This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library] On: 06 July 2015, At: 23:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales

Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20
The role of fathers in language maintenance and language attrition: the case of Korean–English late bilinguals in New Zealand Sun Hee Ok Kim a & Donna Starks b a
Department of Linguistics , Macquarie University , NSW, Australia b Faculty of Education , La Trobe University , Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, Australia Published
online: 30 Oct 2009.
To cite this article: Sun Hee Ok Kim & Donna Starks (2010) The role of fathers in language maintenance and language attrition: the case of Korean–English late
bilinguals in New Zealand, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13:3, 285-301, DOI: 10.1080/13670050903193958
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050903193958
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &
Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
The role of fathers in language maintenance and language attrition: the case of Korean
English late bilinguals in New Zealand Sun Hee Ok Kima* and Donna Starksb
aDepartment of Linguistics, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia; bFaculty of Education, La Trobe University, Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 21 May 2009; final version received 18 July 2009)
The father’s role in children’s L1 maintenance and L2 learning is a relatively unexplored area. This study considers the L1 and L2 proficiency of 30 Korean
English
late bilinguals who immigrated to New Zealand during their adolescence and how their L1 and L2 proficiency is influenced by the language use of family members. Data
were collected through a questionnaire, a vocabulary test and a story-retelling task, and analysed in terms of language use and language proficiency measures. While
language use of Korean siblings and fathers is shown to have a dual role in both affecting language use and L1 proficiency, the language use of Korean mothers is not
associated with their children’s patterns of language use or their children’s L1 proficiency. We attribute the differences to different types of interaction between
Korean mothers and fathers, and their adolescent children. The data also show that parental language use plays a minimal role in the adolescent L2 acquisition.
Keywords: language attrition; language maintenance; language proficiency; language use; family; Korean
Introduction One of the challenges that many immigrants face is a change in their linguistic environment. While it would be ideal for languages to co-exist in harmony,
ideal bilingualism is outside of the reach of many immigrants, who need to juggle their first language (L1) and their second language (L2) to fulfil their individual,
family and wider societal needs. In an L2 dominant environment, few migrants succeed in this endeavour, and many go through varying degrees of L1 attrition. Although
increasing L2 proficiency is generally considered to affect the process of L1 attrition (Seliger and Vago 1991), findings from empirical studies on the relationship
between L1 and L2 proficiency are inconclusive. While some studies report a negative relationship between L1 and L2 performance in bilingual speakers (e.g. Major 1992;
Segalowitz 1991), others find no significant effect of L2 proficiency on L1 performance (e.g. Waas 1996; Ya ˘gmur, de Bot, and Korzillus 1999). A second issue is the
age of the participants. Whereas most studies on child L1 attrition report evidence of L1 attrition (Bolonyai 2000; Isurin 2000; Kaufman 1991; Schmitt 2001; Seliger
1996; Tomiyama 2000; Yukawa 1997), there is disagreement as
*Corresponding author. Email: SunHee.Kim@mq.edu.au
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 13, No. 3, May 2010, 285
301
ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online # 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13670050903193958 http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
to whether reported child L1 attrition is confounded by incomplete L1 acquisition due to a lack of L1 input in a predominantly L2 environment (Ko ¨pke 2004; Schmid
2004; Schmid and de Bot 2004; Sorace 2004; Ya ˘gmur 2004). Although the L1 system of adult L2 learners is considered to be more stable, studies find their L1 system is
also affected by attrition (e.g. Gross 2000; Major 1992; Olshtain and Barzilay 1991), although no consensus has been reached on the extent to which it is affected (cf.
de Bot and Clyne 1994; Schmid 2004; Waas 1996). To confound the matter, since many studies do not differentiate adolescents from adults, very little is known about L1
attrition occurring in the former age group (see Kim 2007, for a discussion on this issue). In immigrant communities, the family is considered to play a crucial role
in L1 maintenance and the encouragement of bilingualism (Fishman 1965; see also Hakuta and D’Andrea 1992; Luo and Wiseman 2000). While the dominant language in the
first-generation family is usually the L1, parents typically report the use of more L1 than their children, but an increased use of L2 in parent
child interactions.
