Code Switching in College Scholarly Peer Reviewed Articles

• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC7816522

Child Dev. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2021 January 20.

Published in concluding edited course as:

PMCID: PMC7816522

NIHMSID: NIHMS1660968

Does Exposure to Lawmaking-Switching Influence Linguistic communication Performance in Bilingual Children?

Abstruse

This report investigated whether the effect of exposure to code-switching on bilingual children'south language performance varied depending on exact working memory. A large sample of school-aged Castilian-English language bilingual children (N = 174, Thou _age = 7.78) was recruited, and children were administered language measures in English and Spanish. The frequency with which the children were exposed to code-switching was gathered through parent report. For children with high verbal working memory, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with college levels of language ability. In contrast, for children with lower exact working memory, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with lower levels of linguistic communication ability. These findings indicate that children's cerebral processing capacity dictates whether exposure to lawmaking-switching facilitates or hinders language skills.

Keywords: lawmaking-switching, language ability, verbal working retentiveness, bilingualism

Code-switching (alternation betwixt languages) is a common practice among bilinguals. Yet, a robust psycholinguistic literature indicates that code-switching carries processing costs, both in product (Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013; Fricke, Kroll, & Dussias, 2016; Meuter & Allport, 1999) and in comprehension (Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996; Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017; Bultena, Dijkstra, & Van Hell, 2015a; b; Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004). Why so do bilinguals lawmaking-switch? Existence able to code-switch enables bilinguals to precisely express the intended meanings and to circumvent lexical gaps (Green & Wei, 2014). At the same time, bilinguals announced to be able to capitalize on subtle oral communication cues to offset the comprehension costs associated with an upcoming code-switch (Fricke, Kroll, & Dussias, 2016). Thus, by and large, the advantages associated with being able to switch between languages outweigh the (possible) processing costs associated with a language switch. Perhaps this is why code-switching is rather common in the speech of bilingual parents, although the degree of mixed-language input in a bilingual child's environment varies widely both within and across bilingual communities (e.g., Bond, Morini, & Newman, 2015; Bentahila & Davies, 1995; Byers-Heinlein, 2013; Nicoladis & Secco, 2000; Tare & Gelman, 2011). The question and then is: does exposure to code-switching contribute to individual differences in bilingual children's language abilities, akin to other qualitative aspects of language input?

Merely a few previous studies accept examined the relation between exposure to code-switching and bilingual children's language performance, and the findings paint a rather confusing picture. In 2 studies, Place and Hoff (2011; 2016) found that exposure to mixed-linguistic communication input was not associated with language outcomes in 25-to-30 month-old Spanish-English language bilingual children. In both studies, children's language exposure was measured via a linguistic communication diary technique, with parents noting their language use in xxx-minute increments. Parental language mixing was defined as the proportion of waking time during which the kid was exposed to ii languages within the same thirty-infinitesimal block. Notably, this measure of dual-linguistic communication input does non distinguish between code-switching and sequential use of the two languages within the aforementioned block of time. Place and Hoff (2011) plant no relation between this measure of mixed-language input and children'due south productive vocabulary and grammer, measured via a parent report. In a follow-up study, Place and Hoff (2016) replicated this null finding, extending information technology to measures of auditory comprehension and expressive vocabulary skills measured via standardized tests.

In contrast, a few studies revealed relations between bilingual children'south exposure to lawmaking-switched input and linguistic communication outcomes, albeit with opposite results. Byers-Heinlein (2013) examined the relation between a parental-report mensurate of intra-sentential code-mixing (using words from 2 languages within the aforementioned judgement) and eighteen–24-month-sometime bilingual children's performance on English receptive and productive vocabulary measures, also indexed via a parent study. The findings suggested that increased frequency of parental linguistic communication mixing was associated with reduced receptive and productive vocabulary in the children, over and to a higher place the effects of English exposure, gender, historic period, and linguistic balance. Similarly, Lipsky (2013) found that the amount of code-switching past the teacher during storybook reading (quantified as the number of Castilian words used past the instructor during an English reading session) was negatively related to children's English language receptive vocabulary outcomes, measured via a standardized examination. The children in the Lipsky (2013) study were 36–59-month-old Head Start students. In dissimilarity, Bail, Morini, and Newman (2015) plant the opposite blueprint, showing that intra-sentential code-switching was positively related to xviii–24-month-old bilingual children's vocabulary size. Different Byers-Heinlein (2014), Bond et al. (2015) derived an objective measure of code-switching, which they obtained from a parent-child interaction sample; their measure of productive vocabulary size was the aforementioned parent-written report measure out used by Byers-Heinlein (2013). How so to reconcile the rather conflicting findings across these studies?

Beyond considering the obvious methodological culprits (the distinct approaches to measuring mixed-language input and the different indexes of linguistic communication ability used in these studies), there is a theoretically grounded possibility related to private differences in children'southward ability to process code-switched input. Verbal working retentiveness is a capacity-constrained organization with well-documented private differences in the population (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001). A classic theory of language comprehension anchors individual differences in language comprehension ability to individual differences in working memory chapters (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Daneman and Merikle, 1996), with extensive empirical testify supporting a potent relation between comprehension and WM measures such as the astern digit-span, in bilingual (e.k., Buac, Gross, & Kaushanskaya, 2016; Cockroft, 2016; Engel de Abreau et al., 2011; Kormos & Safar, 2008) but also in monolingual (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Chrysochoou, Bablekou, Masoura, & Tsigilis, 2013; Leather & Henry; 1994; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005; Verhagen & Leseman, 2016) children. Daneman and Carpenter (1980) argued that weaknesses in WM would lead to deficits in comprehension, particularly for the more than demanding comprehension tasks that require integration of words, phrases, and sentences into a coherent whole. Processing of code-switched input may found only such a job, with a language switch posing processing and integration costs (Altarriba, Kroll, Sholl, & Rayner, 1996; Bultena, Dijkstra, & Van Hell, 2015a; b; Proverbio, Leoni, & Zani, 2004), and inducing an increased cerebral load (Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017). In fact, neuroimaging literature has revealed that lawmaking-switches encountered during comprehension tasks elicit responses that suggest an increased effort in retentiveness updating processes (e.g., Moreno, Federmeier, & Kutas, 2002; van Der Meijet al., 2011). Thus, the hypothesis we tested in the present report was that children with dissimilar levels of verbal working memory chapters may respond to code-switched input in singled-out ways.

Specifically, nosotros hypothesized that children with lower levels of verbal working memory capacity would detect lawmaking-switched input challenging, and thus we predicted a negative clan between increased amounts of code-switched input and linguistic communication skills for children with lower levels of verbal working retention. We predicted that children with higher levels of working retentiveness capacity would find information technology easier to procedure code-switched input, and that thus code-switched input may not affect or may fifty-fifty facilitate their linguistic communication skills. In that location is a number of reasons why children's language skills might benefit from lawmaking-switched input. For instance, code-switched input may highlight translation equivalents (Bail et al., 2015) thus facilitating vocabulary acquisition across both languages. It may also depict children'southward attention to the pragmatic situations within which language input unfolds (Yow & Markman, 2016), thus enhancing the child's ability to acquire linguistic data from a chatty substitution. These possibilities are entirely speculative, and our goal was not to adjudicate betwixt them. Rather, we aimed to examine whether in principle it is possible for code-switched input to be associated with positive linguistic communication outcomes in some bilingual children.

Our hypothesis regarding the moderating effects of verbal working memory on the relation between exposure to code-switching and linguistic communication outcomes is conceptually similar to the classic threshold hypothesis of bilingual linguistic communication development (east.g., Cummins, 1976; 1979; 1984; 2000). While the focus of the threshold hypothesis was transfer of linguistic cognition between a bilingual'south two languages, with the degree of transfer hypothesized to depend on whether bilinguals attained threshold levels of language proficiency in their two languages, it has also been used to explain how fluctuations in bilinguals' language proficiency influence performance on linguistic communication-specific (e.g., Cha & Goldenberg, 2015) and cerebral measures (e.1000., Ricciardelli, 1992). Here, we hypothesized that threshold levels of verbal working retentiveness chapters may be necessary in club to observe beneficial effects of code-switched input on bilingual children'southward language outcomes. Nosotros tested this hypothesis in a big sample of school-aged Spanish-English bilingual children. The advantage to testing children in the school-aged range (vs. infants or very young children) is that information technology enabled united states of america to administer comprehensive standardized measures of linguistic communication ability to the children in both the receptive and the expressive domains, in both languages.

Method

Participants

Ane hundred seventy-four typically developing Spanish-English language bilingual children (88 boys) between the ages of five – 11 years old were recruited. All children passed a bilateral pure tone hearing screening at 20 dB at 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz. The children were all exposed to English and Spanish at the time of the written report. In full general, the children in the study barbarous into ane of three groups: 43% (northward = 75) were exposed to English and Spanish earlier their third altogether; 20 % (n = 35) were native Spanish speakers who acquired English language upon entry into formal schooling; and 37 % (n = 64) were native English speakers who acquired Spanish via dual-immersion programs where 50–ninety% of their schoolhouse instruction was in Castilian.

