Cargando…
Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review
Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variab...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733883/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31551866 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005 |
_version_ | 1783450046142873600 |
---|---|
author | Trombetta, Tommaso Brustia, Piera Curti, Lorenzo Caldarera, Angela M. Gerino, Eva Rollè, Luca |
author_facet | Trombetta, Tommaso Brustia, Piera Curti, Lorenzo Caldarera, Angela M. Gerino, Eva Rollè, Luca |
author_sort | Trombetta, Tommaso |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variables that are potentially associated with the lower linguistic skills of twins. Aim: The current systematic review aims to analyze and systematize the existing literature focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments within their first 3 years of life. Methodological issues (i.e., the procedure used to assess the linguistic environment, the coding of the linguistic environment's features, the computational method employed to assess the parental linguistic input, and participant characteristics) and differences found among twins and singletons regarding their linguistic environment (i.e., linguistic input quantity, linguistic input complexity, linguistic features of child-directed speech, parental responsiveness, and directiveness, joint attention, and book reading) were highlighted. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Eligible studies were searched through EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From this search, 1,347 study results emerged, and 8 studies were included. Results: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Differences between the groups were found in all of the included studies. Data against twins were generally identified regarding all the considered linguistic environment's features. However, conflicting results within and between the included studies emerged, mainly according to the computational method employed (i.e., twin moms value, twin direct dyadic value, twin direct dyadic + both value, and input directed toward both children simultaneously). Conclusion: The disadvantaged linguistic environment of twins is likely due to limited parental resources and demands associated with the management of two children of the same age. However, the limited and conflicting data found did not allow for a firm conclusion to be drawn on the differences in the twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Further studies on the topic are needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6733883 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67338832019-09-24 Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review Trombetta, Tommaso Brustia, Piera Curti, Lorenzo Caldarera, Angela M. Gerino, Eva Rollè, Luca Front Psychol Psychology Background: Among twins, lower linguistic skills emerged when compared with singletons. Considering the association found between parental linguistic input and children's language development, exploring the differences between twins and singletons' linguistic environments could find variables that are potentially associated with the lower linguistic skills of twins. Aim: The current systematic review aims to analyze and systematize the existing literature focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments within their first 3 years of life. Methodological issues (i.e., the procedure used to assess the linguistic environment, the coding of the linguistic environment's features, the computational method employed to assess the parental linguistic input, and participant characteristics) and differences found among twins and singletons regarding their linguistic environment (i.e., linguistic input quantity, linguistic input complexity, linguistic features of child-directed speech, parental responsiveness, and directiveness, joint attention, and book reading) were highlighted. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Eligible studies were searched through EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science. From this search, 1,347 study results emerged, and 8 studies were included. Results: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused on the comparison of twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Differences between the groups were found in all of the included studies. Data against twins were generally identified regarding all the considered linguistic environment's features. However, conflicting results within and between the included studies emerged, mainly according to the computational method employed (i.e., twin moms value, twin direct dyadic value, twin direct dyadic + both value, and input directed toward both children simultaneously). Conclusion: The disadvantaged linguistic environment of twins is likely due to limited parental resources and demands associated with the management of two children of the same age. However, the limited and conflicting data found did not allow for a firm conclusion to be drawn on the differences in the twins' and singletons' linguistic environments. Further studies on the topic are needed. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6733883/ /pubmed/31551866 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005 Text en Copyright © 2019 Trombetta, Brustia, Curti, Caldarera, Gerino and Rollè. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Trombetta, Tommaso Brustia, Piera Curti, Lorenzo Caldarera, Angela M. Gerino, Eva Rollè, Luca Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title | Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Twins' and Singletons' Linguistic Environment: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | twins' and singletons' linguistic environment: a systematic review |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6733883/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31551866 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT trombettatommaso twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview AT brustiapiera twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview AT curtilorenzo twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview AT caldareraangelam twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview AT gerinoeva twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview AT rolleluca twinsandsingletonslinguisticenvironmentasystematicreview |