Bilingual parenting: what parents think about Language Separation versus Translanguaging – to mix or not to mix

Different major types of FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY

Parents employ different family language policies largely with a motivation to support their children’s linguistic development. These include the following major types:

• One Parent, One Language (OPOL) Approach
• Prioritisation of Minority Language: Minority Language at Home (ML@H) or Minority Language Everywhere
• Prioritisation of Societal Dominant Language / International Language
• Situational Selection / One Situation One Language
• Language Separation
• Mixed Language Policy / Translanguaging
• Communicative practices across modes

These approaches may vary in effectiveness and have different implications for children’s language development and future success.

Amongst these policies, however, the dichotomy between language separation vs mixed language policy, or more commonly understood as “translanguaging” now, has been a common point of contention in bilingual/multilingual families. So, in general, how have families respond to language separation strategies versus flexible language practices over time?

Today’s Spotlight is on a study that was conducted in the UK, particularly on parental language beliefs and management among French-English bilingual families. In this study, Sonia Wilson (2021) address questions concerning parental choices subject to the dichotomy’s tension, and whether conscious preferences ultimately manifest in real-life language practices.

Common questions on Language Separation vs Translanguaging

To facilitate a more productive discussion, it’s useful to establish a shared understanding of the key issues parents grapple with surrounding language separation versus translanguaging:

• Do parents view bilingualism as the co-existence of two separate linguistic systems (i.e. two monolinguals in one), or as a fluid and ever-changing phenomenon where translanguaging plays an indispensable facilitative role?
• Do parents see translanguaging as a natural and beneficial practice for bilinguals, or as an improper use of language due to personal shortcomings?
• Will speaking only the minority language monolingually to the child help him/her maintain and develop proficiency in that language? If translanguaging is allowed (or encouraged), will it lead to the dominance of the majority language and hinder the minority language development?
• Should parents adopt a more flexible approach (i.e. translanguaging) that encourages communication to avoid creating tensions within the family? Will that lead to a deficiency in proficiency development in both (or more) target languages?

As we can see, these are not easy issues to tackle, especially when our parents aren’t necessarily trained in psycholinguistics. So, how have parents responded to these concerns in this research?

Findings on Language Ideologies/Beliefs

The study adopted a mixed-method approach which involves the use of a quantitative questionnaire survey and a qualitative set of six case studies (though only two were specifically cited for this article). The mixed-method approach provides a deeper understanding of this complex issue by merging the depth of qualitative studies with the breadth of quantitative investigations.

The study found that the majority of parents (65%) viewed translanguaging as a natural and positive practice for bilinguals. They saw it as a way to convey concepts better, facilitate fluid conversations, and support richer communication and learning. Indeed, this is something that I had discussed in my personal review of the effectiveness of pedagogical translanguaging. In general, scholars have presented the possible fluid exchange of ideas that come with flexible language use, as opposed to a strict suppressed monolingual mode. 

However, a smaller group of parents (21%) continue to view translanguaging as unnatural, believing that languages should be kept separate in the brain and that mixing languages was somewhat a result of intellectual laziness. To them, bilingualism is marked by the ability to transfer concepts from one language to the other and use them monolingually.

Again, is this an unfounded worry? I’ve mentioned elsewhere that scholars have debated about the quintessential practice of translanguaging in the lives of bilinguals/multilinguals. Unlike what many laypersons may think, bilinguals/multilinguals aren’t monolinguals in one – neither in the psycholinguistic sense nor the sociolinguistic sense.

However, as we’ve seen, scholars have also argued that the executive function advantages gained through bilingualism and multilingualism – like better attention control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory – largely stem from the ability to suppress non-target languages and engage the primary language as the norm. In this light, doesn’t it suggest that keeping languages distinct, as some parents might recommend, is a critical aspect of strengthening such functions?

This is very much worth our reflection, though the reality is much more nuanced than my simple answer for now: we need to account for a spectrum of language use by bilinguals/multilinguals.

Dissonance with Language Practices and Language Management

Researchers utilising Spolsky’s language policy framework, particularly in the context of family language policy, often observe disparities between the framework’s three key components. Unsurprisingly, this is also the case for this study.

Despite the increasingly positive attitudes towards translanguaging, with recognition that it is a natural practice of bilinguals/multilinguals, a significant proportion of the parents (92%) in the study adopted monolingual practices at home (i.e. keeping the two languages apart), in favour of the minority language (French in this case). They declared ML@H approach as the “best language management strategy” that matched with their aspirations. To add on to that, 42% of respondents reported implementing the OPOL approach at home.

Prioritising the minority heritage language as a family language policy is not that uncommon. These are the parents who are determined to transmit the heritage language and decided that it’s necessary to shield it from external influences. To them, this will then create a safe haven for the heritage language to flourish and grow. In other words, not only do they believe languages should be kept separate, they also want to safeguard the minority language’s uninhibited space.

Such dissonance was further exemplified by two chosen case studies. Case study A demonstrated how a strict language separation policy is implemented in a family (translanguaging is banned), despite the interviewed parent’s positive perception of translanguaging as a concept and a learning strategy.

Interestingly, Case Study B reflected a direct opposite – the interviewed parent adopted a flexible use of languages “to avoid complications” – more to accommodate to the natural inclination of the children. However, the parent asserted on the necessity of the ML@H policy even though she is unable to implement it.

Can Translanguaging have a place in bilingual/multilingual families?

Let’s revisit the concept of translanguaging: it was used in its inception to refer to a pedagogical innovation where students were to receive input in one language and produce output in another. Today, the term has been expanded beyond the classrooms to denote actual dynamic language practices of bilinguals/multilinguals that engage all the linguistic resources in their repertoire without special regard for language boundaries.

In general, the key arguments in favour of translanguaging found in the study, as proposed by parents, are as follows:

• It is a natural practice for bilinguals
• It supports language development
• It reflects the fluid nature of bilingual language use

Increasingly, parents have become more receptive of the concept of translanguaging and its manifestation among children. However, despite that change over time, the default zone for majority of parents seems to persist in the domain of arguments against translanguaging when language practices were accounted for, as follows:

• Translanguaging gives concession to majority language dominance which then further shrinks the space for the minority heritage language
• Translanguaging deviates from the route to achieving balanced bilingualism
• Translanguaging hinders the ability of individuals to effectively perform monolingually in either language
• Translanguaging reflects intellectual laziness

And so, if translanguaging is really theorised as an important route to learning to be bilingual, how should it be framed or guided such that parents can espouse the approach with more assurance in meeting aspirations for the child? The study rightly concluded the dilemma below:

“Language separation strategies such as one parent–one language may be adopted not as a result of ideologies, but despite parents’ beliefs about the flexible nature of bilingualism and owing to the pressure experienced by parents to develop children’s heritage language (HL) proficiency.”

Wilson, 2021

Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.