Children between the ages of zero to five are at a stage of mastering language and literacy use through continuous interaction with people and their environment. If a bilingual child this age has not reached sufficient acquisition of his or her native language and is exposed to an English centred educational environment, then, these assimilative forces will have a very influential effect on the child's primary language. Although children within this age range do not know or care about prestige or status, they do care about acceptance and belonging (Wong Fillmore, 1991). Preschoolers are capable of understanding that English is a dominant language from the moment they arrive in child care. They can see that speaking it with peers and teachers bring about social inclusion and acceptance. In the same way, they can understand social pressures and negative messages associated with culture and language difference (Criss Jones, 1997). Therefore, the dominance of the English language itself becomes a strong motivator for children to learn English for two seemingly obvious reasons. The first reason is that children can realise if adults and peers can not speak their home language, and secondly, they begin to understand that survival in the setting is dependant upon English proficiency. If children become continually exposed to English-only educational environments from an early age, then home language loss can be inevitable. Rather then bilingual children developing proficiency in both their home language and English, it is likely that they may learn English at the expense of their native language (Wong Fillmore, 1991).
Cummins (1993) examines one of the most comprehensive research ever conducted dealing with the influence of a dominant language on the development of early bilingualism. The research was conducted by Siren in 1991 and involved six hundred families who spoke a language other than Swedish at home with their children. She observed the children's language acquisition from birth to age four within their day care centres. The results obtained showed that 63 percent of children in exclusively Swedish day care centres were far more fluent in Swedish than their home language. Furthermore, 64 percent of minority children in centres with some home language support retained their home languages. These results show how much of an impact early childhood education has on children's language maintenance. Given the lack of Australian research into early childhood language maintenance, it is assumed that a ‘similar pattern of occurrence would be the case’ (Jones Diaz, 1997 pp. 93). However, if accurate conclusions about language maintenance are to be made for Australia, then similar research needs to be conducted in the early childhood years in this country.
Sirens’ research which demonstrated how a dominant language can impact upon bilingual proficiency in young children supports Cummins’ Threshold Theory, as outlined by Lyon (1996). Cummins theory suggested that the ‘development of a second language was dependent on the level of a child's first language competence at the time of exposure to the second language’ (Lyon, 1996 pp. 57). Therefore, if a developing bilingual child is placed in an environment where the second language dominates, then the child will mostly likely experience subtractive bilingualism (Lyon, 1996). Additive bilingualism on the other hand, occurs when a child's native language has prestige and power, encouraging the child to learn his or her native language without being disadvantaged by the second language. As results from Sirens’ research has proven, first language maintenance in children can be achieved in childcare settings if educators place value on children's native tongue and reflect their linguistic capital within the educational environment. Strategies on how educators can do so will be discussed later on in this essay.
As a university student completing a degree in early childhood education, I have witnessed countless numbers of children attending childcare who come from language backgrounds other than English. During one of my professional experiences at a day care centre, I was observing a two and half year old Greek child whose parents spoke predominantly Greek and some English at home. I could see that this child was able to speak English fluently, however I had never witnessed her speak Greek. After conversations with the child's mother, I found out that the child spoke fluent Greek and very little English before she began attending child care six months earlier, however, communicates in mostly English now. It was obvious that the child's native language was not reflected within this particular educational context at all. Literacy resources including books, posters, signs, labels, videos and music all reflected the English language- the dominant language. It is no wonder that many children abandon the use of their native language when exposed to an English only educational environment. Children begin to seek to identify with the dominant linguistic and cultural group believing that this will bring them greater benefits in making friends and seeking the teachers’ approval At the same time, a lack of interest in children's bicultural and bilingual identity through what is not reflected can be influential in the construction of negative messages about children's linguistic and cultural identity. (Criss Jones, 1997). This inturn may lead to significant consequences with regards to the development of children's relationships with their families.
For many parents and families, it is important for their children to able to speak to them in their home language because for many parents, it is the only language with which they can use to speak intimately with to their children. At the same time, children will grow closer to their family and learn aspects of their heritage and beliefs. (Kandolf, 1998). Cummins (1993) discusses a particular research conducted by Wong Fillmore about the impact child care has on the development of children's bilingual proficiency. This research consisted of a series of interviews involving more than one thousand bilingual families. More than sixty percent of the families judged monolingual English day care or preschools to have exerted a negative impact on family communication resulting in the loss of first language skills on the part of children. By contrast, preschool programs that utilized children's first languages were associated with significantly less language loss. The result of this study clearly shows that effective communication between bilingual children and their families frequently break down as children progress through early education. Wong Fillmore concluded that this break down is primarily due to the fact that children no longer share a common language. These results are further supported by Lambert’s theory of ‘subtractive’ bilingualism. He believed that if a second language and culture is acquired with ‘pressure to replace or demote the first language, a subtractive form of bilingualism may occur’ (Baker & Jones, 1998 pp. 643).
