1. • Figure 1. English was the
predominant language in which
questions were posed to the
child, although more than half
of the questions were given in a
non-English language.
• Figure 2. Despite the language
of adult questions, the majority
of the child’s responses were in
English.
• Figure 3. Of the 482 responses
that could be analyzed, the
child matched the language of
the speaker 295 times, with the
majority of the matches
occurring in English.
• Figure 4. The “Other” category
includes ambiguous responses
and non-responses.
• Figure 4. The number of
mismatches for Japanese and
Mandarin are approximately
double that of matches as
opposed to English, where
matches outweigh mismatches.
Early Sensitivity to Language Context in a Trilingual Toddler
James Lee  Psychological and Brain Sciences  Speech and Hearing Sciences  Indiana University - Bloomington
Children who simultaneously acquire more than one language from birth
must learn to use each language differentially and appropriately with
different interlocutors. Pragmatic differentiation has been reported as
early two years of age in studies of children growing up in bilingual
households (Nicoladis & Genesee,1996).
This preliminary investigation explores how early in development language
sensitivity is present in a single trilingual child. Of particular interest is
whether the capacity to respond to adult questions in the language of the
speaker emerges simultaneously across all three languages or if
variations in language input play a role. We hypothesized that the child
would use each language appropriately in proportion to its relative
dominance, rather than appear as a monolithic development.
Method
Table 1. Coding of Adult Questions and Child Responses
Results Results
75.5%
11.2% 11.4%
1.9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
English Japanese Mandarin Mixed
MeanProportion
Language of Child’s Response
Figure 2. Child Responses by Language
References
1. DeLoache, J.S. & DeMendoza, O.A. (1987). Joint picturebook interactions of mothers and 1-year-old children. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 111-123.
2. Nicoladis, E. & Genesee, F. (1996). A longitudinal study of pragmatic differentiation in young bilingual children. Language
Learning, 46, 439-464.
3. Tare, M. & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Can You Say It Another Way? Cognitive Factors in Bilingual Children’s Pragmatic
Langauge Skills. Journal Of Cognition & Development, 11(2), 137-158.
Mentored by Dr. Lisa Gershkoff
Participant
One male trilingual child simultaneously exposed to three languages:
Mandarin from the mother, Japanese from the father, and English from the
surrounding environment.
• Age at start of study = 19 months;19 days
• Age at end of study = 29 months; 8 days
Procedure
The child and his parents visited the laboratory approximately every 3
weeks. Parent reports of language exposure outside the lab were
obtained at each session. Videotaped sessions consisted of spontaneous
free-play and book reading with both parents and an English-speaking
experimenter. Data from the final 10 of 20 sessions are presented.
Coding
Sessions were transcribed using Computerized Language Analysis
(CLAN). Adult questions were coded for speaker, language, and type of
question (DeLoache & DeMendoza, 1987).
o “Wh” questions – “what do you want?” | “kore nan daroo?”
o Yes-No questions – “do you want the mice?” | “上面有馬嗎?”
o Tag questions – “you’re looking for that, right” | “你穿穿看好不好?”
o Other – “hot?” | “小豬喔?”
Child responses were coded for type of language. Non-responses and
ambiguous responses were noted but not further analyzed.
Total Number of Questions & Responses
Adult Questions = 1468
Child Responses = 644 (44%)
Unambiguous Responses analyzed = 482
Matched Responses = 295 (61%)
Acknowledgements: Thanks to current and former members of the Trilingual group, the Baby Language Lab, Kaitlyn Crawford, Dr. Tessa Bent, the
participating child and his parents.
This research was supported by the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology
Conclusions
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
19;19 20;10 21;0 21;22 22;12 24;14 25;3 26;29 27;26 29;8
MeanProportion
Age in Months and Days
Figure 6. Language Input Outside the Laboratory
English Japanese Mandarin
Introduction
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
19;19 20;10 21;0 21;22 22;12 24;14 25;3 26;29 27;26 29;8
MeanProportion
Age in Months and Days
Figure 5. Matched Response by Age
English Japanese Mandarin
71.2%
13.2% 15.6%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
English Japanese Mandarin
MeanProportion
Language of Child's Response
Figure 3. Child-To-Adult Language Matches
Matched Responses by Age
• Figure 5. The child consistently matched the Mandarin language of his
mother throughout the study but it was not until 24 months of age that
he showed a sudden increase in matching the Japanese language of
his father.
• In this single case study, one child demonstrated the ability to choose
between three languages according to the linguistic knowledge of the
speaker as early as 19 months of age.
• Given that both parents used English in addition to their native language
outside the laboratory, English appears to be the child’s dominant
language and this is reflected in how he responds inside the laboratory.
• Contrary to other reports of pragmatic differentiation in bilingual children
(Tare & Gelman, 2010), we found an uneven developmental pattern,
making it unlikely that metacognitive understanding is responsible for
developments in sensitivity to language context.
• Future analysis is underway to examine the size of the child’s
vocabulary in each language as an alternative explanation for the
differences found here.
Language Input Outside the Lab by Age
• Figure 6. Child-to-adult language matches shown in Figure 5 do not
reflect the language input received outside the lab, suggesting that other
factors are operating on the child’s sensitivity to language context.
UNAMBIGUOUS
CHILD RESPONSES
ADULT
QUESTIONS
LANGUAGE
MISMATCH
LANGUAGE
MATCH
42.1%
23.7%
31.9%
2.2%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
English Japanese Mandarin Mixed
MeanProportion
Language of Adult Questions
Figure 1. Adult Questions by Language
34.0%
11.3% 9.9%
1.5%
23.3%
17.0%
64.6% 65.4%
73.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
English Japanese Mandarin
MeanProportion
Language
Figure 4. Type of Child's Response
Match Mismatch Other