European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2015

Vol. 23, No. 1, 6985, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991096

A socio-cultural perspective on childrens early language: a family

study
Ljubica Marjanovic-Umeka, Urka Fekonja-Peklaja*, Gregor Socana
and Veronika Tanerb
a
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, Slovenia; bUniversity
of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Slovenia

This study examines the effect of certain socio-cultural factors of the family
environment on the language of toddlers and children in early childhood. The
sample included 86 families with one- to six-year-old children. The data on the
social, economic, and cultural factors of the family environment, parental reading
literacy, parental knowledge of childrens development, childrens exposure to
shared reading, and child language were obtained in the family environment.
Path analysis was used to verify the presumed structural model, which included
social and economic factors of the family environment, parental knowledge of
childrens development, and parental reading literacy as independent variables,
activities used by parents to encourage their childs language as mediating
variables, and childrens early literacy and language as a dependent variable. The
analysis results showed that the presumed structural model tted our data well.
Parental education (PE), family nancial conditions, parental knowledge of
childrens development, and parental reading literacy was able to explain 13% of
the variance in child language. The obtained results conrm the signicant effect
of social, economic, and cultural factors of the childs family on language during
toddlerhood and early childhood.
Keywords: family environment; literacy activities; child language; path analysis

Introduction
Vygotsky (1978) and his followers and contemporaries (e.g. Antonetti, Liverta-
Sempio, & Marchetti, 2006; Brockmeier 2000; Watson 1996) clearly recognised the
role of the social and cultural environment in the development of childrens advanced
psychological processes. In conceptualising thought and language and the relations
between them, they focused on cultural tools, which act as mediators in childrens inte-
gration into social practices and in their language development and learning both of
these enable children to make social structures part of their individual experience (e.g.
Bernstein 1973; Bruner 1983; Razfar and Gutirrez 2003). Language as one of the cul-
tural tools enters the conceptualisation of childrens thinking and knowledge at two
levels: the direct level, via the effect on childrens development of thinking, and the
indirect level, via the effect of the language code used in childs environment.
Language is thus an important mechanism for conveying culture and at the same
time is also a form of cultural capital (Bourdieu 2004).

*Corresponding author. Email: urska.fekonja@ff.uni-lj.si

2015 EECERA
70 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

The family, which Brockmeier (2000) refers to as the sociolinguistic microcosm of

the majority of children, is an important social and cultural environment for children at
all development stages. It is where early social and verbal interactions take place
between parents and children, and where the cultural capital expressed through activi-
ties and material conditions affect the development of childrens symbolic abilities (e.g.
Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Gutirrez 2002). The family micro system differs from
other ecological inuences not only because of its specic space, but also its constant
presence in persons life: every relationship a child enters within the family is complete,
lifelong, and permanent through generations thus having an important effect on chil-
drens lives (Pratt and Fiese 2004). Although denitions of parental cultural capital
or the quality of the family environment vary, researchers highlight the effect of
family factors on childrens early and later development and learning. Thus Esping-
Andersen (2005), for instance, denes parental cultural capital based on parental edu-
cation (PE), the number of books kept at home, the frequency of discussing cultural
topics, and attending cultural events (e.g. the theatre and concerts). McCoy and Cole
(2010) highlight parental involvement in early reading activities and encouraging
childs emergent literacy, which they found to have a greater effect on childrens devel-
opment than the variables connected with the familys social and economic status. In
addition, they believe that parents have a greater inuence on the development of chil-
drens abilities by encouraging them to learn things in the family environment rather
than encouraging them to participate in activities taking place in school.
The socio-cultural perspective (e.g. Vygotsky 1967; Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976)
emphasises the role of supportive environmental factors in childrens development and
learning. With regard to the family environment, one of the main supportive factors rep-
resents the competent individuals (parents), who scaffold childrens language develop-
ment already during infancy in a multidirectional and mutual process taking place
between them and their children (Razfar and Gutirrez 2003). This has to do with
the adults activities within the zone of proximal development, which Vygotsky
(1967) dened as the distance between the childrens actual development stage of
activity that reects their ability to solve problems independently and the potential
stage of activity that they can achieve with the help of a cognitively more developed
partner. Work by Bernstein and his circle plays an important role in explaining the
inuence of the family environment on childrens language competence. In studying
the relations between parental social status and the use of different codes of language,
Bernstein (1990) focused on the importance of social environment which denes the
principles and focuses of communication. He found that the characteristics of social
environment have a key inuence on childrens language competence, namely the
parents from a low social class used a limited language code when communicating
with their children, characterised by a limited use of grammar, simple and unconnected
sentences with a predominantly implicit meaning, and frequent direct utterances that are
primarily used to direct childrens behaviour. In contrast, parents from a middle social
class used a developed or structured language code that is complex and comprehensive,
their utterances expressed explicit meanings, and they used language to establish social
relations, describe emotional conditions, and encourage a conceptual hierarchy in
structuring experiences. Recent research ndings (e.g. Hoff 2003; Lawrence and
Shipley 1996; Rowe 2008) conrm that during various daily activities parental
speech (e.g. mean length of utterances, maintaining the topic of conversation, the
scope of vocabulary, and posing eliciting questions) is signicantly correlated with
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 71

the familys socio-economic status (SES), and is also an important predictor of

childrens current and later language competence.

Studies of the home environment: literacy practices and parental beliefs

Families differ from one another with regard to how and to what extent the activities
connected with early reading and encouraging emergent literacy are present in the
daily activities of their members (Cairney and Rouge 1998). Even though a familys
SES signicantly determines the quality of stimulation children receive in their home
environment, parents beliefs concerning the importance of early development of
child language and reading and their behaviour connected with childrens development
and learning are key factors that can also substitute for certain negative effects of a less
favourable family SES. Thus for example, shared reading, learning songs and rhymes,
visiting the library, teaching letters and numbers, and encouraging symbolic play rep-
resent protective factors for childrens development of language and early literacy (e.g.
Flouri and Buchanan 2004; McCoy and Cole 2011; Sylva et al. 1999, 2004).
Foy and Mann (2003) distinguish between three aspects of family literacy that inu-
ence childrens development of language: parentchild shared reading, the frequency of
parents reading, and parents beliefs about the importance of shared reading and book-
related activities. Similarly, Lonigan (2004) also highlights certain home environment
activities that he believes are important for stimulating child language and emergent lit-
eracy: (1) a literacy-rich environment (e.g. childrens books, library visits, and writing
material); (2) opportunities to engage in conversations with adults involving narrative
and explanatory talk; (3) shared reading; (4) dialogic reading as an interactive form of
shared reading; and (5) creating links between materials in school and the home
environment. In this regard, Lonigan stresses that the home environment in families
with a low SES is often less stimulating than the environment in families with a high
SES: it involves a lower amount of child-directed speech and shared reading, and
fewer books and other symbolic material. Marjanovic-Umek, Podlesek, and Fekonja
(2005) reported that those literacy activities that were planned to a greater extent and
that were more time consuming (e.g. visiting the library or puppet theatre, teaching
the letters, involvement in verbal interaction with the child while looking at a picture
book) were linked to childrens language competence to a greater extent than were
the characteristics of the mothers language use (e.g. correction and repetition of the
childs utterances) and communication between mother and her child in everyday
activities (e.g. during play and while watching TV).
Parentchild shared reading is an important predictor of childrens early and later
language development and their development of emergent and academic literacy (e.
g. Allen, Cipielewski, and Stanovich 1992; Crain-Thoreson and Dale 1992; Marjano-
vic-Umek et al. 2012; Mol and Bus 2011; Snchal, Thomas, and Monker 1995;
Vander Woude and Barton 2003). Parents often interact with their children through
childrens literature and reading various texts even before children pronounce their
rst word (Pellegrini and Galda 1998; Snchal and LeFevre 2002; Silvn, Ahtola,
and Niemi 2003). While reading books to their children, parents engage them in
verbal interaction; they use statements to direct the infants attention, ask questions,
name the illustrations, and encourage the childs responses (Silvn, Ahtola, and
Niemi 2003). Wells (1985) reported that approximately 5% of the daily talk of 24-
month-old infants took place during shared reading. Snchal et al. (1998) studied
the correlation between two book-related activities that is, shared reading of stories
72 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

(assessed indirectly through parental knowledge of childrens books authors and titles)
and book-aided teaching (parental reports on how often they teach their children letters
and how to read) and childrens language competence. They established that the fre-
quency of shared reading of stories predicted the size of childrens vocabulary, the chil-
drens understanding of the content read, and their phonological awareness, whereas
the frequency of parents book-aided teaching predicted the childrens pre-reading
skills. At the same time, the frequency of shared reading was not signicantly correlated
with the frequency of teaching letters and how to read using books. In other words,
parents who often read stories to their children did not necessarily often teach them
letters and how to read while using books. In the meta-analysis of 99 studies, Mol
and Bus (2011) determined that childrens early exposure to literature can explain
12% of the variance in preschool childrens language and 13% of the variance in
schoolchildrens language competence. According to the authors, there exists a recipro-
cal relationship between childs early exposure to literature and his language compe-
tence and reading. Children who are often included in shared reading by adults,
express a higher language competence and literacy skills and in turn these children
more frequently ask their parents to read to them or read the childrens books by them-
selves. Consequently, individual differences in language competence and reading skills
among non-conventional readers increase with age.
Parental engagement in early reading and emergent literacy activities is largely con-
nected with parents beliefs about the importance of encouraging childrens language
and with parents knowledge of childrens development. Parental beliefs and their
knowledge of childrens development have an effect on how parents speak to their
children and select activities during which they engage in verbal interactions with
their children (DeBaryshe 1995; Foy and Mann 2003; Rowe 2008; Sigel and
McGillicuddy-DeLisi 2002; Weigel, Martin, and Bennet 2006). Foy and Mann
(2003) established that the parents beliefs about the importance of encouraging
childrens language moderately predict childrens language development.
Parents who believe that reading is a pleasant activity also convey this to their chil-
dren, either directly by saying this to them or indirectly through shared reading (Baker
and Scher 2002). DeBaryshe (1995) reported that the mothers beliefs about the impor-
tance of shared reading were related to her education and reading habits as well as the
frequency and quality of shared reading. Weigel et al. (2006) distinguish between two
groups of mothers in terms of their beliefs about the importance of encouraging their
childrens language. Most facilitative mothers believe that their active role in teaching
their children in the home environment will result in childrens better performance in
school. They believe that shared reading enables children to learn new words, gain
new knowledge and communicative skills, and encourages moral development.
Reading together with their children is a pleasant activity for them and they also
have fond memories of their reading together with their parents. Conventional
mothers commonly believe that preschool children are too small to learn how to read
and that school is in charge of teaching children, not parents. In addition, they often
list various obstacles preventing them from engaging in shared reading with their chil-
dren, such as the lack of interesting books or the existence of disturbing factors in the
home environment. Even though facilitative mothers reported that they more often
draw, sing songs, tell stories, and play with their children than conventional mothers,
there were not any signicant differences among them regarding the age at which
they began reading to their children, the number of books kept at home, and the fre-
quency of visiting the library with their children. On average, facilitative mothers
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 73

had a higher education and were better in school than conventional mothers. In
addition, they report that the four-year-olds of facilitative mothers were better
acquainted with the features of the written word (e.g. identifying letters and words,
knowing the direction of reading in a book) and showed greater interest in reading
than the children of conventional mothers.
The purpose of our family study was to explore the effect of family environment on
childrens language during toddlerhood and early childhood from a socio-cultural per-
spective. The purpose of the study was to develop a model of relations between various
aspects of the family environment that affect childrens language. In the model, family-
related factors (economic, social, and cultural), parents literacy, and their knowledge
of childrens development were dened as independent variables; family activities
that parents use to encourage their childrens language and early literacy (shared
reading, literacy activities in teaching of reading and writing skills) were dened as
indirect variables; and child language was dened as a dependent variable.

