Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 1

Raising Children Bilingual from BirthJoel HENSLEY
Abstract
This paper presents an argument for raising children bilingually from birth based on recent studies.
After a definition of bilingualism is established, the paper will go on to explore the research on childbilingualism and the age at which children are first exposed to multiple input languages. From theperspective of the bilingual paradox, it is then argued that raising a child bilingually does not, in fact,hinder language development. To the contrary, research is presented which indicates there exists awindow of opportunity within which children can be exposed to more than one language andsuccessfully begin developing them in parallel. Lastly, the paper argues in support of raising children
bilingually from birth, with attention given to the roles of motivation and learners’ individual
situations.

Key Words: bilingualism, acquisition, bilingual paradox

In the past decades, advances in technology have come to allow not only for worldwide travel, but
for instant global communication and interaction. Thus, even in countries which have perceived
themselves traditionally as monolingual, like the United States, people are becoming more aware ofbilingualism, which coincides with an increasing attention to the rights of bilingual residents.
Particularly, there has been growth in the field of bilingual education in the United States. This has
led parents and educators to ask the question of when is the best time to introduce a second language
to children. Some would say that children should be exposed to a second (or additional) language
from birth, while others would disagree, saying that doing so could cause a child to become confusedor even slower in his or her cognitive development. This opposition of ideas is what has come to be
known as the bilingual paradox (Petitto et al., 2001). This paper deals with the issue of raisingchildren bilingually. Bilingualism will first be discussed in its many facets, followed by support fordenying that raising children bilingually is a hindrance. Evidence will then be presented which shows
the benefits of raising children bilingually from an early age. Finally, further evidence as to theadvantages of raising children bilingually not only from an early age, but from birth, will be given.

Bilingualism

Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 2

In order to discuss bilingualism, a working definition of what bilingualism entails must firstbe pursued. Simply looking at the morphology of ‘bilingualism’ lends the idea of an ability tounderstand two languages. O’Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, and Rees-Miller (2005) wrote thatbilingualism is “the state of possessing knowledge of two languages” (p. 630). Likewise, Spolsky(1998) defines a bilingual as “a person who has some functional ability in a second language” (p. 45).
Neither of these definitions state at what point knowing something about a second language becomesbilingualism; indeed, they are purposefully vague. This is because the reasons for speaking morethan one language are highly situational and differ for every speaker. “Since the bilingual uses thetwo languages for different purposes in different circumstances, s/he is rarely competent in bothlanguages” (Shin, 2005, p. 17-18) in any given condition. Some bilinguals may be more proficient intechnical terms relating to their careers and the like, and others in relaxed social situations withfriends. For the sake of this paper, the definition of bilingualism will be the working knowledge of
two languages in certain situations. Thus, a bilingual is a person who has the ability to use twodifferent languages depending on the situation and social environment.
In the literature on bilingualism there are many sub-types of bilingualism that have been
posited dealing mostly with how and when the second language (L2) is acquired. In her study ofadditive bilinguals, Oketani (1997) defines three such subtypes: subtractive, additive, and dominant.
She wrote that linguistic-minority students have traditionally been labeled subtractive bilinguals, butcontends that such a label “may conceal a great deal of heterogeneity” (p. 335). Instead, she employs
the terms additive and dominant bilinguals. Additive bilinguals are those who achieve a high level ofproficiency in both their L1 and L2, whereas dominant bilinguals are those who see less achievementin their L2 because of self-imposed limited exposure to their L2.
Similarly, in a study of Greek and English bilingual children, Haritos and Nelson (2001)
also define two kinds of bilingualism, specifically in children. The first is coordinate bilingualism,
where L2 is acquired later than L1. The second is simultaneous bilingualism—which was laterchanged to compound-simultaneous by Haritos (2003) in a follow-up study—in which both L1 andL2 are acquired before the age of three years. Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001) states the idea ofcompound-simultaneous bilingualism in a simplified way, calling it infant bilingualism, where infantbilinguals are “those who learn two languages simultaneously from birth” (p. 22).
In this paper, the terms compound-simultaneous bilingual and infant bilingual will beconsidered interchangeable. To simplify, the abbreviation 2L1 (Francis, 2003, p. 6) will be employedwhen referring to children who acquire both L1 and L2 simultaneously, according to the approachthat “multiple languages learned at birth are all treated as the ‘first’ language” (Tokuhama-Espinosa,
2001, p. 23).

