Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:13:49.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Commentaries on the interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2010

JOHANNE PARADIS
JOHANNE PARADIS*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
*
Johanne Paradis, Department of Linguistics, 4-46 Assiniboia Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Keynote Article examined research situated at the interface of bilingualism and specific language impairment (SLI) primarily to evaluate theories of SLI and secondarily for clinical considerations. The purpose was not to argue for one theoretical perspective over another, but instead to demonstrate how they both need some refinements and extensions to account for data from bilingual children. The breadth and depth of the Commentaries on this Keynote Article were impressive, and common themes emerged across many of them. This response article is organized into sections according to these themes. I hope that the review and synthesis in each section reveals how this collection of contributions has moved us forward in our understanding of the interface between bilingual development and SLI. The final section of this article includes more longitudinal data from English second language (L2) children to explore ideas arising from the discussion of cross-linguistic transfer, cognitive processes, and age effects.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 345 - 362
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

Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 210–223.Google Scholar
Blom, E. (2008). Testing the domain-by-age model: Inflection and placement of Dutch verbs. In Haznedar, B. & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2009). Production versus processing of tense morphemes in successive bilingual children and children with SLI. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition Biennial Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2010). Production versus processing of tense morphemes in successive bilingual children and children with SLI. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Bialystok, E. (2006). Cognition through the lifespan: Mechanisms of change. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 131–138.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.Google Scholar
Hadley, P., & Holt, J. (2006). Individual differences in the onset of tense marking: A growth-curve analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 984–1000.Google Scholar
Jia, G., & Fuse, A. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1280–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Kohnert, K., & Windsor, J. (2004). The search for common ground: Part I. Lexical performance by linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 877–890.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (2000). Specific language impairment across languages. In Bishop, D. & Leonard, L. (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 115–129). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Ellis Weismer, S., Miller, C. A., Francis, D., Tomblin, B., & Kail, R. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 408–428.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2001). A grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, I. (2001). A linguistic introduction to Spanish. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (2009). Second language acquisition in early childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28.Google Scholar
Nguyen, D. H. (1997). Vietnamese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Orgassa, A., & Weerman, F. (2008). Dutch gender in specific language impairment and second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 24, 333–364.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2004). The relevance of specific language impairment to understanding the role of transfer in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 67–82.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 172–187.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2007a). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: Theoretical and applied issues. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 551–564.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2007b). Second language acquisition in childhood. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (Eds.), Handbook of language development (pp. 387–405). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2008). Tense as a clinical marker in English L2 acquisition with language delay/impairment. In Gavruseva, E. & Haznedar, B. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 337–356). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (in press). Bilingual children's acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of language dominance, structure difficulty, and task type. Language Learning.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2001). The morphosyntax of specific language impairment in French: Evidence for an extended optional default account. Language Acquisition, 9, 269–300.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2005/2006). Domain-specific versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French–English bilingual children. Language Acquisition, 13, 33–62.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). Bilingual children with specific language impairment: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1–15.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., Rice, M., Crago, M., & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 1–34.Google Scholar
Peña, E., Gillam, R., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., et al. (2006). Dynamic assessment of school children's narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1037–1057.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In Rice, M. L. & Warren, S. (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of early grammatical impairment. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Rothweiler, M. (2009). Critical periods and SLI. Comment on J. Meisel “Second language acquisition in early childhood.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. (2008). Language-specific effects of task demands on the manifestation of specific language impairment: A comparison of English and Icelandic. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 922–937.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E., & Namazi, M. (2007). Specific language impairment in French-speaking children: Beyond grammatical morphology. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 698–715.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities. A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J. (2008). The acquisition of articles in child L2 English: Fluctuation, transfer or both? Second Language Research, 24, 227–250.Google Scholar
Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J. (2009). The development of auxiliaries BE and DO in child L2 English. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Bilingualism, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar