Скачать презентацию SLI in bilingual populationsthe reliability of grammatical morphology Скачать презентацию SLI in bilingual populationsthe reliability of grammatical morphology

d660903905979e068b9f255b35db2a57.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 30

SLI in bilingual populationsthe reliability of grammatical morphology 37 -924 -01 Theoretical Approaches to SLI in bilingual populationsthe reliability of grammatical morphology 37 -924 -01 Theoretical Approaches to Specific Language Impairment (SLI) Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem Bar Ilan University

Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition Who is bilingual? n How does one become bilingual? Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition Who is bilingual? n How does one become bilingual? n Is it a homogeneous group? n Are these facts related? Why? How? n How are bilinguals different from monolinguals? n

Simultaneous bilingual (age 3; 7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Simultaneous bilingual (age 3; 7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. *EFR: Do you want to read the Jungle Book? *YAR: I can see Mowgli going. *EFR: what can you see here? *YAR: Bagheera take him to the animals. *EFR: really? who are these? *YAR: the wolfim. *EFR: and here? *YAR: I can see Baloo and the Mowgli. *EFR: what are they doing? *YAR: they throwing nuts. *EFR: and now? *YAR: Mowgli going quickly and Bagheera’s sleeping. *EFR: oh. *YAR: now Baloo want to eat the monkeys. *EFR: and now? *YAR: here Mowgli with Shere Khan. *EFR: what happened to Mowgli? *YAR: and he is doing fire to Shere Khan. *EFR: Shere Khan is scared. *YAR: why? *EFR: he is afraid of Mowgli. *YAR: yeah, from the esh.

Bilingual SLI Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language Impairment. Bilingual SLI Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language Impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 31, 227– 252 n Bilingual SLI (BISLI) Bilingual children who are below chronological age in both languages.

L 1 English-L 2 Hebrew 6; 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. L 1 English-L 2 Hebrew 6; 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. *EXP: *YON: *EXP: *YON: *EXP: *YON: *EXP: what’s Maugli doing? walking in in near the trees. here is a… panther have a doll. the panther has a … you are right … but the panther has a… a doll and what’s the panther doing? looking for the wolves. and then, what is Maugli doing now? playing on stairs. what’s he playing with? bears and coconuts. what’s he doing with the coconuts? try to get it. and who else do we have? a a a tiger and a snake. oh oh. what’s the panther doing? ask where the kid is. you think he is asking them where the kid is.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. *EXP: *YON: *EXP: *YON: *EXP: *YON: but then what happened to the panther? asleep. and when he was asleep? he run away. he ran away. who found him? the monkeys. oh gosh, what are they doing to Maugli? picking him up. then they’re almost holding. what did he do with these? throwed him. he threw them? what are they these? bananas. who eats the bananas? monkeys.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. *YON: *EXP: *EXP: *YON: *EXP: *YON: the tiger. do you think they’re friends? no. he plans fire. he put fire on him. and is he scared? yeah so what’s he doing? running away. oh gosh he’s running away. then he found a girl playing by the water. yeah. and where’s he? in a tree. yeah. and now…? going together. they’re going together to…? the house.

L 1 Russian, L 2 Hebrew (4; 7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. L 1 Russian, L 2 Hebrew (4; 7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Int 1 Child Int 1 Child 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Int 1 Child Int 1 Child Ma ata mecayer Lo yodeya. Ata roce be-acmexa o she ani azor? Izor? Keilu ani aazor? Ken. Aval tesaper li ma ata roe ba sefer tov? Ze. Mi ze? Yosenet. Com % In the pictures he sees a boy. Ma? Yoshenet. Osenet po. Oshenet po. Ma maxzik ha-yeled? Yeled mazik bi ze…… shinaim. Ma? Et ze. Ve ma ze? Xatul. Ma hu ose sham? Ee…. Pes kelev. Ma hu ose? Ani roca ladaat ani lo yodaat, … Hu mecayer. Ken.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Int 1 Ve ma hu roe ba xalon. Child Ba-xalon i bait. Int 1 Ba-xalon i ibait. Child Ze kelev. Int 1 Ve ma ze? Bait shel kelev? Child Ze. . Ine ze kelev bait. Int 1 Ve ze? Child Ze…bait kelev. Olex kaxa. Int 1 Ze bait kelev olex kaxa. Ma od ata roe ma ze? Child Be. . Ec. Int 1 Naxon ec, kol ha-kavod, …. . Ata o(h)ev ecim yesh lexa ba-bait ec? Child Lo. Int 1 Lama? Child Li yesh ba-bait peax. Int 1 Ve mi metapel ba-perax? Child Eee…ima. Int 1 Ma hi osa? Child. Hi osa. . Main mm peax. Int 1 Hi osa maim praex …tov. … Ve mi zot? Child Lo yodeya. Int 1 Ulai zot maxshefa?

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. Child Int 1 Child Int 1 Child com Child Int 1 dvarim? Child Aval ze uga yom -uledet. Naxon. Li yesh yom –uledet. Matai yesh lexa yom –uledet. Ein li …aya. Aaa… aya lexa, evanti, ve ex aya? Aya kef. Ma ata omer? , ivi(h)u lexa uga? Ken, ima. Ima? Ken. Kan o ba-bait? Ba-bait. Ma ata omer? …. ve (h)ayu lexa orxim? Ken orxim ve ba-bait. Ve mi ba? Saba vee lo yodeya…. Ima veeee. . Lo yodeya. Child sees a car in the picture Oto!!! Oto! Ata o(h)ev oto? Ma ze ? Ma ose? Ma hu ose? Hu xoshev, hu xoshev ma lecayer. Naxon she ata ciyarta Ken… hu cayer.

The scope of the problem n n The large waves of migration in recent The scope of the problem n n The large waves of migration in recent years led to a growth in the number of children being raised in multilingual societies, and elucidated the importance of studying language disorders in bilingual children. In Israel, for example, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Education, 20% of school children who attended Hebrew speaking secular schools in 2004 came from families in which at least one parent does not speak Hebrew (CBS, 2006( Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) are estimated as 5 -10% of the population (Bercow review, 2008 (ץ de Jong (2009): Non-native speakers in Dutch schools –Mainstream schools: 14% –Special schools: 19% –Schools for language-impaired children: 24%

Central Issues n n n Can we disentangle bilingualism from SLI in impaired children? Central Issues n n n Can we disentangle bilingualism from SLI in impaired children? How do we diagnose SLI in bilingual population? Are bilingualism and SLI are "two of a kind" (Crago & Paradis, 2003) Do bilingual children with SLI show a "double delay“ ((Paradis 2007; Paradis et al. 2003; Paradis et al. 2005/6). Can bilingualism can be instructive for children with SLI (Roeper 2009).

Hakansson, Salameh, & Nettelbladt. 2003 n n n Swedish-Arabic children with and without SLI Hakansson, Salameh, & Nettelbladt. 2003 n n n Swedish-Arabic children with and without SLI Migrant children with simultaneous to successive acquisition of Swedish (matched for exposure to Swedish and Arabic. ( Children with LI tended to produce earlystage structures in both of their languages while children with typical development tended to produce more complex or later developing structures in each of their languages. Unimpaired 2 L 1/c. L 2 children are L 1 -like in at least one language Children with SLI are impaired in both languages The differences is held over time while development followes the predicted patterns in each of their languages (Salameh et al. , 2004(

Paradis (1999) and Crago & Paradis (2000) n n n First studies of Bilingual Paradis (1999) and Crago & Paradis (2000) n n n First studies of Bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment (BISLI) - French-English simultaneous bilingualism in Canada. L 1 and L 2 French-speaking children with SLI A range of measures related to the ‘optional infinitive’ phenomenon “Significant similarities” between SLI and L 2 learners, : ¨ ¨ Tense marking Avoidance of object clitics Verb diversity Use of general purpose verbs (e. g. do, make). A parallel is found between the language of sequential bilingual children and the language of children with SLI – both use bare verbs (Optional Infinitives). tense-marking may not be an effective clinical indicator of SLI for second language learners.

Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice. 2003 n n n French-English bilingual children with SLI Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice. 2003 n n n French-English bilingual children with SLI - monolingual age mates with SLI, in each language. Morphosyntax in language production - the extended optional infinitive (EOI) framework (children's use of tense-bearing and non-tense-bearing morphemes in obligatory context in spontaneous speech( All SLI children showed greater accuracy with non-tense than with tense morphemes. All SLI children had similar mean accuracy scores for tense morphemes. The bilingual children did not exhibit more profound deficits in the use of these grammatical morphemes than their monolingual peers. SLI may not be an impediment to learning two languages, at least in the domain of grammatical morphology.

Paradis & Crago 2000 n While children with SLI tend to omit the auxiliary Paradis & Crago 2000 n While children with SLI tend to omit the auxiliary in past or future periphrastic verb constructions, L 2 children substitute the auxiliary with the base or present tense form.

Paradis. 2008 n n only L 2 children generalize the use of BE, in Paradis. 2008 n n only L 2 children generalize the use of BE, in order to fill a gap between their communicative demands and their knowledge of the L 2 with a morphosyntactic expression. Both the high proportions of commission errors and the overgeneralization of BE single out L 2 children from children with SLI.

Study I – Language use in Narrative (Moldinov 2010) Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Study I – Language use in Narrative (Moldinov 2010) Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Hebrew Monolinguals with SLI # Age Lo. E Hebrew score L 2 evaluation Bi. TLD 20 5; 0 -6; 2 2< Within norms (Goralnik 1995) No history of language impairment in Russian. Z-score higher than -1 (based on 80 Russian-Hebrew bilinguals in regular preschools) on NWR, sentence imitation, and MLU in narrative in Russian Bi. SLI 6; 3 -6; 10 2< < -1. 5 SD parents reported delay in L 1 Russian. All were receiving treatment by an SLP 5; 1 -6; 5 < -1. 5 SD 9 Mo. SLI 14 n Task: telling a story from a set of pictures

 שגיאות מורפו-תחביריות )מס' השגיאות/סה שגיאות מורפו-תחביריות )מס' השגיאות/סה"כ מילים בסיפור( • בהתייחס לאחוז הכולל של השגיאות – אין הבדל בין ילדים עם BTD ל – . (p =. 12) H-SLI • עם זאת כשמתייחסים רק לשגיאות שלא יכולות להיות מוסברות על ידי תרגום/העברה משפה אחת לשנייה ) (non-CI errors נראה הבדל מובהק יותר בין הקבוצות. ילדים עם TD ביצעו פחות שגיאות מ – (p =. 01) H-SLI ומ – . (p =. 00) B-SLI לא היה הבדל בין שתי הקבוצות לקויות השפה )410. = . (p

 סוגי שגיאות שאינן מוסברות על ידי העברה ) (Non-CI ושכיחותן BTD )77 = סוגי שגיאות שאינן מוסברות על ידי העברה ) (Non-CI ושכיחותן BTD )77 = (n H-SLI )621 = (n B-SLI )14 = (n התאם פעלים לפי מין ומספר %73. 22 %87. 72 %59. 12 השמטת פועל %48. 11 %23. 01 %23. 7 שימוש בהטיות לא מקובלות של הפועל %23. 1 %71. 3 %67. 9 מילות יחס %62. 5 %71. 3 %23. 7

Study II – Inflections Use in L 2 Hebrew by Bilinguals with TLD # Study II – Inflections Use in L 2 Hebrew by Bilinguals with TLD # Age Lo. E Hebrew evaluation L 2 evaluation Russian. Hebrew 15 5 -7 2< Within norms (Goralnik 1995) No history of language impairment in Russian. Z-score higher than -1 (based on 80 Russian-Hebrew bilinguals in regular preschools) on NWR, sentence imitation, and MLU in narrative in Russian English. Hebrew (Shimon 2008) 11 5 -7 2< Within norms (CELF 2 preschool) Goralnik 1995)

Sentence completion TLD vs. MOSLI * * MOSLI (Dromi et al. , 1999) Sentence completion TLD vs. MOSLI * * MOSLI (Dromi et al. , 1999)

Major Findings n n Speakers of Hebrew as L 2 whose L 1 is Major Findings n n Speakers of Hebrew as L 2 whose L 1 is English, are almost at ceiling for all three morphemes after two years of exposure to Hebrew Speakers of Hebrew whose L 1 is Russian with a similar length of exposure at ceiling for two of the three morphemes, but score like monolingual children with SLI on the plural morpheme. The few errors documented in the Hebrew L 2 data were erroneous choice of tense which did not involve a fewer number of features, or, for the children with L 1 Russian use of the more complex agreement morpheme (fem. pl. ) due to code interference from L 1 Russian. These data confirm that SLI and L 2 are not "two of a kind".

Study III – Hebrew Inflections in BISLI n n n 9 bilingual English-Hebrew children, Study III – Hebrew Inflections in BISLI n n n 9 bilingual English-Hebrew children, ages 5 -7, who attend language preschool following an earlier diagnosis for SLI. The bilingual children were all sequential bilinguals and were exposed to Hebrew for at least two years. All scored lower than -1 SD below norm on the CELF 2 preschool for English and lower than -1. 5 SD below norm on the Goralnik for Hebrew.

Enactment BISLI and MOSLI Enactment BISLI and MOSLI

Major Findings n n On the three inflectional categories which were tested in both Major Findings n n On the three inflectional categories which were tested in both studies, no significant difference was found between the two groups, neither in the degree of success, nor in the type of errors (choosing the 3 rd person form which has no suffix instead of a form inflected with a suffix for 1 st or 2 nd person). Impaired bilinguals achieve a similar level of performance to impaired monolinguals, thus showing no double delay effects for the impaired children.

Sentence completion BISLI and MOSLI ? Sentence completion BISLI and MOSLI ?

Major Findings n n n Bilingual children with SLI are not only as accurate Major Findings n n n Bilingual children with SLI are not only as accurate as monolingual children with SLI, and sometimes even do better In the present tense, bilingual children with SLI do better than Dromi et al. 's monolingual children with SLI (and also better than our sample of MOSLI tested by the same RA at the same schools as the BISLI group) This is noteworthy in the use of the rare and marked feminine plural. Is bilingualism instructive to children with SLI? Do bilingual children with SLI rely on their knowledge of L 1 in acquiring the L 2, which gives them an advantage over monolingual children with SLI?