1. Language-Specific & Conceptual Vocabulary in Bilingual Children and Their Primary Caregivers Christina J. Ausick Cardon Children’s Medical Center Margarita Kaushanskaya University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. Introduction What we know… The influences on MONOLINGUAL children’s vocabulary development Potential factors that influence BILINGUAL children’s vocabulary development, but these are conflicting.

3. Goals of this project: 1. Explore the relationship between primary caregivers language abilities and children’s vocabulary performance in monolingual and bilingual groups. 2. Compare monolingual and bilingual children’s performance on language- specific and conceptual vocabulary measures.

4. Participants/Demographics MonolingualsBilinguals Sample Size11 (5 males, 6 females)10 (4 males, 6 females) Chronological Age6.32 (0.97)6.33 (0.93) Performance on K-BIT * 21.73 (7.46)18.00 (5.64) Primary Caregivers Sample Size11 (1 male, 10 females)10 (2 males, 8 females) Primary Caregivers’ Years of Education19.36 (4.39)13.8 (3.58) Primary Caregivers’ Chronological Age39.98 (5.48)29.46 (4.03) Primary Caregivers’ K-BIT * 122.00 (9.04)91.1 (17.49)

5. Vocabulary Measures Expressive Vocabulary Measures  English: Woodcock-Johnson III: Picture Vocabulary  Spanish: Bater í a III Woodcock- Mu ñ oz: Vocabulario Sobre Dibujos Receptive Vocabulary Measures  English: PPVT-III (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III)  Spanish: TVIP (Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody) Total Conceptual Vocabulary Score: Only for bilingual children and their caregivers, includes English and Spanish expressive and receptive vocabulary measures.

6. WJ- III Picture Vocabulary Subtest; form used for Total Conceptual Vocabulary

7. Results: Monolingual vs. Bilingual English Vocabulary Performance

8. Results: Bilinguals’ Vocabulary Performance in English (Caregivers vs. Children)

9. Results: Bilinguals’ Vocabulary Performance in Spanish (Caregivers vs. Children)

10. Results: Monolingual Children vs. Primary Caregivers

11. Discussion: Vocabulary Performance Monolingual Children scored higher on English vocabulary measures compared to Bilingual Children Conceptual scoring increases Bilinguals’ scores, but does not eliminate the performance gap.  Larger gap for receptive vocabulary  Conceptual vocabulary calculation method

12. Discussion: Input Quality Primary Caregiver’s Vocabulary Performance vs. their Child’s Vocabulary Performance  Monolingual group’s correlations were not significant.  Bilingual group’s correlations were significant for English vocabulary measures, but not for Spanish vocabulary measures.

13. Acknowledgements A big “Thank You” goes out to:  Julie Washington  Susan Ellis Weismer  Vanessa Montoya  Stephanie Van Hecke  Marissa Stern  and, Ann Rogers Funding NIH XXXX

14. References Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1009-1018. Conboy, B.T. & Thal, D.J. (2006). Ties between lexicon and grammar: cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 77(3), 712-735. Dollaghan, C.A., Campbell, T.F., Paradise, J.L., Feldman, H.M., Janosky, J.E., Pitcairn, D.N., et al. (1999). Maternal education and measures of early speech and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1432-1443. Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., et al. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 171-190. Eilers, R. E., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2006). Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience. In P. McCardle & E. Hoff (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 68–90). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Goodman, J.C., Dale, P.S., & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515-531. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic stats affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368-1378. Hurtado, N., Marchman, V.A., & Fernald, A. (2007). Spoken word recognition by Latino children learning Spanish as their first language. Journal of Child Language, 33, 227-249. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236-248. Jackson-Maldondo, D., Thal, D., Marchman, V., Bates, E., & Gutierrez-Clellan, V. (1993). Early lexical development in Spanish-speaking toddlers and infants. Journal of Child Language, 20, 523-249. Li, G. (2007). Home environment and second-language acquisition: The importance of family capital. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(3), 285-299. Pan, B.A., Rowe, M.L., Singer, J.D. & Snow, C.E. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development, 76(4), 763-782. Pearson, B.Z., & Fernandez, S.C. (1994). Patterns of interaction in the lexical growth of two languages of bilingual infants and toddlers. Language and Learning, 44(4), 617-653. Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., & Oller, D.K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language and Learning, 43(1), 93-120. Rosenblum, T. & Pinker, S.A. (1983). Word magic revisited: Monolingual an bilingual children’s understanding of the word-object relationship. Child Development, 54, 773-780. Rowe, M.L. (2008). Child-directed speech: relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development, and child vocabulary skill.Journal of Child Language, 35, 185-205. Umbel, V.M., Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, M.C., & Oller, D.K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012-1020. Weizman, Z.O. & Snow, C.E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaningDevelopmental Psychology, 37(2), 265-279.

15. THANK YOU! Questions? OR Comments?