It is now clear that the English language generally has more command and value over bilingual languages within most 0-5 educational settings. This power relation strongly influences the literacy preferences reflected within the educational environment. If story books, posters, signs, music, videos, etc all depict the English literacy, then, obviously this emphasis will enhance motivation for English language use. Although these types of environments are effective in developing English literacy and language skills, it may do so at the expense of a child's first language and literacy acquisition. Literacies other than English that many children bring to child care take on functional, everyday meanings and practices significant to a child's cultural and linguistic identity. For example, a child in long day care may come from an Arabic speaking background and also learning the Quran with an older sibling during religious classes every Sunday. Therefore, a child may very well be exposed to a wide range literacy and language practices other than English constructing the child’s social, cultural and linguistic identity, and giving them concept of ‘self.’ If educators restrict themselves to purely English book-based literacy experiences, they will be serving to ‘diminish the strengths and competencies bilingual children bring to their engagement with texts’ (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2002 pp. 119). Consequently, children may become disempowered and feel devalued because their established learning models, texts and practices will be considered as unacceptable or inappropriate (Jones Diaz & Harvey).
For educators to support children's bilingual proficiency, literacy practices ‘cannot be bound by a narrow, one way view of doing literacy based upon dominant language (English) text conventions, genres and practices’ (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2002 pp 121). Rather, educators must move away from working within this normative western literacy pathway positioned within a single language system because it fails to recognise the diverse language and knowledge concepts children and their families have to offer. (Jones Diaz & Harvey). There are numerous educational strategies educators may use to support children's bilingual and biliteracy proficiencies within zero to five settings. However, educators must first be prepared to communicate effectively with families as a means of obtaining relevant information about children's literacy experiences within their homes and communities. This process of building partnerships with parents will ensure that children's home and child care environments complement and reinforce each other (Gibbons, 1994).
Reflecting children linguistic and cultural capital in all areas of the curriculum is an effective strategy educators may use. For example, having signs, posters and books available that refect children's diverse languages and having environmental print representing the scripts and print conventions of the children are some ways of appreciating children's culture. Employing bilingual educators representative of the languages and cultures of the children is an effective way of supporting and extending childrens’ home languages and literacy learning. Grouping same language speaking children together for activities will encourage those children to interact using their home language. Another beneficial strategy is inviting family members or other members of the ethnic community into the setting to participate in experiences and activities with children. Incorporating song and dance into curriculum reflective of childrens’ language and culture is another method of valuing children. Allowing children themselves to teach everyone certain words or phrases in their home language such as ‘good morning’ or ‘good afternoon’ is an effective way of promoting children's linguistic capital and also showing English monolinguals the diversity in language use and its value (Gibbons, 1994). Teachers should have access to a variety of resource centres to ensure that sufficient and culturally relevant resources are available at all times for the children.
It is very important that educators give a clear indication to parents that the use of their home language with their children will assist their learning and not delay their development in English (Gibbons, 1994). Newsletters or pamphlets may be sent out to families informing them of the advantages and importance of developing bilingual proficiency at an early age because of children's vulnerability of losing their home language. Posters may also be displayed showing this information for families to view. Families should also be encouraged to discuss any issues they may have about their childrens’ development either informally or in a more formal meeting.
In conclusion, it can be said that English-the dominant language, is in a position where it can be very influential upon emerging bilinguals and biliterates. If adequate support is not given to young children with regards to their home language, then they will be at risk of losing their first language when exposed to a second, more dominant language. Educators, however, are in a position where they can impinge on childrens’ bilingual proficiency by implementing appropriate strategies within their setting to encourage children's home language use. Children inturn will develop feelings of acceptance because they will see their language and culture as an integral and valued part of the curriculum, and so will be encouraged to continue developing in their bilingual and biliteracy proficiency.
REFERENCE LIST
Baker, C. & Jones, S.P. (1998). Encyclopaedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Britain: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Corsen, D. (1993) Language Minority Education and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power, Multilingual Matters Ltd: Clevedon, Avon. In: Book of Readings: Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) Diversity and Difference: Families, languages and cultures.
Cummins .J. (1993). Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. (13) 51-57.
Gibbons, P. (1991). Learning to Learn a Second Language. Australia, NSW: Southwood Press.
Jones Diaz, C (1997). Bilingualism biliteracy and beyond, Keynote paper presented at the third conference of the Bilingual Children's Interest Group, Bilingualism: Building Blocks for Biliteracy: Sydney. In: Book of Readings: Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) Diversity and Difference: Families, languages and cultures.
Jones Diaz, C., & Harvey, N. In: Makin, L., Jones Diaz, C. (2002). Learning to Learn in a Second Language. Australia: MacLennan & Petty Pty Ltd. In: Book of Readings: Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) Diversity and Difference: Families, languages and cultures.
Kandolf, C. (1998). Welcome to the Bilingual Families Web Page. Retrieved August 19, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Lyon, J. (1996). Becoming Bilingual: Language Acquisition in a Bilingual Community. Britain: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Wong Fillmore, L (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first, Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 3 (6). In: Book of Readings: Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) Diversity and Difference: Families, languages and cultures.
