Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:12:34.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossing borders: Recognition of Spanish words by English-speaking children with and without language impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

KATHRYN KOHNERT ,
JENNIFER WINDSOR  and
RUTH MILLER
KATHRYN KOHNERT
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
JENNIFER WINDSOR
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
RUTH MILLER
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce an objective method for classifying phonological overlap between Spanish and English translation equivalents. This method then is exploited to examine spoken word recognition using stimuli with graded levels of phonological overlap. Performance by typical English-only speaking (EO) children and English-only children with primary language impairment (LI) is compared to a control group of bilingual Spanish–English peers (BI). Response time and accuracy separated groups, with the BI group outperforming the EO group, who in turn outperformed the LI group. Children with more severe LI are slower than those with mild LI, and LI severity is significantly correlated with speed. The two groups of monolingual children and the LI subgroups respond in a qualitatively similar way to decreasing phonological overlap.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 543 - 564
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Birren J. & Fisher L. 1995. Aging and speed of behavior: Possible consequences for psychological functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 329– 353.Google Scholar
Bishop D. 1997. Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of language comprehension in children. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Brown L., Sherbenou R. & Johnsen S. 1997. Test of Nonverbal Intelligence—3 (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Campbell T., Dollaghan C., Needleham H. & Janosky J. 1997. Reducing bias in language assessment: Processing-dependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 519– 525.Google Scholar
Carlisle J. 1987. The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and normal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 90– 108.Google Scholar
Carlisle J. 1988. Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247– 266.Google Scholar
Carroll J., Davies P. & Richman B. 1971. The American Heritage word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cerella J. & Hale S. 1994. The rise and fall in information-processing rates over the life span. Acta Psychologica, 86, 109– 197.Google Scholar
Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa A., Caramazza A. & Sebastian–Galles N. 2000. The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1283– 1296.Google Scholar
de Groot A., Borgwaldt S., Bos M. & van den Eijinden E. 2002. Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 91– 124.Google Scholar
de Groot A. & Nas G. 1991. Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90– 123.Google Scholar
Dijkstra T., Grainger J. & van Heuven W. 1999. Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496– 518.Google Scholar
Dollaghan C. 1998. Spoken word recognition in children with and without specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 193– 207.Google Scholar
Edwards J. & Lahey M. 1996. Auditory lexical decisions of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1263– 1273.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer S. & Evans J. 2002. The role of processing limitations in early identification of specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 15– 29.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer S. & Hesketh L. 1996. Lexical learning by children with specific language impairment: Effects of linguistic input presented at varying speaking rates. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 177– 190.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer S. & Hesketh L. 1998. The impact of emphatic stress on novel word learning by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1444– 1458.Google Scholar
Evans J. 1996. SLI subgroups: Interaction between discourse constraints and morphosyntactic deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 655– 660.Google Scholar
Friel B. M., & Kennison S. M. 2001. Identifying German–English cognates, false cognates, and non-cognates: Methodological issues and descriptive norms. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 249– 274.Google Scholar
Kail R. 1991. Developmental change in speed of processing during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 490– 501.Google Scholar
Kohnert K. (in press). Cognitive and cognate treatments for bilingual aphasia: A case study. Brain and Language.
Kohnert K. & Bates E. 2002. Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 347– 359.Google Scholar
Kohnert K., Bates E. & Hernandez A. E. 1999. Balancing bilinguals: Lexical–semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1400– 1413.Google Scholar
Kohnert K. & Derr A. 2004. Language intervention with bilingual children. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish–English speakers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Kohnert K., Scarry–Larkin M. & Price E. 2000. Spanish phonology: Intervention. San Luis Obispo, CA: LocuTour Multimedia.
Kohnert K. & Windsor J. (in press). The search for common ground—Part II: Nonlinguistic performance by linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
Lahey M., Edwards J. & Munson B. 2001. Is processing speed related to severity of language impairment? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1354– 1361.Google Scholar
Laing S. & Kamhi A. 2003. Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 44– 55.Google Scholar
Lalor E. & Kirsner K. 2001. The role of cognates in bilingual aphasia: Implications for assessment and treatment. Aphasiology, 15, 1047– 1056.Google Scholar
Leonard L. 1987. Is specific language impairment a useful construct? In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 1. Disorders of first-language development (pp. 1– 39). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard L. 1998. Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lobo F. 1966. A 10,000 word Spanish vocabulary expanded from 3,000 English cognates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
Mason P. & Garcia L. (Eds.). 1990. The Renyi Spanish picture dictionary. Toronto: Editions Renyi Inc.
Meara P. 1993. The bilingual lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 279– 297). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Miller C., Kail R., Leonard L. & Tomblin J. B. 2001. Speed of processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 416– 433.Google Scholar
Miller C., Tomblin J. B., Zhang X., Kail R. & Leonard L. B. 2001. Speed of processing as a predictor of language performance. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association, New Orleans.
Montgomery J. 2002. Examining the nature of lexical processing in children with specific language impairment: Temporal processing or processing capacity deficit? Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 447– 470.Google Scholar
Montgomery J. & Leonard L. 1998. Real-time inflectional processing by children with specific language impairment: Effects of phonetic substance. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1432– 1443.Google Scholar
Oldfield R. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 360– 386.Google Scholar
Pro-Ed. 1999. Picture This [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Author.
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. 2000. E-Prime. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Rice M. 1996. “Show me X”: New views of an old assessment technique. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 183– 206). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Roberts P. & Deslauriers L. 1999. Picture naming of cognate and non-cognate nouns in bilingual aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 1– 23.Google Scholar
Salthouse T. A. 1993. Speed and knowledge as determinants of adult age differences in verbal tasks. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, P29– 36.Google Scholar
Sanchez–Casas R. M., Davis C. W., & Garcia–Albea J. E. 1992. Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate/non-cognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 293– 310.Google Scholar
Semel E., Wiig E. & Secord W. 1995. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Semel E., Wiig E. & Secord W. 1997. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. Spanish (3rd ed). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Shankweiler D., Crain S., Katz L., Fowler A., Liberman A., Brady S., Thornton R., Lundquist E., Dreyer L., Fletcher J., Steubing K., Shaywitz E. & Shaywitz B. 1995. Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149– 156.Google Scholar
Stockman I. 2000. The new Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—III: An illusion of unbiased assessment? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 340– 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swearer J. & Kane K. 1996. Behavioral slowing with age: Boundary conditions on the generalized slowing model. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51B, P189– P200.Google Scholar
Swisher L., Plante E. & Lowell S. 1994. Nonlinguistic deficits of children with language disorders complicate the interpretation of their nonverbal IQ scores. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 25, 235– 240.Google Scholar
Tokowicz N., Kroll J., de Groot A. & van Hell J. 2002. Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 435– 451.Google Scholar
Windsor J. 2000. The role of phonological opacity in reading achievement. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 50– 61.Google Scholar
Windsor J. & Hwang M. 1999. Children's auditory lexical decisions: A limited processing capacity account of language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 990– 1002.Google Scholar
Windsor J. & Kohnert K. (in press). The search for common ground—Part I: Lexical performance by linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
Windsor J., Milbrath R., Carney E. & Rakowski S. 2001. General slowing in language impairment: Methodological considerations in testing the hypothesis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 446– 461.Google Scholar
Woodcock R. 1987. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.