Journal of Child Language · 1995 · 275 citations · 32 references
EducationLinguisticsLiteracy EducationChild DevelopmentPhonological AwarenessSecond Language LearningBilingual DevelopmentOnset-rime AwarenessPhoneme AwarenessPhonological AcquisitionSecond Language AcquisitionSecond Language DevelopmentCross-language Phonological AwarenessEarly Phoneme AwarenessOnset-rime ClassificationPhoneme Awareness DevelopmentPhoneme-level AwarenessRime SegmentationSyllable Segmentation AssessmentYoung Learners
English‑speaking children (N = 91) attending French schools were tested on phonological awareness in kindergarten and grade 1, with age‑matched English‑speaking children (N = 72) in English schools serving as a comparison group. Bilingual children showed higher onset‑rime awareness in kindergarten, but by grade 1 differences were nuanced: monolinguals outperformed bilinguals on phoneme awareness while bilinguals surpassed monolinguals on syllable segmentation, indicating literacy instruction boosts phoneme awareness whereas second‑language input enhances syllable awareness.
ABSTRACT English-speaking children ( N = 91) who were attending French schools (bilingual group) were given a battery of phonological awareness tests in kindergarten and in grade 1. At the time of kindergarten testing the mean age of the children was 5:9. Their performance was compared to age-matched English-speaking children ( N = 72) attending English schools (monolingual group). The bilingual children showed heightened levels of phonological awareness skills in kindergarten in the area of onset-rime awareness. By grade 1, the pattern of group differences was more complex. The monolingual and bilingual children performed similarly on onset-rime segmentation tasks. The monolingual children had higher phoneme awareness scores than their French-schooled peers; this result is interpreted to reflect the role of literacy instruction on phoneme awareness development. In comparison, the bilingual children had higher syllable segmentation scores than their monolingual peers. This result is interpreted to reflect the role of second language input on phonological awareness.
32