The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
08
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
08-15
10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue06-02
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
28 April 2025
ACCEPTED
23 May 2025
PUBLISHED
10 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 06 2025
CITATION
Iryna Kalmykova. (2025). The Use of Individual Methods for Preserving and
Developing Children
’
s Speech Characteristics in American-Slavic Families.
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations, 7(06),
08
–
15. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume07Issue06-02
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
The Use of Individual
Methods for Preserving
and Developing Children's
Speech Characteristics in
American-Slavic Families
Iryna Kalmykova
Speech therapist teacher, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine
Speech therapist teacher, West Hollywood College Preparatory School, Los
Angeles, USA
Abstract:
This article is dedicated to examining
individualized methods for preserving and developing
children’s speech characteristics in American–
Slavic
families. The growing prevalence of mixed-language
households and the risk of heritage-language attrition
underscore the relevance of targeted interventions.
Drawing on nine recent studies, the paper analyzes four
key domains: heritage-language assessment tools,
shared-syntax priming, home-based socialization
strategies, and school-based immersion models.
Novelty lies in synthesizing clinical linguistics,
psycholinguistic priming, ethnographic family practices,
and policy analysis into a unified framework. Within the
work, it describes Sentence‐Repetition‐Task scoring
schemas, investigates structural priming data, and
explores case
studies of “One Parent, One Language”
and lullaby‐based sessions. Particular attention is paid
to how error‐type allowances and high‐frequency
constructions can reinforce Slavic speech development.
The study sets out to identify best practices for dual‐
language vitality and to propose a hybrid model
adaptable to Ukrainian and American schools. Methods
include comparative analysis, source synthesis, and
case‐study evaluation. In conclusion, it outlines an
integrated model for assessment, curriculum, family
engagement, and programme design. This article will
benefit
speech-language
pathologists,
bilingual
educators, and policymakers.
Keywords:
heritage language, bilingual assessment,
structural priming, OPOL, immersion programme, cross-
linguistic influence, Slavic speech, scoring schema,
family language policy, speech pathology.
Introduction:
The capacity to navigate two or more
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
9
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
languages fluently is both a cognitive asset and a cultural
necessity for children raised in American
–
Slavic families.
As
these
families
negotiate
heritage‐language
preservation alongside English acquisition, children
frequently exhibit uneven proficiency: deep lexical and
morphosyntactic roots in Slavic tongues may erode
under schooling pressures, while English fluency
advances
rapidly.
Maintaining
Slavic
speech
characteristics
—such
as
case‐marking
endings,
aspectual verb pairs, and Slavic‐specific prosody—
supports not only linguistic diversity but also the
emotional bonds and cultural identity transmitted
across generations. Yet, best practices for individualized
support remain dispersed across disparate disciplines,
from speech‐language pathology to bilin
gual education
policy.
This article synthesizes nine pivotal studies to address
that gap, aiming to articulate an integrated framework
for practitioners. Specifically, it pursues three
objectives:
1)
to evaluate heritage‐language assessment and
scoring methodologies that distinguish transfer
phenomena from genuine delays;
2)
to analyze psycholinguistic findings on shared
syntactic representations and construction‐level
priming to guide curriculum design;
3)
to survey home and school strategies
—
from OPOL
routines
to dual‐immersion models—
that bolster
daily heritage‐language use.
The novelty of this work lies in bridging granular clinical
tools, experimental priming data, family ethnographies,
and U.S. school‐policy archetypes into actionable
recommendations. By doing so, here is offered a
cohesive roadmap for speech‐language pathologists,
bilingual educators, and policymakers committed to
sustaining Slavic speech vitality alongside robust English
development.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
I.O. Rose [6] in her work examined family language
policies and vocabulary trajectories across ages. K.
Muszyńska et al. [5] compared bilingual and
monolingual milestone attainment. K. Byers-Heinlein
and C. Lew-
Williams [1] reviewed early‐years bilingual
science. L.M. Cycyk et al. [2] offered cultural and
linguistic adaptations of early interventions. O.
Shevchuk‐Kliuzheva [7] described daily bilingual
practices in Ukrainian communities. S. Lally and
colleagues [3] proposed a novel scoring schema for
Polish-
English SRep tasks. M. Węsierska et al. [8]
investigated crosslinguistic structural priming. U.
Markowska-Manista, D. Zakrzewska-
Olędzka, and K.
Sawicki [4] studied home-based strategies in Polish
–
African families. N. Zaytseva [9] analyzed U.S. bilingual
education program archetypes for policy lessons.
