Semantic Development & Organization in Bilinguals

Overview: More than Words Background Characteristics of semantic knowledge in bilinguals Cognates Receptive-Expressive performance Category Generation Semantics in BIlnguals

Common questions Bilingual learners and children with language demonstrate lower than expected vocabulary skills relative to typically developing/monolingual peers.

Bilingualism & LI Similar patterns of vocabulary development children with TD & LI But in bilinguals: Lack of experience may be source of vocabulary differences Vocabulary & semantic learning is influenced by cross linguistic differences and interactions

Vocabulary Deficits in LI Slow vocabulary growth relative to age peers Seem to “catch up” during early school-age Vocabulary knowledge does not accurately differentiate LI and TD 60-66% correct classification on traditional vocabulary tests

Semantic Deficits in LI word-finding difficulties knowledge gaps poor word learning strategies higher error rates

Working assumptions – LI  Inefficient language learners  Intact general cognitive processing mechanisms  Language form especially challenging  Profit from language learning experiences  Generalized difficulties  Vocabulary  Nonverbal problem-solving  Information Processing

Processing Limitations Children with LI may have difficulty with general processing that impacts their ability to allocate cognitive resources to complex tasks Impact on semantic tasks (organization & retrieval)

Theoretical perspectives Learning is influenced by Patterns of cross language convergence and competition (e.g., MacWhinney, 2011) Patterns of language use (e.g., Blom, Paradis, & Duncan, 2012: Bybee, 2010)

Multiple populations Semantic learning tasks Bilingual comparisons Cross linguistic comparisons TD vs LI

Multiple aspects of semantic learning Differentiate patterns associated with bilingualism and language impairment Meaning Word formation Phonological Form

Participant Descriptions Systematic documentation of language experience Year by year language experience Current exposure Input and output / home and school

Language Impairment Use converging sources to qualify children as having language impairment Parent concern Teacher concern Modifiability ratings Standardized assessment protocols with the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (Peña et al., 2014)

Q1: Semantic / word learning in TD Recognition of word forms

Cognates Test word form by focusing on words that are similar in meaning a share at least three sounds. [baɪsɪkl] [bisikleta][zìxíngchē]

Participants High English exposure Balanced exposure High Spanish exposure KN Age in months Spanish input/output 32%49%65% English input/output 68%51%35% 1N Age in months Spanish input/output 24%48%69% English input/output 76%52%31%

Item numberEnglish TargetSpanish TranslationItem numberEnglish TargetSpanish Translation 2AfloatFlotar20InfantryInfantería 6AnchorAncla21Medieval 7ExplosiveExplosivo22NovelNovela 10Dental 25Floral 11MonumentMonumento26VeteranVeterano 12SurgeonCirujano27InfirmEnfermo 13MedicalMédico28Maternal 14EmeraldEsmeralda30VelocityVelocidad 15SalmonSalmón

Results No score differences by group HEE = BB = HSE

Q2: Receptive-Expressive Performance ELLs come to the L2 with some knowledge Need experience with L2 to use it Are there receptive-expressive differences not seen in monolinguals?

Participants Language group Age in months % English experience Age of first English experience Mother’s education % Female FMS (n=180) % BDS (n=120) % BL (n=211) % BDE (n=90) % FME (n=177) %

Standardized Score Differences: English

Standardized Score Differences: Spanish

Q3: Category Fluency in bilinguals 7-9 year old children

Category Fluency Name objects within category (foods, clothes, animals) Typical exemplars produced early in list Typical exemplars produced more frequently across participants Clustering of items based on generalized event representation (GER)

Category Fluency in Bilinguals Fewer exemplars per language Adults (Gollan, et al, 2002) Children (Pe ña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002) Between-language similarities Larger in adults (Roberts & LeDorze, 1997) Smaller (about 30%) in young children (Pe ña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)

CF in Children Age effects by condition Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992; Nelson, 1998)

Questions What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children? Dominance Age What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children with and without LI?

Participants 186 Spanish-English bilinguals Ages 7;0 to 9;11 Between 20%-80% Spanish/English exposure

Procedures Tested in both languages random order by language within context of other items (100 each lang.) Condition Animals TAX SF- Zoo Farm Circus Clothing TAXSF- Cold Food TAXSF- Lunch

Analysis Condition TAX SF Score Conceptual Singlets English Singlets Spanish Doublets Errors

Age and exposure Question 1

Development & Exposure 60 bilingual children, 7;0 to 9;11 4 groups 15 each YSDYEDOSDOED

Development & Exposure YSD 93 mos 33% Eng YED 94 mos 68% Eng OSD 112 mos 31% Eng OED 112 mos 69% Eng

Language x Group

Condition: Productivity

Condition: Errors

Group x Condition

Singlets & Doublets

ability

Population 37 children with LI 37 TD matches Age %English and Spanish use Age of first English exposure

Receptive Expressive Gap LI TD Language proficiencyMSD M English rating (parent) Spanish rating (parent) English rating (teacher) Spanish rating (teacher)

Possibilities Receptive-Expressive Gap English Spanish Both LI Similar (gap) patterns but lower Different (gap) patterns and lower

Results

CF in Children Age effects by condition Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992; Nelson, 1998) Effects by ability SLI < NL (Henry, Lesser, & Nash, 2011)

Ability x Condition

Percent Errors

Singlets & Doublets

Nature of Responses: 4-6 y.o. NL Giraffe Elephant Leopard Tiger Bear LI Cat Dog Hot dog Hamburger

Errors: 7 to 9 year olds NLLI Similarities Semantically Related kangaroo jack, lady buddy, rinocornio Wolfish, fishcat Phonologically Related “ jifra ” /jirafa “ bis ” /avispa Differences Semantically Unrelated Fire, scooter

Bilingual children with LI have multiple sources of difficulty relative to TD peers Children with LI have larger L2 gap Children with LI are less productive in category generation and are more likely to produce errors

Discussion & Questions

Acknowledgements Funding: NIDCD DC & NIDCD DC82100 Participating families & children Members of the HABLA Lab CSD Travel Award – UT Austin