The linguistic complexity of adult and child contextualized and decontextualized talk.

The association between decontextualized talk (DT; i.e., talk extending beyond immediate context) and child language outcomes is well-attested but not well-understood. This study tested the hypothesis that DT is more linguistically complex than contextualized talk (CT). Thirty-eight Norwegian children (Mage = 5.5 years; 25 girls; 30 Norwegian-speaking monolinguals and eight multilinguals) and their teachers were videotaped during picture book reading, story card conversations and toy play (collected 2010-2011 and 2017). Results show that DT was more complex than CT among children and teachers. Both types of talk were more complex during book reading and story conversations than during play. The conversational context should be accounted for when theorizing about the role of DT in language development.

Vocabulary interventions for second language (L2) learners up to six years of age.

BACKGROUND: Second language (L2) learners are a heterogeneous group. Their L2 skills are highly varied due to internal factors (e.g. cognitive development) and external factors (e.g. cultural and linguistic contexts). As a group, their L2 vocabulary skills appear to be lower than their monolingual peers. This pattern tends to persist over time and may have negative consequences for social interaction and inclusion, learning, and academic achievement. OBJECTIVES: To examine the immediate and long-term effects of second language (L2) vocabulary interventions targeting L2 learners up to six years of age on vocabulary and social-emotional well-being. To examine the associations between L2 vocabulary interventions and the general characteristics of L2 learners (e.g. age, L2 exposure, and L1 skills). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners up to six years of age with standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 1. receptive and 2. expressive L2 vocabulary (both proximal and distal), and 3. mean length of utterance (MLU; which is a measure of potential adverse effects). Our secondary outcomes were 4. L2 narrative skills, 5. L1 receptive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 6. L1 expressive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 7. L1 listening comprehension, 8. L2 grammatical knowledge, 9. L2 reading comprehension (long-term), and 10. socio-emotional well-being (measured with Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). MAIN RESULTS: We found 12 studies involving 1943 participants. Two studies were conducted in Norway, seven in the USA, and single studies conducted in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Ten studies were conducted in preschool settings, with a preschool teacher being the most common delivery agent for the intervention. The interventions were mainly organised as small-group sessions, with three or four children per group. The mean dosage per week was 80 minutes and ranged from 24 to 120 minutes. The studies commonly applied shared book reading (reading aloud with the children), with target words embedded in the books. Standard care differed based on the setting and local conditions in each country or (pre)school. In some studies, the comparison groups received vocabulary instruction in preschool groups. Compared to standard care, the effect of L2 vocabulary interventions varied across outcome measures. For vocabulary measures including words that were taught in the intervention (proximal outcome measures), the intervention effects were large for both receptive L2 vocabulary (i.e. understanding of words; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and expressive L2 vocabulary (i.e. expressing or producing words; SMD 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1121 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, due to some concerns in the overall risk of bias assessment, substantial heterogeneity, and wide CIs, we have limited confidence in these results. For language measures that did not include taught vocabulary (distal outcome measures), the intervention effects were small for receptive vocabulary (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55; 6 studies, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably made little to no difference to expressive vocabulary (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.23; 7 studies, 960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no intervention effect on L2 listening comprehension (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.68; 2 studies, 294 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was uncertain, and the interventions probably increased L2 narrative skills slightly (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59; 2 studies, 487 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported data on MLU, and we were unable to examine the effect of intervention on this outcome. The level of certainty of the evidence was downgraded mainly due to inconsistency and imprecision. We were unable to draw conclusions about socio-emotional well-being, or conduct the planned subgroup analyses to examine the second objective, due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review suggest that, compared to standard care, vocabulary interventions may benefit children's L2 vocabulary learning but have little to no effect on their listening comprehension, though the evidence is uncertain. Vocabulary interventions probably improve the children's storytelling skills slightly. Due to the limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria and the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence as a result of inconsistency and imprecision, implications for practice should be considered with caution. This review highlights the need for more high-quality trials (e.g. RCTs) of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners, particularly studies of learners outside the USA.

What Characterizes the Productive Morphosyntax of Norwegian Children with Developmental Language Disorder?

Little is known about the productive morphosyntax of Norwegian children with developmental language disorder (DLD). The current study examined morphosyntax in Norwegian-speaking children with DLD (n =19) and a control group that was pairwise matched for age, gender, and intelligence quotient (IQ; n = 19). The children's sentence repetitions were studied through the lens of Processability Theory. The group differences were largest for grammatical structures at the latest developmental stage of the processability hierarchy. The Norwegian subordinate clause word order, belonging to the latest stage of the processability hierarchy, stood out as particularly challenging for children with DLD. Only 2 children with DLD but 16 children in the control group produced a subordinate clause with subordinate clause word order. Categorization of children's errors revealed that children with DLD made more errors of all types (addition, omission, substitution, inflection and word order) but especially errors of omission and inflection.

Vocabulary development in Norwegian L1 and L2 learners in the kindergarten-school transition.

This study examined the vocabulary development of Norwegian second language (L2) learners with Urdu/Punjabi as their first language (L1) at two time-points from kindergarten to primary school, and compared it to the vocabulary development of monolingual Norwegian children. Using path models, the associations between number of picture books in the home, maternal education, and previous L1 and L2 vocabulary on the development of L2 vocabulary breadth and depth were investigated. The results indicate that despite the weaker vocabulary skills of the L2 sample, the growth trajectories of the L2 learners and the monolingual comparison group did not differ. For the L2 learners, we identified both concurrent and longitudinal predictors of vocabulary: the number of books in the home and the time of introduction of the L2 predicted concurrent vocabulary. L1 vocabulary, number of books in the home, and the time of introduction of the L2 predicted vocabulary growth.