What you hear and what you say: language performance in Spanish–English bilinguals

Bohman, Thomas M.; Bedore, Lisa M.; Peña, Elizabeth D.; Mendez-Perez, Anita; Gillam, Ronald B.

doi:10.1080/13670050903342019

Cited by 264 publications

(281 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

228

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results support findings that as a group, young HSs demonstrated higher grammatical accuracy in the home language, Spanish, while learners are early in the process of English second language acquisition [65,66]. However, our findings also indicate English grammatical development begins early, with kindergarteners demonstrating higher levels of emerging grammatical production in English as compared to Spanish.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A Comparison of the Grammatical Production of Child Heritage Speakers of Spanish across Language and Grade: Kindergarten and Grade 1

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this study, we elicited grammatical forms (oral production) from a group of child heritage speakers of Spanish (N = 45) in English and Spanish, using the morphosyntax subtest of the Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment (BESA), (Peña et al. 2014). A cross-sectional design was used with 25 participants in kindergarten and 20 in first grade. All children spoke Spanish at home and attended English rural schools. We controlled for L2 class environment and socio-economic status. Research findings indicated children produced more target structures in L1 Spanish. This project supports the view that sequential bilingualism and continuous exposure to the heritage language may assist heritage speakers to maintain some L1 structures (Miller and Cuza 2013; Pascual y Cabo and Gómez Soler 2015). Patterns of L2 development are also addressed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A Comparison of the Grammatical Production of Child Heritage Speakers of Spanish across Language and Grade: Kindergarten and Grade 1

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because language proficiency and language ability are difficult to disambiguate in a sample of children with potential SLI, we determined language dominance on the basis of detailed parent and teacher interviews of children's language exposure and use (Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003). Language exposure, use, and history are highly related to children's language performance (Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997), but the nature of the relationship varies by domain (Bedore et al, 2012;Bohman et al, 2010). Thus, our approach enabled evaluation of language performance across children relative to their linguistic environment.…”

Section: The Longitudinal Portion Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More information about the children's language skills and performance on the screener is provided by Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez, and Gillam (2010) and Peña et al (2011).…”

Section: Recruitment and Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The screener was derived from the BESOS (Peña et al, 2010), and included subtests of semantics and/or morphosyntax in Spanish plus semantics and/or morphosyntax in English. This approach allowed possible configurations of two, three, or four subtests below the 30th percentile, which increased the likelihood that children with SLI would be included in the longitudinal study.…”

Section: Author Manuscript Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Gillam

Peña

Bedore

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This study was designed to derive cut scores for English testing for use in identifying specific language impairment (SLI) in bilingual children who were learning English as a second language.Method-In a 1-gate design, 167 children received comprehensive language assessments in English and Spanish during their first-grade year. The reference standard was identification by a team of expert bilingual speech-language pathologists. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were used to identify the optimal prediction model for SLI. (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996) yielded a sensitivity of .95 and a specificity of .45 (LR+ = 1.73, LR− = 0.11, and AUC = .79) for our bilinguals. Revised cutoff scores yielded a sensitivity of .86 and a specificity of .68 (LR+ = 2.67, LR− = 0.21, and AUC = .77). An optimal prediction model yielded a sensitivity of .81 and a specificity of .81 (LR+ = 4.37, LR− = 0.23 and AUC = .85). Results-The original, English EpiSLI criteria Conclusion-The results of English testing could be used to make a reasonably accurate diagnostic decision for bilingual children who had attended public school for at least 1 year and were using English at least 30% of the time. Keywordsassessment; bilingualism; children; language disorders; specific language impairment; primary language impairments Diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) in children is difficult under the best of circumstances. The most common practice is to base diagnostic decisions on low scores on standardized language measures. Unfortunately, publishers of standardized tests rarely provide empirically based cutoff scores that yield the highest levels of sensitivity (correct identification of children with SLI) and specificity (correct identification of typically developing children). In a review of 43 commercially available child language tests, Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) found that many publishers recommended arbitrary Correspondence to Ron Gillam: ron.gillam@usu.edu. Disclosure: Ronald B. Gillam has a financial interest in the Test of Narrative Language (Gillam & Pearson, 2004). HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript J Speech Lang Hear Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 April 16.Published in final edited form as: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 December ; 56(6): 1813-1823. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2013. Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript cutoff scores that were likely to identify typical children as impaired. Spaulding et al. (2006) concluded that there is a need for more research that derives empirically based cutoff scores for identifying SLI in specific populations of children.Perhaps the most influential study of the diagnosis of SLI was a large-scale epidemiological study by Tomblin, Records, and Zhang (1996). Their diagnostic criteria, known as the EpiSLI model, was based on an the analysis of five composite scores (expressive, receptive, vocabulary, grammar, and narration) that were derived from performance on the Test of Language Development-Primary (Newcomer & Ham...

show abstract

“…Other studies have found measures of bilingual children's language use were related to children's language skill and have suggested that using a language plays a role in acquiring that language (Bedore, Peña, Summers, Boerger, Resendiz, Greene, et al, 2012;Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez, & Gillam, 2010). Language use, or output, has not received much attention in the first language acquisition, but in the field of second language acquisition the Output Hypothesis has been proposed to explain why immersion students, who experience a great deal of high quality input, nonetheless fail to achieve high levels of proficiency in their second language (de Bot, 1996;Swain, 2005).…”

Section: Effects Of Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

How bilingual development is the same as and different from monolingual development

Hoff

2017

OLBIWP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on data from two longitudinal studies of 2-to 5-year-old Spanishand English-learning bilingual children and English-learning monolingual children, we compare the processes and outcomes of simultaneous bilingual development to those of monolingual development. We find, in essence, that the processes are the same. The outcomes differ, however, because the immediate environments and larger sociocultural contexts of bilingual and monolingual development differ. Common processes include a dependence of language growth on the quantity and quality of language exposure and a relation between children's own language use and their language growth. Differences in outcomes include the rate of language development and the profiles of expressive and receptive skills.

show abstract

What you hear and what you say: language performance in Spanish–English bilinguals

Cited by 264 publications

References 31 publications

A Comparison of the Grammatical Production of Child Heritage Speakers of Spanish across Language and Grade: Kindergarten and Grade 1

A Comparison of the Grammatical Production of Child Heritage Speakers of Spanish across Language and Grade: Kindergarten and Grade 1

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

How bilingual development is the same as and different from monolingual development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About