Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T16:37:29.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bilingual children with language impairment: A comparison with monolinguals and second language learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

VERA F. GUTIÉRREZ-CLELLEN ,
GABRIELA SIMON-CEREIJIDO  and
CHRISTINE WAGNER
VERA F. GUTIÉRREZ-CLELLEN*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
GABRIELA SIMON-CEREIJIDO
Affiliation:
San Diego State University and University of California, San Diego
CHRISTINE WAGNER
Affiliation:
Salinas School District, Salinas, California
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Vera F. Gutierrez-Clellen, School of Speech, Language, & Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1518. E-mail: vclellen@mail.sdsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to examine whether English finite morphology has the potential to differentiate children with and without language impairment (LI) from Spanish-speaking backgrounds and different levels of English proficiency in comparison to Hispanic English speakers and (b) to investigate the extent to which children who are bilingual exhibit differences in their grammatical performance because of cross-linguistic influence from their first language. Seventy-one children between the ages of 4 years, 5 months and 6 years, 5 months were distributed into the following five groups: English as a first language (EL1) speakers with typical language development (TLD), EL1 speakers with LI, Spanish–English bilinguals with TLD, Spanish–English bilinguals with LI, and English as a second language (EL2) learners with TLD were compared on regular verb finiteness and nominative subject use using spontaneous narrative samples. The EL1 children with LI had significantly lower verb accuracy rates than the EL1 controls with TLD. Verb finiteness marking was also a significant discriminator for the bilinguals with LI. There was no evidence of cross-linguistic influence, however. The analysis indicated no significant differences between EL1 and bilingual children on subject or verb use. The EL2 group only presented difficulties with finite verb use. The typological differences between English and Spanish for overt subject use did not seem to affect the performance of either typical or atypical bilingual learners. The findings underscore the need for addressing language dominance in future bilingual studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bedore, L. M., & Leonard, L. B. (1998). Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: A discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1185–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Paradise, J. L., Feldman, H. M., Janosky, J. E., Pitcairn, D. N., et al. (1999). Maternal education and measures of early speech and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1432–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dopke, S. (2000). Generation of and retraction from cross-linguistically motivated structures in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 3, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilers, R. E., Oller, D. K., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2002). Bilingualism and cultural assimilation in Miami Hispanic children. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 43–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fought, C. (2006). Talkin’ with mi gente (Chicano English). In Wolfram, W. & Ward, B. (Eds.), American voices: How dialects differ from coast to coast. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 175–206). Tonawanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002b). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 207–219). Tonawanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002c). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 255–280). Tonawanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Grela, B. G. (2003). The omission of subject arguments in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grela, B. G., & Leonard, L. B. (1997). The use of subject arguments by children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 11, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez-Clellen, V., Restrepo, M. A., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2007). Evaluating the discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with Spanish-speaking children. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Clellen, V., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2007). Evaluation of the discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with Latino English-speaking children. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewkes, A. M. (2005). The power of the family: A longitudinal investigation of how the home environment influences preschool language development. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Loeb, D., & Leonard, L. (1991). Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally developing and specifically language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 340–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. 20th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In Groot, A. D. & Kroll, J. (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism. Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1975). One frog too many. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. (2000). Systematic analysis of language transcripts. Madison, WI: Language Analysis Laboratory.Google Scholar
Ornstein-Galicia, J. (Ed.). (1981). Form and function in Chicano English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Owens, R. E. (1991). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French–English bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 46, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. In Oller, D. K. & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 135–174). Tonawanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña, E. D., Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., Iglesias, A., Goldstein, B., & Bedore, L. M. (2007). Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 221–238). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1398–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L. (2003). A unified model of specific and general language delay: Grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 63–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax–discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacha-Haase, T., & Nilsson, J. E. (1998). Statistical significance reporting: Current trends and uses in MECD. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 31, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1974). Sociolinguistic aspects of assimilation: Puerto Rican English in New York City. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998a). American English: Dialects and variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998b). Tri-ethnic dialect situations. In Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), American English (pp. 181–182). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2000). Syntactic transfer in a Cantonese–English bilingual child. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zwanziger, E. E., Allen, S. E. M., & Genesee, F. (2005). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual acquisition: Subject omission in learners of Inuktitut and English. Journal of Child Language, 32, 893–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed