Docstoc

Bilingual children with SLI _BISLI_

Document Sample
Bilingual children with SLI _BISLI_ Powered By Docstoc
					                                     Bilingual SLI
Recommended reading:

* Bedore, L.M. & Pena, E.D. 2008. Assessment of Bilingual Children for Identification
   of Language Impairment: Current Findings and Implications for Practice.
   International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 11,1, 1-29.


The scope of the problem

  The large waves of migration in recent years led to a growth in the number of children
   being raised in multilingual societies, and elucidated the importance of studying
   language disorders in bilingual children .
  In Israel, for example, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry
   of Education, 20% of school children who attended Hebrew speaking secular schools
   in 2004 came from families in which at least one parent does not speak Hebrew (CBS,
   2006‫)(ץ‬
  Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) are estimated as 5-10% of the
   population (Bercow review, 2008‫)ץ‬
  de Jong (2009): Non-native speakers in Dutch schools
            –Mainstream schools: 14%
            –Special schools: 19%
            –Schools for language-impaired children: 24%


Central Issues
  Can we disentangle bilingualism from SLI in impaired children?
  How do we diagnose SLI in bilingual population?
  Are bilingualism and SLI are "two of a kind" (Crago & Paradis, 2003)
  Do bilingual children with SLI show a "double delay“ ((Paradis 2007; Paradis et al.
     2003; Paradis et al. 2005/6).
  Can bilingualism can be instructive for children with SLI (Roeper 2009).

Hakansson, Salameh, & Nettelbladt. 2003

       Swedish-Arabic children with and without SLI
       Migrant children with simultaneous to successive acquisition of Swedish
        (matched for exposure to Swedish and Arabic).
       Children with LI tended to produce earlystage structures in both of their languages
        while children with typical development tended to produce more complex or later
        developing structures in each of their languages.
       Unimpaired 2L1/cL2 children are L1-like in at least one language
       Children with SLI are impaired in both languages
       The differences is held over time while development followes the predicted
        patterns in each of their languages (Salameh et al., 2004)
                                                     Language Acquisition Under Special Circumstances
                                                                            Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
                                                                                         Bilingual SLI

Lexicon
Ambert (1986), Restrepo and Kruth (2000), Pena et al (1992, 2001) - Spanish-English

Poor representation of word meaning and possible word finding difficulties in both
languages. Smaller vocabulary size in both languages 9compared to bilinguals with TLD

1. word substitutions (e.g. mu´ sica ‘music’ for pelı´cula ‘movie’)

2. circumlocution (e.g. no hace frı´o y hace calor ‘it’s not cold and it’s hot’ for verano

‘summer’).

Bilingual children with SLI show similar difficulties with learning new words as do
monolingual children with SLI.

Simonsen (2002)
       6 years old Swedish- Finish BL
       Naming task (Renfrew Word Finding Vocabulary test)
       Scores
          SLI    Controls
   BL     25.9 28.6
   ML 28.5 36.3
       Total naming time
          SLI     Controls
   BL     06:26 06:02
   ML 04:11 04:53

       MSLI- phonological naming problems more often than the other groups (can
        explain their fast naming speed)
       Substitution of phonemes: MSLI > BSLI
       The bilingual children have difficulty in finding words
       BLC is slow in naming, does not find the target word as accurately as the MLC,
        but uses strategies that are pragmatically efficient: describes, chooses a Finnish
        word, or uses gestures.




                                                2
                                                     Language Acquisition Under Special Circumstances
                                                                            Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
                                                                                         Bilingual SLI

Morphosyntax


Paradis (1999) and Crago & Paradis (2000)
First studies of Bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment (BISLI) - French-
English simultaneous bilingualism in Canada. L1 and L2 French-speaking children with
SLI
        A range of measures related to the ‘optional infinitive’ phenomenon
        “Significant similarities” between SLI and L2 learners,:
            o Tense marking
            o Avoidance of object clitics
            o Verb diversity
            o Use of general purpose verbs (e.g. do, make).
 A parallel is found between the language of sequential bilingual children and the
     language of children with SLI – both use bare verbs (Optional Infinitives).
 tense-marking may not be an effective clinical indicator of SLI for second language
     learners.


Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice. 2003
        French-English bilingual children with SLI - monolingual age mates with SLI, in
         each language.
        Morphosyntax in language production - the extended optional infinitive (EOI)
         framework (children's use of tense-bearing and non-tense-bearing morphemes in
         obligatory context in spontaneous speech)
        All SLI children showed greater accuracy with non-tense than with tense
         morphemes.
        All SLI children had similar mean accuracy scores for tense morphemes. The
         bilingual children did not exhibit more profound deficits in the use of these
         grammatical morphemes than their monolingual peers.

  SLI may not be an impediment to learning two languages, at least in the domain of
     grammatical morphology.

 Paradis & Crago 2000
        While children with SLI tend to omit the auxiliary in past or future periphrastic
         verb constructions, L2 children substitute the auxiliary with the base or present
         tense form.




                                                3
                                                                        Language Acquisition Under Special Circumstances
                                                                                               Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
                                                                                                            Bilingual SLI

Paradis. 2008
        only L2 children generalize the use of BE, in order to fill a gap between their
        communicative demands and their knowledge of the L2 with a morphosyntactic
        expression.

Both the high proportions of commission errors and the overgeneralization of BE single
out L2 children from children with SLI.



Armon-Lotem et al (2007, 2008)

     Perpositions in English-Hebrew and Rusian-Hebrew Bilinguals with and without
      SLI
     Bilingual children exhibited commission errors in their use of prepositions, both due
      to code interference (CI), but also in the absence of code interference.
     Bilinguals with SLI like bilinguals with TLD showed evidence of code interference
      (CI) in contrasting environments, as manifested by erroneous choice of prepositions
      (commission errors).
     Children with SLI, omit prepositions in a sentence repetition task not due to CI.
      This finding replicates previous findings from Roeper et al.(2001) and Watkins &
      Rice (1991).

                               Frequency of errors by error type
                                     per preposition type

                       20

                       15

                       10

                        5

                        0
                            O-prep   F-prep       O-prep    F-prep      O-prep   F-prep
                                Hebrew                English               Hebrew
                                              Bi LI                         Mono LI

                                         ci-sub       sub       ci-om    om


     The lack of non-CI omission errors by bilingual children with TLD distinguishes L2
      children from monolingual children with SLI who exhibit omission errors.
     The commission errors are indicative of grammatical knowledge, because the L2
      children realize that they need to fill the slot of the obligatory preposition.
     These errors also reveal knowledge of the L1 as indicated by code interference (CI)
      errors.
     The commission errors are claimed here to place BISLI children in a better position
      regarding language acquisition potential than omission errors, since they are
      indicative of both grammatical knowledge and knowledge of their other language.
     Bilingual children with SLI rely on their knowledge of the L1 in acquiring the L2,
      giving them an advantage over monolingual children with SLI.




                                                                 4
                                                 Language Acquisition Under Special Circumstances
                                                                        Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
                                                                                     Bilingual SLI

Syntax

Rothwiler (2009) - German-Turkish

  7 monolingual boys with SLI, 4;8 – 7;8, MLU 2.4 - 4.1
  7 successive bilingual boys with SLI (L1 Turkish, AO German ~ age 3), 4;4 – 8;2,
   MLU 2.0 – 3.9
  Spontaneous samples
  All children produced wh-clauses and subordinate clauses.
  All children produced at least wh-clauses or subordinate clauses in each recording.
  No significant differences between groups


                            Wh              Subordinate                    others
                         questions            clauses
      SLI-L1            298        8%        216          5%         4.082          89%
      SLI-L2            243        8%           95        3%         2.536          88%

  Both groups correctly place finite verbs in the expected positions, V2 in main
   clauses and wh-questions, Vfinal in subordinate clauses.
  Wh-words and complementizers are rarely omitted.
  The CP domain is unimpaired in German SLI.




                                            5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/5/2013
language:English
pages:5