Children are also reported to use more L1 when interacting with parents or grandparents than between themselves (e.g. Clyne 2003; Clyne and Kipp 1999; Extra and
Verhoeven 1999; Fishman 1966; Huls and van de Mond 1992; Kim and Starks 2005; Li, 1994; Pauwels 2005, among others). The role of the mother is traditionally considered
crucial and viewed as the transmitter of the L1 across generations and the ‘gatekeeper of language maintenance’ (Extra and Verhoeven 1999, 20; see also Fishman 1991;
Winter and Pauwels 2005a). Mothers are also more likely to be affected by children’s tendency to shift away from L1 to L2 (Clyne 1967, 2003). While this seems to
contradict the notion of mothers being transmitters of L1, this may be explained by the mother’s sensitiveness to change. Hakuta and D’Andrea (1992) report that adult
language practice in the home is the most important factor for L1 proficiency of bilingual adolescents, and that language use with siblings has only a minor role. In
their study, no effects for language use on L2 proficiency were observed. Luo and Wiseman (2000) have also considered the importance of language use by adults in the
home domain. Their results highlight the different roles of the father and the mother. Although both parents had a positive influence on children’s L1 maintenance, the
fathers’ attitudes are positively associated with L1 use while the mothers’ relationship to the child is deemed more important for L1 proficiency and use. More
recently, Golberg, Paradis and Crago (2008) found socio-economic status of the family (as represented by the mother’s education) rather than home language use is
important in children’s L2 lexical acquisition. In their study, participants with mothers who have higher education use more L1 in the home and acquire L2 vocabulary
faster than those with mothers who have a lower level of education. The study did not consider the fathers’ education and it did not separate fathers’ and mothers’
language use. Although the fathers’ role has received relatively little attention in the fields of L1 attrition and L1 maintenance, there is a considerable body of
literature on the fathers’ role in child L1 development (Barton and Tomasello 1994; Do ¨pke 1990; Rondal 1980; Tomasello, Conti-Ramsden, and Ewert 1990). Tomasello and
others (Barton and Tomasello 1994; Tomasello, Conti-Ramsden, and Ewert 1990) argue that since the father is often less familiar with the child’s linguistic behaviour
and daily routines, interaction between the father and child leads to frequent communication breakdowns. In a study of L1 acquisition, Do ¨pke (1990) has noted that in
order to repair the communication breakdowns and get the message passed across,
286 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
the child has to repeat or rephrase his/her utterances until the father understands. She claims that since fathers engage in different types of interaction with their
children, they can be good providers of quality input in child-centred interaction, leaving mothers to undertake ‘business-oriented’ mother
child interaction. These
differences in parent
child interaction may have different effects on L1 language maintenance. Prior studies on Korean language maintenance in the New Zealand context
have noted that fathers play an important role in the general language policy in Korean families (Johri 1998, 109; Park 2000). These studies argue that in typical
Korean families, the father’s authority is regarded as most important by family members and that children are expected to follow the rule the father sets. These
studies do not examine how the father’s linguistic practice affects that of other family members and the maintenance and/or acquisition of Korean and English by the
children. The present study focuses on how language choices within the family affect language proficiency of bilingual adolescent children in the New Zealand Korean
context and provides an analysis of the relationship between a child’s L1/L2 proficiency and their family’s language use.
New Zealand Korean community The New Zealand Korean community is the third largest Asian population in New Zealand. As is the case with most immigrant communities in
New Zealand, the Korean community is a minority, forming less than one per cent of the total population. Most Korean immigrants to New Zealand arrived post-1991 when
the New Zealand Ministry of Immigration introduced a points system to attract highly trained professionals. Korean immigrants are consequently well-educated with
higher qualifications, professional experience and/or with considerable capital. At the time of arrival, the adult members of this community tended to be in their late
30s and 40s with school-age children (Ho, Bedford, and Bedford 2000). Most Korean families in New Zealand immigrated as nuclear families with grandparents remaining in
Korea. This is important as many studies on immigrant communities have shown that grandparents play an important role in language maintenance (Holmes et al. 1993; Luo
and Wiseman 2000; Winter and Pauwels 2005b). Korean fathers often experienced difficulties finding employment at a level to which they were accustomed. This has
resulted in many returning to work in Korea, leaving their wives and children to live in New Zealand.1 Korean fathers who choose to remain in New Zealand spend more
time at home with their families than they had done in Korea. This change in lifestyle encourages more interaction between Korean fathers and their children. The New
Zealand Korean community shows many characteristics favourable to the maintenance of their mother tongue. There is extensive use of Korean in the homes, positive
attitudes about the Korean language, geographical concentration in residence patterns and strong institutional support, including numerous community associations and
vibrant community-based activities (see Park 2000; Starks and Youn 1998; see also Kim and Starks 2005). Census data reveal, however, that increasing numbers of the
Korean community claim to be monolingual in English. The shift from Korean to English may be promoted by the family structure of Korean immigrants in New Zealand

where a general absence of grandparents is noted (Lidgard 1996). Many of the young children who immigrated in the 1990s are now adolescents or young adults with
increasing social activities outside of the home
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 287
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
domain. It is this cohort of Korean New Zealanders who have been educated in the New Zealand secondary schools using only English. The perception that English is the
only viable tool for survival in New Zealand secondary schools may have led to pressure for the use of English in public and private domains.2 Despite this shift, the
dominant language within the New Zealand Korean family is Korean. Korean siblings tend to use L2 more than their Korean parents and Korean mothers tend to use
considerably more L1 than fathers (Kim and Starks 2005). This is partly due to socialisation patterns. Korean children attend mainstream schools with English-speaking
peers; the father is often engaged in work and activities outside the home while the mother tends to remain at home as the primary caregiver.
Methodology Participants Thirty Korean
English late bilinguals participated in the study. All had immigrated from Korea to New Zealand at the age of 12
13 years and
had completed all or most of their primary education in Korea. At their time of arrival, they could be judged to have a relatively good knowledge of the Korean
language but little knowledge of English. At the time of the study, they had all lived in New Zealand for at least two years. Cummins (1984) has claimed that immigrant
children acquire L2 skills sufficient for basic interpersonal communication within around two years of exposure to an L2 environment. Thus, it could be assumed that
these Koreans would have mastered basic command of Korean, acquired basic English skills and that this would lead to an increase in L2 use and a decrease in L1 use for
daily transactions, and potentially L1 attrition. The late bilinguals’ ages ranged from 15 to 25 years and their length of residence in New Zealand from two to 14
years. All participants were recruited using the ‘snow ball’ method, supplemented by advertisement through various media. In the present study, almost all the
participants are from nuclear families where both the father and mother are present.3
Data collection and analysis The participants completed a picture-naming and story-retelling task to elicit data to investigate proficiency and completed a
questionnaire to provide information about their background. All verbal data were audio-recorded. The instrument for the vocabulary test was the Boston Naming Test
(Kaplan, Goodglass, and Weintraub 2001)
a picture-naming task included as one test in the test battery in The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass
2001). The details of the instrument and procedure for administration of the test are reported elsewhere (Kim 2004, 2005a,b, 2007). The story-retelling task used an
adapted English version of two Aesop’s fables included in the test battery. A Korean version of two other fables was translated from the same source. A native speaker
read the fables and the participants were instructed to retell them in the same language. The English and Korean versions were recorded in separate sessions. The
scores for the vocabulary test serve as the measure for general language proficiency as it is generally accepted that vocabulary knowledge and general
288 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
proficiency are closely related constructs (Frederiksen 1982; Grabe 1991; Laufer and Nation 1999). Proficiency measures were obtained by analysing the narratives
elicited through the story-retelling task. Accuracy, fluency and complexity are employed as the proficiency measures. These measures are taken from Skehan’s (1996,
2001) distinction of three dimensions of learner performance, which are widely used in L2 research. Accuracy was measured by the percentage of error-free clauses.
Fluency was measured by the number of syllables per second. Complexity is considered in terms of grammatical complexity and lexical diversity.4 Given the agglutinative
character of the Korean language, another complexity measure
morphological density
was included in the analysis of the Korean data in order to investigate the
participants’ ability to use this feature in their mother tongue. Grammatical complexity was measured by the number of clauses in an Analysis of Speech unit (AS-unit;
Foster, Tonkyn, and Wigglesworth 2000). The AS-unit is similar to the T-unit, but it has improved the limitations of the T-unit in dealing with fragmentary utterances
(see Kim and Elder 2005, for its application as an analytic unit for both disfluent speech and pro-drop languages). Lexical diversity was measured by a measure
entitled ‘D’5; and morphological density by the number of morphemes per word. The patterns of language use are evaluated by means of a self-report questionnaire which
considered the language background and history of the participants as well as their current reported patterns of language use. The questionnaire consisted of a series
of closed and open-ended questions and the section on reported language use employed a five-point Likert scale. A response of (5) meant that the participant used
‘always Korean’ while a response of (1) meant that the participant used ‘always English’. Patterns of language use included language use to and by family members.
Language use was considered for the immediate family. Language use patterns were recorded for the father, the mother and siblings, if any. Studies on reported language
use by Korean children of similar age and background to those in the present study found that Korean parents and children provide similar reports about each other’s
language use (see Kim 2001). The present study describes reported language use as recorded by the late bilinguals.
Results Proficiency measures In order to assess the current proficiency levels of these late Korean bilinguals, their proficiency data were compared with that of a
group of 10 monolingual Korean 12-year olds (see Kim 2007, for details). The findings presented in Table 1 reveal the general L1 proficiency of the late bilinguals to
be higher than that of their monolingual counterparts (U75.50; p0.02; for a discussion on the implication of the result relating to the vocabulary measure, see Kim
(2005b, 2007). A closer look at L1 proficiency measures reveals that the performance of these late bilinguals is significantly lower in accuracy and lexical diversity
(U85.00; p0.04) (highlighted in bold) than that of the monolingual group. For other measures, the two groups showed no statistical significant differences. The
difference in the lexical diversity scores for the monolinguals and late bilinguals suggests that the late bilinguals have a significantly narrower range of L1 lexical
items available during on-line production. Significantly lower accuracy in the
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 289
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Table1.ComparisonbetweenL1performanceofthelatebilingualandmonolingualgroups.
Latebilingualgroup(N30)Monolingualgroup(N10)
Proficiency measuresMeanSDMedianMinimumMaximumMeanSDMedianMinimumMaximum
Mann
Whitney Utestp
Vocabulary81.788.6084.1761.6795.0075.174.9473.3370.0086.6775.50*0.02 Accuracy89.727.1891.4971.43100.0093.697.2196.6576.82100.0085.00*0.04
LexicalDiv52.7810.9254.8129.6669.5363.7017.2763.9640.65104.9585.00*0.04 Fluency3.940.814.152.245.243.780.603.682.765.09124.000.43
GramComp2.450.442.291.793.582.470.602.611.723.43146.000.91 MorphDens1.560.071.561.451.781.560.051.551.491.66136.000.68
*pissignificantatthe0.05level. Note:LexicalDiv,lexicaldiversity;GramComp,grammaticalcomplexity;MorphDens,morphologicaldensity.
290 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
bilingual participants’ performance indicates that their L1 system is less robust and more prone to errors than that of 12-year-old monolinguals. These findings are
important because they show that although the late bilinguals have undergone some degree of L1 attrition since their arrival in New Zealand, they have maintained their
L1 proficiency in other key proficiency areas and their general proficiency in L1 has increased (for details of the latter finding, see Kim 2005b, 2007) demonstrating
that although attrition may target specific aspects of L1, it may not affect all aspects of the late bilinguals’ L1.6 In order to determine the current language
dominance of the late bilinguals, their L1 and L2 performance on the proficiency measures were examined. As presented in Table 2, the late bilinguals performed better
in L1 than in L2 on all proficiency measures. A Mann
Whitney U test revealed that this difference was significant on all measures (pB0.001). So, although the late
bilinguals have experienced some L1 attrition, their overall L1 proficiency is at a level higher than that of their L2. Spearman’s rank order correlations revealed no
significant negative correlations between L1 and L2 proficiency measures,7 and hence there is no evidence of a negative association between L1 and L2 skills among
these participants. It is therefore important to consider other potential factors such as language use.
Patterns of language use These Korean
English bilinguals are typical of their community. Their dominant language is Korean and this is reflected in their patterns of
language use (see also Kim and Starks 2005). Table 3 presents the overall patterns of language use by family members within the family as reported by the Korean late
bilinguals.
Table 2. Comparison between L1 and L2 performance of the late bilinguals (N30).
Proficiency measures
L1 (Korean) L2 (English)
Mean SD Minimum Maximum Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Vocabulary 81.78 8.60 61.67 95.00 59.94 11.68 37.93 89.67 Accuracy 89.72 7.18 71.43 100.00 45.33 19.83 12.50 88.97 LexicalDiv 52.78 10.92 29.66 69.53 28.59 7.28 14.04
45.52 Fluency 3.94 0.81 2.24 5.24 1.90 0.51 0.97 2.94 GramComp 2.45 0.44 1.79 3.58 1.46 0.22 1.21 2.02
Note: The result for morphological density is not presented in this table since it was measured only for Korean.
Table 3. Overall pattern of language use TO and BY family members within the family.
TO/BY Family member N Mean SD
TO Mother 30 4.83 0.46 Father 29 4.79 0.41 Sibling 25 4.12 0.93 BY Mother 30 4.90 0.31 Father 29 4.79 0.41 Sibling 25 3.96 0.93
Note: TO, the situation where the participant is the addresser to the interlocutor; BY, the situation where the participant is addressed by the interlocutor.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 291
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Spearman correlations were run on the six variables in Table 3 and the results are presented in Table 4. The correlations are all positive, suggesting reciprocal
language choices. In other words, similar language choices are made when the late bilinguals speak to family members and when family members speak to them. There are
several important patterns among these relationships. The first is presented in the initial row of Table 4. There is a correlation between the language spoken TO
fathers and all the variables other than the language spoken BY mother. This highlights the importance of father’s language choices in Korean families. A second
observation relates to the moderate correlation between BY fathers and TO siblings (rs0.412). This suggests that fathers’ language choice is related to the language
choice made by the children when addressing each other. It is also of note that, while the language choice patterns involving the father and siblings seem intertwined
with each other, the language choice made between the participants and the mother does not seem to be related to the complex relationship involving the father and
siblings. The only significant correlation involving variables for the mother and those for other family members appear in the first row of the table
the one
between TO mother and TO father. In short, the mother does not seem to have a great influence on the overall language choices made in the family domain, despite the
fact that the mother’s dominant language is L1.8 This relationship
illustrated in Figure 1
shows that the Korean fathers’ language use is at the centre of the
participant’s language choice behaviour in the family domain. The arrows inside the ovals represent the direction of speech and the seven arrows connecting pairs of
oval shapes represent significant correlations between variables identified in Table 4. Most arrows are concentrated among the variables related to the father and
siblings.
L1/L2 proficiency and language use The above analysis suggests that language use may play different roles in the participant’s changing L1/L2 skills. In order to
investigate the relationship between language use and L1 attrition in the Korean late bilinguals, we consider correlations between L1/L2 measures and the language use
TO and BY family members. Only those results which yielded statistically significant differences are presented in Table 5.
PARTICIPANT FATHER (TOFATHER)
PARTICIPANT SIBLINGS (TOSIBLING)
PARTICIPANT SIBLINGS (BYSIBLING)
PARTICIPANT FATHER (BYFATHER)
PARTICIPANT MOTHER (TOMOTHER)
PARTICIPANT MOTHER (BYMOTHER)
Figure 1. Interrelationship between patterns of language choice in interaction between the participant and the family members.
292 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Table4.CorrelationsamongTOandBYvariablesforfamilymembers.
TOFATHERTOMOTHERTOSIBLINGBYFATHERBYMOTHERBYSIBLING
TOFATHER(N29)
0.544**0.674**0.580**0.1060.510* TOMOTHER(N30)
0.3750.2720.544**0.225 TOSIBLING(N25)
0.412*0.1100.849** BYFATHER(N29)
0.1060.343 BYMOTHER
(N30)
0.022 BYSIBLING(N25)

*pB0.05;**pB0.01.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 293
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Before considering the individual role of family members, we would like to point out three general findings of interest in these data. First, the overall findings show
that the late bilinguals’ L1 skills are positively correlated with language use variables (i.e. degrees of L1 use) and that their L2 skills are negatively correlated
with variables associated with language use.9 This highlights the important role of language use within the home on L1 maintenance and L2 learning. Second, the overall
findings show that language use has different effects on L1 and L2 proficiency. The language use variables which relate to L1 proficiency measures
i.e. accuracy,
morphological density and grammatical complexity
are concerned with grammatical form, while those variables which relate to L2 proficiency measures
i.e.
vocabulary, lexical diversity and fluency
are less concerned with grammar. Although this issue is beyond the scope of this paper, it should be noted that these
different patterns suggest underlying and potentially interesting differences in the factors that affect these late bilingual’s L1 and L2. Third, there is no evidence
of reciprocal patterns when we consider the effects of language use on L1 and L2 proficiency of the late bilinguals. For example, while Table 5 shows that L1 accuracy
is correlated with language use to siblings, there is no correlation between L2 accuracy and language use. This again suggests that there are different mechanisms
affecting the use of L1 and L2. There is also no evidence of reciprocal patterns in language attrition when we consider language choices TO and BY family members.
