ing of the typical course of development and the time line according to which children .... grade, the former ELL students were less likely than non-ELL students to score in ... that is most central is the age at which the second language is introduced. .... Tis visual sensitivity to the two languages was also evident in 8-month-.
I Setting the Stage
1 Bilingual Language Development of English Language Learners Modeling the Growth of Two Languages Aquiles Iglesias and Raúl Rojas
Human language is remarkably complex, and yet children who are typically developing acquire language with what appears to be minimal effort. The process of learning two languages is not any more difficult than learning one, provided that the conditions required for the development of one language are also present when one is learning the second. Two conditions that lead to the successful acquisition of either one or two languages are an intact cognitive system that is able to process the regularities of the language(s) and a rich linguistic environment that stimulates and encourages communication and that provides sufficient exemplars of the regularities of the language(s) to which the child is being exposed. Since the 1990s, experts have learned a great deal about language development in monolingual and bilingual children. Most of the literature has attempted to capture commonalities in development and has provided evidence of the sequential order in which individual linguistic structures develop (Gleason & Ratner, 2009; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011). The growth of the literature on bilingual language development is especially remarkable when one considers how little information there was 3 decades ago. As a result of the impressive work on bilingual language acquisition, experts have a better understanding of the typical course of development and the time line according to which children achieve specific language milestones. Large-scale, cross-sectional normative data on the phonology, morphosyntax, semantics, and narrative skills of monolingual Spanish speakers and bilingual (Spanish–English) speakers (Miller & Iglesias, 2010; Peña, Gutiérrez-Clellen, Iglesias, Goldstein, & Bedore, in preparation) have provided the information needed to better identify Hispanic children with speech and language impairments. Although information on general patterns of development is important, differences among individuals cannot be ignored. Information on variability is critical because interventionists are required to go beyond the modal or average child and understand the unique characteristics and potential factors affecting the development of individual clients. 3
4
Iglesias and Rojas
Researchers in the area of language development have long recognized the variability that exists in the development of children’s language(s). Although children go through similar stages of language development, there is clear evidence of significant variability in the rate and order in which particular structures are acquired and used (Fenson et al., 1994; Lahey, 1992; Montrul, 2004; Mundy & Gomes, 1998). Given the degree of biological and environmental variability that exists in both monolingual and bilingual development (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003; Hurtado, Marchman, & Fernald, 2008; Kuhl, 2004), it is understandable why no two children acquire their language—or their two languages, in the case of children raised in bilingual environments—in the same sequence and according to the same timetable. Greater variability in the developmental time line is bound to exist among children raised in bilingual environments because of the timing and influence of additional external factors that alter the developmental trajectory of both languages. The fact that environmental factors may have a different impact at different points in the developmental trajectory further increases the variability in the language skills of bilingual children. Capturing the regularities, understanding the variations, and keeping track of the factors affecting children’s linguistic skills in two languages is a daunting task, especially if one attempts to describe the development and use of the languages over a life span. Therefore, it is not surprising that much of the existing literature on bilingual language acquisition has focused on specific age ranges and, primarily, on the extent to which individual factors such as age of acquisition and parental input influence the developmental trajectory. Little or no consideration has been given to how these factors interact with one another or how they interact over time. This static and one-dimensional perspective is reflected in many working models of bilingual language (Cummins, 1984, 2000; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Although they are helpful for conceptualizing how some exogenous factors affect development, the majority of existing models of bilingualism are too simplistic and static; they primarily represent the relationship between the two languages, or the different domains of the two languages, at a particular point in time. Ideally speaking, working models should permit researchers to identify variables that should be considered, describe the interrelationship among the variables, and capture the variety of outcomes characteristic of bilingual individuals. Models such as that proposed by Herdina and Jessner (2002), which is described in more detail later in this chapter, tend to move toward a better conceptualization of language trajectories and the factors that influence them. This chapter attempts to provide a data-driven, working model of the bilingual language acquisition of children who have been classified as English language learners (ELLs) once they enter school. As a working model, it should be viewed as an attempt at creating a simplified representation of a very complex system—a testable framework that captures the variety of outcomes characteristic of ELLs at this stage of development. The model attempts to provide a structure for understanding our data, allowing us to identify endogenous and exogenous factors that influence developmental trajectories. As a working model, it is likely to change in the future as new knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon are gained. Before addressing the language development of ELLs, we first discuss the general characteristics of this heterogeneous population. General characteristics of any population are, by definition, generalizations about groups of people; they represent aggregate information
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
5
about groups. Not every individual classified as a member of the group conforms to the profile. Thus, these generalizations provide limited insight and some degree of practical usefulness when one is examining individual development. However, they can be used to highlight areas that might present challenges for the population as a whole. It is within this framework that the general linguistic and socioeconomic characteristics of ELLs and their families are presented. ELLs (previously referred to as Limited English Proficient by the federal government) are children who are in the process of learning English as a second language and who lack sufficient mastery of English to successfully achieve in an English language classroom without additional support. ELLs represent the fastest growing segment of the U.S. student population, nearly doubling since 1979 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2005). ELLs account for 10% of the elementary school population in the United States, with approximately half of this population enrolled in kindergarten through Grade 3 (NCES, 2006). The number of ELLs decreases in middle school as many children succeed in learning English, make the transition out of ELL programs as they achieve English language proficiency, and are no longer counted as ELLs. The majority of ELLs (75%) are Spanishspeaking Hispanics concentrated in California, New York, and Texas (Swanson, 2009). The high growth rate of the population, the significant increase in ELLs in states that have traditionally not been immigrant destinations (e.g., a 372% increase in North Carolina from 1995 to 2005), and the national debate on illegal immigration have heightened the discussion about the education of these children and transformed the debate from a local and regional one to a national one. Most ELLs live in linguistically isolated households, or households in which a language other than English is spoken and all members age 14 and older have at least some difficulty with English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009a). In 2000, about 6 in 7 ELL students at the elementary school level lived in linguistically isolated households. Although living in a linguistically isolated community in which most individuals speak a language other than English facilitates learning of the heritage language, this linguistic isolation reduces the opportunity for the children to be exposed to the language they will need to function in school. This linguistic isolation is likely to continue once the children enter school, because the majority of ELLs attend linguistically segregated schools. ELLs can be found in most school districts in the United States. However, 69% are enrolled in schools in which half of the student body is made up of ELLs. These schools are also predominantly urban, and their students are minorities of low income (Consentino de Cohen, 2005). More than 60% of ELLs come from low-income homes, and half of the adults in these households do not have a high school education (Capps et al., 2005). Family income and parental education influence the language skills demonstrated by children and have longterm consequences for language learning (Hart & Risley, 1995; Rescorla & Achenbach, 2002). The work of Hoff (2003) suggested that the quantity and quality of language used by mothers across various socioeconomic status (SES) levels influences children’s early language development, with a lower SES having a detrimental effect on vocabulary development. Although one should be mindful of the potential effect of SES on children’s linguistic environment, one should also realize that daily social interactions vary in families with similar social and economic backgrounds. Furthermore, evidence of the impact of SES on language learning has focused primarily on dyadic interactions between mothers and their
6
Iglesias and Rojas
children. Language learning also occurs in environments with multiple speakers and multiparty conversations in which the child is a mere passive listener (Shneidman et al., 2009); this is the language-learning context typical of many Latino families (Valdés, 1996). Linguistic isolation and poverty are two of the major risk factors for academic underachievement. The academic underachievement of Hispanic ELLs is a major national concern. It is well documented that the academic performance of Hispanics as a group is lower than that of their non-Hispanic peers (Swanson, 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009b). The risk for academic underperformance across all areas increases when children are also ELLs (Abedi, 2002; Fry, 2007; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). In higher grades, the gap between Hispanic ELLs and Hispanic non-ELLs widens as the composition of the ELL population changes; lower achieving students are retained as ELLs and new immigrants are added. Simultaneously, the language load of the curriculum and the tools used to measure academic progress increase. Concerns over academic achievement do not disappear once children are reclassified. de Jong (2004) examined the academic performance of fourth- and eighth-grade children previously classified as ELLs. In the fourth grade, the former ELL students were less likely than non-ELL students to score in the Proficient category in English language arts, math, and science. In the eighth grade, performance in the English language arts improved, but the former ELL students were still not proportionately represented in the Proficient category in math and science, content areas that have higher linguistic demands than English language arts (Fang, 2006; Snow, 2010). Linguistic and socioeconomic factors in children’s families can have negative impacts on children’s development and academic success. The statistics presented thus far indicate that, as a group, ELLs experience a variety of risk factors. However, some of the children labeled as ELLs will not experience any of these risk factors, whereas others will experience several of them. Experts should remain cognizant of the potential effect that these factors might have on the language development and academic success of ELLs while taking care not to assume that any of these factors will have an impact on the communication skills of any one specific child.
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS A multitude of variables plays a role in the language acquisition process. Some of these variables are internal to the child; others are a result of the environment in which the child acquires the language(s). Some of the variables have a consistent effect throughout the developmental process, whereas others have different effects at different stages of development. For example, children’s gender might have a greater impact on vocabulary development up to age 20 months and parental input more importance after 20 months (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991). At the point of school entry, ELLs’ language skills reflect the interaction of each child’s innate learning capacity and the language environment to which he or she has been exposed. Once ELLs enter school, their language innate learning capacity, their previous language experiences, and a new set of environmental factors influence the course of development. Consideration of the influence of these variables, and their timing, might help explain the different language trajectories seen once ELLs enter the educational system. Although numerous factors affect the language development of ELLs, the one factor that is most central is the age at which the second language is introduced. Some children,
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
7
referred to as simultaneous bilinguals, are exposed to both languages in their first few months of life (Genesee, 1989), with the exact age being debatable. Other children, referred to as sequential bilinguals, are first exposed to one language (L1) and then to the second one (L2), with significant variation existing with respect to the timing and conditions under which the second language is introduced. The amount of exposure to either language is highly variable within and across both groups. Although simultaneous bilinguals have extensive and continuous exposure to both languages from an early age, their exposure to each language is not always quantitatively and qualitatively equivalent (Genesee, Nicoladis, & Paradis, 1995). Consequently, their level of performance in each language will vary as a function of this exposure. For sequential bilinguals, both the timing and the degree of exposure are variable, with the most consistent exposure to English occurring at or just before they enter the educational system. Similar to simultaneous bilinguals, by the time sequential bilinguals enter school they will have a variety of skills in each language. Theoretically speaking, ELLs can be either simultaneous or sequential bilinguals. If simultaneous, the children will have had exposure to both languages since birth, but they will have had significantly more exposure to the non-English language. In both cases, the amount of exposure to English needs to have been insufficient to become a proficient English speaker. Although this chapter focuses on ELLs as they enter school, it is important to understand how they acquire the specific linguistic skills they have at school entry, what is referred to as initial status. Our intention is not to provide a comprehensive description of language acquisition during the first 5 years of life as do other chapters in this book but rather to highlight the process by which innate skills and the environment interact and have an impact on ELLs’ linguistic skills when these children enter school.
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENTERING SCHOOL Language learners’ task is to figure out and learn the full set of linguistic rules or patterns that govern the language used by individuals with whom they interact socially. For the monolingual child, linguistic cues are generally consistent across speakers. The case is not always the same for the bilingual-to-be child. For these children, some of the rules are consistent across some speakers, and some are not. Furthermore, some of the rules are consistent regardless of the language being spoken, whereas others are not. On the surface, this inconsistency would appear to be insurmountable for the bilingual-to-be child. Yet the task is only extremely complex if one assumes that the child can handle only one set of rules and that there are no cues to assist the child in differentiating which rules apply to which language. Rather than viewing the child as an entity that can process only one set of signals, experts must begin to shift their thinking and accept the notion that children can simultaneously process varying language systems with varying sets of rules. Early in their development, infants begin to identify acoustic and visual signals in the environment that are meaningful for communication. Innate capacities, such as statistical learning, enable infants to segment speech streams into units, one of the first steps in word learning. The work of Saffran, Newport, and Aslin (1996) demonstrated that 8-monthold infants use distributional cues in the acoustic signal to identify word boundaries in an artificial language. When presented with an auditory stream consisting of sequences of three-syllable nonsense words (e.g., babupudutabapatubitutibu…), infants calculated the probability of any individual segment (e.g., /ba/, /bu/, /pu/) being followed by another
8
Iglesias and Rojas
segment (e.g., /bu/, /pu/, /du/). Because the nonsense words were repeated multiple times, the probability of /ba/ being followed by /bu/ (babupu was one of the nonsense words) was higher (more likely) than the probability of /ba/ being followed by /pa/ (this sequence only occurred when the word dutaba was followed by the word patubi). Infants treated sequences with a high probability of co-occurrence (high transitional probability [TP]) as individual units. Thus, the sequence babupu, which had syllables with high TP, was considered by the infants as a unit. Consider how this process might work with speech addressed to an infant raised in a Spanish-speaking home. When hearing an auditory stream such as [lindarikani݄apakomerselani݄a], the child calculates that the transitional probability of [ni] followed by [݄a] is higher than the probability of [ni] followed by any other syllable. Thus, the sequence [ni݄a] (the word for girl in Spanish) is more likely to be identified as an individual unit. The ability to calculate statistical probability is possible during incidental learning and available throughout the lifetime (Saffran, Newport, Aslin, Tunick, & Barrueco, 1997). As one would expect based on the existing literature on language development, individual variation is evident in the statistical learning of typically developing children (Saffran et al., 1997) and children with specific language impairment (SLI; Evans, Saffran, & Robe-Torres, 2009). Regardless of ability, differences in statistical learning are reflected in children’s receptive and expressive word knowledge, with children identified as having SLI having a computational mechanism that is not as effective functionally. Infants growing up in families in which both languages are spoken encounter input that is more complex than that of their monolingual counterparts. For these infants, the number of syllables with high TP is greater. For example, a child brought up in an environment in which Spanish and English are spoken would determine that there is a high TP of the sequences [pri] and [mo] (high TP in Spanish, low in English; the word for cousin in Spanish), [pri] and [ti] (high TP in English, low in Spanish; the word pretty in English), and [ma] and [ma] (high TP in both English and Spanish; the word mama in Spanish and English). Being able to calculate the TP of the ambient signal without assigning it to an individual language system is not ideal for word learning. Not only does the bilingual child with an undifferentiated system have to store more TPs, but also the actual number of TPs is reduced as a function of being exposed to two languages simultaneously (e.g., the TP of [pri] followed by [mo] is reduced as a function of [pri] also being followed by [ti]). At first, the TP information is likely to be stored in one undifferentiated system (Vihman, 2002). Sometime in the first months of life, infants gain the ability to differentiate the two languages based on the prosodic characteristics of the individual languages (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 1997). One of the acoustic cues used by these infants to distinguish the two languages is the utterance level rhythm of the languages. Newborns are sensitive to whether the rhythm of the language at the utterance level is based on the stress unit (unstressed syllables are reduced to schwa, as in English and other Germanic languages) or on the syllable (each syllable receives approximately the same amount of stress, as in Spanish and other Romance languages; Mehler et al., 1988; Nazzi, Bertoncini, & Mehler, 1998). The work of Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (1997) further suggested that children as young as 4 months are able discriminate languages from the same rhythmical class (e.g., Catalan and Spanish). Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés’s work suggested that infants might have at their disposal other acoustic signals (e.g., segmental information) that facilitate their ability to distinguish different languages. Infants also have at their disposal nonacoustic visual signals that facilitate the separation of two languages. Using silent video clips, Weikum
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
9
et al. (2007) found that 4-month-old infants could discriminate their native language from an unfamiliar one. This visual sensitivity to the two languages was also evident in 8-monthold bilingual-to-be infants but not in monolingual ones. Thus, continuous exposure to the two languages is necessary in order to maintain discrimination sensitivity. Once the infant separates both languages, the statistical probability information for each language can be tagged or stored as two distinct systems. The innate capacity to analyze frequencies and distributions of environmental cues is an essential aspect of language learning. These capacities allow children to identify word units and abstract the beginnings of the grammatical rules of their languages (Weisleder & Waxman, 2010). Although less sophisticated than those of adults, this array of capacities is sufficient to enable children to detect and organize the linguistic cues available in their environment. Some children have better computational abilities than others and are likely to be better at detecting both the acoustic cues that facilitate their differentiation of the two languages and the distributional regularities of the languages to which they are exposed. It is increasingly clear that innate abilities influence the process of language learning. In addition to being born with the innate capacity to capture the regularities of language, children are born with the innate instinct to interact with others, what is referred to as the interactional instinct (see Locke & Bogin, 2006, and Tomasello, 2008, for a description of the evolutionary development of this innate capacity; see Lee, Mikesell, Joaquin, Mates, & Schumann, 2009, for a description of the neurological basis of this instinct). Language is the code that children will use to carry out the built-in instinct to interact socially with individuals (parents, siblings, friends, peers, and teachers) who will provide the sociolinguistic environment for language learning. The interaction of innate capacities and characteristics of the sociolinguistic environment guides the developmental pathway, a view consistent with the interactionist and emergentist perspective of language development (Ellis, 2008; Elman et al., 1999; MacWhinney, 2006). Innate capacities are indicative of the child’s potential to learn, and the sociolinguistic environment provides various opportunities to learn the distributional regularities of the language(s) spoken in the community.
Language Development within the Family Context So far we have discussed innate capacities of language learners, with little discussion of a critical component of language learning: the child’s sociolinguistic environment. The first sociolinguistic environment most children encounter is the family unit. One of the major functions families have played over the centuries is to socialize their children through language and to socialize them to use language (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1982). Individual family members provide their children with the skills and competencies that they perceive as crucial for success in later years. One such competency is the ability to communicate effectively with others in the community. Family members provide children with experience and practice with the linguistic conventions of their language(s). These families can be thought of as small social systems. As in any system, there is interdependence among the members. If one member of the system changes, the other members of the system also change. This interdependence is of great importance as individuals external to the family begin to influence and modify, the linguistic behaviors within the family. Interactions that once were only in the heritage language (Child: “Mami, ya llegue.” Mother: “¿Qué hiciste en la escuela?”) gradually begin to shift (Child: “Mami, I’m home.” Mother: “What you do in school?”),
10
Iglesias and Rojas
resulting in the beginning of the intergenerational language loss seen in many Hispanic families (Veltman, 1983; Wong Fillmore, 1991).
Parents’ Influence on Language Development
Hispanic ELLs are raised in homes in which Spanish (the minority language) and English (the majority language) are used by individuals with varying levels of proficiency in each language. Different parentlanguage use patterns exist in homes in which at least one of the parents speaks a language other than the majority language: 1) One parent speaks the majority language and one speaks the minority language, 2) both parents speak the majority and the minority languages, 3) both parents speak the majority language and one parent also speaks the minority language, and 4) both parents speak the minority language and one parent speaks the majority language. As noted by Yamamoto, “Not every family exhausts its full potential to provide bilingual environments at home, and not every child attains active command of the parental native languages” (2002, p. 534). Factors such as parents’ language use patterns, the prestige of the language, and the gender of the minority language speaker provide various opportunities for the transmission of the minority and majority languages. De Houwer (2007) examined parental language use in families in which at least one parent spoke the majority language. Findings from this study indicate that the existence of a particular language in the home does not guarantee its use, and the overlap of majority language use across parents might be unfavorable with regard to children’s acquisition of the minority language. Children used the minority language most when both parents spoke the minority language or when one parent spoke only the minority language and the other spoke the majority and the minority languages. Children used the minority language least when one parent spoke the minority and the majority languages and the other parent spoke only the majority language. The gender of the parent also influences the language spoken by the child, with the mother’s language being the best predictor of the child’s later language use (Lyon, 1996). One factor affecting the likelihood that a parent will use the minority language is the prestige of that language. Yamamoto (2001, 2002) examined whether the prestige of the minority language (as defined by the family or the community) influenced parents’ language use in Japan. Her findings indicated that parents who spoke a more prestigious minority language (English) were more likely to use the minority language with their children than those who spoke a less prestigious one (e.g., Korean, Spanish). Parents who spoke less prestigious minority languages tended to communicate to their children in the majority language. A longitudinal ethnographic study by Pease-Alvarez (2002) on the Spanish language socialization practices of Mexican American families in California further supports these findings. Pease-Alvarez found that many immigrant and Mexican American parents were more concerned about their children’s English proficiency than their Spanish proficiency because of the prestige of English in their community and the need to know English to participate successfully in the job market. These studies suggest that the more prestige parents assign to a particular language, the more likely they are to use, or to encourage their children to use, the language.
Siblings’ and Peers’ Influence on Language Development Apart from parents, siblings and peers have an influence in shaping ELLs’ linguistic environment. Older siblings and peers provide children with greater opportunity to be exposed to and use the
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
11
language of their schools and communities. As children age, peer interaction becomes more significant as social networks shift from the home environment to a more diverse environment that involves individuals outside of the family (Wong Fillmore, 1991). Furthermore, this shift is often accompanied by a concurrent preference to gradually use more of the majority language than the minority language (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002; PeaseAlvarez, 2002). Consistent with the literature on monolingual children (e.g., Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, & Levine, 2002; Oshima-Takane, Goodz, & Derevensky, 1996), firstborn and later-born bilingual children have different language experiences (Obied, 2009; Shin, 2002; Stevens & Ishizawa, 2007; Yamamoto, 2001, 2002). Shin’s (2002) large-scale study of second-generation bilingual Korean children indicates that firstborn children are more likely to speak the minority language than their younger siblings. Not surprisingly, parents in the Shin study reported speaking more of the minority language to their firstborn than to their later-born children. Similar to her findings on the relationship between the use of prestigious and nonprestigious minority languages, Yamamoto (2002) found that siblings rarely spoke with each other in the nonprestigious minority language. However, as noted by Caldas and Caron-Caldas (2002), this shift is reversible, provided the children move to a location where the nonmajority language in one location (e.g., French in Louisiana) becomes the majority one (e.g., French in Quebec). Stevens and Ishizawa (2007) suggested that in addition to prestige, the extent to which the minority language is used in the community might be of importance in determining the use of the minority and majority languages. This observation is based on the fact that Spanish-speaking children are more likely to speak Spanish, the most widely spoken minority language in the United States, than children whose parents speak Asian, Middle Eastern, and other (mostly European) languages are to speak those languages. The existing literature on parents, siblings, and peers shows that language socialization is a dynamic process in which different interlocutors provide the language learner with different opportunities to use the minority and the majority languages (see Chapter 2 for more details). The degree to which ELLs use each language in their daily interactions is an important factor in determining their expressive language skills (cf. Gutiérrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997). Some studies have indicated a positive relationship between overall language use and children’s language skills (Gathercole, 2007; Marchman & Martínez-Sussmann, 2002; Oller & Eilers, 2002). Specifically, the results of these studies suggest that children develop greater proficiency in the language to which they are most exposed. However, other studies (Golberg, Paradis, & Crago, 2008; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Páez, Tabors, & López, 2007) provide only partial or no support for a relationship between language use and children’s language skills.
Relationship Between Language Use and Children’s Language Skills Some of the strongest evidence of a positive relationship between language use and children’s language skills comes from the work conducted by Cobo-Lewis, Pearson, Eilers, and Umbel (2002). As part of a larger study of Miami school-age children, these researchers examined factors that might influence English receptive and expressive vocabulary in bilingual children at various grade levels. In addition to the instructional program in which the children were enrolled, language use at home and SES had an effect on the children’s vocabulary skills in English. Being raised in a home in which English and Spanish were
12
Iglesias and Rojas
spoken was more advantageous than living in a home in which only Spanish was spoken. However, the advantage of being in an English-speaking home was greater for low-SES than for high-SES children. The positive relationship between language use and vocabulary development is also supported by the work of Marchman and Martínez-Sussmann (2002). Children’s vocabulary size in each language was significantly correlated with the proportion of English and Spanish spoken in the child’s language-learning environment. In contrast to these two studies, Golberg et al. (2008) did not find a relationship between English use in the home and vocabulary development. English use in the home, whether measured as a continuous or dichotomous variable, had no consistent effect on vocabulary development. They suggested that differences between their findings and those of Cobo-Lewis et al. (2002) might be due to the Canadian parents’ poorer fluency in English, the education level of the parents who spoke English at home, and the greater opportunity to use English outside of the home. However, similar to the Cobo-Lewis et al. study, the mother’s level of education was the most consistent predictor of children’s vocabulary development. Subsequent studies examining the relationship between language use and children’s language skills have focused on grammaticality and literacy skills. Gutiérrez-Clellen and Kreiter (2003) examined whether years of exposure, proportion of language input at home, hours of reading and other literacy activities in a particular language, and language input in school predicted children’s grammatical performance in English or Spanish. The only language use variable predictive of grammaticality in Spanish was the proportion of Spanish spoken at home. None of the other variables significantly predicted grammaticality in Spanish or English. However, the researchers acknowledged that exposure to English outside the home, such as that received in school, might have positively influenced children’s language ability in English. Jia and Aaronson (2003) examined how the environment during immigrants’ first 3 years of residency in the United States influenced their proficiency in English and Chinese. Compared with older participants, younger participants demonstrated greater use of English at home, had a larger number of English-speaking friends, read more books in English, and watched more television in English. These data clearly demonstrate a trend for increased English proficiency in the children with the richest English environment. However, the greater use of English had negative consequences for the children’s use of their first language. The findings of studies that have examined the relationship between language use and expressive language skills have not been entirely consistent. This should not be surprising. Language use measures capture only opportunities to use the language, not the nature or quality of the interaction in these opportunities. However, the findings provide some evidence that suggests that the language used at home might have a different effect on vocabulary and grammar. They also provide further evidence of the strong effect of SES and maternal education on children’s language skills, findings that are consistent with the literature on language acquisition in monolingual children (Hoff, 2003).
Influence of Gender on Language Development An additional factor affecting language development is the child’s gender. Gender is a unique factor because it reflects a combination of biological and cultural factors.
