ArticlePDF Available

Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says



Many children in North America and around the world grow up exposed to two languages from an early age. Parents of bilingual infants and toddlers have important questions about the costs and benefits of early bilingualism, and how to best support language acquisition in their children. Here, we separate common myths from scientific findings to answer six of parents' most common questions about early bilingual development.
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 95
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
Krista Byers-Heinlein, Concordia University
Casey Lew-Williams, Northwestern University
Many children in North America and around the world grow up exposed to two lan-
guages from an early age. Parents of bilingual infants and toddlers have important
questions about the costs and benets of early bilingualism, and how to best sup-
port language acquisition in their children. Here, we separate common myths from
scientic ndings to answer six of parents’ most common questions about early
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
Bilingual parents are vocal in their desire to raise procient, dynamic bilingual
children. They have questions, and they want answers. But there is a compli-
cated history of positive and negative press about raising children in bilingual
households, to the point where some pediatricians—even today—recommend against
exposing children to two languages. Attitudes against early bilingualism are often
based on myths and misinterpretations, rather than scientic ndings. Here, we aim
to address the most frequently asked questions about childhood bilingualism using
research ndings from a variety of scientic elds including developmental psychol-
ogy, cognitive psychology, education, linguistics, and communication sciences and
disorders. This article is intended for parents and the many people who parents turn
to for advice about fostering successful bilingual development: preschool teachers,
elementary teachers, pediatricians, and speech-language pathologists.
96 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
Bilingualism refers to the ability to use two languages in everyday life. Bilingualism is
common and is on the rise in many parts of the world, with perhaps one in three people
being bilingual or multilingual (Wei, 2000). Contact between two languages is typical
in regions of many continents, including Europe (Switzerland, Belgium), Asia (India,
Philippines), Africa (Senegal, South Africa), and North America (Canada). In the United
States, a large (and growing) number of bilinguals live in California, Texas, Florida, New
York, Arizona, and New Mexico. In California, for example, by 2035, it is expected that
over 50% of children enrolled in kindergarten will have grown up speaking a language
other than English (García, McLaughlin, Spodek, & Saracho, 1995). Similarly, in some
urban areas of Canada such as Toronto, up to 50% of students have a native language
other than English (Canadian Council on Learning, 2008).
Despite the prevalence of bilingualism, surprisingly little research has been con-
ducted on the topic, particularly on the foundations of bilingual language learning in
infants and toddlers. The science of bilingualism is a young eld, and denitive answers
to many questions are not yet available. Furthermore, other questions are impossible
to answer due to vast dierences across families, communities, and cultures. But with
an accumulation of research studies over the last few decades, we are now equipped to
partially answer some of parents’ most pressing questions about early bilingualism.
There are few venues for communicating scientic ndings about early bilingualism
to the public, and our goal is to distill bilingual and developmental science into practi-
cal, accessible information. We are researchers who study bilingual infants and children,
and as such, we interact with bilingual families regularly. When we give community
talks to preschools and nonprot organizations about language development in early
childhood, the question-and-answer period is invariably dominated by questions
about early bilingualism. The consistency in questions is astonishing. Are bilingual chil-
dren confused? Does bilingualism make children smarter? Is it best for each person to
speak only one language with a bilingual child? Should parents avoid mixing languages
together? Is earlier better? Are bilingual children more likely to have language dicul-
ties, delays, or disorders? This article is organized around these six common questions.
1. Are bilingual children confused?
One of the biggest concerns that parents have about raising children in a bilingual
household is that it will cause confusion. But is there any scientic evidence that young
bilinguals are confused? The rst question to ask is what confusion would look like.
Except in the case of neurological disorders (Paradis, 2004), uently bilingual adults can
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 97
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
speak whatever language they choose in the moment, and are clearly not confused. But
what about bilingual children and infants?
One misunderstood behavior, which is often taken as evidence for confusion, is
when bilingual children mix words from two languages in the same sentence. This is
known as code mixing. In fact, code mixing is a normal part of bilingual development,
and bilingual children actually have good reasons to code mix (Pearson, 2008). One rea-
son some children code mix is that it happens frequently in their language communi-
ties—children are just doing what they hear adults around them do (Comeau, Genesee,
& Lapaquette, 2003). A second reason is that, just like young monolinguals, young bilin-
guals are sometimes limited in their linguistic resources. Similarly to how a monolin-
gual 1-year-old might initially use the word “dog” to refer to any four-legged creature,
bilingual children also use their limited vocabularies resourcefully. If a bilingual child
does not know or cannot quickly retrieve the appropriate word in one language, she
might borrow the word from the other language (Lanza, 2004). Rather than being a sign
of confusion, code mixing can be seen as a path of least resistance: a sign of bilingual
children’s ingenuity. Further, bilingual children do not seem to use their two languages
haphazardly. Even 2-year olds show some ability to modulate their language accord-
ing to the language used by their conversational partner (Genesee, Boivin, & Nicoladis,
1996). There is also evidence that children’s early code mixing adheres to predictable
grammar-like rules, which are largely similar to the rules that govern adults’ code mix-
ing (Paradis, Nicoladis, & Genesee, 2000).
What about bilingual infants? Again, the research is clear: bilingual infants readily
distinguish their two languages and show no evidence of confusion. Languages dif-
fer on many dimensions—even if you don’t speak Russian or Mandarin, you can likely
tell one from the other. Infants are also sensitive to these perceptual dierences, and
are particularly attuned to a language’s rhythm. Infants can discriminate rhythmically
dissimilar languages like English and French at birth (Byers-Heinlein, Burns, & Werker,
2010; Mehler et al., 1988), and by age 4 months they can tell even rhythmically similar
languages like French and Spanish apart (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 1997, 2001; Nazzi,
2000). Bilingual infants may be even more sensitive than monolinguals when it comes
to discriminating languages. Recent research has shown that 4-month- old monolingual
and bilingual infants can discriminate silent talking faces speaking dierent languages
(Weikum et al., 2007). However, by 8 months of age, only bilinguals are still sensitive to
the distinction, while monolinguals stop paying attention to subtle variations in facial
movements (Sebastián-Gallés, Albareda-Castellot, Weikum, & Werker, 2012; Weikum et
al., 2007). Instead of being confused, it seems that bilingual infants are sensitive to infor-
mation that distinguishes their languages.
98 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
2. Does bilingualism make children smarter?
Popular books such as The Bilingual Edge (King & Mackey, 2009), and articles such as
The Power of the Bilingual Brain (TIME Magazine; Kluger, 2013) have touted the potential
benets of early bilingualism. One of the most important benets of early bilingual-
ism is often taken for granted: bilingual children will know multiple languages, which
is important for travel, employment, speaking with members of one’s extended fam-
ily, maintaining a connection to family culture and history, and making friends from
dierent backgrounds. However, beyond obvious linguistic benets, researchers have
investigated whether bilingualism confers other non-linguistic advantages (Akhtar &
Menjivar, 2012).
Several studies have suggested that bilinguals show certain advantages when it
comes to social understanding. In some ways, this is not surprising, as bilinguals must
navigate a complex social world where dierent people have dierent language knowl-
edge. For example, bilingual preschoolers seem to have somewhat better skills than
monolinguals in understanding others’ perspectives, thoughts, desires, and intentions
(Bialystok & Senman, 2004; Goetz, 2003; Kovács, 2009). Young bilingual children also
have enhanced sensitivity to certain features of communication such as tone of voice
(Yow & Markman, 2011).
Bilinguals also show some cognitive advantages. In particular, bilinguals appear to
perform a little bit better than monolinguals on tasks that involve switching between
activities and inhibiting previously learned responses (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012).
Although these advantages have been mostly studied in bilingual adults (Costa,
Hernández, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008) and children (Bialystok & Martin, 2004), new
evidence suggests that even bilingual infants (Kovács & Mehler, 2009a, 2009b) and
toddlers (Poulin-Dubois, Blaye, Coutya, & Bialystok, 2011) show cognitive advantages.
Additionally, there is some evidence that bilingual infants are advantaged in certain
aspects of memory, for example generalizing information from one event to a later
event (Brito & Barr, 2012).
Research has not been able to determine exactly why these advantages arise,
but there are several possibilities. Bilingual adults have to regularly switch back and
forth between their languages, and inhibit one language while they selectively speak
another. Some researchers suspect that this constant practice might lead to certain
advantages by training the brain (Green, 1998). Amongst infants, the need to constantly
discriminate their two languages could also play a role (Sebastián-Gallés et al., 2012).
However, it is important to note that bilingualism is not the only type of experience that
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 99
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
has been linked to cognitive advantages. Similar cognitive advantages are also seen
in individuals with early musical training (Schellenberg, 2005), showing that multiple
types of enriched early experience can promote cognitive development. Regardless
of origin, it should be noted that the “bilingual advantage” has sometimes been over-
played in the popular press. So far, bilingual cognitive advantages have only been
demonstrated using highly sensitive laboratory-based methods, and it is not known
whether they play a role in everyday life. Thus, the reported advantages do not imply
that bilingualism is an essential ingredient for successful development.
3. Is it best for each person to speak only one language
with a bilingual child?
One popular strategy for raising bilingual children is “one-person-one-language,”
a strategy rst recommended over 100 years ago (Ronjat, 1913). Theorists originally
reasoned that associating each language with a dierent person was the only way to
prevent bilingual children from “confusion and intellectual fatigue.” While appealing,
this early notion has been proven false. As discussed above, there is no evidence that
bilingual children are confused by early bilingualism, and the cognitive benets associ-
ated with bilingualism run counter to the notion of “intellectual fatigue.”
It is still important to consider what strategies families can use to promote early bilin-
gual development. Research has shown that a one-person-one-language approach can
lead to successful acquisition of the two languages (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004), but that
it does not necessarily lead to successful acquisition of the two languages (De Houwer,
2007). Further, children who hear both languages from the same bilingual parent often
do successfully learn two languages (De Houwer, 2007). A one-person-one-language
approach is neither necessary nor sucient for successful bilingual acquisition.
Several other factors have proven to be important to early bilingual development.
These factors might lead some families to use a one-person-one-language strategy,
and other families to use other strategies. First, it is important to remember that infants
learn language through listening to and interacting with dierent speakers. Infants
need to have a lot of exposure to the sounds, words, and grammars of the languages
that they will one day use. Both quality and quantity matter. High quality language
exposure involves social interaction—infants do not readily learn language from televi-
sion (DeLoache et al., 2010; Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003), and low-quality television view-
ing in infancy has been linked to smaller vocabulary sizes in bilingual toddlers (Hudon,
Fennell, & Hofty zer, 2013). Opportunities to interac t with multiple dierent speakers has
been linked to vocabulary learning in bilingual toddlers (Place & Ho, 2010).
100 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
Quantity can be measured by the number of words that children hear per day in
each language. Quantity of early exposure has a profound eect on children’s ongoing
language development: hearing more words gives children a greater opportunity to
learn a language, which leads to later advantages in school performance (Hart & Risley,
1995). For bilingual children, it is important to consider the quantity of their exposure
to each language. While a bilingual’s two languages do inuence each other to a cer-
tain degree (Döpke, 2000), in many ways they travel on independent developmental
paths. Bilingual children who hear a large amount of a particular language learn more
words and grammar in that language (Ho et al., 2012; Pearson & Fernández, 1994),
and show more ecient processing of that language (Conboy & Mills, 2006; Hurtado,
Grüter, Marchman, & Fernald, 2013; Marchman, Fernald, & Hurtado, 2010). Bilingual par-
ents thus need to ensure that their children have sucient exposure to the languages
they want their children to learn. We return to this topic in the next sections.
Relatively balanced exposure to the two languages is most likely to promote suc-
cessful acquisition of both of the languages (Thordardottir, 2011). In situations where
each parent spends equal time with a child, one-parent-one-language can be a great
way to ensure equal exposure. Conversely, exposure to a second language only when
grandma and grandpa visit on the weekend, or when a part-time nanny visits on a few
weekdays, or when a language class meets on Thursday nights, will not lead to bal-
anced exposure. Imagine an average infant who sleeps about 12 hours a day, and so is
awake 84 hours per week. A single afternoon (~ 5 hours) is only about 6% of the child’s
waking life, and this exposure alone is unlikely to lead to acquisition of a language.
Similarly, in homes where one parent is the primary caregiver, a one-parent-one-lan-
guage is unlikely to lead to balanced exposure.
Unfortunately, providing perfectly balanced exposure in the early years will not nec-
essarily ensure later bilingualism. As children become older, they become more aware
of the language spoken in the community where they live, and are likely to use this
language at school. This is known as the majority language, while other languages that
are not as widely spoken are known as minority languages. Even if initially learned in
preschool, minority languages are much more likely than majority languages to be lost
as development continues (De Houwer, 2007). Many experts recommend providing
slightly more early input in a minority than in a majority language, and where possible
providing children with opportunities to play with other kids in that language (Pearson,
2008). Raising a bilingual child in communities that are largely bilingual such as Miami
(Spanish-English), Montreal (French-English), and Barcelona (Catalan-Spanish) provides
fewer challenges for ensuring the ongoing use of the two languages.
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 101
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
So what language strategies should parents use? The best answer is that parents
should use whatever strategy promotes high-quality and high-quantity exposure to
each of their child’s languages. This could include structured approaches such as using
dierent languages as a function of person (one-person-one-language), place (one lan-
guage at home, one language outside), or time (alternating days of the week, or morn-
ings/afternoons). Some parents insist on speaking only one language with their child,
even if they are able to speak the other (Lanza, 2004), to ensure exposure to a particular
language. Other families nd that exible use of the t wo languages, without xed rules,
leads to balanced exposure and positive interactions. Each family should consider the
language prociency of each family member as well as their language preference, in
conjunction with their community situation. Families should regularly make an objec-
tive appraisal of what their child is actually hearing on a daily basis (rather than what
they wish their child was hearing), and consider adjusting language use when necessary.
4. Should parents avoid mixing languages together?
Many parents of bilingual children are bilingual themselves (Byers-Heinlein, 2013).
Code mixing—the use of elements from two dierent languages in the same sentence
or conversation—is a normal part of being a bilingual and interacting with other bilin-
gual speakers (Poplack, 1980). Code mixing is relatively frequent amongst bilingual
parents as well (Byers-Heinlein, 2013), and even parents who have chosen a one-parent-
one-language strategy still code mix from time to time (Goodz, 1989). But what eects
does hearing code mixing have on the development of bilingual children?
Research on the impact of code mixing on bilingual children’s development is still
quite limited. One study of 18- and 24-month-olds found that high amounts of code
mixing by parents was related to smaller vocabulary sizes (Byers-Heinlein, 2013).
However, other studies have found no relationship between code-mixed language
and early language development (Place & Ho, 2011). Further, studies are beginning
to reveal that bilingual children as young as 20-months are able to understand code-
mixed sentences, and show similar processing patterns as bilingual adults (Byers-
Heinlein, 2013). This would suggest that bilinguals are able to cope with code mixing
from an early age. It has also been suggested that while code mixing might make word
learning initially dicult, it is possible that practice switching back and forth between
the languages leads to later cognitive benets (Byers-Heinlein, 2013). Unfortunately, the
jury is still out on whether exposure to code mixing has developmental consequences
for bilingual children, but we are currently working on several research projects that will
help answer this question.
102 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
It is important to note that considerations of code mixing also have important social
implications. In some communities, code mixing is an important part of being bilin-
gual and being part of a bilingual community. For example, code mixing is the norm
in some Spanish-English communities in the U.S., and Afrikaans-English code mixing is
the norm in some parts of South Africa. Dierent communities have dierent patterns
of and rules for code mixing (Poplack, 1984), and children need exposure to these pat-
terns in order to learn them.
5. Is earlier better?
Many people are familiar with the concept of a “critical period” for language acquisi-
tion: the idea that humans are not capable of mastering a new language after reaching
a certain age. Researchers disagree about whether a critical period exists at all, and
they disagree about when this critical period may occur—proposals range from age 5
to 15 (Krashen, 1973; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Lenneberg, 1967). Disagreement aside,
research on bilingualism and second language learning converges robustly on a simple
take-home point: earlier is better. There may not be a sharp turn for the worse at any
point in development, but there is an incremental decline in language learning abilities
with age (Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003).
This point is best understood as an interaction between biological and environmen-
tal factors. Researchers have argued that biological change during the rst two decades
of life results in a reduced capacity for learning and retaining the subtleties of language
(Johnson & Newport, 1989; Weber-Fox & Neville, 2001). In other words, our brains may
be more receptive to language earlier in life. But importantly, our environment is also
more conducive to language learning earlier in life. In many cultures and in many fami-
lies, young children experience a very rich language environment during the rst years
of life. They hear language in attention-grabbing, digestible bundles that are targeted
skillfully at their developmental level (Fernald & Simon, 1984). Caregivers typically
speak in ways that are neither too simple nor too complex, and children receive hours
and hours of practice with language every day. This high-quality and high-quantity
experience with language—a special feature of how people communicate with young
children—often results in successful language learning. It gives children rich, diverse,
and engaging opportunities to learn about the sounds, syllables, words, phrases, and
sentences that comprise their native language. But beyond the rst years of life, second
language learning often happens ver y dierently. Older children and adults do not usu-
ally have the same amount of time to devote to language learning, and they do not
usually experience the advantage of fun, constant, one-on-one interaction with native
speakers. Instead, they often nd themselves in a classroom, where they get a small
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 103
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
fraction of the language practice that infants and toddlers get (Lew-Williams & Fernald,
2010). In classrooms, words are dened for them and grammar is described to them.
Dening and describing can be eective, but they are not as powerful as discovering
language from the ground up.
Applied to bilingualism, these maturational and environmental dierences between
younger and older learners indicate that it is most advantageous to learn two lan-
guages early on in life. Bilinguals who learn two languages from birth are referred to
as simultaneous bilinguals, and those who learn a rst language followed by a second
language—whether as toddlers or as adults—are referred to as sequential bilinguals.
The evidence points to fairly robust advantages for simultaneous bilinguals relative to
sequential bilinguals. They tend to have better accents, more diversied vocabulary,
higher grammatical prociency, and greater skill in real-time language processing. For
example, children and adults who learn Spanish as a second language typically strug-
gle to master Spanish grammatical gender (e.g., “is it el gato or la gato?”), while people
who learn Spanish and English from birth show reliable and impressive ease in using
grammatical gender (Lew-Williams & Fernald, 2007, 2010).
However, parents should not lose hope if they have not exposed their children to
each language from birth. Infants’ brains and learning environments are special and
non-recreatable, but there are many other ways to foster bilingual development. Here
we overview two possibilities. First, some parents (particularly those who can aord
childcare) choose to hire bilingual nannies or send children to bilingual preschools,
in order to maximize their children’s exposure to another language. This can certainly
result in increased bilingual prociency, but it is essential to provide continued oppor-
tunities to practice each language once the child is older. Parental expectations should
be quite low if children do not have opportunities to continue learning and using a
language throughout development. However, keep in mind that bilingual exposure
does not necessarily translate to being a bilingual who is able to understand and speak
a language uently. Researchers generally consider a child to be bilingual if he or she
receives at least 10-25% of exposure to each language (Byers-Heinlein, under review;
Place & Ho, 2011; Marchman et al., 2010; Marchman, Martínez-Sussmann, & Dale,
2004), but this level of exposure by no means guarantees functional bilingualism (De
Second, there are language immersion programs in elementary schools in many of
the world’s countries, including the U.S. and Canada. Their goal is to promote bilin-
gualism, biliteracy, and multicultural prociency among both language-majority and
language-minority students. In the U.S., hundreds of immersion programs have been
104 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
established in the last four decades in such languages as Spanish, French, Korean,
Cantonese, Japanese, Mandarin, Navajo, and Hebrew. There are currently 434 or more
immersion programs in 31 U.S. states (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2011). French
immersion programs are available in all 10 Canadian provinces, with enrolment ranging
from 2-32% of students depending on the province (Statistics Canada, 2000). Immersion
programs confer advantages over other formats of language instruction that are typical
in high school and college classrooms. In immersion programs, the second language is
not necessarily a topic of instruction, but a vehicle for instruction of other curriculum
subjects. In terms of the quantity of language exposure, immersion classrooms do not
rival infants’ language environments. However, they often foster functional bilingual-
ism, and equip children with language skills that help them in later educational and
professional contexts.
The take-home messages about bilingual language exposure are clear: more is bet-
ter, and earlier is better. If you are 75 years old and you have always wanted to learn
Japanese, start now. Language learning becomes more challenging with time, for both
maturational and environmental reasons, but for those who are motivated (Gardner &
Lambert, 1959), it is never too late to learn a new language.
6. Are bilingual children more likely to have language diculties, delays,
or disorders?
Bilingual children are not more likely than monolingual children to have diculties
with language, to show delays in learning, or to be diagnosed with a language disorder
(see Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2010; Petitto & Holowka, 2002). Parents’ perceptions are
often otherwise—they feel that their child is behind due to their bilingualism—reveal-
ing an interesting disconnect from scientic ndings. Science has revealed an impor-
tant property of early bilingual children’s language knowledge that might explain this
misperception: while bilingual children typically know fewer words in each of their
languages than do monolingual learners of those languages, this apparent dierence
disappears when you calculate bilingual children’s “conceptual vocabulary” across both
languages (Marchman et al., 2010). That is, if you add together known words in each
language, and then make sure you don’t double-count cross-language synonyms (e.g.,
dog and perro), then bilingual children know approximately the same number of words
as monolingual children (Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993; Pearson & Fernández, 1994).
As an example, if a Spanish/English bilingual toddler knows 50 Spanish words and
50 English words, she will probably not appear to be as good at communicating when
compared to her monolingual cousin who knows 90 English words. However, assuming
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 105
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
10 of the toddler’s Spanish words are also known in English, then the toddler has a
conceptual vocabulary of 90 words, which matches that of her cousin. Even so, know-
ing 50 vs. 90 English words could result in noticeably dierent communication abilities,
but these dierences are likely to become less noticeable with time. This hypotheti-
cal example about equivalence in vocabulary is supported by research showing that
bilingual and monolingual 14-month-olds are equally good at learning word-object
associations (Byers-Heinlein, Fennell, & Werker, 2013). This oers some reassurance that
young bilinguals—like young monolinguals—possess learning skills that can success-
fully get them started on expected vocabulary trajectories. There is also evidence that
bilingual children match monolinguals in conversational abilities; for example, when
somebody uses a confusing or mispronounced word, or says something ambiguous,
bilingual children can repair the conversation with the same skill as monolinguals
(Comeau, Genesee, & Mendelson, 2010).
Just like some monolingual children have a language delay or disorder, a similar pro-
portion of bilinguals will have a language delay or disorder. Evidence that one bilingual
child has a language diculty, however, is not evidence that bilingualism leads to lan-
guage diculties in general. The challenge for pediatricians and for speech-language
pathologists is to decide if a bilingual child does have a problem, or whether her errors
are part of normal development and interaction between the sounds, words, and
grammars of her two languages. If parents are worried that their bilingual child does
have a delay, they should rst consult their pediatrician. Pediatricians sometimes have
a tendency to say, “Don’t worry, her language is completely normal.” This statement
will end up being false for some children who will end up diagnosed with language
diculties, but it is more likely than not to be true, especially considering that parents
can be inaccurate when estimating their bilingual child’s language skills. In some other
cases, health care providers with concerns about language impairment may recom-
mend against raising a child in a bilingual environment. This recommendation is not
supported by the science of bilingualism. Bilingual children with specic language
impairments (Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003), Down syndrome (Kay-Raining Bird
et al., 2005), and autism spectrum disorders (Peterson, Marinova-Todd, & Mirenda, 2012)
are not more likely to experience additional delays or challenges compared to monolin-
gual children with these impairments.
If parents do not feel comfortable with a pediatrician’s opinion, they should nd (or
ask for a referral to) a speech-language pathologist with expertise in bilingualism, if at
all possible. Early intervention increases the likelihood of a positive outcome. The prob-
lem is that few clinicians receive quality training about the learning needs of bilingual
children, which in some cases leads to a misdiagnosis of bilingual children as having
106 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
delayed or disordered language (Bedore & Peña, 2008; Kohnert, 2010; Thordardottir,
Rothenberg, Rivard, & Naves, 2006). The time is past due to eliminate such simple mis-
understandings in clinical settings. A bilingual clinician, or an individual who has train-
ing in bilingualism, will take care in assessing language skills in both languages, in order
to measure the child’s entire language prole. Parents should keep in mind that clini-
cians have a very dicult job when it comes to assessing bilingual children. They have
to (1) accurately assess a bilingual child’s language abilities in each of her languages,
(2) integrate the child’s problematic and unproblematic abilities in terms of sounds,
words, grammar, and conversation in each language into a coherent whole, (3) evaluate
whether the child is delayed and/or disordered in one or both languages, (4) weigh the
child’s linguistic/cognitive capacities in comparison to typically and atypically devel-
oping monolingual children and, when possible, bilingual children of the same age,
and (5) develop an eective intervention that targets subareas of linguistic/cognitive
competence in one and/or both languages. This is a tangled landscape for intervention,
but one that can be assessed thoughtfully. Regardless of whether parents pursue inter-
vention, they can help children gain bilingual prociency by using both languages as
regularly as possible in enriching and engaging contexts. Furthermore, parents should
keep in mind that both monolingual and bilingual children can best show o their skills
when using language that matches their daily experiences (Mattock, Polka, Rvachew, &
Krehm, 2010).
In summary, if you measure bilinguals using a monolingual measure, you are more
likely to nd false evidence of delay. Fortunately, researchers and clinicians are now
developing bilingual-specic measures that paint a more accurate picture of bilinguals’
global language competence.
In this article, we have reviewed what the science says about six of parents’ most
commonly asked questions about early bilingualism. Research demonstrates that we
need to reshape our views of early bilingualism: children are born ready to learn the
language or languages of their environments without confusion or delay (Werker &
Byers-Heinlein, 2008). To promote successful bilingual development, parents raising
bilingual children should ensure that their children have ample opportunities to hear
and speak both of their languages. As children get older, interacting with monolingual
speakers (especially other children) is important for motivating ongoing language use,
especially for minority languages not widely spoken in the community (Pearson, 2008).
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 107
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
Teachers, pediatricians, and speech language pathologists play an important role in
dispelling common myths, and in communicating science-based information about
early bilingualism to parents.
While our focus here has been on language development, it is also important to rec-
ognize that early childhood is also a time of profound emotional, social, physical, and
cognitive development. Bilingualism will be a priority or even a necessity for some fam-
ilies. Other families might choose to focus on other aspects of development. In some
cases, where families are not uent in a second language, early bilingualism might be
unrealistic. Here, it is important to keep two things in mind: 1) bilingualism is only one
way to promote successful early development, and 2) second language learning is pos-
sible at any age. Language—any language—is a window to the world. It is better for
parents to provide plenty of input and interaction in a language they are comfortable
in, than to hold back because they are not uent or comfortable in the language.
When it comes to raising bilingual children, myths and misunderstandings are com-
mon, but facts are hard to come by. Together with researchers around the world, we are
working hard to continue providing scientically based facts addressing parents’ most
important questions about early bilingualism.
This work was suppor ted by grants to K rista Byers-Heinlein from the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Council of Canada and the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société
et culture, and to Casey Lew-Williams from the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation. Thank
you to Alexandra Polonia for her assistance with proofreading, and to the many parents
of bilingual children whose questions inspire and motivate us.
108 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
Akhtar, N., & Menjivar, J. A. (2012). Cognitive
and linguistic correlates of early exposure
to more than one language. In J. B. Benson
(Ed.), Advances in child development and
behavior, Vol. 42 (pp. 41–78). Burlington:
Academic Press.
Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies
for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-lan-
guage approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment
of bilingual children for identication of
language impairment: Current ndings and
implications fo r practice. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1),
1–29. doi :10.2167/ beb392 .0
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012).
Bilingualism: consequences for mind and
brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–
250. do i:10.1016/j.t ics.2012.03.001
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. (2004). Attention and
inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence
from the dimensional change card sort task.
Developmental Science, 7(3), 325–339. doi:
10 .1111/ j .14 67- 8 6 2 4 . 2 0 0 4.00693. x
Bialystok, E., & Senman, L. (2004). Executive pro-
cesses in appearance-reality tasks: The role
of inhibition of attention and symbolic rep-
resentation. Child Development, 75(2), 562–
57 9. doi: 1 0.1111/j.14 67- 8624 .2 00 4. 00 69 3. x
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence
for maturational constraints in second-
language acquisition. Journal of Memory and
Language, 44(2), 235–249.
Bosch, L., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1997). Native-
language recognition abilities in 4-month-
old infants from monolingual and bilingual
environments. Cognition, 65(1), 33–69.
doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)0004 0-1
Bosch, L., & Sebastián- Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence
of early language discrimination abilities in
infants from bilingual environments. Infancy,
2(1), 29– 49. doi :10.120 7/S1532 7078 IN0201_ 3
Brito, N., & Barr, R. (2012). Inuence of bilin-
gualism on memory generalization during
infancy. Developmental Science, 15(6), 812–
816. doi:10 .1111/ j.14 67-7 68 7.2012.1184. x
Byers-Heinlein, K. (2013). Parental language
mixing: Its measurement and the relation
of mixed input to young bilingual children’s
vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 16(01), 32–48. doi:10.1017/
S136 672 891200 0120
Byers-Heinlein, K. (under review). Methods
for studying infant bilingualism. In J. W.
Schwieter (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of bilin-
gual processing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Byers-Heinlein, K., Burns, T. C., & Werker, J. F.
(2010). The roots of bilingualism in new-
borns. Psychological Science, 21(3), 343–348.
Byers-Heinlein, K., Fennell, C.T., & Werker, J.F.
(2013). The development of associative
word learning in monolingual and bilin-
gual infants. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 16(1), 198–205. doi: 10.1017/
Canadian Council on Learning. (2008).
Understanding the academic trajectories of
ESL students. Retrieved from http://www.
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Directory
of Foreign Language Immersion Programs in
U.S. Schools Su mmary of Data. Retr ieved from
Comeau, L., Genesee, F., & Lapaquette, L. (2003).
The modeling hypothesis and child bilin-
gual codemixing. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 7(2), 113 –126 . doi:10 .1177/ 13 670
069 030070 020101
Comeau, L., Genesee, F., & Mendelson, M. (2010).
A comparison of bilingual monolingual
children’s conversational repairs. First Language,
30(3–4), 354–374. doi:10.1177/0142723710
Conboy, B. T., & Mills, D. L. (2006). Two lan-
guages, one developing brain: Event‐related
potentials to words in bilingual toddlers.
Developmental Science, 9(1), F1– F12 . do i:10.1
111/ j .14 67-76 8 7. 20 05. 0 0453
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 109
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2008). Bilingualism aids conict resolution:
Evidence from th e ANT task. Cognition, 106(1),
59–86. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.013
De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input
patterns and children’s bilingual use.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(03), 411–424.
DeLoache, J. S., Chiong, C., Sherman, K., Islam,
N., Vanderborght, M., Troseth, G. L., et al.
(2010). Do babies learn from baby media?
Psychological Science, 21(11), 1570 1574.
doi:10 .1177/0 956797610384145
Döpke, S. (Ed.). (2000). Cross-linguistic structures
in simultaneous bilingualism. Amsterdam:
Fernald, F., & Simon, T. (1984). Expanded into-
nation contours in mothers’ speech to
newborns. Developmental Psychology, 20(1),
104 –113. d oi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.1.104
García, E. E., McLaughlin, B., Spodek, B., &
Saracho, O. N. (1995). Yearbook in early child-
hood education. Vol. 6: Meeting the challenge
of linguistic and cultural diversity in early
childhood education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959).
Motivational variables in second language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
13(4), 266 –272. doi:10.1037/h 0083787
Genesee, F., Boivin, I., & Nicoladis, E. (1996).
Talking with strangers: A study of chil-
dren’s communicative competence. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 17(4), 427– 442. doi:10.1017/
Goetz, P. J. (2003). The eects of bilingualism on
theory of mind development. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 6(1), 1–15.
doi:10.1017/S1366728903 001007
Goodz, N. S. (1989). Parental language mix-
ing in bilingual families. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 10(1). doi:10.1002/1097- 0355
(198921)10:1<25:: AID-IMHJ228010 0104>
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilin-
gual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 1(02), 67–81.
do i:10.1017/S136 67 289 980 0 0133
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003).
Critical evidence: A test of the critical-
period hypothesis for second-language
learning. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31–38.
doi:10 .1111/ 14 67- 9280.01415
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful dier-
ences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Ho, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M.,
& Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure
and early bilingual development. Journal
of Child Language, 39(1), 1–27. doi:10.1017/
Hudon, T. M., Fennell, C. T., & Hoftyzer, M. (2013).
Quality not quantity of television view-
ing is associated with bilingual toddlers’
vocabulary scores. Infant Behavior and
Development, 36(2), 245–254. doi:10.1016/j.
inf beh. 2013.01.010
Hurtado, N., Grüter, T., Marchman, V. A., &
Fernald, A. (2013). Relative language expo-
sure, processing eciency and vocabulary
in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–14.
do i:10.1017/S136 67 28913 0 0014X
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical
period eects in second language learn-
ing: The inuence of maturational state on
the acquisition of English as a second lan-
guage. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
doi:10.1016/0010 -0285(89)900 03 -0
Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P., Trudeau, N.,
Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A.
(2005). The language abilities of bilingual
children with Down syndrome. Ame rican
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14,
187–199. doi:1058-0360/05/1403-0187
King, K., & Mackey, A. (2009). The bilingual edge.
Ontario, Canada: HarperCollins.
Kluger, J. (2013, July). The power of the bilingual
brain. TIME Magazine.
Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with pri-
mary language impairment: Issues, evidence
and implications for clinical actions. Journal
of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 456–473.
Kovács, Á. M. (2009). Early bilingualism
enhances mechanisms of false‐belief rea-
soning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 48–54.
110 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
Kovács, Á. M., & Mehler, J. (2009a). Cognitive
gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106(16), 6556 6560. do i:10.1073/
Kovács, Á. M., & Mehler, J. (2009b). Flexible
learning of multiple speech structures in
bilingual infants. Science, 325(594 0), 611– 612.
Krashen, S. (1973). Lateralization, language
learning, and the critical period. Lan-
guage Learning, 23, 6 3 74 . do i:10.1111/
j.14 67-1770 .197 3. tb0 0 097.x
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M. , & Liu, H.-M. (2003). Foreign-
language experience in infancy: Eects of
short-term exposure and social interaction
on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 909 6
9101. do i:10.1073/pnas .1532872100
Lanza, E. (2004). Language mixing in infant bilin-
gualism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of
language. New York: Wiley.
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2007). Young
children learning Spanish make rapid use of
grammatical gender in spoken word recog-
nition. Psychological Science, 18(3), 193–198 .
doi:10 .1111/ j .14 6 7-92 8 0 . 20 07. 0 187 1.x
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time
processing of gender-marked articles by
native and non-native Spanish speakers.
Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 447–
46 4. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010. 07.003
Marchman, V. A., Fernal d, A., & Hurtado, N . (2010).
How vocabulary size in two languages
relates to ecienc y in spoken word recogni-
tion by young Spanish–English bilinguals.
Journal of Child Language, 37(4), 817840.
Marchman, V. A., Martínez-Sussmann, C., &
Dale, P. S. (2004). The language-specic
nature of grammatical development:
Evidence from bilingual language learners.
Developmental Science, 7(2), 212–224. doi:10.
1111/ j .14 67-76 8 7. 20 04.0 03 4 0 . x
Mattock, K., Polka, L., Rvachew, S., & Krehm,
M. (2010). The rst steps in word learning
are easier when the shoes t: Comparing
monolingual and bilingual infants.
Developmental Science, 13(1), 229–243.
doi:10 .1111/ j .14 6 7-7687.2009.00891 . x
Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P. W., Lambertz, G., Halsted,
N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988).
A precursor of language acquisition in
young infants. Cognition, 29(2), 143–178.
doi:10.1016/0010 -0277(88)90035-2
Nazzi, T. (2000). Language discrimination by
English-learning 5-month-olds: Eects of
rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory
and Language, 43(1), 1–19. doi:10.1006/
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of
bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M.
(2003). Bilingual children with specic lan-
guage impairment: How do they compare
with their monolingual peers? Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46,
1–15. do i:10.1017/S01427164 0707030 0
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2010).
Dual language development and disor-
ders. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing
Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (2000).
Early emergence of structural constraints on
code-mixing: Evidence from French–English
bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 3(03), 245–261.
Pearson, B. Z. (2008). Raising a bilingual child.
New York: Random House.
Pearson, B. Z., & Fernández, S. C. (1994). Patterns
of interaction in the lexical growth in two
languages of bilingual infants and tod-
dlers. Language Learning, 44(4), 617–653.
doi:10 .1111/ j .14 6 7-17 70.1994.tb0 0 6 33. x
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D.
K. (1993). Lexical development in bilin-
gual infants and toddlers: Comparison to
monolingual norms. Language Learning,
43(1), 9 3 120. doi:10.1111/ j .14 6 7-17 7 0 .199 4 .
Peterson, J., Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Mirenda, P.
(2012). Brief report: An exploratory study of
lexical skills in bilingual children with autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 42(7), 1499–1503.
doi:10.1007/s10803- 011-1366 -y
LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013 | 111
Bilingualism in the Early Years: What the Science Says
Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating
attributions of delay and confusion in young
bilinguals: Special insights from infants
acquiring a signed and an oral language.
Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4–33.
Place, S., & Ho, E. (2011). Properties of dual
language exposure that inuence two-
year-olds’ bilingual prociency. Child
Development, 82(6), 1834 –1 8 4 9. doi:10 .1111/
j.1467- 8624. 2011.01660. x
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ ll start a sentence
in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a
typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18,
581618. d oi:10 .1515/lin g-2013- 0039
Poplack, S. (1984). Contrasting patterns of code-
switching in two communities (pp. 51–77).
Presented at the Aspects of multilingualism.
Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., &
Bialystok , E. (2011). The eects of bil ingualism
on toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3),
567–579. d oi:10.1016/j .jecp. 2010.10.009
Ronjat, J. (1913). Le développement du langage
observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris:
Schellenberg, E. G. (2005). Music and cog-
nitive abilities. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14(6), 317–320. doi:10.
1111/ j . 0 9 6 3 -7214.2005.00389. x
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Albareda-Castellot, B.,
Weikum, W. M., & Werker, J. F. (2012). A bilin-
gual advantage in visual language discrimi-
nation in infanc y. Psychological Science, 23(9),
994–999. doi:10.1177/0956797612436817
Statistics Canada. (2000). French Immersion 30
years later. Retrieved from www.statcan.
Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship
between bilingual exposure and vocabu-
lary development. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 15(4), 426–445. doi:10.1177/
1367 0 0 69 114 032 02
Thordardottir, E., Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M., &
Naves, R. (2006). Bilingual assessment: Can
overall prociency be estimated from sepa-
rate measurement o f two languages? Journal
of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4(1),
1–21. do i:10.1080/14769670500215647
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Sensitive
periods dierentiate processing of open-
and closed-class words: An ERP study of
bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language
and Hearing Research, 44(6), 133 8–1353.
Wei, L. (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In L.
Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 3–25).
New York: Routledge.
Weikum, W. M., Vouloumanos, A., Navarra,
J., Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., &
Werker, J. F. (2007). Visual language discrimi-
nation in infancy. Science, 316(5828), 1159.
Werker, J. F., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2008).
Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in percep-
tion and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 12(4), 144–151. doi:10.1016/j.
Yow, W. Q., & Markman, E. M. (2011). Bilingualism
and children’s use of paralinguistic cues to
interpret emotion in speech. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14(4), 562–569.
doi:10.1017/S13667289100 00404
112 | LEARNing Landscapes | Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 2013
Krista Byers-Heinlein and Casey Lew-Williams
Krista Byers-Heinlein (B.A., McGill University; M.A., Ph.D.,
University of British Columbia) is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Psychology at Concordia University. She directs
the Concordia Infant Research Laboratory, and is a member of
the Centre for Research in Human Development, and the Centre
for Research on Brain, Language and Music. She is recognized
internationally for her research on bilingualism in infancy, and
has published extensively on the topics of bilingual infants’
speech perception and word learning.
Casey Lew-Williams (B.A., University of California, Berkeley;
M.A., Ph.D., Stanford University) is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at
Northwestern University. He directs the Language Learning Lab,
a research group devoted to studying rst, second, and bilin-
gual language learning. His work focuses in particular on under-
standing how dierent learning experiences shape language
outcomes in diverse populations of infants, children, and adults.
... Language Switching becomes very interesting when we are studying bilinguals from different age groups. An average adult bilingual speaker is believed to have a vast reservoir of words and can recognize and produce them without difficulty (Byers-Heinlein and Lew-Williams 2013). Although the bilingual language system is noisier than the monolingual language system, they rarely mistakenly use a word from an unintended language (e.g., Mishra and Abutalebi 2020;Declerck et al. 2017;Gollan et al. 2011;Kroll et al. 2008;Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994). ...
Language is one of the fascinating abilities of the human species. The beauty of language becomes intriguing when we examine language processing among bilinguals. This work attempted to study the effects of language dominance among native Hindi speakers who were either Hindi dominant, English dominant, or balanced bilingual in a language switching task. The task required the participants to read aloud the number-words that were presented singly on the computer screen. The findings support the inhibitory control model's predictions as the results were indicative of asymmetrical switch cost for both the Hindi and English dominant bilinguals. In both the language dominance condition, moving back to the dominant language from a non-dominant language required more time than vice versa. The results also indicated overall reduced reaction time in the reading task performance for balanced bilinguals, further demonstrating the benefits of balanced bilingualism.
... It is clearly recognized today, however, that using a mother tongue other than that of the host country does not slow down the acquisition of the host-country language. On the contrary, the more languages one learns, the easier it is to learn others (15). ...
Full-text available
Context: Transcultural skills are especially useful for those involved in the perinatal period, when parents and babies must adapt to one another in a setting of migration a long a focus of transcultural clinical practice. Objective: The aim of this article is to provide useful transcultural skills for any health care worker (e.g., psychologists, child psychiatrists, midwives, family doctors, pediatricians, specialized child-care attendants, and social workers) who provide care or support to families during the perinatal period. It highlights the cultural aspects requiring attention in relation to representations of pregnancy, children's needs, obstetric complications, and postnatal problems. Taking into account the impact of culture on clinical evaluation and treatment can enable professionals to distinguish what involves cultural representations of pregnancy, babies, and sometimes of disease from what is associated with interaction disorders or maternal psychopathology. Methods: After explaining the relevance of transcultural clinical practices to provide migrant mothers with better support, we describe 9 themes useful to explore from a transcultural perspective. This choice is based on the transcultural clinical practice in our specialized department. Results: The description of these 9 themes is intended to aid in their pragmatic application and is illustrated with short clinical vignettes for specific concepts. We describe situations that are extreme but often encountered in liaison transcultural clinical practice for maternity wards: perinatal mourning with cultural coding, mediation in refusal of care, cultural misunderstandings, situations of complex trauma and of multiple contextual vulnerabilities, and difficulties associated with acculturation. Discussion: The transcultural levers described here make it possible to limit cultural misunderstandings and to promote the therapeutic alliance. It presupposes the professionals will concomitantly analyze their cultural countertransference and acquire both the knowledge and know-how needed to understand the elements of cultural, political, and social issues needed to develop clinical finesse. Conclusion: This combined theoretical-clinical article is intended to be pedagogical. It provides guidelines for conducting transcultural child psychiatry/psychological interviews in the perinatal period aimed at both assessment and therapy.
... In contrast, "those who can communicate in their family's native language are able to establish a strong cultural identity, to develop and sustain strong ties with their immediate and extended families and thrive in a global multilingual world" (Hanson & Espinosa, 2016 p.2). In addition, early relationships established between parents and children, and the ways in which language conveys cultural meaning within these relationships, are important for the social-emotional development of the child (Byers-Heinlein & Lew-Williams, 2013;Byers-Heinlein et al., 2017;Ijalba, 2016). Thus, there are compelling reasons to actively support young NDD dual language learners' bilingualism. ...
Full-text available
Objectives The cognitive and social benefits of bilingualism for children, including those with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs), have been documented. The present study was designed to characterize and compare English and Spanish use in Hispanic families with and without NDDs residing in the U.S. as well as to understand parental perceptions of their child’s bilingualism and of community and professional support. Methods We conducted an online survey of 84 Spanish-speaking parents of 4- to 24-year-olds with (n = 44) and without NDDs (n = 40) who were born in and living in the U.S. Results We found that bilingualism was a desired goal for 95% of our families. We also found, however, that 17.1% of parents of children with NDDs have raised them as monolinguals English-speakers, as they thought there were reasons for that, while all families from the NT group raised their children in both languages. In addition, nearly 40% of the NDD children only speak English, compared to a 5% in the NT group. Finally, parents of children with NDDs cite a lack of support for bilingualism in the community (47.6% do not feel supported, compared to a 7.9% in the NT group) and recommendation from professionals as major factors for not raising their children as bilingual. Conclusions The results suggest a need to educate professionals from many disciplines about the benefits of bilingualism for children with NDDs and for implementation of inclusion policies that provide access to dual-language programs.
Purpose: A bibliometric analysis was performed for articles published in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (JSLHR) from 2001 to 2021 to examine changes to and emerging trends in the speech, language, and hearing sciences in the 21st century. Method: Quantitative analyses using JASP were performed on the publication rate and number of authors in articles published in JSLHR for each year from 2001 to 2021. VOSviewer was used to analyze and visualize networks of co-occurring Keyword Plus terms extracted from the articles published in JSLHR for several representative years from 2001 to 2021. Results: Although the number of publications and number of authors published in JSLHR increased from 2001 to 2021, that growth was consistent with the growth found in science in general and with changes in publication policies and practices. The number and range of countries other than the United States published in JSLHR increased from 2001 to 2021. A consistent set of institutions published frequently in JSLHR across the years examined. The analysis of Keyword Plus terms showed an increase in the range of populations, disorders, and languages that were the subject of research from 2001 to 2021, as well as influences from other fields on speech, language, and hearing sciences. Conclusion: The science of science approach and the tools of network science are useful for assessing how changes in editorial policy affect diversity, for monitoring research topics that are growing (or declining), for identifying institutions that lead the field, and for inviting discussions among various interested parties related to the growth and development of a discipline.
Full-text available
For multilinguals, acquiring and processing language is similar to other cognitive skills: they are grounded in mechanisms of sensory processing and motor control (Paradis, 2019). Recent clinical and experimental research on multilingualism have introduced innovative neuroimaging measures and psychological methods that have significantly shed light on what we know (and do not know) about how multiple languages are processed, represented, and controlled in the mind/brain (Schwieter, 2019). Since the 1990s and 2000s, a plethora of behavioral and neurological research has demonstrated that for multilinguals, all languages are active to some degree in the mind, even when only using one. Furthermore, the need for the mind to manage the ongoing competition that arises from this parallel activation has been shown to affect cognition (e.g., executive functioning) (Giovannoli et al., 2020), modify the structure and functioning of the brain (e.g., changes in the areas where language control and executive control overlap) (Costa and Sebastian-Galles, 2014), and slow the onset or progression of cognitive and neural decline (Bialystok, 2017). The goal of “Multilingualism: Consequences for brain and mind” is to bring together state-of-the art papers that examine the cognitive and neurological consequences of multilingualism through an exploration of how two or more languages are processed, represented, and/or controlled in one brain/mind. The included peer-reviewed papers are either theoretically or empirically oriented and present new findings, frameworks, and/or methodologies on how multilingualism affects the brain and mind.
This paper reports on an investigation of adults' level of endorsement of 18 language myths, including myths about non‐mainstream dialects of English, children's language development, bilingualism, linguistic diversity across the world, the use of English in the language arts, and the job of a linguist. Participants ( N = 187) read short vignettes of situations related to each misconception and were asked to justify their assessment of the situation. Responses were coded according to whether they endorsed the myth within the situation. Results showed that endorsement of language myths was highly dependent on the specific myth. Some myths were strongly endorsed (e.g. myths related to linguistic prejudice and children's language development), others were strongly rejected (e.g. myths related to the harmful nature of bilingualism), and others received a mixed pattern of endorsement and rejection. We discuss how this snapshot of public understanding can help linguists target their efforts at public education.
Full-text available
The few studies on Family Language Policy in Singapore (FLP) have generally focused on FLP in local and immigrant Chinese families. This article explores language policies that seem to undergird Singaporean-Japanese families’ language practices. In-depth interviews and observations with five such families showed that Japanese only functions as the language of communication between the Japanese parents and their children if parents have invoked particular language policies to support its transmission and use at home. For most families, English was the main medium of communication among family members. Language policies and practices in these families were heavily influenced by the value emplaced on each language within the parents’ linguistic repertoire and their beliefs regarding language learning.
With English proficiency as a primary goal, educational programs in the United States often pay little attention to other languages spoken by learners, languages that are sometimes minority and even endangered local languages. This chapter describes efforts in Hawaiʻi to promote English literacy as a part of a larger program designed to foster a multilingualism that includes the indigenous Hawaiian language, the local creole language (called Pidgin), as well as English. More specifically, the focus is placed on the growing popularity of a Hawaiian medium educational pathway that develops bilingual abilities in Hawaiian and English and also respects Pidgin as a legitimate language of Hawaiʻi. In particular, the chapter describes four aspects of the curriculum, an early focus on literacy, the development of a heritage language program, the introduction of English as an academic subject in the fifth grade, and an early college credit program that have thus far yielded positive outcomes.
This case study presents, assesses, and discusses the phenomenon of nonnative bilingualism in Brazil. Nonnative bilingualism consists of raising a child in a foreign language by parents who are not native speakers of that language, and live in an environment where the given language is not spoken, i.e. Brazilian parents living in Brazil raising their child/ren in English. Twenty-four families, who have adopted this practice, participated in this study by answering an online questionnaire. The results were analyzed against the background of bilingualism theories based on Pearson (2008), Grosjean (2010), Byers-Heinlein & Lew-Williams (2013), Baker (2014), Grosjean & Byers-Heinlein (2018), and Romanowski (2018). The discussion involves the parents’ role in the child’s language acquisition, the communicative strategies used by them,the problems found in the process, and recommendations for those willing to adopt the nonnative bilingualism.
Full-text available
Research with monolingual children has shown that early efficiency in real-time word recognition predicts later language and cognitive outcomes. In parallel research with young bilingual children, processing ability and vocabulary size are closely related within each language, although not across the two languages. For children in dual-language environments, one source of variation in patterns of language learning is differences in the degree to which they are exposed to each of their languages. In a longitudinal study of Spanish/English bilingual children observed at 30 and 36 months, we asked whether the relative amount of exposure to Spanish vs. English in daily interactions predicts children's relative efficiency in real-time language processing in each language. Moreover, to what extent does early exposure and speed of lexical comprehension predict later expressive and receptive vocabulary outcomes in Spanish vs. English? Results suggest that processing skill and language experience each promote vocabulary development, but also that experience with a particular language provides opportunities for practice in real-time comprehension in that language, sharpening processing skills that are critical for learning.
Full-text available
Children growing up bilingual face a unique linguistic environment. The current study investigated whether early bilingual experience influences the developmental trajectory of associative word learning, a foundational mechanism for lexical acquisition. Monolingual and bilingual infants (N = 98) were tested on their ability to learn dissimilar-sounding words (lif and neem) in the Switch task. Twelve-month-olds from both language backgrounds failed to detect a violation of a previously taught word–object pairing. However, both monolinguals and bilinguals succeeded at 14 months, and their performance did not differ. The results indicate that early bilingual experience does not interfere with the development of the fundamental ability to form word–object associations, suggesting that this mechanism is robust across different early language environments.
Full-text available
Studying lexical diversity in bilingual children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) can contribute important information to our understanding of language development in this diverse population. In this exploratory study, lexical comprehension and production and overall language skills were investigated in 14 English–Chinese bilingual and 14 English monolingual preschool-age children with ASD. Results indicated that both groups had equivalent scores on all but one measure of language and vocabulary, including English production vocabulary, conceptual production vocabulary, and vocabulary comprehension. When comparing the two languages of bilingual participants, there were no significant differences in production vocabulary size or vocabulary comprehension scores. The results provide evidence that bilingual English–Chinese preschool-age children with ASD have the capacity to function successfully as bilinguals.
The coming of language occurs at about the same age in every healthy child throughout the world, strongly supporting the concept that genetically determined processes of maturation, rather than environmental influences, underlie capacity for speech and verbal understanding. Dr. Lenneberg points out the implications of this concept for the therapeutic and educational approach to children with hearing or speech deficits.