Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2026
Heritage Speakers Telling Fictional Stories in Two Languages: Cross-Linguistic Differences in Macrostructure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fichman Sveta, Altman Carmit, Walters Joel, Armon-Lotem Sharon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The article aimed to examine cross-linguistic differences in macrostructure abilities in the narratives of 5- to 6-year-old preschool children from diverse heritage language (HL) backgrounds who speak Hebrew as the societal language (SL).
METHOD: Data were collected from 104 preschool children (ages 5-6 years), bilingual speakers of English-Hebrew (n = 34), Russian-Hebrew (n = 50), and French-Hebrew (n = 20). Narratives were collected via retelling in both languages with support from six colored pictures following the procedures and coding of the Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings-Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN). Story scripts in each language reflect story grammar (SG) elements, including setting (time, place, and main characters) and three episodes per story, where each episode contains goal, attempt, and outcome. Stories retold in both languages were transcribed and coded for macrostructure features, following the LITMUS-MAIN coding procedure. The coding included story structure (sum of all elements, maximum score = 17), structural complexity (number of goal-attempt or goal-outcome sequences and number of goal-attempt-outcome sequences), and individual SG elements. All three components of macrostructure were analyzed for cross-linguistic and cross-group differences.
RESULTS: Analyses revealed significant cross-linguistic differences in most components for the English-Hebrew group, but not for the Russian-Hebrew or French-Hebrew groups. More subtle differences were revealed by structural complexity analysis, such that narratives of HL English-Hebrew and Russian-Hebrew bilinguals included more goal-attempt and goal-outcome combinations. The presence of individual SG elements was also higher in HL than in SL, and this trend was more evident in the English-Hebrew group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cross-linguistic differences in macrostructure might not be universal; rather, each HL group has unique profiles of storytelling. We discuss ethnolinguistic identity and cultural values as possible factors contributing to these differences.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33325110.
METHOD: Data were collected from 104 preschool children (ages 5-6 years), bilingual speakers of English-Hebrew (n = 34), Russian-Hebrew (n = 50), and French-Hebrew (n = 20). Narratives were collected via retelling in both languages with support from six colored pictures following the procedures and coding of the Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings-Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN). Story scripts in each language reflect story grammar (SG) elements, including setting (time, place, and main characters) and three episodes per story, where each episode contains goal, attempt, and outcome. Stories retold in both languages were transcribed and coded for macrostructure features, following the LITMUS-MAIN coding procedure. The coding included story structure (sum of all elements, maximum score = 17), structural complexity (number of goal-attempt or goal-outcome sequences and number of goal-attempt-outcome sequences), and individual SG elements. All three components of macrostructure were analyzed for cross-linguistic and cross-group differences.
RESULTS: Analyses revealed significant cross-linguistic differences in most components for the English-Hebrew group, but not for the Russian-Hebrew or French-Hebrew groups. More subtle differences were revealed by structural complexity analysis, such that narratives of HL English-Hebrew and Russian-Hebrew bilinguals included more goal-attempt and goal-outcome combinations. The presence of individual SG elements was also higher in HL than in SL, and this trend was more evident in the English-Hebrew group.
CONCLUSIONS: Cross-linguistic differences in macrostructure might not be universal; rather, each HL group has unique profiles of storytelling. We discuss ethnolinguistic identity and cultural values as possible factors contributing to these differences.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33325110.