Method
Participants
The sample included 86 families with one- to six-year-old children (50% girls and 50%
boys): 29.5% one-year-olds, 21.6% two-year-olds, 14.8% three-year-olds, 18.2% four-
year-olds, and 15.9% ve-year-olds (M = 37; eight months; SD = 18; three months).
Families were selected for the sample through preschools and using the snowball
method, taking into account the childrens age and PE; only families in which
parents speak Slovenian with the child were selected. The parents (92% mothers and
8% fathers) differed according to the level of completed formal education: 9.3% had
less than a secondary-school degree, 16.3% had a secondary-school degree, 9.3%
had a junior college degree, 43% had a bachelors degree, and 22.1% had a masters
degree or a PhD (M = 14 years of completed formal education; SD = 1.97). The
sample of parents is slightly biased given the relatively small share of parents with
an extremely low education and the high share of parents with a tertiary education.

Materials
The questionnaire Pogovor s stari (Parent Interview, Marjanovic-Umek and Taner
2010) was used to collect data on family environment factors: social and economic indi-
cators, and activities related to encouraging language and early literacy. The question-
naire consists of two parts. The rst part includes questions about the familys SES:
parental education (PE), family material possessions (e.g. if they have a childrens
room, a computer, or Internet access), family cultural possession (e.g. if they own
classic literature, works of art), family educational resources (e.g. if they use edu-
cational computer programs, scholarly literature and journals or manuals), and the
number of books owned (the number of adult and childrens books). The second part
contains questions concerning the activities that promote childrens language and
early literacy that parents engage in together with their children (e.g. reading to the
child, visiting libraries, going to puppet shows and galleries, telling stories, and teach-
ing letters and how to read). The questions included in the questionnaire form the basis
for a semi-structured interview with parents, in which the researcher asks the parents
74 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

questions and either writes down their answers or assesses the frequency of performing
a certain activity based on the parents answers.
The parents literacy was assessed using the Preizkus bralne pismenosti (Test of
Reading Literacy [TRL]), Fekonja-Peklaj et al. 2010). This test is used for assessing
an individuals understanding and use of written texts and reecting on them the abil-
ities most frequently reecting persons reading literacy. It contains 35 questions con-
nected with various forms of written text such as tables, graphs, instructions, and non-
literary texts. The highest possible score is 35 points and the scores of parents included
in the sample ranged between 3 and 35 points (M = 31.03; SD = 4.69). The alpha-coef-
cient of .80 was initially calculated on a smaller sample of adults (n = 26), half of
whom did not nish primary school and half who had a secondary-school degree,
was .80.
The parents knowledge of childrens development was evaluated using the Knowl-
edge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI) (MacPhee 2002). The inventory contains
58 statements connected with parents knowledge of the characteristics of infant/toddler
development (motor, social, language, perceptive, and cognitive), effective parenting
approaches, and methods of ensuring the health and safety of infants and toddlers.
The rst 39 statements refer to the typical behaviour of infants/toddlers at a specic
age and the factors inuencing their development; parents mark whether they agree
or disagree with the statement or whether they are not sure. The following 19 statements
refer to the childrens abilities or skills typical of a specic age; with each statement, the
parents mark whether they agree with it or whether the ability or skill described is
typical of a younger or older child. The number of correct answers shows the extent
to which parents know typical child development. The alpha-coefcient of internal
reliability has been calculated in several studies and ranges between .80 and .86
(MacPhee 2002). The author of the inventory (MacPhee 2002) reports that the corre-
lation between the mothers score and education level determined in various samples
of mothers ranges from .00 to .69. The highest possible score on the inventory is 58
points and the scores of parents included in our sample ranged from 9 to 48 points
(M = 37.05; SD = 6.10).
Childs exposure to childrens literature, which is an indirect measure of shared
reading within a family, was evaluated using the Lista naslovov in avtorjev otrokih
knjig (Checklist of Titles and Authors of Childrens Books [CTACB]), Marjanovic-
Umek and Fekonja-Peklaj 2011). The CTACB was designed on the basis of the check-
list by Snchal et al. (1998), who used a similar method (assessment of parents knowl-
edge of childrens book titles and authors) to assess childrens exposure to childrens
literature. The CTACB has two parts. Part one contains a list of 39 titles, of which
25 are actual titles of storybooks and 14 are made-up titles. Part two contains a list
of 40 rst and last names, of which 25 are the names of authors of storybooks and
15 are made-up names. The titles include traditional books (fairy tales and storybooks)
as well as modern childrens literature. The list includes instructions for parents to care-
fully read all of the titles and names, and to mark the ones that they think are real. The
score on the list is the number of correct answers minus the number of incorrect ones,
and the highest possible score is 50.
The language of toddlers one to 2.6 years old was assessed using the Slovenian
adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI)
that is, the Lista razvoja sporazumevalnih zmonosti: Besede in geste (CDI: Words
and Gestures, Marjanovic-Umek et al. 2011) was used to assess the vocabulary of
12- to 16-month-old toddlers, and the Lista razvoja sporazumevalnih zmonosti:
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 75

Besede in stavki (CDI: Words and Sentences, Marjanovic-Umek et al. 2011) was used
to assess the vocabulary of 16- to 30-month-old toddlers. The parents marked on the
checklist which words from the total selection of words included in the CDI: Words
and Gestures (394 words) and the CDI: Words and Sentences (680 words) are used
by their toddler. The scores of toddlers included in our sample on the CDI: Words
and Gestures ranged between 0 and 19 words (M = 8.00; SD = 6.40), and their
scores on the CDI: Words and Sentences ranged from 0 to 640 words (M = 195.65;
SD = 175.00). The language of toddlers and children 2.6 to 6 years old was evaluated
using the Lestvice splonega govornega razvoja LJ (Scales of General Language
Development LJ [SGLD LJ]), Marjanovic-Umek et al. 2008), which includes
three scales: language comprehension, language expression, and metalinguistic aware-
ness. The SGLD LJ was designed to assess childs general language ability, similar
to some well known scales such as the Reynell Developmental Language Scales
RDLS III (Reynell 1979), the Vane Evaluation of Language Scale (Vane 1975) or
the Preschool Language Scale 3, PLS 3 (Zimmerman, Steiner in Evatt Pond,
1991). Correct answers are awarded from 1 to 5 points on various tasks, thus three
partial results are achieved, and the sum of all three partial results (up to 205
points possible) represents a general assessment of the childs language. The scores
of children included in the sample on the SGLDLJ ranged between 67 and 205
points (M = 140.67; SD = 42.76). The split-half alpha reliability coefcient calculated
for individual scales and different age groups (from two- to six-years-old) ranges
between .97 and .68 for the Language Comprehension Scale, from .92 to .88
for the Language Expression Scale, and from .89 to .95 for the Metalinguistic
Awareness Scale.

Procedure
A letter was sent to the parents inviting them to participate in the study. It included a
description of the purpose of the study, an explanation of the entire course of the
study, and the notication that they could cancel their participation in the study at
any time. Only families from which we received informed written consent from
the parents were included in the study. The test administrator, a graduating psychol-
ogy student, contacted every family included in the sample. Before data collection
began, test administrators received training in using materials and assessing and eval-
uating the data collected. All of the data were collected at parents and childrens
homes. Parents decided which one would participate in the study and the test admin-
istrator then arranged to visit the home when that parent was available. Because data
were collected in a natural environment, other family members could also be present
in addition to the parent and child. The test administrator rst used the Parent Inter-
view questionnaire, a semi-structured interview of the parent to gather information
on the family environment information. While the parent completed the TRL and
the CTACB, the test administrator assessed the childs language with the SGLD
LJ if the child was older than 2.6 years. She asked the parents of 12- to 30-
month-old toddlers to complete the CDI: Words and Gestures or the CDI: Words
and Sentences at home. She asked all parents, regardless of their childrens age,
to complete the Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory before the next visit.
The parents returned the two questionnaires in 14 days, when the test administrator
revisited the family.
76 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Results
The parents answers obtained in the rst part of the semi-structured interview were
combined into two variables: PE, which represents the highest level of formal education
completed by parents, and index of family possessions (IFP), which includes estimates
of the familys material possessions, family cultural possessions, family educational
resources, and the number of books in the family. The IFP was calculated as the rst
main component of the estimates listed. The parents answers obtained in the second
part of the semi-structured interview were combined into the following two variables
based on exploratory factor analysis: Literacy activities (F1; e.g. how often parents
take their children to childrens workshops, puppet shows, and the library; how often
the children see their parents read; and how often parents read and tell stories to
their children) and Teaching of reading and writing skills (F2; e.g. how often parent
teach their children how to read, write, and draw). Because the scores on both the F1
and F2 scales were calculated using component weights, their reliability was also esti-
mated with the alpha-coefcient for the rst main component (cf. Ten Berge and
Hofstee 1999). The alpha-coefcient for the F1 scale was .78 and .70 for F2.
An overall assessment of the toddlers/childrens language was calculated based on
the assumption that CDI and SGLDLJ measure the same latent construct and by taking
into account the high correlation between both measures of child language and child
age (the coefcients of correlation between the toddlers age and their scores on the
CDI and between their age and the score on the SGLDLJ were the same: .77). Both
measures were converted into the same scale using linear conversion, whose parameters
were determined in the following way: a one-month difference in the toddlers/chil-
drens age corresponded to the equal difference in converted scores, and the border
age of two; six years corresponded to the same converted value on both scales.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of independent (PE, IFP, KIDI, and TRL)
and mediating (CTACB, F1, and F2) variables and the dependent variable (child
language). The variables IFP, F1, and F2 are calculated as component achievements
and so their arithmetic mean and standard deviation is 0 or 1. With the majority of vari-
ables, the asymmetry and kurtosis coefcients indicate a certain degree of deviation
from the normal distribution; this is most evident with TRL, resulting from the rela-
tively low difculty level of the test.
Because there was a statistically signicant correlation between the childrens age
and their language competence (r = .93, p < 0.05), partial correlation coefcients were
calculated between the independent, mediating, and dependent variables, thus control-
ling for the linear effect of the childrens age (Table 2).
The calculated correlation coefcients show that there is a moderate to high statisti-
cally signicant correlation between all independent variables (PE, IFP, KIDI, and
TRL); the same also applies to the mediating variables CTACB and F1. There is a mod-
erately high and statistically signicant correlation between these two variables,
whereas the correlation between them and F2 is not statistically signicant. Controlling
for child age, the correlation between child language and the independent variables PE,
IFP, and TRL and the mediating variables CTACB and F1 is statistically signicant and
moderately high.
Path analysis was then used to test the structural model, in which child language was
dened as a dependent variable, CTACB, F1, and F2 as mediating variables, and the
remaining (PE, IFP, KIDI, and TRL) as independent variables. The model presumes
that all independent variables except for child age affect child language indirectly
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of independent, mediating, and dependent variables.
Parent Interview
Child age PE IFP F1 F2 KIDI TRL CTACB Child language
Mean 37.78 12.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.05 31.03 19.55 1,424.00
Median 35 14 0.26 0.12 0.37 38 32 18 1,386.73
SD 18.29 1.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.10 4.69 7.96 946.46
Skewness .33 1.66 1.24 .25 1.70 1.47 3.81 .25 .26
Kurtosis 1.14 2.01 2.20 .79 2.48 4.51 18.66 .59 1.23
Minimum 12.00 6 3.80 2.20 0.83 9 3.00 5.00 80.00

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Maximum 77.00 14 1.83 2.04 3.51 48 35.00 37.00 3,390.59
Note: PE = parental education; IFP = index of family possession; F1 = Literacy activities; F2 = Teaching of reading and writing skills; KIDI = parents score on the Knowledge
of Infant Development Inventory; TRL = parents score on the Test of Reading Literacy; CTACB = parents score on the Checklist of Titles and Authors of Childrens Books;
Child language = childs score on the CDI or SGLDLJ overall assessment of childs language.

Table 2. Partial correlation coefcients between independent, mediating, and dependent variables, while controlling for child age.
IFP F1 F2 KIDI TRL CTACB Child language
PE .44* .48* .04 .58* .63* .47* .32*
IFP .32* .07 .37* .42* .47* .22*
F1 .07 .32* .30* .33* .27*
F2 .12 .13 .06 .08
KIDI .68* .30* .15
TRL .36* .30*
CTACB .29*
Note. Also see note to Table 1.
*p < 0.05.

77
78 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Figure 1. Estimated structural model parameters.

Note. The values shown are standardised path coefcients (arrows connecting two variables) and
the standardised variances of the differences (the remaining arrows). Solid lines indicate statisti-
cally signicant correlations (p < 0.05); dashed lines indicate correlations that were anticipated
but are not statistically signicant. See also note to Table 1.

through mediating variables (Figure 1). The model parameters and the goodness-of-t
measures were estimated with the Mplus 6.1 program (Muthn and Muthn 2010). The
robust maximum likelihood method was used (MLR). The t of the model was good:
2(7) = 7.76, p = 0.35, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.035, SRMR = 0.017. Due to a relatively
small sample size, the goodness of t in the population is not certain: 95% CI(RMSEA)
= [0.00; 0.14], p(RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.50.
The results in Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 1 show standardised path coefcients, and
the results in both tables also show the trust intervals. The mediating variables CTACB
and F1, and the independent variable child age have statistically signicant direct
effects on child language, in which the size of effects of the mediating variables is
below 0.1. Child age has a signicant direct effect on the variables F1 and F2 and
child language. PE has a statistically signicant direct effect on the variables
CTACB and F1, and IFP has an effect on CTACB. On the other hand, the independent
variables TRL and KIDI do not have a signicant direct effect on the mediating or the
dependent variable. Trust intervals are too large to allow accurate conclusions on the

Table 3. Standardised path coefcients between independent, mediating, and dependent

variables.
Child age PE IFP KIDI TRL
CTACB .04 .29 .32 .04 .05
[-0.13; 0.22] [0.07; 0.51] [0.15; 0.49] [-0.30; 0.22] [-0.24; 0.33]
F1 .49 .38 .12 .07 .07
[0.33; 0.65] [0.17; 0.58] [-0.08; 0.31] [-0.20; 0.34] [-0.32; 0.18]
F2 .47 .03 .13 .08 .13
[0.30; 0.65] [-0.17; 0.24] [-0.07; 0.33] [-0.31; 0.14] [-0.51; 0.25]
Child language .86
[0.77; 0.95]
Note. The limits of the 95% trust interval are provided in square brackets. Coefcients statistically
signicant at the level of 5% are given in bold. See also note to Table 1.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 79

Table 4. Standardised path coefcients between mediating and dependent variables.

F1 F2 CTACB
Child language .09 .05 .08
[0.01; 0.16] [0.04; 0.13] [0.01; 0.16]
Note: See notes to Tables 1 and 3.

Table 5. Joint effects and joint indirect effects of independent variables on the dependent
variable.
Joint Joint indirect
Childs age .93 .07
[0.88; 0.97] [0.00; 0.13]
a
PE .06
[0.02; 0.10]
a
IFP .04
[0.01; 0.07]
KIDI a
.00
[0.04; 0.04]
TRL a
.01
[0.04; 0.03]
Note: See also notes to Tables 1 and 3.
a
The model only envisages indirect effect and therefore the joint effect equals the joint indirect effect.

values of path coefcients, but they nonetheless enable a rough estimate of the size of
individual effects.
In order to evaluate the role of mediating variables in explaining child language,
indirect effects of independent variables on child language were calculated. The indirect
and joint effects and trust intervals are presented in Table 5. Three of ve independent
variables (childs age, PE, and IFP) have statistically signicant joint indirect effects on
child language, but these effects are small (between .04 and .07). Analysis of individual
indirect effects does not give a clear answer to which indirect paths contribute to joint
indirect effects because only one indirect effect that is, the effect of child age through
F1 (.04, p = 0.047) is statistically signicant.

Table 6. Explained variances of mediating and dependent variables.

R2 R2ac
F1 .42 .25
[0.28; 0.57] [0.09; 0.45]
F2 .29 .04
[0.13; 0.45] [0.07; 0.15]
CTACB .31 .31
[0.14; 0.47] [0.14; 0.48]
Child language .88 .13
[0.81; 0.95] [0.00; 0.25]
Note. R2 = percentage of variance explained with the model. R2ac = percentage of variance explained with
controlled child age. All variances are statistically signicant and therefore provided in bold. See also notes
to Tables 1 and 3.
80 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

The percentage of variance that can be explained with the proposed model was also
calculated for individual mediating variables and the dependent variable. The R2 values
are presented in Table 6. The high value of R2 for the dependent variable (i.e. child
language) reects the high direct effect of child age on child language. In order to estab-
lish to what extent child language is inuenced by independent variables while control-
ling for child age, the same model was adapted to the data from which the effect of child
age was partialled out through regression analysis. The results are presented in the right
column of Table 6. The indirect effect of other independent variables on child language
remains statistically signicant (p = .048), but relatively low (R2 = .13).

Discussion
This study examines the effect of social, economic, and cultural factors of the family
environment on the language of toddlers and children in early childhood. First of all,
focus is placed on the explanation of relations between the variables related to the
social, economic, and cultural environment of the childs family, and child language.
The results obtained in this study are comparable to the ndings of other researchers
(e.g. Butler, McMahon, and Ungerer 2003; Lonigan 2004; Snchal et al. 1998),
who report that family literacy environment in low-SES families is less stimulating
than that of families with a higher SES. Our results show that parents with higher edu-
cation provided a more stimulating family environment (i.e. more favourable material
conditions and activities for encouraging childrens language and early literacy).
Families in which parents had a higher education also had a higher IFP, which
means that they offered children a more favourable and stimulating environment in
terms of family material possessions (e.g. a childrens room, computer, Internet
access), cultural possessions (e.g. classic literature, and works of art), educational
resources (e.g. educational computer programs, professional/research literature and
journals), and the number of books kept at home than families of less-educated
parents. Highly educated parents and parents from families with a higher IFP also
knew more authors and titles of childrens books, which means that they more often
involved their children in shared reading, and more often engaged in literacy activities
such as reading to the child, visiting childrens workshops, puppet shows, the library,
galleries, museums, and reading hours, and more often read themselves in front of their
children and told them stories than parents with lower education and a lower IFP. The
slightly surprising low and insignicant correlations of PE and IFP with teaching of
reading and writing skills show that better-educated parents and parents from families
with a higher IFP did not more frequently teach their children how to read, write, and
draw than less-educated parents and parents from families with a low IFP. In addition,
shared reading and literacy activities were not signicantly correlated with the fre-
quency of teaching of reading and writing skills, which shows that parents who
more frequently engaged their children in shared reading and literacy activities did
not more frequently teach their children how to read, write, and draw. These ndings
partly match the ndings by Snchal et al. (1998), who report that parents included
in their study who often read stories to their children did not more often teach them
letters and how to read using books. A possible reason for these low correlations in
our study can also be the formulation of questions for the parent interview. The
questions combined in F2 (Teaching of reading and writing skills) enquire about the
frequency of teaching children how to read, write, and draw, which the parents most
likely understood in the sense of explicit and planned teaching rather than teaching
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 81

that also takes place spontaneously during various activities such as shared reading. The
qualitative analysis of parents answers to these questions showed that variability of
their assessments of the frequency of performing these activities is very low; the
majority of parents answered that they do not teach their children or that they only
do this very rarely. They explained this by giving reasons such as that the child was
too little to be taught, that the child learned letters and how to read alone without
being taught, or (in case of older children) that the child already knew how to read
and write and that is why they did not teach him. One of the possible explanations
for the insignicant correlations described above can also be that, while parents
engage their children in shared reading and literacy activities, they spontaneously
encourage them to recognise letters and read, which, however, could only be evaluated
through direct observation and recoding of verbal interactions taking place between the
parents and the child during shared reading.
The results obtained also show that highly educated parents and parents from
families with a higher IFP were more familiar with the childrens development and
achieved higher reading literacy scores than parents with a lower education and a
lower IFP. These ndings are comparable with the ndings by Rowe (2008), who
established in her study that PE is signicantly positively correlated with parents
knowledge of childrens development and their verbal facility. The parents in our
study that knew their childs development better and parents that achieved higher
reading literacy scores more often engaged in shared reading with their children
(they knew more authors and titles of childrens books) and more often used literacy
activities to encourage child language and early literacy than parents that were less fam-
iliar with their childrens development and had lower reading literacy scores. Similar
results are also reported by other researchers (e.g. DeBaryshe 1995; Sigel and
McGillicuddy-DeLisi 2002; Weigel et al. 2006): that parents beliefs about their
childs development and the related choices of literacy activities for encouraging
childrens development and learning (e.g. shared reading, storytelling, engaging in
symbolic play) are often based on their knowledge of childrens development.
It was further established that children from families with more favourable social,
economic, and cultural factors (children of better-educated parents and children from
families with a higher IFP) and children of parents with higher reading literacy achieved
signicantly higher language competences than their peers from families with less
favourable factors and children of parents with lower reading literacy. Several research-
ers report on the signicant effect of the childs family SES on child language (e.g. Bee
et al. 1982; Silvn et al. 2003); DeCoulon, Meschi, and Vignoles (2008) especially
highlight the importance of the transfer of literacy between generations resulting in
the positive correlations between parents literacy skills and the childrens language
ability, which in our study is reected by a moderately high and signicant correlation
between child language and parental reading literacy.
Furthermore, the results obtained also showed that children whose parents more
often engaged in shared reading and literacy activities with them had higher language
competence. The results might suggest that through these literacy activities parents pro-
vided a simulative environment for their childrens language development and offered
them an appropriate form of scaffolding (e.g. asking open questions, sustaining the
topic of the conversation, encouraging interactive reading, involving the child into
various social and language interactions). However, the frequency of teaching of
reading and writing skills was not statistically signicantly correlated with childrens
language competence. The ndings suggest that the parental cultural capital, expressed
82 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

through family material conditions and literacy activities, affect childrens early
language competence.
In order to better understand the relations and directions of the effect of individual
family environment variables on child language, path analysis was used to empirically
verify the structural model, which assumed that the family ESKS (economic, social and
cultural status) variables indirectly affect child language via shared reading, literacy
activities, and teaching of reading and writing skills. The results obtained showed
that the assumed structural model was well-tted with our data; PE, IFP, parents
knowledge of childrens development, and parental reading literacy explained 13%
of the variance in the language of one- to six-year-old children. It was established
that PE and IFP had a signicant direct effect on parents knowledge of childrens
books (indirectly through shared reading), whereas PE also had a signicant direct
effect on family literacy activities. Child age also proved to be an important factor
regarding the frequency of parents engagement in literacy activities and teaching of
reading and writing skills because parents tended to engage older children in both
types of activities more often than younger children. Both independent variables (i.e.
PE and IFP) also had a signicant, albeit low, indirect effect on child language via
three mediating variables (i.e. the three types of activities used to encourage childrens
language and early literacy). The results also show that parents knowledge of chil-
drens development and parental reading literacy did not have a signicant direct
effect on any of the activities encouraging childrens language and early literacy, or
a signicant indirect effect on child language. Based on these results, it can be con-
cluded that the established signicant positive correlations between parents reading lit-
eracy and their knowledge of childrens development with shared reading and literacy
activities, and the signicant correlation between parental reading literacy and child
language largely result from the effect of PE, which is also highly correlated with
both independent variables, both mediating variables, and the dependent variable.
Important differences in the language of children of parents with different levels of edu-
cation and children from families with a different IFP are thus also caused by the differ-
ences in the frequency of parents and childrens inclusion in activities that encourage
childrens language and early literacy. It seems that parents with higher education and
parents from families with a higher IFP structure their childrens environment in a more
stimulating manner, and enable their children to participate in more frequent verbal
interactions, which all provides more opportunities to scaffold the childrens language
development and learning in the-zone-of-proximal development. Researchers highlight
this as the key factors of childrens development and learning (e.g. McCoy and Cole
2011; Rowe 2008; Vygotsky 1978; Wood et al. 1976).
The results of our study conrmed the effect of certain social, economic, and cul-
tural factors of family environment on the language of toddlers and children in early
childhood. These factors indirectly affect child language via various activities during
which parents encourage childrens language and early literacy; other researchers (e.
g. Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Brockmeier 2000; Gutirrez 2002; McCoy and Cole
2011; Mol and Bus 2011) also recognise this as cultural capital that signicantly
affects the development of childrens language and other symbolic abilities. In present-
ing the conclusions of the study, attention should also be drawn to certain deciencies:
the variability of parents scores on the TRL was relatively low; the test proved to be
fairly easy in the sample of parents used. This may have had an inuence on the low
coefcients of correlation between the parents reading literacy and other family
environment variables and child language. The next deciency of the study, which
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 83

may be reected in an insignicant effect of parents scores on the KIDI on child

language, refers to assessing parents knowledge of childrens development, which
involves an evaluation of their knowledge of the childs general development.
Similar to the ndings of Rowe (2008), we believe that with regard to studying the
effect of the parents knowledge of childrens development on child language it
would be more appropriate to develop and use a tool for assessing merely the knowl-
edge of childrens language development. Because of the relatively small sample of
children and the relatively small share of low-educated parents included in the study,
one should be careful in drawing conclusions and generalising the ndings.
In addition to the limitations described above, it should also be emphasised that this
study has a special importance and advantage: it was designed as an extensive family
study, which included various aspects of family literacy while using direct observation
and documenting to collect data on the characteristics of parents and childrens
language and literacy activities. Using the interviews with parents within the family
environment we hope to have largely avoided bias and socially preferred answers,
which are relatively common in questionnaires, in which parents self-assess the fre-
quency of performing a specic activity or the conditions in their family environment.
The semi-structured interview with parents provided more detailed and matching infor-
mation by parents, and the qualitative analysis of individual pieces of information
enabled a better understanding of the results obtained. The study is also original in
the scope of the vast design, including socio, cultural and economic aspects of
childs family environment, parental literacy and different literacy activities which
helps to understand different factors of childs language and ways in which these
factors interact and (directly or indirectly) affect childs language development and
learning within the family context.

References
Allen, L., J. Cipielewski, and K. E. Stanovich. 1992. Multiple Indicators of Childrens Reading
Habits and Attitudes: Construct Validity and Cognitive Correlates. Journal of Educational
Psychology 84: 489503.
Antonietti, A., O. Liverta-Sempio, and A. Marchetti. 2006. Theory of Mind and Language in
Developmental Contexts. New York: Springer.
Baker, L., and D. Scher. 2002. Beginning Readers Motivation for Reading in Relation to
Parental Beliefs and Home Reading Experiences. Reading Psychology 23 (4): 239269.
Bee, H. L., K. E. Barnard, S. J. Eyres, C. A. Gray, M. A. Hammond, A. L. Spietz, C. Snyder, and
B. Clark. 1982. Prediction of IQ and Language Skill From Perinatal Status, Child
Performance, Family Characteristics and Mother-Infant Interaction. Child Development
53: 11341156.
Bernstein, B. 1973. Class, Codes and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. 1990. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Vol. IV, Class, Codes and Control.
London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 2004. Oblike Kapitala. In Kompendij sociolokih teorij, edited by F. Adam and
M. Tomic, 311322. Ljubljana: tudentska zaloba.
Bourdieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.
London: Sage.
Brockmeier, J. 2000. Literacy as Symbolic Space. In Minds in the Making, edited by J. W.
Astington, 4361. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bruner, J. 1983. Childs Talk: Learning to use Language. New York: Norton.
Butler, S., C. McMahon, and J. A. Ungerer. 2003. Maternal Speech Style with Paralinguistic
Twin Infants. Infant and Child Development 12 (2): 129143.
84 L.Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Cairney, T., and J. Rouge. 1998. Community Literacy Practices and Schooling: Toward
Effective Support for Students. Sydney: University of Western Sydney Nepean,
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Crain-Thoreson, C., and P. S. Dale. 1992. Do Early Talkers Become Early Readers? Linguistic
Precocity, Preschool Language, and Emergent Literacy. Developmental Psychology 28:
421429.
DeBaryshe, B. D. 1995. Maternal Belief Systems: Linchpin in the Home Reading Process.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 16: 120.
DeCoulon, A., E. Meschi, and A. Vignoles. 2008. Parents Basic Skills and Their Childrens
Test Scores: Results from the BCS70, 2004 Parents and Children Assessments. London:
NRDC.
Esping-Andersen, G. 2005. The new Egalitarianism. In Inequality of Incomes and
Opportunities, edited by A. Giddens and P. Diamond, 838. Cambridge: Polity.
Fekonja-Peklaj, U., S. Kranjc, L. Marjanovic-Umek, A. Pfer, V. Taner, and G. Socan. 2010.
Preizkus bralne pismenosti. Neobjavljeno gradivo [Test of Reading Literacy. Unpublished
material.]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
Flouri, E., and A. Buchanan. 2004. Early Fathers and Mothers Involvement and Childs Later
Educational Outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 141153.
Foy, J. G., and V. Mann. 2003. Home Literacy Environment and Phonological Awareness in
Preschool Children: Differential Effects for Rhyme and Phoneme Awareness. Applied
Psycholinguistics 24 (1): 5988.
Gutirrez, K. 2002. Studying Cultural Practices in Urban Learning Communities. Human
Development 45 (49): 312321.
Hoff, E. 2003. Causes and Consequences of SES-Related Differences in Parent-to-Child
Speech. In Socioeconomic Status, Parenting and Child Development, edited by M. H.
Bornstein and R. H. Bradley, 147160. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lawrence, V. W., and E. F. Shipley. 1996. Parental Speech to Middle and Working Class Children
From two Racial Groups and Three Settings. Applied Psycholinguistics 17: 233256.
Lonigan, C. J. 2004. Emergent Literacy Skills and Familly Literacy. In Handbook of Family
Literacy, edited by B. H. Wasik, 5781. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacPhee, D. 2002. Manual: Knowledge of infant development inventory. Unpublished manu-
script. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., and U. Fekonja-Peklaj. 2011. Lista naslovov in avtorjev otrokih knjig.
Prirocnik [Checklist of Titles and Authors of Childrens Books . Manual.]. Ljubljana:
Center za psihodiagnosticna sredstva.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., U. Fekonja-Peklaj, K. Bajc, G. Socan, and A. Pfer. 2012. Storytelling
in Middle Childhood: Contributions of Childs Storybook Exposure. Studia Psychologica
54 (1): 5366.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., U. Fekonja-Peklaj, A. Podlesek, S. Kranjc, and K. Bajc. 2008. Lestvice
splonega govornega razvoja LJ. Prirocnik [Scales of General Language Development
LJ. Manual.]. Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnosticna sredstva.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., U. Fekonja-Peklaj, G. Socan, and L. Komidar. 2011. Ocenjevanje spor-
azumevalnih zmonosti dojenckov in malckov. Lista sporazumevalnih zmonosti: Besede in
geste. Lista sporazumevalnih zmonosti: Besede in stavki. [Assessing communicative abil-
ities of infants and toddlers. Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Gestures.
Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences.]. Ljubljana: Center za psi-
hodiagnosticna sredstva.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., A. Podlesek, and U. Fekonja. 2005. Assessing Home Literacy
Environment: Relations to the Childs Language Comprehension and Expression.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 21 (4): 271281.
Marjanovic-Umek, L., and V. Taner. 2010. Pogovor s stari. Neobjavljeno gradivo [Parent
Interview. Unpublished material]. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo.
McCoy, E., and J. Cole. 2010. A Snapshot of Local Support for Literacy: 2010 Survey. London:
National Literacy Trust.
Mol, S. E., and A. G. Bus. 2011. To Read or not to Read: A Meta-Analysis of Print Exposure
From Infancy to Early Adulthood. Psychological Bulletin 137 (2): 267296.
Muthn, L. K., and B. O. Muthn. 2010. Mplus Users Guide. 6th ed.. Los Angeles: Muthn &
Muthn.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 85

Pellegrini, A., and L. Galda. 1998. The Development of School-Based Literacy. A Social
Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge.
Pratt, M. W., and B. H. Fiese. 2004. Families. Stories, and the Life Course: An Ecological
Context. In Family Stories and the Life Course. Across Time and Generations, edited by
M. W. Pratt and B. H. Fiese, 124. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Razfar, A., and K. Gutirrez. 2003. Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Literacy: The
Sociocultural Inuence. In Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, edited by N. Hall, J.
Larson, and J. Marsh, 3447. London: Sage.
Reynell, J. 1979. Reynell Developmental Language Scales III (RDLS III). Oxford: Publishing
Company, Ltd.
Rowe, M. L. 2008. Child-directed Speech: Relation to Socioeconomic Status, Knowledge of
Child Development and Child Vocabulary Skill. Journal of Child Language 35: 185205.
Snchal, M., and J-A. LeFevre. 2002. Parental Involvement in the Development of Childrens
Reading Skill: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development 73 (2): 445460.
Snchal, M., J-A. LeFevre, E. M. Thomas, and K. E. Daley. 1998. Differential Effects of
Home Literacy Experiences on the Development of Oral and Written Language.
Reading Research Quarterly 33: 96116.
Snchal, M., E. Thomas, and J-A. Monker. 1995. Individual Differences in 4-Year-old
Childrens Acquisition of Vocabulary During Storybook Reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology 87 (2): 218229.
Sigel, I. E., and A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi. 2002. Parent Beliefs are Cognitions: The Dynamic
Belief Systems Model. In Handbook of Parenting, edited by M. H. Bornstein, 2nd ed., Vol.
3. 485508. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Silvn, M., A. Ahtola, and P. Niemi. 2003. Early Words, Multiword Utterances and Maternal
Reading Strategies as Predictors of Mastering Word Inections in Finnish. Journal of Child
Language 30 (2): 253279.
Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 1999. The Effective
Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 1 An Introduction
to the EPPE Project. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 2004. Effective
Provision of pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. London: DfES.
Ten Berge, J. M. F., and W. K. B. Hofstee. 1999. Coefcients Alpha and Reliabilities of
Unrotated and Rotated Components. Psychometrika 64: 8390.
Vander Woude, J., and E. Barton. 2003. Interactional Sequences in Shared Book-Reading
Between Parents and Children with Histories of Language Delay. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy 3 (3): 223247.
Vane, J. R. 1975. Vane Evaluation of Language Scale (The Vane L). Vermont: Clinical
Psychology Publishing, Co.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1967. Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child. Soviet
Psychology 5: 618.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind and Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Watson, R. 1996. Rethinking Readiness for Learning. In The Handbook of Education and
Human Development, edited by D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, 148173. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publisher Inc.
Weigel, D. J., S. S. Martin, and K. K. Bennet. 2006. Mothers Literacy Beliefs: Connections
with the Home Literacy Environment and pre-School Childrens Literacy Development.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6 (2): 191211.
Wells, G. 1985. Language Development in the Preschool Years. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wood, D., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89100.
Zimmerman, I. L., G. V. Steiner, and R. Evatt Pond. 1991. Preschool Language Scale 3 (PLS-
3). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Copyright of European Early Childhood Education Research Journal is the property of
Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.