Read the article and answer 19 questions.

Bilingual Development in Children of Immigrant Families

Erika Hoff

Florida Atlantic University

ABSTRACT—Early exposure to two languages is widely

thought to guarantee successful bilingual development.

Contradicting that belief, children in bilingual immigrant

families who grow up hearing a heritage language and a

majority language from birth often reach school age with

low levels of skill in both languages. This outcome cannot

be explained fully by influences of socioeconomic status.

In this article, I summarize research that helps explain

the trajectories of observed dual language growth among

children in immigrant families in terms of the amount and

quality of their language exposure as well as their own

language use.

KEYWORDS—bilingual development; immigrant families

As a result of worldwide immigration patterns, a large and

increasing number of children grow up exposed to two lan-

guages, the majority language of the country in which they live

and their family’s heritage language, which is typically a minor-

ity language in their new country. Recent research in the United

States and Europe has begun to describe and explain the trajec-

tories of language growth that characterize these children (1, 2).

The findings reveal that early exposure to two languages does

not guarantee native-like proficiency in two languages.

In this review, I focus on children in immigrant families who

are exposed to two languages from birth. Different terms with

slightly different meanings have been used to refer to these

children, including simultaneous bilinguals, bilingual first-lan-

guage learners, and dual language learners (DLLs). 1 I begin by

describing the early growth of dual language proficiency in these

children and explaining the challenge this poses to some psy-

chological theories and nonprofessional assumptions regarding

bilingual development. Then I review evidence that begins to

explain why bilingual trajectories look the way they do, pointing

to the quantity and quality of children’s input and to children’s

own language use as factors that create differences between

bilingual and monolingual children’s language skills, and pro-

duce individual differences in language skill among bilingual

children. I also consider the theoretical and practical implica-

tions of these findings.

DESCRIPTIVE FACTS AND EXPLANATORY

CHALLENGES

A substantial literature documents that children from immigrant

families often reach school age relatively unskilled in the major-

ity language (3, 4), while not necessarily showing strong skills in

the heritage language (5). To illustrate, Figure 1 presents trajec-

tories of growth in English and Spanish expressive vocabulary

from 30 to 60 months for children from monolingual homes in

which English alone is spoken and for children from bilingual

homes in which Spanish and English are spoken (with the Eng-

lish proportion of their language exposure ranging from 90 to

10%). Estimated English growth curves for the 25, 50, 75, and

100% levels of exposure to English are plotted in the left panel;

estimated Spanish growth curves for the 25, 50, and 75% levels

of exposure to Spanish are plotted in the right panel (6). This

figure shows that the bilingual children—those with < 100% English input—have lower levels of English skill than the monolingual children while also having stronger skills in Eng-

lish than Spanish. Other studies have identified similar

Erika Hoff, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University.

This research was supported by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant HD068421 to Erika Hoff.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erika Hoff, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL 33314; e-mail: [email protected].

© 2017 The Author

Child Development Perspectives © 2017 The Society for Research in Child Development

DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12262

1 DLLs can also be children whose exposure to a second language begins later

in childhood than their exposure to their first language.

Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

differences between monolingual and bilingual children, and

between English and Spanish for measures of productive vocab-

ulary and grammar (7). These descriptive facts challenge theo-

ries of the that hold that children can human language capacity

simultaneously acquire two languages as quickly and success-

fully as one. Similarly, these facts challenge the related belief,

held in and out of scientific circles, that children are linguistic

sponges who quickly absorb the language or languages they hear

and as a result, become proficient speakers.

Immigrant status is often confounded with socioeconomic sta-

tus (SES), and SES contributes to widely observed differences in

the United States and Europe between monolingual children

from native families and bilingual children from immigrant fami-

lies (5, 8). But SES is not the whole story for immigrant chil-

dren, and SES explains neither the differences in vocabulary in

Figure 1 nor all the differences in vocabulary and grammar in

younger children (7). In the models of language growth in Fig-

ure 1, the effects of parents’ education were controlled statisti-

cally (6). In another study of children from 22 to 30 months,

which found differences in vocabulary and grammar between

monolingual and bilingual children, groups did not differ in

level of parents’ education (7).2 Strong evidence suggests that

the monolingual–bilingual gap in English and the more success- ful acquisition of English than Spanish reflect the nature of

these children’s language experience. Here, I focus on three

aspects of language experience that influence the bilingual

development of children in immigrant families: the quantity of

input, the quality of input, and children’s use of language.

EFFECTS OF QUANTITY OF INPUT ON BILINGUAL

DEVELOPMENT

One of the most robust findings in research on early bilingual

development is a relation between the quantity of children’s

exposure to each language and their levels of language develop-

ment in each language. In one study, researchers estimated the

number of words per hour addressed to Spanish–English bilin- gual children in each language from recordings via small micro-

phones the children wore. Quantity of language exposure

accounted for 50% of the variance in the children’s Spanish

expressive vocabulary scores and 28% of the variance in the

children’s English expressive vocabulary scores (9).

Many studies have assessed quantity of exposure to each lan-

guage using estimates by parents of relative quantity. Although

this measure is second best, it is moderately to strongly corre-

lated with word counts based on recordings (9) and strongly

related to concurrently obtained diary records of time exposed

to English and Spanish (7). Most importantly, in many studies,

caregivers’ estimates of children’s relative quantity of exposure

to each language significantly predict bilingual children’s skill

levels in each language (10–13). Relative exposure accounts for approximately 35% of the variance in vocabulary and grammati-

cal skills (7). Variations in the quantity of input make a differ-

ence throughout the range of variation. Children who hear only

20% of their input in one of their languages have measurable

vocabularies in that language at 22 months (7), and children

who hear 80% of their input in a language have smaller

Figure 1. Estimated trajectories of English and Spanish expressive vocabulary growth from 30 to 60 months at different levels of exposure to English, controlling for parent education (N = 151 for English, 112 for Spanish).

2 This is possible in studying Spanish–English bilingual children from immi-

grant homes in South Florida where Spanish-speaking immigrants are often highly educated and affluent.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

Bilingual Development 81

vocabularies than children who hear 100% of their input in a

single language (14).

The effects of exposure might also explain other characteris-

tics of bilingual children’s language skills. Bilingual children do

not lag equally in all domains; at age 4, bilingual children are

closer to the levels of monolingual children in grammar and

phonology, but farthest in vocabulary (15). As illustrated in

Figure 2, bilingual children often also have relatively stronger

receptive than expressive skills in at least one of their languages

(15–17). This might be because of bilingual children’s dimin- ished exposure to each language; input might more frequently

and reliably illustrate the phonemes and grammatical structures

of a language than it provides instances of individual words, or

learning words might require more exposure than learning pho-

nemes or grammatical structures. More exposure may also be

required to develop expressive than receptive skills (13, 18).

In summary, the evidence is strong that language growth is

influenced by the quantity of language input. Because bilingual

children’s input is divided between two languages, they must,

on average, receive less input in each than children who receive

all their input in just one language, and as a result, they develop

each language at a slower pace; furthermore, the effect may be

greater in some domains of language than others. Recent

research on bilingual development tells us that it is normal for

children who are acquiring two languages at the same time to

lag behind monolingual children. These lags do not mean that

children are confused by their dual language exposure. In fact,

measures of bilingual children’s total language growth, calcu-

lated by adding vocabulary scores across two languages, are typ-

ically equal to or greater than measures of monolingual

children’s growth in their language (7, 19–21). There are counterarguments in the literature. It has been

argued that given the wide variation in how much parents talk

to their children, a bilingual child may not have less exposure

to one language than a monolingual child (22). It has also been

argued that bilingual children experience no delay in single lan-

guage development (20, 23). Consistent with the first argument,

a bilingual child in a rich language environment might hear one

language more than a monolingual child in a poor language

environment. However, on average, the amount of exposure must

differ between single language and dual language environments.

Consistent with the second argument, some bilingual children

are indistinguishable from monolingual children in their lan-

guage skill—particularly in their dominant language (13), and not every study finds a statistically significant lag or gap

between the skill levels of monolingual and bilingual children

(20, 24).

However, many factors influence whether a study finds differ-

ences in language skill between bilingual and monolingual chil-

dren, including the age of the children, the language domain

assessed, whether the bilingual children are assessed in their

dominant language, whether the comparison is to monolingual

norms or to a group of monolingual children matched for SES,

and the statistical power of the research design. At a young age,

when all children have small vocabularies, a gap in vocabulary

size between monolingual and bilingual children may not be

apparent (24). On some measures, where growth plateaus, bilin-

gual children may catch up and close the gap quickly. For

example, in one study (7), at 22 months, significantly fewer

bilingual children combined words in English (on average, their

dominant language) than did monolingual children, but by

25 months, most of the bilingual children had begun to combine

words and the two groups no longer differed significantly. On

other measures of grammar, bilingual children have caught up

by age 10 (10). In contrast, for some aspects of complex mor-

phology, for vocabulary, and in speed of lexical access, differ-

ences between bilinguals and monolinguals may persist through

adulthood (2, 25, 26).

Bilingual children may score within the norms for monolin-

gual children in their dominant language (3, 7) while still

Figure 2. Expressive vocabulary and language comprehension scores in English and Spanish for bilingual 30-month-olds (N = 115). Note. ***p < .001, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Error bars represent 1 SEM.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

82 Erika Hoff

scoring lower than a matched group of monolingual children.

For example, in a study of 4-year-old Spanish–English bilingual and English monolingual children from mid- to high-SES fami-

lies, bilingual children’s average score was at the 45th per-

centile on a test of English vocabulary, which could be

construed as similar to scores for monolingual children. How-

ever, these bilingual children still differed from monolingual

children in the study matched for age and SES, who scored in

the 85th percentile based on the same test norms (19).

Finally, statistical power influences whether differences

between monolingual and bilingual children are statistically sig-

nificant. In the early years of research on bilingual development,

samples were small, and some claims that bilingualism causes

no delay in language development were based on null results

from underpowered studies (20, 23).

EFFECTS OF QUALITY OF INPUT ON BILINGUAL

DEVELOPMENT

In two studies of children from immigrant families in South Flor-

ida (27, 28), mothers kept diaries of their children’s exposure to

language, logging for each half hour of the day what language

the children heard and from whom. Most of the children’s expo-

sure to English came from non-native speakers and the propor-

tion of input from non-native speakers was a significant, unique

negative predictor of the children’s skills in English. The effect

of access to native language input may also be reflected in the

trajectories in Figure 1. The analyses that yielded these figures

found a quadratic relation between the amount of children’s

exposure to English and the size of their English vocabulary:

Increments at the higher end of the range of English exposure

conferred greater benefit than increments at the lower end. This

relation may be because the amount of exposure to English was

associated with the probability that one parent was a native

speaker of English. Thus, in this sample, hearing more English

was related to hearing more native English. In contrast, the

effect of increments in exposure to Spanish language on Spanish

vocabulary was linear, consistent with the finding from the diary

studies that virtually all children’s input in Spanish came from

native Spanish speakers.

Other research also supports the greater value of input by

native speakers. In one study of immigrants to English-speaking

Canada, exposure to native speakers benefitted children’s Eng-

lish language growth, while their parents’ use of English at home

did not (29). In many immigrant groups, differences in profi-

ciency in the majority language among immigrant parents pre-

dict their children’s language growth and proficiency in

adulthood (30–32). The reasons for these benefits of native input and more proficient non-native input need to be explored fully,

but studies of the child-directed speech of native and non-native

English speakers tell us that native speakers use a richer vocab-

ulary and more complex syntax than non-native speakers in

talking to 2-year-olds (33, 34). They also tell us that non-native

speakers who rate themselves as proficient speakers differ from

non-native speakers who describe their proficiency as limited

(34).

EFFECTS OF CHILDREN’S OUTPUT ON BILINGUAL

DEVELOPMENT

In studies of bilingual children, measures of language use—or measures that include the children’s own language use—predict children’s skill level in expressive language more successfully

than measures of input alone (31, 35, 36). These findings may

be particularly relevant for acquiring heritage languages

because bilingual children in immigrant households sometimes

avoid using the family’s heritage language in favor of the major-

ity language (37, 38). A common pattern in Spanish–English bilingual homes in the United States is for parents to address

their children in Spanish and children to respond in English.

Two studies suggest that this pattern of language use contributes

to the skill profile depicted in Figure 2, in which bilingual chil-

dren have equivalent levels of receptive skill in English and

Spanish, but significantly stronger expressive skills in English

(17, 39). In these studies, mothers reported on their children’s

language switching in conversation. Children who favored Eng-

lish over Spanish in responding were compared to children who

favored Spanish over English, a less frequent choice. The Eng-

lish responders had stronger expressive skills in English concur-

rently (17), and they also subsequently developed expressive

vocabulary in English more rapidly (39). Language use did not

affect receptive language skills uniquely (39). Thus, in addition

to the effects of exposure, choosing to use English more than

Spanish may explain why receptive skills in Spanish are often

stronger than expressive skills among children and adults from

Spanish-speaking homes (15, 26).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Bilingual children from immigrant families often lag monolin-

gual children in the development of the majority language while

also having poor skills in their heritage language, even when

SES is controlled. This may reflect, in part, internal limits to

how rapidly children can learn two languages simultaneously,

but the circumstances in which children are exposed to two lan-

guages in the immigrant context are far from a perfect test of

that internal capacity. Monolingual children with native parents

and bilingual children in immigrant families differ in ways

besides the number of languages they hear. In bilingual environ-

ments, children hear less of each language, and the quality of

their exposure to the majority language is often less because

their sources of that language may have limited proficiency. In

addition, bilingual children in bilingual environments can

choose the language they speak, and when one language is more

prestigious than the other, they choose the more prestigious lan-

guage.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

Bilingual Development 83

None of these findings should be surprising. Rather, they

repeat conclusions from studies of monolingual development

that language acquisition depends on the quantity and quality of

language experience and the opportunity to participate in con-

versation (40–44). The findings raise the question of whether simultaneous bilingual development is more successful in other

circumstances. Although differences in the quantity of input in

a single language experienced by bilingual and monolingual

children must always exist unless the monolingual children are

deprived, differences in the quality of input and asymmetric

choices in language use might not. The data at this point are

unclear. In a study from Belgium, not all children exposed to

Dutch and French from infancy functioned as bilinguals when

they were 11 years old (37). In contrast, there are suggestions in

the literature research that French–English bilingualism is achieved more successfully in Canada than is Spanish–English bilingualism in the United States, and that the equal prestige of

the two languages in Canada plays a role (45). In Canada, chil-

dren may also have greater access to highly proficient speakers

of both languages because both languages are national lan-

guages. Additional evidence that successful bilingualism is pos-

sible can be found in the success stories of families that have

raised bilingual children (46), although such stories are not from

a random sample of children and parents sometimes go to

extraordinary lengths to arrange an environment for their chil-

dren that supports their bilingual development.

One clear implication of studies of bilingual children is that

we should not expect these children to be two monolinguals in

one, as Grosjean (47) famously argued for adult bilinguals. The

bilingual child, like the bilingual adult, will develop competen-

cies in each language “to the extent required by his or her needs

and those of the environment” (47, p. 6). The findings I have

discussed suggest that bilingual children’s competencies, in

addition to reflecting their communicative needs, also reflect the

quantity and quality of their exposure to each language.

Evidence of the factors that impede optimal bilingual devel-

opment in children from immigrant families can inform efforts to

support successful bilingual outcomes in these children. Such

support is important: Children from immigrant families need

strong skills in the majority language to succeed in school (48,

49), and they need skills in the heritage language to communi-

cate well with their parents and grandparents (50). Furthermore,

bilingualism is an asset for interpersonal, occupational, and cog-

nitive reasons (25). Children who hear two languages from birth

can become bilingual, even if that outcome is not guaranteed.

The findings I have discussed suggest that bilingual develop-

ment is supported when children are exposed to both languages

in ways that do not diminish the amount of exposure to each

more than is necessary. In addition, to support bilingual devel-

opment fully, children’s exposure to each language should come

from highly proficient speakers, children’s heritage languages

should be valued by society, and children should be given

opportunities that encourage them to use both languages.

REFERENCES

1. Hoff, E. (2015). Language development in bilingual children. In E. Bavin & L. Naigles (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (2nd ed., pp. 483–503). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2. Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilin- gual language development. In E. Nicoladis & S. Montanari (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on bilingualism (pp. 136–196). Berlin, Ger- many: de Gruyter.

3. Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Sandilos, L. E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq. 2014.05.008

4. McCabe, A., Tamis-LeMonda, C., Bornstein, M. H., Cates, C. B., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K., . . . Wishard Guerra, A. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond myths and towards best practices. SRCD Social Policy Report, 27, No. 4. Retrieved from https://www. srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/washington/spr_brief_2014_ 04_09_multilingualchildren.pdf

5. Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990191

6. Hoff, E., & Ribot, K. M. (2017). Language growth in English monolin- gual and Spanish-English bilingual children from 2.5 to 5 years. The Journal of Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.071

7. Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Se~nor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000910000759

8. Hernandez, D. J. (2004). Demographic change and the life circum- stances of immigrant families. Future of Children, 14, 17–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602792

9. Marchman, V. A., Mart�ınez, L. Z., Hurtado, N., Gr€uter, T., & Fer- nald, A. (2017). Caregiver talk to young Spanish-English bilinguals: Comparing direct observation and parent-report measures of dual- language exposure. Developmental Science, 20. https://doi.org/10. 1111/desc.12425

10. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-lan- guage development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minor- ity language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728909004015

11. Hurtado, N., Gr€uter, T., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2014). Rela- tive language exposure, processing efficiency and vocabulary in Span- ish–English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136672891300014x

12. Pearson, B. Z., Fern�andez, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0142716400009863

13. Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual expo- sure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilin- gualism, 15, 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202

14. Deanda, S., Arias-Trejo, N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Zesiger, P., & Friend, M. (2016). Minimal second language exposure, SES, and early word comprehension: New evidence from a direct assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 162–180. https://doi. org/10.1017/s1366728914000820

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

84 Erika Hoff

15. Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholin- guistics, 28, 191–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070117

16. Gibson, T. A., Pe~na, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2014). The relation between language experience and receptive-expressive semantic gaps in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Edu- cation and Bilingualism, 17, 90–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2012.743960

17. Ribot, K. M., & Hoff, E. (2014). “¿C�omo estas?” “I’m good.” Con- versational code-switching is related to profiles of expressive and receptive proficiency in Spanish-English bilingual toddlers. Interna- tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 333–341. https://doi. org/10.1177/0165025414533225

18. Pham, G., & Kohnert, K. (2014). A longitudinal study of lexical development in children learning Vietnamese and English. Child Development, 85, 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12137

19. Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., Burridge, A., Ribot, K. M., & Welsh, S. N. (2014). Expressive vocabulary development in children from bilin- gual and monolingual homes: A longitudinal study from two to four years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 433–444. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.012

20. Pearson, B. Z., Fern�andez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to mono- lingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x

21. Silv�en, M., Voeten, M., Kouvo, A., & Lund�en, M. (2014). Speech perception and vocabulary growth: A longitudinal study of Finnish- Russian bilinguals and Finnish monolinguals from infancy to three years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 323– 332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414533748

22. De Houwer, A. (2014). The absolute frequency of maternal input to bilingual and monolingual children: A first comparison. In T. Gr€uter & J. Paradis (Eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 37–58). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

23. Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Tetrealt, K., & Ferraroi, V. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisi- tion from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28, 453–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000901004718

24. De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2014). A bilin- gual-monolingual comparison of young children’s vocabulary size: Evidence from comprehension and production. Applied Psycholin- guistics, 35, 1189–1211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641200 0744

25. Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indif- ferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11. https://doi. org/10.1017/s1366728908003477

26. Giguere, D. (2017). Adult outcomes of early dual language exposure in the majority-minority language context. Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

27. Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Develop- ment, 82, 1834–1849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011. 01660.x

28. Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2016). Effects and noneffects of input in bilin- gual environments on dual language skills in 2 1/2-year-olds. Bilin- gualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 1023–1041. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/s1366728915000322

29. Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition. Comparing child-internal and child-external

factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 213–237. https:// doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.3.01par

30. Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2008). What holds back the second gener- ation? The intergenerational transmission of language human capital among immigrants. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 267–298. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.2.267

31. Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B. L., Lopez, L. M., Scar- pino, S. E., & Goldstein, B. (2012). Predicting Spanish-English bilingual children’s language abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1251–1264. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 1092-4388(2012/11-0016)

32. Jia, G., Aaronson, D., & Wu, Y. (2002). Long-term language attain- ment of bilingual immigrants: Predictive variables and language group differences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 599–621. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S014271640200405848

33. Altan, A., & Hoff, E. (in press). Syntactic complexity in L1 and L2 child-directed English. In D. Bu�ga & M. C. €Ogeyik (Eds.), Psy- cholinguistics and cognition in language processing. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

34. Hoff, E., Shanks, K., & Brundage, S. (2017). Effects of native speaker status and second language proficiency on lexical richness and syn- tactic complexity of child-directed speech. Unpublished manuscript.

35. Bedore, L. M., Pe~na, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resen- diz, M. D., Greene, K., . . . Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure mat- ters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish- English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000090

36. Bohman, T., Bedore, L. M., Pe~na, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gil- lam, R. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language per- formance in Spanish English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325–344. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13670050903342019

37. De Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and chil- dren’s bilingual use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070221

38. Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. A. (2004). Shift happens: Spanish and Eng- lish transmission between parents and their children. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537. 2004.00103.x

39. Ribot, K. M., Hoff, E., & Burridge, A. (2017). Language use con- tributes to expressive language growth: Evidence from bilingual children. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12770

40. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the every- day experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

41. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioe- conomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8624.00612

42. Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26, 55–88. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.dr.2005.11.002

43. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Owen, M. T., Golinkoff, R. M., Pace, A., . . . Suma, K. (2015). The contribution of early communication quality to low-income children’s language suc- cess. Psychological Science, 26, 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797615581493

44. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cog psych.2010.08.002

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

Bilingual Development 85

45. Smithson, L., Paradis, J., & Nicoladis, E. (2014). Bilingualism and receptive vocabulary achievement: Could sociocultural context make a difference? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728913000813

46. Pearson, B. Z. (2008). Raising a bilingual child. New York, NY: Living Language.

47. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5

48. Han, W. J. (2012). Bilingualism and academic achievement. Child Development, 83, 300–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011. 01686.x

49. Kieffer, M. J. (2012). Early oral language and later reading develop- ment in Spanish-speaking English language learners: Evidence from a nine-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.02. 003

50. Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. J. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Fili- pino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000. 00465.x

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 12, Number 2, 2018, Pages 80–86

86 Erika Hoff

Copyright of Child Development Perspectives is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.