Instructive bilingualism: Can bilingual children with ...

Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 253–343

Commentaries doi:10.1017/S0142716409990385

Instructive bilingualism: Can bilingual children with specific language impairment rely on one language in learning a second one?

Only a decade ago, a very few researchers considered the study of language disorders in bilingual population worth pursuing. It was mostly argued that there were enough challenges in studying bilingualism, and even more challenges in the study of specific language impairment (SLI). So why complicate things and combine the two domains? 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, these demographic changes yield an extremely diverse population. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) 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 did not speak Hebrew (CBS, 2006). Among the few researchers who rose to the challenges posed by looking at bilingualism and SLI were Paradis and her collaborators (Paradis, 1999; Paradis & Crago, 2000), whose research paved the way for the study of bilingual SLI (BISLI). In the Keynote Article, Paradis takes us from the first studies that compared the use of verb morphosyntax by monolingual children with SLI and that of bilingual children to the present challenges posed by the study of BISLI, focusing on the many studies of verbal morphology in this population. This Commentary follows Paradis’ lead in arguing that bilingualism and SLI are not “two of a kind” (Crago & Paradis, 2003), and that bilingual children with SLI do not show a “double delay.” Data from English–Hebrew and Russian–Hebrew bilinguals with typical linguistic development (TLD) and with SLI are presented to support the claim that impaired bilinguals achieve levels of morphosyntactic knowledge similar to impaired monolinguals. Finally, the commentary addresses Paradis’ suggestion that “learning one language bootstraps the learning of a second one” (p. 29), arguing along with Roeper (2009) that bilingualism can be instructive for children with SLI. One of the major challenges posed by the study of BISLI is the parallel found between the language of sequential bilingual children and the language of children with SLI. Crago and Paradis (2003) addressed this issue asking whether they are two of a kind. This Keynote Article argues that despite the similarities, bilingualism, and SLI are not two of a kind, and that “profile differences have been found with respect to the distribution of error types and the differential timing of the acquisition of BE and inflectional tense morpheme” (p. 15) in English. More specifically, it is argued that while children with SLI tend to omit the auxiliary in past or future periphrastic verb constructions, second language (L2) children © Cambridge University Press, 2010 0142-7164/10 $15.00

Applied Psycholinguistics 31:2 Commentaries

254

substitute the auxiliary with the base or present tense form (Paradis & Crago, 2000). Furthermore, Paradis (2008) shows that only L2 children generalize the use of BE. She argues that they do it in order to fill a gap between their communicative demands and their knowledge of the L2 with a morphosyntactic expression. Both the high proportions of commission errors and the overgeneralization of BE single out L2 children from children with SLI. The findings Paradis presents from English L2 children and monolingual children with SLI to show that these are not two of a kind also gain support from Hebrew-speaking children with SLI and Hebrew L2 speakers. Dromi et al. (1993, 1999) studied the use of verbal morphology in 4- to 6-year-old Hebrew-speaking children with SLI using a sentence completion task. With verbal morphology so central in Hebrew, a Semitic language, it was predicted that very few inflections, if any, would pose a problem for children with SLI. More specifically, it was predicted that inflections that carry more features would be more difficult than those that carry fewer features with errors that show a simpler feature complex. Dromi et al. (1999) targeted present tense morphemes that can be marked for gender (fem.), number (pl.), or both (fem. pl.), using a sentence completion task. They found that although monolingual children with TLD scored at ceiling on all three morphemes, children with SLI showed 80% success when one feature was involved, but hardly ever produce the target morpheme that represented two features (fem. pl.). In English, most errors were omissions, but in Hebrew most errors were substitutions in which a morpheme that marked just one feature was used. Armon-Lotem (2010), using the same task, found that speakers of Hebrew as L2 whose first language (L1) is English, are almost at ceiling for all three morphemes after 2 years of exposure to Hebrew, whereas speakers whose L1 is Russian with a similar length of exposure to Hebrew, were at ceiling for two of the three morphemes, but scored like monolingual children with SLI on the plural morpheme (see Figure 1). This similarity was only superficial because it reflected L1 influence that triggered the use of the feminine plural morpheme. The few errors documented in the Hebrew L2 data included erroneous choice of tense, which did not involve a fewer number of features, or, for the children with L1 Russian use of the more complex agreement morpheme (fem. pl.) because of code interference (CI) from L1. These data confirm that SLI and L2 are not two of a kind. Further support for this conclusion comes from a study of the use of prepositions in L2 Hebrew and the Hebrew of monolingual children with SLI (Armon-Lotem et al., 2008). Two types of prepositions were tested: free prepositions (F-preps), which introduce an adverbial prepositional phrase (locatives, temporals, directionals), for example, in the morning, at school, to school, and obligatory prepositions (O-preps), which are selected by the verb (dative, oblique), for example, laugh at, chase after. O-preps may or may not form a PP with the NP that follows, but they are not arguments of the verb; that is, the theta role is assigned to the NP that follows the preposition (cf. Botwinik-Rotem, 2004). O-preps primarily serve a grammatical function in case assignment and often do not contribute to the meaning of the sentence, whereas F-preps form a prepositional phase (PP) with the following noun phrase (NP) contributing to the meaning of the sentence. This distinction accounts for the difficulty of SLI children with O-preps, which are prone to omission because they only serve a grammatical function while


255

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Fem sing

Masc plur

Fem plur

BI - TLD (Eng L1) BI - TLD (Rus L1) SLI

Figure 1. The level of success on present tense agreement items for BI-TLD English L1 according to Armon-Lotem (2010), BI-TLD Russian L1 according to Armon-Lotem (2010), and SLI according to Dromi et al. (1999). [A color version of this figure can be viewed online at journals.cambridge.org/aps]

contributing little to the meaning of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke, & Göllner, 1997; Tsimpli, 2001). Armon-Lotem et al. (2008) found that both substitution and omission errors are prevalent among Hebrew-speaking monolingual children with SLI, with significantly more omission errors on O-preps. No such omissions were found in the L2 Hebrew data from children with TDL, showing again that these are not two of a kind. Paradis further shows that bilingual children with SLI or LD show very similar abilities with BE to those of bilinguals with TDL. This finding is also addressed by Paradis in her discussion of the theoretical implications of the study of BISLI, when she weighs the possibility that BISLI might result in a double delay. Paradis addresses the predictions of limited processing capacity (LPC) theories that “seek to derive a wide range of linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes of SLI from lower level, domain general deficits alone, in contrast to the maturational model put forward by Rice (2004), which posits the presence of additional domain-specific deficits in SLI” (p. 19). She points out that a “key assumption inherent in LPC theories of morphological acquisition is that children with SLI would need more exposure, more time on task, to fully acquire a morphological paradigm” (p. 20). That is, by the PLC theories, children with SLI have functionally less exposure, and bilingual children with SLI have less frequent exposure to each language by being bilingual, and have functionally less exposure being SLI. Thus, Paradis argues, the PLC theories predict a “double delay” among bilingual children with SLI that are expected by these models to show lower performance when compared to monolingual children with SLI. Paradis reports, however, that bilingual children with SLI are as accurate as monolingual children with SLI in their use of 10 different grammatical morphemes in their spontaneous speech (Paradis, 2007; Paradis, Crago, & Genesee, 2005/2006; Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003). These findings are supported again by comparing the results for Hebrew of monolingual children with SLI


256

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1st sing

2nd masc BISLI

2nd fem

SLI

Figure 2. The level of success on past tense agreement items for BISLI according to ArmonLotem et al. (2010) and SLI according to Dromi et al. (1999). [A color version of this figure can be viewed online at journals.cambridge.org/aps]

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Fem sing

Masc plur BISLI

Fem plur

SLI

Figure 3. The level of success on present tense agreement items for BISLI according to ArmonLotem et al. (2010) and SLI according to Dromi et al. (1999). [A color version of this figure can be viewed online at journals.cambridge.org/aps]

(Dromi et al., 1999) and findings for Hebrew as L2 of bilingual English–Hebrew children who attend language preschool following an earlier diagnosis for SLI (Armon-Lotem et al., 2010). The bilingual children were all sequential bilinguals and were exposed to Hebrew for at least 2 years. The two studies used an enactment task developed by Dromi et al. (1999) that targeted first- and second-person morphology. Of the three inflectional categories that were tested in both studies, no significant difference was found between the two groups, either in the degree of success, or in the type of errors (choosing the third-person form, which has no suffix instead of a form inflected with a suffix for first and second person). That is, impaired bilinguals achieve a similar level of performance to impaired monolinguals, thus showing no double delay effects for the impaired children (see Figure 2). Moreover, in the present tense, when tested with the sentence completion task described above, bilingual children with SLI seemed to do better than Dromi et al.’s (1999) monolingual children with SLI, in particular, in the use of the rare and marked feminine plural (see Figure 3).


257

These findings further suggest that bilingual children with SLI are not only as accurate as monolingual children with SLI, but also sometimes even do better. That is, bilingual children seem to rely on their knowledge of L1 in acquiring the L2, which gives them an advantage over monolingual children with SLI. Additional support for the instructive role of bilingualism comes from a set of studies of prepositions conducted with English–Hebrew bilingual children with TLD and with SLI and with monolingual children with SLI (Shimon, 2008). Armon-Lotem and Walters (2009) report that children with SLI, both monolinguals and bilinguals, omit prepositions in a sentence repetition task. This finding replicates previous findings from Roeper, Ramos, Seymour, and Lamya (2001) and Watkins and Rice (1991). In contrast, bilingual children exhibited commission errors in their use of prepositions, both because of CI, but also in the absence of CI. Like Paradis’ findings for the use of BE, Armon-Lotem and Walters found that bilinguals with SLI like bilinguals with TLD showed evidence of CI in contrasting environments, as manifested by erroneous choice of prepositions (commission errors). As a result, omission errors were less frequent among bilingual children with SLI than among monolingual children with SLI. That is, the lack of omission errors by bilingual children with TLD distinguishes L2 children from monolingual children with SLI who exhibit omission errors. The commission errors are indicative of grammatical knowledge, because the L2 children realize that they need to fill the slot of the O-prep. These errors also reveal knowledge of the L1 as indicated by CI errors. Thus, the commission errors are supposed to place BISLI children in a better position regarding language acquisition than omission errors, because they are indicative of both grammatical knowledge and knowledge of their other language. These findings suggest again that bilingual children with SLI rely on their knowledge of the L1 in acquiring the L2, giving them an advantage over monolingual children with SLI. Could these findings mean, as Paradis indicates, that bilingualism offers compensatory mechanisms for children with SLI, either by counteracting the effects of limitations in processing abilities or because of their dual linguistic system? Is it the case that “learning one language bootstraps the learning of a second one?” Bialystok (2007) argues that bilingual children have certain superior executive functions that are manifested by enhanced metalinguistic awareness, and in her Keynote Article Paradis speculates that “the superior executive functions emerging from dual language learning could compensate to some extent for some of the processing deficits that come along with SLI.” Iluz-Cohen (2008) tested 40 bilingual preschool children with TLD and with SLI for nonverbal inhibition and shifting abilities, using an adaptation of the embedded figures task (based on De Avila & Duncan, 1980; Pascual-Leone, 1989; Piaget & Inhelder, 1966) and the classification task (from Ben-Zeev, 1977) as nonlinguistic measures. Performance on these tasks was compared with scores on standardized language tests in both languages and showed a relationship between language proficiency and executive function abilities, pointing to a lower performance in executive function abilities among bilingual children with BISLI when compared to bilingual children with TLD. These findings suggest that children with SLI exhibit cognitive deficits even when language is not specifically tested and indicate the necessity of a domain general component in any account for SLI.


258

Iluz-Cohen’s (2008) findings also show that the main difference among the groups is between children with SLI and all other bilingual children with typical language development, whether highly balanced (scoring within the monolingual norm on standardized tests in both languages) or not balanced (scoring within the monolingual norm on standardized tests in only one of the two languages), lending empirical support to the theoretical notion that a bilingual child can be diagnosed with SLI only if he/she is impaired in both languages. These findings suggest that even if Bialystok is right and bilingualism enhances executive function abilities, a gap in nonlinguistic processing remains between bilingual children with TLD and those with SLI. It is necessary, however, to compare monolingual children with SLI to bilingual children with SLI to determine “if bilingual children with SLI show evidence of enhanced executive functions like their peers with TLD” (p. 28), counteracting the effects of limitations in processing abilities. Roeper (2009) argues that bilingualism can be instructive, because of the organization of the dual linguistic system. He points out that alles (all) in German triggers exhaustivity and helps German-speaking children with TLD and with SLI acquire this notion earlier than English monolinguals with TLD. He suggests that German–English bilinguals might acquire this notion earlier than English monolinguals, showing evidence for an instructive effect in their L2. Relevant to this commentary is his suggestion that the presence of particle verbs in English could promote awareness of phrasal verbs in both languages of a bilingual child, and can facilitate the use of O-preps in a language that has no particles. If we assume that errors that are not because of CI in children with SLI (both omissions and substitutions) emerge from a difficulty in encoding syntactic relations in the absence of semantic motivation, often the case for phrasal verbs, then English– Hebrew bilingual children have an advantage. They encounter particle verbs in which the preposition contributes to the meaning of the verb in their L1, providing semantic motivation at the lexical level. Thus, they have a better chance at realizing that O-preps are indeed obligatory, than children who have no slot in their language where O-preps are semantically motivated (e.g., monolingual Hebrew-speaking children with SLI). This suggestion is supported by findings from Armon-Lotem, Gordishevsky, and Walters (2009) who show that Russian–Hebrew bilingual children, whose L1 Russian has no particles, do not show such benefits. Such findings suggest that learning one language could bootstrap the learning of a second one. Crucially, though, bootstrapping depends on the nature of the two languages. A final concern raised by Paradis is the clinical implication of the various studies, with particular attention to the possibility of overdiagnosis. Analysis of data from Russian–Hebrew (N = 80) and Russian–German (N = 60) bilingual children with TLD (Walters, Armon-Lotem, Gagarina, & Remennick, 2009) shows that after 2 to 3 years of exposure only two of three bilingual children with TLD score within the norm on standardized tests in their L2. Below-norm kids had mean exposure of 30 months, whereas at-norm kids had 39 months of exposure, but this difference was not significant. Unfortunately, there are no standardized tests for their L1, which could lead to overdiagnosis. Paradis, Nicholadis, and Crago (2007) found that bilingual children with TD ages 4–6 can perform similarly to their monolingual peers in their dominant language, but might lag behind peers in their other language. There are similar findings for Spanish–English bilinguals


259

(Gutiérrez-Clellen, Restrepo, & Simón-Cereijido, 2006; Gutiérrez-Clellen & Simon-Cereijido, 2007). As Paradis points out, these findings show the need for tools that are sensitive to the bilingual situation, are more precise regarding length of exposure and language dominance and use these factors for setting norms for TLD for bilingual children. This last point demonstrates that although L2 knowledge and impaired knowledge are probably not two of a kind, and bilingualism does not seem to lead to “dual delay” in bilingual children with SLI and might even have a facilitative effect and an instructive value for children with SLI, many challenges still face the study of BISLI. In this seminal paper, Paradis clearly directs our attention to these challenges, and the further research necessary to meet the challenges she presents to us all. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by The Israel Science Foundation (Grant 938) and by the BMBF funded Consortium entitled “Migration and Societal Integration.”

REFERENCES Armon-Lotem, S. (2010). Between L2 and SLI: Inflections and prepositions in the Hebrew of bilingual children with TLD and monolingual children with SLI. Unpublished manuscript, Bar-Ilan University. Armon-Lotem, S., Adam, G., Blass, A., Fine, J., Harel, E., Saiegh-Haddad, E., et al. (2010). Verb inflections as indicators of bilingual SLI: Qualitative vs. quantitative measurements. Manuscript submitted for publication. Armon-Lotem, S., Danon, G., & Walters, J. (2008). The use of prepositions by bilingual SLI children: The relative contribution of representation and processing. Paper presented at the Generative Assembly on Language Acquisition, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Armon-Lotem, S., Gordishevsky, G., & J. Walters (2009). Preposition use among Russian–Hebrew bilingual children with specific language impairment. Paper presented at Language, Brain, Communication, Hadassa College, Jerusalem, Israel. Armon-Lotem, S., & Walters, J. (2009). Preposition use among bilingual children with SLI. Paper presented at the Research Conference on Bilingualism and SLI, Jerusalem, Israel. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1009–1018. Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 210– 223. Botwinik-Rotem, I. (2004). The category P: Features, projections, interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Orgeon. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Retrieved from http://www1.cbs.gov.il [in Hebrew] Clahsen, H., Bartke, S., & Göllner, S. (1997). Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10, 151–171. Crago, M., & Paradis, J. (2003). Two of a kind? Commonalities and variation in languages and language learners. In Y. Levy & J. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 97–110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. De Avila, E., & Duncan, S. (1980). The language minority child: A psychological, linguistic, and social analysis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Dromi, E., Leonard, L., Adam, G., & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, S. (1999). Verb agreement morphology in Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1414–1431.


260

Dromi, E., Leonard, L., & Shteiman, M. (1993). The grammatical morphology of Hebrew speaking children with specific language impairment: Some competing hypotheses. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 760–771. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V., Restrepo, A., & Simón-Cereijido, G. (2006). Evaluating the discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with Spanish-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1209–1223. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V., & Simón-Cereijido, G. (2007). The discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with Latino English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 968–981. Iluz-Cohen, P. (2008). Language proficiency, language control and executive control in bilingual children. Master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Paradis, J. (1999). What do specifically-language impaired and second language children have in common. Child Language Bulletin, 19, 4–6. Paradis, J. (2007). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Theoretical and applied issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 551–564. Paradis, J. (2008). Tense as a clinical marker in English L2 acquisition with language delay/impairment. In E. Gavruseva & B. Haznedar (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 337–356). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2000). Tense and temporality: Similarities and differences between languageimpaired and second-language children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 834–848. Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2005/2006). Domain-specific versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French–English bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 13, 33–62. Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1–15. Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., & Crago, M. (2007). French–English bilingual children’s acquisition of the past tense. In H. Caunt-Nulton, S. Kulatilake, & I.-H. Woo (Eds.), BUCLD 31 Proceedings (pp. 497–507). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). An organismic process model of Witkin’s field-dependence-independence. In T. Globerson & T. Zelniker (Eds.), Cognitive style and cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton. Rice, M. L. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In M. L. Rice & S. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Roeper, T. (2009). Multiple grammars and SLI. Paper presented at the Research Conference on Bilingualism and SLI, Jerusalem, Israel. Roeper, T., Ramos, E., Seymour, H., & Lamya, A. (2001). Language disorders as a window on universal grammar: An abstract theory of agreement for IP, DP and V-PP. Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts. Shimon, E. (2008). The use of prepositions by English–Hebrew bilinguals and bilingual children with SLI. Master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Tsimpli, I. (2001). Interpretability and language development: A study of verbal and nominal features in normally developing and SLI Greek children. Brain and Language, 77, 432– 452. Watkins, R., & Rice, M. (1991).Verb particle and preposition acquisition in language impaired preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1130–1141. Walters, J., Armon-Lotem, S., Gagarina, N., & Remennick, L. (2009). Language acquisition as a window to social integration among Russian language minority children in Germany and Israel. Paper presented at the Migration and Societal Integration Consortium, Jena, Germany.

Sharon Armon-Lotem Bar-Ilan University