practices were consistent with their reports as the children spoke mostly English to their mother and between themselves, while Vanessa spoke mostly French and translanguaged at times. Despite the many mistakes in Eric’s French homework, Vanessa did not interrupt to offer any corrections, unless specifically requested by her son. This confirmed her reported language management method of praising efforts at the expense of linguistic correctness. Besides, as demonstrated in the conversation sample below, the mother attempted to minimise Ella’s criticism of her brother’s French, in order to encourage Eric to further read his French assessment. In the following excerpt, French language errors are showed in italic, while code-switching is presented in bold, for clarity purposes. BRAD.4

*Eric:

*Ella: *Eric: *Vanessa:

Oh, would you like to listen to that paragraph en français? (…) C’est pour mon assessment. It’s for my assessment. [reading in jerky speech] “J’habite au X (home town), c’est en Angleterre.” “I live in X (home town), it’s in England.” Just do the whole thing without doing [b] [b] [b] [mimicking cluttered speech]. No [interrupted by Vanessa] Ok. Ok. Tu le dis. Répète. Ok. Ok. You say it. Say it again.

3

*Eric:

*Vanessa:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

73

[continuing reading his work] “Pour commencer, X est vraiment moderne, des parts de X est vraiment moderne, et des autres parts est vieille. J’aime habiter à X parce que il y a pleins de bâtiments pour visiter, et plein de activités pour faire.” “First, X is really modern, some parts of X is really modern, and other parts is old. I like living in X because they are many buildings to visit, and many activities for doing.” That’s my first line. Then it says: ‘What do you like doing?’ [continuing reading] “L’avantage de habiter en X, comme j’ai dit d’abord, il y a pleins de activités comme aller dans le parc pour faire des promenades en barque et faire le [hesitation] et faire le equesterien? [meant’ équitation’][laughter]”. “the advantage of living in X, as I first said, there are many activities such as going to the park to go on a rowing boat and do [hesitation] and do equesterien? [laughter].” [laughter] faire du cheval. Go horse-riding.

Minority Parent’s Language Ideologies Raising a child bilingually is… “not that easy” (Vanessa). Like all other parents who took part in the study, Vanessa realised that keeping French in the family became more difficult upon the children’s entry to school. Although she wonders whether she should have persisted with using only French at home, she also believes that her flexible approach was “necessary to avoid complications”. Doing English homework in French was a particularly difficult exercise for Eric and Ella. When asked whether parents should, ideally, keep the minority and majority languages separated, Vanessa gave the following response: BRAD.5

*Interviewer:

Penses-tu que dans l’idéal il faudrait séparer les 2 langues? Do you think that, ideally, the two languages should be separated?

74

S. WILSON

*Vanessa:

Hmm Je préfère qu’ils parlent, même si parfois y a des mots anglais, que pas du tout en fait. Je pense que, des fois je me tais quand je les entends et ils font une erreur. Je me dis bon, on laisse parler, et puis peut-être qu’après je dis “tiens peut-être que ça tu aurais pu le dire comme ça”. Mais je me dis bon, tant qu’ils parlent, et qu’ils font l’effort. Pour ne pas couper l’effort. Hmm I’d rather they talk, even if there are some English words, at times, rather than not at all. I think that, sometimes, I stay quiet when I hear them make mistakes. I think to myself, ok, we let it go, and then maybe later, I’ll say: “Hey perhaps that you could have said it this way”. But I’m thinking, OK, as long as they speak and make the effort. Not to undermine the effort.

Vanessa believes in encouraging communication and effort, sometimes at the expense of grammatical and lexical correctness. She also explains that a stricter approach would defeat the very purpose of developing the use of the minority language and would antagonise the children. Vanessa views translanguaging as a natural practice for bilinguals. She reports that she sometimes translanguages because “[her] proficiency in French has decreased, compared to [her] English proficiency.” However, she also describes translanguaging as “the gymnastics of the mind” which indicates that “[one] is really bilingual”. The mother believes that translanguaging may be even “more natural” and “more intuitive” to Ella and Eric than it is to her since the children are learning French in a naturalistic environment whilst she learned English at school. Parental Expectations of Children’s HL Proficiency In their mother’s opinion, Ella and Eric’s levels of French “might not be excellent, (…) but they get by, (and) they are ahead of any other child who (…) learns that language in school.” Vanessa is satisfied with their proficiency in French despite the grammatical mistakes and limited lexicon. The mother declares being happy that the children are able to communicate with their French family even though she is aware that their conversations remain restricted to simple, everyday life topics.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

75

Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing Vanessa declares that her husband, Carl, has no involvement in the maintenance of French within the family. She reports that he regularly declares: “Tu dois faire plus d’efforts. Ça tient qu’à toi” (“You need to make more effort. It’s all up to you.”). In his email interview, the father declares that he does support the idea of raising Eric and Ella bilingually although he does not feel responsible for their language development. He expresses his commitment to bilingual childrearing by using the first-person plural in the following statement: BRAD.7

We are 100% committed in raising bilingual children. It is good for them to be able to talk to family in France and when they start work they will at the very least be able to speak and write two languages.

Carl perceives bilingualism at home, as a “smooth and normal” process in which the children “speak French to [his] wife and English to [him]”. He is aware, however, of Eric’s reluctance to attend French school every Saturday and the tension this has created at home. Parental Perception of Children’s Attitude Ella and Eric’s father describes the family’s bilingual experience as harmonious despite Eric disliking French school. Vanessa also describes, at length, Eric’s reluctance to attend the supplementary school. However, both parents do not perceive their son’s aversion to the weekend school as a negative attitude towards the heritage language itself. The mother declares that the heritage language and culture are part of the children’s identities and she believes that both Eric and Ella feel “half-French”. Vanessa appears to be in tune with the children’s feelings towards the minority language as she highlights the differences in Eric’s and Ella’s personalities and the way they approach language learning. BRAD.8

Eric, lui, ça le gène pas de faire des erreurs. Lui il essaiera et il fera l’effort tandis qu’ Ella, elle, elle préfère être correcte donc parlera peut-être pas autant parce qu’elle veut pas faire d’erreurs en fait.

76

S. WILSON

Eric, he doesn’t mind making mistakes. He will try and make the effort whereas Ella, she’d rather be correct so she might not speak as much for fear of making mistakes. The mother explains that Ella seems to experience some heritage language anxiety (Dewaele and Sevinç 2017). She also believes that her children associate their heritage language with the maternal figure. The use of French would be a way for the children to show their emotional attachment and “please mum” despite the effort this requires from them. According to Vanessa, Ella and Eric also use the emotional weight of their mother’s native tongue “when they want something from [her]”. Carl makes similar comments and explains that “the French increases when they want something from their mother”. The children themselves confirm this idea in the following interview excerpt: BRAD.9

*Ella: *Eric: *Ella:

Yeah but she doesn’t really mind if we don’t want to speak French. It’s like, it’s on us. [addressing Ella] Yeah, you only speak French when you want something. Nah I speak French when I need to.

Overall, Vanessa believes that her flexible language management method has been conducive to the children developing positive attitudes towards French and bilingualism. She sees her relaxed approach as essential to avoid being perceived as the family’s “bad cop”. Eric and Ella’s Attitude Towards the HL and Parental Language Management As mentioned previously, I asked all participating children, before the interview, whether they would like to be spoken to in English or in French. Ella and Eric chose to have the discussion in English because “it [was] easier for (them)”. Both seem to have a realistic idea of their French skills and limitations, and both understand that these are a product of their sociolinguistic environment. For example, they explain that although their French proficiency at their English school is perceived as very strong, it is not the case at their French supplementary school because “there,

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

77

everyone is French”. The interview sample below shows further evidence of the children’s awareness of their proficiency levels in the HL. BRAD.10

*Eric:

*Ella: *Eric: *Ella: *Eric:

I’m not a master of French (…) I don’t know all of it because there are still things that I struggle with in class. So, so, the things that we do here [French school] are a lot harder than we do, ever do at school. More with verbs that I get corrected. Yeah Because I get the wrong hmm [pause] Or if I get the wrong order in a sentence.

The children report that the amount of French input they regularly receive does not allow them to understand “old French phrases”, “if the person has an accent” or what was said “on a historical trip because [they] wouldn’t use words like that everyday”. Ella (13) and Eric (11), despite experiencing the same FLP, show different attitudes and approaches to developing their heritage language. Eric seems confident to use French in most situations and feels comfortable asking for help when struggling. However, he appears to be frustrated with having to spend every Saturday at the supplementary school. Eric’s negative attitude towards attending French school is apparent in the following interview excerpt. BRAD.11

*Eric:

*Interviewer: *Eric: *Interviewer: *Eric: *Ella:

Every time I say I’ve hurt my leg, she [his mother] says: “Well, you can hop around French school”. (…) If you’re a dad, will you teach French to your children? [sighing] Probably. Because I don’t want all my suffering to go unnoticed. Your…? My suffering to go unnoticed. I have to go through… [interrupted by Ella] You’re just moaning about going to French Club.

78

S. WILSON

*Eric:

I’m not gonna let 10 years of French school go unnoticed!’

Ella reports feeling anxious about making mistakes when speaking the heritage language, which is consistent with her mother’s comments. The teenager explains that she feels “a bit uncomfortable speaking French because [she] might say something wrong”. Ella’s concern with linguistic correctness transpired through the observed interaction during which she drew attention to Eric’s language errors on three occasions. BRAD.12

*Eric:

*Ella: *Vanessa:

[reading] Et dans le centre ville, il y a deux grands, un grand bassin pour faire le natation dedans. A mon zavis, j’aime aller [interrupted by Ella] [reading] And in the town centre, they are two big, a big pool to swim in. In my opinion, I like to go [interrupted by Ella] A mon zavis ? [providing correction] A mon avis.

Despite some degree of language anxiety, Ella reports enjoying speaking French and has even decided to improve her HL skills. BRAD.13

*Ella: *Interviewer: *Ella: *Interviewer: *Ella:

I just want to be more fluent in French, more than I am already. You want your French to become better? Hmm [nodding] How are you going to do that? I have set a goal for myself, to speak French all the time to my mum. But I haven’t, like, kept that goal. But I did when I was in France.

Overall, Eric and Ella have positive attitudes towards the French language and appreciate being able to communicate with their mother’s side of the family. However, it also seems that Ella is appreciably more attached to her HL than her brother, which also appears in their language portraits below (Fig. 3.3).

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

Fig. 3.3 Ella’s language portrait

79

80

S. WILSON

Ella’s portrait highlights the strong association between her two languages and her close relationships with family and friends. BRAD.14

I put my English family and my French family in different colours. And then, I did most of my other leg in blue because with my friends I speak English but hmm, but the red part is when I speak to my mum in French around my friends.

Ella’s concerns about her French level of proficiency also appears to be a significant element of her language portrait. She explains that the raised arm is blue to show that “[she is] more comfortable in English than [she is] in French because [she doesn’t] want to get it wrong”. Despite some degree of heritage language anxiety, Ella identifies as “half-French, halfEnglish”, as suggested in her portrait description below (Fig. 3.4). BRAD.15

I put the heart to represent I’m half French, half English. I did it half in blue, half in red. I then, I did the same thing as I did with the heart, with my lips because I speak both English and French when it’s needed.

BRAD.16

*Interviewer: *Ella:

You used the same amount of blue and red. Yeah, it’s half and half. It’s not one more than the other.

As in his sister’s portrait, the colours on Eric’s figure are closely intertwined. He also highlights the difference of proficiency in the minority and majority languages. BRAD.17

I put my left arm because I’m right-handed to show that I’m weaker in French (…) And then, hmm, my, my arm shows than I’m stronger in English.

However, unlike Ella, Eric declares that he identifies mostly as English. BRAD.18

(…) my body is in blue to show that I’m more English than French (…) and hmm, and my body, to show that I am in England.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

81

Fig. 3.4 Eric’s language portrait

Case Study C: Alain Bertrand (6) Alain (6) is the youngest participant in the study. He and his younger sister, Anne (3.5), were born in the UK. Anne did not formally take part in the research due to her young age. Nevertheless, the other family members mentioned her throughout their respective interviews, and she

82

S. WILSON

was present during the recorded observation at the family home. The father, Patrick, is a French national who has been living in Britain for 21 years. The mother, Laura, is a native English speaker, born in the UK, and a full-time French teacher at a secondary school. She describes her French as “near native-like”. When Alain was one year old, the family decided to move to France. However, due to Laura’s difficulty in finding employment there, they returned to the UK a year later, just before Alain’s second birthday. Family Language Practices Alain’s father, Patrick, describes family conversations as being “always in French” and “only in French”. He details his and his son’s language use as follows: BERT.1

Quand je parle à Alain c’est, donc, à la maison c’est français, dans la rue, c’est français. Euh les devoirs sont en français. Le piano est en français. Quand il regarde la télé c’est en français (…) Dans toutes les situations où je suis là, c’est du français (…) Il n’y a pas un mot d’anglais. When I speak to Alain, at home, it’s in French, on the street, it’s in French. Homework is in French. Piano is in French. When he watches TV, it’s in French (…) In every situation where I am present, it’s in French (…) There isn’t a word of English.

As Patrick sums it up: “the home is French”. According to the father, interactions between Laura and the children are also in French, despite his wife being a native English speaker. However, Laura’s reported “occasionally” speaking English to the children, including while doing homework. That said, Laura confirmed, in her email interview, the dominance of French in her interactions with Alain and Anne. Both parents reported that Alain and Anne spoke to them in French very frequently. During our face-to-face interview, Alain was hesitant when asked about his daily language use, and changed his mind on two occasions: BERT.2

*Interviewer:

So now on this picture, you are doing homework with dad. What languages are you speaking while doing homework?

3

*Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer:

*Alain:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

83

French French No, English with my real homework. (…) Look, on this picture, you are at the supermarket with mum and dad, what languages do you speak to them at the supermarket? French. No, English.

Alain’s hesitation seems to have been caused by his concern about giving the “wrong” answer. I attempted to reassure him by reiterating that the conversation was only an informal “chat” and that there were no right or wrong answers. Given Alain’s mixed responses, it is difficult to gauge his language use with his father. However, he confidently reports using both French and English with his mother: BERT.3

*Interviewer: *Alain:

Tu parles quelles langues avec maman? What languages do you speak with mummy? Un peu anglais et un peu français parce que elle, elle est née en Angleterre. A little English and a little French because she, she was born in England.

As for Alain’s language use when interacting with his sister, Anne, he declares that they both tend to use English when playing together. His father, on the other hand, is convinced that Alain speaks mostly French to his sister whereas Anne “tends to speak more English”. Outside the home, the Bertrand family’s language practices remain mostly in French except when the non-French speaking grandparents “are directly involved in the conversation”, as stated by Patrick. As regards translanguaging, the father declares that he never mixes French and English. BERT.4

Non, non, non, du tout. J’ai parfois du mal à trouver le mot en français après 20 ans ici, mais je vais faire l’effort de trouver le mot français de façon à l’utiliser. ‘Lunch bag’ c’est ‘sac pour le déjeuner’, point à la ligne. Et je fais un effort pour dire c’est ‘le sac pour le déjeuner’. Je mélange pas [= laughter]. No, no, absolutely not. I sometimes struggle to find the French word after 20 years living here, but I will make the effort to find

84

S. WILSON

the French word and use it. ‘Lunch bag’ is ‘sac pour le déjeuner’, full stop. And I make an effort to say ‘sac pour le dejeuner’. I don’t mix [ = laughter]. French Parent’s Language Management Approach As the French parent, Patrick is determined to implement a minoritylanguage only rule in the home, also commonly known as the hot-house approach. In order to achieve his strict language consistency goal, every member of the family, including his wife, a native English speaker, is expected to speak French in his presence. He summarises his FLP as follows: BERT.5

La maison est française. C’est moi qui parle français, et Laura (spouse) parle français aussi. Elle est anglaise, mais elle est prof de français. Dans toutes les situations où je suis là, c’est du français. I speak French, and Laura (spouse) speaks French too. She’s English but she’s a French teacher. In every situation where I am present, it’s in French.

In order to negotiate a French monolingual context with his two children, Patrick employs various strategies. First, he often has recourse to the “minimal grasp” (Lanza 1997) method through which he pretends not to understand what the child has expressed in English. BERT.6

Si Alain ou Anne parlent en anglais, je dis “je comprends pas”. Je m’arrête là. (…) Du pain, du lait, à manger: “je comprends pas”. Je dis “je comprends pas” [laughter]. If Alain or Anne speak in English, I say “I don’t understand”. I stop just there (…) Some bread, some milk, something to eat: “I don’t understand”. I say “I don’t understand” [laughter].

BERT.7

Et puis quand elle (Anne) réalise que si elle veut un p’tit peu de pain avec du beurre, et que parce qu’elle le demande en anglais elle l’a toujours pas, et ben euh il faudra qu’elle parle français, et sinon elle aura faim [laughter].

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

85

And when she realises (Anne) that, if she wants a bit of bread and butter, and that she’s still not getting because she’s asking for it in English, well, then, she’ll have to speak French, otherwise she’ll go hungry [laughter]. Alain, who is only 6 years old, interprets his father’s statement as a genuine lack of comprehension skills in English, and declares: BERT.8

*Alain:

*Interviewer: *Alain:

Lui, il était né en France et [sigh] il parle pas vraiment…euh, il parle meilleur du français que l’anglais. He, he was born in France and [sigh] and he does not really…euh, he speaks better French than English. Est-ce qu’il comprend quand tu parles anglais? Does he understand when you speak English? Il comprend quelques temps (quelquefois). He understands sometimes.

Another of Patrick’s techniques to encourage his children to speak the minority language is to ignore any comments or requests made in English. This is confirmed by Alain himself as he explains that when he attempts to speak English to his father, the latter reacts as follows: “Il se fâche. Il m’ignore” (“He gets upset. He ignores me”). The fact that the young boy was able to use the word “ignore” in French may indicate that Patrick discussed the reason of his behaviour with his son. Occasionally, Patrick also resorts to less subtle and stricter language management methods. He may expressly ask his children to switch to the HL and “raise his voice” in order to impose the use of French on his offspring. When the abovementioned techniques fail, he might “tell them off” or apply some form of punishment until the children have switched to the minority language. The sanctions are described by Patrick as “not too mean” and can consist of taking a toy away or refusing them a bedtime story. BERT.9

Ce matin y avait un exemple au p’tit déjeuner [pause] Alain il commence à parler en anglais. J’ai dit non, une fois, non deux fois. Y avait un anniversaire cette après-midi, j’ai dit: “si

86

S. WILSON

tu continues, y a pas d’anniversaire.” Hop, c’est reparti en français. This morning, for example, at breakfast [pause] Alain starts speaking English. I say no once, twice. There was a birthday party in the afternoon. I said: “if you continue, there’s no birthday this afternoon”. And done, it’s back to French. Patrick also refers to the phrase “carrot and stick” as a metaphor for the use of a combination of rewards and punishment to achieve his desired language policy. The rewards include “a marble”, “a sweetie” or an extra bedtime story in French. Under their father’s language management, Alain and Anne must follow a zero tolerance to translanguaging rule. Whilst this approach is intended to establish a French monolingual environment in the home, and although Laura’s high proficiency in and daily use of French facilitates Patrick’ policy, the mother’s somewhat less rigorous approach still allows for the existence of a bilingual context within the Bertrand family. In addition to the exclusive use of French, the father’s language management style includes systematically correcting Alain’s and Anne’s language errors. Linguistic prescription is a key component of the Bertrands’ FLP, as Patrick explains below: BERT.11

Si je vois qu’ils essaient de parler français mais qu’ils font une erreur, je leur demande de le dire en anglais, je traduis en français et je les fais répéter en français (…) Je corrige toujours. Il y a toujours une correction derrière. Donc je les laisse pas faire. On évite un maximum de faire [pause] de laisser des fautes de français dans la conversation. If they’re trying to speak French but they are making a mistake, I ask them to say it in English, I translate into French and I have them repeat in French (…) I always correct, there’s always some correction behind. So, I don’t let them do as they wish. We avoid, as much as possible, to do [pause] to allow errors in the conversation.

The hot-house language policy also applies to Alain and Anne’s literacy practices at home. Both parents read the children bedtime stories in the HL only and French audio books “are played in loop in the car”.

3

BERT.12

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

87

Les livres que l’on choisit sont en français. Je lis actuellement ‘Le Petit Prince’, de St Exupéry à Alain et Anne. Anne a du mal mais Alain commence à vraiment comprendre. On l’a en version disque dans la voiture. Il tourne en boucle. The books we pick are in French. At the moment I’m reading Alain and Anne ‘Le Petit Prince’, by St Exupéry. Anne is struggling but Alain is starting to really understand. We have the audio version in the car. It’s running continuously.

As for the other families in this study, Alain’s French supplementary school as an essential complement to parental language management at home. However, his father believes that “it’s not two hours of French on a Saturday morning that will do it”. For Patrick, the supplementary school represents essentially an opportunity for his children to be exposed to other varieties of French and “hear people speak French other than [their] father and mother, to maybe hear other accents, children’s voices, other adults, (…)”. He also declares that both Alain and his sister are eager to attend French school every weekend. However, Alain’s comments suggest otherwise as he reports that the only aspect he enjoyed about French school is the chocolate snack his father gives him as an incentive. Observed Language Practices & Management The audio-recorded interaction took place at the Bertrands’ home, at dinner time. The family language use was consistent with parental reports. Patrick and Laura did not speak any English during the entire recorded conversation. Alain spoke exclusively in the HL to his mother and father, except on one occasion where he used the term “museum” as he could not find the French equivalent. Elements of Patrick’s language management methods clearly emerged during the interaction. For instance, both parents did not tolerate any use of English or translanguaging. While Alain did not attempt to speak English, his younger sister, Anne, translanguaged on a few occasions. Her father’s negative reaction to her use of English was immediate and systematic, as shown in the two conversation samples below. BERT.15

*Patrick (French father):

Qu’est-ce que vous avez préféré? What did you like most?

88

S. WILSON

*Anne: *Patrick: *Anne: *Patrick:

*Anne: *Patrick:

BERT.16

Le chocolate. Comment? Pardon? Chocolate. [sounding irritated] Comment on dit ça en français Anne? Fais un effort. How do you say that in French Anne? Make an effort [sounding irritated]. Chocolat. Bon. OK

*Anne: *Patrick (French father): *Laura (British mother, fluent French speaker):

Papa, où est your glasses? Pardon? Pardon? Où…? Where…?

*Anne:

Où est hmm [pause] your lunettes? Where is hmm [pause] your lunettes? Où sont tes lunettes? Dans le salon. Where are your glasses? In the living-room. Tu peux le dire Anne? Oú… Can you say it Anne? Where…. Où… [hesitation] Where…[hesitation] [sounding irritated]. Anne, on dit: Où sont tes lunettes? Anne, we say ‘Where are your glasses?

*Patrick:

*Laura: *Anne: *Patrick:

In the conversation excerpts above, Patrick used two of the techniques he described during the interview. First, he employs the minimal grasp strategy and pretends not to have heard or understood Anne’s utterance in English by using the word “pardon”. Secondly, he explicitly demands that she repeat her sentence in French. Laura, on the other hand, shows

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

89

more patience in her approach and tries to provide the children with clues or elements of translation. BERT.17

*Patrick (French father):

*Alain:

*Patrick: *Alain:

*Patrick: *Laura (British mother, fluent French speaker): *Alain: *Patrick:

Où est-ce qu’on est allé aujourd’hui les enfants? Where did we go today children? Dans un museum. In a museum [using English word] Dans quoi? In what? Dans un museum. In a museum [using English word] Comment on dit en français? How do you say in French? Au…? To…? Au musée de Roald Dahl. To Roald Dahl museum. Oui tu peux dire au musée de Roald Dahl. Yes, you can say to Roald Dahl museum.

The recording of spontaneous family practices also confirmed Alain’s report that he generally complies with his parents’ language rules. In the following example, the young boy appears to observe his father’s language policy as a way to gain his approval. BERT.19

*Anne: *Patrick: *Anne: *Patrick: *Alain:

Picture! Pardon? Picture. Oui, c’est le premier mot que t’as dit en anglais. Yes, that was the first word you said in English En français c’est comme ‘image’. In French it’s like ‘image’.

90

S. WILSON

*Patrick: *Alain: *Patrick:

Comme ‘image’, tout à fait Alain. It’s ‘image’, absolutely Alain. Mais en français. But in French. Oui. Yes.

His younger sister, on the other hand, seems less comfortable functioning in a monolingual context. In conversation excerpts BERT.15 and BERT.16, Anne spontaneously uses English and cannot always find the correct word in French. Her use of the majority language seems to irritate her father who refers to her as a “hard head” during the conversation. Overall, the recorded family interaction is consistent with the language practices and management reported by Alain and his parents. Minority Language Parent’s Ideologies Raising a bilingual child is…? –“challenging” (Patrick). Beliefs About Dual Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Patrick makes a distinction between what linguists generally define as consecutive bilinguals, who started as monolinguals and learned a second language later in life, and simultaneous bilinguals, such as Alain and Anne, who grew up acquiring two languages (De Houwer 2009) and whom he perceives as ‘more bilingual’. The notion of nativeness is central to Patricks’ language ideology as he explains that in order to qualify as a bilingual, his English proficiency would have to match his French, in all language domains. BERT.21

Moi je me sens, autant je parle bien l’anglais, autant c’est pas, ça reste pas forcément, même après 20 ans, ça reste pas forcément naturel. C’est à dire que si j’suis dans un univers en français, je me sens beaucoup plus à l’aise en français, toujours, qu’en anglais. Et il me manque toujours quelque chose, l’accent n’est pas forcément bon, parfois je vais faire une petite faute de grammaire, même si elle est minime. I feel, although I speak English well (…) it’s still not necessarily, even after 20 years, it doesn’t necessarily come naturally.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

91

It means that if I’m in a French environment, I always feel much more at ease in French than in English. And I’m always missing something, the accent isn’t always good, sometimes I’ll make a small grammatical error, even if it’s minimal. As a consecutive bilingual, Patrick reports that translanguaging does not come naturally to him, hence the fact that he speaks “either English with the English [and] French with the French”. However, he strongly believes that translanguaging is a natural phenomenon for “real bilinguals” like Alain and Anne. Patrick declares that “moving from one language to the other with ease is normal” and “helps [the children] with their learning”. His positive perception of translanguaging appears to be inconsistent with the very language separation approach he imposes on all family members. The father justifies the contradiction between his language beliefs and management by the fact that children have a natural tendency to speak English and translanguaging would further encourage the use of the majority language, at the expense of the HL. Patrick also reports feeling uncomfortable about “letting [the children] do as they wish” (i.e. translanguage) because they have not yet acquired “solid foundations in French”. Overall, Patrick seems to be aware of the rigidity of his language management as he mentions that “he might be too demanding” and “excessively strict”. However, he is also convinced that his rigorous approach to bilingual parenting is necessary to achieve his goals and he states: “Ça fait peut-être un p’tit peu facho mais c’est la seule façon” (“I sound a little like a fascist but it’s the only way”). Heritage Language Expectations Patrick’s monolingual policy and prescriptive approach to language coincide with high expectations of Alain’s and Anne’s HL proficiency. He declares that the children should be able to “read [French], write it, and speak it as well as [their father]”. Alain and his sister are, therefore, expected to become balanced bilinguals and to match their father’s native proficiency, which is used as a benchmark. Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing In her email interview, Laura confirmed speaking mostly French to her children and reports being on board with her husband’s French-only approach.

92

S. WILSON

BERT.27

We discussed it and agreed that the children needed French to fully understand their bi-national identities so we speak French all together at home. Even though my native language is English, speaking French at home wouldn’t work so well if I spoke English to the children.

The mother believes that speaking English, her native language, to the children, would disrupt the family language plan. She also appears to share Patrick’s language expectations: BERT.28

We both believe that practice makes perfect. it is language acquisition. Not just talking but reading and listening to French too.

Whilst Laura seems to adhere to her spouse’s language ideologies and methods, two pieces of data suggest that she may have a more flexible approach to FLP. First, she reports that the children may perceive their father’s methods as “a little too strict at times”. Secondly, Alain’s response to my interview question, below, is another telling comment: BERT.10

*Interviewer:

*Alain:

Maman te dit quelle langue tu dois parler à la maison? Does mummy tell you what language you must speak at home? Elle s’en fiche. She doesn’t care.

Parental Perception of Children’s Language Attitudes According to Patrick, Alain (6) has an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards his heritage language. BERT.29:

Je pense qu’il aime, je pense qu’il aime. Il est très réceptif (…) Je pense pas qu’il ait de blocage. Et il parle très facilement en français. Je pense pas qu’il y ait de problèmes là-dessus. I think he likes it; I think he likes it. He’s very receptive (…) I don’t think he’s got a mental block about this. And he speaks French with ease. I don’t think there are any issues here.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

93

Patrick reports that although his son experiences bilingualism positively despite the fact that he may sometimes see his father as le “Père fouettard” (Father Whipper), owing to his rigorous language rules. He also explains that Alain “feels particularly proud to be able to speak French at school”. As for Alain’s mother, she believes that although he sometimes finds his father’s rules “too strict”, “he generally understands that it is for his own good”. She does not perceive the FLP as having any significant impact on the children’s experiences and attitudes since to them, “this is simply how they speak with Maman and Papa.” Alain’s Attitudes Towards the HL and Parental Language Management Alain reports enjoying speaking French at home and feels proud “because everyone wants to speak French at school”. Although his sense of pride may have partly been instilled through parental discourse, his positive attitude towards the heritage language seems to derive mainly from the special role attributed to him, by his French teacher, as a result of his language skills. BERT.30

They want me to do more. Because I am the assistant of the French teacher because I am the only one who speaks [= hesitation] who knows how to speak all the French.

During the interview, Alain also declares that he prefers French over English. When I asked what he liked about being bilingual, he responded: BERT.31

You can go to…[pause] other hmm cities and where they cannot speak English. And it’s good to speak other languages.

In his answer, the young boy appears to be paraphrasing his father who “regularly remind[s] Alain that having this language is a great advantage”. Although Alain’s direct response to whether he enjoys speaking French suggests that he has a positive attitude towards his HL, other elements in his interview indicate otherwise. First, despite the fact that I explicitly gave him the choice, Alain decided to have the interview in English rather than in French. He did however switch to French on a few occasions.

94

S. WILSON

Secondly, his response to my last interview question was also revealing of his attitude towards French and towards the parental language policy. BERT.32

*Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain:

And if you become a dad, will you teach French to your children? Hmm no. Why not? It takes too much time.

Whilst Alain declares enjoying certain aspects of being bilingual, he also appears to be experiencing it as a laborious process. His negative perception of HL development seems to emanate from his father’s rigorous language rules. Moreover, Alain may also be experiencing some degree of HL anxiety, as suggested by his comments below. BERT.33

*Interviewer:

*Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain:

[Daddy] wants to speak French with you. Can you show me how you feel? (the participant pointed at the sad/anxious facial expression). Ok. Can you tell me why you feel this way? Because I’m a bit not sure what he’s gonna say. Can you explain? Hmm I don’t really know what it means. You don’t know what it means? Because hmm I am not sure what he is gonna say.

Alain expressed being sad or anxious about not understanding what his father might say in French. His language anxiety may be induced by Patrick’s expectations of high proficiency in the minority language. In addition to language anxiety, the 6-year-old reveals feeling insecure about his language skills, as demonstrated by these two interview samples: BERT.34

*Alain:

*Interviewer: *Alain:

I am the assistant of the French teacher because I am the only one who speaks [hesitation] who knows how to speak all the French. How do you feel about that? Happy. But my daddy knows more than me.

3

*Interviewer:

*Alain:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

95

How do you feel about reading French books with mummy and daddy? (the participant pointed at the sad/anxious facial expression) Why? Because I don’t know how to do it.

As previously mentioned, in order promote the use of French at home, one of Patrick’s language management methods consists in ignoring his children when they address him in English. Alain reports feeling “sad, and a little angry too” when being ignored as a result of his language use. As for his father’s French-only policy, Alain makes the following comments: BERT.35

*Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain:

It bothers me a little. Ok. A little. Moyen Medium. Ça te fait sentir comment? How does it make you feel? Je sais pas. Pas bien. I don’t know. Not good.

Whilst Alain appears to refrain from making negative comments about his father’s conduct, his responses clearly reflect a negative attitude towards his language management style. This negative perception, nonetheless, does not often translate into action. I asked Alain how he would react when being told off for speaking English. He described his reaction as follows: BERT.36

*Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer: *Alain: *Interviewer:

And at home, if you get told off for speaking English, how do you react? What do you do? I just [pause] listen. You switch and speak French? Oui. Yes Pourquoi? Why?

96

S. WILSON

*Alain:

*Interviewer: *Alain:

Parce que hmm j’aime parler français et je pense qu’il a dit: “Parle français”. Because hmm I like speaking French and I think he’s told me: “Speak French”. Et des fois tu refuses? Do you sometimes refuse? Non, je dis pas ça. No, I don’t say that.

As shown in the two excerpts, Alain generally complies with his father’s rules and, therefore, the young boy’s negative attitudes towards the parental policy are not always visible nor obvious. This might explain why both Patrick and Laura assume that their FLP has no negative effect on their children (Fig. 3.5). Alain produced a portrait choosing the colour red for French and orange for English. Although both colours are well delimited, the captions on each side of the silhouette are identical, indicating that he found it difficult to distinguish and isolate his experiences with each language. BERT.37

Y a les même mots des deux côtés, parce que je pense que ça c’était bien je pense, les deux c’est pareil, je savais pas comment faire d’autres choses. There are the same words on both sides, because, I think, that was good, I think, both are the same, I didn’t know how to do it in a different way.

The comment, above, gives a precious insight into how Alain experiences his various linguistic resources as closely entwined in his daily experiences and how he would struggle to categorise them as a result. Alain’s portrait also reveals that English is still present in the family home despite his father’s endeavour to create a French monolingual home. BERT.38

*Interviewer: *Alain:

Why is there some red on the orange side? Parce que on parle français avec un peu l’anglais aussi. Because we speak French with a little bit of English too.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

Fig. 3.5 Alain’s language portrait

97

98

S. WILSON

Case Study D: John Wheeler (6) John is a six-year old boy and an only child. He was born in Britain to a French mother, Mathilde, and a British father, Gareth. Mathilde has been living in the UK for the past 27 years. She recently left her French teacher position and is currently exploring a professional reconversion. Gareth was born in the UK and he describes his French skills as “very basic” and “poor”. Family Language Practices Mathilde reports speaking mostly French to John during one-to-one interactions and while at home. However, in public places, she generally uses English “or may speak softly in French in his ear” so that “people would not be mistaken about [their] conversations.” When all family members are together, English dominates the conversation: Mathilde uses a mix of French and English to address her son, while Gareth reports speaking English most of the time. As for John’s language choices, his language use varies depending on the environment and on his emotional states, as described by his mother in the two interview samples below. WHEEL.1

Il va me répondre en français ou en anglais (…) Et je crois que la différence c’est quand on revient de France, lui il va me parler français automatiquement. Et puis au fur et à mesure qu’on reste plus longtemps en Angleterre, il va me répondre en anglais. He’ll respond to me in French or in English (…) And I think that what makes the difference is when we come back from France, he’ll automatically speak French to me. And then, the longer we stay in England, the more he’ll respond in English.

WHEEL.1

*Interviewer: *Mathilde:

A quel moment va-t-il te parler français? In what situation does he speak French to you? Alors euh [thinking] le soir, le matin, la nuit, quand euh, qaund il a besoin, quand on revient à la naissance, quand on revient à ses besoins primaires en fait. Euh donc, quand il veut quelque chose, quand il veut me flatter,

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

99

quand il me dit j’suis belle [laughter]. Donc tout ça c’est en français, voilà. Quand il est pas content avec moi, c’est plus anglais. Voilà. So euh [thinking] in the evening, in the morning, at night, when euh, when he’s needy, when he’s taken back to birth, when we get back to his primary needs actually. So, when he wants something, when he wants to flatter me, when he tells me I’m pretty [laughter]. So, all of that is in French. When he isn’t happy with me, it’s more in English. That’s it. John’s account of the family’s language practices is congruent with his mother’s. In the conversation sample below, Mathilde also describes her frequent use of translanguaging in her interactions with John. WHEEL.2

*Interviewer:

*Mathilde:

Et tu mélanges parfois le français et l’anglais? And do you sometimes mix French and English? Ah oui euh ‘give me la poubelle’ [laughter]. Tranquille [laughter]. Ah ben ouais, beaucoup. Et puis si j’suis fatiguée, tout ça, ah ouais. Oh yeah, euh, “give me la poubelle [the rubbish bin]” [laughter]. Easy [laughter]. Yeah definitely, a lot. And if I’m tired and all that, yeah.

Mathilde’s translanguaging practices also occur when conversing with other bilingual adults. WHEEL.3

Alors, j’ai une copine, elle est française, son mari est anglais, et euh oui, quand on se parle c’est du franglais, on mélange complètement quoi. Et quand on est tous ensemble, y a du français, y a de l’anglais, tout est mélangé. Ouais. “So, I’ve got a friend, she’s French, her husband is English, and euh yes, when we speak, it’s Frenglish, we totally mix.

100

S. WILSON

And when we’re all together, there’s some French, there’s some English, it’s all mixed up, yeah.” John, on the other hand, declares that he rarely mixes French and English, which is consistent with his mother’s comments. WHEEL.4

Mais par contre lui il va mélanger très rarement. Ça va lui arriver, mais en général non. Ou bien il parle français et il va me dire: “Comment on dit ça en français?”, mais il va pas forcement remplacer le mot français par le mot anglais. On the other hand, he will rarely mix. It can happen but generally he doesn’t. Either he will speak French and tell me: “How do you say that in French?”, but he won’t necessarily replace the French word with the English word.

French Parent’s Language Management Approach According to John’s and his mother’s reported family language practices, the Wheeler family interacts within a bilingual context allowed by Mathilde’s high tolerance to translanguaging and to the use of English. Mathilde uses two main discourse strategies to induce the use of French in her conversations with John: the “adult repetition” and the “moveon strategy” (Lanza 1997). The adult repetition method, consisting in repeating the child’s utterance in the minority language, is described by Mathilde as follows: WHEEL.5

S’il veut me raconter quelque chose qui s’est passé à l’école, ben il a pas forcément le vocabulaire pour, pour essayer de l’exprimer en français. Donc moi c’que je fais, je le répète, comme font les anglais, pour les tous petits, on répète la langue anglaise, et ben je fais pareil en français. Il va me le dire en anglais, et je vais dire “ah bon, c’est c’que tu as fait à l’école aujourd’hui ?!”, par exemple, “tu t’es fâché avec ton petit copain?”. Donc je lui donne le vocabulaire. If he wants to tell me about something that has happened at school, then he doesn’t always have the vocabulary to, to try and say it in French. So, what I do, I repeat it, the way the English do it for little ones, they repeat it in English, well, I do the same

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

101

in French. He’ll tell me in English, and I’ll say: “Oh really, you did that at school today?!” For example, “You’ve fallen out with your friend?”. This way, I give him the vocabulary. Through the repetition strategy, the conversation flow remains undisrupted while the parent provides an input in the minority language. Mathilde justifies her language discourse strategy choices by the fact that “asking John to repeat a sentence in French would be too laborious”. In her comments, Mathilde compares her son’s acquisition of French to the acquisition of English “by little ones”. She explains that she models her strategy on English parents who often repeat a toddler’s sentence in order to provide the correct linguistic model, as oppose to offering an explicit correction. Mathilde also uses the “move-on” strategy according to which “the adult does not intervene and lets the conversation take its course” (Lanza 1997). As regards error correction, the mother employs a gentle method, which she describes below. WHEEL.6

S’il fait des fautes je le corrige pas, ou je le corrige mais gentiment. Moi j’en fais donc…Le but c’est d’établir la communication. If he makes any errors, I don’t correct him, or I correct him but very nicely. I make errors myself, so…The goal is to establish communication.

Through her language management style, Mathilde clearly prioritises language production over linguistic correctness. Her focus on language development through communication includes nurturing John’s connections with the French extended family. For example, she organises weekly Skype conversations with John’ grandmother and cousins in France. As regards John’s French literacy practice, Mathilde explains that he regularly borrows books from the supplementary school library, which they read together once a week “because he’s got a lot to do and he’s not even seven”. John also receives a monthly French magazine about nature as he is passionate about zoology. Mathilde reports having a flexible approach to HL literacy and adjusts reading activities depending on the circumstance.

102

S. WILSON

WHEEL.7

Je vois quand ça passe pas, ça passe pas. Là ce matin il a pas voulu lire parce qu’il était fatigué. J’ai dit: “Bon, on va chanter Vive le vent ”, comme il doit l’apprendre pour le spectacle de Noel [laughter]. I can tell when he doesn’t want it, he doesn’t want it. For example, this morning, he didn’t want to read because he was tired. I said: “Alright, let’s sing Vive le vent” (Christmas song), since he had to learn it for the Christmas performance [laughter].

Last, the French mother relies on the supplementary school as an important part of her language management plan. She describes the Saturday school as “essential because teaching one’s own children is very difficult”. Mathilde also sees French school as an opportunity for John to communicate in the HL with children of the same age. However, she is disappointed by the fact that since “they are in the classroom, communication between the children is reduced (…) [and] it is always from the adult to the child”. Observed Language Practices & Management The observation took place at the Wheeler’s home, during a family meal. Both French and English were used during the recorded interaction. Mathilde spoke mostly French and translanguaged on a few occasions. John’s father, Gareth, who had reported speaking French very rarely, did use mostly French during the conversation, although his utterances consisted of short and simple sentences. The two parents’ language choices may have been influenced by the fact that they were being recorded. Below are two samples of the family’s interaction. WHEEL.8

*Mathilde (French mother):

*John: *Mathilde:

Les babouins mangent des escargots? Baboons eat snails? Ouais. Yeah. Mais ils mangent aussi la coquille alors? So, they eat the shell too?