Methods applied include comparative analysis of
scoring metrics and priming effect sizes, synthesis of
ethnographic case data, structural‐semantic curriculum
analysis, and policy review.
RESULTS
In this analytical synthesis of nine key studies on
individualized approaches to preserving and developing
children’s speech in American–
Slavic families, four
thematic strands emerged:
1)
Pronunciation Training for /r/, /s/, and /ʃ/
2)
Heritage-Language Strategies for Russian
3)
language assessment tools and scoring schemas;
4)
shared syntactic representations and cross-linguistic
influence;
5)
home-based multilingual socialization strategies;
6)
institutional supports and immersion programmes.
English realizations of /r/, /s/, and
/ʃ/ differ in
articulation and acoustic profile from their Slavic
equivalents. English /r/ typically surfaces as a retroflex
or bunched approximant, whereas Slavic /r/ functions as
a trill. English /s/ and /ʃ/ display spectral peaks that do
not align with Slavic fricative targets. Transfer of these
English patterns may be judged by clinicians as deviation
in Slavic speech. A structured exercise protocol
comprises:
1)
Trill Reinforcement
–
mirror-guided tongue tip
vibration drills (e.g. repeated /r/ trills on
“prra
-
prra”)
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
10
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
2)
Spectral Feedback Tasks
–
visual spectrogram
comparison of /s/ and /ʃ/ productions against native
Slavic norms
3)
Controlled Reading
–
word-list drills alternating
alveolar and postalveolar fricatives in carrier phrases
Production of ten consecutive trilled [r] tokens at
conversational rate, spectral centroid values for /s/ and
/
ʃ
/ within two standard deviations of Slavic reference
data, and clinician-
rated naturalness ≥4 on a 5
-point
scale.
In Ukraine, 29.6 percent of the population reported
Russian as their native tongue in the 2001 census [10],
and surveys indicate extensive use of Russian alongside
Ukrainian in urban and mixed-language households.
Nationwide data show that 34 percent of residents
speak Russian in personal settings, with roughly 19
percent using both Ukrainian and Russian regularly [11].
In Russian-speaking or mixed-language families, early
exposure shapes phonological and narrative skills in
both languages.
Drawing on heritage-Russian research, a combined
approach employs:
1.
Narrative Sampling
–
eliciting spontaneous
storytelling to evaluate morphosyntactic accuracy
and lexical richness in Russian.
2.
Contrastive Phoneme Drills
–
controlled repetition
of Russian phonemes that diverge from Ukrainian
(e.g. palatalized consonants, unstressed vowel
reduction) with visual feedback.
3.
Translanguaging Tasks
–
guided alternation
between Russian and Ukrainian within single
activities (for example, bilingual picture description)
to reinforce cross-language mapping.
At least eight error-free narrative clauses in Russian for
children aged 5
–
8, phoneme accuracy rates above 90
percent,
and
clinician
ratings
of
functional
communicative fluency at level 4 or higher on a 5-point
scale [13].
Although no single experimental protocol unifies these
investigations, together they illuminate best practices
for maintaining heritage-language features while
fostering dominant-language proficiency.
Lally et al. demonstrated that Sentence Repetition Tasks
(SRep)
can
reliably
capture
morphosyntactic
competence in Polish
–
English bilingual children when
paired with a detailed word-by-word scoring grid. In
their feasibility study (N = 27), collaborative scoring by
monolingual English SLTs and Polish teachers (Scoring A)
correlated at r = 0.956 with expert linguist scoring
(Scoring B), with 66% of TD children and 17% of
suspected DLD children reaching ≥ 90% correct on Polish
SRep (see Table 1) [3].
Table 1- Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviations, minima and maxima) for Scoring A and Scoring B in
both groups [3]
Group and score TD Scoring A
TD Scoring B
Suspected DLD Scoring A Suspected DLD Scoring B
Mean
46.33
42.53
28.42
17.25
SD
13.54
14.75
19.74
16.37
Minimum
score
18
17
2
4
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
11
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Maximum
score
66
66
60
55
Critically, expert-informed allowances for typical cross-
linguistic errors
—
such as inflectional suffix substitutions
and aspectual shifts
—
prevented false positives in DLD
screening. This approach underscores the value of
granular error analysis for preserving heritage-language
morphology: by marking each word cell for accuracy and
error type, clinicians can monitor the retention of Polish-
specific inflection patterns without over-penalizing
common transfer phenomena.
Wesierska et al. applied structural priming to 96 Polish
–
English bilinguals (ages 5
–
11) to probe the extent of
shared syntactic representations. Although bidirectional
priming failed for the fully overlapping attributive
alternation (prenominal ADJ + N ↔ postnominal RC), it
succeeded robustly for possessive constructions
—
despite their divergent surface syntax
—when thematic‐
role order (possessor
–
possessum) aligned. Moreover,
within-language priming reached 36% in English and
20% in Polish versus only 11% cross-language, indicating
that entrenchment and frequency modulate whether a
construction becomes shared across grammars [8].
Table 2 - Priming Effect Sizes (% change in target structure use) by Construction Type and Direction [8]
Target
Language
Condition
Responses
Prenominal
Adjective (AN)
Postnominal
Relative
Clause (RC)
Other
English
Baseline
223 (78%)
6 (2%)
57 (20%)
AN prime
1091 (95%)
46 (4%)
15 (1%)
RC prime
1063 (92%)
67 (6%)
22 (2%)
Polish
Baseline
166 (60%)
12 (4%)
100 (36%)
AN prime
1017 (88%)
36 (3%)
99 (9%)
RC prime
959 (83%)
65 (6%)
128 (11%)
For
heritage‐speech development, these findings
suggest that curricula should target high-frequency,
thematically cohesive constructions (e.g. possessives,
negation patterns) in heritage‐language lessons to build
durable cross-language links, while more complex
structures may require separate, language-specific drills.
Markowska-Manista, Zakrzewska-
Olędzka and Sawicki
surveyed 24 transnational Polish
–
African families (17
children) in Warsaw to identify family strategies for
heritage‐speech maintenance. Common a
pproaches
included the OPOL (One Parent One Language) model
—
where mothers spoke Polish and fathers used English or
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
12
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Arabic
—and periodic “lullaby‐and‐story” sessions in
heritage dialects (Tigrinya, Sango). Yet only half of
children retained basic conversational fluency in
grandparents’ mother tongues via Skype, highlighting
that limited lexical domains (e.g. “I sing lullabies in
Sango”) are insufficient for robust retention [4].
Zaytseva’s analysis reveals four principal bilingual
programme archetypes operating across U.S. school
districts, each shaped by distinct funding streams,
instructional models, and target populations [9]. Two‐
way immersion programmes, most common in well-
resourced districts of California and New York, split
classroom time equally between English and a partner
language. In these settings, classes are composed of
roughly fifty percent English-dominant students and fifty
percent native speakers of the partner language,
allowing peers to support each other’s biliteracy
development. By contrast, transitional bilingual
programmes
–
which provide mother-tongue instruction
for up to three years before shifting students entirely
into English-only classrooms
–
often appear in mid-sized
districts with tighter budgets; they accelerate English
oral proficiency yet frequently lead to attrition of
heritage-language skills.
Dual-language
immersion
programmes,
where
instruction alternates between languages each half-day
under the guidance of certified bilingual teachers (often
recruited from local immigrant communities), serve
both language-majority and language-minority pupils
simultaneously
and
emphasize
intercultural
competence;
however,
continuation
of
these
programmes into secondary grades remains uneven.
Finally, monolingual “pull
-
out” ESL support m
odels
–
prevalent in states such as Nebraska, Arkansas, and
Delaware where only English-only programmes receive
funding
–
withdraw English-Learner students from the
mainstream classroom for targeted language lessons, a
practice that can inadvertently isolate them and disrupt
their exposure to grade-level content. Zaytseva
underscores that “some states fund only monolingual
education programmes, while others fund only bilingual
ones. It depends on the decisions of local authorities”
[9], and she attributes the wide variation in student
outcomes to the fundamentally decentralized nature of
U.S. education governance (see Table 3).
Table 3 - U.S. Bilingual Programme Types and Key Characteristics (compiled by the author based on [2-3; 9])
Programme
Type
Languages
Used (%)
Funding
Source
Student Mix
Core Advantage
Main Limitation
Two-Way
Immersion
50% English /
50% L2
Local + State
(bilingual)
50% majority
/
50%
minority
Balanced
biliteracy;
mutual
peer
support
High cost; need
for
certified
bilingual staff
Transitional
Bilingual
100% L1 →
transition to
English
Local
only
(limited)
Primarily
language-
minority
Quick
English
proficiency
Heritage
language losses;
short duration
Dual Language
Immersion
50% English /
50% L2
Mixed
grants;
parent fees
Majority and
minority
together
Cultural
pluralism; strong
motivation
Variable
secondary
continuation;
teacher gap
Monolingual
ESL Pull-Out
100% English
State
(English-
Language-
minority only
Concentrated
English support
Content
gaps;
social isolation of
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
13
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
only)
EL students
Despite this heterogeneity, several common threads
emerge. In every programme, district and state funding
decisions determine whether schools can support
certified bilingual teachers, full‐day dual
-language
models, or only limited mother-tongue support. High
academic standards are applied uniformly on statewide
English assessments, even when instruction occurs
predominantly in a second language; this “English
-
only”
federal assessment requirement means that heritage-
language gains are often unmeasured.
