A individual ‘s vocabulary is the set of words that they are familiar with. It normally grows and evolves with age and serves as a utile medium for communicating and geting linguistic communication. One ‘s working vocabulary may non be representative of one ‘s entire cognition of a linguistic communication. Vocabulary can be improved by exposure to new linguistic communication information. In mundane conversation we speak of vocabulary in the singular ; we speak of a individual ‘s vocabulary. This is really an simplism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines vocabulary as “ the amount of words used by, understood by, or at the bid of a peculiar individual or group. ” Harmonizing to Nation ( I. S. P. Nation 2001 ) , vocabulary acquisition includes three procedures, viz. detecting, retrieval, and originative ( productive ) usage.
1.2 Statement of the job
For the first five old ages or so of their childhood, kids are involved in the procedure of geting a significance or unwritten vocabulary -words that they understand when they hear them and that they can utilize in their address. During this period, kids basically do non hold literate vocabularies. Most kids get reading and composing accomplishments upon come ining school. So, for really immature kids, their significances of vocabularies are much larger than their literate vocabularies. Therefore this survey is an effort to look into vocabulary acquisition among kids between one to five old ages old.
The aim of this survey is:
To determine vocabulary acquisition among 1-5 old ages old kids with different background.
1.4 Research inquiries
What are the differences between the two kids in term of their vocabulary acquisition?
How does the kids ‘s background act upon their English vocabulary acquisition?
Does a bilingual kid perform better in their vocabulary acquisition?
2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Children Vocabulary Acquisition
Broad definition of vocabulary is the cognition of words and word significances. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defined vocabulary as all words that person knows or uses. Vocabulary acquisition is lingual accomplishment that is truly of import and complex acquired by kids and grownups. For the first five old ages of kids ‘s lives, they are involved in the procedure of geting a significance or unwritten vocabulary which contain words that they understand when they hear them and they can utilize in their day-to-day address ( Pikulski & A ; Templeton, 2004 ) . From a survey done by MacWhinney ( 1998 ) , it appeared that babies learned to go to to and bring forth linguistic communication with easiness, but to get a linguistic communication is non an easy undertaking ( Phythian-Sence & A ; Wagner, 2007 ) . Before kids can larn to pass on with words, their gestures signal an apprehension of linguistic communication. A kid is said to hold acquired vocabulary when he or she non merely merely link spoken sounds with objects and events in the environment, but besides understand that words mention objects and constructs ( Phythian-Sence & A ; Wagner, 2007 ) . Leung ( 1992 ) in her survey explored vocabulary acquisition in unwritten contexts utilizing a repeated read-aloud with kids in kindergarten and first class. She found that read-aloud influenced kids ‘s acquisition of words for familiar constructs, but did non significantly act upon the acquisition of words stand foring unfamiliar constructs ( Phythian-Sence & A ; Wagner, 2007 ) . In short, we can state that kids get new words with and without direct direction with environment influence their acquisition.
2.2 Parents and Economic Background
Parents play an of import function in kids ‘s vocabulary acquisition. Parents help their kids learn about objects and actions through day-to-day conversation. At this point of clip, kids already exposed to a scope of vocabulary. Although research clearly stated that parents influenced the vocabulary acquisition of the kids, there are differences whether this occurs across households that vary in instruction and economic background. Hart and Risley ( 1995 ) in their survey found that, kids from lower income households used vocabulary that deficiency of rich content. In that survey, they besides stressed on the differences in kids ‘s vocabulary size due to socioeconomic position and other hazard factors. The consequence in their survey indicated that, kids who have from parents of professionals had a cumulative vocabulary of about 1,100 words, those from working category households had about 650 words, and those from welfare households had merely over 400 words ( Hart & A ; Risley, 1995 ) . Many research found that kids from low-income environments score more ill on steps of phonemic consciousness and vocabulary during preschool and simple school. Raz and Bryant ( 1990 ) found such a strong association between household income, phonemic consciousness, and reading that they concluded that ascertained differences among SES groups in simple school could be explained by differences in consciousness and sensitiveness to phonemes in preschool as cited by Rush ( 1999 ) . Research by Dickinson and Tabors ( 2001 ) has shown that kids reared in lower-SES conditions develop vocabulary and linguistic communication usage more easy than kids from higher-SES families ( Sinatra, 2008 ) . New research done by Rowe and other research workers suggested that the income and instruction degrees of parents are connected to a babe ‘s accomplishments with gesturing, which in bend can bespeak whether a kid will develop strong linguistic communication abilities. Their findings showed that during the first session, the kids from high-income families gestured 24 times, compared to 13 gestures from childs in low-income places. Then both groups were tested for vocabulary, the childs from the high-income households scored 117, compared to 93 in the other group ( 2009 ) .
2.3 Bilingualism and Vocabulary Acquisition
There are two major beginnings of informations about optimum conditions for L1 vocabulary development: surveies of the place environments in which kids typically get big vocabularies and surveies of instructional patterns that support vocabulary ( Snow & A ; Kim, 2007 ) . These types of informations are of import in back uping the vocabulary acquisition in first linguistic communication. Hart and Risley ( 1995 ) indicated that the best forecasters of immature kids ‘s vocabulary acquisition in L1 are the measure of address heard. Pearson and Fernandez ( 1994 ) suggested that these same characteristics of anticipation in efficient lexical acquisition to be used in bilingual and monolingual kids. Their findings concerned about the importance of the place linguistic communication environment in bilingual babies ‘ vocabulary development ( Snow & A ; Kim, 2007 ) . Apart from that, vocabulary acquisition is thought as holding two constituents which are larning new constructs and larning new phonological signifiers. So, a L2 scholar who has get many lexical points in L1 has the advantage that he or she needs to larn merely the new signifiers in the L2 while a kid who is monolingual has to get both of the constituents in larning lexical points of L2 ( Snow & A ; Kim, 2007 ) .
Bilingualism provides the advantages for kids ‘s vocabulary acquisition. Peal and Lambert ( 1962 ) are one of the earlier research workers to happen out the positive effects of intelligence for bilingualism. They conclude that bilingualism consequences in greater mental flexibleness and abstract thought. They besides suggested that bilingualism is non doing ‘confused believing ‘ but its improved thought ( Steinberg & A ; Sciarini, 2006 ) . Quay ( 1992 ) in his survey showed that a Spanish-English bilingual kid acquired a figure of tantamount words in both linguistic communications and so about ever used the words right by linguistic communication context. His survey reported that the bilingual kid used words for which she knew a interlingual rendition equivalent ( that is, words with tantamount significances in the two linguistic communications ) in the appropriate lingual context as cited in ( Nicoladis & A ; Secco, 2000 ) . As cited in Thordardottir, Weismer and Smith ( 1997 ) , Garcia stated that, larning is to be facilitated under a bilingual status compared to a monolingual status in his research sing Empirical surveies of L2 vocabulary acquisition in minority kids geting English ( 1983 ) .
The topics for this survey were two kids of 5 year-old. We managed to acquire a brace of kids which was a male child and a miss from the same cultural, Malay. These kids were the pupils of Makmal Taman Asuhan ( MTA ) which located following to Sultan Abdul Samad Library of Universiti Putra Malaysia. They were the pupils from the eventide session. Their background inside informations were stated as below:
1 ) Muhammad Haqeem bin Erman ( Subject A )
He was born on April 2, 2005 at Putrajaya. He lives at Bandar Baru Bangi. His male parent ‘s name is Erman bin Subri and he is Sarawakian. His female parent is Musliyana binti Mansor and she is a Johorian. His male parent works on his ain while his female parent is a science officer at Institut Biosains UPM. He loves watching televison and his favorite nutrient is egg curry. He is the lone kid in his household. Besides that, he speaks 2 linguistic communications, viz. Malay and English at place and even in schoolroom.
2 ) Nuradilla Umaira binti Dalha ( Subject B )
She was born on April 17, 2005 at Kajang, Selangor. She lives at Balakong. Her male parent is Dalha bin Abdul Halim while her female parent is Yammah binti Ahmad Ramlan. Her male parent works a clerk at Pejabat Pendaftar UPM. Her female parent is a full-time homemaker. Umaira has three siblings and she is the lone girl in the household. She is rather chatty among her friends. She merely speaks one linguistic communication which is Malay whether at place or in the schoolroom.
In order to obtain the informations, we have used slide show presentation which consisted of 40 images. We selected simple images to be presented to the kids so it would non be so hard for them to think. The images are runing from household members, animate beings, nutrient, fruits, transit, stationary and so on. Other than that, we besides used narrative book which contained images in it. Our purpose of utilizing the narrative book was non to inquire them to read the narrative, but we wanted to detect how they used the images in it to state a narrative.
3.3 Data aggregation processs
Permission for carry oning this survey was obtained from Jabatan Pembangunan Masyarakat dan Perkembangan Keluarga ( JPMPK ) of Human Ecology Faculty by make fulling in the application signifier. In a hebdomad clip, we managed to acquire the permission from the section and an assignment was set up with the instructor at Makmal Taman Asuhan to happen a suited day of the month to carry on the survey. We did reference to her that we merely need to detect 2 kids in the schoolroom for our survey.
As our agencies of roll uping informations was through observation, we used digital camera to enter the activity that we did with the kids. The first thing that we did with them was to compose their names on a piece of paper. Then, we put them together to watch a slide show presentation which has been prepared by us. During this session, both of them were asked to state us what image was shown in the slide show. Following, we used the object available in their schoolroom and asked them the name of the objects. Both old Sessionss were done at the same time for the kids where they need to response to the inquiries on the same clip. After that, we continued with the narrative books. In this session, we asked them to state what image was contained in at that place and make a narrative based on the images that they have seen. In the last session, they were asked to sing any vocal that they knew.
3.4 Data analysis
We transcribed the recorded observation into text. We did non transcribe every individual word that the both kids said, but we merely focused on the of import portion. Then, we organized the information into classs which based on the Sessionss that we had with them. There were chiefly 4 classs ; composing ain name, figure of English vocabularies, stating a narrative based on images in the narrative book and numeration Numberss. We analyze the information by utilizing Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and besides we did descriptive analysis.
Writing ain name
Can compose his ain name with the aid from the interviewer. He seemed to cognize the letters that stood for his name
Can non compose her ain name yet and did non look to cognize the letters ; merely scribbled on the paper given to her
Number of English Vocabularies
Stating a Story based on Pictures in the Story Book
Focus entirely on depicting the images, non seeking to lucubrate or state a narrative based on the images
Describe the images every bit good as state a narrative based on the images provided in the narrative book
“ One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10s ”
“ Satu, dua, tiga, empat, Lima, enam, lapan… . ”
5.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Effect of Bilingualism
The consequence showed that Subject A had more English vocabularies compared to Subject B. Tracing back to Subject A ‘s background, he is a bilingual kid where he was brought up in 2 linguistic communications environment. He spoke both Malay and English linguistic communication at place and in the schoolroom. This state of affairs would do him had more exposure to English linguistic communication compared to Subject B. In the other manus, Subject B merely spoke Malay whether at place or in the schoolroom. She could be said as non holding adequate exposure to English linguistic communication. This state of affairs made her non competent in that linguistic communication. However, both topics knew about all the objects shown in the slide show presentation, the lone difference laid in the linguistic communication that they used to call the objects ; whether it was Malay or English.