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

*John:

*Mathilde: *Gareth (British Father, basic French skills): *John:

WHEEL.9

*Mathilde (French mother):

*John:

*Gareth (British Father, basic French skills): *Mathilde:

103

Non. Pas la coquille. Le, slug. No, not the shell. The slug [using English words] Juste la limace? Only the slug? [nodding] Hmm la limace. Hmm the slug. Ouais, la limace [making growling noise] Yeah, the slug. Au fait, tout a l’heure, on parlait des grains de beauté. Tu crois que les animaux ils ont en des grains de beauté? By the way, earlier we were speaking about moles. Do you think animals have moles? Non. [long pause] Maybe Chimpanzees, or gorillas. They’re the closest relatives to us really. Although the closest is the chimpanzees, the bonobo. Les singes? Monkeys? Ouais. Je me souviens on avait vu des bonobos, ils avaient des grains de beauté sur la peau. Yeah. I remember that we saw bonobos with moles on their skin.

As previously described, Gareth declared that he spoke almost no French and could not contribute to his son’s acquisition of the minority language as a result. However, and as demonstrated in the excerpts above, the father’s efforts to use basic sentences or single words in French do seem

104

S. WILSON

to have an impact on the family’s language use. For example, in the first sample above, Gareth’s use of the French word limace (slug) appears to contribute to John’s subsequent utterance in French (‘Ouais, la limace’). Besides, Gareth’s nodding signals that he is able to follow the exchange in the minority language and, therefore, allows the family to pursue the conversation without switching to English. As reported in Mathilde and John’s respective interviews, John appeared to be naturally going back and forth between French and English depending on the topics and the context. WHEEL.10

*Mathilde (French mother):

*John: *Gareth (British Father, basic French skills): *John: *Mathilde:

*John:

Le poster tu veux le mettre où? Là, comme ca? Where do you want the poster? There, this way? No, a bit higher. Ah oui. Oh yes. Plus haut. Higher. Mais là tu pourras pas le lire. But there, you won’t be able to read it. C’est pas grave. It’s alright.

Overall, during the recorded exchange, John’s French utterances tended to remain relatively simple whereas he spoke English for more complex sentences. In the two conversation excerpts below, John starts his response in French but switches to English in order to further elaborate his thoughts. In the second extract, on the other hand, the young boy’s sentences remain relatively simple and he expresses himself in the minority language only. WHEEL.11

*Mathilde:

*John:

Tu crois que les animaux ils ont en des grains de beauté? Do you think animals have moles? Non. [long pause] Maybe Chimpanzees, or gorillas. They’re the closest relatives to us really. Although the closest is the chimpanzees, the bonobo .

3

WHEEL.12

*John:

*Mathilde: *John:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

105

Elle dit elle a un livre, y en [hesitation] y en a [pause], hmm, y en a tous les animaux. Et c’est pas vrai. She says she has a book, there are [hesitation], there are, hmm, there are all the animals. It’s not true. OK. Et aussi, elle dit que les babouins, euh, ils mangent les escargots. Hmm c’est vrai. And also, she says that baboons, euh, they eat snails. Hmm it’s true.

Some of Mathilde’s reported discourse strategies became apparent during the observed interaction. The Wheeler’s language policy creates a bilingual environment where both French and English are used within the same interaction without disrupting the flow of conversation. This is achieved mainly through Mathilde’s frequent use of the “move-on” and “adult repetition” strategies (Lanza 1997) described previously. An illustration of Mathilde’s move-on strategy is provided in the conversation sample below, in which she simply continues to speak the minority language and ignores the fact that John has switched to English. WHEEL.13

*Mathilde:

*John: *Mathilde: *John: *Mathilde:

Tu sais que, tu sais qu’aujourd’hui C and E (friends of John’s) vont faire du patin à roulettes? Do you know that today, C & E (friends of John’s) are going roller skating? Ouais. J’en veux pas. Yeah. I don’t want it. Tu veux pas y aller? You don’t want to go? I keep on skidding and I don’t like it. I keep on skidding, so, I just don’t like it. Ben ça serait peut-être une opportunité d’apprendre, non? Well perhaps that could be an opportunity for you to learn, don’t you think?

The observed language practices were also consistent with Mathilde’s description of her approach to correcting language mistakes. At no point

106

S. WILSON

did she interrupt the conversation in order to provide feedback on John’s language correctness or to make metalinguistic comments. In the extract below, John and his mother are wondering whether their home digital assistant (Alexa) would answer in French instead of English. WHEEL.14

*Mathilde: *John:

*Mathilde:

*John:

*Mathilde: *John: *Mathilde: *John:

Tu crois qu’Alexa elle parle en français? Do you think Alexa speaks French? Hmm peut-être. On peut essayer? Hmm maybe. Can we try? (…) Je peux le faire moi? Can I do it? Ouais. Alors qu’est ce que tu vas dire d’abord? (…) Yeah. But first, what are you going to say? (…) Ok. Comment tu dis: “what’s the weather like?” Ok. How do you say: “what’s the weather like?” Ah ton avis? What do you think? C’est quoi le temps? D’accord, on va essayer comme ca. Ok. Let’s try that. [asking Alexia] C’est quoi le temps aujourd’hui?

In excerpt WHEEL.14, despite John’s clumsy translation of “what is the weather like”, his mother reacts in a positive way to his attempt to speak French and does not offer any correction. Throughout the entire recorded interaction, Mathilde did not intervene to assist John whenever he was struggling to construct grammatically correct sentences or was groping for words. WHEEL.15

*John:

*Mathilde:

Elle dit elle a un livre, y en [hesitation] y en a [pause], hmm, y en a tous les animaux. She says she has a book, there are euh [hesitation], there are, hmm, there are all the animals. OK.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

107

Minority Language Parent’s Ideologies Raising a bilingual child is…? -It’s [pause], “it’s easy.” (Mathilde). Beliefs About Dual Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Mathilde describes her understanding of the processes of language learning and language acquisition with a concrete metaphor: WHEEL.16

Ben pour moi, en fait, c’est, le cerveau c’est comme une énorme pièce, et, comme une bibliothèque en fait, où t’as tout un tas d’informations et puis, ben les langues c’est simplement une forme d’information - c’est-à-dire ce qu’on sait dans une langue. Je pense qu’il y a deux choses: l’apprentissage de la langue grammaticale, du parler; et après il y a la connaissance des choses dans cette langue-là. For me, it actually is, the brain is like a huge room, and, like a library actually, where you have a whole lot of information, and then, well, languages are simply one form of information -that is, what one knows in one language. I think that there are two things: learning the grammar of the language, the speaking skills; And then there is the knowledge of things in that language.

Mathilde believes that mastering the grammar of a language is only one aspect of language acquisition and that developing “reasoning skills” is also essential in order to “think” and understand concepts. This approach to language is the reason why the family subscribed to a monthly French nature magazine, so that John could “acquire knowledge in French”. The mother further describes the brain as containing a number of “drawers” and explains that the bilingual speaker “must select what to speak and where”. Mathilde’s choice of analogy indicates that she perceives knowledge, including languages, as strictly compartmentalised. Despite her idea of languages as autonomous systems in the brain being consistent with the popular monoglossic approach to bilingualism (Flores and Schissel 2014), Mathilde favours a relaxed language policy including a high tolerance to translanguaging. In the following interview extract, she describes translanguaging practices in a positive light.

108

S. WILSON

WHEEL.17

C’est une bonne chose dans le sens oú on n’interrompt pas la conversation. Au niveau communication, c’est pas un problème puisque tout le monde comprend. It is a good thing in a sense that the conversation is not interrupted. As far as communication is concerned, it’s not a problem since everyone understands.

Mathilde distinguishes between the “ideal” language policy for optimum HL development and the daily lived experiences of bilingual families. In the interview sample below, she explains why she opted for a relaxed language management style. WHEEL.18

*Interviewer:

*Mathilde:

*Interviewer: *Mathilde:

… Tu penses que tu devrais mélanger les langues quand tu parles à ton enfant? … Do you think that you should mix languages when speaking to your child? Dans l’idéal non. Je pense même que dans l’idéal je devrais plus lui parler en français. Mais en même temps [sigh] faut pas non plus que ça soit euh [hesitation] comment tu dis, a chore? Ideally, no. I even think that, ideally, I should speak more French to him. But at the same time [sigh] it can’t be a [hesitation] how do you say “a chore”? Une corvée? (French equivalent for ‘chore’ ) Une corvée, voilà. Pace que si ça devient une corvée c’est pas bon. A chore, that’s it. Because if it becomes a chore, that’s not good.

According to Mathilde, flexibility is the key characteristic of a “natural” and “pleasant” FLP experience. She puts her ideas into practice by emphasising communication with French-speaking friends and relatives rather than focusing of the language itself.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

109

Heritage Language Expectations Mathilde reports being satisfied with John’s level of proficiency in the HL. She is confident that his French will be “good” and believes that he will be able to read it. The mother views French writing Skills as difficult to acquire and “dependent on the work they do together at home”. Overall, Mathilde’s Main objective is to “give John access” to the acquisition of French rather than achieving a certain Linguistic goals. She describes her role as follows: WHEEL.19

… lui donner la possibilité justement de développer cette langue, avec l’écrit, l’oral, la compréhension et puis euh la lecture. Euh donc, de l’emmener au club le samedi matin, de lui faire lire des livres, des magazines comme Wakou, qu’il ait au moins cet accès là. Euh [pause] et aussi de l’emmener en France le plus possible. … give him the possibility to develop this language, through writing, speaking and comprehension, and euh reading. So, taking him to the club on Saturday morning, and make him read books, magazines such as Wakou, so that he, at least, has access to it. Euh [pause] and also taking him to France as much as possible.

Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing In his email interview, Gareth describes his family’s bilingual experience as “organic”, “perfect” and “a natural process”. He also declares being in complete agreement with his wife’s approach to bilingual parenting. While the father explains that raising John bilingually was “a joint decision”, he also perceives his role in shaping the FLP as minimal owing to his perceived lack of French skills. WHEEL.23

Only my wife speaks in French to our son as I want my son to have a perfect French accent, not to be tainted by my poor accent or grammar.

Mathilde describes her husband as a meticulous person who “likes to be precise in everything”. She believes that this personality trait results in Gareth refraining from speaking French to their son, as he is not

110

S. WILSON

confident about his linguistic abilities. That being said, the recorded observation in the Wheeler home reveals that Gareth does provide some limited, however important, input in French. Although his utterances in the minority language may be minimal in quantity, there are enough to keep the family conversation flowing in French. Gareth views John’s bilingual development as essential owing to opportunities it offers, such as “communication and understanding of extended family, career openings, travel, enjoyment of languages, propensity of learning more languages”. Parental Perception of Children’s Language Attitudes Mathilde believes that John has a positive attitude towards the minority language. She explains that he associates French with his summer holidays in France and the time he spends with his relatives. She also reports that John’s positive attitude is due to having an edge on his school mates during French lessons. Mathilde reports that her flexible approach to bilingualism has helped John “feel relaxed about French” and that by “not stressing him out”, she has promoted communication between them. While she believes that her son has a positive attitude towards French and the FLP, Mathilde, unlike other French parents in this study, specifies that her son identifies as “English” and that he “does not feel French”. Like all other non-French parents in this study, Gareth perceives his son’s attitude to the HL as neutral. The father believes that John is “unaware” of his parents’ language management decisions because it is an integral and “natural” part of their daily life. John’s Attitude Towards the HL and Parental Language Management At the start of our conversation, I asked John whether he would like to have a conversation in French or in English. The young boy opted for French. I specified, as with all other participants, that he should feel free to switch between French and English at any point, which he did on a few occasions. In addition to John’s use of French during the interview, many of his comments and responses suggest a positive attitude towards his HL and towards bilingualism in general. John reports feeling “happy” when speaking in French with his mother. He explains that he enjoys learning and that conversing in the HL provides him with some degree of intellectual stimulation .

3

WHEEL.24

*John:

*Mathilde: *John: *Mathilde:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

111

Et quand tu parles français avec maman, ça te plait? And when you speak French with mum, do you enjoy that? Oui. Yes. Pourquoi? Why? Hmm parce que elle dit les mots différents et après je peux les dire à maman. Hmm because she says different words and then I can say them to mum.

John also reports enjoying speaking French to his extended family in France, as well as to his friends at the supplementary school. Besides, like Alain in the previous case study, John appreciates his special status as the French teacher’s assistant at his mainstream primary school. Another element that reveals a positive bilingual experience is the fact that John envisions bilingualism as part of his adult life, as he expresses in the following excerpt from our interview: WHEEL.25

*Interviewer:

*John: *Interviewer: *John:

*Interviewer:

*John: *Interviewer:

Tu penses que c’est important que tu apprennes le français? Is learning French important to you? Ouais. Yeah Pourquoi? Why? Parce que mon papa il sait pas beaucoup le français mais moi je veux apprendre deux langues comme maman. Because my dad, he doesn’t know a lot of French, but I want to learn two languages like mum. Si tu deviens papa, tu voudras que tes enfants apprennent le français? If you’re a dad, will you want your children to learn French? Ouais. Yeah Oui? Pourquoi? Yes? Why?

112

S. WILSON

*John:

*Interviewer:

*John:

*Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer: *John:

*Interviewer:

Parce que moi j’sais le français, et j’veux apprendre à mes enfants à parler en français. Because I know French, and I want to teach my children how to speak French Et comment tu vas leur enseigner le français? And how will you teach them French? Je vas les [pause] je [hesitation] Je va dire ils ont besoin de venir ici [smiling] I will [pause] I [hesitation] I will [pause] I [hesitation] I will say that they need to come here [smiling] A l’école française? To French school? [nodding] Et quoi d’autre? And what else? Et j’vais aussi apprendre le français avec eux. I will also teach them French. Tu vas leur enseigner le français. D’accord. You will teach them French. OK.

In the two interview samples below, John appears to be aware of his level of French skills and reports his limitations in a detached manner. WHEEL.26

*Interviewer:

*John: *Interviewer:

*John: *Interviewer:

Et en France, tu parles quelles langues avec ta famille en France? And in France, what languages do you speak with your family in France? Français. French Est-ce que tu comprends tout ce qu’ils disent? Do you understand everything they say? Non. No. Non? Et quand tu ne comprends pas, tu te sens comment? No? And when you don’t understand, how do you feel?

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

*John: *Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer:

*John: WHEEL.27

*John:

*Interviewer: *John:

113

Confused. Confused? Yeah. Autre chose? Anything else? C’est tout. That’s it. Est-ce que tu peux dire tout ce que tu as envie de dire à ta famille française? And are you able to you say everything you want to say to your French family? Oui. Yes. Euh [pause] Maman elle me gronde en français [smiling]. Euh [pause] Mum tells me off in French [smiling] [laughter] Pourquoi? Why? Hmm j’sais pas. Parfois je comprends pas ce qu’elle me dit quand elle me gronde, mais parfois je sais qu’est-ce qu’elle veut me dire. Hmm I don’t know. Sometimes I don’t understand what she’s saying when she tells me off, but sometimes I know what she means.

While John enjoys speaking French and being bilingual, he declares having a preference for the English language. He justifies his preference simple by the fact that “[he] was born in England and it is easier for [him]”. Overall, John seems comfortable within a bilingual environment and does not perceives the heritage and majority languages as existing in a conflictual dichotomy. His approach is also reflected in his perception of translanguaging (Fig. 3.6). WHEEL.28

*Interviewer:

Et tu penses que c’est une bonne chose ou une mauvaise chose de mélanger les langues? And do you think that it is a good thing or a bad thing to mix languages?

114

S. WILSON

Fig. 3.6 John’s language portrait

*John: *Interviewer:

C’est rigolo. It’s funny. C’est rigolo [laughter]. [laughter]

It’s

funny

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

*John: *Interviewer:

*John: *Interviewer: *John:

*Interviewer: *John:

115

Tu penses que c’est bien? Do you think it’s a good thing? Ouais. Yeah. A ton avis, que pensent les autres quand ils t’entendent mélanger le français et l’anglais? In your opinion, what do others think when they hear you mix French and English. Le même. Euh [sigh]… The same. Euh [sigh]… Tu peux le dire en anglais si tu veux. You can say it in English if you like. Quand je dis un mot, en français, ou c’est anglais, et j’crois ils vont comprendre. Whether I say a word in French, or in English, I believe they’ll understand. Tu penses qu’ils comprenent? Do you think they understand? Ouais. Yeah.

John’s language portrait seems straightforward and focuses mostly on his skills in French and English. Similar to his comments during the interview, his portrait shows that he is aware of his limitations in the heritage language. He seems, nonetheless, very comfortable with this reality and states the difference in proficiency as a mere fact. WHEEL.27

*John:

*Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer: *John: *Interviewer:

I can hear more English people on this side than this side, and I can hear more French people on this side than this side. Why? Hmm, j’suis pas sûr. I’m not sure. What do you mean by ‘hear’? I understand more of English. Is this a problem? No, it’s ok. So, it’s ok that you don’t understand French as much as English?

116

S. WILSON

*John:

[shrugging shoulders] Ouais, it’s OK. Yeah, it’s OK.

Case Study E: Marc Watson (10) Marc is a ten-year-old boy and a fan of aviation. He is an only child and was born to a French mother, Valérie, and a British father, Theo. Valérie has been living in Britain for 21 years and works as a university librarian. Theo was born and raised in England, as a monolingual English speaker. He describes his “spoken French [as] very limited” but he reports being to “understand more especially when it is spoken at a slower pace”. Family Language Practices The Watsons’ language practices follow a rigorous one person-one language pattern (OPOL): Valérie speaks French exclusively to Marc, whereas Theo sticks to his native English. Marc communicates with his mother in French only and uses English addressing his father. The parents have hitherto spoken English together. However, during the interview, Valérie reported that she had decided to start speaking French to her husband, despite his limited French comprehension skills and the fact that he may not always understand. Marc’s mother summarises the family language practices as follows: WATS.1

Marc parle anglais à son papa et français à sa maman. Sauf quand il parle en anglais à son papa, il sait que je comprends. Mais quand on est à table par exemple, c’est l’anglais qui domine, ça m’agace. Par contre moi je lui parle en français. Même si je comprends ce qu’il dit à son père, je lui parle en français. Marc speaks English to his dad and French to his mum. It’s just that when he speaks English to his dad, he knows that I understand. But when we’re at the table, for example, English dominates, it annoys me. Even if I do understand what he’s saying to his father, I’ll speak French to him.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

117

Valérie reports having never used English when speaking to her son, which is consistent with Marc’s account of their language practices, as described in their respective comments below. WATS.2

J’ai toujours parlé à Marc, depuis le jour où je l’ai eu dans les bras, ça a toujours été le français. J’ai jamais plié (…) Marc, je lui parlerai jamais, jusqu’à mon dernier souffle, en anglais. I have always spoken to Marc, since the day I had him in my arms, it’s always been French. I never gave in (…) I will never speak to Marc in English, until my last breath. (Valérie)

WATS.3

*Interviewer:

*Marc: *Interviewer: *Marc:

Tu peux me donner un exemple de situation où maman parle anglais? Can you give me an example of a situation where mum speaks English? Ben quand elle parle à papa. Well, when she speaks to dad. Et à toi? And to you? Non, elle me parle jamais en anglais. No, she never speaks English to me.

Valérie maintains a strict adherence to monolingual interactions with Marc, including in situations in which avoiding English may be difficult. For example, they both report doing English homework exclusively in French. Marc describes their homework routine as follows: WATS.4

*Marc:

*Interviewer:

Avec maman, j’en parle quand même en français, mais il y a des mots, si y a des mots que j’connais pas (…) qu’il y a en anglais, je lui demande le mot en français, mais je dis ce mot en anglais. With mum, I still discuss it in French, but if there are words, if there are words I don’t know (…) that are in English, I ask her about the word in French, but I say that word in English. Et maman parle en quelle langue? And what language does mum speak?

118

S. WILSON

*Marc:

Français. French

Valerie’s French-only rule also stays in force in the presence of non-French speakers. WATS.5

*Interviewer:

*Valérie:

Donc même si vous êtes dans la rue, au supermarché, c’est en français? So, even if you are on the street, at the supermarket, it’s in French? En français. Même si y a quelqu’un qui se retourne et qui me dit quelque chose. Jamais, jamais, jamais. In French. Even if someone turns around et says something. Never, never, never. (…) Quand y a ses copains, lui je lui parle en français. Et d’ailleurs c’est très dur. Lui, je lui parle en français et ses copains je leur parle en anglais, même si Marc comprend ce que je dis aux copains. A lui je l’adresse toujours en français. Je l’inclus jamais dans le groupe. When his friends are around, I speak French to him. And it’s very difficult by the way. I speak French to him and I speak English to his friends, even though Marc understands what I am saying to his friends. I always address him in French. I never include him in the group.

