Differentiating Between English L2 Children with Typical and Impaired

Language Development

Johanne Paradis and Tamara Sorenson Duncan University of Alberta

Clinical Markers in English SLI   Clinical marker

  performance in domain differentiates TD from SLI   Non-word repetition / phonological working memory   Tense marking morphology   Separate and genetic/inherited components for both   Children with SLI acquiring English as L2 should also

show vulnerabilities on working memory and tense morpheme tasks

Bishop et al., 2006; Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Gathercole, 2006; Rice & Wexler, 1996; Rice, 2007;Tager-Flusberg & Copper, 1999

Tense Morphology in L2

  Marker of SLI in simultaneous French-English and Spanish-English bilinguals

  Past tense particular marker of SLI in Spanish-English sequential bilinguals (80 months of exposure)

Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008); Jacobson & Schwartz (2005); Paradis et al. (2003); Paradis (2005); Paradis et al., (2008)

Tense Morphology in L2

  Marker of SLI in simultaneous French-English and Spanish-English bilinguals

  Past tense particular marker of SLI in Spanish-English sequential bilinguals (80 months of exposure)

  Overlap in difficulties with tense morphology between monolingual SLI and L2 English at earlier stages (10 months)

  Could tense be a clinical marker in L2 at early stages?

Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2008); Jacobson & Schwartz (2005); Paradis et al. (2003); Paradis (2005); Paradis et al., (2008)

Non-Word Repetition in an L2

  Phonological working memory = basic language learning mechanism

  Basic functional mechanisms less sensitive to incomplete acquisition?

Girbau & Schwartz, 2008; Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2004, 2006); Kohnert & Windsor (2004)

Non-Word Repetition in an L2

  Phonological working memory = basic language learning mechanism

  Basic functional mechanisms less sensitive to incomplete acquisition?

  Successful non-word repetition requires mastery of segmental and suprasegmental phonology in L2

  Could phonological working memory be a clinical marker in L2 at early stages?

Girbau & Schwartz, 2008; Gutiérrez-Clellen et al. (2004, 2006); Kohnert & Windsor (2004)

Mother Tongue

English

French

Non-official languages

Linguistic Diversity among Canadian Children

Children 0-14 – mother tongue – Statistics Canada 2006

Spanish

Arabic Punjabi

Urdu

Cantonese

Mandarin

Non-Official Languages

Linguistic Diversity among English L2 Children

Children 0-14 years – language spoken most often at home – Statistics Canada 2006

Importance of L2 Clinical Markers   Best practice for identification of language impairment in

bilinguals:   Assessment in both languages (ASHA and CASLPA)

  Direct examination of L1 of English L2 children often impossible in diverse contexts

  English L2 children take up to 5 years to catch up to monolinguals   Too long to wait for assessments

  Uncovering potential clinical markers in early L2 English relevant to assessment practices in diverse contexts

Method

Participants

  Children from newcomer families in Edmonton and Toronto, Canada

  Children 5-7 years old   Exposure to English: 1-3 years

  Early sequential bilinguals   L1 exclusive or predominant language of home at birth

  L1 backgrounds: Mandarin/Cantonese, Arabic, Urdu/Punjabi/Hindi, Spanish   4 Vietnamese & 1 Somali in SLI group

  81 TD children and 24 children with SLI

Criteria for SLI

  Referred by SLPs   Receiving speech

therapy services and/or attending special kindergarten programs

  Assessment by SLP required for services/programs

  No autism   No hearing impairment   No acquired

neurological damage   No severe intellectual

disability (nonverbal IQ above 80)

  Not primary speech impairment

Measures   CTOPP (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Wagner et al., 1999)

  Phonological Memory Composite: non-word repetition and memory for digits

  TEGI (Test of Early Grammatical Impairment, Rice & Wexler, 2001)

  Elicited Grammar Composite: probes for 3rd Sing –s, PAST –ed, BE and DO

  ALDeQ (Alberta Language and Development Questionnaire)

  Early milestones / current L1 skills / behaviour / family history

  ALEQ (Alberta Language Environment Questionnaire)

  Maternal education, language use in the home, richness of English environment (contact with English via media and friends)

  CMMS (Columbia Mental Maturity Scales, Burgemeister et al., 1972)

  Non-verbal IQ

Participant Sample Characteristics

AGE MOE ALDeQ CMMS TD 71 24 .79 106 SLI 72 25 .48 98

p > .05 p > .05 p > .001 p > .01

Results

Between-Group Comparisons

CTOPP: TD > SLI (p < .001) d = .75

TEGI: TD > SLI (p < .001) d = 1.05

Regression Model: CTOPP

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept 69.097 5.752 12.012*** TD or SLI -8.931 -2.860 -3.123**

IQ 0.479 0.158 3.028** TEGI 10.011 4.420 2.264*

R2 = .31, F (3,92) = 13.76**

Did not improve fit of model: AGE, MOE, Home Language, English Richness, L1

Regression Model: CTOPP

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept 69.097 5.752 12.012*** TD or SLI -8.931 -2.860 -3.123**

IQ 0.479 0.158 3.028** TEGI 10.011 4.420 2.264*

R2 = .31, F (3,92) = 13.76**

Did not improve fit of model: AGE, MOE, Home Language, English Richness, L1

Regression Model: CTOPP

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept 69.097 5.752 12.012*** TD or SLI -8.931 -2.860 -3.123**

IQ 0.479 0.158 3.028** TEGI 10.011 4.420 2.264*

R2 = .31, F (3,92) = 13.76**

Did not improve fit of model: AGE, MOE, Home Language, English Richness, L1

Regression Model: CTOPP

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept 69.097 5.752 12.012*** TD or SLI -8.931 -2.860 -3.123**

IQ 0.479 0.158 3.028** TEGI 10.011 4.420 2.264*

R2 = .31, F (3,92) = 13.76**

Did not improve fit of model: AGE, MOE, Home Language, English Richness, L1

Regression Model: TEGI

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept -1.4139 0.4033 -3.506*** TD or SLI -0.1983 0.0824 -2.407*

IQ 0.0119 0.0046 2.581* AGE 0.0144 0.0046 3.538***

ENG RICH 0.0088 0.0030 2.974** HOME LANG 0.1005 0.0385 2.612*

R2 = .35, F(5,90) = 9.649**

Did not improve fit of model: MOE, CTOPP, L1

Regression Model: TEGI

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept -1.4139 0.4033 -3.506*** TD or SLI -0.1983 0.0824 -2.407*

IQ 0.0119 0.0046 2.581* AGE 0.0144 0.0046 3.538***

ENG RICH 0.0088 0.0030 2.974** HOME LANG 0.1005 0.0385 2.612*

R2 = .35, F(5,90) = 9.649**

Did not improve fit of model: MOE, CTOPP, L1

Regression Model: TEGI

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept -1.4139 0.4033 -3.506*** TD or SLI -0.1983 0.0824 -2.407*

IQ 0.0119 0.0046 2.581* AGE 0.0144 0.0046 3.538***

ENG RICH 0.0088 0.0030 2.974** HOME LANG 0.1005 0.0385 2.612*

R2 = .35, F(5,90) = 9.649**

Did not improve fit of model: MOE, CTOPP, L1

Regression Model: TEGI

Coefficients Estimate Standard error t-value

Intercept -1.4139 0.4033 -3.506*** TD or SLI -0.1983 0.0824 -2.407*

IQ 0.0119 0.0046 2.581* AGE 0.0144 0.0046 3.538***

ENG RICH 0.0088 0.0030 2.974** HOME LANG 0.1005 0.0385 2.612*

R2 = .35, F(5,90) = 9.649**

Did not improve fit of model: MOE, CTOPP, L1

Linear Discriminant Function Analysis

Model = ALDeQ (.950) + TEGI (.346) + CTOPP (.214)

X2 = 104.9, p < .001 Canonical correlation = .803

Specificity

TD SLI

Sensitivity

SLI TD

Linear Discriminant Function Analysis

Model = ALDeQ (.950) + TEGI (.346) + CTOPP (.214)

X2 = 104.9, p < .001 Canonical correlation = .803

Specificity

TD SLI

Sensitivity

SLI TD

Discussion

Summary   Significant differences between TD and SLI groups for

CTOPP and TEGI at 2 years exposure to English   CTOPP predictors internal (Group, IQ) and TEGI

  TEGI association = phonology = cluster reduction?

  TEGI predictors internal (Group, IQ, AGE) and external (home language and English Richness)   Tense = more language specific, so external factors matter

more?

  Combined with L1 development information (ALDeQ), CTOPP and TEGI show very good-to-excellent discrimination of SLI and TD

Conclusions   Clinical markers in a language are the same if it is

acquired as an L1 or an L2   Even though input conditions for L2 acquisition can be different   Similar findings for subj-verb agreement in Dutch L1 and L2

with SLI (Orgassa, 2009)

  Differentiation between TD and SLI among L2 learners emerges as early as 2 years of exposure

  But, L2 phonological working memory and tense accuracy not sufficient to discriminate SLI   L1 development information needs to be included

Many Thanks to   Kristyn Emmerzael, Ruiting

Jia, Dorothy Pawlina Pinto, Emily Yiu, Tatiana Zdorenko

  Edmonton Public School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board

  Multicultural Health Brokers Cooperative

  Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network