![]() Importantly, pieces of evidence of deficits in both languages are essential for the diagnosis of DLD in bilingual children. The estimated prevalence of DLD is 7% in monolingual English speakers ( Tomblin et al., 1997) a similar prevalence is assumed for bilingual children. Consequently, DLD is employed throughout our article even for previous research that used other terms. Although SLI has been the preferred term in research practices ( Leonard, 2014 Schwartz, 2017), use of the term DLD coincides with international efforts to reduce the confusion involving separate terms for research and clinical practice. All describe a heterogeneous grouping of children who, for no apparent clinical reason (e.g., hearing loss, intellectual disability, neurological impairment, behavioral disorder, or structural deficit), exhibit unusual difficulty in acquiring language ( Leonard, 2014). Fluctuations in the amount and quality of English input received at different stages of learning may result in qualitative differences that include features influenced by the first language (L1) or usage patterns characteristic of other children and adults in the community who may be in the intermediate stages of learning English ( Hoff et al., 2012 Morgan, Restrepo, & Auza, 2013 Paradis, 2010).ĭevelopmental language disorder (DLD) is a term recommended to replace previous terminology (e.g., specific language impairment primary language impairment or simply, language impairment ). Active use of more than one language may result in a profile for each language distinct from that of monolinguals. Compared with other languages spoken in the United States, Spanish is ranked as the language that is used most often (57 million speakers) and most likely to be maintained ( U.S. The findings support a morphosyntactic model, such as the extended optional infinitive (EOI) model, with regard to the limitations in finiteness marking and for affected children.Developmental language data for children who learn English as a second language (L2) while maintaining Spanish are scarce. For morphophonological growth the picture changes, with an interaction of linear trend and MLU and the child's receptive vocabulary emerging as a predictor. Models of growth curves for regular past tense and irregular finiteness marking show the same pattern, with linear and quadratic components and the child's MLU at the outset as the only predictor. In the morphosyntactic component, the performance of the SLI group trails that of the two control groups over 3.5 years, whereas in the morphophonological component, the SLI group's performance is equivalent to that of the younger controls. The analysis differentiated between the morphophonological component of past tense marking and the morphosyntactic component (finiteness). In this paper we add to what is known about the tense-marking limitations of children with specific language impairment (SLI) by exploring the acquisition of regular and irregular past tense, encompassing the age range of 2 6 to 8 9 (years months) and comparing the performance of 21 children with SLI to that of 23 control children of the same age and 20 younger control children of equivalent mean length of utterance (MLU) at the outset.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |