Semantic Development & Organization in

Bilinguals

Overview: More than Words

• Background• Characteristics of semantic knowledge in bilinguals

• Cognates• Receptive-Expressive performance• Category Generation

• Semantics in BIlnguals

Common questions

• Bilingual learners and children with language demonstrate lower than expected vocabulary skills relative to typically developing/monolingual peers.

Bilingualism & LI

• Similar patterns of vocabulary development children with TD & LI

But in bilinguals:• Lack of experience may be source of vocabulary

differences• Vocabulary & semantic learning is influenced by cross

linguistic differences and interactions

Vocabulary Deficits in LI

• Slow vocabulary growth relative to age peers• Seem to “catch up” during early school-age• Vocabulary knowledge does not accurately differentiate LI and TD

• 60-66% correct classification on traditional vocabulary tests

Semantic Deficits in LI

• word-finding difficulties• knowledge gaps• poor word learning strategies • higher error rates

Working assumptions – LI

Inefficient language learners Intact general cognitive processing mechanisms Language form especially challenging Profit from language learning experiences

Generalized difficulties Vocabulary Nonverbal problem-solving Information Processing

Processing Limitations

• Children with LI may have difficulty with general processing that impacts their ability to allocate cognitive resources to complex tasks

• Impact on semantic tasks (organization & retrieval)

Theoretical perspectives

• Learning is influenced by• Patterns of cross language convergence and competition (e.g., MacWhinney,

2011)• Patterns of language use (e.g., Blom, Paradis, & Duncan, 2012: Bybee, 2010)

Multiple populations

Semantic learning

tasks

Bilingual comparisons

Cross linguistic

comparisons

TD vs LI

Multiple aspects of semantic learning

Differentiate patterns associated with bilingualism and language impairment

Meaning

Word formation

Phonological Form

Participant Descriptions

• Systematic documentation of language experience• Year by year language experience• Current exposure

• Input and output / home and school

Language Impairment

• Use converging sources to qualify children as having language impairment

• Parent concern• Teacher concern• Modifiability ratings• Standardized assessment protocols with the Bilingual English Spanish

Assessment (Peña et al., 2014)

Q1: Semantic / word learning in TD

• Recognition of word forms

Cognates

• Test word form by focusing on words that are similar in meaning a share at least three sounds.

[baɪsɪkl] [bisikleta] [zìxíngchē]

Participants

High English

exposure

Balanced exposure High Spanish

exposure

K N 14 15 12

Age in months 65.21 67.87 69.33

Spanish input/output 32% 49% 65%

English input/output 68% 51% 35%

1 N 13 20 15

Age in months 84.23 82.65 83.27

Spanish input/output 24% 48% 69%

English input/output 76% 52% 31%

Item number English Target Spanish Translation Item number English Target Spanish Translation

2 Afloat Flotar 20 Infantry Infantería

6 Anchor Ancla 21 Medieval Medieval

7 Explosive Explosivo 22 Novel Novela

10 Dental Dental 25 Floral Floral

11 Monument Monumento 26 Veteran Veterano

12 Surgeon Cirujano 27 Infirm Enfermo

13 Medical Médico 28 Maternal Maternal

14 Emerald Esmeralda 30 Velocity Velocidad

15 Salmon Salmón

Results

• No score differences by group• HEE = BB = HSE

30

35

40

45

50

Cognate Noncognate

BB

HE

HS

Q2: Receptive-Expressive Performance• ELLs come to the L2 with some knowledge• Need experience with L2 to use it• Are there receptive-expressive differences not seen in monolinguals?

ParticipantsLanguage

group

Age in months

% English

experience

Age of first

English

experience

Mother’s

education

% Female

FMS (n=180) 64.39 9% 4.12 2.54 47

BDS (n=120) 65.30 31% 3.10 2.71 43

BL (n=211) 65.65 49% 2.05 2.75 46

BDE (n=90) 66.67 69% 0.98 3.13 51

FME (n=177) 65.88 96% 0.11 4.36 58

Standardized Score Differences: English

FMS (n = 180) BDS (n = 120) BL (n = 211) BDE (n = 90) FME (n = 177)0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rec Exp

