Michael Daller and Nivja De Jong.  The aim of the present study is to operationalize language dominance in bilinguals with structurally different languages.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
L1 TRANSFER ON L2 by Hacer Kökcür & Duygu Işık. RESEARCH QUESTION Does first language (L1) influence the acquisition of the second language (L2)in terms.
Advertisements

Psycholinguistic what is psycholinguistic? 1-pyscholinguistic is the study of the cognitive process of language acquisition and use. 2-The scope of psycholinguistic.
A Tale of Two Tests STANAG and CEFR Comparing the Results of side-by-side testing of reading proficiency BILC Conference May 2010 Istanbul, Turkey Dr.
Catia Cucchiarini Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency in read and spontaneous speech Radboud University Nijmegen.
Testing: Principles and Techniques  Tests are “inappropriate, mysterious, unreal, subjective, and unstructured.”  Certain basic questions need to be.
EE3P BEng Final Year Project – 1 st meeting SLaTE – Speech and Language Technology in Education Martin Russell
Brandon Walcutt Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Seoul, Korea ALLIED ACADEMIES CONFERENCE April 2010 WAGE DISCRIMINATION IN KOREA’S ESL INDUSTRY 1.
Method Participants Fifty-six undergraduate students (age range 19-37), 14 in each of the four language groups (monolingual, Spanish-English bilingual,
Highly Fluent, Balanced Bilingualism Does Not Enhance Executive Function Oliver Sawi 1,2, Jack Darrow 1, Hunter Johnson 1, Kenneth Paap 1 ; 1 San Francisco.
Christina Schelletter University of Hertfordshire Newcastle conference 25 June 2009 ELIAS – Early Language Intercultural Acquisition Studies Project: LLP-DE-Comenius-CMP.
Segmenting Nonsense Sanders, Newport & Neville (2002) Ricardo TaboneLIN 7912.
Background  Bilingual children with TLD often perform below monolingual age peers on standardized tests, with over-identification of SLI in bilinguals.
Memory Span and Narrative Skills – Where’s the Connection? Line Engel Clasen, Kristine Jensen de López & Hanne Bruun Søndergaard Knudsen University of.
A.A young child (age 2) learning German as a first language in Germany B. A young Turkish child (age 5) learning German as a second language in Germany.
Bilinguals’ gestures Elena Nicoladis University of Alberta.
Alternative Education Programs for English Learners Chapter 6 of Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, By Kathryn Lindhom-Leary.
Stages of testing + Common test techniques
The possible effects of target language learning prior to secondary dual language school studies by Anna Várkuti 10th Summer School of Psycholinguistics.
Globalization and the Process of Transformation in Language of Korean Students in America Hi-Sun Kim University of Chicago AATK 2012.
Early Language Programs Tor Fornelli, Allison Chael, Courtney Hart.
Article Summary – EDU 215 Dr. Megan J. Scranton 1.
Rationale for a K-12 World Language Program Foreign Language Department Hamburg Area School District 11/07/05.
Use of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills with English Language Learners Rachel McCarthy, M.S.E. & Mary Beth Tusing, Ph.D. University.
A Review of the Test of English for International Communication TOEIC Gillian Luellen Educational Measurement at the University of Kansas TOEIC Purpose.
Factors that Influence Retention in Greek Therapeutic Communities Erianna Daliani MSc (Gerasimos Papanastasatos) KETHEA Research Dept. 11th European Conference.
IS BSI METHOD EFFECTIVE TO TEACH ENGLISH ARTICLE SYSTEM ? IS BSI METHOD EFFECTIVE TO TEACH ENGLISH ARTICLE SYSTEM ? Presented by Handegül ALTAN Presented.
English-Language Development Domain California Preschool Learning Foundations Volume 1 Published by the California Department of Education (2008) English-Language.
Maine Department of Education 2006 Maine Reading First Course Session #13 Vocabulary Research and Assessment.
Published by the California Department of Education (2009)
Total Physical Response (TPR)
English-Only or Bilingual Instruction?. They’re Young! They will learn quickly and easily.
Copyright © 2015 by Educational Testing Service. 1 Feature Selection for Automated Speech Scoring Anastassia Loukina, Klaus Zechner, Lei Chen, Michael.
ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS in CDE’s new monograph Educating English Learners: Research-Based Approaches Kathryn Lindholm-Leary.
Do Now (7 minutes) NYSESLAT Overview (10 minutes) NYSESLAT Jigsaw (20 Minutes) Group Presentation/Discussion (20 Minutes) Wrap-Up and Q&A (3 minutes) Do.
Bilingualism Growing up Bilingual. Vancouver, Canada. A multicultural, multilingual city ~ 60% of school children speak English as a L2 Sizable immigrant.
ESL PLC Meetings October 14 & 15, 2013 What’s Different About Teaching Reading to Students Learning English? Chapter 5: Fluency.
Language History Questionnaire: A Web- Based Interface for Bilingual Research Researchers: Ping Li, Sara Sepanski, & XiaoWei Zhao Presented by Maria Daniela.
A Missing Ingredient: Oral Reading Fluency Timothy Shanahan Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago
Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés Simultaneous Bilingualism and the Perception of a Language-Specific Vowel Contrast in the First Year of Life.
What does CLIL stand for?
SPEAKING TESTS IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE LEARNING.
Judit Kormos and Kata Csizér
Text Summarization using Lexical Chains. Summarization using Lexical Chains Summarization? What is Summarization? Advantages… Challenges…
Exploring the relationship between linguistic knowledge, speech processing and oral fluency Dr Zöe Handley, University of York Dr Sible Andringa, Universität.
A. Baker, J. de Jong, A. Orgassa & F. Weerman Collaborators: VARIFLEX project: Elma Blom & Daniela Polišenská (NWO-research grant : Disentangling.
 Individual differences and language interdependence: a study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish-English preschool children.
Linguistic Diversity February Language Rights “The vast majority of the world's nations are at least bilingual, and most are multilingual, even.
Lecture 12 Teaching L2 Reading Luo Ling
Unit One Basic Concepts: Syllables, Stress & Rhythm.
Language Development for Bilingual Children
contrastive linguistics
ROOPA LEONARD, MICHAEL DALLER, HOLLY JOSEPH University of reading
Fluency in Oral Interaction Workshop (FLOW)
Transfer of Language Skills from one Language to Another
Working-memory: is there a bilingual advantage?
Comparing the relation between L1 and L2 vocabulary
Cognitive Retroactive Transfer (CRT) of Language Skills
contrastive linguistics
Supporting Students' Native Language in the Classroom
Automatic Fluency Assessment
Linguistic Predictors of Cultural Identification in Bilinguals
Writing Analytics Clayton Clemens Vive Kumar.
Information in Monolingual Dictionaries
UDL Checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.
H070 Topic Title H470/02 Dimensions of linguistic variation.
Oral Reading and the Development of Early Reading Ability
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition
COMPARATIVE Linguistics 2018/2019
contrastive linguistics
contrastive linguistics
Presentation transcript:

Michael Daller and Nivja De Jong

 The aim of the present study is to operationalize language dominance in bilinguals with structurally different languages  The measurement of fluency is one aspect of language dominance

 Grosjean (1997: 165) complementary principle: Bilinguals normally use their languages in different domains with different people Bilinguals usually have one stronger and one or more weaker languages

 Even with simultaneous exposure to two languages bilinguals can develop dominance in one language (Bosch & Sebastián-Gales 2001:73)

 There are various definitions of fluency (for an overview see Hilton 2008)  Segalowitz (2003) relates it to “automaticity”  Wood (2001) sees “automaticity” and “formulaic competence” as the two main factors  According to Chambers (1997) temporal measures of fluency are a “useful anchorage”

 Turkish-German bilinguals who grew up in Germany and went back to Turkey (N = 60). They were exposed to German and Turkish simultaneously from a very early age.  Turkish monolinguals (control group) who learned German as a foreign language (N = 56). They had about 400 hours of teaching in German.

 Oral picture descriptions (father-and-son stories)  A C-test in both languages (Gap filling test)

 For the analysis of the picture description we used a manual and an automated analysis with Praat.  The manual analysis includes “words per minute” and total text length (number of tokens)

 A comparison of proficiency and fluency in two structurally different languages is problematic since the unit of counting (word, syllable) is not comparable.  A word in Turkish may be the equivalent of two or more words in English

 The control group of Turkish L2 learners will have much lower C-test scores for German when compared with the bilinguals but will have higher scores in Turkish  The C-tests scores in Turkish and German will show differences in language dominance patterns between the two bilingual groups  The development of fluency indices will be a useful tool for the measurement of dominance in structurally different languages  Automated fluency analyses will lead to similar results as manual measures (such as words per minute).

 For the returnees:  “speech rate 2” for Turkish correlates significantly with the Turkish C-test results (r =.536, p <.01, n = 25).  The German C-test scores correlate significantly with measures that are related to length of performance in the German descriptions, such as total length of speech without pauses (r =.502, p =.02, n = 21), mean length of utterance between pauses (r=.562, p <.01, n = 21)

 For the returnees speech rate is an indication for higher proficiency in Turkish and text length an indication of higher proficiency in German.

 Speech rate in Turkish shows no significant correlation with the C-test scores in Turkish.  But there are significant correlations between the C-test scores and pausing, such as the total length of pauses (r =.419, p =.012, n = 35)

 The two groups have a clearly different language dominance profile which is in line with the expectation given the different language acquisition history of the groups.  The returnees are relatively more dominant in German which can be shown by the C-test results and the manual measures (text length)

 It is possible to develop indices of language dominance based on fluency measures (words per second) or measures of general oral proficiency (total number of words).  These indices have a highly predictive power for group membership (loglinear regression)

 The results for the automated measures are generally in line with the manual measures and the C-test scores.

 Both approaches can give additional insights into fluency patterns: the number of (appropriate?) pauses is an indication of proficiency for the control group. speech rate as such is no indication of higher proficiency for the (monolingual) control group (which is in line with the literature on fluency)

 However, speech rate seems to be a significant predictor of language proficiency in Turkish for the returnees.

 Fluency (speech rate) is no indicator of proficiency for monolinguals and for the dominant language of bilinguals  It is an indicator for the proficiency in the non-dominant language of bilinguals  It can therefore be used to define language dominance in bilinguals

Thanks to: Cemal Yıldız (Marmara University Istanbul) Seda Kan (Bosporus University Istanbul) Ragıp Başbaĝi (Marmara University Istanbul)