Principles of multilingual upbringing. In: «Studia Humaniora et Paedagogica Collegii Narovensis» - Narva, 2008. – P. 293-310.

Principles of multilingual upbringing
Galina Chirsheva (Cherepovets, Russia)
Introduction
Multilingual upbringing is not limited only to bi-ethnic or multiethnic
families. It is topical nowadays to give children an opportunity to be able
to communicate in two or even three languages from their first year of life
even in mono-ethnic families.
There is a description of a number of cases of bilingual upbringing in
books and papers on childhood multilingualism. However, only the history of
the principle "one person – one language" have been surveyed in S. Döpke's
book "One Parent – One Language", published in 1992 [Döpke: 12-23]. She
has analyzed case studies observed in different countries beginning with
the earliest recorded case described by the French linguist J. Ronjat in
1913 [Ronjat].
Some characteristics of other principles can be tracked from the
surveys of case studies and related literature given in the paper "Language
strategies of the bilingual family" by I. Schmidt-Mackey [Schmidt-Mackey]
and the book "Bilingual Family" by E. Harding & P.Riley [Harding & Riley:
46-49, 83-114]. However, the overall system of principles for multilingual
upbringing used in multi-ethnic or mono-ethnic families has not been
outlined in these works.
Since early childhood multilingualism/bilingualism is developed as the
informal (communicative) acquisition of languages in speech activities
within a family, such system of principles should be determined by the
parameters of a communicative situation: interlocutors, place, time, and
message. Thus, the following principles can be introduced: person-oriented,
place-oriented, time-oriented, message-oriented, and "occasional listener"
oriented.
The objectives of the present paper are to analyze specific features
of the principles, to show what factors may influence their effectiveness,
to compare schemes and variants of their use, to give some recommendations
for caregivers, and to refer to the related works on childhood
multilingualism where more details on multilingual upbringing can be found.

This paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies
described in the works on childhood bilingualism since 1913 as well as
twelve cases studied by the author in her own family and the families of
her colleagues, friends, and students for twenty years.

Person-oriented principle

The best known and most popular principle of bilingual upbringing is based
on the separation of two languages between two persons, usually parents,
therefore it is known as "one person – one language" principle. The use of
the principle is varied according to a number of personal and situational
factors:
1. the language of the community where the family lives;
2. the native language of each parent;
3. the language/languages parents address their child;
4. the language/languages parents speak in the presence of their
child;
5. the language/languages children interact with each other.
The combination of factors 1 and 2, which are independent of personal
choice, makes it possible to introduce four schemes for the use of the
principle. Factors 3 and 4 depend on the parents' personal choice, so they
modify each scheme into four variants. Factor 5 is optional and may depend
on any other factor, according to the children's personal choice.

Scheme 1


Parents have different native languages (L1 and L2), one of them coinciding
with the language of the community (L1 or L2). Each parent speaks his
native language to the child. Below four variants of the use of this scheme
are given.
(1a) Parents speak to each other in the community language (figure 1):

Figure 1. Person-oriented principle: scheme1, variant (1a)


The letters in the schemes stand for:
C - community, M - mother, F- father, B – bilingual child, L -
language (L1, L2, etc.).
This scheme variant have been used in several countries: Germany
[Meisel 1987; Meisel & Müller; Müller; Köppe; Redlinger & Park; Porshé;
Kielhöfer & Jonekeit], Italy [Taeschner; Volterra & Taeschner], Sweden
[Arnberg, 1981; 1985; 1987], France [Harding & Riley], Finland [Hassinen;
Harding & Riley], Denmark [Søndergaаrd], Australia [Döpke; Salasoo],
England [Harding & Riley].
(1b) Parents can speak to each other in the language different from
the community one (Figure 2):

Figure 2. Person-oriented principle: scheme1, variant (1b)


This variant of scheme 1 was observed in the families with parents
speaking German in France [Ronjat], Serbian in France [Pavlovitch], English
in Italy [Engel], English in Sweden [Arnberg 1981; 1985], English in the
Netherlands [DeHouwer], Spanish in Great Britain [Deuchar & Quay], French
in Germany [Meisel 1987; Meisel & M(ller; M(ller; Köppe; Harding & Riley],
Russian in five families in Hungary [Pléh, Jarovinskij & Balajan].
(1c) In the presence of their child parents can use the languages they
speak with their child – L1 and L2 (Figure 3):
Figure 3. Person-oriented principle: scheme1, variant (1c)


W. Leopold was the first to use this variant of scheme 1: he addressed
his wife in German, who was German in second generation, while his wife
spoke to him in English [Leopold]. Other examples are from A. Jarovinskij's
family: he spoke Russian to his wife who spoke Hungarian with him in their
son's presence [Jarovinskij & Fabricius]. One more example was observed in
one of the four families studied by L. Arnberg: a wife spoke English to her
husband who spoke Swedish to her [Arnberg 1981; 1985].
(1d) Parents speak both languages alternatively (Figure 4):

Figure 4. Person-oriented principle: scheme1, variant (1d)


Examples of using this variant are not infrequent: Hungarian and
Russian were spoken by parents in ten families in Hungary [Pléh,
Jarovinskij & Balajan], English and Swedish in Sweden [Arnberg 1981; 1987],
parents in two families spoke both English and Norwegian in Norway [Lanza],
French and English in a family living in Switzerland and in England
[Harding & Riley], French and Dutch in the Netherlands [Hulk & Van Der
Linden], English and German in two of the families studied in Australia
[Döpke], French and English in Montreal, Canada [Paradis & Genesee].

Discussion of scheme 1 variants

Linguistic interaction within each four variants of Scheme 1 becomes more
complicated when there are two or more children in the family. Scheme (1a)
can be presented in the following way (Figure 5):


Figure 5. Person-oriented principle: scheme1, variant (1a) for a
family with two children


Children themselves choose the language to communicate with each
other. Sometimes it is the community language and the language their
parents speak in their presence. But there were also cases when children
spoke the language different from the community one, thus following their
parents variant (scheme (1b), for instance, French in Germany [Meisel 1989;
1990; 1994].
Children often alternate two languages even if their parents use only
one language communicating with each other [Meisel 1987, 1994; Meisel &
M(ller; M(ller; Köppe]. Some children speak the language of the community
they live in every time they move from one country to another, for
instance, English when they lived in England and French when they lived in
Switzerland as described in one of case studies by E. Harding and P. Riley
[Harding & Riley].
Scheme 1 can be used in biethnic families both in monolingual and
bilingual societies.
Variant (1a) is the most frequently observed one as parents prefer to
speak the community language. However, in this case the child's
bilingualism is developed as non-balanced, highly dominant in the community
language.
Variant (1b) is more difficult for parents, but their child has the
opportunity to get a more balanced bilingual input as s/he can hear his/her
weak language more often, which helps to develop balanced bilingualism.
Variant (1c) is the least frequent though the most consistent with the
principle "one person – one language" as it helps the child to separate
his/her two languages more effectively. This variant is unpopular with most
parents because it seems unnatural to speak a language different from the
one used by the interlocutor within one conversation. Besides, it requires
that the parents should be competent in both languages.
Variant (1d) is not as infrequent as variant (1c), but it is the least
consistent with the principle "one parent – one language" and often leads
to extensive code-mixing in the children who often witness alternation of
languages in their parents' speech. Therefore, most parents try to follow
consistent separation of languages in their children's presence as they
want their children to be competent speakers of either language.

Scheme 2


Scheme 2 is used if parents have different native languages (L1 and L2),
with neither of them being the community language (L3). Each parent speaks
his/her native language with the child. Such linguistic situation often
leads to the development of childhood trilingualism. The following variants
are possible.
(2а) Parents use the community language speaking to each other
(Figure 6):
Figure 6. Person-oriented principle: scheme 2, variant (2a)


An example is described in a case study by L. Arnberg: in the family
living in Sweden father spoke Kurdish to his children, mother spoke
Finnish, while Swedish was used in the parents' conversations [Arnberg
1987].
(2b) Parents speak one of their native languages in conversations
with each other (Figure 7):



