CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,012Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children

Open access
BIALYSTOK, ELLEN, LUK, GIGI, PEETS, KATHLEEN F., YANG, SUJIN·2010·Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
DOI 10.1017/s1366728909990423PMC PMC4349351
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies often report that bilingual participants possess a smaller vocabulary in the language of testing than monolinguals, especially in research with children. However, each study is based on a small sample so it is difficult to determine whether the vocabulary difference is due to sampling error. We report the results of an analysis of 1,738 children between 3 and 10 years old and demonstrate a consistent difference in receptive vocabulary between the two groups. Two preliminary analyses suggest that this difference does not change with different language pairs and is largely confined to words relevant to a home context rather than a school context.

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 · 10.1017/s1366728909990423

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Some previous research suggests no effects of language distance on bilingual vocabulary.

    “Some previous research suggests no effects of language distance (Bialystok et al., 2010), whereas other research indicates that a smaller linguistic distance predicts higher vocabulary outcomes (Floccia et al., 2018).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Bialystok et al., 2010

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports no vocabulary-score difference between bilingual children grouped by East Asian versus non-Asian home language. But the authors say this grouping was not linguistically motivated; the Results (page unavailable) call it a non-typological distinction. The study therefore suggests that this broad grouping did not matter, but it did not directly test language distance. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bialystok et al. provide no support for effects of language distance on the vocabulary of older bilingual preschool and school-aged children.

    “the study by Bialystok and colleagues (2010) provides no support for effects of language distance on the vocabulary of older bilingual preschool and school-aged children.”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Bialystok et al., 2010

  • In between-group comparisons, bilingual children often have smaller vocabularies than their monolingual peers.

    “in between-group comparisons they often have smaller vocabularies than their monolingual peers (Bialystok et al., 2010;Marchman et al., 2010;Scheele et al., 2010;Thordardottir et al., 2006;Vagh et al., 2009).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Bialystok et al., 2010

  • The normal range of variation is wide.

    “However, the normal range of variation is wide (Bialystok et al., 2010).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Bialystok et al., 2010

  • Bilingual children tend to score lower on vocabulary tests than their monolingual peers when vocabulary is measured in one language.

    “Bilingual children tend to score lower on vocabulary tests than their monolingual peers if vocabulary is measured in one language (Bialystok et al., 2010;Scheele et al., 2010;Thordardottir et al., 2006;Vagh et al., 2009).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Bialystok et al., 2010

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. Adams MJ 1990 Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print Cambridge, MA MIT Press
  2. Ivanova I Costa A 2008 Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in highly-proficient bilinguals? Acta Psychologica 127 277 288 17662226
  3. Ouellette GP 2006 What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension Journal of Educational Psychology 98 554 566
  4. Smith TC Smith BL Dobbs K 1991 Relationship between the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – revised, wide range achievement test – revised, and Wechsler intelligence scale for children – revised Journal of School Psychology 29 53 56

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BIALYSTOK, E., LUK, G., PEETS, K. F., & YANG, S.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Rotman Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
BIALYSTOK, ELLEN
ORCID
Venue
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2009-11-25
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
525-531
ISSN
  • 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1841
DOI
10.1017/s1366728909990423
PMC
PMC4349351
OpenAlex
W2132342292
Cited by
1,012
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 102 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 33
FWCI
32.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Bilingualism Language and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD052523)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
receptive vocabulary, bilingual children, monolingual children, language of testing, vocabulary size, language pairs, child language acquisition

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