2014
DOI: 10.1177/0142723714560178
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Productive vocabulary among three groups of bilingual American children: Comparison and prediction

Abstract: The importance of input factors for bilingual children’s vocabulary development was investigated. Forty-seven Argentine, 42 South Korean, 51 European American, 29 Latino immigrant, 26 Japanese immigrant, and 35 Korean immigrant mothers completed checklists of their 20-month-old children’s productive vocabularies. Bilingual children’s vocabulary sizes in each language separately were consistently smaller than their monolingual peers but only Latino bilingual children had smaller total vocabularies than monoling… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
26
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(74 reference statements)
4
26
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These studies covered two subtopics, cognitive processes ( n = 8) and linguistics and language learning ( n = 8). These studies covered various developmental periods, including infants (e.g., Cote & Bornstein, 2014), children (e.g., Kan, 2014), adolescents (e.g., McArdle, Hamagami, Bautista, et al, 2014), and adults (e.g., Kitayama & Park, 2014). Most studies used quantitative designs, such as experimental ( n = 8; e.g., J.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These studies covered two subtopics, cognitive processes ( n = 8) and linguistics and language learning ( n = 8). These studies covered various developmental periods, including infants (e.g., Cote & Bornstein, 2014), children (e.g., Kan, 2014), adolescents (e.g., McArdle, Hamagami, Bautista, et al, 2014), and adults (e.g., Kitayama & Park, 2014). Most studies used quantitative designs, such as experimental ( n = 8; e.g., J.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For linguistics and language learning , studies covered areas such as bilingual children’s language learning experiences (Cote & Bornstein, 2014; Kan, 2014; Uchikoshi, 2014), Asian Americans’ heritage language development (C. E. Kim & Pyun, 2014; Leung, 2014), and English pronunciation (Jin & Liu, 2014; Liu, Jin, & Chen, 2014; A.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The amount of input monolingual children receive in a given language is positively related to their vocabulary size in that language, and this same association obtains among children being reared bilingually from birth. One study investigated maternal language input for bilingual children's vocabulary development in Latin, Japanese, and Korean immigrant families [6]. Maternal degree of acculturation predicted the amount of maternal input in each language, which then predicted immigrant children's vocabulary size in each language.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If children are regularly exposed to more than one language, their lexical abilities will develop according to the input received in each one of them (e.g., Bohmann et al, 2009; De Houwer, Bornstein, & Putnick, 2014 ; Hoff et al., 2012 ; Place & Hoff, 2011 ; Rinker, Budde-Spengler, & Sachse, 2016 ; Song, Tamis-LeMonda, Yoshikawa, Kahana-Kalman, & Wu, 2011 ; for a review see Gatt & O’Toole, 2016 ; Hammer et al., 2014). A small to medium vocabulary disadvantage for bilingual children has been reported when only one language is considered and has been linked to reduction of input when the total language input is divided between two languages (Bialystok, Luk, Peets, & Yang, 2010 ; Cote & Bornstein, 2014 ; Hoff et al, 2012 ; Junker & Stockman, 2002 ; Klassert, Gagarina, & Kauschke, 2014 ; Quiroz et al, 2010 ; Thordardottir, 2011 ; for a review see Unsworth, 2013). Multilingual or foreign language family environments in Germany are very often confounded with specific characteristics of the social environment, including higher incidence of poverty, educational disadvantages, and discrimination (e.g., Kigel, McElvany, & Becker, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%