Figure 7. Person-oriented principle: scheme 2 variant (2b)


For instance, mother spoke German, father spoke French to their son,
the parents communicated in French; as they lived in Brazil, the boy was
exposed to Portuguese and was able to use it in some situations [Harding &
Riley].
Another case was studied by Ch. Hoffmann: the family lived in England,
parents spoke their native languages to their children (mother – German,
father – Spanish) while they used Spanish speaking to each other
[Hoffmann].
(2c) Each parent speaks his/her native language in their conversations
(L1( (L2) (Figure 8):



Figure 8. Person-oriented principle: scheme 2, variant (2c)


No examples of this variant have been discussed in related literature.



(2d) Parents alternate their native languages speaking to each other
(Figure 9):





Figure 9. Person-oriented principle: scheme 2, variant (2d)


An example is described in a case study of a family, living in Italy,
where father spoke German, mother spoke English to the child, while in
their own interactions they used both languages alternatively [Elwert].
There are few examples of Scheme 2, perhaps because parents usually
want their child to speak the language of the community they live in. Yet,
if parents want their child to be competent in their native languages that
are not spoken in the community, they can find the way to introduce the L3
in their child's input with the help of some native speakers of the
community (baby-sitters, caregivers, etc.).

Scheme 3


This scheme is chosen by the parents who have the same native language
(L1). Yet, one of them speaks to their child a non-native language (L2),
which is not the language of the community (L1) either. In such context
monoethnic bilingualism is developed in the child. The following variants
are possible.

(3а) In their child's presence parents interact in the community
language (Figure 10):






Figure 10. Person-oriented principle: scheme 3, variant (3a)


Quite a number of families have used this variant: Serbian as a native
and English as a non-native language in Serbia [Dimitrijevic]; English and
Spanish in the USA [Past]; one of the families studied by S. Döpke used
German as a non-native language in Australia [Döpke]; German as a non-
native language was spoken to three children by their father and English
spoken by their mother in Australia [Saunders 1982; 1988]; English as a non-
native language was spoken to two children by their father, while mother
spoke her native Slovak in Slovakia [Stefanik]. Several cases of Russian-
English bilingualism with English being a non-native language have been
described in Russian families in Russia [Чиршева 2000].
In all these cases one of the languages spoken to children is English,
usually as a non-native one, except for A. Past's case.
(3b) Being native speakers of the same language (L1), parents can
speak to each other in the language that is not a community one (L2). This
is possible if both parents are fluent speakers of L2 and try to provide
more balanced bilingual input, which is difficult to obtain in a monoethnic
society and a monoethnic family (Figure 11).


Figure 11. Person-oriented principle: scheme 3, variant (3b)


A new and unusual example of variant (3b) is represented in the
families where parents speak Esperanto to each other and one of them
interacts in it with their child [Corsetti 1996].
(3c) Parents can speak to each other the languages they use in the
interaction with their child (L1( (L2). Such variant requires some
competence in L2 to understand the spouse (Figure 12).



Figure 12. Person-oriented principle: scheme 3, variant (3c)


An example of this variant is a Russian family, with father speaking
English to two sons and his wife, while his wife speaks Russian to both
sons and her husband [Тотьмянина; Чиршева].
(3d) Parents alternate both native and non-native languages speaking
to each other (L1+L2) (Figure 13):

Figure 13. Person-oriented principle: scheme 3, variant (3d)


No examples of this variant have been described.
In the families with two or three children they usually speak both
their native language and the community language [Saunders 1982; 1988;
Stefanik].

Scheme 4


Scheme 4 is observed in the families where parents have the same native
language (L1) which is different from the language of the community they
live in (L2). One of the parents speaks with the child the community
language. This scheme is used in some immigrant families the members of
which want their children both to acquire their native language and, at the
same time, to be able to use the community language both at home and
outside. The following variants are possible.


(4а) Parents speak the community language to each other (Figure 14):

Figure 14. Person-oriented principle: scheme 4, variant (4a)


Both parents using this variant should be fluent speakers of L2.
(4b) Parents use their native language (L1) to speak to each other
(Figure 15):



Figure 15. Person-oriented principle: scheme 4, variant (4b)


In such families parents want their children to speak their native
language and to acquire their native culture. An example is a case
described by E. Harding and P. Riley: an Arabic family lived in France,
with father speaking only Arabic and mother speaking French to her
children; Arabic was the language of interaction between the parents as
well. Their three children also spoke Arabic with one another, but
gradually began using French in their interaction because they attended a
French-medium school [Harding & Riley].
(4c) Each parent speaks the language s/he uses in the interaction with
their child (L1( (L2) (Figure 16):



Figure 16. Person-oriented principle: scheme 4, variant (4c)


(4d) Parents alternate their native and non-native languages speaking
to each other (L1+L2) (Figure 17):



Figure 17. Person-oriented principle: scheme 4, variant (4d)





Discussion of schemes

Scheme 1 is most widely spread in bi-ethnic families: the parents' native
languages are different, with one of them being the language of their
community. For monoethnic families childhood bilingualism is developed
according to scheme 3, with parents' native language being the language of
the community. Schemes 2 and 4 provide the conditions for developing
childhood trilingualism.
Within each scheme the most widely spread variant is the one that
employs the language of the community for the parents' communication in the
presence of their child (1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a). However, the most effective
to develop balanced bilingualism is the variant according to which parents
speak the language not spoken in the community (1b, 2b, 3b, and 4b). More
active separation of languages by bilingual children is provided when
parents use the same language addressing both the child and each other,
i.e. parents' dialogues are always bilingual in their child's presence
(variants 1c, 2c, 3c, and 4c).

Place-oriented principle

Place-oriented principle usually suggests that one of the languages is
spoken by every member of the family at home (home language) and the other
language is spoken outside, in all other places. The variations of this
principle are determined by further choice for other places of
communication.
This principle has been used by many immigrant families: Swedish as
home language in Finland and later – in England [Murrell], Estonian as home
language in Sweden, excepting conversations with Swedish guests even at
home [Oksaar], Estonian at home in the USA [Vihman 1982; 1985; 1986],
Norwegian at home in the USA [Haugen], Czech at home and English outside in
Canada [Bubenik], Icelandic at home, English outside in England
[Bohnacker], Turkish at home and English outside in England; English at
home, French outside in France; English at home, Danish outside in Denmark;
Swedish at home, English outside in England and the Netherlands; Spanish at
home and English outside in England [Harding & Riley], Chinese at home,
English outside in England [Lee].
Some bilingual families living alternatively in two countries change
their home language to give their children the opportunity to speak both,
which turns a place-oriented principle into a country-oriented one. An
example of country-oriented language alternation has been described in the
book "The Bilingual Family" by E. Harding and P. Riley [Harding & Riley].
In biethnic families person-oriented and place-oriented principles are
sometimes combined, with the first one to be used at home and the community
language to be spoken outside home. Examples of such combination have been
studied by J. Navracsics in Hungary: one family used English and Persian at
home according to "one parent – one language" principle, while both adults
and children used Hungarian everywhere else; another family spoke English
and Arabic at home, and Hungarian everywhere else outside [Navracsics].
In some cases one principle is replaced with another if a family moves
to the country where L2 is spoken. In one of such cases scheme (3b) of "one
parent – one language" principle, with Russian and English spoken in
Russia, was replaced with the place-oriented one when the family moved to
Australia, where the parents' native language (Russian) became their common
home language. This change took place at the period when the child had
already separated her two languages and was able to differentiate them
properly according to communicative situations [Aidman].
Some parents use place-oriented principle at home, dividing the house
into L1-speaking and L2-speaking parts. Each part is decorated with
specific objects to match the language spoken in it, with special attention
paid to a "weak-language" part. It is important that all members of the
family should take part in such bilingual arrangement, which is possible if
they are all bilingual. However, the effectiveness of such scheme has not
been studied yet.

Time-oriented principle

Time-oriented principle is most often used as alternate day approach to the
separation of languages. The variations of the principle are based upon the
choice of different periods of time associated with each of the two
languages. Either both parents or one of them alternate languages spoken to
the child at equal periods of time: a day, part of a day, several days, a
week, etc.
There are a number of problems for bilingual upbringing when this
principle is used. First of all, since one of the languages is a community
one, it is always preferred by the child. Besides, it is a difficult task
for a young child to realize when to switch to another language, as the
concept of time is not easy and early to acquire. So, to help the child to
do that, parents have to invent special switchers.
Examples of using this principle have not been described yet, but
there is a case in a Russian family where it has been observed. Mother who
used alternate day approach addressed her daughter in different ways: she
called her Anya on "Russian" days and Ann on "English" ones, trying to do
this as often as possible to orient her child for the appropriate language.
The girl's bilingualism, though not balanced, was developing for three
years before she began going to the kindergarten; since that time her
English input became too insufficient for her to be able to speak it,
though she could understand English addressed to her.

Message/subject-oriented and "occasional listener"-oriented principles

These two principles are the least widely spread and effective in bilingual
family upbringing.
The first one is used when each of the two languages is associated
with a certain number of subjects or situations. Thus, for children from
immigrant families it is easier to speak about their school life in the
language they are taught there. There can be some other subjects that it is
easier to discuss in the language of the community which is different from
their home one. Parents choose the subject-oriented separation of languages
if they are also bilingual.
The "occasional listener"-oriented principle is usually not chosen
consciously but used when parents communicate in the language not spoken to
their child, so the child can only hear conversations in the language
his/her parents speak, but is not addressed in it. In such cases the child
is not an active bilingual, though s/he can understand parents' language.
One of examples of such bilingual situation has been described by I.
Schmidt-Mackey: parents spoke to each other in a language different from
the one spoken to their daughter, but as she wanted to understand them
better, she began using this language herself by the age of four [Schmidt-
Mackey].
The effectiveness of the principles for bilingual upbringing within a
family depends on the way parents follow them. If they are highly conscious
of making their children balanced bilinguals they should be persistent and
careful about following a chosen principle and know the outcomes in their
bilingual children's speech development.
REFERENCES
1. Aidman — Aidman, M. A. 1994. Comparative Analysis of Written Genre
Development by a Simultaneous Bilingual: A Longitudional Case Study of
Emerging Biliteracy / MA thesis. Melbourne: Univ. of Melbourne.
2. Arnberg 1981 — Arnberg, L. 1981. The Effects of Bilingualism on
Development During Early Childhood: A Survey of the Literature. Linköping
University: Studies in Education Reports, № 5.
3. Arnberg 1985 — Arnberg, L. 1985. Language separation in the bilingual
child: Methods, results and further research. Bilingualism and Second
Language Acquisition: Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism 4: 1-11.
Stockholm.
4. Arnberg 1987 — Arnberg, L. 1987. Remaining Bilingual: A follow-up study
of four children exposed to English and Swedish in the home up to age
seven and a half. Aspects of Multilingualism: Proceedings from the Fourth
Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism. Uppsala: 209-227.
5. Bohnacker — Bohnacker, U. 1997. Acquiring auxiliary "do": New data
from Icelandic-English bilingual child language. International Symposium
on Bilingualism / Abstracts. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.19.
6. Bubenik — Bubenik, V. 1978. The acquisition of Czech in the English
environment. M. Paradis (ed.), Aspects of bilingualism. Columbia, SC:
Hornbeam press. 3-12.
