Bilingual children display comparative strength using prosodic cues for pragmatic word learning

IF 1.3 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Isabelle Lorge, Napoleon Katsos
{"title":"Bilingual children display comparative strength using prosodic cues for pragmatic word learning","authors":"Isabelle Lorge, Napoleon Katsos","doi":"10.1177/13670069231204139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims/objectives/research questions: Previous studies indicate differences in the way children who grow up with two languages use socio-pragmatic cues to help them identify referents and learn new words, yet the nature of these differences (executive control, better attention to social cues, or pragmatic reasoning) has not been investigated. Design/methodology/approach: This study examined 270 monolingual and bilingually exposed 4–6-year-old children’s performance in 2 tasks using different prosodic cues (contrastive stress and emotional affect) for fast mapping. It avoids a design where children have to inhibit an irrelevant cue, which would enhance the role of differences in executive control. Data/analysis: We performed statistical analyses using a logistic regression mixed model. Findings/conclusions: The bilingually exposed group performed lower than monolinguals in a control condition involving structural language (0.83 vs. 0.92). However, they performed on par with monolinguals in a pragmatic condition when considering only semantically correct answers in both groups (0.55 vs. 0.58), and even displayed significant comparative strength in the task once control performance and demographic variables were taken into account. This effect appeared when the task required reasoning about the speaker’s communicative intentions (contrastive stress) but not when children merely had to recognise a communicative cue (emotional affect). Originality: No study has so far investigated the socio-pragmatic abilities of bilingual children using a task that did not require inhibiting an irrelevant cue. Implications: These findings have implications for bilingual education and a better understanding of the impact of being educated in two languages. We also draw attention to implications regarding the existence of different types of pragmatic skills which may have differing developmental timelines and rely on different sets of abilities.","PeriodicalId":47574,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Bilingualism","volume":"47 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Bilingualism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069231204139","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims/objectives/research questions: Previous studies indicate differences in the way children who grow up with two languages use socio-pragmatic cues to help them identify referents and learn new words, yet the nature of these differences (executive control, better attention to social cues, or pragmatic reasoning) has not been investigated. Design/methodology/approach: This study examined 270 monolingual and bilingually exposed 4–6-year-old children’s performance in 2 tasks using different prosodic cues (contrastive stress and emotional affect) for fast mapping. It avoids a design where children have to inhibit an irrelevant cue, which would enhance the role of differences in executive control. Data/analysis: We performed statistical analyses using a logistic regression mixed model. Findings/conclusions: The bilingually exposed group performed lower than monolinguals in a control condition involving structural language (0.83 vs. 0.92). However, they performed on par with monolinguals in a pragmatic condition when considering only semantically correct answers in both groups (0.55 vs. 0.58), and even displayed significant comparative strength in the task once control performance and demographic variables were taken into account. This effect appeared when the task required reasoning about the speaker’s communicative intentions (contrastive stress) but not when children merely had to recognise a communicative cue (emotional affect). Originality: No study has so far investigated the socio-pragmatic abilities of bilingual children using a task that did not require inhibiting an irrelevant cue. Implications: These findings have implications for bilingual education and a better understanding of the impact of being educated in two languages. We also draw attention to implications regarding the existence of different types of pragmatic skills which may have differing developmental timelines and rely on different sets of abilities.
双语儿童在语用词汇学习中运用韵律线索表现出比较优势
目的/目标/研究问题:先前的研究表明,在两种语言环境中长大的儿童在使用社会语用线索来帮助他们识别所指物和学习新单词的方式上存在差异,但这些差异的本质(执行控制、对社会线索的更好关注或语用推理)尚未得到调查。设计/方法/方法:本研究考察了270名4 - 6岁单语和双语儿童在使用不同韵律线索(对比压力和情绪影响)进行快速映射的两项任务中的表现。它避免了孩子们不得不抑制不相关线索的设计,这将增强执行控制中差异的作用。数据/分析:我们使用逻辑回归混合模型进行统计分析。结果/结论:双语暴露组在涉及结构语言的对照条件下的表现低于单语暴露组(0.83比0.92)。然而,当两组只考虑语义正确答案时,他们在语用条件下的表现与单语者相当(0.55 vs 0.58),甚至在考虑控制性能和人口变量时,他们在任务中表现出显著的相对优势。当任务需要推理说话人的交际意图(对比压力)时,这种效应就会出现,但当孩子们仅仅需要识别交际线索(情感影响)时,这种效应就不会出现。原创性:到目前为止,还没有研究使用不需要抑制无关线索的任务来调查双语儿童的社会实用能力。启示:这些发现对双语教育和更好地理解两种语言教育的影响具有启示意义。我们还提请注意关于不同类型的实用技能存在的影响,这些技能可能有不同的发展时间表,并依赖于不同的能力集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Bilingualism is an international forum for the dissemination of original research on the linguistic, psychological, neurological, and social issues which emerge from language contact. While stressing interdisciplinary links, the focus of the Journal is on the language behavior of the bi- and multilingual individual.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信