Specific Language Impairment and Early Second Language Acquisition: The Risk of Over- and Underdiagnosis

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 821-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Grimm ◽  
Petra Schulz
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language

scholarly journals Dutch gender in specific language impairment and second language acquisition

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Orgassa ◽  
Fred Weerman
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
First Language ◽  
Cumulative Effect ◽  
Adult Group ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Adjectival Inflection

In this article we compare five groups of learners acquiring Dutch gender as marked on determiners and adjectival inflection. Groups of L1 (first language) children and L1-SLI (first-language specific-language-impairment) children are compared to three Turkish-Dutch L2 (second language) groups: adult L2, child L2 and child L2-SLI. Overall, our findings show that gender is vulnerable in both SLI and L2 groups. More particularly, they suggest that all child groups basically make the same type of errors and that they all differ from the adult group. It is suggested that any differences between the child learners can best be understood in terms of factors that influence intake (in both SLI and L2) rather than in terms of access to grammatical principles: SLI children have a (major) processing deficit and L2 children have received less input to Dutch, both factors causing poorer intake. That problems with the intake are crucial is further supported by the clear cumulative effect of bilingualism and SLI: the L2-SLI group not only differs from the child L2 controls but also from the Dutch L1-SLI group.

scholarly journals Evaluating maturational parallels in second language children and children with specific language impairment

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mabel L. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Growth Trajectories ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
English Speaking

In her Keynote Article in this issue, Paradis explores the nature of bilingual language acquisition by examining the question of possible similarities between children learning a second language (L2) and children with specific language impairment (SLI) who are monolingual or bilingual. She evaluates the maturation model of Rice (2004), the extended optional infinitive (EOI) model, that focuses on children's acquisition of finiteness marking during the early childhood period. Paradis alludes to the issue of how to deal with the nonparallels between chronological age and acquisition in the comparison of L2 and SLI language acquisition within maturational models. I explore that issue further in this Commentary, using the available growth templates drawn from the work on English-speaking typically developing children and children with SLI for projected possible growth trajectories for bilingual and L2 children, with and without SLI.

scholarly journals Heritability of Specific Language Impairment and Nonspecific Language Impairment at Ages 4 and 6 Years Across Phenotypes of Speech, Language, and Nonverbal Cognition

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 793-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mabel L. Rice ◽  
Catherine L. Taylor ◽  
Stephen R. Zubrick ◽  
Lesa Hoffman ◽  
Kathleen K. Earnest
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Structural Equation Models ◽  
Weighted Least Squares ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Causal Pathway

Purpose Early language and speech acquisition can be delayed in twin children, a twinning effect that diminishes between 4 and 6 years of age in a population-based sample. The purposes of this study were to examine how twinning effects influence the identification of children with language impairments at 4 and 6 years of age, comparing children with specific language impairment (SLI) and nonspecific language impairment (NLI); the likelihood that affectedness will be shared within monozygotic versus dizygotic twin pairs; and estimated levels of heritability for SLI and NLI. Twinning effects are predicted to result in elevated rates of language impairments in twins. Method The population-based twin sample included 1,354 children from 677 twin pairs, 214 monozygotic and 463 dizygotic, enrolled in a longitudinal study. Nine phenotypes from the same comprehensive direct behavioral assessment protocol were investigated at 4 and 6 years of age. Twinning effects were estimated for each phenotype at each age using structural equation models estimated via diagonally weighted least squares. Heritabilities were calculated for SLI and NLI. Results As predicted, the twinning effect increased the percentage of affected children in both groups across multiple language phenotypes, an effect that diminished with age yet was still not aligned to singleton age peers. Substantial heritability estimates replicated across language phenotypes and increased with age, even with the most lenient definition of affectedness, at −1 SD . Patterns of outcomes differed between SLI and NLI groups. Conclusions Nonverbal IQ is not on the same causal pathway as language impairments. Twinning effects on language acquisition affect classification of 4- and 6-year-old children as SLI and NLI, and heritability is most consistent in the SLI group. Clinical practice requires monitoring language acquisition of twins to avoid misdiagnosis when young or a missed diagnosis of language impairments at school entry.

Motivation in pidgin and creole genesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-264
Author(s):  
Mikael Parkvall
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Almost all creolists see creole formation as a case of (failed) second language acquisition. I argue that there are good reasons to distinguish between second language acquisition and pidginisation/creolisation, and that little is gained by equating the two. While learners have an extant language as their target, pidginisers typically aim to communicate (in any which way) rather than to acquire a specific language. In this sense, pidginisation represents, if not “conscious language change”, at least “conscious language creation”.

scholarly journals Primary or “specific” language impairment and children learning a second language

2009 ◽  
Vol 109 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Kohnert ◽  
Jennifer Windsor ◽  
Kerry Danahy Ebert
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language

Genes, specificity, and the lexical/functional distinction in language acquisition

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 648-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Stromswold
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Genetic Factors ◽  
Specific Language

AbstractContrary to Müller's claims, and in support of modular theories, genetic factors play a substantial and significant role in language. The finding that some children with specific language impairment (SLI) have nonlinguistic impairments may reflect improper diagnosis of SLI or impairments that are secondary to linguistic impairments. Thus, such findings do not argue against the modularity thesis. The lexical/functional distinction appears to be innate and specifically linguistic and could be instantiated in either symbolic or connectionist systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document