MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162016406 · doi:10.82308/20551

Language development in internationally-adopted children acquiring French as a "second first language"

2010· dissertation· en· W7162016406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karine Gauthier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage developmentLanguage acquisitionAffect (linguistics)Longitudinal studyContrast (vision)Child development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigating the development of internationally-adopted (IA) children makes it possible to examine how early life experiences might affect later development and, in particular, the extent to which the language faculty is flexible and can adapt to a new language after interruption in acquisition of the birth language. The general purpose of the present research program was to study the ability of IA children to acquire their "second first language" and to identify factors that might favor or impede the development of their new language, French in the case of the studies presented in this thesis. In contrast with other studies, except for Cohen, Lojkasek, Zadeh, Pugliese and Kiefer (2008), variables that have been shown to have an impact on language development, namely familial socio-economic status, and sex, were carefully controlled in the present studies. To our knowledge, these are the first studies to examine the acquisition of French in IA children. Study 1 is a longitudinal study in which the language skills, non-verbal intelligence, socio-emotional adjustment, and general health of Chinese-born children adopted into Canadian French-speaking families were compared to those of matched non-adopted monolingual French-speaking children. The children were assessed a first time at 4 years of age, on average, and again 16 months later. They had been in their adoptive families for 3 and 4 years, on average, respectively. The results of the initial assessment showed that the two groups did not differ with respect to socio-emotional adjustment or non-verbal intelligence. Moreover, the IA children performed in the average range on most language tests when compared to test norms, suggesting resiliency in their language acquisition abilities. However, an important percentage of IA children performed significantly below the norms on the Recalling Sentences subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised. Also, as a group, the IA children performed significantly lower than their non-adopted peers particularly on expressive language tests (lexical and grammatical). To better characterize the language abilities of the IA children, spontaneous language samples of a subgroup of the IA children from Study 1 were analyzed in detail in Study 2. Results of Study 2 indicated that the IA children had a remarkable capacity to catch-up to their non-adopted peers with respect to diverse features of language, such as mean length of utterance, lexical diversity, and tense morphology; but, they made significantly more errors with complement clitics. Study 3 was undertaken in order to examine IA children's very early communicative and language development and the nature of adoptive mothers' language input and attention regulation strategies with their adoptive children soon after adoption. The results support the conclusion that adoptive mothers play an active role in promoting and maintaining joint attention with their adopted children and that the interaction strategy they use most, redirecting their child's attentional focus, contrasts with what has been shown to be effective for biological children raised in Western cultures (Baldwin, 1991; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986) but was, nevertheless positively associated with the internationally-adopted children's later lexical development. Overall, the findings suggest that IA children exhibited accelerated development in diverse domains of their second first language; but, however, there were significant differences in specific aspects of their language development in comparison to matched control children that suggest the possibility of very early age of acquisition effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207