The progress of Finnish language in multilingual children in a multicultural day-care group

 

Anna Palojärvi and Kaisa Launonen

 

 

An increasing number of multicultural and multilingual children attend day care in many European countries, including Finland. Many of these children have poor second language skills, and they need assistance to develop these skills. If their parents are first generation immigrants, it may be that they do not know the Finnish culture and language well enough to be able to help their children in learning the language and adapting in the society and culture. For the parents the only contact with the Finnish society is often with the personnel of the day care centre, and the role of the staff is, therefore, vital in helping these families feel welcome and blend into the society. Facing these new challenges may, however, be difficult even for the professionals, who may lack both tools and experience in working with children who come from different cultures and use different language from their own.

 

Speech therapists need to evaluate the language skills of these children, too, and they should be able to determine whether their eventual problems are caused by difficulties in second language learning or language impairments. Clinicians and researchers my obtain information of support measures and the quality of support needed by the immigrant families, by the way of studying the Finnish language development of multilingual children (Heimo 1999).

 

Previously, multilinguality was considered to pose obstacles to children’s language development (Miller 1984). Since the 1960s, also the positive aspects of multilinguality have been brought up (Peal & Lambert 1962; see also Laurén 1993; Cenoz & Valnezia 1994; de Cillia 2001). It has also been proposed that the differences found in language development and skills of mono- and multilingual children are mainly due to individual differences. This seems to apply to both first and second language learning (Vaid 1983).

Bi- and multilinguality are multi-faceted concepts, and multilinguality has several definitions. A multilingual person is one who masters several languages and applies them. Language mastery of multilingual individuals may, however, vary considerably and they may use different languages in different situations (Wei 2000; see also Romaine 1996). Normally developing children may learn two languages and use both of them perfectly (Sundman 1999).

 

Children learn their second language usually in both implicit and explicit ways (Geber 1996). In the second language development of multilingual children, also the transfer effect of their mother tongue is often evident (Littlewood 1984). Languages may influence each other on cultural, phonological, lexical, syntactic, or semantic level. The speech of multilingual children often includes interference, loans of different elements of languages, code mixing and code change (Mackey 1962/2000).

 

Children must have at least one well advanced language (Permer 1987). Good mastering of their mother tongue will also make it easier for them to learn other languages (Minami & Ovando 1995). When children grow in a multilingual environment, their parents and other adults have a great responsibility in keeping up their mother tongue (Permer 1987). Research has shown individual differences in the degree, speed and way of learning a second language (e.g. Littlewood 1984). Reasons for this may be caused by differences in parents’ attitudes or in children’s motivation and communicative needs to learn a second language (Saville-Troike1988). Also children’s feeling of security in the new environment and their desire to join in the new language group have been found to be important factors in second language learning (Littlewood 1984;Tabors 1997).

 

Home environment is particularly important for the development of language used in thinking (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988). Not all cultures emphasize the importance of discussing with children in the same way as in many Western cultures (Alijoki 1998). Therefore, the way of communication may not be the same for immigrant children at home and in day care, and the way they learn language in one place may not be functional in a new environment (Minami & Ovando 1995). The quantity of opportunities to communicate influences directly the speed of language learning (Ellis 1985). Plentiful interaction is, however, the most beneficial for those children, who are sociable and extrovert by their nature. Silent and shy children may not benefit from learning in interaction in the same way, because of their minor language use (Fillmore 1991).

 

Once children have learnt their mother tongue fast and effectively, it is easier for them to learn other languages (Sundman 1999). Multilingual children’s language skills may, however, develop a little slower than those of monolingual children (Genesee 1993). Therefore, clinicians should be careful when evaluating their language skills, before getting worried about their development (Genesee 1993). It is important to focus on the language learning process and on the strategies in language use of the individual child. When evaluating multilingual children, it is also important to pay attention to the fact that if they are not used to testing, they may fail in evaluations even if they would master the skills which are evaluated (Hoffmann 1991; Iglesias 2001).

 

The risks of language impairment are higher in multilingual than in monolingual children (Salameh & al 2002; see also Crutchley & al. 1997; Skutnabb-Kangas 1988). However, language impairments of multilingual children are often identified later than those of monolingual children, because multilingual children with language impairments develop slowly in both of their languages (Salameh 2003). It is a generally shared opinion today, that changing to monolingualism is not a good solution for multilingual children with language impairments, and that it may even have negative effects on their language development (Baker & Prys Jones 1988, 574).

 

Learning a language is not only a linguistic but also a social and psychological progress (Sajavaara 1999). Diversified activities in day care may support the respect for children’s mother tongue and culture, as well as the integration of children in the new language and culture (Matkaselkä 2003). A native adult in the group is a good support for multilingual children, and so are other children who share their language. According to a Norwegian study, the Norwegian language skills were better for children who were in this kind of a group than for those who were the only speakers of their mother tongue in their group (Kettunen & Valojää 1999). Special day care centres for minority language using children are not recommended (Matinheikki-Kokko 1994). In Finland, an ideal time for moving to a day care group is considered to be the age of four, when the phonological and syntactic structures in children’s mother tongue start to be at a good level (Ahlqvist & al. 1996). The age between one and two years is considered to be critical for children’s later language development (Alijoki 1998).

 

The population of Finland is 5 260 000 and in Espoo (the city where the data of this study was collected) 231 704. Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. Finnish, a Finno-Ugric language, is spoken by 91,3% and Swedish by 5,4 % of the population. In Espoo, 85 % of the people speak Finnish, 9 % Swedish, and 5.5 % other languages. Sweden and Russia have had a strong influence in Finnish history and culture, especially before the 20th century, but Finland has always emphasised the need of building its own culture, keeping its own language and being independent. Hence, the globalisation and increased mobility of people, bringing along new challenges of multilingual and multicultural issues, have formed a challenging situation for the whole society, including its speech and language therapists.

 

 

The aim of the study

 

Multilingualism has been studied and its phenomena have been defined from different perspectives (Romaine 1989; Baker & Prys Jones 1998; Wei 2000). From the perspective of multiculturalism, immigration and refugee politics, it has, however, been looked at only in very few studies. The knowledge on second language learning of immigrant children is still limited. The aim of this study was to look at Finnish language development of multilingual children in a small multicultural day care group. The Finnish language development of the children will be looked at from the following perspectives:

 

 

Method

 

In the day care group of this study, one kindergarten teacher and two nurses worked with 15 four to five year old children. Nine of them spoke Finnish as their mother tongue, and six children were multilingual (mother tongues Arabic and Albanian; Table 1). None of the children had reported difficulties in his or her development.

 

Table 1: Information on the multicultural children (names changed)

Name

Gender

Age at 8-9/2002

Languages used at home

Age of starting day care outside home

Ghassan

boy

5v 2kk

Arabic

autumn 2000

Kujtim

boy

4v 11kk

Albania

autumn 2001

Aylin

girl

4v 11kk

Albania and Turkey

autumn 2001

Leonard

boy

4v 9kk

Albania

autumn 2000

Hussein

boy

4v 6kk

Arabic

autumn 2001

Leyla

girl

4v

Albania

autumn 2000

 

 

Parents of the multicultural children of this study were all immigrants but the children were born in Finland. The children had been taken care at home before they entered the day care centre. All of them had attended day care at least for a year before the follow-up period of this study. All children were successively multilingual (Wei 2000).

 

The data of this study was collected at two phases between August 2002 and May 2003. At the first phase, the Finnish language skills of the children were measured, and the parents, as well as the staff of the day care centre were interviewed. At the second phase, the Finnish language assessments were repeated. In addition, the preschool teacher and the nurse of the group were interviewed on their impression on the Finnish language development of each individual child. During the six-to-nine month follow-up period between the two measures, special emphasis was placed on supporting the Finnish language skills of the children in their daily program.

 

Language skills were measured with several formal tests and other assessment methods to make the understanding of the language skills of each individual child as versatile as possible. For this same reason the researcher also made informal notes in the assessment situation.

 

Evaluation method                                                                         Compiler

Sproklig Test I: expressive vocabulary                                            Bo Ege 1974

Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Finnish version                           Heimo 1993

Boston Naming Test                                                                          Kaplan & Goodglass 1997

The Bus Story: narrative speech                                                      Renfrew 1991

Kettu-test: Finnish language screening tool                                    Korpilahti & Eilomaa 2001

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, Finnish version              Blåfield & Kuusinen 1974

Reynell Developmental Language Scales II, Finnish version       Reynell & Huntley 1987

 

 

The forms for the interviews of the parents and the staff were made for the purposes of this study. The aim of the interview of the parents was to collect information on children’s general development, environment, native language skills and language development. An interpreter attended four of the five interviews.

 

The staff (pre-school teacher and two nurses) were interviewed as a group, to collect information on the daily and weekly program of the day care group, particularly on the actions that were used to enrich the Finnish language environment of the children. The aim of these interviews was also to supplement the data from formal language assessments, particularly as to the Finnish language skills of the children in everyday contexts. In addition, the staff was asked to make daily notes throughout the follow-up period, on general development of the children.

 

 

 

Analysis

 

The test scores of all children were collected in tables (see figures 1-3), and they were compared with the mean values and standard deviations of the tests, for monolingual children. The Finnish Kettu Test has normative criteria also for multilingual children. For each child, test performances from autumn and spring were compared. In addition, the children were compared with each other as to their development during the follow-up period, at different language areas, to find out whether there were individual differences in their language skills and development.

 

 

Results

 

All families emphasized the importance of keeping their native culture and maintaining the native language skills of their children. All of them also reported that they valued knowledge on Finnish culture and management of Finnish language. The education of the children was very important for their parents, and they also told that they found it important for their child to have friends outside of home. However, not all of the children had friends at the time of the interview.

 

All children had good co-operation and contact skills both at the initial and at the final assessments. With the exception of one child, all children were able to concentrate both in assessment tasks and in free conversation.

 

According to the findings of this study, following conclusions can be drawn from the Finnish language development of the six multilingual children during one school year in a linguistically supported day care group:

 

1. The Finnish language skills of all children developed between initial and final assessments at all measured language areas (see figures 1 and 3). The initial differences between the children had reduced at almost all language areas.

FIGURE 1: Scores in language comprehension test (Reynell) at the two assessments.

 

2. The children who had scored lowest in autumn in certain tests or sub-tests, showed the best development in those skills (see figure 1).

 

The differences between the speech comprehension skills of the children in autumn had reduced by spring, as measured with Reynell language comprehension scales (figure 1). The skills had advanced most in those children, whose language comprehension skills had been the poorest in autumn.

 

The findings in ITPA indicate that even though the children scored higher in the final assessments than in the initial assessments, they were, nevertheless, even more behind of the average of their age group in some subtests (figure 2).

 

 

FIGURE 2: Scaled Scores of ITPA Auditory Association in autumn and in spring. Subtest average is 36 ja standard deviation is 6 (-1 sd line in the figure).

 

 

3. The mastering of concepts, naming, vocabulary, and grammatical skills appeared as the most difficult for the children of this study (figure 3).

FIGURE 3: Scores in Finnish grammatical morphology at initial and final assessments (Kujtim and Hussein scored zero in autumn).

 

 

4. According to the interviews and reported observations of the staff, it was obvious that the most effective action to support the development of the children’s Finnish language skills during the follow-up period, was the diminishing of the size of their group. The size of the group made the biggest difference between this group and ordinary day care groups. The staff had more time than in other groups for the supporting of individual children and their language use.

 

5. The Finnish language development of the children was dependent on their individual characteristics and on the support from the environment in both of their languages.

 

According to the parents’ interviews, in seemed that Ghassan, who was one of the most advanced children of the group in his Finnish language skills, got more support in both of his languages than other children. Ghassan’s parents told that the family put strong emphasis on their mother tongue, Arabic. They discussed in Arabic, they had Arabic and Finnish books, videotaped children’s programs in both languages, and computer games, which could be used, for example, to practice Arabic letters with the help of visual and auditory support. In addition, there were two school-aged children in the family, and they had friends outside of their home.

 

The other families reported that they supported their children’s native language skills by using it in discussions. Kujtim, Hussein and Leyla did not have many friends outside of their home.

 

6. The time spent in day care had a connection with the Finnish language skills of the children. The age of the children did not have a direct connection with Finnish language development in this study.

 

 

Discussion

 

The findings of this study support those of several other studies (e.g. Ojantakanen 2003; Grönholm 1993), which have highlighted the influence of children’s mother tongue and environmental factors on their second language learning. Hence, it is obvious that special attention should be paid to supporting actions already at pre-school age.

 

The children of this study attended a day care group of nine Finnish speaking and six multicultural children. The nine Finnish children were not particularly selected for the group, and, hence, there were bilingual (Finnish – Swedish and Finnish – English) children even among them. In a small group, children whose language skills are not yet fully developed will get the support they need, and it is probable that they have also more opportunities for interaction than would be the case in a big group.

 

The day care group of this study had also more educational staff than ordinary day care groups: one pre-school teacher and two nurses. In addition, the staff had attended different courses on multilingual and multicultural issues, and they had had education on Finnish as second language teaching. The actions of the group were supported by careful planning and setting up of goals. The goals became gradually part of their daily actions, and the group formed its shared way of functioning and supporting its children’s Finnish language development.

 

It was important for the self-esteem of the children, that they were allowed to use their mother tongue, and that also other people in their group found it important. When multicultural children come to day care, they do not necessarily master Finnish language at all. In such cases, the role of communication partners who share their mother tongue, is accentuated. Former studies (e.g. Kettunen & Valojää 1999) also suggest that it is not preferable for the Finnish language learning of multilingual children, if all children in a group have the same mother tongue. That situation does not encourage them to develop and use their Finnish skills (Matinheikki-Kokko 1994). In this respect, the group of the present study can be considered to have been ideal. Each child had a peer who shared his or her mother tongue, and there were also several native Finnish speakers in the group, supporting the Finnish language development of their multilingual peers.

 

If one or several members of the staff master children’s mother tongue, they may also support its development. Such persons may also be native language assistants who come to play with the children a couple of times per week (Nummi 2003). This sort of support is particularly important for those children, who do not get enough support for their mother tongue at home. At school they would benefit from native language teaching and at pre-school from play and stories in which their native language is used in rich and versatile ways. On the other hand, the staff may learn just a couple of words or expressions in children’s native languages, such as saying hello and thank you (Rissanen 2000). This will create an atmosphere which values the different native languages of the members of the group. This atmosphere, in turn, will make children feel safe and trustful in their daily environment, even when they do not yet master the dominant language of this environment.

 

Pictorial material, drawings and augmentative communication forms may all help children learning second language. Observations and evaluations made on children’s language skills, may make it easier for the staff to work with multilingual children. Support from the group is important for many of these children, but this support is not enough for those children who have specific impairments. In those cases, individual therapy will be a valuable and necessary intervention (see also Heimo 2003).

 

References

 

Ahlqvist, T., Moijanen, M. & Nissinen S. (1996). Vieras kieli keskellä suuta. 5-7 vuotiaan maahanmuuttajalapsen esiopetus ja kouluunlähtö. Täydennyskoulutuskeskus, 1. Jyväskylä University.

 

Alijoki, E. (1998). Pesästä pieni ponnistaa. Lasten varhaisten vuorovaikutustaitojen tukeminen. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.

 

Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. School of education. University of Wales. Clevedon Philadelphia. Multiligual Matters.

 

Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195-207.

 

Crutchley, A., Botting, N. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). Bilingualism and specific language impairment in children attending language units. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 267-276.

 

de Cillia, R. (2001). Sprachliche Menschenrechte und die Bedeutung der Muttersprache im schulischen Spracherwerb. W. Weidinger (Ed.) Bilingualität und Schule. Ausbildung, Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven und Empirische Befunde. Wien: Verlags & Co., 246-252.

 

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: a model of language learning in social context. E. Bialystok (Ed.) Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: University Press.

 

Geber, E. (1996). Suomen kielen kontrastiivinen opas. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.

 

Genesee, F. (1993). Bilingual language development in preschool children. D. Bishop & K. Mogford (Eds.) Language Development in Exceptional Circumstances. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 62-79.

 

Heimo, H. (1999). Ylös, alas ja ympäri. Suomalaisen peruskäsitetestin kehittäminen ja 5-7 –vuotiaiden suhdekäsitteiden hallinta. Licentiate thesis in logopedics.  Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki.

 

Heimo, H. (2003). ”Kaikki on enemmän kuin joka toinen" : oppimisvaikeudet ja Suhdekäsitteet esiopetusiässä. University of Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Phonetics, 44.

 

Hoffmann, C. (1991). Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman.

 

Iglesias, A. (2001). What test should I use? Seminars in Speech and Language 22, 3-15.

 

Kettunen, H. & Valojää, A. (1999). HYKS-puheterapeuttien koulutuspäivät 19. 20.11.98. Kaksitai monikieliseksi kasvaminen. Puheterapeutti, 1/1999, 9-11.

 

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.

 

Mackey, W. F. (1962/2000). The Discription of Bilingualism. L. Wei (Ed.) The Bilingualism Reader. Article first published in 1962. London: Routledge, 26-54.

 

Matinheikki-Kokko, K. (1994). Suomen pakolaisvastaanotto – periaatteet ja käytäntö. K. Liebkind (Ed.) Maahanmuuttajat. Kulttuurien kohtaaminen Suomessa. Helsinki: Hakapaino, 82-122.

 

Matkaselkä, P. (2003). ”Päiväkodissa on mukavaa.” Annetaan lapsille maapallo. Lastentarhanopettajaliiton julkaisu. Helsinki: Lastentarhanopettajaliitto, 16.

 

Miller, N. (1984). Language use in bilingual communities. N. Miller (Ed.) Bilingualism and Language Disability: Assesment and Remeditation. London: Croom Helm, 3-25.

 

Minami, M. & Ovando, C. J. (1995). Language Issues in multicultural contexts. J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.) Handbook of Research on MulticulturalEducation. New York: MacMillan, 432-440.

 

Nummi, A. (2003). Vietnamilainen ja venäläinen kulttuuri rinnakkain. Annetaan lapsille maapallo. Lastentarhanopettajaliiton julkaisu. Helsinki: Lastentarhanopettajaliitto, 17-19.

 

Peal, E. & Lambert, W. E. (1962). Relation of Bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1-23.  

 

Permer, K. (1987). Barnet och det talade språket. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

 

Rissanen, R. (2000). Maahanmuuttajat kielikouluun. Lastentarha. Varhaiskasvatuksen ammattilehti, 4, 54-57.

 

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  

 

Sajavaara, K. (1999). Toisen kielen oppiminen. K. Sajavaara & A. Piirainen Marsh (Eds.) Kielenoppimisen kysymyksiä. Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen teoriaa ja käytäntöä. Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskus, 73-102. Jyväskylä University.

 

Salameh, E. K., Nettelbladt, U., Håkansson, G. & Gullberg, B. (2002). LanguageImpairment in Swedish Bilingual Children: a Comparison Between Bilingual and Monolingual Children in Malmö. Acta Paediatrica 91, 229-234.

 

Salameh, E. K. (2003). Language impairment in Swedish bilingual children – Epidemiological and Linguistic Studies. From the Department of Logopedics and Phoniatrics. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

 

Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech. Evidence for second language learning strategies during the `silent' period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.

 

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Vähemmistö, kieli ja rasismi. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

 

Sundman, M. (1999). Barnet, skola och tvåspråkigheten. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

 

Tabors, P. (1997). One Child, Two Languages: a Guide for Preschool Educators of Children Learning English as a Second Language. Baltimore London Toronto Sydney: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

 

Vaid, J. (1983). Bilingualism and brain lateralization. S. Segalowitz (Ed.) Language Functions and Brain Organization. Academic Press, 315-339.

 

Wei, L. (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. L. Wei (Ed.) The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge, 3-25.

 

Authors:

 

Anna Palojärvi, MA, speech and language therapist
e-mail:          palojarvi@ruskis.fi
address:       Ruskeasuo School

Tenholantie 15

FI-00280 Helsinki  

 

 

Kaisa Launonen, professor, speech and language therapist
e-mail:          Kaisa.Launonen@helsinki.fi
address:       Department of Speech Sciences

P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 A)

FI-00014 University of Helsinki

Finland