7. Corsetti — Corsetti, R. 1996. A mother tongue spoken mainly by fathers.
Language Problems and Language Planning.20: 263-273.
8. DeHouwer — DeHouwer, A. 1990. The acquisition of two languages from
birth: A case study. Cambridge: C.U.P.
9. Deuchar & Quay — Deuchar, M. & Quay, S. 1999. Theoretical implications
of a bilingual case study. VIIIth International Congress for the study of
Child Language / Abstracts. San Sebastian. 84.
10. Dimitrijevic — Dimitrijević, N. R. 1965. A bilingual child. English
Language Teaching 20: 23-28.
11. Döpke — Döpke, S. 1992. One Parent – One Language: An Interactional
Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Elwert — Elwert, Th. 1959. Das zweisprachige Individuum: Ein
Selbstzeugnis. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
13. Engel — Raffler-Engel, W. von. 1965. Del bilinguismo infantile.
Archivio Glottologico Italiano 50: 175-180.
14. Harding & Riley — Harding, E. and Riley, P. 1997. The bilingual family:
A handbook for parents. Cambridge: C.U.P.
15. Hassinen — Hassinen, S. 1997. Bilingualism in closely related
languages. International Symposium on Bilingualism. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
139.
16. Haugen — Haugen, E. 1972. Bilingualism as a social and personal
problem. R. Filopovic (ed.), Active Methods and Modern Aids in the
Teaching of Foreign Languages. London: O.U.P. 1-14.
17. Hoffmann — Hoffmann, Ch. 1985. Language acquisition in two trilingual
children. J. of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 479-495.
18. Hulk & Van Der Linden — Hulk, A.C.J. and Van Der Linden, E. 1996.
Language mixing in a French-Dutch bilingual child. Toegepaste
taalwetenschap in Artikelen 55: 89-103.
19. Jarovinskij & Fabricius — Jarovinskij, A. & Fabricius, I. 1987. On
communicative competence of a bilingual child: A case study. Acta
Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37: 177-187.
20. Kielhöfer & Jonekeit — Kielhöfer, B. and Jonekeit, S. 1983.
Zweisprachige Kinderziehung. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag.
21. Köppe — Köppe, R. 1994. NP-movement and subject raising. J. M. Meisel
(ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German Grammatical
Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209-234.
22. Lanza — Lanza, E. 1997. Language mixing in infant bilingualism: A
sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
23. Lee — Lee, Sh. 1997. Conversational strategies employed by British-
Chinese bilingual children in Tynesyde. International Symposium on
Bilingualism / Abstracts. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 70.
24. Leopold — Leopold, W.F. 1939 [1954]. Speech development of a bilingual
child: A linguist's record: v. 1. Vocabulary growth in the first two
years. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press.
25. Meisel 1987 — Meisel, J. M. 1987. Early differentiation of languages in
bilingual children. [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit 3]. Hamburg: Univ.
Hamburg.
26. Meisel 1989 — Meisel, J. M. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in
bilingual children. K. Hyltenstam & L. Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across
the Life Span: In Health and Pathology. Cambridge. 13-40.
27. Meisel 1990 — Meisel, J. M. 1990. Grammatical development in the
simultaneous acquisition of two first languages. J.M. Meisel (ed.), Two
First Languages – Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 5-20.
28. Meisel 1994 — Meisel, J. M. 1994. Code-switching in bilingual children:
The acquisition of grammatical constraints. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 16: 413-439.
29. Meisel & M(ller — Meisel, J. M. and Müller, N. 1992. Finiteness and
verb placement in early child grammars. Evidence from simultaneous
acquisition of French and German in bilinguals. J.M. Meisel (ed.), The
acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in
Language Development. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 109-138.
30. M(ller — Müller, N. 1990. Developing two gender assignment systems
simultaneously. J.M. Meisel (ed.), Two First Languages – Early Grammatical
Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 193-294.
31. Murrell — Murrell, M. 1966. Language acquisition in a trilingual
environment: Notes from a case study. Studia Linguistica 20: 9-35.
32. Navracsics — Navracsics, J. 1997. Speech functions: Unitary or
separated systems in multilingual development? Applied Linguistic Studies
in Central Europe 1: 137-148.
33. Oksaar — Oksaar, E. 1977. On becoming trilingual. A case study. C.
Maloney (ed.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen. Kronberg: Scriptor
Verlag. 296-306.
34. Paradis & Genesee 1996 — Paradis, M. and Genesee, F. 1996. Syntactic
acquisition on bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 18: 1-25.
35. Past — Past, K. 1976. A case of preschool reading and speaking
acquisition in two languages. R. Lado & Th. Andersson (eds.), Georgetown
University Papers on Languages and Linguistics. Washington. 58-73.
36. Pavlovitch — Pavlovitch, M. 1920. Le langage enfantin. Acquisition du
serbe et du français par un enfant serbe. Paris: Champion.
37. Pléh, Jarovinskij & Balajan — Pl(h, C., Jarovinskij, A., and Balajan,
A. 1987. Sentence comprehension in Hungarian-Russian bilingual and
monolingual preschool children. J. of Child Language 14: 587-603.
38. Porshé — Porschè, D. C. 1983. Die Zweisprachigkeit wärend des primären
Spracherwerbs. Tübingen: Narr (TBL 218),
39. Redlinger & Park — Redlinger, W. E. and Park, T.-Z. 1980. Language
mixing in young bilinguals. J. of Child Language 7: 337-352.
40. Ronjat — Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du langage observé chez un
enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion.
41. Salasoo — Salasoo, T. 1997. Early simultaneous bilingual acquisition of
Estonian and English. International Symposium on Bilingualism / Abstracts.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 102.
42. Saunders 1982 — Saunders, G. 1982. Bilingual children: Guidance for the
family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
43. Saunders 1988 — Saunders, G. 1988.Bilingual children: From birth to
teens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
44. Schmidt-Mackey — Schmidt-Mackey, I. 1977. Language strategies of the
bilingual family. W.F. Mackey & Th. Andersson (eds.), Bilingualism in
Early Childhood: Papers from a Conference on Child Language. Rowley
(Mass.): Newbury House.132-146.
45. Søndergaаrd — Søndergaard, B. 1981. Decline and fall of an individual
bilingualism. J. of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2: 297-302.
46. Stefanik — Stefanik, J. 1997. Intentional bilingualism: Slovak-English
bilingual family in Slovakia. The Bilingual Family Newsletter 14: 5, 7.
47. Taeschner — Taeschner, T. 1983. The sun is feminine. A study on
language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
48. Vihman 1982 — Vihman, M. M. 1982. The acquisition of morphology by a
bilingual child: a whole-word approach. Applied Psychology 3: 141-160.
49. Vihman 1985 — Vihman, M. M. 1985. Language differentiation by the
bilingual infant. J. of Child Language 12: 297-324.
50. Vihman 1986 — Vihman, M. M. 1986. More on language differentiation. J.
of Child Language 13: 595-597.
51. Volterra & Taeschner — Volterra, V. and Taeschner, T. 1978. The
acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. J. of Child
Language 5: 311-326.
52. Тотьмянина 1998 — Тотьмянина, Е.Л. Начальный этап интенционного
билингвизма // Проблемы детской речи - 1998: Материалы Всероссийской
научной конференции. СПб., Череповец, 1998. C. 84-85.
53. Чиршева — Чиршева, Г.Н. Введение в онтобилингвологию. Череповец: ЧГУ,
2000.




-----------------------
or:

CL1

М

F

B

L1



L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L2

L1



L2

or:

CL1

М

F

태볈 죐좼 태 죐좲좼
태볈ꛈ꛳ 죐좼骦軜躅躅ᘑ䥨 㔀脈䡭Љ䡳Љᔗ깨 ᘀ䥨 㔀脈䡭Љ䡳Љᔗ 蠣ᘀ䥨 尀脈䡭Љ䡳Љᔗ 蠣ᘀ䥨
㘀脈䡭Љ䡳ЉᘒB

L2

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L1

L1

L2

or:

CL1

CL2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

L1

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

L1

or:

CL1

М

F

B

L1+L2

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L1+L2

L1

L2

L1

CL1

М

F

B1

L1

L1

L2

Р2

L1

L2

CL3

М

F

B

L3

L1

L2

or:

CL3

М

F

B

L1

L1

L2

CL3

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

L1

CL3

CL1

М

F

B

L1+L2

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

CL1

М

F

B

L1

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L1


L1

L2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

L1

CL1

CL3)

М

F

B

L1+L2

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

CL2

М

F

B

L1


L1

L2

М

F

B

L2

L1

L2

L1

CL2

CL2

М

F

B

L1+L2

L1

L2