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
13
Significant gender differences have been identified in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of language development (Bauer, Goldfield, & Reznick, 2002; Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2004; Bouchard, Trudeau, Sutton, Boudreault, & Deneault, 2009; Fenson et al., 1994; Hammer, Farkas, & Maczuga, 2010; Huttenlocher et al., 1991). In a large-scale, crosssectional monolingual English study (Fenson et al., 1994), girls tended to show higher levels of lexical, grammatical, and gestural development relative to boys at ages 8–16 months and ages 16–30 months. Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of language development among monolingual French Canadian infants and toddlers (Bouchard et al., 2009) 8–30 months of age, girls outperformed boys (i.e., produced more words, used more grammatical forms, demonstrated more syntactic complexity) at all age ranges. Multiple studies with monolingual children have confirmed the pattern of girls exhibiting advanced linguistic development compared with boys, which attenuates around the age of 3;0 (e.g., Bauer et al., 2002; Bornstein et al., 2004; Fenson et al., 1994; Huttenlocher et al., 1991), with the pattern potentially reappearing between the ages of 10;0 and 11;0 (Coates, 1993). Longitudinal work on the language growth of ELLs, however, suggests different gender-based patterns of language development. A 3-year longitudinal study investigating the impact of maternal language use on the vocabulary and early literacy skills of native Spanish-speaking children (Hammer, Davison, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2009) found that gender did not significantly affect vocabulary or early literacy skill growth in either Spanish or English. The lack of gender-based differences across languages was unexpected, as Hammer et al. (2009) hypothesized that girls would demonstrate higher initial skill levels and more growth of Spanish language skills over time. This hypothesis was based on findings (Hammer, Lawrence, Davison, & Miccio, in press 2011 [publication years has been updated]) of mothers using predominantly Spanish with their daughters and on the research literature (De Von Figueroa-Moseley, Ramey, Keltner, & Lanzi, 2006; McHale, Updegraff, Shanahan, Crouter, & Killoren, 2005; Zentella, 1997) suggesting that Hispanic families often socialize Hispanic children according to traditional gender roles: Girls are expected to become mothers who stay home and raise children; boys are expected to become financial providers who work away from home. Therefore, during childhood, Hispanic girls are more immersed in Spanish at home, whereas boys are encouraged to spend time outside the home (and thus are less immersed in Spanish at home). Hammer et al. (2009) concluded that the lack of gender-based differences, particularly in Spanish, might have been associated with the participants’ immersion in English because they attended English-only Head Start and kindergarten programs. The work of Uchikoshi (2006) on the longitudinal English vocabulary development of ELLs during kindergarten provided contrasting findings on gender. Among a wide range of predictors of growth in English receptive and expressive vocabulary skills, Uchikoshi found that male ELLs demonstrated higher initial levels and more growth in English receptive and expressive vocabulary skills than did female ELLs. Uchikoshi speculated that the receptive and expressive vocabulary advantage of boys may be related to the fact that boys interact more often with English speakers in the community, and Hispanic parents stress more to boys the importance of learning English in school. The patterns of monolingual girls exhibiting advanced early linguistic development compared with monolingual boys, and the inconclusive gender-based differences in language growth in bilinguals, establishes
14
Kohnert and Derr
gender as a critical time-invariant factor that should be considered as a predictor of language skills. The timing of the introduction of the second language (L2) also affects the course of language development. Most ELLs have a period in their lives in which only one language is present in their environment. If a second language is present in the environment, it is not readily available to a child or used consistently with the child. In this monolingual context, the child begin to extract the regularities of his or her language, make neural commitments to the statistical and prosodic characteristics of that language (Kuhl & Rivera-Gaxiola, 2008; Werker & Byers-Heinlein, 2008), and begin to learn and use the linguistic conventions of the language. By the time the child is exposed to L2, a significant amount of learning has occurred and the communicative environment has changed. Not only is a new language with its own linguistic conventions being introduced (e.g., word order is critical for English and less critical for an inflected language such as Spanish), but the child has already developed significant understanding of language and how to communicate in social interactions. The social support for early language learning (e.g., motherese) and the demands of the communicative situations have also changed. Thus, L2 language learners are not at the same developmental stage as language learners beginning to learn their first language. Although researchers cannot predict with certainty what the exact course of development will be, the rate of L2 learning is bound to increase as the child uses his or her first language to bootstrap learning of the second. There will also be some asynchronous development in which the sequence of acquisition is altered as a function of the child having acquired particular structures in the first language (Matthews & Yip, 2003). One would also expect the growth rate to vary across language domains, with the lexicon probably showing one of the fastest rates of growth. The result of the interaction of individual children’s unique innate capacities and sociolinguistic environments will be reflected in the range of linguistic skills in Spanish and English that ELLs have at their disposal as they enter school. An analysis of our cross-sectional data on the narrative skills of ELLs (Miller & Iglesias, 2010) indicate that ELLs exhibit significant variability in Spanish and English skills at school entry. As one would expect, a large proportion (50%) of kindergarten children at school entry were only able to provide narratives in Spanish. However, the other 50% demonstrated various language skills in Spanish and English. Our data on children’s lexicon, as measured by number of different words (NDW), indicate that 1) some children had high NDW in Spanish and English, 2) some had high NDW in Spanish but relatively low NDW in English, 3) some had high NDW in English but relatively low NDW in Spanish, and 4) some had relatively low NDW in English and Spanish (Miller et al., 2006). These differences in language skills at school entry are likely to influence growth trajectories in subsequent years. In summary, ELLs’ innate skills and their environment interact to have an impact on the linguistic skills they will demonstrate when they enter school. Similar to Kohnert’s (2009) means, opportunity, and motive model, the discussion so far has demonstrated that ELLs have varying innate capacities and are raised in environments that provide different opportunities to detect the regularities of the languages. The interaction of children’s innate potential to learn language and their opportunities to learn language(s) result in them having a range of skills in one or two languages at school entry. For the vast majority of children, their language skills up to this point have been adequate to meet the communicative
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
15
demands of their immediate communities. Their ability to learn and the linguistic skills they have acquired will likely determine the extent to which they will be able to meet the communicative demands of a new sociolinguistic environment (i.e., school).
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT DURING THE FIRST YEARS OF SCHOOLING The transition from home to school causes a shift in the nature of children’s daily communicative interactions. The shift is from a focus on social interaction to a more academic focus. In the home environment, the interaction is primarily with adults and maybe a small group of siblings and peers. Schools force children to interact with larger groups of peers, and the adults (teachers) require them to use academic-specific discourse rules, more decontextualized language, and more complex language and specialized vocabulary (see Bailey, 2007, for a discussion of the communicative demands in academic settings). For some children, regardless of the language(s) they speak, the communication skills used in the home match the communicative demands required for success in the classroom (Heath, 1983; Iglesias, 1985). As noted by Mehan (1979), the vast majority of classroom discourse is teacher led, and typical teacher–child interactions tend to be of an elicitation, reply, and evaluation variety (e.g., Teacher: “What color is the circle?” Child: “Red.” Teacher: “It is almost like red, but it is orange.”). Children who have often engaged in question–answer routines in which the adult knows the answers (e.g., “What is your name?” “Where was the rabbit?” “Why is the boy crying?”) are more likely to be successful in the early grades. Not only is this type of interaction a match with the discourse skills prevalent in American schools, but also it tends to foster larger vocabularies and a wider general knowledge base. Some ELLs have the communication skills necessary to succeed in school but only in one language (e.g., Spanish). These children need only learn a new code (i.e., English) to map their existing knowledge. Other ELLs have the appropriate social communication skills to function in their home or other social environments but lack the proficiency in the academic language they need to succeed in school. These children need to acquire a new code and academic language skills. (See Cummins, 2008, for a discussion of differences between Basic Interpersonal Communication and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency.)
Determination of English Language Learner Status Success in school is one of the central driving forces behind the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (PL 107-110). NCLB requires that all children reach high standards by demonstrating proficiency in English language arts and mathematics by 2014. NCLB requires states to test students to ensure that these goals are met. As part of NCLB, states are required to develop procedures by which ELLs are identified and appropriately placed in a variety of programs that meet their linguistic and educational needs. Most states require families to complete a home language survey to determine the language used by the child. If the home language survey identifies the child as someone whose English skills are influenced by a language other than English, the child is further assessed to determine whether his or her English skills may hinder him or her from reaching a proficient level on state tests or succeeding in an English-led classroom. To be classified as an ELL, a child must speak another language and score low on a language proficiency test (see Abedi, 2008, for a
16
Iglesias and Rojas
discussion of ELL assessment and the classification process). Although classification methods (e.g., the assessment tools used, cutoff scores) vary across states, the results of these English proficiency tests are used to make a binary decision: proficient or not proficient. In most districts, no consideration is given to the child’s skills in his or her native language or to whether the child’s lack of success on the proficiency test is the result of a lack of academic language. Thus, the only commonality among ELLs within a district is that their performance on an English proficiency test was below the state-determined cutoff score. This heterogeneous group of ELLs will be placed in a variety of programs intended to meet their linguistic and educational needs.
Instructional Programming for English Language Learners NCLB gives states and schools the flexibility to implement a variety of instructional educational programs to meet the specific needs of ELLs. These programs vary with respect to their intended language outcome (L1 and L2, or L2 only), the language used at different points (e.g., gradual or complete introduction of L2 from the beginning), and the duration of the program (early versus late program exit). The two most prevalent instructional educational programs for ELLs in the United States are transitional bilingual education (TBE) and sheltered/structured English immersion (SEI). TBE programs provide instruction in the child’s first language, building up students’ literacy and knowledge of content areas in their native language while teaching English. Instruction in the native language is gradually phased out over the 2 or 3 years of the program. In the SEI programs, the goal is English proficiency, and a significant portion of the school day is dedicated to the explicit teaching of the English language. Academic content plays a supporting but subordinate role. Studies on the effectiveness of the various instructional programs have shown contradictory results (see Greene, 1997; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Rossell & Baker, 1996; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). What is ironic is that a substantial body of literature suggests that if adequately implemented, most of the different instructional approaches can be successful for the group as a whole. However, at the individual child level, one would expect variability across program outcomes as a function of children’s relative proficiency in Spanish and English (deJong, 2002; Iglesias & Fabiano, 2003). One would expect that children who demonstrate above-average Spanish skills and below-average English skills would benefit more from a program such as TBE that builds on the skills learned in L1 and gradually introduces L2. For the same reason, children who demonstrate above-average English skills and below-average Spanish skills would likely benefit more from an SEI program. Children with above-average skills in both languages and children with below-average skills in both languages and similar proficiency in both would likely benefit equally from either program. If these hypotheses are correct, one might expect language growth rates to be dependent on the match between program type and individual children’s skills in each language. The extent to which the native language is used in the instructional process is the main controversy between TBE and SEI programs. Although both program types have as their final outcome proficiency in speaking English, SEI programs tend to deemphasize the native language, whereas TBE programs support the development of L1 up to a point. The controversy is mostly political rather than pedagogical, although pedagogical arguments are used to support particular political agendas (Ovando, 2003). Neither of the two types
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
17
of programs supports the maintenance of both languages. In essence, both programs foster less use of the native language in the sociolinguistic environment in which children spend a large portion of their day. Over time, ELLs and their peers are likely to use more English and less of the native language. Parents will continue to exert some influence on language use at home, but, as noted previously, the language use dynamics begin to change once the children become more proficient in English. The reduced use of L1 will have an effect on the growth rate of L1. Some aspects of L1 will continue to grow but not at the same rate one would expect if the child were in an environment that fostered the use of L1. Other aspects of L1 will undergo attrition or negative growth; structures previously present will become less accessible to the child. (See Montrul, 2004; Schmid, Köpke, Keijzer, & Weilmar, 2004; and Chapter 10 for a discussion of language attrition.) Still other structures will demonstrate a steady state in which the growth rate is virtually zero.
Language Development During Nonschool Months The influence that schools exert on ELLs’ language is not continuous throughout the calendar year. Children in the United States tend to be in school for approximately 180 days of the year, with a 2- to 3-month break during the summer. Research on reading and math skills (e.g., Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2001; Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996; McCoach, O’Connell, Reis, & Levitt, 2006) has demonstrated that summer vacations tend to negatively affect the growth of math and reading skills differentially, with math skills being more negatively affected than reading skills. The work of Hammer, Lawrence, and Miccio (2008) has demonstrated a more complex relationship. In a longitudinal study, Hammer et al. (2008) investigated the potential effect of summer vacation on the receptive language skills of ELL preschoolers enrolled in Head Start programs. The results indicated that summer vacation positively affected growth in both languages for participants who had demonstrated slower growth of their languages during the first year (a decline in standard score). Summer vacation had the opposite effect on children who had previously demonstrated faster growth of their languages (an increase in standard score). However, these contrasting growth effects were limited to the summer vacation. Participants who had demonstrated slower growth of their languages during the first year continued to show slower growth of their languages during the second year. Participants who had demonstrated faster growth of their languages during the first year continued to show faster growth of their languages during the second year. In sum, although the receptive language skills of ELLs demonstrated different rates of growth, the shape of this change over time did not show continuous positive or continuous negative growth but rather discontinuous growth in which periods of positive growth were followed by periods of negative growth. Knowledge of language acquisition in ELLs clearly indicates that multiple factors influence the course of language development. All of these factors interacting with one another at a particular point in time will determine whether the child is successful in particular social interactions. Although experts have made great strides in identifying the multitude of factors that influence language development in ELLs, there is still much more to know. Research approaches to date have primarily involved isolating and examining individual factors that affect language development. Although this approach has led to a better understanding of a complex process, this reductionist perspective has forced researchers to focus
18
Iglesias and Rojas
on how just a small set of components function in a limited time period. It might also be fruitful to examine language acquisition in ELLs from a dynamic systems perspective, taking into consideration how multiple factors influence changes in a child’s language system over time.
MODELING THE GROWTH OF TWO LANGUAGES Language is a complex and dynamic system composed of highly integrated linguistic subsystems (domains) that develop over time (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007a, 2007b; Evans, 2001; Hohenberger & Peltzer-Karpf, 2009; Thelen & Bates, 2003; & van Geert, 1994, 1998, 2007, 2008). As an open system, it continuously interacts with the environment, affecting and being affected by it. In addition, its individual subsystems (e.g., syntax, lexicon) interact with one another and are interdependent. Changes in any subsystem result in time periods of positive growth, negative growth, or no growth (steady state). The system is more complex, at least conceptually, when it involves two distinct languages.
Elements of Dynamic Language Growth Models Herdina and Jessner (2002) developed the dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM), grounded in dynamic system theory (DST), in an attempt to explain the complex process of multilingual language development, including bilingual language development. Although more contemporary work on the application of DST to second language learning exists (e.g., De Bot et al., 2007a; Larsen-Freeman, 2007; van Geert, 2007, 2008; Verspoor, Lowie, & van Dijk, 2008), the DMM remains the most extensively developed psycholinguistic theory of multilingual proficiency from a DST perspective. The DMM treats the languages of any multilingual speaker as dynamic language subsystems that continually interact with one another and change over time. These dynamic language subsystems not only interact with one another but also are subject to internal and environmental conditions. These interactions lead to rich variation among multilingual speakers. Multilingual language development in the DMM is fundamentally an ongoing negotiation among language growth (positive growth), language maintenance (steady state), and gradual language loss/attrition (negative growth). Apart from being a data-empty theoretical approach, Herdina and Jessner’s (2002) DMM is not easily tested because it considers distinct languages as subsystems. The DMM considers the multilingual individual as the holistic holding vessel for the overall dynamic system of language and each of the speaker’s languages as a subsystem (e.g., Spanish as subsystem A and English as subsystem B). Although the model is appropriate for theorybuilding purposes, it ignores the fact that a given language is composed of individual interacting subsystems that may have unique growth trajectories and may be independently affected by distinct external factors. In order to understand the totality of a language as a dynamic system, it is necessary to establish a data-driven model in which the temporal growth of linguistic subsystems (i.e., linguistic domains) can be measured and categorized (Marin & Peltzer-Karpf, 2009). An emerging body of research on ELLs has demonstrated that their overall language development is positive and that within-language associations exist between lexical and morphosyntactic development (e.g., Bedore, Fiestas, Peña, & Nagy, 2006; Carias &
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
19
Ingram, 2006; Conboy & Thal, 2006; Kohnert, Kan, & Conboy, 2010; Simon-Cereijido & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2009; Vagh, Pan, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2009). However, the shape, direction, and rate of ELLs’ language growth trajectories are largely unknown (Hammer et al., 2008). To understand these growth trajectories and the factors that influence them, researchers must use longitudinal data to capture the changes that occur over multiple points in time for the multiple linguistic subsystems of each language. Such an approach would provide information on 1) the overall shape of the trajectories for the linguistic subsystems of each language and how the initial status and growth rates are affected by individual factors (e.g., gender), 2) individual differences in the initial status and in the growth of each linguistic subsystem, and 3) the impact of initial status on language growth. Elman et al. (1999) developed a growth trajectory taxonomy focused on the shape of change within different growth patterns. This taxonomy of growth trajectories specified three dimensions that account for varying and complex growth patterns across time: linearity, direction, and continuity (see Figure 1.1). Linearity specifies whether growth is gradual, periodic, and steady (linear) or whether it is characterized by instantaneous, exponential accelerations or decelerations (curvilinear). Direction specifies whether growth is consistently increasing or decreasing (monotonic) or whether it is characterized Dimensions of growth
Type
Sample trajectories 200 150
Linear versus curvilinear
Linearity
Growth
100
Linear Curvilinear
50 0 Time o
o
o
o
50 40 Growth
30 Monotonic versus nonmonotonic
Direction
Monotonic
20
Nonmonotonic
10 0 Time o
o
o
o
50 40
Continuity
Continuous versus discontinuous
Growth
30
Continuous
20
Discontinuous
10 0 Time o
Figure 1.1.
Illustration of taxonomy of growth trajectoies.
o
o
o
20
Iglesias and Rojas
by alternating periods of positive and negative growth (nonmonotonic). Continuity specifies whether quantitative changes in growth are consistent (continuous) or whether there are periods characterized by abrupt shifts of inconsistent positive or negative growth (discontinuous). The three dimensions of linearity, direction, and continuity of Elman et al.’s growth trajectory taxonomy can be used to categorize growth from diverse developmental domains, including trajectories of language growth. For example, the well-known vocabulary explosion in young toddlers (e.g., Gleason & Ratner, 2009; McMurray, 2007; Paul, 2006) could be described as a curvilinear, monotonic, and continuous growth trajectory. In contrast, the impact of the lack of academic instruction during the summer months on receptive language skills (e.g., Hammer et al., 2008) can be described as a linear, monotonic, and discontinuous growth trajectory. Individual differences can be reflected within an individual over time (intraindividual variability) and also among individuals (interindividual variability). Although the overall child development research literature has traditionally underemphasized the importance of variability and individual differences (Siegler, 2002; van Geert & van Dijk, 2002), a number of studies have cast a spotlight on the importance of studying individual differences in language growth. Contemporary studies of language development (e.g., Hadley & Holt, 2006; Rice, Hoffman, & Wexler, 2009) have begun to address individual differences by using growth curve modeling to analyze the intra- and interindividual variability found within longitudinal data. Considering the role of variability in studies of language growth answers the growing call (Bates Dale, & Thal, 1995; Fenson et al., 1994; Siegler, 2002) to no longer neglect individual differences and to examine the heterogeneity of language learners. Differences at the onset of growth (initial status) can result in systematically different growth trajectories over time. The work of Seltzer, Choi, and Thum (2003) provides a helpful summary of the relationship between where growth begins and how it eventually grows or declines. The relationship between initial status and growth rate (intercept– slope covariance) can be positive and significant, negative and significant, or nonsignificant (unrelated). A positive and significant intercept–slope covariance indicates that a higher initial status results in growth trajectories that increase at faster rates, on average, relative to the growth trajectories that result from a lower initial status. In addition, a positive and significant intercept–slope covariance indicates that differences in initial status will become more pronounced over time. Positive and significant intercept–slope covariances are representative of scenarios in which the growth of initially lower performing participants does not catch up to the growth of initially higher performing participants (e.g., children with SLI demonstrate slower growth rates, on average, than typically developing children; Rice, Wexler, & Hershberger, 1998). In contrast, a negative and significant intercept–slope covariance indicates that a higher initial status results in growth trajectories that decrease at faster rates, on average, relative to the growth trajectories that result from a lower initial status. In addition, a negative and significant intercept–slope covariance indicates that differences in initial status will become less pronounced over time (Seltzer et al., 2003). Negative and significant intercept–slope covariances are representative of scenarios in which the growth of initially lower performing participants catches up to the growth of initially higher performing participants (e.g., initially low-achieving students demonstrate faster growth rates for math skills, on average, than high achievers; Ding & Davison, 2005). However, the
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
21
initial status–growth rate covariance is not always significant. Nonsignificant (unrelated) intercept–slope covariances indicate the lack of a systematic relationship between initial status and the rate of growth over time (Seltzer et al., 2003). Therefore, growth rates may vary (or may be similar) among participants regardless of their initial status of growth. In addition, a nonsignificant intercept–slope covariance indicates that differences in initial status may or may not remain stable over time. To review, the development of language is a dynamic and complex process involving linguistic domains that change over time, resulting in varying growth trajectories. The existing literature overwhelmingly centers on the language growth of monolingual children. Conversely, details on the language growth of ELLs are largely unknown as represented by a limited number of studies with inconsistent findings. To better understand ELLs’ language growth, it is necessary to establish a testable, data-driven model that considers the temporal growth of different linguistic subsystems in the first and second languages of these children.
The ELL Language Growth Model Based on our work (Rojas, 2010; Rojas & Iglesias, under review), we present the ELL language growth (ELLGrowth) model as a working model of the bilingual language growth experienced by ELLs once they enter school. The ELLGrowth model is based on extensive narrative retell language-sampling data (>12,000 samples) produced by more than 1,500 Spanish-speaking ELLs that were collected longitudinally during each fall and spring semester from kindergarten to second grade (Francis et al., 2005). This working model provides a framework to specify 1) language growth (initial status, growth rate, direction, and shape) across two linguistic domains (morphosyntax and lexicon) in L1 and L2, including the predictive roles played by time-varying and time-invariant covariates; 2) the individual differences in language growth represented by intra- and interindividual variability; and 3) the impact of initial status on language growth. Earlier in this chapter we noted that once ELLs enter school, their innate languagelearning capacity, their previous language experiences, and a new set of environmental factors influence the course of language development. Throughout the chapter we have stressed the variability that exists in the linguistic skills of ELLs at various points in the language-learning process. Figure 1.2, which is based on the performance of only 208 participants on one measure in one language, illustrates this variability. As can be seen in Figure 1.2, at school entry there is considerable variability in initial status (range of NDW values at time point 0.00), with some participants demonstrating high initial status (i.e., NDW > 80) and some low initial status (i.e., NDW < 40). Although the overall trend across the six measurement points shows positive growth, great fluctuations in trajectories are evident, with some participants showing positive growth and others showing negative growth (decline). Although interesting, this level of analysis is not very informative unless one has a better understanding of the prototypical trajectory. We will return to discuss individual variations once we describe the prototypical growth seen across domains and languages. Our findings on the overall growth trajectories of mean length of utterance in words (MLUw; a general index of morphosyntax) and NDW (a general index of lexicon) over the first 3 years of schooling (kindergarten, first grade, and second grade) are illustrated in Figure 1.3 and serve as the starting point of our model. The findings in Figure 1.3 demon-
22
Iglesias and Rojas
NDW: Spanish 180
136
92
48
4 0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time
Figure 1.2. Illustration of individual variation in trajectories for number of different words (NDW) in Spanish. Each individual line represents the growth trajectory of one of the participants.
strate the prototypical growth trajectories for Spanish and English across MLUw and NDW for boys and girls that are representative of the individual growth patterns demonstrated by participants within 1 standard deviation of the mean. As can be seen in Figure 1.3, the trajectory of both languages, regardless of domain measured, was similar only with respect to direction, with alternating periods of positive and negative growth. Although the Spanish 100
8 7.5
90 Boys Spanish
7 6.5
Girls Spanish
6 5.5
Boys English
5 4.5 4
K–Fall
K–Sp 1–Fall
1–Sp
2–Fall
2–Sp
Girls English
Boys Spanish
80
Girls Spanish
70 60
Boys English
50 40 K–Fall
K–Sp 1–Fall
1–Sp
2–Fall
Time in Semesters
Time in Semesters
a.
b.
2–Sp
Girls English
Figure 1.3. Prototypical growth trajectories by gender for a) mean length of utterance in words (MLUw) and b) number of different words (NDW) in Spanish and English collapsed across measures and across languages.
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
23
measures showed curvilinear growth, the English measures showed linear growth. The curvilinear trajectories for Spanish indicated acceleration during kindergarten, deceleration to an almost flat trajectory during first grade, and additional acceleration during second grade. The linear trajectories for English represented consistent positive growth within each academic year but slower NDW growth and negative MLUw growth during the summers. In addition, the growth rate of Spanish was continuous, whereas the growth rate of English was discontinuous. Regardless of the language and measure, girls’ performance was always better than that of boys, although the difference in English was more evident during the spring semester. In addition to information on linearity, direction, and continuity, our data also provide information about the effect of gender and initial status on growth. The effect of initial status on the growth rate showed an interesting pattern. Although there was no relationship between initial status and growth rate for NDW in Spanish, there was a positive relationship for MLUw. ELLs with higher levels of MLUw in Spanish at initial status tended to have faster rates of growth, on average, than those with lower levels. The initial differences in Spanish MLUw became more pronounced over time, indicating that most of the lower performers would not catch up to the higher performers on this measure. In contrast, both measures in English demonstrated a negative relationship between initial status and growth rate. ELLs with higher levels of MLUw and NDW in English at initial status tended to have slower rates of growth, on average, than those with lower levels. Given that the initial differences in English became less pronounced over time, ELLs with lower MLUw and NDW should have caught up to their peers over time. Although the significant individual differences observed in the bilingual language growth of ELLs are not represented by the prototypical growth trajectories, they provide the necessary reference framework to better understand the growth trajectories of individual ELLs. As an example, we can consider the individual growth trajectories of two ELLs, Andrés and Benito, who are representative of many bilingual children in the United States. Compared with the linguistic skills of other ELLs, Andrés’s skills are above average in Spanish and below average in English, whereas Benito’s skills are below average in Spanish and above average in English. It is important to remember that the terms above average and below average refer to performance relative to that of other ELLs in our present sample on MLUw and NDW at school entry. With this in mind, one can observe the bilingual language growth of Andrés and Benito from the fall of kindergarten to the spring of second grade. As can be seen in Figure 1.4a–d, both children show increases in their Spanish and English skills throughout the 3-year period. However, the individual trajectories vary between the children and are somewhat different from the prototypical growth. Let’s first consider the trajectory of their Spanish skills. As can be seen in Figure 1.4a and 1.4b, Benito’s performance at initial status (MLUw = 3.5; NDW = 35) is below the prototypical initial status of his peers in the fall of kindergarten (MLUw = 4.6; NDW = 50). In contrast, Andrés’s performance at initial status (MLUw = 4.3; NDW = 52) is closer to the prototypical initial status of his peers. MLUw growth trajectories for both children (see Figure 1.4a) are distinct. Andrés’s MLUw growth trajectory almost parallels the prototypical trajectory except for the large growth observed during first grade. It is interesting that significant negative growth is seen during the summer, followed by positive growth in the second
24
Iglesias and Rojas
8.00
120
7.50 7.00
100
110
6.50
90
6.00
Boys Proto Spanish
80
4.50
Andrés Spanish
60
4.00 3.50
Benito Spanish
40
5.50 5.00
3.00
K–Fall
K–Sp 1–Fall
1–Sp
2–Fall
Andrés Spanish
50 30
2–Sp
Boys Proto Spanish
70
Benito Spanish K–Fall
K–Sp 1–Fall
Time in Semesters
1–Sp
2–Fall
2–Sp
Time in Semesters
a.
b. 130
10.00 9.00
110
8.00
90
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Boys Proto English
70
Boys English
Andrés English
50
Andrés English
Benito English
30
Benito English
10
1.00 K–Fall
K–Sp 1–Fall
1–Sp
2–Fall
2–Sp
K–Fall
K–Sp
1–Fall
1–Sp
2–Fall
Time in Semesters
Time in Semesters
c.
d.
2–Sp
Figure 1.4. Individual growth trajectories relative to prototypical (Proto) growth trajectories: a) Mean length of utterance in words (MLUw) in Spanish; b) Number of different words (NDW) in Spanish; c) MLUw in English; d) NDW in English. Key: K–Fall, fall of the kindergarten year; K–Sp, spring of the kindergarten year; 1–Fall, fall of the first-grade year; 1–Sp, spring of the firstgrade year; 2–Fall, fall of the second-grade year; 2–Sp, spring of the second-grade year.
grade. Benito, in contrast, demonstrates considerable positive growth during first grade and maintains this positive growth, which results in his performance at the end of second grade being higher than that of his peers. Although Andrés’s overall growth trajectory is consistent with the positive and significant intercept–slope covariance found for MLUw in Spanish, Benito’s growth is unexpected. According to the ELLGrowth model, children with low initial status show a slower growth rate and will not catch up with their peers. Andrés’s NDW growth trajectory (see Figure 1.4b) continues to mirror the prototypical trajectory. In contrast, Benito has a highly positive NDW growth rate during the first academic year (kindergarten), and this positive growth rate continues during the summer (i.e., the period between spring of the kindergarten year and fall of first grade). Despite great gains during the first academic year (kindergarten) and summer, the second year (first grade) shows negative NDW growth followed by slight positive growth during the second summer and the third year (second grade). Andrés’s and Benito’s trajectories in English (see Figures 1.4c and 1.4d) show less variability. Although Andrés’s MLUw and NDW at school entry are below typical performance, one sees positive growth in both MLUw and NDW, with MLUw performance catching up to that of his peers by the end of second grade. Benito’s performance is consistently within the range of that of his peers throughout the 3-year period, with a marked increase during second grade. Given that Andrés demonstrates lower MLUw and NDW in English at initial status than his peers (including Benito), his comparatively faster growth is consistent with the negative and significant intercept–slope covariance found for
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs
25
these language measures in ELLs. What is remarkable is that although Andrés was categorized as a high-Spanish, low-English ELL and Benito as a low-Spanish, high-English ELL at initial status, by the end of second grade both children would be categorized as performing in the average range of other ELLs in Spanish and English. The variations and similarities that Andrés (high-Spanish, low-English ELL) and Benito (low-Spanish, high-English ELL) show from the prototypical growth trajectories serve to illustrate individual differences in the bilingual growth of ELLs. Both children demonstrate considerable intraindividual variation. Although the growth in English is more consistent than the growth in Spanish for each child, the initial status and growth of both languages between the children is highly variable. A number of endogenous and exogenous variables are likely to have contributed to both the initial status of each child and their eventual language growth in each language from kindergarten to second grade. Although we could speculate as to which specific factors are contributing to this variation in performance, we will not do so at this time. The ELLGrowth model is data driven, and we do not want to take the risk of making assumptions that are not fully grounded on solid data. As our model-building process develops, we are likely to identify additional factors that predict some of these variations. The prototypical growth trajectories from the ELLGrowth model contextualize the individual language growth of Andrés and Benito. In short, the ELLGrowth model provides a data-based framework for indexing the heterogeneity of ELLs’ bilingual language growth. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the ELLGrowth model for MLUw and NDW in Spanish and English. Using the Elman et al. (1999) growth trajectory taxonomy, this model specifies the shape of growth estimated for each language (Spanish and English) with respect to linearity (linear or curvilinear), direction (monotonic or nonmonotonic), and continuity (continuous or discontinuous). It also specifies additional variables (covariates) that affect the growth trajectory: gender (rate of growth of girls compared with rate of growth of boys), summer vacation (positive, negative, or no effect), and the systematic relationship between initial status and growth (positive, negative, or no effect). Table 1.1.
Summary of the ELLGrowth model for MLUw and NDW in Spanish and English Spanish
Characteristic
MLUw
English NDW
MLUw Linear
NDW
Linearity
Curvilinear
Curvilinear
Linear
Direction
Nonmonotonic
Nonmonotonic
Nonmonotonic
Nonmonotonic
Continuity
Continuous
Continuous
Discontinuous
Discontinuous
Gender
Girls outpace boys
Girls outpace boys
Girls outpace boys (spring)
Girls outpace boys (spring)
Summer vacation
No effect
No effect
Negative growth
Slower growth
Initial status–growth rate covariance
Positive (↑ initial status = ↑ growth)
No relationship
Negative (↑ initial status = ↓ growth)
Negative (↑ initial status = ↓ growth)
Source: Rojas (2010). Key: ELLGrowth model, English language learner language growth model; MLUw, mean length of utterance in words; NDW, number of different words; ↑, increase in; ↓ decrease in.
26
Iglesias and Rojas
The ELLGrowth model represents the first step in developing a working model of the bilingual language growth of ELLs. However, there is much work to be done to further specify the ELLGrowth model. Four critical areas need to be addressed: 1) determining the impact that distinct programs of language instruction (i.e., English immersion, early and late transitional bilingual, dual language) have on language growth, 2) modeling the unique language growth trajectories of distinct ELL subpopulations, 3) exploring the interactions between ELL subpopulations and program type, and 4) exploring the interactions between linguistic subsystems within and across languages. Although our findings (Rojas, 2010; Rojas & Iglesias, under review) reflect the bilingual language growth of ELLs in Spanish (L1) and English (L2), there is also a need for future research that will specify the bilingual language growth of ELLs who speak fi rst languages other than Spanish. Such research will extend the knowledge base on the language growth of ELLs and will help researchers determine whether the process of acquiring English as a second language is similar across speakers of typologically different languages.
SUMMARY This chapter begins with the premise that learning a second language is not any more difficult than learning a first language and that the factors that contribute to the successful acquisition of one language are the same as those required to successfully acquire two. As we have shown, this basic premise is correct, but things become more complex when one begins to consider the many external factors that contribute to variable performance in ELLs. The list of factors presented here is by no means exhaustive, and the research in some areas is still in its infancy. Additional data on children’s learning capacity and growth rates, the interrelationship among language domains over time, and the effect of various sociolinguistic environments (e.g., program types) on growth are likely to further understanding of this complex dynamic system. We argue for the need for a data-driven, dynamic model that can help to better conceptualize how endogenous and exogenous factors affect development. The ELLGrowth model presented here provides a data-based framework that can be used to capture the variety of outcomes characteristic of ELLs. The ELLGrowth model is likely to become more complex as additional data become available. In its present form, however, it provides us with a much clearer understanding of the expected language trajectories of ELLs and of first and second language development over time.
REFERENCES Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257. Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31. Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Olson, L. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 171–191.
Bailey, A. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bates, E., Dale, P.S., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Bauer, D.J., Goldfield, B.A., & Reznick, J.S. (2002). Alternative approaches to analyzing individual
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs differences in the rate of early vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 313–335. Bedore, L.M., Fiestas, C., Peña, E.D., & Nagy, V. (2006). Cross-language comparisons of maze use in Spanish and English in functionally monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(3), 233–247. Bornstein, M.H., Hahn, C.S., & Haynes, O.M. (2004). Specific and general language performance across early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First Language, 24(3), 267–304. Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). Native-language recognition abilities in 4-month-old infants from monolingual and bilingual environments. Cognition, 65(1), 33–69. Bouchard, C., Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., Boudreault, M.C., & Deneault, J. (2009). Gender differences in language development in French Canadian children between 8 and 30 months of age. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 685–707. Caldas, S.J., & Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language preferences of adolescent bilinguals: Shifting allegiances and developing identities. Applied Linguistics, 239, 490–514. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J.S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://www.urban. org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf Carias, S., & Ingram, D. (2006). Language and disfluency: Four case studies on Spanish-English bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4(2), 149–157. Coates, J. (1993). The acquisition of gender-differentiated language. In J. Coates (Ed.), Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (2nd ed., pp. 143–167). London: Longman. Cobo-Lewis, A.B., Pearson, B.Z., Eilers, R.E., & Umbel, V.C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and bilingual educations on oral and written English skills: A multifactor study of standardized test outcomes. In D.K. Oller & R.E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 43–63). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Conboy, B.T., & Thal, D. (2006). Ties between lexicon and grammar: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 77, 712–735. Consentino de Cohen, C. (2005). Who’s left behind? Immigrant children in high- and low-LEP schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N.H.
27 Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71–84). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007a). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007b). A dynamic view as a complementary perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 51–55. De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 411–424. de Jong, E.J. (2004). After exit: Academic achievement patterns of former English language learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(50), 1–18. De Von Figueroa-Moseley, C., Ramey, C., Keltner, B., & Lanzi, R. (2006). Variations in Latino practices and their effects on child cognitive developmental outcomes. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 102–114. Ding, C.S., & Davison, M.L. (2005). A longitudinal study of math achievement gains for initially low achieving students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 81–95. Ellis, N. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 8, 232–249. Elman, J.L., Bates, E.A., Johnson, M.H., KarmiloffSmith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1999). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Evans, J. (2001). An emergent account of language impairments in children with SLI: Implications for assessment and intervention. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 39–54. Evans, J., Saffran, J.R., & Robe-Torres, K. (2009). Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 321–335. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2005). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2005. Washington, DC: Author. Fenson, L., Dale, P.S., Reznick, S., Bates, E., Thal, D.J., Pethick, S.J., et al. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5), 1–185. Francis, D.J., Carlson, C.D., Fletcher, J.M., Foorman, B.R., Goldenberg, C.R., Vaughn, S., et al. (2005). Oracy/literacy development of Spanish-speaking children: A multi-level program of research on language minority children and the instruction, school and community contexts, and interventions that influence their academic outcomes. Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association, 31(2), 8–12. Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
28 Gathercole, V.C.M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 224–247. Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16, 161–179. Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 22, 611–631. Gleason, J.B., & Ratner, N.B. (2009). The development of language (7th ed.). New York: Pearson. Golberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41–65. Greene, J. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Center. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V.F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267–288. Hadley, P.A., & Holt, J.K. (2006). Individual differences in the onset of tense marking: A growth-curve analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 984–1000. Hammer, C.S., Davison, M.D., Lawrence, F.R., & Miccio, A.W. (2009). The effect of maternal language on bilingual children’s vocabulary and emergent literacy development during Head Start and kindergarten. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 99–121. Hammer, C.S., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2010). The language and literacy development of Head Start children: A study using the family and child experiences database. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 70–83. Hammer, C.S., Lawrence, F.R., Davison, M.D., & Miccio, A.W. (2011). Changes in language usage between Puerto Rican mothers and their children: Do gender and timing of exposure to English matter? Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 275–297. Hammer, C.S., Lawrence, F.R., & Miccio, A.W. (2008). The effect of summer vacation on bilingual preschoolers’ language development. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22, 686–702. Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. Hohenberger, A., & Peltzer-Karpf, A. (2009). Language learning from the perspective of nonlinear dynamic systems. Linguistics, 47, 481–511. Hurtado, N., Marchman, V.A., & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in
Iglesias and Rojas Spanish-learning children. Developmental Science, 11(6), F31–F39. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248. Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–374. Iglesias, A. (1985). Communication in the home and classroom. Topics in Language Disorders, 5(4), 29–41. Iglesias, A., & Fabiano, L. (2003). Latino bilingual students: The contexts of home and school. In V.I. Kloosterman (Ed.), Latino students in American schools: Historical and contemporary views (pp. 79– 94). Westport, CT: Praeger. Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131–161. Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 1–19. Kohnert, K. (2009). Bilinguals with primary language impairment. In K. De Bot & R. Schrauf (Eds.), Language development over the life-span (pp. 146–170). New York: Routledge. Kohnert, K., Kan, P.F., & Conboy, B.T. (2010). Lexical and grammatical associations in sequential bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 684–698. Kuhl, P. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 831–843. Kuhl, P., & Rivera-Gaxiola, M. (2008). Neural substrates of language acquisition. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 511–534. Lahey, M. (1992). Variability in children’s use of grammatical structure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 373– 398. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). On the complementarity of chaos/complexity theory and dynamic systems theory in understanding the second language acquisition process. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 35–37. Lee, N., Mikesell, L., Joaquin, A.D., Mates, A.W., & Schumann, J.H. (2009). The interactional instinct. New York: Oxford University Press. Locke, J.L., & Bogin, B. (2006). Language and life history: A new perspective on the development and evolution of human language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 259–325. Lyon, J. (1996). Becoming bilingual: Language acquisition in a bilingual community. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. MacWhinney, B. (2006). Emergentism—Use often and with care. Applied Linguistics, 27, 729–740. Marchman, V.A., & Martínez-Sussmann, C. (2002). Concurrent validity of caregiver/parent report measures of language for children who are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 983–997. Marin, M.M., & Peltzer-Karpf, A. (2009). Towards a dynamic systems approach to the development of language and music: Theoretical foundations and
Bilingual Language Development of ELLs methodological issues. In J. Louhivuori, T. Eerola, S. Saarikallio, T. Himberg, & P.S. Eerola (Eds.), Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (pp. 284–292). ESCOM 2009: Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music; Jyväskylä, Finland, August 12–16, 2009. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2003). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A.G. Ramat (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 39–81). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. McCoach, D.B., O’Connell, A., Reis, S.M., & Levitt, H. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–28. McHale, S., Updegraff, K., Shanahan, L., Crouter, A., & Killoren, S. (2005). Siblings’ differential treatment in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1259–1274. McMurray, B. (2007, August 3). Defusing the childhood vocabulary explosion. Science, 317, 631. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lesson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P.W., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29, 143–178. Miller, J.F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis, D.J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30–43. Miller, J.F., & Iglesias, A. (2010). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT) (Research Version 2010) [Computer software]. Muscoda, WI: SALT Software. Montrul, S.A. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mundy, P., & Gomes, A. (1998). Individual differences in joint attention skill development in the second year. Infant Behavior & Development, 21, 469–482. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Public elementary and secondary students, staff, schools, and school districts: School year 2003–04 (NCES Report No. 2006–307). Washington, DC: Author. Nazzi, T., Bertoncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1998). Language discrimination by newborns: Toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 756–766. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. Obied, V.M. (2009). How do siblings shape the language environment in bilingual families? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 705–720. Oller, D.K., & Eilers, R.E. (2002). Balancing interpretations regarding effects of bilingualism: Empirical outcomes and theoretical possibilities. In D.K. Oller & R.E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 281–292). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
29 Oshima-Takane, E., Goodz, J., & Derevensky, L. (1996). Birth order effects on early language development: Do second born children learn from overheard speech? Child Development, 67, 621–634. Ovando, C. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1–24. Páez, M.M., Tabors, P.O., & López, L.M. (2007). Dual language and literacy development of Spanishspeaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 85–102. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M.B. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Paul, R. (2006). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby. Pearson, B.Z., Fernández, S.C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D.K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58. Pease-Alvarez, L. (2002). Moving beyond linear trajectories of language shift and bilingual language socialization. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 114–137. Peña, E., Gutiérrez-Clellen, V.F., Iglesias, A., Goldstein, B.A., & Bedore, L. (in preparation). Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA). Rescorla, L., & Achenbach, T. (2002). Use of the Language Development Survey (LDS) in a national probability sample of children 18 to 35 months old. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 733–743. Rice, M.L., Hoffman, L., & Wexler, K. (2009). Judgments of omitted BE and DO in questions as extended finiteness clinical markers of specific language impairment (SLI) to 15 years: A study of growth and asymptote. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1417–1433. Rice, M.L., Wexler, K., & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431. Rojas, R. (2010). Waves of change: Longitudinal growth profiling of bilingual (Spanish-English) language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2010). Using language sampling to measure language growth. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17(1), 24–31. Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (under review). English language learners: Language growth, individual differences, and the impact of initial status on growth. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572–594. Rossell, C.H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in Teaching of English, 30(1), 8–73. Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Achievement among Mexican-American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71, 68–93.
30 Saffran, J.R., Newport, E.L., & Aslin, R.N. (1996, December 13). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928. Saffran, J.R., Newport, E.L., Aslin, R.N., Tunick, R.A., & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8, 101–105. Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1982). Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schmid, M.S., Köpke, B., Keijzer, M., & Weilmar, L. (2004). First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives and methodological issues. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Seltzer, M., Choi, K., & Thum, Y.M. (2003). Examining relationships between where students start and how rapidly they progress: Using new developments in growth modeling to gain insight into the distribution of achievement within schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 263–286. Shin, S. (2002). Birth order and the language experience of bilingual children. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 103–113. Shneidman, L.A., Sootsman Buresh, J., Shimpi, P.M., Knight-Schwarz, J., & Woodward, A.L. (2009). Social experience, social attention and word learning in an overhearing paradigm. Language Learning and Development, 5, 266–281. Siegler, R.S. (2002). Variability and infant development. Infant Behavior and Development, 25, 550–557. Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V.F. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 315–337. Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–284. Snow, C.E. (2010, April 23). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452. Stevens, G., & Ishizawa, H. (2007). Variations among siblings in the use of non-English language. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1008–1025. Swanson, C.B. (2009). Perspectives on a population: English-language learners in American schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education. Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6, 378–391. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergartners: What are the best predictors? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 33–49. U.S. Census Bureau. (2009a). Ability to speak English by language spoken at home (PHC-T-37). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/population/ www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t37/index.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2009b). Educational attainment in 2005. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http:// www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/files/ dynamic/EdAttainment.pdf
Iglesias and Rojas Vagh, S.B., Pan, B.A., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2009). Measuring growth in bilingual and monolingual children’s English productive vocabulary development: The utility of combining parent and teacher report. Child Development, 80, 1545–1563. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between diverse families and schools. An ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between development and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review, 5, 634–677. van Geert, P. (2007). Dynamic systems in second language learning: Some methodological reflections. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 47– 49. van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 179–199. van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in development data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25, 340–374. Veltman, C. (1983). Language shift in the United States. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. Vihman, M.M. (2002). Getting started without a system: From phonetics to phonology in bilingual development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6, 239–254. Weikum, W.M., Vouloumanos, A., Navarra, J., SotoFaraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Werker, J.F. (2007, May 25). Visual language discrimination in infancy. Science, 316, 1159. Weisleder, A., & Waxman, S.R. (2010). What’s in the input? Frequent frames in child-directed speech offer distributional cues in grammatical categories in Spanish and English. Journal of Child Language, 37, 1089–1108. Werker, J.F., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2008). Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 144–151. Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–347. Yamamoto, M. (2001). Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Yamamoto, M. (2002). Language use in families with parents of different native languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23, 531–554. Zentella, A. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