Participants with a history of developmental linguistic communication filibuster, participants who were receiving language therapy services, and children with an organic medical diagnosis were excluded. Information near master caregivers' language utilize, linguistic communication proficiency, and socioeconomic status (operationalized as maternal years of education) was collected through parent interviews. Data about children's current linguistic communication exposure, linguistic communication dominance, and linguistic communication preference was collected through parent questionnaires and a face-to-face parent interview. In addition, parents completed the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (Spring-Q, Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007) about their own language background and educational history. See Table 1 for participant characteristics across all the children tested. Meet Supplementary Materials (Tabular array S1) for participant characteristics in each of the 3 sub-groups of the children.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics, Ways (SDs)

	N = 174
Gender	88 boys; 86 girls
Age	7.78 (ane.55)
Maternal Years of Education a	15.04 (four.10)
IQ b	106.80 (14.88)
Age at first exposure to English (months)	10.74 (19.75)
Age at first exposure to Spanish (months)	24.xvi (29.29)
Electric current English Exposure c (%)	59 (twenty)
Exposure to Lawmaking-Switching d	ii.86 (ane.68)
English language Cadre Language e	96.63 (18.82)
English Receptive Language e	102.half-dozen (14.56)
English language Expressive Language east	95.76 (19.07)
Spanish Cadre Language f	86.67 (15.38)
Spanish Receptive Language f	99.03 (thirteen.22)
Spanish Expressive Language f	83.01 (15.87)
Verbal Working Memory yard	102.28 (sixteen.25)
Language heard at schoolhouse
English simply	44
Spanish at to the lowest degree fifty% of time	130
Language heard at abode
Mostly English	91
Mostly Spanish	62
Both English and Castilian	21
Linguistic communication spoken at home
Mostly English	101
Mostly Spanish	49
Both English and Castilian	24
Parent Language Proficiency h
English
Speaking	8.1 (ii.44)
Understanding	8.53 (2.16)
Reading	8.34 (ii.48)
Castilian
Speaking	half dozen.92 (3.42)
Understanding	7.45 (2.99)
Reading	7.03 (three.fourteen)

Process

Participants were tested individually in a tranquillity room at the Waisman Center. The children completed standardized assessments of language and cognition over the course of 3 sessions, while the parents were interviewed. The interviews with the parents were conducted either in English or in Spanish, depending on the parent's proficiency and preference.

Exposure to Lawmaking-Switching

The parents were interviewed contiguous nigh their child's linguistic communication surround. For the purposes of the nowadays study, responses to one question in detail were used to calculate the corporeality of exposure to code-switching that each child experienced on a daily footing. Nosotros beginning provided the parents with our definition of code-switching: "Code-switching is a communication strategy that some bilinguals use, where they switch dorsum and forth between languages during conversations with others who speak their ii languages. Sometimes they switch languages from ane sentence to the next during the conversation, and sometimes they switch languages within a single sentence. Code-switches within a judgement may be a unmarried word or a larger group of words. Some bilinguals code-switch regularly, while others code-switch rarely, if at all." Thus, our definition of code-switching encompassed inter- and intra-sentential code-switching, as well every bit single-word borrowing.

Parents were provided with a list of individuals that the child could interact with, including the child'southward mother, father, siblings, grandparents, other relatives, friends during play, classmates at school, adults at school, and strangers. The parents were then asked: "If this individual/these individuals speak both Castilian and English, how ofttimes do they code-switch effectually your child?" The parents were provided with a frequency scale, where aught stood for "never", five stood for "half the time", and ten stood for "ever." Ratings were averaged across all persons to create a measure of boilerplate exposure to code-switching that the kid experienced in their environment.

Standardized Measures

The Visual Matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2, Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) was used to appraise children'due south non-verbal intelligence. Items on the subtest require understanding of spatial relations, utilise of abstruse reasoning and of trouble-solving strategies. All children scored within the typical range on this measure out (see Table one).

The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Quaternary Edition (CELF-4, Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) was used to evaluate children's expressive and receptive linguistic communication abilities in English language. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish, Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2006) was used to evaluate children's expressive and receptive language abilities in Castilian. The following CELF-4 performance indexes served as dependent variables: Core Language, Receptive Language, and Expressive Language. This was done in lodge to examine whether exposure to code-switching affects the different modalities of language use (receptive vs. expressive) to different degrees. Standard scores were used as operation measures for all these indices.

Core Language is a measure of general language ability that reflects a kid'southward overall linguistic communication performance beyond both receptive and expressive modalities, and lexical-semantic and syntactic domains. The Receptive Linguistic communication index is a measure of auditory comprehension, while the Expressive Language index is a measure of expressive language skills. Generally, reliability and validity checks for the CELF-4 composite scores have revealed adequate reliability and validity.

Verbal Working Memory

Exact working retentiveness was assessed via the Numbers Reversed subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson 3 Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). The children repeated numbers astern in ever increasing sequences. This measure out was administered in English to all children. Standard scores were used in all the analyses.

Analyses

All de-identified data and scripts take been uploaded into Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.3886/E107441V1). Separate regression models were constructed using R Studio Version 1.0.153 for each CELF-4 index. Regression tables were constructed using the package stargazer (Hlavac, 2018). We regressed each CELF-4 alphabetize (Core, Receptive, and Expressive) on verbal working memory (mean centered), exposure to lawmaking-switching (mean centered), and the interaction between them. Therefore, the coefficients of these centered variables represent the upshot of that variable at the average value of the other variables in the model. Because SES (r =.54), current exposure to English (r =.52), and age of English language acquisition (r = −.37) were correlated with CELF-4 Core Linguistic communication index scores (see Table S2 in Supplementary Materials for the total correlation matrix), they were entered as covariates in all models. That is, our analyses examined the effects of exposure to code-switching on language performance over and above the effects of SES, language exposure, and age of conquering. To business relationship for possible multicollinearity among related predictor variables, Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) were computed for each regression model. Results indicated a very low level of multicollinearity among variables (VIFs for English language measures equally the outcome variable ranged from 1.17 to ane.49, and VIFs for Spanish linguistic communication measures as the issue variable ranged from one.fourteen to 1.68).

Results

English language language measures

Beyond all 3 indexes of English language language performance, a significant interaction was observed between verbal MW and exposure to code-switching. For the receptive language index, this interaction remains significant when the covariates are non included in the model. Even so, it is rendered not-significant for the other dependent variables when the covariates are excluded from the models. In children with weaker working memory skills, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with lower linguistic communication scores. In contrast, in children with stronger working memory skills, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with higher linguistic communication scores. The full models for each of the iii English performance indexes can exist constitute in Table ii. A graphical representation of the interaction between verbal WM and exposure to code-switching for the three indices can be institute in Figure 1.

Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching for CELF-4 English Indices. Raw data are presented. Although verbal working retentiveness was measured as a continuous variable in all models, the graphs were created by splitting verbal working retention abilities by thirds.

Table 2.

Regression Models for English CELF-4 Indices, B(SE)

	Dependent variables
	Core Language	Receptive Language	Expressive Language
Intercept	66.37*** (4.88)	87.xv*** (three.99)	63.35*** (4.91)
SES a	i.20*** (0.29)	0.99*** (0.24)	1.28*** (0.29)
Current Exposure to English b	26.47*** (6.33)	vi.95 (5.23)	28.09*** (vi.37)
AoA English c	−0.xvi** (0.06)	−0.16** (0.05)	−0.16** (0.06)
Working Memory d	6.54*** (1.xiv)	iv.77*** (0.95)	half-dozen.19*** (1.15)
Exposure to CS eastward	ii.10 † (1.15)	i.08 (0.94)	two.63* (1.16)
WM:CS f	2.54* (1.04)	2.79** (0.86)	2.58* (ane.05)
η p ² WM:CS g	0.035	0.059	0.036
Observations	169	173	169
R 2	0.52	0.44	0.52
Adjusted R 2	0.50	0.42	0.l
F Statistic	28.87***	21.73***	29.twenty***
	(df = 6; 162)	(df = half-dozen; 166)	(df = 6; 162)

Boosted findings of notation were the following: Across all three analyses, a chief outcome of verbal working retentivity was observed, such that higher verbal working memory scores were associated with stronger language performance. The primary effect of exposure to lawmaking-switching was pregnant for Expressive Language (F(i, 162) = half dozen.05, p < .05), with greater exposure to code-switching associated with college expressive linguistic communication scores. The main effect of exposure to code-switching was not statistically significant for Receptive Language (F(ane, 166) = 1.32 , p > .05), and was only marginally significant for Core Language (F(i, 162) = 3.36, p = .07).

Castilian Language Measures

The findings for Spanish language measures patterned similarly to the findings for English measures. Across all three indexes of Castilian language operation, a significant interaction was observed between verbal MW and exposure to code-switching. For the receptive linguistic communication index, this interaction remains meaning when the covariates are not included in the model. Withal, information technology is rendered not-significant for the other dependent variables when the covariates are excluded from the models. In children with weaker working retention skills, greater exposure to lawmaking-switching was associated with lower linguistic communication scores. In dissimilarity, in children with stronger working memory skills, greater exposure to code-switching was associated with college language scores. The full models for each of the three Castilian operation indexes tin be found in Table 3. A graphical representation of the interaction between verbal WM and exposure to lawmaking-switching for the 3 indices can be found in Effigy 2.

Interaction between working memory and exposure to code-switching for CELF-4 Castilian Indices. Raw data are presented. Although exact working retention was measured as a continuous variable in all models, the graphs were created past splitting verbal working memory abilities by thirds.

Tabular array 3.

Regression Models for Spanish CELF-4 Indices, B(SE)

	Dependent variables
	Core Linguistic communication	Receptive Language	Expressive Language
Intercept	67.83*** (6.25)	89.85*** (5.53)	64.55*** (6.10)
SES a	0.35 (0.31)	0.37** (0.27)	0.25 (0.31)
Electric current Exposure to Spanish b	37.37*** (half dozen.75)	11.37** (six.10)	42.07*** (half-dozen.60)
AoA Spanish c	−0.04 (0.05)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.07 (0.04)
Working Memory d	2.89* (1.xiv)	iv.53*** (1.04)	1.64 (ane.12)
Exposure to CS e	0.67 (one.16)	0.64 (1.04)	0.09 (i.13)
WM:CS f	two.18* (1.03)	1.95* (0.94)	two.26** (i.01)
η p ² WM:CS g	0.027	0.025	0.031
Observations	166	174	166
R 2	0.28	0.18	0.35
Adjusted R 2	0.25	0.15	0.33
F Statistic	ten.30***	6.xviii***	xiv.54***
	(df = 6;159)	(df = half dozen; 167)	(df = 6;159)

Boosted findings of note were the post-obit: Verbal WM was significantly associated with operation on the Castilian Core (F(1, 159) = six.37, p < .05) and Receptive Language (F(1, 167) = 19.03, p < .001) Indexes. However, information technology was non associated with performance on the Expressive Linguistic communication Index (F(ane, 159) = two.fourteen, p > .05). Furthermore, beyond all three models, there was no main effect of exposure to code-switching.

Give-and-take

Does exposure to code-switching carry consequences for bilingual children's language development? The findings from the current study suggest that it may depend on the children's verbal working memory capacity. For children with lower levels of exact working retention, code-switched input appears to conduct risks, with increased exposure to code-switching associated with reduced linguistic communication scores. In contrast, for children with higher levels of verbal working memory, code-switched input does non announced to comport risks, with increased exposure to lawmaking-switching associated with improved language scores. Notably, these findings hold for both of the bilinguals' languages, and for both expressive and receptive language skills.

Our results provide a possible reconciliation for the discrepant findings in the literature, with some studies indicating zilch associations between exposure to mixed-linguistic communication input and language (Place & Hoff, 2011; 2014), some studies indicating negative furnishings of exposure to mixed-language input on linguistic communication (Byers-Heinlein, 2013; Lipsky, 2013), and one study suggesting a positive event of exposure to mixed-linguistic communication input on language (Bail, Morini, & Newman, 2015). Our findings also speak to the broader psycholinguistic literature on linguistic communication switching, where a modest number of studies has failed to demonstrate processing costs associated with comprehending mixed-language input (Gullifer, Kroll, & Dussias, 2013; Kohnert & Bates, 2002), challenging the larger literature indicating that comprehension of code-switched input is more effortful than comprehension of single-language input (Altarriba, et al., 1996; Bultena, et al., 2015a; b; Proverbio et al., 2004). Information technology is possible that at to the lowest degree some of the discrepancies across studies may exist the result of fluctuations in participants' exact working retentivity skills.

