Upload
ronald-lamb
View
231
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overview: More than Words
• Background• Characteristics of semantic knowledge in bilinguals
• Cognates• Receptive-Expressive performance• Category Generation
• Semantics in BIlnguals
Common questions
• Bilingual learners and children with language demonstrate lower than expected vocabulary skills relative to typically developing/monolingual peers.
Bilingualism & LI
• Similar patterns of vocabulary development children with TD & LI
But in bilinguals:• Lack of experience may be source of vocabulary
differences• Vocabulary & semantic learning is influenced by cross
linguistic differences and interactions
Vocabulary Deficits in LI
• Slow vocabulary growth relative to age peers• Seem to “catch up” during early school-age• Vocabulary knowledge does not accurately differentiate LI and TD
• 60-66% correct classification on traditional vocabulary tests
Semantic Deficits in LI
• word-finding difficulties• knowledge gaps• poor word learning strategies • higher error rates
Working assumptions – LI
Inefficient language learners Intact general cognitive processing mechanisms Language form especially challenging Profit from language learning experiences
Generalized difficulties Vocabulary Nonverbal problem-solving Information Processing
Processing Limitations
• Children with LI may have difficulty with general processing that impacts their ability to allocate cognitive resources to complex tasks
• Impact on semantic tasks (organization & retrieval)
Theoretical perspectives
• Learning is influenced by• Patterns of cross language convergence and competition (e.g., MacWhinney,
2011)• Patterns of language use (e.g., Blom, Paradis, & Duncan, 2012: Bybee, 2010)
Multiple populations
Semantic learning
tasks
Bilingual comparisons
Cross linguistic
comparisons
TD vs LI
Multiple aspects of semantic learning
Differentiate patterns associated with bilingualism and language impairment
Meaning
Word formation
Phonological Form
Participant Descriptions
• Systematic documentation of language experience• Year by year language experience• Current exposure
• Input and output / home and school
Language Impairment
• Use converging sources to qualify children as having language impairment
• Parent concern• Teacher concern• Modifiability ratings• Standardized assessment protocols with the Bilingual English Spanish
Assessment (Peña et al., 2014)
Cognates
• Test word form by focusing on words that are similar in meaning a share at least three sounds.
[baɪsɪkl] [bisikleta] [zìxíngchē]
Participants
High English
exposure
Balanced exposure High Spanish
exposure
K N 14 15 12
Age in months 65.21 67.87 69.33
Spanish input/output 32% 49% 65%
English input/output 68% 51% 35%
1 N 13 20 15
Age in months 84.23 82.65 83.27
Spanish input/output 24% 48% 69%
English input/output 76% 52% 31%
Item number English Target Spanish Translation Item number English Target Spanish Translation
2 Afloat Flotar 20 Infantry Infantería
6 Anchor Ancla 21 Medieval Medieval
7 Explosive Explosivo 22 Novel Novela
10 Dental Dental 25 Floral Floral
11 Monument Monumento 26 Veteran Veterano
12 Surgeon Cirujano 27 Infirm Enfermo
13 Medical Médico 28 Maternal Maternal
14 Emerald Esmeralda 30 Velocity Velocidad
15 Salmon Salmón
Q2: Receptive-Expressive Performance• ELLs come to the L2 with some knowledge• Need experience with L2 to use it• Are there receptive-expressive differences not seen in monolinguals?
ParticipantsLanguage
group
Age in months
% English
experience
Age of first
English
experience
Mother’s
education
% Female
FMS (n=180) 64.39 9% 4.12 2.54 47
BDS (n=120) 65.30 31% 3.10 2.71 43
BL (n=211) 65.65 49% 2.05 2.75 46
BDE (n=90) 66.67 69% 0.98 3.13 51
FME (n=177) 65.88 96% 0.11 4.36 58
Standardized Score Differences: English
FMS (n = 180) BDS (n = 120) BL (n = 211) BDE (n = 90) FME (n = 177)0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rec Exp
Standardized Score Differences: Spanish
FMS (n = 180) BDS (n = 120) BL (n = 211) BDE (n = 90) FME (n = 177)0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rec Exp
Category Fluency
• Name objects within category (foods, clothes, animals)• Typical exemplars produced early in list• Typical exemplars produced more frequently across participants• Clustering of items based on generalized event representation (GER)
Category Fluency in Bilinguals
• Fewer exemplars per language • Adults (Gollan, et al, 2002)• Children (Peña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)
• Between-language similarities • Larger in adults (Roberts & LeDorze, 1997)• Smaller (about 30%) in young children (Peña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)
CF in Children
• Age effects by condition• Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992;
Nelson, 1998)
Questions
• What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children?• Dominance• Age
• What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children with and without LI?
Participants
• 186 Spanish-English bilinguals• Ages 7;0 to 9;11• Between 20%-80% Spanish/English exposure
Procedures
• Tested in both languages • random order by language• within context of other items (100 each lang.)
• Condition
Animals
TAX
SF- Zoo Farm Circus
Clothing
TAX
SF- Cold
Food
TAX
SF- Lunch
Analysis
• Condition• TAX• SF
• Score • Conceptual
• Singlets English• Singlets Spanish• Doublets
• Errors
Development & Exposure
YSD• 93 mos• 33% Eng
YED• 94 mos• 68% Eng
OSD• 112 mos• 31% Eng
OED• 112 mos• 69% Eng
Population
• 37 children with LI• 37 TD matches
• Age• %English and Spanish use• Age of first English exposure
Receptive Expressive Gap
LI TD
Language proficiency M SD M SD
English rating (parent)
2.93
0.94
3.92
0.67
Spanish rating (parent) 3.94 0.71 4.60 0.47
English rating (teacher) 2.69 0.83 3.81 0.92
Spanish rating (teacher) 3.32 0.66 4.65 0.68
Possibilities
• Receptive-Expressive Gap• English• Spanish• Both
• LI• Similar (gap) patterns but lower• Different (gap) patterns and lower
CF in Children
• Age effects by condition• Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992;
Nelson, 1998)
• Effects by ability• SLI < NL (Henry, Lesser, & Nash, 2011)
Nature of Responses: 4-6 y.o.• NL
• Giraffe• Elephant• Leopard• Tiger• Bear
• LI• Cat• Dog• Hot dog• Hamburger
Errors: 7 to 9 year olds
NL LI
Similarities
• Semantically Related
kangaroo jack, lady buddy, rinocornio
Wolfish, fishcat
• Phonologically Related
“jifra”/jirafa “bis”/avispa
Differences
• Semantically Unrelated
Fire, scooter
Bilingual children with LI have multiple sources of difficulty relative to TD peers
• Children with LI have larger L2 gap• Children with LI are less productive in category
generation and are more likely to produce errors