Early Education and Development

ISSN: 1040-9289 (Print) 1556-6935 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Are We All Speaking the Same Language? Exploring

Language Interactions in the Homes of Young
Latino DLLs Living in the U.S.

Lisa M. López, Eugene Komaroff, Carol Scheffner Hammer, Barbara

Rodriguez, Shelley Scarpino, Dana Bitetti & Brian Goldstein

To cite this article: Lisa M. López, Eugene Komaroff, Carol Scheffner Hammer, Barbara
Rodriguez, Shelley Scarpino, Dana Bitetti & Brian Goldstein (2020): Are We All Speaking the Same
Language? Exploring Language Interactions in the Homes of Young Latino DLLs Living in the U.S.,
Early Education and Development, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1718473

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1718473

View supplementary material

Published online: 03 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 30

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heed20
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1718473

Are We All Speaking the Same Language? Exploring Language

Interactions in the Homes of Young Latino DLLs Living in the U.S.
Lisa M. López a, Eugene Komaroffb, Carol Scheffner Hammerc, Barbara Rodriguezd,
Shelley Scarpinoe, Dana Bitettif, and Brian Goldsteing
a
Department of Educational & Psychological Studies, University of South Florida; bGraduate School, Keiser University;
c
Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Teachers College, Columbia University; dSpeech and Hearing Sciences,
University of New Mexico; eDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Bloomsburg University;
f
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, La Salle University; gProgram in Speech-Language-
Pathology, University of St. Augustinefor Health Sciences

ABSTRACT
Research Findings: The Latino population within the U.S. is heterogeneous with
diversity in education level, country of origin, and English language fluency.
Latino children often enter school with limited English language skills. In the
current study, we surveyed 448 Latino families of Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto
Rican descent regarding their home language use providing an in-depth look
at the language interactions within Latino families residing in the U.S. Adults
were matched on the language used with each other and with the target child.
Six main findings are reported: (1) Mother–father language matched in 94% of
the homes. Frequency distributions and cross-tab analysis identified Spanish as
the primary language spoken in 56% of the homes, (2) Children and parents
matched in language spoken in less than 21% of the homes, (3) Fathers play an
important role in language use at home, (4) Approximately half of the mothers
report no English fluency, (5) Latino children prefer to speak English at home,
and (6) Maternal English fluency is related to overall language use. Practice or
Policy: Early Childhood professionals should carefully structure language
experiences in the classroom to aid the language acquisition of DLLs while
promoting bilingualism. In addition, programs must take into consideration
language spoken at home when establishing communication with the families.

The Latino population in the United States (U.S.) continues to rise and it is expected that by the year
2050 approximately 35% of the children living in the U.S.will be Hispanic/Latino (Passell & Cohn,
2008). The Latino population is diverse within the U.S. with families migrating from over 20
Spanish-speaking countries with varied levels of education, skills, and English language fluency
(Garcia & Jensen, 2009). Consequently, Latino children are also a diverse population within the
U.S. with varied home environments including variation in the languages spoken and heard at home.
Approximately 80% of the Latinos in the U.S. report speaking a language other than English at
home; half (40.6%) of which report speaking English less than very well. Only 21.4% of the Latinos
speak only English at home (Ramirez, 2004). Yet between 50% and 60% of the immigrant families to
the U.S. are English monolinguals by the third generation. It is unclear whether this language shift
from Spanish to English will persist with the rising Latino population as there is “some staying power
for Spanish, especially when familial and communal contexts are supportive” (Alba, Logan, Lutz, &
Stults, 2002, p. 480).

CONTACT Lisa M. López [email protected] Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South
Florida, 4202 E.Fowler Ave., EDU 380D, Tampa, FL 33620
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

The majority of Latino families in the U.S. are considered low SES (Garcia & Jensen, 2009).
Two-thirds of Latino children live in low-income homes and one-third live in poverty (Wildsmith,
Scott, Guzman, & Cook, 2014). There is some concern among language researchers regarding the
impact low-income status has on the language acquisition of Latino children in the U.S. who are
learning two languages (Winsler et al., 2014). Typically, students in low-income homes have less
exposure to rich language environments which may result in limited early acquisition of language.
Latino children in the U.S. who live in low-income environments may therefore not be receiving
sufficient rich language input in their home language. Research has shown the importance of
a strong first language as easing the acquisition of English upon school entry. The children in the
current study are all considered low-income by U.S. guidelines and live in homes where Spanish is
spoken.
Language acquisition plays a critical role in the development of children’s academic success (Hoff,
2013). The population of dual language learner (DLL) Latino children enrolling in U.S. schools is
increasing. In this paper, DLL refers to pre-school children who are being exposed to the community
language at pre-school but are still considered to be developing the home language regardless of the
educational program they are enrolled in (see National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2017). It is important to understand the home language acquisition experiences of this
growing population of children in order to better support their long-term academic success.
Teachers can then adapt instruction based on children’s home language experiences. Both first
and second language acquisition theories guide our understanding of such experiences; both sets of
theories point to language usage and exposure as important variables in the language acquisition
process (Hoff et al., 2012; López, 2012; Tomasello, 2003). The current study aims to describe the
varying home language experiences of a low-income preschool Latino DLL population in the U.S.,
specifically focused on language match in terms of exposure and use, and identifies demographic
factors, which may serve as predictors of variation within these experiences. Understanding the
language dynamics within the homes of Latino DLLs in the U.S. can help Early Childhood profes-
sionals and language experts better structure language experiences in the classroom to aid language
acquisition and promote bilingualism. Identifying whether Latino children are being exposed to and
use more Spanish or English at home is necessary in order to adapt instruction accordingly within
the classroom to promote oral language and pre-literacy skill development (see NASEM, 2017 for
examples of ways to promote language and early literacy within classrooms serving DLLs).

Language Acquisition Theory

Within the study of language development, research has emphasized the need for a rich language
environment as a mechanism by which language develops and thrives (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001).
Infants and toddlers develop language through communicative intent with others and reproduce the
language input they receive (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2012; Kuhl, 2004). Children rely on language
exposure to develop the different aspects of language necessary for complex language use (Brandone,
Salkind, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2006). A rich language environment includes exposure to oral
language throughout the day as well as opportunities to use language in varied circumstances and
with diverse interlocutors. Language acquisition theories such as those proposed by Tomasello
(2003) and Cummins (1979), and elaborated on by Hoff and colleagues (Hoff, 2006, 2017; Hoff
et al., 2012), emphasize the role language exposure and usage have on acquisition. Specifically, DLLs
need to be exposed to and use both languages in order to become successful at being bilingual (Hoff
et al., 2012) and obtain a cognitive advantage (Bialystok, 1988; Cummins, 1979). It is important to be
aware that exposure and use of their two languages may vary across DLLs (Garcia & Jensen, 2009;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). However, sufficient exposure
and input in both languages is necessary in order to foster bilingualism. For example, Pearson and
colleagues (Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997) researched 25 simultaneous bilingual
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 3

infants and determined that a minimum of 20% of a bilingual child’s lexical input must be received
in a language in order to speak that language.

Language Exposure and Use in Bilingual Homes

Early childhood research has identified a significant relationship between language input in the
home and young children’s acquisition of receptive and expressive language skills (Hammer,
Davison, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2009). Researchers have identified language exposure variables as
accounting for variance with regard to both English and Spanish school readiness outcomes in young
children (Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003). Furthermore, researchers focusing on language devel-
opment of young children, including dual language learners (DLLs), have determined that both the
amount of exposure to a language and the quality of those language interactions determine whether
the child will become proficient in that language (Fernald & Weisleder, 2015; Hirsh-Pasek et al.,
2015; Pearson, 2007).
Language exposure and use are both important variables to consider in a bilingual home when
studying the language acquisition of young DLLs. Language usage variables also have an effect on
child outcomes, although this has been studied to a lesser degree than language exposure. The
language the child speaks at home, based on parent report, has been identified as a significant
moderator for child outcomes pertaining to language proficiency (Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-
Perez, & Gillam, 2010; Hammer et al., 2012). For example, Hammer and colleagues found variation
in Latino DLL children’s ability to recall stories in English and Spanish based on the child’s exposure
and use of English and Spanish at home. There may be different patterns of exposure and use
prevalent in the home which in turn may impact a child’s language trajectory in their different
languages (Hoff et al., 2012). In fact, several bilingual home language models have been recom-
mended in the literature for promoting bilingualism (de Houwer, 2007).
However, it is important to realize that the reality of the current day bilingual home within the
U.S. may not always result in a deliberate or seamless language-learning model. The combination of
inter-marriage, low-SES, and external pressures from the community to speak the majority language
results in different language experiences across a heterogeneous group of DLLs. For this population
of low-SES Latinos
home language represents a compromise between parental perceptions of risks and benefits of children’s
language skills, which leads them toward strategies of language maintenance, a shift at home, and children’s
linguistic preferences. In many families, such a compromise results in parents using one language, and children
using another.(Lutz, 2007/2008, p. 58)

Limited research has been conducted within two language households to determine what actually occurs
with regard to language exposure and usage between and across languages. Case study information as
well as anecdotal evidence point to variations in language exposure and use when two or more languages
are present within the home and/or community (King & Fogle, 2006). Some studies have focused on
factors that influence the use of Spanish versus English in the Latino home (López, 2005; Hammer,
Miccio, & Wagstaff, 2003). For example, higher maternal education level (in low-income homes) and
mother’s positive attitudes toward bilingualism are associated with more Spanish use in the home (López,
2005). It is vital to understand the amount of exposure these children are receiving in each of their
languages, as well as the language they are using, in order to better understand the language learning
process for low-income DLL children. Understanding the language learning process, in turn, will assist
teachers in preparing DLL children to be academically successful.
Moreover, dissecting home language exposure and use within this population is necessary as these
variables are often used as predictors in understanding academic outcomes for DLL children. For
example, some research has shown that mother–child English home language use is unrelated to
English academic outcomes (Hammer et al., 2009, 2003; Lewis, Sandilos, Hammer, Sawyer, &
Mendez, 2016). Other studies have shown some support for Spanish home language use between
4 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

mother and child in relation to Spanish outcomes (Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2007; Quiroz,
Snow, & Zhao, 2010; Reese & Goldenberg, 2008) and English home language use in support of short-
term English outcomes (Palermo et al., 2014). A third set of studies have identified a trade-off effect
in which home language exposure between mother and child has positive effects on the language of
exposure and negative effects on the other language (Duursma et al., 2007; Hammer et al., 2009;
Quiroz et al., 2010; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). A fourth set of studies have identified that continued
development of the home language in preschool and early elementary facilitates cross-language
transfer of skills and the acquisition of English in later elementary school (López, 2011, 2012; López
& Tápanes, 2011; Valentino & Reardon, 2014; Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999). In the
present study, mother’s English language fluency will be included as a separate variable of interest.
Based on the research mentioned, whether mothers are fluent in English may be an important
variable in further understanding language use in the home. This study can inform the current
literature that examines the relationship between maternal language use and child academic
outcomes.
In most studies, home language exposure only represents whether the mother reports using
Spanish or English with the child. Yet, some previous research has also considered fathers as
potentially having a distinct language effect with the father’s language characteristics possibly
being more important than those of the mother (Branum-Martin, Mehta, Carlson, Francis, &
Goldenberg, 2014; Veltman, 1981). The present study, by including father language use, will help
in adding to this emerging area.
In addition to the focus on mother–child dyads and father–child dyads, the complexity of
language exposure and use within bilingual homes is often simplified by including two choice
categories (i.e., Spanish or English) (Branum-Martin et al., 2014). Researchers are challenged in
quantifying the amount of language exposure and use children are engaged in for each of their
languages throughout the day. This information would be helpful in better understanding and
possibly providing support to the language acquisition theories mentioned. Branum-Martin et al.
(2014) tested confirmatory models of Spanish and English language use in the homes of bilingual
students using a 5-point scale to measure language and identified a one-dimensional model of
language exposure and use as having the best fit. While they found that there were some differences
among language used by different family members, mainly dependent on contextual factors such as
SES, speaking and listening did not differ meaningfully within and across speakers. The model was
one-dimensional in that one language was mainly used in these bilingual homes.

Demographic Factors That Influence Language Use

In further exploring the language exposure and use of Spanish and English within Latino homes in the U.S.,
certain demographic factors have been considered to impact the amount of English versus Spanish used
within immigrant households. For example, Veltman (1988) found that generational status, parent
education level, along with years living in the US and SES resulted in a language shift occurring within
immigrant homes, in which the predominant language spoken in the home shifted from Spanish to
English. Veltman identified a positive relationship between each of the variables and the use of English
within the Latino household. Adding to this literature, Portes and Hao (1998) found that when parents
share the same native language, it is often used and reinforced with the children. Additionally, Portes and
Schauffler (1994) identified more transition in language among immigrant families living in isolation as
compared to those families living in highly concentrated immigrant enclaves, similar to our current sample.
The “language shift” phenomenon discussed by Veltman (1988) and more recently by Garcia and
Jensen (2009) states that children understand that speaking English aids acculturation and fitting in and
therefore shift from using Spanish to using more English. Garcia and Jensen argue that, as a result of this
phenomenon, Spanish is almost never the only language for children when both languages are spoken by
parents. Based on language acquisition theory, we can postulate that when children are choosing to speak
English, they are often using less Spanish. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) have found that home language
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 5

loss can lead to an identity crisis, which often results in truant behavior. If the language shift phenom-
enon is occurring, then it is important to understand this phenomenon in order to have the right
supports in place for our immigrant youth. In this study, we will look at maternal education level and
generational status, two of the variables identified by Veltman as important when considering language
shift, as potential variables related to language use in the home.

Present Study
There is limited research available on the home language experiences of DLLs. This research points to
language exposure and use in the home as important predictors of academic success for young Latino
DLLs. The focus has been on language exposure as a predictor variable, with limited research focused
on understanding home language exposure and use. In one study (Branum-Martin et al., 2014)
confirmatory models have identified an overall balance in language exposure and use (i.e., DLL
families are speaking to each other in the same language). The idea that language may be balanced
across speakers calls for a further investigation of language match across speakers within bilingual
homes. If there is balance in the language used by different speakers with the child, is there also balance
in the language spoken by the parents in the home?
The present study adds to the limited literature on home language experiences of Latino DLLs.
An in-depth analysis of the language experiences and language match including both mother and
father has not been previously conducted with home language data. Understanding the language
interactions in the home, as well as which demographic factors may cause variations in such
interactions will prove helpful in better understanding and supporting the language experiences of
low-income Latino students from diverse backgrounds. The information presented can be referenced
when thinking about how to engage Latino parents around helping their children with language
learning, when developing instructional material to promote oral language development within the
classroom, and as teachers seek to promote quality language interactions within the classroom
environment. Therefore, the present study seeks to answer the following questions. Is there
a language match in the language interactions occurring between mother–father, mother–child,
and father–child within the homes of Latino children in the U.S.? Do these home language
experiences vary based on demographic factors (i.e., maternal education level, generational status)?
Do these home language experiences vary based on mother’s language fluency?

Materials and Methods

Participants
Participants in the current study were part of a larger study. The current study included 448 children
who came from Spanish-speaking homes and were of Mexican (43%), Cuban (34%), or Puerto Rican
(23%) descent. The mother of each child had to either be born in one of these countries or territories
or be a descendant from one of these three countries/territories. These specific Latino groups were
chosen for the larger study as a representation of the largest population of Latinos in the U.S. based
on the U.S. Census. All families reported Spanish as one of the languages spoken at home. Families
resided either in the Southwest, Northeast, or Southeast U.S. Children’s ages ranged from 36 to 77
months (M = 57.47 months; SD = 9 months). Children were typically enrolled in Head Start
programs, early childhood centers, early learning coalitions, or community programs. Language
used in the classroom was not recorded although anecdotally English was the primary language used
in the majority of the classrooms. Information on the generational status of the child was collected
with 58% of the children being first generation, 32% second generation, and 10% third generation.
Mothers reported living in the U.S. for an average of 172.26 months or 14.25 years (SD = 132.95;
range = 0–648 months). Fathers reported living in the U.S. for an average of 85.61 months or 7.13
years (SD = 157.41; range = 0–782 months). There was variability in education levels of the families
6 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

with approximately a third of the mothers not finishing high school (37%), a third having a high
school degree (30%), and a third completing at least some college (33%). Information was obtained
on the female and male figures in the home. This is particularly important with fathers. Mothers
were asked to report on the male head of household/father figure regardless of whether he was the
child’s biological father. In 9% (n = 28) of the homes, there was no father to report on, and therefore
those cases were treated as missing. There were three additional missing cases in which the mother
did not report the language she and the father spoke with the child.

Measures
The Parent Interview was conducted by a bilingual research assistant with the primary caregiver in
person or over the phone. The interview consisted of 64 questions focused on obtaining demo-
graphic information about the family, home language experiences, and information regarding the
target child’s daycare/schooling experiences. Questions of particular interest for this paper ask what
language each caregiver speaks to the child and in which language the child speaks to each caregiver.
Specifically, the questions asked included: “What language do you speak when talking to your child’s
father?”, “In what language(s) does your child’s father speak to you?”, “In what language do you
speak to your child?”, “In what language does your child speak to you?”, “In what language does
your child’s father speak to your child?”; and “In what language does your child speak to your child’s
father?”. Answer choices included All Spanish, More Spanish than English, Equal Spanish and
English, More English than Spanish, All English. The interview took place in the language the
parent felt most comfortable speaking (English or Spanish).

Procedures
Children and families were recruited through Head Start programs, early childhood centers, early
learning coalitions, and community programs. Families of Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican descent
were invited to participate. Interviews were conducted with the primary caregiver in person or over
the phone by trained bilingual data collectors in the language of the caregiver’s choosing.
Approximately 99% of the interviews were conducted with the mother. Parents were mailed a gift
card for participating in the interview. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Data Preparation and Analysis

In order to conduct the necessary analysis, the interview data were entered into the computer using
KnightSoft survey software and exported into an excel spreadsheet and matched with the child level
data using a child identification number. The home language interaction questions were originally
coded by response. The categories for home language use were: all Spanish (1), more Spanish than
English (2), equal Spanish and English (3), more English than Spanish (4), and all English (5).
Categories of ‘1ʹ or ‘2ʹ were combined, the category ‘3ʹ remained untouched, and categories ‘4ʹ and ‘5ʹ
were combined to create three variables (1, 3, 5). Collapsing the categories accounted for the self-
report nature of the data. We decided to emphasize the dominant language used (i.e., Spanish
dominant language use and English dominant language use) instead of absolute values (i.e., All
English or all Spanish). This coding was used for the six language variables: language mother speaks
to father, language father speaks to mother, language mother speaks to child, language child speaks
to mother, language father speaks to child, language child speaks to father.
To answer the first research question, frequency distributions and cross-tab analysis were used in
determining matching characteristics across parents and children. New dichotomous variables were
developed to create the matched categories. Specifically, three dichotomous variables (0,1) were
created to determine the match level. These three variables were combined to create a three-digit
combination (i.e., 100, 101, 110, 111). The first digit refers to the match in the language used by the
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 7

adults (i.e., mother and father) in the home. If mother and father speak to each other in the same
language then the digit is a ‘1ʹ. The second digit refers to the language interactions between the
mother and the child. If the mother and the child spoke to each other in the same language then the
digit was a ‘1ʹ. If the mother and the child spoke to each other in a different language then the digit
was a ‘0ʹ. The third digit refers to the language interactions between the father and the child. If the
father and the child spoke to each other in the same language then the digit was a ‘1ʹ. If the father
and the child spoke to each other in a different language then the digit was a ‘0ʹ. Therefore, the three-
digit number ‘100ʹ means that the mother and father spoke to each other in the same language but
there was a mismatch between the language the parents spoke to the child and the language the child
spoke to the parents, whereas the three-digit number ‘111ʹ means that the parents and child were all
speaking the same language.
In analyzing the data for the first research question, the decision was made to conduct all further
statistical analysis using only the adult match sample, as the adult non-match sample size only
represented 6% of the total sample. A new dichotomous variable, Adult Match Frequency (AMF),
was created wherein ‘0ʹ represents a language mismatch between child and at least one parent (i.e.,
100, 101, 110) and ‘1ʹ represents a language match across all family members (i.e., 111). Cross-tab
analyses were conducted using SAS in order to determine the languages being spoken across groups
within this dichotomous variable (i.e., AMF), controlling for adult language match.
To answer the second and third research questions, mean comparisons (i.e., t test) and chi-square
analysis were then conducted comparing the two groups (i.e., AMF) on demographic level and
language use variables.

Results
Research Question 1
Is there a language match in the language interactions occurring between mother–father,
mother–child, and father–child within the homes of Latino children in the U.S.? Frequency
distributions were produced for each dichotomous variable (i.e., adult match, mother–child match,
father–child match) in order to determine the home language experiences of the participating
families. These distributions are reported in Table 1. With regard to adult match, close to 94% of
the parents reported speaking to each other in the same language. There is general consistency in
language use among parents in these households. There is some additional variability in the language
spoken by each parent with the child.
Frequency distributions were then produced for the match variable, a composite of the three
variables just discussed. As stated previously, the three-digit variable is a combination of the three
variables in the following order: adult match, mother–child match, father–child match. Therefore,
‘100ʹ indicates that the parents speak to each other in the same language but mother and child and
father and child do not match in their language use to each other. Whereas ‘101ʹ indicates that the
parents speak to each other in the same language, mother and child have a language mismatch, and

Table 1. Frequency distributions of language match for each dichotomous

variable.
Match pair Variable Frequency Percent
Mother–father 0 24 5.71
1 396 94.29
Mother–child 0 75 16.85
1 370 83.15
Father–child 0 85 20.38
1 332 79.62
0 = no language match; 1 = language match. Frequency missing: Adult (n =
28), mother–child (n = 3), father–child (n = 31).
8 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

Table 2. Frequency distributions of match variables.

Match Frequency Percent
000 3 .72
001 3 .72
010 7 1.68
011 11 2.64
100 34 8.17
101 31 7.45
110 41 9.86
111 286 68.75
Frequency Missing (n = 32); Match: The first digit refers to the match in the
language used by the adults (i.e., mother and father) in the home.
The second digit refers to the match in the language used by the mother
and child. The third digit refers to the match in the language used by the
father and child. ‘0ʹ represents no match and ‘1ʹ represents match.

father and child speak to each other in the same language. The frequency distributions for the eight
match variables (i.e., 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101 110, 111) are reported in Table 2.
As stated previously, the decision was made to conduct all further statistical analyses using only the adult
match sample, as the adult non-match sample size only represented 6% of the total sample. The new
dichotomous variable, AMF, was created wherein ‘0ʹ represents a language mismatch and ‘1ʹ represents
a language match. Table 3 represents analyses conducted for mother to child language use. Analyses were
also conducted for father to child language use (Table 4), child to mother language use and child to father
language use (Supplemental Tables). As seen in Table 3, the language mother reported speaking to child
matched the language they reported speaking to the father the majority of the time, with significant findings
for Spanish (χ2(310,2) = 42.6999, p < .0001) and for English (χ2 (55, 2) = 17.2479, p < .001). Approximately
80% of the adult matches represent all or mostly Spanish being spoken between the adults in the home, with
greater language variability represented between the adults and the child. Fifty-six percent of the house-
holds matched on speaking all or mostly Spanish across the three pairs (i.e., mother–father, mother–child,
father–child). Mothers spoke all or mostly Spanish to their child in 80.66% of the homes where Spanish was
the language of interaction between mother and father. Mothers spoke both English and Spanish to their
child in 56.25% of the homes where both languages were also used with the father. Mothers spoke to their
child in English in 87.18% of the homes where English was reported as spoken between mother and father.
These findings are consistent across the other speaker dyads as well. Table 4 represents the analysis
conducted for father to child language use. Fathers spoke Spanish to their child in 88.71% of the homes
where Spanish was the language of interaction between mother and father (X2 (310,2) = 21.643, p < .0001).
Fathers spoke both English and Spanish to their child in 55.56% of the homes where both languages were
also used with the mother (NS). Fathers spoke to their child in English in 78.18% of the homes where
English was reported as spoken between mother and father (X2 (55,2) = 7.7593, p < .05).
The children in the study spoke in Spanish to their mother in 76.45% (X2 (310,2) = 181.8758, p < .0001)
and their father in 78.06% (X2 (310,2) = 133.0092, p < .0001) of the homes where Spanish was spoken to the
child by each parent. The children spoke in English to their mother in 83.64% (NS) and their father in
85.45% (NS) of the homes where English was spoken to the child by each parent. The majority of the
children spoke both English and Spanish or only English to their parents when their parents spoke both
languages to the child. For instance, when speaking to their mother, 40.74% of the children spoke in both
languages while 48.15% of the children spoke only in English (X2 (27,2) = 6.4573, p < .05). Therefore,
11.11% of the children spoke only Spanish to their mother when she spoke both languages. The trend is
similar when speaking to their father, 40.74% of the children spoke in both languages to their father while
51.85% of the children spoke only in English (NS). Therefore, 7.41% of the children spoke only Spanish to
their Father when they spoke both languages. These data indicate that when at least some English is present
in the home, the children speak more English at home. (These data are available in the supplemental Tables
1 and 2).
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 9

Table 3. Cross-tab analyses of languages spoken by mother to child across parent language match groups.
Frequency
Percent
Row Percent
Column Percent Spanish Equal English Total
Parent language match = Spanisha
0 53 18 7 78
17.10% 5.81% 2.26% 25.16%
67.95% 23.08% 8.97%
19.34% 72% 63.64%
1 221 7 4 232
71.29% 2.26% 1.29% 74.84%
95.26% 3.02% 1.72%
80.66% 28.00% 36.36%
Total 274 25 11 310
88.39% 8.06% 3.55% 100%
Parent language match = Equal Spanish and Englishb
0 1 7 4 12
3.70% 25.93% 14.81% 44.44%
8.33% 58.33% 33.33%
33.33% 43.75% 50.00%
1 2 9 4 15
7.41% 33.33% 14.81% 55.56
13.33% 60.00% 26.67%
66.67% 56.25% 50.00%
Total 3 16 8 27
11.11% 59.26% 29.63% 100%
Parent language match = Englishc
0 6 5 5 16
10.91% 9.09% 9.09% 29.09%
37.50% 31.25% 31.25%
66.67% 71.43% 12.82%
1 3 2 34 39
5.45% 3.64% 61.82% 70.91%
7.69% 5.13% 87.18%
33.33% 28.57% 87.18%
Total 9 7 39 55
16.36% 12.73% 70.91% 100%
‘0ʹ Represents Match groups 100, 101, or 110; ‘1ʹ represents Match group 111.
χ (310,2) = 42.6999, p < .0001; bχ2 (27, 2) = .2531, p=.8811; cχ2 (55, 2) = 17.2479, p < .001.
a 2

Research Question 2
Do home language experiences vary based on demographic factors (i.e., Maternal education
level, maternal generational status)? The AMF dichotomous variable was used in completing the
analyses for this research question. For each analysis, match groups 100, 110, and 101 (i.e., AMF = 0)
were compared to match group 111 (AMF = 1). Number of years of schooling was the independent
variable used for maternal education level. Table 5 includes the means and standard deviations for
maternal education level by match group. No significant differences in years of schooling were
identified when comparing means across groups, controlling for matched language by adults (i.e.,
Spanish, both English and Spanish, or English) when using a t test. Furthermore, cross-tab analyses
comparing groups with regard to generational status (i.e., first, second, or third generation) yielded
non-significant chi-square findings (see Table 6). Visual inspection of the data indicates that the
majority of the matched group were first generation; however, the majority of the mismatch group
was also first generation.
10 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

Table 4. Cross-tab analyses of languages spoken by father to child across parent language match groups.
Frequency
Percent
Row Percent
Column Percent Spanish Equal English Total
Parent language match = Spanisha
0 58 12 8 78
18.71% 3.87% 2.58% 25.16%
74.36% 15.38% 10.26%
21.09% 54.55% 61.54%
1 217 10 5 232
70.00% 3.23% 1.61% 74.84%
93.53% 4.31% 2.16%
78.91% 45.45% 38.46%
Total 275 22 13 310
88.71% 7.10% 4.19% 100%
Parent language match = Equal Spanish and Englishb
0 4 6 2 12
14.81% 22.22% 7.41% 44.44%
33.33% 50.00% 16.67%
80.00% 40.00% 28.57%
1 1 9 5 15
3.70% 33.33% 18.52% 55.56%
6.67% 60.00% 33.33%
20.00% 60.00% 71.43%
Total 5 15 7 27
18.52% 55.56% 25.93% 100%
Parent language match = Englishc
0 5 2 9 16
9.09% 3.64% 16.36% 29.09%
31.25% 12.50% 56.25%
71.43% 40.00% 20.93%
1 2 3 34 39
3.64% 5.45% 61.82% 70.91%
5.13% 7.69% 87.18%
28.57% 60.00% 79.07%
Total 7 5 43 55
12.73% 9.09% 78.18% 100%
‘0ʹ Represents Match groups 100, 101, or 110; ‘1ʹ represents Match group 111.
χ (310,2) = 21.6430, p < .0001; bχ2 (27, 2) = 3.3943, p=.1832; cχ2 (55, 2) = 7.7593, p < .05.
a 2

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for parent number of years of

schooling across groups controlling for matched language.
Match N M (SD)
Parent language match = Spanish
0 41 11.83 (2.96)
1 155 11.17 (2.92)
Parent language match = Equal Spanish and English
0 7 12.00 (3.46)
1 11 13.09 (2.07)
Parent language match = English
0 9 14.44 (1.88)
1 18 13.44 (1.89)
‘0ʹ represents Match groups 100, 101, or 110; ‘1ʹ represents Match group 111.

Research Question 3
Do home language experiences vary based on mother’s language fluency? The final independent
variable under study was mother’s self-reported English fluency. Cross-tab analysis was conducted
using SAS controlling for each match group by language. Mothers who reported speaking both
English and Spanish or only English to their spouse also reported speaking English with native-like
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 11

Table 6. Cross-tab analysis of generational status by group controlling for parent-matched language.
Frequency
Percent
Row Percent
Column Percent First generation Second generation Third generation Total
Parent language match = Spanisha
0 25 11 5 41
12.76% 5.61% 2.55% 20.92%
60.98% 26.83% 12.20%
19.23% 22.92% 27.78%
1 105 37 13 155
53.57% 18.88% 6.63%
67.74% 23.87% 8.39%
80.77% 77.08% 72.22% 79.08%
Total 130 48 18 196
66.33% 24.49% 9.18% 100%
Parent language match = Equal English and Spanishb
0 0 6 1 7
0% 33.33% 5.56% 38.89%
0% 85.71% 14.29%
0% 42.86% 50.00%
1 2 8 1 11
1.11% 44.44% 5.56% 61.11%
18.18% 72.73% 9.09%
100% 57.13% 50.00%
Total 2 14 2 18
11.11% 77.78% 11.11% 100%
Parent language match = Englishc
0 3 5 1 9
11.11% 18.52% 3.70% 33.33%
33.33% 55.56% 11.11%
42.86% 33.33% 20.00%
1 4 10 4 18
14.81% 37.04% 14.81% 66.67%
22.22% 55.56% 22.22%
57.14% 66.67% 80.00%
Total 7 15 5 27
25.93% 55.56% 18.52% 100%
‘0ʹ represents Match groups 100, 101, or 110; ‘1ʹ represents Match group 111.
χ (196, 2) = 0.8516, p =. 65; bχ2 (18, 2) = 1.4694, p =. 48; cχ2 (27, 2) = 0.6857, p < .71.
a 2

Table 7. Cross-tab analysis of mother’s self-reported English-speaking fluency when only Spanish is spoken with spouse.
Frequency Percent Row Percent Somewhat Almost native- Native-
Column Percent Limited limited Moderate like like Total
0 3 3 10 11 14 41
1.53% 1.53% 5.10% 5.61% 7.14% 20.92%
7.32% 7.32% 24.39% 26.83% 34.15%
6.52% 9.68% 18.87% 37.93% 37.84%
1 43 28 43 18 23 155
21.94% 14.29% 21.94% 9.18% 11.73% 79.08%
27.74% 18.06% 27.74% 11.61% 1.84%
93.48% 90.32% 81.13% 62.07% 62.16%
Total 46 31 53 29 37 196
23.47% 15.82% 27.04% 14.80% 18.88% 100%
‘0ʹ represents Match groups 100, 101, or 110; ‘1ʹ represents Match group 111; χ2 (196,4) = 19.7427, p < .001.

fluency. Analysis on the English fluency of those mothers who reported speaking only Spanish to
their spouse is presented in Table 7. Cross-tab analysis indicated that approximately 51% of the
mothers who reported speaking Spanish with their spouse also reported minimal fluency in English.
An additional 23.47% report some English fluency, while 25.51% report being fluent in English. In
fact, 15% of the mothers who report English fluency also report that only Spanish is spoken in the
12 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

household; however, the parents do tend to speak more English when AMF = 0. Other findings
evident from the language fluency analyses include if fathers are bilingual, mothers are more likely to
be bilingual but often choose to speak Spanish. If fathers are not bilingual, then mothers are also less
likely to be bilingual.

Discussion
The current study focuses on the home language experiences of young Latino DLLs in the U.S. In
this paper, we take a unique approach to analyzing survey data obtained from the primary caregiver
of low-income Latino preschool children of Mexican, Cuban, or Puerto Rican decent. This is the first
study to focus on language match between mother–father, mother–child, and father–child.
Understanding the home language experiences of this growing population of children served within
Early Childhood Education programs throughout the U.S. will help us better meet their academic
and social needs. The three main research questions answered in this paper focus on identifying the
language experiences of Latino preschool-aged children with a specific emphasis on matched
exposure and use of English and Spanish, identifying trends based on demographic factors, and
maternal language fluency.
There are six important findings in this study. First, the variability in language exposure parents
provided their children in this sample with regard to language usage in the home is an important
finding. Among this sample, approximately 94% of the families had an adult language match. That
means that mother and father spoke to each other in the same language, whether it be Spanish,
English, or a combination of both. However, Spanish was the only language spoken in approximately
half (56%) of the households within the sample, with more variability present in the other 44% of the
households. The Latino population in general is very heterogeneous, and it was therefore expected
that the findings would represent this heterogeneity. The consistency in language use found in this
study parallels the finding by Branum-Martin et al. (2014) in which language was found to be one-
dimensional, with the majority of the families speaking to each other in one language. This finding
has important implications for teachers as they encourage families to continue to use the language
they feel most comfortable speaking with their child, while considering the language profiles these
children bring into the classroom. Understanding the child’s language abilities in each of their
languages is crucial in developing language experiences in the classroom that continue to build on
their home language while developing strong oral skills in English.
The second important finding in this study is that there was greater variability in match between
mother–child (16.85%) and father–child (20.38%) in the present study as compared to previous
studies (Branum-Martin et al., 2014). This finding provides some limited credence to anecdotal
evidence that within bilingual homes, parents tend to speak Spanish to their children and their
children typically respond in English. Further investigating this finding and specifically parent–child
language match at home can help with clarifying the discrepancies in the literature regarding the
predictability of home language use on academic outcomes. Studies that have found no relationship
or a trade-off effect should consider including language match within their models. Including
language match within an outcomes model may assist in identifying home factors that enhance
English acquisition, Spanish acquisition, and the academic outcomes of DLL children. This is a clear
next step with regard to further research.
The third important finding is that fathers play an important role in the language spoken at home
particularly with regard to language use between father and child. This study adds to the limited
extant studies including fathers within the home language exposure literature. Other research has
also shown that fathers have a distinct language effect (Branum-Martin et al., 2014; Veltman, 1981).
In the current study, we found that fathers’ language use was positively related to both mothers’
language use and children’s language use. When fathers spoke English at home, both mothers and
children were also using more English. Interestingly fathers also spoke less English to their child than
mothers did when English was present in the home. Based on previous research (López, 2011)
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 13

regarding parental language use, fathers are often the language gatekeeper, using the home language
more often with their children. Further analysis using experimental methods can tell us more about
why these relationships may exist.
A fourth important finding from this study is that just over half of the mothers (51%) in this
sample report speaking no English. This finding indicates the importance of having bilingual staff,
providing resources in Spanish, and encouraging the maintenance of Spanish in the home as
a vehicle to English language learning for the child. Parents should be assured that speaking to
their children in Spanish is laying the foundation for their English language success instead of being
encouraged to speak in English to their children, a language they are reporting they do not speak.
There is some clear indication that even those families that report being fluent bilinguals (25% of the
sample) are still interested in maintaining their children’s Spanish language skills by exposing the
children to Spanish. These families should be supported in their choice to continue interacting with
their children in their home language. Receiving even half of their input at home in Spanish will
allow the children in this sample to continue developing bilingually, as research has found that
children can maintain some knowledge of a language if they receive at least 20% of their input in that
language. Speaking in the home language can also improve the language experiences of the child.
Research and theory point to the importance of quality of language input in the acquisition of oral
language skills (Fernald & Weisleder, 2015). Latino parents can provide richer language interactions
in Spanish as compared to English, when Spanish is their dominant language. Rich language
experiences in Spanish will help Latino children develop stronger English language skills.
A fifth important finding is that, when given the opportunity, Latino children prefer to speak
English. Most children were speaking English when parents used both languages at home. As parents
become bilingual and begin introducing English within the home, the findings in this study show
that children are speaking more English. Within this sample, there were a few children who were
speaking to their parents only in Spanish even when their parents spoke English with them.
Although the number was very small (11%), it is noteworthy to recognize the presence of Spanish
within these households. The small number, however, provides some credence to the language shift
phenomenon. The majority of Latino children, when provided the opportunity, are using English. As
early childhood educators, it is important to consider that while these children may appear to be
fluent English speakers, based on language acquisition theory, English-speaking DLLs may still have
better oral comprehension skills in Spanish and their language profiles will look different than those
of monolingual English speakers. Language experiences and interactions within the classroom need
to account for these different profiles.
The sixth important finding is that maternal English fluency was significantly related to overall
language use in the home. This finding aligns with work specifically done with the Puerto Rican
community in the U.S., in which mothers who speak English, speak more English with their children
(Hammer et al., 2003). However, a unique finding for the present study within maternal English
fluency is that 15% of the mothers who report English fluency are choosing to speak only Spanish at
home. Further research should be done to understand the motivation of these mothers to continue
speaking in Spanish to their children. Previous mixed methods research focusing on Latino parents’
motivation for enrolling their children in two-way immersion programs points to the idea of
transnationalism as a determining factor for parents to continue speaking Spanish to their children
(López, 2011). The presence of relatives in the native country with which children will need to
communicate is an important factor in maintaining children’s Spanish language skills. These parents
in the 2011 study also saw Spanish maintenance as a “personal battle”, therefore making a conscious
decision to continue speaking to their children in Spanish, regardless of English language fluency.
These findings together indicate that there is some variability in the languages used by Latino
families as a means of communication within their household. These findings also support the idea
that Latino families within the U.S. do not engage in a seamless language-learning model. Factors
such as low levels of parent education and external pressures from the community may play a role in
the language decisions made by these families (Lutz, 2007/2008). For those families that use only
14 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

Spanish at home, speaking only the minority language at home will help children master both the
minority language and the community language when given the proper supports. For example,
teachers should support the child’s use of their home language in addition to learning English. This
can be done informally by allowing the child to use their home language in the classroom or formally
through the use of a bilingual curriculum. In addition, understanding the metalinguistic relationship
between the two languages (e.g., cross-language transfer) can help teachers as they support English
language acquisition in the classroom.
The findings discussed here have important implications for schools and agencies working with
Latino families in the U.S. It is important for schools and agencies to send a clear message to Latino
families that they value the family’s use of the home language. Within the sample, only 8.6% of the
families report using only English in the home, whereas just over half of the families use only
Spanish to communicate. Teachers and administrators should encourage parents to continue enga-
ging with their child in the language they know best in order to provide rich language experiences
for their child, as research shows that strong language skills in one language aid in the development
of the second language. This information is also critically important as schools make curricular
decisions and provide teachers with professional development regarding oral language acquisition.
Teachers should understand how to best support second language acquisition and be provided with
proper tools and strategies for helping children maintain their home language while acquiring
English. For example, teachers should value the child’s first language and culture, allowing the
child space to use Spanish within the classroom as they begin to learn English and promoting quality
language interactions within the classroom, whether those interactions occur in Spanish, English, or
bilingually. Schools must consider making accommodations to help these children acquire English
without experiencing language loss in their first language, while also providing support to families
that do include English within their homes. Educational programs, such as developmental bilingual
and dual immersion, have been successful in helping Latino children successfully acquire English
(Valentino & Reardon, 2014). These educational programs provide instructional support in both
languages through different models ranging from 80/20 to 50/50 language exposure and use across
Spanish and English. All the children in this study have the potential to develop as fluent bilinguals
with the support of the school and the community encouraging the family to continue to commu-
nicate with the child in the language(s) they feel most comfortable using.

Limitations
It is necessary to discuss the results in the context of the limitations of this study. Collecting
information regarding language usage at home is a complex process. As mentioned previously,
limited research has been conducted within two language households to determine what actually
occurs with regard to language exposure and usage between and across languages due to the complex
nature of collecting these data in a valid and reliable way. Most information previously obtained has
been in the form of case studies and anecdotes. In this study, we relied on the parents self-reporting
language use at home, the most common method used for collecting these data. As researchers, we
are continuously challenged in quantifying the amount of language exposure and use children are
engaged in and we will need to begin using more systematic tools for collecting these data. One
possibility is using the LENA device to record and then manually coding for the language used.
A second limitation of the present study was the elimination from the sample of the 24 families
who did not have a language match between parents. The number of parents that did not speak to
each other in the same language was too small to include in the analysis. However, understanding
the language dynamics of two language households may shed new information into a different home
language model than the one used by the parents in the present study. The reduced number of
households participating in this practice may be a function of the sample we drew from, three
prominent Spanish language groups, residing in communities within the U.S. with large Latino
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 15

populations. It is possible that we may have seen more varied results if the families resided in
communities with a limited number of Spanish speakers.
Finally, language match was not related to generational status or maternal education level. This
was surprising considering previous research has found language differences among families based
on these two demographic variables. This may be due to the enclave communities the participants in
this study lived in. More research will need to be done to explore these findings further.

Conclusion
The majority of Latino parents in the present study maintained a Spanish-speaking household.
Oftentimes Spanish was the only language the parents spoke and therefore children were exposed to
and used Spanish exclusively in the home. In some cases, parents were bilingual and made the choice as
to whether to speak to their children only in Spanish, only in English, or in both English and Spanish. It
was also common for children who were exposed to some English at home to choose to speak English
instead of Spanish. The main findings in this study point to variability in the language used at home by
Latino families in the U.S. In addition, by studying language match in the home, this study found that
language use among mother, father, and child were often related. The findings presented in the study
reflect the reality of current-day bilingual homes in the U.S. where there exists this interplay between the
home and community language. It is essential that we continue to study the language experiences of
children in diverse homes as we aim to meet their academic and social needs.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by NIH-NICHD, ACF, EDOSEP/OSERS under grant 7R01 HD051542-07.

ORCID
Lisa M. López http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0526-4334

References
Alba, R., Logan, J., Lutz, A., & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the
mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39(3), 467–484. doi:10.1353/
dem.2002.0023
Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental psychology, 24(4),
560–567.
Bohman, T., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010). What they hear and what they say:
Language performance in young Spanish–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual
Education, 13(3), 325–344. doi:10.1080/13670050903342019
Brandone, A. C., Salkind, S. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Language development. In G. G. Bear &
K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 499–514). Washington,
DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Branum-Martin, L., Mehta, P. D., Carlson, C. D., Francis, D. J., & Goldenberg, C. (2014). The nature of Spanish versus
English language use at home. Journal of educational psychology, 106(1), 181–199. doi:10.1037/a0033931
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of
educational research, 49, 222–251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222
de Houwer, A. (2007). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. Applied psycholinguistics, 28(3),
411–424. doi:10.1017.S0142716407070221
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and
school. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
16 L. M. LÓPEZ ET AL.

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, 171–190. doi:10.1017/S0142716406070093
Fernald, A., & Weisleder, A. (2015). Twenty years after Meaningful Differences, it’s time to reframe the ‘deficit’ debate
about the importance of children’s early language experience. Human development, 58, 1–4. doi:10.1159/000375515
Garcia, E., & Jensen, B. (2009). Early educational opportunities for children of Hispanic origins. SRCD Social Policy
Report, 23(2). Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/spr.html
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher
reports. Applied psycholinguistics, 24(2), 267–288. doi:10.1017/S0142716403000158
Hammer, C. S., Davison, M. D., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2009). The effect of maternal language on bilingual
children’s vocabulary and emergent literacy development during Head Start and kindergarten. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 13(2), 99–121. doi:10.1080/10888430902769541
Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B. L., López, L. M., Scarpino, S., & Goldstein, B. (2012). Predicting Spanish-
English bilingual children’s language abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(5), 1251–1264.
doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0016)
Hammer, C. S., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2007). Bilingual children’s language abilities and early reading
outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 38, 237–248.
doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/025)
Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Wagstaff, D. A. (2003). Home literacy experiences and their relationship to bilingual
preschoolers’ developing English literacy abilities: An initial investigation. Language, speech, and hearing services in
schools, 34, 20–30. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2003/003)
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2012). How babies talk: Six principles of early language development. In
S. Odom, E. Pungello, & N. Gardner-Neblett (Eds.), Re-visioning the beginning: Developmental and health science
contributions to infant/toddler programs for children and families living in poverty (pp. 77–101). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Tresch Owen, M., Golinkoff, R. M., Pace, A., … Suma, K. (2015). The
contribution of early communication quality to low-income children’s language success. Psychological science, 26(7),
1071–1083. doi:10.1177/0956797615581493
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26(1), 55–88.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes:
Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental psychology, 49(1), 4–14. doi:10.1037/a0027238
Hoff, E. (2017). Bilingual development in children of immigrants. Child development perspectives, 1–7. doi:10.1111/
cdep.12262
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Senor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual
development. Journal of child language, 39, 1–27. doi:10.17/S0305000910000759
King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for
additive bilingualism. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712. doi:10.2167/
beb362.0
Kuhl, P. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 821–843.
doi:10.1038/nrn1533
Lewis, K., Sandilos, L. E., Hammer, C. S., Sawyer, B. E., & Mendez, L. I. (2016). Relations among the home language
and literacy environment and children’s language abilities: A study of Head Start dual language learners and their
mothers. Early education and development, 27(4), 478–494. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1082820
López, L. M. (2005). A look into the homes of Spanish-speaking preschool children. In J. Cohen, K. T.McAlister K.
Rolstand, & J.MacSwan (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1378–
1383). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
López, L. M. (2011). Language and the educational setting. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development
and disorders in Spanish-English speakers, pp. 267–281). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Inc.
López, L. M. (2012). Assessing the phonological skills of bilingual children from preschool through kindergarten:
Developmental progression and cross-language transfer. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 371–
391. doi:10.1080/02568543.2012.711800
López, L. M., & Tápanes, V. (2011). Latino children attending a two-way immersion program in the United States: A
comparative case analysis. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 142–160. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.598087
Lutz, A. (2007/2008). Negotiating Home Language: Spanish Maintenance and Loss in Latino Families. Latino(a)
Research Review, 6((3)), 37–64. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/celac/LRR/LRR%202008.pdf
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and
youth learning english: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24677
Palermo, F., Mikulski, A. M., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., & Stargel, L. E. (2014). English exposure in the
home and classroom: Predictions to Spanish-speaking preschoolers’ English vocabulary skills. Applied psycholin-
guistics, 35(6), 1163–1187. doi:10.1017/S0142716412000732
 EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 17

Passell, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2008). U.S. Population projections: 2005-2050. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Pearson, B. Z. (2007). Social factors in childhood bilingualism in the United States. Applied psycholinguistics, 28(3),
399–410. doi:10.1017.S014271640707021X
Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by
bilingual infants. Applied psycholinguistics, 18(1), 41–58. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009863
Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E Pluribus Unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second language. Sociology of
education, 71, 269–294. doi:10.2307/2673171
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today.
International Migration Review, 28(4), 640–661. doi:10.2307/2547152
Quiroz, B. G., Snow, C. E., & Zhao, J. (2010). Vocabulary skills of Spanish-English bilinguals: Impact of mother-child
language interactions and home language and literacy support. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(4),
379–399. doi:10.1177/1367006910370919
Ramirez, R. R. (2004). We the people: Hispanics in the United States (Report No. CENSR-18). Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau.
Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary
grades. American educational research journal, 45(3), 853–891. doi:10.3102/0002831209333184
Reese, L., & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Community literacy resources and home literacy practices among immigrant
Latino families. Marriage & family review, 43, 109–139. doi:10.1080/01494920802010272
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Valentino, R., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners:
Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 37(4), 612–637.
doi:10.3102/0162373715573310
Veltman, C. (1981). Anglicization in the United States: The importance of parental nativity and language practice.
International Journal of Society and Language, 32, 65–84.
Veltman, C. (1988). The future of the Spanish language in the United States (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 295 485). Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(88)79586-7
Wildsmith, E., Scott, M., Guzman, L., & Cook, E. (2014). Family structure and family formation among low-income
Hispanics in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families.
Winsler, A., Burchinal, M. R., Tien, H. C., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Espinosa, L., Castro, D., … De Feyter, J. (2014). Early
development among dual language learners: The roles of language use at home, maternal immigration, country of
origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early childhood research quarterly, 29, 750–764. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2014.02.008
Winsler, A., Diaz, R. M., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. L. (1999). When learning a second language does not mean
losing the first: Bilingual language development in low-income, Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual
preschool. Child development, 70(2), 349–362. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00026