Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:09:48.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An integrated approach to the study of specific language impairment and bilingualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2010

Kathleen F. Peets  and
Ellen Bialystok
Kathleen F. Peets
Affiliation:
York University
Ellen Bialystok
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The debate over the characterization of specific language impairment (SLI) is fundamental to theoretical linguistics and, more broadly, to the whole of cognitive science. It is built directly out of the pervasive question regarding the extent to which language ability is best considered as a domain-specific set of skills or as the outcome of various domain-general processes. Therefore, an examination of this issue in conjunction with bilingual language acquisition, a situation that naturally entangles both linguistic and cognitive systems, is a powerful forum for exploring these basic theoretical questions. Paradis' Keynote Article is a substantial contribution to this enterprise: it provides a thorough review of the literature on bilingualism and SLI, and in so doing, evaluates the evidence in terms of its consistency with the maturational model that follows from the tradition of domain-specific language acquisition and the limited processing capacity (LPC) theory, a more domain-general approach. Her extensive review of the literature shows that both second language (L2) learning and bilingualism produce language proficiency profiles that are not identical to those found in SLI, and therefore support neither approach. In our view, the problem is in the attempt to dichotomize language ability as being controlled by either domain-specific or domain-general factors. A more inclusive approach to language ability, especially regarding bilingualism and L2 learning, would set out different criteria for evaluating language development other than the strictly linguistic features used in Paradis' analyses. Such an analysis may lead to a clearer identification of how these experiences uniquely affect language outcomes.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 315 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

REFERENCES

Alloway, T. P., & Archibald, L. (2008). Working memory and learning in children with developmental coordination disorder and specific language impairment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 251–262.Google Scholar
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavin, E. L., Wilson, P. H., Maruff, P., & Sleeman, F. (2005). Spatio-visual memory of children with specific language impairment: Evidence for generalized processing problems. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 40, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., & Bialystok, E. (2006). Cognition through the lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 131–138.Google Scholar
Daniels, K., Toth, J., & Jacoby, L. (2006). The aging of executive functions. In Bialystok, E. & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 96–111). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feng, X., Bialystok, E., & Diamond, A. (2007). Manipulating information in working memory: An advantage for bilinguals. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2004). Processing constraints in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. E., Weismer, S. E., Miller, C. A., Francis, D. J., Tomblin, J. B., & Kail, R. V. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 408–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marton, K. (2008). Visuo-spatial processing and executive functions in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marton, K., & Schwartz, R. G. (2003). Working memory capacity and language processes in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1138–1153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, J. W., & Windsor, J. (2007). Examining the language performances of children with and without language impairment: Contributions of phonological short-term memory and speed of processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 778–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 191–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar