Monolingual vs.

Bilingual 1
Language Acquisition of Monolingual vs. Bilingual
Amira Farhana Binti Jaafar
B1001862
Jessica
B1001386
e!artment of "s#cholog#
"$% 221
Ms. $ie& Ju Li
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 2
Language Acquisition of Monolingual versus Bilingual
'n man# !arts of the &orl() inclu(ing Mala#sia) chil(ren are increasingl# e*!ose( to
multilingual environment. +here has ,een increasing concerns regar(ing the im!act of these
e*!osures to chil(ren-s (evelo!ment. .onsequentl#) there has ,een a gro&ing interest in the
research area of the language acquisition in chil(ren &ho live in a multi!le language
,ac/groun(. $!ecificall#) researchers are /een to stu(# ho& these chil(ren (evelo!
(ifferentl# from that of their monolingual !eers. As!ects of research inclu(e s#ntactic)
semantic) !honological) &or(s an( voca,ular# acquisition as &ell as cognitive ca!acit# of
these chil(ren.
0o&ever) there has ,een conflicting results #iel(e( from the researches. $ome
researchers suggeste( that the e*!osure to multi!le languages in chil(ren (o more harm than
goo() e.g.) language im!airments in ,ilinguals 1$alameh) 2ettel,la(t) 03/ansson) 4
5ull,erg) 20026) less e*!ressive voca,ular# acquire( 1+hor(ar(ottir) 20116) slo&er
!ro(uction of language un(er constraint conte*t 1"oulin7u,ois) Bial#sto/) Bla#e) "olonia) 4
%ott) 20126. 8n the other han() there are also researches in favor of those ,ilinguals) &herein
the# have greater fle*i,ilit# in learning ne& languages 1e 0ou&er) Bornstein) 4 e .oster)
20066) higher memor# a,ilit# 19ormi72ouri et al.) 20086. es!ite the t&o com!eting
arguments) a grou! of research suggeste( equal stan(ing ,et&een ,ilinguals an(
monolinguals in language acquisition rate 1Be(ore) 4 "ena) 20086) semantic memor# 1"ena)
Be(ore) 4 :a!a;;o) 20036.
'n light of these variances in results) current revie& is /een to evaluate these !ast
literatures to gain (ee!er un(erstan(ing of the research areas) to reconcile the current
controversies in the fin(ings) to i(entif# ga!s an( to suggest some e*!lanations an(
im!lication of the area ,eing revie&e(. Also) this revie& &ill ela,orate on the (ifferent
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 3
metho(s em!lo#e( ,# these !ast stu(ies) the (ifferent factors involve( in con(ucting the
research) as &ell as the (ifferent h#!otheses an( conclusions #iel(e(.
Disadvantages of Bilingual
$tu(ies in the !ast have ,een /een to fin( out the (ifferences ,et&een monolinguals
an( ,ilinguals. :esearchers have assesse( the (ifferent &a# in &hich ,oth grou!s learn their
language an( acquire voca,ular# as &ell as le*ical com!rehension. $ome stu(ies &ere /een
to com!are the a(vantages an( (isa(vantages of these t&o language grou!s. A mi*e( fin(ing
of the a(vantages of monolinguals an( ,ilinguals &as foun( ,# +orrance) 5o&an) <u) an(
Aliotti 11=>06) &hich assesse( monolingual an( ,ilingual 1.hinese7Mala#an6 chil(ren in the
thir() fourth) an( fifth gra(e. +he# assesse( for their fluenc#) fle*i,ilit#) an( ela,oration
using .reative +hin/ing +est. :esults &ere significantl# in favor of monolinguals for fluenc#
an( fle*i,ilit#) &hile ela,oration &as significantl# higher for ,ilinguals. 8riginalit# (i( not
have significant result. +hese am,iguous fin(ings later &as (elve( into (ee!er ,# su,sequent
researches to verif# the a(vantages an( (isa(vantages of ,ilinguals an( monolinguals.
.onsi(era,l#) man# researchers sho&e( (isa(vantages of ,ilinguals. $alameh)
2ettel,la(t) 03/ansson) an( 5ull,erg 120026 assesse( ,ilinguals- (isa(vantages ,#
com!aring ,ilinguals an( monolinguals &ith language im!airment conferre( to ?niversit#
0os!ital for 12 months. :esults sho&e( that ,ilinguals &ere referre( as having Language
'm!airment 1L'6 significantl# more times than monolinguals an( &ere significantl# more
li/el# to ,e referre( after the age of five. Besi(es) ,ilinguals &ere significantl# more li/el# to
,e (iagnose( as having a severe L' than monolinguals. Although there is no cause an( effect
relationshi!) the fin(ings gives a lin/ in that ,ilinguals are more li/el# to (evelo! severe
language im!airment. +his stu(# (i( not !rovi(e an# e*!lanation of &h# is that so)
su,sequent stu(ies &oul( loo/ into more s!ecific areas of the (isa(vantages as &ell as the
e*!lanation of it.
Monolingual vs. Bilingual @
+hor(ar(ottir-s 120116 stu(# &hich sam!le( A7#ear7ol( chil(ren that fall un(er a
continuum of ,ilingual e*!osure 1French onl#) French (ominant7Bnglish) equal French7
Bnglish) Bnglish (ominant7French) Bnglish onl#6 serve( to sho&e( the effects of level of
e*!osure in voca,ular# acquisition. :esults suggeste( that ,ecause of lo&er e*!osure of first
language in ,ilinguals as com!are( to monolinguals) the# have acquire( less voca,ular#.
0o&ever) the im!lication is that given enough time for ,ilinguals to ,e e*!ose( &ith ,oth
language) their !erformance then can match that of monolinguals. Besi(es) ,ilinguals nee(
less time to achieve a similar level of rece!tive voca,ular# in monolinguals) though slo&er
acquisition in e*!ressive voca,ular#. $ome !ossi,ilities to e*!lain these are that chil(ren (o
not receive meaningful re(un(ant in!ut) have limite( ca!acit# to utili;e) or ,oun( ,# the
u!!er limit of &or(s average that of a A #ears chil(ren.
"oulin7u,ois) Bial#sto/) Bla#e) "olonia an( %ott 120126 stu(ie( on earl# ,ilinguals
also in line &ith that of +hor(ar(ottir-s. +heir stu(# gaine( from !arental re!ort &as that 27
#ear7ol( ,ilinguals have fe&er first language e*!ressive voca,ularies than monolinguals.
0o&ever) the total voca,ular# of ,oth first an( secon( language of ,ilinguals com,ine( &as
similar to that of monolinguals. Besi(es) the# also em!lo#e( test on la,orator# &here the#
measure reaction time to gain un(erstan(ing a,out le*ical access s!ee( in earl# ,ilinguals.
+hree varia,les &ere assesse() the frequenc# 1high or lo& e*!osure to &or(s6) conte*t 1none)
high) or lo& time constraint6) Bnglish !roficienc#. :esults sho&e( ,ilinguals- !ro(uction is
significantl# slo&er in high constraint conte*t an( lo&est Bnglish !roficienc#) &hereas the
rea(ing or com!rehension tas/ &as less affecte( to slo&ing (o&n. +hese !osit challenge on
!revious fin(ings of ,ilingual (isa(vantages) to loo/ at (ifferences as (ue to !rocesses in
em!lo#ing search strategies for !ro(uction an( com!rehension. +he stu(# suggeste(
fle*i,ilit# as !ro(uction requires more cognitive (eman(s) the nee( in fin(ing le*ical form to
!ro(uction is higher than to assessing meaning. 't also suggeste( restriction in &hich the
Monolingual vs. Bilingual A
!rocess of language e*!ression an( un(erstan(ing can ,e share( in a natural setting of
language use.
Advantages of Bilingual
As much as arguments on the (isa(vantages of learning more than one language at
once) e 0ou&er) Bornstein) an( e .oster-s 120066 loo/e( e*tensivel# at ho& the ,ilingual
1in this case the utch7French6 infants acquire their le*ical com!rehension. +heir fin(ings
suggeste( that ,ilinguals as #oung as 13 months &ere a,le to un(erstan( that t&o &or(s from
(ifferent language can mean for one thing. +hus ,ilinguals tac/le the "rinci!le of .ontrast
that onl# one &or( can mean for one thing. Monolinguals) on the other han() hol( the
!rinci!le of contrast ,ecause the# are e*!ose( &ith less language (iversit#. Bilinguals &ho
receive more variations of language in!ut have the fle*i,ilit# in em!lo#ing learning language
strategies. As such) ,ilinguals acquire more forms of meaning an( this im!lies that more than
one language can ,e an a(vantage for ,ilinguals- (evelo!ment. 0o&ever) it shoul( ,e note(
that e 0ou&er) Bornstein) an( e .oster-s 120066 stu(# &as a longitu(inal stu(# using
!arents- re!ort as the (ata of the chil(ren-s le*ical com!rehension. +hus their o,servation
might not ,e relia,le.
Buil(ing on that) Fennell) B#ers70einlein) an( <er/er 1200>6 loo/e( s!ecificall# into
a smaller unit of language acquisition) &hich is the s!eech7soun(. +heir stu(# assesse(
,ilingual infants age( ,et&een 1@ to 20 months &ith the use of $&itch tas/ &hich ha(
&or/e( successfull# for infants in <er/er et al. 11==8) as cite( in Fennel et al) 200>6. :esults
suggeste( that ,ilinguals onl# learn similar !honeme &or( at the age of 20 months &hich &as
later than monolinguals. +he later use of relevant !honemes for voca,ular# acquisition &as
assume( to ,e the cause of overloa( in cognition &hen learning t&o languages
simultaneousl#. %et) it &as seen as a(a!tive for ,ilinguals- voca,ular# acquisition.
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 6
9ormi72ouri et al. 120086 sho&e( an a(vantage of ,ilinguals in memor# a,ilit#
com!are( to monolinguals. .hil(ren &ith 3 (ifferent grou!s 1"ersian monolingual) +ur/ish7
"ersian ,ilingual) an( 9ur(ish7"ersian ,ilingual6 &ere assesse( on their semantic memor#
using letter an( categor# Cuenc# tests. +he# mo(ifie( the cognitive (eman(s on these
memor# retrieval tas/s into four (ifferent grou!s) e.g.) the integration of noun an( ver,)
mani!ulation of organi;ation in the sentence) an( assessing the ,ilinguals in ,oth of their
languages. +his is to ensure a generali;ation of the memor# a,ilit# an( not onl# to s!ecific
tas/s) ,ut also to ver,al an( !erforming tas/. +he memor# retrieval use( for assessing
e!iso(ic memor# &ere recognition tas/) free7recall or cue( recall.
+he results sho&e( a significant !ositive effect of ,ilinguals on semantic an( e!iso(ic
memor# 19ormi72ouri et al.) 20086. +here &as a slightl# greater !erformance of e!iso(ic
than semantic memor#. ifferent age7grou!s 1=710 #ears) 1371@ #ears) 1671> #ears6 &ere also
em!lo#e( an( #iel(e( that ol(er ,ilinguals ten( to (o ,etter for ,oth e!iso(ic an( semantic
memor# tas/. 't &as then assume( that the longer a !erson em!lo#e( t&o languages) its
a(vantages &ill ,e more !ronounce(. +he em!lo#ment of (ifferent cognitive tas/s use( in
this stu(# sho&e( that ,ilinguals !erforme( ,etter on all of these areas. +hese results
contra(ict &ith the fin(ings of Bial#sto/ 12010D Bial#sto/) Barac) Bla#e) an( "oulin7u,ois)
20106 &hich suggeste( that ,ilinguals a(vantages are in s!ecific areas onl#) e.g.) !ro,lem7
solving s/ills. ifferent metho(s use( for retrieval in this stu(#) retrieval an( recall tas/
suggest that ,ilinguals !erform ,etter regar(less of the memor# tas/s- com!le*it#.
A stu(# (one ,# "atihis an( 8h 120106 serve( to verif# the conflicting !ast fin(ings
,# loo/ing as &ell into a more s!ecific area of ,ilingualismEmultilingualism a(vantages.
+he# assesse( monolingual) ,ilingual) an( multilingual chil(ren in their a,ilit# of soun(
!erce!tion of novel languages. +he !artici!ants consist of monolingual) $!anish7Bnglish
,ilingual) Armenian7Bnglish ,ilingual) an( multilingual &ere to (istinguish ,et&een 9orean
Monolingual vs. Bilingual >
sto! consonant. +he notion is that ,ilinguals an( multilinguals are e*!ose( to more (iverse
language than monolinguals an( hence) the# have ,roa(er !honological !erce!tion. +hus
multilinguals shoul( (o ,etter than ,ilinguals &hich &oul( (o ,etter than monolinguals in
(istinguishing the soun( of a novel language. 0o&ever) the results onl# sho&e( that $!anish7
Bnglish ,ilinguals !erforme( significantl# &orse than Armenian7Bnglish ,ilinguals an(
multilinguals) &hile no other grou! (ifferences &ere foun(. An( there &as onl# a lo&
!ositive correlation ,et&een the num,er of languages learnt an( the s!eech7soun( !erce!tion.
+he researchers 1"atihis 4 8h) 20106 suggeste( that the a(vantage of ,ilinguals is not
general ,ut s!ecific to the languages the# learnt. Armenian7Bnglish ,ilinguals !erforme(
,etter than the monolinguals as Bnglish (oes not (istinguish the sto! consonant requires in
the target language) 9orean. Because Armenian has an overla! !honetic similarit# to that of
9orean &hereas the $!anish (oes not) Armenian7Bnglish ,ilinguals also (i( ,etter in ma/ing
(istinction to 9orean sto! consonants.
Equal Development between Monolinguals and Bilinguals
9aushans/a#a) Blumenfel() an( Marian-s 120116 stu(# &as com!aring monolingual
an( ,ilingual a(ults in their voca,ular# !erformance an( its relation &ith short7term memor#.
Besi(es vigorous results #iel( ,# stu(ies su!!orting a(vantages an( (isa(vantages of
,ilingualism) there is another grou! of research that has generate( results revealing !arallel
language acquisition ,et&een ,ilingual an( monolingual chil(ren 1e.g. "atterson) 20006.
Accor(ing to Be(ore an( "ena 120086) ,ilingual chil(ren are sai( to !ossess equal acquisition
rate as monolingual chil(ren. +heir revie& of numerous (ata acquire( from !ast literatures
concerning language acquisition seeme( to in(icate that ,ilingual an( monolingual chil(ren
learn their first &or(s at a,out the same age.
"ena) Be(ore an( :a!a;;o 120036 investigate( the !erformance of ,ilingual chil(ren
of $!anish7Bnglish ,ac/groun( on a series of semantic tas/s in relation to their
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 8
!re(ominantl# Bnglish s!ea/ing an( $!anish s!ea/ing counter!arts. Fift#7five chil(ren &ith
t#!icall# (evelo!ing language ca!acit# com!lete( si* (ifferent t#!es of semantic tas/s 1e.g.
linguistic a,ilities an( organi;ation6. +he# (iscovere( that the scores for semantic /no&le(ge
are similar across language grou!s. For e*am!le) in a categor# tas/ $!anish7Bnglish
!artici!ants name( similar num,er of &or(s &ith their monolingual !eers. +he assessment
,atter#Fs ,roa( e*amination allo&e( the chil(ren to esta,lish their semantic re!ertoire to a
full e*tent &hich ma# contri,ute to the stu(#Fs fin(ings.
2eutral result &as also foun( in a stu(# on le*ical7semantic organi;ation of language.
$heng) Mc5regor an( Marian 120066 con(ucte( a research using &or( association tas/ in
or(er to e*amine ,ilingual status of le*ical7semantic (evelo!ment relative to monolingual
chil(ren. :e!eate( &or( association tests &ere a(ministere( to 12 Man(arin7Bnglish
,ilingual chil(ren an( 12 Bnglish s!ea/ing monolinguals age( five to eight #ears ol(. uring
this tas/) the# &ere !rom!te( to !ro(uce &or(s in se!arate categories. 't &as h#!othesi;e(
that Man(arin7Bnglish chil(ren &ill (is!la# ,ilingual a(vantage that reflect a higher7level
thin/ing !rocesses &ith regar( to !ara(igmatic !erformance ,ut the fin(ings (emonstrate(
that there &as no (ifference in !erformance as ,oth grou! !ro(uce( similar !ro!ortions of
!ara(igmatic res!onses an( at com!ara,le res!onse7time.
8ne of the most frequentl# researche( to!ics is the voca,ular# si;e of ,ilingual an(
monolingual chil(ren. "earson an( colleagues com!are( le*ical (evelo!ment of ,ilingual an(
monolingual chil(ren ,# &a# of measuring the magnitu(e of their Bnglish an(Eor $!anish
voca,ular# /no&le(ge 1"earson) Fernan(e; 4 8ller) 1==36. 't &as foun( that the s!ontaneous
voca,ular# !ro(uction in the ,ilingual to((lers &ere com!ara,le to norms of their mates
raise( in monolingual environment. 0o&ever) the (ata use( to recruit the !artici!ants in the
stu(# &as attaine( from a larger longitu(inal stu(# that (i( not have i(entical !ur!oses &ith
her research. +hus inconsistencies might ,e !resent in the (ata collecte( for all the chil(ren
Monolingual vs. Bilingual =
&hich !ossi,l# influence( the outcome of the stu(#. But a similar stu(# carrie( out ,# Jun/er
an( $toc/man 120026 on 5erman7Bnglish ,ilingualFs e*!ressive voca,ular# sho&e(
com!ara,le scores to monolingual norms !articularl# the (ominant) more !rominent
language. 2evertheless) the !erformance in the secon( language of the ,ilingual chil(ren
a!!eare( to ,e (ela#e( ,ut the researchers attri,ute( this to (ifferences in length of e*!osure
to the t&o languages.
Different Aspects of Research as Factors for Results Differences
+he vast (iscre!anc# in results #iel(e( ,# numerous researches in regar(s to language
acquisition ,et&een monolingual an( ,ilingual chil(ren ,egs the question as to &h# such
(ifferences e*ist. +here are a num,er of outsi(e) language7relate( varia,les stemming from
anal#sis on !resent stu(ies can ,e consi(ere(. +hese interrelate( factors of language
com!le*it# an( (iversit#) cultural influences) length of e*!osure to languages an(
socioeconomic status 1$B$6 coul( !oint out to research outcome of either !ositive) negative
or neutral.
First an( foremost) it is crucial to reali;e that languages are (issimilar an( com!le* in
their structure. Language com!onents such as s#nta*) semantics an( !honolog# var#
(e!en(ing on the language use( in the !articular !art of the &orl(. +o illustrate) a(Gectives
are a!!lie( (ifferentl# in Bnglish an( $!anish. +o (escri,e something in Bnglish) one must
!rece(e the noun &ith a(Gective &hile a(Gectives in $!anish al&a#s come after the noun.
$imilarl#) !honemes of language are also (issimilar. <hile !eo!le have the a,ilit# to hear
an( create (istinction ,et&een !honemes) native s!ea/ers of a !articular language often
,ecome insensitive to !honological (ifferences that are not !art of the language the# s!ea/
1Me(in) :oss 4 Mar/man) 200A6. For instance) native s!ea/ers of Ja!anese frequentl#
re!lace r for l &hen the# are s!ea/ing Bnglish. 8n the other han() man# native s!ea/ers of
Bnglish are (esensiti;e to the (is!arit# ,et&een as!irate( ! an( unas!irate( !. +hus stu(ies
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 10
inten( on com!aring !honological sensitivities ,et&een t&o languages in ,ilingual !eo!le
must ,e a&are of such (ifferences.
'n a stu(# focusing on the im!act of ,ilingualism on the a(vancement of !honological
a&areness in .hinese ,ilingual an( monolingual !rimar#7schoolers) ,ilingual .antonese7
Man(arin s!ea/ers &ere foun( to !rogress earlier in relation to onset an( rime a&areness ,#
their secon( gra(e 1An(erson et. al.) 200@6. .uriousl#) the e(ge these ,ilingual stu(ents ha(
gaine( over their monolingual .antonese7s!ea/ing !eers (isa!!eare( ,# the time the#
entere( fourth gra(e. Mean&hile) .antonese monolinguals &ere i(entifie( to !ossess
enhance( tone a&areness com!are to Man(arin7s!ea/ers in this stu(#. +his &as !ro,a,l# (ue
to .antonese tone s#stem that is more com!le* than Man(arin. 0ence researchers theori;e(
that &hile ,ilingualism (oes ,oosts the (evelo!ment of !honological a&areness to a certain
e*tent) com!le*it# in tone s#stem as &itnesse( in the .antonese language is the !aramount
factor later in life. +he var#ing s#ntactic rules) semantics s#stems an( other linguistic
variations !resent in one language in contrast to another language coul( ,e the reason &h#
similar stu(ies con(ucte( on (ifferent regions an( languages !ro(uce( conflicting results.
Furthermore) culture is also a !ossi,le contri,uting factor to var#ing results in
research as it is closel# connecte( to language. .ertain cultures ma# stress u!on !articular
s#nta* or s!ecific conte*t &hich in turn influences the &a# voca,ular# an( cognitive tests are
constructe(. .hil(ren &ith Bnglish ,ac/groun( are familiar ma/ing sense if events using the
seven F&hF questions 1&ho) &hat) &here) &hich) &hen or ho&6 ,ut these interrogative &or(s
might not ,e !revalent in other cultures. .onsequentl#) research that em!lo# culturall#7,ias
tests &ill #iel( (eviant results that has the !otential to !aint an inaccurate !icture of the
realit#. Future stu(ies coul( !ut central attention into (esigning a vali( test for the !ur!ose of
anal#;ing t&o languages that is im!artial an( voi( from ,iases as !ossi,le 1"ena) Be(ore 4
:a!a;;o) 20036.
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 11
Another influential varia,le that !la#s a role in chil(renFs language (evelo!ment is
socioeconomic status 1$B$6. ?n(er!rivilege( /i(s &ho migrate( &ith their !arents to another
countr# &ith a (ifferent language ma# live in a (ual language environment that coul(
theoreticall# !rovi(e linguistic an( cognitive a(vantage) ,ut a com,ination of lac/ of !ro!er
e*!osure to ,oth languages) !arental e(ucation an( famil# sta,ilit# &ill have cumulative
a(verse effects on their language (evelo!ment. :esearch com!aring language acquisition
,et&een ,ilingual an( monolingual chil(ren shoul( la# s!ecial im!ortance on the amount of
$B$ equalit# that e*ists among the su,Gects !artici!ating in the stu(ies. :esearch (one ,#
Morton an( 0ar!er 1200>6 on attention control ,et&een ,ilingual an( monolingual chil(ren is
one e*am!le of stu(ies that control for outsi(e factors 1see also $heng) Mc5regor 4 Marian)
20066. +heir stu(# &hich &as a re!lication of a !ast stu(# equate( the ethnicit# an( $B$ of
their !artici!ants an( as a result) #iel(e( a contra(ictor# result &ith the !ast researchFs
fin(ings. 'n contrast to !ast result) !artici!ants in Morton an( 0ar!erFs stu(# (i( not sho& the
!resence of ,ilingual a(vantage &ith regar(s to attention control.
Length of e*!osure to the languages is another varia,le that has a strong im!act on
chil(renFs language (evelo!ment. "ast research 1e.g. 0uttenlocher) 0aight) Br#/) $elt;er 4
L#ons) 1==16 has esta,lishe( the relationshi! ,et&een lac/ of e*!osure to languages &ith
among #oung chil(ren &ith (iminutive voca,ular# attainment. +his lo& voca,ular# level &ill
in turn !ro!el them to (ifficulties in other as!ects of language com!rehension such as rea(ing
an( s!eech com!lication. Besi(es that) ,ilingual chil(ren are a,le to a,sor, to onl# half the
in!ut in each language com!are( to monolingual chil(ren &ho onl# has to focus on onl# one
language s#stem. Hagh) "an an( Marcilla7Martine; 1200=6 !erforme( a stu(# to measure the
gro&th of Bnglish !ro(uctive voca,ular# in BnglishE$!anish ,ilingual an( monolingual
chil(renFs rom lo&7income ,ac/groun(. +he fin(ings reveale( !re(icte( outcome of
monolingual chil(ren to have faster a(vancement ,ut also in(icate( that ,ilingual chil(ren
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 12
&ho !re(ominantl# s!ea/s Bnglish at home !ossess larger !ro(uctive Bnglish voca,ularies.
+he !ro,a,le cause for this result is longer length of e*!osure to Bnglish than their ,ilingual
!re(ominantl# $!anish7s!ea/ing counter!art.
Implications and onclusions
Language acquisition of ,ilingual an( monolingual chil(ren is a vigorousl#
researche( area of interest in !s#cholog#. B# stu(#ing the (evelo!ment of language an( its
(iffering im!act on (ual an( single language environment) this revie& serves to gain more
un(erstan(ing of ho& the# can ,e a!!lie( for a health# human (evelo!ment) in this case the
language (evelo!ment in infants that are tie( &ith other as!ects of gro&th 1memor#)
linguistic fluenc#) etc6. +he revie& suggests some limitations in the stu(# as &ell as i(entifies
&a#s to ,etter the future research. +hus future research coul( e*!lore (iffering areas that
,ilinguals an( monolinguals ma# have a(vantage of. An( ,ecause the research in language
(evelo!ment is one that is har( to control) future research coul( tr# to control for
confoun(ing varia,les that might have an im!act on the results of the stu(#.
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 13
References
Be(ore) L. 4 "eIa) B. 120086. Assessment of ,ilingual chil(ren for i(entification of language
im!airmentJ .urrent fin(ings an( im!lications for !ractice. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11116) 172=. (oiJ 10.216>E,e,3=2.0
Be(ore) L. M.) "eIa) B. .) 5arcKa) M.) 4 .orte;) .. 1200A6. .once!tual versus monolingual
scoringJ <hen (oes it ma/e a (ifferenceL. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In
Schools) 3136) 1887200. :etrieve( from htt!JEEsearch.e,scohost.comElogin.as!*L
(irectMtrue4(,Ma!h4A2M1>@=AA>64siteMehost7live
Bial#sto/) B. 120106. 5lo,alNlocal an( trail7ma/ing tas/s ,# monolingual an( ,ilingual
chil(renJ Be#on( inhi,ition. !evelopmental "s#cholog#) $116) =3710A. (oiJ
10.103>Ea001A@66
Bial#sto/) B.) Barac) :.) Bla#e) A.) 4 "oulin7u,ois) . 120106. <or( ma!!ing an(
e*ecutive functioning in #oung monolingual an( ,ilingual chil(ren. Journal of
%ognition & !evelopment) 111@6) @8A7A08. (oiJ 10.1080E1A2@83>2.2010.A16@20
.hen) O.) An(erson) :. ..) Li) <.) 0ao) M.) <u) O.) 4 $hu) 0. 1200@6. "honological
a&areness of ,ilingual an( monolingual .hinese chil(ren. Journal of Educational
"s#cholog#) &116) 1@271A1. (oiJ10.103>E002270663.=6.1.1@2
e 0ou&er) A.) Bornstein) M. 0.) 4 e .oster) $. 120066. Barl# un(erstan(ing of t&o &or(s
for the same thingJ A .' stu(# of le*ical com!rehension in infant ,ilinguals.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 1'136) 33173@>. (oiJ
10.11>>E136>006=060100030@01
Fennell) .. +.) B#ers70einlein) 9.) 4 <er/er) J. F. 1200>6. ?sing s!eech soun(s to gui(e
&or( learningJ +he case of ,ilingual infants. %hild !evelopment) ()1A6) 1A1071A2A.
(oiJ 10.1111EG.1@6>7862@.200>.01080.*
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 1@
0uttenlocher) J.) 0aight) <.) Br#/) A.) $elt;er) M.) 4 L#ons) +. 11==16. Barl# voca,ular#
gro&thJ :elation to language in!ut an( gen(er. !evelopmental "s#cholog#) *(126)
23672@8. (oiJ 10.103>E0012716@=.2>.2.236
Jun/er) . A.) 4 $toc/man) '. J. 120026. B*!ressive voca,ular# of 5erman7Bnglish ,ilingual
to((lers. +merican Journal of Speech,Language "atholog#) 111@6) 38173=@. (oiJ
10.10@@E10A87036012002E0@26
9aushans/a#a) B.) Blumenfel() 0. 9.) 4 Marian) H. 120116. +he relationshi! ,et&een
voca,ular# an( short7term memor# measures in monolingual an( ,ilingual s!ea/ers.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 1-1@6) @087@2A. (oiJ
10.11>>E136>006=11@03201
9ormi72ouri) :.) $hoGaei) :.7$.) Moniri) $.) 5holami) A.7:.) Mora(i) A.7:.) A/,ari7
Par(/haneh) $. 4 2ilsson) L.75. 120086. +he effect of chil(hoo( ,ilingualism on
e!iso(ic an( semantic memor# tas/s. Scandinavian Journal of "s#cholog#) $&) =3N
10=. (oiJ 10.1111EG.1@6>7=@A0.2008.00633.*
Morton) J. B.) 4 0ar!er) $. 2. 1200>6. <hat (i( $imon sa#L :evisiting the ,ilingual
a(vantage. !evelopmental Science) 1'166) >1=7>26. (oiJ 10.1111EG.1@6>7
>68>.200>.00623.*
"atihis) L.) 4 8h) J. $. 120106. .ultilingual advantages in speech,sound perception of
unrelated languages. <ashington) istrict of .olum,ia) ?$J American "s#chological
Association 1A"A6. :etrieve( from htt!JEE&e,.e,scohost.comEehostE(etailL
si(M2>16e23170(0(7@c@f78c@(71c2a3@afafec
Q@0sessionmgr1114vi(M34hi(M1124,(ataMJn2!(5?=P<hvc3Rt,5l2PRQ3(
Q3(S(,M!*h4A2M626=020107001
"atterson) J. L. 120006. 8,serve( an( re!orte( e*!ressive voca,ular# an( &or( com,inations
in ,ilingual to((lers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing /esearch, $3116,
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 1A
121N128. :etrieve( from htt!JEEsearch.e,scohost.comElogin.as!*L
(irectMtrue4(,Ma!h4A2M2>>213@4siteMehost7live
"earson) B. P.) Fernan(e;) $. ..) 4 8ller) . 9. 11==36. Le*ical (evelo!ment in ,ilingual
infants an( to((lersJ .om!arison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, $3116)
=37120. (oiJ 10.1111EG.1@6>71>>0.1==3.t,001>@.*
"ena) B.) Be(ore) L. M.) 4 :a!!a;;o) .. 120036. .om!arison of $!anish) Bnglish) an(
,ilingual chil(renFs !erformance across semantic tas/s. Language, Speech & Hearing
Services In Schools) 3$116) A716. :etrieve(
from htt!JEEsearch.e,scohost.comElogin.as!*L
(irectMtrue4(,Ma!h4A2M88@116=4siteMehost7live
"oulin7u,ois) .) Bial#sto/) B.) Bla#e) A.) "olonia) A.) 4 %ott) J. 120126. Le*ical access
an( voca,ular# (evelo!ment in ver# #oung ,ilinguals. International Journal of
Bilingualism, '106) 1711@. (oiJ 10.11>>E136>006=11@311=8
$alameh) B.) 2ettel,la(t) ?.) 03/ansson) 5.) 4 5ull,erg) B. 120026. Language im!airment in
$&e(ish ,ilingual chil(renJ A com!arison ,et&een ,ilingual an( monolingual
chil(ren in MalmT. +cta "aediatrica) &1126) 22=723@. (oiJ 10.1111EG.16A17
222>.2002.t,01>00.*
$heng) L.) Mc5regor) 9.) 4 Marian) H. 120066. Le*ical7semantic organi;ation in ,ilingual
chil(renJ Bvi(ence from a re!eate( &or( association tas/. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing /esearch, $&136) A>2NA8>. (oiJ 10.10@@E10=27
@38812006E0@16
+hor(ar(ottir) B. 120116. +he relationshi! ,et&een ,ilingual e*!osure an( voca,ular#
(evelo!ment. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1-1@6 @267@@A. (oiJ
10.11>>E136>006=11@03202
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 16
