Teaching Turkish‐Dutch kindergartners Dutch vocabulary with a social robot:Does the robot's use of Turkish translations benefit children's Dutch vocabulary learning?

Providing first language (L1) translations in L2 vocabulary interventions may be beneficial for L2 vocabulary learning. However, in linguistically diverse L2 classrooms, teachers cannot provide L1 translations to all children. Social robots do offer such opportunities, as they can be programmed to speak any combination of languages. This study investigates whether providing L1 translations in a robot-assisted L2 vocabulary training facilitates children's learning. Participants were Turkish-Dutch kindergartners (n = 67) who were taught six Dutch (L2) words for which they knew the L1 (Turkish), but not the L2 Dutch form. Half of these words were taught by a Turkish-Dutch bilingual robot, alongside their Turkish translations; the other half by a monolingual Dutch robot. Children also completed Dutch and Turkish receptive vocabulary tests. Results of generalized linear regression models indicated better performance in the Dutch-only condition than in the Turkish-Dutch condition. Children with well-developed Turkish and Dutch vocabulary knowledge outperformed children with less well-developed vocabulary knowledge. The majority of children preferred working with the bilingual robot, but children's preference did not affect word learning. Thus, contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence for a facilitating effect of providing L1 translations through a robot on bilingual children's L2 word learning

Influence of cognitive attributions on humans' recipient design in human-robot interaction

Recipient design, tailoring one’s message to an interlocutor’s relevant requirements, is a core pragmatic process in human communication. The knowledge shared among interlocutors influences the form and content of the speaker’s utterances addressed to a recipient. In a computerized experiment, we investigated whether recipient design is different for robot- and human-recipients and whether it is sensitive to dynamic changes in attributed competence of the addressee. In a word-guessing game. participants described objects and abstract concepts to a robot- and human-recipient, who later guessed the word. The recipient gave incorrect answers in half of the trials. We coded participants’ descriptions for linguistic complexity in robot- and human-recipient conditions as well as in trials immediately following correct and incorrect trials. We predicted linguistic complexity of the descriptions to differ by recipient and trial type. Our findings will be discussed in relation to cognitive attributions’ influence on recipient design in HRI

Role of Structural Priming in Contact-Induced Change: Subject Pronoun Expression in L1 Turkish by Turkish-Dutch Bilinguals

Subject pronoun expression has been extensively studied for effects of language contact, but it is fairly recent that these studies started including cross-language structural priming paradigms. The earlier studies on subject pronoun use in Turkish spoken by Turkish-Dutch bilinguals did not find any difference from monolingual speakers of Turkish but reported a few instances of unconventional use of subject pronouns, indicating the influence of Dutch on Turkish. This study aimed to determine whether structural priming may have a part in the unconventional variation observed in subject pronoun use in Turkish in contact with Dutch. Twenty-eight Turkish-Dutch bilinguals listened to short stories and responded to subsequently presented instructive sentences. These sentences were prime sentences, which contained either an overt or a null subject pronoun. Priming effects were investigated in monolingual and bilingual settings by presenting the stories in Turkish in the former and in Dutch in the latter. Results yielded a higher likelihood of using overt subject pronouns in the bilingual than in the monolingual setting following a prime sentence with an overt rather than a null pronoun. Our findings, which are based on a structure and a language that have not yet been studied much in relation to structural priming (i.e., subject pronoun use in Turkish), strengthen the empirical basis of how structural priming influences syntactic choices in language contact settings

Role of structural priming in contact-induced change: Subject pronoun expression in L1 Turkish by Turkish-Dutch bilinguals

Subject pronoun expression has been extensively studied for effects of language contact, but it is fairly recent that these studies started including cross-language structural priming paradigms. The earlier studies on subject pronoun use in Turkish spoken by Turkish-Dutch bilinguals did not find any difference from monolingual speakers of Turkish but reported a few instances of unconventional use of subject pronouns, indicating the influence of Dutch on Turkish. This study aimed to determine whether structural priming may have a part in the unconventional variation observed in subject pronoun use in Turkish in contact with Dutch. Twenty-eight Turkish-Dutch bilinguals listened to short stories and responded to subsequently presented instructive sentences. These sentences were prime sentences, which contained either an overt or a null subject pronoun. Priming effects were investigated in monolingual and bilingual settings by presenting the stories in Turkish in the former and in Dutch in the latter. Results yielded a higher likelihood of using overt subject pronouns in the bilingual than in the monolingual setting following a prime sentence with an overt rather than a null pronoun. Our findings, which are based on a structure and a language that have not yet been studied much in relation to structural priming (i.e., subject pronoun use in Turkish), strengthen the empirical basis of how structural priming influences syntactic choices in language contact settings

Teaching Turkish‐Dutch kindergartners Dutch vocabulary with a social robot:Does the robot's use of Turkish translations benefit children's Dutch vocabulary learning?

Providing first language (L1) translations in L2 vocabulary interventions may be beneficial for L2 vocabulary learning. However, in linguistically diverse L2 classrooms, teachers cannot provide L1 translations to all children. Social robots do offer such opportunities, as they can be programmed to speak any combination of languages. This study investigates whether providing L1 translations in a robot-assisted L2 vocabulary training facilitates children's learning. Participants were Turkish-Dutch kindergartners (n = 67) who were taught six Dutch (L2) words for which they knew the L1 (Turkish), but not the L2 Dutch form. Half of these words were taught by a Turkish-Dutch bilingual robot, alongside their Turkish translations; the other half by a monolingual Dutch robot. Children also completed Dutch and Turkish receptive vocabulary tests. Results of generalized linear regression models indicated better performance in the Dutch-only condition than in the Turkish-Dutch condition. Children with well-developed Turkish and Dutch vocabulary knowledge outperformed children with less well-developed vocabulary knowledge. The majority of children preferred working with the bilingual robot, but children's preference did not affect word learning. Thus, contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence for a facilitating effect of providing L1 translations through a robot on bilingual children's L2 word learning.</p

Teaching Turkish-Dutch kindergartners Dutch vocabulary with a social robot: Does the robot's use of Turkish translations benefit children's Dutch vocabulary learning?

Providing first language (L1) translations in L2 vocabulary interventions may be beneficial for L2 vocabulary learning. However, in linguistically diverse L2 classrooms, teachers cannot provide L1 translations to all children. Social robots do offer such opportunities, as they can be programmed to speak any combination of languages. This study investigates whether providing L1 translations in a robot-assisted L2 vocabulary training facilitates children's learning. Participants were Turkish-Dutch kindergartners (n = 67) who were taught six Dutch (L2) words for which they knew the L1 (Turkish), but not the L2 Dutch form. Half of these words were taught by a Turkish-Dutch bilingual robot, alongside their Turkish translations; the other half by a monolingual Dutch robot. Children also completed Dutch and Turkish receptive vocabulary tests. Results of generalized linear regression models indicated better performance in the Dutch-only condition than in the Turkish-Dutch condition. Children with well-developed Turkish and Dutch vocabulary knowledge outperformed children with less well-developed vocabulary knowledge. The majority of children preferred working with the bilingual robot, but children's preference did not affect word learning. Thus, contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence for a facilitating effect of providing L1 translations through a robot on bilingual children's L2 word learning

Teaching Turkish‐Dutch kindergartners Dutch vocabulary with a social robot: Does the robot's use of Turkish translations benefit children's Dutch vocabulary learning?

Providing first language (L1) translations in L2 vocabulary interventions may be beneficial for L2 vocabulary learning. However, in linguistically diverse L2 classrooms, teachers cannot provide L1 translations to all children. Social robots do offer such opportunities, as they can be programmed to speak any combination of languages. This study investigates whether providing L1 translations in a robot-assisted L2 vocabulary training facilitates children's learning. Participants were Turkish-Dutch kindergartners (n = 67) who were taught six Dutch (L2) words for which they knew the L1 (Turkish), but not the L2 Dutch form. Half of these words were taught by a Turkish-Dutch bilingual robot, alongside their Turkish translations; the other half by a monolingual Dutch robot. Children also completed Dutch and Turkish receptive vocabulary tests. Results of generalized linear regression models indicated better performance in the Dutch-only condition than in the Turkish-Dutch condition. Children with well-developed Turkish and Dutch vocabulary knowledge outperformed children with less well-developed vocabulary knowledge. The majority of children preferred working with the bilingual robot, but children's preference did not affect word learning. Thus, contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence for a facilitating effect of providing L1 translations through a robot on bilingual children's L2 word learning