Why may children with different levels of verbal working retentiveness answer differently to code-switched input? At the very least, code-switched input is more than variable than single-linguistic communication input, and it may exist more challenging. The basic ability to process such input therefore should logically underpin the ability to acquire information from it. Individual differences in exact working memory have been tightly linked with variability in children's language outcomes (east.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004; Engel de Abreu & Gathercole, 2012; Kormos & Sáfár, 2008; Verhagen & Leseman, 2016). Therefore, a sure threshold level of verbal working memory capacity may be necessary in society to efficiently process linguistic data embedded in code-switched input. However, the correlational nature of the data preclude a causal interpretation of the relation amidst the variables under study. In fact, information technology is possible that verbal working memory and exposure to code-switching (for instance) bask a bi-directional connection, where increased verbal working retentivity capacity is associated with enhanced power to procedure code-switching input, and in turn, code-switched input may heave the development of the verbal working memory system as information technology works to accommodate to such input. In interpreting the findings, it is of import to admit that while the statistical issue of the interaction between verbal WM capacity and exposure to lawmaking-switching was indeed significant, it was quite small. It is also of import to acknowledge that while we statistically controlled for the effects of maternal years of teaching, language exposure, and age of acquisition in the analyses, this may not take accounted for the furnishings of SES or the effects of linguistic communication proficiency and residue fully. Finally, nosotros do non envision exact working memory to be the only moderator of the relation between exposure to code-switching and linguistic communication outcomes in bilingual children. A range of cognitive skills (including inhibitory control and phonological short-term memory), a range of linguistic skills (eastward.g., degree of balance between the two languages; robustness of the linguistic skills in the ii languages; etc.), and a range of experiences (east.chiliad., extent to which code-switching is practiced in the community; extent to which the child engages in code-switching; etc.) may contribute to the strength and the direction of an clan between exposure to code-switched input and language skills.

What are the implications of our findings? For researchers working in the expanse of bilingual language evolution, our findings bespeak that fluctuations in bilingual children's language-specific abilities are related not only to absolute levels of exposure to their ii languages but too to the type of exposure. This notion is not a new i. Hoff and colleagues (Place & Hoff, 2011; 2016) have shown that quality of bilingual language input contributes to bilingual children's linguistic communication outcomes over and higher up exposure levels. In their studies, they hypothesized that mixed-language input might office similarly to non-native input, with both types of input characterized as lower quality input (compared to single-language and native linguistic communication input). What they plant instead was a lack of an association between their measure of mixed-language input and children's language performance. Our results indicate that mixed-linguistic communication input may in fact serve equally loftier-quality input, merely simply for a subset of children capable of processing such input.

One important consideration for futurity piece of work is the possibility that unlike types of code-switching behaviors in children's language environment may behave distinct consequences for bilingual children's language development. That is, switches within a unmarried judgement, including single-word borrowings, may induce different processing strategies than switches across sentences (e.yard., Byers-Heinlein, Morin-Lessard, & Lew-Williams, 2017). In our study, we collapsed across all types of code-switching behaviors, and thus obtained a rather global measure of exposure to lawmaking-switched input. Hereafter studies may consider disentangling dissimilar types of code-switching behaviors, and it will be important to examine the reliability with which parents can report on the different types of code-switching behaviors.

In general, whether parents are reliable in their reports of lawmaking-switching behaviors is an open question. While Place and Hoff (2016) establish that parental responses on Byers-Heinlein'due south (2013) Language Mixing Scale correlated with language-diary-based measures of parental lawmaking-switching, Bond, Morini, and Newman (2015) observed a lack of concordance between parents' cocky-reports of code-switching behavior and the actual number of code-switches they produced. We asked the parents in the present written report to report non but on the frequency of their own code-switching, but also on the frequency of other individuals' code-switching behaviors, and the reliability of these reports remains to exist established. This arroyo may accept been especially problematic for a subset of bilingual children in our study who were exposed to both of their languages simply in the school setting (see Tabular array S1 in Supplementary Materials).

We too did not collect information regarding the amount of input that the children received from each source because we were uncertain about how to incorporate this data into a measure of code-switching exposure. We therefore admit that a lot of additional research is needed to constitute reliable indexes of code-switching exposure. In the absenteeism of such a mensurate at the electric current indicate in fourth dimension, our measure is a viable option that has a number of advantages over the few available alternatives. For instance, because of its broad nature, it may be more sensitive to fluctuations in lawmaking-switching exposure than more fine-grained measures that may also exist more difficult for the parents to evaluate (due east.g., intra-sentential code-switching). At the same time, our mensurate of code-switching exposure is more fine-grained than the diary measure employed past Place and Hoff (2016), for example, because information technology clearly instructs the parents to written report on the amount of code-switching that particular individuals produce.