Evidence Against 2L1 as Negative

Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 3

In order to be able to fully accept the idea of 2L1, the negative ideas embodied within thebilingual paradox must be addressed. Are bilingual children sponges of language, capable ofabsorbing any number of different linguistic structures? Or, on the other hand, are they overwhelmedwith trying to ingest two separate grammars with differing sound systems? To answer questions suchas these, researchers have taken into account regularly used testing methods for bilingualism inchildren, resulting in some interesting findings.
Shin (2005) wrote that the majority of tests used for determining the proficiency of 2L1
children have been traditionally based on adult coordinate bilinguals. These tests, she continues,
when applied to children, not only fail to take into account how and when an L2 is acquired, but also
do not consider the 2L1 child’s language background and patterns of use in bilingual settings,
focusing more on quantitative measures rather than qualitative. Because bilinguals, especially young
2L1 children, “will rarely have balanced competence in their two languages” (p. 16), an effective test
for such a child would be required to consider all different situations and domains. This is why
Haritos (2003) writes that currently there is no universally accepted method of assessing bilingual
proficiency.
Further corroboration as to why 2L1 may not be thought of as a hindrance may be found inconsidering the bi- and multilingual societies around the world. In countries like the Philippines,
Singapore, and Nigeria, the norm is for people to be bi- or multilingual. According to Shin (2005),
the “argument that bilingual input confuses children is not substantiated since most children growing
up in bilingual or multilingual societies learn to use two or more languages with no apparent negative
consequences to their cognitive development” (p. 17). This holds true in the results of a study of 2L1
eight- and nine-year-olds, in which Haritos and Nelson (2001) found that subjects were not only
successfully bilingual, but were even “quite cognizant of the respective structural and semantic rulesof both their languages” (p. 429).
This not only holds true in spoken bilingualism, but also in biliteracy (being literate in two
languages). In a study of first and second grade 2L1 students, Hernández (2001) found that “thewriting skills of strong second-language children writers are virtually indistinguishable from those ofstrong first-language children” (p. 251). Furthermore, the writing skills of those students who were“weak second-language writers” in Hernández’s study, “did not lag significantly behind thefirst-language writers” (p. 251), which led her to conclude that 2L1 children perform as well as
monolingual children.
Similar results were discovered in a study of two groups of bilingual children who were 2L1
in either French and English, or French and Langues des Signes Québécoise (Quebec Sign
Language) (Petitto et al., 2001). This study found that early bilingual exposure did not causesignificant delay of the milestones of normal language acquisition; the 2L1 students’ lexical growthrate was equivalent to monolingual children over an identical time period (p. 473). The study further
concluded that not only were the 2L1 children unhindered in their language acquisition, but also that“all children’s language choice was systematically related to the language of the interlocutor” (p.

Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 4478). It can be seen through the results of these tests of 2L1 children, as well as observed in 2L1
speakers from bilingual (or multilingual) countries, that the myth of 2L1 acquisition as an
impediment to young language learners as voiced in the bilingual paradox is simply not accurate.
Effects of 2L1 from Early Ages
Most people who have attempted acquiring a second language later in life can attest to thedifficulties of such a feat. This is particularly obvious in the area of accent and the language-specificdifficulties of any given language, such as the articles of English (a/an and the). Most of these
difficulties can, over time, be overcome, but most would agree that an adult acquiring a second
language does not do so with the speed and seeming effortlessness seen in children. Whether
children are capable of learning a language “better” than an adult is still a topic under much debate;
however, much of modern research seems to agree that few adults who acquire a second language
later in life are able to completely rid themselves of the accent carried over from their L1 (Brown,
2006, p. 63).
Yet children who acquire an L2 do not seem to have as much of a problem with accent. It isbelieved that the brain of a child is more “plastic” than that of an adult, which means waiting toacquire an L2 makes it harder to obtain (Petitto et al., 2001). In her book, Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001)
wrote of “Windows of Opportunity” (p. 14) in which a child may be introduced to an L2 with thehighest potential for acquisition. She states that between the ages of four and seven years is the best
time to introduce a monolingual child to an L2. However, just because this is the best time tointroduce a monolingual child to an L2 does not make it the ideal. Li (1999) cautions against
postponed or interrupted development in a child’s communicative proficiency, particularly in the areaof academics, stating that it can take up to five to seven years for a child to catch up if such asituation were to occur.
Children (or adults) acquiring an L2 later in life, as opposed to an early age, may experienceproblems in other areas of life as well. You (2005) wrote of the case of Korean American children
from a junior high school who were attempting to learn Korean as a heritage language. These
children did not acquire Korean early, and were struggling to not only learn their heritage language,
but also with feelings of ambivalence and negativity concerning their ethnic identity as Korean
Americans. Many of the students in the study reported regretting not having put more effort into
learning Korean earlier in life. Granted, not every L2 learner’s goal is the acquisition of a heritage
language, but for anyone, acquiring an L2 nearly always consists of more than just learning thelanguage itself.

