Cover not available
Part of
Language Impairment in Multilingual Settings: LITMUS in action across Europe
Edited by Sharon Armon-Lotem and Kleanthes K. Grohmann
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 29] 2021
► pp. 99–130

Lexical diversity in bilingual speakers of Croatian and Italian

| University of Zagreb
| University of Padua
The aim of this study was to determine whether measures of lexical diversity (LD) can be used to assess general lexical knowledge. This study focused on 30 sequential Croatian/Italian bilinguals aged between 5 and 7 years, who were compared with 30 Croatian and 30 Italian monolinguals matched in age. LD was assessed from narrative language samples using standard measures and compared with Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) results. Two LD measures, the type-token ratio (TTR) and Maas Index based on TTR transformation, did not differentiate between bilinguals and monolinguals, whereas several other did: total number of words (NTW), number of different words (NDW), measure D, moving average type-token ratio (MATTR) and hypergeometric diversity of D (HD-D). NTW, NDW, D, MATTR and HD-D were predictive of PPVT results for monolinguals, whereas NDW, TNW and D (with replacements, Dr) were predictive of PPVT results for bilinguals. Our results suggest that LD measures can be reliable measures of bilinguals’ vocabulary knowledge and can adequately reflect PPVT results in languages other than English.
Keywords: bilingualism, lexical diversity, cross-language associations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1LD measures
    • 2.2LD measures in bilingual research
    • 2.3Croatian and Italian language features
    • 2.4Aims of the study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
      • 3.2.1Language samples
      • 3.2.2LD indices
      • 3.2.3Vocabulary test
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1PPVT
    • 4.2Quantitative LD measures
    • 4.3TTR and its transformations
    • 4.4Model-based indices
    • 4.5Correlations among measures
    • 4.6LD measures as predictors of PPVT performance
    • 4.7Analyses of differences across languages in bilinguals
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.29.04hrz
References (72)
References
Acarlar, F., & Johnston, J. (2010). Turkish SALT: Computer-assisted language sample analysis. In S. Topbaş & M. Yavaş (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish (pp. 119–139). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bedore, L. M., Pena, E. D., Gillamb, R. B., & Hoa, T. H. (2010). Language sample measures and language ability in Spanish English bilingual kindergarteners. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 498–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisazza, A., & Monz, C. (2014). Class-based language modelling for translating into morphologically rich languages. In J. Tsujii & J. Hajic (Eds.) Proceedings of COLING 2014: 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (1918–1927). Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. (2003). Test for reception of grammar, Version 2. The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bishop, D., Kuvač Kraljević, J., Hržica, G., Kovačević, M., & Kologranić Belić, L. (2013). TROG-HR Test razumijevanja gramatike. Naklada Slap.Google Scholar
Bishop, D., Suraniti, S., Ferri, R., & Neri, V. (2009). Test for reception of grammar, version 2 TROG-2, Edizioni Italy. Giunti OS.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Covington, M. A. (2007). CASPR research report 2007–05. MATTR user manual. The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian knot: The moving-average type-token ratio MATTR. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 94–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & Macnamara, D. S. (2013). Validating lexical measures using human scores of lexical proficiency. In S. Jarvis & M. H. Daller (Eds.), Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 105–134). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 570–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, V., & Chlumská, L. (2015). Simplification in translated Czech: A new approach to type-token ratio. Russian Linguistics, 39(3), 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Achille, P., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). La flessione del nome dall’italiano antico all’italiano contemporaneo. In N. Maraschio & T. Poggi Salani (Eds.), Italia linguistica anno Mille – Italia linguistica anno Duemila. Atti del XXXIV congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (pp. 211–230). Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Daller, H., van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, M. H., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). Moving between languages: Turkish returnees from Germany. In B. Menzel & C. Engel (Eds.), Rückkehr in die Fremde? Ethnische Remigration russlanddeutscher Spätaussiedler (Ost-West-Express. Kultur und Übersetzung 21, pp. 185–212). Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Daller, M., Yildiz, C., De Jong, N., Kan, S., & Basbagi, R. (2011). Language dominance in Turkish German bilinguals: Methodological aspects of measurements in structurally different languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(2), 215–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damico, J. S., Oller, J. W., & Storey, M. E. (1983). The diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: Pragmatic and surface-oriented criteria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48(4), 385–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
deBoer, F. (2014). Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. (2015). Taking account of both languages in the assessment of dual language learners. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36(2), 120–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech. A study of cross-cultural effects. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 120–141). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. (2004). Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 31–62.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (2007). Introduction to: Early development of nominal and verbal morphology from a typological perspective. In S. Laaha & S. Gillis (Eds.), Typological perspectives on the acquisition of noun and verb morphology (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 112, pp. 3–9). Antwerpen: University of Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-PPVT – 3rd Edition. American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M., Kovačević, M., Padovan, N., Hržica, G., Kuvač Kraljević, J., Mustapić, M., Dobravac, G., & Palmović, M. (2010). PPVT-III-HR Peabody slikovni test rječnika. Naklada Slap.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M., Stella, G., Pizzoli, C., & Tressoldi, P. (2000). PPVT-revised. Omega Edition.Google Scholar
Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H., & Green, S. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of lexical diversity indices: Assessing length effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), 840–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiestas, C. E., & Peña, E. D. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Language and task effects. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(2), 155–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagarina, Natalia. (2016). Narratives of Russian-German preschool and primary school bilinguals: Rasskaz and Erzaehlung. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(1), 91–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Valimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I., Bohnacker, U., & Walters, J. (2012). MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives (ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 56). ZAS.Google Scholar
Gibson, T., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2014). The receptive-expressive gap in bilingual children with and without primary language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(4), 655–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals. North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1954). Les caractéristiques statistiques du vocabulaire. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(1960). Problemes et methodes de la statistique linguistique. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2002). Narratives in two languages: Assessing performance of bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 13(2), 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Simón-Cereijido, G. (2007). The discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with Latino English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 968–981. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haman, E., Łuniewska, M., & Pomiechowska, B. (2015). Designing cross-linguistic lexical tasks (CLTs) for bilingual preschool children. In S. Armon-Lotem, J. de Jong, & N. Meir (Eds.) Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism from language impairment (pp. 196–240). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hržica, G., & Kuvač Kraljević, J. (2012). MAIN Croatian adaptation. In N. Gagarina, D. Klop, S. Kunnari, K. Tantele, T. Valimaa, I. Balčiūnienė, U. Bohnacker, & J. Walters, J., MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives (ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 56). Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. (2006). Italian as fusional language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd Ed., Vol. 6, pp. 64–69). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best fitting curves, and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelaska, Z. (2005). Glagolske vrste ‘Conjugational classes’. In Z. Jelaska (Ed.), Hrvatski kao drugi i strani jezik ‘Croatian as second and foreign language’ (pp. 153–170). Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada.Google Scholar
Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Lund University Department of Linguistics and Phonetics Working Papers, 53, 61–79.Google Scholar
Kann, K., & Schütze, H. (2017). Unlabelled data for morphological generation with character-based sequence-to-sequence models. In M. Faruqui, H. Schuetze, I. Trancoso, & Y. Yaghoobzadeh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Subword and Character Level Models in NLP (pp. 76–81). Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, R., & In’nami, Y. (2012). Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens. System, 40(4), 522–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunnari, S., Välimaa, T., & Laukkanen-Nevala, P. (2016). Macrostructure in the narratives of monolingual Finnish and bilingual Finnish-Swedish children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(1), 123–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuvač Kraljević, J., Hržica, G., Padovan, N., Kologranić Belić, L., Olujić, M., Matić, A., Srebačić, I., & Peretić, M. (2015). Probirni test jezičnih sposobnosti e-POTJEH ‘Language Screening Test’. ERF, Zagreb.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2003). The influence of L2 on L1 collocational knowledge and on L1 lexical diversity in free written expression. In V. Cook (Ed.) Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 19–31). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, J. (2018). Developing narrative competence: Swedish, Swedish-German and Swedish-Turkish children aged 4–6 (Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 19). Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Maas, H. D. (1972). Zusammenhang zwischen Wortschatzumfang und Lange eines Textes. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 8, 73–79.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project. Tools for analyzing talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the British Association of Applied Linguists (pp. 58–71). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity MTLD (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Memphis.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., Watanabe, S., & Lamkin, T. A. (2012). The Gramulator: A tool to identify differential linguistic features of correlative text types. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 311–332). IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(3), 323–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuterskiöld Wagner, C., Sahlén, B., & Nettelbladt, U. (1999). What’s the story? Narration and comprehension in Swedish preschool children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 15(2), 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roch, M., & Levorato, C. (2012). MAIN Italian adaptation. In N. Gagarina, D. Klop, S. Kunnari, K. Tantele, T. Valimaa, I. Balčiūnienė, U. Bohnacker, & J. Walters, J., MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives (ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 56). ZAS.Google Scholar
Serratrice, L. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence in the interpretation of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns in English–Italian bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 225–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 315–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siskova, Z. (2012). Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. In C. Ciarlo & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), University of Reading language studies working papers (Vol. 4, pp 26–36). University of Reading.Google Scholar
Stills, M. (2016). Language sample length effects on various lexical diversity measures: An analysis of Spanish language samples from children (Undergraduate honors thesis, Paper 233). Portland State University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children. University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Korybski, T. (2016). Using lexical diversity measures to operationalise language dominance in bilinguals. In C. Silva-Corvalan & J. Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization (pp. 106–123). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2018). Back to basics: How measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels. Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 302–327.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., Peristeri, E., & Andreou, M. (2016). Narrative production in monolingual and bilingual children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(1), 195–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tweedie, F. J., & Baayen, R. H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures in lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32(5), 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uccelli, P., & Paez, M. M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Lely, H. K. J. (1996). Grammatical specific language impaired children: Evidence for modularity. In C. Koster & F. Wijnen (Eds.), The Groningen assembly on language acquisition (pp. 283–292). University of Groningen Press.Google Scholar
Xanthos, A., Laaha, S., Gillis, S., Stephany, U., Aksu-Koç, A., Christofidou, A., Gagarina, N., Hržica, G., Ketrez, N. F., Kilani-Schoch, M., Korecky-Kröll, K., Kovačević, M., Laalo, K., Palmović, M., Pfeiler, B., Voeikova, M. D., & Dressler, W. U. (2011). On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Language, 31(4), 461–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Hržica, Gordana, Sara Košutar & Nada Poropat Jeletić
2024. The relationship between self-assessment of language proficiency and measures of lexical diversity and syntactic complexity: evidence from bilingual speakers of Italian in Croatia. Frontiers in Communication 9 DOI logo
Rodina, Yulia, Alexandra Bogoyavlenskaya, Natalia Mitrofanova & Marit Westergaard
2023. Russian heritage language development in narrative contexts: Evidence from pre- and primary-school children in Norway, Germany, and the UK. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Košutar, Sara, Matea Kramarić & Gordana Hržica
2022. The relationship between narrative microstructure and macrostructure: Differences between six- and eight-year-olds. Psychology of Language and Communication 26:1 ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.