5.2 Family background
Based on the consequence, household background did influence kids ‘s vocabulary acquisition. Subject A ‘s parents have higher educational background compared to subject B ‘s parents as topic A ‘s parents are both diploma undergraduates, his female parent working as science officer at Institute Biosains UPM while his male parent working on his ain. On the other manus, capable B ‘s male parent is working as a clerk at Pejabat Pendaftar UPM and her female parent is a fulltime homemaker. This showed that parents ‘ educational background has influenced the kid ‘s vocabulary acquisition as topic A ‘s parents have the advantages in assisting him to get vocabulary in both linguistic communications. Their educational background has given subject A ‘s more chance to larn two linguistic communications at the immature age. Subject A was exposed to these linguistic communications, Malay and English, so that he can utilize both linguistic communications in geting his vocabulary. Subject B ‘s parents educational background is a small spot lower compared to Subject A ‘s parents and they are utilizing merely Malay Language at place, so she did non hold much chance to larn English at place. That ‘s why capable A utilizing Malay Language more when she responded to our inquiries. She had limited vocabulary in English compared to Subject B who was bilingual and had acquired vocabulary in English and Malay Language. Another ground that made topic A has more English vocabulary compared to subject B because topic A is the lone kid in his household, so all the attending will be focused merely on him. He besides socialized with grownups at his place so that he had more vocabulary while capable B ‘s had 3 siblings in her household and she was the lone girl. Capable B did non acquire much attending like topic A because there are another kids in her household.
Based on the findings and treatment before, it shows that kids ‘s English vocabulary acquisition is influenced by their background. The parents ‘ instruction degree does play a function in finding their kids ‘s vocabulary acquisition. The parents may supply the exposure to their childs so that they can enrich their vocabulary. Other than that, bilingualism besides contributes to vocabulary acquisition in kids. Childs who are bilinguals seem to hold large vocabulary size and this appears as an advantage to them compare to the other kids who are monolinguals.
Dotinga, R. ( 2009, February 12 ) . Baby Gestures Linked to Vocabulary Development. U.S.News & A ; World Report.
Goh, H. S. & A ; Fatimah Hashim. ( 2006 ) . Use of L1 in L2 Reading Comprehension Among Tertiary ESL Learners, 18, 1.
Hart, B. , & A ; Risley, T. ( 1995 ) . Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children. Baltimore: Rupert brookes.
Nicoladis, E. , & A ; Secco, Giovanni ( 2000 ) . The function of a kid ‘s productive vocabulary in the linguistic communication pick of a bilingual household. First Language, 20, 3-28.
Phythian-Sence, C. , & A ; Wagner, R. K. ( 2007 ) . Vocabulary Acquisition: A Primer. In Wagner, R. K. , Muse, A. E. , & A ; Tannenbaum, K. R. , Vocabulary Acquisition: Deductions for Reading Comprehension ( pp. 1-11 ) . New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Pikulski, J. J. , & A ; Templeton, S ( 2004 ) . Teaching and Developing Vocabulary: Cardinal to Long-run Reading Success. Current Research in reading / linguistic communication humanistic disciplines, 1-12. Retrieved from Houghton Mifflin.
Rush, K. L. ( 1999 ) . Caregiver-Child Interactions and Early Literacy Development of Preschool Children From Low-Income Environments. Subjects in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 ( 3 ) , 3-14. Department of the interior: 10.1177/027112149901900101
Sinatra, R. ( 2008 ) . ‘Creating a civilization of vocabulary acquisition for kids populating in poorness ‘ . Journal of Children and Poverty, 14 ( 2 ) , 173-192. Department of the interior: 10.1080/10796120802336001
Snow, C. E. , & A ; Kim, Y.-S. ( 2007 ) . Large Problems Spaces: The Challenge of Vocabulary for English Language Learners. In Wagner, R. K. , Muse, A. E. , & A ; Tannenbaum, K. R. , Vocabulary Acquisition: Deductions for Reading Comprehension ( pp. 123-136 ) . New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Steinberg, D. D. & A ; Sciarini, N. V ( 2006 ) . Bilingualism, Intelligence, Transfer, and Learning Strategies. Second ( Ed. ) , An Introduction to Psycholinguistics ( pp. 160-173 ) . Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Thordardottir, E. T. , Weismer, S. E. , & A ; Smith, M. E. ( 1997 ) . Vocabulary acquisition in bilingual and monolingual clinical intercession. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13 ( 3 ) , 215-225. Department of the interior: 10.1177/026565909701300301