Noun and verb knowledge in monolingual preschool children across 17 languages: Data from Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (LITMUS-CLT)

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of participants per age and language group.

Language\age group	3	4	5	6	Total per language	Mean age per language
Afrikaans	1	20	–	–	21	4;5
Catalan	20	20	20	–	60	4;7
English (British)	–	–	8	9	17	5;11
English (South African)	–	10	18	1	29	5;2
Finnish	11	10	15	11	47	5;0
German	–	–	33	3	36	5;6
Hebrew	–	–	11	4	15	5;8
IsiXhosa	–	10	–	–	10	4;6
Italian	–	–	10	15	25	6;2
Lithuanian	3	9	14	16	42	5;6
Luxembourgish	–	17	38	34	89	5;8
Norwegian	6	9	11	–	26	4;8
Polish	–	11	38	15	64	5;6
Serbian	–	1	13	6	20	5;10
Slovak	18	18	22	15	73	5;0
Swedish	–	7	24	1	32	5;4
Turkish	–	7	20	6	33	5;5
Total	59	149	295	136	639	5;4

Table 2. Order of CLT delivery.

	First subtask	Second subtask	Third subtask	Forth subtask
ORDER 1	Verb comp	Noun comp	Verb prod	Noun prod
ORDER 2	Noun comp	Verb comp	Noun prod	Verb prod
ORDER 3	Noun prod	Verb prod	Noun comp	Verb comp
ORDER 4	Verb prod	Noun prod	Verb comp	Noun comp

Figure 1. Distribution of frequency of word choice across 17 CLT language versions.

Table 3. Correlations between item difficulty and AoA in 17 languages (Spearman ρ coefficients).

	Comprehension		Production
Language/task	Nouns	Verbs	Nouns	Verbs	n	Range: years	Range
Afrikaans	−0.41*	−0.61**	ns	−0.68***	21	0.98	3;11–4;11
Catalan	−0.45**	−0.53***	−0.46**	−0.49**	60	2.59	3;4–5;11
English (British)	NA	ns	ns	−0.53***	17	1.58	5;2–6;9
English (South African)	−0.65***	−0.62***	−0.56**	−0.65***	29	2.18	4;0–6;2
Finnish	ns	−0.67***	−0.60***	−0.43*	47	3.92	3;0–6;11
German	ns	−0.49**	ns	−0.42*	36	1.22	5;0–6;3
Hebrew	−0.49***	−0.56***	ns	–0.67***	15	1.29	5;0–6;3
IsiXhosa	−0.63***	NA	−0.79***	−0.42*	10	0.75	4;0–4;10
Italian	ns	ns	−0.46**	−0.70***	25	1.65	5;3–6;11
Lithuanian	ns	−0.64**	ns	ns	42	3.5	3;5–6;11
Luxembourgish	−0.47**	−0.74***	−0.65***	−0.58***	89	2.18	4;7–6;10
Norwegian	−0.56**	−0.36*	−0.58***	−0.69***	26	2.42	3;6–5;11
Polish	−0.42*	−0.56**	−0.68***	−0.64***	64	2.81	4;1–6;11
Serbian	−0.30*	ns	ns	−0.53**	20	1.59	4;11–6;6
Slovak	ns	−0.70***	−0.72***	−0.55**	73	3.66	3;4–6;11
Swedish	−0.48**	ns	−0.53**	−0.36*	32	1.63	4;4–6;0
Turkish	ns	−0.42*	−0.44**	−0.59***	33	2.63	4;1–6;10

Note. English noun comprehension: no variance. *** means significance at p ≤ 0.001; ** means significance at p ≤ 0.01; * means significance at p ≤ 0.05; ns means non-significant result.

Table 4. Correlations between item difficulty and CI in 17 languages (Spearman ρ coefficients).

	Comprehension		Production
Language /task	Nouns	Verbs	Nouns	Verbs	n	Range: years	Range
Afrikaans	ns	ns	ns	−0,44*	21	0,98	3;11–4;11
Catalan	ns	ns	ns	ns	60	2,59	3;4–5;11
English	NA	ns	ns	ns	17	1,58	5;2–6;9
English (South African)	−0,37*	ns	−0,50**	ns	29	2,18	4;0–6;2
Finnish	ns	ns	−0,38*	−0,42*	47	3.92	3;0–6;11
German	ns	ns	ns	ns	36	1,22	5;0–6;3
Hebrew	ns	ns	ns	ns	15	1,29	5;0–6;3
IsiXhosa	ns	NA	ns	ns	10	0,75	4;0–4;10
Italian	ns	ns	ns	ns	25	1,65	5;3–6;11
Lithuanian	ns	−0,38*	ns	ns	42	3,5	3;5–6;11
Luxembourgish	ns	ns	ns	ns	89	2,18	4;7–6;10
Norwegian	ns	ns	ns	ns	26	2,42	3;6–5;11
Polish	ns	ns	−0,41*	ns	64	2,81	4;1–6;11
Serbian	ns	ns	ns	−0,39*	20	1,59	4;11–6;6
Slovak	ns	ns	ns	ns	73	3,66	3;4–6;11
Swedish	ns	ns	ns	ns	32	1,63	4;4–6;0
Turkish	ns	ns	ns	−0,53**	33	2,63	4;1–6;10

Note. English noun comprehension: no variance. *** means significance at p ≤ 0.001; ** means significance at p ≤ 0.01; * means significance at p ≤ 0.05; ns means non-significant result.

Figure 2. CLT accuracy across 17 languages.

Note. Verb comprehension data in isiXhosa were not included in the analysis. Error bars represent 1/2 SD.Tables – Noun and verb knowledge in monolingual preschool children across 17 languages: Data from Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (CLTs)

Table 5. Correlations of the CLTs results with the participants’ age (Spearman ρ coefficients).

	Comprehension		Production
Language/task	Nouns	Verbs	Nouns	Verbs	Total	n	Age range
Total	0.49***	0.50***	0.52***	0.51***	0.61***	639	3;0–6;11
Afrikaans	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	21	3;11–4;11
Catalan	0.52***	0.75***	0.61***	0.73***	0.81***	60	3;4–5;11
English	NA	ns	ns	ns	ns	17	5;2–6;9
English (South African)	0.59**	0.62***	0.67***	0.72***	0.66***	29	4;0–6;2
Finnish	0.57***	0.69***	0.66***	0.68***	0.73***	47	3;0–6;11
German	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	36	5;0–6;3
Hebrew	ns	0.55*	ns	ns	ns	15	5;0–6;3
IsiXhosa	ns	NA	0.73*	ns	ns	10	4;0–4;10
Italian	ns	ns	ns	0.40*	0.46*	25	5;3–6;11
Lithuanian	0.49**	0.47**	0.43**	0.62***	0.61***	42	3;5–6;11
Luxembourgish	0.36***	ns	0.31**	ns	0.25*	89	4;7–6;10
Norwegian	ns	0.68***	0.74***	0.82***	0.80***	26	3;6–5;11
Polish	0.26*	0.36**	0.38**	0.48***	0.50***	64	4;1–6;11
Serbian	ns	ns	ns	0.71**	0.57**	20	4;11–6;6
Slovak	0.39*	0.67***	0.47***	0.52***	0.64***	73	3;4–6;11
Swedish	0.53**	0.36*	0.46*	0.51**	0.58**	32	4;4–6;0
Turkish	ns	0.39**	ns	ns	0.40*	33	4;1–6;10

Note. There was no variance for the comprehension of nouns in the British English.

Verb comprehension data in isiXhosa were not included in the analysis.

***, ** and * indicate significance levels at p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; ns – non-significant result.

Table 6. Within-subject and between-subject effects in the ANCOVA.

		df	F	p	Partial η^2
Between-subject	Intercept	1	859.42	<0.001	0.58
	Age	1	260.84	<0.001	0.30
	Language	15	7.78	<0.001	0.16
	Error df	612
Within-subject	Subtask	1	234.42	<0.001	0.28
	Subtask * age	1	56.75	<0.001	0.09
	Subtask * language	15	5.20	<0.001	0.11
	Word category	1	204.30	<0.001	0.25
	Word category * age	1	82.52	<0.001	0.12
	Word category * language	15	22.11	<0.001	0.35
	Task * word category	1	0.78	0.38	0.00

Table 7. Marginal means of the subtask results across languages, with a Bonferroni correction for the confidence intervals.

Language	Subtask	Mean	SE	95% Confidence interval
				Lower bound	Upper bound
Afrikaans***	Comprehension	0.89	0.01	0.86	0.92
	Production	0.73	0.02	0.69	0.77
Catalan***	Comprehension	0.91	0.01	0.90	0.93
	Production	0.72	0.01	0.70	0.74
English (British)***	Comprehension	0.96	0.02	0.93	0.99
	Production	0.79	0.02	0.75	0.83
English (South African)***	Comprehension	0.90	0.01	0.87	0.92
	Production	0.75	0.02	0.71	0.78
Finnish***	Comprehension	0.95	0.01	0.93	0.97
	Production	0.74	0.01	0.71	0.76
German***	Comprehension	0.95	0.01	0.93	0.97
	Production	0.83	0.01	0.80	0.86
Hebrew***	Comprehension	0.92	0.02	0.89	0.95
	Production	0.71	0.02	0.66	0.75
Italian***	Comprehension	0.93	0.01	0.90	0.95
	Production	0.71	0.02	0.67	0.74
Lithuanian***	Comprehension	0.95	0.01	0.93	0.97
	Production	0.78	0.01	0.76	0.81
Luxembourgish***	Comprehension	0.91	0.01	0.91	0.93
	Production	0.73	0.01	0.71	0.75
Norwegian***	Comprehension	0.96	0.01	0.93	0.98
	Production	0.73	0.02	0.69	0.76
Polish***	Comprehension	0.95	0.01	0.93	0.97
	Production	0.77	0.01	0.75	0.79
Serbian**	Comprehension	0.95	0.02	0.92	0.98
	Production	0.85	0.02	0.81	0.89
Slovak***	Comprehension	0.91	0.01	0.89	0.92
	Production	0.74	0.01	0.72	0.76
Swedish***	Comprehension	0.96	0.01	0.94	0.99
	Production	0.78	0.02	0.75	0.81
Turkish***	Comprehension	0.98	0.01	0.96	1.00
	Production	0.81	0.01	0.78	0.84

Note. *** and ** indicate significance levels at p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively.

Table 8. Marginal means of the word categories results across languages, with a Bonferroni correction for the confidence intervals.

Language	Subtask	Mean	SE	95% Confidence interval
				Lower bound	Upper bound
Afrikaans^ns	Nouns	0.82	0.01	0.80	0.85
	Verbs	0.80	0.02	0.76	0.84
Catalan***	Nouns	0.92	0.01	0.90	0.93
	Verbs	0.72	0.01	0.70	0.74
English (British)*	Nouns	0.92	0.01	0.89	0.95
	Verbs	0.83	0.02	0.79	0.87
English (South African)***	Nouns	0.89	0.01	0.87	0.91
	Verbs	0.75	0.02	0.72	0.78
Finnish***	Nouns	0.90	0.01	0.88	0.91
	Verbs	0.79	0.01	0.77	0.82
German***	Nouns	0.93	0.01	0.91	0.95
	Verbs	0.85	0.01	0.82	0.88
Hebrew***	Nouns	0.89	0.02	0.86	0.92
	Verbs	0.74	0.02	0.69	0.78
Italian***	Nouns	0.90	0.01	0.87	0.92
	Verbs	0.74	0.02	0.70	0.77
Lithuanian**	Nouns	0.90	0.01	0.88	0.92
	Verbs	0.84	0.01	0.81	0.86
Luxembourgish***	Nouns	0.88	0.01	0.87	0.90
	Verbs	0.76	0.01	0.74	0.78
Norwegian^ns	Nouns	0.87	0.01	0.85	0.89
	Verbs	0.81	0.02	0.78	0.85
Polish***	Nouns	0.90	0.01	0.89	0.92
	Verbs	0.82	0.01	0.80	0.84
Serbian*	Nouns	0.94	0.01	0.91	0.97
	Verbs	0.86	0.02	0.82	0.90
Slovak***	Nouns	0.89	0.01	0.87	0.90
	Verbs	0.76	0.01	0.74	0.78
Swedish^ns	Nouns	0.88	0.01	0.86	0.90
	Verbs	0.86	0.02	0.83	0.89
Turkish**	Nouns	0.93	0.01	0.91	0.95
	Verbs	0.86	0.02	0.83	0.88

Note. ***, ** and * indicate significance levels at p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; ns – non-significant result.

Table

Language pairs	Tasks used	References
English–Spanish	CDI	Conboy and Thal (2006)
	Comprehension (PPVT, TVIP), naming (Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, EOWPVT – Spanish and English)	Allman (2005)
	Comprehension (PPVT + TVIP)	Barnett and Lamy (2006)
	BESOS	Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez and Gillam (2010) and Peña, Bedore, and Kester (2015)
	Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery – Revised for English and Spanish	Duursma et al. (2007) and Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2011)
	Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery – Revised for English and Spanish + PPVT+TVIP	Uchikoshi (2006)
	Naming (modified Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test)	Gorman (2012)
	Comprehension (PPVT + TVIP), naming (TELD-3 + PLS-3)	Hammer et al. (2012)
	Naming task prepared for this study	Kohnert, Bates, and Hernandez (1999)
English–French	Comprehension (PPVT + EVIP), naming (EOWPVT + French version of EOWPVT)	Chiang and Rvachew (2007)
	Comprehension (PPVT + EVIP – Canadian French PPVT), naming (Expressive Vocabulary subtest of CELF, expression-vocabuilare subtest of N-EEL)	Thordardottir (2011)
English–Greek	Comprehension & naming (Wechlser Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence - Revised)	Loizou and Stuart (2003)
English–Hebrew	CDI	Armon-Lotem and Ohana (2017)
English–Hmong	Receptive + picture naming tasks developed for this study	Kan and Kohnert (2005) and Kohnert, Kan and Conboy (2010)
English–Irish	CDI	O’Toole and Fletcher (2010) and O’Toole and Hickey (2017)
English–Maltese	CDI	Gatt (2017)
English–Mandarin	PPVT translated from English	Dixon (2011)
English–Polish	CDI	Miękisz et al. (2017)
English–Vietnamese	ROWPVT + EOWPVT translated from English	Pham and Kohnert (2014)
English–Samoan	Receptive + picture naming tasks developed for this study	Hemsley, Holm and Dodd (2013)
Dutch–Arabic and Dutch–Turkish	Part of the Test for Bilingualism (Toets Tweetaligheid) (Verhoeven, Narain, Extra, Konak, & Zerrouk, 1995)	Messer (2010)
	Comprehension (Diagnostic Test of Bilingualism) + instrument specifically developed for research with bilingual immigrant children	Scheele (2010)
	Comprehension + naming (parts of the Diagnostic Test of Bilingual Development)	Van Tuijl, Leseman, and Rispens (2001)
Dutch–French	CDI	De Houwer et al. (2014)
German–Turkish	CDI	Rinker, Budde-Spengler, and Sachse (2017)
Luxembourgish–Portuguese	EOWPVT and BPVS translated from English	Engel de Abreu, Baldassi, Puglisi and Befi-Lopes (2013)
	EOWPVT and PPVT translated from English	Engel de Abreu, Cruz-Santos and Puglisi (2014)
Luxembourgish–German–French	EOWPVT translated from English	Engel de Abreu and Gathercole (2012)
Russian–German	Picture-naming task comprising pictures of objects and actions	Klassert, Gagarina, and Kauschke (2014)

Conboy, B. T., & Thal, D. J. (2006). Ties Between the lexicon and grammar: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 77 (3), 712–735.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Allman, B. (2005). Vocabulary size and accuracy of monolingual and bilingual preschool children. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (vol. 5, pp. 58–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

 Google Scholar

Barnett, W. S., & Lamy, C. (2006). Estimated impacts of number of years of preschool attendance on vocabulary, literacy and math skills at kindergarten entry. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

 Google Scholar

Bohman, T. M., Bedore, L. M., Pena, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language performance in Spanish English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13 (3), 325–344.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peña, E. D., Bedore, L., & Kester, E. S. (2015). Discriminant accuracy of a semantics measure with Latino English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and English–Spanish bilingual children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 53, 30–41.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., Snow, C., August, D., & Calderon, M. (2007). The role of home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ English and Spanish vocabulary development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (01), 171–190.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). Early home language use and later vocabulary development. Journal of educational psychology, 103 (3), 535–546.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners: What are the best predictors? Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 9 (1), 33–49.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gorman, B. K. (2012). Relationships between vocabulary size, working memory, and phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21 (2), 109–123.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B. L., Lopez, L. M., Scarpino, S. E., & Goldstein, B. (2012). Predicting Spanish-English bilingual children’s language abilities. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 55 (5), 1251–1264.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kohnert, K. J., Bates, E., & Hernandez, A. E. (1999). Balancing bilinguals: Lexical-semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42 (6), 1400–1412.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chiang, P. Y., & Rvachew, S. (2007). English-French bilingual children’s phonological awareness and vocabulary skills. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée (RCLA), 10 (3), 293–308.

 Google Scholar

Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15 (4), 426–445.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Loizou, M., & Stuart, M. (2003). Phonological awareness in monolingual and bilingual English and Greek five-year-olds. Journal of Research in Reading, 26 (1), 3–18.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Armon-Lotem, S., & Ohana, O. (2017). A CDI study of bilingual english-hebrew children – frequency of exposure as a major source of variation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (2), 201–217.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English lexical-semantic skills in L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48 (02), 372–383.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kohnert, K., Kan, P. F., & Conboy, B. T. (2010). Lexical and grammatical associations in sequential bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53 (3), 684–698.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’Toole, C., & Fletcher, P. (2010). Validity of a parent report instrument for Irish-speaking toddlers. First language, 30 (2), 199–217.

 Google Scholar

O’Toole, C. & Hickey, T.M. (2017). Bilingual language acquisition in a minority context: Using the Irish-English Communicative Development Inventory to track acquisition of an endangered language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (2), 146–162.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gatt, D. (2017). Bilingual vocabulary production in young children receiving Maltese-dominant exposure: individual differences and the influence of demographic and language exposure factors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (2), 163–182.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dixon, L. Q. (2011). The role of home and school factors in predicting English vocabulary among bilingual kindergarten children in Singapore. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32 (01), 141–168.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miękisz, A., Haman, E., Łuniewska, M., Kuś, K., O’Toole, C. & Katsos, N. (2017). Impact of first generation immigrant environment on the heritage language: Productive vocabulary of polish toddlers living in the UK and Ireland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (2), 183–200.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pham, G., & Kohnert, K. J. (2014). A longitudinal study of lexical development in children learning Vietnamese and English. Child Development, 85 (2), 767–782.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hemsley, G., Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (2013). Conceptual distance and word learning: Patterns of acquisition in Samoan–English bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 40 (04), 799–820.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Messer, M. H. (2010). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary development in monolingual Dutch and bilingual Turkish-Dutch preschoolers ( Unpublished PhD dissertation). Utrecht University.

 Google Scholar

Scheele, A. (2010). Home language and mono- and bilingual children’s emergent academic language. A longitudinal study of Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch, and Turkish-Dutch 3- to 6-olds (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Utrecht University.

 Google Scholar

Van Tuijl, C., Leseman, P. P. M., & Rispens, J. (2001). Efficacy of an intensive home-based educational intervention programme for 4-to 6-year-old ethnic minority children in the Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(2), 148–159.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2014). A bilingual–monolingual comparison of young children’s vocabulary size: Evidence from comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35 (06), 1189–1211.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rinker, T., Budde-Spengler, N., & Sachse, S. (2017). The relationship between L1 and L2 lexical development in young Turkish-German children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (2), 218–233.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klassert, A., Gagarina, N., & Kauschke, C. (2014). Object and action naming in Russian- and German-speaking monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (01), 73–88.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar