The Multilingual Assessment Instrument For Narratives (MAIN)

Aim

To administer and compare narrative skills in bilingual children using The

Multilingual Assessment Instrument For Narratives (MAIN).

Introduction

Language Development

Language has various subsystems related to sound, meaning, structure, and everyday

use. Language development involves learning each facet and integrating them into a versatile

communication framework.

Language development involves four key components: phonology, which governs the

form and order of speech sounds and explains how complex sound patterns are learned;

semantics, which focuses on how language expresses concepts and how children refine and

connect words into networks to build vocabulary; grammar, divided into syntax (sentence

structure) and morphology (grammatical markers like tense and number); and pragmatics,

which encompasses the rules for effective communication, including turn-taking, staying on

topic, and using gestures, tone, and context to clarify meaning. Pragmatics also includes

sociolinguistic knowledge, such as adapting speech for social relationships, mastering

cultural interaction rituals, and sharing experiences through narratives.

The Nativist Perspective

According to the nativist hypothesis put forth by linguist Noam Chomsky in 1957,

language is a uniquely human capability rooted in the brain's structure. He argued that the

complexity of grammatical rules makes them impossible to be directly taught to infants.

Instead, Chomsky proposed the existence of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), an

innate system enabling children to understand and produce grammatically correct sentences
once they build a sufficient vocabulary. The LAD includes a universal grammar—a shared

set of rules across all human languages—allowing children to grasp language structure

naturally with minimal exposure. This innate mechanism ensures the early and rapid

acquisition of language despite its intricacies.

Evidence Relevant to the Nativist Perspective. Chomsky's theory is supported by

three more sets of evidence: attempts to teach language to animals, the location of language

functions in the human brain, and studies into the existence of a sensitive period for language

development.

While various animals like dolphins, parrots, gorillas, and chimpanzees have been

trained to acquire basic vocabulary and form short sentences, their linguistic abilities fall far

short of human complexity. Even common chimpanzees struggle with rule-based sentence

structures, likely due to limited understanding of others' mental states. However, bonobos,

particularly one named Kanzi, exhibit advanced language skills. Kanzi learned an artificial

language by observing his mother's training and demonstrated an impressive understanding of

English, following novel instructions and distinguishing between sentences. Despite this, his

language use remains largely need-driven, such as requesting food, rather than for sharing

ideas. While some researchers praise Kanzi's communication abilities, others argue his skills

lack true conversational purpose and complex grammar, aligning with Noam Chomsky's

theory that only humans are uniquely capable of sophisticated grammar.

The left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex predominantly governs language for most

individuals, housing two key structures: Wernicke's area and Broca's area. Wernicke's area,

located in the left temporal lobe, is crucial for understanding word meanings, while Broca's

area, in the left frontal lobe, facilitates grammatical processing and language production.
Insights into their functions have been gained through studies on adults with damage to these

areas, resulting in aphasias or communication impairments.

Figure 1.

Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, in the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex.

Source: Berk (2013)

Brain imaging studies show that language issues like Wernicke's and Broca's aphasia

stem from left-hemisphere damage, affecting comprehension and production respectively

(Bates et al., 2003; Keller et al., 2009; Dick et al., 2004). Consistent patterns across

individuals support Chomsky’s notion of a brain prepared for language, with cortical areas

developing as children acquire it (Mills & Conboy, 2005; Mareschal et al., 2007).

Research suggests a sensitive period for language acquisition, linked to brain

lateralization, during which early exposure is crucial for full language proficiency. Studies on

deaf adults learning American Sign Language (ASL) show that those exposed in childhood

achieve greater fluency and right-hemispheric localization for visual-spatial processing

compared to late learners, who struggle with complex grammar and exhibit altered brain

processing. Similarly, acquiring a second language becomes harder with age, with the ability

to speak with a native accent declining after ages 5–6. Brain imaging reveals younger

learners process new languages in areas overlapping with their native language, unlike older

learners. Early tuning of infants’ brains to native sounds enhances vocabulary and grammar

but hinders unfamiliar language learning later. As the brain solidifies native language patterns

over time, language learning becomes increasingly challenging.

Limitations of the Nativist Perspective. The nativist perspective on language

acquisition focuses on biological mechanisms and brain structure but has limitations. It

underestimates the role of social interaction and environmental influences, as children learn

language through interactions with caregivers and their environment. Additionally, the view

of a rigid sensitive period for language acquisition is challenged by evidence that language

learning can occur later in life, though with some challenges. The theory also overlooks the

diversity of language structures and cultural contexts, which play a significant role in shaping

language skills. In conclusion, while nativism highlights the biological basis of language

learning, it does not fully account for the complexities influenced by both innate factors and

the environment.

The Interactionist Perspective

Recent research suggests that language development is influenced by both internal

and external factors. Interactionist theory approaches language development from an

information-processing perspective.

Information-Processing Theories.Information-processing theories of language

acquisition, supported by connectionist models, suggest that general cognitive abilities, rather

than language-specific mechanisms, enable children to learn language through exposure and
feedback. These models, simulating neural networks, demonstrate how simple rules, like

adding “-ed” for past tense, are refined over time to match adult linguistic patterns. Statistical

learning theories further argue that infants detect patterns in speech to understand basic

language structures, though additional mechanisms are needed for complex grammar.

Biological evidence shows that brain regions like the left hemisphere and Wernicke’s area,

involved in language, also process other patterns, such as music and shapes. However, critics

note that laboratory studies using simplified stimuli may not capture the complexities of

natural language learning. Interactionist theorists highlight the importance of social skills and

real-world experiences, proposing that statistical learning must integrate with social and

cognitive factors for a comprehensive understanding of language acquisition.

Social Interactionist Theories. The social interactionist perspective emphasizes that

a combination of native capacity, a strong desire to communicate, and a rich language

environment enables children to understand and use language. Active children, equipped to

make sense of language, strive to communicate, prompting caregivers to provide appropriate

language experiences that help them connect language's structure and content to social

meanings (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2009; Chapman, 2006). While there is ongoing debate

about whether children use general cognitive capacities or language-specific abilities to

process language, research supports the idea that social competencies and language

experiences significantly influence language development (Lidz, 2007; Shatz, 2007;

Tomasello, 2003, 2006). Overall, native endowment, cognitive strategies, and social

experiences likely interact in varying ways across language components, though the precise

mechanisms remain unclear.

Emotional Development

Emotions play a crucial role in human interactions and activities, influencing behavior

and social connections. As children grow, their emotional expressions and understanding

become more complex. This development is evident in their interactions with their physical

and social environments. Children exhibit unique temperaments and personalities, shaped by

both biological and environmental factors. These differences have significant implications for

their future development. The bond between infants and their caregivers is vital. Feelings of

security from this attachment support exploration, independence, and social relationships. In

essence, emotional development is integral to understanding how children grow and interact

with the world around them.

Functions of Emotions

Functionalist theorists emphasize that emotions serve to energize behavior aimed at

achieving personal goals, arising from interactions between individuals and their

environment. Events become emotionally significant in various ways: pre-existing goals (e.g.,

excelling in a test), social interactions (e.g., responding to a friend's greeting), or sensory and

mental stimuli (e.g., memories or sensations). Emotional responses influence the desire to

repeat experiences and adapt flexibly to changing circumstances. Emotions are integral to

cognitive processes, social behaviors, and physical health, highlighting their central role in

human functioning.

Emotions and Cognitive Processing. The emotion–cognition relationship is evident

in the impact of anxiety on performance. Among children and adults, high anxiety impairs

thinking, especially on complex tasks, by diverting attention from cognitive processing to

task-irrelevant threatening stimuli and worrisome thoughts (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009).

Emotions significantly influence memory and cognition in a bidirectional relationship evident

from infancy. Stressful or emotional events, like a distressing inoculation, are remembered
more vividly due to heightened focus on the experience. Infants demonstrate this interplay in

tasks linking actions to rewarding stimuli; emotions such as interest, happiness, anger, or

sadness shift based on success or failure. Emotional responses act as both outcomes of

learning and motivators for continued engagement, highlighting their role in cognitive

development and mastery.

Emotions and Social Behavior. Children’s emotional signals, such as smiling or

crying, influence others’ behavior, while others’ emotional reactions guide children’s social

actions. By 3 months, infants and caregivers establish a responsive communication system,

and disruptions, like the "still-face reaction," show infants’ distress when natural interaction

is absent. With age, emotional expressions become intentional communication tools, and

infants use social referencing—monitoring caregivers’ emotions—to navigate unfamiliar

situations. By the end of the first year, joint attention enhances infants’ ability to gather

verbal and emotional cues, shaping their behavior in everyday contexts.

Emotions and Health. Emotions profoundly affect children's physical well-being.

Emotional deprivation can cause growth disorders like growth faltering and psychosocial

dwarfism, while chronic stress contributes to health issues such as cardiovascular disease,

weakened immunity, and gastrointestinal problems. Studies of Romanian orphans adopted

into Canadian homes reveal high or abnormally low cortisol levels, indicating stress

reactivity linked to illness, stunted growth, and behavioral issues. Sensitive caregiving helps

normalize cortisol levels and mitigate stress effects, improving growth and adjustment.

However, prolonged early deprivation can result in enduring challenges despite later care.

Other Features of the Functionalist Approach. Functionalist theorists emphasize

that emotions not only influence cognitive, social, and physical development but also play a

key role in self-awareness. Babies' interest and excitement when exploring their environment

foster a sense of self-efficacy. By the second year, as self-awareness develops, children

experience self-conscious emotions like pride and embarrassment, reflecting evaluations of

themselves against societal and moral standards. Emotional self-regulation becomes crucial

for adapting to physical and social environments. Over time, children learn cultural norms for

expressing emotions, leading to more controlled and less open emotional displays by late

childhood.

Temperament and Development

The interplay between heredity and environment also contributes to the emotional

differences observed among children, a topic further explored through the lens of

temperament.

The Structure of Temperament

Thomas and Chess’s model of temperament identified three main types of children:

easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm-up. The easy child is adaptable and cheerful, while the

difficult child has irregular routines, is slow to adapt, and may face adjustment issues like

anxiety and aggression. The slow-to-warm-up child is less active and more cautious in new

situations, which can lead to difficulties in later years. About 35% of children did not fit into

these categories and showed unique blends of traits.

Mary Rothbart’s model refines this idea into six dimensions, combining related traits

and focusing on emotional, attentional, and action-based qualities. She distinguishes between

fearful distress and irritable distress, offering a clearer understanding of emotional reactions.

Rothbart’s model emphasizes effortful control, the ability to regulate emotions and behaviors

by suppressing automatic responses, which is key for managing both attention and negative

emotions. Rothbart’s model highlights the importance of self-regulation in emotional

development, showing how children’s temperament influences their ability to adapt to both

social and cognitive challenges.

Measuring Temperament

Temperament, or the inherent personality traits that influence a child’s behavior, is

typically measured through parental interviews and questionnaires, as well as observations by

teachers, pediatricians, or researchers. Parental reports are commonly used since parents

observe their children across diverse settings, but these reports can sometimes be biased.

Direct observations in lab or home settings offer a less subjective alternative; however, lab

environments may cause children, especially those who are shy or fearful, to behave

differently than they would at home. While lab settings allow researchers to control variables

and incorporate neurobiological measures alongside behavioral observations, capturing a

child’s natural temperament in all its complexity remains challenging . Neurobiological

research often centers on children with extreme temperaments: inhibited (shy, withdrawing

from new stimuli) and uninhibited (sociable, approaching new stimuli).

Stability of Temperament

Temperament shows some stability over time, meaning that children who are more

shy, sociable, or irritable as infants may continue to display similar traits as they grow older.

However, temperament tends to be less stable in infancy and only moderately stable as

children move into preschool age. This is partly because children’s abilities to regulate

emotions and behaviors improve as they grow. For example, an infant who seems irritable

might become more content as they learn to self-soothe. By around age three, children’s

temperamental styles become more established and consistent across different tasks. During

this time, brain development in areas like the prefrontal cortex helps children exercise better

control over their impulses and reactions, contributing to greater stability in temperament.

Genetic and Environmental Influences

Temperament is influenced by genetics, as identical twins often share more

temperamental similarities than fraternal twins, but environmental factors play a significant

role too. For example, children in high-stress environments or those experiencing nutritional

deprivation may develop heightened emotional reactivity. Genetics and environment interact

to shape temperament, with each child's temperament guiding the types of experiences they

encounter, which then further influence their temperament (Wachs & Bates, 2001) .

Cultural context also affects temperament, as seen in studies where Chinese and

Japanese infants are generally less irritable and more emotionally restrained than North

American Caucasian infants a difference shaped by both genetics and cultural practices, such

as Japanese parenting’s focus on close contact to encourage dependence versus American

parenting’s emphasis on independence (Rothbaum et al., 2000b) .

Within families, “nonshared environmental influences” make siblings different, as

each child’s unique experiences and individual interactions with parents, peers, and teachers

shape their personalities. Consequently, identical and fraternal twins often grow more distinct

with age, especially if they spend less time together.

Temperament and Child Rearing: The Goodness-of-Fit Model

Thomas and Chess’s “goodness-of-fit” model (1977) suggests that matching

parenting to a child’s temperament supports better development. Sensitive, supportive

parenting helps "difficult" children, who might otherwise struggle with behavior, to build

self-control and reduce defiance. Positive parenting, including clear expectations and

emotional support, fosters resilience in challenging temperaments, though factors like family

finances and parental mental health can impact the caregiver’s ability to respond effectively.

Development of Attachment
 Attachment is a deep emotional bond that provides comfort and joy, typically

forming by the latter half of an infant’s first year with caregivers who meet their needs. This

bond is shown through behaviors like smiling, cuddling, and seeking closeness. While early

attachment, often to the mother, is crucial, the quality of ongoing interactions also shapes

later relationships. Freud and behaviorists once believed feeding was central to attachment,

associating mothers with comfort through food. However, Harlow’s research with monkeys

showed that infants prefer comforting presence over food alone, indicating that attachment is

based on more than hunger satisfaction.

Bowlby’s Ethological Theory (1969)

Bowlby’s attachment theory is widely accepted today and describes attachment as an

innate behavior evolved for survival. Inspired by animal studies, Bowlby argued that human

infants are born with behaviors (like smiling and crying) that keep caregivers close, offering

safety and support for exploring. According to Bowlby, attachment develops in four stages,

each reflecting the child’s growing bond and dependency on the caregiver.

Preattachment Phase (Birth to 6 Weeks).Newborns engage in actions—such as

grasping and eye contact that draw adults close. At this stage, infants recognize their mother’s

voice, smell, and face, but they are not yet attached and do not mind being left with strangers.

Attachment-in-the-Making Phase (6 Weeks to 6-8 Months). Infants start to prefer

their caregivers, smiling and calming more quickly in their presence. During this phase,

infants build a sense of trust, anticipating that caregivers will respond to their signals, though

they do not yet display distress when separated.

Clear-Cut Attachment Phase (6-8 Months to 18 Months-2 Years). This stage is

marked by “separation anxiety,” where babies feel distress if their primary caregiver leaves.

Infants use their caregiver as a “secure base,” a familiar presence they rely on to explore and
feel safe. Their understanding of object permanence allows them to recognize that the

caregiver still exists when out of sight, which may intensify separation anxiety.

Formation of a Reciprocal Relationship (18 Months-2 Years and On). As

toddlers’ understanding and language skills develop, they begin to grasp why caregivers

leave and when they will return, reducing separation anxiety. Children now communicate and

negotiate with caregivers, using words and actions to seek reassurance and predict their

return, leading to a more reciprocal attachment relationship.

Internal Working Model Bowlby (1980)

It proposed that through these four stages, children build an “internal working model”,

an inner framework that shapes their expectations of relationships. This model reflects their

experiences with caregivers, shaping how they view the availability and support of others in

times of need and forming a foundation for future relationships. Early experiences with

responsiveness (or lack thereof) from caregivers influence a child’s sense of security,

affecting interactions with others as they grow (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008).

Measuring the Security of Attachment

By the second year, almost all infants form an attachment to familiar caregivers, but

the quality of this attachment varies. Some children feel secure, confident in their caregiver’s

support, while others are more anxious and uncertain. To assess this attachment quality,

researchers use various techniques, including laboratory and home observation methods.

Developed by Mary Ainsworth, her colleague(1978) , the Strange Situation is a

laboratory method that assesses attachment in children aged 1-2 years. It involves a series of

eight brief episodes where the caregiver leaves and returns, while an unfamiliar adult

interacts with the child in an unfamiliar playroom. Observing the child’s behavior during

separation and reunion, researchers identify secure and insecure attachment patterns.
 Secure Attachment. Securely attached infants use the caregiver as a secure base to

explore their surroundings. If separated, they may or may not cry but show a preference for

the caregiver over a stranger. When the caregiver returns, they seek comfort and calm down

quickly. This pattern is common in about 60% of middle-income North American families,

though it may be less common in low-income families, where more children show insecure

attachment.

Avoidant Attachment. Infants with avoidant attachment appear indifferent to the

caregiver. They show little response to the caregiver’s presence, absence, or return, often

avoiding contact or failing to cling when held. This pattern is observed in about 15% of

infants from middle-income families.

Resistant Attachment. Resistantly attached infants are clingy and anxious, often

staying close to the caregiver and exploring less. They become highly distressed when the

caregiver leaves and, on their return, show mixed behavior: clinging while also resisting

comfort through anger or pushing away. About 10% of middle-income North American

infants display this attachment pattern.

Disorganized/Disoriented Attachment. This type reflects the most severe insecurity.

Infants with this attachment show confused or contradictory behavior, like looking away

when held or showing dazed expressions. They may also exhibit odd postures or unexpected

crying after calming down. About 15% of middle-income North American infants show this

pattern, which indicates the highest level of insecurity.

Attachment Assessment for Preschoolers. The Strange Situation has been modified

to evaluate preschoolers by observing behaviors like physical closeness, eye contact, and the

emotional content of speech during reunions. Preschool attachment classifications are linked

to infant assessments but need further research for accuracy across ages.
Stability of Attachment

Attachment stability between ages 1 and 2 varies, with consistency ranging from 30%

to 90%, depending on family context. Secure attachment remains stable in middle-SES

families with supportive mothers and strong family networks. In contrast, low-SES families

facing stress and lacking social support often experience declining attachment security or

shifts among insecure patterns.

Long-term studies show securely attached infants in poverty may become insecure

adults due to maltreatment, maternal depression, or poor family dynamics. Disorganized

attachment, an insecure pattern linked to negative caregiving, is notably stable, with 70% of

infants retaining this pattern into adulthood. Overall, attachment stability depends on

caregiving quality, family dynamics, and social support.

Attachment, the bond between a child and their caregiver, varies across cultures.

German babies often show avoidant attachment because their culture values independence. In

Mali, close mother-baby contact prevents avoidant attachment. Japanese babies often show

resistant attachment due to cultural norms of constant maternal closeness. Despite

differences, secure attachment is the most common worldwide.

Key Factors Affecting Attachment

1. Caregiver Availability: Babies need a consistent caregiver early in life. Children in

orphanages or adopted late often face emotional problems and struggle to form secure

attachments.

2. Quality of Care: When caregivers respond sensitively to a baby’s needs, secure attachment

forms. Neglectful or inconsistent care can lead to insecure attachments, like avoidant,

resistant, or disorganized patterns.

3. Baby’s Traits: A baby’s health and temperament (e.g., being fussy) can affect attachment.

However, patient and understanding caregiving helps reduce problems.

4. Family Situation: Stressful family situations like money problems or fights between

parents can harm attachment. Supportive and cooperative parenting helps maintain secure

bonds.

Attachment to Multiple People and Its Impact

Babies form attachments to mothers, fathers, and others like grandparents. Fathers

often bond through playful activities, while grandparents stepping in as caregivers provide

stability despite challenges. Secure attachment helps children grow into confident adults with

good relationships and strong emotional skills. However, early secure attachment isn’t

enough on its own; children need continued care and support to thrive. Even insecurely

attached children can recover with future positive experiences, showing the importance of

resilience and supportive relationships.

Figure 2.

Relationship of Parents’ Internal Working Models to Infant Attachment Security

Source: Berk (2013)

Narratives

Barbara Herrnstein Smith (1981, 228) offers a useful, rhetorically oriented definition

of narratives: “Someone telling someone else that something happened”. With a slight

revision we can also include sensitivity to the context: “Somebody telling somebody else on

some occasion and for some purpose(s) that something happened” (Phelan, 2005). A

narrative is inherently paradoxical because it aims to reveal truth by concealing it. A

storyteller deliberately organizes information to unfold gradually, initially veiling the truth

within the tale. This intentional obscurity generates mystery or tension, compelling the

audience to seek answers about the story's events and their underlying reasons. In this way, a

narrative contrasts sharply with a straightforward account or report.

Story

Story is known to be a tool which helps in the transfer of knowledge. For this reason,

it is mainly used in studies in order to put ourselves as researchers in contact with aspects of

experiences that are unique to very specific contexts and inform us about the human

conditions (Ospina and Dodge, 2005). Bleakly (2005) defines story telling as a form of

qualitative research in which stories are used as raw data or as the product. Rsearchers

"elicit, co-construct, interpret, and represent participant’s accounts of lived and imagined

personal experiences". They consist of elements like characters, a plot, conflict, and

resolution, all of which help people organize experiences into meaningful narratives. Stories

are essential for cognitive and emotional processing, as they allow individuals to reflect on

their emotions, make sense of challenging situations, and create connections with others

(Barkhuizen, 2011).

LITMUS Battery

The LITMUS (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings) Battery is a set

of psychometric tools developed under the COST Action IS0804 initiative to assess language
abilities in multilingual and bilingual individuals. It addresses challenges in diagnosing

language impairments by evaluating aspects such as phonological memory, narrative skills,

and syntax. Introduced in the early 2010s, its components include tools like the Multilingual

Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN), widely used in clinical and research settings

to assess narrative production and comprehension across multiple languages.

Applications in psychology include clinical diagnostics for language impairments in

multilingual populations, research on language development in diverse contexts, and planning

tailored interventions for language acquisition and rehabilitation. The LITMUS tools

emphasise culturally fair assessments, distinguishing between language impairments and

normal multilingual variations, meeting a critical need in psycholinguistics and educational

psychology (Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 2022; Listen-Hard, 2022).

MAIN: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives

The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) is a psychometric

tool developed as part of the LITMUS (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual

Settings) Battery to assess narrative skills in multilingual and bilingual individuals. It

evaluates both narrative comprehension and production through parallel picture-based stories

designed to balance linguistic and cognitive complexity while maintaining cultural

appropriateness (Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 2022).

MAIN offers three elicitation modes—Model Story, Retelling, and Telling—

providing flexible options for standardized or adaptive assessments suited to both clinical and

research contexts (Gagarina & Bohnacker, 2015). These modes are designed to assess two

essential aspects of narrative competence:

Comprehension (understanding the story) and Production (the ability to create coherent and

culturally nuanced narratives).

The tool has been extensively tested with children aged 3–10 years and later adapted

for adolescents and adults to accommodate diverse populations with varying linguistic

proficiency (Gagarina et al., 2019). Applications include identifying language impairments in

multilingual children, investigating the processes of language acquisition and development,

and aiding in the design of targeted language interventions (Gagarina et al., 2012).

The creators of MAIN meticulously designed the picture sequences to support

narrative elicitation. Each sequence depicts a structured, culturally neutral story that

progresses in a logical order, enabling users to infer relationships and temporal connections

between events. The development process involved:

Focus on Cultural Appropriateness: The images were designed to avoid culturally

specific references, ensuring inclusivity across diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Balancing Complexity: The narratives were constructed with a balance between cognitive

and linguistic complexity, promoting engagement while remaining comprehensible. Expert

Input: Linguists, child psychologists, and educators collaborated to ensure the stories

supported both language comprehension and production tasks. Pilot Testing: Before

implementation, the picture sequences were tested across multiple linguistic groups to refine

their effectiveness and universality.

Multidimensional Theory of Narratives

The multidimensional theory of narratives in psychology explores the role of

storytelling in shaping human experience, identity, and psychological functioning. Narratives

are seen as central to how individuals organize their lives, making sense of past events,
understanding their present, and envisioning their future (McAdams, 2013; Ricœur, as cited

in McAdams, 2013). Narratives are vital tools for constructing a coherent identity. They help

individuals weave experiences into a meaningful pattern that connects personal goals, values,

and social roles. Narratives provide a framework for understanding time, linking events

across the past, present, and future in ways that give life a sense of purpose and continuity.

The MAIN tool aligns with the multidimensional theory of narratives by emphasizing

the significance of storytelling in identity formation and cognitive development. MAIN’s

tasks require children and adults to create coherent narratives, which parallels the

autobiographical author aspect of McAdams’ framework. Through narrative production,

individuals practice organizing their thoughts and experiences, an essential skill for identity

construction. The structured picture sequences in MAIN help participants link past events

with the present and future, fostering temporal coherence as described in Ricœur’s concept of

emplotment.

By engaging in storytelling, participants explore their roles as social actors, learning

how to present ideas effectively in diverse linguistic contexts.MAIN provides clinicians and

educators with insights into an individual's narrative competence, aiding in the diagnosis of

language impairments and the design of interventions to support psychological and linguistic

development.

Review of Literature

The study aims to assess the language and emotional development of children

(participants) through MAINS. The growth of language, especially narrative skills, is crucial

for effective communication and literacy, whereas emotional development is key to managing

social interactions and behavior regulation. Studies have shown the relationship between
these areas, revealing that children who demonstrate strong narrativ skills frequently show

improved emotional expression and comprehension. Tools like MAIN help assess narrative

skills of children effectively. This instrument, created under the COST Action IS0804

initiative, evaluates both narrative creation and understanding across various languages,

which makes it especially pertinent for studying language and emotional growth in

multilingual environments (Gagarina et al., 2015). MAIN analyzes narrative elements at both

micro and macro levels, offering valuable information about children's capacity to produce

coherent and significant stories—a competence associated with linguistic and socio-

emotional skills.

The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) is a robust tool

designed to assess narrative skills in children across multiple languages, focusing on

comprehension, production, and recall of stories. MAIN enables the exploration of cross-

linguistic narrative development, catering to diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Its

structured framework ensures consistency while capturing qualitative aspects of storytelling,

making it especially valuable for multilingual populations (Gagarina et al., 2019). Studies

leveraging MAIN emphasize its utility in identifying developmental patterns and language-

specific influences on narrative competence.

A relevant study by Bohnacker (2016) examines macrostructural aspects of narrative

skills in 52 bilingual Swedish- and English-speaking children age 5–7. Elicited fictional story

production and comprehension tasks were administered in parallel fashion in both Swedish

and English (Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives; Gagarina et al., 2012).

Scores on the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives were compared across

languages; moreover, story structure components in the narratives and answers to probe

questions were qualitatively analyzed. Age effects (5-year-olds vs. 6- to 7-year-olds) for

macrostructure production and narrative comprehension were evident, but no effect for
language (Swedish/English). The results suggest that story structure is invariant across a

bilingual child's two languages at a given age, with similar awareness of the intentions and

goal-directed behavior of the story protagonists, irrespective of language.

A Special Issue by Pesco and Bird (2015) investigates the narrative skills of children

from diverse linguistic backgrounds using the Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual

Settings—Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN). It includes

studies on bilingual and monolingual children, focusing on both typically developing children

and those with specific language impairment (SLI). The tool is used to collect fictional stories

across various languages, such as English, Finnish, German, Greek, Hebrew, and more,

examining children’s narrative structure, complexity, and comprehension between the ages of

3 and 9. The research highlights age-related narrative development, bilingual language

dynamics, and the effects of SLI on storytelling abilities. Findings suggest that bilingual

children's narratives are influenced by language dominance, and bilingualism does not

exacerbate SLI symptoms. The issue also underscores the impact of narrative tasks (telling

vs. retelling) on children's storytelling performance. This collection contributes significantly

to understanding bilingual children's language development and supports the LITMUS-

MAIN as a robust tool for cross-linguistic studies.

A research by Roch and Hržica (2020) investigated the skills of receptive vocabulary,

receptive grammar, and narrative comprehension in Croatian-Italian bilingual children aged 5

to 7 in both their first (L1) and second (L2) languages. Employing MAIN for narrative

assessment, PPVT for vocabulary evaluation, and TROG for grammar analysis, the findings

indicated superior performance in L1 across all metrics. There was a correlation between

narrative comprehension and grammar and vocabulary in L1, but this connection was weak in

L2, with sentence comprehension being a key factor in both languages and vocabulary being

essential only in L1. The results imply that narrative comprehension in L1 corresponds with
typical patterns observed in monolinguals, whereas L2 comprehension is less dependent on

vocabulary, offering valuable insights into the progression of bilingual language skills.

In conclusion, the numerous research mentioned above reveals the complex

connection between language and emotional growth, highlighting how narrative abilities

serve as a link between linguistic skills and socio-emotional proficiency. Instruments like the

MAIN have shown to be valuable in assessing these abilities across various linguistic

environments, providing in-depth insights at both micro and macro structural dimensions.

Research indicates that while bilingual children's understanding of narratives in their first

language (L1) aligns with monolingual developmental trends, their narrative skills in their

second language (L2) are less reliant on vocabulary. These findings emphasise the

significance of narrative assessment in comprehending bilingual language and emotional

growth, opening avenues for more focused interventions and support strategies.

The objectives of this research study are to administer the relationship between

language development and emotional growth in children through the Multilingual

Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN). In particular, the study intends to evaluate

children’s narrative abilities, focusing on their capacity to both create and understand stories

within multilingual environments. By analyzing both the detailed and overarching structures

of narratives, the research aims to reveal how these linguistic abilities are connected to

emotional comprehension and expression. Furthermore, it seeks to assess the impact of

various factors, including age, language dominance, and bilingual proficiency, on narrative

and emotional development, offering insights into the developmental pathways of

multilingual children.
 Method

The aim of this study was to administer and compare narrative skills in bilingual

children using The Multilingual Assessment Instrument For Narratives (MAIN). The

participants were first presented with the model story, followed by a series of comprehension

questions based on the story. Subsequently, the participants were instructed to now tell a

different story with the help of the pictures provided in the MAINS assessment, followed by a

series of comprehension questions related to the story they told.

Participant

The study involved 26 children (n = 26), including 11 girls and 15 boys, aged between

4 and 10 years. These children participated in the study to assess language abilities using the

MAIN Test. Before any assessments were conducted, informed consent was obtained from

their parents or guardians to ensure ethical standards were met. We made an effort to include

children who represented a range of language abilities within the specified age group,

providing a valuable perspective on language development.

Sampling

Participants were selected using both purposive and convenience sampling methods.

Purposive sampling ensured that all children met the required age range of 4 to 10 years.

However, convenience sampling also played a role, as many participants were either relatives

of the researchers or lived nearby, making it easier to include them in the study. This

approach allowed us to gather a manageable yet diverse group of children for meaningful

data collection.

Research Design

The study followed a 2×2 factorial within-subject design. This means that each child
was assessed under two different conditions, reflecting two independent variables with two

levels each. The two levels were L1 and L2.

This design enabled us to compare how children performed across these two language

contexts and explore any interactions between the two. By using a within-subject design, we

ensured that every child experienced all conditions, reducing individual differences and

strengthening the reliability of our findings.

Counterbalancing

Counterbalancing is a procedure used to control the effects of extraneous variables in

designs where participants are exposed to multiple conditions, such as in within-subjects

designs (Kirk, 2013). It involves varying the order of conditions to minimize order effects

and enhance internal validity. This approach helps distribute potential confounding variables

evenly across conditions, isolating the true effects of the independent variable (Cohen,

Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013). Complete counterbalancing tests all possible orders, while

partial counterbalancing uses a subset, such as in a Latin Square design In quasi-

experimental designs, counterbalancing reduces selection bias, addressing variables like age

or gender (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

Counterbalancing procedures for research purposes

Table 1 provides order of presentation with regard to language and story

(Cat/Dog – (primarily) Model Story/Retelling and Baby Birds/Baby Goats –

(primarily) Telling). (L1 represents the Native Language and L2 represents the

Second Language)

Table 1

Counterbalancing procedures for research purposes

 Child Lang. Model Telling Lang. Model Telling
number Story/ Story/
Retelling Retelling

1 L1 Cat Baby Birds L2 Dog Baby Goats

2 L1 Cat Baby Goats L2 Dog Baby Birds

3 L2 Cat Baby Goats L1 Dog Baby Birds

4 L2 Cat Baby Birds L1 Dog Baby Goats

5 L1 Dog Baby Birds L2 Cat Baby Goats

6 L1 Dog Baby Goats L2 Cat Baby Birds

7 L2 Dog Baby Goats L1 Cat Baby Birds

8 L2 Dog Baby Birds L1 Cat Baby Goats

Source: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAINS), Revised Version,

2019

Materials Required

4 picture sequences of baby birds, baby goats, cat and dog (3 copies each), 12

envelopes, 4 story scripts/stimulus texts of baby birds, baby goats, cat and dog, recording

equipment, comprehension questions sheet, background questions (parental questionnaire).

Rapport Formation

Rapport was established with the participant. The parents consent was taken and the parent

was informed about the procedure and the assessment. Once the parents agreed, the

participant was made to sit comfortably in a distraction-free room with adequate lighting and

the researcher initiated a friendly conversation with the participant. The questions were based
on the cultural environment. Questions like, Who is your best friend? What do you like to

watch on TV? Do you like telling stories? Do you like listening to stories? Were asked to

make the participant comfortable and friendly.

Instructions

These instructions are taken up from the MAIN Manual.

Instructions for Telling (Cat story)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then you can tell me a story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? Unfold the first 2 pictures. Say to the child: Now I want you to tell the story.

Look at the pictures and try to tell the best story you can. Allowable prompt if the child is

reluctant to begin: “Tell me the story” (point to picture). When the child has finished telling

the first 2 pictures, unfold the next (so that all pictures from 1 to 4 are visible). Repeat the

process until the end of the story. Allowable prompts if the child is silent in the middle of the

story: “Anything else?”, “Continue”, “Tell me more”, “Let’s see what else is in the story”. If

the child stops talking without indicating that he/she has finished, ask: “Tell me when you are

finished”.When the child has finished, praise the child and then ask the comprehension

questions

Instructions for Model Story (Cat Story)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then I will tell you the story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? I am going to tell you the story and then I will ask you some questions.

Unfold picture 1 and 2. The story starts here: (point to picture 1). One day there was a playful

cat who saw a yellow butterfly sitting on a bush. He leaped forward because he wanted to
catch it. Meanwhile, a cheerful boy was coming back from fishing with a bucket and a ball in

his hands. He looked at the cat chasing the butterfly. Unfold picture 3 and 4 (so that all

pictures from 1 to 4 are now visible). The butterfly flew away quickly and the cat fell into the

bush. He hurt himself and was very angry. The boy was so startled that the ball fell out of his

hand. When he saw his ball rolling into the water, he cried: ”Oh no, there goes my ball!”. He

was sad and wanted to get his ball back. Meanwhile, the cat noticed the boy’s bucket and

thought: “I want to grab a fish.” Unfold picture 5 and 6 (so that all pictures from 1 to 6 are

now visible). At the same time the boy began pulling his ball out of the water with his fishing

rod. He did not notice that the cat was grabbing a fish. In the end, the cat was very pleased to

eat such a tasty fish and the boy was happy to have his ball back. And that is the end of the

story. After you told And that is the end of the story, ask the comprehension questions.

Instructions for Telling (Dog story)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then you can tell me a story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? Unfold the first 2 pictures. Say to the child: Now I want you to tell the story.

Look at the pictures and try to tell the best story you can. Allowable prompt if the child is

reluctant to begin: “Tell me the story” (point to picture). When the child has finished telling

the first 2 pictures, unfold the next (so that all pictures from 1 to 4 are visible). Repeat the

process until the end of the story. Allowable prompts if the child is silent in the middle of the

story: “Anything else?”, “Continue”, “Tell me more”, “Let’s see what else is in the story”. If

the child stops talking without indicating that he/she has finished, ask: “Tell me when you are

finished”. When the child has finished, praise the child and then ask the comprehension

questions.

Instructions for Model Story(Dog Story )

 Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then I will tell you the story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? I am going to tell you the story and then I will ask you some questions.

Unfold picture 1 and 2.The story starts here: (point to picture 1). One day there was a playful

dog who saw a grey mouse sitting near a tree. He leaped forward because he wanted to catch

it. Meanwhile, a cheerful boy was coming back from shopping with a bag and a balloon in his

hands. He looked at the dog chasing the mouse. Unfold picture 3 and 4 (so that all pictures

from 1 to 4 are visible).The mouse ran away quickly and the dog bumped into the tree. He

hurt himself and was very angry. The boy was so startled that the balloon slipped out of his

hand. When he saw his balloon flying into the tree, he cried: “Oh no, there goes my balloon!”

He was sad and wanted to get his balloon back. Meanwhile, the dog noticed the boy’s bag

and thought: “I want to grab a sausage.” Unfold picture 5 and 6 (so that pictures from 1 to 6

are now visible). At the same time, the boy began pulling his balloon out of the tree. He did

not notice that the dog was grabbing a sausage. In the end, the dog was very pleased to eat

such a tasty sausage and the boy was happy to have his balloon back. And that is the end of

the story. After you told And that is the end of the story, ask the comprehension questions.

Instructions for Telling (Baby Bird)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then you can tell me a story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? Unfold the first 2 pictures. Say to the child: Now I want you to tell the story.

Look at the pictures and try to tell the best story you can. Allowable prompt if the child is

reluctant to begin: “Tell me the story” (point to picture). When the child has finished telling

the first 2 pictures, unfold the next (so that all pictures from 1 to 4 are visible). Repeat the
process until the end of the story. Allowable prompts if the child is silent in the middle of the

story: “Anything else?”, “Continue”, “Tell me more”, “Let’s see what else is in the story”. If

the child stops talking without indicating that he/she has finished, ask: “Tell me when you are

finished”. When the child has finished, praise the child and then ask the comprehension

questions.

Instructions for Model Story (Baby Bird)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then I will tell you the story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? I am going to tell you the story and then I will ask you some questions.

Unfold picture 1 and 2.The story starts here: (point to picture 1). One day there was a mother

bird who saw that her baby birds were hungry. She flew away because she wanted to find

food for them. A hungry cat saw that the mother bird was flying away and meowed: “Mmm,

nice, what do I see here in the nest?” Unfold picture 3 and 4 (so that all pictures from 1 to 4

are visible). The mother bird came back with a big worm for her children, but she did not see

the cat. She was happy about the juicy worm for her babies. Meanwhile the mean cat started

climbing up the tree because he wanted to catch a baby bird. He grabbed one of the baby

birds. A brave dog that was passing by saw that the birds were in great danger. He decided to

stop the cat and save them. Unfold picture 5 and 6 (so that pictures from 1 to 6 are now

visible). He said to the cat: “Leave the baby birds alone”. And then he grabbed the cat’s tail

and pulled him down. The cat let go of the baby bird and the dog chased him away. The dog

was very glad that he could save the birds, and the cat was still hungry. And that is the end of

the story. After you told And that is the end of the story, ask the comprehension questions.

Instructions for Telling (Baby Goat)

 Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then you can tell me a story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? Unfold the first 2 pictures. Say to the child: Now I want you to tell the story.

Look at the pictures and try to tell the best story you can. Allowable prompt if the child is

reluctant to begin: “Tell me the story” (point to picture). When the child has finished telling

the first 2 pictures, unfold the next (so that all pictures from 1 to 4 are visible). Repeat the

process until the end of the story. Allowable prompts if the child is silent in the middle of the

story: “Anything else?”, “Continue”, “Tell me more”, “Let’s see what else is in the story”. If

the child stops talking without indicating that he/she has finished, ask: “Tell me when you are

finished”. When the child has finished, praise the child and then ask the comprehension

questions.

Instructions for Model Story (Baby Goat)

Sit opposite the child. Say to the child: Look, here are 3 envelopes. There is a

different story in each envelope. Choose one and then I will tell you the story. Unfold the

pictures so that the whole sequence is visible to the child only. First look at the whole story.

Are you ready? I am going to tell you the story and then I will ask you some questions.

Unfold picture 1 and 2.The story starts here: (point to picture 1). One day there was a mother

goat who saw that her baby goat had fallen into the water and that it was scared. She jumped

into the water because she wanted to save it. A hungry fox saw that the mother goat was in

the water and growled: “Mmm, nice, what do I see here on the grass?”. Unfold picture 3 and

4 (so that all pictures from 1 to 4 are visible). The mother goat pushed the baby goat out of

the water, but she did not see the fox. She was glad that her baby did not drown. Meanwhile

the mean fox jumped forward because he wanted to catch the other baby goat. He grabbed the

baby goat. A brave bird that was flying by saw that the baby goat was in great danger. He
decided to stop the fox and save the baby goat. Unfold picture 5 and 6 (so that pictures from 1

to 6 are now visible). The bird said to the fox: “Leave the baby goat alone”. And then he flew

down and bit the fox’s tail. The fox let go of the baby goat and the bird chased him away. The

bird was very happy that he could save the baby goat, and the fox was still hungry. And that

is the end of the story. After you told And that is the end of the story ask the comprehension

questions.

Procedure

The bilingual assessment for children aged 3–10 was conducted using the Multilingual

Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN), adapted for Hindi and English. The procedure

aimed to evaluate the children’s narrative comprehension and production skills through

storytelling, retelling, and comprehension tasks. Before the assessment, the necessary

materials, including four parallel stories (Baby Birds, Baby Goats, Cat, and Dog) with six-

sequence picture strips, were prepared. These stories were designed to ensure consistency in

complexity and cultural relevance. Each story’s picture strips were printed in color, arranged

in sequence, and accompanied by scoring protocols for analyzing macrostructure and

comprehension. The sessions were conducted in a quiet, distraction-free environment, with

recording equipment set up to document the children’s responses for later transcription and

analysis.

To begin, a warm-up phase was included to build rapport with the participant and

ensure their understanding of the test instructions. Each participant participated in sessions

conducted in both Hindi and English, with a gap of 4–7 days between the two assessments to

minimize cross-language influence. The order of language presentation was randomized for

each participant. During the test, the participants were asked to narrate stories based on the

presented picture sequences. If the child hesitated, neutral prompts such as “Tell me the
story” were used to encourage them. In the retelling task, the examiner narrated the story, and

the participant was asked to retell it using the same picture sequence. Comprehension

questions were then asked to evaluate the participant’s understanding of the story’s goals,

actions, and outcomes.

Sessions were audio-recorded to ensure accuracy in scoring and analysis. Scoring

focused on narrative elements such as macrostructure (including the setting, goal, attempt,

and outcome) and the use of internal state terms (emotional and cognitive expressions).

Comprehension scores were based on the participant’s ability to respond to narrative-specific

questions. The Hindi version of the test was carefully adapted, with prompts and story scripts

translated to maintain narrative integrity and cultural appropriateness. This bilingual

assessment provided a comprehensive understanding of the children’s narrative abilities in

both languages, highlighting their strengths and areas for further development.

Precautions

1. Ensure all materials are prepared, including high-quality color story printouts in

labelled envelopes.

2. Conduct the assessment in a quiet, distraction-free environment.

3. Maintain a 4–7 day gap between testing in different languages for bilingual children

and use different examiners for each language to avoid cross-language influence.

4. Thoroughly review story protocols and prompts before administering the test.

5. Don’t start the story for the participant, encourage the participant to tell the story by

him/herself by saying: “Tell me the story” (point to picture). Use minimal and neutral

prompts only when the participant is silent for at least 10 seconds, only then should

the participant be prompted, first by saying, “Okay…”, “Well…”, “Your turn…”. If

the participant is silent in the middle of the story, encourage her/him to continue and
 tell you more: “Anything else?”, “Continue”, “Tell me more”, “Let’s see what else

happens in the story”.

6. Adapt warming-up activities to align with the participant’s cultural context and record

the full session for accurate transcription and scoring.

7. It does not matter how the participant refers to the protagonists during the narration;

do not correct the participant. If the participant cannot find the word for an action,

protagonist, etc. and seems to be stuck or asks for help, encourage her/him by saying

“You can call it anything you like”, “What would you call it?”.

8. Refrain from asking questions such as “What is he doing here?”, ”Who is running?”,

“What’s this?”, “What/who do you see on the picture?” (in order not to disrupt or

influence the participant's narration, to discourage the use of incomplete sentences,

and to avoid deictic references).

9. If the child starts telling a story from his/her own experiences, e.g. “I saw such a bird

in the morning” or “I will go with my mom to the supermarket after school…”, give

the child some time to talk about his/her own experience and then gently ask to tell

the story in the pictures. (Exclude this irrelevant part of the narration from the

analysis.)

10. Based on your previous experience and cultural environment, you may want to give a

word of encouragement, e.g. “Good”, “Fine”, after each pair of pictures (and before

unfolding the next pair). Don’t do this however if you feel that it disrupts the

participant’s narrative and train of thought.

11. When testing a bilingual participant in two languages, avoid using the Cat and/or Dog

story for one language and the Baby Birds and/or Baby Goats story for another

language. Also avoid using the Cat and/or Dog stories at one testing point and

comparing them with Baby Birds and/or Baby Goats at another testing point.
Preliminaries

Participant Ishi (name changed)

Age 5 years old

Gender Female

Research Evidence

Research has consistently highlighted the importance of narrative skills in early

childhood, as they play a crucial role in cognitive, linguistic, and social development. Studies

have shown that bilingual children often develop unique narrative abilities influenced by their

exposure to two languages. According to Bohnacker and Lindgren (2020), narrative

comprehension and production are key indicators of linguistic proficiency, as they require the

integration of vocabulary, grammar, and cultural understanding. The Multilingual

Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) has been validated as a reliable tool for

evaluating these skills across different languages, offering insights into bilingual children’s

cognitive-linguistic abilities.

Further research by Silva and Cain (2015) emphasizes the significance of

macrostructure (e.g., setting, goal, resolution) in understanding narrative development.

Studies like those conducted by Gagarina et al. (2019) demonstrate how MAIN’s culturally

adaptable framework supports bilingual assessments in diverse populations. Additionally,

Nicoladis and Genesee (1996) explored how bilingual children’s storytelling often reflects

cognitive flexibility and unique patterns of language use, which are not typically observed in

monolingual peers.

These findings suggest that bilingual children may exhibit differences in storytelling

and comprehension skills based on their linguistic environments. By using the MAIN test in
Hindi and English, this study aligns with prior research and contributes to a deeper

understanding of bilingual narrative abilities. Such assessments are critical for identifying

both strengths and areas for improvement, which can guide language development

interventions and educational planning.

Limitations

One limitation of this study lies in the sampling method used, which relied on

purposive and convenience sampling. While purposive sampling ensured that participants

met the specific age requirements, the use of convenience sampling, which included relatives

and nearby children, may have introduced biases that do not fully represent the broader

population. The sample size of 26 children, though manageable, may not be large enough to

draw generalized conclusions about bilingual narrative skills in diverse populations.

Additionally, the study focused only on Hindi and English, limiting its applicability to other

bilingual contexts, and did not account for other factors such as socioeconomic status or

variations in educational backgrounds, which could influence narrative development.

Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for bilingual education and

language development. The use of the MAIN test in assessing narrative skills provides

valuable insights into how bilingual children process and produce language across different

contexts. By focusing on both comprehension and production of narratives, the study

highlights the complexity of bilingual language development and emphasizes the need for

tailored educational strategies to support children who may face challenges in either

language. This research also underscores the importance of cultural relevance in linguistic

assessments, suggesting that bilingual tools like MAIN are crucial in ensuring fair and

accurate evaluations of language proficiency. Teachers and clinicians working with bilingual
children can use these insights to identify strengths and areas for growth, offering more

effective interventions.

Future Directions

Future research could expand on this study by including a larger, more diverse sample

that accounts for different bilingual environments, such as children from various

socioeconomic backgrounds or those exposed to multiple languages. Investigating other

bilingual language combinations would also provide a more comprehensive understanding of

how different languages interact in children’s narrative development. Furthermore,

longitudinal studies could track changes in narrative skills over time, shedding light on how

bilingual children’s abilities evolve as they grow older and gain more exposure to both

languages. Future studies could also explore the influence of factors such as parental

involvement, formal education, and cultural practices on the development of narrative skills.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study contributes valuable insights into the narrative abilities of

bilingual children, emphasizing the importance of narrative skills in early childhood

development. The use of the MAIN test provides a comprehensive tool for assessing bilingual

children’s language abilities, highlighting both strengths and challenges in their storytelling

and comprehension skills. While the study’s limitations suggest a need for broader research,

its implications for bilingual education and language development are clear. Understanding

how bilingual children navigate their linguistic worlds is crucial for developing effective

strategies to support their cognitive and linguistic growth, particularly in multicultural and

multilingual contexts.
 References

Bohnacker, U. (2016). Tell me a story in English or Swedish: Narrative production and

comprehension in bilingual preschoolers and first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics,

37(1),19-48.
Gagarina, N., Klop, D., Kunnari, S., Tantele, K., Välimaa, T., Balčiūnienė, I.,& Walters, J.

(2012). Narrative assessment in bilingual children: Multilingual Assessment

Instrument for Narratives (MAIN). ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 56, 1–38.

Gagarina, N., & Lindgren, J. (2019). Updates to the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for

Narratives (MAIN) for adolescents and adults.

Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. (2022). LITMUS tools for language

impairment testing in multilingual settings.

McAdams, D. P. (2013). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by (revised and

expanded edition). Oxford University Press.

Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (1996). A study of constraints on bilingual storytelling. Journal

of Child Language, 23(2), 535–552

Pesco, D., & Bird, E. K. (2015). Perspectives on bilingual children’s narratives elicited with

the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives. Applied Psycholinguistics,

37(1), 1–9.

Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: Catching up with the “new”

narrative research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143-

157.

Bleakley, A. (2005). Stories as qualitative research: A narrative approach to exploring

professional identity. Journal of Contemporary Medical Education, 53(5), 340-345.

Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative research in applied linguistics: A brief overview of

its development. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 387-395.

 Herrnstein Smith, B. (1981). Poetic closure and the meaning of narrative. In

Narrative, literature, and the philosophy of mind (pp. 223-236). Cambridge

University Press.

Phelan, J. (2005). Narrative identity and the ethics of memory. In Narrative theory:

Political implications (pp. 185-204). Ohio University Press.

Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th

ed.). Sage Publications.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-

experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment

relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R.

Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd

ed., pp. 102-127). Guilford Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression. Basic

Books.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(12), 673–685.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and

culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55(10), 1093–

1104.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. Brunner/Mazel.

Wachs, T. D., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Temperament. In G. Bremner & A. Slater (Eds.),

Theories of infant development (pp. 119–140). Blackwell Publishing.