scholarly journals Language combinations, subtypes, and severity in the study of bilingual children with specific language impairment

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Comparison Groups ◽  
Bilingual Language Development ◽  
Conducting Research

I commend Johanne Paradis not only for her interesting Keynote Article but also for the careful research that she has conducted along with her collaborators in the area of bilingual language development and disorders. Her contributions have been significant and are sure to shape our theoretical as well as clinical understanding of specific language impairment (SLI). In this Commentary, I focus on three issues. The first stems quite directly from ideas raised in the Keynote Article; the second and third deal with factors that we need to consider when conducting research involving comparison groups of bilingual and monolingual children with SLI.

scholarly journals Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: distinct profiles

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
JULIA LOMAKO ◽  
NATALIA GAGARINA ◽  
EKATERINA ABROSOVA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Production Studies ◽  
Two Populations

AbstractProduction studies show that both Russian-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) and bilingual children for whom Russian is a non-dominant language have difficulty distinguishing between the near-synonymous connectivesi‘and’ anda‘and/but’.Iis a preferred connective when reference is maintained, whereasais normally used for reference shift. We report an eye-tracking experiment comparing connective processing by Russian-speaking monolinguals with typical language development (TLD) with that of Russian–Dutch bilinguals and Russian-speaking monolinguals with SLI (age 5–6). The results demonstrate that the processing profiles of monolinguals with TLD and bilinguals are similar: both groups use connective semantics immediately for predicting further discourse. In contrast, children with SLI do not show sensitivity to these semantic differences. Despite similar production profiles, bilinguals and monolinguals with SLI are clearly different in connective processing. We discuss the implications of these results for the possible causes of the errors in the two populations.

scholarly journals Διερευνώντας τη σχέση μεταξύ της Ειδικής Γλωσσικής Διαταραχής και της Δυσλεξίας: θεωρητικές και κλινικές προεκτάσεις

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 358
Author(s):  
Ασημίνα Μ. Ράλλη ◽  
Ολυμπία Παληκαρά
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Comparison Groups

In this study, we tested the predictions of two opposing perspectives on the nature of the deficit in Specific Language Impairment (SLI): the language delay approach, and the view that the language development of SLI children is qualitatively different from typically developing children populations. Data consisted of the elicited production of pronominal object clitics from monolingual and bilingual SLI children with various language pairs (Greek always being the children’s second language); younger, typically developing, bilingual language peers, and monolingual Greek-speaking comparison groups. We analyzed the children’s accurate responses and error-types in clitic production. Both SLI groups had more difficulty with clitics in comparison to typically-developing, chronological age-matched peers, while SLI children performed similarly with their younger, unaffected monolingual and bilingual peers. We argue that these findings provide support to the language delay approach and present challenges to the role of bilingualism in SLI.

scholarly journals Childhood bilingualism and Specific Language Impairment: A study of the CP-domain in German SLI

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 668-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Ruberg ◽  
Monika Rothweiler ◽  
João Veríssimo ◽  
Harald Clahsen
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Growing Up ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Verb Agreement ◽  
Comparison Groups ◽  
German Speaking ◽  
German Children

AbstractThis study addresses the question of whether and how growing up with more than one language shapes a child's language impairment. Our focus is on Specific Language Impairment (SLI) in bilingual (Turkish–German) children. We specifically investigated a range of phenomena related to the so-called CP (Complementizer Phrase) in German, the hierarchically highest layer of syntactic clause structure, which has been argued to be particularly affected in children with SLI. Spontaneous speech data were examined from bilingual children with SLI in comparison to two comparison groups: (i) typically-developing bilingual children, (ii) monolingual children with SLI. We found that despite persistent difficulty with subject-verb agreement, the two groups of children with SLI did not show any impairment of the CP-domain. We conclude that while subject-verb agreement is a suitable linguistic marker of SLI in German-speaking children, for both monolingual and bilingual ones, ‘vulnerability of the CP-domain’ is not.

The use of descriptive data from bilingual children to inform theories of specific language impairment

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Ellis Weismer ◽  
Margarita Kaushanskaya
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Processing Capacity ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Descriptive Data ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Bilingual Language Development ◽  
Language Profiles

In her Keynote Article, Paradis reviews evidence from bilingual language development to assess the claims of two opposing theoretical views of language disorders. Specifically, she examines the evidence for similarities in language profiles of typically developing (TD) sequential bilingual (second language [L2]) children and monolingual children with specific language impairment (SLI) with respect to Rice's extended optional infinitive (EOI) account. A limited processing capacity (LPC) account of SLI, Leonard's surface hypothesis, is evaluated within the context of comparisons among bilingual children with SLI, monolingual children with SLI, and TD bilingual children. Paradis concludes that the evidence from bilingual children poses challenges for both accounts of SLI.

scholarly journals Μελέτη της παραγωγής κλιτικών αντωνυμιών σε μονόγλωσσα και δίγλωσσα παιδιά με Ειδική Γλωσσική Διαταραχή

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 302
Author(s):  
Ιάνθη - Μαρία Τσιμπλή ◽  
Ελένη Περιστέρη ◽  
Μαρία Ανδρέου
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Comparison Groups

In this study, we tested the predictions of two opposing perspectives on the nature of the deficit in Specific Language Impairment (SLI): the language delay approach, and the view that the language development of SLI children is qualitatively different from typically developing children populations. Data consisted of the elicited production of pronominal object clitics from monolingual and bilingual SLI children with various language pairs (Greek always being the children’s second language); younger, typically developing, bilingual language peers, and monolingual Greek-speaking comparison groups. We analyzed the children’s accurate responses and error-types in clitic production. Both SLI groups had more difficulty with clitics in comparison to typically-developing, chronological age-matched peers, while SLI children performed similarly with their younger, unaffected monolingual and bilingual peers. We argue that these findings provide support to the language delay approach and present challenges to the role of bilingualism in SLI.

Interface or face to face? The profiles and contours of bilinguals and specific language impairment

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia C. Mueller Gathercole
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Growing Up ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Development Trajectory ◽  
Bilingual Language Development ◽  
Development Of Language ◽  
Two Populations

What makes a child's language development trajectory have the patterns that it has, and what causes differences across children in those patterns? These fundamental questions have for over half a century been at the heart of research on language development in monolingual children, on the cross-linguistic development of language in children from distinct language communities, on bilingual language development, and on development in cases of language disorders in children. Paradis has taken the important step of carefully comparing the trajectories of two populations of children—children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children growing up bilingually—who both differ in interesting ways from normally developing monolingual children. Her Keynote Article highlights striking similarities and potential differences between these two groups. This Commentary focuses on three issues: what influences developmental profiles in language development, bilinguals' development of vocabulary and syntax, and assessment issues related to treating monolinguals as the “standard.”

Phonological working memory and language development: What are the measures and what do they measure?

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 1313-1321
Author(s):  
Cornelia Hamann
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Recent Trend ◽  
First Year ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Bilingual Language Development ◽  
Different Populations ◽  
First Year Of Life

In line with the recent trend in comparative analysis of different populations (see Friedmann & Rusou, 2015, as an example), Pierce, Genesee, Delcenserie, and Morgan (2017) present a comprehensive review of different language outcomes in populations that have received qualitatively and quantitatively different input during the first year of life, from enriched stimuli in bilingual situations to no stimuli at all in the case of children with profound hearing impairment. The claims derived from these data deserve some comment, however, and need some caveats about the measures used, which I will provide in the following with a brief discussion of complementing research and the presentation of some new data derived from the Bilingual Language Development (BiLaD) Project, a recent French/German collaboration studying bilingual populations with and without specific language impairment (SLI).

Cognition and Communication

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 964-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith R. Johnston ◽  
Linda B. Smith ◽  
Peggy Box
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Object Type ◽  
Attentional Capacity ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Normal Language

Ten children with specific language impairment and 10 children with normal language development were asked to describe objects so that a listener could select them. Each trial targeted two out of a group of three toys. The targeted objects were identical or were similar in size or color. Children in the two groups did not differ in referential success, although children in both groups found the size items more difficult. Content analysis of the messages did reveal differences in the referential strategies used most frequently. Children with specific language impairment were more likely to mention the attributes of each object separately, rather than to describe the characteristics common to a pair of objects. Children in both groups talked about separate objects more often when talking about size than about color or object type. Use of this strategy could indicate the effects of attentional capacity on children's solutions to communication tasks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document