https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9759-6108
![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The present study contributes to the field of bilingual and trilingual language acquisition by analysing four multilingual families. In each family, at least one parent is bilingual. Following research questions will be addressed: (A) How relevant are the (amount of) input and the (kind of) parental language strategies for language maintenance? (B) Which language choice can we observe in bilingual parents? (C) Is there a uniform definition for multilingual acquisition of immigrant languages? (D) Which language-external factors are possibly relevant for language transmission? The results reveal that exposure in some languages is lower than 20%, a level regarded as possibly crucial for becoming a productive multilingual speaker (Quay [2008]. Dinner conversations with a trilingual two-year-old: Language socialisation in a multilingual context. First Language, 28(1), 5–33). Some bilingual parents use the minority, others the majority language. Independently of the acquisition context, we claim it is unnecessary to label second- and third-generation children heritage language speakers. Taking the family language policy approach, we believe language practices in families with at least one bilingual parent are largely understudied and should be analysed more carefully.
Acknowledgments
My gratitude goes to the children and parents who participated in this study. I am very grateful to Natascha Müller, Helena Olfert, and Patrick Wolf-Farré for their meaningful comments. I thank all anonymous reviewers but am indebted to especially one for the helpful suggestions on the first version of the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 A further key aspect in emerging bilinguals is the development of separate lexicons (e.g. Cantone, Citation2007, pp. 141–148; Deuchar & Quay, Citation2000; Montanari, Citation2010, pp. 17–41; Quay & Montanari, Citation2016, p. 24). From a psycholinguistic view, the presence of translation equivalents can be seen as evidence of lexical differentiation, from a sociolinguistic perspective it accounts for appropriate language use and can indicate the consequences of language input (i.e. if vocabulary for certain domains is only provided in one language).
2 Similarly, Montrul (Citation2008) assumes that NDHL children are more successful than those exposed to OPOL.
3 Braun (Citation2012) puts emphasis on the role of GP in language transmission. Parents claim to lose motivation if GPs speak the ML. In addition, grandparents’ residency and language proficiency are relevant factors that affect maintenance.
4 Studies on (early) second language acquisition of the majority language are left aside.
5 A broad conception also includes those who only have little receptive competence.
6 This a priori statement does not hold true for all children, questioning why there should not be balanced bilinguals among HSs if exposure to the ML started earlier. For a discussion on terminology and its implications in the German context, cf. Cantone (Citation2016).
7 Meisel (Citation2013, p. 231) concludes that ‘the currently available evidence suggests that HL learners do not, in fact, constitute a distinct learner type. Rather, (…), the term refers to a heterogeneous set of 2L1, cL2 and L2 learners’. Rothman (Citation2009, p. 156ff.) assumes HL acquisition to be a form of early bilingualism, but HLs profit from more exposure at home and less support outside, while speakers differ with respect to the age of onset to the ML.
8 Admittedly, it is still vague how transmission across generations functions and how communities and schools can contribute in this effort (cf. Baker, Citation2011; King et al., Citation2008, p. 917; Valdés, Citation2000, p. 392).
9 With parental advices, the instrument was improved. Age spans in Q3 vary individually.
10 Multilingual families may be more talkative than monolingual ones, because their language activities, such as repetitions and translations, are increased. This anectodal evidence should be examined in detail (cf. the discussion of words per hours and hours of input and the findings in De Houwer, Citation2014).
11 The author is one parent investigated here. The other families belong to the circle of friends. The author is aware of the difficulties in having this double-role as parent and researcher (Festman et al., Citation2017, p. 5; Chevalier, Citation2011).
12 German census accounts for Migrationshintergrund (migration background), which is assigned to people who have at least one parent born abroad. 2015 census stated that 35.9% of the children in Germany (age 0–5 years) have a migration background (Destatis, Citation2017), yet we do not know whether they speak a language other than German.
13 Rumbaut (Citation2004, p. 1164ff) defines first generation as born abroad and moved in as adults, generation 1.25 moved in between age 13–17, generation 1.5 between age 5–12, and generation 1.75 between age 0–5. Second generation is born in the target country with both parents born abroad and moved in as adults, whereas 2.5 generation has one parent born in the country and one foreign-born parent. F2 MGF did not move to Germany.
14 F4 mother has mixed-nativity parents, as well as F3 father (born in Germany, then lived several years in Italy and then turned back to Germany) and F2 mother (born abroad and moved in at age 11 years). F1 mother and F2 father moved in between age 1–5 years.
15 Grandparents’ language transmission is not always possible, for instance, when they live abroad or when they passed away.
