735
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2021), 91, 735–754
© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
on behalf of British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Long-term interrelations between socio-
emotional and language competencies among
preschool dual language learners in Germany
Beyhan Ertanir1,2,3* , Jens Kaiser-Kratzmann4 and
Steffi Sachse1
1Department of Developmental Psychology, Heidelberg University of Education,
Germany
2Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Germany
3Institute Research and Development, School of Education, University of Applied
Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland
4Department of Early Childhood Education, Catholic University of Eichstaett-
Ingolstadt, Germany
Background. Recent research has shown that socio-emotional and language compe-
tencies are positively associated with each other. However, few studies have explored
these associations for the second language competencies (L2) of young dual language
learners (DLLs).
Aims. This longitudinal study investigated possible bidirectional associations between
L2 language (expressive and receptive vocabulary) and socio-emotional competencies
among preschool DLLs.
Sample. The participants were 216 German DLLs (MT1 = 52.67 months; SD = 9.54;
53% girls) who were recruited from 19 preschools.
Method. L2 skills were assessed at three time points over the course of one year using
standardized tests for expressive and receptive vocabulary. Children’s teachers rated
their socio-emotional strengths and behaviour concerns. Cross-lagged panel analyses
were used to examine the temporal interplay and longitudinal directionality of effects
controlling for children’s age, sex, type of language acquisition (sequential vs. simulta-
neous), and socio-economic status.
Results. Vocabulary skills and socio-emotional skills were positively correlated with
one another at each time point, such that children with better language proficiency were
rated by their teachers as children with higher levels of socio-emotional competence.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
*Correspondence should be addressed to Beyhan Ertanir, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland,
Bahnhofstrasse 6, 5210 Windisch, Switzerland (email: beyhan.ertanir@fhnw.ch).
Present address: School of Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland
Funding information
This study was supported by a grant to the Heidelberg University of Education and to the Catholic University of Eichstaett-
Ingolstadt, Germany.
DOI:10.1111/bjep.12391
736 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Moreover, our results provided support for an effect of early socio-emotional skills (T1)
on the relative increase in L2 vocabulary skills (T2 & T3), particularly for expressive
vocabulary. However, our results did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect of
better L2 language skills on the relative change in socio-emotional competencies.
Conclusion. Our results suggest unidirectional longitudinal relations between the
socio-emotional and L2 skills, signifying the role of socio-emotional skills for the
vocabulary development of DLLs.
Early education centres across Germany are facing the issue of how to best serve dual
language learners (DLLs)1. According to the German Federal Institute of Statistics, about
38% of preschool children have a migration background (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018)
and most immigrant families prefer to maintain their home languages in daily life, resulting
in an increased number of DLL children in Germany (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichter-
stattung, 2018). Even though young children are mostly successful in learning multiple
languages, large-scale studies (Dubowy, Ebert, vonMaurice, &Weinert, 2008;OECD, 2016)
have shown that growing up in conditions of migration induced bi-/multilingualism
(Gogolin, 2010) can be associated with risks for lower educational achievements. The
academic difficulties experienced byGermanDLLs are particularly attributed to insufficient
skills in their second language (L2) (Kempert et al., 2016). On the other hand, a burgeoning
body of research demonstrates various benefits of being a successful DLL, including
advantages inmetalinguistic awareness (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, &Ungerleider, 2010),
third language learning (Cenoz, 2013; Hirosh & Degani, 2018), cognitive skills (Barac,
Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014; Bialystok, 2015) as well as social and behavioural
advantages of bilingualism conveyed through increased self-control over behaviour
(Crosnoe, 2007; Guirguis & Antigua, 2017; Winsler, Kim, & Richard, 2014).
Primarily, research onmonolingual children reports that language and socio-emotional
competencies do not develop independently from each other (Multhauf & Bockmann,
2015). First, it is argued that language can support socio-emotional regulation processes
and acts as a fundamental toolwithin peer relationships and conflictmanagement abilities
(Weinert & Ebert, 2017). Second, socio-emotional skills are needed for establishing and
maintaining social-interactions, which are a driving force of children’s language
development (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Girolametto & Weitzmann, 2002). Therefore,
the limited language abilities of DLLs may result in communication problems and
difficulties in forming social-interactions,which are essential for both socio-emotional and
language development. However, although growing evidence suggests that the develop-
ment of young DLL’s socio-emotional and language skills might be related, research
examining these relations in the context of dual language development remains limited
(Halle et al., 2014).Most existing studies are cross-sectional (e.g., Sun et al., 2018;McNally,
Darmody, & Quigley, 2019) or examine the relations in unidirectional ways without
considering their possible reciprocal relations (e.g., Kang, Haddad, Chen, &Greenberger,
2014; Winsler et al., 2014). To our knowledge, only very few longitudinal studies
investigated the interplay between the socio-emotional and language competencies of
young DLLs (Bohlmann, Maier, & Palacois, 2015; Hagan-Burke et al., 2016), and these are
1 Although there is no single consistent definition of dual language learners, the one used here takes an inclusive approach, counting
as DLLs all children living in a household where one or more members speak a language other than German (Reich, 2010). In
addition, it also includes children who were learning a second language while continuing to develop his or her first language. L1
denotes the language of the country fromwhich the children or their familymembers immigrated, and L2denotes the language of the
host country (in this case German), regardless of whether the languages were acquired sequentially or simultaneously.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 737
limited to specific aspects of these competencies. The present work aims to contribute to
a better understanding of the possible bidirectionality between these skills and extends
existing research by including different language skills (expressive vs. receptive language)
and analysing these relations in context of dual language development.
Relations between socio-emotional and language skills
Socio-cultural theories consider social-interactions as proximal zones by which language
shapes other developmental outcomes (Vygotsky, 1978). In particular, language plays a
critical role in monitoring, planning, and guiding children’s behaviour (Vygotsky, 1962).
According toVygotsky (1962), through self-directed speech, children begin to collaborate
with themselves or others; for example, they self-regulate by verbally organizing and
planning their thoughts as well as guiding and mastering their behaviour (Winsler, Abar,
Feder, Schunn, &Rubio, 2007). Thus, it is proposed that language (self-directed speech) is
a psychological tool that serves as a self-regulatory mechanism (Fernyhough & Fradley,
2005).
This is also consistent with usage-based theories (Tomasello, 2003) which postulate
that language acquisition occurs in social-interactions. For example, Tomasello’s social-
pragmatic theory (Tomasello 2001, 2009) is considered as a further development of
Vygotsky’s socio-cultural approach (Siegler, DeLoache, & Eisenberg, 2011). The theory
assumes that children‘s development takes place in a cultural learning context by
gradually acquiring social and cognitive skills. Theoretically seen, language acquisition
requires shared attention, shared goals, intentions, and cooperative actions (Tomasello,
2008; Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, &Moll, 2005). Moreover, children are described
as intentional beings with a human-specific ability and willingness for cooperation and
prosocial behaviour, which helps them to communicate with other people. Thus, it is
theorized that social context is essential for language development and is constructed
trough ‘common social actions’ with others (Kauschke, 2012, p. 146). For this purpose,
children initially imitate what the adults have said and adopts individual sequences. Little
by little children succeed in forming analogies, then they change to more complex and
structured systems. It is therefore very likely that children who show better socio-
emotional skills experience increased social interaction opportunities, which in turn
could have a catalysing effect on the development of language skills. In sum, even though
both theoriesmake no explicit statements about the possible bidirectionality between the
both developing sets, both theories suggest that relations between language and socio-
emotional competencies exist. However, there are several empirical studies that indicate
reciprocal relations.
Empirical studies support the theorized relations between the two developmental
areas - language and socio-emotional development - and emphasize the association
between self-regulation and language skills (Fuhs, Nesbitt, Faran & Dong, 2014;
McClelland et al., 2007; Skibbe, Montroy, Bowles, & Morrison, 2019; Weiland, Barata, &
Yoshikawa, 2014). Most of the empirical work examining the relations between self-
regulation and language skills refers to studies operationalizing self-regulation with
executive functions (EF). Even though executive functions and socio-emotional/
emotional skills are not interchangeable, these studies can still help to understand the
relation patterns, as it is known that these skills are broadly related under self-regulation.
Someof these studies reportmostly unidirectional effects of early vocabulary skills on later
self-regulation skills (Botting et al., 2017; Fuhs&Day, 2011). This highlights language skills
as an important developmental asset for children’s future self-regulation skills. As such, it
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
738 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
has been suggested that language supports executive function development, which
decisively contributes to regulating and planning goal-oriented behaviour (Slot &
Suchodoletz, 2018). However, others suggest an opposite effect, demonstrating early self-
regulation skills as an indicator of later vocabulary skills (Weiland et al., 2014), likely
because children with stronger self-regulation skills may benefit more from language
input and social-interactions. Moreover, evidence confirms longitudinal reciprocal
relations (Bohlmann, Maier, & Palacios, 2015; Cadima et al., 2019; Daneri & Blair, 2017;
Fuhs, Nesbitt, Farran, & Dong, 2014), suggesting that these developing language and
socio-emotional skills influence one another throughout time.
Associations between language competencies and other aspects of socio-emotional
competencies are documented in the literature aswell. Some studies provide evidence for
relations between positive social behaviour and language skills (Cassidy, Werner, Rouke,
Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003), while others report links between higher competencies in
cooperation behaviour and higher language competencies (Girard, Pingault, Doyle,
Falissard, & Tremblay, 2016; Longoria, Page, Hubbs-Trait, & Kennison, 2009). It is
contended that children who are cooperative and prosocial are more likely to establish
good relationships with children and teachers, since they are willing to follow others’
instructions/requests and if necessary, undertake smaller duties (Rose, Weinert, & Ebert,
2018). To understand other people’s intentions and needs or to interact with them,
expressive and receptive language abilities are needed (Longoria, Page, Hubbs-Tait, &
Kennison, 2009). Hence, it is possible that children’s limited language competencies
might be linked to difficulties in socio-emotional competencies maybe because children’s
misunderstandings or lack of ability to express themselves in social-interactions may be
frustrating and create conflict. In turn, this stressful situation and the inability to
communicate effectively with their peers might result in conduct-related behaviour (e.g.,
aggression) that can act as an alternative form of communication (Menting, van Lier, &
Koot, 2011; Monopoli &Kingston, 2012). Evidence supporting reciprocal relations rather
than specificunidirectional relations between conduct problems and expressive language
exists as well. For example, Girard et al. (2016) have shown that the emergence of
problems in either one domain was associated with problems in the other domain.
However, the existing research literature having to do with the relations between DLLs’
socio-emotional and language skills is limited, a topic to which we now turn.
Relations between DLLs’ socio-emotional and language skills
To date, the relations between DLLs’ socio-emotional and language skills remain largely
unknown (Halle et al., 2014). Most existing studies examine only specific aspects of
language skills anddonot focus ondevelopmental changes and the interrelations between
both developing skill sets. Examining these can be particularly important for DLLs,
because monolinguals probably already have enough language skills to communicate
their basic needs in daily conversations or to participate in social activitieswhile DLLsmay
lack these essential language tools in their social lives.
In one of the few studies examining the relation between the two development areas,
Winsler et al. (2014) demonstrated low-income Spanish–English speaking preschoolers
with better initiative, self-control, attachment, and less behaviour concerns at age four had
better L2 outcomes by the end of kindergarten. However, the reverse direction was not
considered. Furthermore, a longitudinal study by Hagan-Burke et al. (2016) revealed that
problem behaviour was a significant predictor of poor outcomes on vocabulary-related
measures for L2 and that entry-level receptive and expressive vocabulary skills were
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 739
predictive of later internalizing symptoms. However, in the same study, childrenwith low
L2 skills when entering kindergarten did not demonstrate any change in their
externalizing symptoms, bullying, and hyperactivity (Hagan-Burke et al., 2016). Another
study investigating the bidirectional relations between self-regulation and expressive
vocabulary using a longitudinal study conducted over a period of two years confirmed
reciprocal relations between the two variables in preschool-aged DLLs (Bohlmann et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, they found bidirectional relations for children aged between 56 and
62 months, and only unidirectional relations between early self-regulation skills and later
language skills for younger children aged approximately between 35 and 56 months.
To sum up, relations between language and socio-emotional competencies are
assumed in DLLs, but research examining the temporal interplay and longitudinal
directionality of effects is lacking. As DLLs’ development occurs in the specific context of
acquiring multiple languages, understanding whether and how language and socio-
emotional competencies of DLLs are interrelated is important. Moreover, the limited
empirical work on DLLs shows that the comparative role of/for expressive and receptive
language abilities remains unclear. This is in particular important for DLLs, as research
shows that DLL’s receptive and expressive language skills often follow different
developmental trajectories (Ribot, Hoff, & Burridge, 2018).
The present study
This study analysed the possible bidirectional associations between the L2 language
competencies and socio-emotional competencies of German preschool DLLs, separately
for expressive and receptive vocabulary, given the preliminary evidence of the differential
roles of each language modality. With this study, we contribute to existing research in
several ways. First, we investigated the possible reciprocal relations with a unique
longitudinal design across a period of two years and second, we extended prior work by
including different aspects of language skills (expressive and receptive language) as
recommended by language researchers in order to capture children’s developmental
progress (Hoff, 2018). Furthermore, analyses dealing with complex relations between
language and socio-emotional skills were mainly based on amixed sample of monolingual
and multilingual children which does not allow isolated statements on dual language
development. Based on previous research with bidirectional modellings (e.g., Bohlmann
et al., 2015), we hypothesized that reciprocal associations between socio-emotional
competencies and language skills exist, such that children with better receptive and
expressive language skills would be more socially competent at future time points, and
vice versa.
Methods
The data of this longitudinal study stem from a larger project on multilingualism in
preschools across a period of three years. Data were collected via standardized language
assessments and teacher/parent questionnaires once a year.
Participants
In total, 216 dual language learners from 19 daycare centres in Germany participated in
this study. Only daycare centres with high proportions of children with migration
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
740 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
background (ranging from 52% to 100%) were selected. Within the aims of the larger
project, all DLL children between the ages of three to six years were recruited to
participate in the study. Hence, it was sufficient when one child could take part on two
instead of three anticipated measurement points. Children’s ages ranged from 33 to
77 months (MT1 = 52.67 months; SD = 9.54) at the first time point and more than half
were girls (n = 114; 53%). The data collection for the first time point (T1) was completed
during the summer of year 1 (n = 216), the second time point (T2) during the summer of
year 2 (n = 201), and the third timepoint (T3) during the summer of year 3 (n = 118). The
sample size from T1 to T2 decreased because of family moves (n = 12) or other unknown
reasons (n = 3). As children who were five years of age or older at T1 left preschool for
primary school, the sample, as expected, decreased from T2 to T3 by 70 more
participants. Other reasons for attrition from T2 to T3 included family moves (n = 9) and
other unspecified reasons (n = 4). All the children were DLLs, and encountered at least
one language different from German at home. Among the sample, children who speak
Turkish (n = 71; 32%), Russian (n = 39; 17%), Albanian (n = 14; 6%), and Kurdish
(n = 12; 5.6%) represented the large language groups. Furthermore, 17 other languages
(with frequencies < 2%) were reported as being spoken by the children.
In total, 175 parents of 216 (81%) completed the parent questionnaires. In addition,
somequestionnaires had items thatwere omitted,meaningwehad differentmissing value
proportions. 10% of the children’s parents had no secondary education, 72% had
secondary education, and 18% had obtained a college degree (response rate of 73%).
According to the available data (72%) regarding the children’s immigration background,
10% (n = 15) of the children were first-generation immigrants, 80% (n = 126) second-
generation immigrants, and 10% (n = 16) third-generation immigrants. Information on
language exposure to German was reported for 156 of the 216 (72%) children. Of these
children, 54% (n = 85)were exposed toGerman frombirth,while 39% (n = 60)were first
exposed to German between the ages of 12 to 36 months. The remaining children
(n = 11; 7%) were first exposed to German between 41 and 54 months.
Materials and procedure
Experienced and supervised graduate students administered the language assessments
during sessions lasting 30–45 minutes for each child in the kindergarten. Information on
the children’s sociodemographic variables and home language environments were
obtained through parental questionnaires. Teachers completed questionnaires on
children’s socio-emotional outcomes and behavioural concerns. In exchange for their
participation, the children received a toy for each session and parents received 10€ for
completing the parental questionnaire.
Socio-economic status
The children’s socio-economic status was determined based on their parent’s current
occupational status (M = 40.48; SD = 12.42). In total, 161 of 216 (75%) parents provided
information on their current occupation, whichwas coded according to the International
Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI; Ganzeboom & Treiman, 1996). If the
scores of the mother and father differed, the higher score was used.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 741
Socio-emotional skills
Children’s socio-emotional strengths and behaviour concerns were measured using the
subtest for socio-emotional competencies of a German screening battery for basic
competencies (BIKO 3–6; Seeger, Holodynski, & Souvignier, 2014). Teachers evaluated
the children’s behaviour on BIKO using six to eight items per subscale focusing on their
cooperation, integration in the group, peer relationship problems, prosocial behaviour,
playing behaviour, and emotion regulation. The subscales are based on a rating scale of 0
to 3 (0 = do not agree, 3 = agree). Lower scores indicate more problematic behaviours.
To obtain a total socio-emotional score (BIKO), a composite score was computed by
aggregating the scores (summed across items) of all subscales (BIKO, r = .34–.71,
p < .001 among the six subscales). Internal consistency reliability for the subscaleswithin
this sample was good to excellent (T1: Cronbach’s a = .83–.88; T2: Cronbach’s
a = .84–.91; T3: Cronbach’s a = .80–.91).
Language skills
Receptive Vocabulary. The German version of Peabody Picture Vocabulary-4 (PPVT-4;
Lenhard, Lenhard, Segerer, & Suggate, 2015) was used to assess children’s receptive
vocabulary skills. PPVT-4 is a standardized measure of receptive language in which
children are presented with four pictures. They must point out the target picture that
matches the item mentioned by the assessor. Testing was stopped when the child’s
responses to 8 ormore items within a set of 12 itemswere incorrect. The PPVT-4 has high
reliability in standardization samples, with an internal consistency of a = .97.
Expressive Vocabulary. Children’s expressive vocabulary was measured using a
German expressive vocabulary test (Aktiver Wortschatztest 3–5 (AWST-R 3–5), Kiese-
Himmel, 2005). This test measures expressive vocabulary skills by asking children to
provide a label for pictured items displaying objects or actions. Thepublishers reported an
internal consistency coefficient of a = .88.
Analysis strategy
To examine the possible bidirectionality of the associations between L2 language
competencies and socio-emotional competencies, we estimated different cross-lagged
models (raw scores were used) in Mplus Version 8 (Muth
en & Muth
en, 1998-2017).
Separate models were tested for expressive and receptive competencies controlling for
children’s age, sex, type of language acquisition (sequential vs. simultaneous), and socio-
economic status, which are often interrelated with language and socio-emotional skills.
For both dimensions, three nested models (no coupling, unidirectional coupling (socio-
emotional skills? language skills), and bidirectional coupling)were tested and compared
to find the best representing model. The model of unidirectional coupling with the path
from language skills to socio-emotional skills was not tested, because the model with
bidirectional coupling indicated no predictive relations.