Although the TO and BY variables both affect proficiency, language use TO and BY family members appear to have different effects on L1 attrition and L2 learning. In
short, although language choices are often reciprocal, the effects of these language choices on L1 and L2 proficiency are not. We now consider the above effects of
language use on language proficiency by the family members. Eight correlations were identified as significant in Table 5. Four of these are related to L1, and four to
L2. In the results for the L1 variables, the role of siblings is particularly prominent. Three out of four L1 measures are related to siblings and these involve both
TO and BYvariables, suggesting mutual reinforcement between the bilingual’s habit of using the L1 to address and be addressed by their siblings and L1 maintenance. In
other words, the more frequently siblings use the L1 to address their siblings, the more likely they are to maintain their L1 accuracy and morphological density and
vice versa.10 Of particular note is the effect of L1 sibling interaction on L1 accuracy. Since L1 accuracy has been identified as a significant area of attrition
amongst these Korean late bilinguals (see Table 1), these findings suggest that L1 sibling
sibling interaction is an important factor for long-term L1
Table 5. Correlations between L1/L2 measures and variables for interlocutor type.
L1/L2 Measure Variable Nr s p
L1 Accuracy TOSIBLING 25 0.401* 0.05 MorphDens TOSIBLING 25 0.504* 0.01 GramComp BYSIBLING 25 0.412* 0.04 GramComp BYFATHER 29 0.458* 0.01 L2 Fluency TOSIBLING 25

0.504* 0.01 Fluency BYSIBLING 25
0.457* 0.02 Vocabulary TOFATHER 29
0.433* 0.02 LexicalDiv TOMOTHER 30
0.456* 0.01
*p is significant at the 0.05 level.
294 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
maintenance. The relationship between language use involving siblings and grammatical complexity is also interesting in that this L1 measure is correlated with
language use BY siblings but not TO siblings, suggesting the more frequently the participant is addressed in L1 by his/her sibling, the more likely he/she is to have
more complex sentence structure. The remaining L1 measure in Table 5, grammatical complexity, correlated with the TO variable for the father. This suggests the
father’s role in the maintenance of the participant’s L1 grammatical complexity. Although the father’s role does not appear to be as prominent as siblings, this result
is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, the father is the only parent whose language choices affect any of the L1 proficiency measures and second, the BY
variable for the father is the same variable shown to affect L1 use to siblings (see Table 4 and Figure 1). Korean fathers, who might not have been able to spend much
time with their children in their home country because of busy work and social life, may be particularly more uncompromising when interacting with their children. Do
¨pke (1990) and others (Barton and Tomasello 1994; Rondal 1980; Tomasello, Conti-Ramsden, and Ewert 1990) have noted frequent communication breakdowns in father
child
interactions. This L1 research might provide a possible reason for the findings reported in this study. The late bilinguals might have to reformulate or rephrase their
utterances in order to make themselves understood by their fathers. Since the participants were in their mid/ late teens or early 20s, the fathers might expect their
children’s speech would be at a similar level to their own and not compromise in their linguistic behaviour. This type of interaction may account for their positive
effects on the grammatical complexity of their children’s L1 proficiency. It may also suggest that uncompromising L1 use may have positive effects on L1 regardless of
the parent’s gender. The most surprising finding in Table 5 relates to the role of the mother. Table 5 shows language use of the mother has no effect on L1. While this
result seems to counter the prominence placed on the role of mother’s in L1 language maintenance in previous research, there are two potential explanations for these
data. First, in these particular families the mothers are largely monolingual, and thus one might postulate that the children tend to use Korean regardless of their
Korean proficiency in interactions with their monolingual mothers. Another possibility is that, in this particular immigrant context where mothers have a reduced role
mostly confined to the home domain, the mother may not engage in in-depth conversation with her adolescent children. In other words, the mothers’ L1 use may not go
beyond the level of every day talk and thus have little effect on the adolescents’ L1 proficiency. Thus, the different communicative patterns of fathers and mothers
could be one potential explanation for their differing effects on their children’s L1. We now consider the effects of language use on L2. As noted earlier, the results
for L2 measures in Table 5 reveal a different pattern from that shown for L1 measures. Only one L2 measure
fluency
is important in siblings’ interactions. This
measure is correlated with both TO siblings and BY siblings, suggesting L2 fluency is affected by the mutual interaction between the bilingual and his or her siblings.
Patterns of language use of the father and mother have little effect on their children’s L2 proficiency, a finding in line with Hakuta and D’Andrea (1992) and Golberg,
Paradis and Crago (2008). The Korean mothers and fathers do, however, have an effect in their role as addressee. Of the TO variables involving L2 measures, language
use TO father is shown as correlated with vocabulary, suggesting the importance of the father’s role as the addressee. Given that the vocabulary measure is considered
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 295
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
closely related to general proficiency, the correlation between L2 vocabulary and language use TO father might suggest that the bilinguals use more L2 to address their
fathers as their general proficiency increases. There is also one correlation between language use TO mother and the children’s L2. This correlation relates to lexical
diversity. Those participants who speak more to their mothers in English tend to be able to access to more diverse lexical items. Although we have no clear explanation
for this, some participants commented in their interviews that they inserted English words into their speech when addressing their mothers and one could speculate that
this may have had an effect on L2 proficiency. Given that this study did not focus on the children’s interaction with their predominantly monolingual Korean mothers,
additional factors may be involved in this result (but see Golberg, Paradis, and Crago 2008, for the role of the mother in their study). The findings highlight the
complementary roles of family members. Of these roles, those played by the father and siblings seem to be particularly crucial in L1 attrition. The findings show that
language choice in sibling interaction has the greatest influence on L1 attrition and L2 learning within the family. They also suggest that by influencing children’s
pattern of language choice for interaction, the father may indirectly encourage either maintenance or attrition of L1 skills. The mother seems to have little effect on
the L1 of the late bilinguals.
Conclusion This study documents the role of family language use on L1 and L2 proficiency of Korean late bilinguals. At the present time, most of the late bilinguals
and their families seem to have L1 dominant patterns in language choice in the family domain. However, L1 accuracy of the late bilinguals is significantly lower than
that of the 12 year-old monolinguals, suggesting some L1 attrition. Although it is widely acknowledged that home language use and sibling
sibling interaction play an
important role in L1 maintenance, the impact of family members’ language on L1 maintenance has not been well documented. This study shows that in late bilingual
contexts, language use by family members contribute to L1 maintenance of the late bilingual at different levels. The father is central to language use within the home.
The language of the father has a significant effect on language use by and to other family members. This may be related to the role of the father in the Korean family
and it is possible that language use by other family members may have a greater role in other immigrant communities. The findings also show that siblings’ L1 use has a
direct impact on the maintenance of L1 proficiency. The study focused on language use TO and BY family members in their interaction with late Korean bilingual
participants and its effect on L1 maintenance and L2 learning. The most important finding here relates to sibling language use. Language use TO and BY siblings is
shown to be important for both L1 maintenance and L2 learning. The effects of sibling language use on L1 accuracy is of particular interest as this is an area where
these participants showed significant degrees of L1 attrition. These findings indicate that a reduction in L1 accuracy appears to be best counter-balanced by L1
language use TO siblings. Parental language use appears to have a weaker effect on their children’s L1 and L2 proficiency. Although it is widely assumed that mothers
have an important role in
296 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
L1 maintenance, this study suggests the opposite. An analysis of language use TO and BY the mother reveals that these Korean mothers appear to have little role in
their children’s L1 maintenance. The fact that they have little effect on their L1 is of interest given the prominence of mothers in studies on L1 maintenance. While
language proficiency and adolescence life stage have been suggested as possible explanations for this result, this is an area that requires further detailed
investigation in this and other communities where mothers have different levels of L2. The findings reveal that the Korean father’s language use TO his children has an
effect on his children’s maintenance of L1 grammatical complexity. Like the fathers in many child language development studies (for a review, see Barton and Tomasello
1994), it is possible that the late bilinguals’ fathers may be less capable to adjust their language to the level of the child than the mother. This type of
interaction may account for their positive effects on the grammatical complexity of their children’s L1 proficiency. It may also suggest that uncompromising L1 use,
although difficult, may have positive effects on L1 regardless of the parent’s gender. The language use patterns of the father and the mother have little effect on
their children’s L2. The main contributor to L2 fluency is sibling
sibling L2 interaction. The language use BY the father or the mother is not correlated with any L2
measures. However, both parents do have an indirect effect as addressees. The father has an effect on his children’s L2 vocabulary, the mother on their L2 lexical
diversity. In short, the possible outcomes of these language use patterns in these Korean family interactions appear to be a gain in L2 fluency at the expense of L1
accuracy, morphological density and grammatical complexity as a result of an increase in L2 use and a decrease in L1 use in father
child and sibling
sibling
interaction. While the above points to the negative side of L2 language use on L1 loss, given the significant correlations between the variables related to patterns of
language choice, a reverse outcome is also possible. That is, if the father uses L1 in the home, it may be possible that the children may use less L2 to address the
father, which may have a ripple effect in the participant’s language choice pattern in addressing the mother and siblings. This could have a possible positive outcome
towards the maintenance of L1 proficiency in the areas of L1 accuracy, morphological density and grammatical complexity. There may also be no loss in L2 fluency since
L2 fluency may develop regardless of this interaction due to daily exposure to an L2 learning environment. L1 grammatical complexity could even improve due to learning
of grammatically sophisticated forms from the father’s utterances. The point here is a change may have unknown ripple effects and all research of this kind needs to be
interpreted with caution. The potential impact of a change in any of these factors is well beyond the scope of the present study. One final factor not examined in this
study relates to family structure. The Korean participants in this study came from united families. It is often the case that many Korean fathers return to Korea to
obtain work, leaving their families in New Zealand. Given the importance of the father in family interactions, the father’s absence in the first-generation family may
lead to more rapid shift to L2 use and loss in L1 proficiency in children due to increased interaction with siblings and the limited role of the mother in their
language use. Given the findings of this study, the longterm effects of the father’s absence need to be evaluated.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 297
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the 2004 Faculty of Arts Research Fund, University of Auckland. An earlier version of this article was presented at the
Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA) Conference, 4
6 July 2006, Sydney, Australia. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments on the previous draft of this article.
Notes 1. This situation has been labelled ‘the astronaut family’ (Ho, Bedford, and Bedford 2000; Lidgard 1996). 2. The authors agree with the suggestion made by one of
the reviewers: ‘Another potential explanation might be the usual adolescent desire to fit in ’. This issue is discussed extensively in Kim and Starks (2008). 3. Given
the employment situation in New Zealand and the availability of air travel between Korea and New Zealand, it is highly likely that most of the fathers have returned to
Korea at some point. Although the interviews did not elicit information about fathers, one participant revealed that her father often visited Korea in her comments. 4.
While many studies based on Skehan’s framework generally refer complexity to grammatical/syntactic complexity, some studies include lexical diversity as another
complexity measure (Yuan and Ellis 2003). 5. Malvern and Richards (1997, 2002) devised D as a measure to overcome type-token ratio (TTR) problems in previous studies.
It uses a mathematical probabilistic model to overcome sensitivity to sample size. D is also useful in that it can be linked to computer programs available from the
CHILDES website (MacWhinney 2000). 6. In Kim (2007), the effect of age on L1 and L2 proficiency measures was also investigated. The result showed no significant negative
correlations (see also Kim 2005b). 7. There was a significant positive correlation between the L1 and L2 vocabulary measures, suggesting general L1 and L2 proficiency is
interdependent. For further discussion, see Kim (2005b, 2007). 8. Although language use between the mother and the father was not elicited explicitly in the language
use questionnaire, it was confirmed at interviews that most of the participants’ parents use Korean for interaction between themselves. 9. Therefore, these negative
correlations may be spelled out as: the L2 measures and L2 use have a positive relationship to each other. 10. Of the 30 participants, nine had older siblings and 16
had younger siblings. The remaining five did not have siblings. None of the participants had both older and younger siblings. There was no statistical difference in
language use between the groups classified according to birth order. For further details, see Kim (2007, 171).
References Barton, M.E., and M. Tomasello. 1994. The rest of the family: The role of fathers and siblings in early language development. In Input and interaction in
language acquisition, ed. C. Gallaway and B. Richards, 109
34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolonyai, A. 2000. ‘Elective affinities’: Language contact in the
abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, no. 8: 1
106. Clyne, M. 1967. Transference and triggering. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Nijhoff. Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M., and S. Kipp.
1999. Pluricentric languages in an immigrant context: Spanish, Chinese, Arabic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and special education: Issues
in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K., and M. Clyne. 1994. A 16-year longitudinal study of language attrition in Dutch immigrants
in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15, no. 1: 17
28.
298 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Do ¨pke, S. 1990. Are mothers really the main mediators of language? In Learning, keeping, and using the language. Vol. 1, ed. M.A.K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, and H.
Nicholas, 101
13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Extra, G., and L. Verhoeven. 1999. Bilingualism and migration. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, J.A. 1965.
Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique 2: 67
88. Fishman, J.A. 1966. Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. In Language
loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious group, ed. J. Fishman, 424
58. The
Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Foster, P., A. Tonkyn, and G. Wigglesworth. 2000.
Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21, no. 3: 354
75. Frederiksen, J.R. 1982. A componential theory of reading skills and their
interactions. In Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Vol. 1, ed. R.J. Mislevy, 125
80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Golberg, H., J. Paradis, and M.
Crago. 2008. Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistcs 29, no. 1: 41
65.
Goodglass, H. 2001. The Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. 3rd ed. Baltimore & Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Grabe, W. 1991. Current developments in
second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly 25: 375
406. Gross, S. 2000. The role of abstract lexical structure in first language attrition: Germans in America.
PhD diss., University of South Carolina, Colombia, SC. Hakuta, K., and D. D’Andrea. 1992. Some properties of bilingual maintenance and loss in Mexican background
high-school students. Applied Linguistics 13, no. 1: 72
99. Ho, E., R. Bedford, and C. Bedford. 2000. Migrants in their family contexts: Application of a methodology
(Population Studies Centre discussion paper no. 34). Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato. Holmes, J., M. Roberts, M. Verivaki, and A. Aipolo. 1993. Language
maintenance and shift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied Linguistics 14, no. 1: 1
24. Huls, E., and A. van de Mond. 1992. Some aspects of language
attrition in Turkish families in the Netherlands. In Maintenance and loss of minority languages, ed. W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, and S. Kroon, 99
113. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Isurin, L. 2000. Deserted island or a child’s first language forgetting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3, no. 2: 151
66. Johri, R.
1998. Stuck in the middle or clued up on both? Language and identity among Korean, Dutch and Samoan immigrants in Dunedin. PhD diss., University of Otago, Dunedin.
Kaplan, E., H. Goodglass, and S. Weintraub. 2001. Boston naming test. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Kaufman, D. 1991. First language attrition as a
creative interplay between two languages. PhD diss., State University of New York at Stony Brook. Kim, J. 2001. Language diaries and language use in the Korean
community. Master’s thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland. Kim, J., and D. Starks. 2005. Language diaries: A case study of language use in the New Zealand
Korean community. In Languages of New Zealand, ed. A. Bell, R. Harlow, and D. Starks, 343
69. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Kim, S.H.O. 2004. ‘‘I know the
word, but…’’ Korean-English late bilinguals’ vocabulary knowledge in L1 and L2. Paper presented at the 9th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL
(CLESOL)*language, community, diversity: Hearing every voice, September 24
27, in Christchurch, New Zealand. Kim, S.H.O. 2005a. At the crossroads of psycholinguistics
and sociolinguistics: Issues in researching first language attrition. Paper presented at the New Zealand Linguistics Society Conference 2005, November 17
10, in
Auckland, New Zealand. Kim, S.H.O. 2005b. ‘‘I know the word, but …’’ Korean-English late bilinguals’ vocabulary knowledge in L1 and L2. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 28, no. 2: 15
27.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 299
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Kim, S.H.O. 2007. First language attrition in a second language learning environment: The case of Korean-English late bilinguals. PhD diss., The University of
Auckland, New Zealand. Kim, S.H.O., and C. Elder. 2005. Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional
analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research 9, no. 4: 355
80. Kim, S.H.O., and D. Starks. 2008. The role of emotions in L1 attrition: The case of
KoreanEnglish late bilinguals in New Zealand. International Journal of Bilingualism 12, no. 4: 313
9. Ko ¨pke, B. 2004. Neurolinguistic aspects of attrition. Journal
of Neurolinguistics 17, no. 1: 3
30. Laufer, B., and P. Nation. 1999. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing 16, no. 1: 33
51. Li,
W. 1994. Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and language shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lidgard, J.M. 1996. East Asian migration to Aotearoa/New Zealand: Perspectives of some new arrivals (Population Studies Centre discussion paper no. 12). Hamilton, New
Zealand: University of Waikato. Luo, S-H., and R.L. Wiseman. 2000. Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in the United States. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 24, no. 3: 307
24. MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk: Transcription format and programs. 3rd ed.
Vol. I. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Major, R.C. 1992. Losing English as a first language. Modern Language Journal 76, no. 2: 190
208. Malvern, D., and B. Richards. 1997. A
new measure of lexical diversity. In Evolving models of language: Papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics held at the
University of Wales, Swansea, September 1996, ed. A. Ryan and A. Wray, 58
71. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics. Malvern, D., and B. Richards.
2002. Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19, no. 1: 85
104. Olshtain, E., and M.
Barzilay. 1991. Lexical retrieval difficulties in adult language attrition. In First language attrition, ed. H.W. Seliger and R.M. Vago, 139
50. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Park, S-H. 2000. A sociolinguistic and social psycholinguistic study of Korean communities in New Zealand: Language maintenance and second language
learning. PhD diss., Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Pauwels, A. 2005. Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for
families. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8, no. 2&3: 124
31. Rondal, J.A. 1980. Father’s and mother’s speech in early language
development. Journal of Child Language 7, no. 2: 353
69. Schmid, M.S. 2004. Identity and first language attrition: A historical approach. Estudios de Sociolinguistica
5, no. 1: 41
58. Schmid, M.S., and K. de Bot. 2004. Language attrition. In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies and C. Elder, 210
34. Oxford:
Blackwell. Schmitt, E. 2001. Beneath the surface: Signs of language attrition in immigrant children from Russia. PhD diss., University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Segalowitz, N. 1991. Does advanced skill in a second language reduce automaticity in the first language? Language Learning 41, no. 1: 59
83. Seliger, H.W. 1996.
Primary language attrition in the context of bilingualism. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia, 605
26. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press. Seliger, H.W., and R.M. Vago. 1991. First language attrition. Cambridge [England] & New York: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. 1996. A framework
for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, no. 1: 38
61. Skehan, P. 2001. Task and language performance assessment. In Researching
pedagogic tasks, ed. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain, 167
85. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
300 S.H.O. Kim and D. Starks
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015
Sorace, A. 2004. Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntaxdiscourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 7, no. 2: 143
5. Starks, D., and S.H. Youn. 1998. Language maintenance in the Auckland Korean community. Many Voices 12: 8
11. Tomasello, M., G.
Conti-Ramsden, and B. Ewert. 1990. Young children’s conversations with their mothers and fathers: Differences in breakdown and repair. Journal of Child Language 17,
no. 1: 115
30. Tomiyama, M. 2000. Child second language attrition: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics 21, no. 3: 304
32. Waas, M. 1996. Language attrition
downunder: German speakers in Australia. New York: Peter Lang. Winter, J., and A. Pauwels. 2005a. Gender and language contact research in the Australian context.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21, no. 6: 508
22. Winter, J., and A. Pauwels. 2005b. Gender in the construction and transmission of
ethnolinguisitc identities and language maintenance in immigrant Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25, no. 1: 153
68. Ya ˘gmur, K. 2004. Issues in finding
the appropriate methodology in language attrition research. In First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodology issues, ed. M.S. Schmid, B. Ko
¨pke, M. Keijzer, and L. Weilemar, 133
64. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Ya ˘gmur, K., K. de Bot, and H. Korzillus. 1999. Language attrition, language
shift, and ethnographic vitality of Turkish in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20, no. 1: 51
69. Yuan, F., and R. Ellis. 2003. The
effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24, no. 1: 1
27. Yukawa, E.
1997. L1 Japanese attrition and regaining: Three case studies of two early bilingual children. Stockholm: Center for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 301
Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 23:28 06 July 2015

TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW