Infant volubility and bilingual input in naturalistic day-long recordings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language input plays an important role in child language acquisition. Children encounter language input in different social contexts: They sometimes are directly addressed by caregivers and sometimes overhear conversations between others. For children growing up in bilingual environments, they receive input in two languages. In many cases, a bilingual child is exposed to one language more often than the other which are usually referred to as the child’s dominant and non-dominant languages. Bilingual caregivers are also commonly observed mixing languages when talking to their child. How language input that varies in both quantity and quality interacts with child language development is not fully understood. As well, various units and sampling methods that have been used to measure input can impact the relation between input and language development. To assess bilingually-raised infants’ speech and language development in their first year of life is challenging; in this dissertation, I deployed infant volubility which is a measurement of infants’ vocal activeness and an established precursor of their future language skills. To examine the relation between infant volubility and language input received in different social and language contexts, I analyzed infant and caregiver vocalizations in the naturalistic day-long recordings from the Montréal Bilingual Infants corpus. Twenty-one French-English bilingual families living in Montréal completed language background interviews and contributed three day-long audio recordings when their infant was 10 months old and another day-long audio recording when their infant was 18 months old. Recordings were obtained and processed by the LENA system (Language ENvironment Analysis, Boulder, Colorado). Every other 30-second segment containing adult speech was manually coded for social (one-on-one, overhearing) and language (French, English, mixed-language) contexts. Infant volubility was assessed at two levels (1) overall volubility, the number of infant vocalizations produced throughout the day; and (2) local volubility, the number of infant vocalizations produced in the presence of a certain type of input. In Chapter 2 to 4, I examined infant overall and local volubility’s relation with input in different social contexts (Chapter 2), with English- and French-only input (Chapter 3), and with mixed-language input (Chapter 4). In Chapter 5, I assessed the alignment between input measures estimated by various units (segment counts, adult word counts, speech duration) and different sampling methods (every-other-segment, top-segment).These analyses revealed at least following findings: (1) Infant volubility and language input is robustly and positively related at global and local levels; (2) Infants’ concurrent and longitudinal overall volubility has a strong association with the amount of input received in 1:1 social contexts and in their dominant language; (3) Input received in overhearing contexts and in their non-dominant language also makes unique contributions to infant overall volubility; (4) There is a complex relation between infant volubility and mixed-language input including that a higher proportion of mixed input in 1:1 social contexts is related to reduced overall volubility; (5) Input measures and their relation with infant overall volubility are consistent across different units but diverge across sampling methods.This dissertation adds to an emerging body of research on children’s bilingual language environment and their language acquisition. Findings from this dissertation have important theoretical and practical implications. First, they show a robust relation between infant volubility and language input. Second, they contribute to the current debates on the role of overheard input and mixed-language input. Last, they provide methodological suggestions to future research on the choice of input measurement units and sampling methods
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».