To test the differences between the nestedmodels, a Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square
difference test was performed (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). Model fits were compared with
established fit indicators including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index
(TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR). To account for the nested data structure with children in
different classrooms, the type = complex option of Mpluswas applied (Hox, Moerbeek,
& van de Schoot, 2017). Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.16 to 0.31.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
742 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Missing data
Missing data on receptive vocabulary scores ranged from 2.3% at T1 to 13% at T2 and 46%
at T3. Similarly, 2.3% of the expressive vocabulary scores at T1, 7% at T2, and 46% at T3
were also missing for some children. In addition, for 13% of children at T1, 8% at T2, and
52% at T3, teacher ratings on socio-emotional competenciesweremissing. Missing data at
T1 and T2 were largely due to child attrition (leaving the preschool or family moves) or
because teachers did not fill in parts of the questionnaires. To address the problem of
missing data in longitudinal studies, the Full InformationMaximumLikelihood Estimation-
Option (FIML) was used. Although there was a systematic attrition in this sample we
decided to use the maximum likelihood estimation as deletion methods generally exhibit
greater biases than Missing at Random approaches (Enders, 2013; Graham, 2009).
Therefore, researchers are advised to use the maximum available sample (Enders, 2011).
Results
Preliminary analyses
The descriptive statistics at each assessment point for the children’s raw scores on the
language and socio-emotional assessments as well as the covariates are displayed in
Table 1.
Table 2 shows the correlations for the L2 language measures, socio-emotional
competencies, and covariates. Both measures of L2 skills for T1, T2, and T3 correlated
positively with socio-emotional ratings at T1 and T2, such that childrenwith higher levels
of L2 competencies tended to have better socio-emotional skills and demonstrated less
problembehaviour. Notably, the scores of each constructwere not only correlatedwithin
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for variables of interest
Variables M SD Min Max Range
Language competencies L2
PPVTT1 46.11 30.15 0 110 0–228
PPVTT2 73.28 27.34 4 136 0–228
PPVTT3 84.34 25.00 4 143 0–228
AWSTT1 13.31 12.26 0 47 0–75
AWSTT2 21.94 14.06 0 52 0–75
AWSTT3 27.62 14.50 0 61 0–75
Socio-emotional competencies
BIKOT1 84.97 18.21 22 114 0–114
BIKOT2 90.77 18.08 22 114 0–114
BIKOT3 92.24 20.02 18 114 0–144
Covariates
AgeT1 52.67 9.54 33 77 33–77
AgeT2 64.49 9.40 45 86 45–86
AgeT3 71.30 6.58 57 90 57–90
SES (HISEI) 40.48 12.42 16 73 16–90
Note. T1 = time point 1, T2 = time point 2, T3 = time point 3; PPVT = German Version of Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test - 4 (Receptive Vocabulary); AWST = Aktiver Wortschatztest 3–5 [Expressive
Vocabulary Test 3–5]; BIKO = BIKO Subtest Socio-emotional Competencies; SES = Socio-economic
Status (HISEI, Highest International Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status; higher scores indicate
higher socio-economic status).
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 743
Table 2. Intercorrelations between variables of interest
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Age 1
2. Sex (boys = 0; girls = 1) 
.07 1
3. SES 
.04 
.18* 1
4. LA type (sim = 0; seq = 1) .07 
.04 .05 1
5. PPVTT1 .50*** 
.08 .23** 
.24** 1
6. PPVTT2 .47*** 
.05 .20* 
.19** .84*** 1
7. PPVTT3 .34** 
.05 .27** 
.24** .77*** .88*** 1
8. AWSTT1 .40*** 
.06 .18* 
.31** .85*** .82*** .72*** 1
9. AWSTT2 .39*** 
.05 .25** 
.27** .85*** .89*** .85*** .91*** 1
10. AWSTT3 .31*** 
.07 .25* 
.36** .80*** .86*** .86*** .85*** .94*** 1
11. BIKOT1 .24** .34*** .10 .00 .24*** .29*** .24* .16* .23** .24* 1
12. BIKOT2 .30*** .38*** 
.01 
.04 .20** .28*** .21* .18* .23*** .19* .69*** 1
13. BIKOT3 .16 .38*** 
.06 
.01 .05 .12 .12 .06 .10 .12 .53*** .62***
Note. T1 = time point 1, T2 = time point 2, T3 = time point 3; SES = Socio-economic Status (HISEI; higher values indicate higher status); LA type = Language
acquisition type; sim = simultaneous; seq = sequential; PPVT = German Version of Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - 4 (Receptive Vocabulary); AWST = Aktiver
Wortschatztest 3–5 [Expressive Vocabulary Test 3–5]; BIKO = BIKO Subtest Socio-emotional Competencies (Total Score). Product–moment correlations were
calculated (two-sided).
*p < .05; **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
744 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
one time point, but also significantly correlated across time points, suggesting that
previous skills in language or socio-emotional competencies were related with
subsequent skills in these competencies. However, socio-emotional competencies at
T3 demonstrated no significant associations with receptive and expressive vocabulary
scores at all time points. Furthermore, all L2 scores of each time point were significantly
correlated with the language scores of the other time points. Likewise, the scores for
socio-emotional competencies were also correlated with each other across T1 to T3.
Regarding the covariates, sex demonstrated no significant associations with language
skills, but was related to socio-emotional competencies, such that girls were rated higher
for socio-emotional competencies than boys. Moreover, socio-economic status and
children‘s type of language acquisition (simultaneous vs. sequential) were linked to all L2
scores, but not to socio-emotional competencies, such that children who come from low
socio-economic households and were exposed to German later on had lower L2 skills. In
addition, older children had higher language competencies and socio-emotional
competencies.
Next, different nested models were estimated to test the associations between
language and socio-emotional competencies from T1 to T3 separately for each language
modality. The fit indices and chi-square difference tests of the conditional models (no
coupling, one unidirectional coupling, and bidirectional coupling) for L2 competencies
are provided in Table 3. The results revealed that the second models with unidirectional
couplings (socio-emotional skills ? language skills) were the best representing models,
which indicated a significant improvement over the first models (Model 1a vs. 1b). In
contrast, adding the bidirectional paths (Model 3a vs. 3b) showed no improvements
(p = .89 vs. p = .72) over the second models (Model 2a vs. 2b), indicating that early L2
language skills were not predictive for the relative increase in socio-emotional
competencies.
Table 3. Model fit results for both language modalities
Model v2(df) CFI/TLI RMSEA [CI] SRMR v2 (df)adiff
Expressive skills
1a. no coupling 15.50 (8)* .99/.97 .07 [.00, .12] .02
2a. unidirectional coupling 6.95 (6)* 1.00/1.00 .03 [.00, .10] .01
(BIKO? AWST)
Difference between model 2a and 1a 8.49 (2)*
3a. bidirectional coupling 6.73 (4)* 1.00/.97 .06 [.00, .13] .01
Difference between model 3a and 2a 0.15 (2)
Receptive skills
1b. no coupling 14.62 (8)* .99/.96 .06 [.00, .11] .02
2b. unidirectional coupling 8.79 (6)* 1.00/.98 .05 [.00, .11] .02
(BIKO? PPVT)
Difference between Model 2b and 21 7.04 (2)*
3b. bidirectional coupling 7.05(4)* 1.00/.96 .06 [.00, .13] .02
Difference between Model 3b and 2b 0.59 (2)
Note. Models controlled for age, sex, language acquisition type and socio-economic status (HISEI);
CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
aThe chi-square difference test has been calculated using the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction factor in
Mplus for analysis using full information maximum likelihood (Satorra & Bentler, 2001).; *p ≤ .05;
**p ≤ .01.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 745
AWST .89***
.92***
AWST AWST
T1 T2 T3
.20** .07† .08 .07* -.007
BIKO BIKO BIKO
T1 .62*** T2 .55*** T3
R²AWST-T3= .91 R²BIKO-T3= .37
Figure 1. N = 216; Best representing autoregressive model (unidirectional coupling, BIKO? AWST)
for examining the association between expressive language skills and socio-emotional competencies,
controlled for age, sex, language acquisition type, and parental socio-economic status (HISEI). †p < .10,
*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
PPVT .79*** PPVT .87*** PPVT
T1 T2 T3
.26*** .11* .17* -.05 .01
BIKO BIKO BIKO
T1 .62*** T2 .55*** T3
R²PPVT-T3= .81 R²BIKO-T3= .37
Figure 2. N = 216; Best representing autoregressive model (unidirectional coupling, BIKO ? PPVT)
for examining the association between receptive language skills and socio-emotional competencies,
controlled for age, sex, language acquisition type, and parental socio-economic status (HISEI). †p < .10,
*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
The results of the final model are displayed in Figures 1 and 2. All autoregressive paths
in both models were significant, meaning that children’s language skills at T1 were
positively associatedwith the skills at T2 and T3. Furthermore, children’s socio-emotional
competencies at T1 were positively associated with the scores of T2 and T3. In addition,
both language scores (expressive and receptive vocabulary) at T1 were moderately
correlated with socio-emotional competencies at T1. This indicates that at the beginning
of the study, children with higher language skills tended to have higher socio-emotional
skills, and those with lower language skills had lower socio-emotional competencies.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
746 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Moreover, the cross-lagged paths from previous socio-emotional skills to almost all later
vocabulary skills in L2 were also significant. This means that higher socio-emotional
competencies at an earlier time predicted greater relative increase in L2 vocabulary skills
(compared to children with poorer socio-emotional competencies). One exception was
the path between socio-emotional competencies at T2 and receptive vocabulary in T3,
which shows that the relative change in receptive language skills was no longer related to
early socio-emotional competencies.
Discussion
This study sought to provide a better understanding of the interrelations between
language and socio-emotional competencies of preschool DLLs. Although a large body of
studies has shown that socio-emotional and language competencies are positively
associated, relatively few examined these associations in a longitudinally bidirectional
way. In addition, most existing research was based on non-DLL samples. Given that DLL
children’s language competencies can follow different developmental trajectories
compared to non-DLL children, this study built on and expanded previous work using a
longitudinal cross-lagged panel design. Consistent with previous studies, our findings
revealed positive associations between L2 skills and socio-emotional competencies, such
that children showing higher language competencies were also rated as more socio-
emotionally competent. In addition, after controlling for children’s sex, age, socio-
economic status, and children‘s type of language acquisition, earlier socio-emotional
competencies were significantly related with a relative increase in later receptive and
expressive vocabulary. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find evidence that DLLs’
early L2 skills were associated with the relative change in children’s later socio-emotional
competencies.
The correlations demonstrated that children with high language competencies in L2
were also rated as having higher social competence. That is, children who are able to
understand and communicate were more cooperative, prosocial, integrated in groups,
have less problem behaviour, show better playing behaviour, and emotion regulation
skills. These results are aligned with other studies using DLL samples (e.g., Sun et al.,
2018). Interestingly, correlations between the language scores and socio-emotional
measure were not only found concurrently, but significant correlations also emerged
between the scores of different time points. This means the children having higher scores
at the beginning of the study also achieved higher scores at T2, and vice versa. In contrast,
no significant correlations were found for the socio-emotional scores of T3 and all
language measures.
Our results did not provide evidence for the bidirectional relations between L2 skills
and socio-emotional skills of preschool DLLs. Thus, the results are not in line with our
hypothesis and the extant research with non-DLLs (e.g., Cadima et al., 2019; Daneri &
Blair., 2017; Girard et al., 2016). However, our results at least suggest that early socio-
emotional skills may have a specific role in the development of L2 skills (Bohlmann et al.,
2015; Winsler et al., 2014), particularly of expressive skills. To our knowledge, only two
other studies on DLLs examine the relations from both perspectives, and our results
partially align with theirs. Bohlmann et al. (2015) found bidirectional effects for only a
specific period, whereas Hagan-Burke et al. (2016) found only an effect of entry-level
vocabulary measures on later internalizing problems, not for acting out problem
behaviours. Our findings are also in linewith usage-based theories of language acquisition
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 747
which highlight the importance of social-interactions for language development. We
assume that high socio-emotional competencies promote more successful interactions
with peers (Mashburn, Justice, Downer, & Pianta, 2009; Montroy, Bowles, & Skibbe,
2016) and teachers (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson & Sprague, 2001; Girolametto
& Weitzmann, 2002), potentially contributing positively to larger gains in vocabulary
attainment. It is known that childrenwith stronger social skills can take advantage ofmore
learning opportunities, participate fully in classroom activities, and engage more with
peers (Arnold, Kupersmidt, Voegler-Lee, & Marshall, 2012; Sparapani et al., 2018; Ziv,
2013). Moreover, during learning activities, socially competent children are probably
better able to sit, listen, and follow rules, which enable them to profit more from such
activities and to take advantage of them in terms of language stimulation. In addition, this
could also affect teachers’ teaching strategy, since they can focus more on the contents of
learning activities than onmanaging the potentially disruptive behaviour of children with
less socio-emotional skills. Related to this, as reported for preschool DLLs by Hagan-Burke
et al. (2016), less problem behaviour can also have a positive effect on vocabulary-related
language outcomes.
Our results revealed that children with higher socio-emotional competencies tended
to make larger gains in expressive and receptive vocabulary during the first year.
However, the path from socio-emotional competencies to receptive vocabulary between
T2 and T3 was not significant, indicating that socio-emotional competencies no longer
facilitate the gains in receptive vocabulary in the second year. It is possible that socio-
emotional skills might be particularly important for the acquisition of expressive
vocabulary (Cadima et al., 2019). Possibly, expressive language and socio-emotional
competencies share more common cognitive processes than receptive language. For
example, it is known that receptive language is more related to long-term memory
(Gathercole, 1995), whereas generating expressive language exercises working memory
(Daneri & Blair, 2017). Thus, it is conceivable that expressive language may be more
related to socio-emotional competencies than receptive skills. This is also reflected in
studies that examine the relations between executive functions and language skills. Most
of the studies, confirming the bidirectionality between the self-regulation and language
skills, use expressive language skills as a measure of language (e.g., Bohlmann et al., 2015;
Daneri & Blair, 2017; Fuhs & Day, 2011, Kuhn et al., 2016). Moreover, we assume that the
relations between language and socio-emotional skills are especially mediated by social-
interactions and the increased possibility of children’s language use with their peers and
teachers, which in turn might promote their language skills. So, the increased possibility
and probably more use of language foster presumably the expressive language skills. This
notion is supported by research showing that language use was found to be a stronger
predictor of growth in expressive than receptive skills in DLLs (Ribot et al., 2018).
Furthermore, our results did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect of better
L2 language skills on the relative change in socio-emotional competencies. This
contradicts various studies showing early language skills as an indicator of later socio-
emotional competencies among different samples (Aro, Eklund, Nurmi, & Poikkeus,
2012; Menting et al., 2011; Rose et al., 2018). However, these results were based on non-
DLL samples, for which the language skills assessed are usually first language skills. Long-
standing theoretical assumptions (Vygotsky, 1962) propose that children use their
language (e.g., self-directed speech) to self-regulate their behaviour or emotions. Given
that our study examined L2 skills, it cannot be ignored that the pattern could be similar if
these analyses are conducted with first language skills. Possibly, children use their first
language (instead of L2 skills) for their self-regulation, which could not be illustrated with
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
748 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
our data. Similarly, it is assumed that the reason for developing better socio-emotional
skills of linguistically competent children is that they easily get in touch with their peers,
canmore adequately formulate their ownneeds and respond better towishes fromothers,
but also show more helpful and prosocial behaviour. All of these listed actions require
high language skills in L2, which often seems to be limited in DLLs, particularly in the
beginnings of the preschool period. Thus, this can be an explanation for the lack of direct
relations between early L2 skills and increase in socio-emotional competencies. Most
studies that found direct effects between early language competencies and later social
skills were based on samples with monolingual children, who already have a basic
language tool for becoming part of social life, integration in groups, and communicate
their basic needs. Hence, it is also worth considering whether a certain base level of
language competencies is necessary to facilitate gains in socio-emotional competencies
(Bohlmann et al., 2015). For example, some studies examining bidirectional relations
between language abilities and executive functions suggest that only advanced language
skills may emerge as an indicator of later executive functions (Friend & Bates, 2014; Kuhn
et al., 2016). Moreover, it is important to note that the DLL sample used in this study was
very heterogenous in terms of language acquisition types. Different patterns of association
between composites of socio-emotional and language skills could be emerged in case of a
more homogenous sample composition (i.e., all simultaneous learners). A more
corresponding relations pattern as visible in monolingual children could be expected.
Lastly, another possible explanation for our partially contrasting findings could be also
that we have to some extent different assessing time ranges. It is conceivable that a period
of two years might be too long for detecting the bidirectionality between the both
developing skill sets since we know that cognitive development processes are subjected
to very rapid changes in these age periods.
Strengths and limitations
The major strength of the current study is the longitudinal design with three time points,
which allowed us to investigate possible bidirectional relations between language and
socio-emotional competencies over a period of two years. Our results extend previous
findings by documenting the importance of socio-emotional competencies for L2 skills
and by examining a sample of DLLs recruited in a non-clinical context. Another strength is
that our study provides the possibility to understand the relations of/for expressive and
receptive language skills separately. However, only behavioural and affective compo-
nents of socio-emotional competencies were considered, and aspects of emotional
development such as emotional knowledge and understanding were not included.
Notably, longitudinal modelling is correlational, and thus can only support interdepen-
dencies without enabling causal conclusions (Bohlmann et al., 2015; Weinert & Ebert,
2017). Furthermore, these findings only apply to the observed developmental period of
preschool-aged DLL children in Germany and relations may change in other language
contexts and in other developmental periods. Regarding limitations, our analyses relied
on teacher’s ratings of socio-emotional variables. Possibly, teachers’ ratings may be subtly
biased by teacher–child relationships (Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009) and ethnic
stereotypes (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). Given the correlational design, we cannot
exclude the effects of teacher biases, given that it is possible that teachers could rate
children with higher language skills as more socio-emotionally competent. However, our
preliminary analyses with parent ratings on socio-emotional skills indicated similar
relations, but could not be considered in this study because of the unacceptable high
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 749
missing proportions and low internal consistencies. Future studies should consider
including parent ratings or observational techniques formeasuring children’s social skills.
Furthermore, our analyses did not consider first language skills. Future studies should also
explore the same relations for first language skills, as they would likely enhance
understanding of possible bidirectionality in the relations. Related to this, it is worth
considering to perform separate analyses for simultaneous DLLs versus sequential DLLs.
Future research that can identify the mechanisms underlying the developmental
pathways between socio-emotional and language skills among different types of DLLs
would be a welcome addition to the literature.
Implications
Our results can be relevant in terms of early childhood practices and the prevention of
potential emotional and language difficulties among DLLs. Rather than purely linguistic or
socio-emotionally oriented inter-/prevention approaches, programs involving several
development areas can be considered. In the literature, we can find examples of
interventions yielding promising results. For example, the Head Start REDI intervention
which was developed to boost language and social competence revealed better
expressive language outcomes by targeting also socio-emotional skills (Bierman, Nix,
Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008). Furthermore, the Programme Chicago School
Readiness Project which primarily focused on reducing behaviour problems in low-
income preschoolers led also to improvements in other multiple areas such as pre-
academic (vocabulary, letter-naming, math skills) and self-regulation skills (Raver et al.,
2011). Thus, approaches focusing on behavioural regulation or promoting socio-
emotional skills may be a way to increase language learning opportunities with peers or
teachers. This may be particularly important for DLLs with limited language skills, as low
socio-emotional skills can also have negative consequences for further language
development and probably cannot facilitate their already limited language skills. It might
be also worth considering whether special programmes for DLLs that specifically convey
socio-emotionally important words or phrases such as ‘I’m sad’, ‘May I play along’, and ‘I
don’t like it’ can be beneficial for DLL children with limited language competencies. This
will help to avoidmisunderstandings or conflicts andwillmake it easier for children to join
play groups. Consequently, comprehensive programmes can be a way to mutually
promote multiple aspects of children‘s development in the early childhood period.
Lastly, our results also support the fact that early childhood professionals have a great
responsibility. They can initiate situations in daily routines such as meal times, play
groups, or even joint picture book viewing situations in which social and language
development-related processes can be fostered in the sheltered environment of the early
childhood institutions.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Research Grant (01JM1402B) from the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research, awarded to Prof. Dr. Jens Kaiser-Kratzmann and Prof. Dr.
Steffi Sachse. Portions of this work were presented at the 12th International Symposium of
Bilingualism in Edmonton in 2019.We are very thankful to all the children and to the staff of all
the kindergartens who participated in the study. We also acknowledge the valuable
contributions of the research and student assistants who helped with testing and data coding.
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
750 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author contributions
Beyhan Ertanir (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation;
Methodology; Writing – original draft) Jens Kaiser-Kratzmann (Funding acquisition;
Project administration; Resources) Steffi Sachse (Conceptualization; Funding acquisition;
Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing – review &
editing).
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
References
Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-
analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 207–
245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803
Arnold, D.H., Kupersmidt, J.B., Voegler-Lee, M.E., &Marshall, N.A. (2012). The association between
preschool children’s social functioning and their emergent academic skills. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27, 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.009
Aro, T., Eklund, K., Nurmi, J.E., & Poikkeus, A.M. (2012). Early language and behavioral regulation
skills as predictors of social outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearingResearch,55,
395–408. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0245)
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2018). Bildung in Deutschland 2018. Ein
indikatorgestu€tzter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Wirkung und Ertra€gen von Bildung
[Education in Germany 2018. An indicator-based report with an analysis on the impact and
benefits of education]. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D.C., & Sanchez,M. (2014). The cognitive development of youngdual
language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 29, 699–714. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.003
Bialystok, E. (2015). The impact of bilingualism on cognition. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.),
Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and
linkable resource (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772
Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R.L., Gest, S.D., Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., . . . Gill, S.
(2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI
program. Child Development, 79, 1802–1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.
01227.x
Bohlmann, N.L., Maier, M.F., & Palacios, N. (2015). Bidirectionality in self-regulation and expressive
vocabulary: Comparisons between monolingual and dual language learners in preschool. Child
Development, 86, 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12375
Botting, N., Jones, A., Marshall, C., Denmark, T., Atkinson, J., & Morgan, G. (2017). Nonverbal
executive function is mediated by language: A study of deaf and hearing children. Child
Development, 88, 1689–1700. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12659
Cadima, J., Barros, S., Ferreira, T., Serra-Lemos, M., Leal, T., & Verschueren, K. (2019). Bidirectional
associations between vocabulary and self-regulation in preschool and their interplay with
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 751
teacher–child closeness and autonomy support. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 75–
86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.004
Cassidy, K.W., Werner, R.S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L.S., & Balaraman, G. (2003). The relationship
between psychological understanding and positive social behaviors. Social Development, 12,
198–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00229
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on
multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46, 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000218
Crosnoe, R. (2007). Early childcare and the school readiness of children from Mexican immigrant
families. International Migration Review, 41, 152–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.
2007.00060.x
Daneri, M.P., & Blair, C. (2017). Bidirectional relations between executive function and expressive
vocabulary in kindergarten and first grade/Relaciones bidireccionales entre la funcio
n ejecutiva
y el vocabulario expresivo en jard
ın de infantes y primer grado. Studies in Psychology, 38, 424–
450. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2017.1295577
Dickinson, D.K., & Porche, M.V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool
classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child
Development, 82, 870–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x
Dickinson, D.K., & Sprague, K.E. (2001). The nature and impact of early childhood care
environments on the language and early literacy development of children from low-income
families. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, Vol. 1
(pp. 263–280). New York: Guilford Publications.
Dubowy, M., Ebert, S., von Maurice, J., & Weinert, S. (2008). Sprachlich-kognitive Kompetenzen
beim Eintritt in den Kindergarten. Ein Vergleich von Kindern mit und ohne
Migrationshintergrund. Zeitschrift Fu€r Entwicklungspsychologie Und Pa€dagogische
Psychologie, 40, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637.40.3.124
Enders, C.K. (2011). Analyzing longitudinal data with missing values. Rehabilitation Psychology,
56, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025579
Enders, C.K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development
Perspectives, 7, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12008
Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task
difficulty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cogdev.2004.11.002
Friend, M., & Bates, R.P. (2014). The union of narrative and executive function: different but
complementary. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 469. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00469
Fuhs, M.W., & Day, J.D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development of
preschoolers at Head Start. Developmental Psychology, 47, 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0021065
Fuhs, M.W., Nesbitt, K.T., Farran, D.C., & Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between
executive functioning and academic skills across content areas.Developmental Psychology,50,
1698–1709. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036633
Ganzeboom, H.B., & Treiman, D.J. (1996). Internationally comparable measures of occupational
status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science
Research, 25, 201–239. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1996.0010
Gathercole, S. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term
knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords.Memory & Cognition, 23, 83–94. https://doi.org/
10.3758/BF03210559
Girard, L.C., Pingault, J.B., Doyle, O., Falissard, B., & Tremblay, R.E. (2016). Developmental
associations between conduct problems and expressive language in early childhood: A
population-based study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1033–1043. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10802-015-0094-8
Girolametto, L., &Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of child care providers in interactions with
toddlers and preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2002/022)
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
752 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Gogolin, I. (2010). Stichwort: Mehrsprachigkeit. Zeitschrift Fu€r Erziehungswissenschaft, 13, 529–
547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-010-0162-3
Graham, J.W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Guirguis, R., &Antigua, K.C. (2017). DLLs and the development of self-regulation in early childhood.
Cogent Education, 4, 1355628. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1355628
Hagan-Burke, S., Soares, D.A., Gonzalez, J.E., Zhu, L., Davis, H.S., Kwok, O.-M., . . . Resendez, N.M.
(2016). Associations between problem behaviors and early vocabulary skills among hispanic
dual-language learners in Pre-K. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36, 91–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415599663
Halle, T.G., Whittaker, J.V., Zepeda, M., Rothenberg, L., Anderson, R., Daneri, P., . . . Buysse, V.
(2014). The social-emotional development of dual language learners: Looking back at existing
research andmoving forwardwith purpose.Early ChildhoodResearchQuarterly,29, 734–749.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.12.002
Hirosh, Z., & Degani, T. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of multilingualism on novel language
learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 892–916. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-
1315-7
Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development
Perspectives, 12, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12262
Hox, J.J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and
applications (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982
Jerome, E.M., Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Teacher–child relationships from kindergarten to
sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social
Development, 18, 915–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x
Kang, H.S., Haddad, E., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2014). Limited English proficiency and
socioemotional well-being among Asian and Hispanic children from immigrant families. Early
Education and Development, 25, 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2014.883664
Kauschke, C. (2012). Kindlicher Spracherwerb im Deutschen: Verla€ufe, Forschungsmethoden,
Erkla€rungsansa€tze. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kempert, S., Edele, A., Rauch, D., Wolf, K.M., Paetsch, J., Darsow, A., . . . Stanat, P. (2016). Die Rolle
der Sprache fu€r zuwanderungsbezogene Ungleichheiten im Bildungserfolg. In C. Diehl, C.
Hunkler & C. Kristen (Eds.), Ethnische Ungleichheiten im Bildungsverlauf (pp. 157–241).
Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04322-3_5
Kiese-Himmel, C. (2005). AWST-R. Aktiver Wortschatztest fu€r 3- bis 5-ja€hrige Kinder. Manual .
Go€ttingen: Beltz Test.
Kuhn, L.J., Willoughby, M.T., Vernon-Feagans, L., Blair, C.B., Family Life Project Key Investigators
(2016). The contribution of children’s time-specific and longitudinal expressive language skills
on developmental trajectories of executive function. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 148, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.03.008
Lenhard, A., Lenhard,W., Segerer, R., & Suggate, S. (2015).Peabody picture vocabulary test (PPVT-
4). Frankfurt am Main: Pearson Clinical Assessment.
Longoria, A.Q., Page, M.C., Hubbs-Tait, L., & Kennison, S.M. (2009). Relationship between
kindergarten children’s language ability and social competence. Early Child Development and
Care, 179, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430701590241
Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s language
achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80, 686–702. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01291.x
McClelland, M.M., Cameron, C.E., Connor, C.M., Farris, C.L., Jewkes, A.M., & Morrison, F.J. (2007).
Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills.
Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
McNally, S., Darmody, M., & Quigley, J. (2019). The socio-emotional development of language-
minority children entering primary school in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 38(4), 519–
534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2019.1663550
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interrelations between socio-emotional and language competencies 753
Menting, B., Van Lier, P.A., & Koot, H.M. (2011). Language skills, peer rejection, and the
development of externalizing behavior from kindergarten to fourth grade. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02279.x
Monopoli,W.J., &Kingston, S. (2012). The relationships among language ability, emotion regulation
and social competence in second-grade students. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 36, 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412446394
Montroy, J.J., Bowles, R.P., & Skibbe, L.E. (2016). The effect of peers’ self-regulation on
preschooler’s self-regulation and literacy growth. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 46, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.09.001
Multhauf, B., & Bockmann, A.-K. (2015). Zusammenhang zwischen Sprachentwicklung und
emotionaler Entwicklung. In S. Sachse (Ed.), Handbuch Spracherwerb und
Sprachentwicklungssto€rungen. Kleinkindphase (pp. 63–77). Mu€nchen: Elsevier.
Muth
en, L.K., &Muth
en, B.O. (1998–2017).Mplus Version 8user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA:Muth
en
& Muth
en.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education, Vol. I. Paris: OECD.
Raver, C.C., Jones, S.M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s impact on low-
income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child
Development, 82(1), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x
Reich, H.H. (2010). Fru€he Mehrsprachigkeit aus linguistischer Perspektive. Mu€nchen: Deutsches
Jugendinstitut e.V.
Ribot, K.M., Hoff, E., & Burridge, A. (2018). Language use contributes to expressive language
growth: Evidence frombilingual children.ChildDevelopment,89, 929–940. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cdev.12770
Rose, E.,Weinert, S., & Ebert, S. (2018). The roles of receptive and productive language in children’s
socioemotional development. Social Development, 27, 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/
sode.12317
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure
analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Seeger, D., Holodynski, M., & Souvignier, E. (2014). BIKO-Screening zur Entwicklung von
Basiskompetenzen fu€r 3- bis 6-Ja€hrige. Go€ttingen: Hogrefe.
Siegler, R., DeLoache, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2011). Entwicklungspsychologie im Kindes- und
Jugendalter. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Skibbe, L.E.,Montroy, J.J., Bowles, R.P., &Morrison, F.J. (2019). Self-regulation and the development
of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 46, 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.005
Slot, P.L., & von Suchodoletz, A. (2018). Bidirectionality in preschool children’s executive functions
and language skills: Is one developing skill the better predictor of the other? Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 42, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.005
Sparapani, N., Connor, C.M., McLean, L., Wood, T., Toste, J., & Day, S. (2018). Direct and reciprocal
effects among social skills, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in first grade.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2018.03.003
Statistisches Bundesamt (2018). Bevo€lkerung und Erwerbst€atigkeit. Bevo€lkerung mit
Migrationshintergrund - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2017 – [Population and Employment.
Population with migration background – Results of Mikrozensus 2017–] (Published on 1th
August 2018). Wiesbaden.
Sun,H., Yussof,N.T.B., HabibMohamed,M.B.B., Rahim,A.B., Bull, R., Cheung,M.W.,&Cheong, S.A.
(2018). Bilingual language experience and children’s social-emotional and behavioral skills: a
cross-sectional study of Singapore preschoolers. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1461802
Tenenbaum, H.R., & Ruck,M.D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than
for European American students? Ameta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–
273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
754 Beyhan Ertanir et al.
Tomasello, M. (2001). Perceiving intentions and learning words in the second year of life. In M.
Bowerman & S.C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp.
132–158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing
intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought andword. In L. Vygotsky, E. Hanfmann &G. Vakar (Eds.), Studies in
communication. Thought and language (pp. 119–153). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://
doi.org/10.1037/11193-007
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). InM.Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner&E. Souberman (Eds.),Mind in society:
The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Weiland, C., Barata, M.C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2014). The co-occurring development of executive
function skills and receptive vocabulary in preschool-aged children: A look at the direction of the
developmental pathways. Infant and Child Development, 23, 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/
icd
Weinert, S., & Ebert, S. (2017). Verlaufsmerkmale und Wirkfaktoren der fru€hen kognitiv-
sprachlichen Entwicklung – Ergebnisse aus der BiKS - 3–10 Studie. In V. Mall, F. Voigt & N.H.
Jung (Eds.), Entwicklungssto€rungen und chronische Erkrankungen: Diagnose,
Behandlungsplanung und Familienbegleitung (pp. 13–33). Lu€beck: Schmid-Ro€mhild Verlag.
Winsler, A., Abar, B., Feder, M.A., Schunn, C.D., & Rubio, D.A. (2007). Private speech and executive
functioning among high-functioning children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1617–1635.
Winsler, A., Kim, Y.K., & Richard, E.R. (2014). Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems, and
Spanish competence predict the acquisition of English among English language learners in
poverty. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2242–2254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037161
Ziv, Y. (2013). Social information processing patterns, social skills, and school readiness in
preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 306–320. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.009
Received 8 January 2020; revised version received 1 August 2020
 20448279, 2021, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12391 by Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW, Wiley Online Library on [02/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License