1. Bilingualism “final paper”
Ha Young Kim (201358109)
Min Jung Lee (201358123)
THE EFFECTS OF EARLY BILINGUAL EDUCATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Becoming bilingual in early childhood has some advantages to grow up as a global citizen.
Bilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA) can be defined that a child acquires two languages
from birth simultaneously and uses the two languages regularly in early childhood (Yip, 2013). One
of the common myths toward on BFLA is that bilingual children may delay their language
acquisition. This view is very important for decision making when it comes to raise and educate
their children bilingually or not. The research clearly proved that bilingual children are not delayed
in their language acquisition and they can learn two or more languages differently compared to
those children who learn only one language (Genesee, 2009; Genesee, Nicoladis, & Paradis, 1995;
Grosjean, 2010; Volterra & Taeschner, 1978; Yip, 2013). In some ways, they can perform a task
meaningfully than monolinguals (Genesee, 2009; Grosjean, 2010; Holowka, Lapré, & Petitto, 2002;
Kuhl, 2004; Maneva & Genesee, 2002; Yip, 2013). Thus, bilingual children have better cognitive
and linguistic advantages than monolinguals.
II. THE MYTH OF MILESTONES DELAYS
There are evidences that bilinguals delay language development. When children are being
bilingual speakers, their parents or even language professionals are worried that children could
reach the language milestones late compared with monolingual children. De Houwer (2009) found
that children feel pressured to have to learn two languages. According to De Houwer (2009), there
are no important languages milestones to both young bilingual and monolingual children and
children do not need to learn each language simultaneously. Each language is influenced by
children's language input. In other words, each language is more advanced along with the quantity
of language and children reach milestones in each language at different times. As a similar
explanation, many bilinguals who acquired language simultaneously are more proficient in one
language than the other. For instance, in the circumstance in which the parents could speak each
different language, two-year old English-French bilingual children used mother’s language and

2. were more proficient in the mother’s language than the father’s language because children spend
much more time with their mothers (Genesee, Nicoladis & Paradis, 1995). Given these reasons,
how much children are exposed to input or the quantity of language have an effect on the language
milestones. As above, Pearson et al. (1993), and Pearson & Fernandez (1994) make parents check a
vocabulary checklist (MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory, CDI; Fenson, Dale,
Reznick, Thal, Bates, Hartung, Pethick & Reilly, 1991) and found that English and Spanish
bilingual children (ages 0;8±2;6) acquire their languages on the same time and path as monolingual
children. They show the same vocabulary spurt as monolingual children. Although a child's
production of vocabularies in terms of one of the both languages was low figure than monolingual
children, this was a statistically small difference. Conclusively, the total amount of vocabulary
produced from both English and Spanish equaled that of the monolingual child’s. That is, the study
corroborated that bilingual children may not be delayed their linguistic milestones.
III. SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
Studies have shown that bilingual children are not precisely related to specific language
impairment (SLI) and acquiring two languages bring cognitive advantages without any speech
disorders (Genesee, 2009; Yip, 2013). Similarly, roughly 5 to 10% of all children are born with
language disorder and children with SLI tend to have family members who also have language
disorder (Leonard, 1998). For such a reason, SLI can be related to genetic influence and
environmental factor. Therefore, the assumption of language delay on bilingualism cannot be taken
seriously even though bilingual children sometimes mix the two languages when speaking.
IV. OBJECTIFICATION AND MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS
The second one is the objectification hypothesis. Bilinguals have special ability to analyze
objectively linguistic output; that is, “to look at language rather than through it to the intended
meaning” (Cumnins, 1978, p.l27). As Vygotsky (1962) suggested, bilinguals could express the same
thought with other different languages. In other words, bilinguals could lead to an awareness of how
to operate his linguistic concepts. As a result, through the objectification hypothesis, exposure to a
second language leads to knowledge of a different language and self-knowledge. Such claim echoes
Goethe's famous dictum, “He who knows no foreign language does not truly know his own.” The
third one is the verbal mediation hypothesis. Several investigators (Bain & Yu, 1980; Diaz &
Padilla, 1985) suggested that unique linguistic experience of bilingualism brings an increasing
reliance on verbal mediation in cognitive tasks. In other words, when solving the tasks, bilinguals
perform the linguistic strategies such as self-regulatory (Hakuta & Diaz, 1985).
V. LEXICALAND PONOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

3. One research made a video recording of six babies (i.e., ages from 0;7 to 2;2) seven times for a
year. Most of them were acquiring French and English. This research found that the babies acquired
the two languages in much the same way as those babies who acquired only one language (Holowka,
Lapré, & Petitto, 2002). In addition, bilingual children can distinguish lexical and phonological
elements between the two languages from the very beginning (Grosjean, 2010; Holowka, Lapré, &
Petitto, 2002; Kuhl, 2004; Maneva & Genesee, 2002; Yip, 2013). Moreover, children can develop
near native-like pronunciation compared to language learning in adults (Li, 2013). However, if the
two languages have some similarities, bilingual children may need more time for distinction (Bosch
& Gallés, 2003). Regretfully, there are few studies on Korean-English bilingual children in Korea
context. Therefore, Korean parents might have a lack of respect for the previous research conducted
in western context.
VI. LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE BENEFITS OF BILINGUAL CHILDREN
One of the myths is bilingual speakers’ cognitive delays. Some studies show the negative
impact on language development and delays in lexical acquisition compared with monolingual
children (Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1993; Umbel & Oller, 1995). However, well-controlled
studies do not provide the evidence that bilingual children have lower intellectual abilities than
monolinguals (Baker & Jones, 1998; Cook, 1997; Hakuta, 1986). Furthermore, empirical studies
show bilinguals are related with meta-cognitive skills divergent thinking ability, metalinguistic
awareness (Cumnins, 1978), semantic development (Ianco-worrall, 1972) and analytical skills in
matrix transformation tasks (Ben-Zeev, 1977b). On the other hand, there is evidence not proven or
not elaborated precisely because many studies of bilingual children have studied the product of
children's performance on cognitive and academic tasks, not process of that .As a result, it is not
precise how bilingual children approach cognitive tasks and what are the exact positive effects
compared to monolingual children. That is why there is no much information of the processes not
only that young children might undergo to learn second language in beginning as bilingual but also
that how they interact with the developing intellect. Because of a lack of empirical evidence, the
hypotheses are proposed to show the empirical observation and verification of which bilingualism
might affect children’s cognitive development.
According to Genesee (2009), studies have shown that competent bilingual children enjoy
certain cognitive advantages such as attention, controlling, and monitoring compared to those
children who use one language. In addition, Baker (2007) stated that some of the potential benefits
of bilingual children: “communication, cultural, cognitive (e.g., creativity, sensitivity to
communication), character (i.e., raised self-esteem, security in identity), curriculum (i.e., increased
curriculum achievement, easier to learn a third language), and cash advantages (i.e., economic and

4. employment benefits)” (p. 2). On the other hand, in comparison with performance of those children
who only learn one language, bilingual children may show the poor performance (Oller, Eilers,
Urbano, & Cobo-Lewis, 1997). However, over recent decades studies have shown that bilingual
children have various advantages of tasks such as problem-solving, decision-making, categorization,
and so forth. Yip (2013) claimed that the uncountable research in recent decades, bilingual first
language acquisition is becoming understandable in detail. Therefore, we need to focus on the
variety of benefits of becoming bilinguals.
VII.BILINGUAL CODEMIXING
In fact, all children who grow up bilingually mix their languages, so-called code-mixing. It
means that bilinguals can switch the each language or words easily. According to Peal and Lambert
(1962), bilinguals enjoy flexibility than monolingual children. To verify this hypothesis, Peal and
Lambert (1962) cited the case of a Gaelic-speaking a eleven- year- old boy who had just taken a
nonverbal test of intelligence (originally cited in Morrison, 1958). According to Morrison, when the
boy was asked to reply after thinking in Gaelic or in English, the boy replied, “Please Sir, I tried it
in the English first, then I tried it in the Gaelic to see would it be easier; but it wasn’t so I went back
to the English” (p. 280). The boy’s explicit says that code-switching occurs as performing cognitive
tasks, even while performing nonverbal tests of intel1igence. Moreover, when bilinguals
encountered the problem of performing a task, they have an alternative to switch to the second
language.
Comeau, Genesee, and Lapaquette (2003) stated that bilingual children’s proportion of mixing
is related to that of mixing in the input spoken to them. Six French-English bilingual children
(average age 2;4 years, 5 males and 1 female) were included in their study. They were all audio and
videotaped on the five separate sessions for about 30-45 minutes. They were all learning and using
both English and French every day. On the three separate occasions, six children were observed
using the child’s less dominant language. Examining the children speaking in their less dominant
language gave them lots of freedom to codemix. This study found that English-French bilingual
children showed better sensitivity to the overall proportion of mixing by the person who
communicated with. In addition, bilingual children manifested an ability to adjust the proportion of
their overall code-mixing in accordance with the input. Similarly, Yip (2013) found that children’s
code-mixing is in close relation with the input by adults. Thus, when bilingual children interact in
both bilingual and monolingual situations they learn to mix languages for a certain fixed time. In
addition, when they are with people who only use one language, they quickly learn to speak just the
one language in order to keep their communication (Grosjean 2010). Furthermore, Genesee,
Nicoladis, and Paradis (1995) stated that young bilingual children are able to use their developing

5. languages differentially and appropriately with different interlocutors from the one-word stage
onward. Thus, code-mixing between the two languages is a quite natural in bilingual development
(Yip, 2013).
VIII. ONE PERSON-ONE LANGUAGE APPROACH
One of the assumptions on early bilingual education is called the “one person-one language”
(OPOL) approach. This approach is originally from Grammont’s basic principle “une personne-une
langue” (Cited in Volterra & Taeschner, 1978, p. 319). It stimulates children’s bilingual
development lessening the rates of codemixing and the possibility of confusion (Genesee, 2009;
Volterra & Taeschner, 1978). Baker (2007) claimed that when children communicate with their
parents in two different languages, their relationship may be maximized. However, “when the
person-language bond is broken, the young child is at a loss and may become upset” (Grosjean,
2010, p. 184). In addition, bilingual children’s language development can be affected negatively
when they are exposed to those interlocutors who continuously use their weaker language (Genesee,
2009). Some Korean parents sometimes use their non-fluent English to their children in order to
expose them as much as possible. Thus, parents may think that amount of input is more needed in
EFL context. However, quality of exposure is influential in successful bilinguals (Yip, 2013).
IX. CONTINUOUS AND REGULAR EXPOSURE
Undoubtedly, bilingual children should be exposed to their two languages continuously and
they should use both of them regularly. Genesee (2009) claimed that “discontinues, abrupt changes,
and/or irregular exposure should probably be avoided” (p. 15). Thus, learning a language needs a lot
of input by the time learners will be able to produce the language confidently. Becoming a bilingual
does not mean that he/she knows the two languages perfectly. It is not easy to see the perfect
bilingual in two languages. Regretfully, it remains some limitations to foster more bilingual
education and communities providing continuous and regular exposure in English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) context. Despite the limitations, more practical than theoretical indications are
needed to Korean parents and teachers. Krashen (1996) claimed that bilingual education can be
improved much better if a good supply of books and programs both in the first and second
languages are supported. Thus, Korean parents and educators alike should put their children into
prolonged exposure to raise a successful bilingual. Children can be exposed to secondhand
experiences: leveled books, songs and chants with CDs, animations, and other materials (e.g.,
mobile applications, Internet). Parents easily get authentic materials by accessing electronic
resources. In addition, children need an active participation in the experiential programs such as
English Village, private lessons, volunteer work, and so forth. Therefore, Korean parents need

6. different types of approaches which work in EFL context.
X. THE RIGHT LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Many previous empirical studies on early bilingual education support that learning two
languages has more benefits of linguistic and cognitive advantages than learning one language.
Volterra and Taeschner (1978) claimed that “children learn more than one language when the right
input conditions are respected and we should be able to create such conditions in order to give any
child such a chance” (p. 319). In addition, Genesee (2009) argued that learning two languages does
not differ from learning one and most children are able to acquire two languages simultaneously in
the same way as monolingual children, but the right learning environment is needed. Baker (2007)
claimed that becoming a bilingual has many advantages such as filling the generation gap,
establishing a link in the large family, and feeling a sense of unity and fixedness. Moreover,
bilingual children have the benefits of communication with a variety of people than monolingual
children. Therefore, children being raised in a monolingual community encounter a language barrier
in the near future. Korean parents who have young child tend to concern the upcoming language
barrier. That is why they become more interested in early bilingual education. Thus, future study is
needed to provide them with appropriate approach investigating Korean-English bilingual children
in Korea.
XI. THE ROLE OF PARENTS
To raise children as bilinguals, parents' role is very important to provide opportunities since
home context made by parents is initial place to learn other languages. That would widen children's
language ability. First above all, parents should help their children to practice repeatedly and also to
have perception of speaking in the same language to all members of the family so that children
could accept language naturally and comfortably. For instance, according to Houwer (1999), “if you
use different language with other family member except your young children, they may feel
excluded” (p. 2). Furthermore, parents should obtain the resources to help their child to become
bilinguals such as books, CDs and DVDs that help parents try to teach their children in the second
language. Conclusively, by parents’ support, children would acquire the skill of becoming bilingual
easily become more successful in this competitive world.
XII. CONCLUSION
One of the myths is that bilinguals delay language development. Yet, how can one tell whether
a child is really delayed in language development, and what are some of the causes? As verified
above, this is a common myth that follows study dating back to the 1920s and 1930s which was

7. later proved wrong. If children feel difficult to learn language or delays in language development,
the problems would be shown in both languages, not only one language. Study found that between
monolingual and bilingual children acquire languages similarly in terms of the path of language
acquisition. Besides, bilinguals have many influences on language development. The first one is
codemixing ~
The second one is the milestones of child language development concerning babbling, first words,
first sentences. Even though children have the similar universal in the general ages of their
development, they acquire dissimilarly in a culture. That is, .according to De Houwer (2009), there
are no important languages milestones to both young bilingual and monolingual children and each
language is influenced by the quantity of language as input. Consequently, children reach
milestones in each language at different times. The third one is bilingual speakers' cognitive aspects
in terms of code-switching, the objectification and the verbal mediation. In case of code-switching,
bilinguals can switch the each language or words easily. According to Peal and Lambert (1962),
bilinguals enjoy flexibility than monolingual children. In case of the objectification, Bilinguals have
special ability to analyze objectively linguistic output. Vygotsky (1962) suggested, bilinguals could
express the same thought with other different languages. Lastly, in case of the verbal mediation,
when solving the task, bilinguals perform the linguistic strategies such as self-regulatory (Hakuta &
Diaz, 1985). In conclusion, parents do not have to concern if their bilingual children have a delay or
disorder in both of the languages. If they do, this is common and temporary. The children will soon
catch up to normal condition and parents should encourage their child to try to speak in their less
dominant language. If parents help their children to develop their languages by spending more time
talking and playing with their child while making them feel comfortable, the children could be
successive bilinguals.
XIII. NEED FOR THE STUDY
More than one hundred years, bilingual researchers have proved much more advantages than
disadvantages in becoming bilinguals. Unfortunately, most empirical studies on early bilingual
development were not conducted in Korea. Thus, it may sound natural to hear that some Korean-
English bilingual children are struggling to be an active bilingual speaker. Moreover, they have
some difficulties in their literacy development between the two languages. The lack of studies and
the absence of support might affect their language delay in the first and the second languages. On
the other hand, despite the lack of studies, there are successful Korean-English bilingual children
from bilingual families, even from monolingual families in Korea. The different factors from each

8. family are needed to investigate. Therefore, an additional study needs to be examined to find out the
positive factors as well as the negative factors that may affect early bilingual development in Korea.
Therefore, in this study more practical evidence than theoretical basis is presented from those
participants through an in-depth interview. The reason for interviewing the monolingual parents is
to reinforce the validity of the present study. There are very few studies examining Korean-English
bilingual children from monolingual families. In addition, this study can be a good guidance to
those parents who hesitate to raise their children bilingually. Therefore, there is a need to investigate
the beliefs, perspectives, specific language strategies, and major factors that affect early bilingual
development by comparing the bilingual and monolingual family background as well as their
child’s proficiency in two languages. The current study aims to examine the major factors that affect
early bilingual development in Korea. The bilingual and monolingual families (i.e., bilingual
parents, monolingual parents, and bilingual children) will be involved and compared to find the
effective and ineffective factors as well as children’s linguistic and cognitive knowledge (e.g.,
literacy development, speaking, and thinking skills). This study will have implications to Korean
parents either planning or hesitating to educate their children bilingually. Providing with reliable
and practical evidence, parents will be encouraged to expose their child to English education as
much as possible. Moreover, this study will contribute to the spread of bilingual education in Korea.

9. References
Bain, B., & Yu, A. (1980). Cognitive consequences of raising children bilingually: 'One parent, one
language.' Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 304- 13.
Baker, C. (2007). A parents’and teachers’guide to bilingualism (3rd
ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Baker, C., & Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ben-zeev, s. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development.
Child Development, 83-122.
Bosch, L., & Gallés, N. S. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-
specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46, 217-243.
Comeau, L., Genesee, F., & Lapaquette, L. (2003). The modeling hypothesis and child bilingual
code-mixing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 113-126.
Curnnins, J. (1978). Metalinguistic development of children in bilingual education programs: Data
from Irish and Canadian English- Ukranian programs. In M.s. Paradis (Ed.), The Fourth Locus
Forum 1977. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F. H. (2009). Early childhood bilingualism: perils and possibilities. Journal of Applied
Research on Learning, 2, 1-21.
Genesee, F. H., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual
development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611– 631.
Grammont, M. (1902). Observations sur le langage des enfants. Paris: Mélanges Meillet.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hakuta, K., & Dim, R. M. (1985). The relationship between bilingualism and cognitive ability: A
critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language
(Vol. 5, pp. 319-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10. Holowka, S., Lapré, F. B., & Petitto, L. A. (2002). Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying
bilingual babies’ first signs and words. Language Learning, 52, 205–262.
Houwer, A. D. (1999, July). Two or more languages in early childhood: some general points and
practical recommendations. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/earlychild.html
Ianco-Worrall, A. D. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43,
1390-1400.
Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA:
Language Education Associates.
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 5, 831– 843.
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, P. (2013). Successive language acquisition. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics
of bilingualism (pp. 145-167). Oxford: Blackwell.
Maneva, B., & Genesee, F. (2002). Bilingual babbling: Evidence for language differentiation
in dual language acquisition. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 383-392).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Morrison, J. R. (1958). Bilingualism: Sane psychological aspects. Advanced Science, 56, 282-286.
Oller, D. K., Eilers, R. E., Urbano, R., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (1997). Development of precursors to
speech in infants exposed to two languages. Journal of Child Language, 24, 407-425.
Peal, E., & Lambert, w. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological
Monographs, 76(546), 1-23.
Pearson, B. Z., & Fernandez, S. C. (1994). Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two
languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning, 44, 617-653.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants
and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120.
Volterra, V., & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by bilingual
children. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 303-319). New York: Routledge.

11. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Yip, V. (2013). Simultaneous language acquisition. In F. Grosjean & P. Li (Eds.), The
psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 119-144). Oxford: Blackwell.

12. References
De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants
and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120.
Baker, C., & Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Bain, B., & Yu, A. (1980). Cognitive consequences of raising children bilingually: 'One parent, one
language.' Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 304- 13.
Hakuta, K., & Dim, R. M. (1985). The relationship between bilingualism and cognitive ability: A
critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (Vol.
5, pp. 319-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearson, B. Z., & Fernandez, S. C. (1994). Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth in two
languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning, 44, 617-653.
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual
development. Journal of Child Language, 22(3).
Curnnins, J. (1978). Metalinguistic development of children in bilingual education programs: Data
from Irish and Canadian English- Ukranian programs. In M.s. Paradis (Ed.), The Fourth Locus
Forum 1977. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press.
Ianco-Worrall, A. D. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43,
1390-1400.
Ben-zeev, s. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development.

13. Child Development, 83-122.
Peal, E., & Lambert, w. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological
Monographs, 76(546), 1-23.
Morrison, J. R. (1958). Bilingualism: Sane psychological aspects. Advanced Science, 56, 282-286.
Houwer, A. D. (1999, July). Two or more languages in early childhood: some general points and
practical recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/earlychild.html