Bilingualism of Children in Different Multilingual Contexts
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Development of Oral Language in Bilingual Children, Biliteracy and Cross-Linguistic Transfer
2.1. Development of Oral Language in Bilingual Children
2.2. Biliteracy
2.3. Effects of Cross-Linguistic Transfer
3. Educational Systems That Valorize Heritage Languages
4. Methodological Approach and Main Results of the Two Studies
4.1. Effects of Teaching in the Kanak Language on Oral/Written Skills in French in Kindergarten and Grade 1 in New Caledonia—LCK Program (Nocus et al. 2007)
4.1.1. Objective and Participants
4.1.2. Measures and Procedure
4.1.3. Results
Statistical Analysis
Effects of LCK Program on the Language Skills in French and Drehu
Effects of LCK Program on the Grade 1 Assessment
Contribution of the Language Tests in Drehu, in the Third Year of Kindergarten, to the Grade 1 Assessment Tests after Control for the Cognitive Variable
4.1.4. Conclusions
4.2. ECOLPOM and ReoC3 in French Polynesia (Nocus et al. 2018)
4.2.1. Objective and Participants
4.2.2. Measures and Procedure
- An odd-one-out detection test: the student listened to 16 series of three words composed of two complex words (containing a root + an affix) and a pseudo-derived word (simply containing a root, beginning or ending with the same combination of letters as those making up the affix of the other two words). The student had to find the word that looked like a complex word, but was not really derived (e.g., in “grandeur [size], fraîcheur [coolness] et humeur [mood]”, you have to find humeur [mood]”). The maximum score was 16 (1 point per correct answer).
- A test to extract the root of derived words: in this 16-item test, the student had to extract the root of a word presented in a derived form (e.g., “If I say ‘maisonnette’ [little house], what little word from the same family do you hear inside?”). Half of the items were existing words in French and the other half were neologisms (e.g., décopier [neologism] → copier [to copy]). The maximum score was 16.
- A test for the production of derived words: in this 16-item task, the student must produce a derived form from a root (e.g., “What would you call the gentleman who dances? It’s a …”). The first 8 items were words existing in French, the following 8 items were pseudo-words (e.g., «Une petite poire, c’est une … (poirette)» “[a small pear is a …]” in French, “ette” means “small”). The maximum score was 16. Morphological awareness was therefore assessed on a total of 48 points.
- An odd-one-out detection test: The student had to find the odd one out who corresponded either to a “real” odd one out, in the sense that it could not be segmented into smaller morphemes (e.g., “t¯arifa” [price] is not a derivative of “rifa”, by prefixing with “t¯a”). The maximum score was 16 (1 point per correct answer).
- A test to extract the root of derived words: In Tahitian, the child had to extract the root of a Tahitian word presented in a derived form (e.g., in “fa’ainu” means “getting someone to drink” and « inu » means “drink”). Half of the items were existing words in Tahitian, the other half were neologisms. The maximum score was 16 (1 point per correct answer).
- A test for the production of derived words: The child had to produce a form derived from the word presented to him (e.g., “’Ia fa’ariro’ei mea’ino, e …” [When you return in bad condition, it’s …], expected response: fa’a’ino [deteriorate, damage]). The maximum score was 16 (1 point per correct answer).
4.2.3. Results
Statistical Analysis
Effect of the ECOLPOM and ReoC3 Programs on Performance in Tahitian
Effect of the ECOLPOM and ReoC3 Programs on Performance in French
Cross-Linguistic Effects of Tahitian–French via the Written Word
4.2.4. Synthesis
5. Discussion
5.1. Synthesis
5.2. Limitations
5.3. Perspectives
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Results from LCK Program in New Caledonia (Nocus et al. 2007)
Beginning of the Year | End of Year | ANOVA | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tasks | Control N = 33 | Experimental N = 28 | Control N = 33 | Experimental N = 28 | Session | Session * Group |
Section 1: French language | ||||||
Receptive vocabulary (/20) | 9.5 (2.3) 47.5% | 8 (2.0) 40% | 10.8 (2.3) 54% | 10.7 (2.8) 53.5% | F(1, 59) = 547.1, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 59) = 5.8, p < 0.01; E > C |
Expressive vocabulary (/30) | 13.4 (4.2) 44.5% | 9.6 (6.6) 32% | 16.5 (3.7) 55% | 13.6 (6) 45.5% | F(1, 59) = 126.7, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Comprehension of utterances (/20) | 13.4 (2.4) 67% | 12.54 (3.5) 62.5% | 15.6 (2.4) 78% | 15.3 (2.7) 76.5% | F(1, 59) = 60.3, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Production of utterances (/16) | 2.5 (2.4) 15.5% | 2.3 (2.2) 14.5% | 3.36 (2.7) 21% | 3.46 (2.9) 21.5% | F(1, 59) = 19.9, p < 0.001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Repetition of utterances (/15) | 4.8 (3.9) 32% | 4.9 (4.8) 32.5% | 5.75 (3.7) 35.5% | 5.71 (4.5) 38% | F(1, 59) = 8, p < 0.01; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Section 2: Drehu Language | ||||||
Receptive vocabulary (/20) | 9.2 (3.4) 46% | 10.7 (3.4) 54% | 9.8 (3.5) 49% | 12 (2.6) 60% | F(1, 59) = 4.5, p < 0.05; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Expressive vocabulary (/28) | 3.8 (4.9) 13.5% | 6.7 (5.9) 24% | 5.6 (5.3) 20% | 10.5 (5.5) 37.5% | F(1, 59) = 35, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1,59) = 4.2, p < 0.05; E > C |
Comprehension of utterances (/20) | 10.9 (3) 54.5% | 13 (2.3) 65% | 13.6 (3.8) 68% | 15.6 (2.9) 78% | F(1, 59) = 46.8, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Production of utterances (/10) | 0.8 (1.3) 8% | 1.7 (1.6) 17% | 1.3 (2) 13.5% | 3.7 (2.5) 37.5% | F(1, 59) = 33, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 59) = 11.3, p < 0.001; E > C |
Repetition of utterances (/7) | 0.6 (0.9) 8.5% | 0.9 (1.1) 13.5% | 0.5 (0.9) 7% | 2.8 (2) 40% | F(1, 59) = 20, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 59) = 25.4, p < 0.0001; E > C |
Beginning of the Year | End of Year | ANOVA | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tasks | Control N = 45 | Experimental N = 37 | Control N = 45 | Experimental N = 37 | Session | Session * Group |
Section 1: French language | ||||||
Receptive vocabulary (/20) | 10.6 (2.5) 53% | 10.6 (1.7) 53.5% | 12 (2.6) 60% | 11.4 (1.8) 57% | F(1, 80) = 12.8, p < 0.001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Expressive vocabulary (/30) | 15.2 (3.4) 51% | 13.4 (4.1) 45% | 18.6 (4) 62% | 16.5 (3.4) 55% | F(1, 80) = 148.3, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Comprehension of utterances (/20) | 14.1 (2.8) 71% | 14.8 (2.8) 74.5% | 16.7 (2.7) 83.5% | 15.8 (2.4) 79.5% | F(1, 80) = 23.2, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 3.6 Ns |
Production of utterances (/16) | 4 (2.7) 25% | 3.8 (2.3) 24% | 5.2 (3.2) 32.5% | 3.9 (3.3) 24.5% | F(1, 80) = 4.9, p < 0.05; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 2.5 Ns |
Repetition of utterances (/15) | 8.1 (3.6) 54% | 7.2 (3.7) 48% | 9 (3.4) 60% | 8.5 (2.9) 57% | F(1, 80) = 11.9, p < 0.001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Phonological awareness (/5) | 2.4 (1) 48% | 2.2 (1.1) 45% | 2.9 (1.3) 58.5% | 3.1 (1) 62% | F(1, 80) = 16.1, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) < 1 Ns |
Section 2: Drehu Language | ||||||
Receptive vocabulary (/20) | 10.7 (4.1) 54% | 13 (3.4) 65.5% | 11.5 (3.5) 57.5% | 14.8 (2.3) 74.5% | F(1, 80) = 16.9, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 1.9 Ns |
Expressive vocabulary (/28) | 6.4 (6.1) 23% | 12.6 (5) 45% | 8.2 (6.7) 29.5% | 16.3 (4.3) 58% | F(1, 80) = 51.7, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 4.1, p < 0.05; E > C |
Comprehension of utterances (/20) | 11.6 (3.1) 58.5% | 13.2 (1.9) 66% | 12.7 (3.5) 64% | 14.8 (1.7) 74% | F(1, 80) = 15.2, p < 0.001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 0.3 Ns |
Production of utterances (/10) | 2.5 (2.5) 25% | 4 (2.4) 40% | 2.7 (3.2) 27.5% | 6.2 (2.1) 62% | F(1, 80) = 34.1, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 14.4, p < 0.001; E > C |
Repetition of utterances (/7) | 1.5 (1.8) 22.5% | 2.2 (1.6) 32.5% | 1.8 (1.8) 26% | 4.4 (1.7) 63.5% | F(1, 80) = 41.7, p < 0.0001; End > Begin | F(1, 80) = 23.5, p < 0.0001; E > C |
Tasks | Control N = 40 | Experimental N = 36 | ANOVA |
---|---|---|---|
Letters (/6) | 2.9 (1.9) 48.5% | 4.1 (1.4) 70% | F(1, 74) = 10.4 p < 0.001; E > C |
Words (/4) | 1 (1.1) 26% | 1.7 (1.1) 43.5% | F(1, 74) = 7.5 p < 0.01; E > C |
Non-words (/4) | 1.2 (1.2) 30.5% | 1 (1) 27% | F(1, 74) = 0.2 Ns |
Disciplines | Control (N = 29) | Experimental (N = 34) | ANOVA |
---|---|---|---|
Transversal skills /12 | 6.8 (1.9) 57% | 9.3 (1.9) 78% | F(1, 61) = 20.48, p < 0.0001; E > C |
Oral language /30 | 14.9 (4.2) 50% | 17.4 (4.9) 58% | F(1, 50) = 4, p = 0.0509 |
Prereading /39 | 23.2 (6) 60% | 28.1 (4.1) 72% | F(1, 61) = 11.167, p = 0.0016; E > C |
Writing /19 | 11.6 (3) 61% | 13.2 (3.3) 70% | F (1, 61) = 9.291, p = 0.0037; E > C |
Variables to Predict Grade 1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor Variables Third Year of Kindergarten | Transversal Skills | Oral Language | Reading | |
1er pas: | Score au PAMS | 0.0003 ns | 0.002 ns | 2.6 ns |
2ème pas | Receptive vocabulary | |||
Expressive vocabulary | 18.4 ** | |||
Comprehension of utterances | 13.7 * | |||
Production of utterances | 9.7 * | 15.1 ** | ||
Repetition of utterances | 18.8 ** |
Appendix B. Results from ECOLPOM and ReoC3 Program in French Polynesia (Nocus et al. 2018)
Groups | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sessions | Control (N = 69) | Experimental (N = 59) | F | p |
Section 1: Expressive vocabulary | ||||
1. Grade 1, beginning | 8 | 10 | 1.329 | ns |
2. Grade 1, end | 10.5 | 11.5 | 0.250 | ns |
3. Grade 2, end | 11.5 | 24.5 | 22.791 | 0.000 |
4. Grade 3, end | 18 | 37 | 37.483 | 0.000 |
5. Grade 4, end | 23 | 46.5 | 46.176 | 0.000 |
6. Grade 5, end | 23 | 50 | 65.526 | 0.000 |
Section 2: Production of utterances | ||||
1. Grade 1, beginning | 8.5 | 9.5 | 0.126 | ns |
2. Grade 1, end | 10.5 | 12 | 0.273 | ns |
3. Grade 2, end | 8.5 | 24.5 | 20.121 | 0.000 |
4. Grade 3, end | 18 | 38 | 20.321 | 0.000 |
5. Grade 4, end | 18 | 38 | 25.614 | 0.000 |
6. Grade 5, end | 24.5 | 48.5 | 27.139 | 0.000 |
Section 3: Morphological awareness | ||||
5. Grade 4, end | 33 a | 37.5 a | 6.968 | 0.009 |
6. Grade 5, end | 36.5 a | 45.5 a | 16.914 | 0.000 |
Section 4: Identification of written words (Timé2) | ||||
3. Grade 2, end | 29 b | 31.5 b | 1.079 | ns |
Section 5: Identification of written words (Timé3) | ||||
5. Grade 4, end | 32 b | 31.5 b | 0.000 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 21 b | 30.5 b | 13.395 | 0.000 |
Section 6: Reading comprehension | ||||
4. Grade 3, end | 11.5 | 14 | 2.054 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 17.5 | 28 | 10.102 | 0.002 |
6. Grade 5, end | 16.5 | 20 | 2.121 | ns |
Section 7: Spelling | ||||
5. Grade 4, end | 14.5 c | 13 c | 0.504 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 18.5 c | 35 c | 44.043 | 0.000 |
Groups | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sessions | Control (N = 69) | Experimental (N = 59) | F | p |
Section 1: Expressive vocabulary | ||||
1. Grade 1, beginning | 59 | 57.5 | 0.676 | ns |
2. Grade 1, end | 70 | 63.5 | 11.283 | 0.001 |
3. Grade 2, end | 71 | 67 | 3.833 | ns |
4. Grade 3, end | 79 | 76.5 | 1.880 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 71 | 79.5 | 9.423 | 0.003 |
6. Grade 5, end | 88 | 86 | 2.342 | ns |
Section 2: Production of utterances | ||||
1. Grade 1, beginning | 39 | 36 | 0.842 | ns |
2. Grade 1, end | 56.5 | 47 | 6.959 | 0.009 |
3. Grade 2, end | 58.5 | 54 | 2.234 | ns |
4. Grade 3, end | 73.5 | 68.5 | 2.577 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 79 | 73 | 6.168 | 0.014 |
6. Grade 5, end | 85 | 83 | 0.583 | ns |
Section 3: Morphological awareness | ||||
4. Grade 3, end | 69 | 70.5 | 0.228 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 82 | 82.5 | 0.021 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 90 | 86 | 3.747 | ns |
Section 4: Identification of written words (Timé2) | ||||
2. Grade 1, end | 43 | 45 | 0.537 | ns |
3. Grade 2, end | 54.5 | 52.5 | 0.408 | ns |
Section 5: Identification of written words (Timé3) | ||||
4. Grade 3, end | 49.5 | 47.5 | 0.507 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 62.5 | 58.5 | 2.226 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 70 | 65.5 | 3.244 | ns |
Section 6: Reading comprehension | ||||
4. Grade 3, end | 49.5 | 45.5 | 1.562 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 62 | 59.5 | 0.748 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 52 | 69 | 5.468 | 0.021 |
Section 7: Spelling | ||||
4. Grade 3, end | 26 | 25.5 | 0.012 | ns |
5. Grade 4, end | 42.5 | 37.5 | 2.442 | ns |
6. Grade 5, end | 52 | 50 | 0.237 | ns |
Grade 5 | Model 1 Identification of Written Words French | Model 2 Reading-Comprehension French | Model 3 Spelling French | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictors | β | R2 | ΔR2 | ΔF | β | R2 | ΔR2 | ΔF | β | R2 | ΔR2 | ΔF |
Bloc 1 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.10 | |||||||||
PAMS a | 0.29 *** | 0.33 ** | 0.23 ** | |||||||||
Group b | −0.16 | −0.21 * | −0.03 | |||||||||
Age | NI | NI | 0.21 * | |||||||||
Bloc 2 | 0.40 | 0.29 | 19.97 *** | 0.34 | 0.19 | 11.67 *** | 0.45 | 0.35 | 25.31 *** | |||
Expressive vocabulary in French | 0.11 | 0.22 * | 0.18 | |||||||||
Production of utterances in French | 0.20 * | 0.12 | 0.20 * | |||||||||
Morphological awareness in French | 0.41 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.42 *** | |||||||||
Bloc 3 | 0.55 | 0.15 | 10.22 *** | 0.45 | 0.11 | 6.23 *** | 0.53 | 0.08 | 4.862 ** | |||
Morphological awareness in Tahitian | 0.01 | −0.19 | 0.9 | |||||||||
Identification of words written in Tahitian | 0.59 *** | 0.28 ** | 0.37 *** | |||||||||
Reading-comprehension in Tahitian | −0.08 | 0.25 ** | 0.02 | |||||||||
Spelling in Tahitian | −0.17 | −0.11 | −0.06 |
1 | Metalinguistic abilities concern the control and planning aspects of language and metalinguistic awareness refers more particularly to the reflexive aspects of it (Gombert 1990). Given that language has various dimensions (phonological, semantic, syntactic, etc.), metalinguistic abilities can be broken down into as many corresponding sub-domains. |
2 | The transparency of a language’s orthographic system refers to the fact that the correspondence between the graphemes and the phonemes is unambiguous: a grapheme will always be pronounced the same way and a phoneme will always be transcribed by the same grapheme. Conversely, a language’s orthographic system can be opaque if this correspondence is irregular (Jaffré and Fayol 1997). |
3 | |
4 | New Caledonia is a French collectivity. It has about thirty vernacular languages, called Kanak languages (Colombel and Fillol 2016). |
5 | In France and in overseas French territories, children are educated at kindergarten, which comprises three years (first year of kindergarten: 3–4 years old; second year of kindergarten: 4–5 years old and third year of kindergarten: 5–6 years old), then elementary school, which comprises five years (Grade 1: 6–7 years old; Grade 2: 7–8 years old; Grade 3: 8–9 years old; Grade 4: 9–10 years old; Grade 5: 10–11 years old). |
6 | French Polynesia is a French collectivity. It has seven Polynesian languages (Tahitian, Northern Marquesan, Southern Marquesan, Pa’umotu, Raivavae, Tupuai and Magareva) (Paia and Vernaudon 2016). |
7 | An orthographic neighbor of a stimulus word is defined as a word of equivalent length differing by a single letter (Coltheart et al. 1977). In the tasks we created, the difference could be one or two letters. |
References
- Adesope, Olusola O., Tracy Lavin, Terri Thompson, and Charles Ungerleider. 2010. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80: 207–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alby, Sophie, and Isabelle Léglise. 2014. Politiques linguistiques éducatives en Guyane. Quels droits linguistiques pour les élèves allophones? In L’école Plurilingue en Outre-Mer: Apprendre Plusieurs Langues, Plusieurs Langues Pour Apprendre. Edited by Isabelle Nocus, Jacques Vernaudon and Mirose Paia. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 271–91. [Google Scholar]
- Benson, Carol, and Peter Plüddemann. 2010. Empowerment of bilingual education professionals: The training of trainers program for educators in multilingual settings in southern Africa (ToTSA) 2002–2005. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13: 371–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoncini, Josiane, and Bénédicte de Boysson-Bardies. 2000. Chapitre 4. La perception et la production de la parole avant deux ans. In L’acquisition du Langage. Vol. I: Le Langage en Emergence. De la Naissance à Trois Ans. Edited by Michèle Kail and Michel Fayol. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 95–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besse, Anne-Sophie, Nathalie Marec-Breton, and Élisabeth Demont. 2010. Développement métalinguistique et apprentissage de la lecture chez les enfants bilingues. Enfance 2: 167–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besse, Anne-Sophie, Nathalie Marec-Breton, Carolina Roganti Leite Moreira, and Jean-Emile Gombert. 2019. Transfert de la conscience morphologique de l’arabe langue première au français langue seconde au cours des trois premières années d’apprentissage. Psychologie Française 64: 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bialystok, Ellen. 2009. Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bialystok, Ellen, Gigi Luk, and Ernest Kwan. 2005. Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Learning to Read: Interactions Among Languages and Writing Systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9: 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bialystok, Ellen, Gigi Luk, Kathleen F. Peets, and Sujin Yang. 2010. Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13: 525–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijeljac-Babic, Ranka. 2017. L’enfant Bilingue. De La Petite Enfance à L’école. Paris: Odile Jacob. [Google Scholar]
- Byers-Heinlein, Krista. 2013. Parental language mixing: Its measurement and the relation of mixed input to young bilingual children’s vocabulary size. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bylund, Emanuel, Niclas Abrahamsson, Kenneth Hyltenstam, and Gunnar Norrman. 2019. Revisiting the bilingual lexical deficit: The impact of age of acquisition. Cognition 182: 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, Ruth, and Efisia Sais. 1995. Accelerated metalinguistic (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 13: 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiappe, Penny, and Linda S. Siegel. 1999. Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombel, Claire, and Véronique Fillol. 2016. Langue française et culture océanienne: Quelle éducation plurilingue en Nouvelle-Calédonie? In L’éducation Bilingue en France: Politiques Linguistiques, Modèles et Pratiques. Edited by Christine Hélot and Jurgen Erfurt. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, pp. 118–29. [Google Scholar]
- Coltheart, Max, Eileen Davelaar, Jon Torfi Jonasson, and Derek Besner. 1977. Access to the internal lexicon. In Attention and Performance (VI). Edited by Stan Dornic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 535–55. [Google Scholar]
- Comeau, Liane, Pierre Cormier, Éric Grandmaison, and Diane Lacroix. 1999. A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummins, James. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, vol. 23. [Google Scholar]
- de Boysson-Bardies, Bénédicte. 1996. Comment La Parole Vient Aux Enfants. Paris: Odile Jacob. [Google Scholar]
- De Houwer, Annick. 2020. Harmonious Bilingualism: Well-being for families in bilingual settings. In Handbook of Home Language Maintenance and Development: Social and Affective Factors. Edited by Andrea C. Schalley and Susana A. Eisenchlas. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 63–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deacon, S. Hélène, Lesly Wade-Woolley, and John Kirby. 2007. Crossover: The role of morphological awareness in French immersion children’s reading. Developmental Psychology 43: 732–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demont, Elisabeth. 2001. Contribution de l’apprentissage précoce d’une deuxième langue au développement de la conscience linguistique et à l’apprentissage de la lecture. International Journal of Psychology 36: 274–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecalle, Jean. 2004. Test D’identification de Mots Ecrits Pour Enfants de 6 à 8 Ans. Paris: EAP, Éditions et applications psychologiques [TIMÉ2]. [Google Scholar]
- Ecalle, Jean. 2006. Timé3—Test D’identification de Mots Ecrits. Ifs: Edition Mot-à-mot [pour enfants de 7 à 15 ans]. [Google Scholar]
- Fillol, Véronique, and Jacques Vernaudon. 2004. Les langues kanak et le français, langues d’enseignement et de culture en Nouvelle-Calédonie: D’un compromis à un bilinguisme équilibré ? ELA 133: 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, Jo, Faye Parkhill, Amosa Fa’Afoi, Leali’Ie’E Tufulasi Taleni, and Bridget O’Regan. 2009. Pasifika students: Teachers and parents voice their perceptions of what provides supports and barriers to Pasifika students’ achievement in literacy and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florin, Agnès. 2020. Le Développement du Langage. Paris: Dunod. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geva, Esther, and Linda S. Siegel. 2000. Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12: 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gombert, Jean-Emile. 1990. Le développement métalinguistique. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. [Google Scholar]
- Gulati, Preeti. 2017. Relation Between Intelligence and other cognitive abilities of monolinguals and bilinguals. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 22: 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hélot, Christine. 2007. Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école. Paris: l’Harmattan, Collection Espaces Discursifs. [Google Scholar]
- Humeau, Camille, Gilles Guihard, Philippe Guimard, and Isabelle Nocus. 2023. Life satisfaction of 10-year-olds in a bilingual context in France: The predictive role of parental language practices and children’s use of the minority language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffré, Jean-Pierre, and Michel Fayol. 1997. Orthographe: Des Systèmes Aux Usages. Paris: Flammarion. [Google Scholar]
- Kharkhurin, Anatoliy V. 2009. The role of bilingualism in creative performance on divergent thinking and Invented Alien Creatures tests. The Journal of Creative Behavior 43: 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khomsi, Abdelhamid. 1992. PAMS, Perception, Analogies et Manipulations Spatiales. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée. [Google Scholar]
- Khomsi, Abdelhamid. 1998. ECS3: Évaluation Des Compétences Scolaires au Cycle Des Apprentissages Fondamentaux. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée. [Google Scholar]
- Khomsi, Abdelhamid. 2001. Évaluation du Langage Oral: ELO. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, Li-Jen, and Richard C. Anderson. 2010. Beyond cross-language transfer: Reconceptualizing the impact of early bilingualism on phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading 14: 365–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Li-Jen, Yuuko Uchikoshi, Tae-Jin Kim, and Xinyuan Yang. 2016. Bilingualism and Phonological Awareness: Re-examining Theories of Cross-Language Transfer and Structural Sensitivity. Contemporary Educational Psychology 46: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Le Bastard, Séverine, and Bruno Suchaut. 2000. Lecture-écriture au cycle II. Évaluation d’une démarche innovante. Dijon: Cahiers de l’Institut National Pour la Recherche en Education. Available online: https://iredu.u-bourgogne.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cahier61.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2010).
- Lesaux, Nonie K., and Linda S. Siegel. 2003. The Development of Reading in Children Who Speak English as a Second Language. Developmental Psychology 39: 1005–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindsey, Kim A., Franklin R. Manis, and Caroline E. Bailey. 2003. Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 482–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobrot, Michel. 1980. Lire Avec Epreuves Pour Evaluer la Capacité de Lecture. Paris: Editions Editions Sociales Françaises [D-OR-LEC]. [Google Scholar]
- Lubart, Todd, Maud Besançon, and Baptiste Barbot. 2019. La créativité, ressource potentielle de l’enfant et l’adolescent, à évaluer, révéler et développer. Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence 67: 121–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, Virginia, and Heinz Wimmer. 2002. Phoneme awareness and pathways into literacy: A comparison of German and American children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15: 653–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maurer, Bruno, ed. 2016. Les Approches Bi-Plurilingues D’enseignement-Apprentissage: Autour du Programme Ecole et Langues Nationales en Afrique (ELAN-Afrique). Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines. [Google Scholar]
- May, Stephen, and Richard K. Hill. 2005. Māori-medium Education: Current Issues and Challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8: 377–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meisel, Jürgen M. 2008. Âge Du Début de L’acquisition Successive du Bilinguisme: Effets Sur le Développement Grammatical. Edited by Michèle Kail, Michel Fayol and Maya Hickmann. Apprentissage des Langues. Paris: CNRS Editions, pp. 245–72. [Google Scholar]
- Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. 2001. Évaluation et Aide Aux Apprentissages en Grande Section de Maternelle et en Cours Preparatoire: Identification des Compétences et Repérage Des Difficultés Des Elèves, Banque D’outils D’aide à L’évaluation Diagnostique. Paris: Centre national de Documentation Pédagogique. [Google Scholar]
- Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. 2002. Qu’apprend-on à l’école maternelle? Les Nouveaux Programmes. XO Éditions. Paris: Centre national de Documentation Pédagogique. [Google Scholar]
- Nocus, Isabelle. 2013. Évaluation du projet sur la petite enfance « Adaptation de la didactique du français aux situations de créolophonie » en Haïti, pour le compte du Bureau régional pour les pays de la Caraïbe de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, du Bureau de gestion du Préscolaire au ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la formation professionnelle et des Editions H. Deschamps, le 10/09/2013. Nantes: Université de Nantes, Unpublished. [Google Scholar]
- Nocus, Isabelle. 2022. Bilinguisme et bilittéracie des enfants dans différents contextes multilingues. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. [Google Scholar]
- Nocus, Isabelle, Agnès Florin, Philippe Guimard, and Jacques Vernaudon. 2007. Effets d’un enseignement en langue kanak sur les compétences oral/écrit en français au cycle 2 en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Bulletin de Psychologie 491: 471–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nocus, Isabelle, Philippe Guimard, and Agnès Florin. 2017. Evaluation of the « Ecole et langues nationales en Afrique » program: Methodological Aspects and Interim Assessment. AFD Research Paper Series, n° 2017-40. Paris: Agence française de développement. [Google Scholar]
- Nocus, Isabelle, Philippe Guimard, and Agnès Florin. 2018. Maîtrise de l’oral et de l’écrit en français et en tahitien: Une étude longitudinale du CP au CM2 en Polynésie française. Psychologie Française 63: 357–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nocus, Isabelle, Philippe Guimard, Jacques Vernaudon, Olivier Cosnefroy, Mirose Paia, and Agnès Florin. 2012. Effectiveness of a heritage educational program for the acquisition of oral and written French and Tahitian in French Polynesia. Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OCDE. 2000. La Littératie à L’ère de L’information, Rapport Final de L’enquête Internationale Sur la Littératie Des Adultes. Paris: OCDE. [Google Scholar]
- OCDE. 2018. Le Futur de L’éducation et Des Compétences: Projet Education 2030. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/about/documents/French%20version%20-%20OECD%20Education%202030%20Position%20Paper_final%20(07.06.2018).pdf (accessed on 18 May 2019).
- Paia, Mirose. 2014. L’enseignement des langues et de la culture polynésiennes à l’école primaire en Polynésie française. In Apprendre Plusieurs Langues, Plusieurs Langues Pour Apprendre: L’école Plurilingue en Outre-Mer. Edited by Isabelle Nocus, Jacques Vernaudon and Mirose Paia. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 409–29. [Google Scholar]
- Paia, Mirose, and Jacques Vernaudon. 2016. Le défi de l’éducation bilingue en Polynésie française. In L’éducation Bilingue en France: Politiques Linguistiques, Modèles et Pratiques. Edited by Christine Hélot and Jurgen Erfurt. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, pp. 87–99. [Google Scholar]
- Peal, Elizabeth, and Wallace E. Lambert. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 76: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulin-Dubois, Diane, Ellen Bialystok, Agnès Blaye, Alexandra Polonia, and Jessica Yott. 2013. Lexical access and vocabulary development in very young bilinguals. The International Journal of Bilingualism: Cross-Disciplinary, Cross-Linguistic Studies of Language Behavior 17: 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reder, Fanny, Nathalie Marec-Breton, Jean-Emile Gombert, and Elisabeth Demont. 2013. Second-language learners’ advantage in metalinguistic aware-ness: A question of languages’ characteristics. British Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 686–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sari, Betty Tjipta, Athanasios Chasiotis, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, and Michael Bender. 2019. We feel better when we speak common language; Affective well-being in bilingual adolescents from three ethnic groups in Indonesia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 71: 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuafuti, Patisepa, and John McCaffery. 2005. Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8: 480–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. 2003. Language Vitality and Endangerment. International Expert Meeting on the UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/fr /culture/themes/endangered-languages/language-vitality/ (accessed on 18 May 2005).
- UNESCO. 2014. BIE. Principes Directeurs Sur L’apprentissage au 21e Siècle. Available online: https://www.calameo.com/read/006099331bbc840b27dd4 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Van Dijk, Marloes, Evelyn H. Kroesbergen, Elma Blom, and Paul P. M. Leseman. 2019. Bilingualism and Creativity: Towards a Situated Cognition Approach. Journal of Creative Behavior 53: 178–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan. 2020. Développer la Créativité et L’esprit Critique des Elèves: Des Actions Concrètes Pour L’école, La Recherche et L’innovation Dans L’enseignement. Éditions OCDE. Paris: OCDE. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wechsler, David. 1995. Échelle D’intelligence de Wechsler Pour la Période Préscolaire et Primaire (Forme Révisée). Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, Wayne E., Sovicheth Boun, and Ofelia García. 2015. The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Hoboken: John Wiley et Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegler, Johannes C., Daisy Bertrand, Dénes Tóth, Valéria Csépe, Alexandra Reis, Luís Faísca, Nina Saine, Heikki Lyytinen, Anniek Vaessen, and Leo Blomert. 2010. Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science 21: 551–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nocus, I. Bilingualism of Children in Different Multilingual Contexts. Languages 2024, 9, 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090304
Nocus I. Bilingualism of Children in Different Multilingual Contexts. Languages. 2024; 9(9):304. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090304
Chicago/Turabian StyleNocus, Isabelle. 2024. "Bilingualism of Children in Different Multilingual Contexts" Languages 9, no. 9: 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090304
APA StyleNocus, I. (2024). Bilingualism of Children in Different Multilingual Contexts. Languages, 9(9), 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090304