3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research objectives

Foreign language phonic competence seems to be the most dynamic system among
very young learners when compared to other language levels morphological, lexical,
syntactic and stylistic. Therefore, we decided to analyse English pronunciation of 30 very
young Slovak learners and compare the age differences within this group. The main objective
is to separate developmental mistakes from the competence mistakes and to determine the
kinds of competence mistakes to be able to analyse the reason of these mistakes. The least
but not last objective is to determine negative interference in very young learnes
pronunciation and to suggest how to eliminate this negative interference.

Research questions

1. What pronunciation mistakes do very young learners make in English?

2. Are there any age-differences in English phonic competence among very young
learners?
3. Is there any relationship between the learners and teachers pronunciation mistakes?
3.2 Research sample

The procedure of selecting the research sample took approximately one and half
month. The first step was to distribute the questionnaire. We cooperated with a lady from
MPC centrum in Nitra. It is a central information system that dedicates to pedagogical and
educational sphere, provides seminars for teachers and has under auspices all schools around
Slovakia. The lady from this centrum was willing and capable to provide us email contacts to
all nursery schools in Slovakia. This step was crucial to start the research since it was
necessary to contact as many nursery schools as possible. From 2937 nursery schools only
151 schools answered whether they agree with doing the research in their nursery school or
not. From 151 schools 85,06 % did not agree with the research and only 12,98 % agreed.
12,98 % that agreed with the research represented the nursery schools in east of Slovakia and
since the area of our interest was to do the research in the west part of Slovakia so we decided
to ask nursery schools in Nitra Region individually by email. 25 nursery schools were asked
in Nitra Region about doing the research. After 2 weeks only 9 replies were sent back from
the principals of the nursery schools and therefore we arranged the personal meeting via
phone and we visited the concrete nursery schools. After a discussion with the principals we
got the following answers. In 3 nursery schools they do not provide English classes, in 1
nursery school English classes are provided only from September 2017, in 3 other nursery
schools the principals of the school did not agree with the research and finally from 2 last
nursery schools we got the confirmation and the principals were willing with doing the
research and therefore this research sample is based on convenience and therefore the
opportunity sampling method was used.
The research samples are 30 young learners from 2 nursery schools in Nitra 3 years
of age (10 participants), 4 years of age (10 participants) and 5 years of age (10 participants).
All very young learners come from monolingual family and they come across with English
only in nursery school, it means teacher represents the only language model for them. Their
1.5-minute English utterances (reciting English poems they learned) were recorded and then
analysed. Learners pronunciation mistakes were marked and classified. The English
utterances of two English teachers teaching learners involved in the research were also
recorded and analysed for their pronunciation mistakes.
3.3 Research methods

3.3.1 Questionnaire

As the first method used in this research was the method of questionnaire. Using this
kind of survey document with questions that are used to gather information from individuals,
the necessary information was gained to be able to start and conduct the research.
There are several kinds of questions and response modes in questionnaires, including, for
example, dichotomous questions, multiple choice questions, rating scales, constant sum
questions, ratio data and open-ended questions. In this research questions were based on
structured response formats and closed questions were used because they prescribe the range
of responses from which the respondent may choose and these structured, closed questions are
useful because they can generate frequencies of response amenable to statistical treatment and
analysis since it is easy to count the frequency of each response. They are quicker to code up
and analyse than word-based data (Bailey 1994, p.118) and, often, they are directly to the
point and deliberately more focused than open-ended questions.
There were 9 predefined series of closed-ended questions that were used to collect
information from individual nursery schools. The respondents were given the list of
predetermined responses from which to choose their answer. Another type of questions used
was open-ended questions. Respondents were asked 5 other open-ended questions which had
to answer in own words and the responses were categorized into a smaller list of responses
that can be counted for statistical analysis. The part of the close-ended questions was
dichotomous questions that require a yes/no response. Further, it is possible to code responses
quickly, there being only two categories of response. Fill-in-the-Blank questions represented
the category of open-ended questions and these questions had to determine the name of the
nursery school, the age range of very young learners who are provided English classes, the
duration of English class, the materials used and the topics taught. There was a contingency
question with a yes/ no response and the possibility of adding extra information to gain more
details as well.
To sum up, the questionnaire contains 5 close-ended questions with multiple choice
format, 5 open-ended questions, 3 dichotomous questions and 1 contingency question,
altogether 14 questions.
Since the appearance of the questionnaire is important it must look attractive, easy,
and interesting rather than complicated, unclear and boring, and therefore we decided to
design this questionnaire using google application called My Disc which is part of Gmail
account and in this way the distribution of the questionnaire was without any special problem.
The questionnaire was clearly and well-structured with plenty of space for questions and
answers since it is more encouraging to respondents. The questions were formulated clearly
without any possibility of misunderstanding.
Questionnaire was administered through the email since it was low cost and fast way
of collecting the data. There was also disadvantage because the low response rate which was
15,21 % taking into consideration that the questionnaire was sent to 2937 nursery schools and
also the completion rate was only 6,57% and refusal rate was 6,57 % which is 2744 nursery
schools declined to cooperate with the research neither by completing the questionnaire.

At the beginning of the questionnaire we introduced our research and intention and then
14/15???
Item number 1 represented open-ended question where the respondent had to write the
name of the nursery school in the case of agreeing with doing the research. Items number 2 up
to 9 were represented by multiple choice questions. In this item a respondent was asked to
choose the region in which the nursery school is situated. Item number 3 analysed whether the
nursery school is situated in village or city. In the item number 4 a respondent had to choose
whether the nursery school is state, private, bilingual, Christian or other. In the item number 5
and 7 dichotomous questions were asked and the respondent was expected to answer whether
English language is taught in their school, in item 6 we asked whether also other languages
are taught in their nursery schools and if yes, what languages.
In the item 7 another dichotomous question was asked and we wanted to find out whether
qualified teacher provides English classes or the teacher without proper qualification. Item 8
represented the question about the frequency of English classes whether they provide them
once, twice or more times a week. The items number 9 - 13 were represented by open-ended
questions to generate the information that will subsequently become the part for forthcoming
investigation and analyses. Item 9 dealt with the duration of the English class, the item 10
asked the age range of very young learners that are provided English classes, the item 11
specified the book or other material used to teach English and the item 12 discussed the topics
the very young learners come across. In the last item the confirmation for conducting the
research was proposed.
3.3.2 Speech therapist analysis

Considering the fact that this thesis is dedicated to very young learners it is necessary
to cooperate with speech therapist. Very young learners are in the continuous process of
developing their speech articulators and the ability to pronounce the words properly and
correctly. Speech therapist was the crucial personality since we got the specific instructions
about the way the children acquire and learn language and language sounds. To start, we made
an arrangement with the speech therapist to analyse the specific problems the very young
learners can encounter between the ages 3-5. She provided us with the material that contained
the developmental disorders from which we made a summary and we used the list of these
disorders during the recording of very young learners at the age of 3, 4 and 5. After the
concluding the recording of learners 30 recording were given to the speech therapist. Speech
therapist depicted developmental mistakes and problems which occur in speech skills at 3-
year, 4-year and 5-year old very young learners. The analysis was provided based on the
recordings that were recorded using Panasonic RR-U511 MP3 recording device. 6 recordings
were not comprehensible since serious developmental disorder of 6 very young learners. 9
very young learners had to be recorded several times because they forgot the lyrics of the
poem and it had to be practised several more times once again before repeated recording. 3
recordings were done one more time since there was environmental distraction. After the
recordings were done, all of them were checked and it was found out that all recordings are
comprehensible to be analysed from both developmental and competence point of view. 10
recordings were represented by 3-year old very young learners, 10 other recordings were
represented by 4-year old very young learners and the last 10 recordings were represented by
5-year old very young learners.
The speech therapist provided deep analyses of all the recordings and so the
developmental mistakes were separated from those competence mistakes. All developmental
mistakes are summarized in the chart in the following chapter. Since the thesis deals mainly
with competence mistakes, the focus was given to the analyses of these types of mistakes to
be capable to summarize the mistakes and to propose the solution of avoiding making these
mistakes. Using the analyses of teachers pronunciation and very young learners pronunciation
we wanted to compare not only the age-difference mistakes, but the mistakes that learners
copy from the teacher since the teacher represent the only input in the target language they are
given to. The following texts represent the recordings that were analysed by a speech
therapist, one native speaker and one phonetician.

A B

| hi hz red | red klz | | in k:sl |

nd red | red hts | sm nd flfi plei |
hiz bu:ts blk | ki nd kwi:n |
nd hi kriz sk | bri ift | hrei |
hi hz twikl in hiz ai | n e | n e |
nd frendli smail wts in i e |
| nd hiz neim iz snt klz | its beibi drn |
in i e |
di:di flaiz |
at v i e |
hrei f di:di |
f di:di | hrei |

The results are summarized in the following chapter in the structured chart to highlight
the pitfalls and the occurrence of interference of English language to mother tongue-Slovak
language. It also shows and answers the research question about the positive and proper input
from the teachers side.
3.3.3 Content analysis- error analysis

Content analysis was the next method used in this research to obtain the results to
confirm or decline the research question. Researchers are able to collect, categorize and
summarize text data and it allows researchers to discover and describe the focus of individual,
group, institutional, or social attention (Weber, 1990). There are plenty of materials that can
be analysed using content analysis and Gavora (2001, p. 134) summarised several of them:
1. school acts and other legislative materials;
2. reports, minutes, records of different activities, statistical materials;
3. press reports and other reports related to education;
4. school order;
5. curricula, textbooks;
6. lesson plans;
7. characteristics of students;
8. students` written assignments;
9. students` diaries.

This thesis refers to analysis of recorded poem recited by very young learners in
nursery schools. We used conventional content analysis. The study starts with observation and
it is a quite time-consuming because codes are defined during data analysis which take plenty
of time reading/listening and analysing, in our case, recordings, for several times. Codes are
derived from data in this case from the 30 recordings made in 2 nursery schools in Nitra
Region. The learners and teachers recordings were analysed by one English native speaker
and one non-native phonetician with the focus on their English phonic competence. Their
pronunciation mistakes were identified and classified applying the method of content analysis.
The pronunciation mistakes resulting from the learners English phonic competence and the
general developmental pronunciation problems were identified and differentiated. The three
age-groups results were compared and interpreted. The results of learners and teachers
pronunciation analysis were compared and correlated. The content (error) analysis of the
audio material was complemented by participating observation of the learners English
teachers.
If the scope of the research wanted to be fulfilled the following questions had to be answered
and they were, in fact:
 1. Purpose: Why are you engaging in this CA?
2. Topic: What area are you going to investigate?
3. Focus: What is the precise question you are going to ask yourself within that area?
4. Product: What is likely outcome of the research?
5. Mode: How are you going to conduct the research?
6. Timing: How long have you got to do the research?
7. Resources: What are the resources, both human and material, that you can call upon to
help you complete the research?
8. Refocusing/ fine-tuning: As you proceed with your research, do you suppose you will
have to rethink your original question? (Wallace,1998,p.21)

We selected the topic and then he had to follow the proper procedure of the research. The
research and the outcome gained using content analysis must provide new findings, benefits
and suggestions. This research brought new findings which can help to improve the current
situation of teaching English as additive language in nursery schools.
According to Dr. Klaus Krippendorff, six questions must be addressed in every content
analysis:
1. Which data are analysed?
2. How are they defined?
3. What is the population from which they are drawn?
4. What is the context relative to which the data are analysed?
5. What are the boundaries of the analysis?
6. What is the target of the inferences

Before the starting analysis research question(s) must be stated. Content analysis can be
very time-consuming, involving reading and re-reading of a large amount of material,
therefore it is important to know what to focus on. The researcher must select the topic of the
research and then the collection of all material is necessary.
4. Objectivity, validity, reliability of the research

Triangulation
5 RESULTS
5.1 Questionnaire
Questionnaire was sent to 2937 nursery schools and 193 respondents answered the given
questions.
Your nursery school is
situated in:
Kosice Region
10%
22% 38% Presov Region

Banska Bystrica Region

20% Trencin Region

41% Trnava Region

18%
Nitra Region
25% Zilina Region
19%
Bratislava Region

Figure 1

The figure 1 comprises the results that show the general overview of nursery schools
in Slovakia. 193 nursery schools took part in our questionnaire and the figure 1 shows the
percentage of nursery schools that filled in the questionnaire according to the regions. 38% of
Kosice Region nursery schools were willing to take part in the questionnaire, 41% were the
nursery schools from Presov Region, 19% Banska Bystrica region, 25% Trenicn Region, 18%
Trnava Region, 20% Nitra Region, 22% Zilina Region and 10 % Bratislava Region.
Considering the amount of nursery schools that there are in Slovakia, the interest of all the
schools is really low. There was no will to dedicate some time to fill the questionnaire that
was distributed to 2937 nursery schools and this was one of the main obstacles that we
encountered while choosing the research sample and gaining the valide and reliable
information.
 Your nursery school is
situated in:

in village
65%

in city
128%

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows the number of nursery schools that are situated in village and city. The
first aim of the research sample choice was to make strata by selecting the number of nursery
schools both from village and city and that is the reason why the questionnaire contained such
a question.

24 3
Your nursery schools is:
3
State

Bilingual

Commune

Christian
181
Private

Figure 3

Furthermore, we needed to detect the nursery schools that have English classes for
very young learners from monolingual family since we excluded bilingual learners from our
sample. The figure 3 shows that there are 181 state schools, 2 bilingual schools, 4 commune
schools, 3 christian and 3 private schools. After gaining this information, the bilingual nursery
schools were omitted from the research sample.
 Is English language
taught in your nursery
39 school??
No

Yes
154

Figure 4

In the next figure 4, we wanted to carry out the number of nursery schools that provide
English classes for very young learners since these statistics are unknown. From this question
that was answered by 193 nursery schools in total, shows that there are 127 nursery schools
providing English classes and 66 nursery schools without the possibility to learn the English
language in their school.

3 2 Are other languages taught in

your school? If yes, what?
5 3
No

German language

Slovak language

Hungarian language

179
Ruthenian language

Figure 5

Since this thesis had to deal also with plurilingualism, we asked the question about
other language as well. In figure 5 it is obvious that there are 179 nursery schools that do not
give the opportunity to learn other foreign language. 5 other schools offer German language, 3
schools offer Slovak language, since they are schools with Hungarian language of
instructions, 3 other schools offer Hungarian language as additive language and 2 nursery
school offer Ruthenian language.

Is English language taught

by a qualified teacher?
56

No

98

Yes

Figure 6

This thesis concerns with pronunciation it was necessary to ask whether the English
language is taught by teacher with a proper qualification to teach English. The figure 6 shows
that 98 they employ a qualified teacher and in 56 nursery schools the English is taught by
teacher without qualification. Altogether there are 154 nursery schools answered he question.

How often do you

5 provide English lessons?

Once a week
43

Twice a week
81

More than twice

Figure 7

The amount of knowledge gained at English classes depends also on the frequency of
the contact of very young learners with the target language. The data gained from
questionnaire show that 81 nursery schools provide English classes once a week, 43 nursery
schools twice a week and 5 nursery schools offer English more than twice a week. 25
respondents did not answer the question. The results are shown in Figure 7.

How long does the English lesson last?

80
71
70
60
50
40 34
30
18
20
10 2 1
0
20 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes 50 minutes 60 minutes

Figure 8

The quality of educational process depends not only on the qualification of the teacher
as it was mentioned above, but also on the duration of the lesson. The more time is dedicated
to the target language, the more learners are exposed to that language and so they enrich and
deepen their knowledge. In Figure 8 there are statistics showing the duration of English
classes in the nursery schools. 126 nursery schools answered this question and 28 did not
provide the answer to this question.
The number of nursery schools and the age range of very young learners learning English as
additive language are shown below:
2,5 year-6 year 5 nursery schools
3 years -6 years 24 nursery schools
4-6 41 nursery schools
5-6 -35 nursery schools
6 2 nursery schools
Materials that are used at English classes are:
Worksheets 54
Pictures, toys 12
DVD,CD, Worksheets 12
 Busy Bee starter 12
Internet 6

Other sources: Hippo book, Spievankovo, Playtime, Anglitina s Jankom Hrkom, Pro
Americana Early beginnings, Helen Doron- Didi and Polly, Jolly Phonics, Cooky and
friends, Vesel anglitina, Wattsenglish, Hrav lohy z anglickho jazyka.
What topics do you deal with at English lessons?

Do you devote extra time to practice the pronunciation?

Do you agree with

doing the research in
12.98% your nursery school?
(audio-recording only)

Yes

85.06% No

Figure 9

The last Figure 9 shows the percentage of nursery schools that were willing and not
willing to take part in this research. 85,06 % of respondents did not agree with doing the
research and 12,98% agreed to be a part of this research.
5.2 Speech therapist

The results that were gained from the speech therapist analysis prove that the most
developmental mistakes make very young learners at the age of 3. They have got problems
with pronunciation of individual phonemes and especially with sibilants. They have a problem
with the pronunciation of the sound R and they are not able to pronounce some of the english
words. Very young leaners at the age of 4

The results are summarized as follows:

3-year Almost all children have problems with of R, L and sibilants S, Z, , ,C,
, D.
Huge amount of distorted words caused leaving out, adding and substituting
the phonemes.
Speech is significantly incoherent and it is caused by the fact that
physiological pause need to inhale do not always overlap with the semantic
break dash or dot.
Children prolong the last syllables of words in verses.
Very poor comprehensibility of the text is mainly in B.3.3, B.3.2, B.3.3.
4-year R and sibilants has only in a third of children.
The pronunciation of L is alright in almost all children
Incoherence of the speech flow about half of the children caused by the fact
that physiological pause need to inhale do not always overlap with the
semantic break dash or dot.
Distorted words still at of children words caused leaving out, adding and
substituting the phonemes.
Very poor comprehensibility of B.4.1, B.4.4.
5-year Problems with R- pronunciation have only 2 children, L and sibilants has
one children.
Distorted words still at of children, but caused almost exclusively by
leaving out a phoneme.
Incoherence of speech flow in only 2 children.
Poor comprehensibility found only one. B.5.3.
5.3 Content analysis -error analysis

Table 1 Learners pronunciation mistakes

Vetky odchlky zoraden poda frekvencie vskytu. Sem zahrn aj vvinov chyby rei
(pozrie ich kategorizciu v odporanej literatre.)
Description Frequency
Substitution of the phoneme //
Incorrect word stress placement
Omission of a phoneme
Distorted words
Incoherent speech flow
Substitution of the phoneme //
Inadequate tone
Lengthening of a vowel
Letter-pronunciation
Substitution of the phoneme /w/
Improper articulation of final -ng
Substitution of the phoneme /v/
Improper articulation of the final phoneme /v/
Adding a phoneme
Inadequate pace of speech
Application of Slovak assimilation of voice
Substitution of the phoneme //
Coalescent speech
American pronunciation
Improper distribution of the phoneme /r/
Mispronunciation of the suffix -ed
Incorrect equivalent of grapheme
Incorrect articulation of clear [l]
Shortening of a vowel
Improper articulation of the phoneme /r/
Monotonous intonation
Improper pronunciation of weak forms
Dyslalia
Stuttering
Mutism
Aphasia
Dysphasia
Dysarthria
Aphonia or dysphonia
Rinolalia or nazolalia
Tumultus sermonis
Atactic (chanted) speech
Monotonous speech
Table 2 Learners competence pronunciation mistakes
Frequency
3- 4- 5-
No. Description
year year year
old old old
1. Substitution of the phoneme //
2. Incorrect word stress placement
3. Omission of a phoneme
4. Distorted words
5. Incoherent speech flow
6. Substitution of the phoneme //
7. Inadequate tone
8. Lengthening of a vowel
9. Letter-pronunciation
10. Substitution of the phoneme /w/
11. Improper articulation of final ng
12. Substitution of the phoneme /v/
13. Improper articulation of the final phoneme /v/
14. Adding a phoneme
15. Inadequate pace of speech
16. Application of Slovak assimilation of voice
17. Substitution of the phoneme //
18. Coalescent speech
19. American pronunciation
20. Improper distribution of the phoneme /r/
21. Mispronunciation of the suffix ed
22. Incorrect equivalent of grapheme
23. Incorrect articulation of clear [l]
24. Shortening of a vowel
25. Improper articulation of the phoneme /r/
26. Monotonous intonation
27. Improper pronunciation of weak forms

Table 4 Learners developmental pronunciation mistakes

Frequency
3- 4- 5-
Description
year year year
old old old
Dyslalia
Stuttering
Mutism
Aphasia
Dysphasia
Dysarthria
Aphonia or dysphonia
Rinolalia or nazolalia
Tumultus sermonis
Atactic (chanted) speech
Monotonous speech
Graf, napr. krivka potu vvinovch chb vs. krivka potu kompetennch vslovnostnch chb; podobn typ
grafu, ale na osi x rozlenie poda veku 3,4,5-ron

Figure 1 Learners competence and developmental mistakes

Table 4 Classification of learners competence pronunciation mistakes

CAUSE OF MISTAKE

interference
TYPE OF MISTAKE
non-interference
intralingual interlingual

LINGUAL

Phonic

a) paradigmatic

under-differentiation

over-differentiation

reinterpretation

substittution

b) syntagmatic

c) suprasegmental

d) idiosyncratic

e) combined
Table 5 Teachers competence pronunciation mistakes
Frequency
Description
Teacher 1 Teacher 2
under-differentiation
reinterpretation
over-differentiation

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1893 1903 1913 1923 1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1990 2000 2010 2014
s ecul a r rel i gi ous tota l

Figure 2 Competence pronunciation mistakes (teacher 1 learners 1)

Figure 3 Competence pronunciation mistakes (teacher 2 learners 2)

No. Word Incorrect Correct No. of No. of mistakes

pronunciation pronunciation mistakes
3 year 4 year 5 year
old old old
1. Gift
2. Fluffy
3. Out
4. Flies
5. Sam
6. King
7. Bring
8. What
9. Play
10. Drago
n
11. The
12. And
13.
14.
6. DISCUSSION
7. CONCLUSIONS

Asset of the thesis for pedagogical practice

We hope that our results will beneficial and prosperous for teachers in preparing lessons,
creation of teaching plans and other pedagogical documentation.

Since, we will analyse the learners mistakes, we will design the exercises and activities to
avoid those mistakes. Based on the results, we want to publish the bilingual or trilingual
workbook for very young learners covering several topics suitable for these learners.

And finally, implicitly, the thesis will contribute to improving very young learners foreign
language education.
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAKER, C. 1988. Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Philadelphia:

Multilingual Matters.
BAKER, C. 1996. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters
BAKER, C. 2003. A Parents' and Teachers' Guide to Bilingualism. Clevedon, Multilingual
Matters
BAKER, C.- PRYS, J. 1998. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education
Multilingual Matters. 758 p. ISBN-13: 978-1853593628
BARRY, E. (2011). Sequential vs. simultaneous bilingualism. 1-7. Retrieved March 2,
2011, from The Kalu Yala Blog.
BAX, S. 2010. Researching English Bilingual Education in Thailand, Indonesia and South
Korea. British Council. ISBN: 978-086355-645-6
BENKO, V. BUTAOV, A. GADUOV, Z. a kol. 2012. Uenie sa, vyuovanie a
hodnotenie cudzch jazykov v terminologickom rmci. Slovnk termnov k Spolonmu
eurpskemu referennmu rmcu pre jazyky. Bratislava: UK,. ISBN 978-80-223-2919-4.
BIALYSTOK, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy & Cognition.
Cambridge: CUP, (P115.2 .B5 2001)
BROV, J. 2006. stny prejav na hodinch cudzieho jazyka: komplexn syntza
komunikatvnych technk. In: Interkultrne dimenzie vo vyuovan cudzch jazykov. FF
UKF v Nitre., p.29-34.
BJELLAND, J. (2009) Sequential bilingualism. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from
Multicultural Topics in CDS.
BLOOMFIELD, L.: Language. New York: Holt. 1933. 564p.I SBN-13: 978-0226060675.
Available on:
http://books.google.sk/books/about/Language.html?id=87BCDVsmFE4C&redir_esc=y
BROWN. H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles : An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy /. - 2. Edit. - New York : Addison Wesley Longman, 480 p. - ISBN 0-13-
028283-9.
BURK, C. 2005. Multilingual Living: Explorations of Language and Subjectivity. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
BURNS, T.C., WERKER, J.F., MCVIE, K. (November, 2002). Development of phonetic
categories in infants raised in bilingual and monolingual homes. Paper presented at the
27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
CAMPBELL. Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
COHEN, A. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language /. - 1. vyd. -
London: Longman, 295 p. ISBN 0-582-30588-8.
COHEN. A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London:
Longman, 295 p. ISBN 0-582-30588-8.
COMEAU, L., GENESEE, F., LAPAQUETTE, L. (2003) The modeling hypothesis and
child bilingual code-mixing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 113-126.
CRYSTAL, D. 1977. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
CUMMINS, J.1991. Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in
bilingual children. In: Bialystock, E. Language Processing in bilingual children. New
York: Longman.
CUNNINGHAM. U. ANDERSON, S. 1999. Growing Up with Two Languages. A
Practical Guide. London, Routledge.
DIAZ, R. (1985). The intellectual power of bilingualism. In Southwest Hispanic Research
Institute, Second language learning by young children. Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico.
DITTRICHOV J, PAPOUEK. M, PAUL. K, a kol. Chovn dtte ranho vku a
rodiovsk pe. Grada Publishing a.s. 2004. ISBN 80-247-0399-8.
DUNN, Opal. 1998. Help Your Child with a Foreign Language. Berlitz Publishing
Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1998, ISBN #2-8315-6806-4.
GARDNER, E. H. 2006. Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice.
Basic Books; Reprint edition ISBN-10: 0465047688. 320 pages
HANEOV, D. 2014. Plurilingualism an educational challenge: the case of Slovakia
International Conference Language, Literature and Culture in Education 2014 14-16 May
2015, Nitra, Slovakia ISBN 978-80-971580-7-1
HARMER, J. 1998. How to teach English. 4. edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited,
ISBN 978-1-4058-4774-2.
HARMER, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching / - 4. edit. - Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited, 448 p. ISBN 978-1-4058-5311-8.
HAUGEN, E. 1972. Bilingualism, Language Contact, and Immigrant Languages in the
United States: A Research Report, 1956-1970. In Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. X, T.
Sebeok (ed.).
HAUGEN, E. Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide. U. of
Alabama Press, 1956.
HOUWER, A. D. (1999, July). Two or more languages in early childhood: some general
points and practical recommendations. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from Online Resources:
Digest: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/earlychild.html
HUEKOV, D. 2012. tly a stratgie uenia. [online] available from:
http://www.pppknm.sk/data/pdf/materialy/specificke_poruchy/styly_a_strategie_ucenia.pd
f
KAMHI, A.G., CLARK, M.K. (2013). Specific language impairment. Handbook of
Clinical Neurology, 111, 219-227.
KAPALKOV S, a kol. Hodnotenie komunikanch schopnost det v ranom veku.
Bratislava: Slovensk asocicia logopdov 2010. ISBN 978-80-89113-83-5.
KAPALKOV S. Vvin rei. In: Kerekrtiov A. Zklady logopdie. Bratislava:
Univerzita Komenskho 2009. ISBN 978- 80-223-2574-5. 2.
KEYSAR, B., HAYAKAWA, S. L., & AN, S. (2011). The foreign-language effect:
Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23, 661668.
doi:10.1177/0956797611432178
KROV, Z. 2011. Slovensko-anglick zvukov interferencia. EDIS-ilinsk
univerzita. ISBN 978-80-554-0456-1
KRASHEN, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London:
Longman.
KRASHEN, S. D. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International, 1987.
KRASHEN, S. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Prentice-Hall International, 1988.
KRASHEN, Stephen D. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language
Learning. Prentice-Hall International.
KRASHEN, Stephen D. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Prentice-Hall International.
KRIPPENDORFF, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 413.ISBN 9780761915454.
LAMBERT, W. E. TUCKER, G. R. 1972. Bilingual Education of Children: The St.
Lambert Experiment. Newbury House.
LAMBERT, W.E. 1983. Deciding on languages of instruction: psychological and social
considerations. In Husen, T. & Opper, S. (eds.). Multicultural and Multilingual Education
in Immigrant Countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
LEVICKIS, P., REILLY, S., GIROLAMETTO, L., UKOUMMUNE, O.C., WAKE, M.
2014. Maternal behaviors promoting language acquisition in slow-to-talk toddlers:
Prospective community-based study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
35(4), 274-81
LIDDICOAT, A. 1991. Bilingualism: an introduction. In Liddicoat, A. (ed.). Bilingualism
and Bilingual Education. Melbourne: National Languages Institute of Australia.
MACLEOD, A., & STOEL-GAMMON, C. (2010). What is the impact of age of second
language acquisition on the production of consonants and vowels among childhood
bilinguals? International Journal of Bilingualism, vol. 14 no. 4 400-421.
MAL, E. 2004. Cudzie jazyky v kole 2: Diea - jazyk - svet. Zbornk z medzinrodnej
konferencie ;1. vyd. - Nitra: Univerzita Kontantna Filozofa, vexte. ISBN 80-8050-718-
X.
OWENS RE, Jr. Language development. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. 2008. ISBN
13: 978-0-205-52556-0.
PIAGET, J., & Cook, M. T. 1952. The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY:
International University Press.
PIRCHIO, S., TAESCHNER, T., COLIBABA, A.C., GHEORGHIU, E., JURSOVA
ZACHAROVA, Z. 2014. Family involvement in second language learning the Bilfam
project. In MOURAO, S., LOURENCO, M. Early Years Second Language
Education. London, New York: Routlege Research in Early Childhood Education, s. 204-
217.
POKRIVKOV, S. 2011. Current Issues in Teaching Foreign Languages ; Editor - 1.
vyd. - Brno: Masarykova univerzita. 218 p. ISBN 978-80-210-5608-4.
POKRIVKOV, S. 2013. Applied Linguistics Research of Bilingualism and its
Incentives for Foreign Language Pedagogy, Journal of Language and Cultural Education
(2013), 1.1 ISSN 1339-4045 (print) Copyright 2013 SlovakEd
POKRIVKOV, S. 2013. Bilingual education in Slovakia: A Case Study. Journal of
Arts and Humanities (JAH), Volume -2, No.-5, June.
POKRIVKOV, S. a kol. 2008. Inovcie a trendy vo vyuovan cudzch jazykov u
iakov mladieho kolskho veku / Nitra : Univerzita Kontantna Filozofa, 175 p. ISBN
978-80-8094-417-9.
POKRIVKOV, S. a kol. 2009. Cudzie jazyky a kultry v modernej kole /. - 1. vyd. -
Brno : Masarykova univerzita, 230 p. ISBN 978-80-210-4974-1.
REILLY, S., EADIE, P., BAVIN, E.L., WAKE, M., PRIOR, M., WILLIAMS, J.,
BRETHERON, L., BARRETT, Y., UKOUMMUNE, O.C. (2006). Growth of infant
communication between 8 and 12 months: A population study. Journal of Paediatrics and
Child Health, 42, 764-770.
REILLY, S., WAKE, M., UKOUMMUNE, O.C., BAVIN, E., PRIOR, M., CINI, E.,
CONWAY, L., EADIE, P., BRETHERTON, L. (2010). Predicting language outcomes at 4
years of age: Findings from Early Language in Victoria Study. Pediatrics, 126 (6), e1530-
7.
ROMAINE, S., 1995. Bilingualism (2nd edn). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
ROMAINE, S.1994. Bilingualism. Wiley-Blackwell; 2nd Edition edition. 402 p. ISBN-
13: 978-0631195399
TEFNIK, J. 2000. Bilingvizmus na pozad dvoch morfologicky odlinch typov
jazykov. Intenn bilingvizmus u det. Bratislava, Vydavatestvo UK
TEFNIK, J.: Anolgia bilingvizmu. Academia Electronic Press 2004. ISBN 80-88880-
54-8
VALDS, G. & FIGUEROA, R.A., 1994, Bilingualism and Testing: A Special Case of
Bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
WEINREICH, U. 1953. Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. The Hauge:
Mouton. 164 p. ISBN-13: 978-9027926890
WONG KWOK SHING, R. (2006). Enhancing English among second language learners:
The pre-school years. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 279-293.
Zkon NR SR . 270/1995 Z. z. o ttnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky v znen neskorch
predpisov retrieved from:
http://old.culture.gov.sk/uploads/aa/0d/aa0d516d010ffabfd570fbc0b20aec10/zakon-o-
statnom-jazyku-slovensky.pdf
ZELASKO, N., - Antunez, B. (2000). If your child learns in two languages. National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
RESUME

APPENDICES
List of appendices
Appendix No. 1: Sample of questionnaire distributed to 2937 nursery schools
Appendix No. 2: Sample of interview question which will be given to teachers

Appendix No. 1: Questionnaire

Vuba anglickho jazyka v M na Slovensku

Dobr de, som tudentka III. stupa vysokokolskho tdia a tmto by som vs chcela
vemi pekne poprosi o spoluprcu a pomoc pri vskume, ktor bude sasou mojej
dizertanej prce. V danej prci sa venujem aditvnemu bilingvizmu u det v materskch
kolch. Tmto dotaznkom by som chcela zmapova situciu v materskch kolch na
Slovensku. Vypracovanie tohto dotaznka vm zaberie max. 5 mint. Za vau spoluprcu
vopred akujem. S pozdravom Mgr. Zuzana imkov.
1. Nzov a email vaej materskej koly ,v prpade, ak by ste shlasili s realizciou
vskumu, ak nie, tento daj nemuste vypa.

2. Oznate prosm, v ktorom kraji sa nachdza vaa matersk kola:

A. Bratislavsk kraj
B. Trnavsk kraj
C. Nitriansky kraj
D. Banskobystrick kraj
E. Treniansky kraj
F. ilinsk kraj
G. Preovsk kraj
H. Koick kraj
3. Vaa M sa nachdza:
A. v meste
B. na vidieku
4. Poda zriaovatea je vaa matersk kola:
A. ttna
 B. Skromn
C. Bilingvlna
D. Cirkevn
E. In:

5. Vyuuje sa anglick jazyk vo vaej M?

A. no
B. Nie
6. Vyuuj sa vo vaej materskej kole aj in jazyky okrem anglickho jazyka? Ak no,
ak?
A. no
B. Nie
C. In
7. Poskytujete vubu anglickho jazyka deom z:
A. Monolingvlnej rodiny (obaja rodiia Slovci)
B. Bilingvlnej rodiny (jeden z rodiov je anglicky hovoriaci)
C. Oboch typov
8. Vyuuje anglick jazyk kvalifikovan uite?
A. no
B. Nie
9. Ako asto poskytujete hodiny anglickho jazyka vo vaej materskej kole?
A. Jedenkrt do tda
B. Dvakrt do tda
C. Viac ako dvakrt do tda
10. Ako dlho trv hodina anglickho jazyka?

11. Ak je vekov rozhranie det, ktorm poskytujete vubu anglickho jazyka?

12. Ak uebnicu pouvate pri vube? Ak nepouvate uebnicu, pecifikujte prosm,

ak materily vyuvate.

13. Akm tmam sa venujete na hodinch anglickho jazyka?

14. Shlaste s vskumom vo vaej M (audio nahrvanie)?

A. no
B. Nie

akujem za vyplnenie dotaznka!

ODOSLA
Appendix No. 2: Samples of interview question which will be given to teacher
Closed questions for teachers
1. Do you have enough qualified teacher to teach bilingually?
2. Do you have enough materials to support bilingual education?
3. Do the children have regular lessons in English language?
Open questions for teachers
1. What materials do you use to support bilingual education?
2. How often are the children exposed to English language?
3. What methods do you use to develop bilingualism in children?
4. How many children are there in one class?
Questions related to the child
1. Was the child born in Slovakia?
2. What language does your child speak at home?
3. What language does the child speak with friends?
4. What language is spoken to the child by different family members?