MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108290470 · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106060

Adolescent language outcomes in a complex trilingual context: When typical does not mean unproblematic

2020· article· en· W3108290470 on OpenAlexaff
Elin Thordardottir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Communication Disorders · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersIcelandic Centre for Research
KeywordsIcelandicPsychologyLanguage proficiencyDominance (genetics)LinguisticsLanguage assessmentContext (archaeology)First languageConversationCommunicationMathematics educationHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the long-term language outcomes of adolescents in the complex multilingual context of Iceland, where children learn Icelandic as a first (L1) or second language (L2), in a background of incidental English from internet and media sources. METHOD: 50 adolescents enrolled in grades 8, 9 and 10 in Reykjavik (Iceland) public schools (27 L1 speakers and 23 L2 speakers) participated. Standardized language tests and language samples were collected in Icelandic and English. Self-ratings and parent ratings of language proficiency were obtained in Icelandic, English and, for L2 speakers, in the home language as well. RESULTS: As in previous studies, L2 speakers scored far below L1 speakers on formal tests of Icelandic, and also in conversation. The groups were similar in their English skills, with both groups scoring far below L1 English norms. Self-rated performance agreed well with measured performance. For the L2 speakers, self-rated performance in the home language was similar to performance in Icelandic and English. L1 speakers demonstrated much higher performance in Icelandic than English; L2 speakers' performance was more evenly distributed over their three languages. DISCUSSION: The considerable English exposure available in Iceland leads to similar English skills for both L1 and L2 groups, but affects their overall language development in different ways. L1 adolescents maintain a clear dominance in Icelandic, whereas the proficiency of the L2 group is more equally distributed across their three languages, leading to unpredictable patterns of language dominance and at the group level, low performance compared to native speaker expectations in all three languages. These language outcomes in adolescence are of great concern as they do not equip the L2 speakers with the functional communication skills they require for further schooling and jobs. The study calls for a reconsideration of typical multilingual outcomes as necessarily implying unproblematic language skills and suggest that language policy changes are required in Iceland to ensure that children graduate compulsory education with solid language skills that allow them to pursue their goals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Communication DisordersSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207