Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children

Elma Blom*, Tessel Boerma, Evelyn Bosma, Leonie Cornips, Kirsten van den Heuij, Mona Timmermeister

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Various studies have shown that bilingual children score lower than their monolingual peers on standardized receptive vocabulary tests. This study investigates if this effect is moderated by language distance. Dutch receptive vocabulary was tested with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). The impact of cross-language distance was examined by comparing bilingual groups with a small (Close; n = 165) and a large between-language distance (Distant; n = 108) with monolingual controls (n = 39). As a group, the bilinguals scored lower on Dutch receptive vocabulary than the monolinguals. The bilingual Distant group had lower receptive vocabulary outcomes than the bilingual Close and monolingual groups. No difference emerged between the monolinguals and the bilingual Close group. It can be concluded that bilingual children whose languages provide ample opportunities for transfer and sharing knowledge do not have any receptive vocabulary delays. The findings underscore that bilingual children cannot be treated as a homogeneous group and are important for determining which bilingual children are at risk of low vocabulary outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)151-171
Number of pages21
JournalFirst Language
Volume40
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2020

Keywords

  • Child bilingualism
  • cross-linguistic overlap
  • language distance
  • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
  • receptive vocabulary
  • INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES
  • LEARNING SPANISH
  • ENGLISH
  • ACQUISITION
  • INTERDEPENDENCE
  • LEARNERS
  • EXPOSURE
  • SIZE
  • SES

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this