Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThere has been growing interest in children who learn language in diverse contexts and under diverse circumstances. In particular, dual language acquisition has become the focus of much research attention, arguably as a reflection of the growing awareness that dual language learning is common in children. A deeper understanding of dual language learning under different circumstances is important to ensure the formulation of theories of language learning that encompass all language learners and to provide critical information for clinical and other practical decisions that touch the lives of all language learners. This article reviews research findings on dual language learning in both school and nonschool settings, among simultaneous and sequential bilinguals, and in typically developing learners and those with an impaired capacity for language learning. Key findings with respect to 4 common myths about dual language acquisition in young learners are discussed: (1) the myth of the monolingual brain; (2) the myth that younger is better; (3) the myth of time-on-task; and (4) the myth that bilingualism is not advisable for children with developmental disorders or academic challenges.Keywords: bilingualism, bilingual acquisition, child bilingualismResumeOn constate un interet grandissant a l'egard des enfants qui apprennent une langue dans divers contextes et differentes circonstances. En particulier, l'apprentissage de deux langues fait desormais l'objet de beaucoup de recherches, peut-etre en raison de la sensibilisation au fait qu'il est courant parmi les enfants. Il important d'avoir une comprehension approfondie de l'apprentissage de deux langues dans des circonstances differentes afin que la formulation des theories de l'apprentissage d'une langue englobe tous les apprenants et afin de fournir de l'information essentielle pour la prise de decisions cliniques et autres decisions pratiques qui influeront sur tous les apprenants de langues. Cet article presente les resultats de recherches sur l'apprentissage de deux langues dans un contexte scolaire et hors de l'ecole, parmi les personnes bilingues ayant appris une langue a la fois ou deux concurremment, ainsi que parmi les apprenants sans et avec difficultes sur le plan de l'apprentissage des langues. Les principaux resultats concernant 4 mythes courants au sujet de l'apprentissage de deux langues chez les jeunes sont presentes. Ces mythes sont les suivants : 1) le cerveau unilingue; 2) l'apprentissage en bas âge est preferable; 3) l'importance du temps necessaire a l'apprentissage; 4) l'apprentissage d'une deuxieme langue n'est pas recommande pour les enfants ayant des deficiences developpementales ou des difficultes a l'ecole.Mots-cles : bilinguismee, apprentissage d'une langue seconde.Competence in two, or more, languages has taken on increased value in recent years in many communities and countries around the world. There are local, national, and global reasons for this. Locally, there are communities where knowing more than one language is an advantage because knowing more than one language facilitates interpersonal communication, enhances job prospects, and enriches one's day-to-day life; this is true in cities such as Montreal, Geneva, New Delhi, among others. Similarly, there are advantages to bilingualism in communities where an indigenous language is spoken, and members of the community want to maintain and revitalise competence in the indigenous language while also learning an important majority language. For example, the Mohawk community near Montreal has developed immersion programs that promote the acquisition of Mohawk among young Mohawk children while ensuring that they also know English and/or French (Jacobs & Cross, 2001). Bi- and even multilingualism are often advantageous for national reasons as well. In countries with policies of official bi- or multilingualism, such as Canada, Switzerland, and South Africa, there are personal, educational, and economic benefits to knowing both or all official languages. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".