Love, Language and Little Ones: Successes and Stresses for Mothers Raising Bilingual Children in Exogamous Relationships

  • Lynda YatesEmail author
  • Agnes Terraschke
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 7)


Immigrants to Australia in exogamous relationships with English native-speakers are among the most disadvantaged when it comes to retaining and promoting their first language within the family. In the first few years of their settlement, they may be struggling to learn English at the same time as they are acculturating to a new environment and, often, negotiating a new relationship. Their partners may not speak their first language, and their children will have the seductions of English – a language of both local and global relevance – both inside and outside the home. Moreover, decisions about what language(s) to learn and use in the family can be influenced by macro social questions such as their relative status and the attitudes of the community, as well as to individual factors of proficiency in each language, living circumstances and the nature of family relationships and attitudes. In this chapter, we explore how these factors interact in early settlement to influence the use of the immigrant’s heritage language. The data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal qualitative study of immigrants to Australia in the first 5 years of their settlement. Based on semi-structured interviews with 13 newly arrived immigrants living with English-native-speaking partners and their children, our analysis focuses on the factors that seem to enhance their chances of success in maintaining and building the use of their first language with their children. We explore how successful they have been and consider the implications for educators, counsellors parents and researchers involved in supporting this crucial aspect of early settlement.


Language Policy Language Learning Mother Tongue Minority Language Bilingual Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adesope, O.O., T. Lavin, T. Thompson, and C. Ungerleider. 2010. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80(2): 207–245. doi: 10.3102/0034654310368803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldauf, R.B. 2004. Issues of prestige and image in language-in-education planning in Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning 5(4): 376–389. doi: 10.1080/14664200408668264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldauf, R.B. 2006. Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(2–3): 147–170. doi: 10.2167/cilp092.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barac, R., and E. Bialystok. 2011. Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching 44(1): 36–54. doi: 10.1017/S0261444810000339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo, A.B.I. 2004. McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in Philippine education. World Englishes 23(1): 17–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2004.00332.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Commonwealth of Australia. 2010. Department of Immigration and Citizenship: Fact Sheet 21. Accessed 1 July 2013.
  7. Cools, C.A. 2006. Relational communication in intercultural couples. Language and Intercultural Communication 6(3–4): 262–274. doi: 10.2167/laic253.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doyle, C. 2013. To make the root stronger: Language policies and experiences of successful multilingual intermarried families with adolescent children in Tallinn. In Successful family language policy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  10. García, M. 2003. Recent research on language maintenance. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 22–43. doi: 10.1017/S0267190503000175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, D. 2005. Exploring the lives of non‐native speaking English educators in Sri Lanka. Teachers and Teaching 11(2): 169–194. doi: 10.1080/13450600500083964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hornberger, N.H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy 1(1): 27–51. doi: 10.1023/A:1014548611951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hulsen, M., K. de Bot, and B. Weltens. 2002. “Between two worlds”. Social networks, language shift, and language processing in three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153: 27–52. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.2002.004.Google Scholar
  14. King, K.A., L. Fogle, and A. Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 907–922. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopeliovich, S. 2010. Family language policy: A case study of a Russian-Hebrew bilingual family: Toward a theoretical framework. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education 4(3): 162–178. doi: 10.1080/15595692.2010.490731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kopeliovich, S. 2013. Happylingual: A family project for enhancing and balancing multilingual development. In Successful family language policy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Lo Bianco, J. 2010. The importance of language policies and multilingualism for cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal 61(199): 37–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mühlhäusler, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning 1(3): 306–367. doi: 10.1080/14664200008668011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oh, J.S., and A.J. Fuligni. 2010. The role of heritage language development in the ethnic identity and family relationships of adolescents from immigrant backgrounds. Social Development 19(1): 202–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00530.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Okita, T. 2002. Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice, and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Paolillo, J.C. 2000. Formalizing formality: An analysis of register variation in Sinhala. Journal of Linguistics 36(02): 215–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauwels, A. 2005. Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(2–3): 124–131. doi: 10.1080/13670050508668601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pennycook, A. 2004. Language policy and the ecological turn. Language Policy 3(3): 213–239. doi: 10.1007/s10993-004-3533-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phinney, J.S., I. Romero, M. Nava, and D. Huang. 2001. The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30(2): 135–153. doi: 10.1023/A:1010389607319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Portes, A., and L. Hao. 1998. E pluribus unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education 71(4): 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Portes, A., and L. Hao. 2002. The price of uniformity: Language, family and personality adjustment in the immigrant second generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25(6): 889–912. doi: 10.1080/0141987022000009368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roth, W.-M., and Y.-J. Lee. 2007. “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research 77(2): 186–232. doi: 10.3102/0034654306298273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruby, M. 2012. The role of a grandmother in maintaining Bangla with her granddaughter in East London. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(1): 67–83. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2011.638075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schüpbach, D. 2009. Language transmission revisited: Family type, linguistic environment and language attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12(1): 15–30. doi: 10.1080/13670050802149499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz, M. 2010. Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review 1(1): 171–192. doi: 10.1515/9783110222654.171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spolsky, B. 2007. Family language management: Some preliminaries. In Studies in language and language education: Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain, ed. A. Stavans and I. Kupferberg, 429–449. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Magnes Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stoessel, S. 2002. Investigating the role of social networks in language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153: 93–131.Google Scholar
  33. Tannenbaum, M. 2005. Viewing family relations through a linguistic lens: Symbolic aspects of language maintenance in immigrant families. Journal of Family Communication 5(3): 229–252. doi: 10.1207/s15327698jfc0503_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tannenbaum, M., and P. Howie. 2002. The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23(5): 408–424. doi: 10.1080/01434630208666477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tseng, V., and A.J. Fuligni. 2000. Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2): 465–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00465.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning, ed. J.P. Lantolf, 245–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yates, L. 2010. Language training and settlement success: Are they related? Sydney: AMEP Research Centre. Accessed 11 Oct 2013.
  38. Yates, L., A. Terraschke, and B. Zielinski. 2012. Planning language use in bilingual families. Accessed 25 June 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations