Verbal fluency in bilingual school-age children: Looking at switching, clustering, and the effect of language experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The sparse available evidence on verbal fluency in bilingual children shows them to perform lower than monolinguals on semantic fluency (taken as indicating vocabulary) but on par or better on phonemic fluency (taken as indicating executive functioning). This study takes a more detailed look at verbal fluency skills in bilingual children by examining their search strategies, the extent to which verbal fluency skills are related to bilingual exposure, and how bilinguals perform on verbal fluency across their languages. Data and Analysis: First-graders ( n = 43) and third-graders ( n = 45) included monolingual speakers of French and French bilinguals who varied in their overall exposure to French and age of acquisition (AoA) to French. Participants were tested in French or in French and English on vocabulary and semantic and phonemic fluency. Language exposure was measured through detailed parent report. Group analyses, correlations, and regressions were conducted to examine performance and the involvement of language experience and vocabulary. Findings: Bilinguals performed lower than monolinguals on semantic fluency, but on par on phonemic fluency. Bilingual performance was not affected significantly by AoA or bilingual exposure. For all participants, performance was predicted by vocabulary size as well as cluster size and switching. However, the groups showed different use of search strategies. In semantic fluency, bilinguals relied more on switching, whereas monolinguals relied on both. Originality: The current paper related the measurement of search strategies (cluster size, switching) and the effect of language experience to the examination of verbal fluency in bilingual children. Implications: The results suggest that verbal fluency is dependent on vocabulary size, regardless of amounts of language exposure or AoA, and highlights need for more research into the relationship with other language skills, such as phonological awareness and reading ability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".