+orrance) B.) 5o&an) J. ..) <u) J.) 4 Aliotti) 2. .. 11=>06. .reative functioning of
monolingual an( ,ilingual chil(ren in $inga!ore. Journal of Educational "s#cholog#)
1116) >27>A. (oiJ 10.103>Eh0028>6>
Hagh) $.) "an) B.) 4 Mancilla7Martine;) J. 1200=6. Measuring gro&th in ,ilingual an(
monolingual chil(ren-s Bnglish !ro(uctive voca,ular# (evelo!mentJ +he utilit# of
com,ining !arent an( teacher re!ort. %hild !evelopment) )'1A6) 1A@A71A63.
(oiJ10.1111EG.1@6>7862@.200=.013A0.*
Monolingual vs. Bilingual 1>
ear Jessica Lin)
+his recei!t ac/no&le(ges that +urnitin receive( #our !a!er.
Belo& #ou &ill fin( the recei!t information regar(ing #our su,missionJ
"a!er 'J 2A6@616@=
"a!er +itleJ Literature :evie&
Assignment +itleJ Literature :evie&
AuthorJ Jessica Lin
B7mailJ ;iU#aoUlinV#ahoo.com
B8%
Language Acquisition of Monolingual versus Bilingual
In many parts of the world, including Malaysia, children are
increasingly exposed to multilingual environment. There has een increasing
concerns regarding the impact of these exposures to children!s development.
"onsequently, there has een a growing interest in the research area of the
language acquisition in children who live in a multiple language
ac#ground. $pecifically, researchers are #een to study how these children
develop differently from that of their monolingual peers. Aspects of
research include syntactic, semantic, phonological, words and vocaulary
acquisition as well as cognitive capacity of these children.
%owever, there has een conflicting results yielded from the
researches. $ome researchers suggested that the exposure to multiple
languages in children do more harm than good, e.g., language impairments in
ilinguals &$alameh, 'ettelladt, %(#ansson, ) *ullerg, +,,+-, less
expressive vocaulary acquired &Thordardottir, +,..-, slower production of
language under constraint context &/oulin01uois, Bialysto#, Blaye,
/olonia, ) 2ott, +,.+-. 3n the other hand, there are also researches in
favor of those ilinguals, wherein they have greater flexiility in
learning new languages &1e %ouwer, Bornstein, ) 1e "oster, +,,4-, higher
memory aility &5ormi0'ouri et al., +,,6-. 1espite the two competing
arguments, a group of research suggested equal standing etween ilinguals
and monolinguals in language acquisition rate &Bedore, ) /ena, +,,6-,
semantic memory &/ena, Bedore, ) 7apa88o, +,,9-.
In light of these variances in results, current review is #een to
evaluate these past literatures to gain deeper understanding of the
research areas, to reconcile the current controversies in the findings, to
identify gaps and to suggest some explanations and implication of the area
eing reviewed. Also, this review will elaorate on the different methods
employed y these past studies, the different factors involved in
conducting the research, as well as the different hypotheses and
conclusions yielded.
1isadvantages of Bilingual
$tudies in the past have een #een to find out the differences etween
monolinguals and ilinguals. 7esearchers have assessed the different way in
which oth groups learn their language and acquire vocaulary as well as
lexical comprehension. $ome studies were #een to compare the advantages and
disadvantages of these two language groups. A mixed finding of the
advantages of monolinguals and ilinguals was found y Torrance, *owan, :u,
and Aliotti &.;<,-, which assessed monolingual and ilingual &"hinese0
Malayan- children in the third, fourth, and fifth grade. They assessed for
their fluency, flexiility, and elaoration using "reative Thin#ing Test.