As regards translanguaging, both Marc and his mother declare that they dislike mixing the minority and majority languages, whether together or with other interlocutors. Finally, as far as French literacy is concerned, Valerie’s language management methods include having Marc regularly read out loud to her in the HL. WATS.6

Et puis il a pas voulu me dire mais il lit couramment le français. Et donc maintenant il lit avec moi à voix haute parce qu’avant je lui faisais, je lui fais toujours confiance. Mais il lit des livres qui m’ont impressionnée.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

119

He didn’t want me know that he could read French fluently. So now he reads to me out loud because before I, I always trusted him. But I am impressed by the books he reads. In his interview, Marc describes his independent reading as being mostly in English and reports “read[ing] in French very rarely”. French Parent’s Language Management Approach The language practices described by Marc and his mother are the result of a rigorous language separation approach to bilingual parenting. Valérie shows a zero tolerance to translanguaging and strives to create a French monolingual space for her interactions with Marc. This careful language management is maintained in all situations, as she explains below. WATS.7

J’ai jamais eu la pression de passer à l’anglais même devant des anglais. T’as des parents qui disent “ah mais les autres ne vont pas comprendre, il faut que je bascule à l’anglais”. J’en ai rien à foutre [laughter]. J’vais pas basculer pour eux. Quand y a ses copains, lui je lui parle en français. I never felt any pressure to switch to English even in front of English people. Some parents say “Oh but the others won’t understand, I must switch to English.” I don’t care [laughter]. I’m not going to switch for them. When his friends are around, I speak French to him.

Whilst the family has always followed a one person-one language strategy due to Theo’s lack of oral production skills in French, Valérie declares that her ideal language policy would be the hot-house approach (minority language only). In order to get closer to a French-only family environment, she has recently been attempting to extend her policy to her interactions with her husband, as she explains below. WATS.8

Donc maintenant, au lieu de lui parler en anglais, je lui parle en français. J’ai dit “tu comprends, tu comprends pas, tu me réponds en anglais mais moi j’ parle en français et c’est tout”.

120

S. WILSON

So now, instead of speaking English, I speak French to him. I said: “You understand, or you don’t, you respond to me in English, but I speak French and that’s how it is”. According to Valérie, this strict language separation pattern was established naturally within the family and without having to impose explicit language rules on Marc. WATS.9

*Interviewer:

*Valérie:

T’est-t’il deja arrivé de lui (Marc) demander expressement de te parler en français? Have you ever asked him (Marc) explicitely to speak French to you? Non. Il m’a simplement dit une fois [hesitation] non, ça à été toujours en français. Je crois que j’ai jamais eu a lui dire: “tu me parles en français”. Une fois il m’a dit: “ouais, pourquoi j’te parle en français? Tu parles en anglais à papa”. Alors j’ai expliqué clairement que c’était ni ma culture ni ma langue et qu’il m’entendra jamais sur mon corps mort que j’lui parle en anglais. Et j’ai plus jamais eu la question après. No. He only told me once [hesitation] no, it’s always been in French. I think that I never had to tell him: “You speak French to me”. Once he told me: “Yeah but why do I speak French to you? You speak English to dad?” So, I explained clearly that it was not my culture or my language and that he will never hear me speak English to him, not over my dead body. And he never asked again after that.

Although Marc may comply with his mother’s policy without being continuously reminded, the intensity of Valérie’s comments reported in the interview sample above, may have felt like a strict language rule to a young child. Valérie’s efforts to help marc develop his French skills also consist of taking part in child-centred activities such as “going to the Aviation Centre or to the Science Festival”. The aim is to seek a variety

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

121

of contexts in order to “work on his vocabulary” as well as developing a positive attitude towards the heritage language. Valérie also sees French Literacy and language teaching as crucial components of her language management. In addition to reading French out loud to his mother, Marc also regularly works on his written comprehension and production skills. WATS.10

À la maison on travaille, on fait les cahiers de La Luciole [French activity book]. On fait, on a fait beaucoup de textes avec des questions de compréhension. Je me suis reposée sur X [name of supplementary school] pour faire tout ce qui est grammaire. Mais la lecture on fait à la maison, et les textes de compréhension. We work at home, we do La Luciole activity books. We do, we’ve done at lot of texts with comprehension questions. I have been relying on X [name of supplementary school] when it comes to grammar. But we do the reading at home, and the written comprehension activities.

Last, Valérie reports that “Marc spends all his school holidays in France [where] he is in complete immersion”. Besides, when her son was younger, Valérie went to great lengths to ensure that he would receive a high level of exposure to the heritage language. Between the age of three and five, Marc travelled to France three times a year to attend a pre-school for six weeks. WATS.11

Mais j’ai eu l’autorisation d’emmener Marc en France. Ça a été trois fois six semaines, pendant 2 ans. Il a fait l’école làbas. C’était très très bien. Il a fait le cursus, il a pas eu de problèmes. Donc petite section, moyenne section. Mais voilà le soucis c’est que en grande section ils ont dit faut choisir. And I had permission to take Marc to France. It was three times six weeks, for two years. He attended a school there. It was really really good. He did the programme; he had no problems. So, first year and second year of pre-school. But the issue was that in the third year (equivalent of UK foundation year) they said we had to choose.

122

S. WILSON

Valérie’s attempts to have Marc attend pre-school in two different countries reflects her goal to achieve balanced exposure to both languages. Observed Language Practices & Management The observation at the Watson’s home took place during homework time. The recorded conversation was between Marc and his mother and revolved around Marc’s English homework on adjective suffixes. As reported in Valérie’s and Marc’s interviews, they both spoke French exclusively throughout the interaction. While discussing English homework, and particularly English grammar, in the heritage language may seem challenging, Valérie and Marc seem accustomed to a disciplined adherence to language separation, as demonstrated in the following example of interaction. WATS.12

*Valérie:

*Marc:

*Valérie: *Marc: *Valérie:

*Marc:

*Valérie: *Marc: *Valérie: *Marc:

[going through the dictionary] Non, j’l’ai pas vu. trustable, trustability, non. Il y est pas. Ensuite? No, I haven’t seen it. Trustable, trustability, no. It’s not there. What else? Alors, comfortless, non, trustless, non, watchless, non, openessless non, believeless, non (…) confidently, oui. So, comfortless no, trustless no, watchless, no, openessless no, believeless no (…) confidently yes. Celui-là oui. Applique-toi Marc. That one, yes. Apply yourself Marc. Respectly, non. Respectly, no. Mais est-ce que ça peut être respectly or respectfully? C’est ly que tu dois mettre derrière? But could it be either respectly or respectfully? Is it ‘ly’ that you need to add after? Ouais. Mais tu peux mettre fully, les deux, derrière. Yeah. But you can put fully, both, after. T’es sûr? Are you sure? Ben regarde, ils l’ont fait. Well look, they did that. Ah ben alors tu peux faire ça. Oh well you can do that. respect …[hesitation]

3

*Valérie:

*Marc:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

123

fu-lly. T’as respectfulness Marc. Tu l’as mis ful ? Et respectfully, c’est un adverbe. fu-lly. You’ve got respectfulness Marc. Did you put ‘ful’? And respectfully is an adverb. …Voilà, on a fini. … Ok, we’re done.

Minority Parent’s Language Ideologies Raising a bilingual child is…? – “a challenge” (Valérie). Beliefs About Dual Language Acquisition and Translanguaging Valérie has always had a pro-active approach to bilingual childrearing. She reports having read numerous academic publications before Marc was even born. She explains that some of the literature on bilingual infants (zero to three years old) helped her shape her beliefs about dual language acquisition. WATS.13

J’ai fait au mieux sur tous les doctorats que j’ai lu. J’ai évolué selon ça, toutes les recherches qui avaient été faites (…) Alors c’est bizarre parce que Grosjean dit la façon la plus commune c’est ‘un parent-une langue’, puis après tu as tout le monde qui parle la même langue et puis la langue extérieure est différente. Et puis tu en as qui disent une langue après l’autre. Sauf que lui il dit que une seule langue parlée à la maison est la meilleure, celle qui se parle à la maison. Sauf que mon mari il parle pas français donc c’est compliqué. I have done my best with all the PhDs that I’ve read. They’ve helped me evolve, all the research that had been done (…) So it’s strange because Grosjean says that the most common way is the one parent-one language, and then you have everyone speaks the same language, and the language outside the home is different. And then you have those who say one language first, and then the other. But the thing is, he says that the one language only at home is best, the one spoken at home. It’s just that my husband doesn’t speak French so it’s complicated.

As per Valérie’s comment above, she has become familiar with the various language management methods discussed in academic research, such as the OPOL strategy, the hot-house approach—speaking minority language

124

S. WILSON

in the home and majority language outside, as well as successive language acquisition—introducing the majority language at a later stage. Considering that Marc’s father, Theo, does not speak any French, Valérie adopted the OPOL method by default. As stated before, and based on her reading of Grosjean, the mother’s ideal language policy would be the minority-language only strategy, as she believes that it is more effective than OPOL for children’s HL development. This belief could explain why she has recently started to address her husband in French, despite reporting that ‘he doesn’t speak any French’. In spite of her strong interest in academic literature, Valérie remains critical of research findings and recommendations that seem incongruent with her perception of bilingual parenting. WATS.14

Après t’adaptes selon [pause] c’est pas parce que c’est de la recherche que t’avales tout (…) C’est ce qu’il a dit le prof, il est Chinois, Wi Wei ou j’sais pas quoi: “Vous êtes avant tout une famille”, donc, mais après, une famille oui, mais on est une famille bilingue. Alors c’est sûr qu’on est une famille mais le bilinguisme joue un grand rôle. But then you adjust according to [pause] it’s not because it’s research that you need to swallow everything (…) Like what this professor said, he’s Chinese, Wi Wei or something: “You’re a family before anything else”, OK, but then, a family yes, but we’re a bilingual family. So, of course that we’re a family but bilingualism plays a big part.

While Marc’s mother seems well-informed on bilingualism literature, she reports that her understanding of bilingualism does not agree with the current academic definitions. For instance, she explains that only individuals raised in two languages and cultures can be described as bilingual, and therefore, she distinguishes between speaking a second language fluently and being bilingual. WATS.16

Pour moi, mon fils est bilingue parce qu’il est élevé dans deux cultures. Alors que pour les chercheurs, c’est pas comme ça que ca fonctionne. Apparemment le bilinguisme, tu peux être bilingue tard dans ta vie, tu peux être bilingue tôt dans ta vie. Et sans forcément avoir les deux cultures. Pour moi c’est

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

125

pas ça (…) je me considère pas bilingue du tout. J’ai pas le dixième de la culture, j’ai pas grandi dans ce pays donc je vois pas comment je pourrais être. For me, my son is bilingual because he’s being raised within two cultures. Whereas according to researchers, that’s not how it works. Apparently, bilingualism, you can be bilingual later in life, you can be bilingual early in life. And not necessarily have the two cultures. For me it’s not like that (…) I don’t consider myself bilingual at all. I don’t have a tenth of the culture, I didn’t grow up here, I don’t see how I could be. Despite Valérie’s strict ban on translanguaging, she believes that “it is natural for the bilingual brain to code-switch”. She also declares that she “forbids” herself to engage in translanguaging practices because “[she] finds it horrible to hear”. She justifies her ideas by describing herself as a “purist” and a “linguist”, owing to her past French teaching experience. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between Valérie’s belief in translanguaging as a natural process, and her utter intolerance towards language mixing. The following interview sample offers a clarification as to how she reconciles both positions. WATS.17

Mais je pense que forcément c’est lui mettre une astreinte au cerveau. C’est plus naturel de faire du code-switching mais [pause] le cerveau, tu peux en faire ce que tu veux! I think that it obviously puts a constraint on his brain. It’s more natural to code-switch but [pause], the brain, you can do whatever you want with it!

The above comment reveals an essential element of Valérie’s language beliefs, that is the idea that the brain of the bilingual child can be moulded through family language policy. WATS.18

C’est un défi. Si tu veux pour moi, un enfant bilingue, tu peux soit laisser la nature faire comme elle veut, mais moi, l’idée que je me suis faite du bilinguisme, alors pas parfait mais, bilingue dans les deux langues. Moi je m’étais fait mon schéma moi-même [laughter].

126

S. WILSON

It’s a challenge. If you like, for me, a bilingual child, you can either let nature takes its course, but I, the idea I have of bilingualism, so maybe not perfect but, bilingual in both languages. I made up my own concept of it [laughter]. Given Valérie’s language ideologies, it is fair to question whether her son Marc does not translanguage truly because “he does not enjoy it”, as they both report in their respective interviews. The high level of parental control exercised over Marc’s HL acquisition process suggests that he has little room for manoeuvre when it comes to language choice. Heritage Language Expectations Valérie declares that her efforts have been fruitful and feels proud of and satisfied with Marc’s level of proficiency in the minority language. WATS.19

Je suis fière de lui. Pour ce qu’il est. Si j’avais rêvé de ça, je me serais dit “c’est pas possible”. I am proud of him. Of who he is. If I had dreamt it, I would have told myself: “This can’t be”.

The mother holds high expectations of her son’s HL development. Not only does she expect him to achieve balanced bilingualism, but she also strives for absolute balanced biculturalism. In her comment below, she espouses the traditional view of “the bilinguals as two people in one person” (Grosjean 1989). WATS.20

J’espère qu’il le vit bien surtout. Parce que pour lui c’est deux entités. Je supporte pas quand les gens lui demandent: “Alors, tu préfères la France ou l’Angleterre?” Most of all I hope that he’s having a good experience. Because for him, it’s two entities. I can’t stand it when people ask him: “So, do you prefer France or England?”

In order to create biculturalism, Valérie endeavours to give precedence to the minority language and culture in order to compensate for the overwhelming dominance of the English language and culture.

3

WATS.21

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

127

Je fais en sorte que l’une domine pas l’autre (…) Et pour moi, il est même français avant d’être anglais. Pour moi c’est ça dans ma tête, il peut avoir la nationalité de son père [= hésitation] (…) Je fais en sorte que ce soit égal, et ça c’est du boulot (…) Je me mets en colère quand y a un déséquilibre. J’suis pas venu ici pour me faire dominer par l’anglais. Je sais que l’environment autour est dominant. Mais moi dans ma vie, je n’en veux pas. I make sure that one does not dominate the other. And for me, he’s even French before being English. For me, that’s how it is in my mind, he may have his father’s nationality [hesitation] (…) I make sure they equal, and that is a lot of work (…) I get angry when there is an imbalance. I didn’t come here to be dominated by English. I know that the surrounding environment is predominant. But personally, I don’t want any of it in my life.

Besides, Valérie’s attempt to decrease the influence of English in Marc’s life has extended to her native-English husband. She perceives Marc’s father, Theo, as an obstacle to her ideal French monolingual home environment as she believes that “he does not go to a lot of trouble to speak French”. WATS.25

*Interviewer:

*Valérie:

Mais ça te dérange de parler anglais, en général? But does speaking English, in general, bother you? Non. Ça me gène des fois devant Marc, parce qu’il sait que je le comprends. Il sait que maman est obligée parce que je vis ici dans le pays de papa.’ No. It bothers me sometimes, in front of Marc, because he knows that I understand. He knows that mum has to because I live here, in Dad’s country.

128

S. WILSON

WATS.26

Le soucis c’est quand son papa vient [en France]. Là, ça m’énerve encore un peu plus qu’ici, parce que je me dis: “Non mais là on est en France”. Moi je lui parle qu’en français et “débrouille-toi si tu comprends pas”. The problem is when his dad comes [to France]. Then, it annoys me even more than over here, because I’m thinking: “No, now we’re in France”. I speak French to him and “too bad if you don’t understand”.

Whilst Valérie is aware of her remarkably high standards and rigorous language approach, she considers her language management approach as necessary and in Marc’s best interest. WATS.22

Alors bon, moi on m’a appelée l’intégriste, parce que je lâche pas. Mais si on lâche, on faiblit. Ça se ressent. Well, I have been called a radical, because I don’t let go. But if one lets go, one gets weaker. You can feel it.

Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing In his email interview, Theo reports that he and his wife made a joint decision to adopt the one person-one language method in order not to confuse Marc, but also due his “bad pronunciation in French and with an English accent”. This would suggest that Theo’s exclusive use of English at home may be the result of a parental decision rather than a simple lack of good will on his part, as reported by Valérie. The father perceives his involvement in shaping the FLP as minimal. His comments below confirm Valérie’s statement according to which raising a bilingual child was a personal goal she set for herself “before [she] even met Theo”. WATS.30

It was the focus (dream) of Valérie that Marc would become bilingual, and I always supported her, even when she wanted Marc to go to Pre-school in France for 3 months for two consecutive years.

Although he may disagree with some aspects of Valérie’s approach, Theo usually concedes as he believes that his lack of French skills does not allow him to make informed decisions on the FLP.

3

WATS.31

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

129

Because I am not a teacher and have very limited knowledge of speaking other languages, I went with Valérie in her desire for Marc. Obviously, we sometimes do not agree but we normally come to some sort of compromise (probably more me than Valérie).

Parental Perception of Children’s Language Attitudes In Valérie’s opinions, Marc feels equally French and English and he does not have any language preference. She perceives Marc’s attitude towards his heritage language and culture as positive. As regards the FLP, Valérie believes that it has been conducive to strengthening her relationship with her son. In her comments below, she explains that Marc’s ability to develop strong French skills has contributed to creating a special bond between them. WATS.32

*Valérie:

*Interviewer:

*Valérie:

… on a une complicité qu’on aurait pas eu autrement … We have a personal connection that we wouldn’t have had otherwise. Grâce au fait que vous utilisiez du français exclusivement? Thanks to the fact that you use French exclusively? Oui. Je pense (…) pour moi, c’était ça, c’etait créer ce lien. J’espère. Et J’espère que ça le restera. Parce qu’un bilingue qui n’a pas l’utilisation de la langue devient monolingue. Yes. I think so (…) for me, it was about that, about creating that bond. I hope. And I hope it will stay that way. Because a bilingual who doesn’t use the language becomes monolingual.

As for Theo’s perception of his son’s attitude towards the HL and FLP, it is somewhat more nuanced than Valérie’s. The father reports that Marc has experienced bilingualism as an organic part of his existence. However, he also feels that “as Marc gets older, he starts to rebel a little against the additional work that it involves”.

130

S. WILSON

Marc’s Attitude Towards the HL and Parental Language Management During our interview, Marc reports enjoying speaking French with his mother and with his relatives in France. He also enjoys being able to help his classmates during French lessons at school. That being said, many of Marc’s comments closely echo his mother’s views. For example, he justifies his appreciation of French by explaining that it helps him “understand more things (…) because some English words come from French”. He also explains that “it would be more difficult to communicate” with his mother if he did not speak French. Marc’s attitude towards translanguaging also seems to reflect his mother’s position. He declares that he does not appreciate mixing languages “because it does not sound nice”. Besides, he states that he does not have any language preference. However, he also declares that he generally prefers speaking with his father. WATS.33

Ben des fois je vois pas mon papa beaucoup parce qu’il travaille jusqu’à 6 heures. Parce que, et je le vois pas beaucoup. C’est pour ça que moi je préfère parler avec mon papa. Well sometimes I don’t see my dad a lot because he works until 6 pm. Because, and I don’t see him a lot. That’s why I prefer speaking with my dad.

Marc also reports avoiding school-related topics when conversing with his mother, which may be due to a lack of vocabulary in the HL and Valérie’s refusal to interact in English. WATS.34

*Interviewer:

*Marc:

*Interviewer:

Et quand tu parles de choses concernant l’école, tu le dis en français ou en anglais? And when you speak about school-related things, do you say say it in French or in English? Euh des choses qu’on a fait a l’école, ben euh j’en parle pas beaucoup. Euh things we do at school, well euh I don’t speak about it much. Ah bon? Pourquoi? Really? Why?

3

*Marc: *Interviewer:

*Marc: *Interviewer: *Marc:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

131

Ben euh, je sais pas. Well euh, I don’t know. Maman ne te demande pas tous les jours: “Qu’est-ce que tu as fait à l’école?” Doesn’t mum ask you everyday: “What did you do at school?” Si. She does. Tu dis quoi? What do you say? J’lui réponds pas. I don’t answer her.

Although some of Marc’s comments suggest a more nuanced language attitude than the one described by his mother, it remains difficult to distinguish between what constitutes his authentic experiences and what could be a simple reiteration of Valérie’s ideas. As regards the parental language management approach, Marc does not express any explicit criticism. However, his ideas on how he would raise bilingual children as a father strongly differ from his mother’s methods. WATS.35

*Interviewer:

*Marc: *Interviewer: *Marc:

*Interviewer:

*Marc:

… et tu penses que si tu deviens papa tu enseigneras le français à tes enfants? … and do you think that if you become a dad you will teach French to your children? Ouais. Yeah. Pourquoi? Why? Ben [pause] j’aimerais bien garder le français parce que ma famille, ils pourront parler à ma famille. Well [pause] I would like to keep French because my family, they will be able to speak to my family. Alors tu parleras français ou anglais à tes enfants? So, will you speak French or English to your children? Ben, à la maison je leur parlerai les deux, et après ils choisiront la language qu’ils préfèrent. Et après, je parlerai celle-là à la maison, et après je parlerai français.

132

S. WILSON

Well, at home I will speak both to them, and then they will choose the language they prefer. And then, that’s the one I will speak to them at home, and then I will speak French. Marc’s imagined language policy would involve speaking both French and English and giving his child the freedom to “choose the language they prefer”. He explains that he would follow his children’s language choice and assumes that it would be English. It is interesting to note that although Marc reports not having any language preference himself, he automatically presumes that his children would (Fig. 3.7). In his language portrait, Marc made every effort to use the exact same amount of red, for French, and blue, for English. Each colour is associated with one parent and reflects his mother’s strong determination to establish a clear language separation at home. Marc declares identifying himself as “half-half”, which he depicts through mixing both colours on the face and core of the figure, as well as in his name.

Case Study F: Aurore Hall (8) Aurore, 8 and her sister Clara, 4, were born in the UK to a French mother, Chloé, and a British father, George. Chloé has been living in Britain for 10 years and she grew up in France with an American mother and a French father. As a child, she spoke mostly French to her mother but had strong comprehension skills in English. George grew up in a monolingual English household although his father speaks fluent French as he lived in Mauritius for several years. George describes his French as “just good enough to get by” but he reports being able to understand most interactions in French between his wife and the children. He has an older daughter from a previous relationship with a French partner. Although his first child did not take part in the research, she is mentioned during the interview with Chloé. Family Language Practices The Hall family’s interactions follow a very consistent OPOL pattern. Chloé speaks French only to her daughters and English to her husband whereas George speaks English exclusively to all family members. Aurore’s description of her mother’s language practices confirms that Chloé never

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

133

Fig. 3.7 Marc’s language portrait

addresses her children in English regardless of the context. Chloé maintains her adherence to the OPOL strategy while doing English school homework, as she describes below.

134

S. WILSON

HALL.1

We use French. I correct the reading mistakes in English but give the instructions in French. Math was a bit slow “clicking” as I asked the questions and said the numbers in French and she replied in English. She’s now quite good at answering multiplications in English when the operation is said in French. For topics, we’ll read the information in English and any explanation will be made in French. (Chloé’s online survey response)

Aurore and her sister Clara speak English to their father and between themselves. When addressing their mother, they use mostly English and translanguage occasionally. Chloé explains that her daughters’ use of translanguaging consists of placing a French word within an English sentence in a playful manner rather than being an attempt to express themselves in French. She provides the following examples: HALL.2

C’est comme piscine (swimming-pool ). “When are we going to the piscine?” [laughter]. “Is it today that we’re going to the piscine?” [laughter]

Generally, Chloé and her daughters have parallel-mode (Gafaranga 2010) or dual-lingual interactions (Saville-Troike 1987; Smith-Christmas 2016) in which the children use the majority language whereas the HL parent uses the minority language without any disruption to the flow of conversation. As regards Chloé’s translanguaging practices, she explains that she makes a conscious effort to avoid mixing French and English when speaking to her children. HALL.3

*Interviewer: *Chloé:

Mais toi, tu ne leur parleras jamais en anglais? But you, won’t you ever speak English to them? Non. Bon y a des mots qui, de temps en temps, qui ‘slip’ [laughter]. Mais c’est pas fréquent. Et j’en suis consciente en fait. Donc j’essaie de trouver vite le mot en français. No. Well, sometimes there might be words that ‘slip’ [laughter]. But it’s not frequent. And I am aware of it. I tried to quickly find the word in French.

3

*Interviewer: *Chloé:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

135

Donc tu ne mélanges pas beaucoup? So, you do not mix a lot? Non. No.

However, Chloé will happily translanguage with bilingual adult friends and relatives. She describes interactions during family gatherings as a “comfortable blend” in which “it fizzes off in all possible directions”. HALL.4

Alors quand la mère de V (George’s ex-partner) vient à la maison et qu’on est tous ensemble: alors ma mère, bilingue, mon père, francophone, Granny, anglophone, la mère de V, francophone mais qui parle un peu en anglais, X (George’s father) et moi complètement bilingues (…) Ça part dans tous les sens. So, when V’s mother (George’s ex-partner) comes over and we’re all together: so, my mother is bilingual, my father, francophone, Granny, English-speaking, V’s mother, French-speaking but she speaks a little English, X (George’s father) and I, completely bilingual (…) It fizzes off in all possible directions.’

HALL.5

Si quelqu’un nous pose une question en anglais on va répondre en anglais, et là, quelquefois ça peut partir complètement de travers car il se peut que X et moi on se réponde en français [laughter] et après [pause] dans la même conversation, oui on le fait [referring to translanguaging]. If someone asks us a question in English, we’ll answer in English, and here, sometimes, it can completely go astray because X and I might respond to each other in French [laughter] and then [pause] in the same conversation, yes, we do it [referring to translanguaging]. French Parent’s Language Management Approach

Chloé has always practiced self-disciplined in her language choices at home. She and her husband implement the OPOL strategy even though they “didn’t actually have a discussion about it”. Chloé took a conscious decision to speak French exclusively to her children, while George, who is

136

S. WILSON

a monolingual English speaker, has been sticking to the majority language over the years. One of Chloé’s methods to implement a rigorous OPOL during group conversations is to signal, through body language, that her use of the majority language is not directed at her daughters. HALL.6

Mais à table, si on est les quatre ensemble, à table, si je m’adresse aux filles, en français, et George doit comprendre ce qui se passe [pause] Et [hesitation], si je m’adresse à George, ou que je veux faire une remarque, et que je continue la conversation en anglais parce que c’est plus facile pour George, je me tourne vers George [laughter], pour une remarque générale à la table, je le fais en anglais. Euh [laughter] c’est tout un art en fait. But at the table, if it’s the four of us, at the table, if I am speaking to the girls, in French, and George needs to understand what is happening [pause] and [hesitation], if I am speaking to George, or if I want to make a comment, and that I continue the conversation in English because it’s easier for George, I turn towards George [laughter], when it’s a general comment to the whole table, I do it in English. Euh [laughter] it’s quite an art actually.

Chloé’s language practices remain consistent when addressing Aurore in the presence of her non-French speaking school mates. HALL.7

Quand on a des petites copines à la maison par exemple, je parle à Aurore en français, et après je traduis pour ses copines. Ou alors de toutes façons, ses copines elles dissent: “oh mais qu’est-ce qu’elle a dit ta mère?” Et Aurore traduit. When we have girl friends over, for examples, I speak French to Aurore, and then I translate for her girlfriends. Or anyway, her girlfriends will say: “Oh but what did your mum say?” And Aurore will translate.

As mentioned previously, Chloé’s rigorous language separation includes the avoidance of translanguaging, as she explains below.

3

HALL.8

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

137

Ah oui j’essaie au maximum quoi. Si le mot anglais me vient en premier, j’essaie très vite de trouver le mot français, quitte à dire un mot français qui est pas tout à fait français [laughter]. Oh yes, I tried as much as possible. If the English word comes to me first, I try to quickly find the French word, even if it means saying a French word that isn’t exactly French [laughter].

The mother’s language management choice requires strong discipline on her part. However, such rigour only applies to her own language use as she does not “force [the children] to speak French”. This was confirmed by Aurore during our interview. HALL.9

*Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer:

*Aurore:

Euh, Est-ce qu’il y a des règles à la maison à propos des langues qu’il il faut parler? Language rules. (…) Euh, are there any rules at home about which languages you need to speak? Language rules. Non. No Non? Alors tu peux parler la langue que tu veux? No? So, can you speak any language you want? [nodding]

According to Chloé, her language management plan has always been to remain very consistent in her language choices while leaving her children the freedom to select the language in which they feel most comfortable expressing themselves. Chloé employs more subtle strategies to encourage her daughters to speak the heritage language. For instance, she reports avoiding the use of complex sentences in French. She also attempts to engage them in using the minority language during hands-on activities. HALL.10

Je vais changer un peu mon vocabulaire pour qu’il soit plus simple et qu’elle ait plus envie de répondre, et l’inciter à [hesitation], voilà je vais l’inciter, par exemple, si on doit faire des courses, et qu’elle me dit: “Ah est-ce qu’on peut prendre des carottes?” Je dis: “Ah ben oui, bonne idée, on va prendre des carottes, et des avocats, et des champignons [laughter]”. Je vais essayer de les faire parler un p’tit peu plus. Mais je vais

138

S. WILSON

pas lui dire: “Ah, aujourd’hui c’est mercredi, parle français”, voilà. I will slightly change my vocabulary so that it is simpler and she feels more like responding, and encourage her to [hesitation], yes I’ll encourage her, for example, if we need to go grocery shopping, and she tells me: “Oh can we take some carrots?”, I’ll say: “Oh yes, good idea, we’ll take some carrots, and some avocados, and some mushrooms [laughter].” I will try to make them speak a little more. But I won’t say: “Ok, today is Wednesday, speak French.” Chloé “do[es] not hide the fact that [she] can speak English” and her exclusive use of French is presented to her daughters as a language preference rather than a lack of English proficiency. The OPOL method in the Hall family also applies to literacy practices since, as Chloé describes, “daddy reads in English and mummy reads in French”. On occasions where Clara (4) insists on being read a particular English book, Chloé takes on the challenging task of translating the story into French. The family has also been attending their supplementary school as a means to support Aurore and Clara’s acquisition of French. Like many parents, Chloé relies on the Saturday school for literacy skills in the minority language. However, she also sees the school as the only place where her daughters “have to try and construct sentences in French”, which they do not do at home. Last, Chloé thinks of the family’s holiday in France as an opportunity for her daughters to practice their heritage language. However, she is faced with an unusual challenge since her mother, who is American, enjoys speaking English with her grandchildren. Even in this situation, Chloé does not impose the use of French on Aurore and Clara but, instead, she regularly “reminds [her] mother to speak French to the children”. Observed Language Practices & Management The Halls’ language practices were observed and recorded at their home, during a family meal. Aurore, Clara, Chloé, George and his parents (referred to as Granny and Grandpa) were gathered at the dinner table for a raclette (traditional Swiss cheese dish). The family’s language practices during the recorded conversation were congruent with Chloé and

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

139

Aurore’s accounts. The mother’s language choices remained consistent for the duration of the exchange. She used French exclusively when speaking to her children, and she spoke English to the rest of the group. As she mentioned in our interview, she consciously used body language to signal that her interactions in English did not concern the children as she looked at, and slightly turned towards her interlocutor when speaking in the majority language. HALL.11

*Chloé (French mother):

*Aurore: *Clara: *Chloé:

[addressing her daughters] Est-ce que vous voulez du jambon? Tout le monde a eu du jambon? Do you want some ham? Has everyone had ham? Yes. Oui I have. I did. Très bien. Very good. Grandpa, you have to be careful that these don’t overcook. Otherwise they get all oily. [Addressing the children] Qui n’a pas eu de champignons? Aurore tu veux des champignons? Who did not have any mushrooms? Aurore, would you like some mushrooms?

The observation also confirmed that Chloé and her daughters mostly had parallel-mode interactions, as the two girls did not use any French during the entire interaction. HALL.12

*Clara: *Chloé: *Clara: *Chloé: *Clara: *Chloé:

Mummy? Oui? Yes? Can I have more tomatoes? Encore?! More?! because I’ve only got three. Mais c’est déjâ bien commencer ma choupette.

pour

140

S. WILSON

*Granny (monolingual English speaker):

But that’s a good start darling. You can have some more later.

Chloé’s strong adherence to the OPOL approach appears to have a minimal effect against the overwhelming dominance of English within the family. She is the sole source of input in the minority language as her husband does not seem involved in encouraging Aurore and Clare to speak French. The conversation excerpt below highlights the predominance of English among family members. HALL.13

*Chloé (French mother):

*Clara: *George (British Father, basic French skills): *Aurore: *Chloé:

*Aurore: *George: *Clara:

Alors les filles, vous avez fini de peindre le bateau? So, girls, have you finished painting the boat? No, we haven’t finished. Does anyone want more potatoes? Yeah Qui est-ce qui veut du fromage? Who wants some cheese? Hmm I’ve still got mine. Anyone? Some more cheese? Me! Me! No, I want hot cheese.

The above interaction sample reveals that any effort from Chloé to initiate and develop an exchange in French, with her daughters, is immediately undermined by the other adults’ subsequent utterances in English, which, in turn, lead to the children responding in the majority language. Minority Parent’s Language Ideologies Raising a bilingual child is…?-“Rewarding” (Chloé).

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

141

Beliefs About Dual Language Acquisition and Bilingualism Chloé describes translanguaging as a natural phenomenon and she reports mixing French and English when conversing with other adult bilinguals. However, she also believes that in order for Aurore and Clara to develop their listening skills in the HL, she should avoid the use of English, including in translanguaging practices. Like other parents in the study, Chloé chose to steer clear of translanguaging despite viewing this practice as “normal” and “positive”. In her comments below, she accounts for this apparent discrepancy. HALL.14

*Chloé:

*Interviewer:

*Chloé:

Oui c’est naturel parce qu’on le fait tellement souvent que je me pose pas la question. Y a rien de plus naturel … …Je me tiens à ma règle. Depuis le début. Et puis après la porte est ouverte à toutes les débauches si je commence à parler en anglais, donc faut faire l’effort. C’est pour qu’elle apprenne le français. Yes, it’s natural because we do it so often that I don’t even question it. There’s nothing more natural… …I’ve been sticking to my rule. Since the beginning. And then if I start speaking English, the door is open to all sorts of abuses, so one must make the effort. It’s just so that they learn French. Donc, dans l’idéal, pour toi, pour avoir un enfant bilingue, il faut parler exclusivement français? So, ideally, according to you, for a child to become bilingual, one must speak French exclusively? Oui. Yes

Chloé’s avoidance of translanguaging is the result of a conscious effort to maximise HL exposure rather than the evidence of contradicting language ideologies and management. Considering the limited amount of input in French, she believes that translanguaging would further reduce her children’s exposure to the minority language.

142

S. WILSON

Chloé also believes that maintaining language consistency contributes to her daughters’ emotional well-being. She explains that changing language strategies would disturb them since they are accustomed to her use of the minority language only. HALL.15

Je pense que pour elles ce serait pas naturel si je me mets à leur parler en anglais. Elles vont se dire: “Mais qu’est ce qui se passe? Pourquoi elle m’adresse la parole en anglais tout à coup? Qu’est-ce que j’ai fait de mal?” I think that it wouldn’t feel natural to them if I started speaking English to them. They’ll think: “But what’s happening? Why is she addressing me in English suddenly? What did I do wrong?”

Whilst language separation is a key aspect of Chloé’s approach to bilingual parenting, another essential element of her language management is the children’s freedom of language choice. She declares: “I don’t want to impose the use of French on my children, (…) I want it to come from them”. Chloé believes that imposing the use of the minority language at home would lead Aurore and her sister to develop a negative attitude towards it. She also declares that pressuring children to speak a minority language causes them to experience stress and language anxiety. HALL.16

Je lui impose pas, parce que j’ai pas envie de la stresser dessus. J’ai pas envie qu’elle se braque, et dire qu’on lui a imposé le français. I don’t impose it on her because I don’t want her to feel stressed about it. I don’t want her to reject it and say that French was imposed to her.

Chloé decided to let Aurore express herself in the language of her choice in order to encourage communication between them. She explains that imposing the use of French on her daughter would “frustrate” her and discourage her from sharing her thoughts and experiences with her mother. Chloé’s motivations for her language management decision are reflected in the two following interview excerpts. HALL.17

Si je leur imposais le français, qu’elles étaient obligées d’exprimer tous leurs sentiments en français, peut-être que ça les

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

143

bloquerait plus. Parce que mine de rien, c’est quand même normal que l’anglais soit leur langue principale. Donc là c’est, elles seraient frustrées. If I imposed French on them, if they were obliged to express all their feelings in French, maybe that it would hold them back. Because, after all, it is normal that English should be their first language. So, then, they would feel frustrated.

HALL.18

Donc si elles ont un problème, elles peuvent me dire en anglais, et je vais répondre en français, avec mes mots pour l’encourager en français, et ça passe comme ça. Si je leur imposais de le dire en français, peut-être qu’elles pourraient pas l’exprimer aussi bien, euh, et pourraient peut-être pas, si elles veulent me raconter par exemple, ce qu’il s’est passé à l’école, un tel a dit ci, un tel a dit ça, euh, tout à coup ça devient plus compliqué. Donc là, elles peuvent dire ce qu’elles ont envie de sortir. So, if they have a problem, they can tell me in English, and I’ll respond in French, with my words of encouragement in French, and that works well. If I demanded that they told me in French, perhaps that they wouldn’t be able to express themselves as well, euh, and perhaps they wouldn’t be able, if, for example, they want to tell me what has happened at school, such and such said this or that, suddenly it gets more complicated. So as things are, they can say whatever needs to come out.

Unlike the other parents in this study, Chloé grew up in a bilingual home and her language management draws on her own childhood experience as a heritage speaker. She describes her children as being “the second bilingual generation, just the other way around”. Chloé reports that her mother spoke mostly English at home and that she was able to “understand everything”. However, she and her sibling spent a considerable amount of time with a babysitter who forbade them to speak English in her presence. HALL.19

Parce que je l’ai vécu. Ma mère est américaine en fait. Donc quand j’étais petite, elle voulait absolument qu’on parle anglais. Mais au bout d’un moment elle a abandonné. En

144

S. WILSON

fait la baby-sitter nous interdisait de parler anglais. Elle nous obligeaient à parler français. Mais ma mère elle savait pas ça. Because I experienced it. My mother is actually American. So, when I was little, she really wanted us to speak English. But after some point she gave up. In fact, the babysitter did not allow us to speak English. She would force us to speak French. But my mother didn’t know that. Les gens se rendent pas compte, parce qu’ils l’ont pas cette expérience. Leurs enfants l’auront. Mais eux ils l’ont pas encore. People don’t realise that, because they haven’t had that experience. Their children will. But they haven’t. Chloé declares that she can empathise with her daughters’ experiences as heritage speakers owing to her own bilingual upbringing. However, she is also aware that her decision not to impose the use of French at home may result in children responding exclusively in the majority language. Therefore, Chloé perceives her language approach as both vital for the well-being of Aurore and Clara, and as an obstacle to the development of their HL. HALL.20

*Interviewer:

*Chloé:

Et pourquoi tu l’as inscrite à l’école française, justement? And why did you enrol her in French school? C’est bien de le comprendre, mais comme je ne les force pas à me parler en français, à X [name of French school], elles sont obligées de le parler. Elles sont obligées d’essayer de construire des phrases en français. It’s very well to understand it, but since I do not force them to speak French to me, at X [name of French School], they have to speak it. They have to try and construct sentences in French.

Heritage Language Expectations Chloé believes that her children will develop strong listening skills but she does not expect ‘that they will speak French to her in the future’.

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

145

Her expectations of Aurore’s and Clara’s HL development are, therefore, coherent with her language management choices. HALL.23

Comme je me suis pas imposée de leur faire parler, de répondre en français, j’peux pas m’attendre à ce qu’elles soient parfaitement bilingues, et qu’elles me parlent en français régulièrement. Since I decided not to make them speak, respond in French, I can’t expect that they will be perfectly bilingual, and that they will speak French to me regularly.

Chloé’s comments suggest that she feels highly responsible for her daughters’ HL development. She also reports being satisfied with Aurore’s French skills and believes that she is able to communicate in French with her relatives in France. The mother expects that as her children grow older, “they will make more efforts to speak French when they are in France”. Non-French Parent’s Approach to Bilingual Childrearing Although George speaks only English to his daughters, he is able to follow most conversations in French between Chloé and the children. Besides, he reports being able to “get by” while in France and understanding native French speakers if “they adjust their speed”. Overall, George has few opportunities to practice his French considering that Chloé’s mother is a native English speaker and “will switch to English” when addressing him. In his email interview, George explains that he had “no choice” and “no input” in the language management plan because he simply “married a French woman”. These comments concur with Chloé’s who reports that her husband “has just been following the plan”. George explains: HALL.25

If I had married an English woman and we just lived in the UK, I would not have sat down and thought about teaching my kids a second language.

Although the father declares having no involvement in raising Aurore and Clara bilingually, he uses the first-person plural in his comments below.

146

S. WILSON

HALL.26

I think we do it the right way. She (Chloé) speaks to them in French and I speak in English.

Whilst he fully relies on his spouse to raise their children bilingually, George shares Chloé’s approach to HL transmission. They both agree on giving Aurore and Clara the freedom to express themselves in their preferred language. HALL.27

The way we deal with it is simply positive, patient, with gentle encouragement rather than imposing rules about speaking a language. Our approach is if we carried on hammering French at them, eventually they will stop talking.

Like other British parents in the study, George perceives bilingualism as “an advantage” that may offer his children geographical mobility and professional opportunities. HALL.28

Brexit put aside, it gives them more opportunity to live and work in different places. It also sets them ahead of their peers in the working environment.

Parental Perception of Children’s Language Attitudes Informed by her own childhood experience, Chloé reports that “to Aurore, speaking French is not natural” because she has been growing up in an English-speaking society. Overall, Chloé believes that her older daughter has a positive attitude towards her HL based on the fact that she has expressed the desire to speak more French during her holidays in France. The mother also believes that her high level of tolerance towards the use of English and translanguaging has been conducive to a relaxed atmosphere at home. However, Chloé explains that Aurore has been experiencing some heritage language anxiety, hence her tendency to speak mostly English to her mother. She declares that heritage speakers are prone to worry about being judged and corrected by their parents and relatives. Drawing on her own experience, she reports still feeling embarrassed by her French accent when speaking English to her American mother.

3

HALL.29

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

147

C’est une question de gêne en fait, de honte vis-à-vis des parents. Moi j’ai pas envie de parler anglais à ma mère à cause de mon accent, j’ai pas envie qu’elle me reprenne. Elles veulent pas ne pas bien le parler. Elle a pas envie de se faire reprendre. It’s about feeling uncomfortable actually, feeling embarrassed in front of your parents. I don’t like speaking English to my mother because of my accent, I wouldn’t want her to correct me. They don’t want not to speak it well. She does not feel like being corrected.

That said, Chloé trusts that Aurore will grow more confident and will develop her productive skills in French as she feels more secure. George made a similar prediction, which suggests that he may have discussed the question with his spouse. He declares: HALL.30

When Aurore is a bit older and has more confidence, she will start responding in French and we will encourage it.

The father believes that both Aurore and Clara perceive the language management at home as “normal” because children “just deal with it”. Aurore’s Attitude Towards the HL and Parental Language Management Overall, Aurore’s (8) comments during our interview suggest that she has a positive attitude towards the heritage language and culture. For instance, she requested that I speak French to her at the start of our conversation. Aurore responded in French during the first two minutes of our interaction until she started groping for words. At that point, she switched to English and the discussion was, therefore, conducted in parallel modes (English-French), similar to Aurore’s daily interactions with her mother. Aurore declares feeling “happy” about her mother speaking French to her because she finds it stimulating to “learn new words”. Most of her responses indicate that she is comfortable with Chloé using the minority language at home and in presence of school friends.

148

S. WILSON

HALL.31

*Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer: *Aurore:

Et quand maman te parle en français devant tes copines anglaises, tu te sens comment? And when mum speaks French in front of your English girlfriends, how do you feel? [pause] Hmm happy. Donc c’est pas un problème? So, it’s not a problem? Non. No.

However, and as reported by her mother, Aurore expresses some feelings of HL anxiety when interacting with relatives in France. Although she “understand[s] everything”, she acknowledges that she is not always confident about her French speaking skills. HALL.32

*Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer: *Aurore: *Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer:

*Aurore:

Et tu te sens comment quand tu parles français avec ta famille en France? And how do you feel when you speak French with your family in France? Fine. Tu comprends tout ce qu’ils te disent? Do you understand everything they say? [nodding] Et tu peux dire tout ce que tu as envie de dire? Are you able to say everything you want to say? Quelquefois. Sometimes. Quelquefois. Et quand tu n’y arrives pas, tu te sens comment? Sometimes. And when you are not able to, how do you feel? Scared [laughter].

Whilst Aurore shows a positive attitude towards the heritage language, her comments also clearly indicate her preference for English, mainly due to her higher level of proficiency in that language. She declares preferring English “[be]cause [she] know[s] almost every word”. Although Aurore seems generally comfortable with the presence and use of the HL in her environment, she is not certain that she will use it in the future.

3

HALL.33

*Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer: *Aurore:

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

149

(…) si tu deviens maman, tu voudras que tes enfants apprennent le français? if you become a mum, will you want your children to learn French? Euh peut-etre. Euh maybe. Peut-etre. Pourquoi? Maybe. Why? Je n’sais pas. I don’t know.

As regards the family language policy, Aurore appreciates her mother’s tolerance towards the use of English and translanguaging (Fig. 3.8). HALL.34

*Interviewer:

*Aurore: *Interviewer: *Aurore: *Interviewer: *Aurore: *Interviewer:

*Aurore:

Est-ce que maman parfois te demande de parler français? OK. Hmm does mummy sometimes ask you to speak French? Non. No Jamais? Never? [Shaking head] Et tu penses que c’est une bonne chose? Do you think that it is a good thing? [nodding]. Et si tu parles anglais à maman, comment elle reagit? And if you speak English to mum, how does she react? Relaxed.

As with the previous language portraits, Aurore’s silhouette reflects a complex and nuanced experience of bilingualism where both languages seem intimately intertwined. Her description of the portrait indicates that, in her view, one’s level of language proficiency is closely connected with his or her cultural identity. For instance, she perceives her older sister as being “half-French, half-English”, while her younger sister, Clara, “knows a quarter French and quite a bit of English”. HALL.36

Bleu c’est anglais parce que euh (English is in blue because hmm) [hesitation] it’s the flag. It has a bit of blue in it and

150

S. WILSON

Fig. 3.8 Aurore’s language portrait

red. And bleu, blanc, rouge, I chose red for French. I understand a lot of English, and a little bit of French. My dad is English that’s how I know a lot of English. And my mum is French, that’s how I learned a bit of French. Hmm my

3

CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES OF FLP: 6 CASE …

151

big sister is half English, half French. My little sister knows a quarter of French and quite a bit of English [laughter]. Aurore’s language portrait also confirms that she is sensitive to and aware of her proficiency in each of her languages. The head of the silhouette is almost entirely blue (for English) and accompanied by the caption: “I understand a lot in English”. Her language portrait is coherent with the language attitudes she expressed during the interview: Aurore both is comfortable with her French heritage and strongly identifies as English. HALL.37

*Interviewer: *Aurore:

Why is there more blue than red? Because we’re an English family.

References Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Negotiating family language policy: Doing homework. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Ed.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (p. 432). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.-M., & Sevinç, Y. (2017). La double anxiété langagière des immigrants. Babylonia Journal of Language Education, 1, 26–29. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 8(3), 454–479. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2), 241–270. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware: The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. Lanza, E. (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Dilingual discourse: The negotiation of meaning without a common code. Linguistics, 25, 81–106. Smith-Christmas, C. (2016). Family language policy: Maintaining an endangered language in the home. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

CHAPTER 4

Fostering Harmonious Bilingual Development Through Family Language Policy

Abstract In this chapter, I discuss the thematic analysis of the six case studies presented in the previous chapter. I examine the role of language attitudes and preferences in childhood bilingualism and highlight the holistic and individual nature of young heritage speakers’ bilingual experiences. Finally, this chapter concludes by discussing the impact of particular FLP on children. Keywords Language attitudes · Language anxiety · Language preference · Holistic bilingualism

Discussing Family Language Policy with Children In their email interviews, the majority-language parents described their children’s bilingual experience as “organic”, “normal” or “natural”. Their statements below are notably similar as they all report that children are unaware of parental language strategies and simply accept their bilingualism as a given. WHEEL.29:

WATS.37 :

“He is unaware…he knows no difference; it is natural to him.” – Gareth Wheeler “Marc knows no difference.” – Ted Watson

© The Author(s) 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1_4

153

154

S. WILSON

HALL.39:

COLL.13: BRAD.20:

BERT.28:

“They just think it is normal. They are children and just deal with it.” – George Hall “They think it’s normal.” – Allan Collins “I am not sure I see any impact. It is very normal for them.” – Carl Bradford “They are unaware.” – Laura Bertrand

As for the French parents, all admitted that they had never asked their children about their feelings towards the HL and the FLP. Therefore, parents’ ideas of their offspring’s perspectives were based mostly on assumptions and observations of their children’s behaviours. Parent-child discussions about FLP seem essential given that children’s accounts of their experiences of bilingualism, in the interviews and through their language portraits, often contradicted parental perceptions. For instance, both Rachel (case study A) and Patrick (case study C) stated that their children had positive attitudes towards their parents’ efforts to establish monolingual French interactions. However, Hélène (9) (Rachel’s daughter) reported feeling “annoyed” by her mother’s French-only policy, while Alain (6) (Patrick’s son) explained that his father’s language rules made him “sad” and “angry”. One of the reasons why these negative feelings have remained unidentified may be the fact that children do not always expressly reject their parents’ language management techniques. Alain, Hélène, Eric and Ella all reported remaining silent whenever they felt bothered by their parents’ language choices or demands. This makes family conversations about parental language planning all the more necessary for harmonious FLP. Whilst none of the minority-language parents had purposefully enquired about their children’s perspectives on growing up in a bilingual home, those who had embraced more flexible language management styles seemed more in tune with their offspring’s experiences. Vanessa (case study B), Mathilde (case study D) and Chloé (case study F) each provided an analysis that was consonant with their children’s reports. For instance, Vanessa accurately described the differences in Eric’s (11) and Ella’s (13) responses to HL learning, due their different personalities (Case study B). Chloé identified some degree of HL anxiety in her daughter, consistent with Aurore’s (8) admission that she felt “scared” about her perceived inability to fully express herself in French. Mathilde’s

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

155

statement that John (6), despite enjoying his heritage language and culture, did not feel French, was confirmed by his comments during his interview. Not only did the six French parents confidently described their children’s attitudes towards the HL but each also provided an account of their children’s sense of cultural identity. The minority-language parents’ perceptions often seemed to be a reflection of their own level of attachment to French and British cultures. For instance, Mathilde declared that “John did not feel French because [she] d[id] not feel French [her]self”. Although her analysis turned out to be congruent with John’s report, this was not the case for all families. Chloé, for example, stated that her daughter felt “half-French, half-English” whereas Aurore, in her interview and language portrait, described herself and her family as “English”. Vanessa also declared that her two children felt “half-half”, while her son, Eric, reported that he saw himself as mostly English. This finding supports Blackledge and Creese’s (2008: 537) argument that the notion of heritage language transmission must be approached carefully as it is not simply the process of “passing on” a language and a culture. Instead, one needs to take into account the complex relationship between language, culture and identity. The study of these 6 families also indicates that, overall, parents do not overtly discuss the topic of bilingualism and biculturalism with their children. As a result, they are not always in tune with their children’s true attitudes towards the HL and the FLP, nor their sense of cultural identity. Ironically, the research also suggests that children as young as six years old have a good awareness of their parents’ language management strategies and the dynamics within the FLP. Although parents reported that they had never explained their language approach to their children, the eight young heritage speakers were not only able to accurately describe family language practices, but they were also aware of the parental methods shaping such practices. For instance, Alain (6) accurately described his family’s language practices and explained that speaking English would lead his father to “ignore” him until he would switch to French. Hélène (9) and Antoine (16) gave a detailed account of their mother’s language strategies and declared: “she’ll normally say she doesn’t understand because we’re speaking English [but] she does understand”. Aurore (8), John (6), Eric (11) and Ella (13) are all aware of their parents’ flexible approach to bilingualism. Aurore described her mother’s approach as “relaxed”, whilst Eric and Ella stated that Vanessa did not mind them speaking English.

156

S. WILSON

The children and adolescents in this study also seemed to understand how important HL transmission was to their French parents. All reported that maintaining French within the family had both a practical and a sentimental significance for the minority-language parent. In the Bradford family (case study B), which has flexible language practices, Eric and Ella would consciously elect to use the HL in a given situation, based on its emotional significance for their mother. The two siblings reported “trying to speak French when [their mother] was tired after work” or when “they want[ed] something [from her]”. Their parents also declared that the children spoke French “to please” Vanessa or when “they want[ed] something from [her]”. Comparably, Mathilde Wheeler (case study D) stated that John tended to speak French when he wanted to “flatter [her]” or when he needed affection. The Bertrand family’s French-only policy did not provide enough scope for Alain (6) and his younger sister (4) to use the emotional aspect of the HL. However, in the observed exchange, at the family home, the young boy used his knowledge of French to obtain his father’s approbation, as demonstrated in the conversation excerpt below. BERT.19

* Anne, 3 (Alain’s sister): *Patrick: *Anne: *Patrick:

*Alain, 6:

*Patrick:

*Alain: *Patrick:

Picture! Pardon? Picture. Oui, c’est le premier mot qu’ t’as dit en anglais. Yes, that was the first word you said in English En français c’est comme ‘image’. In French it’s like ‘image’. Comme ‘image’, tout à fait Alain. As in ‘image’, absolutely Alain. Mais en français. But in French. Oui. Yes.

The relationship between language and emotions (Pavlenko 2012) adds a layer of complexity to family language policy, which parents might not always be aware of, while caught up in their demanding daily routine.

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

157

Children’s Language Attitudes vs. Language Preferences This book presents the experiences of bilingual children exposed to different FLPs. Interestingly, all eight heritage speakers declared being happy about the fact that they could speak two languages. However, most children found it difficult to explain the reasons for their reportedly positive attitudes towards their HL and towards bilingualism. A recurrent idea among most of the young participants was the necessity to develop their French in order to communicate with the extended family. This argument closely resonated with their parents’ reported motivations for maintaining the minority language and it is possible that the children’s comments were strongly influenced by their parents’ discourses. Whilst children did not provide any explicit justifications for their positive HL attitudes, the presence of French as a foreign language within the British school curriculum appeared to be an important factor. All young heritage speakers in this study reported having French lessons at their mainstream primary or secondary schools. The younger participants, Alain (6), John (6) and Aurore (8), explained that they enjoyed feeling special during French lessons, where they were asked to take on the role of “teacher’s assistant” and help their classmates. Older children and teenagers, Hélène (9), Marc (10), Eric (11), Ella (13) and Antoine (16), clearly identified the opportunity to obtain an “easy grade” in their French school assessments. The inclusion of these children’s HL within mainstream education appeared to be an essential source of positive language attitude. Besides, these young heritage speakers also seemed to realise that the French language was generally positively perceived in British society (Baker 2001). This may explain why they were all willing to be spoken to in the HL in the presence of their friends or in public. Ella’s account of her friends’ reaction to hearing her speak French is telling: “they’re like, oh keep speaking French, it sounds so good; I’m like [rolling her eyes].” If the children’s explicit responses indicated positive attitudes towards French, a few other elements of data suggested that their feelings towards the HL may be more nuanced and complex. For example, Alain (6), Aurore (9) and Ella (13) reported experiencing anxiety when speaking French in certain situations. Aurore and Ella felt “scared” and intimidated while communicating with French relatives, whereas Alain’s anxiety was associated with the fear of not meeting his father’s language expectations. Ironically, French supplementary schools, a locus for young heritage

158

S. WILSON

speakers to meet their bilingual peers, did not appear to contribute to positive HL attitudes. John (6), and Ella (13) were the only participants showing enthusiasm about attending their Saturday schools where they had developed good friendships. The other six children and teenagers commented on the additional workload involved in what they perceived as an extra day of school. That being said, the negative sentiments towards the supplementary schools must be distinguished from children’s attitudes towards the HL itself. This study findings also highlight the need to distinguish between language attitude and language preference. Seven out of the eight children in this study declared that they had a preference for English, thus showing that a positive attitude towards the HL was compatible with a preference for the majority language. Alain (6), stated that he enjoyed speaking French more than English. However, it is important to note that he decided to discuss this with the researcher in English, despite being given the choice. He also imagined that, as a father, he would not speak the HL to his children. This suggests that Alain’s reported preference for French may have been influenced by parental discourse and expectations. Additional evidence of children’s overall preference for the majority language is provided by their use of English as the default language between siblings, even within the Bertrand and Collins households where the HL is strongly promoted. The children’s main reported reason for preferring English was simply that “it [was] easier” for them considering that they spent most of their day in an English-speaking environment and consequently, had a higher proficiency level in the majority language. Therefore, their preference for English appeared to arise from pragmatism rather than emotions. The same reason applied to English literacy given that reading in the HL demanded a greater intellectual effort. Most heritage speakers in the study tended to limit their exposure to written French to the weekly supplementary schoolbooks as the bare minimum, or to engage in no French reading at all. The coexistence of positive HL attitudes and a preference for speaking English indicate that children do not perceive their two languages as separate and competing systems, but instead, they seem to embrace bilingualism as a holistic phenomenon.

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

159

Childhood Bilingualism as a Holistic and Individual Experience The study reported in this book provides a much-needed insight into young heritage speakers’ perspectives on growing up bilingually. Children’s experiences of bilingualism transpired through the semi-structured interviews and their language portraits. First, it is interesting to point out that many of their comments regarding translanguaging revealed that they perceived this practice as natural and self-evident. All eight young participants declared that mixing French and English was acceptable. Their surprised or amused reactions to my question about language mixing were as revealing as their explicit comments. Alain (6), Aurore (8) and Ella (13) laughed at the examples I provided as they related to their own code-mixing practices. Hélène even provided examples of her own use of translanguaging. COLL.14

*Hélène: *Researcher: *Hélène: *Antoine: *Researcher: *Hélène:

Yeah it’s fun. I like “what’s” and “quoi’s” [laughter] [laughter] (…) Do you think it’s ok to mix? Yeah [pause] everyone calls it [hesitation] argh [looking for the term] Frenglish or franglais. Franglais? Tu parles franglais ? Franglais? (Or Frenglish). Do you speak Franglais ? [laughter]

To most children, the very thought of questioning the acceptability of translanguaging seemed odd. Marc (10) was an exception in the sense that he reported that he did not enjoy translanguaging because “it [did] not sound pretty”. This is another instance where his comments closely echoed his mother’s ideas as voiced in her description of languagemixing as “horrible” and “grating on [one’s] ear”. However, even Marc explained that translanguaging was appropriate among bilinguals and that as a father, he would “speak both languages to his children”. These findings suggest that to these bilingual children, mixing French and English appeared to be an instinctive and organic practice which they did not question, irrespective of the frequency at which they personally tended to translanguage. In other words, the idea of a right or wrong language to speak seemed unfamiliar or fallacious to them. These young

160

S. WILSON

heritage speakers’ perspectives resonate with García’s (2009) argument that languages are not discrete, countable entities. Instead, the children’s accounts in this research seem to be in line with Blackledge and Creese’s conclusion (2008: 534) that the notion of language varieties as separate and well-defined systems is a “social construct”. For this reason, any parental effort to produce a monolingual context despite the existence of their multilingual repertoire appeared to be counterintuitive to children. In the Collins and the Bertrand families, in which the French parents do not tolerate the use of English, the children expressed their disapprobation of the parental language policy. Besides, the heritage-language only rule implemented at the supplementary schools was also perceived negatively by most children. Younger participants such as Alain (6), John (6), Aurore (8) and Hélène (9) did not understand the purpose for the ban on English. The adolescents, Eric (11), Ella (13) and Antoine (16), recognise the need for supplementary schools to exclude the majority language in an attempt to increase HL exposure, but Eric and Ella declared that it did not dissuade them from speaking English to their friends. Whilst children approved of translanguaging, they intuitively made judicious language choices according to the context. As indicated by the comments below, children would only engage in translanguaging when their interlocutors were French-English bilinguals themselves. BRAD.21

*Eric :

*Researcher: *Ella:

HALL.40

*Researcher:

*Aurore:

I’d say: “Can I have this”, in French and then I would say the word I want to have in English. Then I go back to French. (…) Do you only do that when speaking to your mum, or with other people too? With our French family we try hard to just, like, speak French. If I need to know something, I’ll ask my mum and then go back and say it [laughter]. (…) C’est quand tu parles à maman que tu mélanges? (…) Do you mix when speaking to mum? [nodding]

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

*Researcher:

*Aurore: *Researcher: *Aurore: *Researcher:

*Aurore:

161

D’accord. Et quand tu parles à d’autres personnes, tu mélanges aussi parfois? Ok. And when you speak to other people, do you also sometimes mix? Non. No. Non. Seulement à maman. Pourquoi? No. Only with mum. Why? Cause I know her. Et tu ne peux pas faire ça avec les gens que tu ne connais pas? And can’t you do that with people you don’t know? [shaking her head]

Some children perceived language separation as necessary in order to show respect to monolingual interlocutors. For instance, Eric and Ella believed that using English in conversations involving their extended family in France was “rude”. Antoine (16) criticised his mother’s Frenchonly rule as he explained that an interaction involving an English monolingual interlocutor, his mother and himself, should be conducted in English as a sign of respect. Interestingly, the association between language choice and politeness was also a recurrent idea in Chloé’s interview (case study F). As a mother who grew up as a French-English bilingual herself, her approach to translanguaging was similar to the children’s in this study. Chloé did not offer any value judgement on translanguaging as a practice, but she was very mindful of adjusting her language use according to her interlocutors’ language skills, simply out of respect. Children’s rejection of or disregard for language separation rules indicate that they perceived bilingualism as a holistic and fluid phenomenon. This also became evident in their language portraits describing their bilingual experiences. Although the eight heritage speakers were asked to pick two different colours for French and for English, the delimitation between the two languages appeared blurry in each of their portraits. Children expressed the interweaving of their linguistic identities by mixing both colours on the figure, as well as drawing the silhouette’s face and organs

162

S. WILSON

in the two colours. Through this free and creative method of expression (Busch 2017), the young participants demonstrated that they had a “distinctive self-identity which positively incorporate[d] elements from different settings into an integrated narrative” (Giddens 1991: 190). This aspect of the children’s language portraits reflects what Grosjean (1989: 6) describes as a “holistic” experience of bilingualism, in which the bilingual person “is not the sum of two complete or incomplete monolinguals”. Instead, the bilingual speaker is a “complete linguistic entity” in which languages and cultural identities are intertwined and interdependent. If the holistic nature of bilingualism transpired in all the language portraits, the children’s comments and drawings also highlighted the “unique and specific linguistic configuration” (Grosjean 1989) of each multilingual child. The uniqueness of children’s bilingual experiences is a striking aspect of this research as each participant expressed an idiosyncratic understanding of bilingualism and biculturalism. The singularity of each experience was particularly evident among siblings who were raised in the same household, and therefore, shared a common family and social environment. The case of Eric (11) and Ella (13) presents clear evidence of the differences in their perception of growing up bilingually. Whilst Eric displayed a certain lack of enthusiasm towards developing his HL and describes his efforts to learn French literacy as “suffering”, his sister took the initiative to actively ameliorate her proficiency by speaking more French to her mother. Besides, Eric appeared to be confident and satisfied with his productive skills in the HL while also being aware of his limitations. Ella, on the other hand, reported feeling anxious about making mistakes in French and, consequently, limited her use of the HL. Despite being raised under the same roof and exposed to the same FLP, the two adolescents experienced bilingualism differently. In the Collins family (case study A), Rachel had endeavoured to maintain a consistent language management over the years and had applied the same approach to each of her three children. However, whilst her eldest son, Florian (18) had decided to study in France, Antoine (16) perceived the use of French as a necessary evil in order to communicate with his mother and obtain an outstanding grade in his school French exam. As for the youngest, Hélène (9), she declared that, as a mother, she would only speak English to her children. This data implies that although parents’ language management

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

163

and ideologies may highly impact on their offspring’s experience of bilingualism, each child’s unique personal story determines how they receive and react to parental input. The case studies also revealed that very different parental approaches to bilingual childrearing may produce similar results, while similar language management methods may lead to different reactions among children. In the Bertrand’s home, where the exclusive use of French was imposed on the children, Alain reported feeling anxious about not being able to understand his father who “knows more French that [he does]”. As described previously, Ella (13) whose mother’s relaxed language management included frequent translanguaging, also declared experiencing some level of heritage language anxiety. In the Hall family, where Chloé consistently used the OPOL method while tolerating the use of English by her daughters, Aurore (8) revealed that she sometimes felt “scared” about speaking French to her relatives. Conversely, John (6) and Marc (10) who are exposed to extremely different FLPs at home, both declared feeling comfortable speaking French in most circumstances. The singularity of their experiences strongly suggests that any attempt to predict the linguistic and cultural outcomes of a particular language management style may be unrealistic and unproductive. In Bourdieu’s words, “there is nothing inevitable” about the transmission of the heritage language and culture (Bourdieu 2000: 152) since language and culture are experienced individually, and the “inheritor” may not identify with his or her heritage. Not only is the notion of heritage conceptualised differently by each family member, it is, at times, contested by the so-called inheritors (Little 2017). Although some parents in this study endeavoured to shape their young ones’ language practices, children seemed to maintain a certain level of independence and freedom in the way that they experienced their bilingualism and the FLP. This transpired all the more in families where children did not reproduce their parents’ speech patterns. For example, Alain Bertrand (6) and Hélène Collins (9) did use English from time to time despite the French parents’ strict adherence to language separation. In the Wheeler family, Mathilde declared that she frequently mixed French and English whereas her son, John (6), had a natural tendency to keep the minority and majority languages separated. As for Chloé Hall, her consistent use of OPOL with her daughters did not seem to have influenced Aurore’s (8) language practice since she used English almost exclusively. These findings echo a recent call in the field to view FLP

164

S. WILSON

as a multi-actor phenomenon in which all family members have a voice (Gafaranga 2010; Kopeliovich 2013; Fogle and King 2013).

The Impact of Imposing the Minority Language on Children Whilst children’s experiences of bilingualism are unique, the case studies clearly revealed the possible effects of rigorous language management such as sanctioning the use of the majority language by more or less subtle methods in the Bertrand and Collins homes. Alain (6), despite his young age, was able to describe his feelings towards his father’s attempts to enforce the exclusive use of French between them, and between Alain and his younger sister. As Patrick revealed, Alain’s punishment for disobeying the language rules included the following: being told off, having toys or bedtime stories taken away, or being ignored. The young boy declared feeling “sad” and “angry” when subjected to his father’s methods of discipline. Hélène Collins (9) reported experiencing resentment as a consequence of her mother’s (Rachel) categorical refusal to let her speak English. She referred to Rachel’s language practices as “annoying” on five occasions during the interview, suggesting that it was a salient aspect of their relationship. Alain and Hélène’s feelings towards their respective parents’ approaches strongly contrasted with the positive judgements of children who were exposed to more flexible FLPs. Ella and Eric, for instance, perceived their mother’s high tolerance of the use of English and translanguaging favourably. Both siblings saw Vanessa’s approach as a transfer of responsibility for HL learning and stated that developing the HL “was on [them]”. Aurore (8), who spoke mostly English at home, described her Chloé’s relaxed attitude towards using the majority language as “a good thing”. By way of contrast, some of the young participants’ language choices during the interviews suggested that children who experienced parental language management as too rigorous might have expressed their disapproval by using English rather than the HL in situations where the minority-language parent was absent. For instance, Antoine and Hélène Collins, as well as Alain Bertrand, chose to speak and be spoken to in English, despite using French daily with their respective French parents, and even though the interviews took place at their French supplementary schools. On the contrary, John and Aurore,

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

165

whose parents allow the use of English, decided to have a discussion in French and translanguaged when pertinent or necessary. Parents’ language management styles also seemed to impact children’s imagined future language practice and whether they envisioned using the HL in adulthood. Antoine, Hélène and Alain, who have all been exposed to the enforced use of the minority language at home, declared that they would not speak the HL to their children. Alain (6) justified his comment by explaining that transmitting French to his own child would “take too much time”. His rational answer, despite his young age, indicated that he perceived his father’s approach as negative and cumbersome. As for Marc, whose mother (Valérie) adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards the use of English, he stated that, as a father, he would use both French and English and allow his children to “choose the one they prefer[red]”. These young heritage speakers’ perspectives on their future language choices, as adults, strongly contrasted with John’s, Eric’s and Ella’s, who all experienced more flexible parental language management at home. The three heritage speakers pictured themselves using French as adults and speaking the HL to their own children. Besides, Ella already took the initiative to speak French more often in order to improve her productive skills. Whilst children’s imaginary language practices may not become a reality in the future, they suggest that parental language strategies may have an impact on children’s motivation to develop their HL once they become more independent from their caregivers. Most importantly, the study suggests that penalising the use of English at home may become counterproductive as children start making their own language choices. Alain and Hélène’s cases clearly indicated that their negative attitudes towards the parental approach may result in their rejection of the HL. Another essential point emerging from the case studies was the effect of FLP on the quantity and the quality of communication between the child and the minority-language parent. As previously discussed, Hélène reported feeling irritated and frustrated with not being able to speak English to her mother. She justified her sentiment as follows: COLL.11:

I just feel annoyed cause I don’t understand French as much. Cause some words that she says I don’t understand. So [pause] they’re just confusing me, and I get really annoyed, and I stop talking.

166

S. WILSON

Hélène’s comments clearly suggested that she would like to communicate with her mother but felt disheartened by what she perceived as a language barrier. Besides, she and her brother Antoine were well aware that Rachel was proficient in English but simply refused to “hear” it. This appeared to accentuate Hélène’s frustration as she saw her mother’s approach as a deliberate hindrance to their parent-child communication. Another clear example of the effect of language management methods on family communication is the recorded exchange at the Bertrand’s home (case study C). Whilst Alain (6) complied with the French-only rule during the interaction, his younger sister Anne (4) translanguaged frequently. Her use of English caused the conversation to break down on a several occasions, as shown in the example below. BERT.16

*Anne: *Patrick: *Laura: *Anne: *Patrick: *Laura: *Anne: *Patrick:

Papa, où est your glasses? Where are your glasses? Pardon? Pardon? Où…? Where…? Où est hmm [pause] your lunettes? Where is hmm [pause] your lunettes? Où sont tes lunettes? Dans le salon. Where are your glasses? In the sitting-room. Tu peux le dire Anne? ‘ Où…’ Can you say it Anne? ‘Where….’ Où… [hesitation] ‘Where…[hesitation] [Firm tone] Anne, on dit ‘ Où sont tes lunettes?’ Anne, we say ‘Where are your glasses?

In the conversation excerpt above, Anne’s attempt to communicate with her father was suppressed by her parents’ focus on the linguistic correctness of her utterance. In this case, she was not encouraged to pursue her enquiry regarding the whereabout of Patrick’s glasses since her parents’ language corrections took over the conversation. Patrick and Laura appeared to have taken on the role of language teachers (Okita 2002), and their error management techniques seemed to negatively impact the parent-child communication. Marc’s mother, Valérie, banned the use of English and translanguaging during their interactions. Like Hélène, Marc reported cutting the conversations short on certain occasions.

4

WATS.38

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

*Marc:

*Interviewer:

*Marc: *Interviewer: *Marc:

167

Euh des choses qu’on a fait à l’école, ben euh j’en parle pas beaucoup. Euh things we do at school, well euh I don’t speak about it much. (…) Maman ne te demande pas tous les jours : “Qu’est-ce que tu as fait à l’école?” Doesn’t mum ask you everyday: “What did you do at school?” Si. She does. Tu dis quoi? What do you say? J’lui réponds pas. I don’t answer her.

The case studies demonstrated how some children’s lack of freedom of language choice at home led to reducing communication with the minority-language parent. Heritage speakers do not always possess the HL skills necessary to express nuanced ideas, particularly with regard to events normally occurring in an English-speaking environment. When parents refuse to allow these ideas to be conveyed in the majority language, children may decide not to share them at all. Interestingly, the three French parents with more relaxed language management (Vanessa, Mathilde and Chloé) all described their approaches as a way to encourage communication. When asked whether bilingual families should ideally separate languages at home, Vanessa declared: BRAD.5:

Je préfère qu’ils parlent, même si parfois y a des mots anglais, que pas du tout en fait. I’d rather they talk, even if there are some English words at times, rather than not at all.

Chloé expressed similar ideas in these two interview excerpts: HALL.17 :

Si je leur imposais le français, qu’elles étaient obligées d’exprimer tous leurs sentiments en français, peut-être que ça les bloquerait plus. Parce que mine de rien, c’est quand même normal que l’anglais soit leur langue principale. Donc là c’est, elles seraient frustrées.

168

S. WILSON

HALL.18:

If I imposed French on them, if they were obliged to express all their feelings in French, perhaps that would hold them back. Because, after all, it is normal that English should be their first language. So, then, they would feel frustrated. Donc si elles ont un problème, elles peuvent me dire en anglais, et je vais répondre en français, avec mes mots pour l’encourager en français, et ça passe comme ça. Si je leur imposais de le dire en français, peut-être qu’elles pourraient pas l’exprimer aussi bien, euh, et pourraient peut-être pas, si elles veulent me raconter par exemple, ce qu’il s’est passé à l’école, un tel a dit ci, un tel a dit ça, euh, tout à coup ça devient plus compliqué. Donc là, elles peuvent dire ce qu’elles ont envie de sortir. So, if they have a problem, they can tell me in English, and I’ll respond in French, with my words of encouragement in French, and that works well. If I demanded that they told me in French, perhaps that they wouldn’t be able to express themselves as well, euh, and perhaps they wouldn’t be able, if, for example, they want to tell me what has happened at school, such and such said this or that, suddenly it gets more complicated. So, as things are, they can say whatever needs to come out.

As for Mathilde, she explained that her gentle error correction method was driven by her decision to prioritise communication over linguistic correctness. WHEEL.6:

S’il fait des fautes je le corrige pas, ou je le corrige mais gentiment. Moi j’en fais donc…Le but c’est d’établir la communication. If he makes mistakes, I don’t correct him, or I correct him but very nicely. I make mistakes myself, so…The goal is to establish communication.

The study also showed that children did not often voice their disapprobation with their parents’ language strategies or with the fact that they were not comfortable communicating in the HL. This would explain why parents with low tolerance to the use of English and translanguaging

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

169

did not seem to realise the silent effects of their approaches on their offspring’s well-being and on the parent-child communication. Rachel, Patrick and Valérie reported that their rigorous language management strategies had no negative impact on their children. These findings highlight the important issue of children’s well-being in language contact situations. As De Houwer (2013) points out, while many studies have focused on early dual language acquisition, the emotional experience of bilingual children has been overlooked. Instead, many scholars have been concerned with parents’ desires, concerns and struggles in relation to their bilingual childrearing experiences (Parkes and Tenley 2011). De Houwer (2013), through her concept of Harmonious Bilingual Development (HBD), proposes to pay more attention to the emotional impact of language contacts within multilingual families. While her focus has been on bilingual children’s early years (birth to five years old), this research shows that the emotional effects of FLP remain important once a child has started school and becomes more aware of her parents’ language management choices. According to De Houwer (2009), negative attitudes towards bilingualism or towards any of the languages in question give rise to conflictual bilingual development. Through the present study, I propose that this conclusion may be incomplete. All participating children and parents in the six cases studies displayed positive attitudes towards both bilingualism and the minority language. Yet, not all families experienced bilingualism in a harmonious way. If Alain (6) and Hélène (9) showed positive attitudes towards the HL, they also reported negative emotions directed at the minority-language parents’ strategies and their effects on communication with their offspring. In addition, Patrick and Valérie both revealed that they suffered periods of depression due to the pressure of achieving their goals of balanced bilingualism. De Houwer (2013) also suggests that dilingual conversations, in which parents and children interact using different languages in the same conversation, may contribute to conflictive bilingual development. This idea is in accordance with Tseng and Fuligni’s (2000: 473) earlier findings according to which dilingual interactions lead to children feeling “more emotionally distant from [their parents] and (…) less likely to engage in discussions with them.” The results of the present study contrast with Tseng and Fuligni’s conclusion by showing that parents’ and children’s language choices themselves do not hinder harmonious bilingual development. Instead, it is the parents’ conversational reactions to children’s language

170

S. WILSON

choices and possible subsequent sanctions that generate conflictive situations. Moreover, the six case studies demonstrated that, unlike children whose communication was restricted to monolingual interactions in French, the young heritage speakers who were free to express themselves in their chosen language felt more comfortable sharing their thoughts and experiences with the minority-language parents. Overall, the French participants who had adopted a more child-centred language management and allowed their children freedom of language choice seemed closer to achieving Kopeliovich’s (2013: 250) concept of a happylingual approach to bilingual childrearing, that is-the “positive emotional coloring of the complex processes related to the heritage language transmission, a special emphasis on the linguistic aspects of childrearing, unbiased attitudes to diverse languages that enter the household, and respect to the language preferences of the children”.

References Baker, C. (2001). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: Negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 533–554. Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—The lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (p. 432). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. De Houwer, A. (2013). Harmonious bilingual development: Young families’ well-being in language contact situations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 169–184. Fogle, L., & King, K. (2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2), 241–270. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 140– 58). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

4

FOSTERING HARMONIOUS BILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT …

171

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware: The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. Kopeliovich, S. (2013). Happylingual: A family project for enhancing and balancing multilingual development. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 249–275). Netherlands: Springer. Little, S. (2017). Whose heritage? What inheritance? Conceptualising family language identities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1348463. Parkes, J., & Tenley, R. (2011). How satisfied are parents of students in dual language education programs?: ‘Me Parece Maravillosa La Gran Oportunidad Que Le Estan Dando a Estos Ninos’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(6), 701–718. Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2012). Multilingualism and emotions. New York: Routledge. Okita, T. (2002). Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 622, 465–476.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Abstract This chapter draws together the core argument of this book and reflects on the implications of the study. The main motivation for this particular FLP study was to include the hitherto overlooked perspectives of school-age bilingual children. More particularly, my intention was to bring attention to the emotional effects of FLP as opposed to the traditional focus on its linguistic impact. In this chapter, I argue that FLP may have profound emotional consequences on children and the transnational family as a whole. Therefore, a gentle and tolerant approach to FLP seems more likely to encourage second-generation speakers’ attachment and affiliation to the heritage language and culture in the long term. Keywords Harmonious bilingual development · Intergenerational language transmission · Language planning

This chapter draws together the core argument of this book and reflects on the implications of the study. The main motivation for this particular FLP study was to include the hitherto overlooked perspectives of schoolage bilingual children. More particularly, my intention was to bring attention to the emotional effects of FLP as opposed to the traditional focus on its linguistic impact. Over the past two decades years, the promotion of the cognitive and social benefits of bilingualism has created enthusiasm among researchers © The Author(s) 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1_5

173

174

S. WILSON

of childhood bilingualism. This relatively new and positive approach to dual language acquisition has rapidly turned into a quest for the optimal parental language management offering maximal HL exposure. In this process, the original and essential motivation for developing heritage languages—that is, the well-being of the transnational child, may have been forgotten. In her book entitled Growing with Two Languages, Claire Thomas describes the experiences of adult heritage speakers who report feelings of “resentment, resistance and subtle regrets” towards the rigorous and inflexible FLP imposed by their parents during their childhood. Yet, the author concludes that, ultimately, and despite the researcher participants’ negative emotions, all were happy to have become bilingual. Whilst heritage speakers may appreciate and rationalise the benefits of bilingualism in adulthood, I argue that their experiences and sense of well-being, during the fundamental years of childhood, are just as important. It is therefore essential to reflect on the consequences of applying strict language rules at home, including sanctioning the wrong language choice. The current study findings indicate that it is crucial for parents to strike a balance between the desire and perceived necessity to develop the HL, and a child’s unique sense of linguistic and cultural identity. The FLP experiences reported by the young participants in this research strongly suggest that children perceive bilingualism as a holistic and fluid phenomenon which appears to be incompatible with a language policy that imposes the separation of languages on children. For this reason, any gap between parents’ FLP approach and children’s bilingual experiences may have profound emotional consequences on the transnational family and its individual members. Whilst it is evident that the French parents in this study intended to act in the best interest of their offspring, those with a stringent language management style seemed to negatively affect their children’s experiences of growing up in a harmoniously bilingual and multicultural environment. Instead, parents who either embraced or tolerated bilingual interactions, including the use of translanguaging, fostered positive experiences by encouraging children to appreciate their multilingualism while leaving them the space to form their own cultural identity, which often differed from their parents’ cultural identity. These findings have important implications for multilingual families and parents facing the challenging task of finding a balance between preserving a precious linguistic and cultural heritage and giving their offspring the space and freedom to construct their own identity. The

5

CONCLUSION

175

six case studies demonstrated that young heritage speakers in multicultural homes experience their hybrid identities as a unique and holistic phenomenon. As a result, this study recommends that parents embrace the transnational nature of their families and accept that children’s hybrid identity may be constructed and conveyed through their language choices and translanguaging practices. Thus, and as suggested by the children’s comments, a gentle and tolerant approach to FLP through which caregivers provide input in the HL, while valuing children’s attachment to the majority language, seems more likely to encourage second-generation speakers’ attachment and affiliation to the heritage language and culture in the long term. My discussions with the 8 young heritage speakers in this study led me to conclude that bilingual children respond more favourably to flexible language management at home, which, in turn, nurtures their desire to maintain and use the heritage language. Additionally, tolerating flexible language practices, as opposed to viewing the minority and majority languages as competing varieties, may also be the key for minority parents to experience bilingual childrearing as a positive and enjoyable process. This study also has some implications for childhood bilingualism and FLP research. It contributes to moving the focus in FLP research away from achieving optimum children’s HL proficiency, towards understanding the lived experiences of multilingual families. By doing so, this research also supports a recent call among some researchers to question the notion of success in FLP (Schwartz and Verschik 2013; SmithChristmas et al. 2019). As a result of the 6 in-depth case study, I propose that children’s experiences and family well-being must be seen as essential components of FLP success, much more so than the children’s level of bilingual development. Besides, whilst all the young participants I interviewed shared a similar sociolinguistic background, each had a unique approach to transnationalism, which validates Zhu and Li’s (2016) argument that bilinguals’ experiences should be contextualised in order to understand their histories. The young children in this study were able to accurately describe not only their language practices, but also their feelings and thoughts regarding parental language planning. The use of creative research tools including the visual interview prompts and the language portraits, allowed me to give voice to the children and were key in encouraging them to share their thoughts and feelings. Their views are a testament to schoolage heritage speakers’ ability to reflect on their personal experiences of

176

S. WILSON

multilingualism and FLP, as unique and separate from their parents’. Examining the perspectives of these 8 young bilinguals highlighted the unique character of every transnational experience, as well as the gap between parents’ perception of their children’s linguistic and cultural identity and how children actually identify. It is therefore necessary for future FLP research to design and experiment age-appropriate research tools with a view to including the perspectives of young heritage speakers and gaining more authentic insights into the challenges and opportunities of transnational families. Although bilingualism has become a desired lifestyle in many Western societies, and whilst some of the families in this study experienced multilingualism as a positive phenomenon, “we should avoid romanticising [it], or seeing [it] as [a] universally positive experience” (Zhu and Li 2016). Whilst we must continue to celebrate bilingualism and multiculturalism, it is important to also recognise and understand the challenges of transnational families; and in order to do so, it is essential to contextualise FLP within the lived experiences (Busch 2017) of individuals and families. Only then can we understand that FLP goes beyond language development and is closely intertwined with family and personal well-being, parent-child relationships and cultural identity. Accordingly, FLP can no longer be approached as a phenomenon in which children are the mere recipients of a policy designed and implemented by the parents, and must be investigated, instead, as a multi-actor and dynamic experience (Fogle and King 2013; Kopeliovich 2013; Palviainen and Boyd 2013). Following a long tradition of negative ideologies and attitudes towards childhood bilingualism, the emerging field of FLP has led to further research in dual language acquisition with a view to nurturing the benefits that multilingualism may confer to children. This positive attention, however, seems to have rapidly turned into a quest for optimal bilingual development. It is now essential to refocus the discussion on FLP around the original motivation for preserving heritage languages, that is, the well-being of the transnational child.

References Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—The lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358.

5

CONCLUSION

177

Fogle, L., & King, K. (2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. Kopeliovich, S. (2013). Happylingual: A family project for enhancing and balancing multilingual development. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 249–275). Netherlands: Springer. Palviainen, A., & Boyd, S. (2013). Unity in discourse, diversity in practice: The one person one language policy in bilingual families. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction multilingual education (pp. 223–248). Netherlands: Springer. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (2013). Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction education (p. 295). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Smith-Christmas, C., Bergroth, M., & Bezcio˘glu Göktolga, I. (2019). A kind of success story: Family language policy in three different sociopolitical contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 88–101. Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 655–666.

Appendix: Interview with Children: Examples of Picture Items for Language Scenarios and Facial Expression Visual Stimuli

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1

179

180

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW WITH CHILDREN: EXAMPLES …

Examples of Picture Items for Language Scenarios

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW WITH CHILDREN: EXAMPLES …

Facial Expression Visual Stimuli

181

References

Aronoff, M., & Janie, R.-M. (Ed.). (2017). The handbook of linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Arriagada, P. A. (2005). Family context and Spanish-language use: A study of Latino children in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 599– 620. Bailey, B. (2007). Heterglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 257–276). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Baker, C. (1988). Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (16 vols., p. 319). Clevedon, UK: Multilingualism Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2003). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, C. (2014). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C., & Wayne E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism language arts and disciplines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259–422) (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press. Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The oneparent-one-language approach (p. 220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1

183

184

REFERENCES

Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181. Biedinger, N., Becker, B., & Klein, O. (2015). Turkish language ability of children of immigrants in Germany: Which contexts of exposure influence preschool children’s acquisition of their heritage language? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(9), 1520–1538. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: Negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 533–554. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective (p. 255). Bloomsbury Publishing. Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal, 91, 861–874. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4), 431–435. Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (2002). Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Braun, A. (2012). Language maintenance in trilingual families—A focus on grandparents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(4), 423–436. Braun, A. (2014). Language strategies for trilingual families parents’ perspectives: Parents’ and teachers’ guides (p. 120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London, UK: Sage. Brown, C. L. (2011). Maintaining heritage language: Perspective of Korean parents. Multicultural Education, 19, 31–37. Busch, B. (2006). Language biographies for multilingual learning: Linguistic and educational considerations. In B. Busch, J. Aziza, & A. Tjoutuku (Eds.). Language biographies for multilingual learning. PRAESA Occasional Papers (pp. 5–17). Cape Town: PRAESA. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523.

REFERENCES

185

Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—The lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358. Busch, B. (2018). The language portrait in multilingualism research: Theoretical and methodological considerations (Paper 236 Working Paper in Urban Language and Literacy). Caldas, S. J., & Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 490–514. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 601–626. Canagarajah, S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 1–34. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “heritage language learner”. Heritage Language Journal, 2(1). http://www.heritagelanguages.org. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 40–64. Cho, G. (2015). Perspectives vs. reality of heritage language development: Voices from second-generation Korean-American high school students. Multicultural Education, 22(2), 30–38. Cho, G., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2004). What do we know about heritage languages? What do we need to learn about them? Multicultural Education, 11(4), 23–26. Chuang, Y. (2005). Effects of interaction pattern on family harmony and wellbeing: Test of interpersonal theory, relational-models theory, and Confucian ethics. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 272–291. Cohen, C. (2015). Relating input factors and dual language proficiency in French-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. To be announced. Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective: Fun methodologies for engaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–46. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8(4), 351–375. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Negotiating family language policy: Doing homework. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Ed.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 277–294). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

186

REFERENCES

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean multilingual families. Journal of Multiculturalism and Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 694–709. Czubinska, G. (2017). Migration as an unconscious search for identity: Some reflections on language, difference and belonging. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 33(2), 159–176. Darvin, R., & Norton Peirce, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. De Costa, P. I. (2016). Scaling emotions and identification: Insights from a scholarship student. Linguistics and Education, 34, 22–32. De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2013). Transnational identities. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 509–515. De Houwer, A. (1998). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration (pp. 75–96). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 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, 283, 411–424. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (p. 432). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. De Houwer, A. (2013). Harmonious bilingual development: Young families’ well-being in language contact situations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 169–184. De Houwer, A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Bilingual mothers’ language choice in child-directed speech: Continuity and change. Journal of Multilingual Development, 37 (7), 680–693. De Mejía, A.-M. (2013). Elite/folk bilingual education. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Ames, IA, USA and Hoboken: Iowa State University and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Deusen-Scholl, V. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211–230. Dewaele, J.-M., & Sevinç, Y. (2017). La double anxiété langagière des immigrants. Babylonia Journal of Language Education, 1, 26–29. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. Döpke, S. (1992). One parent, one language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Döpke, S. (1998). Can the principle of ‘one person-one language’ be disregarded as unrealistically elitist? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 41– 56.

REFERENCES

187

Doyle, C. (2013). To make the root stronger: Language policies and experiences of successful multilingual intermarried families with adolescent children in Tallinn. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy (pp. 145–75). Dordrecht: Springer. Duff, P. (2015). ‘Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity’ Patricia A. Duff. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 57–80. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S026719051400018X. Dweik, B. S. I., & Hanadi, A. Q. (2015). Language choice and language attitudes in a multilingual Arab Canadian community: Quebec-Canada: A sociolinguistic Study. British Journal of English Linguistic, 3(1), 1–12. Fedricks, K. (2012). Attitudes of heritage language speakers language, language practices and its maintenance: Case of Sinhalese in Southern California. In The Asian Conference on Education 2012, California State University at Long Beach, USA. Ferguson, G. R. (2013). Language practices and language management in a UK Yemeni community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(2), 121–135. Festman, J., Poarch, G., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). Raising multilingual children: Parents’ and teachers’ guides (p. 309). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (1966). Bilingualism with and without diglossia. Journal of social issues, 23(2), 29–38. Fishman, J. A. (1970). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction (p. 126). Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Newbury House. Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 8(3), 454–479. Fogle, L. (2012). Second language socialization and learner agency: Adoptive family talk. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fogle, L., & King, K. (2013). Child agency and language policy in transnational families. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. Frese, C., & Ward, M. (2015). New Irish families: Successes and challenges in heritage language acquisition for second generation migrant children. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin. Frostig, M., & Maslow, P. (1979). Neuropsycholoical contributions to education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(8), 538–552. Fuentes, U., & Schmid, M. (2015). The nature and nurture of heritage language acquisition. Lingua, 164, 239–250. Gafaranga, J. (2010). Medium request: Talking language shift into being. Language in Society, 39(2), 241–270.

188

REFERENCES

García, O. (2007). Foreword. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. xi–xv). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 140– 58). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emerging bilinguals: Policies, programmes and practices for English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. In S. G. Mateus (Ed.), (pp. 366–369). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contribution to second language learning: Part II, affective factors. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11. Gee, G., Walsemann, K., & Takeuchi, D. (2009). English proficiency and language preference: Testing the equivalence of two measures. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 563–569. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (1995). Language development in bilingual preschool children. In E. G. B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 18–33). New York: Teachers College Press. Geva, E., & Jean, M. (2012). Through the eyes and from the mouths of young heritage language learners: How children feel and think about their two languages and why. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 49–80. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Giles, H., Hewstone, M., & Ball, P. (1983). Language attitudes in multilingual settings: Prologue with priorities. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, 4(2&3), 81–96. Gogonas, N., & Kirsch, C. (2016). In this country my children are learning two of the most important languages in Europe: Ideologies of language as a commodity among Greek migrant families in Luxembourg. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 1–13. Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. Antoine Meillet (pp. 61–82). Paris: Melanges Meillet. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism (p. 370). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware: The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. Guardado, M. (2017). Heritage language development in interlingual families. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education. Berlin: Springer.

REFERENCES

189

Hakuta, K., & D’Andrea, D. (1992). Some properties of bilingual maintenance and loss in Mexican background high-school students. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 72–99. Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. He, A. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66–82. Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London and New York: Longman. Hélot, C. (2007). Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école. Paris, France: L’Harmattan. Hirsch, T., & Lee, J. S. (2018). Understanding the complexities of transnational family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.1080/01434632.2018. 1454454. Hornberger, N. H. (2007). Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity: Trajectories across time and space. Linguistics and Education, 8, 325–334. Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. Hulk, A., & Van der Linden, E. (1996). Language mixing in a French-Dutch bilingual child. Eurosla VI. A Selection of Papers. Toegepaste Taalwetensshap, 55, 89–103. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 0745638651, 9780745638652. Kasuya, H. (1998). Determinants of language choice in bilingual children: The role of input. International Journal of Bilingualism, 2(3), 327. King, K. (2016). Language policy, multilingual encounters, and transnational families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 726– 733. King, K., & Ennser-Kananen, J. (2013). Heritage language and language policy. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (1st ed.). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712. King, K., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907–922. Kopeliovich, S. (2013). Happylingual: A family project for enhancing and balancing multilingual development. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 249–275). Netherlands: Springer.

190

REFERENCES

Krashen, S. (1998). Language shyness and heritage language development. In S. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 41–49). Culver City, CA, USA: Language Education Associates. Krumm, H.-J., & Jenkins, E.-M. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachenlebendige Mehrsprachigkeit: Sprachenportraits gesammelt und kommentiert. Vienna, Austria: Eviva. Labov, W. (1972). The linguistic consequences of being a lame. In W. Labov (Ed.), Language in the Inner City (pp. 255–292). Philadelphia, PA, USA: University of Pennsylvania. Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: O.I.S.E. Lanza, E. (1997). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Lanza, E. (2004). Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism in the family. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 45–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133. Lee, J. S., & Suarez, D. (2005). A synthesis of the role of heritage language in the lives of children of immigrants: What educators need to know. In T. G. Wiley, J. S. Lee, & R. W. Rumberger (Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Leopold, W. (1994). Speech development of a bilingual child. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Little, S. (2017). Whose heritage? What inheritance? Conceptualising family language identities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1348463. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference?https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-code-switchingdifference/. OUPBlog 2018. Li, W., & Zhu, H. (2013). Translanguaging identities: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 34, 516–535. Long, R., Danechi, S., & Library, H.o.C. (2018). Language teaching in schools (England). London: House of Commons Library. Luo, H. (2015). Chinese language learning anxiety: A study of heritage learners. Heritage Language Journal, 12(1), 22–47.

REFERENCES

191

Luykx, A. (Ed.). (2003). Weaving languages together: Family language policy and gender socialization in bilingual Aymara households. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lyon, J. (1996). Patterns of parental language use in Wales. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12, 165–183. Maguire, M., & Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2007). Multiple schools, languages, experiences and affiliations: Ideological becomings and positionings. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 50–78. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 1(3), 33–51. Martin, N. (2009) Arab American parents’ attitudes toward their children’s heritage language maintenance and language practice (Doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina. May, S. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 319–347. Meisel, M. (1990). Inflection: Subjects and subject-verb agreement. In J. Qrgen & M. Meisel (Eds.), In two first languages, early grammatical development in bilingual children (pp. 237–298). Dordrecht: Foris. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). The role of the family in heritage language use and learning: Impact on heritage language policies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 26–44. Miller, L. (2017). The relationship between language proficiency and language attitudes: Evidence from young Spanish-English bilinguals. Spanish in Context, 14(1), 99–123. Min Jung, J. (2018). Heritage language proficiency in relation to attitudes, motivation, and age at immigration: A case of Korean-Australians. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(1), 70–93. Mishina-Mori, S. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of language choice in bilingual children: The role of parental input and interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3122–3138. Moin,V., Protassova, E., Lukkari, V., & Schwartz, M. (2013). The role of family background in early bilingual education: The Finnish-Russian experience. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Ed.), Successful family language policy. Multilingual Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor, 22(5), 530–546. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2009). Incomplete acquisition of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. Special Issue of the International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3–23.

192

REFERENCES

Montrul, S. (2016). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 530–546. Montrul, S., & Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20, 109–132. Moore, D., & Castellotti, V. (2011). Dessins d’enfants, recherche qualitative, interprétation. Des poly-textes pour l’étude des imaginaires du plurilinguisme. In P. B. Chardenet (Ed.), Guide pour la recherche en didactique des langues. Approches contextualisées (pp. 118–132). Paris: France Éditions des Archives Contemporaines. Mu, G. M. (2014). Learning Chinese as a heritage language in Australia and beyond: The role of Capital. Language and Education, 28(5), 477–492. Mu, G. M., & Dooley, K. (2015). Coming into an inheritance: Family support and Chinese Heritage Language learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 501–515. Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism (pp. p. 472). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(3), 271–286. Nguyen, A., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2001). Development of the first language is not a barrier to second-language acquisition: Evidence from Vietnamese immigrants to the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3, 159–164. Nicholls, C. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts: Indigenous language bilingual education programmes in the Northern territory of Australia, 1972–1998. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 160–177. Nicoladis, E., & Montanari, S. (Eds.). (2016). Bilingualism across the lifespan: Factors moderating language proficiency. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. Norton Peirce, B. (2013). Identity and language learning (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2000). Standard occupational classification. London: The Stationery Office. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2011). 2011 Census: Languages in England and Wales. London: ONS. Office for National Statistics, ONS. (2015). 3-year pooled annual population survey. Annual average from January 2013 to December 2015. London: The Stationery Office.

REFERENCES

193

Okita, T. (2002). Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7 (4), 1–13. Oriyama, K. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and Japanese identity formation: What role can schooling and ethnic community contact play? Heritage Language Journal, 7 (2), 76–111. Otcu, B. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and cultural identity formation: The case of a Turkish Saturday school in New York City. Heritage Language Journal, 7 (2), 112–137. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. Palviainen, A., & Boyd, S. (2013). Unity in discourse, diversity in practice: The one person one language policy in bilingual families. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.), Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction multilingual education (pp. 223–248). Netherlands: Springer. Parkes, J., & Tenley, R. (2011). How satisfied are parents of students in dual language education programs?: ‘Me Parece Maravillosa La Gran Oportunidad Que Le Estan Dando a Estos Ninos’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(6), 701–718. Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2012). The (il)logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450–455. Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or independent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–15. Pauwels, A. (2016). Language maintenance and shift: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2012). Multilingualism and emotions. New York: Routledge. Pease-Alvarez, L. (2002). Moving beyond linear trajectories of language shift and bilingual language socialization. Conversations within Mexican-descent families: Diverse contexts for language socialization and learning. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(2), 114–137. Pérez Báez, G. (2013). Family language policy, transnationalism, and the diaspora community of San Lucas Quiaviní of Oaxaca, Mexico. Language Policy, 12(1), 27–45.

194

REFERENCES

Piller, I. (2001). Private language planning: The best of both worlds? Estudios de sociolinguistic, 2(1), 61–80. Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Piller, I. (2005). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parentone-language approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(6), 614–617. Polinsky, M. (1995). Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 14(1–2), 87–123. Polinsky, M. (2016). Bilingual children and adult heritage speakers: The range of comparison. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(17). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1367006916656048. Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E pluribus unum: Bilingualism and language loss in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269–294. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Purkarthofer, J. (2019). Building expectations: Imagining family language policy and heteroglossic social spaces. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(3), 724–739. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Ronjat, J. (1913). Le developpement du langage observe chez un enfant bilingue. In M. West (Ed.), Bilingualism, supplementary report. Rothman, J. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 155–163. Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (1982). Attitudes towards language variation. London: Edward Arnold. Sánchez-Walker, N. (2013). Comprehension of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners of Spanish (Qualifying doctoral paper). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Saunders, G. (1982). Bilingual children: Guidance for the family. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Saville-Troike, M. (1987). Dilingual discourse: The negotiation of meaning without a common code. Linguistics, 25, 81–106. Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2007). Bilingualism and attrition. In B. Köpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (p. 258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition: Benjamins current topics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

REFERENCES

195

Schwartz, M. (2008). Relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second-generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(9), 400– 418. Schwartz, M. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1, 171–192. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (2013). Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction education (p. 295). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Sharwood Smith, M. A. (Ed.). (1989). Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Smith, L. (2007). General introduction. In L. Smith (Ed.), Cultural heritage. London: Routledge. Smith-Christmas, C. (2016). Family language policy: Maintaining an endangered language in the home. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Smith-Christmas, C., Bergroth, M., & Bezcio˘glu Göktolga, I. (2019). A kind of success story: Family language policy in three different sociopolitical contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 88–101. Soehl, T. (2016). But do they speak it? The intergenerational transmission of home-country language in migrant families in France. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(9), 1513–1535. Soler, J., & Zabrodskaja, A. (2017). New spaces of new speaker profiles: Exploring language ideologies in transnational multilingual families. Language in Society, 46, 547–566. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Suarez, D. (2002). The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(6), 512–530. Takeuchi, M. (2008). Raising children bilingually through the ‘one parent-one language’ approach: A case study of Japanese mothers in the Australian context. New York: P. Lang. Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of spanish: A quantitative study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 112–137. Tinsley, T., Doležal, N., & Council, B. (2018). Language trends 2018: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England. London: British Council. Tran, T., Baldauf, R. B., & Moni, K. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Understanding its status and insiders’ awareness and attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 216–243.

196

REFERENCES

Tse, L. (1998). Ethnic identity formation and its implications for heritage language development. In S. D. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 15–29). Culver City, CA, USA: Language Education Associates. Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 622, 465–476. Tsimpli, I. M. (2017). Multilingual education for multilingual speakers. Languages, Society & Policy. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9803. Unsworth, S. (Ed.). (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/APA. Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Warr, P. (2012). How to think about and measure psychological well-being. In M. Wang (Ed.), Research methods in occupational health psychology. New York: Psychology Press and Routledge. Wilson, S. (2019). Family language policy through the eyes of bilingual children: The case of French heritage speakers in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41, 2. Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 394, 203–210. Xiao, Y., & Wong, K. F. (2014). Exploring heritage language anxiety: A study of Chinese heritage language learners. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 589– 611. Yan, X., & Kolker Horwitz, E. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Language Learning, 58, 151–183. Yates, L., & Terraschke, A. (2013). Love, language and little ones: Successes and stresses for mothers raising bilingual children in exogamous relationships. In M. Schwartz & A. Verschik (Eds.) Successful family language policy: Parents, children and educators in interaction (pp. 105–125). Dordrecht and New York: Springer. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

REFERENCES

197

Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539–553. Zhang, D., & Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (2009). Language attitudes and heritage language maintenance among Chinese immigrant families in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(2), 78–93. Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (7), 655–666.

Index

C Case Studies, 43–48, 57–138 Childhood Language Experiences, 17–24, 26–30, 44–129, 147–151

D Deterritorialization of language, 29–30 Di-lingual Conversations, 27–29 Dual Language Acquisition, 43, 90, 123

E Endogamy, 2 Exogamy, 1–2

F Family Language Policy, 1–13 FLP and Well-being, 17–20

H Harmonious Bilingual Development, 26–30, 153–170 Heritage Language, 9–11 Heritage Speakers, 9–11 Holistic Bilingualism, 153–158

I Impact of FLP, 153–160 Incomplete Acquisition, 17 Intermarriage, 1–2 Interviewing Children, 46–47

L Language Anxiety, 21–22 Language Attitude, 18–20, 146–149 Language & Identity, 23–26 Language Ideology, 4–8, 50, 64, 73, 90, 107, 123, 141 Language Management, 3–7 Language Portraits, 43–44, 52, 57, 67, 78, 81, 115, 149 Language Practice, vii–ix

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. Wilson, Family Language Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52437-1

199

200

INDEX

Language Preferences, 20, 153–156 M Multilingual Families, vii–ix O One parent-One Language, 6–8 P Participant Observation, 47–48, 58, 82, 102, 122, 139

R Research with children, 45–47

T Thematic Analysis, 48–49 Translanguaging, 4, 64, 70, 86, 107, 123, 141, 159–162 Transnationalism, 1–2

V Visual Stimuli, 45