Standardized Score Differences: Spanish

FMS (n = 180) BDS (n = 120) BL (n = 211) BDE (n = 90) FME (n = 177)0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rec Exp

Q3: Category Fluency in bilinguals

• 7-9 year old children

Category Fluency

• Name objects within category (foods, clothes, animals)• Typical exemplars produced early in list• Typical exemplars produced more frequently across participants• Clustering of items based on generalized event representation (GER)

Category Fluency in Bilinguals

• Fewer exemplars per language • Adults (Gollan, et al, 2002)• Children (Peña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)

• Between-language similarities • Larger in adults (Roberts & LeDorze, 1997)• Smaller (about 30%) in young children (Peña, Bedore, Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)

CF in Children

• Age effects by condition• Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992;

Nelson, 1998)

Questions

• What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children?• Dominance• Age

• What are patterns of CF in bilingual school-age children with and without LI?

Participants

• 186 Spanish-English bilinguals• Ages 7;0 to 9;11• Between 20%-80% Spanish/English exposure

Procedures

• Tested in both languages • random order by language• within context of other items (100 each lang.)

• Condition

Animals

TAX

SF- Zoo Farm Circus

Clothing

TAX

SF- Cold

Food

TAX

SF- Lunch

Analysis

• Condition• TAX• SF

• Score • Conceptual

• Singlets English• Singlets Spanish• Doublets

• Errors

Age and exposureQuestion 1

Development & Exposure

• 60 bilingual children, 7;0 to 9;11• 4 groups

• 15 each

YSD YED

OSD OED

Development & Exposure

YSD• 93 mos• 33% Eng

YED• 94 mos• 68% Eng

OSD• 112 mos• 31% Eng

OED• 112 mos• 69% Eng

Language x Group

English Spanish4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

OED OSD YED YSD

Condition: Productivity

Taxonomic Slot Filler0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Condition: Errors

Taxonomic Slot Filler.000

.100

.200

.300

.400

.500

.600

.700

.800

.900

Group x Condition

TAX SF4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

OED OSD YED YSD

Singlets & Doublets

English

Singlets & Doublets

English

Spanish

Singlets & Doublets

Spanish both English

ability

Population

• 37 children with LI• 37 TD matches

• Age• %English and Spanish use• Age of first English exposure

Receptive Expressive Gap

LI TD

Language proficiency M SD M SD

English rating (parent)

2.93

0.94

3.92

0.67

Spanish rating (parent) 3.94 0.71 4.60 0.47

English rating (teacher) 2.69 0.83 3.81 0.92

Spanish rating (teacher) 3.32 0.66 4.65 0.68

Possibilities

• Receptive-Expressive Gap• English• Spanish• Both

• LI• Similar (gap) patterns but lower• Different (gap) patterns and lower

Results

TD LI0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Spanish

Receptive Expressive

TD LI

English

Receptive Expressive

CF in Children

• Age effects by condition• Slot fillers (GER) vs. Taxonomic (Lucariello, Kyratzis, & Nelson, 1992;

Nelson, 1998)

• Effects by ability• SLI < NL (Henry, Lesser, & Nash, 2011)

Ability x Condition

TAX SF4

6

8

10

12

14

16

LI NL

Percent Errors

TAX SF.000

.050

.100

.150

.200

.250

NL LI

Singlets & Doublets

LI

NL

Spanish

Spanish

Both

Both

English

English

Nature of Responses: 4-6 y.o.• NL

• Giraffe• Elephant• Leopard• Tiger• Bear

• LI• Cat• Dog• Hot dog• Hamburger

Errors: 7 to 9 year olds

NL LI

Similarities

• Semantically Related

kangaroo jack, lady buddy, rinocornio

Wolfish, fishcat

• Phonologically Related

“jifra”/jirafa “bis”/avispa

Differences

• Semantically Unrelated

Fire, scooter

Bilingual children with LI have multiple sources of difficulty relative to TD peers

• Children with LI have larger L2 gap• Children with LI are less productive in category

generation and are more likely to produce errors

Discussion & Questions

Acknowledgements

• Funding: NIDCD DC010366 & NIDCD DC82100

• Participating families & children

• Members of the HABLA Lab• CSD Travel Award – UT

Austin