Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-2z7pd Total loading time: 0.395 Render date: 2021-05-06T20:10:46.106Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2009

Ellen Bialystok
Affiliation:
York University, Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest
Gigi Luk
Affiliation:
Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest
Kathleen F. Peets
Affiliation:
York University
Sujin YANG
Affiliation:
York University, Tyndale University College
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Studies often report that bilingual participants possess a smaller vocabulary in the language of testing than monolinguals, especially in research with children. However, each study is based on a small sample so it is difficult to determine whether the vocabulary difference is due to sampling error. We report the results of an analysis of 1,738 children between 3 and 10 years old and demonstrate a consistent difference in receptive vocabulary between the two groups. Two preliminary analyses suggest that this difference does not change with different language pairs and is largely confined to words relevant to a home context rather than a school context.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

This work was partially supported by grant R01HD052523 from the US National Institutes of Health and by grant A2559 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the first author. We thank Jessica Cheung and Michael Bonares for their assistance in data compilation.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859873.Google ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 4361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, B. A., & Murray, A. M. (1984). Stability and predictive validity of the PPVT-R over an eleven month interval. Educational & Psychological Research, 4, 4144.Google Scholar
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33, 12201234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico–semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.10.1017/S1366728998000133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in highly-proficient bilinguals? Acta Psychologica, 127, 277288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastek, J. F., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). The wide-range achievement test – revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
Kastner, J. W., May, W., & Hildman, L. (2001). Relationship between language skills and academic achievement in first grade. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 381390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, C., Koyasu, M., Oh, S., Ogawa, A., Short, B., & Huang, Z. (2009). Culture, executive function, and social understanding. In Kewis, C. & Carpendale, J. I. M. (eds.), Social interaction and the development of executive function: Special issue of New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 123, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2008). Common and distinct cognitive bases for reading in English–Cantonese Bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 269289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 191230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peets, K. F., & Bialystok, E. (2009). Dissociations between academic discourse and language proficiency among bilingual kindergarteners. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
Portocarrero, J. S., Burright, R. G., & Donovick, P. J. (2007). Vocabulary and verbal fluency of bilingual and monolingual college students. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 415422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 235257.10.1080/10888430701344306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 8392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. C., Smith, B. L., & Dobbs, K. (1991). Relationship between the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – revised, wide range achievement test – revised, and Wechsler intelligence scale for children – revised. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 5356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, H. L., Rosston, K., Gerber, M., & Solari, E. (2008). Influence of oral language and phonological processing on children's bilingual reading. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 413429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *