Search

Purpose: This study examines the degree to which adolescents in Iceland are judged by native Icelandic speakers to have a foreign accent both in Icelandic and in English, two languages that are learned under different conditions, as the community and school language, and through school and incidental exposure. Method: Fifty-eight adolescents, 27 with Icelandic as their first language (L1), 21 as their second language (L2), and 10 as one of two L1s read passages in Icelandic and English. Twelve untrained native speakers of Icelandic rated the degree of foreign accent, comprehensibility, and confidence level and selected from multiple-choice options what they thought was the L1 of the speakers. Results: Significant group differences were found in Icelandic but not in English. L2 speakers had a significantly greater foreign accent than the other groups in Icelandic; however, there was substantial overlap with some L2 speakers judged to be native and some L1 speakers judged as nonnative. All groups had a significantly greater accent in English than in Icelandic. Accent was judged more sternly than comprehensibility and confidence and related differently to vocabulary proficiency. Conclusions: Accent is typically not considered in studies of bilingual attainment in children for purposes of clinical assessment or educational placement but should be given closer attention. The study confirms previous findings that many young L2 learners have a detectable foreign accent. The overlap with L1 speakers also raises questions about the ideal of a native accent. More research is needed on how accent relates to bilingual and multilingual proficiency and on its impacts on comfort level, ease of communication, choice of language, and language exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study investigated Icelandic-speaking children's a cquisition of singleton consonants and consonant clusters. Method: Participants were 437 typically developing children aged 2;6-7;11 (years;months) acquiring Icelandic as their first language. Single-word speech samples of the 47 single consonants and 45 consonant clusters were collected using Málhljóðapróf ÞM (ÞM's Test of Speech Sound Disorders). Results: Percentage of consonants correct for children aged 2;6-2;11 was 73.12 (SD = 13.33) and increased to 98.55 (SD = 3.24) for children aged 7;0-7;11. Overall, singleton consonants were more likely to be accurate than consonant clusters. The earliest consonants to be acquired were /m, n, p, t, j, h/ in word-initial position and /f, l/ within words. The last consonants to be acquired were /x, r, r̥, s, θ, n̥/, and consonant clusters in word-initial /sv-, stl-, str-, skr-, θr-/, within-word /-ðr-, -tl-/, and word-final /-kl̥, -xt/ contexts. Within-word phonemes were more often accurate than those in word-initial position, with word-final position the least accurate. Accuracy of production was significantly related to increasing age, but not sex. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study of consonants and consonant cluster acquisition by typically developing Icelandic-speaking children. The findings align with trends for other Germanic languages; however, there are notable language-specific differences of clinical importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether stuttering judgment accuracy is influenced by familiarity with the stuttering speaker's language. Method: Audiovisual 7-min speech samples from nine 3- to 5-year-olds were used. Icelandic children who stutter (CWS), preselected for different levels of stuttering, were subdivided into 5-s intervals. Ten experienced Icelandic speech-language pathologists (ICE-SLPs) and 10 experienced U.S. speech-language pathologists (US-SLPs), the latter being unfamiliar with the Icelandic language, independently judged each 5-s interval (n =7 5 6 )a s stuttered or nonstuttered on 2 separate occasions. Results: As in previous studies, intervals judged to contain stuttering showed wide variability within the ICE-SLP and US-SLP groups. However, both SLP groups (a) displayed satisfactory mean intrajudge agreement, (b) met an independent stuttering judgment accuracy criterion test using English-speaking CWS samples, and (c) met an agreement criterion on approximately 90% of their stuttering and nonstuttering judgments on the Icelandic-speaking CWS samples. Conclusion: Experienced SLPs were shown to be highly accurate in recognizing stuttering and nonstuttering exemplars from young CWS speaking in an unfamiliar language. The findings suggest that judgments of occurrences of stuttering in CWS are not generally language dependent, although some exceptions were noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Previous research has indicated that the manifestation of specific language impairment (SLI) varies according to factors such as language, age, and task. This study examined the effect of task demands on language production in children with SLI cross-linguistically. Method: Icelandic- and English-speaking school-age children with SLI and normal language (NL) peers (n = 42) were administered measures of verbal working memory. Spontaneous language samples were collected in contexts that vary in task demands: conversation, narration, and expository discourse. The effect of the context-related task demands on the accuracy of grammatical inflections was examined. Results: Children with SLI in both language groups scored significantly lower than their NL peers in verbal working memory. Nonword repetition scores correlated with morphological accuracy. In both languages, mean length of utterance (MLU) varied systematically across sampling contexts. Context exerted a significant effect on the accuracy of grammatical inflection in English only. Error rates were higher overall in English than in Icelandic, but whether the difference was significant depended on the sampling context. Errors in Icelandic involved verb and noun phrase inflection to a similar extent. Conclusions: The production of grammatical morphology appears to be more taxing for children with SLI who speak English than for those who speak Icelandic. Thus, whereas children with SLI in both language groups evidence deficits in language processing, cross-linguistic differences are seen in which linguistic structures are vulnerable when processing load is increased. Future research should carefully consider the effect of context on children's language performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]