CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 410Language Development and DisordersMultilingual Education and PolicyReading and Literacy Development

The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review

Open access
Hammer, Carol Scheffner, Hoff, Erika, Uchikoshi, Yuuko, Gillanders, Cristina, Castro, Dina C., Sandilos, Lia E.·2014·Early Childhood Research Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008PMC PMC4394382
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The number of children living in the United States who are learning two languages is increasing greatly. However, relatively little research has been conducted on the language and literacy development of dual language learners (DLLs), particularly during the early childhood years. To summarize the extant literature and guide future research, a critical analysis of the literature was conducted. A search of major databases for studies on young typically developing DLLs between 2000-2011 yielded 182 peer-reviewed articles. Findings about DLL children's developmental trajectories in the various areas of language and literacy are presented. Much of these findings should be considered preliminary, because there were few areas where multiple studies were conducted. Conclusions were reached when sufficient evidence existed in a particular area. First, the research shows that DLLs have two separate language systems early in life. Second, differences in some areas of language development, such as vocabulary, appear to exist among DLLs depending on when they were first exposed to their second language. Third, DLLs' language and literacy development may differ from that of monolinguals, although DLLs appear to catch up over time. Fourth, little is known about factors that influence DLLs' development, although the amount of language exposure to and usage of DLLs' two languages appears to play key roles. Methodological issues are addressed, and directions for future research are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008

Cites

222 of 222 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Distant bilingual group (Polish-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch) scored, on average, within the normal range of monolingual variation.

    “The Distant bilingual group (Polish-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch) scored, on average, within the normal range of monolingual variation, similar to what has been found in other studies that compared the scores of bilinguals to monolingual norms (Hammer et al., 2014;Pearson et al., 1993;Vagh et al., 2009).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Hammer et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Basterra MR Trumbull E Solano-Flores G Cultural validity in assessment: Address linguistic and cultural diversity 2010 New York, NY Routledge
  2. Brown R A First Language 1973 Cambridge, UK Harvard Press
  3. Pearson BZ Raising a bilingual child 2008 New York Random House
  4. Snow CE Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years Harvard Educational Review 1983 53 165 190

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Sandilos, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Temple University (US)
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hammer, Carol Scheffner
ORCID
Venue
Early Childhood Research Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
715-733
ISSN
0885-2006 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008
PMC
PMC4394382
OpenAlex
W2054701234
Cited by
410
References
222
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
46.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Early Childhood Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Administration for Children and Families (90YR0041)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-HD051542, R01-HD068421, U01-HD060296)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
dual language learners, bilingual language acquisition, literacy development, early childhood, vocabulary development, second language exposure, language system, developmental trajectories, typically developing children

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review