The effects of bilingualism on verbal and non verbal cognition: The micro- and macro-structure of narratives in the weak and the dominant language of the bilingual child
Maria Andreou
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psycholinguistics Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
September 2015
This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
DEPARTMENT OF THEORETICAL & APPLIED LINGUISTICS
SCHOOL OF ENGLISH
“The effects of bilingualism on verbal and non verbal cognition: The micro- and macro-structure of narratives in the weak and the dominant language of the bilingual child”
Ph.D. Candidate
Maria Andreou
Supervising Committee
Professor Ianthi Maria Tsimpli, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Assistant Professor. Eleni Agathopoulou, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Assistant Professor Elvira Masoura, Department of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Thessaloniki, September 2015
i
Acknowledgments
This dissertation is part of the project Thales “Bilingual Acquisition & Bilingual Education: The Development of Linguistic and Cognitive Abilities in Different Types of Bilingualism” and is based on collection of data from bilingual children from Thessaloniki, Athens, Germany, England and Albania. During the period of collecting and analyzing the data and conducting the research for this project a number of people have been involved in various ways and to various degrees. First and foremost I am grateful to my supervisor Professor Ianthi Maria Tsimpli who entrusted to me the topic of the dissertation, inspired, supported and guided me through this study. She offered bountifully from her knowledge, acumen and many important suggestions which undoubtedly made this thesis much better. A deep thanks of gratitude is due to her for introducing me to this area of study and offering me the opportunity of a unique experience during the last four years. I would also like to express my gratitude to the other two members of my Advising Committee, Professor Eleni Agathopoulou for her valuable remarks and suggestions and Professor Elvira Masoura for her comments on various points of methodology in the study of working memory and executive control. I am also indebted to a number of people of the Thales programme for their readiness to send me bibliographical material and for their invaluable comments and suggestions to my work: Prof. Christianne Bongartz also for offering me the opportunity to participate in the research project “Cognition, Literacy and Bilingualism in Greek-German Speaking Children (CoLiBi)” as part of the collaboration between Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the University of Cologne; Prof. Despina Papadopoulou. I would also like to thank Prof. Theodoros Marinis for his stimulating comments and for the unique opportunity to collaborate with him during my three-month internship at the University of Reading. I would like to thank a number of teachers who introduce me to the field of linguistics and inspired my interest in this field: Prof. Georgios Giannakis for his support, encouragement and guidance during the last years, Prof. Maria Mastropavlou for her help and support and Prof. Maria Baltazani, my supervisor during my graduate work. Special thanks go to friends and colleagues from the Language Development Laboratory of Aristotle University whose help and support proved valuable
ii
throughout my research: Maria Katsiperi, Eleni Fleva, Georgia Fotiadou, Maria Kaltsa, Natasa Chionidou, Eleni Baldimtsi, Evelyn Egger, Maria Papakonstantinou and Leonarda Prela. I would like to thank Ifigenia Dosi and Eva Knopp for long discussions on theoretical and practical issues and Eleni Peristeri for helping me with the statistical analysis and with her comments on my results. My sincere thanks also are due to Tasos Paschalis for his help with technical issues and for cheering us up with his humor and insightful comments. I am also indebted to the students, parents and teachers who participated in this project and made this study possible. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning Thales”. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family, Orestis for always being there and most of all I would like to thank my parents for always supporting and encouraging me. This thesis is affectionately dedicated to them.
iii
Part of this work has been published in the following journals/series:
Tsimpli I. M., M. Andreou, M. Kaltsa & E. Kapia (2015). Albanian-Greek bilingual children in Albania and Greece: the effects on mother tongue literacy/education on cognitive abilities, Albanohellenica (6), 1-7. Andreou, M., E. Knopp, C. Bongartz, & I. M. Tsimpli (2015). Character Reference in Greek-German Bilingual Children’s Narratives. In L. Roberts, K. McManus, N. Vanek, & D. Trenkic (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 15, 1-40. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tsimpli, I. M., M. Andreou, E. Agathopoulou & E. Masoura (2014). Narrative production, bilingualism and working memory capacity: A study of Greek-German bilingual children. Selected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, G. Kotzoglou et al. (eds.). Rhodes: University of the Aegean, 1730- 1742.
Part of this work has been presented in the following conferences:
Andreou M. & E. Egger, 2015. Measuring language proficiency in bilingual children: Data from a Narrative Retell Task. Workshop on Bilingual Acquisition and Bilingual Education: Linguistic and Cognitive Effects, Thessaloniki, 23- 24/04/2015. Tsimpli I. M., M. Andreou, M. Kaltsa & E. Kapia, 2015. Albanian-Greek bilingual children in Albania and Greece: the effects on mother tongue literacy/education on cognitive abilities. 2nd International Conference of Greek-Albanian/Albanian- Greek Studies, Tirana, 27-28/03/2015. Bongartz C., I. M. Tsimpli, M. Andreou, E. Knopp & M. Kaltsa, 2014. The role of accessibility in bilingual referential cohesion. XLVIII Congresso Internazionale Di Studi Societά Di Linguistica Italiana, Udine, 25-27/09/2014 Andreou M., C. Bongartz & E. Knopp, 2014. Salience in oral and written narratives of young Greek-German-English bilinguals. AILA World Congress, Brisbane 10- 15/8/2014. Andreou M. & I. M. Tsimpli, 2014. Character Reference: A study of Greek-German and Greek-English bilingual children. International Conference, Olinco, Olomouc 5-7/06/2014. Andreou M., 2014. Η κατάκτηση της ονοματικής συμφωνίας στον γραπτό και τον προφορικό λόγο από δίγλωσσα παιδιά (The acquisition of nominal agreement in written and oral speech by bilingual children). 35th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 8-10/05/2014. Andreou M. & I. M. Tsimpli, 2014. Language dominance in child bilingualism: Effects οn narrative production and syntactic complexity. Workshop Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research, Utrecht, 14-16/04/2014. Andreou M., E. Knopp, C. Bongartz & I. M. Tsimpli, 2013. Syntactic complexity and discourse reference in Greek-German bilingual children’s narratives. 23rd Conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Amsterdam 28-31/08/2013. Tsimpli I. M., M. Andreou, E. Agathopoulou & E. Masoura, 2013. Narrative production, bilingualism and working memory capacity: A study of Greek-German bilingual children. 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Rhodes, 26- 29 September 2013.
iv
Contents
Acknowledgments...... ii
ABSTRACT ...... xvii
Abbreviations ...... xix
CHAPTER 1 ...... 21
INTRODUCTION ...... 21
1.1 Thesis objectives ...... 21
1.2 Thesis overview ...... 26
CHAPTER 2 ...... 28
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...... 28
2.1 Some background information on child bilingualism ...... 28
2.2 External factors ...... 30
2.2.1 Biliteracy ...... 30
2.2.2 Educational setting ...... 34
2.3 Different types of bilingualism: Age of Onset ...... 35
2.4 Socioeconomic status ...... 36
2.5 Different types of bilingualism: Input...... 38
2.6 Language dominance in the bilingual child ...... 38
2.7 Bilingualism and vocabulary skills ...... 41
2.8 Bilingualism and cognition ...... 42
2.9 Bilingualism and Narrative skills...... 44
2.10 Summary ...... 61
CHAPTER 3 ...... 62
PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE (AGE, VOCABULARY SKILLS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION) ...... 62
3.1 Preliminary remarks ...... 62
3.1.1 Procedure ...... 63
v
3.2 Educational setting ...... 63
3.3 Questionnaire factors ...... 67
3.4 Nonverbal Intelligence ...... 79
3.5 Language abilities ...... 81
3.5.1 Vocabulary scores ...... 81
3.5.2 Methods for assessing dominance through language proficiency scores ...... 84
3.5.3 Sentence Repetition Task ...... 87
3.4.5 Lexical Decision Task ...... 92
3.6 Conclusions ...... 94
CHAPTER 4 ...... 97
COGNITION AND DOMINANCE: ...... 97
EDUCATIONAL SETTING AND BILITERACY EFFECTS ...... 97
4.1 Cognitive tasks ...... 98
4.2 Results: Balance with 6 different ways ...... 103
4.3 Cognitive performance and balanced bilingualism (Between Group Comparisons) ...... 109
4.4 The variables for a Balanced Bilingual ...... 112
4.5 The Biliteracy Variable ...... 113
4.6 Conclusions ...... 114
CHAPTER 5 ...... 118
NARRATION TASK: DESCRIPTION AND CODING ...... 118
5.1 Creation of the four scenarios ...... 119
5.2 Story scripts: Comparability micro- and macrostructure measures ...... 121
5.2.1 Comparability in macrostructure measures ...... 121
5.2.2 Comparability in microstructure measures ...... 125
5.3 Procedure ...... 126
5.3.1 Instructions ...... 126
vi
5.3.2 Narrative modes ...... 127
CHAPTER 6 ...... 129
NARRATIVES: MACROSTRUCTURE VS. MICROSTRUCTURE MEASURES129
6.1 Objectives ...... 129
6.2 A brief note on the morphosyntax of the four languages ...... 131
6.3 Microstructure measures ...... 133
6.4 Macrostructure measures ...... 135
6.5 Results ...... 137
6.5.1 Microstructure: Age group 8-10 yrs old ...... 137
6.5.2 Macrostructure: Age group 8-10 yrs old ...... 149
6.5.3 Microstructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old ...... 152
6.5.4 Macrostructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old ...... 159
6.5.5 The Age Effects: Micro- and Macrostructure Differences in 8-10 vs. 10-12 ... 162
6.5.6 Summary of Retelling in the two different age groups ...... 162
6.5.7 Oral retellings: Language, cognitive and background measures ...... 165
6.5.8 Microstructure Telling: Age group 8-10 yrs old ...... 166
6.5.9 Macrostructure Telling: Age group 8-10 yrs old ...... 176
6.5.10 The Mode Effect (Retelling vs. Telling): Micro- and macrostructure differences ...... 179
6.5.11 Oral Telling: Language, cognitive and background measures ...... 181
6.5.12 Microstructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old: Written retellings ...... 181
6.5.13 Macrostructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old written Retelling ...... 186
6.5.14 The Effect of Mode (retelling vs. written retelling): Micro- and macrostructure differences ...... 189
6.5.15 Written Retellings: Language, cognitive and background measures ...... 190
6.6 Conclusions ...... 191
CHAPTER 7 ...... 197
vii
NARRATIVES: GRAMMATICAL PERFORMANCE IN ORAL RETELLING VS. WRITTEN RETELLING VS. ORAL TELLING ...... 197
7.1 Objectives ...... 197
7.2 Coding and Scoring...... 198
7.3 Results: High Greek Vocabulary groups (10-12) oral retelling ...... 200 vs. written retelling ...... 200
7.3.1 Grammaticality ...... 200
7.3.2 Structure Errors ...... 201
7.3.3 Error Types ...... 203
7.4 Results: Low Greek Vocabulary Groups (10-12) oral retelling vs...... 206 written retelling ...... 206
7.4.1 Grammaticality ...... 206
7.4.2 Structure Errors ...... 207
7.4.3 Error Types ...... 209
7.5 Results: High Greek Vocabulary Groups (8-10) oral retelling vs. telling ...... 212
7.5.1 Grammaticality ...... 212
7.5.2 Structure Errors ...... 213
7.5.3 Error Types ...... 215
7.6 Results: Low Greek Vocabulary Groups (8-10) oral retelling vs...... 217 oral telling ...... 217
7.6.1 Grammaticality ...... 217
7.6.2 Structure Errors ...... 218
7.6.3 Error Types ...... 220
7.7 Predictors of Grammaticality (oral retelling mode) ...... 222
7.8 Predictors of Grammaticality (written retelling mode) ...... 223
7.9 Predictors of Grammaticality (oral telling mode) ...... 224
7.10 Conclusions ...... 224
viii
CHAPTER 8 ...... 228
NARRATIVES: CHARACTER REFERENCE ...... 228
8.1 Introduction ...... 228
8.2 Coding of character reference ...... 229
8.3 Coding of ambiguities on pronominal referential expressions ...... 229
8.4 Results: Narrative retelling measure: 8-10 years old ...... 231
8.4.1 Character Introduction ...... 231
8.4.2 Character Maintenance ...... 232
8.4.3 Character Reintroduction ...... 233
8.5 Narrative retelling measure: 10-12 years old ...... 234
8.5.1 Character Introduction ...... 234
8.5.2 Character Maintenance ...... 235
8.5.3 Character Reintroduction ...... 236
8.6 Narrative telling measure: 8-10 years old ...... 237
8.6.1 Character Introduction ...... 237
8.6.2 Character Maintenance ...... 238
8.6.3 Character Reintroduction ...... 239
8.7 Narrative written retelling measure: 10-12 years old ...... 240
8.7.1 Character Introduction ...... 240
8.7.2 Character Maintenance ...... 241
8.7.3 Character Reintroduction ...... 242
8.8 Correlations and regressions between external variables, proficiency measures, cognitive measures and distribution of referential expression in oral retelling ...... 242
8.8.1 Oral Retelling ...... 243
8.8.2 Oral Telling ...... 243
8.8.3 Written Retelling ...... 244
8.9 Pronominal ambiguity ...... 245
ix
8.9.1 Oral Retelling ...... 245
8.9.2 Telling ...... 246
8.9.3 Written Retelling ...... 246
8.11 Conclusions ...... 246
CHAPTER 9 ...... 250
DISCUSSION ...... 250
9.1 First Research Question ...... 250
9.2 Second and fourth research questions ...... 252
9.3 Third research question ...... 253
9.3.1 Bilingualism vs. Monolingualism ...... 254
9.3.2 Language Pair ...... 256
9.3.3 Bilingualism, cognition and narratives ...... 257
9.3.4 Narratives and Grammaticality ...... 258
9.3.5 Character reference ...... 260
9.4 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 260
REFERENCES ...... 263
Appendix A ...... 288
Appendix B ...... 325
Appendix C ...... 330
Appendix D ...... 339
Appendix E ...... 355
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Different approaches of macrostructural analysis ...... 47 Table 2: Categorization of mental state terms...... 50 Table 3: Mean and SD of z-scores for the HLH (Home Language History)...... 69 Table 4: Mean and SD of percentage scores for ELI(1) (Early Literacy Input) ...... 71 Table 5: Mean and SD of percentage scores for ELI(2) (Early Literacy Input) ...... 72 Table 6: Mean and SD of percentage scores for CLitU Index (Current Literacy Use) 73 Table 7: Mean and SD of percentage scores for CLitU Index (Current Language Use) ...... 75 Table 8:. Mean and SD of percentage scores for BLP (Balanced Language Proficiency) ...... 86 Table 9: Examples with the scoring with regard to grammaticality and accuracy ...... 88 Table 10: Factor scores of coefficients of matrix ...... 91 Table 11: Mean and SD of raw scores in Backward Digit Recall for the six different ways of Index of Dominance ...... 103 Table 12:Correlations between the measurements in Backward Digit Recall ...... 105 Table 13: Mean and SD of raw scores in Mister X for the six different ways of Index of Dominance ...... 105 Table 14: Correlations between the measurements in Mister X ...... 107 Table 15: Mean and SD of raw scores in the 2-Back with Digits for the six different ways of Index of Dominance ...... 107 Table 16: Correlations between the measurements on 2-Back with digits ...... 109 Table 17: Mean and SD of raw scores in the BLP and the percentages of the Balanced Bilinguals in each language pair ...... 110 Table 18: Mean and SD of percentage scores in the Digit Backward Recall, Mister X and N-Back tasks for the Balanced Bilinguals in each language pair ...... 110 Table 19: Correlations between internal, external factors and the BLP ...... 112 Table 20: Mean and SD of percentage scores in the Digit Backward Recall, Mister X and N-Back tasks for the Bilitrate and Monoliterate Bilinguals ...... 113 Table 21: Description of total Number of Words, Subordinate and Coordinate clauses in each language ...... 125 Table 22: Description of scoring Story Grammar ...... 135
xi
Table 23: Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 138 Table 24: Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for macrostructure variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 149 Table 25: Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 153 Table 26: Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for macrostructure variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 159 Table 27: Summary results of retelling micro- and macrostructure in the two different age groups ...... 162 Table 28: Factor scores of coefficients of matrix for micro- and macrostructure measures ...... 163 Table 29: Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 166 Table 30: Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 177 Table 31:Summary results of micro- and macrostructure in the two different modes in the age group of 8-10 ...... 179 Table 32: Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 181 Table 33: Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for macrostructure variables with respect to the different effects studied ...... 186 Table 34: Summary of the micro- and macrostructure in the written retelling mode 189 Table 35: Summary of bilingualism effect with respect to the verb clauses .... 190Table 36: Summary of bilingualism effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses ...... 191 Table 37: Summary of bilingualism effect with respect to the story grammar and the [+ToM-related] ISTs ...... 192 Table 38: Summary of Area of Residence effect with respect to the verb diversity . 192
xii
Table 39: Summary of Area of Residence effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses ...... 193 Table 40: Summary of Language Pair effect with respect to the verb diversity...... 193 Table 41: Summary of Language Pair effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses ...... 194 Table 42: Correlations between the measurements ...... 221 Table 43: Correlations between the measurements ...... 221 Table 44: Correlations between the measurements ...... 22 Table 45: Grammaticality performance between the groups and the three different modes ...... 223 Table 46: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Introduction...... 228 Table 47: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Maintenance ...... 230 Table 48: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Reintroduction ...... 231 Table 49: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Introduction...... 232 Table 50: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Maintenance ...... 233 Table 51: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Reintroduction ...... 234 Table 52: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Introduction...... 235 Table 53: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Maintenance ...... 236 Table 54: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Reintroduction ...... 236 Table 55: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Introduction...... 237 Table 56: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Maintenance ...... 238 Table 57: Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Reintroduction ...... 239 Table 58: Character reference in the three different modes and functions ...... 246
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Accessibility marking scale ...... 54 Figure 2: CUP model ...... 60 Figure 3: Variance of bilinguals in the educational settings ...... 66 Figure 4: Participant distribution with respect to external factors ...... 76 Figure 5: Age of Onset ...... 78 Figure 6: Group mean scores in Raven’s ...... 80 Figure 7: Group percentage scores in the Greek vocabulary task ...... 82 Figure 8: Group percentage scores in the other vocabulary ...... 83 Figure 9: Group differences in the two vocabularies ...... 84 Figure 10: Group means accuracy scores in the Sentence Repetition Task ...... 89 Figure 11: Group means grammaticality scores in the Sentence Repetition Task ...... 90 Figure 12: Group percentage scores in the Lexical Decsion Task ...... 93 Figure 13: Verb Diversity with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 140 Figure 14: Verb diversity with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 141 Figure 15:Complex sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 142 Figure 16: Complex sentences with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 143 Figure 17: Complex sentences with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 144 Figure 18:Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 145 Figure 19: Subordinate Clauses with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 146 Figure 20: Subordinate Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 147 Figure 21: Verb diversity with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 154 Figure 22:Complex sentences with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 155 Figure 23: Subordinate Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 156 Figure 24: Adverbial Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 157 Figure 25:Verb clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 167 Figure 26: Verb diversity with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 169 Figure 27: Complex sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 170 Figure 28: Complex sentences with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 171 Figure 29: Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 172 Figure 30: Subordinate Clauses with Area of Residence effect as factor ...... 173 Figure 31: Adverbial Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 174
xiv
Figure 32: Adverbial Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor ...... 175 Figure 33:Complex sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 183 Figure 34: Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 184 Figure 35: Adverbial Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor ...... 185 Figure 36: The results of ANOVA with respect to grammaticality in oral and written narratives ...... 200 Figure 37:The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral retelling...... 201 Figure 38: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in written retelling ...... 202 Figure 39: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling ...... 203 Figure 40: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in written retelling ...... 204 Figure 41: The results of ANOVA with respect to grammaticality in oral and written narratives ...... 205 Figure 42:The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral retelling...... 206 Figure 43: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in written retelling ...... 208 Figure 44: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling ...... 209 Figure 45: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in written retelling ...... 210 Figure 46: The results of ANOVA with respect to grammaticality in retelling and telling ...... 211 Figure 47:The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral retelling...... 212 Figure 48: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral telling ...... 213 Figure 49: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling ...... 214 Figure 50: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral telling ...... 215
xv
Figure 51: The results of ANOVA with respect to grammaticality in retelling and telling ...... 216 Figure 52:The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral retelling...... 217 Figure 53: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral telling ...... 218 Figure 54: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling ...... 219 Figure 55: The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral telling ...... 220
xvi
ABSTRACT
The topic of the present dissertation is to investigate how bilingualism affects language, cognitive and narrative abilities in bilingual children. 209 Greek-English, Greek-German and Greek-Albanian bilingual children aged from 8 to 12 years old divided into two age groups (8-10 and 10-12 years old) took part in the study along with 100 monolingual Greek children. The children completed baseline and experimental tasks measuring their vocabulary, grammar, cognitive skills and narrative production abilities. Their ability to produce narrations while writing and speaking was measured using off-line methodology. A wealth of studies has investigated how the experience of being bilingual shapes our language and cognitive abilities and the way we produce narratives. In terms of their language abilities, bilingual children seem to have smaller vocabularies compared to their monolingual peers. However, the results of our research indicate that vocabulary acquisition by bilinguals in some groups is comparable to that of their monolingual peers, with the amount of input being the determining factor of vocabulary size. The grammatical abilities of bilingual children may differ from those of monolinguals depending on the grammatical structure tested (Marinis and Chondrogianni 2010), but the present research indicates that some groups of bilinguals are comparable to their monolingual peer, with Age of Onset of exposure to Greek and the level of their Greek vocabulary playing an important role. In terms of their cognitive abilities, there is conflicting evidence about whether or not bilingualism leads to advantages in Executive Functions, i.e. the cognitive processes responsible for goal-oriented behaviour, the capacity to think ahead, suppress impulses, and temporarily hold information. Many studies have shown that the systematic use of two languages leads to a bilingual advantage in cognitive control (Adesope, Lavin,Thompson and Ungerleider 2010), but not all studies have found this bilingual advantage (see, for instance, Namazi and Thordardottir 2010). Our research adds a new variable in this domain, since we provide evidence that better performance in cognitive skills is connected to the educational context which the bilingual child attends. Specifically, balanced exposure to the two languages within the framework of bilingual education and bi-literacy ensures better performance. In terms of the quality of bilingual children’s narrative production, a growing body of research has shown
xvii
that narrative development is a lengthy process which continues well into school years and is closely related to discourse pragmatic development (Berman 2004). Narrative assessment is a highly contextualized task that can predict children’s literacy development (Bishop and Edmundson 1987). Within narrative abilities, a distinction is made between skills at the level of macrostructure, on the one hand, and microstructure on the other. Macrostructure refers to the global coherence of a story (e.g. Story Grammar and character reference), while microstructure is concerned with measures such as narrative length, local coherence and syntactic complexity (Gagarina, Klop, Bohnacker, Kunnari, Tantele, Välimaa, Balčiūnienė and Walters 2012). With respect to the macrostructure measures, one of the objectives of the dissertation was to establish how character reference (measured by form-function distributions and referential ambiguity) and Story Grammar in the bilinguals’ narratives is affected by bilingualism (bilinguals vs. monolinguals), area of residence (bilinguals abroad vs. bilinguals in Greece) and language pair (Greek-German vs. Greek-English vs. Greek-Albanian), and how dominance (measured by the difference between the two vocabulary scores and by demographic factors), balanced educational system and cognitive abilities interact with the macrostructure measures. The results indicate that there is a bilingual advantage in macrostructure measures, which is closely linked to the balanced bilingual educational settings that children may attend as well as their cognitive abilities . As for the performance in microstructure measures, some disadvantages of bilinguals have been noted in certain cases. We found that morphosyntax (i.e. vocabulary in Greek and Sentence Repetition Task in Greek) and external factors such as early literacy-preparedness can explain most variability found in the bilingual data. The internal factors (i.e. cognitive skills) do not seem to contribute in this domain, with the sole exception of adverbial clauses in the oral narrative retellings produced by the younger age group where the bilingual advantage detected correlates with bilinguals’ cognitive skills. This thesis provides new data on the role of bilingualism in the development of language, cognition, and narrative production of bilingual children. The outcome of this work reveals for the first time that learning to read and write in two languages is beneficial for the development of language, cognition, and narrative production, a fact that may have implications for the education of bilingual children as a whole.
xviii
Abbreviations Acc: Accusative AoO: Age of Onset ATT: Age at the Time of Testing BES: Balanced Educational Setting Bi-li: Biliteracy BLP: Balanced Language Proficiency CLangU: Current Language Use CLitU: Current Literacy Use C-PRON: Clitic pronoun CUs: Communication Units DEFO: Definite object position DEFS: Definite subject position ELI(2): Early Literacy Input Greek-Albanian_Al: Greek-Albanian Albania Greek-Albanian_Gr: Greek-Albanian Greece Greek-English_En: Greek-English England Greek-English_Gr: Greek-English Greece Greek-German_Ge: Greek-German Germany Greek-German_Gr: Greek-German Greece HAM: High accessibility markers HLH: Home Language History INDEFO: Indefinite object position INDEFS: Indefinite subject position LAM: Low accessibility markers LCS: Language Composite Score LDT: Lexical Decision Task LoE: Length of Exposure M-AMB: Maintenance ambiguities MLU: Mean Length of utterances Nom: Nominative N-PRON: Null pronoun NPs: Noun Phrases R-AMB: Reintroductions ambiguities
xix
SES: Socio-economic factor S-PRONO: Strong pronoun object position S-PRONS: Strong pronoun subject position SRT: Sentence Repetition Task TAM: Tense, Aspect, Mood [+ToM-related] ISTs: + Theory of Mind Internal State Terms [-ToM-related] ISTs: - Theory of Mind Internal State Terms
xx Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Thesis objectives The topic of the present thesis is to investigate the effects of bilingualism on verbal and non verbal cognition. Specifically to examine how bilingualism affects linguistic, cognitive and narrative abilities in bilingual children. Child bilingualism refers to children who have knowledge of two languages, and is a phenomenon that today applies to most countries of the world and crosscuts all social classes. In recent years the research has focused to numerous fields concerning bilingualism such as cognitive psychology, linguistics and cognitive neuroscience. A wealth of studies has investigated how the experience of being bilingual shapes our language and cognitive abilities and the way we produce narratives. In terms of their language abilities, bilingual children seem to have smaller vocabularies compared to their monolingual peers (see, for instance, Bialystok 2010), whereas their grammatical abilities may differ from those of monolingual children depending on the grammatical structure tested (Marinis and Chondrogianni 2010). In terms of their cognitive abilities, there is conflicting evidence about whether or not bilingualism leads to advantages in Executive Functions, i.e. the cognitive processes responsible for goal-oriented behaviour, the capacity to think ahead, suppress impulses, and temporarily hold information (Bialystok 2011, Paap, Johnson and Sawi 2015, Valian 2015, Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013). Many studies have shown that systematic use of the two languages leads to a bilingual advantage in cognitive control (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson and Ungerleider 2010), but not all studies have found this bilingual advantage (see, for instance, Namazi and Thordardottir 2010). In terms of narrative production by bilinguals, a growing body of research has shown that narrative development is a lengthy process which continues well into school years and is closely related to discourse pragmatic development (Berman 2004). It seems that an important point in the use of narratives and their analyses is that they “are less biased against bilingual children than normed-referenced grammar assessment tools” (Gagarina, Klop, Bohnacker, Kunnari, Tantele, Välimaa, Balčiūnienė and Walters 2012: 125; cf. also Paradis, Genesee and Crago 2011).
21 Chapter 1 Introduction
One common denominator for studies on bilinguals is individual variation in participants’ performance on language, cognitive abilities, and narrative production. A key source of individual variability relates to educational setting (biliterate vs. monoliterate) which constitutes one of the external factors in child bilingualism (Paradis 2008). Some but not all bilingual children are biliterate, and this may affect their performance in tasks measuring language, cognitive abilities, and narrative production. Biliteracy refers to the ability of bilinguals to read and write in the two languages involved (see discussion in 2.2.1). Also, a key source of individual variability relates to Age of Onset (AoO) which is an internal factor. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the contribution of external factors (i.e. socioeconomic conditions, current language input, literacy exposure, etc.) and internal factors (such as cognitive abilities, Age at the Time of Testing (ATT), etc.) on language, cognitive abilities, and narrative production. Research on biliteracy is limited compared to that on bilingualism. A small body of studies has revealed that biliterate bilinguals outperform monoliterate bilinguals and monolinguals in phonological awareness tasks and reading fluency measures (e.g. Swartz, Leikin and Share 2005, Leikin, Swartz and Share 2010). This is unsurprising because these tasks have been shown to be good predictors of reading abilities in monolingual and bilingual children (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub and Shanahan 2001). However, it is unclear whether provision of balanced biliteracy may affect higher level language abilities, like grammatical abilities, and whether biliterate bilingual children have better vocabulary and grammatical abilities in either of their languages compared with monoliterate bilingual children. With respect to socioeconomic status (SES), several studies have shown that the wellbeing of the family may affect the quantity and quality of the input which mainly has an impact on the rate of early language acquisition and skill in later language use. However, other studies report that it is not the socioeconomic status per se but a stimulating home environment rich in parental communicative interactions and learning experiences (e.g. mother-child interaction) which leads to a creation of a better input (e.g. Hackman and Farah 2008, Hart and Risley 2003, Hoff 2003, Hoff and Tian 2005, Ravid and Zimmerman 2013). The first objective of the dissertation is to see if external and internal factors can predict the vocabulary and grammatical abilities of bilingual children. As a control mechanism the monolingual group will be used in order to see via comparison if there are differences with the bilinguals.
22 Chapter 1 Introduction
Regarding cognitive abilities and their link to biliteracy, previous studies have shown that biliterate bilingual children have higher fluid intelligence than monoliterate bilingual and monolingual children (Leikin, Swartz and Share 2010). However, it is unclear whether biliteracy also affects executive functions and cognitive control. The only study so far that has provided evidence that biliteracy may lead to a cognitive advantage in executive functions has investigated the effects of bilingual education on cognitive control (see Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz submitted). This study investigates executive functions in bilingual children attending bilingual educational contexts compared to bilingual children attending monolingual educational contexts and concludes that the former group has higher levels of updating skills. Updating is the capacity to monitor information entering working memory and replacing the memory representations no longer needed with those relevant to the task (Morris and Jones 1990). Therefore the study by Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz (op. cit.) provides evidence that biliteracy skills may confer an advantage in executive functions involving updating. In terms of their cognitive abilities and their relation with other external factors, a large body of studies (e.g. Bradley and Corwyn 2002, Seifer 2001) sheds light on the role of the SES in cognitive skills, as their results with regard to the fluid intelligence present a difference of approximately one standard deviation between high and low SES groups. Thus the second objective of the present study is to further investigate if external and internal factors can predict the cognitive abilities of bilingual children. Narrative production consists of connected speech, which involves the entire range of linguistic as well as cognitive functions. More specifically, narrative production has been acknowledged as an effective technique to tap into grammatical aspects of children’s language performance, as well as into extra-linguistic processes which draw more broadly on children’s cognitive skills, world knowledge and social cognition. Children’s narrations can be analyzed in terms of two levels: microstructure and macrostructure (Liles, Duffy, Meritt and Purcell 1995). The microstructure of a narrative can be defined as linguistic structure at the lexical and syntactic level and it is used to evaluate the productivity and complexity of children’s language by calculating form and content of linguistic devices both sententially and inter-sententially (Halliday and Hasan 1976, Hughes, McGillivray and Schmidek 1997). On the other hand, the macrostructure of a narrative refers to its global hierarchical organization and coherence that transcends the level of the individual
23 Chapter 1 Introduction utterance. More specifically, macrostructure consists of story-plot elements (setting, problem, resolution) in which events are depicted (e.g. Liles, Duffy, Meritt and Purcell 1995, McCabe and Peterson 1984, McCabe and Rollins 1994). The third objective of the present study, is thus to investigate narrative production in bilingual children and the links this has with biliteracy, and other internal and external factors. As mentioned earlier, the monolingual group will be used as a control group to see if there are differences with the bilingual groups with respect to the narrative performance. Also, a comparison between micro- and macrostructure will enable us to see if the two different domains work united or independently of one another. To understand the processes involved in narrative production (oral vs. written), both a speaking and a writing task will be employed (for details see Chapter 5). The fourth objective of this dissertation is to investigate if dominance measured in six different ways may affect language, cognitive and narrative abilities (see Chapter 2.6). In general, language dominance is a crucial notion in the description and explanation of bilingual performance (Unsworth in press), and thus this measure is considered of special importance. One way of capturing dominance will be through the distance of proficiency abilities of bilinguals in the two vocabularies; a second way will be through the distance of external factors during their present and past activities as well as through the educational system that they attend (i.e. with or without educational support in both languages of the child). To summarize, the overarching aim of this dissertation is to explore the interaction between bilingualism, language and cognitive abilities. The dissertation has four objectives: 1) to investigate if external and internal factors can predict the vocabulary and grammatical abilities of bilingual children and to see if there are differences between bilingual and monolingual children on vocabulary and grammatical abilities; 2) to see if external factors can predict the cognitive abilities of bilingual children; 3) to investigate if the external or internal factors can predict narrative production of bilingual children and to see if bilingual and monolingual children demonstrate differences with respect to their narrative production; 4) to see which of the six ways measuring dominance (i.e. the distance between the two vocabularies or the distance between the external factors in the two languages; for details, see 3.3 below) better explain cognitive and narrative performance. For each of the above objectives we will consider factors such as Age of Onset, Age at the Time of Testing, biliteracy, Balanced Educational Setting, input in the past and current
24 Chapter 1 Introduction activities, and dominance as independent variables in order to check for possible effects in the performance of the bilinguals. The motivation of this thesis is based on the research programme “Thales: Bilingual Acquisition and Bilingual Education: The Development of Linguistic and Cognitive Abilities in Different Types of Bilingualism” within which the role of bilingual education and biliteracy is investigated. In particular this thesis aims to examine the contribution of cognitive, linguistic and demographic factors in the participants’ profile to their narrative performance. Bilingual typically developing children’s narrative skills in the specific combinations of targeted languages of Greek- German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian have not been sufficiently studied in the past. Although a few studies that deal with input (e.g. Jia and Fuse 2007) and language proficiency as possible factors that can affect the development of narrative abilities do exist, yet there is a restricted number of studies in bilingualism that take into consideration all external and internal variables that this thesis accounts for and which may affect children’s narrative abilities. Some studies that involve Greek bilinguals focus on specific aspects of bilingualism, as for instance Torregrossa and Bongartz (2015) and Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli (2015) on reference production of Greek-German bilingual children, Karpava, Kambanaros and Grohmann (2015) on narrative abilities of Russian-Greek Cypriot children, Kapia (2013) on narrative production of Greek-Albanian bilingual children, and Stamouli (2012) on the development of personal reference in written narratives of Turkish- Greek bilingual children. However, there have been only a few studies on children’s narratives with Greek as one of the languages, e.g. Giagkou, Kantzou and Stamouli (2014), concentrating mainly in discourse organization and Aksu-Koç and Nicolopoulou (2014) on the acquisition of referential expressions in preschoolers’ narratives in Greek, English and Turkish. Therefore, there is a need for a better understanding of the role of bilingualism and cognition on the three groups of bilingual children’s narrative abilities to be investigated in the present study. The outcome of this thesis reveals that learning to read and write in two languages is beneficial for the development of language, cognition and narrative production. This observation may have some implications for the education of bilingual children, as our results show that a bilingual educational setting may offer some advantages especially in the domain of cognition. On the other hand, in contrast with the outdated view that a bilingual educational setting may cause difficulties in the language
25 Chapter 1 Introduction development of the child, the results of our study show the opposite, i.e. that bilingualism does not hinder the language development of the child. Further study in the direction of this thesis would enable us to fully understand the production mechanisms of narratives as well as narrative abilities of bilingual children and their possible connections with bilingualism and cognition.
1.2 Thesis overview While previous research on child bilingualism has investigated aspects of grammar, vocabulary, cognitive abilities, and narratives, no studies have investigated the interaction and the complex relationship between these domains as yet. In addressing this gap, the present thesis adopts a new approach combining measures of vocabulary, grammar, cognitive skills, and narratives and aspires to provide critical new data on the role of bilingualism in language, cognition, and narrative production. One issue that still remains unclear is whether the educational setting plays some role in the differences of the cognitive abilities of bilinguals. In our sample there are bilinguals who attend a monoliterate educational setting and others who attend a biliterate educational setting. However, even within the latter educational setting there are internal differentiations, since some children are taught in equal amounts of time in both languages, whereas others are taught mainly in one language with fewer hours per week in the other. In other words, the degree of biliteracy in our sample differs depending on the school that the children attend. As is well documented in the literature, bilinguals show considerable heterogeneity depending on the criteria adopted for grouping them in different categories but also depending on the objectives of the research questions addressed each time. For this reason, in the following chapters bilinguals will be grouped according to the research question asked. For instance, for the investigation of crosslinguistic influence in morphosyntactic measures of narrative production we group bilinguals according to the three language pairs included in the study (Albanian-Greek, English-Greek and German-Greek) as well as according to age at the time of testing (8-10 & 10-12 years old). In the remainder of this thesis Chapter 2 offers a detailed literature review on the topic of bilingualism in general and of child bilingualism in particular, along with the general theroretical background and the necessary information on child bilingualism and its different variables. In Chapter 3 the background information on
26 Chapter 1 Introduction the bilingual and monolingual participants is presented, along with the methods and tools to be used in the thesis in order to create the particpants’ profile. Chapter 4 investigates the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive control (i.e. updating and working memory), describes the materials and the tasks designed in order to explore the cognitive profiles of the bilinguals and tries to see if dominance plays some role in the bilinguals’ cognitive performance. Chapter 5 deals with the design and the coding of the narrative tasks and with the four scenarios that concern the procedures of the oral retelling, oral telling and written retelling. Chapter 6 presents the results of the performance of bilinguals and monolinguals in the narrative tasks, according to the domains of microstructure and macrostructure and through the three different modes of oral retelling, telling, and written retelling. Chapters 7 and 8 provide a closer look on grammatical performance of the participants in the three narrative modes and on character reference, respectively. The final Chapter 9 provides a general discussion on the results, as well as concluding remarks and considerations for future research.
27 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Some background information on child bilingualism It has been argued in many studies (e.g. Baetens-Beardsmore 1982) that the term bilingualism is not well described or understood, as its definition is loosely presented. Meisel (2004) claims that a child can be considered bilingual when he grows with two or more languages from birth or soon afterwards. Bloomfield (1933: 55), on the other hand, takes a much stricter perspective suggesting that bilingualism is the ability to achieve “native like control of two languages.” Lim, Lincoln, Chan and Onslow (2007: 389) consider bilingual anyone who can use two languages in both oral and written form, regardless of whether his knowledge is native-like or not. However, in order for a child to be considered bilingual, there have been a number of alternative possibilities suggested, like the following (see Barac and Bialystok 2012): 1) the child must use two languages at home and at school; 2) the child uses one language exclusively at home and begins the second one after the age of 6 (school age); 3) the child uses two languages at home, one of which at school; 4) the child uses one (or more) language at home and a different one at school. For similar reasons, many researchers who have studied monolingual and bilingual children claim that examining bilinguals is a complicated procedure, since in bilinguals there is individual variation over and above the individual variation of monolinguals. For instance, a common source of confusion is the criteria used by the different researchers for defining bilinguals. Among other variables are the different type of exposure (i.e. foreign language learning vs. immersion) that the bilinguals might receive or the language dominance which may change over time. As a result, it is not uncommon to have controversial results on certain cognitive and linguistic measures. This is due to various reasons and many indeterminate factors that require further investigation, e.g. motivation, socioeconomic status, etc. Many studies claim that bilingual children are different from their monolingual peers with respect to their linguistic and cognitive development. With regard to the linguistic aspects and more specifically in the domain of vocabulary these studies
28 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background present controversial results, since in many of them a bilingual disadvantage is observed (Bialystok, Luk, Peets and Yang 2010, Oller, Pearson and Cobo-Lewis 2007) but others find similar performance in bilinguals and monolinguals. As for the former view, Bialystok, Luk, Peets and Yang (2010) have conducted a study of over 1700 children between the ages of 3 and 10, examining their receptive vocabulary scores in English. The results of this study indicate that monolingual children at every age exhibit higher performance than bilingual children. Although their bilingual group was fluent in English, a difference in the frequency of the types of vocabulary used by these children has been detected, namely that monolingual and bilingual children had a comparable performance on words which were associated with schooling but a lower performance was obtained for bilinguals for words for everyday home activities. In contrast, Pearson, Fernadez and Oller (1993) conducted a study based on a sample of 25 simultaneous English-Spanish bilinguals and 35 monolinguals between the ages of 8 and 30 months, measuring Total Vocabulary and Conceptual Vocabulary in the two languages. Their results show that the bilingual children develop vocabulary at equal amounts as the monolingual peers. With regard to the cognitive development of bilinguals, again the results appear to be controversial, since many studies have shown that the systematic use of the two languages leads to a bilingual advantage in cognitive control (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson and Ungerleider 2010), but others find no such bilingual advantage (see, for instance, Namazi and Thordardottir 2010). With respect to the bilingual advantage, a large number of recent studies have revealed that bilingualism confers cognitive advantages at the level of executive functions (i.e. working memory, cf. Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013), inhibition (Bialystok 2011), as well as at the level of metacognitive skills such as metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok and Viswanathan 2009) and inferential skills in oral narrative comprehension (Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou in press). However, some of these findings are not always replicated, as pointed out in many studies, e.g. Colzato, Bajo, van den Wildenberg, Paolieri, Nieuwenhuis, La Heij and Hommel (2008), Costa, Hernández, Costa Faidella and Sebastián-Gallés (2009) and others. According to these studies, other factors as well, such as the degree of proficiency in each language or socioeconomic factors, may interfere favouring or disfavouring a cognitive advantage. However, both studies have their own limitations. In particular, a bilingual advantage in inhibitory control was detected by Treccani,
29 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Argyri, Sorace and Della Sala (2009). In this study four different tasks were used (i.e. spatial negative-priming task, Simon, colour negative priming and spatial cuing), but the bilingual advantage was detected only in the first task. Although all tasks were administered to the same participants, the rest of them did not reveal any differences between bilinguals and monolinguals (de Bruin, Treccani and Della Sala 2014). In a similar vein, Paap and Sawi (2014) studied 58 bilingual and 62 monolingual university students using four different tasks that examined executive functions (i.e. antisaccade, attentional network test, Simon and colour shape switching) but again no bilingual advantage was detected. They conclude that the majority of measures may reflect “task-specific mechanisms rather than the efficacy of general functions” (p. 962). In many studies where no bilingual advantage is detected there may be various other factors which have not been considered, for instance the contribution of external factors or ceiling effects in the performance of both bilinguals and monolinguals.
2.2 External factors 2.2.1 Biliteracy As stated in Chapter 1, one of the aims of this thesis is to examine language and cognitive abilities in bilinguals along with the effects of biliteracy1 and of educational frames on bilingualism and cognition. As said in Chapter 1, biliteracy refers to the ability of bilinguals to read and write in two languages. To date no studies have investigated the effects of biliteracy in the development of grammar, vocabulary, executive functions and narrative production and the complex relationship between these domains. The studies so far concern only phonological awareness tasks and reading fluency measures (Swartz, Leikin and Share 2005, Leikin, Swartz and Share 2010). The results from these studies prove that biliterate bilinguals outperform monoliterate bilinguals and monolinguals. In general, the field of literacy has been much investigated and the relevant literature is rich. Focusing on children, it is a well known fact that a child needs to understand the spoken language and how this language is represented in written form
1 In this thesis we measure the degree of biliteracy as a property of a child in his exposure to the written form of each language within or outside the educational setting that the individual child attends.
30 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background to be able to read and write fluently in it (Perfetti 1985, Juel, Griffith and Gough 1986). Thus, we can say that listening comprehension and decoding are necessary operations of literacy. Furthermore, as far as the development of literacy skills of monolingual children are concerned, relevant research shows that the transparency of the grapheme-phoneme conversion system has a positive effect on literacy acquisition (e.g. German children develop in literacy earlier than English children, see for instance Spencer 2007 for English children). In monolingual children literacy development depends on oral language abilities in being associated with phonological working memory and phonological awareness. In the area of literacy an important element is early literacy input. As reported by studies (Sulzby 1985, Sulzby and Teale 1991), literacy starts very early in the child’s life with home activities, e.g. reading, story-telling and the like. It has also been shown that exposure to early literacy activities in preschool age is vital for the language development of the child, since it helps him in his vocabulary enrichment and the overall linguistic competence and in demonstrating better academic performance (cf. Deckner, Adamson and Bakeman 2006). Early literacy input plays a crucial role in our analysis and interpretation of the data in Chapter 6 below, as it appears to be an important predictor of bilinguals’ performance in morphosyntax. In general, literacy is measured through decoding and reading comprehension, as well as through tasks of metalinguistic awareness (i.e. formal definitions for words or acceptability judgments for sentences). More specifically, the metalinguistic aspect of literacy includes decontextualization of language, absence of gesture and facial expressions and distancing of oneself from immediate human interaction (Cassell Bickmore, Vilhjálmsson and Yan 2001). Literacy is a procedure that comprises functional and syntactic awareness. By the term ‘functional awareness’ we refer to the familiarization of the child with the functions of print, which is related to letter discrimination ability and phonological awareness (Lomax and McGee 1987). On the other hand, syntactic awareness is crucial in understanding spoken language. Also, “syntactic awareness, as measured by morphological knowledge, predicts spelling performance” (Durgunoglu 200: 2002 based on Muter and Snowling 1997). In literacy development in L2 language studies, it has been shown that phonological awareness skills are transferable across languages (cf. Gholamain and Geva 1999 and Geva and Siegel 2000). Also, it has been shown that the decoding procedure is language-specific if the basis of the L1 writing system is different from
31 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background the L2 writing system (e.g. alphabetic to syllabary, see Bialystok, Luk and Kwan 2005). Another variable to be considered is that L2 literacy can be literacy in the weak language of the child (which happens to be the majority language) or in a foreign language (which is not the majority language and is introduced at school). With regard to the relationship between L1 proficiency and L2 literacy, studies have shown that L1 use and early literacy input in L1 can have positive effects on L2 literacy development. Another crucial point here is whether an L1 different from the language of instruction used at home plays a restrictive role in L2 literacy. It has been suggested that there is an interaction between cognition and reading development in L2 language. Koda (1990) claims that L2 adult readers overwhelmingly transfer reading strategies between the two languages. On the basis of this claim two main hypotheses are made. The first hypothesis suggests that general cognitive and linguistic development underlies literacy development in both languages of the child, whereas the second hypothesis suggests that language-specific knowledge (oral and orthographic) underlies literacy development in each language. Prior to reading development and literacy, children develop knowledge about the properties of print. The transformation of knowledge of a formal system is based on the translation of formal-visual characteristics into a computational system of symbols. Initially, children recognize letters and words but not necessarily as representations of meaning but simply as visual images. Exposure to two writing systems (even if both of the same type, e.g. alphabetic) may enhance the move from form to meaning, i.e. from visual image to symbolic system. A study by Bialystok, Luk and Kwan (2005) with preliterate 4 and 5 year old bilingual children (French- English, Chinese-English, Hebrew-English) reveals that all children could recognize letters and the sounds which corresponded to them but could not read as yet. With respect to the literacy development in bilingualism, studies suggest that the effects of phonological awareness and functional awareness (concepts of print) can transfer from L1 to L2 and vice versa (see Dickinson, McCabe, Clark-Chiarelli and Wolf 2004). However, the degree of difference in the writing system as well as the level of proficiency of the child in each language also affect transferability. This leads to the conclusion that literacy interacts with cognitive performance, which means that bilingualism and literacy interact in various ways both linguistically and cognitively.
32 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
The idea of transfer skills across languages in bilinguals is based on Cummins’ (1976, 1979) “interdependence theory” and the concept of “common underlying proficiency” that suggest that there is an interdependence between the home language and the second language. Cummins assumes that once bilinguals have acquired basic literacy skills in their home language and at the same time they have developed communicative abilities in the majority language they are capable of transferring the literacy skills acquired in the first language onto the new language. It has been argued by Leider, Proctor, Silverman and Harring (2013) that language and reading comprehension is a function of biliteracy. They have studied Spanish-English bilingual children of grades 3-5, concluding that biliterates were better than monoliterates on English word recognition but did not differ on English reading comprehension. According to them, the better performance of biliterates in word recognition is the result of a cross-linguistic transfer. However, when examining biliteracy, many other variables interfere such as majority language, minority language, and others, which deserve a brief discussion. According to Hamers and Blanc (2000), a majority language is that language which is used by a dominant group in a society and a minority language is the one used by a minor group of speakers in the same society. In many studies the importance of the minority language is underlined. However, it is also reported that the minority language disappears within a period of 2-3 years after children’s immersion in the other language. This may mean that the bilinguals’ receptive ability is not interrupted whereas their expressive ability becomes very low. In the literature we find different terms that refer to the minority language of a bilingual, among them “mother tongue”, “home language”, and “heritage language” (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). In our study we normally use the term “home language”. There have also been noted several benefits of minority language literacy for children, such as better working memory skills and higher transfer of literacy skills (see Baker 2000, Cummins 2000 and Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). In addition, Danesi (1990: 74) reports that “the literacy development in the minority language provides the primary condition for the overall development of language proficiency”. Other studies point to the importance of supporting literacy in L1 (minority language) from an early age (Chumak-Horbatsch 1999, De Houwer 2007, Nesteruk 2010, Schwartz 2008, Tsimpli, Andreou, Kaltsa and Kapia 2015) or other studies show that attending Heritage Language classes or preschool bilingual education “exerts a significant effect
33 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background on L1 proficiency” (Chatzidaki, Maligkoudi and Mattheoudakis 2015 based on Bylund and Dìaz 2012, Schwartz, Moin and Leikin 2012).
2.2.2 Educational setting Bilingualism has been investigated and analysed from an educational perspective, and different types of bilingual education have emerged according to the purpose of the specific bilingual education provided. With regard to bilingualism in Greece, some studies focus on the educational setting of bilingualism (e.g. Damanakis 1997, Maligkoudi 2009), while others concentrate on cultural issues (e.g. Markou 1996, Paleologou and Evangelou 2003), but there have been no studies on the effects of different educational frames on bilingualism and its interaction with linguistic, cognitive performance and narrative production of bilinguals. Thus, the following four educational settings emerge: a. Submersion bilingualism, b. Immersion bilingualism, c. Maintenance/heritage bilingual education, d. Saturday schools. Generally, when bilingual children start school, they normally choose one of the two languages as the dominant language, most often the language of instruction (Kohnert, Bates and Hernandez 1999, Kohnert and Bates 2002). Until now it remains an open question whether different higher levels of biliteracy in different educational contexts or monoliterate versus biliterate educational contexts affect cognitive control and language abilities. The studies on this topic are very limited (e.g. Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz submitted). With respect to the educational system and its relation to cognitive controls, the bilingual context has been shown to confer cognitive advantages at the level of metacognitive ability (Cummins 1979, 2000, Bialystok 2005) but also at the level of cognitive control, such as working memory and updating (Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013, Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz submitted). In the last of the above studies, the authors examined executive functions in bilingual children attending bilingual educational contexts compared to bilingual children attending monolingual educational contexts and found that the former group had higher levels of updating skills. In line with this, Tsimpli, Andreou, Kaltsa and Kapia (2015) examined 25 Greek-Albanian biliterate children and 25 Greek-Albanian monoliterate children measured in a task involving cognitive and morphosyntactic abilities and found that biliterate children exhibit higher scores in cognitive control tasks. These findings lead to the conclusion that bilingual education (even if not to the same degree) for
34 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background bilingual children is a necessary condition for higher performance on memory and cognition. Elaborating on this statement and understanding the importance of the presence of a bilingual context, several studies (e.g. Bialystok, Peets and Moreno 2012, Hermanto, Moreno and Bialystok 2012) have shown that even studying a second language in an immersion school programme is enough to lead to similar benefits with bilingual children but at a lower degree, while other studies (e.g. Cummins 2000) coming in support of this observation emphasise that an early exit of bilingual education causes a disadvantage on children’s cognitive development.
2.3 Different types of bilingualism: Age of Onset In linguistic research, types of bilingualism have been associated with the age of first exposure to each language. The Age of Onset (AoO) of exposure to the second language gives rise to the basic distinction between simultaneous vs. successive bilinguals. The former have been exposed to the two languages from birth, while the latter were exposed to the second language some time after birth. In more recent research (Meisel 2009), however, successive bilinguals are further distinguished between early (Age of Onset of exposure to L2: 1-4 years) and late (Age of Onset of exposure to L2: 4 years and later) successive bilinguals. Meisel (2009) also reports that the age of 4 is thought to be the end of the critical period for the native-like acquisition of morphosyntax. Along these lines, Paradis and Genesee (1996) conducting research in English-French simultaneous bilingual children observe that the children differentiate between the two languages from early on in various aspects, for instance the finite verb forms in French develop earlier than in English, In the subject pronouns in French and in the use of negation which is placed correctly and with no transfer from English (i.e. ne mange pas vs. do not eat and not *ne pas mange). The Age of Onset is an important variable, as a vast body of studies indicates that there are Age of Onset effects in child bilingualism. In other words, the children who were exposed to their L2 around the age of 6 produce different types of errors compared to those who were exposed to L2 before the age of 3 (e.g. Meisel 2009, Schwartz, Kozminsky and Leikin 2009). However, as Unsworth (2010) reports, differences in type of bilingualism (simultaneous, early and late successive bilingualism) have not been investigated in depth as differentiating variables with an effect upon linguistic and cognitive abilities within the group of bilinguals.
35 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Rothweiler (2006) assumes a more restricted perspective with regard to the AoO, arguing that a child after school age is considered an L2 learner. In line with this view are the results of Granfeldt, Schlyter and Kihlsted (2007), who compared monolingual, 2L1 and L22 children on the acquisition of various aspects of French morphology. The results of their study show that the 2L1 children show a similar performance with their monolingual peers, whereas the L2 children have a similar performance and produce similar errors with those of L2 adults. Meisel (2009) suggests that some “windows of opportunity” for some aspects of language of bilingual children may “close” earlier than for others. For instance, studies have revealed that vocabulary development and academic skills are higher in L2 children who are not very young (i.e. over 5 years of age), whereas in morphosyntax an advantage is observed with earlier Age of Onset (i.e. AoO under 4 years).
2.4 Socioeconomic status In bilingualism, socioeconomic factors too play an important role for the learning outcomes of children as SES may have a positive or negative effect on them (Vasanta 2004, Pappu and Vasanta 2010). Focusing on bilingualism and its relation with the SES, the results can be sub- grouped in two domains, i.e. linguistic and cognitive skills. With respect to the SES and the relationship with cognitive control the results remain controversial. Researchers are divided into two main trends, with some of them claiming that a low SES background leads to a lower executive control (e.g. Morton and Harper 2007, Noble, Norman and Farah 2005), and others who see a bilingual advantage of cognitive control, regardless of the SES background (e.g. Calvo and Bialystok 2014, Engel de Abreu, Cruz-Santos, Tourinho, Martin and Bialystok 2012, for tasks involving inhibition and attention). Carlson and Meltzorff (2008), on the other hand, claim that SES is not the crucial factor in the performance of bilinguals, as established by their study of low SES Spanish-English children compared to high SES English monolinguals on inhibitory control tasks. Their study showed that after controlling for the SES the bilingual children appear to have higher performance than their monolingual peers.
2 The Age of Onset for this group was between 3 and 6 years.
36 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Engel de Abreu, Cruz-Santos, Tourinho, Martin and Bialystok (2012) conducted a study examining low SES bilingual and monolingual 9 year old children on non verbal working memory skills and found no bilingual advantage. However, a mishap of this study is that the parameters of country and school were not comparable, since the bilinguals and the monolinguals attended different types of schools and lived in different countries. In line with the preceding study, Morton and Harper (2007) suggest that the bilingual advantage that they found in their study on executive control was driven by the socioeconomic differences. In a similar study, Calvo and Bialystok (2013: 278) argue that perhaps bilingualism with the combination of higher levels of SES leads to cognitive advantage. In another study, Calvo and Bialystok (2014) conducted research on 25 6- year old children who were subgrouped to four groups of different socioeconomic status (SES and working memory) and language background (monolingual or bilingual). The results of this study indicate that middle-class children present better performance relative to the working-class children in measures which concern executive functions, receptive vocabulary and attention based on picture naming tasks. Their conclusion drawn from this study is that “SES and bilingualism contribute significantly and independently to children’s performance” (2014: 280). Turning to SES and its relation with language abilities (i.e. narratives), the results seem controversial depending on the measurements one examines. More specifically, several studies on narratives (e.g. Aksu-Koç 2005) comparing monolingual preschoolers, primary school children and adults with low SES and high SES reveal that the different SES does not lead to a different performance as far as linguistic complexity is concerned (e.g. proportion of subordinate to total clauses). However, in the same studies it was found that SES plays a crucial role at the level of plot organization for the high SES children. The results of Hart and Risley (1995) agree in part with the above studies, as oral language skills are normally limited to low-income preschoolers. Our results presented in Chapter 6, of course, show that SES is not a differentiating factor for micro- and macrostructure, in contrast to the findings of some of the above studies. In contrast to the methods of measuring SES in the past on the basis of the socioeconomic status of the family, the new trend is to measure SES on the basis of maternal education (cf. Blair, Granger, Willoughby, Mills-Koonce, Cox, Greenberg
37 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background and Kivlighan 2011, Rhoades, Greenberg, Lanza, and Blair 2011, Esminger and Fothergill 2003, Hoff, Laursen and Tardif 2002).
2.5 Different types of bilingualism: Input As is well accepted, monolingual and bilingual children differ in terms of input, as bilingual children are exposed in one language to half as much input as monolingual children (e.g. Paradis and Genesee 1996, Unsworth 2010). As noticed by Unsworth (to appear), “the exact nature of the relationship between input quantity and language acquisition in a dual language setting remains largely unclear.” Unsworth further states that the input or the output that the bilinguals receive varies, since there are factors related to the quantity of input, e.g. the amount of exposure that the bilinguals receive from school or from home, or the time length of exposure, and factors related to the quality of the input, e.g. parents’ proficiency, variety of speakers, number or age of speakers, other siblings, friends, TV, etc. Quantity and quality of input are two concepts that are at times hard to distinguish. This is the reason why input quantity and type of input in the two languages must be determined carefully in order to build a complete profile of the bilinguals to be studied. Unsworth continues by saying that for the quantity-related variables many studies have detected an effect on the rate of acquisition for vocabulary and for morphosyntax, especially for verbal morphology, for wh-questions, passives and definite or indefinite articles and for grammatical gender. Finally, the quantity-related variables seem to interact with various other factors like the age of the bilingual children, their socioeconomic status (SES) and their language proficiency. As in the case of the quantity-related variables, the quality-related variables too were found to interact with SES (e.g. Hoff 2006). In the same area of variables, also the factor of school versus home proved to influence bilinguals’ performance (e.g. Cummins 1984).3
2.6 Language dominance in the bilingual child Language dominance is associated with variation among bilinguals. Dominance refers to the fact that one of the two languages is more and better used by the bilingual
3 An interesting observation with respect to the variable of input and is relevant to this thesis (see Chapters 3 and 6), is made by Sorace (2005), who proposed that interface phenomena can be affected by the quality and quantity of input. The term ‘interface phenomena’ which is used by Sorace consists of phenomena that require the integration of knowledge from different domains.
38 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background individual. The dominant language is that in which bilinguals appear to be most proficient (see Deuchar and Muntz 2003, Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis 1995). Bernardini and Schlyter (2004) in their effort to clarify the concept of dominance make the distinction between the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ language in bilingualism. In general, dominance is additionally influenced by the educational setting the bilingual child is exposed to. For many researchers language dominance is being considered as a separate domain which is not necessarily associated to other phenomena of early bilingualism (e.g. Kantone, Kupisch, Muller and Schmitz 2008).4 Hamers and Blanc (2000) claim that language dominance reflects the relationship between the competencies in the two languages of the bilinguals. In addition, according to Montrul and Potowski (2007), language dominance does not capture only the notion of children’s relative proficiency in the two languages but it refers to other domains as well which might be involved (e.g. the input). Language dominance and balanced bilingualism are two sides of the same concept. With regard to bilingual acquisition, it is widely accepted that very few children grow up as balanced bilinguals, as it is extremely rare to acquire simultaneously the two languages to the same extent and at the same rate (see Döpke 1992). As a result, bilinguals seem to develop the one language much faster and more efficiently than the other language, creating in this way a dominant language (Yip and Mathews 2010). The main factors that determine the creation of a dominant language are the register (e.g. formal/informal) and the communicative context (e.g. at home/in school). Of course, dominance may not be a permanent state, since it may change over time (Nicoladis and Genesee 1996). Studies show that dominance affects mainly the areas of morphosyntax (Bedore, Peña, Summers, Boerger, Resendiz, Greene, Bohman and Gillam 2012, Paradis 2011, for verb morphology), and syntax (Chondrogianni and Marinis 2011). However, there are only a few studies that have investigated how dominance affects discourse-related domains. One of the contributions of this thesis is to focus on this very issue.
4 For instance, Gawlitzek-Maiwald and Tracy 1996 and Bernardini and Schlyter 2004 connect language dominance with the presence of cross-linguistic influence, whereas Nicoladis and Paradis 1995, Lenza 1992, 1997 connect language dominance with language mixing.
39 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
A complex issue with regard to dominance is how to determine the experiential variable that can best represent dominance effects on bilinguals (for an overview, see Bedore, Peña, Summers, Boerger, Resendiz, Greene, Bohman and Gillam 2012). To this effect several techniques have been used with different measures. For instance, Bedore et al. (2012) claim that current language use of bilinguals is a reliable predictor of differences in morphosyntax and semantics, an observation also strengthened by our findings in Chapters 3 and 6. In relation to the connection of dominance and input, Kohnert and Medina (2009) in studying dominance in school language input of older bilingual children (7-9 yrs. old), observe that dominance affects the lexical production skills, marking in this way the different proficiency of the two languages from preschool to adolescent age. Dominance is detected in many different ways. The most common practice for measuring bilinguals’ language dominance is the creation of a balance score based on the proficiency scores in the two languages involved. Following this technique, most studies create the balance score by subtracting the values obtained for one language tests from those of the other (cf. Romaine 1995 for an overview). The bilingual whose differences are close to zero is categorized as balanced bilingual. Another measure for language dominance is lexical richness (Malvern, Richards, Chipere and Duran 2004). The same technique is used by Treffers-Daller (2011) who investigates two groups of adult bilinguals with different language dominance profiles (25 Dutch-French from Brussels and 24 French-English from Paris), and concludes that lexical richness measures can be used to estimate language dominance. Another technique that is sometimes used for measuring language dominance is Mean Length of Utterances scores (MLU) in the two languages, as applied, for instance, by Yip and Mathews (2006). However, a number of criticisms have been made against this technique, since it has several limitations, as shown, among others, by Döpke (1998), who claims that MLU is not so useful for direct comparisons among languages, especially languages that are different in terms of morphological type (she offers an example of Turkish and Cantonese). There are also several other ways of measuring language dominance, like counting the longest of the utterances produced by a child in a total number of sentences, or counting the number of different words or of verbs alone, or counting the mixing of the two lexicons and the total number of utterances in a sample (for
40 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background overviews, see Cantone, Muller, Schmitz and Kupisch 2008, Yip and Matthews 2006).
2.7 Bilingualism and vocabulary skills There has been much discussion on the interrelation of bilingualism and vocabulary skills. In the literature it is well documented that bilingual children experience some disadvantages, in particular in the field of vocabulary (Bialystok 2001). The development of vocabulary requires on the part of the children an exposure to sufficient amounts of language input, for, as pointed out by Paradis and Genesee (1996), Mahon and Crutchley 2006, Bialystok and Feng (2011), and others, small exposure may have negative effects on vocabulary acquisition. However, a serious limitation of these studies is that their results are based mainly on the ‘weaker’ language (i.e. English) and then they compare these results to those of monolingual peers born and raised in the same country. Several factors may contribute to the creation of smaller vocabularies in bilinguals, one being schooling, as most bilingual children attend monolingual schools (mostly in their L2), and another one being the bilinguals’ lower literacy in one of the two languages and thus not being able to reach monolingual norms. There are of course a few studies which find a bilingual advantage as far as vocabulary skills are concerned, as for instance Lauchlan, Parisi and Fadda (2013) who conducted a study of bilingual children in Scotland, revealing a significant advantage for the bilingual children relative to monolingual in vocabulary measure. Similar findings are offered by Vulchanova, Vulchanov, Sarzhanova and Eshuis (2012) who measure early lexicon development in bilingual and monolingual children of Russian and Kazakh in Kazakhstan with age ranging from 3 to 4 years old. The results of their study indicate that both bilingual groups perform better on receptive vocabulary tasks than age-matched monolinguals. Bilingual children are exposed to less (at best half of the) language input in one language compared to monolingual children. Studies on Spanish-English bilingual children in Miami conducted by Cobo-Lewis, Pearson, Eliers and Umbel (2002) and in other bilingual language contexts (see Gathercole and Thomas 2009) have shown that children with more language input exhibit better performance on vocabulary measures in either of the two languages.
41 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
2.8 Bilingualism and cognition The relation between bilingualism and cognition is an intriguing issue that has triggered a lot of debate in recent studies. Many researchers suggest that bilingual children exhibit higher performance on executive functions (Barac and Bialystok 2012), especially on tasks that demand strong inhibitory control (Bialystok and Viswanathan 2009). One possible explanation for this difference is that bilinguals are trained to resist to interference between their two languages, as they often need to solve linguistic competitions between the two languages and to inhibit one language while using the other (cf. Barrouillet, Bernardin and Camos 2004). This advantage also transfers to their short-term memory capacity and to working memory function, as seen in relevant studies such as Morales, Calvo and Bialystok (2013) and others. As users of two different linguistic systems, bilingual children have to learn phonemes, phonotactic rules and morphological properties of both languages as well as to process a variety of verbal information, boosting as a result their working memory capacity. Bilingual speakers need to constantly activate both languages (Colome 2001, Kroll, Bobb and Wodnieca 2006). Overtime, they develop an exquisite mechanism for cognitive control with consequences in more general domains (Bialystok, Craik and Luk 2012). The systematic use of both languages by bilingual children has been found to affect their cognitive functions. In recent studies bilinguals appear to be better than monolinguals on tasks requiring updating of new information, as well as on tasks requiring temporary maintenance and processing of information (Bialystok 2010, Rosen and Engle 1997). A question may be raised here, namely why bilinguals appear to be better in executive functions than monolinguals. One possible explanation is that bilinguals must simultaneously process information deriving from two language systems, as they have to temporarily maintain and process linguistic codes in both languages until they master them. But, even when they have mastered both languages, they are required to constantly switch from one language to the other in order to process the relevant information. As mentioned earlier, a large number of studies confirm that the two language systems of bilinguals are permanently activated (Francis 1999, Thierry and Wu 2007). This parallel activation poses a heavy loading cost during language processing, which means more practice of the executive functions operations relative to the monolinguals. It has also been suggested that to achieve this activation besides
42 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background working memory (WM) bilinguals also need stronger executive skills, like information updating (cf. Engel de Abreu and Gathercole 2012). As a result, bilinguals are capable of monitoring, controlling and focusing attention on the language element needed for task execution (Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013), while inhibiting unwanted stimuli that come from the second language system, switching from one language code to the other as needed and at the same time updating working memory contents. According to Morales, Calvo and Bialystok (2013), the bilingual advantage derives from the continuous practice that bilingual children receive on monitoring, controlling, and focusing to the target language, while the non-target language is still active. As pointed out by Bialystok (2011), the activation of control processes, in order to use the target language every time, improves executive control efficiency as well as efficiency transfer to non linguistic and cognitive tasks. Furthemore, Bialystok, Barac, Blaye and Poulin-Duboi (2010) evaluated children of 3 and 4.5 years either monolingual (English or French) or bilingual (English and another language) on three executive control tasks and detected the same bilingual advantage. On the other hand, two different accounts have been offered on the relationship between bilingualism and working memory. The first account is the need for concurrent processing in both languages, something that may demand increased working memory. In this case, bilingualism may inhibit information processing in working memory, because of the cognitive load and the memory processing demands required by two languages, instead of one (Lee, Plass and Homer 2006, Sweller and Chandler 1994, van Merrienboer and Sweller 2005). The second account refers to improved inhibitory control capacities in bilinguals which allow the inhibition of the non-target language while the target language is at use. This may lead to improved working memory efficiency, as the capacity to inhibit irrelevant information is crucial for the successful management of working memory resources (cf. Bialystok, Craik and Luk 2008, Fernades, Craik, Bialystok and Kreuger 2007, Just and Carpenter 1992, Michael and Gollan 2005, Rosen and Engle 1997). However, both the underlying mechanisms via which working memory is involved in bilingual development and the relationship between working memory and bilingualism still remain far from clear. An additional difficulty is that findings in
43 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background recent literature come from heterogeneous samples of dissimilar educational background and socioeconomic status.
2.9 Bilingualism and Narrative skills Narratives can be spoken or written and they are typically categorized in scripts, personal narratives and fictive narratives. According to Hudson and Shapiro (1991) each categorization differs on the demands of the narratives and the function that they serve. This thesis deals with fictive narratives,5 i.e. stories that contain a schema. For many researchers a schema consists of a structure in which story events are linked among themselves in a causal manner and contains at least one animate protagonist (cf. Stein and Policastro 1984). Liles (1993) suggests that children’s narratives provide an index of their cognitive, semantic and social abilities, whereas Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan (1995) had noted that the ability to generate stories requires the understanding of linguistic, cognitive, and social domains. In addition to this and with respect to the different domains that constitute a narrative, Perkins (2007) adds to the study of narratives the perspective of pragmatics, claiming that narrative analysis is part of discourse studies, since “inferencing and referencing” are fundamental features of narration. An effective narrator has to produce the story’s events in a clear and straight forward manner taking into consideration the listener’s needs for understanding the setting, characters and outcomes of the story (Rumpf, Kamp-Becker, Becker and Kauschke 2012). Cummings (2009: 23) claims that “a narrative that fails to take account of listener knowledge by leaving certain information implicit and by presupposing other information will be inefficient.” Adding one more feature, Stein and Glenn (1978) say that an effective narrator is also required to consider the perspectives of the story characters in order to explain their motivations and reactions. Narratives comprise two important domains, i.e. microstructure and macrostructure. The terms micro- and macrostructure were first introduced by Kintch and van Dijk (1978). In their model of text comprehension, macrostructure involves the characterization of “the discourse as a whole”, whereas microstructure was “the local structure of individual propositions”.
5 By the term fictive narratives we mean stories, either retold or self-generated.
44 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
As pointed out in many studies (cf. Liles, Duffry, Merritt and Purcell 1995, Justice, Skibbe and Ezell 2006), the term microstructure in narratives refers to the sentence-level linguistic analysis. In other words, the microstructure of a narrative can be characterized as linguistic structure at the levels of lexicon and syntax. At this level the productivity and complexity of children’s language are evaluated by calculating linguistic devices of form and content mainly on the sentence level (Hughes, McGillivray and Schmidek 1997). Different measures are used for evaluating linguistic forms in microstructure. In the following we will insist only on the most common such measures of children’s narrative abilities. The measures that concern the linguistic forms involve analysis of children’s grammatical and syntactic abilities. For this purpose most studies use the number of communication units and the different degrees of sentence complexity,6 such as grammatical forms, lexical forms and lexico-grammatical features (i.e. connectives, prepositional phrases, etc.). A communication unit (CU) is a syntactic complex that consists of a main clause and its subordinate clause or clauses (Hughes, McGillivray and Schmidek 1997). With regard to sentence complexity, in the literature one finds different ways of assessing this measure. The most common are by counting the number of subordinate or complex clauses (e.g. Bishop and Donlan 2005) and by calculating the average proportions of clauses in CUs (Reilly, Losh, Bellugi and Wulfeck 2004, Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin and Zhang 2004).7 As for linguistic content, a large body of studies has used measures such as type-token ratio and the number of different content and function words (e.g. Templin 1957, Miller and Klee 1995). Other measures reflecting the linguistic content both in a quantitative and a qualitative way are the number of different words and the number of different verbs used by children in their narratives. There has been a lot of debate over the last two measures, since many researchers take them as simple measures of fluency (e.g. Muňoz, Gillam, Peña and Gulley 2003), others as measures of lexical diversity (i.e. richness of a story) (e.g. Westerveld, Gillon and Miller 2004), and still others as measures that combine both characteristics (Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin and Zhang 2004). Accordingly the linguistic content is a measure that
6 For an overview of measures on syntactic complexity, see, among others, Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie and Mansfield 2005, Scott and Stokes 1995. 7 For a brief account of the microstructure features of the four languages which will concern us in the thesis, see section 6.2 below.
45 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background detects children’s productive vocabulary skills. Thus we may conclude that a good performance on the microstructure level depends on the participants’ use of linguistic forms in functionally appropriate ways so that a coherent text expressed in a cohesive manner is produced (Halliday and Hasan 1976). According to Berman and Slobin (1994), this level requires the knowledge by the participant of form-function relations so as to use linguistic means in order to connect the events in a syntactically cohesive way. The development on the microstructure of the narratives of monolingual children is a gradually developing procedure which continues well after the age of ten (see, among others, Blankenstijn and Scheper 2003). More specifically, Elbers and Van Loon-Vervoon (2000) examining the use of content words in children’s narrations claim that around the age of four children start to organize their vocabulary in semantic networks which provide children with a larger variety and flexibility in the use of content words. Moving on to children’s syntactic ability, a large body of studies finds a developmental increase with age as far as the number and proportion of complex propositions are concerned (Justice, Skibbe and Ezell 2006, Reilly, Bellugi and Wulfeck 2004). De Villiers (2003, 2005) working within the framework of the theory of mind, finds a connection between children’s production of complement clauses and their understanding of the mind of others. She suggests that children’s production choices with respect to that-clauses depend at least in part on their theory of mind ability. Macrostructure requires a universal knowledge on the part of the child about story telling, consisting of the characters of a story, the story components and the sequencing of events. Macrostructure is commonly observed through the appearance of crucial story-plot elements (goal, attempt, outcome) (McCabe and Rollins 1994). These elements are features of ‘story grammar’, which constitutes the essential part of a story telling (Stein and Glenn 1979). With respect to the story grammar, many different macrostructural analyses have been suggested, as shown in Table 1 below.
46 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Macrostructural analyses
Horton-Ikard 2009 Cohesive adequacy
Shiro 2003 Evaluative language analysis
Ukrainetz and Gillam 2009 Expressive elaboration
Celinska 2004, McCabe, Bliss, Barra and Bennet High-point analysis 2008
Table 1. Different approaches of macrostructural analysis.
The most acceptable analyses contain the principles of the story grammar model (see, among others, Fiestas and Peña 2004, Soodla and Kikas 2010). The story grammar model assumes that all stories have a setting system and an episode system. The setting system offers background information and introductory material about the characters and the context, while the episode system includes three main components that occur in all stories, namely (a) an initiating event (i.e. an external event that motivates the main characters to act), (b) internal plans (i.e. intended actions to reach a goal and solve the problem), and (c) consequences/outcomes (i.e. success or failure in achieving a goal). According to Faulkner and Coates (2011: 15) the story grammar is an ideal way to detect “children’s developing ability to understand narrative structures.” A complete episode requires that the narrator include all three of these key components in his story. Accordingly, the more elaborate a story is the better its macrostructural quality is going to be (Applebee 1978, McCabe and Peterson 1984). Macrostructure is also characterized by coherence. Coherence exists only at the level of macrostructure and deals with the story’s overall architecture in a meaningful way (Hickmann 2003, Hudson and Shapiro 1991). The term ‘coherence’ is often misunderstood as it is confused with the similar term cohesion. Cohesion occurs only at the microstructure level and according to Halliday and Hasan (1976: 4) “it occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another.” Perkins (2007: 132) tried to differentiate the two terms by characterizing coherence as “a procedure that in addition demands memory and executive functions abilities (i.e. planning etc.),” and by characterizing cohesion as “a procedure that demands the use of explicit linguistic devices.” With narrative
47 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background cohesion sentences are connected by means of conjunctions, reference use, and through lexical cohesion. The macrostructure is also characterized by referential cohesion, i.e. character introduction, setting, time and maintenance of character reference throughout the story. However, other researchers, as linguistic devices are necessary in order to maintain character reference in a story, tend to attribute this measure to the domain of microstructure (e.g. Coelho 2007). The results of our analysis are closer to Hickmann’s (2004) approach who believes that character reference covers pragmatic knowledge as understanding the listener’s perspective, and we place character reference in the domain of macrostructure. Therefore, a good performance of a participant at the level of macrostructure requires a communication adequacy. In other words, a narration must be well structured and expressed by the child in order to ensure its processibility and understanding by the listener (Johnston 2008). The macrostructure level also involves pragmatic capacity, as noted by Astington and Baird (2005) who add that the pragmatic knowledge requires perspective-taking and meta-representational skills, what is referred to as ‘theory of mind’ (cf. also Arnold and Griffin 2007, Johnston 2008). The domain of macrostructure shows that the development of narrative skills is also age-related. Berman’s (1988) research in Hebrew monolingual speaking preschoolers, school-age children and adults, using a story-generation (Frog, where are you?, cf. Mayer 1969) revealed that between the ages of 5 and 7 the participants still tended to use picture description rather than the global story sequence. A general description of the development of children’s ability to tell a story by transferring from the actional-eventive stage to the episodic stage and to the global-thematic organization is as below (following the example of Berman and Slobin 1994, Pearson and de Villiers 2006):
1) Children around the age of 3 usually prefer picture by picture descriptions, without temporally advancing plotline. Pearson and de Villiers (2006) also suggest that at this age the majority of children tested through a picture description task appeared to treat each scene as an isolated event.
48 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
2) Children around the age of 5 present a more coherent narration with episodic structures with temporal organization and local causal connections (Trabasso and Rodkin 1994).
3) Children around the age of 9 produce complete episodic structures. At this stage they refer to upcoming and past events indicating thematic organization.
4) The vast majority of adults demonstrate thematically organized narratives with elaborated background circumstances and evaluations. This, according to Berman (1988: 489), is the “end-state of narratives abilities”.
We may conclude that the recent studies on bilingual children report that macrostructure is a domain that relies less on children’s language abilities. Based on this, Illuz-Cohen and Walters (2012: 64) suggest that “story structure should be invariant across a bilingual child’s two languages and should lead readily to cross linguistic transfer, while lexical and morphosyntactic abilities should be more language-specific and less predisposed to transfer.” As we establish in Chapter 6 of the thesis, narrative abilities in macrostructure do not depend on children’s core grammar but rather on their cognitive abilities. The use of mental state terms is also a variable that plays a crucial role in children’s narration. Through the procedure of forming mental representations of the story’s characters the narrator has to take into consideration the listener’s perspective, in other words to involve theory of mind (Curenton and Justice 2004). In addition to the use of syntactic dependencies (e.g. that-clauses as we saw above and their connection with the theory of mind), children may express their understanding of other characters’ feelings in less direct ways, for instance with the use of internal state terms. The positive connection between theory of mind and bilingualism is established in a research conducted by Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou (in press). In this study we compared typically developing (TD) monolingual and bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) children. The results with respect to the use of emotion and mental state verbs (i.e. theory of mind related) revealed a bilingual advantage for both groups, although in the case of story presentation for the TD bilingual group the results are more salient. This finding is connected with recent studies (e.g. Bialystok 2009, Siegal, Iozzi and Surian 2009) which provide evidence for the advantage of bilingual children over monolinguals as far as their theory of
49 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background mind and pragmatic abilities are concerned. Mental state verbs are divided into different categories, as seen in Table 2 below.
Researchers Categorization
Greenhalgh and Strong 2001 Metaverbs8 (i.e. metalinguistic and metacognitive verbs), perceptual (i.e. see,
hear, feel, smell), physiological (i.e. thirsty, hungry, tired), consciousness (i.e. alive, asleep), emotion terms (happy, angry, worried), mental (want, think, know) and linguistic verbs (say, call, shout).
Westby 2005 Metalinguistic verbs (i.e. say, call etc.), metacognitive verbs9 (i.e. know, think Fuste-Hermann, Silliman, Bahr, Fasnacht etc.), words of expressing emotions (e.g. and Federico 2006 sad, happy, angry)
Justice 2004 Emotional terms (i.e. happy, sad, feel etc.) and cognitive terms (think, remember, realize etc.)
Table 2. Categorization of mental state terms.
The mental state analysis has been generally placed at the level of macrostructure, as mental state terms are connected with the goals and intentions of the characters, in other words with story grammar. However, recent studies claim that mental state terms can refer to both the macro- and the microstructure levels of analysis (cf. Gagarina submitted). The results of the present thesis (see Chapter 6)
8 According to Wetsby (2005) the use of metaverbs in narrative production reflects the participants’ awareness of the goals and intentions of characters. 9 Westby provides a further categorization on metaverbs into metalinguistic and metacognitive verbs. More specifically, according to this categorization the metalinguistic verbs are those which refer “to acts of speaking”, whereas the metacognitive verbs are those which refer to “acts of thinking”.
50 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background show that the ‘linguistic verbs’ (e.g. shout, say, cry, etc.) belong to the microstructure and the rest of the internal state terms belong to the macrostructure analysis. The studies that involve Greek bilinguals and focus on micro- and macrostructure are restricted. One is Kapia’s (2013) study who examined 6 Albanian- Greek simultaneous bilingual children of 6-7 years old compared to 6 Albanian monolingual children. Her results reveal that with respect to microstructure the bilinguals differ from their monolingual peers, whereas with respect to macrostructure the two groups present no difference across the two modes. Karpava, Kambanaros and Grohmann (2015) focusing on macrostructure, examined 23 simultaneous Russian- Greek Cypriot children of 5-6 years old, finding no differences between the two languages examined. The last important domain in narratives to be examined in this thesis is character reference. Character reference is usually measured in terms of appropriateness of referential forms used in each language with respect to three discourse functions, namely Introduction, Maintenance and Reintroduction in narrative discourse in order to ensure cohesion (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976; for an overview, see Arnold 2008). The advantage of investigating reference production through narratives and not through elicitation tasks derives from its “non-invasive nature” and the consideration of perspectives of the characters along with their motivations and reactions (Peterson 2010, Schneider, Hayward and Dubé 2006). Thus, narratives which are based on picture-stimulus constitute an effective task as they involve discourse and pragmatic information (Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan 1994). Hickmann (2003) suggests that children become fluent in the system and the use of referential forms after the age of 10. According to her children make overuse of DPs and avoid the use of pronouns before the age of 10. Sorace, Serratrice, Filiaci and Baldo (2009) strengthen this finding, as their results reveal that bilingual children avoid the use of pronouns in character reference in contrast to monolingual children. Several studies on the use of referential expressions in bilingual and monolingual children claim that bilinguals perform differently from monolinguals. In particular, Serratrice (2007), focusing on 8-year old English-Italian bilinguals, observes an overspecification (i.e. full NPs vs. clitics) in maintenance in object position in Italian. Chen and Lei (2012), focusing on 9-year old Chinese-English
51 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background bilinguals found an overspecification (i.e. full NPs vs nulls) in reintroduction in Chinese. Another parameter that differentiates bilinguals in character reference seems to be the Age of Onset. More specifically, simultaneous bilinguals (2L1) master language-specific features of character reference in oral story telling from about the age 8 (Serratrice 2006), whereas early successive bilinguals (AoO < 3) show variability in the use of forms of character reference in story telling (Chen and Yang 2009, Chen and Lei 2012). Vion and Colas (1999) examined French monolingual children (7 to 11 years old) and adults in narrations focusing on the expression of correference in French. An interesting finding of this research was that “the ability to mark the cognitive status of referents and thematic continuity is acquired between the ages of 7 and 11” (p. 287). With respect to the participants’ choices between the character references, Arnold and Griffin (2007) conducted two experiments on story-telling in order to investigate the process of choosing between pronouns and proper names. Their results show that when there was a second character in the discourse this automatically led to the reduction of pronouns. More specifically, when they had to deal with a second character, the participants preferred the use of proper names rather than of pronouns. This preference in the use of proper names over pronouns when two characters are involved is also seen in our results mainly in the function of maintenance (see Chapter 8). As can be understood, the issue of character reference in bilingualism has interesting aspects which have not yet been studied to a satisfactory degree. One could then conclude that the choice of referential expressions is motivated by language- specific factors (i.e. the availability of referential expressions and their morphosyntactic constraints) and by cognitive factors10 (see for example Ariel 1990, Chafe 1994). As mentioned earlier, the narrative production is a task that consists of referential expressions in the functions of Introduction, Maintenance and Reintroduction. In order for these functions to mark whether the information is new, given, or presupposed the use of specific linguistic forms is paramount (Aksu-Koç and Nicolopoulou 2014; Givón 1989). Several ways have been suggested on how to
10 The cognitive factors may affect the accessibility of the referent.
52 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background code the discourse function of all referential forms (cf. Serratrice 2007; cf. further Chapter 8). With respect to the four languages of the study (Greek, German, English and Albanian), they all pattern similarly, since in order to introduce a character (i.e. to demarcate new information) the use of indefinite determiner phrases is the most preferable way. In all languages indefiniteness is marked by indefinite articles (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), but there is a crucial difference, since Greek, German and Albanian indefinite articles are inflected for case, number and gender (i.e. agreement is required between the article and the noun), whereas in English there is no requirement for agreement between the article and the noun (for more details, see Chapter 8). Indefinite plural in all languages is expressed by bare nouns.
(1a) Greek
Mia skilitsa kai enas lagos skefthtikan na pane mia volta. a dog SG.F.N.INDF a rabbit SG.M.N.INDF
(1b) German
Ein Hundemädchen und ein Hasenjunge beschlossen einen Spaziergang zu a dog-girl SG.N.N.INDF a rabbit-boy SG.M.N.INDF machen
‘A dog-girl and a rabbit decided to go for a walk.’
(1c) English
A playful dog and a very happy hare who were friends, decided to take a walk in the a dog SG.INDF a hare SG.INDF
woods.
(1d) Albanian
Nje qenushe lozonjare dhe nje lepur i gezuar qe jane shoke menduan te shkojne nje a dog SG.F.N.INDF a rabbit SG.M.N.INDF
53 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background shetitje ne pyll.
‘A playful dog and a very happy rabbit who were friends; they thought to take a walk in the woods.’
When a character is introduced in the discourse, it must then be maintained or reintroduced into the narration. In that case the narrators have the possibility to choose their preferable referring expression from a large variety of expressions. Ariel (1990, 2001) argues that the referring expressions have different degrees of accessibility (Accessibility Theory). According to her there is an accessibility marking scale (see Figure 1).
Low High
Full name > long definite description > demonstrative NP > stressed pronoun > unstressed pronoun > cliticized pronoun > zero
Figure 1. Accessibility marking scale (adapted from Ariel 2001: 31).
The accessibility is determined by a number of factors following the criteria of (1) distance of the antecedent, (2) salience of the antecedent, (3) existence of other competing antecedents, and (4) discourse structure of other competing antecedents. Asher (1993), focusing on discourse interpretation, claims that there is need to interpret the current utterance depending on the interaction of preceding segments. According to Ariel’s theory, when a narrator wants to maintain or reintroduce a character, he must choose between low accessibility markers (LAM) (i.e. definite determiner phrases or proper names) or between high accessibility markers (HAM) (i.e. overt, null and clitic pronouns). With respect to the definite determiner phrases (HAM) all languages use articles, however only in the case of the English language these articles are not inflected for case, number and gender (see examples 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d). Marinis (2003: 174-175) examing the acquisition of definite articles in Greek11 shows that around the age of 2.10 years the children use frequently definite articles in a proper way (i.e. only 5% omission).
(2a) Greek:
11 This research was based on Stephany’s corpus (1997).
54 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
O lagos prosehe oti i fili tou travouse ena karotsi. the rabbit SG.M.N.DEF
(2b) German:
Der Hase bemerkte, dass seine Freundin einen Wagen… the rabbit SG.M.NOM.DEF
…hinter sich herzog.
(2c) English:
The rabbit noticed that his friend pulled a cart behind himself.
the rabbit SG.DEF
(2d) Albanian:
Lepuri vuri re se shoqja e tij po terhiqte nje karoce me nje tullumbace te bukur siper. rabbit-the SG.M.N.DEF
‘The rabbit noticed that his friend was drawing a carriage with a beautiful balloon over it’.
Although up until now the Greek, German and Albanian languages pattern simirarly and only English presented dissimilarities, when we enter the range and use of HAM it seems that two clusters are created. The first cluster consists of null- subject languages like Greek and Albanian (see examples 3a and 3d) which allow the use of null pronouns (subject position) that can refer to highly accessible referents, and the second cluster consists of languages like English and German that do not allow argument ellipsis except in complex clauses. In the latter case, English and German (examples 3b and 3c) require overt personal pronoun in finite clauses.
(3a) Greek:
O lagos1 theli na voithisi tin fili tou2.
1 Pige sto gero lago3.
55 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
(he) SG.M.NOM
The rabbit1 wanted to help his friend2. He1 went to the old rabbit3.
(3b) German:
Haso1 wollte seiner Freundin2 helfen. Er1 [P-PRN] ging zu dem alten Hasen3
he SG.M.NOM
(3c) English:
Bunny1 wanted to help his friend2. He1 [P-PRON] went to the old rabbit3.
he SG.M.NOM
(3d) Albanian:
Menjehere [N-PRON] vendosi te kapte tullumbacen per te lozur me shoqen e tij.
(he) SG.M.NOM
‘Immediately, (he) decided to catch the balloon in order to play with his friend’.
Another syntactic difference between the four languages concerns the use of referents in object position. More specifically, in Greek and Albanian (examples 4a and 4d) the use of preverbal object clitics is preferred, especially when we want to maintain a character reference, whereas in English and German (examples 4b and 4c) the use of personal pronouns is preferable in similar cases. At this point we must notice that in the English pronominal system the third person singular presents a three-way gender distinction, something that occurs for the possessive determiners as well (e.g. his/her/its). Studies that concern the morphosyntactic phenomenon of clitics have revealed that in the Greek language clitic production development begins very early (i.e. 19 months) and reaches the ceiling around the age of 2.6 years (Tsimpli 2005, Marinis 2000). So far, the studies that have examined clitics have used pictures depicting an agent performing an action, in order to elicit third person clitic pronouns (cf. Stavrakaki, Chrysomallis and Petraki 2011). However, studies of narratives in bilingual population examining the children’s use of pragmatically appropriate
56 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background referential forms and particularly in the use of clitics are limited. Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli (2015) examining character reference in Greek-German 8-12 years old bilingual children with area of residence Greece or Germany have found that for the majority of choices of referential expressions the dominance in input could explain the different performances between bilinguals and monolinguals, something that was not true with the use of clitics. As they say, “the avoidance of clitic pronouns seems to be an effect of bilingualism…” (p. 40).
(4a) Greek:
[N-PRN]1 tous [C-PRN]2 agorazi dio balonia.
them PL.ACC
She1 buys them2 two balloons.
(4b) German:
Er1 [P-PRN] erklärte ihr4, [P-PRN] was geschehen war.
her SG.F.DAT
He1 explained to her4 what had happened.
(4c) English:
He1 explained to her4 [P-PRN] what had happened.
her SG.F.
(4d) Albanian:
Ai1 po e2 [C-PRN] shikonte (ate) i trembur. her SG.F.ACC
‘He was looking at her terrified’.
Finally, the referential expression that is going to be examined is the use of overt pronoun in subject or object position. In Greek (example 5a) strong pronouns tend to mark a switch in reference to a non-topical previously mentioned referent (i.e. they refer to a less accessible antecedent than the topic). We also see a similar pattern
57 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background with the Greek use in Albanian (example 5d). In German (example 5b), when a narrator wants to use a marked form in order to switch the reference, he employs the anaphoric use of demonstrative pronouns (e.g. der-pronouns). Bosch and Umbach (2007) claim that der-pronouns are used in order to shift the topic, entering a non- topic antecedent when there are at least two competing antecedents in the discourse (also see Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli 2015: 28). In English (example 5c) demonstrative determiners12 are used similarly as the overt pronoun in Greek.
(5a) Greek:
[N-PRN]1 pige sto gero lago3. Aftos[S-PRN]3 ihe pola balonia.
he SG.M.NOM
He1 went to the old rabbit3. That one3 had lots of balloons.
(5b) German:
Er1 ging zu dem alten Hasen3. Der3 [D-PRN] hatte viele Ballons.
he 3.SG.M.NOM
‘He1 went up to the old rabbit3. That one3 had many balloons.’
(5c) English:
He1 went up to the old rabbit3. That one3 [D-PRN] had many balloons.
he 3.SG.
(5d) Albanian:
Ai1 [S-PRN] po e shikonte i trembur. he SG.M.NOM
‘He was looking at her terrified’.
12 Demonstrative determiners in English are marked only for number (e.g. these, those).
58 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
An interesting study by Hickmann (2003) showed that children use definite NPs and pronouns in English and French deictically up to the age of 6 .Bittner (2002, 2007), examining character reference in the German language, claims that children around the age of 3 usually employ pronouns in anaphoric use . With regard to character reference and specifically the use of pronominal subjects, in several studies a tendency for omission of pronominal subjects by younger children is observed (cf. Gerken 1991), whereas with the older children we see less omission (preference for subjects, cf. Gagarina 2004). With respect to character reference in bilingual children with Greek as one language, there is only limited research. More specifically, Torregrossa and Bongartz (2015) focusing on reference production of 25 Greek-German bilingual children of 8- 12 years old found that the pronouns produced by the children usually show a lower degree of activation of referents. Aksu-Koç and Nicolopoulou (2014), on the other hand, investigate the acquisition of referential expressions in monolingual preschoolers’ narratives in Greek, English and Turkish and find some dissimilarities in the performance of the three groups in introduction, with Greek performing better than English and English better than Turkish. With respect to maintenance, there is no difference between the three groups, whereas in reintroduction Greek and Turkish show no differences and both groups performed better than English. They conclude that the differences may not be influenced by the referential discourse functions alone but also by the different story type and language structure. To sum up our short reference to narratives, in terms of narrative abilities bilingual children develop two linguistic systems side by side. This means that certain conceptual narrative skills are cross-linguistic, whereas others are language-specific competencies which will have to develop or have to be learned for each language individually. This is captured in Norbert Francis’ model of bilingual-biliterate proficiency. He argues that literacy in bilinguals, whether developed in one or both languages, affects the bilingual’s conceptual structure in terms of a common underlying proficiency and, through that, it interacts with both linguistic systems.
59 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Figure 2. CUP model (from Francis 2012).
It has been well established by many studies that bilingual children perform similarly in their L2 compared to monolinguals in a number of measures, such as story grammar, metacognitive statements and temporal links. As noted by Uccelli and Paz (2007) and Pearson (2002), this indicates cross-language transfer of higher-order narrative skills. On the other hand, other studies on bilinguals’ vocabulary and morphosyntax have shown that monolinguals outperform bilinguals, a fact that implies little transfer of lower-order categories. With respect to metacognitive statements, Chen and Yan (2011) showed that bilingual children may reproduce protagonists’ intentions and emotions in their L2 narratives more fully than monolinguals. This difference was obvious even though the bilingual group had less exposure to L2 than the monolingual children. Regarding character reference and its use by monolingual children, studies point to a different performance from that by adults up to the age of 9 as they go through several developmental stages (Hickmann 2003, Berman 2009). As concerns the function of introduction, studies on bilingual children show that the adult-like performance of new referents in the discourse comes significantly
60 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background later and, as stated by Aksu-Koç and Nicolopoulou (2014), “adult-like use of referential forms is still precarious and requires further development.” An age effect is also detected in children in the functions of character maintenance and reintroduction. Younger children at preschool age maintain referential cohesion by using a thematic subject strategy (Orsolini, Rossi and Pontecorvo 1996) but at school-age they maintain or reintroduce reference through the use of HAM and LAM (Leclercq and Lenart 2013).
2.10 Summary In the present chapter we traced the main parameters that frame the theoretical background of the thesis, by providing an overview of bilingualism and its interaction to language, cognitive and narrative abilities and by reviewing the main views and issues as discussed in the relevant literature. We also gave a detailed description of the external and internal factors of bilingualism focusing on variables like biliteracy, cognitive abilities, dominance and other issues which will be dealt with in some detail in the rest of the work. A detailed description was also provided for narratives, and their subcategorization in micro- and macrostructure. In the following chapters of the dissertation we will focus on microstructure and language-dependent phenomena such as morphosyntactic details and considerations of this type that concern bilinguals, whereas through macrostructure we will focus on phenomena that constitute the story grammar of the narratives. In the next chapter we will provide a detailed description of the questionnaires and of the tasks which are used in order to build the profile of our bilinguals.
61 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE (AGE, VOCABULARY SKILLS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION)
3.1 Preliminary remarks In the present chapter an overview of the subjects and their background profile is provided. I also offer a detailed description of the questionnaires and of the tasks which are used in order to detect the profile of our bilinguals. Section 3.2 deals with the different educational settings of the bilinguals and the basis of their categorization into different groups. Section 3.3 describes the questionnaires and the way in which the participants fall into the specific groups, whereas in section 3.4 I refer to the nature of materials and tasks designed to investigate the bilinguals’ language abilities. The study is based on six groups of bilingual children, with Greek being one of the two languages, and one group of age-matched monolingual children of Greek serving as control group. All in all, the total number of participants is 309 children aged from 8 to 12 years old.13 More specifically, our data set consists of 209 Bilingual participants, in the three combinations of targeted languages, i.e. Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian. All the bilingual participants were divided according to their area of residence (i.e. Greece, Germany, England or Albania), and as a result the following six groups of bilinguals were created: the Greek-German_Gr had Greece as area of residence, N=20 (10 boys, Mean=10.83, S.D.=1.16); the Greek- German_Ge group had Germany as area of residence, N=59 (29 boys, Mean=10.75, S.D.=1.34); the Greek-English_Gr group had Greece as area of residence, N=40 (21 boys, Mean=10.33, S.D.=1.46); the Greek-English_En group had United Kingdom as area of residence, N=20 (6 boys, Mean=10.74, S.D.=0.88); the Greek-Albanian_Gr group had Greece as area of residence, N=40 (22 boys, Mean=10.54, S.D.=1.15); the Greek-Albanian_Al group had Albania as area of residence, N=30 (11 boys, Mean= 10.62, S.D.=1.25). Additionally, a group of 100 children native speakers of Greek (46
13 Formal written consent was obtained from the children and the children’s parents prior to participation in the study. From the consent forms it was clear that both parents and children had the right to withdraw at any time without having to give any explanation and without any consequences.
62 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile boys, Mean=10.48, S.D.=1.24) was included for control purposes. We made sure that none of the participants suffered from any language or mental disorder. The percentage of boys in the bilingual sample (47.3%) was lower than in the monolingual sample (48.6%), but this difference was not significant (Pearson’s χ2(1)=1.084, p=.298). Analysis of variance (one way ANOVA) revealed that the seven groups had no age difference (F (6,308)=2.495, p=.230).
3.1.1 Procedure The testing took place in a quiet room at the children’s schools and was carried out by trained research assistants who were fluent in Greek, German, English and Albanian. There were three sessions with approximately one week apart from each other. Each testing session lasted approximately 60 minutes, including play breaks. Children were rewarded for their participation with small gifts (e.g. stickers, pencils, etc.) or snacks. The study was carried out from October 2013 to December 2014. The tasks were administered in a fixed order that aimed to optimally vary the task demands from one task to the next. The child questionnaires were carried out with the help of research assistants, who interviewed the bilingual children in the language preferred by the children. Similarly, the parents had the opportunity to complete the questionnaire in their language of preference.
3.2 Educational setting A variable that differentiated our bilinguals was educational setting, i.e. the different amount of biliteracy education that the bilinguals were exposed to, as suggested by Baker (1993). As a result, we had to group children according to the type of school they attended. This categorization follows two criteria: whether the Greek language had a majority or a minority status, and whether the Greek language was a curriculum subject or a medium of instruction of other subjects. The Greek-German_Gr group consists of participants who attended an immersion bilingual setting (Deutsche Schule Thessaloniki), where the programme with German as main medium (19 to 25 hours weekly) of instruction offers 4 to 7 hours of Greek language per week. This type of schooling provides literacy support in the Greek Language (L1), which is taught or used as part of the curriculum. The majority of the students who attend this type of school come from upper or middle-class homes and they targeted to educate through
63 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile their L1 (Greek) and a prestigious L2 (German). The Greek-German_Ge group consists of a mixed sample. Specifically, 19 out of 59 participants attended a weak maintenance type of bilingual setting (German Public High School in Krefeld, (Gesamtschule Kaiserplatz)), which offers a bilingual programme for Greek heritage children, providing 8 hours of instruction per week in Greek in the subjects of Religion (2 hrs), Language (3 hrs) and Natural Sciences (3 hrs) and 20 hours of instruction per week in German for all subjects. 19 out of 59 participants also attended a weak maintenance type of bilingual setting (supplementary school in Cologne) but outside the context of the school. More specifically, in this setting after their regular school the children attend afternoon schools for heritage language. These afternoon classes are held twice a week and the children are taught (only) the Greek language for 2 to 4 hours in total. Finally, 21 out of 59 participants attended a strong maintenance type of bilingual setting (11 participants were from the Greek Primary School in Dusseldorf and 10 participants were from the Greek Primary School in Wuppertal), where the programme with Greek as main medium (21 hours per week) of instruction offers 9 to 11 hours of German language. The children that attended these types of schools come from minority groups and the main language of instruction is their L1. With regard to the Greek-English language pair the Greek-English_Gr group consists of 40 participants that attended an immersion bilingual setting (St. Cathrine’s School of Athens, Campion School of Athens), where the programme with English as main medium (20 hours) of instruction offers 5 hours of Greek language. The Greek- English_En group consists of 20 participants in total; 13 of them attended a strong type of maintenance bilingual setting (Greek Primary School in London), where the programme with Greek as main medium (21 hours per week) of instruction offers 5 hours of English language, and 6 attended a weak maintenance bilingual setting type (supplementary school in Reading) but outside the context of school (see above). These classes are held once a week (Saturday) and the children were educated in the Greek language for 2 hours in total. The Greek-Albanian_Gr group consists of 40 participants. These children constitute the only subgroup of bilinguals that attended a submersion bilingual educational setting (i.e. Greek state schools in Thessaloniki), in which they were taught exclusively through the Greek language (L2) and received no literacy support in Albanian language (L1). Finally, the Greek-Albanian_Al group consists of 30
64 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile children, who attended an immersion bilingual setting (Arsakio, Tirana), where the programme with Albanian as main medium (23 hours) of instruction offers 14 to 16 hours of instruction of all subjects in the Greek language. From the categorization outlined above, we can see that although some bilinguals have the same educational setting the input that they receive in Greek, as far as the hours of instruction are concerned, is different. As a result, it would be methodologically wrong to merge them into one group. Hence, we created a variable which counts the bilingual input that the participants received through their educational settings (henceforth, BES: Balanced Educational Setting). The BES was calculated by adding the hours that the child was educated in Greek to the hours that the child was taught in the other language and then we divided the former with the total hours of instruction. This column is converted into a z-score. The z-score is used as a BES Index with negative scores indicating education dominance in the other language and positive scores pointing to education dominance in the Greek language. We consider as BES Index the transformed scores that range between -0.5 and +0.5 standard deviation. The z-scores for dominance range from -1.05 to 1.76. Figure 3 suggests that the sample of our bilinguals is slightly dominant in education in the other language.
65 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Figure 3. Variance of Bilinguals in the educational settings. Different patterns represent the three different educational settings of the Bilingual sample.
In the above figure it can be seen that only 2 out of 6 bilingual groups consist of participants who are educated in a similar degree of exposure in both languages, namely the Greek-German_Ge and the Greek-Albanian_Al. However, these two groups also differ significantly, since the Greek-Albanian_Al receive only balanced input whereas the Greek-German_Ge receive balanced input at a rate of 34% (Pearson’s χ2(1)=7.112, p=.000, for the difference between the two groups). It is also revealed, as also mentioned above, that the Greek-Albanian_Gr is the only group that attends a monolingual educational setting without any support in their mother-tongue language. With respect to the detected differences among the educational settings between the groups there are two main objectives. The first is to investigate if a more balanced educational setting (i.e Greek-German and Greek-Albanian) may lead to a higher development of cognitive skills (see Chapter 4). It is already known from a large body of research (Bialystok, Craik and Luk 2012) that bilingualism leads to cognitive advantages (for example good thinking skills, etc.). However, it still
66 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile remains to be seen if under the umbrella of bilingualism all bilinguals behave in a similar manner according to their cognitive skills and despite external differences (such as educational setting, bilingual language input, etc.). More specifically, we want to see if the educational setting (e.g. Balanced vs. Greek Dominant vs. Other Dominant) on its own can be considered as a crucial factor pointing to a different performance between our bilingual groups, or if the educational setting in conjunction with other variables (e.g. Bilingual Educational Setting and Monolingual Home or Bilingual Educational Setting and Bilingual Home, etc.) are factors that can determine the cognitive performance of our bilinguals. The second objective is to investigate if the absence of mother-tongue education (Greek-Albanian_Gr) leads to a different cognitive performance. Saikia and Mohanty (2004) suggest that educating children in their mother language creates a cognitive advantage. However, it is still under discussion if the lack of mother tongue literacy can lead to a cognitive disadvantage or not (further discussion will follow in Chapter 4).
3.3 Questionnaire factors In order to profile the bilingual participants according to background variables, we administered a child interview on the basis of a background questionnaire prior to testing and handed out parental questionnaires to supplement and verify the information from the child questionnaires (see Appendix A). The background questions are crucial in detecting the amount of input that bilinguals receive, since there is a claim that input constitutes a better predictor of language performance even compared to the Age of Onset variable (cf. Unsworth, Argyri, Cornips, Hulk, Sorace and Tsimpli 2011). It is well known from the relevant literature that many bilinguals grow up in contexts where one of their two languages is dominant in their environment. Thus, “exposure to the dominant language outweighs exposure to the weaker language in terms of quantity and quality, and as a consequence the dominant language develops faster and with more solidly established intuitions than the other” (Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli 2015: 23, based on Yip and Matthews 2009). However, there is no consensus as to which experiential variable best captures dominance effects on the available input (for an overview Bedore, Peña, Summers, Boerger, Resendiz, Greene, Bohman and Gillam 2012). For instance, it has been found that literacy input at home has an effect on the vocabulary skills of bilingual
67 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile children (Scheele, Leseman and Mayo 2009). Other studies have shown that school dominance input affects lexical production skills of bilinguals (Kohnert, Bates and Hernandez 1999). In this Chapter, we hope to extend research on dominance in bilingual development by investigating which of the experiential variables which we describe below correlate best with performance in cognitive and linguistic tasks. For these purposes we took into consideration different variables from the parental and child questionnaires. From the child questionnaires, we identified experiential variables that have been shown to have an impact on language dominance in bilinguals (cf. Appendix A). We considered (1) the Home Language History (henceforth, HLH) in terms of the proportion of oral language input by father and mother in each language prior to schooling (before age 3, between 3 and 6 years of age and after age 6). In addition, we analyzed the answers to questions that reflect (2) the Early Literacy Input (henceforth, ELI) that the children received prior to schooling in each language, (3) their Current Literacy Use (i.e. input and output in written form) (henceforth, CLitU) in both languages with family members, educational setting and afterschool activities, and (4) their Current Language Use (henceforth, CLangU; this is only oral) (i.e. input and output) in both languages with family members and friends. For the analysis of the questionnaire data, points are given for input in each language, according to the number of people interacting with the child at the different stages of development (before age 3, between 3 and 6 years of age, after age 6). For answers that stated that both languages were used to equal proportion, the points were divided between the languages. Then the percentage score for the input that the bilingual children received in the other language was subtracted from the input that they received in the Greek language. The difference between the two percentage scores was then converted into a z-score. The categorization of the z-score is used as an Index of Dominance and it is three-dimensional with negative scores indicating dominance in the other language, positive scores pointing to dominance in Greek, and scores which range above or below 0.5 standard deviations indicating balance in both languages (i.e. Other Dominant Bilinguals, Balanced Bilinguals, Greek Dominant Bilinguals). The same procedure was followed for the four measures which were described above. The children answered reliably to all questions, with good ordinal alpha scores ranging between 0.72 and 0.88 (a. ordinal alpha=0.77, b. ordinal alpha
68 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
=0.72, c. ordinal alpha=0.88 d. ordinal alpha=0.78). The questionnaire analysis gives us a complex language-input profile. Let us suppose that Greek-English participant A’s Current Language Use input from his parents is 70% Greek and 30% in both languages; the figure 30% is divided into two equal portions between Greek and English. Therefore, the final score for Participant A is 85% Greek and 15% English. The first two measurements presented in Table 3 and Table 5 concern activities that took place in the past (up to the age of 6) in the bilinguals’ lives, whereas the other two measurements in Table 6 and Table 7 refer to present activities of the participants. With regard to the Home Language History, Table 3 presents a description of the bilingual participants. To see if there are differences among the groups, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with Index of Dominance (Greek Dominant vs. Balanced vs. Other Dominant) and Group (Greek-German_Gr vs. Greek-German_Ge vs. Greek- English_Gr vs. Greek-English_En vs. Greek-Albanian_Gr vs. Greek-Albanian_Al) as between-subject factors. There was a significant effect of Index of Dominance (F (2,208)=219.938, p<.001, η2=.70) and a significant effect of Group (F (5,208)=2.195, p=.005, η2=.05).
z-scores Index of Dominance Greek-German_Gr 0.22 Greek Dominant: 30% SD 0.98 Balanced: 40% Other Dominant: 30% Greek-German_Ge 0.23 Greek Dominant: 40.6% SD 0.89 Balanced: 44.1% Other Dominant: 15.3% Greek-English_Gr 0.12 Greek Dominant: 37.5% SD 1.1 Balanced: 30% Other Dominant: 32.5% Greek-English_En 0.61 Greek Dominant: 55% SD 0.98 Balanced: 35% Other Dominant: 10% Greek-Albanian_Gr -0.07 Greek Dominant: 22.5% SD 0.82 Balanced: 42.5% Other Dominant: 35% Greek-Albanian_Al -0.62 Greek Dominant: 16.7% SD 1 Balanced: 33.3% Other Dominant: 50% Table 3. Mean and SD of z-scores for the HLH (Home Language History).
69 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
In the above Table 3, the negative z-scores represent language dominance in the other language and positive scores represent dominance in Greek, whereas the scores between -/+ 0.5 indicate an equal amount of exposure in both languages. In the Index of Dominance column the percentages of the distribution of bilinguals in each category are presented, that is to say the Greek Dominant, Balanced, and Other Dominant per group. As seen above, most of the groups’ Home Language History exposure is in both languages (Greek-German_Gr, Greek-German_Ge, Greek-English_Gr and Greek- Albanian_Gr). Given that the Greek-Albanian_Al children reside in Albania and in their majority come from Albanian parents, most of their HLH exposure is in Albanian. Similarly with the Greek-English_En group, most of their HLH exposure is in Greek, given that they come from Greek parents and in their majority attend Greek- language daycare schools. More specifically, pairwise comparisons by means of Bonferroni correction, show that the Greek-German_Gr and the Greek-German_Ge groups had significantly lower Home Language History exposure in Greek than the Greek-English_En group children (p=.001 and p=.000, respectively) and more than the Greek-Albanian_Al group (p=.000, for both comparisons). The Greek-English_Gr and the Greek- Albanian_Gr groups had significantly lower Home Language History Exposure in Greek than the Greek-English_En children (p=.000). Finally, the Greek-Albanian_Gr and the Greek-English_Gr groups had significantly higher Home Language History Exposure in Greek than the Greek-Albanian_Al group (p=.018 and p=.000, respectively). Pairwise comparisons among the different categories of Index of Dominance input (Greek Dominant vs. Balanced vs. Other Dominant) showed that the Greek Dominant group received more Greek input than the Balanced and the Other Dominant groups (p=.000 in all comparisons), whereas the Balanced received more Greek input than the Other Dominant (p=.000). In the ELI we examined the role of Early Literacy Prepardness in each language, such as shared-book reading in preschool age. All bilingual groups reported at a high percentage of 95% that they were involved in such activities, with the sole exception of the Greek-Albanian children who live in Thessaloniki, where only 67% of them report that they were exposed to preschool reading activities. This fact creates a disadvantage in the Greek-Albanian_Gr group, since studies have proved that the
70 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile speech that the mothers produce to their children during their preschool years when reading books is syntactically and lexically of a high level of difficulty (Hoff- Ginsberg 1991 and Snow, Burns and Griffin 1976). For later analyses in the Chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8 and in order to keep in this measure all bilingual children, the ELI will be measured in two different ways. First, a categorical variable (henceforth, ELI(1) (i.e. yes: for those who had ELI and no: for those who had no ELI) will be created. Table 4 presents a description of the bilingual participants.
Index of Dominance Greek-German_Gr Yes: 92% No: 8%
Greek-German_Ge Yes: 89% No: 11%
Greek-English_Gr Yes: 95% No: 5%
Greek-English_En Yes: 97% No: 3%
Greek-Albanian_Gr Yes: 67% No: 33%
Greek-Albanian_Al Yes: 97% No: 3%
Table 4. Mean and SD of percentage scores for ELI(1) (Early Literacy Input).
For the second measure which is calculated in a similar way with Home Language History, we excluded participants with no Early Literacy Prepardness i.e. ELI(1) in the past.14 Table 5 presents a description of the rest of the Bilingual participants. A two-way ANOVA with the same criteria as HLH was run. There was a significant effect of Index of Dominance (F (2,184)=11.935, p=.000, η2=.140).
14 However, this is a measure that will concern us in more detail in Chapter 6, especially in the microstructure performance where ELI(2) is found as a significant predictor of microstructure performance. Notice that if we merge Greek-German_Gr and Greek-German_Ge into one group, the input of ELI(2) in Greek of these groups is higher than the one of Greek-English and Greek-Albanian. Also, if we merge all bilinguals into two groups on the basis of the Area of Residence, the Bilinguals living abroad have higher ELI(2) in Greek compared to Bilinguals living in Greece.
71 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
However, we did not find a significant effect of Group (F (5,184)=1.960, p=.087, η2=.05).
z-scores Index of Dominance
Greek-German_Gr 0.22 Greek Dominant: 35% SD 1 Balanced: 40% Other Dominant: 25% Greek-German_Ge 0.28 Greek Dominant: 35.6% SD 0.95 Balanced: 46.6% Other Dominant: 20% Greek-English_Gr -0.31 Greek Dominant: 20% SD 1 Balanced: 35% Other Dominant: 45% Greek-English_En 0.46 Greek Dominant: 40% SD 0.80 Balanced: 50% Other Dominant: 10% Greek-Albanian_Gr 0.09 Greek Dominant: 27.5% SD 0.93 Balanced: 50% Other Dominant: 22.5% Greek-Albanian_Al -0.08 Greek Dominant: 16.7% SD 0.91 Balanced: 36.7% Other Dominant: 46.6% Table 5. Mean and SD of z-scores for ELI(2) Early Literacy Preparedness.
As presented above in Table 5, all groups appear to receive Balanced Input from their parents with respect to their ELI(2) activities. It would be interesting to see if the equal use of both languages during the preschool years benefits the children in morphosyntax measures (see, for instance, Chapters 6 and 7), as per many studies claiming that shared narrative book reading during the preschool years exposes children in a semantically rich context, leading them to high academic skills later on in their life (e.g. Hammet, Kleeck and Huberty 2003 Weizman and Snow 2001). It still remains unclear if Balanced Input can contribute more to this advantage. Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction with regard to the Index of Dominance revealed that the Greek Dominant (Mean=61.29, S.D.=4.7) and the Balanced Bilinguals (Mean=57, S.D.=4.28) were exposed to equal amounts of Greek with regard to Early Literacy Prepardness, whereas the category of the Other Dominant (Mean=28.9, S.D.=5.8) received statistically lower amount of Greek input (p=.000 for both comparisons).
72 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Table 6 presents a description of the bilingual groups with regard to the Current Literacy Use Index. The two-way ANOVA revealed that there was a significant effect of Index of Dominance and Group ((F (2,208)=19.162, p=.000, η2=.172) (F (5,208)=31.946, p=.000, η2=.463), respectively).
z-scores Index of Dominance
Greek-German_Gr -0.53 Greek Dominant: 20% SD 0.52 Balanced: 47.5% Other Dominant: 32.5% Greek-German_Ge -0.51 Greek Dominant: 25.4% SD 0.78 Balanced: 40.1% Other Dominant: 34.5% Greek-English_Gr -0.52 Greek Dominant: 17.5% SD 0.92 Balanced: 20% Other Dominant: 62.5% Greek-English_En 0.56 Greek Dominant: 65% SD 0.75 Balanced: 25% Other Dominant: 10% Greek-Albanian_Gr 1.15 Greek Dominant: 77.5% SD 0.78 Balanced: 20% Other Dominant: 2.5% Greek-Albanian_Al -0.47 Greek Dominant: 10% SD 0.62 Balanced: 33.3% Other Dominant: 56.7%
Table 6. Mean and SD of z-scores for CLitU Index (Current Literacy Use).
As expected, given that the majority of our bilinguals attend either Greek or Other Dominant schools, no group, with the sole exception of Greek-Albanian_Al group, appears to receive Balanced Literacy Exposure in both languages in their daily activities. More specifically, the pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) with regard to the groups here showed that at the time of testing the Greek-Albanians who live in Greece received statistically significant more Greek input in written form than the other groups (p=.000 for all comparisons), with the sole exception of the Greek_English_En group.Then follows the Greek-English_En group with regard to the amounts of Greek input, showing a statistically significant difference from the Greek-German_Gr (p=.001), the Greek-German_Ge (p=.003), the Greek_English_Gr (p=.002) and the Greek-Albanian_Al groups (p=.004). Finally the Greek-Albanian_Al group, the Greek-German_Gr, the Greek-German_Ge and the Greek-English_Gr present no statistically significant differences among themselves.
73 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction with regard to the Index of Dominance showed that the Greek Dominant had more exposure to the written form of the Greek language (Mean=43.17, S.D.=2.1) than the Balanced Bilinguals (Mean=30.80, S.D.=1.9) and the Other Dominant (Mean= 23.86, S.D.=2.6) (p=.000 for both comparisons), whereas the Balanced group received more Greek input than the Other Dominant group (p=.005). As described above (section 3.2), the Greek-Albanian_Gr group is the only one who have no exposure to the written form of the Albanian language. For this reason and for the purposes of further analyses we also consider the biliteracy effect (henceforth, Bi-li). With the term ‘biliteracy’ we mean the ability to read and write in both languages. Studies have shown that literacy interacts with executive control and working memory skills (Bialystok and Cummins 1991, Bialystok, Luk and Kwan 2005). In bilingualism, literacy issues extent to both languages (Cummins 1979), however, research on biliteracy is limited. In order to investigate possible correlations of biliteracy with cognitive (see Chapter 4) or language skills (see Chapters 6, 7 and 8), a categorical variable was created (yes and no). All bilinguals show written exposure to both languages and are coded as yes, except for the Greek-Albanian_Gr group who demonstrate exposure only in the Greek language and so they are coded as no. Table 7 presents a description of the bilingual groups with regard to the Current Language Use Index. The two-way ANOVA revealed that there was a significant effect of Index of Dominance and Group (F (2,208)=25.595, p=.000, η2=.218) (F (5,208)=10.217, p=.000, η2=.217), respectively).
z-scores Index of Dominance Greek-German_Gr 0.15 Greek Dominant: 10% SD 0.95 Balanced: 40% Other Dominant: 50% Greek-German_Ge -0.26 Greek Dominant: 35.7% SD 0.79 Balanced: 35.6% Other Dominant: 28.7% Greek-English_Gr -1.7 Greek Dominant: 22.5% SD 1 Balanced: 27.5% Other Dominant: 50% Greek-English_En 0.60 Greek Dominant: 75% SD 0.89 Balanced: 15% Other Dominant: 10%
74 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Greek-Albanian_Gr 0.96 Greek Dominant: 60% SD 0.79 Balanced: 30% Other Dominant: 10% Greek-Albanian_Al -0.75 Greek Dominant: 3.3% SD 1.4 Balanced: 36.7% Other Dominant: 60%
Table 7. Mean and SD of z-scores for CLangU index (Current Language Use).
Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction with regard to the groups showed that the group that uses in its majority the oral form of the Greek language in their daily activities is the Greek-Albanian_Gr, showing statistically significant differences from the Greek-German_Gr (p=.004), the Greek-English_Gr, the Greek- German_Ge and the Greek-Albanian_Al group (p=.000, for all comparisons). The next group with higher percentages in the Greek language is the Greek-English_En. This group differs in a statistically significant way from the Greek-German_Gr (p=.002), the Greek-English_Gr, the Greek-Albanian_Al and the Greek-German_Ge (p=.000, for the three comparisons). Greek-German_Gr and Greek-German_Ge come next with more Greek input and with a statistically significant difference from the Greek-English_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al (p<.005, for all comparisons) groups. With regard to the Greek-English_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al group we detected no statistically significant differences between them. Pairwise comparisons with regard the Index of Dominance revealed that the Greek Dominant group (Mean=55.95, S.D.=2.3) received more Greek input in Greek than the Balanced (Mean=43.79, S.D.=2.1) and the Other Dominant group (Mean=31.18, S.D.=2.8) (p=.000 for both comparisons), whereas the Other Dominant group received less Greek input in comparison to the Balanced one (p=.005). Figure 4a-e below is a composite Figure summarizing the results of the external measurements presented in Figure 3 and in Tables 3-7 above (here converted to figures). The confusion observed in the relevant literature as to which is the most proper way to measure the dominance is seen in this Figure, reflected in the confusion in the different groups for each category. For instance, the Greek-Albanian_Gr group appears as Greek Dominant with respect to Current Literacy Use but as Balanced with regard to the Home Language History; similarly with other groups and categories.
75 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) Figure 4a-e: Participant Distribution with respect to external factors.
Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
As we can see in the above Figure, different aspects of input distribute our bilinguals differently with regard to their Balance of Input. Grosjean (1997, 1998) in his research with unbalanced bilinguals underlines the importance of “modality- related” factors such as competence in the four skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening), language modes (oral vs. written), code-switching, etc. and emphasises the need to use tasks that are closely related to the area of expertise that one investigates. Our goal is to see which of these variables correlate and predict better the language and the cognitive tasks that we investigate. From the parental questionnaires we detected two measurements, socioeconomic status (SES) of our bilinguals and Age of Onset (AoO) in each language. The socioeconomic status of the children was measured by maternal education (in accordance with Esminger and Fothergill 2003, Hoff, Laursen and Tardif 2002) and it was calculated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 5 representing the highest educational level attained from compulsory primary education to tertiary education, which we adapted from the UBILEC (see also Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli 2015; Unsworth 2013, and for an overview see Hoff 2006). We conducted (one-way) ANOVA and a significant Group effect was detected in the SES (F (5,208)=25.610, p=.000). As Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances was found to be statistically significant, the level of significance was changed from 0.05 to 0.001. Subsequent post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction revealed that the mothers of the Greek-German_Ge group (Mean=3.3, S.D.=1.37) and of the Greek-Albanian_Gr group (Mean=2.6, S.D.=0.77) had significantly fewer years of education than the mothers of the other bilinguals (Greek- German_Gr (Mean=4.6, S.D.=0.47), Greek-English_Gr (Mean=4.9, S.D.=0.20), Greek-English_En (Mean=4.5, S.D.=0.77) and Greek-Albanian_Al (Mean=4.4, S.D.=0.35) (p<.001, in all cases), which did not present any statistically significant differences among themselves. For the Age of Onset variable, we proceed in a three-dimensional categorization. We considered as Simultaneous Bilinguals those children that were exposed to both languages until the age of 1, as Early Sequential Bilinguals those who had exposure to one language for the ages of 1-3, and as Late Sequential Bilinguals those who were exposed to one language for the ages of 3-6 and exposure to the L2 began after age 6. According to this categorization Figure 5 presents the distribution
77 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile of our participants with respect to the Age of Onset in each group. The Age of Onset is a very important variable, as also pointed out in many other studies, since children with AoO around the age of 6 produce different grammatical errors from those with AoO around the age of 3 (Meisel 2009, Schwartz, Kozminsky and Leikin 2009). However, other studies (Rothman 2007, Pires and Rotman 2009, for heritage speakers) report that the Age of Onset effects are not as significant as it was thought, as they seem to disappear in older bilingual children who receive a balanced school input.
Figure 5. Age of Onset.
In Figure 5, the horizontal axis represents the six different groups of bilinguals and the different patterns represent the variables of Simultaneous, Early Sequential and Late Sequential Bilinguals. As it is observed the Greek-English_Gr, the Greek- English_En, the Greek-Albanian_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al groups in their majority consist of participants who are characterized as Simultaneous Bilinguals. The Greek-German_Gr group in its majority consist of participants who are characterized as Early Sequential Bilinguals. However, it should be mentioned that the Greek language is acquired first. The Greek-German_Ge group is the only group
78 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile without a clear picture, since equal numbers of participants cluster in the categories of Simoultaneous and Early Sequential Bilinguals (the Greek language comes first).
3.4 Nonverbal Intelligence To assess the children’s nonverbal IQ, Raven’s Color Progressive Matrices (1995) was used.15 The children were asked to complete three levels of twelve test items each, consisting of visuo-spatial conceptual matching exercises, which were increasing in difficulty (maximum score=36). The child had to complete a pattern by choosing one out of six shapes. Based on raw accuracy scores it was found that there was a significant group effect for the nonverbal IQ task (F (6,308)=15.222, p=.001) (see Figure 6 below for more details on the groups’ mean scores in the Raven’s task). Subsequent post-hoc tests, using the Bonferroni correction, revealed that the Greek- English_Gr, the Greek-English_En and the Greek-German_Gr groups had scored significantly higher than the groups of the Greek-German_Ge, Greek-Albanian_Al and Monolinguals in the nonverbal IQ (p<.05, for all comparisons). The Greek- Albanian_Gr group had a statistically significant lower performance than the Greek- German_Gr (p=.001), the Greek-English_Gr (p<.001), and the Greek-English_En (p=.001). The Greek-Albanian_Gr children who do not receive literacy in their mother tongue demonstrate the lower performance with respect to their non verbal intelligence.
15 Up till now we did not use the group of monolingual children. From now on the monolingual children will also be accounted for as a control group.
79 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Figure 6. Group mean scores in the Raven’s task.
In order to detect how this difference is explained in our bilingual sample we ran bivariate16 correlations between Raven’s task and background measures. The results reveal positive correlations between children’s SES, and their scores in Raven’s task: rho(209)=.395, p=.001. The correlations indicate that there was a trend showing that Raven’s scores across groups tended to increase with higher SES. The assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes for analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was satisfied and an alpha level of 0.05 was used in all analyses. SES was found to be significant: F (1,308)=25.963, p<.001, η2=.323. Pairwise comparisons reveal that by controlling SES the differences between the groups disappear.
16 From now on and for all subsequent chapters the categories that constitute categorical variables (i.e ELI(1), Bi-li, Age of Onset, Majority Language will be entered in the regression models without making any reports of their correlation, since it is statistically inappropriate to run correlations with categorical variables.
80 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
3.5 Language abilities 3.5.1 Vocabulary scores The Expressive Vocabulary test normed for monolinguals in Greek was used to assess children’s knowledge of Greek (Vogindroukas, Protopapas and Sideridis 2009; adaptation from Renfrew 1995). To assess children’s expressive vocabulary in English we used the Word Finding Vocabulary Test normed for monolinguals in this language (Renfrew 1995). To assess children’s expressive vocabulary in Albanian a test was created (see Kapia and Kananaj 2013; adaptation from Renfrew 1995), since there was no normed instrument of measuring vocabulary in this language. The procedure is the following for all three languages: The task consists of 50 black-and- white pictures depicting commonplace objects which each child was required to name. Testing was terminated when the child either finished all naming trials or failed to respond correctly in five consecutive trials. Each correct naming was given one point, so that the maximum score was 50. To assess the bilinguals’ productive vocabulary skills in German we used the SET 5-10 Subtest 1 (Petermann, Fröhlich and Metz 2010). This task consists of 40 pictures, 30 of which depict commonplace objects and 10 depict verbs. The construction of sample in the German vocabulary task was tested not only with monolingual speakers but it also included 25% of children with a background in migration. Based on percentage accuracy scores it was found that there was a significant group effect for the Greek Vocabulary Task (F (6,308)=68.926, p<.001) (see Figure 7 for more details on the groups’ percentage scores).
81 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Figure 7. Group percentage scores in the Greek vocabulary task.
Subsequent post-hoc tests, using Bonferroni correction, revealed that the monolinguals had scored significantly higher than all the groups of bilinguals (p<.005, for all differences) except for the Greek-English_En and the Greek- Albanian_Gr groups. These two groups had scored significantly higher than Greek- German_Gr, Greek-German_Ge, Greek-English_Gr and Greek-Albanian_Al (p<.01, for all differences). Notice that these groups appear to have higher language use of the Greek language in their daily activities (through their educational system etc.) relative to the other groups. In order to clarify the specific contributors that play a role in bilingual children’s Greek Vocabulary performance a regression analysis was conducted. The factors from the questionnaires (i.e parental and child) that were found to correlate significantly with performance on Greek Vocabulary were the Home Language History (r(209)=.266, p=.027) and the Current Language Use (r(209)=.479, p<.001) (see section 3.3)). We found no correlation with SES and Age at the Time of Testing (ATT), thus we did not include these variables in the model. The best model was created when we ran an enter regression analysis. The three predictors explained 45%
82 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile of the variance, (adjusted R2=.45, F (3,208)=15.365, p=.001). With regard to the results, the main contributors for the Greek vocabulary task for the bilingual children are, first, the Current Language Use of Greek (β=.372, p=.001) that explains 32% of the variance, secondly, the Balanced Educational Setting (Greek) (β=.279, p=.023) that explains 10.9% of the variance, and, thirdly, the Home Language History of Greek (β=.159, p=.040) that explains 2.1% of the variance. The performance of bilinguals in the other vocabulary was presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Group percentage scores in the other vocabulary.
Then we ran comparisons between the two vocabularies in each language group (see Figure 9) (i.e. Greek-German_Gr: Greek Vocabulary vs. German Vocabulary, Greek-German_Ge: Greek Vocabulary vs. German Vocabulary, Greek- English_Gr: Greek Vocabulary vs. Engish Vocabulary, etc.). We conducted independent sample T-tests. The results show that Greek-German_Gr and Greek- German_Ge had significantly higher vocabulary scores in German (t(19)=5.998, p=.004 and t(58)=6.721, p=.000, respectively), Greek-English_Gr had significantly higher vocabulary scores in English (t(39)=7.887, p=.000), and finally Greek-
83 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Albanian_Al had significantly higher vocabulary scores in Albanian (t(29)=6.094, p=.001).
Figure 9. Group differences percentage scores.
3.5.2 Methods for assessing dominance through language proficiency scores It is well known in the literature that Balanced Bilinguals, i.e. bilinguals who perform similarly in their two vocabularies, are extremely rare (e.g. Grosjean 2010, Ucelli and Páez 2007, Döpke 1992). Another problem that researchers face is the confusion of Language Dominance with Language Proficiency (Birdsong 2006). Birdsong clears the confusion by arguing that bilinguals may be highly proficient in one language but not necessarily dominant in that language and vice versa. As we saw in the previous section we measured Balance of Input in different ways. Next we will measure Balance in language abilities by taking into account the distance between the two vocabulary scores of bilinguals. Before moving on to this measurement, we have to note a problem with respect to how to measure dominance in a proper manner. It is suggested that an ideal
84 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile manner of measuring Language Dominance is by combining vocabulary proficiency and morphosyntactic measures (Oller, Pearson and Cobo-Lewis 2007, Paradis and Genesee 1996, Flege, MacKay and Piske 2002). The main explanation here is based on the fact that the majority of bilinguals tend to produce better results in grammar, but at the same time lag behind in vocabulary (Paradis and Genesee 1996 and Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard and Naves 2006). Hence, using vocabulary as the sole Index of Language Proficiency may put bilinguals at a disadvantage and give a false picture of their language abilities or the balance of the language abilities in the two languages (Paradis and Kirova 2014). For the purposes of this thesis we will use a narrow definition of Language Dominance by taking into account the proficiency of bilingual children in their two vocabularies following Gathercole and Thomas (2009). Many different ways have been used in order to calculate the two vocabulary differences. Blom, Küntay, Messer, Verhagen and Leseman (2014), for instance, investigated Turkish-Dutch bilingual children and in order to measure their language balance they divided a child’s highest score by the lowest score. The procedure adopted here was to transform the raw numbers to proportions. Then, the score (percentage) for the other language (German, English, Albanian) was subtracted from the score for Greek. The difference between the two percentage scores was then converted into a z-score, with the negative scores indicating dominance in the other language (German, English, Albanian) and the positive scores indicating dominance in Greek. We consider Balanced Bilinguals those whose scores range between -0.5 and +0.5 standard deviation. Table 8 presents a description of the Balanced Language Proficiency Input (henceforth, BLP)17 of our bilingual participants. To see if there are differences with regard to this variable among the groups a two-way ANOVA was conducted with Index of Dominance (Greek Dominant vs. Balanced vs. Other Dominant) and Group (Greek-German_Gr vs. Greek-German_Ge vs. Greek-English_Gr vs. Greek- English_En vs. Greek-Albanian_Gr vs. Greek-Albanian_Al) as between-subject factors. There was a significant effect of Index of Dominance (F (2,208)=92.217, p=.001, η2=.329) and a significant effect of Group (F (5,208)=3.213, p=.004, η2=.286).
17 This measure results concerns only the vocabulary scores.
85 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
z-scores Index of Dominance
Greek-German_Gr -0.13 Greek Dominant: 13.6% SD 0.97 Balanced: 37.3% Other Dominant: 49.2% Greek-German_Ge -0.52 Greek Dominant: 30% SD 1.14 Balanced: 20% Other Dominant: 50% Greek-English_Gr -0.14 Greek Dominant: 12.5% SD 0.69 Balanced: 57.5% Other Dominant: 32% Greek-English_En 0.45 Greek Dominant: 45% SD 0.70 Balanced: 40% Other Dominant: 15% Greek-Albanian_Gr 0.87 Greek Dominant: 67.5% SD 0.68 Balanced: 30% Other Dominant: 2.5% Greek-Albanian_Al -0.13 Greek Dominant: 30% SD 0.79 Balanced: 36.7% Other Dominant: 33%
Table 8. Mean and SD of z-scores for BLP (Balanced Language Proficiency).
As we can see, with the exception of Greek-Albanian_Gr which appears to be strongly dominant in Greek, the rest of the groups seem to cluster near the Balanced or Other Dominant areas. More specifically, using Bonferroni correction, within groups, showed that in the category of Greek Dominant, the Greek-Albanian_Gr group had significantly higher language proficiency in Greek than all other groups, with the sole exception of the Greek-English_En group (p<.001 for all differences). The Greek-German_Gr, the Greek-English_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al groups had significantly higher language proficiency in Greek than the Greek-German_Ge group (p=.002, p=.003 and p=.003, respectively). The scores of Greek-English_En are a bit surprising, as majority language and language dominance normally coincide, but here the children come out as Greek Dominant or Balanced instead of expected English Dominant and Balanced. Finally, in order to clarify the specific contributors that play a role in the Balanced Language Proficiency performance a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The factors from the questionnaires (i.e parental and child) that were found to correlate significantly with the BLP were the Balanced Educational Setting (r(209)=.457, p<.001), the SES (r(209)=.309, p=.009) and the Current Language Use r(209)=.223, p=.039). The stepwise regression analysis (adjusted R2=.159, F
86 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
(2,208)=4.399, p=.001) removed the CLangU and kept the other two variables. The Balanced Educational Setting and the SES explained 16% of the variance. However, BES has a larger beta coefficient and a p value lower than .01 (β=.336, p=.003) and explains 12.33%, and can thus be interpreted as having a larger effect on the criterion variable than SES, which is .05 significant (β=.283, p=.030) and explains 3.61%.
3.5.3 Sentence Repetition Task As we mentioned above, using vocabulary as the sole index of language proficiency puts bilinguals at a disadvantage, leading to a distorted picture of language dominance (Oller, Pearson and Cobo-Lewis 2007, Paradis and Kirova 2014). For this reason, a task that demands knowledge of morphosyntactic structures of Greek was deemed necessary. A Sentence Repetition Task was used as an appropriate tool for measuring general language abilities, since many studies (Ellis 2005, Erlam 2006) have shown that “SRTs tap into the learner’s implicit knowledge” (Marinis and Armon-Lotem in press). This means that the participants must acquire the specific structures that are being repeated. Sentence Repetition Tasks are also known to draw resources from language ability and cognitive resources, primarily from working memory (Rihes 2012), especially in relatively short sentences (Fattal, Friedmann and Fattla-Valevski 2011). Despite the fact that SRTs have been used as an assessment mechanism and a diagnostic tool crosslinguistically for clinical populations, such as children with SLI, only recently have SRTs been used with bilingual children (COST, Action). Studies with bilingual children using SRTs have shown that predictors which can affect children’s performance are Age of Onset and Length of Exposure (LoE) (Chiat, Armon-Lotem, Marinis, Polisenska, Roy and Seeff-Gabriel 2013). The specific Sentence Repetition Task was developed within the COST Action (Chondrogianni, Andreou, Peristeri, Tsimpli, Varlokosta and Neratzini 2013) following the guidelines outlined in Marinis and Armon-Lotem (in press). The task consists of eight different morpho-syntactic structures. These were 1) SVO sentences, 2) sentences containing factual and non-factual negation, 3) structures with clitics in clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling contexts, 4) complement clauses, 5) coordinated sentences, 6) adverbial clauses, 7) referential and non-referential object wh-questions, and 8) subject and object relative clauses (see Appendix B). All sentences across the eight different structures were matched for length and word
87 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
frequency. There were four sentences per structure leading to 32 sentences in total. Children’s performance on the sentence repetition task was scored in two different ways depending on whether we were examining overall accuracy or grammaticality. In order to measure accuracy we used the 0-3 scale with respect to the number of errors that the participant produces, so the maximum score was 96. More specifically, participants are awarded a score of 3 if they make no errors while repeating the sentence, a score of 2, if they make one error, a score of 1, if they make two errors, and a zero, if they make three errors or more. We further investigated if children’s utterances remained grammatical despite the different errors. In order to measure grammaticality we used the 0-1 scale. The maximum score in this case was 32 points. Table 9 presents characteristic examples of the scoring.
TARGET SENTENCE:
POINTS (CLLD) Ton kafe ton ipie viastika o papus xthes sto kafenio
3 Ton kafe ton ipie viastika o papus xthes sto
kafenio ‘The grandfather drank the coffee ACCURACY hastily yesterday at the coffee-shop’
2 Ton kafe ipie viastika o papus xthes sto kafenio
1 Ton kafe ipie o papus xthes sto kafenio
0 Ton kafe ipie o papus sto kafenio
GRAMMATICALITY 1 Ipie kafe viastika o papus xthes sto kafenio
0 O kafes* ton ipie viastika o papus xthes sto kafenio
Table 9. Examples of the scoring with regard to accuracy and grammaticality.
88 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Based on raw accuracy scores one-way (ANOVA) revealed that there was a significant Group effect (F (6,308)=24.470, p<.001) (see Figure 10 for more details on the groups’ mean scores).
Figure 10. Group means accuracy scores in the Sentence Repetition Task.
Subsequent post-hoc tests, using the Bonferroni correction, revealed that the monolinguals had scored significantly higher than Greek-German_Ge, Greek- English_En and Greek-Albanian_Gr (p=.014, for the difference between Monolinguals vs. Greek-German_Ge, p=.023, for the difference between Monolinguals vs. Greek-English_En and p=.012, for the difference between Monolinguals vs. Greek-Albanian_Gr), with the exception of Greek-German_Gr, Greek-English_Gr and Greek-Albanian_Al. This finding stands in contrast to our initial hypothesis that the groups which achieve higher performance in the Greek vocabulary task would outperform the others in the SRT accuracy measure (remember that the Greek-Albanian_Gr and the Greek-English_En were found to perform equally well with the monolingual children).
89 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
For explaining this finding and in order to clarify the specific contributors that play a role in bilingual children’s accuracy scores a regression analysis was conducted. The factors that were found to correlate with Accuracy scores are Raven’s task and Greek vocabulary (r(209)=.674, p<.001 and r(209)=.543, p<.001, respectively). The best model created when we ran a stepwise regression analysis. The final model included the Raven’s task (β=.529, p<.001) that explains 37.3% of the variance and the Greek Vocabulary task (β=.272, p=.021) that explains 19.7% of the variance as significant predictors (adjusted R2=.57, F (2,208)=16.785, p<.001), with Raven’s task being the stronger predictor of the two. This means that accuracy in SRTs tasks is a measure that also comprises cognitive abilities, and this is the reason why groups with high Greek vocabulary scores and low cognitive scores (Greek- Albanian_Gr) appear to lag behind as compared to others which achieved lower Greek vocabulary scores but higher cognitive abilities. Based on grammaticality raw scores one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a significant Group effect (F (6,308)=17.646, p=.001) (see Figure 11 for more details on the groups’ means scores).
Figure 11. Group means grammaticality scores in the Sentence Repetition Task.
90 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Subsequent post-hoc tests, using Bonferroni correction, revealed that the Monolinguals had produced more grammatical sentences relative to the Greek- German_Gr (p=.003), the Greek-German_Ge (p=.000), the Greek-English_Gr (p=.008), and the Greek_English_En (p=.000). Also, the Greek-Albanian_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al had produced more grammatical sentences compared to the Greek-German_Ge and the Greek-English_En children (p<.01, for all comparisons). No other significant differences were detected among the groups. In order to explore the specific contributors that play a role in bilingual children’s grammaticality scores a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The factor that was found to correlate with grammaticality scores was the Greek vocabulary (r(209)=.422, p<.001). The final model included Greek vocabulary (β=.426, p<.001) that explains 18.7% of the variance, Language Pair18 (β=.329, p=.005) that explains 10.2% of the variance and Age of Onset (β=.253, p=.031) that explains 5.2% of the variance as significant predictors (R2=.34, F (3,208)=17.892, p=.000), with Greek vocabulary being the stronger predictor of the three variables. A Principal Component Analysis was conducted in order to create a Language Composite Score (henceforth, LCS) for the bilingual and the monolingual participants that comprises general abilities of morphosyntax (i.e the Greek vocabulary scores, the accuracy score and the grammaticality score). We located bivariate correlations between children’s accuracy and grammaticality scores and their scores in their Greek vocabulary: r(309)=.617, p<.001 and r(309)=.522, p<.001. The grammaticality and accuracy scores are also highly correlated (r(309)=.826, p<.001). Hence, we subjected the three dependent measures to a Principal Component Analysis (KMO=0.61, p=.002), which resulted in one factor that explains 65% of the variance. The factor scores of coefficients of matrix are presented in Table 10. The Language Composite Score for each participant is created by averaging the three measures into one component (new score equals y=0.70xGreek Vocabulary+0.67xGrammaticality+0.60xAccuracy).
18 As we mentioned before, we will not include in the correlation reports the categorical variables.
91 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Variable Factor 1 Greek Vocabulary .70 Grammaticality (SRT) .67 Accuracy (SRT) .60
Table 10. Factor scores of coefficients of matrix.
The Language Composite Score measure will be used in order to detect whether it constitutes a possible predictor for bilinguals’ performance with respect to micro- and macrostructure and to character reference (see Chapters 6 and 8). It was thought preferable to use the LCS as predictor instead of the vocabulary and morphosyntax of Greek since, as shown also by other studies, the use of just the vocabulary may give a distorted picture for bilinguals’ language abilities.
3.4.5 Lexical Decision Task Another way to examine literacy, besides the Balanced Educational Setting and the Current Literacy Use, as well as to examine possible correlations with the language tasks (see Chapters 6, 7 and 8) was to conduct a Lexical Decision Task (LDT). This task consists of a series of words displayed on a computer screen. For each word the participants were asked to press 0 when they believed the word was real and 1 when they believed the word was not real. Speed and accuracy were the examined variables, but for the purposes of this thesis only the accuracy scores will be used. The words were classified as real words (60 items), pseudo-words (60 items) or phonotactically nonpermissible words (20 items). All words referred to inanimate nouns. Real words were existing words of the Greek language of either high, low or mid frequency. The real words were derived from a database that consists of Greek primary school textbooks. To categorize the pseudo-words into the three frequency variables, low, high and mid, the frequency of the new cluster used to create the pseudo-word was manipulated. Cluster frequencies were taken from the Protopapas corpus for consonants (Institute for Language & Speech Processing (ILSP): PsychoLinguistic Resource http://www.ilsp.gr/en). Finally, for the development of the phonotactically nonpermissible words real words beginning with a cluster were used. Similar to the pseudo-words either the first or the second cluster of the word was replaced with another which, however, violates the phonotactic rules of the Greek language.
92 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
In order to create a composite score for all participants we subtracted the number of errors in the category of pseudo-words from the correct responses of the real words and then we divided by the real number of the total words. An example of this measure is given: If we suppose that the correct answers with regard to the real words are 45/60 and for the pseudo-words 45/60 (15 errors), then we subtract 15 from 45 and then divide by 60 [(45-15)/60=30/60] and we get a percentage of 50%. The nonpermissible words were used as a control variable. This means that the participants who committed errors higher than 40% in this category were excluded from the sample.19 Based on percentage one-way ANOVA revealed that there was a significant Group effect (F (6,308)=8.528, p<.001) (see Figure 12 for more details on the groups’ means scores).
Figure 12. Group percentage scores in the Lexical Decision Task.
Subsequent post-hoc tests, using the Bonferroni correction, revealed that the Monolingual children outperform all Bilingual groups (p<.001, for all comparisons),
19 At the end it was not necessary to exclude participants, since no one scores under 60% in the category of the nonpermissible words.
93 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile but for the Greek-Albanian_Gr and the Greek-Albanian_Al the difference was less pronounced (p<.005, for both comparisons). The Greek-Albanian_Gr outperform the Greek-German_Gr, the Greek-German_Ge, the Greek-English_Gr and the Greek- English_En (p<.01, for all comparisons). Simirarly, the Greek-Albanian_Al outperform the Greek-German_Ge (p<.01), the Greek-German_Gr, the Greek- English_Gr and the Greek-English_En (p<.05, for all comparisons). In order to explore the specific contributors that play a role in bilingual children’s Lexical Decision scores a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The factors that were found to correlate with LDT scores were the Current Literacy Use input of Greek and the Greek Vocabulary, (r(209)=.387, p=.001 and r(209)=.477, p<.001, respectively). The final model included only the Greek Vocabulary (β=.572, p<.001) and the Language Pair (β=.312, p=.008), with the Greek Vocabulary as the strongest predictor (R2=.52, F (2,208)=11.527, p=.000).
3.6 Conclusions To sum up, in this chapter a number of questionnaire variables and tasks were examined in order to profile our bilinguals according to their language abilities. One of the aims is to examine how current or past language and literacy input may influence the performance of bilinguals in the language or the cognitive tasks administered, as a large number of studies so far indicate that home language input affects early language development in bilingual acquisition but not always in a direct manner (cf. Paradis 2008, Thordadottir 2008). In the following chapters we will have the chance to provide more details on this relationship. With regard to the non-verbal Intelligence task (i.e. Raven’s), the Greek- English_Gr, the Greek-English_En and the Greek-German_Gr exhibit the highest performance in comparison to the other groups. The ANCOVA revealed that the lower SES that the other groups have as compared to the above groups is responsible for this differentiation. An interesting observation is that the Greek-Albanian_Gr children who have literacy only in one language show the lowest performance from all other groups. Biliteracy and its correlation with cognitive performance is also supported by the study of Leikin, Schwartz and Share (2010), according to which biliterate bilingual children have higher fluid intelligence than monoliterate bilingual children. The examination of fluid intelligence in relation to the factor of biliteracy is
94 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile a new field of study. The present thesis adds more evidence in favour of this approach, and as we will see in Chapter 4, it widens the perspective by providing results from biliterate and monoliterate children in updating and working memory abilities. With respect to the SES factor and its correlation with cognitive performance, our results are in line with other studies which claim that low-SES children are probably raised in cognitively less stimulating home environments (Bradley and Corwyn 2001, Evans 2004). As for the language tasks, and more specifically the Greek vocabulary task, the results indicate that not all bilingual groups have smaller vocabularies compared to monolinguals, something that is well documented in the literature. The Greek- English_En and the Greek-Albanian_Gr children seem to perform equally well with the monolingual peers, whereas they seem to outperform the other groups. These two groups seem to benefit from the higher use of Greek Input in their past and current daily activities, something which is also seen in the regression analysis where the input seems to be the factor that can predict vocabulary development. The importance of input in the bilingual vocabulary development has been pointed out in other studies as well (e.g. Pearson 2007). In other words, the amount of input seems to explain “why some children become bilingual whereas others become predominantly monolingual speakers of the majority language” (p. 201). In the accuracy score of the SRT task we observe that a combination of high Greek Vocabulary and a high Raven’s score lead to better performance, with Raven’s being the most important contributor. This is the reason why groups like Greek- Albanian_Al, Greek-English_Gr and Greek-German_Gr, who lag behind in the Greek vocabulary but present an advantage in the Raven’s task, appear with higher scores relative to the other groups. This finding strengthens the results of Rihes (2012) who claims that SRTs demand cognitive resources. However, in contrast to studies conducting so far on SRTs in bilingual children showing that the predictors that can affect children’s performance are the Age of Onset and the length of exposure, we found that the Greek Vocabulary and the Raven’s were the factors that could influence bilingual children’s performance. In the grammaticality score of the SRT task we observe an advantage of the Greek-Albanian (Gr and Al) relative to the other groups, since they appear to perform equally well with the monolinguals and significantly better than the other bilingual groups. Again, the factors that seem to affect bilingual children’s performance are the
95 Chapter 3 Participants’ profile
Greek Vocabulary, the Language Pair and the Age of Onset. That the Language Pair is a factor here may have to do with the fact that the grammars of these two languages have many features in common (especially in the structures examined in this specific SRT, for instance clitics, negation, word order, coordination and others (see 3.3.4 and 6.2)). A similar pattern has been observed for the performance in the Lexical Decision task, since monolinguals outperform all bilingual groups, but the difference between monolinguals and Greek-Albanian (Gr and Al) was less pronounced. We know that lexical decision is based on three integrated constructs (i.e. orthography, phonology and semantics, e.g. Lexical Quality Hypothesis, Triangle Model of Reading, cf. Harm and Seidenberg 1999 and 2004) and that the vocabulary plays a significant role in accurate word recognition. The Greek system has a transparent orthography and normally by the end of Grade 2 typically developing native Greek speakers can read accurately and reading becomes automatic. Studies examining bilinguals on measures of word reading (e.g. Jongejan, Verhoeven and Siegel 2007) found that bilinguals perform at similar levels with their monolingual peers, however they differ from monolonguals in reading comprehension (e.g. Droop and Verhoeven 2003). The factors that can explain bilingual children’s performance in LDT were the the Greek Vocabulary and the Language Pair.
96 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
CHAPTER 4 COGNITION AND DOMINANCE: EDUCATIONAL SETTING AND BILITERACY EFFECTS
In the present Chapter we describe the materials and the tasks designed in order to investigate the cognitive profiles of the bilingual participants (section 4.1). In 4.2 the results of the cognitive tasks are given when grouping bilinguals according to Balance of Input resulting from the six different measurements of Balance presented in Chapter 3 (differences between the two vocabularies BLP, Home Language History HLH, Early Literacy Prepardness ELI(2), Current Literacy Use CLitU, Current Language Use CLangU and Educational Setting BES). Balanced bilinguals have been proved to show better cognitive performance than the Dominant bilinguals, as established by many studies. For instance, Yow and Li (2015) in examining adult bilinguals determined the group of Balanced bilinguals on the basis of the proficiency in the two languages, finding that Balanced bilinguals exhibit better executive control than the group of Dominant bilinguals in Stroop and number-letter tasks. Many other studies apply the same criterion of Balance detecting an advantage of young Balanced bilinguals over Dominant, e.g. Cohen (2014), Gromdal (1999) and others. Section 4.3 gives the results of Balanced bilinguals with respect to their differences between the two vocabularies in the three cognitive tasks and investigates if balance at a higher or at a lower level plays a role in distinguishing the cognitive results of bilinguals. In section 4.4 we discuss the variables characterizing a Balanced bilingual, whereas section 4.5 investigates the role of biliteracy and its possible effect in the cognitive tasks. Finally, 4.6 is a summary of the conclusions of the Chapter. Recent studies have revealed that bilingualism confers cognitive advantages of executive functions such as working memory (Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013, Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz submitted). With respect to the notion of balance in bilingualism it has been shown that it is reflected on a number of tasks that concern cognitive abilities (Iluz-Cohen and Armon-Lotem 2013). More specifically, it has been observed that the systematic use of both languages by bilingual children may affect their cognitive functions, leading to a bilingual advantage (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson and Ungerleider 2010, Bialystok, Barac, Blaye and Poulin-Dubois 2010).
97 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
However, which cognitive tasks are related to balance is still under research, and a reason for that might be the fact that the findings from the literature come mostly from heterogeneous samples. In other words, the participants present dissimilarities with respect to their educational background and their socioeconomic status (SES). In this chapter we will deal with executive control and working memory tasks. These two cognitive operations appear to play a very significant role in the acquisition of the first (Chrysochoou and Bablekou 2011, Chrysochoou, Bablekou, Masoura and Tsigilis 2012) as well as the second language (Masoura and Gathercole 1999, Papagno, Valentine and Baddeley 1991). The aim of this chapter is twofold. Firstly, we want to explore what the effect of dominance (measured either through questionnaires, see 3.3 above, or through language proficiency skills, see 3.4.3) on bilingual children’s working memory and executive control tasks (i.e updating) is and, secondly, we want to investigate if there is an effect of the educational setting (see 3.2) or an effect of Bi-li (see 3.3) in the cognitive profiles of our bilinguals. The effect of schooling (i.e. biliterate vs. monoliterate) has been shown to confer cognitive advantages at the level of metacognitive ability (Bialystok 2005), but it is still under investigation if it affects cognitive control, although recent studies point to a cognitive advantage in working memory and updating skills (Marinis, Tsimpli and Bongartz, submitted) in bilingual educational contexts. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter only the bilingual population will be used20.
4.1 Cognitive tasks The Backwards Digit Recall Task and the Mister X task concern working memory abilities (see Appendix C). In general, working memory is a cognitive mechanism which is responsible for temporary maintenance and processing of incoming information, in which the participant either temporarily holds or holds and concurrently processes stimuli (Baddeley, Papagno and Vallar 1988, Daneman and Carpenter 1983, Pickering and Gathercole 2001, Turner and Engle 1989). Many studies claim that bilingualism may hinder information processing in working memory, because of the cognitive load and the memory processing demands required
20 In dealing with the research questions of this chapter only the use of the bilingual participants is required. However, the scores of the monolinguals will be used in the ANCOVAs analyses in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The results for the monolinguals are presented in Appendix E.
98 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance by two languages instead of one (Lee, Plass and Homer 2006, van Merrienboer and Sweller 2005).
Backwards digit recall task: In order to assess children’s verbal working memory the backwards digit recall task was used (Alloway 2007). This task is similar to the one used in the evaluation of intelligence (WISC-R, see Wechsler 1986). This is a demanding complex experiment, since it requires both manipulation and temporary storage of verbal information. We audio-taped the trials in a phonetics laboratory, then by means of PRAAT we programmed the distance between the offset of a digit and the onset of the next one to be 1 second. Then the computerized version of this task was created, which was ready for use in the data collection. The participants heard digits between 1 and 9. In order to familiarize the children with the nature of the task, three practice sessions were organized in which the participants had to recall first 2-digit sequences and twice 3-digit sequences. During the practice sessions, the students were given feedback for both correct and wrong trials to ensure that the children understood the rules of the task. As an example of the procedure, the participants listen to the series 4 5 3 and their target answer is 3 5 4 in this specific order. Although a digit task, verbal memory is implicated as children had to verbally recode the numbers they heard from the examiner (Alloway and Alloway 2010). This is a span task in which the number of items to remember increases progressively over successive blocks containing 6 trials each. The criterion for moving on to the next block was the correct recall of 4 out of the 6 trials. Testing stopped if the child failed in 3 trials in one block. The task consists of 6 blocks, starting with 2 digits in block one and increasing to sequences of 7 digits in the last block. The examiner enters the scores in an evaluation grid.
Scoring rules: Each correct answer offers 1 point and there are no points for wrong answers. For each level (span) there are 6 trials, which equals to 6 points for the corresponding number of correct answers. The first 4 consecutive successful trials in each level award 6 points and the right to move on to the second level. If the fourth correct answer is trial 5, the student gets in total 5 points and moves to the second level, if it is trial 6, s/he gets a total of 4 points and moves on to the next level. The same procedure is repeated in all 6 levels. The discontinuation rule applies when the child gives 3 wrong answers in any of the 6 levels and the procedure is terminated,
99 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance but our measurement is based on the score on the span level for each child. The highest score for correct trial responses is 36, and for span is 7. The span calculation is based on the 4 correct responses in the last level reached by each child.
Mister X task: Non verbal working memory task was assessed through the Rotating Figure task (Alloway 2007). This is a very demanding task, since the participant must simultaneously process and temporary store visuo-spatial information. The participant is shown a picture of two Mr. X figures and has to identify whether Mr. X with the blue hat is holding the ball in the same hand as Mr. X with the yellow hat. Mr. X with the blue hat may also be rotated (see Picture 1).
Picture 1. An example of a picture shown to the children during the first stage.
At the end of each trial the child has to recall the location of each ball in Mr. X’s hand in sequence, by pointing to a picture with eight compass points (see Picture 2).
Picture 2. An example of a picture shown to the children during the final stage and the children’s answer (red arrow).
This is a span task in which the number of items to be remembered increases progressively over successive blocks containing 6 trials each. The criterion for moving on to the next block was the correct recall of 4 out of the 6 trials. Testing stopped if the child failed in 3 trials in one block. The task consisted of 7 blocks,
100 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance starting with 1 picture in block one and increasing to sequences of 7 pictures in the last block. The examiner enters the scores in an evaluation grid.
Scoring rules: Each correct answer offers 1 point while there are no points for wrong answers. For each level (span) there are 6 trials, which equals to 6 points for the corresponding number of correct answers. The first 4 consecutive successful trials in each level award 6 points and the right to move on to the second level. If the fourth correct answer is trial 5 the student gets in total 5 points and moves to the second level, if it is trial 6 s/he gets a total of 4 points and moves on to the next level. The same procedure is repeated in all 7 levels. The discontinuation rule applies when the child gives 3 wrong answers in any of the 7 levels and the procedure is terminated, but our measurement is based on the score on the span level for each child. The highest score for correct trial responses is 42, and for span is 7. The span calculation is based on the 4 correct responses in the last level reached by each child.
N-Back task: The domain of executive control comprises in general three distinct capacities (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter and Wager 2000), which are updating, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. In order to examine the executive control of the bilinguals, the verbal 2-Back with digits (Kircher 1958), which is an updating task, was used. In the N-Back task we are dealing with cognitive updating, which is the capacity to monitor information entering working memory and replacing the memory representations no longer needed with those relevant to the task (Morris and Jones 1990). With respect to the updating tasks, studies show that bilinguals appear to be better than monolinguals (Bialystok 2010 and Carlson and Meltzoff 2008). A possible explanation might be that bilinguals through their activation of control processes, in order to use the target language every time, seem to improve their executive control efficiency and this behaviour transfers to non verbal tasks (Bilaystok 2011). The N-Back task requires participants to monitor the content of a temporarily presented sequence of items at a constant rate of every 4 s. The items in this test were 4 numbers (e.g. 2, 5, 7, and 8). The task requires participants to determine if the currently presented stimulus items matched an item that was recently presented ‘2’- back (see Picture 3). If the current digit was identical to the one presented 2 steps back, the participants should press “Ξ” on the keyboard. There was a practice block,
101 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance followed by a test block of 60 stimuli. In this task information needs to be updated continuously to keep track of what the current stimulus must be compared against.
Picture 3. An example of a picture shown to the children. The numbers appear for 500 msecs followed by a blank page which lasts 2500 msecs.
Scoring rules: This task consists of 60 items, 20 correct hits and 40 false alarms. There is no discontinuation rule in this task. In order to create a composite score in each participant for the N-Back task, first we transformed the number of the correct hits and the number of the false alarms into percentage scores and then we subtracted the percentage of the false alarm hits from the percentage of the correct hits. An example of this measure is given: If we suppose that the correct hits are 10/20 (i.e 50%) and the false alarms are 10/40 (i.e 25%), then we subtract 25% from 50% and the final score for this participant will be 25%. The score in this task could range between -100% (for the lowest score) and +100% (for the highest score). In order to create this Composite Score, we took into consideration the false hits as well, since it might be possible for a participant to have 100% of correct hits and 100% of false hits, creating a total score of 0. This indicates that this specific participant pressed the “Ξ” regardless of the instructions given. Thus we conclude that the combination of these two scores is the most appropriate way of scoring this task.
102 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
4.2 Results: Balance with 6 different ways The first issue to be dealt with in this chapter is to give the results of the cognitive tasks when grouping bilinguals by means of Balance of Input21. The BLP category consists of 69 Greek Dominant, 76 Balanced and 64 Other Dominant participants. The HLH category consists of 70 Greek Dominant, 79 Balanced and 51 Other Dominant participants. The ELI(2) category consists of 55 Greek Dominant, 71 Balanced and 52 Other Dominant participants. The CLitU category consists of 75 Greek Dominant, 64 Balanced and 70 Other Dominant participants. The CLangU category consists of 72 Greek Dominant, 63 Balanced and 74 Other Dominant participants. The BES category consists of 63 Greek Dominant, 47 Balanced and 90 Other Dominant participants. Table 11 provides descriptive statistics of the children’s Index of Dominance detected with six different ways: BLP (i.e. the language proficiency (Balance) differences on vocabulary scores), HLH (i.e. the Home Language History differences), ELI(2) (i.e. the Early Literacy Input differences), CLitU (i.e. the Current Literacy Use differences), CLangU (i.e. the Current Language Use differences), and BES (educational setting (Balance) differences), with regard to backwards digit recall scores. Greek Dominant Balanced Other Dominant Bilinguals Bilinguals Bilinguals
BLP 14.1 16.2 16.3 S.D. 2.6 S.D. 2.4 S.D. 2.1 HLH 15.7 16 15.8 S.D. 2.7 S.D. 2.5 S.D. 2.2 ELI(2) 15.5 15.2 16.1 S.D. 2.3 S.D. 2.2 S.D. 2 ClitU 14 16.3 16.2 S.D. 2.4. S.D. 2.5 S.D. 2.4 CLangU 14.1 16.7 15.7 S.D. 2.5 S.D. 2.4 S.D. 2.4 BES 13.2 16.3 13.8 S.D. 2.2 S.D. 3.1 S.D. 3.5
Table 11. Mean and SD of raw scores in Backward Digit Recall for the six different ways of Index of Dominance.
21 Analysis of variance (one way ANOVAs) revealed that the three age groups had no age difference for BLP, HLH, ELI(2), CLitU and CLangU.
103 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
With regard to the Balanced Language Proficiency, analysis of variance (one- way) ANOVA shows a significant Index of Dominance effect F (2,208)=13.204, p=.032. Subsequent post-hoc, using Bonferroni correction, reveals that the Balanced group and the Other Dominant group outperform the Greek Dominant group (p=.032, for both comparisons). As for the measurements that concern activities that took place in the past in the bilinguals’ lives (i.e. home language history differences and early literacy input differences), two separate (one-way) ANOVAs were conducted however, no differences between the groups were detected. With regard to the CLitU, a significant effect of Index of Dominance was observed F (2,208)=13.859, p=.023. Subsequent post-hoc, using Bonferroni correction, revealed that the Balanced group outperforms the Greek Dominant group (p=.025), which also presents lower performance than the Other Dominant group (p=.027). With respect to the CLangU, we also found a significant effect of Index of Dominance F (2,208)=14.278, p=.015. Subsequent post-hoc, using Bonferroni correction, revealed a similar trend with the above measurements, since the Balanced and the other Dominant group seems again to outperform the Greek Dominant (p=.018 and p=.029, respectively). As for the BES, we found that the Index of Dominance in the educational setting has a significant effect in the Backward Digit Recall F (2,208)=18.344, p <.001. Subsequent post-hoc, using Bonferroni correction, revealed that the Balanced group outperforms the other two groups (p=.000, for both comparisons). To further investigate the factors that play a role in bilingual children’s performance on Backward Digit Recall task, simple bivariate correlations were carried out. The variables that were analysed are Age at Time of Testing (ATT), Age of Onset, SES (ordinal scale), Majority Language, Language Pair, Bi-li, % of home language history differences, % of early literacy input differences, % of current literacy input differences, % of current language history differences, % language proficiency differences and % of educational setting differences. The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are seen in Table 12 below.
104 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
Backward Digit Recall r=.493** 1. Age at the time of testing p<.001 r=.304** 2. SES p=.009 r=.293* 3. CLitU p=.029 r=.257* 4. CLangU p=.033 r=.498** 5. BES p<.001
Table 12. Correlations between the measurements in Backward Digit Recall.
The independent variables that correlated significantly with the Backwards Digit Recall task were then entered into a backward-elimination regression analysis22. The final model (adjusted R2=.348, F (2,207)=14.585, p<.001) removed the majority of variables and kept only two. From the remaining two variables, the Balanced Educational Setting was the main contributor (β=.345, p=.001), which explains 19.1% of variance, followed by Age at the Time of Testing (β=.247, p=.036), explaining 15.7% of variance. This finding agrees with Blom, Küntay, Messer, Verhagen and Leseman (2014), who also found that the performance of bilinguals on digit backward recall does not depend on the balanced input that the children received from their home. We next move to the Mister X task. Table 13 provides descriptive statistics of the children’s Index of Dominance detected with six different ways with regard to the non-verbal working memory task.
Greek Dominant Balanced Other Dominant Bilinguals Bilinguals Bilinguals
BLP 13.3 17.3 16.2 S.D. 2.6 S.D. 2.6 S.D. 2.6 HLH 16.4 15.2 15.7 S.D. 2.2 S.D. 2.4 S.D. 2.7 ELI(2) 15.9 14.5 17.3 S.D. 2.4 S.D. 2.8 S.D. 2.4
22 In the regression analysis we merge all bilinguals into one group.
105 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
CLitU 13.4 16.9 17.1 S.D. 2.7 S.D. 2.9 S.D. 2.9 CLangU 13.9 16.7 16.8 S.D. 2.8 S.D. 2.8 S.D. 2.2 BES 14.1 17.2 14.1 S.D. 2.7 S.D. 2.2 S.D. 2.8
Table 13. Mean and SD of raw scores in Mister X task for the six different ways of Index of Dominance.
With regard to the BLP, analysis of variance (one-way) ANOVA shows a significant Index of Dominance effect F (2,208)=17.852, p<.001. Subsequent post- hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Balanced and the Other Dominant group outperform the Greek Dominant group (p=.000, p=.002, respectively). With regard to ELI(2) a significant effect of Index of Dominance was observed F (2,168)=13.839, p=.002. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Other Dominant group outperforms the Balanced and the Greek Dominant groups (p=.014 and p=.023, respectively). As for the CLitU, a significant effect of Index of Dominance was observed F (2,208)=17.780, p=.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction showed that the Balanced group and the Other Dominant group outperform the Greek Dominant group (p=.000, for both comparisons). With respect to the CLangU, we also found a significant effect of Index of Dominance F (2,208)=15.023, p=.004. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction present again a similar trend, since the Balanced and the Other Dominant groups show better performance than the Greek Dominant (p=.001, for both comparisons). With reference to the BES, we found that the Index of Dominance shows a significant effect in the non-verbal working memory task F (2,208)=18.623, p<.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Balanced group outperforms the Other Dominant group and the Greek Dominant group (p=.000, for both comparisons). To further investigate the factors that play a role in Bilingual children’s performance on Mister X task, simple bivariate correlations were carried out. The same variables as in the Digit Backward Recall were entered for correlation analysis.
106 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are presented in Table 14 below.
Mister X Task r=.394** 1. Age at the time of testing p=.001 r=.242* 2. SES p=.036 r=.289* 3. CLitU p=.030 r=.228* 4. CLangU p=.041 r=.196* 5. BLP p=.049 r=.451** 6. BES p<.001
Table 14. Correlations between the measurements in Mister X task.
The independent variables that correlated significantly with Mister X task as well as the nominal categories were subsequently entered into a backward-elimination regression analysis. The final model (adjusted R2=.326, F(2,208)=19.668, p<.001) removed the majority of variables and kept only two. From the remaining two variables, the Balanced Educational Setting was the main contributor (β=.389, p=.001), explaining 25.9% of the variance, with Age at the Time of Testing following (β=.202, p=.041) and explaining 6.7% of the variance. Our last cognitive task was the 2-Back with Digits. Table 15 provides descriptive statistics of the children’s Index of Dominance detected with six different ways.
Greek Dominant Balanced Other Dominant Bilinguals Bilinguals Bilinguals
BLP 42.7 52.4 58.7 S.D. 25.6 S.D. 22.96 S.D. 22.4 HLH 45.1 46.5 47.8 S.D. 25.7 S.D. 24.1 S.D. 24.3 ELI(2) 51.2 47.3 52.5 S.D. 26.3 S.D. 24.5 S.D. 24.1
107 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
CLitU 38.1 53.4 59.6 S.D. 25.4 S.D. 21.5 S.D. 22.4 CLangU 38.7 54.8 57.7 S.D. 24.3 S.D. 23.9 S.D. 22.2 BES 41.03 54.9 42.7 S.D. 23.1 S.D. 21.93 S.D. 21.3
Table 15. Mean and SD of percentage scores in the 2-Back with Digits task for the six different ways of Index of Dominance.
With regard to the BLP, an analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) showed a significant Index of Dominance effect F (2,188)=14.868, p=.004. Subsequent post- hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Other Dominant and the Balanced group outperform the Greek Dominant group (p=.003 and p=.012, respectively). With regard to the measurements that concern activities that took place in the past (i.e HLH and ELI(2)) in the bilinguals’ lives, two separate (one-way) ANOVAs were run. However, no differences within the groups were observed. With the CLitU a significant effect of Index of Dominance was observed F(2, 188)=17.867, p<.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Greek Dominant group performs significantly lower than the Balanced and the Other Dominant groups (p=.004 and p=.000, respectively). As for the CLangU, we also found a significant effect of Index of Dominance F (2,188)=19.558, p<.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Greek Dominant group performs significantly lower than the Balanced and the Other Dominant groups (p=.002 and p=.000, respectively). With respect to the BES, we found that the Index of Dominance shows a significant effect in the non-verbal working memory task F (2,188)=24.908, p<.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Balanced group outperforms the Greek Dominant and the Other Dominant groups (p=.000 for both comparisons). To further investigate the factors that play a role in Bilingual children’s performance on 2-Back with digits task, simple bivariate correlations were carried out. The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are presented in Table 16 below.
108 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
2-Back with Digits r=.512** 1. Age at the Time of Testing p<.001 r=.343** 2. SES p=.002 r=.164* 3. CLitU p=.046 r=.267* 4. CLangU p=.031 r=.239* 5. BLP p=.039 r=.416** 6. BES p<.001
Table 16. Correlations between the measurements on 2-Back with digits task.
The independent variables that correlated significantly with the 2-Back with Digits task as well as nominal categories were then entered into a backward- elimination regression analysis. The final model (adjusted R2=.474, F (2,188)=32.443, p<.001) removed the majority of variables, keeping two as main contributors. From the two variables, the Age at the Time of Testing was the main contributor (β=.361, p=.001), explaining 33.8% of the variance, and then follows the BES (β=.298, p=.029), explaining 13.6% of the variance.
4.3 Cognitive performance and balanced bilingualism (Between Group Comparisons) In Section 4.2, the results with respect to the Balanced Language Proficiency as factor and the cognitive tasks indicate the following performance: the Balanced group and the Other Dominant group outperform the Greek Dominant group in the three cognitive tasks. This aligns with the study of Tsimpli, Andreou, Agathopoulou and Masoura (2014) which reveals that bilingual children with high performance on working memory task (both visual and verbal) have more even/balanced knowledge between their two vocabularies (the same seems to hold here for a balanced input as well). In this Section we aim to have a closer look to the performance of the Balanced
109 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance group in the three different language pairs23 (i.e Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian). Other studies claim that Balanced Bilinguals may not have similar Language Proficiency skills in the two vocabularies. More specifically, Iluz-Cohen and Armon-Lotem (2013) investigating language proficiency and executive control in bilingual children suggested that their high language proficiency group shows a heterogeneity, since it comprises a subgroup with balanced bilinguals of high language proficiency and two subgroups with intermediate level of language proficiency. Based on this observation we will investigate within the Balanced group the performance of our bilinguals in the three cognitive tasks, entering the Language Pair as factor. Table 17 provides the distribution of the Balanced Bilinguals in each pair.
z-scores Balanced Bilinguals Greek-German -0.23 30.3 S.D. 1.13 (24/79) Greek-English -0.28 30.0 S.D. 0.93 (18/60)
Greek-Albanian 0.38 41.4 S.D. 0.81 (29/70)
Table 17. Mean and SD of z-scores in the Balance Language Proficiency and the percentages of the Balanced Bilinguals in each language pair.
Table 18 below provides the descriptive statistics of children’s performance as detected in the three cognitive tasks.
23 Preliminary regression analysis indicates that the effect of the majority language is not a determining contributor, so we merge the Greek-German_Gr, Greek-German_Ge etc. into one group.
110 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
Digit Backwards Mister X N-Back Recall Greek-German 17.0 15.96 53.02 S.D. 2.5 S.D. 2.9 S.D. 21.3 Greek-English 16.1 19.62 54.09 S.D. 2.1 S.D. 3.25 S.D. 20.3 Greek-Albanian 16.3 14.22 51.77 S.D. 2.99 S.D. 2.55 S.D. 33.2
Table 18. Mean and SD of percentage scores in the Digit Backward Recall, Mister X and N-Back tasks for the Balanced Bilinguals in each language pair.
With regard to the Digit Backward Recall scores, analysis of variance (one- way) ANOVA does not show any significant effect of Group F (2,70)=1.352, p=.265. However, with regard to the Mister X scores, analysis of variance (one-way) ANOVA showed a significant effect of Group F (2,70)=13.250, p<.001. Subsequent post-hoc using Bonferroni correction revealed that the Greek-English group outperforms the Greek-German (p=.001) and the Greek-Albanian (p=.000). Finally, with respect to the N-Back scores, analysis of variance (one-way) ANOVA did not show any significant effect of Group F (2,70)=.342, p=.712. An interesting point is that within the category of Balanced the Greek-German, the Greek-Albanian and the Greek-English groups show a lack of homogeneity with respect to their performance in the two respective vocabularies. More specifically, the Greek-German group scores 59.5% (S.D.=8.4) in the Greek Vocabulary and 80.8% (S.D.=7.2) in the German Vocabulary, for the Greek-English group the figures are 69.2% (S.D.=9.8) in the Greek Vocabulary and 82.8% (S.D.=8.7) in the English Vocabulary, whereas for the Greek-Albanian group the figures are 79.2% (S.D.=8.1) in the Greek Vocabulary and 57.2% (S.D.=7.9) in the Albanian Vocabulary. It is known that there is no stable threshold to define the balance level of proficiency at a high or a low scale (Cummings 1980). However, we would like to see whether our figures here constitute another degree of proficiency. In order to see if there is a difference in the level of proficiency an Independent T-test was conducted comparing the Greek and the German vocabularies in the Greek-German group, the Greek and the English vocabularies in the Greek-English group and the Greek and the Albanian vocabularies in the Greek-Albanian group. A statistically significant difference was obtained for the Greek-German group (t(29)=8.625, p=.003) and the
111 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
Greek-Albanian group (t(27)=7.238, p=.001) indicating a change in the level of proficiency. Translating this computation into raw numbers with respect to the monolingual norms, the difference between Greek-English and Greek-German is 3 points, which corresponds to an age difference of 7 months, whereas the difference between Greek-English and Greek-Albanian is 4 points, which corresponds to an age difference of 11 months.
4.4 The variables for a Balanced Bilingual In section 4.2 we observed that those Bilinguals who are balanced in terms of the Balanced Language Proficiency outperform the Greek Dominant bilinguals in the cognitive tasks. Also, in section 4.3 it was found that Balanced Bilinguals differ amongst groups as the Greek-English group appears to be balanced at a higher level of proficiency compared to the Greek-German and the Greek-Albanian groups. The direction and the cause of this advantageous performance are not clear at the moment. Is it possible that children with better working memory skills, which is part of the individual differences, become more ‘balanced’ bilinguals than those with not as good working memory ability? Alternatively, could there be a bidirectional relation between language proficiency and working memory abilities in that working memory becomes more efficient with better proficiency in the minority language (see for instance the Greek-Albanian children)? Finally, what is the contribution of the external and internal (i.e HLH, ELI(2), CLitU and CLangU, BES, Age of Onset) factors to balance? In order to investigate the above questions the independent variables that correlated significantly with the Balanced Language Proficiency were entered into a backward-elimination regression analysis (see Table 19).
Balanced Language Proficiency r=.612** 1. Raven’s p<.001 r=.298* 2. SES p=.029 r=.329** 3. CLangU p=.005
112 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
r=. 577** 4. BES p<.001
Table 19. Correlations between internal, external factors and the BLP.
The final model (adjusted R2=.672, F (4,82)=35.771, p<.001) revealed that the Raven’s was the main contributor (β=.431, p<.001), explaining 25.2% of variance, then follows the Balanced Educational Setting (β=.385, p=.001), explaining 20.2% of variance, the balanced CLangU (β=.247, p=.036), explaining 15.9% of variance, and last comes the SES (β=.214, p=.042), explaining 5.9% of the variance. What do these measurements tell us about the questions posed earlier? There seems to be a bidirectional and causal relationship between the balanced bilingual and each of the above four variables: for instance, the higher the non-verbal intelligence (i.e. Raven’s task) the higher the balance in bilingualism, and vice versa; the higher the level of the BES the higher the level of balanced bilingual, and vice versa, and so on and so forth with all other combinations.
4.5 The Biliteracy Variable As mentioned in Chapter 3, we aimed to investigate the role of biliteracy and its possible effect in the cognitive tasks. In order to run comparisons we subcategorized our bilingual participants into two groups. The first group consists of children who have exposure in writing and reading in both languages (henceforth, Bilit, N=169, i.e. Greek-German_Gr, Greek-German_Ge, Greek-English_Gr, Greek-English_En and Greek-Albanian_Al), regardless of the amount of exposure. The second group consists of the participants who have writing and reading skills only in one language which is not their mother tongue (henceforth, Monolit, N=40, i.e. Greek- Albanian_Gr). Because of the large differences in our samples with respect to the number of participants, we ran Kruskal-Wallis H non parametric tests. Table 20 provides descriptive statistics of the mean scores of the two groups of children in the three cognitive tasks.
113 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
Digit Backwards Mister X N-Back Recall Bilit 19.0 21.32 64.03 S.D. 2.1 S.D. 2.3 S.D. 20.3 Monolit 15.4 16.8 49.28 S.D. 1.9 S.D. 1.7 S.D. 20.9
Table 20. Mean and SD of percentage scores in the Digit Backward Recall, Mister X and N-Back tasks for the Biliterate and Monoliterate Bilinguals.
With respect to the cognitive tasks the Kruskal-Wallis H tests reveal significant differences between the two groups (x2=5.187, df=2, p<.01 for the Digit Backwards Recall, x2=6.331, df=2, p<.01 for the Mister X task and x2=8.623, df=2, p<.01 for the N-Back task). As we see, the Bilit group outperforms the Monolit children in all three tasks, since the Monolit group (which lack literacy in their mother tongue) is in a disadvantageous position compared to the Bilit group. This result shows that the lack of mother-tongue literacy stifles the cognitive advantages. This is an interesting finding about the role of biliteracy in which we will return in Chapter 9, after investigating also the biliteracy effects in language tasks.
4.6 Conclusions The debate so far over the absence or not of a better cognitive performance in balanced compared to dominant bilinguals led us to the investigation of whether balanced bilinguals perform better in cognitive tasks than dominant bilinguals. Furthermore, if this hypothesis were to be confirmed we wanted to see more carefully the conditions under which and the reasons why balanced bilinguals perform better than dominant bilinguals. A major limitation of previous studies is that they operated with the idea that the bilinguals must be grouped in the categories of balanced or dominant using mainly measurements that concern their language proficiency abilities (e.g. Blom, Küntay, Messer, Verhagen and Leseman 2014) or by counting their input (e.g. Unsworth in press). The contribution of the present thesis in this area is that we measure dominance through the educational setting. With respect to the Dominance resulting from the two vocabularies, a child can be characterized as balanced bilingual if s/he has linguistic competence on both languages (e.g. Havelka and Gardener 1959) and as dominant the child with higher
114 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance proficiency in one language, that is the language used more often than the other (Wei 2000). However, many researchers claim that proficiency and dominance constitute two factors that work independently from one another (e.g. Birdsong 2006) and so it would be good to keep them apart. With respect to Balance and the six different ways of measuring it, our analysis leads to interesting conclusions: These six different ways of measuring Balance constitute three composite clusters, namely Balance Language Proficiency, Current Language Use and Current Literacy Use as one cluster, Early Literacy Preparedness and Home Language History as a second cluster, and Bilingual Educational Setting as the third cluster. First, BLP, CLangU and CLitU exhibit a strong relationship amongst themselves, as they point to the exact same findings in the three cognitive tasks. More specifically, the behaviour of the groups is the following: DB: Balanced and Other Dominant > Greek Dominant; MrX: Balanced and Other Dominant > Greek Dominant; and N-Back task: Balanced and Other Dominant > Greek Dominant. When categorizing participants on the basis of their past activities (HLH and ELI(2)) the majority of the results show no differences among the three groups (Greek Dominant, Balanced, Other Dominant). In particular, Mister X is the only one that shows that the Other Dominant and the Balanced Bilinguals outperform the Greek Dominant. From this we conclude that even if someone was Balanced in the past, it does not mean that he will stay so throughout, since dominance may change in the future depending on the circumstances. For this reason, the history of a balanced bilingual does not seem to be a safe predictor for his cognitive performance. So far our results indicate that when we categorize participants with respect to BLP, HLH, ELI(2), CLangU and CLitU no differentiation occurs between balanced and dominant bilinguals. This is in line with findings of some other studies where no cognitive advantage is found in balanced bilinguals (e.g. Karbalei 201024, Ibrahim, Shoshani, Prior and Share 2013), in contrast to others where such an advantage has been claimed (e.g. Mohamed Zied, Allain, Pinon, Havet-Thonassin, Aubin, Roy and Gall 200425).
24 This study investigates metacognitive awareness in 93 undergraduate students (balanced and dominant) of India. The results reveal no significant difference between the groups. 25 This study found a cognitive advantage of adult balanced bilinguals (French-Arabic) over dominant bilinguals in Stroop tasks.
115 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance
A major finding of this thesis is that, when we categorize participants on their Balanced Educational Setting, the results with respect to the three tasks show that Balanced Bilinguals exhibit significantly better performance than Greek and Other Dominant Bilinguals. Also the results from the three separate regression analyses reveal that only the Balanced Educational Setting was a significant predictor of bilinguals’ cognitive preformance in the three tasks. The beneficial effect of a balanced educational system is also supported by Oller and Eilers (2002a) who show that children who have been supported since kindergarden in a “two-way approach” revealed better knowledge of L1 and no less knowledge of L2 by Fifth Grade as opposed to children who have been educated in an English immersion educational setting. Now we see that, in additon to these, in order to investigate bilinguals’ cognitive performance the categorization of bilinguals with respect to Balance must be based on their Educational Setting. We conclude that different background variables yield different results, since performance in the cognitive tasks depends on the different ways in which we define dominance each time. When we take all bilinguals together and investigate the factors that explain their performance in their cognitive tasks, we find that Age at the Time of Testing and BES constitute significant factors for the overall performance in the three tasks. Another interesting point concerns the determining factors of a Balanced Bilingual. When we run comparisons within the group of Balanced Bilinguals with Language Pair as factor, we observe that the Greek-English children outperform the Greek-German and the Greek-Albanian children in the visuo-spatial working memory task. In trying to understand this difference, we see that the Greek-English group consists of children who are balanced at a higher level of proficiency in both vocabularies than the Greek-German or the Greek-Albanian, who are balanced at a lower level. Thus, we ran a regression analysis in order to predict what other factors lead a bilingual child to become balanced. The results reveal that the factors leading to a balanced bilingual are the bidirectional and causal relationships between Balance Input and Raven’s, SES, CLangU, and BES. Finally, an interesting result is the positive effect of biliteracy in the performance of the cognitive tasks. As seen in 4.5, the monoliterate children seem to lag behind as compared to the biliterate as far as their cognitive performance is concerned. This finding is in part supported by Leikin, Schwartz and Share (2010)
116 Chapter 4 Cognition and Dominance who show that biliterate bilingual children have higher fluid intelligence than monoliterate bilingual and monolingual children. It remains to be investigated if the monoliterate and the bilitarate children will show a similar performance with respect to their language tasks or whether one group will outperform the other. We must note at this point that with respect to the SRT (accuracy and grammaticality scores) and Lexical Decision tasks performances (see Chapter 3 above), the monoliterate Greek- Albanian_Gr children do not demonstrate better performance than other bilinguals, since in some cases (e.g. accuracy SRT) they come up as one of the lowest groups.
117 Chapter 5 Narration task
CHAPTER 5 NARRATION TASK: DESCRIPTION AND CODING
Three elicitation tasks telling, retelling in oral form and retelling in written form are used in assessing children’s narrative abilities. A vast body of cross-linguistic research shows that children start to develop narrative abilities early in life. However, it takes them beyond the age of 10 to be comparable to those of adults in their story telling. Many studies suggest that the skills needed for story telling are not only dependent on children’s development of their linguistic repertoire, but also on their cognitive development and their exposure to literate genres and modalities (Berman and Slobin 1994, Hickmann 2003, Berman 2004, 2009). More specifically, when we tell a story, we need to transpose the cognitive representation of the story in our memory into language by using the linguistic means available in the respective language. The narration task increases in complexity if there is no common ground between narrator and audience, which is normally created by means of extra- linguisitic cues such as picture-books, but has to be provided with linguistic means. The telling mode is considered to be more demanding than retelling, since the child is forced to create a story of his own making. With regard to this observation Schneider, Hayward and Dubé (2006) claim that the procedure of telling can provide a more detailed picture about children’s independent language skills. They claim that the retelling mode in oral form creates an umbrella of different domains that combine not only language abilities but cognitive abilities as well. However, the telling mode is simpler since it comprises mainly language and not cognitive abilities. With regard to the retelling mode, Tager-Flusberg and Sullivan (1994) claim that the ability to retell stories requires an understanding of linguistic, cognitive, and social domains. They believe that through retelling we are able to see how children can reproduce a story’s grammatical structures and how they can sustain the level of vocabulary as they heard it. At the same time retelling mode creates an excellent tool for assigning children’s linguistic abilities (Gillam and Clarlisle 1997, Hadley 1998). In addition, story retelling requires the child’s ability to take into consideration the feelings, the intentions and the beliefs of others, in other words to have a theory of mind (Premack and Woodruff 1978).
118 Chapter 5 Narration task
An interesting issue -whose implications are not yet known- is if the mode of retelling narratives is a procedure that is correlated with executive functions skills. The results of studies thus far offer a controversial picture, since many researchers claim that there is no connection between retelling narratives and executive functions skills (e.g. Fortkamp 2000), whereas others believe that there is a correlation between these two (see, for instance, Trebits and Kormos 2008). This mixed picture is further strengthened by the debate over whether bilingualism can confer an advantage in the performance of bilinguals in contrast to monolinguals, especially at the level of narrative macrostructure. Recent studies (Morales, Calvo and Bialystok 2013) are of the opinion that bilingualism seems to bestow a general cognitive advantage to bilingual children relative to their monolingual peers, due to the cognitive effort to have control over language processing and production in the context of two activated languages. The retelling mode in written form was used in order to test bilingual children’s literacy abilities. Besides the fact that written and spoken language differs with regard to the mechanism that is demanded, the majority of studies show that these two domains require similar syntactic, semantic and phonological processes (Gillam and Johnston 1992). It has been shown that narration tasks are predictors for literacy development and for academic achievement later on in the life of the bilingual (Bishop and Adams 1990, Snow 1983). This suggests a possible association of narrative practices with reading and writing development. By including both telling and retelling modalities we expected to detect different aspects of bilingual children’s language characteristics.
5.1 Creation of the four scenarios At the first stage, we examined several stories which so far have been used as narrative instrument, but taking into consideration the age of our participants and their background measures we decided to assess the children’s narrative abilities by means of the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI) (Shneider, Dubé and Hayward 2005). One problem that we faced was that the ENNI instrument tool, which consists of 6 stories with different degrees of complexity, was designed only for telling mode. To overcome this problem, four scenarios were developed based on the pictures that concern A2, A3, B2 and B3 ENNI’s stories (see Appendix D) (Andreou, Knopp, Tsimpli and Bongartz 2013). Our goal was for the scenarios to be comparable in the
119 Chapter 5 Narration task four languages, i.e. Greek, German, English and Albanian. In order to make this possible, we followed the procedure of the MAIN instrument (Gagarina, Klop, Kunnari, Tantele, Välimaa, Balčiūnienė, Bohnacker and Walters 2012) and we checked for the comparability of macrostructure and microstructure measures among the four languages. As suggested by many studies, microstructure measures are more likely to be language-dependent (Bohnacker 2012). As a result, due to typological differences between the four languages, we were not able to have the exact same number of subordinate and coordinate clauses (i.e. microstructure measures), but we tried to keep the number as close as possible on the basis of the Greek stories. Furthermore, we created the same number of goals, attempts, outcomes and internal states for the three languages. After that, the scenarios were given to linguists who were native speakers for each language in order to check morphosyntactic and vocabulary issues. The four stories used were divided into two groups in terms of the number of the main characters; A2 and B2 stories included three characters and consisted of 8 pictures each, while A3 and B3 stories had four characters and consisted of 13 pictures. For the oral retelling procedure we used A3 and B3 stories for all participants, whereas for the stories A2 and A3 we divided our participants into two different age groups. The first group consists of participants between 8 and 10 years old and the second group consists of participants between 10 and 12 years old. The former group had to use a telling mode, whereas the latter group had to use the retelling mode but in the written version. After we created the four scenarios we piloted them with 50 monolingual adults and children. Thus, we corrected the stories from lexical and grammatical difficulties that we obtained through our sample. The 4 stories that were created for the purposes of the oral and written retelling were then recorded by a native speaker and played to the participants on a laptop. In this task the two languages for each language pair (i.e. Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek- Albanian) were used in a kind of diagonal manner, for instance A2 and B3 stories for the one language and B2 and A3 stories for the second language, and vice versa. We considered counterbalancing between the four stories. The percentage of the bilingual sample examined in A2 and B3 stories (48.2%) was lower than the sample examined in A3 and B2 stories (51.8%), although this difference was not significant (Pearson’s χ2(1)=1.053, p=.331). The same holds for our monolingual sample, where the figures are (49,1%) for those who were examined in A2 and B3 stories as opposed to (50.9%)
120 Chapter 5 Narration task for those examined in A3 and B2 stories. Again here this difference was not significant (Pearson’s χ2(1)=1.121, p=.342).
5.2 Story scripts: Comparability micro- and macrostructure measures The B3 (oral retelling) story script is provided in four languages to explain the framework used to create parallel micro- and macrostructure narrations (a more detailed description will follow in the next chapter).
5.2.1 Comparability in macrostructure measures The marking of the Greek story structure components and internal state terms in the two scripts below will follow this categorization: Goal Attempt Outcome Internal State Terms26
B3 Story Pictures 1/2 Greek: Mia mera mia pexnidiara skilitsa ke enas xaroumenos lagos, pou ine fili skeftikan na pane mia volta sto dasos. O lagos prosekse oti I fili tou travouse ena karotsi me ena omorfo baloni pano tou. Amesos apofasise na piasi to baloni gia na peksi me ti fili tou. I skilitsa omos tou ipe oti prota tha eprepe na to lisoun.
German: Eines Tages entschlossen sich ein verspieltes Hundemädchen und ein fröhlicher Hasenjunge, die Freunde waren, im Wald spazieren zu gehen. Haso bemerkt, dass seine Freundin einen Wagen mit einem wunderschönen Luftballon hinter sich herzog. Sogleich entschloss er sich, den Luftballon zu holen, um mit seiner Freundin zu spielen. Hundina erklärte ihm, dass sie den Luftballon erst losbinden müssten.
English: One day a playful dog, Dogina and a very happy hare, Rabbito, who were friends, decided to take a walk in the woods. The hare noticed that his friend was pulling a wagon with a beautiful balloon on it. As soon as he saw it, he decided to take the balloon so they could play with it. Dogina told him that they had to untie the balloon first.
26 In Chapter 6 the Internal State Terms will be categorized as +ToM[realted] and as -ToM[related].
121 Chapter 5 Narration task
Albanian: Nje dite nje qenushe lozonjare dhe nje lepur i gezuar qe jane shoke menduan te shkojne nje shetitje ne pyll. Lepuri vuri re se shoqja e tij po terhiqte nje karoce me nje tullumbace te bukur siper. Menjehere vendosi te kapte tullumbacen per te lozur me shoqen e tij. Por qenushja i tha se me para do duhej ta zgjidhnin.
Pictures 3/4 Greek: O lagos ksekinise na to lini, eno I fili tou perimene anipomona na ksekinisoun to pexnidi. Kata lathos omos, to baloni efige mesa apo ta xeria tou lagou. I skilitsa pidikse psila gia na to ftasi, fonazodas: Ox oxi! To agapimeno mou baloni aneveni ston ourano.
German: Also fing Haso an, ihn loszubinden, während seine Freundin ungeduldig darauf wartete, mit dem Spielen loszulegen. Aber ausversehen flog der Ballon Haso dabei aus den Händen. Während Hundina hoch sprang, um ihn zu fassen, rief sie: Oh nein, mein Lieblingsballon fliegt davon.
English: The rabbit began to untie it, while his friend was waiting impatiently to start the game. However, the balloon accidentally slipped through Rabbito’s hands. Dogina jumped high to grab it, shouting: Oh no! My favourite balloon is flying away!
Albanian: Lepuri filloi ta zgjidhe, kurse shoqja e tij po priste si e sit te fillonin lojen. Mirpo pa dashje tullumbacja i iku lepurit nda duart. Qenushja u hodh lart per ta kapur duke thirrur: “Oh, jo! Tullumbacja ime e preferuar po ngriet lart ne qell”.
Pictures 5/6 Greek: I skilitsa thimose toso poli, pou arxise na fonazi dinata ston filo tis. Ekinos tin kitouse tromagmenos. Ksafnika o lagos paratirise ton gero-lago, pou poulouse ena soro balonia. Skeftike oti o monos tropos gia na gini I fili tou xaroumeni ine na tis pari ena kenourgio baloni. German: Hundina war so böse darüber, dass sie anfing, laut mit ihrem Freund zu schimpfen. Der schaute sie ganz erschrocken an. Da bemerkte der Hasenjunge einen alten Hasen, der ein ganzes Bündel Ballons dabei hatte. Er dachte, dass die einzige Möglichkeit war, seine Freundin wieder glücklich zu machen, ihr dort einen neuen Ballon zu holen.
122 Chapter 5 Narration task
English: Dogina was so upset that she started to scream at her friend. He looked at her terrified. Just then, the hare saw an old rabbit who was selling a bunch of balloons. He thought that the only way to make his friend happy is to get her a new balloon.
Albanian: Qenushja u nevrikos aq shume sa filloi po i bertiste shokut e saj. Ai po e shikonte i trembur. Papritur lepuri vuri re lepurin plak qe po shiste nje thes me tullumbace. Mendoi qe e vetmja menyre qe te behej shoqja e tij e gezuar eshte ti mare nje tullumbace te re.
Pictures 7/8 Greek: Oso pio grigora borouse, eftase sto gero-lago ke tou zitise to pio omorfo baloni pou ixe, gia na to dosi sti lipimeni fili tou. O gero-lagos tou zitise lefta gia to baloni gia to baloni. Etsi, o lagos girise tis tsepes tou anapoda, ala den vrike lefta. Stenaxorithike, giati de tha borouse na xarisi to baloni sti fili tou.
German: Er lief, so schnell er konnte, zu dem alten Hasen und fragte ihn nach dem schönsten Luftballon, den er hatte, um ihn seiner traurigen Freundin zu schenken. Der alte Hase wollte Geld für den Ballon. Also suchte Haso in seinen Hosentaschen, fand aber kein Geld. Da war er traurig, weil er ihn seiner Freundin nicht schenken konnte.
English: As fast as he could he went to the old rabbit and asked him for the most beautiful balloon he had in order to give it to his sad friend. The old rabbit asked for money for the balloon. So the hare turned his pockets inside out, but found no money. He was sad, because he could not give the balloon to his friend.
Albanian: Se shpejti ariti ne lepuri plak dhe i kerkoi tullumbacen me te bukur qe kishte q eta jape ne shoqja e tij e merzitur. Lepuri plak I kerkoi leke per tullumbacen. Pra lepuri ktheu xhepat e tij perposhte mirpo nuk gjeti leke. U merzit sepse nuk do mundeshe te dhuronte tullumbacen ne shoqja e tij.
Pictures 9/10 Greek: I skilitsa pou paratirouse apo ora ke evlepe ti sinevene plisiase pros ta eki. Oi dio filoi ton kitousan lipimenoi, ala akoma ke otan tou to zitisan evgenika, ekinos den
123 Chapter 5 Narration task tous edine to baloni. Gia kali tous tixi o lagos ide ti mitera tou na perpatai sto dasos ke etrekse na tin prolavi.
German: Hundina, die schon eine Zeit lang zugeschaut hatte und gesehen hatte, was passiert war, kam näher. Die beiden Freunde sahen ihn traurig an, aber obwohl sie den alten Hasen sehr höflich darum baten, wollte er ihnen den Ballon nicht geben. Doch sie hatten Glück, weil der Hasenjunge seine Mutter des Wegs kommen sah und sich beeilte sie einzuholen.
English: Dogina, who was watching for some time and saw what was happening, went over to them. The two friends were looking at him sadly but even when they asked the old rabbit very politely, he wouldn’t give them the balloon. Luckily, the hare saw his mother walking in the woods and hurried to catch her.
Albanian: Qenushja qe po observonte per pak kohe dhe shikonte se cfar po ndoshte, u afrua drejt aty. Dy shoket po e shikonin te merzitur mirpo akoma dhe kur ja kerkuan ne menyre te mire ai nuk I jepte tullumbacen. Per fat te mire lepuri pa nenen e tij duke ecur ne pyll dhe rendi qe ta arinte.
Pictures 11/12 Greek: Tis eksigise ti sinevi ke tis zitise na tous voithisi. I evgeniki mitera tou dextike amesos. Edose lefta ston gero-lago ke pire dio balonia anti gia ena, kanontas tous dio filous poli eftixismenous.
German: Er erklärte ihr, was geschehen war, und fragte sie, ob sie ihnen helfen könne. Seine nette Mutter war gleich einverstanden. Sie gab dem alten Hasen das Geld und kaufte gleich zwei Luftballons statt einem, um so beide Freunde glücklich zu machen.
English: He explained what happened and asked her to help them. His kind mother immediately agreed. She gave money to the old rabbit and bought two balloons instead of one, making both friends very happy.
124 Chapter 5 Narration task
Albanian: I shpjegoi se cfar ndodhi dhe I kerkoi ti ndihmonte. Nena e tij e miresjellshme pranoi menjehere. Dha lek ne lepuri plak dhe mori dy tullumbace ne vend te njeres, dhe i beri te dy shoket shume te lumtur.
Pictures 13 Greek: O kathenas ixe to baloni tou ke oli itan etimoi na ksekinisoun to pexnidi.
German: Nun bekam jeder von ihnen einen eigenen Ballon und sie konnten anfangen, damit zu spielen.
English: Each of them had their own balloon and everyone was ready then to start the game.
Albanian: Cdonjeri kishte tullumbacin e vete dhe te gjithe ishin gati te fillojne lojen.
In order to adapt the macrostructure measures among the languages, the number of Goal, Attempt and Outcome sequences remains constant. Moreover, the number of internal state terms presents the same proportions in all languages and it is also assigned to the same protagonists across languages.
5.2.2 Comparability in microstructure measures In this category we managed to keep the scripts in the different languages as similar as possible. Table 21 provides a detailed description of total numbers in each story and language with regard to: 1) the total number of words, 2) the total number of coordinate clauses, and 3) the total number of subordinate clauses.
A3 STORY Oral Retelling Measures Greek German English Albanian Total Number of Words 284 295 287 292 No of Subordinate Clauses 33 28 29 33 No of Coordinate Clauses 4 5 4 4 B3 STORY Oral Retelling Measures Greek German English Albanian Total Number of Words 313 324 326 269
125 Chapter 5 Narration task
No of Subordinate Clauses 31 31 31 29 No of Coordinate Clauses 7 7 6 7 A2 STORY Written Retelling Measures Greek German English Albanian Total Number of Words 209 214 227 221 No of Subordinate Clauses 25 24 23 24 No of Coordinate Clauses 8 9 7 7 B2 STORY Written Retelling Measures Greek German English Albanian Total Number of Words 231 250 240 243 No of Subordinate Clauses 24 23 29 27 No of Coordinate Clauses 8 8 6 7
Table 21. Description of total Number of Words, Subordinate and Coordinate clauses in each language.
5.3 Procedure 5.3.1 Instructions During the procedure of the oral Retelling the following instructions were given to the children: “You will listen to a story and at the same time you will be looking at the pictures on the computer screen. When the story is finished please repeat the story as well as you can”. In the Telling mode the following instructions were given to children: “Look at the pictures carefully. Then, I would like you to try to create a story by your own making. Whenever you are ready we start”. In general, the examiner did not speak or interrupt the child during the procedure of the oral telling or retelling; she just encouraged the child when it was necessary with prompts like “tell me more”, “anything else?”, “very good!”, and the like. The children’s narratives were recorded in an Olympus Digital Recorder. At the end of the data collection all narrations were transcribed and scored according to the guidelines (see Chapters 6, 7 and 8). Finally, in the written Retelling the instructions were as follows: “You will hear a story and in parallel you will look at the pictures on the computer screen. When the story is finished, please write the story you have heard as good as you can”.
126 Chapter 5 Narration task
5.3.2 Narrative modes The children were shown three colored envelopes on the computer screen and were asked to open one of them which contained one story (see Picture 4).
Picture 4. The image with the three envelopes that each participant saw in the Oral Retelling Mode.
It was already decided which story belonged to each participant, regardless of the choice of the child, since all envelopes contain the same story (A3 or B3). However, the purpose of this presentation was for the child to ensure that the examiner does not know the story which was hidden behind the envelopes and avoid in that way the effect of shared knowledge. Then the child listened to the story with headphones while being shown two pictures at a time on the computer screen. At the end of the story, the children received a booklet with a synopsis of all pictures (see Picture 5).
127 Chapter 5 Narration task
Picture 5. The synopsis presented to the children at the end of Retelling (oral/written) and Telling.
Then, the children were asked to retell the story to an uninformed experimenter who had not been listening to the story or looking at the pictures. In the Telling mode, the children were initially presented with all pictures of the story and then two-by-two in order to create a story of their own-making. Story- telling is considered to be more difficult, since the children are required to generate their own stories without the benefit of a prior model. Finally, in the written Retelling the same procedure with the oral Retelling was followed, with the exception that the participants were asked to generate the story in written form.
128 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
CHAPTER 6 NARRATIVES: MACROSTRUCTURE VS. MICROSTRUCTURE MEASURES
6.1 Objectives In Chapter 3 we provided the cognitive profiles of our bilingual participants categorized on the basis of their Balance (i.e. Balanced Educational Setting, Home Language History, etc.). In the present chapter the participants will be subgrouped by means of the following criteria: a) Bilingualism Effect (Monolinguals (N=100) vs. Bilinguals (N=209); b) Area of Residence Effect,27 i.e. Greece (N=109) vs. non- Greece (N=100) (Germany, England and Albania); and c) Language Pair Effect, i.e. Greek-German (N=79) vs. Greek-English (N=60) vs. Greek-Albanian (N=70). Another categorization is the age development effect, where the participants are divided into two different age groups, with the first group being children of 8 to 10 years old (N=155) and the second of 10 to 12 years old (N=154). The first objective in this chapter is to explore the data of children’s narratives in two different levels of language analysis: the first level concerns the microstructure properties which lead to a direction of text-based grammatical information, and the second level concerns macrostructure properties that focus on the structure of story grammar and involve different capacities such as cognition and theory of mind. Hence, in order to create a well formed narrative a well performed combination of the two levels is necessary. According to Berman and Slobin (1994), the microstructure level requires the knowledge of form-function relations for a participant to use linguistic means in order to connect the narration. On the other hand, with regard to the macrostructure level a good performance of a participant demands a communication adequacy. We will run comparisons between bilinguals and monolinguals in micro- and macrostructure to see if there are differences between the two groups. Our assumption was that bilingualism would provide an advantage in the performance of our participants at the level of macrostructure. This hypothesis is based on previous
27 With respect to the Area of Residence and the Language Pair Effect between groups comparisons will be conducted only for the bilingual participants.
129 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures studies (Trabasso and Nickels 1992, Trabasso and Rodkin 1994) that revealed that bilingual children base their episodic knowledge on the context (e.g. perspective- taking, meta-awareness of the protagonists’ intentions) more than monolinguals. Another goal is to investigate which factors can predict the micro- and the macro- performance of bilinguals. The second objective of the chapter is to explore potential story-telling vs. retelling and oral vs. written retelling effects on children’s narrative performance. Based on evidence from previous studies on typically developing monolingual children (e.g. Schneider and Dubé 2005, Botting 2002), the retelling mode seems to improve the performance, along with both micro- and macrostructure variables, due to its “eliciting more enhanced activations of lexical and structural configurations than story telling” (p.178). It remains to be investigated what the performance will be if we examine the written vs. oral form of retelling. With regard to the second objective, we expect that in both structures bilingual children will especially benefit from the retelling mode due to cross-linguistic priming effects rendering language forms more accessible compared to monolingual children. In line with previous work reffering to cross-linguistic priming for morphosyntax in bilinguals (e.g. Kupisch 2005, Hsin 2012), we assumed that cross-linguistic priming effects would enable bilingual children to take the pathway to syntactic structures which were difficult to access otherwise. The third objective is to see if there are differences in the performance of our participants according to age affecting at either or both levels (microstructure vs. macrostructure). It is expected that the age development is accompanied by the effort of older children to produce more complex structures (i.e. subordinate clauses, adverbial clauses, etc.), despite the fact that in this effort the bilingual children knew that they committed grammatical errors. A final objective is to investigate whether there are correlations between the performance of our participants in micro- and macrostructure and their cognitive profiles (see Chapter 4). In other words, what we try to see is if tasks that demand executive functions and working memory capacities can be considered as predictors of narrative organization.
130 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
6.2 A brief note on the morphosyntax of the four languages In the present section we will give a short description of the morphosyntactic features of the four languages examined so a general frame is created for the analysis to follow. As Balkan languages and members of the Balkan Sprachbund, Albanian and Greek have a number of common morphosyntactic features in relation to microstrucure. Both languages have a similar tense-aspect-mood (TAM) system, and this is relevant to our discussion of subordination and coordination in telling and oral and written retelling tasks. Also, both languages have lost the old infinitive and replaced the infinitival structures by subjunctives (see Joseph 1983, Hewson and Bubenik 1997, Camaj 1984). The following two examples below are indicative of the two languages (where the underlined forms are subordinate clauses also expressing aspect (+perf.)): (1)
Albanian Frida para se me u nisë përshëndeti shoqet
Greek Prin figi i Frida xeretise tous filous tis
‘Before Frida left she greeted her friends’ (Joseph 1983: 87).
English and German, on the other hand, are two Germanic languages and thus share a number of common features. Importantly though, they differ from each other in several ways as well as from Greek. In particular, Greek has rich morphological case marking which allows listeners to identify arguments in any clausal position. Due to its lack of morphological inflection in the nominal domain, English is very restricted in terms of word order, i.e. grammatical functions are marked by position in the sentence. German, on the other hand, has a richer nominal inflectional system in terms of number, case and gender. It is, hence, more flexible in word order when compared to English and can mark topic-comment structures independent of grammatical functions. However, it shares with English and other Germanic languages restrictions on the position of the verb, which differentiates it again from Greek and Albanian. German is a V2 language with fixed position for the finite verb in matrix and subordinate clauses, namely V2 in matrix and V final in subordinate clauses. This property is specific to German (among the languages of our bilingual participants) and, importantly, it is not a feature of Greek (neither the head-final property nor the V2). German and English also differ from Greek and Albanian as regards
131 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures subordination. This is a result, among others, of the fact that the infinitival constructions are absent from Greek but are abundant in English and German. In contrast to Greek, Albanian and English, German has no aspect-inflection of the verb, a difference that may affect the way the bilinguals interpret and handle aspect in the different combinations. This difference is more pronounced in subordinate clauses where even in Greek there are a number of restrictions with respect to the formal expression of aspect (e.g. the Greek example in (1) above, where +perf is obligatory in the subordinate temporal clause prin figi), see examples (2) and (3) below:
(2)
English She started to scream at her friend
German Sie fing an mit ihrem Freund zu schimpfen
Greek Arxise na fonazei sto filo tis (Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli 2015: 25)
(3)
English While Giraff was trying to reach her, Elephantina slipped and fell
German Während Giraffo versuchte sie einzuholen, rutschte sie aus und fiel hin
Greek Otan o kamilopardalis prospathouse na ti ftasei, i elephantina glistrise kai epese.
What in Greek in (2) is expressed by the subordinate finite clause na fonazei in English and German is expressed by the non-finite clauses to scream and zu schimpfen respectively. In (3), while Greek and English are capable of marking the imperfective aspect on the verb in the temporal adverbial clauses, in German this imperfectiveness is expressed lexically by means of the durative conjunction während (While...was trying, Otan...prospathouse, Während...versuchte, respectively). What all this means is that the bilingual children show a better performance in languages with clear morphological marking of the grammatical categories involved (aspect, case marking, subject/object etc.) than in languages in which morphology is ‘less rich’ and the marking of the same categories is made by means of lexical and syntactic means (e.g. word order, prepositional phrases and the like). Furthermore, the
132 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures availability in some languages, such as Albanian and Greek, of semantic and morphosyntactic cues that the parser encodes to establish subordinate complexity reveal similar syntactic complexity mechanisms.
6.3 Microstructure measures With regard to microstructure we include a wide range of linguistic measures. First, we calculate the length of narrations, which is done by means of the number of verb clauses. Then we calculate the number of different verbs (i.e. verb diversity). More specifically, in creating a verbal type token ratio,28 we divided the number of the different verbs (types) by the total number of verbs (tokens) in each story and per each participant. A third measure involves the syntactic complexity of narratives. Before proceeding to further analysis we give Picture 6 that captures the way in which we measure syntactic complexity.
Picture 6. Description of measuring syntactic complexity in Greek.
The syntactic complexity term creates an umbrella category consisting of two subcategories, i.e. simple vs. complex sentences. By simple sentences is meant sentences with simple statements like the following: O lagos ke I skilitsa perpatousan sto dasos ‘The hare and the dog were walking in the forest’. By complex sentences we
28 In the Greek data we include the modal verbs that were used as main verbs of clauses and lead to finite complement clauses.
133 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures mean sentences with coordination or subordination like the following type: O lagos kratouse to baloni kai i skilitsa ton koitouse ‘The hare was holding the balloon and the dog was looking at him’ and O lagos otan ide tin skilitsa xarike ‘When the hare saw the dog, he felt joy’. All participants should have an equal upper limit of score, and this is the reason why the scores of the two types of sentences for each participant were added up and then each was divided by the total number of sentences. As seen in Tables 23, 24, 25 and 26 below, the results in the simple and complex sentences comprise the total number of sentences, for instance the Greek-German group produce 59.94% simple sentences and 40.06% complex sentences. A fourth calculation concerns subordinate and coordinate clauses. The figure of clausal coordination and subordination is calculated in relation to the number of the overall number of complex sentences produced by the child. The scores of the two types of clauses for each participant were added up and then each was divided by the total number of complex sentences. For the purposes of this thesis only the clausal coordinations are included, whereas with respect to the subordinate clauses adverbial, relative and complement clauses are used. For example, a coordinate sentence is: Pigan sto parko kai o lagos ithele na paiksi me to baloni ‘They went to the park and the hare wanted to play with the balloon’, while a subordinate sentence is: Otan pigan sto parko (subordinate clause), o lagos ithele na paiksi me to baloni (main clause) ‘When they went to the park the hare wanted to play with the balloon’. The last measure concerns the number of adverbial, relative and complement clauses. Subordinate clauses with adverbial function are adverbial clauses and specify the meaning of the verb of the main clause ((1) below); relative clauses refer back to a head which was mentioned earlier in the discourse ((2) below); complement clauses are normally introduced with na, oti and pu and complement the meaning of the main clause ((3) below). The calculation is carried out in the same way as in the previous cases. The number of adverbial, relative and complement clauses is calculated in relation to the number of the overall number of subordinate clauses produced by the child. The scores of the three types of clauses for each participant were added up and then each was divided by the total figure of the subordinate clauses. The following three examples illustrate the different types of subordinate clauses:
(1) Adverbial clause: O lagos itan stenoxorimenos giati exase to baloni tis filis tou. ‘The hare was sad, because he lost his friend’s balloon’
134 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
(2) Relative clause: O lagos exase to baloni pou tou ixe dosi i fili tou. ‘The hare lost the balloon that his friend gave him’ (3) Complement clause: O lagos ithele na pari to baloni tis fili tou. ‘The hare wanted to grab his friend’s balloon’.
6.4 Macrostructure measures With respect to macrostructure measures three scores are calculated: the first score refers to the “plus” Theory of Mind Internal State Terms ([+ToM-related] ISTs), the second score deals with “minus” Theory of Mind Internal State Terms ([-ToM- related] ISTs), and the third concerns Story Grammar. The first two scores that concern the category of macrostructure include Internal State Terms. Following Westby’s (2005) claim that Internal State Terms involve different general categories, we split them into two categories. The category of [+ToM-related] ISTs consists of lexical items expressing emotion (e.g. sad, angry) and mental verbs (such as think, wonder), whereas the category of [-ToM-related] ISTs consists of perceptual (such as see, hear), physiological (such as thirsty, hungry), and linguistic (such as shout, say) terms. The calculation of the Internal State Terms for each participant is made by dividing the different [+ToM-related] or [-ToM- related] Internal State Terms by the total number of main clauses. The aim of this calculation is to uncover the hidden differences for each individual participant, taking into account the length of the child’s narration. For instance, the Greek-German participant (ge-24) produced 5 [+ToM-related] ISTs in 10 main clauses, hence his percentage is 50, whereas participant (ge-38) produced 5 [+ToM-related] ISTs in 20 main clauses, hence his percentage is 25. The same procedure will be repeated for the [-ToM-related] Internal State Terms. In order to create the Story Grammar score we divided the retelling stories into three episodes and the telling or the written retelling into two episodes. In the stories each episode consists of 1) a Goal 2) an Attempt (i.e. the effort that the main character makes in order to reach the goal), and 3) an Outcome (i.e. the result of the main character’s effort to reach the goal). The child is awarded 3 points in each episode for the correct production of Goal, Attempt and Outcome, 2 points for producing 2 elements, one being the outcome, so it will be either the Goal and the Outcome or the Attempt and the Outcome, 1 point for producing 2 elements but with the Outcome missing, i.e. the Goal and the Attempt, and 0 points for expressing only one element.
135 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Finally, 2 points are also given for the correct reproduction of the place and the time, and 1 point for the use of introduction that concerns the main protagonists of each story. The maximum score of the oral retellings Story Grammar is 15 and for the written retellings or tellings Story Grammar is 11. The following example which is based on a Greek-German participant (ge-24) in oral retelling demonstrates the procedure described above (see Table 22).
No Story Pict Example based on a Greek- Score Participant Grammar ure German participant (ge-24) ’s Score No. 1 Setting-Time 1 one day 0 1 1
2 Setting-Place 1 at the swimming pool 0 1 1 3 C1 1 a giraffe boy 0 1 1 introduction 4 C2 1 an elephant girl 0 1 1 introduction 1st Episode 5 Goal 2 elephant girl wants to take the 0 1 1 plane 6 Attempt 3 ----- (instead of elephant girl29 0 1 0 grabs the plane) 7 Outcome 4 plane falls into the pool 0 1 1 Total of 2 GAO 2nd Episode 8 C3 5 a lifeguard appears 0 1 1 introduction 9 Goal 5 lifeguard wants to help 0 1 1 10 Attempt 6 lifeguard tries to reach the plane 0 1 1 11 Outcome 7 ----- (instead of lifeguard cannot 0 1 0 reach it and explains that he cannot help Total of 1 GAO 3rd Episode 12 C4 10 a clever elephant lady/ another 0 1 1 introduction elephant/ a lady appears 13 Goal 10 lady elephant decides to help 0 1 1 14 Attempt 11 lady elephant pulls the plane with 0 1 1 a net
29 In the Attempt of the first episode the child is rewarded with 0 because did not produce the expected answer, which was “The elephant girl grabs the plane’.
136 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
15 Outcome 12 Lady elephant gives the plane to 0 1 1 the giraffe boy Total of 3 GAO Total Story 12/15 Grammar Score
Table 22. Description of scoring Story Grammar. The (ge-24) participant achieves a score of 80% in the oral retelling Story Grammar.
6.5 Results As mentioned in 6.1, to detect developmental differences we split our bilinguals into two age groups, with the group 8-10 consisting of 105 participants and age group 10- 12 consisting of 104 participants. Statistical analyses were first conducted to test for effect differences (i.e Bilingualism,30 Area of Residence and Language Pair) in micro- and macrostructure measures. Correlation and ANCOVA analyses were then conducted on groups’ performance in microstructure and macrostructure in order to examine whether background variables, cognitive or language (i.e. vocabulary and morphosyntactic) abilities can explain the differences that we detected from the ANOVAs. Finally, composite scores of bilinguals on both microstructure and macrostructure variables were included in stepwise backward elimination regression models with background variables, cognitive abilities and language abilities (score on the Greek expressive vocabulary and sentence repetition task) as the independent variables, in order to single out the factor(s) that best predicted retelling, telling and written retelling performance along the micro- and macrostructure parameters.
6.5.1 Microstructure: Age group 8-10 yrs old The results for each dependent variable will show if there is a) Bilingualism Effect (Monolinguals (N=50) vs. Bilinguals (N=105), b) Area of Residence Effect, i.e. Greece (N=50) vs. non-Greece (N=55) (Germany, England and Albania), and c) Language Pair Effect, i.e. Greek-German (N=40) vs. Greek-English (N=30) vs. Greek-Albanian (N=35).
30 To detect Bilingualism effect Monoliguals were included. To detect Area of Residence and Language Pair effects only bilinguals were included.
137 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Table 23 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the children 8-10 years old, in each group with regard to their scores in a range of microstructure variables, including narrative length, number of different verbs (i.e. verb diversity, TTR), number of simple sentences, number of complex sentences, number of coordinate and subordinate clauses. With regard to the measurement of syntactic complexity, as we mentioned above and following other studies (Miller and Chapman 2000 and Schneider, Hayward and Dubé 2006) a subordination and a coordination index is established by dividing the number of subordinate and coordinate clauses by the overall number of clauses.31
31 The same procedure was followed with regard to the subcategories of subordinate clauses, i.e. we divided the number of complements, adverbials and relatives by the total number of subordinate clauses.
138 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
RETELLING MODE Effect Groups Length/Verb Verb No of No of No of No of No of No of No of Clauses Diversity Simple Complex Coordinate Subordinate Complement Adverbial Relative Sentences Sentences Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses Bilingualism Bilinguals 27.10 31.66 55.67 44.33 50.26 49.74 42.53 35.83 21.64 (4.85) (4.52) (5.9) (5.9) (3.8) (3.8) (6.25) (6.13) (2.13) Monolinguals 29.00 29.06 41.35 58.65 42.00 58.00 61.67 27.12 11.21 (3.32) (6.68) (5.02) (5.02) (3.69) (3.69) (7.63) (5.81) (2.44) Area of Bilinguals 26.50 28.83 50.35 49.65 46.23 57.37 38.43 38.82 22.75 Residence Greece (4.22) (3.67) (4.1) (4.1) (8.3) (8.3) (6.15) (4.8) (2.18) Bilinguals 27.22 34.75 58.90 41.10 59.31 42.69 46.53 32.15 21.32 Abroad (3.19) (5.2) (4.50) (4.50) (9.76) (9.76) (5.48) (2.4) (1.06) Language Pair Greek-German 26.20 35.05 59.94 40.06 50.17 49.83 45.98 31.18 22.84 (4.7) (5.0) (6.75) (6.75) (12.58) (12.58) (6.71) (4.12) (3.51) Greek-English 27.51 30.57 58.41 41.59 52.55 47.45 48.22 31.23 20.55 (4.9) (4.99) (7.62) (7.62) (12.62) (12.62) (5.52) (5.13) (6.58) Greek-Albanian 26.32 28.66 48.81 51.19 41.15 58.85 37.06 41.42 21.52 (3.2) (6.38) (5.0) (5.0) (6.64) (6.64) (6.19) (5.22) (3.91)
Table 23. Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The results of the analyses of microstructure did not reveal any significant group differences for the verb clauses measure. This fact suggests that all participants have produced similar length in narrations. With regard to children’s use of verb diversity, the ANOVA analysis did not show an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=1.210, p=.141), since there is no significant difference between Bilingual (Mean=31.66, S.D.=4.52) and Monolingual children (Mean=29.06, S.D.=6.68). Verb diversity data show that there is an effect of Area of Residence (F (1,104)=9.254, p=.001), more specifically, Bilingual children living abroad show more verb diversity (Mean=34.75, S.D.=5.2) than Bilingual children living in Greece (Mean=28.83, S.D.=3.67). Bivariate Pearson correlations have been conducted and the results yield significant correlations between children’s ELI(2) input in Greek and their performance in verb diversity: r(45)=.506, p<.001 for Bilingual children living in Greece and r(49)=.531, p<.001 for Bilingual children living abroad. There is a trend showing that verb diversity scores across groups tend to increase with higher input in Greek in the ELI(2). A follow-up analysis was also performed to investigate differences between the Bilinguals living abroad and the Bilinguals living in Greece in verb diversity outcome, with ELI(2) input in Greek being statistically controlled. An ANCOVA was run with ELI(2) as a covariate, Area of Residence as a between- subjects variable, and verb diversity as the dependent variable. The outcome reveals that ELI(2) was found to be a significant covariate (F (1,104)=17.246, p<.001, η2=.305). Figure 13 illustrates these results. The between group differences across verb diversity dissappear when ELI(2) in Greek is controlled.
140 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 13. Verb Diversity with Area of Residence effect as factor.
Verb diversity also appears to be significantly affected by Language Pair (F (2,104)=8.090, p=.011). Post-hoc tests, using the Bonferroni correction, indicate that the Greek-German bilinguals (Mean=35.05, S.D.=5.00) produce higher verb diversity relative to the Greek-Albanian bilinguals (Mean=28.66, S.D.=6.38), (p=.032). There was no significant difference either between the Greek-English bilinguals (Mean= 30.57, S.D.=4.99) and the Greek-German bilinguals or between the Greek-English bilinguals and the Greek-Albanian bilinguals. Further analysis shows significant correlations between children’s ELI(2) input in Greek and their scores in verb diversity: r(38)=.529, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.509, p<.001 for Greek- English and r(26)=.512, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. An ANCOVA was conducted in order to make Language Pair as the only identifiable difference among the three groups. The covariate of ELI(2) was found to be significant (F (1,104)=9.332, p=.000, η2=.313). In Figure 14 below we see these results. The between group differences across verb diversity disappear when we control for the ELI(2). This suggests that the Language Pair effect, with regard to verb diversity, is strongly influenced by Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek. As obtained from the background measurements in
141 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Chapter 3, the Greek-German bilinguals received from their parents more balance or Greek input (79%) as a result of their Early Literacy Prepardness relative to the Greek-English (72%) and the Greek Albanian (64.2%) peers.
Figure 14. Verb Diversity with Language Pair effect as factor.
Considering complex sentences measurement, the analysis of variance (one- way ANOVA) yields a significant effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=12.234, p=.000), since Bilingual children (Mean=44.33, S.D.=5.9) produce smaller numbers of complex sentences than their Monolingual peers (Mean=58.65, S.D.=5.02). Bivariate correlations show that children’s production of complex sentences correlates significantly with their Language Composite Score (LCS): r(50)=.425, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.325, p=.005 for Bilinguals. To isolate the effect of Bilingualism on production of complex sentences the Language Composite Score is entered as a covariate and is found to be significant (F (1,154)=4.762, p=.000, η2=.246), see Figure 15. The between groups differences across the complex sentences is reduced as seen in the Figure below, however the Monolingual children continue to outperform the Bilingual ones (p=.011).
142 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 15. Complex Sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor.
Complex sentences data show an Area of Residence effect (F (1,104)=12.391, p=.022), since we get lower amounts of complex sentences in the Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=41.1, S.D.=4.50) compared to the Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=49.65, S.D.=4.1). Language Composite Score seems to have a significant correlation with the complex sentences: r(50)=.448 p<.001, for Bilinguals living in Greece and r(55)=.319 p=.007, for Bilinguals living abroad. Language Coposite Score was found to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=12.887, p<.001, η2=.422 (Figure 16). The between group differences disappear when we control for Language Composite Score.
143 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 16. Complex Sentences with Area of Residence effect as factor.
A significant Language Pair effect was also detected in the complex sentences data (F (2,104)=15.885, p=.000). The Language Pair effect comes from Greek- Albanian children’s significantly higher percentages of complex sentences (Mean=51.19, S.D.=5.00) relative to Greek-German (Mean=40.06, S.D.=6.75) and Greek-English (Mean=41.59, S.D.=7.62), (p=.000, for both comparisons). Bivariate correlations were carried out, and they seem to show a significant relationship between children’s production of complex sentences and their Language Composite Score: r(40)=.423, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.507, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.569, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate F (1,104)=6.881, p=.001, η2=.223 (Figure 17). The between group differences across complex sentences are reduced, as seen in the Figure below. More specifically, post-hoc tests (Bonferroni correction) reveal that the Greek- Albanian bilinguals tend to use more complex sentences in their oral narrations in comparison to Greek-German (p=.004) and Greek-English bilinguals (p=.003).
144 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 17. Complex Sentences with Language Pair effect as factor.
With respect to the groups’ scores on subordinate clauses the one-way ANOVA reveal an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=8.705, p=.000). The Bilinguals’ production of subordinate clauses (Mean=49.74, S.D.=3.8) was found to be at a lower rate compared to their Monolingual peers (Mean=58.00, S.D.=3.69). Bivariate correlations show that children’s production of subordinate clauses correlates significantly with their Language Composite Scores (LCS): r(50)=.428, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.364, p=.002 for Bilinguals. The Language Composite Score is entered as a covariate and is found to be significant (F (1,154)=5.973, p=.001, η2=.295) (Figure 18). The between groups differences across the subordinate clauses are reduced as seen in the Figure below, however Monolingual children continue to outperform the Bilingual ones (p=.008).
145 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 18. Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
Subordinate clauses data also present a significant Area of Residence effect (F (1,104)=14.000, p=.000), since Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean=57.37, S.D.=8.3) use more subordinate clauses than Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=42.69, S.D.=9.76). Language Composite Score seems to have a significant correlation with the subordinate clauses: r(50)=.492, p<.001 for Bilinguals living in Greece and r(55)=.357, p=.003 for Bilinguals living abroad. Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=17.302, p<.001 η2=.427 (see Figure 19). When we enter Language Composite Score as a covariate the differences between the groups disappear.
146 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 19. Subordinate Clauses with Area of Residence effect as factor.
Subordinate clauses data also exhibit a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,104)=12.301, p=.003). This effect derives from Greek-Albanian group’s higher use of subordinate clauses (Mean=58.85, S.D.=6.64) relative to Greek-German (Mean=49.83, S.D.=12.58) and Greek-English (Mean=47.45, S.D.=12.62), (p=.004, p=.002, respectively). A follow-up analysis revealed significant bivariate correlations between Language Composite Score and subordinate clauses: r(40)=.432, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.429, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.521, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score appears to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=8.418, p=.001, η2=.252. The between group differences across subordinate clauses are reduced (as seen in Figure 20). Post-hoc comparisons reveal that the Greek-Albanian group continues to produce more subordinate clauses, but in this case only relative to the Greek-English Bilinguals (p=.012).
147 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 20. Subordinate Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor.
Moving on to the adverbial clauses data, an effect of Bilingualism occurs (F (1,154)=9.172, p=.000). This effect derives from Bilinguals’ higher use of adverbial clauses (Mean=35.83, S.D.=6.13) relative to the Monolinguals (Mean=27.12, S.D.=7.81). Bivariate correlations show that children’s production of adverbial clauses correlates significantly with their N-Back score: r(50)=.471, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.529, p<.001 for Bilinguals. The N-Back score was entered as a covariate and is found to be significant (F (1,154)=17.873, p<.001, η2=.491). When we control for the N-Back Score the differences between the groups disappear. An effect of the Area of Residence as well has been located in adverbial clauses (F (1,104)=9.742, p=.013). The results show that the Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=32.15, S.D.=2.4) tended to use adverbial clauses in lower rates compared to Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=35.82, S.D.=4.8). Adverbial clauses are found to have a significant correlation with the Language Composite Score r(50)=.554, p<.001 for Bilinguals in Greece and r(55)=.325, p=.005 for Bilinguals abroad. By testing the homogeneity of regression slopes we observe that
148 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures this result does not allow us to proceed to further analysis. Adverbial clauses data also exhibit a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,104)=12.678, p=.000). This effect derives from Greek-Albanian group’s higher use of adverbial clauses (Mean=41.42, S.D.=5.22) relative to Greek-German (Mean=31.18, S.D.=4.12) and Greek-English (Mean=31.23, S.D.=5.13), (p=.000 for both comparisons). A follow-up analysis revealed significant bivariate correlations between Language Composite Score and adverbial clauses: r(40)=.411, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.419, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.536, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score appears to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=11.006, p<.001, η2=.377. When we control for the Language Composite Scores the differences between the groups seem to disappear. Finally, with respect to the complement clauses data, an effect of Bilingualism occurs (F (1,154)=11.653, p=.000). This effect derives from Monolinguals’ higher use of complement clauses (Mean=61.67, S.D.=7.63) relative to the Bilinguals (Mean=42.53, S.D.=6.25). Bivariate correlations show that children’s production of complement clauses correlates with the Language Composite Score which was found to be a significant covariate (F (1,154)=8.345, p=.000, η2=.374). When we control for the Language Composite Score the differences between the groups disappear.
6.5.2 Macrostructure: Age group 8-10 yrs old Table 24 below provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the children of 8- 10 years old in each group with regard to their scores in a range of macrostructure variables, including: [+ToM-related] ISTs, [−ToM-related] ISTs, and Story Grammar.
149 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Effect Groups Story Grammar No of -ToM-related No of +ToM-related (max:100) ISTs/Verb clauses ISTs/Verb clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 76.28 16.39 23.17 (5.70) (5.40) (4.75) Monolinguals 67.73 26.23 15.89 (4.89) (4.41) (5.60) Area of Residence Bilinguals Greece 75.55 15.28 22.09 (5.20) (4.82) (3.28) Bilinguals Abroad 77.54 17.26 23.52 (4.8) (5.21) (4.11) Language Pair Greek-German 77.87 12.14 24.25 (4.84) (3.98) (4.12) Greek-English 79.44 11.05 25.61 (3.12) (4.27) (3.58) Greek-Albanian 69.66 23.09 20.91 (5.27) (4.65) (5.22)
Table 24. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs), for the Story Grammar, for the number of [+ToM-related] ISTs and for the number of [−ToM- related] ISTs, in the retelling mode when participants are subgrouped with respect to the effect studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Story Grammar data present an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=14.923, p=.000), with Monolingual children lagging behind the Bilingual ones, (Bilingual: Mean=76.28, S.D.=5.70 vs. Monolingual: Mean=67.73, S.D.=4.89). A follow-up analysis reveals significant bivariate correlations between N-Back scores and Raven’s scores, on the one hand, and Story Grammar on the other: r(50)=.512, p<.001 and r(50)=.418, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.549, p<.001 and r(105)=.489, p<.001 for Bilinguals. From these two factors only N-Back score (F (1,154)=31.193, p<.001, η2=.311) was found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons with control of N-Back factor lead to the reduction of the difference between Bilinguals and Monolinguals, although Bilinguals continue to exhibit better performance relative to their Monolingual peers (p=.009). It is further found that the Area of Residence effect is not significant in this category (F (1,104)=.231, p=.782). This indicates that the Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=75.55, S.D.=5.2) portray a similar performance with the Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=77.54, S.D.=4.8). An effect of Language Pair was also detected (F (2,104)=6.364, p=.011), since the Greek- German (Mean=77.87, S.D.=4.84) and the Greek-English (Mean=79.44, S.D.=3.12) groups outperform the Greek-Albanian group (Mean=69.66, S.D.=5.27) (p=.046 and p=.032, respectively). Bivariate correlations which were carried out indicate strong relations between children’s N-Back accuracy scores and Story Grammar r(40)=.328, p=.005 for Greek-German, r(30)=.347, p=.004 for Greek-English and r(35)=.299, p=.026 for Greek-Albanian. N-Back score (F (1,104)=15.308, p<.001, η2=.328) was found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons after controlling the N-Back variable lead to the disappearance of the heterogeneities between the three groups. [-ToM-related] ISTs data point to an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=21.219, p=.000), since Monolingual children outperform the Bilingual children (Bilingual children: Mean=16.39, S.D.=5.4 vs. Monolingual: Mean=26.23, S.D.=4.41). Bivariate correlations which were carried out indicate significant relations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs r(50)=.499, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.335, p=.004 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score (F (1,104)=9.872, p<.001, η2=.302) was found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons after controlling the Language Composite Score make the differences among the two groups vanish. The Area of Residence did not seem to affect the results, however an effect of Language Pair was observed (F (2,104)=15.029, p=.000) owing to the Greek-Albanian children’s higher use of [-
151 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
ToM-related] ISTs (Mean=23.09, S.D.=4.65) relative to Greek-English (Mean=11.05, S.D.=4.27), p=.000 and Greek-German (Mean=12.14, S.D.=3.98), p=.001. The performance of [-ToM-related] ISTs appears to have significant correlations with the Language Composite Score r(40)=.327, p=.005 for Greek-German, r(30)=.369, p=.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.402, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian . The Language Composite Score (F (1,104)=10.236, p<.001, η2=.342) was found to be a significant covariate and after controlling for it the differences between the groups vanished. [+ToM-related] IST data show a Bilingualism effect (F (1,154)=25.307 p< .001) which derives from Monolingual children’s significantly lower scores relative to those of Bilingual children (Bilingual: Mean=23.17, S.D.=4.75 vs. Monolingual: Mean=15.89, S.D.=5.60). Bivariate correlations were carried out and indicate significant associations between children’s N-Back scores and [+ToM-related] ISTs r(50)=.376, p=.002 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.463, p<.001 for Bilinguals. N-Back scores (F (1,154)=34.002, p<.001, η2=.306) was found to be a significant covariate. Controlling of N-Back factor leads to the reduction of the difference between Bilinguals and Monolinguals (p=.010), however Bilinguals still achieve higher rates of [+ToM-related] ISTs compared to their Monolingual peers. The Area of Residence and the Language Pair showed no effects in this measurement.
6.5.3 Microstructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old The following Table 25 gives the descriptive statistics for microstructure analysis for the age group 10-12 yrs old on the basis of the nine variables.
152 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
RETELLING MODE Effect Groups Length/Verb Verb No of No of No of No of No of No of No of Clauses Diversity Simple Complex Coordinate Subordinate Complement Adverbial Relative Sentences Sentences Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 35.40 30.79 56.78 43.22 36.06 63.94 46.79 33.89 19.32 (4.21) (6.33) (6.64) (6.64) (11.6) (11.6) (6.72) (5.28) (2.14) Monolinguals 34.21 28.33 58.13 41.87 38.13 61.87 44.50 31.74 23.76 (4.02) (7.65) (4.7) (4.7) (14.8) (14.8) (5.24) (3.95) (2.76) Area of Bilinguals 31.55 28.73 56.15 43.85 33.66 66.34 47.20 35.26 17.54 Residence Greece (4.11) (5.8) (5.51) (5.51) (9.5) (9.5) (6.89) (4.28) (3.98) Bilinguals 32.28 32.20 52.74 42.76 37.84 62.16 45.27 32.74 21.99 Abroad (4.02) (7.50) (7.36) (7.36) (12.8) (12.8) (7.03) (3.59) (3.11) Language Pair Greek-German 31.72 35.74 59.38 40.62 40.63 59.37 48.99 31.21 19.80 (3.18) (7.13) (6.10) (6.10) (11.51) (11.51) (7.24) (4.22) (3.18) Greek-English 33.75 29.79 60.51 39.49 42.22 57.78 48.71 30.26 21.03 (3.93) (6.14) (6.08) (6.08) (10.74) (10.74) (6.84) (7.22) (4.12) Greek-Albanian 30.38 24.61 52.55 47.45 32.66 67.34 41.86 39.71 18.43 (4.19) (8.18) (5.76) (5.76) (8.74) (8.74) (7.82) (14.27) (4.18)
Table 25. Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The results of analyses of microstructure are the same as with the age group 8 to 10, since they did not reveal any significant group effects for the verb clauses measurement. With regard to children’s use of verb diversity, the ANOVA analysis shows that there is no effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=1.867, p=.262). The Bilingual children (Mean=30.79, S.D.=6.33) exhibit a similar performance with their Monolingual peers (Mean=28.33, S.D.=7.65). The same data point to no significant effect of the Area of Residence either (F (1,103)=3.511, p=.062), since Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean=28.73, S.D.=5.8) did not differ from Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=32.20, S.D.=7.50). It should be noted that this behaviour is different from that of the age group 8 to 10 where differences are pronounced, since the Bilinguals living abroad show higher use of different verbs. However, verb diversity data reveal a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,103)=12.957, p=.000). This behaviour can be explained, since Greek-German (Mean=35.74, S.D.=7.13) outperform Greek-English (Mean=29.79, S.D.=6.14), p=.019 and Greek-Albanian (Mean=24.61, S.D.=8.18), p=.000. The difference between Greek-German and Greek-Albanian is also present in the age group 8 to 10. Further analysis showed significant correlations between children’s ELI(2) input of Greek and their scores in verb diversity: r(37)=.462, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(28)=.357, p=.001 for Greek-English and r(19)=.328, p=.005 for Greek-Albanian. An ANCOVA was conducted in order to make language pair the only identifiable difference among the three groups. The covariate of the ELI(2) was found to be significant (F (1,82)=5.443, p=.000, η2=.389). The between group differences across verb diversity disappear when ELI(2) score is controlled. Figure 21 illustrates these results.
154 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 21. Verb Diversity with Language Pair effect as factor.
Complex sentences data do not show an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=2.884, p=.248), since there is no differentiation in the performance of the Bilinguals (Mean=43.22, S.D.=6.6) relative to the Monolinguals (Mean=41.87, S.D.=4.7). At this point it should be reminded that the age group 8 to 10 presents a different performance, since the bilinguals produce lower numbers of complex sentences compared to their monolingual peers. The increase of age seems to be a contributing factor and is able to delete the gap between Bilinguals and Monolinguals with respect to this measure. The Area of Residence did not present an effect either (F (1,103)=.954, p=.380), since both categories exhibit similarities regardless of their majority language (Monolinguals living in Greece: Mean=43.85, S.D.=5.51 and Monolinguals living abroad: Mean=42.76, S.D.=7.36). A significant Language Pair effect is shown in the complex sentences data (F (2,103)=14.333, p=.000). The Language Pair effect is based on Greek-Albanian childrens’ significantly higher percentages of complex sentences (Mean=47.45,
155 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
S.D.=5.76) relative to Greek-German (Mean=40.62, S.D.=6.10) and Greek-English Bilinguals (Mean=39.49, S.D.=6.08), (p=.003, p=.000, respectively). Bivariate correlations carried out demonstrate significant relationships between children’s production of complex sentences and their Language Composite Score: r(39)=.388, p=.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.342, p=.003 for Greek-English and r(35)=.409, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate F (1,103)=6.784, p=.000, η2 =.309 (Figure 22). As seen in the Figure below, the between groups differences across complex sentences disappear when we control for Language Complosite Score.
Figure 22. Complex Sentences with Language Pair effect as factor.
With respect to the groups’ scores on subordinate clauses one-way ANOVAs reveal no effects of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=.583, p=.446) or of Area of Residence (F (1,103)=1.588, p=.164). More specifically, Bilinguals (Mean=63.94, S.D.=11.6) did not differ from their Monolingual peers (Mean=61.87, S.D.=14.8). Similarly, Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean= 66.34, S.D.=9.5) tend to use subordinate clauses in equal amounts as Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=62.16, S.D.=12.8). The age
156 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures factor may be contributing in order to decrease the difference with respect to Bilingualism and Area of Residence effects, which were pronounced in the younger age group as we saw earlier. However, a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,103)=17.995, p=.001) is observed in subordinate clauses. This effect is driven by Greek-German (Mean=59.37, S.D.=11.51) and Greek-English (Mean=57.78, S.D.=10.74) children’s lower production of subordinate clauses relative to Greek-Albanian (Mean=67.34, S.D.=8.74) (p=.003, p=.004, respectively). A follow-up analysis reveals significant bivariate correlations between Language Composite Scores and subordinate clauses: r(39)=.422, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.417, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.482, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score was found to be significant: F (1,103)=28.911, p<.001, η2=.591 (Figure 23). Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that by controlling the Language Composite Score the differences among the groups disappear. Once again the age factor seems to erase the difference obtained in the age group of 8 to 10.
Figure 23. Subordinate Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor.
157 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
With respect to the results concerning the use of adverbial clauses, only a Language Pair effect was detected (F (2,103)=18.121, p=.001). This effect is driven by Greek-German (Mean=31.21, S.D.=4.22) and Greek-English (Mean=30.26, S.D.=7.22) children’s lower production of adverbial clauses relative to Greek- Albanian (Mean=39.71, S.D.=4.27) (p=.004, p=.003, respectively). A follow-up analysis reveals significant bivariate correlations between Language Composite Scores and adverbial clauses: r(39)=.465, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.472, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.518, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate: F (1,103)=22.521, p<.001, η2=.328 (Figure 24). Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that by controlling the Language Composite Score the differences among the groups disappear.
Figure 24. Adverbial Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor.
With respect to the results concerning the use of complement clauses, again only a Language Pair effect was detected (F (2,103)=19.321, p=.014). This effect is
158 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures driven by Greek-German (Mean=48.99, S.D.=7.24) and Greek-English (Mean=48.71, S.D.=6.84) children’s higher production of complement clauses relative to Greek- Albanian (Mean=41.86, S.D.=7.82) (p=.012, for both comparisons), which might be due to transfer from German and English which abound in infinitival clauses. A follow-up analysis reveals significant bivariate correlations between Language Composite Scores and complement clauses r(39)=-.372, p=.002 for Greek-German, r(39)=-.320, p=.005 for Greek-English and r(35)=-.305, p=.009 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score was found to be significant as a covariate: F (1,103)=13.975, p<.001, η2=.310, since after controlling for that the differences between the groups disappear.
6.5.4 Macrostructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old In the following Table 26 we give the results of the descriptive statistics of the three dependent variables (Story Grammar, No of +ToM-related ISTs, and No of -ToM- related ISTs) that we examine for the macrostructure of age group 10-12 yrs old.
159 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Effect Groups Story Grammar No of -ToM-related No of +ToM-related (max:100) ISTs/Verb clauses ISTs/Verb clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 78.70 13.81 23.12 (7.35) (5.55) (5.76) Monolinguals 82.08 22.95 18.92 (6.75) (7.61) (2.95) Area of Residence Bilinguals Greece 79.82 15.42 22.25 (6.13) (7.65) (3.22) Bilinguals Abroad 77.08 11.39 24.12 (5.47) (8.34) (4.12) Language Pair Greek-German 77.90 10.92 21.25 (9.48) (4.15) (3.28) Greek-English 80.37 13.45 24.52 (7.36) (6.34) (4.12) Greek-Albanian 76.75 17.52 21.43 (8.03) (5.62) (3.25)
Table 26. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs), for the Story Grammar, for the number of [+ToM-related] ISTs and for the number of [−ToM- related] ISTs, in the retelling mode when participants are subgrouped with respect to the effect studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The Story Grammar data show no effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=3.284, p=.072), as Bilingual and Monolingual children exhibit a similar performance (Bilingual: Mean=78.70, S.D.=7.35 vs. Monolingual: Mean=82.08, S.D.=6.75); nor is the Area of Residence effect-significant (F (1,103)=.380, p=.539), since Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=79.82, S.D.=6.13) do not differ from Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=77.08, S.D.=5.47). Also the Language Pair effect was not pronounced (F (2,103)=.619, p=.540), as Greek-German group scores (Mean=77.90, S.D.=9.48) align with those of Greek-English (Mean=80.37, S.D.=7.36) and Greek-Albanian (Mean=76.75, S.D.=8.03). The [-ToM-related] ISTs data point to an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=21.329, p=.000), since Monolingual children outperform Bilingual children (Bilingual children: Mean=13.81, S.D.=5.55 vs. Monolingual: Mean=22.95, S.D.=7.61). Bivariate correlations carried out indicate significant relations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs r(50)=.523, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(104)=.478, p<.001 for Bilinguals. The Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate (F (1,153)=11.208, p<.001, η2=.272) and after control for it the differences between the two groups disappear. The Area of Residence, in contrast to the age group 8 to 10 where no differences are detected, seems to affect this measurement (F (1,103)=14.064, p=.000). This effect derives from the children’s living abroad (Mean=11.39, S.D.=8.34) lower rates relative to those living in Greece (Mean=15.42, S.D.=7.65). Like above, bivariate correlations carried out indicate significant relations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs, r(49)=.438, p<.001 for Bilinguals living in Greece and r(55)=.402, p<.001 for Bilinguals living abroad. Also in this case the Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate (F (1,153)=9.823, p<.001, η2=.382) and after control for it the differences between the two groups disappear. Furthermore, an effect of Language Pair is observed (F (2,103)=19.722 p=.000), coming from the higher use of [-ToM-related] ISTs by Greek-Albanian (Mean= 17.52, S.D.=5.62) children relative to that of Greek-German (Mean=10.92, S.D.=4.15) and Greek-English (Mean=13.45, S.D.=6.34), p=.000 and p=.001, respectively. Again, the performance of [-ToM-related] ISTs appears to correlate significantly with the Language Composite Score r(39)=.328, p=.005 for Greek-German, r(30)=.311, p=.009 for Greek-English and r(35)=.383, p=.002 for Greek-Albanian. The Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate (F (1,103)=13.625, p<.001,
161 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
η2=.295) and after control for it the differences between the groups disappear. On the contrary, the [+ToM-related] ISTs data with the age group 8 to 10 did not reveal any positive effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=.638 p=.426). This observation is made on the basis of Monolingual children’s similar performance relative to that by Bilingual children (Bilingual: Mean=23.12, S.D.=5.76 vs. Monolingual: Mean=18.92, S.D.=2.95). The Area of Residence and the Language Pair factors show no effect in this measurement.
6.5.5 The Age Effects: Micro- and Macrostructure Differences in 8-10 vs. 10-12 To see if the age development improves the performance of bilingual participants, ANOVAs are conducted with age as the dependent factor. Only the significant results will be reported here. The bilinguals show a significant Age effect in subordinate clauses (F (1,208)=16.566, p=.000) and in the [-ToM-related] ISTs (F (1,208)=18.770, p=.000). More specifically, the 10-12 age group of Bilinguals appear to reduce the number of coordinates [(Mean=36.06, S.D.=11.6) and [-ToM-related] ISTs (Mean=13.81, S.D.=5.55)], relative to the 8-10 age group (Mean=50.26, S.D.=3.8) and (Mean=16.39, S.D.=5.4). At the same time the 10-12 age group increases the number of subordinate [(Mean=63.94, S.D.=11.6)] relative to the 8-10 age group [(Mean=49.74, S.D.=3.8)]. On the other hand, the two age groups of Monolingual children exhibit a significant age effect in Story Grammar (F (1,99)=7.773, p=.008) and in relative clauses (F (1,99)=6.289, p=.001) since the 10-12 age group [(Mean=82.08, S.D.=6.75) and (Mean=23.76, S.D.=2.76)] outperforms the 8-10 years old group [(Mean=67.73, S.D.=4.89) and (Mean=11.21, S.D.=2.44)]. Also the 10-12 age group decreases the number of complement clauses (Mean=44.50, S.D.=5.24) relative to the 8-10 age group (Mean=61.67, S.D.=7.63), p<.001.
6.5.6 Summary of Retelling in the two different age groups In Table 27 below we give a summary of the results which were discussed in detail in the preceding sections. In the first stage of analysis, we aimed at identifying the factors that contribute crucially in the narrative performance when the bilingual children are divided in two groups of 8 to 10 and 10 to 12 years old and age-matched with monolingual controls. The measurements of the younger age group highlights a significant Language Pair
162 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures effect on microstructure, in the number of complex, subordinate and adverbial clauses. A positive Bilingualism effect is revealed in the performance on macrostructure of the 8-10 yrs old group, with bilingual outperforming monolingual children in Story Grammar and [+ToM-related] ISTs and in the performance on microstructure in the adverbial clauses. The positive impact of Bilingualism on the production of narratives on macrostructure possibly reflects abstract structures shared by the two languages. On the other hand, in the same age group Bilingualism appears with a negative marker with respect to the number of complex sentences and subordinate clauses produced. However, no effect of Bilingualism (either positive or negative) was detected in the older age group.
Dependent Variables Age group 8-10 yrs old Age group 10-12 yrs old Microstructure Measures No of different verbs ------
No of complex sentences -Bilingualism + Language ------Pair No of subordinate -Bilingualism ------clauses + Language Pair No of adverbial clauses ------
Dependent Variables Age group 8-10 yrs old Age group 10-12 yrs old Macrostructure Measures Story Structure + Bilingualism ------Complexity [+ToM-related] ISTs +Bilingualism ------
[−ToM-related] ISTs ------
Table 27. Summary results of retelling micro- and macrostructure in the two different age groups32.
32 In the Table only the effects that remain in the two groups after the controlling of covariates are reported.
163 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Finally, to assess the internal and external factors that may influence the bilingual performance in the micro- and macrostructure measures, first we merge the participants into one group, regardless of age. Then, we submit the seven dependent measures to a Factor Analysis. The analysis (KMO=0.64, p=.000) resulted in two distinct factors that explain 62% of variance (here these factors are called micro- composite score and macro-composite score). The exact procedure is conducted for oral telling and written retelling. In both cases the results exhibit similar performance, since in oral telling the two distinct factors explain 59% of variance (KMO=0.62, p=.000) and in written retelling explain 55% of variance (KMO=0.61, p=.000). The factor scores of coefficients of matrix in the three different tasks are presented in Table 28. The micro-composite score for each participant is created by averaging the five measures with high loading into one component (for example in the oral retelling the new score equals y=0.72xNo of complex sentences+0.69xNo of Subordinate clauses+0.63No of different verbs+0.59xNo of adverbial clauses+0.45x[-ToM- related] ISTs) and similarly the macro-composite score by averaging the two measures with high loading into one component (for example in the oral retelling the new score equals y=0.55xStory Grammar+0.42x[+ToM-related] ISTs).
Oral Retelling Telling Written Retelling Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 No of .72 .13 .68 .11 .64 .10 complex sentences No of .69 .24 .65 .22 .62 .13 subordinate clauses No of .63 .26 .61 .21 .60 .14 different verbs No of .59 -.11 .59 -.13 .57 -.13 adverbial clauses [−ToM- .45 .14 .43 .12 .44 .12 related] ISTs Story -.11 .55 -.13 .53 -.10 .51 Grammar [+ToM- -.06 .42 -.04 .40 -.09 .39 related] ISTs
Table 28. Factor scores of coefficients of matrix for micro- and macrostructure measures.
164 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The finding that the internal state terms should be divided into two categories, with one belonging to microstructure (i.e. [−ToM-related] ISTs) and the second to macrostructure ([+ToM-related] ISTs) is an important fact. Although the examination of internal state terms in bilinguals is still under investigation, the general tendency is for the majority of researchers (e.g. Gagarina, Klop, Kunnari, Tantele, Välimaa, Balčiūnienė, Bohnacker and Walters 2012) to examine these terms, regardless of category, in the same domain (micro- or macrostructure), creating in this way in many cases a distorted picture. From their perspective, these studies are correct in taking ([+/-ToM-related] ISTs) as one category, since their objective is to investigate children’s lexical abilities. In the present thesis, however, cognitive factors are also taken into account in the attempt to explain language and narrative skills. By distinguishing internal state terms into two categories depending on the involvement of ToM, it is possible to identify the different resources from which [-ToM-related] ISTs and [+ToM-related] ISTs draw upon, namely language proficiency and updating together with Balanced Educational Setting respectively.
6.5.7 Oral retellings: Language, cognitive and background measures Preliminary analyses reveal significant bivariate correlations between children’s Language Composite Score, on the one hand, and their performance on narrative micro-composite score, on the other, r(209)=.579, p<.001. Finally, with regard to the background variables the ELI(2) and the CLitU input of Greek language revealed significant correlations with the micro-composite score, r(209)=.411, p<.001 and r(209)=.289, p=.029, respectively. The macro-composite score is found to correlate significantly with the Balanced Educational Setting, r (209)=.528, p<.001, the N-Back accuracy scores, r(209)=.674, p<.001, the Raven’s task, r(209)=.335, p=.004 and the Balanced Language Proficiency, r (209)=.230, p=.040. To explore which variables were independent predictors of children’s performance in micro- and macrostructure, regression models with stepwise backward elimination were constructed. Predictors for each dependent measure were entered according to the significance of the correlational analyses. The results show that Language Composite Score (β=.311, p=.009) that explains 23.7% of the variance and Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.221, p=.036) that explains 17.5% of the
165 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures variance were the only significant predictors for micro-composite score (adjusted R2=.412, F (2,208)=17.087, p=.003) in the oral retelling. With respect to the macro-composite score, the results reveal that the N-Back (β=.423, p<.001) that explains 34.9% of the variance and the Balanced Educational Setting (β=.387, p=.001) that explains 28.3% of the variance are strong predictors (adjusted R2=.632, F (2,208)=12.895, p<.001) in the oral retelling.
6.5.8 Microstructure Telling: Age group 8-10 yrs old Table 29 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the 8-10 year-old children in each bilingual group with regard to their scores in a range of microstructure variables, including narrative length, number of different verbs, number of simple sentences, number of complex sentences, number of coordinate and subordinate clauses, number of complement, adverbial and relative clauses.
166 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
TELLING MODE Effect Groups Length/Verb Verb No of No of No of No of No of No of No of Clauses Diversity Simple Complex Coordinate Subordinate Complement Adverbial Relative Sentences Sentences Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 16.42 27.93 54.78 45.22 54.67 45.33 65.60 22.18 10.22 (4.04) (3.69) (9.45) (9.45) (14.62) (14.62) (6.19) (4.62) (2.32) Monolinguals 21.72 25.45 48.41 51.59 48.06 51.94 48.86 31.92 19.22 (5.16) (3.05) (8.20) (8.20) (13.07) (13.07) (5.78) (3.07) (2.71) Area of Bilinguals 17.00 22.75 51.83 48.17 52.31 47.69 63.56 25.22 11.22 Residence Greece (3.38) (8.45) (7.01) (7.01) (8.76) (8.76) (6.11) (3.41) (4.12) Bilinguals 15.78 31.51 55.98 44.02 55.08 44.92 68.06 20.72 11.22 Abroad (4.66) (7.58) (6.35) (6.35) (13.46) (13.46) (6.44) (3.41) (4.13) Language Pair Greek-German 16.73 28.44 59.97 40.03 62.11 37.89 65.17 19.72 15.11 (3.99) (5.91) (8.93) (8.93) (9.10) (9.10) (5.72) (4.80) (4.01) Greek-English 17.50 26.27 58.65 41.35 55.11 44.89 60.32 20.67 19.01 (4.24) (7.62) (9.10) (9.10) (15.03) (15.03) (5.33) (3.8) (3.11) Greek-Albanian 15.29 28.62 46.44 53.56 42.25 57.75 57.56 27.33 15.11 (3.83) (7.67) (3.50) (3.50) (11.84) (11.84) (5.22) (2.9) (2.11)
Table 29. Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The results of the analysis of the verb clauses reveal an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=15.030, p=.000), as the Monolingual children (Mean=21.72, S.D.=5.16) produce longer narrations than the Bilingual children (Mean=16.42, S.D.=4.04). Bivariate Pearson correlations have been conducted and the results yield significant correlations between children’s Language Composite Score and their performance in verb clauses: r(50)=.358, p=.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.301, p=.009 for Bilinguals. A follow-up analysis was also performed to see if there are differences between the Monolinguals and the Bilinguals in verb clauses outcome, when Language Composite Score is statistically controlled. An ANCOVA was run and the outcome reveals that Language Composite Score was a significant covariate (F (1,154)=6.414, p=.001, η2=.319. There is a tendency for the number of verb clauses across groups to increase with higher performances in the Language Composite Score. The between group differences across verb diversity disappear when Language Composite Score is controlled. Figure 25 illustrates these results.
Figure 25. Verb Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
With regard to children’s use of verb clauses, the ANOVA analysis did not
168 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures show any effect of Area of Residence (F (1,104)=1.547, p=.218), since there is no significant difference between Bilingual children living abroad (Mean=15.78, S.D.=4.66) and Bilingual children living in Greece (Mean=17.00, S.D.=3.38). Verb clauses data did not show a significant effect of Language Pair either (F (2,104)=1.682, p=.194, since the Greek-German (Mean=16.73, S.D.=3.99), the Greek- English (Mean=17.50, S.D.=4.24) and the Greek-Albanian bilinguals (Mean=15.29, S.D.=3.83) produce equal amounts of verb clauses. With regard to children’s use of different verbs, the ANOVA analysis did not show an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=1.012, p=.398), since the Bilingual children (Mean=27.93, S.D.=3.69) produce equal amounts of different verbs with the Monolingual children (Mean=25.45, S.D.=3.05). Verb diversity data show that there is an effect of Area of Residence (F (1,104)=11.939, p=.001). As with the results in retelling, also the results in telling are affected by the minority language used. More specifically, Bilingual children abroad produce higher amounts of different verbs (Mean=31.51, S.D.=7.58) than Bilingual children living in Greece (Mean=22.75, S.D.=8.45). Bivariate Pearson correlations have been conducted and the results yield significant relations between children’s ELI(2) input of Greek and their performance in verb diversity: r(47)=.401, p<.001 for Bilinguals living in Greece and r(52)=.436, p<.001 for Bilinguals living abroad. A follow-up analysis was also performed to investigate differences between the Bilinguals living abroad and the Bilinguals living in Greece in verb diversity outcome and with ELI(2) being statistically controlled. An ANCOVA was run with ELI(2) as covariate, Area of Residence as a between-subjects variable, and verb diversity as the dependent variable. The outcome reveals a main effect of ELI(2) (F(1,86)=18.056, p=.001, η2=.324. The between group differences across verb diversity vanish when ELI(2) is controlled. The same performance is observed with the retelling mode. Figure 26 illustrates these results.
169 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 26. Verb Diversity with Area of Residence effect as factor.
Verb diversity data did not show a significant effect of Language Pair (F (2,104) =.440, p=.646, since the Greek-German (Mean=28.44, S.D.=5.91), the Greek- English (Mean=26.27, S.D.=7.62) and the Greek-Albanian bilinguals (Mean=28.62, S.D.=7.67) produce similar amounts of verb diversity. As for the complex sentences measurement, the analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) yields a significant effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=16.310, p<.001), since Bilingual children (Mean=45.22, S.D.=9.45) produce fewer complex sentences than their Monolingual peers (Mean=51.59, S.D.=8.20). Bivariate correlations show that children’s production of complex sentences correlates significantly with their Language Composite Score: r(50)=.415, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.382, p=.001 for Bilinguals. To isolate the effect of Bilingualism on production of complex sentences the Language Composite Score is entered as a covariate and is found to be significant (F (1,154)=14.526, p<.001, η2=.498). Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that when the Language Composite Score is controlled the difference between the groups seems to disappear (see Figure 27)
170 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 27. Complex Sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor.
In contrast to the retelling mode where an Area of Residence effect was initially detected but vanished after controlling for Language Composite Score, here complex sentences data show no Area of Residence effect (F (1,104)=1.377, p=.071), since we have equal amount of complex sentences for the Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=48.17, S.D.=7.01) and the Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=44.02, S.D.=6.35). However, we do see a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,104)=20.184, p=.000) which seems to come from Greek-Albanian children’s significantly higher percentages of complex sentences (Mean=53.56, S.D.=3.50) relative to the Greek- German (Mean=40.03, S.D.=8.93) and the Greek-English Bilinguals (Mean=41.35, S.D.=9.10), (p=.000 for both comparisons). Finally, bivariate correlations were carried out, and they show significant relationships between children’s production of complex sentences and their Language Composite Score: r(40)=.423, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.419, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.483, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score is a significant covariate F (1,104)=19.995, p=.000, η2=.461. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction)
171 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures reveal that controlling for the Language Composite Score the differences among the three groups disappear, something that also occurs with the same participants in the retelling mode (see Figure 28).
Figure 28. Complex Sentences with Area of Residence effect as factor.
With respect to the scores of the two groups on subordinate clauses, the one- way ANOVA reveal an effect of bilingualism (F (1,154)=13.223, p<.001). The Bilinguals’ production of subordinate clauses (Mean=45.33, S.D.=14.62) was found to be lower compared to their Monolingual peers (Mean=51.94, S.D.=13.07). Bivariate Pearson correlations have been conducted and the results yield significant relations between children’s Language Composite Score and their performance in subordinate clauses: r(50)=.469, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.337, p=.004 for Bilinguals. A follow-up analysis was also performed to see if there are differences between Monolinguals and Bilinguals in subordinate clauses outcome, with Language Composite Score being statistically controlled. An ANCOVA was run and the outcome reveals Language Composite Score as a significant covariate (F (1,154)=16.414, p=.001, η2=.355. After controlling for Language Composite Score
172 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures the differences disappear, something that comes in contrast to the retelling mode where even after controlling for Language Composite Score the Bilinguals continue to outperform the Monilinguals (see Figure 29).
Figure 29. Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
Subordinate clauses data did not show a significant Area of Residence effect (F (1,104)=.114, p=.414), in contrast to the different performance with respect to the retelling mode where the Bilinguals living in Greece show a higher percentage of subordinate clauses. More specifically, in the telling mode the Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=44.92, S.D.=13.46) produce the same amounts of subordinate clauses as the Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean=47.69, S.D.=8.76). Subordinate clauses data exhibit a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,104)=15.782, p=.000). This effect derives from Greek-Albanian group’s higher percentages of subordinate clauses (Mean=57.75, S.D.=11.84) relative to Greek- English (Mean=44.89, S.D.=15.03) and Greek-German (Mean=37.89, S.D.=9.10), p=.011, p=.000), respectively. A follow-up analysis revealed significant bivariate
173 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures correlations between Language Composite Score and subordinate clauses: r(40)=.428, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.467, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.492, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score appears to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=26.138, p<.001, η2=.329 (as seen in Figure 30). Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that controlling for the Language Composite Score the differences between the groups disappear.
Figure 30. Subordinate Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor.
Moving on to the adverbial clauses data, an effect of Bilingualism is detected (F (1,154)=13.715, p=.000). The Bilinguals’ production of adverbial clauses (Mean=22.18, S.D.=4.62) was found to be lower compared to their Monolingual peers (Mean=31.92, S.D.=3.07). Adverbial clauses have significant correlations with the Language Composite Score r(50)=.422, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.389, p=.001 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score was found to be a significant covariate: F (1,104)=21.782, p=001, η2=.322. After controlling for the Language Composite Score the differences between the two groups vanish (Figure 31).
174 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 31. Adverbial Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
The Area of Residence did not reveal an effect. However, an effect of Language Pair has been located (F (2,104)=12.289, p=.000). The results show that the Greek-German (Mean=19.72, S.D.=4.80) and the Greek-English bilinguals (Mean= 20.67, S.D.=3.80) tend to produce adverbial clauses at lower rates compared to Greek- Albanian (Mean=27.33, S.D.=2.91), p=.000, for both comparisons. Adverbial clauses are found to have significant correlations with the Language Composite Score r(40)=.429, p<.001 for Greek-German, r(30)=.448, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.523, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. Language Composite Score is significant as a covariate: F (1,104)=30.104, p<.001, η2=.413. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that after controlling for Language Composite Scores the differences disappear, something that also occurs in the retelling mode (Figure 32).
175 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 32. Adverbial Clauses with Language Pair effect as factor.
6.5.9 Macrostructure Telling: Age group 8-10 yrs old Table 30 below provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of 8-10 year-old children in each group with regard to their scores in a range of macrostructure variables, including: [+ToM-related] ISTs, [−ToM-related] ISTs, and Story Grammar.
176 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Effect Groups Story Grammar No of -ToM-related No of +ToM-related (max:100) ISTs/Verb clauses ISTs/Verb clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 71.72 14.99 19.47 (4.67) (5.52) (4.93) Monolinguals 39.66 23.10 10.73 (4.33) (4.23) (3.87) Area of Residence Bilinguals Greece 66.91 14.15 17.22 (5.99) (3.08) (3.21) Bilinguals Abroad 73.40 13.25 20.35 (7.60) (2.91) (4.12) Language Pair Greek-German 68.53 12.25 19.35 (5.60) (2.11) (3.22) Greek-English 72.11 13.12 20.22 (4.64) (2.75) (4.11) Greek-Albanian 73.08 17.22 17.35 (3.06) (2.38) (4.6)
Table 30. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs), for the Story Grammar, for the number of [+ToM-related] ISTs and for the number of [−ToM- related] ISTs, in the telling mode when participants are subgrouped with respect to the effect studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Story Grammar data present an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,154)=16.128, p=.000), with Monolingual children underperforming the Bilingual ones, (Bilingual: Mean=71.72, S.D.=4.67 vs. Monolingual: Mean=39.66, S.D.=4.33). A follow-up analysis reveals significant bivariate correlations between N-Back accuracy scores on the one hand, and Story Grammar on the other: r(50)=.422, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.478, p<.001 for Bilinguals. N-Back accuracy scores (F (1,135)=29.682, p<.001, η2=.489) is found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons with control of this factor lead to the reduction of the differences, however the Bilingual children continue to perform better than Monolinguals (p=.007). This seems to be an important point since it appears consistently across the same participants also throughout the retelling mode. It is further found that the Area of Residence effect is not significant (F (1,104)=.769, p=.384) in this category. This indicates that Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=69.91, S.D.=5.99) portray a similar performance as Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=73.40, S.D.=7.60). No effect of Language Pair was detected (F (2,104)=1.121, p=.122), since opposite to the retelling mode where the Greek-German and the Greek-English groups outperform the Greek-Albanian group before covarying for the N-Back score, here all groups exhibit a similar performance (Greek-German (Mean=68.53, S.D.=5.60), Greek-English (Mean=72.11, S.D.=4.64) and Greek- Albanian (Mean=73.08, S.D.=3.06). [-ToM-related] ISTs data point to an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,104)=11.335, p=.000), since Monolingual children outperform the Bilingual children (Bilingual children: Mean=14.99, S.D.=5.52 vs. Monolingual: Mean=23.10, S.D.=4.23). Bivariate correlations which were carried out indicate significant correlations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs r(50)=.457, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.337, p=.004 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score (F (1,154)=9.229, p<.001, η2=.218) is found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons with control of this factor lead to the disappearance of the differences between the two groups. The Area of Residence did not seem to affect this measurement. An effect of Language Pair was observed (F (2,104)=16.448, p=.001), coming from Greek-Albanian children’s higher production of [-ToM-related] ISTs (Mean=17.22, S.D.=2.38) relative to Greek-English (Mean=13.12, S.D.=2.75), p=.003, and Greek-German (Mean=12.25, S.D.=2.11), p=.001. The performance of [-ToM-related] ISTs appears to have significant
178 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures correlations with the Language Composite Score r(40)=.422, p<.001 for Greek- German, r(30)=.418, p<.001 for Greek-English and r(35)=.498, p<.001 for Greek- Albanian. Language Composite Score (F (1,104)=10.328, p<.001, η2=.307) is found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons with control of this factor lead to the disappearance of the differences between the two groups. [+ToM-related] ISTs data show a Bilingualism effect (F (1,154)=21.231 p- =.000) which derives from Monolingual children’s significantly lower scores relative to Bilingual children (Bilingual: Mean=19.47, S.D.=4.93 vs. Monolingual: Mean=10.73, S.D.=3.87). Bivariate correlations were carried out and indicate significant correlations between children’s N-Back accuracy scores and [+ToM- related] ISTs r(50)=.429, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(105)=.538, p<.001 for Bilinguals. N-Back accuracy score (F (1,134)=13.824, p<.001, η2=.297) is found to be a significant covariate. Pairwise comparisons show that although the differences between the groups are reduced still Bilinguals outperform Monolinguals (p=.009). The Area of Residence and the Language Pair showed no effects in this measurement.
6.5.10 The Mode Effect (Retelling vs. Telling): Micro- and macrostructure differences In order to see if the mode improves the performance of monolingual and bilingual participants paired sample T-tests are conducted between the two different modes. Only the significant results will be reported here. The results of the Bilinguals revealed that they tend to produce more adverbial clauses in retelling than in telling t(102)=4.126, p=.000 and longer narrations (verb clauses) t(102)=2.161, p=.033, and they also appear to have a better performance in Story Grammar in retelling than in telling t(102)=16.411, p=.023. On the other hand, the Monolingual children exhibit a similar performance, since they tend to produce more subordinate clauses in retelling than in telling t(47)=4.118, p=.021, and more length (verb clauses) t(49)=5.237, p=.019. They also show a better performance in Story Grammar in retelling than in telling t(47)=17.339, p=.000 (a really large difference is detected (reaching 28.07%) as in the two modes we have 67.73% and 39.66% respectively). With respect to the effects that were obtained between the two different modes (see Table 31) in the same age group of 8-10 yrs old we observe the positive effect of Bilingualism in the macrostructure domain, particularly in the categories of Story
179 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Grammar and [+ToM-related] ISTs. However, the telling mode seems to improve bilinguals’ performance compared to retelling mode, since after covarying internal factors the negative effect of bilingualism seems to disappear in the categories of subordinate and coordinate clauses, as the bilinguals exhibit similar performance with their monolingual peers. In other words, the monolinguals seem to benefit more from the priming of retelling than the bilinguals, something that contrasts with other studies that imply that the telling mode is presumed to be more difficult (e.g. Hayward, Gillam and Lien 2007). As pointed out by Gagarina, Klop, Bohnacker, Kunnari, Tantele, Välimaa, Balčiūnienė and Walters (2012:19 with reference to Schneider, Hayward and Dubé 2006), “telling may offer the child more freedom to use his/her imagination and thus may better reflect the child’s lexis. Therefore telling formats may provide more information about children’s independent narrative formulation abilities than retelling.”
Dependent Variables Retelling mode Telling mode Microstructure Measures No of different verbs ------
No of complex sentences -Bilingualism + Language ------Pair No of subordinate -Bilingualism ------clauses + Language Pair No of adverbial clauses ------
Dependent Variables Macrostructure Measures Story Structure + Bilingualism + Bilingualism Complexity [+ToM-related] ISTs +Bilingualism +Bilingualism
[−ToM-related] ISTs ------
Table 31. Summary results of micro- and macrostructure in the two different modes in the age group of 8-10.
180 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
6.5.11 Oral Telling: Language, cognitive and background measures To assess the internal and external factors that may influence the bilingual performance in the micro- and macrostructure measures in oral telling we follow the same procedure that is described above (see 6.5.6). Preliminary analyses reveal significant bivariate correlations between children’s Language Composite Score on the one hand and their performance on narrative micro-composite score on the other, r(104)=.661, p<.001. Finally, with regard to the background variables, the Early Literacy Preparedness and the Current Language Use (input of Greek) revealed significant correlations with the micro- composite score, r(104)=.589, p<.001 and r(104)=.441, p<.001, respectively. The macro-composite score is found to correlate significantly with the Balanced Educational Setting r(104)=.442, p<.001, the N-Back task r(104)=.519 p<.001 and the Balanced Language Proficiency r(104)=.332, p=.004. To explore which variables were independent predictors of children’s performance in micro- and macrostructure of the telling mode, regression models with stepwise backward elimination were constructed. Predictors for each dependent measure were entered according to the significance of the correlational analyses. The results show that Language Composite Score and ELI(2) input of Greek are strong predictors for micro-composite score (adjusted R2=.302, F (2,103)=12.903, p<.001) with Language Composite Score being the strongest. With respect to the macro- composite score, the results reveal that the N-Back task and the Balanced Educational Setting are strong predictors (adjusted R2=.378, F (2,103)=10.998, p<.001) with N- Back being the stronger predictor.
6.5.12 Microstructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old: Written retellings Table 32 below provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the children of 10- 12 years old in each group with regard to their scores in a range of microstructure measures.
181 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
WRITTEN RETELLING MODE Effect Groups Length/Verb Verb No of No of No of No of No of No of No of Clauses Diversity Simple Complex Coordinate Subordinate Complement Adverbial Relative Sentences Sentences Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses Clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 15.21 22.98 52.74 47.26 32.74 67.26 55.24 31.43 13.33 (4.19) (5.28) (5.64) (5.64) (8.22) (8.22) (5.88) (4.66) (3.58) Monolinguals 17.71 19.67 41.79 58.21 20.79 79.21 38.6 43.52 17.88 (5.07) (3.11) (3.48) (3.48) (5.11) (5.11) (6.29) (5.33) (2.33) Area of Bilinguals 16.21 19.66 51.37 48.63 35.33 64.67 47.59 33.08 19.33 Residence Greece (4.11) (5.64) (5.28) (5.28) (7.07) (7.07) (5.89) (4.79) (4.07) Bilinguals 14.13 25.22 53.67 46.33 30.02 69.98 55.34 30.99 13.67 Abroad (5.11) (5.49) (5.31) (5.31) (12.33) (12.33) (7.12) (5.41) (3.88) Language Pair Greek-German 14.21 22.71 50.89 49.11 36.98 63.02 54.62 30.67 14.71 (2.79) (5.86) (4.35) (4.35) (12.29) (12.29) (6.98) (5.67) (4.77) Greek-English 15.77 20.61 49.88 50.12 34.83 65.17 54.09 32.03 13.88 (5.11) (4.91) (5.32) (5.32) (9.12) (9.12) (6.22) (4.56) (3.56) Greek-Albanian 16.11 20.18 54.08 45.92 30.91 69.09 48.42 33.75 17.83 (3.22) (4.19) (7.46) (7.46) (9.09) (9.09) (6.10) (3.88) (3.88)
Table 32. Groups’ mean scores (and SDs) for the verb clauses and groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for all other variables with respect to the different effects studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The results of analyses of microstructure show similarities with oral retelling mode, since they did not yield any significant group effects in the verb clauses measurement. With regard to children’s use of verb diversity, the ANOVA analysis shows that there is no effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=1.023, p=.284). The Bilingual children (Mean=22.98, S.D.=5.28) exhibit a similar performance with their Monolingual peers (Mean=19.67, S.D.=3.11). The same data point to no significant effect of the Area of Residence either (F (1,103)=2.888, p=.051), since Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean=19.66, S.D.=5.64) did not differ from Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=25.22, S.D.=5.49). Verb diversity data do not reveal a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,103)=1.071, p=.698), since Greek-German (Mean=22.71, S.D.=5.86), Greek- English (Mean=20.61, S.D.=4.91) and Greek-Albanian (Mean=20.18, S.D.=4.19) perform similarly. This comes in contrast to the oral retelling where Greek-German exhibit better performance than the other two groups. We found that this difference was driven by the different amount of ELI(2) input (Greek), something that does not seem to play a significant role in the written mode of narrative production. Complex sentences data show an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=10.486, p=.000), as Bilinguals (Mean=47.26, S.D.=5.64) produce smaller amounts of complex sentences in written forms than Monolinguals (Mean=58.21, S.D.=3.48). Bivariate correlations carried out demonstrate significant relationships between children’s production of complex sentences, on the one hand, and their Language Composite Score on the other: r(50)=.458, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(104)=.389, p=.001 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score is found to be a significant covariate F (1,153)=18.998, p=.001, η2=.332 (Figure 33). After controlling for Language Composite Score the differences between the two groups disappear. In the written form a bilingual disadvantage is detected, whereas in the oral retelling there is no differentiation between bilingual and monolingual performance. Perhaps, the bilinguals are in a disadvantageous position in the written mode.
183 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Figure 33. Complex Sentences with Bilingualism effect as factor.
The Area of Residence showed no effect (F (1,103)=1.513, p=.069), since both groups exhibit similarities regardless of their majority language (Bilinguals living in Greece: Mean=48.63, S.D.=5.28 and Bilinguals living abroad: Mean=46.33, S.D.=5.31). No significant Language Pair effect is detected in the complex sentences data (F (2,103)=1.833, p=.345). All bilingual children produce equal amounts of complex sentences: Greek-Albanian (Mean=45.92, S.D.=7.46), Greek-English (Mean=50.12, SD= 5.32) and Greek-German (Mean=49.11, S.D.=4.35). With respect to the groups’ scores on subordinate clauses one-way ANOVA reveal an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=12.593, p=.001), since Bilinguals (Mean=67.26, S.D.=8.22) produce fewer subordinate clauses relative to Monolinguals (Mean=79.21, S.D.=5.11). Bivariate correlations carried out demonstrate significant relationships between children’s production of subordinate clauses, on the one hand, and their Language Composite Score on the other: r(50)=.409, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(104) =.369, p=.001 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score is
184 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures a significant covariate F(1,153)=26.134, p=.000, η2=.546 (see Figure 34). After controlling for Language Composite Score the differences between the two groups disappear.
Figure 34. Subordinate Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
No Area of Residence effect has been detected (F (1,103)=.120, p=.730). The Bilinguals living in Greece (Mean=64.67, S.D.=7.07) tend to use subordinate clauses in equal amounts as the Bilinguals living abroad (Mean=69.98, S.D.=12.33). Subordinate clauses data did not show a significant Language Pair effect (F (2,103)=.579, p=.562), since the Greek-German (Mean=63.02, S.D.=12.29), the Greek-English (Mean=65.17, S.D.=9.12) and the Greek-Albanian bilingual children (Mean=69.09, S.D.=9.09) did not show any difference in the number of subordinate clauses produced. A significant Bilingualism effect is shown in the adverbial clauses data (F (1,153)=16.268, p=.000), since Monolinguals (Mean=43.52, S.D.=5.33) outperform Bilinguals (Mean=31.43, S.D.=4.66). Bivariate correlations carried out demonstrate significant relationships between children’s production of adverbial clauses, on the
185 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures one hand, and their Language Composite Score on the other: r(50)=.409, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(104)=.352, p=.002 for Bilinguals. Language Composite Score is a significant covariate F (1,103)=17.981, p=.000, η2=.346 (see Figure 35). Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) reveal that after controlling the Language Composite Score the differences between the two groups disappear.
Figure 35. Adverbial Clauses with Bilingualism effect as factor.
6.5.13 Macrostructure: Age group 10-12 yrs old written Retelling In the following Table 33 we give the results of the descriptive statistics of the three dependent variables (Story Grammar, No of +ToM-related ISTs/verb clauses, and No of -ToM-related ISTs/verb clauses) that we examined for the macrostructure of age group 10-12 yrs old.
186 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Effect Groups Story Grammar No of -ToM-related No of +ToM-related (max:100) ISTs/verb clauses ISTs/verb clauses
Bilingualism Bilinguals 75.67 18.40 20.11 (5.40) (4.23) (4.76) Monolinguals 74.40 24.51 16.33 (4.86) (3.11) (3.44) Area of Residence Bilinguals Greece 73.75 22.38 21.28 (4.42) (5.77) (3.41) Bilinguals Abroad 76.61 15.45 19.15 (5.39) (6.31) (3.75) Language Pair Greek-German 76.32 15.29 22.13 (6.46) (5.48) (4.12) Greek-English 72.36 18.99 21.17 (5.08) (4.42) (3.75) Greek-Albanian 73.51 23.52 17.95 (6.38) (5.28) (4.58)
Table 33. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs), for the Story Grammar, for the number of [+ToM-related] ISTs and for the number of [−ToM- related] ISTs, in the written retelling mode when participants are subgrouped with respect to the effect studied.
Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
The Story Grammar data show no effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=.869, p=.353), as Bilingual and Monolingual children exhibit similar performances (Bilingual: Mean=75.67, S.D.=5.40 vs. Monolingual: Mean=74.40, S.D.=4.86); nor is the Area of Residence effect significant (F (1,103)=.245, p=.621), since Bilinguals who live in Greece (Mean=73.75, S.D.=4.42) do not differ from Bilinguals who live abroad (Mean=76.61, S.D.=5.39). No Language Pair effect was detected (F (2,103)=1.242, p=.873), as all bilinguals show similar performance (i.e. Greek- English (Mean=72.36, S.D.=5.08), Greek-German (Mean=76.32, S.D.=6.46) and Greek-Albanian (Mean=73.51, S.D.=6.38). The [-ToM-related] ISTs data point to an effect of Bilingualism (F (1,153)=12.128, p=.000), since Monolingual children outperform the Bilingual children (Bilingual children: Mean=18.40, S.D.=4.23 vs. Monolingual: Mean=24.51, S.D.=3.11). Bivariate correlations carried out indicate significant correlations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs r(50)=.423, p<.001 for Monolinguals and r(104)=.369, p=.002 for Bilinguals. By testing the homogeneity of regression slopes the result is not satisfactory, thus not allowing further analysis. The Area of Residence also seems to affect this measurement (F (1,103)=12.876, p=.021). This effect derives from the children’s living in Greece (Mean=22.38, S.D.=5.77) higher rates relative to those living abroad (Mean=15.45, S.D.=6.31). Like above, bivariate correlations carried out indicate significant correlations between children’s Language Composite Score and [-ToM-related] ISTs r(49)=.478, p<.001 for Bilinguals living in Greece and r(55)=.413, p<.001 for Bilinguals living abroad. Also in this case the test of homogeneity of regression slopes does not permit us to move on to the ANCOVA analysis. Furthermore, an effect of Language Pair is observed (F (2,103)=12.973, p=.000), coming from Greek-Albanian (Mean=23.52, S.D.=5.28) children’s higher use of [-ToM-related] ISTs relative to that of Greek- German (Mean=15.29, S.D.=5.48) and Greek-English (Mean=18.99, S.D.=4.42) (p=.000 and p=.002, respectively). Again, the performance of [-ToM-related] ISTs appears to correlate significantly with the Language Composite Score r(39)=.379, p=.002 for Greek-German, r(30)=.324, p=.005 for Greek-English and r(35)=.410, p<.001 for Greek-Albanian. In the testing of homogeneity of regression slopes the result is not satisfactory and hence no further analysis was conducted. On the other hand, the [+ToM-related] ISTs data do not reveal any positive Bilingualism effect (F (1,153)=.538, p=.521). This observation is made on the basis of
188 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Monolingual children’s similar performance relative to Bilingual children (Bilingual: Mean=20.11 S.D.=4.76 vs. Monolingual: Mean=16.33, S.D.=3.44). The Area of Residence and the Language Pair factors show no effect in this measurement.
6.5.14 The Effect of Mode (retelling vs. written retelling): Micro- and macrostructure differences To see if the mode improves the performance of monolingual and bilingual participants paired sample T-tests are conducted between the two different modes. Only the significant results will be reported here. The results of the bilinguals revealed that they tend to produce longer narrations (verb clauses) in oral retelling than in the written retelling t(101)=12.264, p=.000. This finding is in direct contrast to other studies according to which utterances are shorter in order to manage processing cost and memory capacities (see Biber 2009, Ravid and Berman 2009), whereas written language tends to be more explicit in order to be understood context- independently. However, the aforementioned researchers have claimed that differences between oral and written language are not absolute, emphasize the importance of genre differences in the mediation between the two types of language register. Also the Bilinguals tend to produce more [-ToM-related] ISTs in written retelling than in the oral retelling t(101)=11.022, p=.012. Finally, the monolingual children exhibit a similar performance, since they tend to produce longer narrations (verb clauses) in oral retelling than in written retelling t(46)=5.890, p=.000 and more adverbial clauses in written retelling than in oral retelling t(46)=-6.723, p=.041. With respect to the effects that were obtained between the two different modes (see Table 34 below) in the same age group of 10-12 yrs old and after covarying internal factors we observe a negative effect of Bilingualism in the macrostructure domain, particularly in the category of [-ToM-related] ISTs in the written form. Although it is claimed that the writting procedure promotes top-down processes (i.e. ‘thinking for writing’, cf. Slobin 2003), in our results we did not observe differences between oral and written narratives, as did, for example, Kormos and Trebits (2012) investigating task-complexity differences.
189 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Dependent Variables Written Retelling Mode Macrostructure ------Measures
Macrostructure Measures
Story Structure ------Complexity [+ToM-related] ISTs ------
[−ToM-related] ISTs -Bilingualism
Table 34. Summary results of micro- and macrostructure in the written retelling mode in the age group of 10-12.
6.5.15 Written Retellings: Language, cognitive and background measures With respect to the internal and external factors that may influence the bilingual performance in the micro- and macrocomposite scores in written retelling, preliminary analyses reveal significant bivariate correlations between children’s Language Composite Score and Lexical Decision Task on the one hand and their performance on narrative micro-composite score on the other, r(104)=.531, p<.001, and r(104)=.378, p=.002, respectively. Finally, with regard to the background variables the Early Literacy Preparedness and the Current Language Use revealed significant correlations with the micro-composite score, r(104)=.421, p<.001 and r(104)=.528, p<.001, respectively. The macro-composite score is found to correlate significantly with the Balanced Educational Setting r(104)=.321, p=.005, the N-Back task r(104)=.478 p<.001 and the Balanced Language Proficiency r(104)=.306, p=.009. To explore which variables were independent predictors of children’s performance in micro- and macrostructure, regression models with stepwise backward elimination were constructed. Predictors for each dependent measure were entered according to the significance of the correlational analyses. The results show that Language Composite Score and the CLangU (input of Grek) are strong predictors for micro-composite score (adjusted R2=.302, F (2,103)=12.903, p<.001), with Language
190 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Composite Score as the strongest predictor. With respect to the macro-composite score the results reveal that the updating task and the Balanced Educational Setting are strong predictors (adjusted R2=.178, F (2,103)=10.998, p<.001), with updating task as the strongest predictor.
6.6 Conclusions The first objective of the Chapter was to explore if the data of children’s narratives are affected by Bilingualism, Area of Residence and Language Pair. We can summarize the results of the preceding analysis as follows:
a. An effect of Bilingualism was only detected in the telling mode data, in narrative length (verb clauses) in which monolinguals outperformed bilinguals. A similar result has been reported in other studies as well (e.g. Meiser 2007, Schlyter 1993). More specifically, these studies show that bilingual children produce smaller narratives in their weaker language. To the extent that bilingual children have lower proficiency in their weaker language, the findings from the previous studies are supported by the present findings. Specifically, in view of the fact that when controlling for the Language Composite Score of the participants the differences between the two groups disappear (see Table 35 below), differences in narrative length seem to stem exclusively from language proficiency levels.
Bilingualism Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8-10 Verb ------Oral Retelling 10-12 Clauses/Length ------Telling 8-10 Mono>Bili Language Composite Score: no differences Written Retelling 10------12
Table 35. Summary of Bilingualism effect with respect to the verb clauses.
b. In Table 36 we observe that the effect of bilingualism in complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses is more pronounced in the younger age group (8- 10). In the oral retelling mode, the younger group of bilingual children is the only group that lags behind monolinguals in the production of complex sentences and
191 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
subordinate clauses even after controlling for Language Composite Score, but this is the only case where bilinguals outperform monolinguals in adverbials (marked in bold in the Table). It seems that adverbials show more transferability at some conceptual level from one language to the other with fewer syntactic constraints involved. For instance, the use of adverbial clauses presupposes knowledge of the connectives and internal clause structure but does not impose constraints on complement selection as is the case with clausal complement of verbs which may show crosslinguistic differences. In contrast, the older group of bilingual children exhibits performance similar with their monolingual peers in the oral retelling mode (see also Chapter 9). In this case the age factor seems to affect positively the bilinguals’ performance on syntactic complexity.
Bilingualism Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8-10 Complex Mono>Bili Language Composite Score: Sentences differences still hold for complex and Subordinate subordinate clauses Clauses
Adverbial Bili>Mono N-Back scores: Clauses no differences Oral Retelling 10-12 Complex ------Telling 8-10 Sentences Mono>Bili Language Composite Score: Subordinate no differences Written Retelling 10- Clauses Mono>Bili Language Composite Score: 12 Adverbial no differences Clauses
Table 36. Summary of Bilingualism effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses.
c. The positive effect of bilingualism in the category of Story Grammar and in the [+ToM-related] ISTs is evident only in the younger age group (8-10), since the bilingual children of this group outperform their monolingual peers (as seen in the following Table 37). This difference holds even after controlling for updating skills.
192 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Bilingualism Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8- Story Bili>Mono N-Back: 10 Grammar differences still hold Oral Retelling 10- & ------12 [+ToM- Telling 8-10 related] ISTs Bili>Mono N-Back: differences still hold Written Retelling ------10-12
Table 37. Summary of Bilingualism effect with respect to the Story Grammar and the [+ToM-related] ISTs.
d. Our results indicate that the Area of Residence has an effect on bilingualism in the 8-10 year-old group alone, as the bilinguals living abroad exhibit higher verb diversity than those living in Greece. The analyses of the data reveal that this difference is related to factor of Early Literacy Preparedness in Greek. After controlling for this variable, the differences between the groups disappear (Table 38).
Area of Residence Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8- Verb Diversity Abroad>Greece ELI(2): 10 no differences Oral Retelling 10------12 Telling 8-10 Abroad>Greece ELI(2): no differences Written Retelling ------10-12
Table 38. Summary of Area of Residence effect with respect to the Verb Diversity.
e. Area of Residence also had an effect on syntactic complexity in the task of retelling but only for the younger age group (Table 39), as bilinguals living in Greece outperform those living abroad. The differences between the two groups seem to be driven by language proficiency levels (i.e. Language Composite Scores), since a better score in LCS measure implies higher production of complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses.
193 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
Area of Mode Variable Effect Covariate Residence Oral Retelling 8-10 Complex Greece>Abroad Language Composite Score: no differences Sentences Oral Retelling 10------Subordinate 12 Clauses Telling 8-10 ------Adverbial Written Retelling ------Clauses 10-12
Table 39. Summary of Area of Residence effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses. f. Our analysis shows a Language Pair effect, revealing that Greek-German use a higher number of different verbs compared to the other two groups (Table 40). Once again the factor responsible for this differentiation in the performance of our bilinguals is the ELI(2) input of Greek. As already seen in Chapter 3, Greek-German received more Greek input compared to the other two groups. After controlling for this factor the difference between the three groups disappears.
Language Pair Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8- Verb Diversity Greek- ELI(2): 10 German>Greek- no differences English and Greek-Albanian Oral Retelling 10- Greek- ELI(2): 12 German>Greek- no differences English and Greek-Albanian Telling 8-10 ------Written Retelling ------10-12
Table 40. Summary of Language Pair effect with respect to the Verb Diversity g. As presented in Table 41, the results show a Language Pair effect in syntactic complexity and reveal that only during written retelling do bilinguals demonstrate
194 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures
similar performance. Furthermore, while in the case of telling for the 8-10 year-old group and in oral retelling for the 10-12 year-old group the differences disappear when controlling for their Language Composite Score, in the case of the oral retelling of the younger group the differences still remain (see Chapter 9 for proximity).
Language Pair Mode Variable Effect Covariate Oral Retelling 8-10 Complex Greek- Language Composite Score: differences still remain for Sentences Albanian>Greek- the complex sentences and Subordinate German & subordinate clauses, whereas no differences for Clauses Greek-English adverbials Adverbial Oral Retelling 10- Greek- Language Composite Score: Clauses 12 Albanian>Greek- no differences German & Greek-English Telling 8-10 Greek- Language Composite Score: Albanian>Greek- no differences German & Greek-English Written Retelling ------10-12
Table 41. Summary of Language Pair effect with respect to the complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses
h. A related issue within the first objective of the chapter was to explore the data of bilingual children’s narratives in the two different levels of language analysis, i.e. micro- vs. macrostructure, and to see which external and internal factors influence their performance. The results suggest that the factors that influence the performance of our bilinguals are different in the two levels. More specifically, in the oral retelling and telling the factors that explain the performance of the bilinguals in the microstructure are the Language Composite Score (i.e. vocabulary and morphosyntax in Greek) and the Early Literacy Preparedness in Greek, whereas in the macrostructure these factors are the Balanced Educational Setting and the updating task (i.e. N-back). With regard to the variables that can predict bilinguals’ performance, as they appear in the written retelling, our analysis offers a somewhat different picture relative to the other two modes: the microstructure performance is
195 Chapter 6 Macro- and microstructure measures explained by the Language Composite Score and the Current Language Use of Greek, whereas the macrostructure performance is explained by Balanced Educational Setting and updating task. i. With respect to the potential effects that the three different modes of narration examined, namely story-telling vs. retelling vs. written retelling, have on bilingual children’s narrative performance (the second objective of the present chapter), the results indicate that, in the retelling mode we have higher production of adverbial clauses and longer narrations compared to the telling mode. An increase is also attested in Story Grammar scores (8-10 year-old group). When we compare oral retelling vs. written retteling, the only difference which is observed concerns the length (verb clauses) of narrations, which is higher in the oral mode (10-12 year-old group). j. Finally, with respect to our third objective (which deals with age effects and concerns only the oral retelling mode), the results indicate that age improves bilinguals’ performance in syntactic abilities (in line with other similar studies, cf. Miller 1991). In the case of monolinguals, on the other hand, the only age driven development is located in the Story Grammar scores and in relative clauses.
196 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
CHAPTER 7 NARRATIVES: GRAMMATICAL PERFORMANCE IN ORAL RETELLING VS. WRITTEN RETELLING VS. ORAL TELLING
7.1 Objectives In Chapter 6 we examined the micro- and macrostructure performance of the two age groups of the bilingual participants categorized on the basis of a) Bilingualism effect (Monolinguals vs. Bilinguals); b) Area of Residence effect, i.e. Greece vs. non-Greece (Germany, England and Albania); and c) Language Pair effect, i.e. Greek-German vs. Greek-English vs. Greek-Albanian. For the purposes of this Chapter, for the two different age groups each language pair of bilinguals is divided into two subgroups depending on their Greek vocabulary scores, namely High Vocabulary vs. Low Vocabulary. For the 8 to 10 year-old children we ran descriptive statistics and the mean performance in their Greek Vocabulary was calculated (Mean=27.12, S.D.=5.8). The participants who score above the group mean for Greek vocabulary form the High group (N=53) whose verbal age is about 9.9 years old and the participants who score below the group mean for Greek Vocabulary form the Low group (N=52) with verbal age 6.2. The age group 8 to 10 consists of the Greek-German_High group (N=18 Mean=33.55, S.D.=4.19), the Greek-German_Low group (N=22, Mean=19.72, S.D.=3.11), the Greek-English_High group (N=15, Mean=35.4, S.D.=3.19), the Greek-English_Low group (N=15, Mean=18.3, S.D.=2.28), the Greek-Albanian_High group (N=20, Mean=36.13, S.D.=3.19), the Greek-Albanian_Low group (N=15, Mean=18.88, S.D.=4.35) and the Monolinguals (N=50, Mean=43.5, S.D.=2.11). The same procedure was applied for the 10 to 12 year-old children. We ran descriptive statistics and the mean performance in their Greek Vocabulary was calculated (Mean=29.16, S.D.=2.2). The participants who score above the mean form the High group (N=49) whose verbal age is about 11.3 years old and the participants who score below the mean of the Low group (N=55) with verbal age 7.4. The age group 10 to 12 consists of the Greek-German_High group (N=17 Mean= 37.91, S.D.=3.10), the Greek-German_Low group (N=22, Mean=22.86, S.D.= 3.23), the Greek-English_High group (N=15, Mean=37.8, S.D.=3.26), the Greek- English_Low group (N=15, Mean=24.4, S.D.=3.32), the Greek-Albanian_High group
197 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
(N=17, Mean=38.57, S.D.=4.67), the Greek-Albanian_Low group (N=15, Mean=21.09, S.D.=3.08), and the Monolinguals (N=50, Mean=47.8, SD=3.05). The objective of this chapter is to investigate bilingual performance on morphosyntactic phenomena and to see if there are cross-linguistic influences in children’s narratives with respect to their grammatical performance. In particular, we wanted to see if matching participants according to their Greek Vocabulary Scores reveals any differences in the performance of Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian (High groups vs. Low groups). Finally, we wanted to check if there are differences in terms of the different mode (i.e oral retelling vs. written retelling and oral retelling vs. oral telling). Several studies (e.g. Hayward, Gillam and Lien 2007, Liles 1993) have shown that monolingual children produce grammatically more accurate narrations in the retelling than in the telling mode. We want to explore if this behaviour also holds with respect to the bilingual children. Many claim that the acquisition of the grammatical system is considered to be completed around the age of 5. Language development, of course, is a process that continues well after the age of 5. Pearson (2002), investigating 240 English monolingual and English-Spanish bilingual children from Grades 2 and 5, observes that on morhosyntax bilinguals performed much worse than monolinguals. This finding leads Pearson to claim that “there is little transfer of knowledge of morphosyntax (p. 172).”
7.2 Coding and Scoring In this Chapter we examine the grammaticality or non grammaticality of children’s utterances in the narration tasks. Children’s performance on the narration tasks is scored in three different ways depending on whether we examine grammaticality, structure error, or error type. To assess children’s grammaticality each grammatical sentence is awarded a value of 1 and each ungrammatical sentence a value of 0. Examples of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences are given below:
(1) O[DEF.M.NOM.SG.] lagos[N.M.NOM.SG.] pige na agorasi ena baloni grammatical sentence (1 point) (1΄) I[DEF.F.NOM.SG.] lagos[N.M.NOM.SG.] pige na agorasi ena baloni ungrammatical sentence (0 points)
198 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
‘The hare went to buy a balloon’.
In these examples, (1΄) is ungrammatical because the gender agreement between noun and definite article is violated: the noun lagos ‘hare’ is masculine, but the definite article I is feminine; (1) is grammatical since no such violation is observed. Then, in order to create a grammatical composite score for each participant the number of grammatical sentences is divided by the overall number of sentences of each participant. We further investigated children’s structure errors (SE). The structure errors categories were defined on the basis of the frequencies of errors in our bilingual sample and comprise three different areas, namely 1) Nominal Agreement (i.e Articles, Adjectives and Nouns, as in the examples above), 2) Clitics, and 3) Verbal Agreement (i.e Tense and Aspect). Below two more examples are given for Clitics and Verbal Agreement:
(2) I skilitsa sinandise to lago sto dasos. I skilitsa ton[CL.M.ACC.SG.] ide na krata ena baloni (2΄) I skilitsa sinandise to lago sto dasos. I skilitsa tin[CL.F.ACC.SG.] ide na krata ena baloni ‘The little dog met the hare in the woods. The little dog saw him holding a balloon’ (3) O lagos kai i skilitsa perpatousan[3PL.] sto dasos (3΄) O lagos kai i skilitsa perpatouse[3SG.] sto dasos ‘The hare and the dog were taking a walk in the woods’.
(2΄) is ungrammatical as we have violation of gender agreement (the feminine clitic pronoun tin refers to the masculine noun lago), but (2) is grammatical as there is no such violation (ton is masculine); similarly (3΄) is ungrammatical due to Verb Agreement violation (the form perpatouse is singular but has a plural subject, lagos and skilitsa), unlike (3) where there is no such violation and thus is grammatical. Finally, we examined the errors on gender, case and number committed by the children in the structures of Nominal Agreement and Clitics, as in (4) and (5) below:
(4) O lagos kratise tin[DEF.F.ACC.SG.] skilitsa apo to xeri
199 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
(4΄) O lagos kratise i[DEF.F.NOM.SG.] skilitsa apo to xeri ‘The hare held the dog by the hand’ (5) O lagos kratouse ena oreo baloni[N.NEUT.ACC.SG.] (5΄) O lagos kratouse ena oreo balonia[N.NEUT.ACC.PL.] ‘The hare was holding a beautiful balloon’
(4΄) is ungrammatical because i is nominative and cannot be the direct object of the verb kratise, whereas in (4) tin is in the accusative and therefore grammatical; similarly (5΄) is ungrammatical because we have Number Agreement violation (ena oreo is singular but balonia is plural), but (5) is grammatical as there is no such violation (both ena oreo and baloni are singular). As a general principle, for the creation of the grammatical index by means of the above three different ways of coding, only functional errors are considered. The functional errors comprise both free and bound morphemes. A functional error on a free morpheme includes inflectional errors on Articles or Clitics. A functional error on a bound morpheme includes Tense or Aspect errors on verbs or inflectional errors on Nouns and Adjectives.
7.3 Results: High Greek Vocabulary groups (10-12) oral retelling vs. written retelling 7.3.1 Grammaticality Between-group comparisons on grammaticality scores have revealed significant group effects in both oral retelling (F (3,98)=19.238, p=.001) and written retelling (F (3,98)=11.827, p=.000). With respect to the groups’ scores on grammaticality in oral retelling, post-hoc tests have shown that Greek-German and Greek-Albanian children produce significantly more grammatical narrations than Greek-English children (p=.020 and p=.002, respectively), while Monolingual children have produced significantly more grammatical narrations relative to all groups of Bilinguals (p<.001, for Greek-English and p<.005 for Greek-Albanian and Greek-German). In written retelling, both Greek-German and Greek-English have produced significantly lower numbers of grammatical narrations relative to the Greek-Albanian (p=.012 and p=.006, respectively). The Monolinguals in written retelling present more accurate narrations in terms of grammaticality relative to the Greek-German and
200 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Greek-English p=.009 and p=.004, respectively). Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian appeared to exhibit a similar performance (Figure 36).
Figure 36. The results of ANOVA with respect to grammaticality score in oral and written retelling.
7.3.2 Structure Errors To see whether the four groups differed in terms of Grammaticality in the oral retelling task, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense, and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor, and Group (Greek-German_High, Greek-English_High, Greek-Albanian_High and Monolinguals) as the between-subjects factor. The results show a main effect of structure errors (F (4,4)=17.36, p=.001, η2=.19), and a main effect of group (F (1,3)=5.31, p=.003, η2=.20) (Figure 37).
201 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 37. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in oral retelling.
Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction showed that Greek- English children had significantly more Clitics errors than Greek-German and Greek- Albanian (p<.05) and Monolinguals (p<.01). Monolinguals had significantly fewer Nominal agreement errors than the other groups (p<.05 for all comparisons). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the structure error with the lowest accuracy is Clitics (p<.001 in all cases apart vs. nominal agreement: p<.01). Nominal Agreement has lower accuracy than Tense and Aspect (p<.005), whereas Tense and Aspect do not reveal any difference. The same procedure was also followed for the written retelling task. The results show a main effect of structure errors (F (4,4)=13.29, p=.001, η2=.22), and a main effect of group (F (1,3)=3.19, p=.005, η2=.11). Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction showed that Greek- English and Greek-German had significantly more Clitic errors than Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian (p<.05 for all comparisons).
202 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the structure errors with the lowest accuracies are Clitics and Nominal Agreement (p<.001 in all other structure errors). Clitics reveal lower accuracy scores than Nominal Agreement (p<.01). Tense and Aspect do not reveal any difference, as seen in Figure 38 below.
Figure 38. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the structure errors in written retelling.
7.3.3 Error Types To see whether the monolingual and the bilingual children differed in the amount of Error Types committed in their oral retellings, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors, i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement and 2) Clitics) and Error Types (gender, case, number) as the within subjects factors and Group (Greek- German_High, Greek-English_High, Greek-Albanian_High and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor. The results revealed a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=12.82, p=.007, η2=.13 a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=13.09, p=.002, η2=.19 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=4.81, p=.009, η2=.03. To unpack the results
203 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance we ran pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. For the Monolingual children and Greek-Albanian children, there were more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all comparisons). In terms of Error Types, gender was the predominant error type (p<.05 for case and number for all comparisons). For the Greek-German and the Greek-English children, there were more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all comparisons). In terms of Error Types, gender was the more frequent error type (p<.01 for case and number for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that Greek-English children have more gender errors in the case of clitics than Greek-German and Greek-Albanian (p<.05). The Monolinguals have marginally fewer gender errors than the Greek-Albanian children (p=.048) in the case of clitics. This difference (i.e. the production of lower percentages of gender errors) is more pronounced when comparing the Monolinguals with the Greek-German (p=.032) and the Greek-English (p=.002) groups (Figure 39).
