Search

Past research shows that family language patterns (i.e., which languages are spoken in the family and by whom) are associated with bilingual children's language use. However, it is unclear how input properties such as input quantity, parental proficiency, and language mixing may differ across family language patterns. It is also unclear whether the effects of family language patterns on children's language proficiency remain when differences in input properties are controlled. We investigated (i) which family language patterns occurred in bilingual families in the Netherlands (n = 136), (ii) whether input properties differed across patterns, and (iii) how patterns related to children's proficiency, once input properties were controlled. Home language situations were assessed through a questionnaire, children's proficiency in Dutch and the minority language through vocabulary tests and parent ratings. Three language patterns were found: one-parent-one-language, both parents mixed languages or used the minority language. The results showed differences in input properties across all patterns, as well as effects of these patterns on children's proficiency in Dutch and the minority language that disappeared once input properties were controlled. These findings do not provide robust evidence that family language patterns predict children's proficiency, but rather, that input quantity is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has highlighted the significance of the family and community in minority language revitalisation, whilst raising concern for efforts solely focused at the school level. This article draws upon research with children in Gaelic Medium Education, in Scotland, to explore their experiences and perceptions of their language use. The findings illustrate the dominance of English language across multiple aspects of children's lives and highlight the opportunities/threats of recent revitalisation efforts to push the bilingual benefits of language learning. The findings suggest the need for a more considered approach, such as translanguaging pedagogies, in order to effectively revitalise Gaelic language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate an assessment approach that incorporates a parent questionnaire (ALDeQ) and two language processing tasks (nonword repetition [NWR] and recalling sentences [RS]) administered in English to differentiate bilingual children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) from typically developing (TD) bilingual children. Method: Participants were 42 typically developing bilingual children (biTD) and 19 bilingual children with DLD (biDLD). Groups were matched for age (M = 5;10) socioeconomic status (M = 1,023 SEIFA) and length of exposure to English (M = 33.4 months). Children were given a NWR and RS task. Parents completed the ALDeQ. Result: BiDLD had significantly (p < 0.005) lower average scores than biTD on all three assessment tools. The ALDeQ provided the highest diagnostic accuracy (100% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.991). Two other combinations also provided good diagnostic accuracy (above 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity): combination of ALDeQ and NWR; scores below the cut-offline on any combination of assessment tools. Conclusion: Correct identification of DLD among bilingual children using an all English approach is possible. This approach has the potential to provide a practical and evidence-based solution for English speaking speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with bilingual children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • We examined narratives in bilinguals with TD and bilinguals with DLD. • DLD bilinguals had significantly lower story grammar scores than their TD peers. • Groups showed similar scores for microstructure components. • L2 exposure and richness predict narrative abilities for TD bilinguals, not DLD. Abstract Purpose : The narrative abilities of bilinguals with TD and with DLD/SLI in their English L2 were examined in order to 1) identify the narrative components that differentiate these two groups and 2) determine the role of age and input factors in predicting L2 narrative abilities in each group. Method : Participants were 24 English L2 children with DLD and 63 English L2 children with TD, matched on age (mean = 5; 8) and length of exposure to the L2 (mean = 24 months). Narrative samples were elicited using a story generation task and a parent questionnaire provided age and input variables. Results : Bilinguals with DLD had significantly lower scores for story grammar than their TD peers, but showed similar scores for narrative microstructure components. Length of L2 exposure in school and richness of the L2 environment predicted better narrative abilities for the group with TD but not with DLD. Older age predicted better narrative abilities for the group with DLD but not with TD. Quantity of L2 input/output at home did not predict story grammar or microstructure abilities in either group. Conclusion : Story grammar might differentiate between children with TD and DLD better than microstructure among bilinguals with less exposure to the L2 and when a story generation task is used. Bilinguals with TD make more efficient use of L2 input than bilinguals with DLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions: This study investigates wh-in-situ transfer for sequential bilingual children whose first language (L1) is Korean and early second language (L2) is English. Previous research has shown evidence that bilingual children who speak one in-situ language and one wh-movement language often show transfer from the dominant language to the weaker language, and from the in-situ language to the wh-movement language. The purpose of this study is to explore whether wh-in-situ is transferred to English, under the influence of Korean. The research questions are as follows: Do K-E bilingual children produce more wh-in-situ questions in English than their monolingual counterparts? If so, do these wh-in-situ questions appear in illicit constructions? Design/Methodology: The design of this study is longitudinal in nature, in order to best capture a holistic picture of the children’s productions of English over time. Seven K-E children spanning ages 2;4 to 7;11 were observed in their spontaneous play interactions over approximately two years. Data/Analysis: The data consists of 120 recordings, which were transcribed and coded in ELAN. Monolingual comparison data were obtained from the CHILDES database. Findings/Conclusions: Results show no instances of wh-in-situ in the children’s English; the bilingual children pattern similarly to English-monolingual children in wh-in-situ production. No direct influence from Korean to English for wh-in-situ formation was found, contrary to what has been found in studies with other language pairs. Originality: This paper provides new evidence from a language pairing that has not been previously explored for crosslinguistic influence of wh-in-situ questions. Significance/Implications: The findings suggest that a dominance approach or structural complexity approach to predicting crosslinguistic influence for bilingual speakers may not fully capture the conditions for such influence to occur and may require some modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In this study, the authors sought to determine whether a combination of English-language measures and a parent questionnaire on first-language development could adequately discriminate between English-language learners (ELLs) with and without language impairment (LI) when children had diverse first-language backgrounds. Method: Participants were 152 typically developing (TD) children and 26 children with LI; groups were matched for age (M = 5;10 [years;months]) and exposure to English (M = 21 months). Children were given English standardized tests of nonword repetition, tense morphology, narrative story grammar, and receptive vocabulary. Parents were given a questionnaire on children’s first-language development. Results: ELLs with LI had significantly lower scores than the TD ELLs on the first-language questionnaire and all the English-language measures except for vocabulary. Linear discriminant function analyses showed that good discrimination between the TD and LI groups could be achieved with all measures, except vocabulary, combined. The strongest discriminator was the questionnaire, followed by nonword repetition and tense morphology. Conclusion: Discrimination of children with LI among a diverse group of ELLs might be possible when using a combination of measures. Children with LI exhibit deficits in similar linguistic/cognitive domains regardless of whether English is their first or second language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]