Moreover, Zaytseva points to the strong correlation
between sustained bilingual instruction and students’
academic achievement: for example, Hispanic pupils in
two-way immersion contexts frequently outperform
their peers under pull-out ESL models [9]. Collectively,
these findings offer a roadmap for Ukraine’s secondary
schools: by adapting two-way and dual-immersion
features
—
balanced instructional time, cross-peer
scaffolding, intercultural curricula
—
and by addressing
local funding and certification constraints, Ukraine can
design bilingual programmes that both raise English
proficiency and preserve students’ native languages.
DISCUSSION
The preceding synthesis of nine key studies offers a
multifaceted picture of how individualized approaches
can support the preservation and enhancement of
heritage‐language speech in American–
Slavic families.
Across the domains of assessment, syntactic scaffolding,
home‐based practices, and institutional programmes,
several converging insights and pragmatic implications
emerge.
First, the work of Lally and colleagues underscores that
precise, item‐by‐item evaluation of heritage‐speech
features makes it possible both to detect genuine
language disorders and to avoid over‐flagging typical
cross‐linguistic transfer errors. By alig
ning scoring grids
with permissible inflectional substitutions and aspectual
shifts, their collaborative method yields near‐perfect
concordance (r = 0.956) with expert linguists
—
even
when raters do not speak Polish themselves [3]. This
model demonstrates t
hat clinicians in mixed‐language
contexts do not need deep proficiency in every heritage
tongue; instead, they require well‐designed tools that
encode language‐specific morphology. Extending this
insight, practitioners working with Slavic‐language
varieties beyond Polish (for example, Ukrainian or
Polish) could similarly develop structured scoring
schemas that distinguish transfer effects from
developmental delays. Doing so would not only
safeguard minority‐language vitality but also ensure
diagnostic equity for bilingual children.
Second, Wesierska et al.’s findings on structural priming
reveal that not all grammatical constructions are equally
amenable to cross‐language transfer. High‐frequency,
thematically cohesive patterns such as possessive role
ordering generated robust bidirectional priming,
whereas less ubiquitous alternations
—
like prenominal
adjectives versus postnominal relative clauses
—
did not.
For heritage‐speech educators, this suggests a two‐
tiered curriculum: core lessons focused on recurrent,
transferable structures (e.g. possessives, negation,
common question formats), combined with targeted,
language‐specific drills for rarer or more complex
constructions that resist cross‐linguistic anchoring. In
practice, a teacher might introduce the poss
essive “my
brother’s book” alongside its Slavic equivalent early and
reinforce it through storytelling, whereas relative‐clause
drills would be reserved for advanced learners and
taught exclusively in the heritage language.
Third, home‐based socialization
strategies play an
indispensable complementary role. The case studies
from Polish
–
African families in Warsaw show that OPOL
(One Parent, One Language) and periodic “lullaby and
story” sessions in heritage dialects build early lexical
familiarity but stop short of ensuring full functional
fluency. Although projective activities
—
such as singing
Tigrinya lullabies or recounting Sango folktales
—
anchor
cultural identity, they rarely expose children to the full
breadth of conversational registers. Families seeking
more comprehensive outcomes should therefore
scaffold everyday routines with heritage‐language
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
14
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
narration (e.g. describing snack preparation, play
activities, or family chores). For instance, an American‐
Slavic household might narrate a cooking process by
alternating English instructions (“Now I pour the milk”)
with its Slavic counterpart, thereby weaving heritage
forms into the texture of daily life rather than confining
them to ritual contexts.
Finally, the landscape of school‐based immersion
exposes the
limits of access and equity. Zaytseva’s four
archetypes
—from two‐way immersion to pull
-out ESL
—
highlight that strategic design and sustained funding are
prerequisites
for
lasting
heritage‐language
maintenance. Two‐way immersion programmes, while
delivering balanced biliteracy, depend on certified
bilingual staff and can be cost-prohibitive; transitional
models generate faster English gains at the expense of
heritage attrition; pull-out ESL often isolates learners;
and dual-immersion faces challenges in secondary
continuation. To mitigate these pitfalls, American
–
Slavic
educators and policymakers can advocate for hybrid
models that combine in-
class heritage‐language content
across grade levels with after-school Slavic clubs and
multilingual co-teaching partnerships. Such a blended
design would extend the continuity of heritage
instruction beyond elementary grades and diffuse the
staffing burden by empowering community heritage‐
language speakers as volunteer tutors.
Taken together, these strands point to a holistic
framework in which (1) granular assessment tools
protect both clinical validity and heritage‐language
integrity; (2) curricular priorities align with constructions
naturally primed across grammars; (3) family
engagement embeds the heritage language in routine
interactions; and (4) institutional design leverages
mixed-delivery models for maximal reach. As American
–
Slavic families negotiate shifting patterns of migration
and identity, this integrated approach offers a feasible
template: it respects the unique morphosyntax of Slavic
tongues, capitalizes on cognitive mechanisms of shared
syntax, and situates heritage speech both in the home
and in the broader school ecosystem. Future efforts
should test such blended models in longitudinal case
studies, measuring not only linguistic outcomes but also
sociocultural well-being and academic achievement
across the lifespan.
CONCLUSION
The synthesis confirms that (1) granular assessment
—
with word-level scoring grids and expert-informed error
tolerances
—
safeguards heritage inflection without
misdiagnosis; (2) structural priming favors high-
frequency, thematically cohesive constructions (e.g.,
possessives) as dual-language anchors, while rarer
forms require targeted drills; (3) home socialization
benefits from embedding heritage speech into daily
routines beyond ritual storytelling, and (4) school
programmes must blend two-way immersion principles
with community partnerships to sustain Slavic
instruction into secondary grades. By meeting three
tasks, it presented an integrated model
—
spanning
assessment, curriculum design, family engagement, and
policy adaptation
—
that practitioners and policymakers
can tailor to American
–
Slavic contexts and to
multicultural educational reforms in Ukraine.
REFERENCES
Byers-Heinlein, K., & Lew-Williams, C. (2013).
Bilingualism in the early years: What the science says.
Learning Landscapes, 7(1), 95
–
112. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61682
12
Cycyk, L. M., De Anda, S., Moore, H., & Huerta, L. (2021).
Cultural and linguistic adaptations of early language
interventions:
Recommendations
for
advancing
research and practice. American Journal of Speech-
Language
Pathology,
30(3),
1224
–
1246.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00101
Lally, S., Banasik-Jemielniak, N., Haman, E., &
Antonijević, S. (2025). Language assessment of Polish
-
English bilingual children by speech and language
therapists who do not speak Polish: A feasibility study of
a novel scoring schema for Sentence-Repetition-Tasks.
International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders,
60(2),
e70005.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.70005
Markowska-Manista, U., Zakrzewska-
Olędzka, D., &
Sawicki, K. (2020). Multilingualism in the upbringing and
education of children in multinational families: Case
study from Poland. KnE Social Sciences, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v4i2.6310
Muszyńska, K., Krajewski, G., Dynak, A., et al. (2025).
Bilingual children reach early language milestones at the
same age as monolingual peers. Journal of Child
Language.
Advance
online
publication.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000924000655
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
15
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations
Rose, K., Armon-Lotem, S., & Altman, C. (2023). Family
language policy and vocabulary of bilingual children
across different ages. Ampersand, 11, 100154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100154
Shevchuk-Kliuzheva, O. (2023). Growing up in a
Ukrainian bilingual community: Families’ daily practices
and educational environment. Cognitive Studies |
Études cognitives. https://doi.org/10.11649/cs.2860
Węsierska, M., Serratrice, L., Cieplińska,
V., &
Messenger, K. (2025). Investigating crosslinguistic
representations in Polish
–
English bilingual children:
Evidence from structural priming. Bilingualism:
Language
and
Cognition,
28(1),
75
–
89.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924000099
Zaytseva, N. (20
22). Ukraine’s use of the positive
experience of the United States in forming the content
of bilingual education in secondary schools. Viae
Educationis, 1(2), 17
–
22.
State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. (2001). Results of
the 2001 Ukrainian census. Retrieved May 29, 2025,
from
http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/
Кулик, В. (2023). Мова та ідентичність в Україні на
кінець 2022
-
го. Zbruč. https://zbruc.eu/node/114247
Rodina, Y., Bogoyavlenskaya, A., Mitrofanova, N., &
Westergaard, M. (2023). Russian heritage language
development in narrative contexts: Evidence from pre-
and primary-school children in Norway, Germany, and
the UK. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1101995.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1101995
