Running head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT - McGill · PDF fileRunning head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ......
Transcript of Running head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT - McGill · PDF fileRunning head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ......
Language Development 1
Running head: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Language Development in Internationally-Adopted Children:
A Special Case of Early Second Language Learning
Karine Gauthier and Fred Genesee
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
In press Child Development
Language Development 2
Abstract
The French language development of children adopted (n = 24) from China was compared to that
of control children matched for socio-economic status, sex, and age. The children were assessed at
50 months of age, on average, and 16 months later. The initial assessment revealed that the two
groups did not differ with respect to socio-emotional adjustment or intellectual abilities. However,
the adopted childrens expressive language skills were significantly lower than those of the non-
adopted children at both assessments. The receptive language skills were also significantly weaker
for the adopted children at the second assessment. The results are discussed in terms of possible
early age-of-acquisition effects that might affect adopted childrens ability to acquire a second
first language.
In press Child Development
Language Development 3
Language Development in Internationally-Adopted Children:
A Special Case of Early Second Language Learning
In the last decade, there has been substantial interest in the language development of
internationally-adopted (IA) children. Several reasons explain this interest. First, there has been a
significant number of international adoptions in North America during the past 15 years (e.g., U.S.
Department of State, 2005). Second, the language learning experience of IA children is an
interesting natural experiment in early second language acquisition they discontinue exposure to
and acquisition of the birth language as they begin to acquire a new language or a second first
language (De Geer, 1992). Third, there are clinical concerns that IA children are at risk for
language difficulties owing to the abrupt change in language exposure they experience (Glennen
& Masters, 2002); adverse pre-adoption rearing conditions, including poor physical and medical
care, social deprivation, lack of intellectual and emotional stimulation (e.g., Croft et al., 2007;
Mason, 2005; Meacham, 2006); and/or delayed exposure to the adopted language (Abrahamsson
& Hyltenstam, 2009).
The results of research on the language learning outcomes of IA children in the short and
medium term tend to differ depending on their country of origin, with children from China often
demonstrating better language and other developmental outcomes than children from other regions
of the world (Dalen & Rygvold, 2006; Lapointe, Gagnon-Oosterwal, Cossette, Pomerleau, &
Malcuit, 2006; Tessier et al., 2005). Since the present study involves children from China, we
focus on research findings for these children. In the aggregate, research on IA children from China
indicates that the early acquisition of their adoptive language progresses relatively rapidly
(Krakow & Roberts, 2003; Pollock, 2005) and appears to follow the same developmental pattern
as that demonstrated by monolingual children (Snedeker, Geren, & Shafto, 2007). Even after a
In press Child Development
Language Development 4
relatively short period of exposure to the new language, a sizeable proportion of IA children from
China have been found to score within the typical range on standardized tests normed on native
speakers of the adoptive language (Glennen & Masters, 2005; Roberts, Pollock, Krakow, Price, et
al, 2005; Tan & Yang, 2005; Scott, Roberts, & Krakow, 2008). However, there is also evidence
suggesting that there might be a subgroup of approximately 20% who exhibit significant language
delays/difficulties or receives speech/language therapy services (Roberts, Pollock, & Krakow,
2005; Tan, Dedrick, & Marfo, 2007). Some studies report that the younger IA children are at
adoption, the better their performance at the time of assessment (Miller & Hendrie, 2000; Roberts,
Pollock, Krakow, Price, et al., 2005); but, other studies have not found a link between age at
adoption and language skills (e.g., Dalen & Rygvold, 2006). It has also been found that IA
children who were older at the time of adoption initially made faster progress in acquiring the new
language in comparison to younger children (e.g., Krakow, Tao and Roberts, 2005).
Most research on IA children has focused on the pre-school years, although a number of
studies have examined the language outcomes of school-age children (see Scott, 2009, for a
review). Some of these studies report that, on average, IA children tend to score in the typical
range on a variety of oral and written language tests. Again, however, there is some indication of a
higher incidence of academic or language-related difficulty among school-age IA children.
With respect to other developmental domains, IA children from China have generally been
found to perform in the average range on measures of cognitive functioning (Lapointe et al., 2006;
Scott et al., 2008), even when compared to control children matched for familial SES (Cohen et
al., 2008) and to score satisfactorily on measures of socio-emotional adjustment (Dedrick, Tan, &
Marfo, 2008; Tan & Marfo, 2006). In fact, Tan and Marfo, as well as Dedrick et al., found that IA
children from China tended to obtain better behavioral and emotional functioning scores
according to parent ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 (CBCL/6-18) in
In press Child Development
Language Development 5
comparison to Achenbach and Rescorlas U.S. normative data. The children (N = 695) in Tan and
Marfos study were between 1.5 and 11 years of age while those (N = 516) in Dedrick et al.s
study were between 6 and 15.7 years of age.
IA children are usually raised in adoptive homes with higher than average socioeconomic
status (SES) (Tan & Yang, 2005; Tessier et al., 2005). SES is important to consider when
assessing the language outcomes of young language learners since it has been found to have
significant effects on childrens language learning environment and, in turn, on their language
development (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2006). Except for Cohen et al. (2008), SES has not
usually been controlled for in studies of IA children. Cohen et al. compared the language
outcomes of IA children, adopted between 8 and 21 months of age (n = 70), to those of non-
adopted children (n = 43) who were matched for SES. The IA children were assessed initially 4 to
6 weeks post-adoption and then 6, 12, and 24 months later. The language skills of the IA children,
assessed using the Expressive scale of the Pre-school Language Scale 3, were in the average range
in comparison to test norms, but were significantly lower than those of the non-adopted control
children. There were no between-group differences on the Receptive scale of the Pre-school
Language Scale and the performance of the IA children was similar to that of the control children
on tests of cognitive and motor functioning at the 24-month follow-up assessment.
The present study
The results reviewed to this point attest to IA childrens resilient language learning
abilities despite concerns, outlined earlier, that they might be at risk for language development
post-adoption. At the same time, the use of norm-referenced assessment tools alone cannot
ascertain the full extent of IA childrens language learning without taking into account their post-
adoption learning environment and, in particular, the enriched language learning environments
associated with high levels of familial SES. Cohen et al.s (2008) results illustrate how critical
In press Child Development
Language Development 6
such different comparison points can be insofar as their IA sample scored within the normal range
on standardized expressive and receptive language tests, but significantly lower than SES-matched
controls on an expressive language test. A number of questions arise from Cohens et al. study
which need to be addressed before the differences they report can be accepted with full
confidence. First, would their findings replicate with a different group of adoptees? The present
study examined the language development of children adopted from China who were being raised
in monolingual French-speaking families. This is the only study, to our knowledge, to investigate
the acquisition of French by IA children. Second, are the differences reported in Cohen et al. due
to their adopted childrens relatively short exposure to their adoptive language? At the final
assessment, the IA children in Cohens study had had 24 months exposure to English. This may be
too short for IA children to reach parity with matched control children, although it is longer than is
generally reported to be necessary for IA children to achieve scores in the typical range on
standardized tests (Krakow & Roberts, 2003; Tan & Yang, 2005). In the present study, IA
childrens language abilities were assessed twice: initially 36.1 months post-adoption and a second
time 51.7 months post-adoption twice as long, on