Language input in Cantonese-English bilingual preschoolers with language impairment

Differences in language input in Cantonese-English bilingual preschool children with a language impairment are compared to typically developing bilingual preschool peers. A total of 50 participants were examined in the first study who were primarily exposed to Cantonese (L1) from birth and started to learn English (L2) in preschool. Twenty-five participants were bilingual with a language impairment (LI) and another twenty-five were typically developing (TD) bilingual peers. Parent questionnaires were used to collect data from caregivers for all participants about language input across family members and activities. Results indicate that, both groups used Cantonese the most. However, families from the TD group had a higher overall use of Cantonese, whereas some families of the LI group incorporated more English at home. The second study used LENA (Language ENvironment Analysis) recording devices, recording one child with LI and another TD child. The findings of study one and two indicate that there are differences in L1 and L2 use among children with LI, TD children and their caregivers. These differences in language input are preliminary findings in a field of study that would benefit from more research. The clinical implications of this study are that some parents might be confused with the language (L1 or L2) they should use at home. Family programs are desperately needed for parents of children with language impairment. Parents of children with an LI should also be proactively provided with information about strategies to create a linguistic environment full of opportunity for discourse and language development. LANGUAGE INPUT IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT 3 Introduction The purpose of this study is to examine the language input of Cantonese-English sequential bilingual preschool children with language impairments. Sequential bilingual children are children who learn one language (L1) at home from birth and start to learn a second language (L2) during their childhood (Kohnert, 2010). Currently, there are no clear diagnostic methods to effectively identify bilingual children who have language deficits. In this study, the term “language impairment” is intended to include bilingual children who might have a formal diagnosis of specific language impairment, language delay, or who have signs of specific language impairments but do not have a formal diagnosis. Specific language impairment (or primary language impairment) is a term used when children have a deficit in language skills but have normal intelligence (Kohnert, 2010; Leonard, Eyer, Bedore, & Grela, 1997). This study aims to provide content that will help caregivers of children with an LI better understand the importance of language input and ways to enhance their language environment. In this study, I want to examine whether there is a difference in language input and use between bilingual children who have language impairments and their typically developing peers in their home and school language environments. Specifically, do parents change their language strategies when they learn that their child might have a language impairment (LI)? The strategies that parents use, also called language input, is the language that a child is exposed to. This could be language experienced in the home or school environment. I examined the patterns of language input that sequential bilingual children speaking a minority language receive at home and at school. It is these patterns of language input that I am comparing between typically developing children and those with a suspected or confirmed LI. With the use of questionnaires and auditory recording, I examined patterns in the amount of L1 and L2 language input between typically developing children and those with an LI. A LANGUAGE INPUT IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT 4 growing number of studies have shown that bilingual children’s vocabulary development is greatly related to their language experience in each language (e.g., Branum-Martin, Mehta, Carlson, Francis, & Goldenberg, 2014; Hammer, Miccio, & Wagstaff, 2003; Thordardottir, 2011, 2015; Thordardottir & Brandeker, 2013). Indeed, recent studies suggest that language input should be taken into consideration when speech-language pathologists make clinical diagnosis and treatment plans for children who are from linguistically diverse backgrounds (e.g., Bohman, Bedore, Pena, Mendez-Perez, & Gillam, 2010; Kohnert, 2010; Thordardottir & Brandeker, 2013). Children’s language experiences at home also occur within broad cultural and social contexts, which must be considered throughout the diagnostic and treatment process (Branum-Martin et al., 2014). Although previous studies of children in linguistically diverse communities appear to assume that children are mainly exposed to the home language at home (L1), recent studies indicate that children are likely inadvertently exposed to some L2. Little research has been done looking at the language input patterns in bilingual children with a language impairment who learn a minority language at home. I will examine language input patterns in sequential bilingual children with language impairments. The results could contribute to our understanding of the language learning contexts and practices in minority families. In turn, this may help practitioners to effectively develop treatment plans and training programs to enhance family involvement in their children’s language development in the home. Language Development in Typically Developing Sequential Bilingual Children Bilinguals are very diverse in terms of how they learn two languages. Children that have repeated exposure to two languages during the lengthy period of language development that takes place in early childhood are known as bilingual individuals (Bialystok, 2010; De Houwer & Bornstein, 2016; Kohnert, 2010). Children that learn one language from birth (L1) and are exposed to another language in early childhood (L2) are known as sequential bilingual children LANGUAGE INPUT IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT 5 (Kohnert, 2010). These children may use their L1 (e.g., Cantonese) primarily at home and their L2 (e.g., English) primarily at school. This is merely one scenario for language use, though there are many variations. It is not uncommon that L1 is a minority language (Cantonese) and L2 is a majority language (English) (Kohnert, 2010). This is the case in the current study. As a result, this study focuses on children that learn one language at home (L1-Cantonese) and one language in school (L2-English). Bilingualism has been shown to have a variety of positive and negative effects. Provided that there is active use of both languages, the positive effects are primarily cognitive and linguistic (Bialystok, 2010). Peal and Lambert (1962) tested English and French bilingual children and compared their performance to that of English monolingual children. They found that bilingual participants performed better on nearly all of the tests and demonstrated cognitive advantages like mental flexibility, superior concept formation, and diverse mental abilities. This debunked previous research claiming that there were disadvantages, even deficits, in learning two languages. These results were ahead of their time, as many researchers at the time still believed that being bilingual was a big disadvantage compared to being monolingual. Bialystok’s (2010) research also supported Peal and Lambert’s (1962) discoveries, demonstrating an overall bilingual advantage in tasks such as nonverbal executive control, selective attention, inhibiting distractions and switching between tasks. Some suspected disadvantages associated with learning two languages from a young age include slower language development and lower measures of linguistic proficiency and overall processing when compared to monolingual children (Bialystok, 2010). Although this is described as a disadvantage, I believe it is a neutral consequence of learning two languages at once. Bilingual children go back and forth between two languages (both mentally and verbally) depending on the environment and their linguistic partners. Another potential disadvantage associated with children learning two languages at an early age is that LANGUAGE INPUT IN BILINGUAL CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT 6 they have a smaller vocabulary in each language (Bialystok, 2010; Vagh, Pan, & MancillaMartinez, 2009). When put together, their vocabulary in each language is equal to the size of a developing monolingual vocabulary. This can be a negative effect when comparing a bilingual child’s language ability in only one language with a typically developing monolingual child’s vocabulary that is twice as large. Research about the positive and negative effects of bilingualism are important to understand when working with bilingual populations, much like the current study. In this study, I focus on the language development of sequential bilingual preschool children. In terms of language acquisition, sequential bilingual children have different language outcomes as a result of learning two languages (e.g., using a mixture of English and Cantonese) at two different times (Bialystok, 2010; Kohnert, 2010). In order for these children to become proficient in both languages, continuous literacy and use in both languages is necessary (Duursma et al., 2007). This continued exposure could be in the form of conversational use with family members or more structured use during school. For many bilingual children, language instruction in their home language (L1) is useful for those either learning or struggling with their nonnative language (L2). Research has shown that home language use during instruction can improve L2 performance as well as overall literacy development in both languages (BranumMartin et al., 2014). In the current study, sequential bilingual children receive language instruction in both Cantonese (L1) and