Differentiation of ‘multilingual children’ in early education through knowledge of family language practices

ABSTRACT

In this study, the notion of ‘multilingual children’ is differentiated by problematizing overgeneralizations or homogenizing of children with potentially different experiences of language(s). The aim is to generate knowledge of how minority language–speaking children use their language(s) outside the education system through teacher–parent dialogue. The terms family language(s) and minority/majority language(s) are argued to capture the situated character of language(s) and to avoid labelling children’s languages from an outside perspective. The analysis conceived as abductive is based on 33 dialogues. The findings imply the children participating in multilingual practices including English as an additional language, and the opposite: the children are rather monolingual in their language use. A conclusion drawn is that being a multilingual child/parent in early childhood education in a monolingual society can be understood in terms of how the space for participation is facilitated and countered.

KEYWORDS:

• Family language policy and practice
• minority language speakers
• agency
• teaching in early education
• teacher–parent collaboration

Introduction

Discourses on multilingual children in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Sweden are often characterized by a broad-brush approach. For example, grouping children as only minority or majority language speakers or as multilinguals is common. This kind of either/or generalization is functional for attending to structural issues such as the fact that a large number of children with ‘Swedish as second language’ are statistically over-represented in relation to inequality in education. However, generalization may under – or overestimate children’s linguistic competences, where neither understanding is supportive of learning.

Concepts such as mother tongue, first language, second language, additional language, foreign language, native language, heritage language, minority language, majority language, societal language, home language, bilingual(ism) and multilingual(ism) figure in the fields of linguistics, education and sociology. Some of the concepts exclude the context of language use and/or learning, whereas in others, the situatedness and contextuality of multilingualism are highlighted. Yet, the concepts are often used to define and/or refer to the language use and/or skills of a third person. For example, descriptions of children and their parents from minority language–speaking communities identified in the research are shown to be English-centric and deficit-based (Soto-Boykin, Larson, Olszewski, Velury, & Feldberg, 2021).

Children’s actual language use is crucial for their learning and identity. The concept of translanguaging directs focus towards understanding how speakers themselves use, describe and define their languages (Wei, 2022). An assumption in the present study is that children’s language background in contemporary societies, and discourses on them, is an important ground for children’s learning, and thereby participation, in ECEC, and that the language backgrounds cannot be labelled from an outside perspective. For that, the children’s and parents’ voices are important to open. The aim of the study is to generate knowledge of how minority language–speaking children use their language(s) outside the education system through teacher–parent dialogue. The research question posed is: What is expressed as characterizing family language practices in the dialogues?

Research on family language policy

The research on family language policy (FLP) sheds light on ideologies, policies and practices for developing a child’s bi-/multilingualism within the family. In early research within the field, focus is directed to outcomes of FLP, studied in terms of children’s language development, school success and maintaining minority languages (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020). These outcomes are seen as results of parents’ decisions, plans and strategies regarding language use at home. An influential model used for understanding language policy was developed by Spolsky (2009) defining language policy in terms of ideology, practice and management. In contemporary research, the interest is moving towards multilingual transnational families’ language practices and policies, including literacy (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020). At the core are processes of meaning-making, identity construction and agency. Thereby, FLP in the present study is understood as also concerning the status of the languages: some being minority languages in relation to a majority language and languages differing in terms of their perceived status.

Supporting bilingual development of children

Maintaining a language other than the societal language(s) and supporting the bilingual development of children relate to different strategies used by parents. For example, Barron-Hauwaert (2004) describes seven types of language use as strategies for bilingual upbringing. A well-known strategy is one parent – one (majority/minority) language. The other strategies relate language to use to place and/or time. In a study by Schwartz, Moin, and Leikin (2011), children’s balanced bilingualism is the goal in immigrant families, worked towards regulating language interaction with the child. Another result of bilingual development support is that there is a link between parents’ language ideologies and family language practices (Lising, 2022). Economic reasons and social pressure to know the majority language are also shown to lie behind family language practices. These results are in line with a study on the ideologies and language practices of Spanish-speaking mothers living in the USA that implies bilingualism is important for personal reasons as well as for economic opportunities (Surrain, 2021). The strategies used differ from clear and strict boundaries of language use to different discourse strategies for motivating minority language use. Whatever the strategy, it is opposed by social and political pressures. Ideologies are also shown to be guided by the child’s learning of the new language (Rizki & Fajri, 2021). In other words, the agency of the child is important to how the parents relate to this matter.

Opportunities to develop biliteracy, and thereby extend knowledge in vocabulary, is an important aspect of children’s bi-/multilingualism. Parents’ language ideologies have, however, been shown to have a minor impact on vocabulary development (Schwartz, 2008). Instead, the language practices of the parents, together with children being positive about the language, are pointed out as critical to that end.

Parents as actors in relation to the interconnectivity of several contextual factors in Chinese context are discussed by Zheng and Mei (2021). The study shows that when learning English is not supported at a macro level (policy) but at a meso level (community), a space at the micro level (family) for ownership of language activities at the community level is created. The study also shows that the socioeconomic status of the family does not relate to a specific FLP but opens for translating (similar) language ideologies into practices.

The official registration procedures of language as well as the education system are shown to influence discourses on family language practices (Palviainen & Bergroth, 2018). For example in Finland, where one language can officially be identified as the mother tongue, individuals in multilingual family practices identify themselves as monolinguals. Similarly, ‘Multilingual families seem, however, to orient to named languages while their activity is indeed translanguaging’ (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020, p. 167).

FLP and early education

Parents’ and educators’ views and reflections on the language policy of bilingual ECEC, and how these are discussed, are studied by Schwartz (2013). Parents and educators share a view of the input of and ratio between languages as important for language policy. In addition, dialogues on multilingual upbringing indicated by teachers are understood as supportive of topics raised by parents (Peleman, Van Der Wildt, & Vandenbroeck, 2022). Professional development is argued to promote the multilingual development of children and families in ECEC.

Education is a factor in children becoming majority language users (cf. Lising, 2022; Surrain, 2021). Yet, there is a gap in research regarding minority language–speaking parents’ language ideologies and strategies for maintaining the minority language in the critical time of transitioning to schooling, according to Surrain (2021). The present study aims to ground opportunities for language learning in early education in the research field of FPL for understanding and developing collaboration between minority language–speaking children, their parents and the teachers.

Theoretical frame

In the theory section, concepts of family and language together with a model for participation are illuminated for supporting minority language–speaking children’s and parents’ agency in a majority language context.

Defining family and language

FLP research stems from several types of families (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020). The concept of family is understood as ‘a dynamic temporal body’ (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020, p. 164) and ‘a space, not constrained by geography or physical presence, in which meaning and relationships are negotiated through linguistic and semiotic resources, that is, the multilingual repertoire’ (Lanza, 2021, p. 765). Due to changes in technological resources, the interaction within families can become close regardless of physical presence.

The complexity of defining family in relation to language practices in today’s connected societies is recognized in the present study. The term family language is used for another/other language(s) than the society-dominant language (in the present case Swedish), which is also the language of education. The term points out a language/several languages a child encounters in her (extended) family instead of referring to the child’s use of or skills in language(s) (cf. first/second language) or connecting it to a place (cf. home language).

The use of named languages in FLP has not been discussed against the background of contemporary sociolinguistic theorization of the nature of language (cf. Wei, 2022).

There is a tension between the purported need to maintain names for languages, as in the fight for language rights of endangered languages, and the need to acknowledge the fluid borders of named languages. Nonetheless, FLP has the potential to contribute to the theory of language by engaging in the theoretical debates of named languages. (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020, p. 167)

According to Li (2022), labelling languages concerns less the language and more the sociopolitical categorization of its speakers. For example, children (or their parents) speaking the same language can have cultural backgrounds in different nation-states. In addition, languages labelled for example as ‘“immigrant language” have little chance of being used as the language of instruction in formal education contexts in any country’ (Wei, 2022, p. 174).

