Early Sensitivity to Language Context in a Trilingual Toddler
- 1. • Figure 1. English was the predominant language in which questions were posed to the child, although more than half of the questions were given in a non-English language. • Figure 2. Despite the language of adult questions, the majority of the child’s responses were in English. • Figure 3. Of the 482 responses that could be analyzed, the child matched the language of the speaker 295 times, with the majority of the matches occurring in English. • Figure 4. The “Other” category includes ambiguous responses and non-responses. • Figure 4. The number of mismatches for Japanese and Mandarin are approximately double that of matches as opposed to English, where matches outweigh mismatches. Early Sensitivity to Language Context in a Trilingual Toddler James Lee Psychological and Brain Sciences Speech and Hearing Sciences Indiana University - Bloomington Children who simultaneously acquire more than one language from birth must learn to use each language differentially and appropriately with different interlocutors. Pragmatic differentiation has been reported as early two years of age in studies of children growing up in bilingual households (Nicoladis & Genesee,1996). This preliminary investigation explores how early in development language sensitivity is present in a single trilingual child. Of particular interest is whether the capacity to respond to adult questions in the language of the speaker emerges simultaneously across all three languages or if variations in language input play a role. We hypothesized that the child would use each language appropriately in proportion to its relative dominance, rather than appear as a monolithic development. Method Table 1. Coding of Adult Questions and Child Responses Results Results 75.5% 11.2% 11.4% 1.9% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 English Japanese Mandarin Mixed MeanProportion Language of Child’s Response Figure 2. Child Responses by Language References 1. DeLoache, J.S. & DeMendoza, O.A. (1987). Joint picturebook interactions of mothers and 1-year-old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 111-123. 2. Nicoladis, E. & Genesee, F. (1996). A longitudinal study of pragmatic differentiation in young bilingual children. Language Learning, 46, 439-464. 3. Tare, M. & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Can You Say It Another Way? Cognitive Factors in Bilingual Children’s Pragmatic Langauge Skills. Journal Of Cognition & Development, 11(2), 137-158. Mentored by Dr. Lisa Gershkoff Participant One male trilingual child simultaneously exposed to three languages: Mandarin from the mother, Japanese from the father, and English from the surrounding environment. • Age at start of study = 19 months;19 days • Age at end of study = 29 months; 8 days Procedure The child and his parents visited the laboratory approximately every 3 weeks. Parent reports of language exposure outside the lab were obtained at each session. Videotaped sessions consisted of spontaneous free-play and book reading with both parents and an English-speaking experimenter. Data from the final 10 of 20 sessions are presented. Coding Sessions were transcribed using Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN). Adult questions were coded for speaker, language, and type of question (DeLoache & DeMendoza, 1987). o “Wh” questions – “what do you want?” | “kore nan daroo?” o Yes-No questions – “do you want the mice?” | “上面有馬嗎?” o Tag questions – “you’re looking for that, right” | “你穿穿看好不好?” o Other – “hot?” | “小豬喔?” Child responses were coded for type of language. Non-responses and ambiguous responses were noted but not further analyzed. Total Number of Questions & Responses Adult Questions = 1468 Child Responses = 644 (44%) Unambiguous Responses analyzed = 482 Matched Responses = 295 (61%) Acknowledgements: Thanks to current and former members of the Trilingual group, the Baby Language Lab, Kaitlyn Crawford, Dr. Tessa Bent, the participating child and his parents. This research was supported by the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology Conclusions 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 19;19 20;10 21;0 21;22 22;12 24;14 25;3 26;29 27;26 29;8 MeanProportion Age in Months and Days Figure 6. Language Input Outside the Laboratory English Japanese Mandarin Introduction 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 19;19 20;10 21;0 21;22 22;12 24;14 25;3 26;29 27;26 29;8 MeanProportion Age in Months and Days Figure 5. Matched Response by Age English Japanese Mandarin 71.2% 13.2% 15.6% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 English Japanese Mandarin MeanProportion Language of Child's Response Figure 3. Child-To-Adult Language Matches Matched Responses by Age • Figure 5. The child consistently matched the Mandarin language of his mother throughout the study but it was not until 24 months of age that he showed a sudden increase in matching the Japanese language of his father. • In this single case study, one child demonstrated the ability to choose between three languages according to the linguistic knowledge of the speaker as early as 19 months of age. • Given that both parents used English in addition to their native language outside the laboratory, English appears to be the child’s dominant language and this is reflected in how he responds inside the laboratory. • Contrary to other reports of pragmatic differentiation in bilingual children (Tare & Gelman, 2010), we found an uneven developmental pattern, making it unlikely that metacognitive understanding is responsible for developments in sensitivity to language context. • Future analysis is underway to examine the size of the child’s vocabulary in each language as an alternative explanation for the differences found here. Language Input Outside the Lab by Age • Figure 6. Child-to-adult language matches shown in Figure 5 do not reflect the language input received outside the lab, suggesting that other factors are operating on the child’s sensitivity to language context. UNAMBIGUOUS CHILD RESPONSES ADULT QUESTIONS LANGUAGE MISMATCH LANGUAGE MATCH 42.1% 23.7% 31.9% 2.2% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 English Japanese Mandarin Mixed MeanProportion Language of Adult Questions Figure 1. Adult Questions by Language 34.0% 11.3% 9.9% 1.5% 23.3% 17.0% 64.6% 65.4% 73.1% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 English Japanese Mandarin MeanProportion Language Figure 4. Type of Child's Response Match Mismatch Other