PASSAGE 3 Learning to be bilingual

READING PASSAGE 3
Answer Questions 24-40, which are based on Reading Passage 3.

Learning to be bilingual
Dr Chisato Danjo, Lecturer in Japanese and Linguistics, examines the bilingual family home

Few people would consider mastering more than one language a bad idea. Consequently, parents who speak different languages from each other are generally keen for their children to learn both. They understand that the family setting they create is central to this, and seek ways to ensure their children thrive bilingually. One of the best-known approaches is the ‘one- parent-one-language’ strategy (OPOL). Each parent uses their native language when communicating with their children, so the children learn both simultaneously. OPOL emphasises consistency – each parent sticking to one language – as key to its approach. But this creates the myth that mixing languages should always be avoided. My recent study, part of a new wave of multilingualism studies, would suggest that this received wisdom is just that: a myth. My research looked at Japanese-British families living in the UK with pre- and early school-age children who were following a more-or-less strict OPOL language policy. I was particularly interested in examining the impact of OPOL in the family home – how does this unique language environment affect the way children use languages?

Most of the Japanese mothers who participated were fluent in Japanese and English, while the fathers possessed merely an elementary grasp of Japanese. This made English the primary language of communication between the parents and outside the home. For this reason, the mothers were careful to carve out additional space for more sustained Japanese language learning with their children. In other words, this dedicated space for communicating in Japanese was time the children spent exclusively with their mother. This seemed to create a connection between `Japanese language’ and ‘motherhood’ in the children’s perception. This link became apparent in the way the children used Japanese as a means of emotional bonding with their mother. In addition, they adopted a broader behavioural repertoire than that which is usually associated with a language. For example, switching to Japanese could sometimes serve as a method to appease Mum when she seemed unhappy. At other times, refusing to communicate in Japanese was a useful means of defiance, even when the dispute was not related to language.

The OPOL approach emphasises the need for parents to monitor children’s language closely and correct them if they mix the two languages. In practice, many parents speaking the minority language are bilingual themselves – so they understand what their children are saying even when they do mix the two. In addition, parents feel it’s problematic to keep correcting children when they mix languages. This is particularly the case when children show annoyance at being corrected. The parents believe it is a lot more important to have a meaningful conversation with their children.

But what if a child uses language that cannot readily be categorised as either one language or the other? An example from my study involved the use of English words adapted to accommodate Japanese pronunciation. One of these borrowed words, `ice cream’, is usually pronounced `aisukurimu’. The distinction between singular and plural does not exist in Japanese nouns in the English language sense, so whether using singular or plural, even in a borrowed word, `aisukurimu’ is the form normally used. But one of my child participants showed his mother a drawing of two cones of ice cream and described them as `aisukurimuzu’, with a Japanese pronunciation but in English plural form. The child had created something in between.

Another example from my study focused on the interaction between Japanese-English bilingual siblings. In one case, a six-year-old girl was trying to convince her four-year-old brother to let her play with his toys. Following firm rejections by her brother, the girl drew on her communicative repertoire to convince him. To start with, she shifted from an authoritative demand to a softer and humbler appeal. She rephrased the question by using various polite forms. Then, her voice became more nasal, suggesting she was about to burst into tears. Even more interestingly, while the negotiation had begun in English, in the middle she shifted to Japanese. Although this may give the impression of language mixing, a considerably more complex process was taking place. The shift was accompanied by the incorporation of Japanese cultural elements, such as honorific titles that emphasise emotional attachment, a relationship of dependence between sister and brother, and an assumed obligation to care on the part of the brother. She succeeded.

These examples show how creatively and strategically human beings use language in their daily communication. Whether bilingual or not, we all constantly select from our repertoire anything that will best serve our purpose. For instance, imagine you want to ask a neighbour a favour. You would use polite language in a friendly voice. But what about your facial expression? Your body language? It is likely you would make appropriate choices. For bilinguals, shifting between languages is all part of their repertoire.

Our language repertoires are shaped by meaning, based on knowledge gathered throughout our lives, and the ways we use language also shape its meaning. The use of OPOL in the family brings specific meaning to language used at home, and children make full use of emergent meaning in their own interactions. The popularity of OPOL amongst parents rests on the simplicity of its message, which is that it should be applied consistently. But when we see a child actively using, adapting and negotiating their repertoire, it casts doubt on the belief that it’s bad for children to mix languages. What they could actually be doing is demonstrating high-level flexibility and interpersonal skills.

Being bilingual isn’t simply about an ability to speak two languages. Rigidly policing consistency in the OPOL approach could actually inhibit bilingual children’s linguistic ability and creativity. And in the same way, it could also limit their parents’ ability to reveal their own bilingual skills, using their own repertoires.

Questions 24 — 29
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
Write the correct letter in boxes 30-35 on your answer sheet.

24 What does the writer say about families in which the parents speak different languages?
A. They constantly research ways to help their children learn both languages.
B. They realise the importance of their role in their children’s language learning.
C. They prioritise their children’s language learning over their own.
D. They find the OPOL approach the easiest to adopt.

25 The writer uses the term ‘received wisdom’ in the first paragraph to illustrate that
E. the success of OPOL depends on the languages spoken by the parents.
F. OPOL fails if the parents are not consistent in its use.
G. one generally accepted principle of OPOL is incorrect.
H. there has been a lack of research into OPOL.

26 The mothers who took part in the writer’s research
I. compensated for the fact that their children were exposed to more English than Japanese.
J. took their children’s language learning more seriously than their partners did.
K. used language learning to increase the time they spent with their children.
L. were reluctant for their partners to speak Japanese to their children.

27. The writer says that the children in her study
M. preferred to use Japanese exclusively for communicating with their mothers.
N. understood their mothers better as their knowledge of Japanese increased.
O. argued about things that would be unimportant for monolingual children.
P. used language in a way that is uncommon.

28. What does the writer suggest about correcting children who are learning to be bilingual?
Q. It is usually avoided if it causes bad feeling.
R. Parents tend to prioritise it over maintaining a conversation.
S. It is unnecessary with the OPOL method of learning.
T. Parents are less likely to do it if they speak both languages.

29. The writer gives the ‘ice cream’ example to show that
U. bilingual children find the use of borrowed words less confusing than other children.
V. bilingual children like to test their parents with words they know to be wrong.
W. knowledge of two languages leads bilingual children to invent new word forms.
X. it may be difficult to distinguish which language a bilingual child is using.

Questions 30 — 35
Complete the summary using the list of words, A-J, below.
Write the correct letter, A-J, in boxes 30-35 on your answer sheet

A bilingual child negotiates with her brother

Faced with her little brother’s 30 ……… to let her play with his toys, a young bilingual child used all of her communication 31 ………  to change his mind. First, she expressed her 32 ……… in gentler, more polite language, and pretended to be about to cry. Having switched from English to Japanese, she exploited 33………of Japanese culture, such as reminding him of his 34 ……… to her as her brother. She succeeded in her 35 ……… to convince him.

A request                  B attempts                 C strategies               D misunderstandings
E responsibility         F agreement              G judgement              H refusal
I behavior                  J aspects

Questions 36 — 40
Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 3?
YES If the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
NO If the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
NOT GIVEN If it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

36 Even people who speak only one language know how to adapt their way of communicating according to the situation.
37 People who grow up in OPOL families will go on to use this approach with their own children.
38 The reason the OPOL approach is favoured by many parents is that it encourages them to switch languages when necessary.
39 Bilingual children who mix languages eventually develop a preference for one of the languages.
40 The OPOL approach may restrict people’s capacity to be resourceful in their use of language.