Search for: All records

Abstract Bilingual infants from 6‐ to 24‐months of age are more likely to generalize, flexibly reproducing actions on novel objects significantly more often than age‐matched monolingual infants are. In the current study, we examine whether the addition of novel verbal labels enhances memory generalization in a perceptually complex imitation task. We hypothesized that labels would provide an additional retrieval cue and aid memory generalization for bilingual infants. Specifically, we hypothesized that bilinguals might be more likely than monolinguals to map multiple perceptual features onto a novel label and therefore show enhanced generalization. Eighty‐seven 18‐month‐old monolingual and bilingual infants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions or a baseline control condition. In the experimental conditions, either no label or a novel label was added during demonstration and again at the beginning of the test session. After a 24‐hr delay, infants were tested with the same stimulus set to test cued recall and with a perceptually different but functionally equivalent stimulus set to test memory generalization. Bilinguals performed significantly above baseline on both cued recall and memory generalization in both experimental conditions, whereas monolinguals performed significantly above baseline only on cued recall in both experimental conditions. These findings show a difference between monolinguals and bilinguals in memory generalization and suggest that generalization differences between groups may arise from visual perceptual processing rather than linguistic processing. A video abstract of this article can be viewed athttps://youtu.be/yXB4pM3fF2k 

Abstract Aims and objectives: The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of the population and languages studied and the methods and practices surrounding the definition of bilingualism in children below age 3. Methodology: A quantitative descriptive scoping review Data and analysis: From 530 articles, we identified 127 papers (167 studies) that met our predefined criteria, of which 144 studies defined their bilingual population. Findings/conclusions: The samples investigated were predominantly western in geographical origin and languages. Percent exposure was the most common method to measure bilingualism among infants and young children, with 20% and 25% the most used cutoffs as the minimum requirement for children’s second language. We also analyzed the predictive value of these cutoffs on the likelihood that studies reported a significant difference between monolinguals and bilinguals. The stricter the inclusion requirement for bilinguals was, the higher the odds of a study to report a difference between monolingual and bilingual children. We conclude that a lack of uniformity of definition in the field may be one factor that predicts whether or not significant differences are reported. Originality: This scoping review provides developmental researchers with a unique overview of the different practices used in the field to characterize bilingual and monolingual infants/toddlers. The reported results can be used as preliminary evidence for the field to report and carefully formulate how to categorize monolinguals and bilingual infants. Significance/implications: As globalization continues to foster migration and intercultural exchange, it is essential for developmental researchers to diversify their samples and language groups. We highly encourage researchers to carefully document the definitions and rationale for all their language groups and to consider analyzing the impact of bilingualism both from a categorical and continuous approach. Keywords Bilingualism, infancy, toddlerhood, scoping review, measures, definition 

When children learn their native language, they tend to treat objects as if they only have one label—a principle known as mutual exclusivity. However, bilingual children are faced with a different cognitive challenge—they need to learn to associate two labels with one object. In the present study, we compared bilingual and monolingual 24-month-olds' performance on a challenging and semi-naturalistic forced-choice referent selection task and retention test. Overall, both language groups performed similarly on referent selection but differed on retention. Specifically, while monolingual infants showed some retention, bilingual infants performed at chance and significantly worse than their monolingual peers.