2L1 from BirthJoel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 5

At the core of the bilingual paradox is a fear that exposing a child to two languages frombirth will somehow cause him or her to lag behind other, monolingual children in language
acquisition. However, current research and study would seem to suggest otherwise.
Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001) wrote “sometime between seven and nine months old, say present-day
neurologists, enough neuro-connections are formed to separate the location of first and second
languages in the brain” (p. 22). From their study of 2L1 children, Petitto et al. (2001) found that thecapacity to differentiate between two languages is well in place prior to a child’s first words. In thesame study, it was also found that “the capacity to differentiate between languages was evident evenin the youngest bilinguals’ earliest instances of language production” (p. 493). Thus, the researchersconcluded that “young infants are fully capable of different but parallel acquisition of two languages
from the very first onset of language production” (p. 493).
This phenomenon of 2L1 acquisition does not slow or stop with a child’s beginning ofproduction. Francis (2003) wrote that by the age of two years, 2L1 children show a strong tendency
to separate languages grammatically at the multi-word stage. He goes on to write that 2L1 may be
acquired at the same rate or with the same ease as that of L1 acquisition in monolingual children’sdevelopment due to the “settings” (p. 6) for each language in the 2L1 child appearing secure with thesame level of automaticity and amount of input that is sufficient for monolingual children. This is
why Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001) wrote that the first “Window of Opportunity” (p. 25-26) for
bilingual (or multilingual) development in children is between birth and nine months of age. She also
warns that if children are not exposed to an L2 during this first Window, it may take until the age offour years before they begin progressing in the L2.
Additional studies (Patterson, 2000; Petitto et al., 2001) have found that as 2L1 children
continue to mature beyond the first words stage, their rate of acquisition in both languages does notabate. The results of Patterson’s study of 2L1 toddlers show that the level of vocabulary reported by
the parents and observed by the researcher in the children’s two languages was similar to correlations
among monolingual children of similar ages. This is sustained in the study performed by Petitto et al.
which found the timetable of linguistic milestones in 2L1 children to be essentially similar to that ofmonolingual children, even for children whose second language was signed. It is further stated thatdifferences in the timetable of linguistic milestones can be attributed to sociolinguistic environment,
wherein a child may not have been presented with the need to acquire the same structure in bothlanguages.
As 2L1 children enter the preschool years between two and five, it appears that proficiency
does not wane. Francis (2003) wrote that as 2L1 children continue to progress in their bilingual
acquisition, “findings point to an early convergence with adult codeswitching norms” (p. 9).
Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001) as well as Haritos and Nelson (2001) wrote that it is during this periodthat 2L1 children become able to identify which language corresponds to which interlocutor and toswitch accordingly. Hence, Petitto et al. (2001) were able to conclude that “being exposed to two
languages from birth, by itself, does not cause delay and confusion to the normal processes of humanJoel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 6