Figure 39. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling.
204 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
The same procedure was also carried out for the written retellings. The results revealed a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=11.19, p=.007, η2=.09, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=12.81, p=.004, η2=.11 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=7.19, p=007, η2=.12. For the Monolingual children and Greek-Albanian children, there were more Clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all comparisons). For the Greek-German and the Greek-English children, there were more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.01 for both groups). In terms of Error Types, gender was again the predominant error type (p<.01 for case and number for all comparisons). Between group comparisons show that Greek-English and Greek-German had significantly more Clitic errors than Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian (p<.05 for all comparisons). The results also reveal that the Greek-English children make more gender errors than Greek-German (p<.05), Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (p<.01, for all comparisons). The Monolinguals make marginally fewer gender errors than the Greek-Albanian children (p=.041) in the case of clitics (Figure 40).
205 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 40. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in written retelling.
7.4 Results: Low Greek Vocabulary Groups (10-12) oral retelling vs. written retelling 7.4.1 Grammaticality Between-group comparisons on Grammaticality scores have revealed significant group effects in both oral retelling (F (3,101)=7.265, p=.000) and written retelling (F (3,101)=10.223, p=.000). With respect to the groups’ scores on Grammaticality in oral retelling, post-hoc tests have shown that Greek-Albanian children produce significantly more grammatical narrations than Greek-German and Greek-English children (p=.012 and p=.004, respectively), while Monolingual children have produced significantly more grammatical narrations relative to all groups of Bilinguals (p<.005, for Greek-English and Greek-German and p<.01 for Greek- Albanian). In written retelling, both Greek-German and Greek-English have produced significantly lower grammatical narrations relative to Greek-Albanian (p=.024 and p=.012, respectively). The Monolinguals in written retelling present more accurate narrations in terms of Grammaticality relative to all bilingual groups (p<.005, for Greek-German and Greek-English and p<.01 for Greek-Albanian), see Figure 41.
206 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 41. The results of ANOVA with respect to Grammaticality score in oral and written retelling.
7.4.2 Structure Errors To see whether the four groups differed in terms of Grammaticality in the oral retelling task, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor and Group (Greek-German_Low, Greek-English_Low, Greek-Albanian_Low and Monolinguals) as the between-subjects factor. The results show a main effect of 2 Structure Errors (F (4,4)=10.68, p=.011, η =.08), and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=4.35, p=.003, η2=.11) (Figure 42).
207 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 42. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Structure Errors in oral retelling.
Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction showed that Greek- English and Greek-German had significantly more clitics and nominal agreement errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05 for all comparisons) and Monolinguals (p<.01 for all comparisons). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Error with the lowest accuracy is Clitics (p<.001 in all cases apart vs. nominal agreement: p<.01). Nominal Agreement has lower accuracy than Tense and Aspect (p<.005), whereas Tense and Aspect do not reveal any difference. The same procedure was also conducted for the written retelling task. The 2 results show a main effect of Structure Errors (F (4,4)=15.48, p=.001, η =.13), and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=5.24, p=.002, η2=.16). Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction showed that Greek- English and Greek-German had significantly more clitics errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05, for both comparisons) and Monolinguals (p<.01 for both comparisons). Monolinguas had significantly fewer clitics errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05).
208 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Errors with the lowest accuracies are Clitics and Nominal Agreement (p<.001 in all other Structure Errors). Clitics reveal lower accuracy scores than Nominal Agreement (p<.005), see Figure 43.
Figure 43. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Structure Errors in written retelling.
7.4.3 Error Types To see whether the monolingual and the bilingual children differed in the amount of Error Types committed in their oral retellings, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors 1) Nominal Agreement and 2) Clitics, and Error Types (gender, case, number) as the within subjects factors and Group (Greek-German_Low, Greek- English_Low, Greek-Albanian_Low and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor. The results reveal a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=12.39, p=.003, η2=.13, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=13.58, p=.005, η2=.11 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=6.88, p=.001, η2=.16. For the Monolingual and the Greek-Albanian children there were more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). In
209 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance terms of Error Types gender was the predominant error type (p<.05 for case and number). For the Greek-German and the Greek-English children we find more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all groups). In terms of Error Types gender was the predominant error type (p<.01 for case and number for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that Greek-German and Greek-Engish have more gender errors than Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (p<.05 for all comparisons) in the case of clitics see Figure 44.
Figure 44. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in oral retelling.
The same procedure was conducted for written retellings. The results revealed a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=18.01, p=.001, η2=.17, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=8.11, p=.002, η2=.13 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=6.14, p=.002, η2=.12. For Monolingual children we find more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). In terms of Error Types, gender was the most frequent error (p<.05, for
210 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance all comparisons). For the Greek-German, the Greek-English and the Greek-Albanian children there were more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all groups). In terms of Error Types, gender was the most frequent error (p<.01, for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that the Greek-English and the Greek- German children show more gender errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05, for all comparisons). Monolinguals have fewer gender errors than all other groups (p<.01, for Greek-German and Greek-English and p<.05 for Greek-Albanian).Monolinguals have more number errors than all other groups (p<.05 for all comparisons), see Figure 45.
Figure 45. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to the Error Types in written retelling.
211 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
7.5 Results: High Greek Vocabulary Groups (8-10) oral retelling vs. telling 7.5.1 Grammaticality Between-group comparisons on Grammaticality scores have revealed significant Group effects in both oral retelling (F (3,102)=9.729, p=.000 and oral telling (F (3,102)=8.129, p=.000. With respect to the groups’ scores on Grammaticality in oral retelling, post-hoc tests have shown that Greek-Albanian children produce significantly more grammatical narrations than Greek-German and Greek-English children (p=.017 and p=.012, respectively), while Monolingual children have produced significantly more grammatical narrations relative to all groups of Bilinguals (p<.01, for Greek-German and Greek-English and p<.05, for Greek- Albanian ). In oral telling, both Greek-German and Greek-English have produced significantly more ungrammatical narrations relative to the Greek-Albanian (p=.009 and p=.007, respectively). The Monolinguals in oral telling present more accurate narrations in terms of Grammaticality relative to the Greek-German, the Greek- English and the Greek-Albanian (p=.005 and p=.007, p=.031, respectively), see Figure 46.
212 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 46. The results of ANOVA with respect to Grammaticality score in oral Retelling and telling.
7.5.2 Structure Errors To see whether the four groups differed in terms of Grammaticality in the oral retelling task, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor and Group (Greek-German_High, Greek-English_High, Greek-Albanian_High and Monolinguals) as the between-subjects factor. The results show a main effect of 2 Structure Errors (F (4,4)=19.23, p=.001, η =.20) and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=5.86, p=.001, η2=.23). Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction show that Greek- English and Greek-German had significantly more clitics errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05) and Monolinguals (p<.01). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Error with the lowest accuracy is Clitics (p<.001 for all comparisons). Nominal Agreement has lower accuracy than Tense and Aspect (p<.005), whereas Tense and Aspect do not reveal any difference (Figure 47).
213 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 47. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Structure Errors in oral retelling.
A repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor and Group (Greek-German_High, Greek-English_High, Greek-Albanian_High and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor was also conducted for the oral telling task. The results show a main effect of Structure Errors (F(4,4)=13.17, p=.001, η2=.19), and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=8.29, p=.002, η2=.25). Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction show that Greek- English and Greek-German had significantly more clitic errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05 for all comparisons) and Monolinguals (p<.01 for all comparisons). Monolinguals had significantly fewer clitics errors than Greek-Albanian (p<.05). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Errors with the lowest accuracies are Clitics (p<.001 in all other Structure Errors). Again the Nominal Agreement has lower accuracy than Tense and Aspect (p<.001), whereas Tense and Aspect do not reveal any difference (Figure 48).
214 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 48. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Structure Errors in oral telling.
7.5.3 Error Types To see whether the monolingual and the bilingual children differed in the amount of Error Types committed in their oral retellings, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement and 2) Clitics) and Error Types (gender, case, number) as the within subjects factors and Group (Greek- German_High, Greek-English_High, Greek-Albanian_High and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor. The results reveal a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=12.38, p<.001, η2=.18, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=14.22, p<.001, η2=.17 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=8.39, p<.001, η2=.11. For the Monolingual chidren and the Greek-Albanian children we have more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). In terms of Error Types, gender was the predominant error type (p<.05 for all comparisons). For the Greek-German and the Greek-English children we find more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all
215 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance groups). In terms of Error Types, gender was the most common error (p<.01 for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that the Greek-English and the Greek- German children have more gender errors than Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian (p<.01 for all comparisons). Monolinguals have similar gender errors with the Greek- Albanian children (p=.059) in the case of clitics and (p=.042) in the case of nominal agreement, see Figure 49.
Figure 49. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Error Types in oral retelling.
The same procedure was conducted for oral tellings. The results reveal of Structure Errors F (2,2)=17.95, p<.001, η2=.14, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=14.22, p=.004, η2=.12 and a main effect of group (F (1,3)=7.29, p=.006, η2=.12. For Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian we see more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). For Greek-English and Greek-German we see again more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). In terms of Error Types, gender
216 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance was the predominant error type (p<.01 for Greek-English and Greek-German and p<.05 for Greek-Albanian and Monolingual). Between group comparisons revealed that the Greek-English and the Greek- German children have more gender errors than Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian (p<.01, for all comparisons). Monolinguals have fewer gender errors than Greek- Albanian (p<.05), see Figure 50.
Figure 50. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Error Types in oral telling.
7.6 Results: Low Greek Vocabulary Groups (8-10) oral retelling vs. oral telling 7.6.1 Grammaticality Between-group comparisons on Grammaticality scores have revealed significant Group effects in both oral retelling (F (3,101)=6.513, p=.000 and oral telling (F (3,101)=8.678, p=.000. With respect to the groups’ scores on Grammaticality in oral retelling, post-hoc tests have shown the Monolinguals produce significantly more
217 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance grammatical narrations than Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian children (p=.004, p=.001 and p=.003, respectively). In oral telling, we seem to have a similar performance, since Monolinguals present more accurate narrations in terms of Grammaticality relative to all Bilingual groups (p=.005 for Greek-German, p=.003 for Greek-English and p=.005 for Greek- Albanian), see Figure 51.
Figure 51. The results of ANOVA with respect to Grammaticality score in oral retelling and telling.
7.6.2 Structure Errors To see whether the four groups differ in terms of Grammaticality in the oral retelling task, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor and Group (Greek-German_Low, Greek-English_Low, Greek-Albanian_Low and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor. The results show a main effect of Structure Errors (F(4,4)=10.38, p=.018, η2=.08), and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=7.15, p=.004, η2=.10) (Figure 52).
218 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Figure 52. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Structure Errors in oral retelling.
Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction show that Monolinguals committed significantly fewer clitic and nominal agreement errors than the other Bilingual groups (p<.01, for all comparisons). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Errors with the lowest accuracy is Clitics (p<.005 for Nominal agreement and p<.001, for all other structures) with Nominal Agreement following, which has lower accuracy than Tense and Aspect (p<.001). A repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement, 2) Clitics, 3) Tense and 4) Aspect) as the within subjects factor and Group (Greek-German_Low, Greek-English_Low, Greek-Albanian_Low and Monolinguals) as the between subjects factor was also conducted for the oral telling task. The results show a main effect of Structure Errors (F(4,4)=19.23, p=.001, η2=.19), and a main effect of Group (F (1,3)=6.09, p=.001, η2=.15).
219 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Consecutive post-hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction revealed that Monolinguals produced fewer nominal and clitics errors relative to the other groups (p<.01 for clitics errors and p<.05 for nominal agreement errors ). Pairwise comparisons among the different structures show that the Structure Errors with the lowest accuracy are Clitics (p<.005 for Nominal Agreement, and p<.001 in all other Structure Errors). Nominal Agreement reveals lower accuracy scores than Tense and Aspect (p<.001), see Figure 53.
Figure 53. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Structure Errors in oral telling.
7.6.3 Error Types To see whether the Monolingual and the Bilingual children differ in the amount of Error Types committed in their oral retellings, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA with Structure Errors (i.e. 1) Nominal Agreement and 2) Clitics) and Error Types (gender, case, number) as the within subjects factors and Group (Greek- German_Low, Greek-English_Low, Greek-Albanian_Low and Monolinguals) as the
220 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance between subjects factor. The results reveal a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=13.11, p=.009, η2=.12, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=12.36, p=.013, η2=.08 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=9.89, p<.001, η2=.18. For the Monolingual children we identify more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05). In terms of Error Types, gender was the most common error (p<.05 for all comparisons). For the Greek-German, the Greek-English and the Greek-Albanian children we found more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.01 for all groups). In terms of Error Types, gender was the predominant one (p<.01 for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that Greek-English, Greek-German and Greek-Albanian produce more gender errors than Monolinguals (p<.01).
Figure 54. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Error Types in oral retelling.
The same procedure was conducted for oral tellings. The results revealed a main effect of Structure Errors F (2,2)=12.39, p=.003, η2=.10, a main effect of Error Types F (3,3)=15.15, p<.001, η2=.12 and a main effect of group F (1,3)=7.28, p<.001,
221 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
η2=.09. For Monolinguals we observe more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05), whereas in terms of Error Types gender was the predominant error (p<.05 for both comparisons). For the Greek-German, the Greek-English and the Greek-Albanian children we also see more clitics errors than nominal agreement errors (p<.05 for all comparisons). As for Error Types, gender was the most frequent error (p<.01 for all comparisons). Between group comparisons revealed that the Greek-English, the Greek- German and the Greek-Albanian children commit more gender errors than Monolinguals (p<.01, for all comparisons), see Figure 55.
Figure 55. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA with respect to Error Types in oral telling.
7.7 Predictors of Grammaticality (oral retelling mode) To further investigate the factors that play a role in Bilingual children’s performance on retelling Grammaticality, we put all the Bilinguals together, regardless of Age at
222 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance the Time of Testing or Language Pair, and simple bivariate correlations were carried out. The variables that were found to correlate with Grammaticality scores are the Greek vocabulary, Age of Onset and Current Literacy Use of Greek. The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are seen in Table 42 below.
Grammaticality Narratives r=.293* 1. Greek vocabulary p=.022 rho=.359** 2. Age of Onset p=.002 r=.311** 3. CLitU p=.005
Table 42. Correlations between the measurements.
Then we conducted a stepwise regression analysis. The final model included the Age of Onset (β=.378, p=.001) that explains 19% of variance and CLitU of Greek (β=.298, p=.029) that explains 12% of variance as significant predictors (R2=.31, F (2,208)=15.995, p=.000), with Age of Onset being the stronger predictor of the two variables.
7.8 Predictors of Grammaticality (written retelling mode) To investigate the factors that play a role in Bilingual children’s performance on written retelling Grammaticality the same procedure as above was conducted. The variables that were found to correlate with Grammaticality scores are the Greek vocabulary, the Lexical Decision Task and the Current Literacy Use of Greek. The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are seen in Table 43 below.
Grammaticality Narratives r=.355* 1. Greek vocabulary p=.002 r=.318** 2. Lexical Decision Task p=.004 r=.489** 3. CLitU p<.001
223 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Table 43. Correlations between the measurements.
Then we conducted a stepwise regression analysis. The final model included the Current Literacy Use of Greek (β=.388, p=.001) that explains 19% of variance, the Greek vocabulary (β=.355, p=.004) that explains 12% of variance and the Language Pair (β=.238, p=.038) that explains 11% of variance as significant predictors (R2=.42 F (3,103)=26.332, p=.000).
7.9 Predictors of Grammaticality (oral telling mode) The variables that were found to correlate with Grammaticality scores in oral retelling are the Age of Onset and the Current Literacy Use of Greek. The correlation coefficients and one-tailed significance levels are seen in Table 44 below.
Grammaticality Narratives rho=.427** 1. Age of Onset p<.001 r=.379** 2. CLitU p=.001
Table 44. Correlations between the measurements.
Then we conducted a stepwise regression analysis. The final model included the Age of Onset (β=.409, p<.001) that explains 31% of variance and the CLitU of Greek (β=.289, p=.025) that explains 17% of variance as significant predictors (R2=.48, F (2,104)=15.995, p=.000), with Age of Onset being the stronger predictor of the two variables.
7.10 Conclusions The first objective of this chapter was to see if there is crosslinguistic influence in children’s narratives with respect to the grammatical structures produced. Results reveal that in oral retelling of the older age group with High Greek Vocabulary scores, the Greek-German and the Greek-Albanian appear to outperform the Greek-English children. The Monolinguals produce narratives with more grammatical sentences relative to all groups of Bilinguals. In the written retelling mode the Monolinguals perform similarly with the Greek-Albanian and, at the same time, both groups appear to produce significantly more grammatical narrations than the Greek-English and the
224 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
Greek-German. The performance of the older group with Low Greek Vocabulary scores presents an almost similar picture as the previous group with High Greek Vocabulary Scores and more specifically, the Monolinguals outperform all Bilingual groups in both oral and written retelling, and the Greek-Albanian also outperform Greek-English and Greek-German in both modes. As regards narratives retellings by the younger age group with High Greek Vocabulary scores, Monolinguals outperform all Bilingual groups, but Greek- Albanian outperform Greek-English and Greek-German in Grammaticality. The exact same performance was observed also for the telling mode. The performance of the younger group with Low Greek Vocabulary scores presents an almost similar picture with the High Greek Vocabulary group, as Monolinguals outperform all Bilinguals in both telling and retelling, but there is no differentiation between the other Bilingual groups in either mode. After running regressions in order to locate the factors that predict Grammaticality, oral retelling and telling modes present the same results, whereas in the written retelling different factors seem to play a role. In particular, Grammaticality scores in the oral retelling and telling are predicted by Age of Onset and CLitU of Greek. On the other hand, in the written retelling, CLitU of Greek, Greek vocabulary and Language Pair are strong predictors. In conclusion, these results show that Age of Onset is relevant only to production of grammatical sentences in oral retelling and telling while current literacy measures are relevant to all different narrative modes (see Table 45 above).
Groups Mode Grammaticality Predictors 10-12 High Vocabulary Oral Retelling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & German & Greek- CLitU Albanian>Greek-English Written Retelling Greek-Albanian & CLitU & Greek Monolinguals>Greek- Vocabulary & German & Greek-English Language Pair 10-12 Low Vocabulary Oral Retelling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & Albanian>Greek-English CLitU and Greek-German Written Retelling Monolinguals>Greek- CLitU & Greek Albanian>Greek-English vocabulary &
225 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
and Greek-German Language Pair 8-10 High Vocabulary Oral Retelling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & Albanian>Greek-English CLitU and Greek-German Telling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & Albanian>Greek-English CLitU and Greek-German 8-10 Low Vocabulary Oral Retelling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & Albanian & Greek-English CLitU and Greek-German Telling Monolinguals>Greek- Age of Onset & Albanian & Greek-English CLitU and Greek-German
Table 45. Grammaticality performance between the groups and the three different modes.
Finally, as far as the differences in terms of the different mode are concerned (i.e oral retelling vs. written retelling and oral retelling vs. oral telling), the only difference located is that the Greek-Albanian with High Greek Vocabulary scores improve in a statistically significant manner their Grammatical performance in written compared to oral retelling (p=.006). It should be recalled that the Language Pair in the written retelling mode is a significant predictor, and this could be explained by the aforementioned results. Another point to mention is that Balanced Educational Setting makes no difference in the production of grammatical structures in bilinguals’ narratives. With respect to Structure Errors, all bilingual groups, regardless of their High or Low Greek Vocabulary scores, show higher errors in Clitics, followed by Nominal Agreement errors, Tense and Aspect errors. As for the Error Types, all bilingual groups commit more errors in gender than in case or number. With respect to the gender errors, the results show that Greek-English children in most cases produce more gender errors in a statistically significant way than the other two groups of Bilinguals, which is due to the absence of gender distinction in English. Greek- Albanian, on the other hand, produce fewer gender errors than the other two groups of Bilinguals, an expected fact as a result of typological proximity (see Chapter 6.2).
226 Chapter 7 Grammatical performance
The results are consistent with previous findings in second language acquisition showing that gender is one of the most difficult to acquire features especially when the other language lacks grammatical gender (e.g. Konta 2013). In addition, the vulnerability of clitics is also shown to be subject to a language-pair effect since Greek-Albanian bilinguals perform similarly with monolingual children and unlike the other two groups of bilinguals whose ‘other’ language lacks clitics.
227 Chapter 8 Character reference
CHAPTER 8 NARRATIVES: CHARACTER REFERENCE
8.1 Introduction Referential expressions are used to introduce, maintain and reintroduce characters in narrative discourse in order to ensure cohesion (Halliday and Hasan 1976). Narrative production is a rich task with respect to the character reference investigation as the narrator must combine referential choices from the cognitive domain and from the linguistic domain (Ariel 1990, 2001). The referential system of Greek relies on both linguistic and non-linguistic factors. In general, studies have shown that the linguistic factors consist of the type of anaphoric expression (i.e. NP, pronoun), the position of possible antecedents (i.e. subject vs. object), word order, topicality and the prominence of antecedents (see Ariel 1990, Arnold and Griffin 2000). The non-linguistic factors consist of working memory, inhibition, age, etc. (cf. Hendriks, Koster and Hoeks 2014). More specifically, with regard to working memory, many investigators underline its crucial role for discourse processing, as it helps to associate the antecedent with its referent (Bastiaansen, Fruyt, Rossi, Schotte and Hofmans 2009). Of course, other variables, among them bilingualism, have an effect on the function of the referential system (Sorace and Filiaci 2006). In the Greek referential system new information is generally associated with the use of the Indefinite Noun Phrase, whereas already given information is associated with the use of the Definite Noun Phrase. The null pronoun is normally used to maintain the topic and it is mainly associated with the most prominent referent, whereas the strong pronoun is usually marked for topic-shift and it is normally associated with less prominent referents. Finally, as far as the clitic pronouns are concerned, they are also used in order to maintain the topic and, like the null pronouns, they are also preferably associated with the most prominent referent. The objective of this chapter is twofold. First, we want to see if the form- function distributions of referential expressions in the three functions (i.e. Introduction, Maintenance, and Reintroduction) and the use of ambiguous forms in the Bilinguals’ narratives are comparable to Monolingual behaviour, also taking into
228 Chapter 8 Character reference account the Language Pair. The second objective is to see if there is an effect of non- linguistic factors, such as Bilingualism, Educational Setting (i.e. Bi-literate vs. Monoliterate), and cognitive abilities.
8.2 Coding of character reference We coded only mentions of the animate protagonists in the stories. We excluded from the analysis referential expressions in sentence fragments and direct speech. Each referring expression was coded for (a) morphosyntactic form, (b) syntactic position (subject vs. object), and (c) discourse function.33 (a) and (b) Morphosyntactic forms of referential expressions Indefinite DPs: All singular and plural indefinite DPs that refer to the characters in the stories were coded as [INDEFS] if they were in subject position and as [INDEFO] if they were in object position. Definite DPs: All definite DPs referring to the characters in the stories were coded as [DEFS] if they were in subject position and as [INDEFO] if they were in object position. This category also comprises possessive nominal constructions and proper names. Null pronouns: We coded null subjects as [N-PRON] Clitic pronouns: The references by means of object clitics were coded as [C-PRON] Strong pronouns: We coded all occurrences of strong pronouns as [S-PRONS] when they are in subject position and as [S-PRONO] when they are in the object position. (c) Discourse functions of character reference We coded the discourse function of all referential forms as instances of character introduction, maintenance and reintroduction.
8.3 Coding of ambiguities on pronominal referential expressions Another thing that we coded was the ambiguity on pronominal referential expressions in the functions of maintenance (henceforth; M-AMB) and reintroduction (R-AMB). For this coding a native speaker of Greek indentified all pronominal forms in the cases where the identification of the anaphoric relation to the character referent was ambiguous.
33 A similar way of coding was used in Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli (2015), from where we also take the German and Greek examples that are used in this chapter.
229 Chapter 8 Character reference
A large part of our results revealed ambiguities in the pronominal forms of null and strong (overt) pronouns. As Papadopoulou, Peristeri, Plemmenou, Marinis and Tsimpli (2014) report, in resolving pronoun ambiguities “the null pronoun that is the default pronominal form in Greek is preferably anchored to the most salient/prominent referent …. [and] leads to a non-shifted interpretation for the subject. On the other hand, the overt pronoun … marks topic shift and is preferably associated with less salient/prominent entities of the discourse” (see examples below where jajá and kopéla are competing antecedents for null and overt subject pronouns)
(1a) O papús milúse dinatá ston egonó tu ótan pro djávaze éna vivlío. the old-man spoke-IMP-3SG loudly to grandson his when pro read-PAST-IMP-3SG a book ‘‘The old-man was speaking loudly to his grandson when he was reading a book.’’
(1b) I jajá xerétise tin kopéla ótan aftí pernúse to drómo. the old-lady greeted-PERF-3SG the girl when she crossed-IMP-3SG the street ‘‘The old-lady greeted the girl when SHE was crossing the street.’’ (examples from Papadopoulou, Peristeri, Plemmenou, Marinis and Tsimpli 2014)
Carminatti (2002) showed that resolution of intra-sentential anaphora is based on what she called “Position of Antecedent Strategy”, according to which the null pronoun prefers an antecedent in canonical subject position since this position which is the most prominent introduces the default topic of the sentence. On the other hand, the overt pronoun will select an antecedent in a non-prominent position. With respect to pronoun ambiguity, several studies claim that young children of the age of 4-6, when they want to maintain or reintroduce a character and as they make use of the thematic strategy, tend to use ambiguous pronouns (Leclercq and Lenart 2013). As we will see below, older children (both monolingual and bilingual) use considerably less ambiguous pronouns. Since the languages involved in our study include null-subject languages (Greek and Albanian) and non null-subject languages (English and German), this parameter will be considered in our analysis of the data
230 Chapter 8 Character reference
8.4 Results: Narrative retelling measure: 8-10 years old 8.4.1 Character Introduction With respect to the character introductions the ANOVA analyses within-group comparisons revealed a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3, 159)=421.283, p=.000), Greek-English (F (3,119)=263.948, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=110.864, p=.000), and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=75.539, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that the INDEFS use was significantly higher than the use of INDEFO (p<.01 for Greek-German and p<.005 for Greek-English, Greek- Albanian and Monolinguals), DEFS (p<.01 for Greek-German and p<.001 for Greek- English, Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals) and DEFO (p<.001 for all comparisons). The Greek-English, the Greek-Albanian and the Monolingual groups chose INDEFO as the second-preferred expression in Introductions. INDEFO was used significantly more often than DEFS and DEFO (p<.001, for all comparisons). The Greek-German group, however, preferred to use INDEFO and DEFS in equal numbers as the second- preferred expression, since there is no statistically significant difference between these two forms. The use of DEFO for the Greek-German group shows the lowest preference as compared with the INDEFO and DEFS (p<.001, for both comparisons). Between-group analyses in the character Introductions showed a significant Group effect for the DEFS (F (3,154)=3.179, p=.000) and for the INDEFO (F (3,154)=4.521, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that the Greek-German children tended to produce significantly more DEFS when introducing a character, relative to Greek-English, Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (p=.009 for Greek- English and Greek-Albanian and p=.008 for Monolinguals), and fewer INDEFO relative to Greek-English, Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (p<.005 for all comparisons) see Table 46. Group INDEFS INDEFO DEFS DEFO Greek-German 63.57 16.51 16.52 3.40 (4.03) (2.01) (3.69) (1.10) Greek-English 67.50 27.50 2.50 2.50 (2.46) (2.52) (1.18) (1.18) Greek-Albanian 68.72 27.27 2.10 1.91 (2.11) (2.11) (1.29) (1.29) Monolinguals 70.00 22.00 4.10 3.90 (2.49) (2.94) (1.70) (1.52)
Table 46. Groups’ mean frequencies and (SDs) for Introduction.
231 Chapter 8 Character reference
8.4.2 Character Maintenance To examine differences in distribution of referential expressions in character maintenance, we conducted the same tests as in character introduction. Within-group comparisons revealed a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (5,239)=389.792, p=.000), Greek-English (F (5,179)=279.543, p=.000), Greek- Albanian (F (5,209)=128.764, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (5,299)=82.537, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that the Greek-German and the Greek- English children when maintaining a character use significantly higher DEFS and DEFO than N-PRON, C-PRON (p<.01, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S- PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Moreover, N-PRON and C-PRON were found to be produced at a significantly higher rate than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.01, for all comparisons). The Greek-Albanian and the Monolingual children exhibit a different performance relative to the above two groups, since subsequent post-hoc tests showed that Greek-Albanian and Monolingual children in character maintenance tend to use significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON than the other forms : p<.01, for the DEFS and DEFO and p<.005 for the S-PRONS and S-PRONO. Finally, the use of DEFS and DEFO was found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005 for all comparisons). Between-group analyses in the function of character maintenance showed a significant Group effect for DEFS (F (3,154)=5.109, p=.021), DEFO (F (3,154)=4.882, p=.019), N-PRON (F (3,154)=4.978, p=.017), and C-PRON (F (3,154)=5.985, p=.019). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that Greek-German and Greek-English children tend to produce significantly more DEFS and DEFO than Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (Greek-German vs. Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals p=.020, and p=.018 and Greek-English vs. Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals p=.019 and p=.017, for the DEFS; and Greek-German vs. Greek- Albanian and Monolinguals p=.021, and p=.023 and Greek-English vs. Greek- Albanian and Monolinguals p=.023 and p=.025, for the DEFO). On the other hand, Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals tend to produce significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON than Greek-English and Greek-German (Greek-Albanian vs. Greek-German and Greek-English p=.021, and p=.018 and Monolinguals vs. Greek-German and Greek-English p=.022 and p=.017, for the N-PRON; and Greek-Albanian vs. Greek-
232 Chapter 8 Character reference
German and Greek-English p=.017, and p=.019 and Monolingual vs. Greek-German and Greek-English p=.016 and p=.018, for the C-PRON), see Table 47.
Group DEFS DEFO N-PRON C-PRON S- S- PRONS PRONO Greek- 29 26 18 12 7 8 German (2.21) (2.72) (2.01) (1.54) (1.08) (1.21) Greek-English 28 30 16 13 6 8 (2.11) (2.58) (2.43) (1.52) (1.42) (1.88) Greek- 16 17 31 27 4 5 Albanian (1.85) (1.85) (2.17) (1.32) (1.02) (0.92) Monolinguals 15 18 33 25 3 6 (2.03) (1.97) (2.65) (1.56) (1.05) (0.98)
Table 47. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for maintenance.
8.4.3 Character Reintroduction Within-group comparisons in the function of reintroduction revealed a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,159)=127.976, p=.000), Greek- English (F (3,119)=178.523, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=110.864, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=82.105, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests revealed that the preference of DEFS, when the children reintroduce a character, was significantly higher than DEFO (p<.005 for Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals and p<.01 for Greek-English and Greek-German), S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.001 for Greek-English and Greek-German and p<.005 for Monolinguals and Greek- Albanian). Moreover, DEFO use as the second-preferred choice was found to be significantly higher than both the use of S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.001, for Greek-German and Greek-English groups). The Greek-Albanian and the Monolinguals, however, preferred to use DEFO and S-PRONS in equal numbers as the second-preferred expression, since there is no statistically significant difference between these two forms. DEFO and S-PRONS were found to be significantly higher than the use of S-PRONO (p<.01 for both comparisons). Between-group analyses in the function of character reintroduction show a significant Group effect for S-PRONS (F (3,154)=4.178, p=.011), S-PRONO (F (3,154)=3.987, p=.012) and DEFO (F (3,154)=3.896, p=.027). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that Monolingual and Greek-Albanian children tend to produce
233 Chapter 8 Character reference significantly more S-PRONS than Greek-German (p=.018, p=.016 respectively) and Greek-English children (p=.015, p=.014 respectively). The same is also true for the use of S-PRON in the object position, since Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals tend to produce significantly more strong pronouns in object position than Greek-German (p=.021, for both comparisons) and Greek-English (p=.018, for both comparisons). Finally, Monolingual and Greek-Albanian children tend to produce significantly fewer DEFO than Greek-German (p=.013, p=.012 respectively) and Greek-English children (p=.014, p=.012 respectively) as seen in Table 48.
Group DEFS DEFO S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 49 39 8 4 (2.05) (1.86) (2.02) (1.57) Greek-English 48 38 7 7 (2.01) (1.92) (2.03) (1.54) Greek-Albanian 47 23 18 11 (1.83) (1.78) (1.87) (1.68) Monolinguals 47 25 19 11 (2.85) (1.97) (1.68) (1.75)
Table 48. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for reintroduction.
8.5 Narrative retelling measure: 10-12 years old 8.5.1 Character Introduction With respect to the function of character introduction, the analyses within-group comparisons revealed a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,155)=209.123, p=.000), Greek-English (F (3,119)=220.123, p=.000), Greek- Albanian (F (3,139)=212.123, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=178.223, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that the older children prefer in introducing a character to use INDEFS at a significantly higher rate than INDEFO (p<.005, for all comparisons), DEFS and DEFO for all groups (p<.001, for all comparisons). All groups choose INDEFO as the second-preferred expression at a significantly higher rate than DEFS (p<.01, for all comparisons) and DEFO (p<.01, for all comparisons).The third-preferred choice in character introduction is DEFS and DEFO, with no statistically significant differences between them.
234 Chapter 8 Character reference
Between-group comparisons in the function of introduction did not reveal a significant Group effect, suggesting that all groups exhibit similar performance. It should be keep in mind that in the younger age group the Greek-German participants exhibit different performance from the other groups, since they use at a higher level, with respect to other participants, the DEFS choice for introducing a new character. The age development seems to benefit the Greek-German children in a clear preference of a more appropriate choice which is the use of INDEF in subject or object position (Table 49).
Group INDEFS INDEFO DEFS DEFO Greek-German 71 19 8 2 (2.55) (1.89) (1.03) (0.87) Greek-English 72 17 6 5 (2.72) (2.75) (1.33) (0.51) Greek-Albanian 75 18 4 3 (2.03) (2.68) (1.08) (0.43) Monolinguals 78 18 2 2 (2.01) (2.34) (0.91) (0.25)
Table 49. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for introduction.
8.5.2 Character Maintenance In the function of character reference within-group comparisons revealed a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (5,233)=398.278, p=.000), Greek- English (F (5,179)=393.627, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (5,209)=311.168, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (5,299)=129.772, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that for Greek-German and Greek-English children the use of DEFS and DEFO when maintaining a character was significantly higher than the use of N- PRON, C-PRON (p<.005, for both groups, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S- PRONO (p<.001, for both groups, for all comparisons). Moreover, N-PRON and C- PRON were found to be used at a significantly higher rate than S-PRONS and S- PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Greek-Albanian and Monolingual children exhibit a different performance from the above two groups, since subsequent post-hoc tests showed that they tend to use significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON for maintaining characters than the other forms (p<.005, for DEFS, DEFO, and p<.001, S-PRONS and S-PRONO, for all comparisons). Also, the DEFS and DEFO use is
235 Chapter 8 Character reference found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005 for both all comparisons). Between-group comparisons in the function of maintenance show a significant Group effect for the DEFS (F (3,153)=5.227, p=.007), DEFO (F (3,153)=6.123, p=.008), N-PRON (F (3,153)=5.986, p=.002), and C-PRON (F (3,153)=5.827, p=.002). Subsequent post-hoc tests reveal that Greek-German and Greek-English children tended to produce significantly more DEFS and DEFO than Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals (Greek-German vs. Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals p=.010, and p=.012, respectively; and Greek-English vs. Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals p=.009 and p=.011, respectively for DEFS; and Greek-German vs. Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals p=.015, and p=.012, respectively; and Greek-English vs. Greek- Albanian and Monolinguals p=.012 and p=.014, respectively for DEFO). On the other hand, Greek-Albanian and Monolinguals tend to produce significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON than Greek-English and Greek-German (Greek-Albanian vs. Greek- German and Greek-English p=.014, and p=.012 and Monolinguals vs. Greek-German and Greek-English p=.012 and p=.011, for the N-PRON; and Greek-Albanian vs. Greek-German and Greek-English p=.013, and p=.016 and Monolingual vs. Greek- German and Greek-English p=.015 and p=.018, for the C-PRON), see Table 50.
Group DEFS DEFO N-PRON C-PRON S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 37 40 11 8 2 2 (1.87) (2.22) (0.75) (0.65) (0.82) (0.52) Greek-English 39 39 9 11 1 1 (2.23) (2.21) (0.73) (0.53) (0.78) (0.48) Greek- 11 14 38 32 3 2 Albanian (2.07) (0.91) (1.82) (0.57) (0.94) (0.47) Monolinguals 13 12 34 37 1 3 (0.85) (0.78) (2.04) (0.88) (0.53) (0.62)
Table 50. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for maintenance.
8.5.3 Character Reintroduction Within-group comparisons in the function of reintroduction reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,155)=308.224, p=.000), Greek- English (F (3,119)=223.541, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=125.089, p=.000)
236 Chapter 8 Character reference and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=267.243, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests revealed that preference of DEFS was significantly higher than the preference of DEFO (p<.01, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Moreover, the DEFO use is found to be significantly more preferred by the children than either S-PRONS or S-PRONO (p<.01, for all comparisons). Between-group comparisons in the function of reintroduction do not reveal any significant Group effect, suggesting that all participants exhibit a similar performance. It should be noted that in the younger group Greek-German and Greek- English exhibit different performance compared to the other groups. However, the age seems to play an important role as it leads to the disappearance of the difference among the groups (Table 51).
Group DEFS DEFO S-PRONS S-PRONO
Greek-German 38 26 17 19 (2.21) (1.58) (0.91) (0.51) Greek-English 36 27 18 19 (2.01) (1.67) (0.83) (0.53) Greek-Albanian 39 27 19 15 (2.33) (1.54) (0.78) (0.57) Monolinguals 37 26 19 18 (2.41) (1.42) (0.62) (0.72)
Table 51. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for reintroduction.
8.6 Narrative telling measure: 8-10 years old 8.6.1 Character Introduction Within-group comparisons in the function of introduction reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,159)=308.123, p=.000), Greek- English (F (3,119)=309.123, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=254.224, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=178.324, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests show that the preference of INDEFS was significantly higher than the use of INDEFO (p<.005), DEFS and DEFO for all groups (p<.001 for all comparisons). Moreover, all groups choose INDEFO as the second-preferred expression in the function of introduction. The INDEFO was used significantly more often than DEFS and DEFO
237 Chapter 8 Character reference
(p<.005 for all four groups and for all comparisons), whereas in the two forms no statistical difference was detected. Between-group comparisons in the function of introduction show no significant Group effect, suggesting that all participants exhibit a similar performance in the telling mode. However, in the same group in the retelling mode we noticed dissimilarities, as Greek-German tended to use DEFS form in higher rates than the other groups. The telling mode seems to provide them with a benefit, since now Greek-German exhibit a similar performance with Monolinguals and all other groups (Table 52).
Group INDEFS INDEFO DEFS DEFO Greek-German 69 25 4 2 (2.21) (1.75) (0.67) (0.57) Greek-English 68 24 5 3 (2.37) (1.72) (0.72) (0.85)
Greek-Albanian 67 26 4 3 (2.19) (1.62) (0.63) (0.75)
Monolinguals 72 25 2 1 2.17) (1.53) (0.63) (0.63)
Table 52. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for introduction.
8.6.2 Character Maintenance Within-group comparisons in the function of maintenance reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (5,239)=326.172, p=.000), Greek- English (F (5,179)=281.876, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (5,209)=234.453, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (5,299)=107.172, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests show that for all groups DEFS and DEFO as first preferred choices were significantly higher than the use of N-PRON, C-PRON (p<.01, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Moreover, N-PRON and C-PRON were found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons), see Table 53.
238 Chapter 8 Character reference
Group DEFS DEFO N-PRON C-PRON S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 27 24 17 15 8 9 (1.01) (1.25) (1.12) (2.03) (0.57) (0.62) Greek-English 28 27 16 16 7 6 (1.23) (1.38) (1.13) (1.51) (0.87) (0.79) Greek- 29 25 16 14 8 8 Albanian (1.57) (1.36) (1.78) (1.23) (0.72) (0.69) Monolinguals 28 24 18 17 6 7 (1.72) (1.89) (2.01) (1.12) (0.68) (0.65)
Table 53. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for maintenance.
Between-group comparisons in the function of maintenance in the telling mode do not reveal a significant Group effect. Again in the telling mode all groups exhibit a similar performance, in contrast to the retelling mode where the same Greek- German and Greek-English children exhibit a different performance relative to Greek- Albanian and Monolingual children.
8.6.3 Character Reintroduction Within-group comparisons in the function of reintroduction reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,159)=389.123, p=.000), Greek- English (F (3,119)=252.134, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=209.123, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=128.943, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests revealed that DEFS use was significantly higher than DEFO (p<.01, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.001, for all comparisons). Moreover, DEFO use was found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Between-group comparisons in the function of Reintroduction do not reveal a significant Group effect, suggesting that all participants exhibit a similar performance (Table 54).
Group DEFS DEFO S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 42 31 10 7 (2.05) (2.42) (1.75) (0.53) Greek-English 45 30 12 13 (2.75) (2.13) (1.81) (0.73)
239 Chapter 8 Character reference
Greek-Albanian 47 29 13 11 (2.43) (2.24) (1.72) (0.49) Monolinguals 46 31 12 11 (2.27) (2.18) (1.65) (0.51)
Table 54. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for reintroduction.
8.7 Narrative written retelling measure: 10-12 years old 8.7.1 Character Introduction Within-group comparisons in the introduction function reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (3,155)=233.092, p=.000), Greek-English (F (3,119)=256.113, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=239.545, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=229.387, p =.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests show that INDEFS use was significantly higher than the use of INDEFO (p<.005, for all comparisons), DEFS and DEFO for all groups (p<.001, for all comparisons). All groups choose INDEFO as the second-preferred expression in introductions at a significantly higher level than DEFS and DEFO (p<.005, for all comparisons). The third-preferred expressions in introductions are DEFS and DEFO, which do not present statistically significant differences between themselves. Between-group comparisons in the function of introduction do not reveal a significant Group effect, suggesting that all groups exhibit a similar performance (Table 55).
Group INDEFS INDEFO DEFS DEFO Greek-German 69 20 5 6 (2.23) (1.24) (0.73) (0.54) Greek-English 70 19 6 5 (2.78) (1.52) (0.75) (0.57) Greek-Albanian 71 17 4 8 (2.91) (1.48) (0.61) (0.61) Monolinguals 72 19 5 5 (2.88) (1.49) (0.58) (0.59)
Table 55. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for introduction.
240 Chapter 8 Character reference
8.7.2 Character Maintenance Within-group comparisons in the maintenance function reveal a significant referential form effect for Greek-German (F (5,233)=329.176, p=.000), Greek-English (F (5,179)=315.323, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (5,209)=307.227, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (5,299)=259.992, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that for Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian the use of DEFS and DEFO were significantly higher than the use of N-PRON, C-PRON (p<.005, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.001, for all comparisons). Moreover, N-PRON and C-PRON were found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S- PRONO (p<.01, for all comparisons). Monolingual children have a different performance from the above groups, as subsequent post-hoc tests showed that Monolinguals used significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON than the other forms (p<.005, for DEFS, DEFO, and p<.001, for S-PRONS and S-PRONO). DEFS and DEFO use was found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.01 for all comparisons). Between-group comparisons in the function of maintenance show a significant Group effect for DEFS (F (3,153)=8.109, p=.000), DEFO (F (3,153)=6.423, p=.000), N-PRON (F (3,153)=6.789, p=.000), and C-PRON (F (3,153)=5.187, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests showed that Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek- Albanian children tended to produce significantly more DEFS and DEFO than Monolinguals (DEFS, p=.004, p=.004, p=.002, respectively and DEFO, p=.007, p=.003, p=.005, respectively). On the other hand, Monolinguals tended to produce significantly more N-PRON and C-PRON than Greek-English, Greek-German and GreekAlbanian (N-PRON, p=.000, p=.001, p=.001, respectively and C-PRON, p=.002, p=.002, p=.001, respectively), see Table 56.
Group DEFS DEFO N-PRON C-PRON S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 36 35 10 12 4 3 (1.41) (1.28) (0.67) (0.82) (0.51) (0.71) Greek-English 37 40 8 12 2 1 (1.37) (1.53) (0.73) (0.76) (0.47) (0.43) Greek- 39 38 9 10 2 2 Albanian (1.45) (1.44) (0.71) (0.63) (0.58) (0.53) Monolinguals 14 16 32 30 4 4
241 Chapter 8 Character reference
(0.71) (0.89) (1.57) (1.04) (0.61) (0.68)
Table 56. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for maintenance.
8.7.3 Character Reintroduction Within-group comparisons revealed significant referential form effects for Greek- German (F (3,155)=422.098, p=.000), Greek-English (F (3,119)=168.007, p=.000), Greek-Albanian (F (3,139)=229.071, p=.000) and Monolingual children (F (3,199)=209.342, p=.000). Subsequent post-hoc tests revealed that DEFS use was significantly higher than DEFO (p<.01, for all comparisons), S-PRONS and S- PRONO (p<.005, for all comparisons). Moreover, DEFO use was found to be significantly higher than S-PRONS and S-PRONO (p<.01, for all comparisons). Between-group comparisons in the character reintroduction do not show a significant Group effect, suggesting that all participants exhibit a similar performance (Table 57).
Group DEFS DEFO S-PRONS S-PRONO Greek-German 36 29 16 19 (1.89) (1.02) (0.88) (0.83) Greek-English 35 28 17 20 (1.82) (1.17) (0.68) (0.81) Greek-Albanian 37 29 19 15 (1.87) (1.13) (0.89) (0.76) Monolinguals 38 27 18 17 (1.89) (1.15) (0.75) (0.69)
Table 57. Groups’ mean frequencies (and SDs) for reintroduction.
8.8 Correlations and regressions between external variables, proficiency measures, cognitive measures and distribution of referential expression in oral retelling In order to see whether the distribution of referential expression in character reference was best predicted by internal or external factors, language abilities or cognitive
242 Chapter 8 Character reference abilities, we conducted a stepwise elimination regression for all bilingual participants with the choice of referential form per function as the dependent variable. In this procedure, first we merge the subject and object positions of each form into one category (i.e. DEFS and DEFO, creating the new category of DEF etc.) and then we examine the use of the most frequent forms produced by all children in each function. More specifically, we will examine the possible predictors of DEF for the function of Introduction, DEF, N-PRON and C-PRON for the function of Maintenance and DEF and S-PRON for the function of Reintroduction. Predictors for each dependent measure were entered according to the significance of the correlational analyses.
8.8.1 Oral Retelling For the use of INDEF by bilinguals in character introduction the resulting model (adjusted R2=.28, F(3,208)=13.178, p<.001) revealed Age of Onset (β=.319, p=.007), Early Literacy Preparedness (β=.238, p=.028) and Home Language History of Greek (β=.247, p=.036) as significant predictors. For the use of DEF in character maintenance the resulting model (adjusted R2=.31, F(2,208)=9.523, p<.001) revealed Language Pair (β=.302, p=.008) and Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.249, p=.034) as significant predictors. With respect to the clitics pronouns in the character maintenance the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.38, F(2,208)=12.322, p<.001) Language Pair (β=.458, p<.001) and Language Composite Score (β=.335, p=.004) as significant predictors. Regarding the use of the null pronouns, the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.41, F(2,208)=8.923, p<.001) Language Pair (β=.409, p<.001) and Language Composite Score (β=.325, p=.005) as significant predictors. According to the function of reintroduction for the use of DEF the resulting model (adjusted R2=.35, F(1,208)=10.345, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.413, p<.001) as the sole significant predictor. Lastly, with respect to the use of S-PRON in character reintroduction the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.47, F(2,208)=12.345, p<.001) Language Pair (β=.478, p<.001) and Language Composite Score (β=.303, p=.009) as significant predictors.
8.8.2 Oral Telling For the use of INDEF in character introduction the resulting model (adjusted R2=.47, F(2,104)=12.579, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.379,
243 Chapter 8 Character reference p=.001) and Home Language History of Greek (β=.229, p=.038) as significant predictors. For the use of DEF in character maintenance the resulting model (adjusted R2=.31, F(2,104)=9.185, p<.001) revealed Language Pair (β=.402, p<.001) and Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.328, p=.001) as significant predictors. With respect to the clitic pronouns in the character maintenance, the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.28, F(2,104)=15.275, p<.001) Language Composite Score (β=.258, p=.031) and Language Pair (β=.278, p=.042) as significant predictors. Regarding the use of the null pronouns, the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.31, F(2,104)=12.662, p<.001) Language Composite Score (β=.388, p=.001) and Language Pair (β=.327, p=.003) as significant predictors. According to the function of reintroduction for the use of DEF, the resulting model (adjusted R2=.35, F(1,104)=6.524, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.489, p<.001) as the only significant predictor. Finally, with respect to the use of S-PRON in character reintroduction, the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.47, F(2,104)=12.771, p<.001) Language Pair (β=.428, p<.001) and Language Composite Score (β=.397, p=.001) as significant predictors. A first observation is that Language Composite Score has a strong influence on the performance of bilinguals in the telling mode, which implies that its effect was stronger on children’s performance when stories had to be produced outside the context of the prime.
8.8.3 Written Retelling For the use of INDEF in character introduction the resulting model (adjusted R2=.35, F(2,103)=14.267, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness of Greek (β=.307, p=.002) and Home Language History of Greek (β=.276, p=.029) as significant predictors. For the use of DEF in character maintenance, the resulting model (adjusted R2=.29, F(2,103)=10.576, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness (β=.249, p=.031) and CLitU (β=.227, p=.235) of Other Language as significant predictors. With respect to the clitics pronouns in character maintenance, the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.21, F(1,103)=7.623, p<.001) Language Composite Score (β=.301, p=.004) as the only significant predictor. Regarding the use of null pronouns,
244 Chapter 8 Character reference the resulting model revealed again (adjusted R2=.23, F(1,103)=8.723, p<.001) Language Composite Score (β=.398, p=.001) as the only significant predictor. Finally, with respect to the function of reintroduction for the use of DEF, the resulting model (adjusted R2=.30, F(1,103)=12.786, p<.001) revealed Early Literacy Preparedness (β=.377, p=.001) as the only significant predictor, whereas for the use of S-PRON the resulting model revealed (adjusted R2=.42, F(1,103)=14.913, p<.001) Language Composite Score (β=.458, p<.001) as the only significant predictor. Summarizing the results of the regression analyses for each narrative mode, we observe that despite the variety of predictors found for different forms there are certain generalizations that can be drawn. In particular, language proficiency in Greek measured either as Language Composite Score or Language Pair predicts many of the forms produced in different modes of narration. For example, the choice of null subject pronouns, clitics and strong pronouns are primarily predicted by the language proficiency scores. On the other hand, the use of the indefinite NP for the Introduction function is primarily predicted by measures of early language exposure to Greek (Home Language History, Early Literacy in Greek, Age of Onset) which seem to converge on the role of exposure to narratives in the specific language (rather than general exposure to narrative discourse). In all then, the choices of forms per function appear to converge on the finding that they are language-specific and as such more vulnerable in bilingual children with lower language proficiency.
8.9 Pronominal ambiguity To see whether the four groups differed in terms of the amount of referentially ambiguous pronouns we ran a Kruskal-Wallis H test for maintenance (M-AMB) and reintroduction (R-AMB) separately in the three modes.
8.9.1 Oral Retelling A Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences between the four groups in the distribution of ambiguous N-PRON in maintenance (x2=6.276, df=3, p<.05) and S-PRON in reintroduction (x2=5.892, df=3, p<.05). More specifically, Greek- Albanian children produced significantly more ambiguous null pronouns in maintenance than Greek-German, Greek-English and Monolinguals (Mann-Whitney: Z=-4.278, p=.002, Z=-5.139, p=.001 and Z=-5.732, p=.001, respectively). According
245 Chapter 8 Character reference to the function of reintroduction the results revealed that Greek-Albanian children produce significantly more ambiguous strong pronouns than Greek-German, Greek- English and Monolingual children (Mann-Whitney: Z=-4.103, p=.001, Z=-6.732, p=.002 and Z=-6.102, p=.002, respectively).
8.9.2 Telling A Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences between the four groups in the distribution of ambiguous N-PRON in maintenance (x2=5.321, df=3, p<.05) and S-PRON in reintroduction (x2=5.102, df=3, p<.05). More specifically, Monolingual children produced significantly fewer ambiguous null pronouns in maintenance than Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian (Mann-Whitney: Z=-4.111, p=.000, Z=-4.762, p=.000 and Z=-4.981, p=.000, respectively). According to the function of reintroduction again Monolinguals appear to use significantly fewer ambiguous strong pronouns than Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian children (Mann-Whitney: Z=-4.442, p=.000, Z=-4.276, p=.000 and Z=-4.563, p=.000, respectively).
8.9.3 Written Retelling For the function of reintroduction the results show a similar pattern with the results in oral telling. A Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences between the four groups in the distribution of ambiguous N-PRON in maintenance (x2=5.004, df=3, p<.05) and S-PRON in reintroduction (x2=5.904, df=3, p<.05). More specifically, Monolingual children produced significantly fewer ambiguous null pronouns in maintenance than Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian (Mann- Whitney: Z=-4.959, p=.000, Z=-5.623, p=.000 and Z=-5.752, p=.000, respectively). With respect to the function of reintroduction again Monolinguals appear to use significantly fewer ambiguous strong pronouns than Greek-German, Greek-English and Greek-Albanian children (Mann-Whitney: Z=-5.008, p=.000, Z=-4.956, p=.000 and Z=-5.761, p=.000, respectively).
8.11 Conclusions One of the objectives of the present chapter was to investigate whether referential forms used per referential function would be comparable in Bilingual and Monolingual children’s narratives. The analyses presented above showed that the
246 Chapter 8 Character reference form-function distribution in character reference was similar for Bilingual and Monolingual participants in many cases (especially in Reintroductions). However, in line with other studies (Chen and Lei 2012), we have also observed difference between Bilinguals and Monolingual peers, especially in the category of maintenance. For instance, the use of INDEF for the Introduction function is significantly lower with the younger group of Greek-German compared to the other two bilingual groups as well as their Monolingual peers in oral retelling. The performance of the Greek- German group cannot be attributed to cross-linguistic influence from German, as the preferred form for character introduction in this language is the indefinite form. Moreover, the older age group show no differences in the oral retelling mode, which indicates that the age factor contributes to the more appropriate choices of referential forms. This is in line with other studies (e.g. Hickmann, Hendriks, Roland and Liang 1996) which show that the indefinite marking of ‘newness’ comes later in the linguistic development of the child than all other character reference functions. With respect to the intoduction function in oral telling and in written retelling, all groups exhibit a similar performance. This may mean that oral retelling exerts more demands on the children’s cognitive and linguistic resources than the telling and the written retelling modes. In additon, both age groups show different preferences for form-function mappings in character maintenance compared to their Monolingual peers in oral retelling. In oral retelling for both age groups Greek-German and Greek-English use fewer N-PRON and C-PRON than Greek-Albanian and Monolingual children when maintaining character reference. German and English are non null-subject languages, thus a possible explanation could be that these children, in their effort to avoid the production of ambiguously identified character referents, adopted the unambiguous option of Definite DP production. Leclercq and Lenart (2013) claim that avoidance of ambiguity is a strategy that has been observed with L2 learners. With respect to the production of fewer clitic forms by Greek-German and Greek-English children, our results are also in line with other studies. For instance, in Serratrice’s study (2007) the balanced Italian-English bilinguals were found to use significantly fewer object clitics than their monolingual peers. This finding agrees also with the study by Peristeri, Tsimpli and Andreou (in press) showing that bilingual children produce significantly more DPs than clitics compared to monolingual children.
247 Chapter 8 Character reference
With respect to the younger age group, bilinguals and monolinguals exhibit the same performance, since they all seem to favour the use of definite rather than null arguments and clitics in the maintenance function of narrative tellings. In the written retelling, however, the older bilingual children use significantly fewer N-PRON and C-PRON than the Monolinguals in the case of maintenance. This finding is attributed to morphosyntactic skills of Bilinguals as confirmed by the regression analysis. As for the function of reintroduction, the only difference was observed in the younger age group in the oral retelling mode, whereby Greek-German and Greek- English children use significantly fewer S-PRON when they reintroduce a character than Greek-Albanian and Monolingual children, whereas Greek-German and Greek- English use definite DPs instead. Again this difference may be due to the effort to avoid ambiguous pronouns. In the younger age group alone we detect a mode effect in the functions of Maintenance and Reintroduction: in Maintenance, Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian bilinguals use more DEF in the telling in contrast to retelling, whereas in Reintroduction Monolinguals and Greek-Albanian use fewer S-PRON in the telling in contrast to retelling. It seems that telling is a more demanding task than retelling (see Chapter 5). See Table 58 below.
Group Mode Function Target answer Other answers Introduction INDEF: DEF: Greek-German> Monolinguals=Bilinguals Monolinguals & Greek- 8-10 yrs. Oral English & Greek- old Retelling Albanian Maintenance N-PRON & C-PRON: DEF: Greek-English & Monolinguals & Greek- Greek-German> Albanian> Greek- Monolinguals & Greek- English & Greek- Albanian German Reintroduction DEF: Greek-English & S-PRON: Greek- Monolinguals & Greek- German>Monolinguals Albanian> Greek- & Greek-Albanian English & Greek- German 8-10 yrs. Telling Introduction INDEF: ------old Monolinguals=Bilinguals Maintenance N-PRON & C-PRON Mode effect: the Monolinguals=Bilinguals Monolinguals use more DEF in the telling in contrast to retelling Reintroduction DEF: Mode effect: the Monolinguals=Bilinguals Monolinguals use fewer S-PRON in the telling in contrast to retelling
248 Chapter 8 Character reference
10-12 yrs. Oral Introduction INDEF: ------old Retelling Monolinguals=Bilinguals Maintenance N-PRON & C-PRON: DEF: Greek-English & Monolinguals & Greek- Greek-German> Albanian> Greek- Monolinguals & Greek- English & Greek- Albanian German Reintroduction DEF: ------Monolinguals=Bilinguals 10-12 yrs. Written Introduction INDEF: ------old Retelling Monolinguals=Bilinguals Maintenance N-PRON & C-PRON: DEF: Greek-English & Monolinguals>Greek- Greek-German> Albanian & Greek- Monolinguals & Greek- English & Greek- Albanian German Reintroduction DEF: ------Monolinguals=Bilinguals
Table 58. Character reference in the three different modes and functions.
With regard to the occurrence of referentially ambiguous pronouns in character maintenance and reintroduction, the results reveal that the use of referentially ambiguous forms is rare across groups. This agrees with other studies (e.g. Leclercq and Lenart 2013 and Orsolini, Rossi and Pontecorvo 1996) according to which once children enter school they become better at unambiguously marking character reference. However, our results show that Monolingual children produce fewer ambiguous N-PRON in the function of maintenance and fewer S-PRON in the function of reintroduction than all Bilingual groups in the oral telling and written retelling modes. The Bilingual groups in these cases do not show any differences amongst each other. A different pattern is seen in the production of ambiguous pronouns in the oral retelling mode. In this case the results reveal that Greek-Albanian produce higher numbers of ambiguous N-PRON in the function of maintenance and higher numbers of ambiguous S-PRON in the function of reintroduction than their Bilingual and Monolingual peers. It should be recalled that this group consists of Greek-Albanian_Gr monoliterate children with lower cognitive performance than all other groups. The contribution of working memory capacity in the production of unambiguous pronouns (or the avoidance thereof in order to clarify the meaning) is in line with the study by Kuijper, Hartman and Hendriks (2015) who found that children with higher working memory scores use more full NPs. In other words, we suggest that good working memory is necessary for recalling and reproducing narratives.
249 Chapter 9 Discussion
CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION
The overarching aim of this dissertation is to explore the interaction between bilingualism, language and cognitive abilities. To this end we considered several factors that can affect bilinguals’ performance on linguistic and cognitive tasks, such as age of onset, age at the time of testing, biliteracy, educational setting, language input in past and current activities, and dominance as independent variables.
9.1 First Research Question The first research question of the thesis concerns the domains of vocabulary and morphosyntax. In particular, we wanted to see what factors predict vocabulary and grammatical abilities of bilingual children and if and how bilinguals differ from monolinguals. Up to now there has been much discussion in the literature on bilingual children’s vocabulary, especially on the properties that differentiate among bilinguals and thus lead some of them to have similar performance with their monolingual peers and others to lag behind their control group. Many studies show that when only one language is considered, bilingual children typically underperform their monolingual peers (e.g. Marchman, Fernald and Hurtado 2010, Patterson 2004), whereas in other studies (e.g. Pearson, Fernadez and Oller 1993) results show a similar performance between bilinguals and monolinguals. In this thesis we chose to investigate bilingual children’s vocabulary knowledge by examining them on expressive vocabulary skills in both languages of all language pairs (see Chapter 3). Although, as is well-known, expressive vocabulary causes greater difficulties to bilinguals than receptive vocabulary, we decided to focus on expressive vocabulary as it has been shown to be more related to syntactic ability (Hammer, Hoff, Uchikoshi, Gillanders, Castro and Sandilos 2014) and also because vocabulary difficulties diminish in older bilingual children, when they are exposed to additional linguistic input. Our analysis of expressive vocabulary of Greek showed that monolinguals outperformed bilinguals (in agreement with Bialystok, Luk, Peets and Yang 2010), albeit not in all cases. For instance, no statistical differences were found
250 Chapter 9 Discussion between monolinguals, on the one hand, and Greek-Albanian_Gr or Greek- English_En bilinguals on the other. Further regression analysis reveals that within the group of bilinguals it is Current Language Use and Home Language History of Greek the factors that can predict vocabulary performance (see the regression analysis of Greek Vocabulary in Chapter 3.5.1), as these two groups that exhibit no differences with the monolinguals had received more Greek input through their daily activities at home or at school. This finding supports Gathercole’s (2007) suggestion with regard to the strong relationship between input and vocabulary acquisition. As she claims, once someone has reached a certain threshold, no more input is required for better performance on vocabulary. Building on this view of the existence of a threshold and taking it one step further, Thordardottir (2011) examines expressive vocabulary development of bilingual French-English preschoolers in Montreal and concluded that an input higher than 60% was enough for the bilingual children to achieve comparable scores with their monolingual peers. The results of our study on Greek Vocabulary are in agreement with Thordardottir’s findings: in Home Language History Greek- Albanian_Gr show a percentage of 65% of Greek input and Greek-English_En 90%, whereas in Current Language Use the scores for the same groups are 80% and 90% of Greek input, respectively (see Figure 4a-e in Chapter 3). Therefore, as far as Greek vocabulary is concerned, these bilingual groups behave just like their monolingual peers. As for bilingual children’s performance on morphosyntax and the possible influence by external and internal factors, our analysis shows that accuracy in SRT correlates mainly with cognitive skills (i.e. Raven’s scores) and Greek vocabulary (see Chapter 3.5.3). With respect to accuracy, Greek-German_Gr (mean score 57), Greek-English_Gr (mean score 59) and Greek-Albanian_Al (mean score 60) exhibit a statistically similar performance with monolinguals (mean score 74) (see Figure 10). Our finding strongly suggests that SRT accuracy demands resources for both cognitive and language abilities. This is the reason why Greek-Albanian_Gr with the highest Greek vocabulary score (74.4%) and the lowest non-verbal intelligence score (25.45%) of all groups appears to lag behind other groups with lower Greek vocabulary scores but higher non-verbal intelligence scores. As stated by Marinis and Armon-Lotem (in press), “accuracy in repeating sentences verbatim depends on all processes and levels of representation related to comprehension and production and the ability to store and retrieve language material from memory.”
251 Chapter 9 Discussion
Our data show that Grammaticality is more associated with language, as Greek vocabulary, Language Pair and Age of Onset are predictors of the performance of bilinguals. In Grammaticality, Greek-Albanian_Gr (mean score 29) and Greek- Albanian_Al (mean score 27) exhibit similar performance with monolinguals (mean score 31) (Figure 11). This Language Pair effect may also derive from the fact that Albanian and Greek as members of the Balkan Sprachbund have a number of common morphosyntactic feautures (e.g. clitic doubling, TAM, non-finite clauses, etc.). Recent studies investigating SRT in bilingual children have revealed Age of Onset, Length of Exposure (Thordardottir and Brandeker 2013) and Language Dominance (e.g. Verhoeven, Steenge and van Vanbalkom 2012) as important predictors for bilingual performance. In addition to Age of Onset (Chiat, Armon- Lotem, Marinis, Polisenska, Roy and Seeff-Gabriel 2013 for Russian-Hebrew bilingual children), we also found that Greek vocabulary and Language Pair are predictors of Grammaticality performance of the bilinguals (see Chapter 3.5.3).
9.2 Second and fourth research questions An important aspect of bilingualism is dominance (the fourth research question of the thesis). As we saw in Chapter 3, dominance has been measured in six different ways, namely in terms of the distance of input frequency between the two languages in Home Language History, Early Literacy, Current Literacy, Current Language Use and Balanced Educational Setting. Our analysis shows that the most reliable way of measuring dominance is Educational Setting (on the benefits of balanced education, see Oller and Eilers 2002). This is due to two reasons. First, this is the only measure which appears to be significant in the regression analysis, especially in the domain of macrostructure (see Chapter 6.5.7, 6.5.11 and 6.5.15). The other reason relates to the second research question of the thesis, i.e. the role of external factors in bilinguals’ cognitive performance. More specifically, only when we grouped the bilinguals on the basis of their Balanced Educational Setting did the results from the cognitive tasks show that Balanced Bilinguals exhibit significantly better performance than Greek and Other Dominant Bilinguals (see Tables 11, 13 and 15 in Chapter 4.2). This finding was further strengthened by the regression analyses run with the three cognitive tasks as dependent variables, the results of which reveal that the performance of bilinguals can be predicted only by Balanced Educational Setting and Age at the Time of Testing. The significance of this finding lies in the fact that
252 Chapter 9 Discussion
Balanced Educational Setting is for the first time directly correlated with better cognitive performance of bilinguals. Although a detailed explanation for why balanced BES is the strongest predictor of the bilingual cognitive advantage attested in our bilingual groups is not readily available, it is possible to offer some tentative suggestions. Given that our participants are school-age children it follows that the best part of their day is spent at school where bilingualism is practiced and encouraged. In addition, homework hours are also divided between two languages even if not evenly so. Furthermore, the quality of exposure to both languages in the educational setting allows the same genre and register of language to be part of the input the child receives in each of the languages. As such, academic language (Schleppegrell 2004, for the theory of Systemic Functional Grammar) and its characteristics (complexity, lexical diversity, argumentation and complex content material) becomes available to the bilingual child for both languages. It is thus suggested that it is not just a matter of balanced quantity of input for each language but more importantly the quality of input that the bilingual child receives in a bilingual educational setting that fulfills in the best possible way the developmental process and consolidation of language skills in both languages. This ‘balance’ is presumably associated with similar demands raised in the process of the two competing languages in the same context and the same genre. It is thus likely that an explanation towards the attested cognitive advantages observed are associated with the amount of effort in the competition between two similarly complex language genres in the same context.
9.3 Third research question Micro- and macrostructure are two different domains in narrative production. As our results show, microstructure is language-dependent as bilinguals’ performance can be predicted by their morphosyntactic abilities and by language input, whereas macrostructure is predicted by cognitive abilities alone. With regard to the third research question on the interaction between bilingualism, cognition and narratives, the results of our analysis are summarized in terms of the following main findings:
253 Chapter 9 Discussion
9.3.1 Bilingualism vs. Monolingualism 9.3.1.1 Microstructure The effects of bilingualism with respect to microstructure were detected in the two age groups and across the three different modes (telling, oral and written retelling), but were more pronounced in the younger age group (8-10 yrs old). In the case of length of narrations (verb clauses), monolinguals outperform bilinguals but only in the telling mode (see Table 35 in Chapter 6.6). This was expected, since the telling mode is a procedure that brings to the surface possible differences in lexical retrieval and possibly increased competition between languages in bilinguals as opposed to monolingual peers. Lower mean length of narrations by bilinguals compared to monolinguals is also reported by other studies (e.g. Schlyter 1993). In these studies it is claimed that bilingual children produce shorter narratives in their weaker language. This claim is strengthened by the results of our investigation which indicate that, after controlling for Language Composite Score, the differences between the two groups disappear in the mode of oral telling. Considering the factor of age in the length measure (i.e. number of verb-clauses) bilinguals do not show an increase of narrative length with age advancement, something that comes in contrast to previous studies (e.g. Marleen, Westerveld, Gillon and Moran 2008 for the English language). In the area of syntactic complexity, the general picture of our results is that monolinguals outperform bilinguals in complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses (with the difference being more pronounced in the younger age group) in all but one case. Specifically in the younger age group and only in the case of adverbials in oral retelling bilinguals were found to outperform their monolingual peers (see Table 36 in Chapter 6.6). However, when we control for their cognitive abilities (i.e. N-back scores) the differences between the two groups disappear. From this finding we are led to the assumption that complex and subordinate clauses belong to core syntax and as such, they are subject to language proficiency levels, whereas adverbials seem to be at the interface of syntax-discourse where coherence of the narrative is supported by appropriate expression of causal and temporal relations. In addition, given that this bilingual advantage is only attested in the oral retelling mode, it is possible that the interaction between good working memory and executive control pays off in bilinguals by better recall of the adverbial clauses presented in the model story. This possibility however requires more qualitative analyses of the retellings
254 Chapter 9 Discussion produced which have not been carried out for the purposes of this thesis. It should be pointed out however, that adverbials contain adjuncts which build causal and temporal connections between clauses. As such they seem to function more as discourse enriching elements. We could hypothesize that another factor leading to this difference between adverbial and other subordinate clauses is the possibility that adverbial clauses are transferable at some conceptual level from one language to the other with fewer syntactic constraints involved. For instance, the use of adverbial clauses presupposes knowledge of the connectives and internal clause structure but does not impose constraints on complement selection as is the case with clausal complement of verbs which may show crosslinguistic differences. The results of our analysis indicate that arverbials also constitute an index of cognitive ability. In the same vein, Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz and Green (2010) investigating English-Spanish bilingual children came to the conclusion that the role of conjuctions and adverbs are influenced by transfer between Spanish and English. With respect to the use of subordinate clauses, Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou (in press) investigating typically developing and SLI bilingual and monolingual children find that bilinguals outperform monolinguals in both cases. However, the above study concerns children in a relatively large age-range which are not distinguished into older and younger groups. The performance in syntactic complexity of bilinguals is an important point with possible cross-linguistic interest that needs further investigation, as seen from the data we have collected from Greek-German and Greek-English bilingual children. When taking into consideration the age factor, our results show that performance differences of bilinguals and monolinguals are clear between the younger and the older age groups in the oral retelling, with older children producing more complex sentences. This finding is in line with many other studies like, for instance, Muňoz, Gillam, Peña and Guley-Faehnle (2003), who examined English speaking Latino children 4 and 5 years old and found that the latter group produced more complex sentences than the former.
9.3.1.2 Macrostructure The positive effect of bilingualism figures strongly in the category of Story Grammar and in [+ToM-related] ISTs. However, it is evident only in the younger age group (8-10), since the bilingual children of this group outperform their
255 Chapter 9 Discussion monolingual peers (Table 37 in Chapter 6.6). This behaviour still holds even after controlling for their updating skills. This advantage is consistent with the claim that bilinguals have better metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok 2007), something that leads them to better performance with respect to Story Complexity and [+ToM-related] ISTs. Furthermore, according to our results bilinguals develop better global performance of narration earlier (around the age of 9) than monolinguals who seem to reach the same level of performance around the age of 11. As for Story Grammar the bilingual children seem to be better at capturing the global meaning of the story and to consider the listener’s perspective than their monolingual peers. This finding suggests that when bilinguals deal with discourse representation without focusing on linguistic features of the context they demonstrate better performance than monolinguals. It is thus possible to suggest that despite the lower performance of bilinguals on properties of microstructure, story grammar can build on more global processing and encoding of connected speech. With respect to the use of [+ToM-related] ISTs, the current literature on bilingual children is still limited with only few studies that have investigated this topic (e.g. Farhadian, Abdullah, Mansor, Redzuan, Kumar and Gazanizad 2010, Goetz 2003, Kovács 2009). The results of the present thesis show that bilingual children outperform monolingual children in [+ToM-related] ISTs. This is consistent with the results from Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou (in press). When considering the age factor, in contrast to other studies which show that ToM is a procedure that increases with age (e.g. Dumontheil, Küster, Apperly and Blakemore 2010, Devine and Hughes 2012), we find no difference between 8-10 and 10-12 groups in the oral retelling, which means that the development of [+ToM-related] ISTs may stop around the age of 8 or 9. This assumption is also in line with findings of recent studies, for instance by Babar, Baird, Lang, Ortlieb and Schneider (2013) who locate the stop point of development of emotional internal state terms at the age of 9.
9.3.2 Language Pair With respect to the Language Pair effect, our results indicate differences only in the microstructure syntactic complexity measures. The differences again were more pronounced in the case of the younger age group, whereas in the case of the older group only the oral and not the written retelling appears to show a Language Pair
256 Chapter 9 Discussion effect. In particular, in the case of telling for the 8-10 year-old group and in oral retelling for the 10-12 year-old group, the differences which show that Greek- Albanian children outperform Greek-German and Greek-English children in complex sentences, subordinate and adverbial clauses disappear when controlling for their Language Composite Score (Table 41 in Chapter 6.6). However, in the case of oral retelling for the younger group, Greek-Albanian continue to outperform Greek- English and Greek-German even after controlling for the Language Composite Score in the case of complex setences and subordinate clauses, but not in the case of adverbial clauses. We hypothesize that the difference between Greek-Albanian children, on the one hand, and Greek-German and Greek-English on the other is due to the typological proximity of Greek and Albanian (see Chapter 6.2). This appears in our results as the Greek-Albanian groups seem to benefit from this typological proximity which leads to a higher transfer and thus to a better performance in Greek. A number of factors like the similarities in the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) system, the absence of the infinitive in the two languages and the availability of semantic and morphosyntactic cues that the parser encodes to establish subordinate complexity reveal similar syntactic complexity mechanisms across the two languages.
9.3.3 Bilingualism, cognition and narratives The investigation of narratives in bilingual children with Greek as one of the two languages is limited (see Chapter 2.10 for some studies), whereas the studies conducted in other languages are restricted in the examination of telling abilities (see Fiestas and Peña 2004, Gutiérrez-Clellen 2002). With regard to the research question on the interaction between bilingualism, cognition and narratives, our analysis strongly points to a positive impact of bilingualism upon macrostructure (cf. Tsimpli, Peristeri and Andreou in press, for similar results on bilingual and monolingual SLI and TD children). Cognition too relates to macrostructure but to a lower degree than bilingualism. As is well-known, the connection between narratives and cognition is relatively well investigated, but this thesis is the first study that places emphasis on the cognitive perspective of bilinguals’ narratives combining many different external factors, e.g. educational setting, home language history input, current language input, etc. Focusing on narratives and their possible interaction with bilingualism, language and cognitive abilities, our results indicate that micro- and macrostructrure
257 Chapter 9 Discussion constitute two different domains. In other words, the factors that seem to affect bilinguals’ performance in the two domains are not the same. More specifically, microstructure is a language-dependent domain where Language Composite Score (i.e. Greek vocabulary and morphosyntax) and input (in most cases Early Literacy Preparedness) seem to be factors that can explain bilinguals’ performance. The significance of Early Literacy Preparedness as a predictor of bilinguals’ performance has been recognized only recently. See, for instance, Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli (2015) where Early Literacy Input was found responsible for the differences between Greek-German children living in Greece and Greek-German children living in Germany in the distribution of referential forms. On the other hand, macrostructure seems to constitute a domain that is not language-dependent, as Balanced Educational Setting and updating skills primarily affect bilinguals’ performance. The fact that Balanced Educational Setting plays such a crucial role in the cognitive development of bilingual children should be underlined, since many parents still have the wrong impression that a bilingual setting may have negative implications on children’s language development. Counter to this popular belief, the results of our investigation on this matter show that a Balanced Educational Setting creates an advantage in the cognitive domain and posits no disadvantage in language abilities (seen in microstructure as well). With respect to the updating skills which were found to correlate with Story Grammar and [+ToM-related] ISTs, we may support the view that these two categories carry a cognitive load that leads children with low updating skills to a disadvantage (see for instance Spanoudis and Natsopoulos 2011, for difficulties in the use of mental verbs in children with low working memory skills). So far studies have indicated that bilingualism confers an advantage on cognitive performance (cf. Adesope, Lavin, Thompson and Ungerleider 2010). Taking this view one step further, our study shows that regardless of cognitive performance, the mere existence of bilingualism leads to a better performance in the macrostructure.
9.3.4 Narratives and Grammaticality As far as narratives and grammaticality performance are concerned, the studies so far examining bilinguals indicate that in the majority of cases bilinguals tend to produce more grammatical errors in their non-dominant language (Bailey, Moughamian and Dingle 2008, Cooperson, Bedore and Peña 2013). On the other
258 Chapter 9 Discussion hand, several studies that focus only on Balanced Bilinguals reveal that these children seem to produce the same amount of grammatical errors across languages (Fiestas and Peña 2004, Gutiérrez-Clellen and Kreiter 2003). For Grammaticality our analysis shows that, in general, monolinguals outperform bilinguals. Moreover, as we said in Chapter 7.10, within bilingual groups we see that in the older age group with High Greek Vocabulary scores, the Greek- German and the Greek-Albanian appear to outperform the Greek-English children, whereas at the same time the Monolinguals produce narratives with more grammatical sentences relative to all groups of Bilinguals. In the written retelling mode the Monolinguals perform similarly with the Greek-Albanian and, at the same time, the latter appear to produce significantly more grammatical narratives than the Greek- English and the Greek-German. The performance of the older group with Low Greek Vocabulary scores presents an almost similar picture as the previous group with High Greek Vocabulary scores and more specifically, the Monolinguals outperform all Bilingual groups in both oral and written retelling, and the Greek-Albanian also outperform Greek-English and Greek-German in both modes. As regards narrative retellings by the younger age group with High Greek Vocabulary scores, Monolinguals outperform all Bilingual groups, but Greek- Albanian outperform Greek-English and Greek-German in Grammaticality. The exact same performance was observed also for the telling mode. The performance of the younger group with Low Greek Vocabulary scores presents an almost similar picture with the High Greek Vocabulary group, as Monolinguals outperform all Bilinguals in both telling and retelling, but there is no differentiation between the other Bilingual groups in either mode (for a tabular presentation, see Table 45). When we consider all bilinguals together and focus on the factors that predict bilingual children’s Grammaticality scores, the results from the oral retelling and telling point to Age of Onset and Current Literacy Use of Greek as the strongest predictors. For Age of Onset, our results are in line with other studies that show that children exposed to the second language after the age of 6 produce different error types than those who are exposed to the second language around the age of 3 (e.g. Unsworth, Argyri, Corpins, Hulk, Sorace and Tsimpli 2014). The importance of exposure in bilingual performance, especially for core grammar phenomena, has been demonstrated in many studies. Gathercole (2002a) investigating English-Spanish children found that bilingual children with less input in the target language at home
259 Chapter 9 Discussion performed worse than those with more exposure at home (that-t effects in English and Spanish and gender in Spanish). The results of our study indicate that the current literacy that the children receive can predict their use of grammatical structures (also supported by Gathercole 2002b: 247). In the written retelling, the results are slightly different since Current Literacy Use of Greek and Language Pair seem to be able to predict bilinguals’ performance. A final point concerns the finding that the Educational Setting of Bilinguals (whether they attend Greek Monolingual, Balanced, or Other Bilingual school) plays no role in Grammaticality scores.
9.3.5 Character reference With respect to character reference and bilingual performance and in agreement with other studies (e.g. Chen and Lei 2012), we identified some differences from monolinguals. A finding of our study is that irrespective of narrative mode (telling vs. oral vs. written retelling) a Language Pair effect is evident, especially in the case of character Maintenance (particularly in the case of oral retelling), as shown by the similar performance of monolinguals and the Greek-Albanian group, who prefer the use of null and clitic pronouns whereas Greek-German and Greek-English bilinguals seem to avoid them (Table 58 in Chapter 8.10). Similar studies claim that such differences may be due to typological considerations, for instance a null-subject/clitic language vs. a non-null-subject/no clitic language (cf. Serratrice 2007 for Italian- English and Andreou, Knopp, Bongartz and Tsimpli 2015 for Greek-German). The results of the regression analyses also demonstrate that character reference and the choices of forms for each function are language-specific and as such are more vulnerable in bilingual children with lower language proficiency.
9.4 Limitations and Future Directions Child bilingualism is a relatively new field of study, but the last few years it picked pace and a large body of literature has been produced. Narrative production by bilingual children is an area which is less studied than other aspects of child bilingualism. Experimental designs bear both strengths and limitations that need to be considered. Regarding the methodology, picture-based story narrative tasks (i.e. telling, retelling) have some restrictions. Even though we conducted the experiments
260 Chapter 9 Discussion in such a way that there was no shared context between the examiner and the participating children, yet some children, especially the younger ones, assumed that there was such shared knowledge (for shared knowledge, see also Hickmann 2003). Our narrative experiments in character reference employed off-line tasks which focus on production skills. It would be very insightful if a similar experiment is conducted on the basis of eye-tracking data where information on the integration of language and visual cues can be tracked in real time. Another issue that needs further investigation is the role of biliteracy in cognitive abilities. Our results indicate that biliterate bilinguals have higher cognitive skills relative to monoliterate bilinguals. In this study biliteracy was measured only with respect to the Educational Setting and the number of hours literacy exposure was accumulated for both languages. Biliteracy skills confer an advantage in cognitive tasks, although the evidence in this case is indirect as it measures only literacy input. It would be beneficial to obtain direct evidence of biliteracy levels through tasks which measure the child’s literacy skills. Finally, an important research area for our data would be the comparison of narrative skills in both languages of bilinguals. In this way, cross-linguistic influence and language-specific variations are likely to occur. In addition, Internal State terms of Greek monolingual and bilingual children are a domain that needs further investigation. A study in this direction would enable us to fully understand their functions and their possible connections with bilingualism.
***
This thesis tried to focus on the possible interrelation between bilingualism and cognitive and narrative abilities. In sum, the major findings of the thesis are: first, counter to the general belief that a bilingual advantage was confined in the cognitive performance of bilinguals, we detect such advantage also in the connected speech (i.e. narratives); second, the Balanced Educational Setting was identified as the most appropriate way to measure dominance in these age groups (8-12 yrs. old) and is the most crucial predictor of bilinguals’ cognitive performance; finally, micro- and macrostructure constitute two different domains, with microstructure being language- dependent and macrostructure relating to cognitive abilities.
261 Chapter 9 Discussion
It is hoped that a number of issues have been successfully addressed and new answers based on robust datasets have been provided to some of them. It is nevertheless also true that some other questions have been left either in dim light or in complete darkness. Thus prospects for further study are wide open.
262 Appendices
REFERENCES
Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and metaanalysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80, 207-245. Aksu-Koç, A. (2005). Role of the home-context in the relations between narrative abilities and literacy practices. In D. Ravid & H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Aksu-Koc, A. & Nicolopoulou, A. (2014). Character reference in young children’s narratives: A comparison of English, Greek, and Turkish. Lingua, Special Issue: Acquisition of Reference and Referentiality 11, 210-230. Allen, M., Kertoy, M., Sherblom, J., & Pettit, J. (1994). Children’s narrative productions: A comparison of personal event and fictional stories. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 149–176. Alloway, T. P. & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 106, 20-29. Alloway, T. P. (2007). What can phonological and semantic information tell us about the mechanisms of immediate sentence recall? Memory 15, 605-615. Andreou, M., Knopp E., Bongartz, C & Tsimpli, I. M. (2015). Character Reference in Greek-German Bilingual Children’s Narratives. In L. Roberts, K. McManus, N. Vanek, & D. Trenkic (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 15, 1-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Appel, R. & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of a story: Ages 2 to 17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing antecedents. London: Routledge. Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schliperoord & W. Spooren (eds.) Text representation, 29-87. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee- oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4), 495–527. Arnold, J. E., Brown-Schmidt, S. & Trueswell, J. (2007). Children’s use of gender and order of mention during pronoun comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 527-565. Arnold, J. E. & Griffin, Z. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language 56, 521- 536. Asher, N. & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115 (4), 591–610.
263 Appendices
Astington, J. W. & Baird, J. A. (2005). Representational development and false-belief understanding. In J. W. Astington & J. A. Baird (eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind, 163-185. New York: Oxford University Press. Babar, A., Baird, S., Lang, B., Ortlieb, A. & Schneider, Ph. (2013). Children's expression of emotional and cognitive mental states in their story generation from pictures. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Convention, Chicago, IL. Baddeley, A. D. Papagno, C. & Vallar, G. (1988). When long-term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 586-595. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bailey, A. L., Moughamian, A. C., & Dingle, M. (2008). The contribution of Spanish language narration to the assessment of early academic performance of Latino students. In A. McCabe, A. L. Bailey & G. Melzi (eds.), Spanish-language narration and literacy: Culture, cognition, and emotion, 296–331. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2000). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barac, R. & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching 44, 36–54. Barac, R. & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development 83, 413-422. Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S. & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133, 83-100. Bastiaansen, L., De Fruyt, F., Rossi, G., Schotte, C. & Hofmans, J. (2013). Personality disorder dysfunction versus traits: Structural and conceptual issues. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 4, 293-303. Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., Bohman, T. M. & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 616-629. Bekman, S., Aksu-Koc, A. & Erguvanli-Taylan, E. (2011). Effectiveness of an Intervention Program for Six-Year-Olds: A Summer School Model. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19(4), 409-431. Berman, R. A. (1988). On the ability to relate events in narrative. Discourse Processes 11, 468– 497. Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route of language acquisition. In R. Berman (ed.), Language Development
264 Appendices
Across Childhood and Adolescence, 9-34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Berman, R. A. (2009). Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence. In E. Hoff & M. Shattz (eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development, 347-367. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bernardini, P. & Schlyter, S. (2004). Growing syntactic structure and code-mixing in the weaker language: The Ivy Hypothesis. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 49-69. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2005). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, 577-601. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent*. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1), 3–11. Bialystok, E. (2010). Global-local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition. Developmental Psychology 46(1), 93- 105. Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: the benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 65(4), 229-235. Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Blaye, A. & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2010). Word mapping and executive functioning in young monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Cognition and Development 11, 485–508. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M. & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16, 240-250. Bialystok, E. & Cummins, J. (1991). Language, cognition, and education of bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (ed.) Language Processing in Bilingual Children, 222- 232. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10(3), 210-223. Bialystok, E. & Feng, X. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. In A.Y. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (eds.), Language and literacy development in bilingual settings, 121-138. New York: Guilford. Bialystok, E., Luk, G. & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9, 43-61. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F. & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13, 525-531.
265 Appendices
Bialystok, E. & Viswanathan, M. (2009). Components of executive control with advantages for bilingual children in two cultures. Cognition 112, 494–500. Biber, D. (2009). A corpus driven approach to formulaic language in English: multi- word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3), 275-311. Bird, A. & Reese, E. (2006). Emotional reminiscing and the development of an autobiographical self. Developmental Psychology 42, 613-626. Birdsong, D. (2006). Dominance, proficiency, and second language grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 1-3. Bishop, D. V. M. & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 31, 1027-1050. Bishop, D. & Donlan, C. (2005). The role of syntax in encoding and recall of pictorial narratives: Evidence from specific language impairment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23, 25-46. Bishop, D. V. & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired 4-year-olds: Distinguishing transient from persistent impairment. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 52(2), 156-73. Bittner, D. (2002). Emergence of grammatical complexity and markedness in the acquisition of verb and noun phrases in German. In K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & J. Weckwerth (eds.), Future Challenges for Natural Linguistics, 25-26. Wien: Lincom. Bittner, D. (2007). Early functions of definite determiners and DPs in German first language acquisition. In E. Stark, E. Leiss & A. Werner (eds.), Nominal determination. Typology, context constraints and historical emergence, 213- 238. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, W. R., Cox, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., Kivlighan, K. & the Family Life Project Investigators (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development 82(6), 1970-1984. Blankenstijn, C. & Scheper, A. (2003). Language impairment in Dutch-speaking children with psychiatric impairment. Paper presented at the meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, Florida. Blom, E. (2010). Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 14(4), 422-446. Blom, E., Küntay, A. C., Messer, M. H.,Verhagen, J. & Leseman, P. (2014). The benefits of being bilingual: Working Memory in bilingual Turkish-Dutch children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 128, 105-119. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Bohnacker, U. (2012). MAIN: Swedish version (Svenska). ZAS Papers in Linguistics 56. Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 18, 1-21.
266 Appendices
Bradley, R. H. & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status & child development. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 371-399. Bylund, E. & Díaz, M. (2012). The effects of heritage language instruction on first language proficiency: a psycholinguistic perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(5), 593-609. Calvo, A. & Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition 130, 278-288. Camaj, M. (1984). Albanian grammar, with exercises, chrestomathy, and glossaries.Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Cantone, K. F., Müller, N., Schmitz, K., & Kupisch, T. (2008). Rethinking language dominance . Linguistische Berichte 215, 307-343. Carlson, S. M. & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science 11, 282–298. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson, H., & Yan, H. (2000). Human Conversation as a System Framework: Designing Embodied Conversational Agents. In J. Cassell & J. Sullivan & S. Prevost & E. Churchill (eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Celinska, D. K. (2004). Personal narratives of students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 19(2), 83-98. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chen, L. & Yan, R. (2011). Development and use of English evaluative expressions in narratives of Chinese–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14, 570-578. Chen, L. & Lei, J. (2012). The production of referring expressions in oral narratives of Chinese-English bilingual speakers and monolingual peers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 29(1), 41-55. Chiat, S., Armon-Lotem, S., Marinis, T., Polisenska, K., Roy, P. & Seeff-Gabriel, B. (2013). The potential of sentence imitation tasks for assessment of language abilities in sequential bilingual children. In V. C. M. Gathercole (ed.), Bilinguals and assessment: State of the art guide to issues and solutions from around the world. Multilingual Matters. Chondrogianni, V., Andreou, M., Nerantzini, M., Varlokosta, S. & Tsimpli, I. M. (2013). The Greek Sentence Repetition Task. COST Action IS0804. Chondrogianni, V. & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho- syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(3), 223-248. Chondrogianni, V. & Tamburelli, M. (2013). Grammar in parsing and acquisition. Commentary on William O’Grady’s keynote article “The illusion of language acquisition”. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(3), 289-295.
267 Appendices
Chrysochoou, E. & Bablekou, Z. (2011). Phonological loop and central executive contributions to oral comprehension skills of 5.5 to 7.5 years old children. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25, 576-583. Chrysochoou, E., Bablekou, Z., Masoura, E. & Tsigilis, N. (2012). Working memory and vocabulary development in Greek preschool and primary school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 10, 417-432. Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (1999). Language Change in the Ukrainian home: from transmission to maintenance to the beginnings of loss. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 31(2), 61-75. Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E. & Umbel, V. C.(2002a). Chapter 5: Effects of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education on Oral and Written Spanish Skills: A Multifactor Study of Standardized Test Outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds.), Language and Literacy in Bilingual children, 98-117. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E. & Umbel, V. C.(2002b). Chapter 4: Effects of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education on Oral and Written English Skills: A Multifactor Study of Standardized Test Outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds.), Language and Literacy in Bilingual children, 64-97. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Coelho, C. A. (2007). Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: Progress, caveats, and needs. Seminars in Speech and Language 28, 122- 135. Colome, A. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language- specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language 45, 721- 736. Colzato, L. S., Bajo, M. T., van den Wildenberg, W., Paolieri, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., La Heij, W. & Hommel, B. (2008). How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34, 302-312. Cooperson, S. J., Bedore, L. M. & Peña, E. D. (2013). The relationship of phonological skills to language skills in Spanish–English-speaking bilingual children. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 27(5), 371-389. Costa, A., Hernandez, M., Costa-Faidella, J. & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2009). On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition 113, 135–149. Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1–43. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–51. Cummins, J. (1980). Teaching English through content-area activities. In P. Rigg & V. Allen (eds.), When they don’t speak English, 139-151. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
268 Appendices
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Cummins, J. (2009). Transformative multiliteracies pedagogy: School-based strategies for closing the achievement gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners 11, 38-56. Curenton, S. M. & Justice, L. M. (2004). African American and Caucasian preschoolers’ use of decontextualized language: Literate language features in oral narratives. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 35, 240- 253. Damanakis, M. (1997). Η εκπαίδευση των παλλινοστούντων και αλλοδαπών μαθητών στην Ελλάδα. Διαπολιτισμική προσέγγιση [The education of repatriated and foreign pupils in Greece. An intercultural approach]. Athens, Greece: Gutenberg. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19, 450-466. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 561-584. Danesi, M. (1990) Mother tongue literacy and the ‘shaping’ of knowledge: The experience ofthe Italian children. In M. Byram and J. Leman Bilingual and Trilingual Education 64-76. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Bruin, A., Treccani, B. & Della Sala, S. (2014). Cognitive advantage in bilingualism: An example of publication bias? Psychological Science, December 2014, 1-9. De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 411-424. De Villiers, J. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In J. Astington & J. Baird (eds.), Why Language Matters for Theory of Mind, 186- 219. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. (2003). Language for Thought: Coming to Understand False Beliefs. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.) Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, 335-384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Deckner, D. F., Adamson, L. B. & R. Bakeman (2006). Child and maternal contributions to shared reading: Effects on language and literacy development. Applied Developmental Psychology 27, 31–41. Deuchar, M. & Muntz, R. (2003) Factors accounting for code-mixing in an early developing bilingual. In N. Muller (ed.) (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism, 161-190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Devine R. T. & Hughes C. (2012). Silent films and strange stories: theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child Development 84, 989-1003.
269 Appendices
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarelli, N. & Wolf, A. (2004). Cross- language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 323-347. Döpke, S. (1992a). One parent–one language: an interactional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Döpke, S. (1992b). Approaches to first language acquisition: Evidence from simultaneous bilingualism. Australian Review in Applied Linguistics 15(2), 137- 150. Döpke, S. (1998). Can the principle of “one person-one language” be disregarded as unrealistically elitist? Australian Review in Applied Linguistics 21(1), 41-56. Droop, M. & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 38, 78-103. Dumontheil, I., Küster, O., Apperly, I. A., Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Taking perspective into account in a communicative task. Neuroimage 52, 1574-1583. Durgunoglu, A.Y. (2002).Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia 52, 189–205. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly 71(3), 393-447. Elbers, L. & van Loon-Vervoorn, A. (2000). Lexicon en semantiek. In S. Gillis & A. Schaerlaekens (eds.), Kindertaalverwerving. Een handboek voor het Nederlands, 185-222. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305-352. Engel de Abreu, P. M. J. & Gathercole, S. E. (2012). Executive and phonological processes in second language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4), 976-986. Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Cruz-Santos, A., Tourinho De Abreu Neto, C. J., Martin, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingualism enriches the poor: Enhanced cognitive control in low-income minority children. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society 23(11), 1364-1371. Ensminger, M. E. & Fothergill, K. E. (2003). A decade of measuring SES: what it tells us and where to go from here. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting and child development, 13-27. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erlam, R. M. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27(3), 464-491. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist 59, 77-92. Farhadian, M., Abdullah, R., Mansor, M., Redzuan, M., Kumar, V. & Gazanizad, N. (2010). Theory of mind, birth order, and siblings among preschool children. American Journal of Scientific Research 7, 25-35.
270 Appendices
Fattal, I., Friedmann, N. & Fattal-Valevski, A. (2011). The crucial role of thiamine in the development of syntax and lexical retrieval: A study of infantile thiamine deficiency. Brain 134(6), 1720-1739. Faulkner, D. & Coates, E. (2011). Exploring children’s creative narratives. Abingdon: Routledge. Fernandes, M. A., Craik, F. I. M., Bialystok, E. & Kreuger, S. (2007). Effects of bilingualism, aging, and semantic relatedness on memory under divided attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 61, 128-141. Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, B. & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1301–1318. Fiestas, C. E. & Peña, E. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Task and language effects. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 35, 155- 166. Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R. & Piske, T. (2002). Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics 23, 567–598. Fortkamp, M. B. M. (2000). Working memory capacity and L2 speech production: An exploratory study. Tese de doutorado. Florianópolis: Pós-graduação em Inglês e Literatura Correspondente, UFSC. Francis W. S. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 193-222. Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Bohnacker, U., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I. & Walters, J. (2012). Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN). ZAS Papers in Linguistics 56. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Gathercole, S. E. & Pickering, S. J. (2001). Working memory deficits in children with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education 28, 89-97. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morpho-syntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 224-247. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, 175- 206. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002b). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, 220- 254. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gathercole, V. C. M. & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 213-237. Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E. & Paradis, J. (1995). Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 22, 611-631.
271 Appendices
Gerken, L. (1991). The metrical basis for children’s subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 1-21. Geva, E. & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12, 1-30. Gholamain, M. & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning 49, 183-217. Giagkou, M., Kantzou, V. & Stamouli, S. (2014). Ο γραπτός αφηγηματικός λόγος των αλλόφωνων μαθητών: Μελέτη των γλωσσικών χαρακτηριστικών που διακρίνουν επίπεδα γλωσσομάθειας. In 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics: Selected Papers, 261-276. Rhodes, Greece. Gillam, R. B., & Carlisle, R. (1997). Oral reading and story retelling of students with specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 29, 132-147. Gillam, R. B. & Johnston, J. R. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language learning-impaired and normally achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 35, 1303-1315. Givón, T. 1989. Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Goetz, J. P. (2003). The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(1), 1-15. Golberg, H., Paradis, J. & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 29, 41–65. Granfeldt, J., Schlyter, S. & Kihlstedt, M. (2007). French as cL2, 2L1 and L1 in pre- school children. PERLES: Petites Études Romanes De Lund 21, 6-43. Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed languages: Issues, findings and models. In A. de Groot & J. Kroll (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 225-254. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, 131–149. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Guiraud, P. (1954). Les charactères statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Gutiérrez-Clellen V. F. (2002). Narratives in two languages: Assessing performance of bilingual children. Linguistics and Education 13, 175-197. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics 24(2), 267-288. Hackman, D. M. & Farah, M. J. (2009). Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 65–73.
272 Appendices
Hadley, P. A. (1998). Language sampling protocols for eliciting text-level discourse. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 29, 132-147. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. & Sandilos, L. E. (2014). The Language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Child Research Quarterly 29(4), 715-733. Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammett, L., van Kleeck, A. & Huberty, C. (2003). Patterns of parents’ extratextual interactions during book sharing with preschooler children: A cluster analysis study. Reading Research Quarterly 38(4), 442-468. Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: Insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review 106, 491- 528. Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review 111, 662-720. Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator 27(1), 4-9. Hayward, D., Gillam, R., & Lien, P. (2007). Retelling a script-based story: Do children with and without language impairments focus on script and story elements? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 16(3), 235-245. Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A. & Miller, J. F. (2010). Language sampling: Does the length of the transcript matter? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 41, 393-404. Hendriks, P., Koster, C. & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2014). Referential choice across the lifespan: why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(4), 391-407. Hermanto, N., Moreno, S. & Bialystok, E. (2012). Linguistic and metalinguistic outcomes of intense immersion education: How bilingual? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 131–145. Hewson, J. & Bubenik, V. (1997). Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: Person, space, and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickmann, M. (2004). Coherence, cohesion, and context: some comparative perspectives in narrative development. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds.) Relating events in narrative: typological and contextual perspectives, 281-306. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Roland, F. & Liang, J. (1996). The marking of new information in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language 23, 591-619.
273 Appendices
Hoff, E. (2006a). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review 26, 55-88. Hoff, E. (2006b). Language experience and language milestones during early childhood. In D. Phillips & K. McCartney (eds.), Handbook of early childhood development, 233-251.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development 74, 1368-1378. Hoff, E. (1991). Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communicative settings. Child Development 62, 782-796. Hoff, E., Laursen, B. & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. Bornstein (ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of parenting, (2nd ed.) 231-252. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hoff, E. & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of Communication Disorders 38(4), 271-278. Hsin, L. (2012). Transfer and Conflict: A structural account of influence in bilingual first-language acquisition. To appear in LSRL 41 Selected Proceedings, John Benjamins. Hudson, J. A. & Shapiro, C. R (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (eds.) Developing narrative structure, 89-136. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hughes, D., McGillivray, L. & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Ibrahim, R., Shoshani, R., Prior, A. & Share, D. (2013). Bilingualism and measures of spontaneous and reactive cognitive flexibility. Psychology 4, 1-10. Ilgaz H., Aksu-Koç A. (2005). Episodic development in preschool children’s play- prompted and direct-elicited narratives. Cognitive Development 20, 526-544. Iluz-Cohen, P. & Armon-Lotem, S. (2013). Language proficiency and executive control in bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4), 884- 899. Iluz-Cohen, P. & Walters, J. (2012). Telling stories in two languages: Narratives of bilingual preschool children with typical and impaired language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 58-74. Jak, O. (2011). Accommodating and promoting multilingualism through blended learning. PhD thesis, North-West University. Jia, G. & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 50, 1280-1299. Johnston, J. (2008). Narratives: Twenty-five years later. Topics in Language Disorders 28, 93–98. Jongejan, W., Verhoeven, L. & Siegel, L. (2007). Predictors of reading and spelling abilities in first-and second-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology 99, 835–851.
274 Appendices
Joseph, B. (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Juel, C., Grifflth, P. L. & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 243-255. Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 98, 122-149. Justice, L. M., Skibbe, L. & Ezell, H. K. (2006). Using print referencing to promote written language awareness. In T. Ukrainetz (ed.), Contextualized language intervention: Scaffolding PreK-12 literacy achievement, 389-428. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Kaderavek, J. N. & Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative production by children with and without Specific Language Impairment: oral narratives and emergent readings. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 43, 34-49. Kapia, E. (2013). Assessing narrative development in bilingual first language acquisition. Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas: Research Approaches 2, 179-190. Kapia, E. & Kananaj, A. (2013). The Albanian Vocabulary Instrument. Center for Albanian Studies, Institute of Linguistics and Literature. Tiranë, Albania. Karpava, S., Kambanaros, M. & Grohmann, K. (2015). The MAIN View from Cyprus: Tracing Narrative Abilities in Bilingual Children. Presentation on Bi- SLI 2-3/07/2015. France Karbalaei A. (2010). Who is in advantage: a Balanced or Dominant Bilingual. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(2), 319-338. Kemper, S. & Edwards, L. L. (1986). Children’s expression of causality and their construction of narratives. Topics in Language Disorders 7, 11-22. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85, 363-394. Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology 55(4), 352-358. Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1 orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 393-410. Kohnert, K., Bates, E. & Hernandez, A. E. (1999). Balancing bilinguals: Lexical- semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42(6), 1400- 1413. Kohnert, K. & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 347-359. Kohnert, K. & Medina, A. (2009). Bilingual children and communication disorders: A 30 year research retrospective. Seminars in Speech and Language 30, 219-233.
275 Appendices
Konta Irini (2013). Η κατάκτηση της Ελληνικής από παιδιά με μητρική γλώσσα την τουρκική: Στοιχεία από την ονοματική συμφωνία και τη μορφολογία (The acquisition of Modern Greek by L1 Turkish children: Evidence from nominal agreement and morphology). Ph.D. Thesis. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning 61, 439-472. Kovács, A. M. (2009). Early bilingualism enhances mechanisms of false-belief reasoning. Developmental Science 12, 48-54. Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. & Wodniekca, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9, 119-135. Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N. & Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13(3), 373-381. Kupisch, T. (2005). Acceleration in bilingual first language acquisition. In T. Gaerts & H. Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003: selected papers from ‘Going Romance 2003’, 143-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lauchlan, F., Parisi, M. & Fadda, R. (2013). Bilingualism in Sardinia and Scotland: exploring the cognitive benefits of speaking a minority language. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(1), 43-56. Leclercq, P. & Lenart, E. (2013). How do English, German and Polish learners of French link events in oral narrative discourse? EUROSLA 23, Amsterdam, 28- 31/09/2013. Lee, H., Plass, J. L. & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology 98, 902-913. Leider, C. M., Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D. & Harring, J. (2013). Examining the role of vocabulary depth, cross-linguistic transfer, and types of reading measures on the reading comprehension of Latino bilinguals in elementary school. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9, 1459-1485. Leikin, M., Schwartz, M. & Share, D. L. (2010). General and specific benefits of bi- literate bilingualism: a Russian-Hebrew study of beginning literacy. Reading and Writing 23, 269-292. Liles, B. Z. (1993). Narrative discourse in children with language disorders and children with normal language: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36(5), 868-882. Liles, B. Z., Duffy. R. J., Merritt, D. D. & Purcell, S. L. (1995). Measurement of narrative discourse ability in children with language disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38(2), 415-425. Lim, V., Lincoln, M., Chan, Y. & Onslow, M. (2008). Stuttering in English- Manadarin bilingual speakers: The influence of language dominance on stuttering severity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51(6), 1522-1537.
276 Appendices
Lomax, R. G. & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 22, 237-256. Mahon, M. & Crutchley, A. (2006). Performance of typically-developing school-age children with English as an additional language on the British Picture Vocabulary Scales 11. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 22(3), 333-352. Maligkoudi, C. (2009). Τμήματα διδασκαλίας της Αλβανικής στην Ελλάδα. Προσπάθεια μιας πρώτης καταγραφής. [Preliminary findings on Albanian mother-tongue courses in Greece]. Επιστήμες Αγωγής 1, 91–106. Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N. & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Marchman, V., Fernald, A. & Hurtado, N. (2010). How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young Spanish- English bilinguals. Journal of Child Language 37, 817-840. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K. & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 50, 940-967. Marinis, T. (2000). The acquistion of clitic objects in Modern Greek: Single clitics, clitic doubling, clitic left dislocation. In ZAS Working Papers 15, 259-281. Marinis, T., & Armon-Lotem, S. (in press). Sentence repetition. In S. Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong & N. Meir (eds.). Methods for assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from Language Impairment. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Marinis, T. & Chondrogianni, V. (2010). Production of tense marking in successive bilingual children: When do they converge with their monolingual peers? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 12, 19-28. Marinis, T., Tsimpli, I. M. & Bongartz, C. (submitted). Biliteracy education impacts on cognition selectively. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Markou, Γ. (1996). Η Πολυπολιτισμικότητα της Ελληνικής κοινωνίας. Η Διαδικασία Διεθνοποίησης και η Αναγκαιότητα της Διαπολιτισμικής Εκπαίδευσης. Αθήνα: ΓΓΛΕ. Masoura, E. & Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Phonological short-term memory and foreign vocabulary learning. International Journal of Psychology 34, 383-388. Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2009). Contact-induced grammaticalization: evidence from bilingual acquisition. Studies in Language 33(2), 366-395. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you?. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers. McCabe, A., Bliss, L., Barra, G. & Bennett, M. (2008). Comparison of personal versus fictional narratives of children with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 17(2), 194-206. McCabe, A. & Peterson, C. (1984). What makes a good story? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13, 457-480.
277 Appendices
McCabe, A. & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Assessment of preschool narrative skills. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology 3, 45-56. McCardle, P. & Hoff, E. (2006). Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Meisel, J. (2004). The bilingual child. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, 91-113. Oxford: Blackwell. Meisel, J. M. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28(1), 5-34. Merritt, D. D. & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: Story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30, 539-552. Michael, E. B. & T. Gollan (2005). Being and becoming bilingual: Individual differences and consequences for language production. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (eds.) Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, 389- 407. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore: University Park Press. Miller, J. (1991). Quantifying productive language disorders. In J. F Miller (ed.) Research on child language disorders: A decade of progress, 211-220. Austin TX: Pro-Ed. Miller, J. & Chapman, R. (2000). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT) [Computer software, SALT for Windows, Research Version 6.1]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Language Analysis Lab. Miller, J. & Klee, T. (1995). Computational approaches to the analysis of language impairment. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.) The Handbook of Child Language, 545-572. Oxford: Blackwell. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A. & Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology 41, 49-100. Montrul, S. & Potowski, K. (2007). Command of gender agreement in school-age Spanish bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 11(3), 301- 328. Morales, J., Calvo, A. & Bialystok, E. (2013). Working memory development in monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114, 187-202. Morris, N. & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: The role of the central executive. British Journal of Psychology 81, 111-121. Morton, J. B. & Harper, S. N. (2007). What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Developmental Science 10(6), 719-726. Muñoz, M. L., Gillam, R. B., Peña, E. D. & Gulley-Faehnle, A. (2003). Measures of language development in fictional narratives of Latino children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services at Schools 34, 332–342.
278 Appendices
Muter, V. & Snowling, M. (1997). Grammar and phonology predict spelling in middle childhood. Reading and Writing 9, 407-425. Namazi, M. & Thordardottir, E. T. (2010). A working memory, not bilingual advantage, in controlled attention. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13(5), 597-616. Nelson, K. & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review 111, 486-511. Nesteruk, O. (2010). Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of eastern European immigrants in the USA. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31(3), 271-286. Nicoladis, E. & Genesee, F. (1996). Word awareness in second language learners and bilingual children. Language Awareness 5, 80-90. Nicoladis, E. & Marchak, K. (2011). La Carte Blanc or la Carte Blanche? Bilingual children’s acquisition of French adjective agreement. Language Learning 61, 734-758. Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F. & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neuro-cognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science 8(1), 74- 87. Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z. & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 191–230. Orsolini, M., Rossi, F. & Pontecorvo, C. (1996). Re-introduction of referents in Italian children’s narratives. Journal of Child Language 23, 465-486. Palaiologou, Ν. & Evaggelou, Ο. (2003). Διαπολιτισμική Παιδαγωγική. Εκπαιδευτικές, Διδακτικές και Ψυχολογικές Προσεγγίσεις. Αθήνα: Ατραπός. Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A. & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Corte 69, 265-278. Paap, K. R. & Sawi, O. (2014). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: problems in convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs. Frontiers in Psychology 5:962, 1-15. Papadopoulou, D., Peristeri, E. Plemmenou, E., Marinis, T. & Tsimpli, I. (2014). Pronoun ambiguity resolution in Greek: Evidence from monolingual adults and children. Lingua. Papagno, C., Valentine, T. & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 331-347. Papu, R. & Vasanta, D. (2010). Education quality and social inequity-reflecting on the link. Contemporary Education Dialogue 7(1), 94-117. Paradis, J. (2008). Tense as a clinical marker in English L2 acquisition with language delay/impairment. In E. Gavruseva & B. Haznedar (eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: a generative perspective, 337-356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
279 Appendices
Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 3-28. Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 213-237. Paradis, J. & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or independent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 1-25. Paradis, J., Genesee, F. & Crago, M. (2011). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd edition). Baltimore: Brookes. Paradis, J. & Kirova, A. (2014). English second-language learners in preschool: Profile effects in their English abilities and the role of home language environment. International Journal of Behavioral Development 38, 342-349. Patterson, J. (2004). Comparing bilingual and monolingual toddlers’ expressive vocabulary size: Revisiting Rescorla and Archenbach (2002). Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47, 1213-1217. Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, 135-174. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pearson, B. Z. (2007). Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 399-410. Pearson, B. Z. & De Villiers, P. A. (2006). Discourse, narrative and pragmatic development. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (second edition): Language Acquisition.Vol. 3, 686-693. Boston: Elsevier Publishers. Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C. & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning 43, 93-120. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Peristeri, E., Tsimpli, I. M. & Andreou M. (submitted). Clitic production in monolingual and bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment: Evidence from elicitation and narrative tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. Perkins, M. R. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Petermann, F., Metz, D., Fröhlich, L. P. (2010). SET 5-10. Sprachstandserhebung für Kinder im Alter von 5-10 Jahren. Göttingen et al.: Hochgrefe. Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum. Pires, A. & Rothman, J. (2009). Disentagling contributing variables to incomplete acquisition competence outcomes: What differences across Brazilian and European Portuguese heritage speakers tell us. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2), 211-238.
280 Appendices
Place, S. & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2- year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development 82(6), 1834-1849. Premack, D. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Cognition and consciousness in nonhuman species - Reply. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4), 616-628. Price, J. R., Roberts, J. E. & Jackson, S. C. (2006). Structural development of the fictional narratives of African American preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 37, 178-190. Raven, J., Court, J. & Raven, J. C. (2008). Raven’s coloured progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. London: Pearson Education. Ravid, D. & Berman, R. 2009. Developing linguistic register in different text types. Pragmatics and Cognition 17, 108-145. Reese, E., Haden, C. H., Baker-Ward, L., Bauer, P. J., Fivush, R. & Ornstein, P. A. (2011). Coherence in personal narratives: A multidimensional model. Journal of Cognition and Development 12, 1-38. Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U. & Wulfeck, B. (2004). Frog Where Are You? Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury and Williams Syndrome. Brain and Language 88, 229-247. Renfrew, C. (1998). The Renfrew Language Scales: Word Finding Vocabulary Test. Milton Keynes: Speechmark. Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., Lanza, S. T. & Blair, C. (2011). Demographic and familial predictors of early executive function development: contribution of a person-centered perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 108(3), 638-662. Riches, N. G. (2012). Sentence repetition in children with specific language impairment: an investigation of underlying mechanisms. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 47(5), 499-510. Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rosen, V. M. & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology 126, 211-227. Rothman, J. (2007). Sometimes they use it, sometimes they don’t: An epistemological discussion of L2 morphological production and its use as competence measurement. Applied Linguistics 28(4), 609-615. Rothweiler, M. (2006). The acquisition of V2 and subordinate clauses in early successive acquisition of German. In C. Lleó (ed.), Interfaces in Multilingualism: Acquisition, Representation and Processing, 91-113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rumpf, A., Kamp-Becker, I., Becker, K. & Kauschke, C. (2012). Narrative competence and “internal state language” of children with Asperger syndrome and ADHD. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 33, 1395-1407. Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P. M., & Mayo, A.Y. (2010). The home language environment of mono- and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 117-140.
281 Appendices
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Schlyter, S. (1993). The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children. In K. Hyltenstam & A. Viberg (eds.), Progression and regression in language, 289- 308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, P. & Dubé, R. V. (2005). Story presentation effects on children’s retell content. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 14, 52-60. Schneider, P., Hayward, D. & Dubé, R. V. (2006). Storytelling from pictures using the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology 30, 224-238. Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second generation Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(5), 400-418. Schwartz, M., Kozminsky, E. & Leikin, M. (2009). Socio-linguistic factors in second language lexical knowledge: The case of second generation children of Russian- Jewish immigrants in Israel. Language, Culture and Curriculum 22(1), 14-27. Schwartz, M., Leikin, M. & Share, D. L. (2005). Bi-literate bilingualism versus mono-literate bilingualism: A longitudinal study of reading acquisition in Hebrew (L2) among Russian-speaking (L1) children. Written Language and Literacy 8, 179-207. Schwartz, M., Moin, V. & Leikin, M. (2012). Lexical Knowledge development in the first and second languages among language-minority children: The role of bilingual versus monolingual preschool education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, 549-571. Serratrice L. (2006). Referential cohesion in the narratives of bilingual English-Italian children and monolingual peers. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1058-1087. Serratrice L. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns in English-Italian bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition 10, 225-238. Siegal, M., Iozzi, L., & Surian, L. (2009). Bilingualism and conversational understanding. Cognition 110, 115-122. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human righs? Mahwah, NJ & London, UK: Erlbaum. [South Asian updated edition in 2008, Delhi: Orient BlackSwan]. Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequence of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157-192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, S. & Murphy, V. (2015). Measuring productive elements of multi-word phrase vocabulary knowledge among children with English as an additional or only language. Reading and Writing 28, 347-369. Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review 53, 165-189.
282 Appendices
Snow, C. E., Burns, S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Soodla, P. & Kikas, E. (2010). Macrostructure in the narratives of Estonian children with typical development and language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 1321-1333. Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22(3), 339-368. Sorace, A., Serratrice, L., Filiaci, F. & Baldo, M. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119, 460–477. Spencer, K. A. (2007). Effects of orthographic transparency on children’s spelling of common English words. British Journal of Psychology 98, 305-338. Stamouli, S. (2012). The development of narrative structure in Greek L1. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics (ICGL 10), 539-549. Komotini, Greece : Democritus University of Thrace. Stavrakaki, S., Chrysomallis, M. A. & Petraki, E. (2011). Subject-verb agreement, object clitics, and wh-questions in bilingual French-Greek SLI: The case study of a French-Greek speaking child with SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 25(5), 339-367. Stein, N. L. & Glenn, C. G. (1978). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle, (ed.), New directions in discourse processing, 53-120. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Stein, N. L. & Policastro, M. (1984). The concept of a story: A comparison between children’s and teachers’ viewpoints. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (eds.), Learning and comprehension of test, 113-158. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly 20, 458–479. Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, 727-757. New York: Longman. Schwartz, M., Leikin, M. & Share, D. L. (2005). Bi-literate bilingualism versus mono-literate bilingualism: A longitudinal study of reading acquisition in Hebrew (L2) among Russian-speaking (L1) children. Written Language and Literacy 8, 179-207. Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction 12, 185-233. Tager-Flusberg, H., & Sullivan, K. (1994). Predicting and explaining behavior: A comparison of autistic, mentally retarded and normal children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35, 1059-1075. Tager-Flusberg, H. & Sullivan, K. (1995). Attributing mental states to story characters: A comparison of narratives produced by autistic and mentally retarded individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics 16, 241-256. Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
283 Appendices
Thierry, G. & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(30), 12530-12535. Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism 15, 426-445. Thordardottir, E. (2008). Language specific effects of task demands on the manifestation of specific language impairment: A comparison of English and Icelandic. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 51, 922-937. Thordardottir, E. & Brandeker, M. (2013). The effect of bilingual exposure versus language impairment on nonword repetition and sentence imitation scores. Journal of Communication Disorders 46(1), 1-16. Thordardottir, E., Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M. E. & Naves, R. (2006). Bilingual assessment: Can overall proficiency be estimated from separate assessment of two languages? Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders 4, 1-21. Torregrossa, J. & Bongartz, C. (in press). Activation of referents in the bilingual mind. Special Issue “Linguistic and Cognitive Effects in Anaphora Resolution” Language, Faculty and Beyond. Trabasso, T. & Nickels, M. (1992). The development of goal plans of action in the narration of a picture story. Discourse Process 15, 249-275 Trabasso, T., & Rodkin, P. C. (1994). Knowledge of goals/plans: A conceptual basis for narrating ‘‘Frog where are you?’’. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (eds.), Relating events innarrative: A cross linguistic developmental study, 85-106. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Treccani, B., Argyri, E., Sorace, A. & Della Sala, S. (2009). Spatial negative priming in bilingualism. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16, 320-327. Treffers-Daller, J. (2011) Operationalizing and measuring language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(2), 147-163. Tsimpli, I. M. (2005). Peripheral positions in early Greek. In M. Stavrou & A. Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax, Linguistics Today, 179-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsimpli, I. M., Andreou, M., Agathopoulou, E. & Masoura, E. (2014). Narrative production, bilingualism and working memory capacity: A study of Greek- German bilingual children. Selected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, G. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M. Georgalidou, V. Kourti-Kazoullis, Ch. Papadopoulou & E. Vlachou (eds.), 1730-1742. Rhodes: University of the Aegean. Tsimpli I. M., Andreou, M., Kaltsa, M. & Kapia, E. (2015). Albanian-Greek bilingual children in Albania and Greece: the effects on mother tongue literacy/education on cognitive abilities, Albanohellenica 6, 1-7. Tsimpli, I. M., Peristeri, E & Andreou, M. (in press). Narrative production in monolingual and bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics.
284 Appendices
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language 28, 127-154. Uccelli, P. & Paez, M. M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 38, 225–236. Ukrainetz, T. A. & Gillam, R. B. (2009). The expressive elaboration of imaginative narratives by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 883-898. Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, J. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Eisenberg, S. L., Gillam, R. B. & Harm, H. M. (2005). The development of expressive elaboration in fictional narratives. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48, 1363–1377. Unsworth, S. (2010). On the division of working memory and long-term memory and their relation to intelligence: A latent variable analysis. Acta Psychologica 134, 16-28. Unsworth, S. 2012. UBILEC: Utrecht bilingual language exposure calculator. Unpublished manuscript. Unsworth, S. (2013). Testing the Amelioration Hypothesis: Does the illusion hold for other scope phenomena? Commentary on keynote by William O’Grady. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3, 357-361. Unsworth. S. (in press). Amount of exposure as a proxy for dominance in bilingual language acquisition. In C. Silva-Corvalan, & J. Treffers-Daller (eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A. & Tsimpli, I. (2011). Bilingual acquisition of Greek voice morphology and Dutch gender: What do they have in common? In N. Danis, K. Mesh & H. Sung (eds.), BUCLD 35 Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 590-602. Boston: Cascadilla Press. Unsworth, S., Argyri, F., Cornips, L., Hulk, A., Sorace, A. & Tsimpli, I. (2014). On the role of age of onset and input in early child bilingualism in Greek and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics 35, 765-805. Valian, V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(1), 3-24. Valian, V. & Eisenberg, Z. (1996). Syntactic subjects in the speech of Portuguese- speaking children. Journal of Child Language 23, 103-28. Van den Broek, P. (1997). Discovering the cement of the universe: The development of event comprehension from childhood to adulthood. In P. van den Broek, P. Bauer, & T. Bourg (eds.), Developmental spans in event comprehension: Bridging fictional and actual events, 321-342. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review 17, 147-177.
285 Appendices
Vasanta, D. (2004). Processing phonological information in a semisyllabic script: Developmental data from Telugu. Special issue of the Journal, Reading and Writing 17, 59-78. Verhoeven, L., Steenge, J. & van Vanbalkom, H. (2012). Linguistic transfer in bilingual children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 47, 176 -183. Vion, M. & Colas, A. (1999). Expressing coreference in French: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(3), 261-291. Vogindroukas, I., Protopapas, A. & Sideridis, G. (2009). Expressive vocabulary assessment (Δοκιμασία εκφραστικού λεξιλογίου) (Greek version of Renfrew Word Finding Vocabulary Test). Chania, Crete: Glafki. Volterra, V. & Taeschner, T. (1978). The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children. Journal of Child Language 5, 311-326. Vulchanova, M., Vulchanov, V., Sarzhanova, D. & Eshuis, H. (2012). The role of input in early bilingual lexical development. Lingue e linguaggio, Anno XI, (2), 181-198. Wei, L. (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In L. Wei (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader 3-25. New York: Routledge. Weizman, Z. & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology 37, 265-279. Westby, C. E. (2005). Assessing and facilitating text comprehension problems. In H. Catts, & A. Kamhi (ed.), Language and Reading Disabilities, 157-232. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T. & Miller, J. F. (2004). Spoken language samples of New Zealand children in conversation and narration. Advances in Speech- Language Pathology 6, 195-208. Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T. & Moran, C. (2008). A longitudinal investigation of oral narrative skills in children with mixed reading disability. Journal of Speech Language Pathology 10(3), 132-45. Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (2006). Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition: a case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(2), 97-116. Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yip, V. & Matthews S. (2010). The acquisition of Chinese in bilingual and multilingual contexts. International Journal of Bilingualism 14(1), 127-146. Yow, W. Q. & Li, X. (2015). Balanced bilingualism and early age of second language acquisition as the underlying mechanisms of a bilingual executive control advantage: Why variations in bilingual experiences matter. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 164.
286 Appendices
APPENDICES
287 Appendices
Appendix A
Child questionnaire
PART A:
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
A1 What is your name and surname?______
A2 ☐ girl ☐ boy
A3 When and where were you born? ______
A3.1 If you weren’t born in the U.K., do you remember how old you were, when you arrived here? ______
A4 Do you have any brothers and sisters? ☐ yes ☐ no
A4.1 If so, let us know, if you are
☐ the oldest
☐ the middle
☐ the youngest
A5 Your friends are mainly children
☐ with parents from other countries (not from UK)
☐ with parents from Greece
☐ with parents from UK
☐ with parents from UK and other countries
PART B:
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
B1 Do you know which languages you heard and used when you were a baby until you were three? (To fill in the empty rows, ask: And who else did you spend a lot of time with, then? Your grandmother, grandfather, an au-pair, child-minder… )
288 Appendices
mainly Greek both languages mainly English mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐
Sibling1 ☐ ☐ ☐
Sibling 2 ☐ ☐ ☐
B2 And do you know which languages you heard and used when you were about three and/ or started going to kindergarten? (To fill in the empty rows, ask: And who else did you spend a lot of time with, then? Your grandmother, grandfather, an au-pair, kindergarten friends, kindergarten teacher...)
mainly Greek both languages mainly English mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling I ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling II ☐ ☐ ☐ kindergarten teacher ☐ ☐ ☐ kindergarten friends ☐ ☐ ☐
B3 And how was it when you were about six and started going to school?
mainly Greek both languages mainly English mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling I ☐ ☐ ☐
289 Appendices sibling II ☐ ☐ ☐ teacher ☐ ☐ ☐ friends at school ☐ ☐ ☐
PART C:
LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN BOTH LANGUAGES
C1 Did your parents or other people read you books with stories and fairytales when you were younger? ☐ yes ☐ no
C1.1 If yes, I would like you to tell me, in which language they did this?
☐ My mother read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in English
☐ about the same in both languages ☐ in another language
☐ My father read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in English
☐ about the same in both languages ☐ in another language
☐ My brothers and sisters read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in English
☐ about the same in both languages ☐ in another language
☐ ______read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in English
☐ about the same in both languages ☐ in another language
C2 Which grade do you attend? ______
C3 Apart from your Greek class in school, do you have any other lessons in Greek?
290 Appendices
☐ yes ☐ no
C3.1 If yes, what do these lessons look like?
☐ I have additional private lessons in Greek.
☐ I have additional Greek lessons at school.
C3.2 Since when have you had these lessons?
I have had additional lessons in Greek since/for ______years or since/for ______months
C3.3 How often do the lessons take place?
The lessons take place ______times a week and last for ______minutes.
C4 Does anyone help you with your homework? ☐ yes ☐ no
C4.1 If yes, who?
☐ father ☐ mother ☐ older sibling ☐ someone else
C4.2 Which language do you use when he/she helps you with your homework?
☐ Mostly Greek ☐ Mostly English ☐ both languages to the same extent
C5 Do you have any additional English language lessons? ☐ yes ☐ no
C5.1 If so, what do these lessons look like?
☐ Do you have private lessons with a teacher at home, where you learn how to read and write?
☐Do you have English lessons at the English school, where you learn how to read and write?
☐Do you have lessons at the English school, where you learn English and other subjects in English, which ones? ______
291 Appendices
C5.2 Since when have you had these lessons?
I have had English lessons since/for ______years or since/for ______months
C5.3 How often do the lessons take place?
The lessons take place ______times a week and last for ______minutes.
C6 Does anyone in your family help you to learn how to read and write in English?
☐ yes ☐ no
C6.1 If yes, who?
☐ father ☐ mother ☐ older sibling ☐ someone else
PART D:
LANGUAGE USE TODAY
D1 And today? Who speaks each language to you and which language do you use when you talk to that person?
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in English my mother talks to me ☐ ☐ ☐ …
… and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ mother my father talks to me… ☐ ☐ ☐
…. and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ father my older siblings talk ☐ ☐ ☐ to me…
292 Appendices
…and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ older siblings my younger siblings ☐ ☐ ☐ talk to me…
…and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ younger siblings my grandparents talk ☐ ☐ ☐ to me…
...and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents my friends, who know ☐ ☐ ☐ English, talk to me…
…. and I talk to them ☐ ☐ ☐
D2 In which language …
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in English
… do you memorize ☐ ☐ ☐ telephone numbers?
… do you swear? ☐ ☐ ☐
… do you tell the ☐ ☐ ☐ time?
… do you count and ☐ ☐ ☐ calculate – not in school, but, for example when you go shopping?
… do you talk to ☐ ☐ ☐ yourself?
… do you write ☐ ☐ ☐ shopping lists?
… do you read aloud, ☐ ☐ ☐ when you are alone (if
293 Appendices you do that)
… do you read aloud ☐ ☐ ☐ when other people are present (not in school, but in your free time, for pleasure).
D3 And for these activities, which language do you use?
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in English
… do you text on your ☐ ☐ ☐ mobile?
… do you write ☐ ☐ ☐ emails?
… do you write letters, ☐ ☐ ☐ postcards or greeting cards?
D3.1 When you text or email in Greek, which alphabet do you use?
☐Greek alphabet ☐ Latin alphabet ☐both
D4 How often…
Often Sometimes rarely
…do you watch TV or ☐ ☐ ☐ films in Greek?
…do you watch TV or ☐ ☐ ☐ films in English?
… do you visit websites ☐ ☐ ☐ in Greek?
… do you visit websites ☐ ☐ ☐ in English?
... do you play ☐ ☐ ☐ video/computer games in Greek?
294 Appendices
... do you play ☐ ☐ ☐ video/computer games in English?
☐ ☐ ☐ … do you read books/ magazines/ comics in ☐ I cannot read Greek? Greek
☐ ☐ ☐ … do you read books/ magazines/ comics in ☐ I cannot read English? English
D5 In general, how often do you communicate in each language in all your daily activities?
Greek: ☐ often ☐ sometimes ☐ almost never
English: ☐ often ☐ sometimes ☐almost never
Other language: ☐ often ☐ sometimes ☐ almost never
D6 Which language do you usually use
D6.1 …in school?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly English ☐ both the same ☐ other
D6.2 …with your family?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly English ☐ both the same ☐ other
D6.3 …with your friends?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly English ☐ both the same ☐ other
PART E:
CHILD’S LANGUAGE ABILITIES
E1 How well, do you think,…
very well well not so well
295 Appendices you understand Greek? you speak Greek? you read Greek? you write Greek?
E2 How well, do you think,…
very well well not so well you understand English? you speak English? you read English? you write English?
E3 How well, do you think,…
very well well not so well you understand another language? you speak another language ? you read another language? you write another language ?
E4 Which language, do you think, you…
Greek both the English same understand better? speak better? read better? write better?
296 Appendices
E5 Do you prefer to speak one of the languages you know?
☐ No ☐ Yes, which one: ______
E6 Do you prefer to read and write in one of the languages you know?
☐ No ☐ Yes, which one: ______
PART F:
LANGUAGE BACKGROUND IN THE FAMILY
F1 In your opinion, which language does your mother
Greek both the same English understand better? speak better? read better? write better?
F2 Are you happy with this? ☐ yes ☐ I don’t mind ☐ no
Why?______
F3 In your opinion, which language does your father
Greek both the same English understand better? speak better? read better? write better?
297 Appendices
F4 Are you happy with this? ☐ yes ☐ I don’t mind ☐ no
Why? ______
PART G:
TRAVELLING
E.1 How often do you travel to Greece? How long do you stay there? ☐ never
☐ less often than once a year for how long? ______
☐ once a year for how long?______
☐ 2 to 3 times per year for how long? ______
☐ more often than 2 to 3 times per year for how long? ______
E.2 Which language(s) do you speak, when visiting UK/USA?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ both languages ☐ mostly English
PART H:
EVALUATION OF BILINGUALISM
F1 How important is it to you to …
not very very important important important
…to be able to speak Greek? ☐ ☐ ☐
... to be able to read and write in ☐ ☐ ☐ Greek?
… …to be able to speak English? ☐ ☐ ☐
298 Appendices
… to be able to read and write in ☐ ☐ ☐ English?
… …to be able to speak another ☐ ☐ ☐ language? (which?)
… to be able to read and write in ☐ ☐ ☐ another language?
F2 Do you like learning…?
Greek: ☐ yes ☐ I don’t mind ☐ no
English: ☐ yes ☐ I don’t mind ☐ no another language: ☐ yes ☐ I don’t mind ☐ no
F3 Does you school provide any Greek courses? ☐ yes ☐ no
F3.1 If so, do you attend them? ☐ yes ☐no
F3.2 If not, would you have liked a course to be available?☐ yes ☐ no
F4 Are you happy learning and using those languages at school?
______
F5 Do you think that the teachers at your school think it is good that you speak both Greek and English? Or rather not? Can you give an example?
______
Is there anything you would like to add? If not, thank you very much for answering all these questions!
Parental questionnaire
PART Α:
299 Appendices
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Α1 You are: ☐ female ☐ male
A2 Apart from you, how many adults in your family help to raise your child? ______
Α3 You are: ☐ 25-35 years old ☐ 36-45 years old ☐ over 45 years old
Α4 Your partner is: ☐ 25-35 years old ☐ 36-45 years old ☐ over 45 years old
Α5 Where did you grow up?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
Α6 Where did your partner grow up?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
Α7 How long have you been in the U.K.?
☐ since birth ☐ 1-2 years ☐ 3-5 years ☐ 6-9 years ☐ over 10 years
A8 Where were your parents born?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
A9 Where do your parents live?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
Α10 How long has your partner been in the U.K.?
☐ since birth ☐ 1-2 years ☐ 3-5 years ☐ 6-9 years ☐ over 10 years
A11 Where were your partner’s parents born?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
300 Appendices
A12 Where do your partner’s parents live?
☐ in the UK ☐ in Greece ☐ in both countries ☐ if elsewhere, where? ______
Α13 In which country did you attend the following levels of education:
other UK Greece country nowhere
Primary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Compulsory Secondary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Upper Secondary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Professional training ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Tertiary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Α14 In which country did your partner attend the following levels of education:
other UK Greece country nowhere
Primary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Compulsory Secondary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Upper Secondary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Professional training ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Tertiary Education ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Α15 What is your job? ______
Α16 What is your partner’s job? ______
Α17 How long are you planning to stay in the U.K.? Choose the answer that suits you:
301 Appendices
☐ no more than one year
☐ 2 to 3 more years
☐ 4 to 5 more years
☐ as long as possible
☐ don’t know yet
A18 How many children do you have? ______
A19 How old are they? ______
A20 When was ______born?
______(Day/Month/Year)
A17 Where was he/she born?
☐ in Greece ☐ in the UK ☐ if elsewhere, where?______
A17.1 If not born in the U.K., how old was he/she when he/she came to this country? ______
PART B:
PARENTS’ LANGUAGE ABILITY & USE
B1 Which language or languages do you speak with these people? (Please tick the boxes!)
more both English more Greek English languages Greek only only than English than Greek equally often
With my partner I ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ speak
With my child I speak ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
With Greek relatives and friends living in ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ the U.K. I speak
302 Appendices
With other Greek speaking people living ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ in the U.K. I speak
B2 Do you use any dialect at home? If so, which one? ______
B3 How would you assess your language skills in Greek? (Please tick the boxes!)
I can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand Greek when I hear other Greeks speaking to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ one another
… understand Greek when I ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ watch TV
… speak Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… write Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
B4 How would you assess your partner’s language skills in Greek? (Please tick the boxes!)
He/she can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand Greek when he/she hears other Greeks ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ speaking to one another
… understand Greek when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ he/she watches TV
… speak Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
303 Appendices
… write Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
B5 How would you assess your language skills in English? (Please tick the boxes!)
I can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand English when I hear others speaking English to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ one another
… understand English when I ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ watch TV
… speak English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… write English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
B6 How would you assess your partner’s language skills in English? (Please tick the boxes!)
He/she can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand English when he/she hears other English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ people speaking to one another.
… understand English when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ he/she watches TV
… speak English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… write English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
304 Appendices
B7 Do you know any other languages apart from English and Greek? ☐ Yes ☐ No
B7.1 If so, which one(s)? ______
B7.2 Do you use these languages at home with your family members? ☐ Yes ☐ No
B7.3 If so, with whom?
☐ with your parents (if they live with you) ☐ with your siblings (if they live with you)
☐ with your partner ☐ with your children
B8 Does your partner know any other languages apart from English and Greek? ☐ Yes ☐ No
B8.1 If so, which one(s)? ______
B8.2 Does he/she use these languages at home with family members? ☐ Yes ☐ No
B8.3 If so, with whom?
☐ with his/her parents (if they live with you) ☐ with his/her siblings (if they live with you)
☐ with you ☐ with your children
PART C:
YOUR CHILD’S USE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
C1 As far as you know, your child’s friends are:
☐ mainly children whose parents come from other countries (not from the UK)
☐ mainly children with Greek parents
☐ mainly children with English speaking parents
☐ mainly children whose parents are from the UK and other countries
305 Appendices
C2 Which languages does your child use with these people? (Please tick the boxes!)
more both more English English languages Greek Greek My child speaks… only than equally than only Greek frequently English
…with me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
…with my partner ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
…with his/her brothers and ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ sisters
…with other children from ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ the U
…with other Greek relatives and friends who live in the ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ U.K.
…with other Greek adults ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ who live in the U.K.
C3 When you address your child in English and the child replies to you in Greek, you continue the conversation in:
☐ Greek ☐ English ☐ not applicabl
C3.1 When you address your child in Greek and the child replies to you in English, you continue the conversation in:
☐ Greek ☐ English ☐ not applicable
C4 Where has your child attended primary school so far?
☐ Greece, If so, since what age? ______
for how long? ______
which grades? ______
306 Appendices
which language was mainly usedat school? ______
☐ UK/USA, If so, since what age ? ______
for how long? ______
which grades? ______
which language was mainly used at school? ______
C5 Does anyone help your child with his/her homework? ☐ Yes ☐ No
C5.1 If so, who is this person?
☐ me ☐ my partner ☐ older brother or sister ☐ someone else
C5.2 Which language is used when helping your child with homework?
☐ mainly English ☐ mainly Greek ☐ both languages
C6 Does your child use a computer at home? ☐ Yes ☐ No
[If so, please answer the questions below]
C6.1 If yes, how many hours per day does your child spend on the computer hearing or using a language, e.g. playing games, exchanging messages (email, chat), reading websites, watching videos or listening to songs?______(hours per day)
C6.2 Which language(s) does your child use / read / hear on the computer, in general?
not at all rarely sometimes often very often
Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
307 Appendices
another language;
If so, which one? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
C7 How often does your child communicate in different languages every day (in various circumstances)?
not at all rarely sometimes often very often in Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ in English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ in other languages ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
PART D:
ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR CHILD’S LANGUAGE ABILITY IN ENGLISH AND PARENTAL EFFORTS IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH
D1 How would you assess your child’s language skills in English?
My child can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand English when he/she hears other English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ people speaking to one another
… understands English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ when he/she watches TV
… speak English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
308 Appendices
… write English ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
D2 Does he/she also use Greek words when speaking English?
☐ almost never ☐ rarely ☐ sometimes ☐ often ☐ almost always
D3 How old was your child when s/he first came to regular contact with the English language? (Choose the answer that most closely matches your situation. First tick the boxes on the left and then select or provide the reason why .)
☐ newborn
☐ because you spoke English as well as other languages to him/her
☐ because you only spoke English to him/her
☐because: ______
☐ between 1 and 3 years:
☐ because you started speaking English to him/her
☐ because childcare was provided by English speakers
☐ because: ______
☐ after 4:
☐ because you started speaking English to him/her
☐ because he/she went to a English kindergarten
☐ because:______
☐ after 6:
☐ because this is when he/she came to the U.K.
☐ because he/she went to a English school for the first time
☐ because: ______
309 Appendices
D4 Were there periods during which your child did not have contact with the English language since he/she began to use it (e.g. because he/she returned to Greece for a few months)?
☐ Yes ☐ No
D4.1 If so, please indicate at what age this happened and for how long.
______
D5 From how many different people does your child hear English? (Please tick the appropriate box(es))
☐ teachers ☐ classmates ☐ relatives ☐ family friends ☐ friends
D6 Do you try/ Have you tried to help your child learn English or improve his/her English? ☐ Yes ☐ No
D6.1 If so, tick the appropriate box(es) :
☐ We always try or tried to speak English to him/her.
☐ We make sure or made sure that he/she watches English TV programs, etc.
☐ We read English books to him/her or we used to, when he/she was little.
☐ We make or made sure that he/she reads English books.
☐ We help or helped him/her with his/her homework.
☐ He/she has or had additional lessons in English.
☐ Other: ______
D6.2 If your child attends or has attended additional lessons in English, please tick the box that explains how this was done.
☐ My child has or has had additional private English lessons.
☐ My child attends or has attended additional English classes at school.
D6.3 If your child takes or has taken additional lessons in English at home or in school, please state the length of those lessons: since/for ______years or
310 Appendices
since/for ______months.
D6.4 How often does or did he/she attend these lessons?
The lessons take/took place ______times a week and last/lasted ______minutes.
D6.5 If your child attends or has attended additional English lessons, why have you chosen this particular way of support?
______
______
______
D7 How does or did your child react to your efforts to help him/her learn English?
☐ very negatively ☐ negatively ☐ indifferently ☐ positively ☐ very positively
D8 Is it important for you that your child knows English ?
☐ not at all ☐ a little ☐ quite important ☐ very important ☐ absolutely
D8.1 Why? (Please state the most important reasons)
______
______
______
PART E:
ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR CHILD’S LANGUAGE ABILITY IN GREEK AND THE PARENTAL EFFORTS IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK
E1 How would you assess your child’s language skills in Greek?
My child can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand Greek when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
311 Appendices he/she hears others speaking to one another.
… understand Greek when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ he/she watches TV.
… speak Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… write Greek ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
E2 Does he/she also use English words when speaking Greek?
☐ almost never ☐ rarely ☐ sometimes ☐ often ☐ almost always
E3 At what age was your child's first regular contact with the Greek language? Choose the answer that most closely matches your situation.
☐ newborn
☐ because you spoke Greek as well as other languages to him/her
☐ because you only spoke Greek to him/ her
☐ because: ______
☐ between 1 and 3 years:
☐ because you started speaking Greek to him/her
☐ because childcare was provided by Greek speakers
☐ because: ______
☐ after 4:
☐ because you started speaking Greek to him/her
☐ because he/she went to a Greek kindergarten
☐ because: ______
☐ after 6:
☐ because you started speaking Greek to him/her
312 Appendices
☐ because he/she went to a Greek school for the first time
☐ because: ______
E4 Were there periods during which your child did not have contact with the Greek language since he/she began to use it?
☐ Yes ☐ No
E4.1 If so, please indicate at what age this happened and for how long.
______
E5 From how many different people does your child hear Greek?
☐ teachers ☐ classmates ☐ relatives ☐ family friends ☐ friends
E6 Do you do /have you done something to help your child improve his/her Greek?
☐ Yes ☐ No
E 6.1 If so, tick the appropriate box(es).
☐ We always try or have tried to speak Greek with him/her.
☐ We make sure or have made sure that he/she watches Greek TV programs, etc.
☐ We read or have read Greek books to him/her or we used to, when he/she was little.
☐ We make sure or have made sure that he/she reads Greek books.
☐We help or have helped him/her with his/her homework.
☐ We provide or have provided him with additional Greek lessons.
☐ Other: ______
E6.2 If your child attends or has attended additional Greek lessons, please tick the box that explains how this was done…
☐ My child has or has had additional private Greek lessons.
☐ My child attends or has attended additional Greek classes at school
313 Appendices
E6.3 If your child takes or has taken additional lessons in Greek at home or at school, please state the length of those lessons: since/for ______years or since/for ______months.
E6.4 How often does or did he/she attend these lessons?
The lessons take/took place ______times a week and last / lasted ______minutes.
E6.5 If your child attends or has attended additional Greek lessons, why have you chosen this particular way of support?
______
______
______
E7 How does or did your child react to your efforts to help him/her learn Greek?
☐ very negatively ☐ negatively ☐ indifferently ☐ positively ☐ very positively
E8 Is it important for you that your child knows Greek?
☐ not at all ☐ a little ☐ quite important ☐ very important ☐ absolutely
E8.1 Why? (Please state the most important reasons)
______
______
______
PART F:
YOUR CHILD’S KNOWLEDGE & USE OF OTHER LANGUAGES
F1 Does your child hear another language in the family?
☐ Yes ☐ No
314 Appendices
F1.1 If so, which one(s)? ______
F1.2 Who speaks this language / these languages in the family?
☐ me ☐ my partner ☐ both parents ☐ grandparents ☐ siblings
F2 How well does your child know this language?
My child can… not at all a little adequately well very well
… understand when he/she hears others ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ talking to each other
… understand when ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ he/she watches TV
… speak ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… read ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
… write ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
F3 Does the child attend courses in other languages besides Greek and English?
☐ Yes ☐ No
F3.1 If so, which one(s)?
☐ German ☐ French ☐ Spanish ☐ Italian ☐ other: ______
F3.2 How many hours per week? ______
F4 Has the child lived in another country apart from Greece and the UK?
☐ Yes ☐ No
F4.1 If so, in which country and for how long?
______
F4.2 Did he/she attend school in this country? ☐ Yes ☐ No
315 Appendices
F4.3 If so, for how long?
______
PART G:
DIFFICULTIES WITH YOUR CHILD’S LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
G1 Does your child have a hearing problem or has he/she ever had one?
☐ Yes ☐ No
G2 Does your child have problems with the languages that he/she speaks or has he/she ever had any (e.g. difficulties with the pronunciation of sounds or words)?
☐ Yes ☐ No
G2.1 If so, in which language? ☐ English ☐ Greek ☐ both
G2.2 Can you describe these problems?
______
______
G3 Does your child have any reading or writing problems or has he/she ever had any?
☐ Yes ☐ No
G3.1 If so, in which language? ☐ English ☐ Greek ☐ both
G3.2 Can you describe these problems?
______
______
G4 Is there anything that you would like to add or let us know about?
______
______
Thank you very much for your help and cooperation!
316 Appendices
Child questionnaire: Measuring Home Language Use, Early Literacy Input, Current Literacy Use and Current Language Use
Part I: Background info
Gender
Age
Age at arrival
Birth order
Friendship groups
Part II: Home language
**** ΕACH ANSWER RECEIVES 1 POINT AND THEY ARE ADDED FOR EACH LANGUAGE [GREEK, BOTH LANGUAGES, ALB/GER/ENG) SEPARATELY]
B1 Do you know which languages you heard and used when you were a baby until you were three?
mainly Greek both languages mainly Albanian mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 2 ☐ ☐ ☐
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
B2 And do you know which languages you heard and used when you were about three and/or started going to the kindergarten?
mainly Greek both languages mainly Albanian mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐
317 Appendices grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 2 ☐ ☐ ☐
Kindergarten ☐ ☐ ☐ teacher
Kindergarten ☐ ☐ ☐ friends
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
B3 And how was it when you were about six and started going to school?
mainly Greek both languages mainly Albanian mother ☐ ☐ ☐ father ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ sibling 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ teacher ☐ ☐ ☐
Friends at ☐ ☐ ☐ school
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
Part III: Early Literacy Input
[SUB-SECTION 1: LITERACY INPUT]
318 Appendices
C1 Did your parents or other people read you books with stories and fairytales when you were younger? ☐ yes ☐ no
C1.1 If yes, I would like you to tell me, in which language they did this?
☐ My mother read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in Albanian/English/German
☐ about the same in both languages
☐ My father read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in Albanian/English/German
☐ about the same in both languages
☐ My brothers and sisters read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in Albanian/English/German
☐ about the same in both languages
☐ ______read to me…
☐ mostly in Greek ☐ mostly in Albanian/English/German
☐ about the same in both languages
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
Part IV: Literacy practices
C3 Apart from your Greek class in school, do you have any other lessons in Greek? ☐ yes ☐ no
C4 Does anyone help you with your homework? ☐ yes ☐ no
C4.2 Which language do you use when he/she helps you with your homework?
☐mostly Greek ☐mostly Albanian ☐both languages to the same extent
319 Appendices
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
C5 Do you have any Albanian language lessons? ☐ yes ☐ no
Total of possible answers: 1
D2 In which language …
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in Albanian
… do you write ☐ ☐ ☐ shopping lists?
… do you read aloud, ☐ ☐ ☐ when you are alone (if you do that)
… do you read aloud ☐ ☐ ☐ when other people are present (not in school, but in your free time, for pleasure).
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
D3 And for these activities, which language do you use?
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in Albanian
… do you text on your ☐ ☐ ☐ mobile?
… do you write ☐ ☐ ☐ emails?
… do you write letters, ☐ ☐ ☐ postcards or greeting cards?
320 Appendices
TOTAL
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
D4 How often…
Often (1) Sometimes (0) Rarely (0)
… do you visit websites ☐ ☐ ☐ in Greek?
… do you visit websites ☐ ☐ ☐ in Albanian?
... do you play video/ ☐ ☐ ☐ computer games in Greek?
... do you play video/ ☐ ☐ ☐ computer games in Albanian?
☐ ☐ ☐ … do you read books/ magazines/ comics in ☐ I cannot read Greek? Greek
☐ ☐ ☐ … do you read books/ magazines/ comics in ☐ I cannot read Albanian? Albanian
TOTAL
E4 Which language, do you think, you…
Greek both the Albanian same
read better (1 point)
write better (1 point)
321 Appendices
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
Part V: Current language use
D1 And today? Who speaks each language to you and which language do you use when you talk to that person?
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in Albanian my mother talks to me ☐ ☐ ☐ …
… and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ mother my father talks to me… ☐ ☐ ☐
…. and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ father my older siblings talk ☐ ☐ ☐ to me…
…and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ older siblings my younger siblings ☐ ☐ ☐ talk to me…
…and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ younger siblings my grandparents talk ☐ ☐ ☐ to me…
...and I talk to my ☐ ☐ ☐ grandparents my friends, who know ☐ ☐ ☐ Albanian, talk to me…
…. and I talk to them ☐ ☐ ☐
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
322 Appendices
D2 In which language …
mainly in Greek in both languages mainly in Albanian
… do you memorize ☐ ☐ ☐ telephone numbers?
… do you swear? ☐ ☐ ☐
… do you tell the ☐ ☐ ☐ time?
… do you count and ☐ ☐ ☐ calculate – not in school, but, for example when you go shopping?
… do you talk to ☐ ☐ ☐ yourself?
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
D4 How often
Often (1) Sometimes(0 Rarely (0)
…do you watch TV or ☐ ☐ ☐ films in Greek?
…do you watch TV or ☐ ☐ ☐ films in Albanian?
D5 In general, how often do you communicate in each language in all your daily activities?
Greek: ☐ often ☐ sometimes ☐ almost never
Albanian: ☐ often ☐ sometimes ☐almost never
323 Appendices
D6 Which language do you usually use
D6.1 …in school?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly Albanian ☐ both the same ☐ other
D6.2 …with your family?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly Albanian ☐ both the same ☐ other
D6.3 …with your friends?
☐ mostly Greek ☐ mostly Albanian ☐ both the same ☐ other
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
E4 Which language, do you think, you…
Greek both the Albanian same understand better (1 point) speak better (1 point)
GREEK: BOTH: ALBANIAN/GERMAN/ENGLISH:
324 Appendices
Appendix B
Sentence Repetition Task
Item Block Structure Target Sentence
I mitera evale tis blouzes ton koritsion sto balkoni.
“The mother put the blouzes of the girls on 1 1 SVO the balcony”
O zografos thelei na min pianoun i filoi tous pinakes tou.
“The painter does not want his friends to 2 2 negation touch his paintings”
Ton kafe ton ipie viastika xthes o pappous sto kafeneio.
CLLD, “Yesterday, the grandfather had his coffee in 3 3 CD the coffee-shop in a hurry”
O xoreftis pire tin obrela tou kai perpatise sti dinati vroxi.
Coordinati “The dancer took his umbrella and walked in 4 4 on the heavy rain”
O papas evlepe poli ora tous touristes pou diavazan tis pinakides.
Relative “The priest was observing for a long time the 5 6 clauses tourists who were reading the signs”
Ekopse to aggouri afou katharise kala me nero tis ntomates.
“S/he cut the cucamber while s/he washed 6 8 Adverbials well the tomatoes with water”
I daskala den einai sigouri pio vivlio diavase i mathitria.
wh- “The teacher is not sure about which book the 7 9 questions pupil read”
325 Appendices
O astinomos ide tin kopela pou tou ixe poulisi ena pagoto.
Relative “The police officer saw the girl who had sold 8 10 clauses him an ice-cream”
O touristas ksexase ton odigo ton diakopon sto spiti.
9 1 SVO “The tourist forgot the tourist guide at home”
O proponitis den elpizi na kerdisi i omada tou simera.
“The trainer does not hope his team will win 10 2 negation today”
O georgos ton fitepse ton kipo tou thiou mou me mikres kerasies.
CLLD, “The farmer planted my uncle’s garden with 11 3 CD young cherry-trees”
I magirisa sikose to vivlio tis ke to evale sto sirtari.
Coordinati “The cook lifted her book and put it in the 12 4 on drawer”
I giagia thimotan oti se afta ta meri petousan perierga poulia.
Compleme “The grandmother remembered that in these 13 6 nt clauses places strange birds were flying”
O daskalos pige kinimatografo eno protimouse na paiksei kithara.
“The teacher went to the cinema, although he 14 8 Adverbials preferred to play guitar”
Mono o astinomos gnorize ti eklepsan apo to saloni oi listes.
wh- “Only the policeman knew what the robbers 15 9 questions stole from the living-room”
16 10 Relative Oi efimerides grafoun pola gia ton listi pou
326 Appendices
clauses epiase i astinomia.
“The newspapers write a lot about the robber that the police arrested”
O manavis poulise tis orimes fraoules stin agora poli fthina.
“The grocer sold the ripe strawberries in the 17 1 SVO market in a very low price”
O athlitis elpizi o antipalos tou na min kerdisi ton agona.
“The athlete hopes his opponent not to win 18 2 negation the competition”
Tin tenia tin ide xthes o daskalos me tous mathites sto cinema.
CLLD, “Yesterday the teacher saw the movie with his 19 3 CD students at the cinema”
O mathitis agorase markadorous ke o filos tou pire molivia.
Coordinati “The student bought markers and his friend 20 4 on bought pencils”
Oi mathitries eklaigan pou o diefthintis poulise ton pinaka tous.
Adverbial “The female students were crying because the 21 6 clauses headmaster sold their painting”
O gitonas poulise to aftokinito prin poulisi to mikro spiti.
“The neighbour sold the car before selling the 22 8 Adverbials little house”
O proponitis rotise ton athliti ti ipsos ixe o pateras tou.
wh- “The trainer asked the athlete what his 23 9 questions father’s heigh was”
24 10 Relative I katharistria klotsise ti nosokoma pou vgike
327 Appendices
clauses apo to grafio.
“The cleaning lady kicked the nurse who went out of the office”
Oi odigoi afisan tous epivates ton leoforion stin epomeni stasi.
“The drivers left the buss passangers in the 25 1 SVO next stop”
O magiras den protine na psithi to psari sto fourno.
“The cook did not suggest that the fish be 26 2 negation cooked in the oven”
To koritsi tin entise tin koukla tou me omorfa foremata.
CLLD, “The girl dressed her doll with beautifull 27 3 CD dresses”
I mama magirepse makaronia ke i giagia eftiakse mia pita.
Coordinati “The mother cooked spaggeti and the 28 4 on grandmother made a pie”
Oi nosokomes ipan oti i ptisi tou giatrou exi kathistérisi.
Compleme “The nurses said that doctor’s flight had a 29 6 nt clauses delay”
Otan to sxolio eklise to kalokeri ta pedia etrexan stous dromous.
“When the school closed for summer the 30 8 Adverbials children were running in the streets”
I petalouda rotise ti melissa ti tha forouse sti giorti.
wh- “The butterfly asked the bee what she would 31 9 questions wear in the festival”
32 10 Relative O tzitzikas diavaze ena vivlio pou egrapse o
328 Appendices clauses vasilias tis zouglas.
“The cicada was reading a book that the king of the jungle wrote”
329 Appendices
Appendix C
Digit Backwards
Examples Response Score Span Trials Responses Score s (1 or (1 or 0) 0)
1 2 3 5 2 1 4 9 8
2 5 4 5 7 1 4 2
3 3 4 5 2 7 4 6 3
4 5 2 4 9 5 1 4 2
3 5 8 2 6
Span Trials Response Score 4 6 3 1 5 s (1 or 6 5 2 1 7 9 3 0)
2 2 7 2 7 6 3 8 5
5 9 4 8 3 5 2 7
3 1 8 5 2 9 1 3
9 7 1 9 5 8 2 4
4 6 6 1 3 9 5 2
8 4 7 8 3 5 2 9 4 1
3 8 1 4 6 3 1 9 4 7 5
6 3 7 5 8 7 2 4 9 3
4 6 2 7 9 2 6 1 9 3
2 5 9 8 5 2 4 9 3 6
7 3 5 9 6 2 8 1 4 7
9 4 3 Correct
330 Appendices
4 2 7 1 4 Responses
5 2 7 3 Span
6 3 8 4
1 5 4 9
9 6 5 8
8 1 6 2
Mister X
Score
Examples (1 or 0)
1
2
3
331 Appendices
Score
Span Trials (1 or 0)
1
6
1
2
3
4
2
332 Appendices
2
2, 4
1,4
5, 2
3, 6
2, 5
4, 1
333 Appendices
3 1, 5, 2
4, 2, 6
5, 1, 4
1, 3, 5
6, 4, 3
2, 4, 1
334 Appendices
4 5, 3, 6, 1
5, 2, 4, 1
2, 4, 6, 1
4, 1, 2, 5
1, 6, 2, 3
4, 6, 3, 2
335 Appendices
5 1, 4, 6, 3, 5
1, 5, 3, 2, 4
2, 6, 5, 3, 4
5, 1, 3, 1, 6
2, 6, 1, 4, 5
5, 2, 4, 3, 6
336 Appendices
6 6, 3, 1, 5, 2, 4
5, 2, 4, 1, 6, 3
2, 6, 3, 2, 1, 5
4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 6
3, 4, 6, 2, 5, 1
1, 5, 2, 4, 3, 6
337 Appendices
Correct Responses
Span
338 Appendices
Appendix D
Story Grammar for A3, B3, A2 and B2
No Story Picture English Score Grammar A3 No.
1 Setting-Time 1 e.g. once upon a time, one day etc. 0 1
2 Setting-Place 1 e.g. in/at the nearby swimming pool, 0 1 etc.
3 C1 introduction 1 a giraffe (boy)/ a boy/ Giraffo etc. 0 1
4 C2 introduction 1 an elephant (girl)/ a girl/ Elephantina 0 1
5 Goal 2 E wants to take the plane 0 2
6 Attempt 3 E grabs the plane 0 2
7 Outcome 4 Plane falls into the pool 0 2
8 C3 introduction 5 a lifeguard appears 0 1
9 Goal 5 C3 wants to help 0 2
10 Attempt 6 C3 tries to reach the plane 0 2
11 Outcome 7 He cannot reach it and explains that he 0 2 cannot help
12 C4 introduction 10 a clever elephant lady/ another 0 1 elephant/ a lady appears
13 Goal 10 C4 lady elephant decides to help 0 2
14 Attempt 11 C4 pulls the plane with a net 0 2
339 Appendices
15 Outcome 12 C4 gives the plane to G 0 2
No Story Picture English Score Grammar B3 No.
1 Setting-Time 1 e.g. once upon a time, one day etc. 0 1
2 Setting-Place 1 e.g. in a park/ forest. 0 1
3 C1 introduction 1 a dog girl/girl/dog dogina etc. 0 1
4 C2 introduction 1 a rabbit boy/ boy/ rabbit, Rabbito 0 1
5 Goal 2 R. ( and D. ) want to play with the 0 2 balloon
6 Attempt 3 R. begins to release the balloon 0 2
7 Outcome 4 Balloon flies away 0 2
8 C3 introduction 6 an old Rabbit with balloons appears 0 1
9 Goal 6 R. decides to get her a new balloon 0 2
10 Attempt 7 R. asks C3 for the balloon 0 2
11 Outcome 8 C3 does not give the balloon without 0 2 money
12 C4 introduction 10 a kind mother rabbit (C4) appears 0 1
13 Goal 11 C4 agrees to help them 0 2
14 Attempt 12 C4 buys two balloons 0 2
15 Outcome 13 C4 gives the balloons to the children 0 2
340 Appendices
No. A2 Story Grammar Aspect Picture No. English Score
1 Setting-Time 1 e.g. once upon a time, 0 1 one day etc.
2 Setting-Place 1 e.g. in/at the nearby 0 1 swimming pool, etc.
3 C1 introduction 1 an elephant girl/ a girl/ 0 1 etc.
4 C2 introduction 1 a giraffe boy/ a boy/ etc. 0 1
5 Goal 2 e.g. start the game/ get to 0 2 the springboard
6 Attempt 3 e.g. started jogging/ 0 2 running
7 Outcome 4 e.g. Elephantina slipped 0 2 and fell
8 C3 introduction 5 a lifeguard appears 0 1
9 Goal 5 to see what happened/ 0 2 help
10 Attempt 6 e.g. lifeguard examined 0 2 elephantine
11 Outcome 7 e.g. lifeguard puts a band- 0 2 aid on her wound
No Story Grammar Aspect Pictur English Score B2 e No.
1 Setting-Time 1 e.g. once upon a time, one day 0 1 etc.
341 Appendices
2 Setting-Place 1 e.g. in a park/ in the forest/ on a 0 1 path
3 C1 introduction 1 a rabbit boy/boy/rabbit 0 1
4 C2 introduction 1 a dog girl/ girl/ dog 0 1
5 Goal 2 R. and D. want to have a 0 2 picnic.
6 Attempt 2/3 R. eats everything as fast as he 0 2 can.
7 Outcome 4 R. is finished very fast and has 0 2 eaten a lot of food
8 C3 introduction 5 A rabbit doctor walks by/ 0 1 appears/ passes
9 Goal 5/6 D. hopes that the doctor will 0 2 help.
10 Attempt 7 The doctor examines the rabbit 0 2 / realizes what the problem is
11 Outcome 8 The rabbit doctor takes a walk 0 2 with R.
342 Appendices
Story Scripts
A3
Greek: Μια μέρα μια παιχνιδιάρα καμηλοπάρδαλη αγοράκι, ο καμηλοπάρδαλης και μία χαρούμενη ελεφαντίνα, που είναι φίλοι συναντήθηκαν στην πισίνα κοντά στο σπίτι τους. Η ελεφαντίνα είδε ότι ο φίλος της κρατούσε στο χέρι του ένα αεροπλανάκι. Έπαιζε με το αεροπλανάκι, καθώς η φίλη του τον κοίταζε εντυπωσιασμένη. Η ελεφαντίνα κάποια στιγμή ζήλεψε, γιατί ήθελε και αυτή να παίξει με αυτό. Αποφάσισε να του το αρπάξει αμέσως. Ο καμηλοπάρδαλης φώναξε: Ωχ! οχι, γιατί μου πήρες το παιχνίδι μου; Ενώ η ελεφαντίνα συνέχιζε να παίζει, το αεροπλάνο της έπεσε κατά λάθος μέσα στο νερό. Ο καμηλοπάρδαλης στενοχωρήθηκε, γιατί σκέφτηκε ότι το παιχνίδι του χάλασε. Θύμωσε τόσο πολύ, που άρχισε να φωνάζει δυνατά στη φίλη του. Εκείνη τον κοιτούσε τρομαγμένη. Εκείνη την ώρα εμφανίστηκε ένας άλλος ελέφαντας, που πρόσεξε τι συνέβη και θέλησε να τους βοηθήσει. Αμέσως η ελεφαντίνα πλησίασε προς το μέρος του. Την ίδια ώρα του ζήτησε να βρουν έναν τρόπο για να βγάλουν το αεροπλανάκι από τo νερό, ενώ ο καμηλοπάρδαλης κοιτούσε με αγωνία, που το παιχνίδι του βυθίζονταν. Οι δύο φίλοι κοιτούσαν τον ελέφαντα που έσκυβε και προσπαθούσε να τραβήξει μάταια το αεροπλανάκι από το νερό. Tους εξήγησε ότι το αεροπλανάκι είναι πολύ μακριά και δεν μπορεί να το φτάσει. Ο καμηλοπάρδαλης αμέσως έβαλε τα κλάματα, ενώ η ελεφαντίνα σκέφτονταν ότι έκανε τον φίλο της να στεναχωρηθεί. Ξαφνικά μία έξυπνη κυρία ελεφαντίνα, που βρίσκονταν εκεί κοντά σκέφτηκε να τους βοηθήσει. Έτσι πλησίασε κρατώντας ένα δίχτυ στο χέρι. Άρχισε να τραβάει το αεροπλανάκι, καθώς οι υπόλοιποι παρακολουθούσαν χαρούμενοι. Μόλις η κυρία ελεφαντίνα το πήρε, το έδωσε στον καμηλοπάρδαλη, γεμίζοντάς τον με χαρά. Οι δύο φίλοι ήταν πάλι χαρούμενοι. Ο καμηλοπάρδαλης είχε το παιχνίδι του πίσω και η ελεφαντίνα είδε τον φίλο της ξανά χαρούμενο.
English: One day a playful giraffe boy, Giraffo and a cheerful elephant girl, Elephantina, who were friends, met at the swimming pool close to their home. Elephantina saw that her friend was holding a small toy airplane. His friend was watching him with admiration, as he was playing with it. At some point Elephantina got jealous, because she also wanted to play with the toy. She suddenly decided to take it away from him. The giraffe boy cried: Oh no! Why did you take my toy? While Elephantina continued to play, the toy airplane accidentally fell in the water. Giraffo was sad because he thought that the toy was ruined. He was so angry that he started shouting at his friend. She looked at him in fear. At that time another elephant appeared, who had noticed what had happened and wanted to help them. Elephantina went urgently towards him. She asked him to find a way to fetch the toy plane from the water, while Giraffo watched anxiously his toy sink. The two friends watched the elephant leaning over, while trying to pull the plane from the water unsuccessfully. He explained that the plane was far away and that he could not reach it. In the meantime, Giraffo started crying and Elephantina realised that she had made her friend sad. Then a clever, happy lady elephant, who was nearby decided to help them.
343 Appendices
So she came towards them holding a net in her hand. She started to fish the toy airplane out of the water, while the others were happily watching. As soon as the lady elephant got it, she gave it to Giraffo, filling him with joy. The two friends were happy again. Giraffo had his toy back and Elephantina saw her friend happy.
German: Eines Tages gingen ein verspielter Giraffenjunge und ein fröhliches Elefantenmädchen, die Freunde waren, ins nahe gelegene Schwimmbad. Elefantina bemerkte, dass ihr Freund ein Spielflugzeug mitgebracht hatte. Seine Freundin schaute beeindruckt dabei zu, wie er damit spielte. Irgendwann wurde Elefantina neidisch, weil sie auch damit spielen wollte. Sie entschloss sich, ihm das Flugzeug aus der Hand zu nehmen. Giraffo rief: „Oh nein! Warum hast Du mir mein Spielzeug weggenommen?“Als Elefantina einfach weiter damit spielte, fiel ihr das Flugzeug ausversehen ins Wasser. Da war Giraffo traurig, weil er glaubte, dass sein Spielzeug nun kaputt war. Dann wurde er sogar so böse, dass er anfing , laut mit seiner Freundin zu schimpfen. Die schaute ihn ganz erschrocken an. Da kam ein anderer Elefant, der bemerkt hatte, was passiert war und ihnen helfen wollte. Elefantina lief gleich auf ihn zu. Sie fragte ihn, ob er eine Idee habe, wie man das Flugzeug aus dem Wasser holen könne, während Giraffo weiter besorgt beobachtete, wie sein Spielzeug unterging. Die beiden Freunde schauten zu, wie der Elefant sich nach vorne lehnte und vergeblich versuchte, das Flugzeug aus dem Wasser zu angeln. Er erklärte ihnen, dass das Flugzeug zu weit entfernt schwimme und nicht zu fassen sei. Da fing Giraffo an zu weinen, so dass Elefantina klar wurde, dass sie ihren Freund unglücklich gemacht hatte. Doch plötzlich tauchte eine clevere Elefantendame auf, die in der Nähe gewesen war. Sie hatte beschlossen ihnen zu helfen und kam mit einem Fangnetz in der Hand zu ihnen. Während die anderen ihr bewundernd zuschauten, fing sie an das Flugzeug aus dem Wasser zu fischen. Sobald sie es hatte, gab sie es Giraffo, der überglücklich war. Da waren die beiden Freunde wieder froh. Giraffo hatte sein Spielzeug zurück und Elefantina sah, dass ihr Freund wieder glücklich war.
Albanian: Nje dite nje gjirafe mashkull lozonjare dhe nje elefandine e gezuar qe jane shok u takuan ne pishina afer shpise te tyre. Elefandina pa se shoku i saj po mbante ne dore nje aeroplan te vogel. Po loste me aeroplanin e vogel ndersa shoqja e tij po e shikonte e impresionuar. Ne nje cast elefandina pati zili sepse donte dhe ajo te loste me ate (aeroplanin e vogel). Vendosi tja vidhte menjehere. Gjirafa bertiti: “oh, jo pse me more lodren time?” Gjate gjith kohes qe elefandina vazhdonte te loste, aeroplani i vogel i ra pa dashje ne uje. Gjirafa u merzit sepse mendoi se lodra e tij u prish. U inatos aq shume sa filloi ti bertiste shoqes e tij. Ajo po e shikonte e trembur. Ne ate moment u duk nje elefant tjeter qe vuri re se cfar ndodhi dhe doi ti ndihmonte. Menjeher elefandina u afrua prane tij. Ne te njejten kohe i kerkoi te gjejne nje menyre qe te nxjerin aeroplanin te vogel nga uji, ndersa gjirafa po shikonte me agoni qe lodra e tij po zyteshe. Dy shoket po shikonin elefandin qe u perkul dhe po mundohej te terhiqte me kot aeroplanin te vogel nga uji. I shpjegoi qe aeroplani I vogel eshte shume larg dhe nuk mundet ta arrije. Gjirafa menjehere filloi te qaren ndersa elefandina po mendohej qe beri shokun e saj te merzitet. Papritur nje zonje elefandine
344 Appendices e zgjuar qe ndodhej aty afer mendoi ti ndihmonte. Pra u afrua duke mbajtur nje rrjete ne duar. Filloi te terheqe aeroplanin te vogel ndersa te tjerit po ndiqnin te gezuar. Sapo zonja elefandina e mori, e dha ne gjirafa duke e mbushur me gezim. Dy shoket ishin prap te gezuar. Gjirafa kishte prap lodren e saj dhe elefandina pa shokun e saj prap te lumtur.
Β2
Greek: Μια μέρα μία παιχνιδιάρα σκυλίτσα και ένας χαρούμενος λαγός συναντήθηκαν στο δάσος . Επειδή είχαν αποφασίσει να κάνουν μαζί πικνίκ, είχαν φέρει και οι δύο από ένα καλαθάκι με φαγητό. Καθώς ήταν πεινασμένοι κάθισαν να φάνε . Όταν η σκυλίτσα έβγαλε από το καλαθάκι της ένα σάντουιτς, παρατήρησε με έκπληξη τον φίλο της να βγάζει ένα σωρό πράγματα από το δικό του καλάθι και να τα καταβροχθίζει με λαιμαργία. Έκπληκτη, είδε, ότι ο φίλος της μέσα σε λίγα λεπτά είχε φάει όλα τα φαγητά του. Δεν πέρασε πολύ ώρα και της λέει με παράπονο: «Βοήθεια! Ζαλίζομαι και πονάει το στομάχι μου, κάνε κάτι». Η σκυλίτσα ήθελε να τον βοηθήσει και αποφάσισε να τρέξει να βρει κάποιον για να βοηθήσει τον φίλο της. Για καλή της τύχη, βρήκε μια λαγουδίνα γιατρό στο δρόμο και χάρηκε . Ενώ αυτή τραβούσε τη γιατρό προς τον ζαλισμένο φίλο της, που βρίσκονταν ακόμα σε αγωνία, της εξήγησε όλη την ιστορία. Η γιατρός της ζήτησε να ηρεμήσει και της υποσχέθηκε ότι θα τον βοηθήσει . Μη χάνοντας χρόνο η γιατρός εξέτασε τον λαγό, για να δει τι είχε πάθει . Γρήγορα κατάλαβε, ότι είχε παραφάει και χρειάζονταν περπάτημα για να ξεφουσκώσει. Καθώς προχωρούσαν ο λαγός ήταν ολοένα και καλύτερα. Η γιατρός τον συμβούλεψε να μην τρώει τόσο πολύ άλλη φορά. Η σκυλίτσα τους κοίταζε να περπατάνε και ήταν ανακουφισμένη, που βοήθησε τον φίλο της. Έτσι στο τέλος όλοι ήταν χαρούμενοι.
English: One day, a playful dog and a happy rabbit met in the forest. Because they had decided to have a picnic together, they both brought picnic baskets. Since they were hungry, they sat down immediately to eat. When the dog took a sandwich from her basket she noticed with surprise that her friend was getting lots of things from his own basket and started to eat ferociously. Astonished, she saw that her friend ate everything within a few minutes. Not much time had passed before he started complaining: "Help, I feel dizzy and my stomach hurts! Do something". The dog wanted to help him and decided to run off to find someone who could help his friend. Luckily, she found a rabbit doctor on the road and she was glad. While she was leading the doctor to her sick friend, who was still in agony, she explained to her the whole story. The doctor told her to calm down and promised her to help him. Without wasting any time the doctor examined the hare to see what the problem was. She realized right away that he had overeaten and needed to walk a bit to feel better. While they were walking, he started to feel better. The doctor advised him not to eat so much in the future. The dog was watching them walking and she was relieved that she had helped her friend. In the end, everybody was happy.
345 Appendices
German: Eines Tages trafen sich ein verspieltes Hundemädchen und ein fröhlicher Hasenjunge im Wald. Weil sie beschlossen hatten, gemeinsam zu picknicken, hatten Sie beide einen Korb mit Essen mitgebracht. Da sie hungrig waren, setzen sie sich gleich hin um zu essen. Als Hundina ein Butterbrot aus ihrem Korb nahm, stellte sie verwundert fest, dass ihr Freund sehr viele Dinge aus seinem Körbchen auspackte und gierig anfing zu essen. Erstaunt sah sie, dass ihr Freund das ganze Essen in kürzester Zeit aufaß. Es dauerte nicht sehr lange und er fing an, sich zu beschweren. „Hilfe, mir ist so schlecht und mein Bauch tut weh! Tu‘ etwas“. Hundina wollte ihm helfen und entschloss sich, loszugehen, um jemanden zu finden, der ihrem Freund helfen konnte. Glücklicherweise fand sie eine Hasenärztin auf dem Weg und war erleichtert darüber. Während sie die Ärtzin zu ihrem kranken Freund zog, dem immer noch so übel war, erklärte sie ihr die ganze Geschichte. Die Ärztin sagte ihr, dass sie sich beruhigen solle und versprach ihm zu helfen. Um keine Zeit zu verlieren, untersuchte die Ärztin Haso gleich, damit sie herausfinden konnte, was ihm fehlte. Sie erkannte sofort, dass er zu viel gegessen hatte und ein bisschen spazieren musste, um sich zu entspannen. Während er sich bewegte, ging es ihm langsam schon etwas besser. Die Ärztin empfahl ihm, in Zukunft nicht mehr so viel zu essen. Hundine schaute ihnen zu, als sie herum spazierten, und war froh, dass sie ihrem Freund geholfen hatte, so dass am Ende alle glücklich waren.
Albanian: Nje dite nje qenushe lozonjare dhe nje lepur I gezuar u takuan ne pyll. Ngaqe kishin vendosur te bejne bashke piknik kishin sjelle qe te dy nga nje shporte te vogel me ushqime. Meqe ishin te urritur u ulen te hane. Kur qenushja nxori nga shporta e saj nje sanduic, vuri re me habi shokun e saj duke nzjere lloj- lloj gjerash nga shporta e tij dhe duke i ngrene me lemargji. E befasuar pa se shoku i saj brenda disa minutash kishte ngrene te gjitha ushqimet e tij. Nuk kaloi shume kohe dhe I thote asaj me ankese: “Ndihme! Me meren mente dhe me dhemb stomaku, bej dicka”. Qenushja donte ta ndihmonte dhe vendosi te vrapoje te gjeje dike qe te ndihmoje shokun e saj. Per fat te mire gjeti nje lepurushe doktoreshe ne rruge dhe u gezua. Duke e terhequr doktoreshen drejt shokut e saj te dobet, i shpjegoi te gjithe istorine. Doktoresha i kerkoi te qetesohet dhe i premtoi se do ndihmonte shokun e saj. Pa humbur kohe doktoresha vizitoi lepurin per te pare se cfar i kishte ndodhur. Se shpejti kuptoi se kishte ngrene teper dhe i duhej te ecte qe te cfryheshe. Duke ecur lepuri ishte me mire. Doktoresha e keshilloi mos haje kaq shume here tjeter. Qenushja i shikonte duke ecur dhe qe e cliruhar qe ndihmoi shokun e saj. Pra me ne fund te gjithe ishin te gezuar.
Α2
Greek: Μια μέρα μία χαρούμενη καμηλοπάρδαλη αγοράκι , ο καμηλοπάρδαλης και μία παιχνιδιάρα ελεφαντίνα πήγαν βόλτα στην πισίνα της γειτονιάς τους. Η ελεφαντίνα αμέσως πρόσεξε μία σανίδα από την οποία μπορούσαν να κάνουν πολλές βουτιές. Κανείς τους όμως δεν είδε τη ταμπέλα που έγραφε «μην τρέχετε». Για να μη χάσουν χρόνο η ελεφαντίνα αποφάσισε να ξεκινήσει το παιχνίδι λέγοντας στον καμηλοπάρδαλη «Ας δούμε ποιος θα φτάσει πιο γρήγορα στη σανίδα!». Ξεκίνησαν
346 Appendices
το τρέξιμο με την ελεφαντίνα μπροστά και τον καμηλοπάρδαλη να την ακολουθεί. Όταν ο καμηλοπάρδαλης προσπαθούσε να τη φτάσει η ελεφαντίνα γλίστρησε και έπεσε. Ο φοβισμένος καμηλοπάρδαλης είδε ότι αυτή πονούσε και έκλαιγε. Ένας ελέφαντας ναυαγοσώστης τους είδε και πλησίασε προς το μέρος τους για να δει ποιο ήταν το πρόβλημα. Η ελεφαντίνα του εξήγησε κλαίγοντας τι συνέβη. Ο ναυαγοσώστης αφού εξέτασε την πληγή της έβαλε ένα τσιρότο, καθώς ο ανήσυχος φίλος της παρακολουθούσε γονατιστός. Αμέσως τη βοήθησαν να περπατήσει μέχρι το παγκάκι για να ξεκουραστεί. O φίλος της ο καμηλοπάρδαλης ανακουφίστηκε και χάρηκε που η φίλη του φαίνονταν καλύτερα. Μόλις έφυγε ο φίλος της, ο ναυαγοσώστης κοίταξε την ελεφαντίνα αυστηρά και της έδειξε την πινακίδα που έγραφε «μην τρέχετε» και της είπε ότι την επόμενη φορά θα πρέπει να είναι πιο προσεχτική. Εκείνη του το υποσχέθηκε και τον ευχαρίστησε για τη βοήθεια του.
English: One day a happy giraffe boy, called Giraffo and a playful elephant girl, called Elephantina, went out to the neighbourhood pool. Elephantina noticed a diving board from which they could dive as many times as they wanted. But neither of them saw the sign which said "NO RUNNING!" Elephantina, in order not to waste time, decided to start a game by saying to Giraffo "Let's see who can reach the diving board first!"They started running with Elephantina in front and Giraffo following her. While Giraffo was trying to reach her Elephantina slipped and fell. Scared Giraffo saw that she was in pain and she had burst into tears. A lifeguard elephant saw them and walked towards them to see what the problem was. With tears in her eyes, Elephantina explained to the lifeguard what had happened. The lifeguard, after having examined the wound, put a band-aid on it, while her concerned friend was watching while kneeling next to her. They immediately helped her to walk over to a bench to relax. Her friend, Giraffo, was relieved and glad that his friend looked well. As soon as her friend left, the lifeguard looked strictly at Elephantina and pointed to the sign that said "NO RUNNING!" and told her that she should be more careful next time. She promised to do that and thanked him for his help.
German: Eines Tages gingen ein fröhlicher Giraffenjunge und ein verspieltes Elefantenmädchen in das nahe gelegene Schwimmbad. Elefantina sah sofort das Sprungbrett, von dem sie ins Wasser springen konnten. Aber keiner von beiden bemerkte das Schild, auf dem “NICHT LAUFEN!” stand. Um keine Zeit zu verlieren, beschloss Elefantina gleich, anzufangen, zu spielen, indem sie Giraffo vorschlug: “Wollen wir sehen, wer von uns beiden zuerst am Sprungbrett ankommt.” Sie fingen an zu laufen, Elefantina zuerst und Giraffo hinterher. Als Giraffo versuchte, sie einzuholen, rutschte sie aus und fiel hin. Der erschrockene Giraffo sah, dass sie sich weh getan hatte und zu weinen anfing. Ein Bademeister Elefant sah sie und kam auf sie zu, um herauszufinden, was ihr Problem war. Mit Tränen in den Augen erklärte ihm Elefantina, was geschehen war. Nachdem er ihre Wunde untersucht hatte, klebte der Bademeister ein Pflaster darauf, während ihr besorgter Freund dabei zusah. Gleich danach halfen sie ihr dabei, zu einer Bank zu gehen um sich auszuruhen. Ihr Freund, Giraffo, war beruhigt und froh, dass es seiner Freundin besser ging. Als ihr Freund
347 Appendices weg war, sah der Bademeister Elefantina streng an und zeigte ihr das Schild, auf dem “NICHT LAUFEN!” stand und ermahnte sie, dass sie vorsichtiger sein sollte. Sie versprach, beim nächsten Mal besser aufzupassen und dankte ihm für seine Hilfe.
Albanian: Nje dite, nje gjirafe mashkull e gezuar dhe nje elephantine lozonjare shkuan nje shetitje ne pishina e lagjes e tyre. Elefantina direkt vuri re nje derrase prej kujt mundeshin te hidheshin ne pishine. Por asnjeri nga te dy nuk vuri re shenjen qe shkruante “mos rendni”. Per mos humbasur kohe elefandina vendosi te filloje lojen duke i thene girafes “ja te shohim se kush do arije i pari ne derrasa”. Filluan te rendurit me elefandinen para dhe gjirafen duke e ndjekur ate. Kur gjirafa mundohej ta arinte ate elefandina shqau dhe ra poshte. Gjirafa e friksuar pa se ajo qe ne dhimbje dhe po qante. Nje elefand kujdestar plazhi i pa dhe ju afrua qe te shikonte se cfar problem kishte. Elefandina i shpjegoi se cfar ndodhi. Kujdestari i pazhit pasi ekzaminoi plagen e saj i vuri njendersa shoku i saj gjiraffa po ndjekte me merak ne gjunje. Menjehere e ndimuan te ecte deri ne stoli qe te shlodhet. Shoku i saj gjirafa u cliruha dhe u gezua qe shoqja e tij dukej me mire. Sapo iku shoku i saj, kujdestari i plazhit e pa elefandinen me ashpersi dhe i tregoi shenjen qe shkruante “mos rendni” dhe i tha se here tjeter duhet te jete me e kujdesshme. Ajo i dha fjalen e saj se po dhe e falenderoi ate.
348 Appendices
Pictures Stories
A3 story
349 Appendices
350 Appendices
B3 story
351 Appendices
352 Appendices
A2 story
353 Appendices
B2 story
354 Appendices
Appendix E
Monolinguals (means and SDs) scores on cognitive tasks
Digit Backward
12.1
(2.4)
Mister X
13.4
(2.9)
N-Back
44.7
(21.7)
355