In decision, we would offer the post-obit cautious interpretation of our findings: Exposure to code-switching does not deport risks, and may in fact exist associated with better linguistic communication outcomes in children who are capable of processing such input. However, exposure to code-switching may not be optimal for linguistic communication development in children who may have difficulties processing such input. Of course, in view of the limitations of the parent report measure of exposure to code-switching and in view of the rather weak, albeit meaning interaction between verbal working memory capacity and exposure to lawmaking-switching, it is premature to offer any applied recommendations based on our findings. Notably, in our study, we targeted only typically-developing children, and therefore the side by side logical footstep for this line of research is to examine the clan between exposure to code-switching and language outcomes in children with language harm. Because working memory deficits are well-established in children with language impairment (due east.yard., Archibald & Gathercole, 2003; Ellis Weismer, Evans, & Hesketh, 1999; Montgomery, 2000), nosotros would venture to hypothesize that our findings for the children with lower levels of verbal working memory would also pertain to children with language harm. However, our findings in no way suggest that exposure to two languages is detrimental to language outcomes in bilingual children. Rather, they indicate a possibility that certain ways of structuring the bilingual language environs may be more optimal for the children who may take difficulty processing language.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Materials

Acknowledgments

The present project was supported by NIDCD Grants: R03 DC010465, R01 DC011750 to Margarita Kaushanskaya , and a Training Grant T32 DC005359 to Susan Ellis Weismer. We extend our gratitude to the families who participated in the present study, to the students in the Linguistic communication Acquisition and Bilingualism Lab for their assist with data drove and information coding, and to the schools in the Madison Metropolitan School district who generously aided in participant recruitment.

References

• Altarriba J, Kroll JF, Sholl A, & Rayner K (1996). The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times. Retentiveness & Cognition, 24, 477–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Archibald L, & Gathercole Southward (2006). Brusk-term and working memory in specific language impairment. International Periodical of Communicative Disorders, 41, 675–693. doi:10.1080/13682820500442602 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bond A, Morini G, & Newman RS (2015). Wait at the gato! Code-switching in speech to toddlers. Journal of Child Language, 42, 1073–1101. doi:x.1017/S0305000914000695 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bentahila A, & Eirlys ED (1995). Patterns of code-switching and patterns of linguistic communication contact. Lingua, 96, 75–93. [Google Scholar]
• Bobb SC, & Wodniecka Z (2013). Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (exercise not) tell u.s. about inhibition in bilingual speech planning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 568–585. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.792822 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Buac M, Gross M, & Kaushanskaya 1000 (2016). Predictors of processing-based task functioning in bilingual and monolingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders , 62, 12–29. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.04.001 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bultena S, Dijkstra T, & Van Hell JG (2015a). Linguistic communication switch costs in sentence comprehension depend on language dominance: Evidence from self-paced reading. Bilingualism: Language & Noesis, 18, 453–469. doi:10.1017/S1366728914000145 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bultena S, Dijkstra T, & Van Hell JG (2015b). Switch cost modulations in bilingual sentence processing: evidence from shadowing. Language, Cognition, & Neuroscience, 30, 586–605. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.964268 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Byers-Heinlein G (2013). Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input to young bilingual children's vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, sixteen, 32 – 48. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000120 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Byers-Heinlein K, Morin-Lessard E, & Lew-Williams C (2017). Bilingual infants control their languages as they listen. PNAS, 114, 34. doi:10.1073/pnas.1703220114 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cain Grand, Oakhill JV, & Bryant PE (2004). Children'south reading comprehension power: Concurrent prediction by working retention, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
• Cha K, & Goldenberg C (2015). The circuitous relationship between bilingual home language input and kindergarten children's Spanish and English oral proficiencies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 935–953. 10.1037/edu0000030 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chrysochoou Eastward, Bablekou Z, Masoura E, & Tsigilis N (2013). Working memory and vocabulary development in Greek preschool and primary school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 417–432. x.1080/17405629.2012.686656 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cockroft Thou (2016). A comparing betwixt verbal working retention and vocabulary in bilingual and monolingual Due south African school beginners: implications for bilingual language cess. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 74–88. 10.1080/13670050.2014.964172 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cummins J (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of inquiry findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, i–43. [Google Scholar]
• Cummins J (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Inquiry, 49, 222–251. 10.3102/00346543049002222 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cummins J (1984). Bilingualism and cognitive functioning In Shapson S and D'Oyley V (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural teaching: Canadian perspectives (pp. 55–70). Clevedon, Uk: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
• Cummins J (2000). Language, ability and teaching: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
• Daneman Yard & Carpenter PA (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Periodical of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, xix, 450–466. 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Daneman M & Merikle PM (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ellis Weismer S, Evans J, & Hesketh L (1999). An examination of verbal working retention chapters in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Oral communication, Language, and Hearing Research , 42, 1249–1260. 10.1044/jslhr.4205.1249 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Engel de Abreu PMJ, Gathercole SE, & Martin R (2011). Disentangling the human relationship between working memory and language: The roles of short-term storage and cerebral control. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 569–574. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Engel de Abreu PMJ, & Gathercole SE (2012). Executive and phonological processes in second-language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 974–986. 10.1037/a0028390 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fricke One thousand, Kroll JF, & Dussias PE (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the product-comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 110–137. doi:ten.1016/j.jml.2015.x.001 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dark-green DW, & Wei L (2014). A command process model of lawmaking-switching. Language, Knowledge, and Neuroscience, 29, 499–511. 10.1080/23273798.2014.882515 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gullifer JW, Kroll JF, & Dussias PE (2013). When language switching has no credible cost: lexical access in sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 278. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hlavac Marek (2018). stargazer: Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables. R package version 5.2.i. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer [Google Scholar]
• Kaufman AS, & Kaufman NL (2004). Kaufman Cursory Intelligence Test, Second Edition Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc. [Google Scholar]
• Kohnert KJ, & Bates Eastward (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Periodical of Speech, Language, and Hearing Inquiry, 45, 347–359. ten.1044/1092-4388(2002/027) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kormos J, & Sáfár A (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory, and foreign linguistic communication performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Linguistic communication and Cognition, 11, 261–271. x.1017/S1366728908003416 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Leather CV, & Henry LA (1994). Working memory bridge and phonological awareness tasks as predictors of early on reading power. Periodical of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 88–111. doi:10.1006/jecp.1994.1027 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lipsky MG (2013). Caput Start teachers' vocabulary didactics and language complexity during storybook reading: Predicting vocabulary outcomes of students in linguistically diverse classrooms. Early on Education and Development, 24, 640–667. doi: ten.1044/2014_JSLHR-Fifty-12-0221 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, & Kaushanskaya M (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (Bound-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Inquiry, 50, 940–967. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067) [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Meuter RFI, & Allport A (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language option. Journal of Retention and Linguistic communication, 40, 25–xl. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2602 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Montgomery J (2000). Exact working memory and sentence comprehension in children with specific language harm. Journal of Spoken language, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 293–308. ten.1044/jslhr.4302.293 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Moreno EM, Federmeier KD, & Kutas M (2002). Switching languages, switches palabras (words): An electrophysiological written report of code switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207. doi:x.1006/brln.2001.2588 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nicoladis E, & Secco Yard (2000). The part of a child's productive vocabulary in the language pick of a bilingual family. First Language, 20, 3–28. 10.1177/014272370002005801 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pickering S, & Gathercole SE (2001). Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTBC). London, Britain: The Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
• Place South & Hoff E (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds' bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82, 1834–1849. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01660.10 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Place Due south, & Hoff East (2016). Furnishings and noneffects of input in bilingual environments on dual language skills in 2¹/₂-year-olds. Bilingualism: Linguistic communication and Cognition, 19, 1023–1041. 10.1017/S1366728915000322 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Proverbio AM, Leoni One thousand & Zani A (2004). Language switching mechanisms in simultaneous interpreters: an ERP report. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1636–1656. doi:ten.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.013 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical calculating R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: URL: https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
• Ricciardelli LA (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 301–316. 10.1007/BF01067515 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Seigneuric A, & Ehrlich MF (2005). Contribution of working retentivity capacity to children's reading comprehension: A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 617–656. 10.1007/s11145-005-2038-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Semel Eastward, Wiig EH, & Secord WA (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, fourth edition (CELF-four). Toronto, Canada: The Psychological Corporation/A Harcourt Assessment Company. [Google Scholar]
• Tare M, & Gelman SA (2011). Bilingual parents' modeling of pragmatic language use in multiparty interactions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 761–780. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000051 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• van Der Meij One thousand, Cuetos F, Carreiras Thousand, & Barber H (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of linguistic communication switching in second linguistic communication learners. Psychophysiology, 48, 44–54. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01039.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Verhagen J, & Leseman P (2016). How exercise verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison betwixt first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.015 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yow WQ, & Markman EM (2016). Children increase their sensitivity to a speaker's nonlinguistic cues following a advice breakup. Kid Development, 87, 385–394. doi:10.1111/cdev.12479 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wiig EH, Secord WA, & Semel East (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- 4th Edition Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt PsychCorp. [Google Scholar]
• Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement(tertiary ed). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. [Google Scholar]

careyfately.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7816522/

Share :