Search

Research question: How does Russian and German reading comprehension develop during the first 3 years of primary school in Russian heritage speakers and which factors predict performance in each language? Methodology: 40 Russian-German children were tested annually from first to third grade (age in grade 1 M = 7; 1 years). Reading was assessed with comparable Russian and German word and sentence reading comprehension tests. The Russian test was available in Cyrillic and Latin script (the latter for children who could not read Cyrillic letters). Potential predictors included lexicon size in Russian and German and rapid automatized naming (RAN) of numbers (both assessed in primary school). Other factors were assessed in kindergarten, that is, nonverbal reasoning and, derived from a parents' questionnaire, their socioeconomic status and language input in the family. Data and analysis: Linear regressions were used to compare the development of Russian and German. Stepwise regression analyses identified predictors for reading comprehension in each language. Findings: German reading ability improved faster than that of Russian, likely due to the increasing amount of German input outside the family, literacy instruction in German at school, and the large variance in Russian literacy abilities. Children who could read Cyrillic script, who likely received some form of Russian literacy instruction, and who had a larger Russian lexicon size exhibited better reading performance. These results are discussed regarding the divergent attainment trajectories. Decisive factors for German were German lexicon size and RAN. Originality: This longitudinal study tracked Russian and German reading development over 3 years in primary school, assessed Russian reading in Cyrillic and Latin scripts, and identified predictors for bilingual reading development in both languages. Implications: To become proficient readers in their heritage language, children need to have a substantial lexicon size and receive literacy instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Matching participants (as suggested by Hope, 2015) may be one promising option for research on a potential bilingual advantage in executive functions (EF). In this study we first compared performances in three EF-tasks of a naturally heterogeneous sample of monolingual (n = 69, age = 9.0 y) and multilingual children (n = 57, age = 9.3 y). Secondly, we meticulously matched participants pairwise to obtain two highly homogeneous groups to rerun our analysis and investigate a potential bilingual advantage. The initally disadvantaged multilinguals (regarding socioeconomic status and German lexicon size) performed worse in updating and response inhibition, but similarly in interference inhibition. This indicates that superior EF compensate for the detrimental effects of the background variables. After matching children pairwise on age, gender, intelligence, socioeconomic status and German lexicon size, performances became similar except for interference inhibition. Here, an advantage for multilinguals in the form of globally reduced reaction times emerged, indicating a bilingual executive processing advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Mean response latencies (with error bars indicating standard errors) of the A) go/nogo task, B) BST and C) N-back for the homogenous groups (mono-linguals - dark bars and multilinguals - light bars). A path to the bilingual advantage: Pairwise matching of individuals- CORRIGENDUM When originally published, the article by Czapka I et al i , included the wrong caption for Fig 1. [Extracted from the article]