1 Few people would consider mastering more than one language a bad idea. Consequently, parents who speak different languages from each other are generally keen for their children to learn both. They understand that the family setting they create is central to this, and seek ways to ensure their children thrive bilingually. One of the best-known approaches is the ‘one-parent-one-language’ strategy (OPOL). Each parent uses their native language when communicating with their children, so the children learn both simultaneously. OPOL emphasises consistency – each parent sticking to one language – as key to its approach. But this creates the myth that mixing languages should always be avoided.
2 My recent study, part of a new wave of multilingualism studies, would suggest that this received wisdom is just that: a myth. My research looked at Japanese-British families living in the UK with pre- and early school-age children who were following a more-or-less strict OPOL language policy. I was particularly interested in examining the impact of OPOL in the family home – how does this unique language environment affect the way children use languages?
3 Most of the Japanese mothers who participated were fluent in Japanese and English, while the fathers possessed merely an elementary grasp of Japanese. This made English the primary language of communication between the parents and outside the home. For this reason, the mothers were careful to carve out additional space for more sustained Japanese language learning with their children.
4 In other words, this dedicated space for communicating in Japanese was time the children spent exclusively with their mother. This seemed to create a connection between ‘Japanese language’ and ‘motherhood’ in the children’s perception. This link became apparent in the way the children used Japanese as a means of emotional bonding with their mother. In addition, they adopted a broader behavioural repertoire than that which is usually associated with a language. For example, switching to Japanese could sometimes serve as a method to appease Mum when she seemed unhappy. At other times, refusing to communicate in Japanese was a useful means of defiance, even when the dispute was not related to language.
5 The OPOL approach emphasises the need for parents to monitor children’s language closely and correct them if they mix the two languages. In practice, many parents speaking the minority language are bilingual themselves – so they understand what their children are saying even when they do mix the two. In addition, parents feel it is problematic to keep correcting children when they mix languages. This is particularly the case when children show annoyance at being corrected. The parents believe it is a lot more important to have a meaningful conversation with their children.
6 But what if a child uses language that cannot readily be categorised as either one language or the other? An example from my study involved the use of English words adapted to accommodate Japanese pronunciation. One of these borrowed words, ‘ice cream’, is usually pronounced ‘aisukurimu’. The distinction between singular and plural does not exist in Japanese nouns in the English-language sense, so whether using singular or plural, even in a borrowed word, ‘aisukurimu’ is the form normally used. This example shows how blurred the boundary between languages can become in everyday bilingual interaction.
7 Another example from my study focused on the interaction between Japanese-English bilingual siblings. In one case, a six-year-old girl was trying to convince her four-year-old brother to let her play with his toys. Faced with his refusal, she used a range of communication strategies to change his mind. First, she expressed her request in gentler, more polite language and even pretended to be about to cry. Having switched from English to Japanese, she also exploited aspects of Japanese culture, such as reminding him of his responsibility to her as her brother. She succeeded in her attempts to convince him.
8 These examples show how creative and strategic human beings use language in their daily communication. Whether bilingual or not, we constantly select from our repertoire according to the situation. You will use polite language in some contexts and a friendly tone in others. For bilinguals, shifting between languages is simply another part of that wider repertoire.
9 Our language choices are shaped by meaning, based on our knowledge gathered throughout our lives, and the ways we use language also shape our meaning. The use of OPOL in the family brings specific meanings to interactions at home, and children make full use of those meanings in their own interactions.
10 The popularity of OPOL amongst parents rests on the simplicity of its message, which is that it should be applied consistently. But when we see a child actively using and negotiating their repertoire, it casts doubt on the belief that it is best for children to avoid mixing languages at all costs. Being bilingual is not simply about an ability to speak two languages. Rigidly policing consistency and creativity in the OPOL approach could actually limit children’s ability to be resourceful in their use of language.