4.5 Article

Predicting Spanish-English Bilingual Children's Language Abilities

期刊

出版社

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0016)

关键词

bilingualism; language development; sociolinguistics; children; cultural and linguistic diversity

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01-HD051542-06]
  2. U.S. Department of Education
  3. Institute of Education Sciences
  4. Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In this study, the authors investigated factors that affect bilingual children's vocabulary and story recall abilities in their 2 languages. Method: Participants included 191 Latino families and their children, who averaged 59 months of age. Data on parental characteristics and children's exposure to and usage of Spanish and English were collected. The authors assessed children's Spanish and English vocabulary and story recall abilities using subtests of the Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-Revised (Woodcock, Munoz-Sandoval, Ruef, & Alvarado, 2005). Results: Sizeable percentages of variation in children's English (R-2 = .61) and Spanish (R-2 = .55) vocabulary scores were explained by children's exposure to, and usage of, each language and maternal characteristics. Similarly, variations in children's story recall scores in English (R-2 = .38) and Spanish (R-2 = .19) were also explained by the factors considered in this investigation. However, the authors found that different sets of factors in each category affected children's vocabulary and story recall abilities in each language. Conclusions: Children's exposure to and usage of their two languages as well as maternal characteristics play significant roles in bilingual individuals' language development. The results highlight the importance of gathering detailed sociolinguistic information about bilingual children when these children are involved in research and when they enter the educational system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据