language acquisition” (p. 494).
It is apparent that all of the above studies demonstrate the advantages of exposing a child to
two languages from birth. Still, raising a 2L1 child is not a given just because the parents arebilingual themselves or desire their child to be so. Motivation plays a large part in language
acquisition, especially in that of 2L1 children’s development (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2001). Children’s
attitudes towards one or both of their languages are affected by their parents’ views of thelanguage(s), which need be taken into account (Li 1999).
Also, it cannot be forgotten that bilingualism does not equal perfect fluency in bothlanguages, as proficiency is situational and need-based. “Even bilingual children who appear fluent
in the two languages show differences in performance across language tasks, contexts, andconditions” (Gutiérrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003, p. 268), and there is no real way to measure 2L1
proficiency as it varies from child to child.
Nevertheless, in a study involving hearing children of parents who have hearing
impairments, the subjects were able to develop age-appropriate English skills by spending ten hours
a week with hearing, English-speaking adults (Petitto et al., 2001). Gutiérrez-Clellen and Kreiter(2003) also support this finding by stating quantity of input may not relate to rate of cross-language
grammatical development. Children, while not attaining perfect fluency in both languages, appear tobe perfectly capable of acquiring two languages from birth and using them affectively in the social
contexts for which they are called, even if parents are not bilinguals themselves. The maxim ofquality over quantity seems to ring true.

Conclusion
In this paper, a working definition of bilingualism was pursued and found to be that of aworking knowledge of two languages in certain situations, with a bilingual being a person with thecharacteristic of bilingualism. The abbreviation “2L1” (Francis, 2003, p. 6) was used to refer tocompound-simultaneous bilinguals (Haritos, 2003) and infant bilinguals (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2001)
who acquire two languages simultaneously from birth. Some of the negative ideas embodied by thebilingual paradox concerning possible hindrances to 2L1 children were discussed and, through theevidence of multiple studies (Haritos, 2003; Haritos & Nelson, 2001; Hernández, 2001; Petitto et al.,2001), it is clear that the notion of such impediments is unfounded. The benefits of 2L1 acquisition
from an early age were also discussed, particularly that of accent (or the lack thereof). In addition,
several areas of possible complication in 2L1 acquisition from an early age, including
Tokuhama-Espinosa’s (2001) “Windows of Opportunity” (p. 14), Li’s (1999) warning against
postponement or interruption of 2L1 development, and the situation of Korean American children’s
ethnic identity (You, 2005), were presented. Finally, the benefits of 2L1 acquisition from birth werediscussed according to the results of studies involving the proficiency of 2L1 children (Francis,

Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 7

2003; Haritos & Nelson, 2001; Patterson, 2000; Petitto et al., 2001). The roles of motivation andsituational necessity as well as adult input were also introduced.
It would be irrational to assume that all children who grow up in bilingual environments
acquire both languages fluently, or even at all. However, based on the studies reported in this paper,
it is evident that 2L1 acquisition does not necessitate delayed or impeded acquisition of either
language in children. This seems to depend highly on the environment and manner in which a 2L1
child is raised, but further comparative studies need to be analyzed in order to better understand thisspecific, but increasingly common occurrence.

References
Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Francis, N. (2003, April-May). Cross-linguistic influence, transfer and other kinds of language
interaction: evidence for modularity from the study of bilingualism. Paper presented at theAnnual International Symposium on Bilingualism, Tempe, AZ.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using
parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267-288.
Haritos, C. (2003). Listening, remembering, and speaking in two languages: how did you do that?
Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 73-99.
Haritos, C., & Nelson, K. (2001). Bilingual memory: the interaction of language and thought.
Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 417-438.
Hernández, A. C. (2001). The expected and unexpected literacy outcomes of bilingual students.
Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 251-276.
Li, X. (1999). How can language minority parents help their children become bilingual in familial
context? A case study of a language minority mother and her daughter. Bilingual Research
Journal, 23, 113-125.
O, Grady, W., Archibald, J., Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2005) Contemporary Linguistics: An
Introduction. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Oketani, H. (1997). Additive bilinguals: the case of post-war second generation Japanese
Canadian youths. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 334-354.
Patterson, J. L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations inbilingual toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121-128.
Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, K., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tétreault, K., & Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual
signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: implications for the mechanisms
underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28, 453-496.
Shin, Sarah J. (2005). Developing in Two Languages: Korean Children in America. Tonawanda,

Joel HENSLEY: Raising Bilingual Children from Birth 8

NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2001). Raising Multilingual Children: foreign language acquisition andchildren. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
You, B. (2005). Children negotiating Korean American ethnic identity through their their heritage
language. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 711-721.