Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref.
ABUTALEBI, JUBIN
and
CLAHSEN, HARALD
2017.
Bilingual language acquisition: The role of input and experience.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
Vol. 20,
Issue. 1,
p.
1.
De Houwer, Annick
2018.
Bilingual Cognition and Language.
Vol. 54,
Issue. ,
p.
127.
Bedore, Lisa M.
Peña, Elizabeth D.
Anaya, Jissel B.
Nieto, Ricardo
Lugo-Neris, Mirza J.
and
Baron, Alisa
2018.
Understanding Disorder Within Variation: Production of English Grammatical Forms by English Language Learners.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
Vol. 49,
Issue. 2,
p.
277.
Müller, Nicole
Muckley, Sarah-Ann
and
Antonijevic-Elliott, Stanislava
2019.
Where phonology meets morphology in the context of rapid language change and universal bilingualism: Irish initial mutations in child language.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics,
Vol. 33,
Issue. 1-2,
p.
3.
SURRAIN, SARAH
and
LUK, GIGI
2019.
Describing bilinguals: A systematic review of labels and descriptions used in the literature between 2005–2015.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 2,
p.
401.
CHEUNG, SHIRLEY
KAN, PUI FONG
WINICOUR, ELLIE
and
YANG, JERRY
2019.
Effects of home language input on the vocabulary knowledge of sequential bilingual children.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
Vol. 22,
Issue. 5,
p.
986.
Nic Fhlannchadha, Siobhán
and
Hickey, Tina M.
2019.
Assessing children’s proficiency in a minority language: exploring the relationships between home language exposure, test performance and teacher and parent ratings of school-age Irish-English bilinguals.
Language and Education,
Vol. 33,
Issue. 4,
p.
340.
Li’el, Naomi
Williams, Cori
and
Kane, Robert
2019.
Identifying developmental language disorder in bilingual children from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
Vol. 21,
Issue. 6,
p.
613.
ANTONIJEVIC, Stanislava
MUCKLEY, Sarah Ann
and
MÜLLER, Nicole
2020.
The role of consistency in use of morphosyntactic forms in child-directed speech in the acquisition of Irish, a minority language undergoing rapid language change.
Journal of Child Language,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 2,
p.
267.
De Cat, Cécile
2020.
PREDICTING LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
Vol. 42,
Issue. 2,
p.
279.
SORENSON DUNCAN, Tamara
and
PARADIS, Johanne
2020.
Home language environment and children's second language acquisition: the special status of input from older siblings.
Journal of Child Language,
Vol. 47,
Issue. 5,
p.
982.
Serratrice, Ludovica
and
De Cat, Cécile
2020.
Individual differences in the production of referential expressions: The effect of language proficiency, language exposure and executive function in bilingual and monolingual children.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
Vol. 23,
Issue. 2,
p.
371.
Sorenson Duncan, Tamara
and
Paradis, Johanne
2020.
How does maternal education influence the linguistic environment supporting bilingual language development in child second language learners of English?.
International Journal of Bilingualism,
Vol. 24,
Issue. 1,
p.
46.
Kan, Pui Fong
Miller, Annaliese
Cheung, Shirley
and
Brickman, Angela
2020.
The Distributed L1 and L2 Language-Learning Environments of Dual Language Learners Across Home and School Settings.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
Vol. 51,
Issue. 4,
p.
1007.
Ehl, Birgit
and
Grosche, Michael
2020.
Einbezug von Alter und Sprachkontaktdauer in die Wortschatzdiagnostik bei Mehrsprachigkeit.
Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie,
Vol. 52,
Issue. 1-2,
p.
41.
Jasso, Javier
McMillen, Stephanie
Anaya, Jissel B.
Bedore, Lisa M.
and
Peña, Elizabeth D.
2020.
The Utility of an English Semantics Measure for Identifying Developmental Language Disorder in Spanish–English Bilinguals.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
Vol. 29,
Issue. 2,
p.
776.
Soto-Corominas, Adriana
Paradis, Johanne
Rusk, Brian V.
Marinova-Todd, Stefka
and
Zhang, Xuan
2020.
ORAL LANGUAGE PROFILES OF ENGLISH SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN ADOLESCENCE.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
Vol. 42,
Issue. 4,
p.
697.
Serrat, Elisabet
Amadó, Anna
Bonet, Aina
Feijóo, Sara
and
Aguilar-Mediavilla, Eva
2021.
Growing up in a socially bilingual environment: simultaneous acquisition of a typologically close language (Crecer en un entorno social bilingüe: adquisición de una lengua de forma simultánea a otra lengua tipológicamente similar).
Journal for the Study of Education and Development,
Vol. 44,
Issue. 2,
p.
336.
De Cat, Cécile
2021.
Socioeconomic status as a proxy for input quality in bilingual children?.
Applied Psycholinguistics,
Vol. 42,
Issue. 2,
p.
301.
Smolander, Sini
Laasonen, Marja
Arkkila, Eva
Lahti‐Nuuttila, Pekka
and
Kunnari, Sari
2021.
L2 vocabulary acquisition of early sequentially bilingual children with TD and DLD affected differently by exposure and age of onset.
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
Vol. 56,
Issue. 1,
p.
72.
Carroll (Carroll) takes issue with the use of parent report to obtain quantity of language exposure measures in research on bilingual development. When discussing parent questionnaires, Carroll writes “Temporal units are crude measures of exposure and they tell us nothing about input”. While I agree that temporal units do not tell us much about the fine-grained details of the input within the temporal units, importantly, parent-report-based measures of input quantity have predicted variation in bilingual development of phonology, vocabulary and morphosyntax. These are robust and reliable findings across numerous studies, and yet, Carroll skates over them as if they did not matter, or dismisses them as trivial. Furthermore, Carroll seems to lead readers to believe that only coarse-grained, language-use temporal units have been obtained through this method; on the contrary, researchers have obtained fine-grained input quality details via parent report that also predict bilingual children's development. Finally, in some circumstances, parent report data is the only feasible method for obtaining language exposure information.
Parent report has been frequently used in studies of simultaneous and sequential bilinguals to obtain cumulative (e.g., length of time) or relative (e.g., 60% French and 40% English) language exposure variables, which in turn are used to predict children's language abilities (e.g., chapters in Grüter & Paradis, Reference Grüter and Paradis2014). Studies in the reference listFootnote 1 marked with [*] – 39 in total – are those that found significant relationships between parent-report-based input quantity measures and children's language abilities. Carroll writes, “Much of the bilingual exposure literature making claims about quantity or quality of exposure is little more than speculation. . . that will not bear close scrutiny”. The scrutiny afforded by this reference list contradicts this statement because, if parent report on language exposure were too unreliable and speculative, such consistent findings would not exist.
Carroll cites de Houwer (chapter in Grüter & Paradis, Reference Grüter and Paradis2014) as evidence for the unreliability of relative language exposure measures, but this study shows nothing of the sort. De Houwer found substantial individual variation in the amount of maternal speech in Dutch to bilingual children. Only speech in Dutch was measured. Presumably, the bilingual children's French interlocutors also varied in their volubility, but this was not measured, nor was the impact of input variation on children's language. Based on this study, we could hypothesize that variation in the amount of maternal speech would cause relative language exposure measures to be useless at predicting differences in children's language. For example, 30% of exposure in Dutch might mean 1,000 words-per-hour for one child and 5,000 for another. However, the weight of empirical evidence (see reference list in Supplementary Materials) does not support this hypothesis. Research examining the impact of absolute and direct input measures on children's development is worthwhile; my point is that indirect language exposure variables obtained via parent report have also proven their worth.
In the quote above, Carroll mentions “. . . quantity or quality of exposure. . .” [emphasis mine]. In addition to showing that input quantity measures are valid, studies have also shown that input quality variables obtained via parent report predict bilingual children's language abilities. (See 18 studies in the reference list marked “[!]”.) Input quality refers to factors such as: parental L2 fluency, diversity of interlocutors in a minority language, SES/parent education, or the richness of children's experience with media, extra-curricular activities, and native-speaker friends in L1 or L2. Not only have studies shown that input quality matters, they have also shown that input quality sometimes trumps quantity, e.g., when the L2 fluency of parents is low, the amount of L2 input at home bears little relationship to children's abilities in the L2 (Paradis, Reference Paradis2011). Carroll highlights the need for more fine-grained and direct investigations of the quality of language exposure in research with bilinguals, and I heartily support this. However, parent report has already yielded important and reliable findings on this topic that should serve as a launching pad for studies employing different methods.
Indirect measures like parent-, teacher- or self-report might be the only feasible means of obtaining input and experience information from older bilingual children. Tracking overlap in maternal input and child output might be possible for toddlers, but older bilingual children have multiple sources of input in L1 and L2: home, school, community, media, friends. So, counting all the words, and sources of all the words, that older bilingual children hear is impractical in observational research. Laboratory artificial-language learning can provide insights in this regard and is feasible with older participants; however, there is always a trade-off between precision of measurement and ecological validity in behavioural science research, meaning naturalistic and observational methods are always needed. Certainly, new paradigms for examining input and uptake in bilingual development would be very welcome, but, since we know parent report data works, it should remain part of the toolkit of bilingual development researchers.
Carroll claims there is a consensus across theoretical approaches concerning the relevance of input and experience, and writes “Given this obvious consensus, I plead for a moratorium on studies whose sole theoretical claim is just that exposure to a given language matters”. In my view, there is no consensus about the nature, impact and longevity of input factors in acquisition between nativist and non-nativist perspectives. Nevertheless, I concur with a narrow reading of Carroll's statement. Since so much research has demonstrated that cumulative or relative input quantity – largely based on parent report – predicts rates of bilingual development, any study examining this factor as its sole purpose runs the risk of not making a novel contribution to the field.
Supplementary Material
For supplementary material accompanying this paper, visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S136672891600033X