In the present study, the terms minority language(s) and minority language speaker(s) are used due to the dominance of the society (majority) language. That is, different socioeconomic status of languages is acknowledged. When named languages are used, they are not conceptualized as autonomous systems (e.g. García & Sylvan, 2011), nor are the family languages labelled from an outsider's perspective. Instead, the parents’ definition of their language(s) is of analytical interest.

Agency of multilingual speakers in education

Agency of minority language speakers in education is understood in terms of the ‘recognition of the possibility to intervene in, and transform the meaning of, situated activities’ (Mäkitalo, 2016, p. 64) and for situated language use and the use of languages as a right of a child (García & Otheguy, 2020) and a parent. Expressing a view is in the present study regarded as a question of shared language.

Teachers explicitly expressing interest in FLP and recognizing its importance for children’s participation and learning can be understood in line with a conceptualization of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by Lundy (2007). Lundy relates Article 12: the right to express a view and the right to have the view given due weight, to other provisions: non-discrimination (Article 2), best interest of children (Article 3), guidance from adults (Article 5), information (Article 13) and safety (Article 19). Lundy further argues that implementing Article 12 in education needs to be grounded in four interrelated elements: space, voice, audience and influence. That is, (i) children are given opportunities to express their views, (ii) they are facilitated to express their views, and (iii) the views are listened to as well as (iv) acted upon (p. 933).

The Lundy (2007) model is used in a study of teachers’ and parents’ understanding of the voice of vulnerable children to support professional dialogue and rights-based pedagogy in education in the UK (Moore, 2020). The study is based on parents’ views of the importance of their involvement in their child’s education. The shared themes emerging in the narratives of the parents are relationships, children’s needs, knowledge and support networks. The study is argued to contribute to ‘a greater understanding of the individual component parts of their experiences, highlighted as key themes that help us to develop a holistic worldview of the child and family’ (Moore, 2020, p. 455).

Another study using the Lundy model is Lagerlöf, Wallerstedt, and Pramling (2023). The four elements: space, voice, audience and influence are used to develop a theory of play-responsive teaching in ECEC by differentiating the concept of responsivity. The analysis implies that responsiveness in narrative play that allows participants to become co-authors contributes to the development of the agency of children.

According to the national curriculum in Sweden (The Swedish National Agency of Education, 2018), children and parents are to be seen as participants in ECEC. Expressed in Lundy’s (2007) terms, they are to be given space for expressing a view. The national curriculum as a framework can become supportive of voice, audience and influence (Lundy, 2007) – that is, to facilitate, listen to and act upon the children’s and their parents’ participation, experience and knowledge. However, the good cause of the curriculum describing children and their parents as participants does not equal the agency of minority language speakers. I argue that children’s and parents’ space, voice, audience and influence in ECEC remain a question of skills in the majority language.

Design and method

The study occurs within the context of an ongoing project on multilingual teaching and learning in a pre-school in Sweden (Kultti, 2022, 2024). Approximately 40% of the families of the children (aged 1–5 years) are identified by the teachers as living multilingual and/or minority language–speaking practices in the actual pre-school. In the actual case, parents of 34 children identifying their family as multilingual participate in the project. Of the children, nine are aged 5 years, twelve are aged 4 years, six are aged 3 years, four at aged 2 years, and three at aged 1.

Of the staff in the setting, five experienced teachers (all female), named as key teachers, participate in the project. Four of them have Swedish as their first language, and one Bosnian.

The empirical data analysed are dialogues on language use outside the education setting between the participating parents and a teacher. The 33¹ approximately 10-minute dialogues occurred within the annual individual development plan (IUP) meetings. A dialogue of language use outside the education setting, as a new form of collaboration, was part of the project, not only to contribute to knowledge important for teaching but also to support the relationship between the parents and teachers. The dialogues were audio-recorded by the teachers (in total 5.5 h recordings).

The meetings were organized in the common manner regarding the participants: a teacher and a guardian (e.g. mother and/or father) discussing the development of a child. In two cases, separate meetings for siblings could not be organized, and therefore, two of the key teachers participated in these. Two meetings were held by colleagues of the key teachers to spread the method in the setting. A difference to the IUP meetings was the use of languages other than Swedish. One of the meetings was in English (which was an additional language to all the participants), and in one, the guardian spoke in Swahili (and an interpreter from outside the setting participated). In a few meetings, some English, Bosnian and Persian were used. In the dialogue with the Persian-speaking parent, a key teacher and a colleague knowing Persian participated.

The teachers brought up the following content in dialogues with the parents: (1) the language use of children, parents, siblings, extended family, friends and neighbours and (2) language(s) related to the use of books, TV programmes, music and digital media in the family and by the child. The parents were also (3) invited to support multilingual teaching activities by the teachers. At the end of the dialogue, the language use was (4) documented by visualizing it by colouring a picture of a flower illustrating the languages use in relation to people and contexts.

Analytical process

The audio-recorded dialogues were transcribed verbatim for the purpose of analysis. The analysis – the differentiation of empirical data to perceive patterns – is conceived as abductive, that is, as a dialogue between empirical data and theoretical accounts (Pramling, 2023). This means that the data are approached openly (i.e. without pre-set categories) but also through considering theoretical insight (serving to contextualize the data). The concepts of language ideology and practice, together with the concepts of space, voice, audience and influence (Lundy, 2007), provide guiding principles for understanding the linguistic practices outside the ECEC. The existence and nature of these remain empirical matters rather than presumed and pre-defined.

An analytical premise is that the data are understood as subjective descriptions of family language practices. For validity, the interpretations of expressions of the parents (e.g. the summaries in Tables 1 & 2) were checked against the notes of the teachers, and the analysis was discussed with them. However, the situated character of the expressions is relative to what was asked for; the parents’ interpretations of what was asked for; what was expected to be of interest; and what they wanted to share with the teachers and/or within the research project.

Table 1. The family language practices communicated in the dialogues.

		1–5 y (33^2)	1–3 y (12)	4–5 y (21)
1.	MiL is used actively in everyday life by the child and parent(s)	40% (13)	50% (6)	33% (7)
2.	MiL is used actively within the family. The child’s use of the language relates to the context/person	12% (4)	8% (1)	14% (3)
3.	Several languages are used within the family. The child communicates in MaL	18% (6)	8% (1)	24% (5)
4.	MiL is the language used within the family incl. the child	15% (5)	33% (4)	5% (1)
5.	MaL is the language used within the family incl. the child	15% (5)	–	24% (5)

Table 2. English as an additional language in the family language practices communicated in the dialogues.

		1–5 y (33)	1–3 y (12)	4–5 y (21)
1.	English is not mentioned in the dialogue	9% (3)	–	14% (3)
2.	English through popular cultural references (internet, TV, music)	76% (25)	75% (9)	76% (16)
3.	The child uses English.	21% (7)	25% (3)	19% (4)
4.	The parent(s) use(s) English	21% (7)	8% (1)	29% (6)
5.	The sibling(s) use(s) English	9% (3)	17% (2)	5% (1)

In the findings section, the term minority language (MiL) is used for languages other than the majority language (MaL) instead of named languages. Both the number of participants and percentages are given due to the low number of children in total as well as due to the difference in the number of children's ages and therefore also the children’s verbal communication.

Ethical guidelines in line with Swedish legislation are followed (The Swedish Research Council, 2017), and the project gained ethical approval by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The staff, children and parents were informed about the project and the data management and their rights as participants in research, and the adults gave written permission for their (and their child’s) participation.

Findings

The analysis of the data of family language practices communicated by the parents in the dialogue implies that the practices characterize (i) multilingualism, (ii) only MiL and only MaL being as equally common, and (iii) parent engagement in learning MiL.

Family language practices communicated

In total, 18 languages are mentioned by the parents as languages used within the family or extended family: Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, Croatian, Dari, Dutch, English, Kurdish, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Serbian, Somalian, Swahili, Swedish, Thai, Tigrinya and Turkish. Of these, Arabic, Bosnian and Albanian are the most common ones.

In two-thirds (67%) of the families, MiL is used (Table 1, #1, 2, and 4 in total). In 30% of the families, one main language is used by the family members (#4 and 5). In half of them, the language is MiL, and in half, MaL. When MaL is the language used at home, other language(s) might still be used by a parent or within the extended family. However, the child is described as not being able to follow a conversation in MiL. The use of MiL as the main language percentage is distinctly higher in the families of the youngest children, while the number of families is the same. In none of the families with a child aged 1–3 years, only MaL is used (#5). However, half of the children (48%) at the age of 4–5 years communicate mainly/only in MaL (#3 and 5). Taken together, half of the children’s (52%) language use is multilingual (#1 and 2, in total), half of the children (48%) are rather monolingual in their language use (#3, 4, and 5, in total) in the context of family, according to the parents.

English is not defined as a first language in any of the dialogues. However, every fifth child is reported to some extent to use English at home (#3). The parents’ use of English is more frequent with the older children than with the younger ones (#4 and 5). Also, siblings’ use of English within the family is reported in some dialogues. In three dialogues English is not mentioned (#1). Those dialogues concern children aged 4–5 years.

The majority of the children (76%) get in touch with English at an early age through popular cultural references such as children’s programmes and music through digital tools and television (Table 2, #2). In relation to the older children, English is only one of several languages in relation to programmes and music of four of the children. In two dialogues, the youngest children are explicitly described as getting in touch with English only through music.

Multilingual and monolingual family practices

The data (see Tables 1 & 2) indicates that the most common characteristic of the family language ideology and practices is multilingual communication. This kind of communication consists of active use of MiL combined with the use of MaL but also other minority or additional languages in everyday life. The popular cultural references are the major facilitators for the children to express themselves (voice) in an additional language within the family language practices.

The data (see Tables 1 and 2) also highlights how children at an early age use languages in relation to a context (home, at grandparents’, in the country, in ECEC) and/or a person (the parents having different first languages). For example, the use of MaL by the child is stated to increase in relation to other language(s) after the child attending ECEC or spending extended time with only MaL-speaking family members. The same goes for the use of MiL when in a MiL-only context. In other words, experiences of interacting with extended family or friends who know only MiL pushes the child to stay multilingual in a monolingual society.

Choosing the language based on others’ language skills and/or the context implies not only skills in the languages but also language awareness at an early age. The children’s multilingualism can be understood as relative to the (change of) audience. However, only the oldest children at a young age had visited the country of origin of the parents due to the pandemic, which might affect this finding. That is, a lack of a broad audience in terms of extended family and shared cultural experiences might have been affecting the use of MiL, and thereby multilingual family practices.

Some of the oldest children are told to communicate in MaL in practices where their use of MiL is encouraged. The choice of language in the practices characterized by space, voice, audience and influence to express oneself in more than one language, can be understood as an expression of agency. In other words, manifested opportunities for participating in multilingual practices – that is, knowing and having someone to communicate with in both/several languages – is a precondition for children’s agency as language users.

In the family language practices only on MiL, MiL is expressed to be the language spoken by everyone in the (extended) family. In some of these practices, the parents do not know MaL. In some, monolingual practices are expressed to be created by limiting/avoiding the use of MaL and consequently using MiL. Society, and especially education, are expressed as contexts for using and learning MaL. In terms of Lundy (2007), the use of MaL is restricted through lack of audience or cutting down audience and influence for choosing a language to communicate.

Parent engagement in MiL

The importance of the child’s use and development of MiL is explained in terms of a question of identity, self-esteem, knowledge, and employment in relation to both the monolingual and multilingual practices. In some of the practices, the parent engagement refers to the MiL-only use (see above). Parents' intentional building of a multilingual world around the child through MiL, in addition to MaL, characterizes the descriptions of multilingual family language practices. In the dialogues, the following resources for MiL development are brought up: relationship with only MiL speakers and spending time in places where MiL is spoken by the majority. These kinds of expressions pointing out the practice are understood relating the children’s language learning to importance of audience – for having someone to talk to and needing to use a particular language. Another resource talked about is the intentional use of books and children’s programmes in MiL. In addition to borrowing books at library, some parents mentioned buying books with various content to broaden MiL vocabulary, and some obtained a library account in a municipality other than the one they lived in due to a larger selection of books in MiL. Also, the importance of ECEC for MiL use through the project participation is pointed out as appreciated in some dialogues. In other words, facilitating children’s space, voice, audience and influence for MiL use is expressed by the parents as an ideology and a practice.

The parent engagement in the context of multilingual family language practices relates to children’s agency in some of the dialogues. It is expressed in terms of ideology such as the child being polyglot or competent in handling several languages in practices where the child feels comfortable using several languages and knowing that the use of several languages is appreciated (cf. space, voice, audience and influence). In these cases, language use is expressed as opposite to a strictly separated use of languages (cf. an opposite view above). In other words, having access to several languages – children as polyglots – is related to conscious and intentional reflection and use of language(s) on the part of parents. Space for multilingualism requires voice and audience, in Lundy’s (2007) terms.

Discussion

In the present study, family language use outside ECEC is explicitly addressed by teachers in dialogue with parents. The family language practices expressed characteristics of (i) multilingualism, (ii) only MiL and only MaL being as equally common, and (iii) parent engagement in learning of MiL. On the one hand, the findings can be understood as confirming the children’s multilingual practices including English as an additional language at an early age. On the other hand, the opposite may be implied by the findings: children expected to be multilingual can be rather monolingual in their actual language use even outside the ECEC.

Opportunities for multilingual development through family language practices

Strategies and reasoning for children’s bilingual development in their upbringing (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Lising, 2022; Palviainen & Bergroth, 2018; Schwartz, 2008; Surrain, 2021; Zheng & Mei, 2021) are visible in the findings of the present study. However, space is understood as interrelated to voice, audience and influence in that who the child is interacting with and where, and how the languaging is acted upon by the audience. For example, MiL as the only language in the family context is expressed in terms of strict language use in some dialogues. At the same time, strict language use is explicitly opposed and put against strategies motivating MiL use in other dialogues. Economic or political reasons for not using MiL (cf. Surrain, 2021) in family practice are, however, not communicated in the dialogues. But social reasons (cf. who one is communicating with and where) are also in the presented study given as examples of how the child uses languages and of what will increase and decrease the use of MiL. In addition, the importance of literacy activities in MiL and explicitly increasing MiL vocabulary through different types of books are highlighted in some of the dialogues. In other words, opportunities to develop MiL (space) when bringing up a child in a MaL context are facilitated intentionally (voice and audience) by the parents.

In terms of micro, meso and macro levels (cf. Zheng & Mei, 2021), the strategies and reasoning expressed by the parents in the present study are at the levels of micro and meso. That is, bilingual development is expressed as a family issue/an issue of upbringing. Library is the example of community support mentioned. Bilingual education as a resource at the macro level is not brought up by the parents, but educational support in relation to learning MaL is. The use of MiL as appreciated in the education context is expressed in a few dialogues, in relation to the teacher presenting their upcoming translanguaging in teaching within the project participation. Whether expectations of languaging at the macro level will change during the project is to be considered (cf. the results of Peleman et al., 2022: dialogues of multilingual upbringing initiated by teachers as a topic in professional development).

Interplay of family language practices and education

The approximately 10-minute dialogues contribute to the teachers’ knowledge of the family language practices but also of the child and their family members, as well as their language(s) and/or culture(s). The teachers are given new information, and they become involved in discussions of languaging from different perspectives. Showing an interest in the family language practices, and therefore acknowledging the children and parents as individuals, is clearly important for the parents and something they feel proud to share. The engagement of the parents implies that the dialogue contributes to establishing relationships between the ECEC and the child’s communicative experiences outside it. The findings are in line with the study reported by Moore (2020), showing relationships, child needs, knowledge and a support network as the core of the parent narratives.

Relationship-building between parents and teachers characterized by respect and interest will add to contemporary sociolinguistic and pedagogical research on multilingualism in early education. The agency of teachers, children and their parents in terms of space, voice and audience is critical for children’ and parents’ engagement (inclusion) and strengthening of identity as well as knowledge generation between the education and family language practices.

Methodological reflections

The data are on a small number of individuals with diversity in their opportunities to participate in the dialogues and with content unusual within the frame of ECEC. Discussing language use outside ECEC is not common in the setting and is therefore a new experience for both the teachers and the parents. Reasons for this might relate to understanding the family as a private domain (Lanza & Lomeu Gomes, 2020) and therefore outside professional activities in ECEC. How to generate and use knowledge of family language practices for teaching is also a new way of thinking for the profession. The findings need to be understood within this methodological frame.

The data analysed are discourses on family language practices: parents’ descriptions of how they perceive language use but also context: what they perceive they are expected to say and in what terms they want to talk about their child’s linguistic competencies. For example, difficulties for parents to describe MiL use in relation to the use of MaL are explicitly brought up in a dialogue: how something is versus how the parent(s) wish it was, that is, the relation between knowledge of ideologies versus practice within the family.

The analysis contributes to the ongoing research project with a cyclic design (Kultti, 2024). The child’s language use and the parents’ language use and whether English is used, will be explicitly addressed in a latter dialogue. In addition, the parents will be offered to participate in a multilingual dialogue or in a dialogue in a language of their choice, and digital technology will be available during the upcoming meetings to generate knowledge of how the offer is responded to and whether this will lead to a change in the distribution of agency. Possible changes in the language use of the children after participating in the multilingual teaching activities during the academic year, in relation to the parents’ changed use of language(s) will also be included as a topic. That is, the findings have thereby potential to lead to illuminating influence – how the children’s languaging is acted upon within family language practices. In addition, influence can be touched upon by relating the findings with the other data sets in the project (teaching and professional development).

Conclusion

In this study, the notion of ‘multilingual children’ has been differentiated, which serves to problematize overgeneralizations or homogenizing of children with potentially very different experiences of language(s). Such a differentiation is important both to theorizing and to educational work addressing different language experiences. A conclusion drawn is that MiL and being a MiL-speaking child or parent in ECEC in a monolingual society can be understood in terms of how the space for being multilingual is facilitated and countered. The present study contributes with knowledge of the transition from family to education as critical for bilingual development (cf. Surrain, 2021) by a method for teaching and family language practices to interplay, offering an equal dialogue regardless of language context and use. A recommendation on the level of policy is notifying the use of several languages in ECEC, not only as a resource but also as a requirement, for minority speakers’ agency and involvement.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the participating teachers, children and parents.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Anne Kultti

Anne Kultti, PhD is a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenburg. Her research concern matters regarding equal opportunities for children's learning and development in early childhood education. More specifically, her work is focused on a holistic perspective on multilingual education, translanguaging pedagogy and collaboration between home and education settings.

Notes

1 One of the parents chose not to record the dialogue.

2 Two of the children do not speak yet.