Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers

Kupisch, Tanja, Rothman, Jason·2018·International Journal of Bilingualism
DOI 10.1177/1367006916654355
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper integrates research on child simultaneous bilingual acquisition more directly into the heritage language acquisition literature. The child simultaneous bilingual literature mostly focuses on development in childhood, whereas heritage speakers are often tested at an endstate in adulthood. However, insights from child simultaneous bilingual acquisition must be considered in heritage language acquisition theorizing precisely because many heritage speakers demonstrate the adult outcomes of child simultaneous bilingual acquisition. Data from child simultaneous bilingual acquisition raises serious questions for the construct of incomplete acquisition, a term broadly used in heritage language acquisition studies to describe almost any difference heritage speakers display from baseline controls (usually monolinguals). We offer an epistemological discussion related to incomplete acquisition, highlighting the descriptive and theoretical inaccuracy of the term. We focus our discussion on two of several possible causal factors that contribute to variable competence outcomes in adult heritage speakers: input and formal instruction in the heritage language. We conclude by offering alternative terminology for heritage speaker outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1367006916654355

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Barton D. (2015). Generische Nominalphrasen bei deutsch-französischer Zweisprachigkeit. PhD Dissertation, University of Hamburg.
  2. Kehoe M. (2015). Cross-linguistic interaction: A retrospective and prospective view. In Babatsouli E., Ingram D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on monolingual and bilingual speech 2015 (pp. 141–167). URL: http://ismbs.eu/publications
  3. Kupisch T., 2010, Proceedings of the 34th BUCLD, 245
  4. Pascual y Cabo D., 2013, Proceedings of the 12th GASLA conference, 162
  5. Valdés G., 2000, Spanish for native speakers, Volume I. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16, 1

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J.
Affiliations
  • Universität Konstanz, Germany
  • University of Reading, UK
Venue
International Journal of Bilingualism
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-06-22
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
564-582
ISSN
  • 1367-0069
  • 1756-6878
DOI
10.1177/1367006916654355
Cited by
309
References
62
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.