1. Semantic Development & Organization in Bilinguals

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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)

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

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

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

13. 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)

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

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

16. Participants High English exposure Balanced exposure High Spanish exposure KN 141512 Age in months 65.2167.8769.33 Spanish input/output 32%49%65% English input/output 68%51%35% 1N 132015 Age in months 84.2382.6583.27 Spanish input/output 24%48%69% English input/output 76%52%31%

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

18. Results No score differences by group HEE = BB = HSE

20. 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?

21. Participants Language group Age in months % English experience Age of first English experience Mother’s education % Female FMS (n=180) 64.399%4.122.5447 BDS (n=120) 65.3031%3.102.7143 BL (n=211) 65.6549%2.052.7546 BDE (n=90) 66.6769%0.983.1351 FME (n=177) 65.8896%0.114.3658

22. Standardized Score Differences: English

23. Standardized Score Differences: Spanish

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

25. 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)

26. 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)

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

28. 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?

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

30. 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

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

32. Age and exposure Question 1

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

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

35. Language x Group

36. Condition: Productivity

37. Condition: Errors

38. Group x Condition

39. Singlets & Doublets

42. ability

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

44. Receptive Expressive Gap LI TD Language proficiencyMSD M English rating (parent) 2.93 0.94 3.92 0.67 Spanish rating (parent)3.940.71 4.600.47 English rating (teacher)2.690.83 3.810.92 Spanish rating (teacher)3.320.66 4.650.68

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

46. Results

47. 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)

48. Ability x Condition

49. Percent Errors

50. Singlets & Doublets

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

52. 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

53. 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

54. Discussion & Questions

55. Acknowledgements Funding: NIDCD DC010366 & NIDCD DC82100 Participating families & children Members of the HABLA Lab CSD Travel Award – UT Austin