the development of lexical-semantic skills in early ...the literature review below explores...
TRANSCRIPT
University of Colorado, BoulderCU ScholarSpeech, Language, and Hearing Services GraduateTheses & Dissertations Speech, Language and Hearing Services
Spring 1-1-2012
The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills inEarly Sequential Cantonese-English BilingualChildrenKristina Louise KoenigUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.colorado.edu/slhs_gradetds
Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, EducationalAssessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Speech and Hearing Science Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Speech, Language and Hearing Services at CU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion inSpeech, Language, and Hearing Services Graduate Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Scholar. For more information, pleasecontact [email protected].
Recommended CitationKoenig, Kristina Louise, "The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children"(2012). Speech, Language, and Hearing Services Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 16.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEXICAL-SEMANTIC SKILLS IN EARLY
SEQUENTIAL CANTONESE-ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN
by
KRISTINA KOENIG
B.A., Wesleyan University, 2004
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado at Boulder in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Arts
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences
2012
This thesis entitled:
The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children
written by Kristina Koenig has been approved by the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences
Pui Fong Kan, Ph. D.
Brenda Schick, Ph. D.
Bhuvana Narasimhan, Ph. D.
Date
The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards
of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.
IRB protocol # 11-0034
iii
Koenig, Kristina (M.A., Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences) The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Pui Fong Kan
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore lexical-semantic development in early
sequential bilingual children who speak Cantonese (L1) as a home language from birth
and started to learn English (L2) as a second language in a preschool setting.
Linguistically- and culturally- appropriate picture naming and picture identification tasks
were developed to assess participants’ expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge.
In Study 1, seventy children participated in picture naming and picture identification
tasks comparing their performance as a function of language (L1 or L2), modality
(expressive or receptive), age, length of time at the preschool, and performance on
standardized vocabulary assessment tools. In Study 2, the results on these tasks of five
children on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) were compared with typically
developing, age-matched peers. Results from Study 1 indicate that there is a correlation
between a child’s scores with their age, time in school and their scores on standardized
tools in both tasks in English and picture identification tasks in Cantonese, but not with
picture naming in Cantonese. Results from Study 2 show that only one of five children on
IEPs had noticeably lower scores in tasks in both languages when compared to typically-
developing peers. This underscores the importance of a culturally and linguistically
appropriate assessment tool in distinguishing bilingual children who have a language
difference from those with a language disorder.
iv
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to all who helped make this project possible. In particular, I am
deeply grateful to my amazing advisor, Dr. Pui Fong Kan. Her tireless patience, support
and infectious passion have made this project a tremendously rewarding learning
experience. There are no words for how much I appreciate all of the work she has put into
this. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Brenda
Schick and Dr. Bhuvana Narasimhan, who have generously offered their time and
impressive knowledge in support of this project. Also, this would not have been possible
without the work of the research assistants who worked so hard on this project! Thank
you!
I extend a big thank you to all of the staff, teachers, parents and students at the
Head Start preschools in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for so much for your kindness
and help in facilitating the assessments with all of the children. Getting to know you
made this project very rewarding.
v
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 1 Lexical-Semantic Development in Monolingual Children………………….. 3
Lexical-Semantic Development in Early Sequential Bilingual Children…... 7 Assessing Lexical-Semantic Skills…………………………………………… 14
The Current Study…………………………………………………………….17 Study 1………………………………………………………………………………... 21 Method………………………………………………………………………………... 21
Participants…………………………………………………………………... 21 Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 22
Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary tasks…………………….. 22 Standardized measures……………………………………………… 23
Results………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Question 1 ……………………………………………………………….…… 26
Question 2……………………………………………………………….….… 28 Question 3……………………………………………………………….….… 28 Additional Analyses………………………………………………………….. 29 Summary of Results………………………………………………………….. 29
Study 2………………………………………………………………………………... 30 Method………………………………………………………………………………... 30
Participants…………………………………………………………………... 30 Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 31
Analyses………………………………………...…………………….. 31 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 31 Study 2…..……………………………………………………………….…… 32 Discussion.……………………………………………………………………………. 35 Lexical-Semantic Development in Typically-Developing Children………. 35
Language Disorders and Language Differences…………………………… 39 Limitations and Future Studies………………………………………………42
References…………………………………………………………………………….. 44
Appendices.…………………………………………………………………………… 60 Appendix A: Parent Questionnaire
Language and Learning Experience, Cantonese………………..….. 60 Language and Learning Experience, English….…………..……….. 62
Appendix B: Items in Each Task Picture Naming……………………………………………………….. 64 Picture Identification……………………………………………….... 66
vi
Tables
Table 1: Participant information…………………………………………………… 21 Table 2: Mean Scores on Picture Naming and Picture Identification Tasks……. 24 Table 3: Correlation between scores on tasks and standardized tools…………... 26 Table 4: Correlation between Picture Naming and Picture Identification scores with age of participant and time of attendance at preschool…………………..……… 27 Table 5: A comparison between scores of children with an IEP and typically-developing children…………………………………….……………. 33
vii
Figures
Figure 1: Performance on vocabulary tasks in Cantonese and English………….25 Figure 2: Sample Scatter Plot: Correlation between Age and Picture Identification Scores in English……………………………………………………..27
1
The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English
Bilingual Children
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to explore the lexical development of early sequential
bilingual children who speak Cantonese as a home language (L1) and begin learning
English, a second language (L2), in preschool. In particular, this study examines lexical
development in L1 and L2, looking at the effects of age and time spent in a Cantonese-
English bilingual preschool. A vocabulary tool developed specifically for this population
will be compared with two available standardized assessment tools in English. Finally,
the test results of five children who are receiving speech-language services will be
compared with age- and language-matched typically developing peers.
Vocabulary development is a fundamental aspect of children’s language
acquisition. In the past decades, there has been growing research into the area of lexical-
semantic development in bilingual children (e.g., Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Sheng, Liu, &
Kan, 2011). It is no easy task to determine whether a bilingual child has a language
disorder or whether the child is simply following a typical process of acquiring a second
language (e.g., Håkansson, Salameh & Nettelbladt, 2003; Anderson, 2004; Kohnert,
2008). Children who begin learning a second language in the preschool years do not
perform the same as monolingual children on standardized assessments; rather their
scores on standardized assessments are below expected levels (Bialystok, 2008). The
assessment tools available for detecting language disorders in children are not appropriate
for the unique speaker-hearer that is a bilingual child. This combination of factors results
2
in difficulty in distinguishing between language differences and language disorders in
bilingual children.
This study attempts to understand in greater depth vocabulary development in
early sequential bilingual Cantonese-English speaking preschool children, an
understudied population. I will be comparing children’s results on a more culturally and
linguistically appropriate assessment tool for vocabulary knowledge in Cantonese-
English speaking preschool children with two commonly used vocabulary assessment
tools (i.e., the Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT) and the
Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) for monolingual English-
speaking children.
When examining proportions of students receiving special education services, the
complexity of identifying bilingual children with a language disorder is evident. A range
of studies show that children are often over-identified, under-identified or misidentified
as having a language disorder (Kohnert, 2008). For instance, younger bilingual children
may go undiagnosed as having a language disorder, with their difficulties simply
attributed to second language learning (e.g., Samson & Lasaux, 2009). Older bilingual
children are often significantly over-identified as being ‘at risk’ for language impairments
(e.g., Westman, Korkman, Mickos & Byring, 2008) or diagnosed with ‘severe language
impairment’ (e.g., Salameh, Nettlebladt, Håkansson, & Gullberg, 2002). School-aged
English language learners (ELLs) are often disproportionately enrolled in special
education settings (e.g., de Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi & Park, 2006; Artiles, Rueda,
Salzar, & Higareda, 2005). The way in which language assessments are conducted, and
the consequent inappropriate educational placement of sequential bilingual children, may
3
be due to, in part, misunderstandings of language proficiency and second language
acquisition (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1996).
The number of children who are bilingual is increasing rapidly (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2009), so understanding their language development is important.
Studying the vocabulary development of early sequential bilingual children can give us
further insight into children’s language, experience and general cognitive mechanisms
(e.g., Kohnert et al., 2009), into the environmental factors that facilitate growth or loss of
a sequential bilingual child’s L1, and into ways to distinguish between language disorder
and language difference in developing bilingual children.
The literature review below explores lexical-semantic development in
monolingual and bilingual children with and without language disorders. Next, an
overview of what is known, thus far, about the progression of L1 and L2 language skills
in early sequential bilinguals will be provided. Finally, methods that have been used to
assess bilingual child’s vocabulary skills will be discussed.
Lexical-Semantic Development in Monolingual Children
During the preschool years, there is a blossoming in a child’s language from
combining simple words about the immediate environment (of the here and now) to
having paradigmatic semantic networks about abstract and complex concepts (Kaderavek
& Justice, 2004; Kamhi & Catts, 2005; Kohnert & Kan, 2007). The vocabularies of
monolingual children from middle-class families soar from approximately 1,000 words at
3 years of age to between 6,000 and 14,000 words by age 5 (e.g., Kohnert, 2008; Hirsh-
Pasek & Golinkoff, 2002; Bloom, 2000). At this age, learning a word involves
4
connecting the phonological form of the word to its meaning, as well as knowing how the
word can combine with morphemes and the possible syntactic roles it can fulfill (Clark,
1993). Understanding the meaning of words is fundamental to a child’s language
development (Rice & Watkins, 1996). Children’s impressive lexical abilities at this age
are thought to be indicative of the skills they will have down the road, particularly as
indicators of future literacy skills and academic success (e.g., Adams, 1990; Chaney,
1994; Kastner, May & Hildman, 2001; Ouellette, 2006; Ricketts, Nation & Bishop, 2007;
Rohde & Thompson, 2007; Swanson, Rosston, Gerber, & Solari, 2008; Tunmer et al.,
1988).
Research shows that monolingual children learn new vocabulary from a variety of
experiences at preschool and at home (DeTemple, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hubbs-Tait
et al., 2002; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Patterson, 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999;
Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990; Snow & Goldfield, 1983; Tabors, Roach, &
Snow, 2001; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001;Vermeer, 2001; Wells, 1985; Whitehurst
et al., 1994). For instance, at school, children learn while being taught, read to, and while
interacting with teachers and peers. At home, children learn new vocabulary while
watching television, during joint book reading time, and while interacting with parents,
siblings and friends.
In monolingual children, research shows that the size of a child’s vocabulary is
strongly correlated with exposure (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995). For example, Hoff (2003)
compared the lexical development of monolingual children in families from middle- and
high-socioeconomic classes. She found that children whose mothers spoke in longer
utterances, using a more diverse vocabulary, built their expressive vocabulary at a faster
5
rate than children whose mothers had shorter utterances and less variety in their
vocabulary.
The mechanisms by which children acquire new vocabulary through exposure to
the language in their environment include fast mapping and quick incidental learning
(QUIL). In fast mapping, a critical initial stage in learning words, a child links the
phonological properties of a novel word with lexical or syntactic information after only
one or two exposures (e.g. Kan & Kohnert, 2008). In QUIL, children learn words in
discourse when there are fewer cues that match the form to the referent (Oetting, Rice, &
Swank, 1995; Rice, Buhr, & Nemeth, 1990; Rice & Woodsmall, 1988). Children can also
learn new words when being explicitly taught words (Biemiller, 2006). Children build
their lexicons in a variety of ways, learning as many as nine new words each day (Bloom,
1973; Clark, 1993; Templin, 1957).
An insufficient lexicon has been documented in a wide range of language
disorders though the extent is unknown (Dollaghan, 1987). Difficulties with lexical
acquisition, including QUIL, in children with LI have been revealed in studies (e.g., Rice
et al., 1990). There are also many reports of less accuracy in picture naming (eg., Lahey
& Edwards, 1999; Leonard et al., 1998). Thus, the ability to accurately measure lexical
skills in all children who may have language impairments is critical. Measuring
expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge is commonly part of screens or
assessment tests that are used with children, including those of preschool age.
Among monolingual children, it is generally accepted that comprehension of
words precedes production of words (e.g. Fenson, Dale, Reznick, & Bates, 1994). This is
reflected in children’s scores on vocabulary assessments, with children’s expressive
6
vocabularies generally larger than their receptive vocabularies (e.g., Benedict, 1979).
Picture identification is often used to assess receptive vocabulary, or comprehension, and
picture naming to assess expressive vocabulary. The task of picture identification to
assess vocabulary comprehension is used in tools like the Receptive One Word Picture
Identification Test. Rice and Watkins (1996) provide a very thorough discussion of all the
ways in which picture identification can give insight into children’s lexical acquisition.
At its most basic, however, picture identification assesses a child’s vocabulary
comprehension. Generally, children enjoy looking and pointing at pictures (Binet &
Simon, 1916). In picture identification, children are required to understand the task,
comprehend the word and then point to the corresponding picture.
The relatively complex process of picture naming that measures a child’s
vocabulary and involves three cognitive processes (Johnson, Paivio, & Clark, 1996). The
first of these stages are identifying the object. Then, the child must activate and select the
appropriate word, among all of their words. In the final stage a lexical response is
generated by executing articulatory commands. Problems with picture naming could be
due to difficulties at any of these stages such as general processing difficulties, a limited
vocabulary or spare semantic representation, word finding difficulties or phonological
difficulties.
Children, both monolingual and bilingual, exhibit vocabulary growth without
marked discernible increases in grammatical skills until a certain threshold of vocabulary
knowledge is reached (Caselli, Casadio, & Bates, 1999; Marchman & Martinez-Sussman,
2002; Thal, Bates, Goodman & Jahn-Samilo, 1997). In a cross-sectional study of
bilingual toddlers, Marchman, Martinez-Sussman and Dale (2004) concluded that
7
mastery of vocabulary is a core part of what makes grammatical acquisition possible.
Thus, understanding lexical-semantic skills is crucial to understanding grammatical
deficits, which is a primary characteristic in monolingual children with language
impairments (Leonard, 1998). Little is known about bilingual children’s lexical
development, and hardly any research has been conducted with early sequential bilingual
children whose home language is Cantonese.
Lexical-Semantic Development in Early Sequential Bilingual Children
While English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States,
increasingly, children are speaking more than one language. Among preschoolers in
Head Start programs in the United States, 30 percent of children are learning two
languages (Hammer et al., 2012). In the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the percentage
of 5- to 17-year-old children who spoke a language other than English at home rose from
9 percent to 20 percent, with nearly 11 million children speaking a language other than
English at home (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). This proportion is
expected to double by 2030 (Davis & Bauman, 2008). Understanding more about the
language development in these bilingual children is imperative if we are to accurately
identify which children have language disorders and provide adequate services for them.
Bilingual researchers tend to define “bilinguals” as individuals who show “both
regular use and communicative competence” in both languages (Grosjean, 1992, pp 51).
In practice, language proficiency and language use are used to determine the relative
proficiency of each language. For example, a bilingual is considered to be proficient in a
second language, when their L2 or both of their languages meet native speaker
8
expectations of vocabulary size or grammatical skills (see Bedore et al. 2012 for review).
A bilingual often has a language which is more dominant, which means that the relative
proficiency of one language is higher than another (Gathercole & Thomas, 2009) or the
language to which the child has the most exposure (Grosjean, 2010). While children are
developing however, one language might not be completely dominant. Children’s
strengths and weaknesses may be spread between the two languages spoken (e.g.,
Kohnert et al., 2009). Bilingualism is usually not balanced perfectly in an individual, with
both languages spoken equally and fluently, “like two monolinguals in one person”
(Grosjean, 1989).
The terms simultaneous and sequential bilingualism are used to describe the
different contexts in which bilingualism can develop. Although there is some debate
about the details of classification (e.g., Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004), in general, an
individual who has had exposure to both languages from birth is referred to as
simultaneous bilingual. The term early sequential bilingual indicates that the individual
was exposed to and has already established one language from birth, and acquires their
second language later, for instance, when entering preschool at age 3 (Hammer et al.,
2004). The early sequential bilingual children that will be discussed in this study learn a
minority L1 language (Cantonese) from birth, and begin learning the majority L2
language (English) upon entering preschool.
This is reflected in the research, which shows that bilingual children have smaller
vocabularies in each language than children who speak one of those languages (e.g.,
Bialystok, Luk, Peets & Yang, 2010; Oller, Pearson & Cobo-Lewis, 2007; Peña, Iglesias,
& Lidz, 2001; Peña, & Quinn, 1997; Schiff-Myers, 1992; Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, &
9
Oller, 1992). These smaller vocabularies will set off red flags on standardized tests
designed for monolinguals. For example, a study that compared large samples of
bilingual children to monolingual children’s performance on the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (PPVT), a test measuring receptive vocabulary, showed that the mean
standard score for bilinguals was significantly lower than that of monolingual English
speaking children (Bialystok et al., 2010).
However, typically developing bilingual children’s language is not compromised,
rather, their combined vocabulary is found to be equal to or greater than the vocabulary
of monolingual children. Bilingual children’s vocabulary is organized differently than
monolingual children. They do not simply have two separate, identical and growing
vocabulary stores. Bilingual children’s vocabulary knowledge is spread across two
languages. Children may learn different sets of words in different situations in their lives,
depending on the language of that context (Bialystok et al., 2010). Whereas typically-
developing bilingual children have a higher level of language in one or more languages,
bilingual children with language impairments tend to have lower language skills in both
languages (e.g., Håkansson, et al., 2003).
Language development in bilingual children is highly dynamic, changing with age
and exposure to each language (Kohnert et al., 2009). With great diversity in the
language experiences of bilingual children, a child’s language proficiency and dominance
vary greatly and change as they mature (Kohnert & Bates, 2002). Children’s dominance
will shift gradually, and different domains may be dominant in each language at different
times in a child’s development. Bilingual children often exhibit idiosyncratic dominance
in different domains (eg., Paradis et al., 2003), which will fluctuate as a child gets older.
10
Bilingual children may show an increasing lexicon without noticeable growth in
grammatical skills until a certain number of words are acquired (Caselli, Casadio, &
Bates, 1999; Marchman & Martinez-Sussman, 2002; Thal, Bates, Goodman, & Jahn-
Samilo, 1997). Growth in a bilingual child’s vocabulary and grammatical skills will
therefore not necessarily correspond. For example, children followed longitudinally and
tested at regular intervals exhibited shifts in dominance when measured by Mean Length
of Utterance (MLU, Yip & Matthews, 2006) and in phonology, semantics and syntax
(Verhoeven, 2007).
There is even variation between children, who may be in very similar
circumstances, due to individual characteristics in language processing skills (Castilla,
Restrepo, & Perez-Leroux, 2009; Conboy & Thal, 2006). A child’s language learning
skills may even differ between their languages (Castilla et al., 2009; Conboy & Thal,
2006; Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997).
While a monolingual child’s language input is concentrated in one language,
bilingual children receive less input in each language they are learning and have less
opportunity to practice each language (e.g. Peña, Gillam, Bedore, & Bohman, 2012). As
with monolingual children, bilingual children’s vocabulary is correlated with exposure in
each language (Marchman & Martinez-Sussman, 2002; Marchman, Martinez-Sussman,
& Dale, 2004; Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997). Due to the different
contexts in which bilingual children speak their languages, they often have substantial
vocabulary knowledge in one language that they do not have in the other, and vice versa.
Bilingual children may be adding the same words in both languages to their lexicon
(translation equivalents or doublets) or different words in each of their vocabularies, for
11
which they have no equivalent in the other language (singlets) (Pearson, Fernández, &
Oller, 1995). When children are tested, they tend to perform below the mean in
vocabulary tests in each language (Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1992). Studies
indicate that the languages of bilingual children range from a 14.6% overlap in 16- to 17-
month olds and 37.2% overlap in 22- to 23- month olds (Pearson, Fernández, & Oller,
1993) to approximately a 65% overlap in vocabulary in first graders (Umbel, Pearson,
Fernández, & Oller, 1992).
The organization of bilingual semantic systems is a complex topic of great interest,
particularly theories about the extent to which the semantic systems of bilinguals are
shared or separate, and how they are organized (see Francis, 1999, for an extensive
review). The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) focuses on the different strategies
bilinguals use in building their lexicons as their experience with their L1 and L2 grows
(Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). The RHM model incorporates the word
association model and the concept mediation model described by Potter, So, Von Eckardt,
and Feldman (1984). In the RHM, mapping the word to the concept depends on the
phonology and lexical system of each language. However, the L1 and L2 share
conceptual representations. When learning vocabulary, the RHM posits that individuals
initially gain access to concepts in their L2 through the L1. Once individuals are more
fluent in their L2, they no longer mediate through the L1, but have links directly between
each lexicon and the concept. Experimental evidence strongly suggests that picture
naming in fluent bilinguals is concept mediated in both L1 and L2 (Francis, Augustini, &
Sáenz, 2003; Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, Kroll, 1995).
12
At the same time as sequential bilingual children are immersed in their L2, they
are using their L1 less often. It is likely that, by using the language less frequently, the
size of the lexicon used shrinks, which can lead to an eventual loss of vocabulary (Kravin,
1992). Without additional L1 support, a child’s dominant language may shift from the L1
to the L2 as they develop (Paradis, 2007). Evidence suggests that children can lose their
first language relatively quickly once they begin learning a second language, a process
called language loss, or attrition (Paradis, 2007). This phenomenon has been called
subtractive bilingualism, so named by Wallace Lambert (Lambert, 1975, 1977, 1981).
Research shows that this may occur the fastest in children who learn L2 at a younger age
(Mägiste, 1992; Jia & Aaronson, 2003). Most research in the area of L1 loss has shown
that one of the areas greatest affected are an individual’s vocabulary (Gal, 1989; Smith,
1989; Weltens & Grendel, 1993). The domain of semantics has been seen to shift
dominance between languages earlier than other domains in early sequential bilingual
children (Bedore et al., 2012).
In a large-scale study of Spanish-English sequential bilingual children, Wong
Fillmore (1991) pointed to beginning to learn the majority L2 language during the
preschool age as a major factor contributing to L1 attrition. Families who attended
English-only or bilingual preschools were more likely to describe their children’s L2
skills as deficient or non-existent.
In a longitudinal case study of a Spanish-English bilingual child, Anderson (1999)
observed a noticeable decline in a child’s use of different nouns and verbs across time.
For instance, the child would use general terms such as demonstrative pronouns (eg. eso,
that one), rather than the specific appropriate noun. Anderson (2004) suggests that one
13
way in which a lexicon may shrink is that children begin using earlier linguistic forms in
the L1.
Kohnert (2007) suggests that a child’s L1 may be more vulnerable to attrition
when there are great linguistic and cultural differences between the child’s home
language and the community language. For example, in Kan and Kohnert’s (2005) study
of Hmong-English speaking preschoolers, rapid growth in the English lexicon was seen
while lexical skills in Hmong had stabilized. A similar study was done with Mandarin-
English speaking children aged 3-8 years (Sheng, Luk, & Kan, 2011). Their results
showed a relative stagnation of Mandarin skills in comparison to significant growth of
English lexical skills.
In a longitudinal study done over two years, Hammer, Lawrence and Miccio
(2008) evaluated the receptive vocabularies of simultaneous and sequential Spanish-
English speaking bilingual preschoolers in Head Start programs. They found that
although bilingual children’s Spanish and English improved during the preschool years,
the Spanish (L1) language growth was not as much as that of their English (L2) language
growth. A negative pattern was noted in the children’s auditory comprehension of
Spanish. Indeed, other studies have shown regression or loss of L1 proficiency (Francis,
2005; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Leseman, 2000).
In contrast, a few studies have shown that with the introduction of the L2 there is
continued growth in the L1, though it is slower than expected (Cobo-Lewis, Pearson,
Eilers, & Umbel, 2002; Gathercole & Thomas, 2009; Jia, Kohnert, Callado, & Aquino-
Garcia, 2006; Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999; Rodriguez,
Diaz, Duran, & Espinosa, 1995; and Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999).
14
There are a host of psychological and social-environmental factors that can affect
proficiency in L1 and L2, such as more exposure to the L1 and community support for
the minority language (Anderson, 2004; Paradis, 2007; Pearson, 2007).
In summary, extensive research shows that children who speak a minority L1
experience a shift to dominance in the majority L2, particularly after early exposure to
the L1 during the preschool years. If the child’s lexical-semantic development in the L1
does not actually regress, it levels off or slows its pace.
Assessing Lexical-Semantic Skills
Language disorders are the most common developmental problem observed in
preschool children in the United States (Rossetti, 2001). Having a language impairment
means that the development of a child’s language is significantly delayed in comparison
to development of other areas, such as nonverbal intelligence and socio-emotional skills
(e.g., Håkansson, Salameh & Nettelbladt, 2003). Many children with language
impairments begin to talk at a later age (Rescorla, 2005). Extensive research on language
impairment in monolinguals has been done (for an extensive review see Leonard, 1998).
Consistent evidence indicates that monolingual children with language impairment have a
slower than expected lexical (Crystal, 1987) and grammatical development (Leonard,
1998). Bilingual children with language disorders exhibit difficulty with a range of
linguistic characteristics, depending on features that are specific to each language (e.g.,
Kohnert et al., 2009). While research on semantic organization in bilingual children with
language impairments is limited, bilingual children with language impairments appear to
have more shallow semantic representations, with semantic networks that are more sparse
15
and poorly connected than typically developing bilingual peers (see Peña, Kester, &
Sheng, 2012, for a summary).
Evaluation of language skills in bilingual children is quite a challenge (e.g.,
Kapantzoglou, Restrepo, & Thompson, 2012). Not only can typically developing
bilingual children exhibit similar characteristics as children with language impairments,
but the assessment tools we have to differentiate between these groups are insufficient.
Picture naming and picture identification tasks, such as the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Task (PPVT, Dunn & Dunn, 1997; Dunn et al., 1986), the Expressive One
Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R, Gardner, 1990) and Receptive
One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT, Gardner, 1985) are very commonly used
to assess the breadth of a child’s vocabulary.
Traditionally, in assessing vocabulary knowledge, Speech Language Pathologists
rely on standardized assessments. The ease in administering and scoring makes them cost
efficient, as well as the “easily quantifiable, rather than messy and complex, displays of
skill and knowledge” (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991, p. 43). When we are
attempting to determine what is typical or atypical language, we rely on language ability
standards that are based on socially constructed sets of rules that dictate appropriate or
idealized ways of speaking (Erickson, 1984; Gumperz, 1982). Language tests operate on
the presumption that there is a great deal of homogeneity of exposure to the items in the
test (Figueroa & Garcia, 1994) and to the sociolinguistic aspects of test-taking situations
within groups of test takers (Mehan, Hertweck & Meihls, 1986; Miller-Jones, 1989).
Oftentimes, in clinical practice, due to an insufficient number of bilingual
clinicians, if there is concern about a bilingual child’s language, they may be assessed
16
solely in English. In general, when bilingual children are tested only in the mainstream
language, they perform more poorly than monolingual children (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk,
2008; Bialystok et al., 2010; Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993). This is likely because
their language experience and knowledge are spread between two languages (e.g.,
Bialystok et al., 2008; Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1992).
Assessing a child in their L1 is not necessarily a solution either, however, even if
a standardized assessment tool is available in that child’s L1. When a child is assessed in
their first language, the norms still apply to monolingual children and not necessarily to
bilingual/multicultural children (Horton-Ikard & Ellis Weismer, 2007; Restrepo &
Silverman, 2001). Also, unfortunately, many assessment tools have been directly
translated from English into a second language. In Langdon’s (1992) review of 21
Spanish language tests, she found that not only had many tests been translated directly
from English to Spanish, but none had adequate reliability data and many were not
normed or were poorly normed. For example, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
(PPVT, Dunn et al., 1986), a very common measure of vocabulary, was translated into
Spanish to be the Test de vocabulario imagenes-Peabody (TVIP; Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, &
Dunn, 1986). However, the dialect used in the assessment tool is inappropriate for the
majority of Spanish-speaking children in the USA (Castillan Spanish vs. Mexican
Spanish), the words in Spanish are not used in the same frequency in English, and the
tool was normed with ‘preposterous’ assumptions about culture and language (Prewitt
Diaz, 1988; Tomayo, 1987). Fernández, Pearson, Umbel, Oller, and Molinet-Molina
(1992), in using the TVIP for their research, also found that these differences made some
17
items that appear earlier on in the task more difficult than items that appear later in the
task, placing children at a disadvantage for they reached the ceiling sooner.
Rather than use tools that are either directly translated from English, or are
intended for monolinguals, a bilingual child should be assessed in both languages
(Chamberlain & Medinos-Landurand, 1991; de Montford Supple, 1996). To gain an
understanding of the child’s language development, a tool that has been designed
specifically for bilingual children, that meet reliability and validity criteria, should be
used (Restrepo & Silverman, 2001). This current study sets out to begin developing a tool
that is linguistically and culturally appropriate for early sequential Cantonese-English
speaking children.
The Current Study
This study examined the lexical-semantic development in children who speak
Cantonese (L1) as a home language and start to learn English (L2) in preschool settings.
Cantonese is the third most popular language in the United States (Lewis, 2009) and the
second most influential variety of Chinese (Fung, 2009) after Mandarin. There are
estimated to be 55.5 million Cantonese-Chinese speakers in the world, with 94% in
southern China, and the cities of Hong Kong and Macau (Lewis, 2009). Spoken
Cantonese is different from English in that it is a monosyllabic tonal language and uses
classifiers for nouns.
The Cantonese-English bilingual participants were recruited and tested in a Head
Start program in San Francisco, CA. San Francisco is home of the country’s oldest of the
prominent American Chinatowns still in existence. Tsui (2009) provides a detailed
description of San Francisco’s Chinatown, detailing the constant flow of immigrants,
18
with families moving out and new immigrants moving in, drawn by affordable rents and
available community services. Immigration here tends to be family-based, and largely
built of people emigrating from Guangdong Province, a Cantonese-speaking area in
southern China. San Francisco’s Chinatown is considered a gateway for new residents
and a refuge for old ones. Tsui reports that while many adults continue to speak their first
language, they strongly wish for their children to learn English well.
In this study, I examined the vocabulary development of these Cantonese-English
speaking early sequential bilingual preschoolers. I explored this population’s lexical-
semantic development, cross-sectionally examining how their Cantonese vocabulary
changes as they spend more time in a Cantonese-English bilingual preschool. Picture
naming and picture identification tools were developed to assess Cantonese-English
speaking children’s vocabulary in both languages. Rather than a simple translation of an
English-speaking standardized test into Cantonese, items were carefully selected that
have high frequency of occurrence in Cantonese, English and in both languages. I
compared the children’s performance on these tools to the standardized measures of the
EOWPVT and ROWPVT. Finally, I compared the test results of these typically
developing children with children receiving speech-language services.
There are two studies in this project. In Study 1, I examined typically-developing
Cantonese-English bilingual children’s vocabulary development in both languages. The
following questions were explored:
1. Is there a correlation between age and early sequential bilingual children’s vocabulary
knowledge in L1 and in L2?
19
2. Is children’s L2 experience in school related to children’s vocabulary knowledge in L1
and in L2?
3. Is there a relationship between how children perform on the picture naming and picture
identification tasks and the standardized measures of the EOWPVT and the ROWPVT?
In this study, picture identification and picture naming tasks were developed in
Cantonese and in English to probe age-related changes in cross-language distribution of
lexical knowledge.
I expected that the results analyzing the children’s language skills would replicate
what has been found in previous studies (e.g., Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Leseman, 2000;
Schaerlaekens et al., 1995). My hypothesis is that there are effects of age and language
on both measures. However, on the basis of previous studies (e.g., Leseman, 2000), I
anticipated that there would be an interaction between age and language skills. I predicted
that older children would outperform younger children on the vocabulary tasks in English
while children’s vocabulary skills in Cantonese would not show a great increase.
Previous studies show that while English is supported at home and in the larger
community, the amount of Cantonese used at home typically remains stable (e.g., Pearson,
2007).
I examined the correlation between the children’s vocabulary skills in both
languages and the extent of their L2 experience in school, as indexed by months studying
in school. I predicted that as the children spend more time at school, with an increased
exposure to English, their vocabulary skills in English would be more developed (e.g.,
Pearson, 2007).
20
I explored the correlation between how children perform on the measures we
developed compare to the standardized measures of the Expressive One Word Picture
Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) and the Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test
(ROWPVT). The picture naming and picture identification tasks that were developed
included items that were likely to be singlets in both English and Cantonese, as well as
words that are likely to be translation equivalents. The EOWPVT and ROWPVT were
developed for measuring children’s receptive and expressive English vocabulary with
words that are culturally Anglo-American.
I had considered both possibilities in my predictions, uncertain as to whether there
would be a correlation or not among these measures. I had estimated that there may be
correlation between the English language picture naming and picture identification
measures and the standardized measures because the children do have exposure to
English, including some vocabulary that children who grow up in mainstream families
have. These children have learned English mainly in preschool settings and may be
familiar with the items from EOWPVT and ROWPVT. However, I also considered the
possibility that since the children’s Cantonese lexicon was not considered, there may not
be a correlation.
In Study 2, I will compare the test results of children who receive Speech-
Language therapy services with the larger group of typically developing children using
the picture naming and picture identification tasks that were designed for this population.
I predict that the results of these children on the picture naming and picture identification
will be noticeably different from the larger sample of typically developing children.
21
Study 1
Method
Participants.
Participants included 70 children ranging in age from 3;0 to 5;4 years of age. The
average participant age was 4;5. Cantonese, the minority language, is spoken mostly at
home and receives little support beyond the home setting. Children begin learning
English upon entering a Head Start program in San Francisco, CA. Participants had an
average of 1.5 years experience at Head Start, ranging from 1 month to 2.5 years. These
participants were from low-income families in the San Francisco area. Table 1 provides
further details about the participants, including their scores on the picture naming and
picture identification tasks.
Table 1 Participant Information Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age (months) 36 65 54.3 7.7 Time in school (months)
1 29 17.1 7.6
All children in Study 1 were typically developing, as reported by parents and
teachers. A parent of each child completed a questionnaire regarding the child’s language
and educational history with the assistance of a Cantonese-speaking teacher they were
familiar with (See Appendix A for the questionnaire used). Children were determined to
be typically developing if they were reported to have age-expected progress in school and
normal motor, cognitive, social-emotional, speech and language development as reported
by parents and teacher (e.g., Gray, 2003).
22
Procedures.
Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary tasks.
A picture naming task and a picture identification task in Cantonese and English
were developed to measure children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary skills. Target
items included words that were consistent with children’s cultural experience in
Cantonese-speaking and English-speaking settings (see Appendix B for a list of all items).
Although predominately nouns, the target items included a mixture of concrete objects,
animate beings, verbs, and adjectives that are culturally appropriate for Cantonese-
English bilingual children growing up in the United States. ‘Ginger’ and ‘bitter’ were
items in the Chinese tasks. ‘Ice cream’ and ‘bicycle’ were items from the English-only
tasks. Examples of items consistent with both cultures include a picture of a ‘hand’ and a
‘car’. The stimuli were selected from the MacArthur Communicative Development
Inventory (MCDI, Fenson et al., 1991; 1996), a Chinese adaptation of the MCDI (Tartiff
& Fletcher, 2008) and from a study of name agreement between Chinese and American
English speakers (Yoon et al., 2004). Photographs of each target were selected from Art
Explosion Photo Objects (Nova Development, 2006), and from Google image. The
picture naming tasks consisted of 102 pictures. The picture identification task consisted
of 90 pictures. Each array included three foils in the same semantic category as the target
item. All pictures were carefully selected as to correctly represent the meaning of the
word from a Chinese-American perspective. Disagreements between American and
Chinese researchers designing the task arose on specific items (for instance, ‘truck’ was
perceived differently from their different cultural backgrounds). Target items were not
repeated across the picture naming and picture identification tasks. All target items and
23
picture identification foils were identical in both English and Cantonese. The language of
testing was counterbalanced within each participant group.
The two tasks were administered in Cantonese and English on two different
occasions. Trained personnel, who were native speakers of the respective language,
conducted testing with each child individually in a quiet space at the child’s school.
Practice items preceded each experimental task.
In the Picture Naming task, picture stimuli were presented individually on an iPad.
The question, “What is it?” was asked for pictures of nouns that were shown in the
English session, and “呢個係乜野呀?” (“What is it?”) in the Cantonese session. For
verbs, the question, “What is he/she doing?” was asked. For adjectives, an object or
individual was briefly described (e.g., “This man is tall”) and then the child was asked
about another object or individual that illustrated the other extreme (i.e., “short”). The
total number of pictures named in each language was recorded. Alternative responses
reflecting dialectical or acceptable variations of Cantonese were credited. If a child did
not respond after approximately 10 seconds, the item was scored as “no response.”
In the Picture Identification task, the target picture was shown with the three foils
in a quadrant. The four pictures, equal in size, were shown to the children on the screen
of an iPad. Instructions were to look at the pictures and point to the picture that best
matched the word just heard (e.g. “Show me ____.”).
Standardized measures.
Trained personnel, native English speakers, administered the EOWPVT and the
ROWPVT. Testing was conducted with each child individually in a quiet space at the
24
child’s school. Following the guidelines, examples of each task were completed with the
child before commencing the test.
In the ROWPVT, the child was instructed to point to the picture that represented
the word spoken aloud to the child. The EOWPVT was administered by using the prompt
“What is this?” In both tasks, the basal was established by eight correct consecutive
responses. The ceiling was reached when a child had six consecutive incorrect responses.
Results
To examine receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge in Cantonese (L1)
and English (L2), performance score in Cantonese (L1) and English (L2) were obtained,
consisting of the total correct in each language. The maximum number of correct
responses in Picture Naming was 81, and in Picture Identification was 84. The mean of
all responses in each type of task was calculated, along with standard deviation, are
shown in Table 2 below. A graph of the results, showing the mean percentage and
standard error for each task in both languages, are shown in Figure 1.
25
Figure 1. Performance on vocabulary tasks in Cantonese and English
Results showed that on average, children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies in
Cantonese were stronger than their English vocabularies Receptive vocabulary: F(1, 69,
= 50, p < 0.001; Expressive vocabulary: F(1, 69), = 27.49, p < 0.001.
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between and
across languages and tasks (See Table 3). There was a correlation between the children’s
performance on the picture naming and picture identification tasks in both Cantonese (r
=.5, p <.01) and English (r =.89, p <.01). There was a correlation between the scores in
picture identification (r =.65, p <.01) and in the picture naming scores (r =.24, p <.05).
0102030405060708090100
PictureIdenti7ication PictureNaming
Meanpercentageofcorrect
responses
Task
Cantonese
English
26
Question 1. Is there an age effect on sequential bilingual children’ vocabulary
knowledge in L1 and in L2?
There is a strong correlation between age and lexical-semantic development, as
measured by the tasks that were developed. In English, there was a correlation between
age and the picture identification task (r =.39, p < .01) and between age and picture
naming (r =.40, p < .01) . In Cantonese, there was a correlation for picture identification
(r = .40, p < .01), but no correlation with picture naming (r = .09, p > .05). See Table 4,
below, for further details.
27
The scatter plot below, showing the correlation between age and picture identification
scores in English, is an example of how the results appear.
Note: PID_E = Picture Identification task in English.
28
Question 2. Is children’s L2 experience in school related to children’s vocabulary
knowledge in L1 and in L2?
Similarly, the time spent in school (i.e., an indicator of L2 experience) was
correlated with children’s vocabulary knowledge, on all tasks with the exception of
picture naming in Cantonese. In Cantonese, there was a correlation with picture
identification (r = .42, p < .001), but no correlation with picture naming (r = .11, p >
0.05). In English, time in school was correlated with picture identification (r =.42, p
< .001) and with picture naming (r =.41, p < .001). See table 3 for more details.
Question 3. Is there a relationship between how children perform on the picture
naming and picture identification tasks and the standardized measures of the EOWPVT
and the ROWPVT?
Results showed very high correlations between performance on the EOWPVT and
the ROWPVT for the picture identification or picture naming tasks in English (See Table
2). For receptive vocabulary, children’s ROWPVT scores were correlated with picture
identification in English (r = .78, p < .001). For expressive language, children’s
EOWPVT scores were correlated with picture naming in English (r = .89, p < .001).
Moreover, there were correlations across modality in the English measures (EOWPVT
and picture identification, r = .78, p < .001; ROWPVT and picture naming, r = .82, p
< .001). In addition, there was also a cross-language correlation between performance in
the Cantonese picture identification task and on the ROWPVT (r =.44, p <.001) and the
EOWPVT (r =.59, p <.001). There was no correlation between the standardized
vocabulary assessment tools and the Cantonese picture naming tasks (ROWPVT: r = 0.01,
p > .05; EOWPVT: r =.16, p > .05).
29
Additional Analyses
Throughout testing, certain patterns of responses were observed in the children’s
responses to the picture naming task in English. Frequently, children would impose a
Cantonese way of saying a word onto English. For example, children might say, “baby
car” (which is what stroller, or ‘BB车’means when directly translated from Cantonese
‘child + car’). Other instances included overgeneralization of words in English. In
Cantonese, sofa and chair both have the same word. In English, many children did not
know the exact word for sofa, and so would simply call it, ‘chair,’ as they would in
Cantonese. Children often did the same thing with the word, ‘shirt,’ using the same word
to name t-shirt, button down shirt and jacket.
A final interesting, though less common, observation was the influence of pop
culture on children’s naming in English. More than one child identified the image of a
housecat as, ‘baby jaguar,’ much to the confusion and amusement of the people
administering the task. It was only much later was ‘baby jaguar’ discovered to be the
name of a character in the popular children’s television show, ‘Go Diego, Go!’ a spinoff
of the show ‘Dora the Explorer.’
Summary of Results
In Study 1, it was found that age and time spent at school were correlated with
children’s vocabulary test results in English and with picture identification in Cantonese.
The standardized test results of the ROWPVT and the EOWPVT were correlated with the
scores on the developed tasks in English and picture identification in Cantonese, but not
the picture naming task in Cantonese.
30
Study 2
The main goal of Study 2 is to compare the test results of children with language
impairments with the larger group of typically developing children. I will compare the
data of these children with typically developing children who are in the same age range
(within 1 month of one another) and who have been identified as having a similar
language input at home. I predict that the results of these children on the picture naming
and picture identification will be noticeably different from the larger sample of typically
developing children. Possible clinical implications of doing this are that in the future, the
picture naming and picture identification tasks could potentially be used as culturally
appropriate screening tools for potential language impairments.
Method
Participants.
Participants were five children between 3;6 and 5;2 years of age. These five
children were qualified to receive services from a speech-language pathologist and were
on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), receiving clinical services at the time of
testing. Further details about the IEP or services received were unknown.
However, parents and teachers of each child stated that they had concerns about
their language skills. Parents and teachers of preschool aged bilingual children have been
found to be relatively reliable at describing their children’s language skills (Gutiérrez-
Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Thordardottir & Weismer, 1996). Additionally, with the
exception of language, articulation or phonological problems, the parents reported no
evidence of a neurological or additional developmental disorder.
31
Cantonese, the minority language, is spoken mostly at home and does not receive
much support beyond the home setting. Children begin learning English upon entering a
Head Start program in San Francisco, CA. These participants were from low-income
families in the San Francisco area. These participants were matched with a typically
developing peer who is within 1 month of the same age and has a similar language
experience at home.
Procedures.
These five children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies were measured by the
Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary measures. The procedures were identical to
those of Study 1.
Analyses.
I first identified age-matched typically-developing bilingual children from the
participants in Study 1. These five children also had similar L2 experience with the
children with IEPs. Then, I compared the scores of each child who has been identified as
having an IEP and language difficulties, with the performance with his/her typically-
developing peer.
Results
Study 2 How do children with language impairments compare with the larger
group of typically developing children using the picture naming and picture identification
tasks?
32
Children who are receiving services for a language impairment were matched by
gender and age (within one month) to a child who is typically developing. See Table 5
for a summary of their results.
33
34
Analyses focus on the performance of the children with IEPs and their age-
matched and L2-experienced matched children. Trends in the results of these two groups
of children will be discussed. The results can be divided up into two case studies.
The first case study involves the children in cases 1 and 4 (C1 and C4) and their
typically-developing peers. In comparing C1 and T1, there are very noticeable
differences in their scores. The child who is on the IEP clearly had much lower scores on
the tasks in both languages than the age-matched typically-developing child. C1 also
scored better on picture identification than picture naming in both Cantonese and English.
Similarly, C4’s scores were lower than her age-matched comparison T4, though not quite
as strikingly as in cases C1 and T1.
Cases C2 and T2 look a little different, with scores that are very similar to one
another. The only task in which there was a difference of more than ten points was in
picture naming in Cantonese. C2, the child with an IEP, had a higher score than T2, the
typically-developing child. The final two cases, C3 and T3, and C5 and T5, show a
different pattern in their results from those previously discussed. In these two cases, the
children on IEPs have nearly equivalent scores on picture identification in Cantonese
when compared to the typically-developing children (C3 has 78, T3 has 83; C5 has 68
and T5 has 69), but moderately lower picture naming scores in Cantonese (C3 has 47, T3
has 74; C5 has 49 and T5 has 73). However, when comparing their scores in English, the
children on an IEP perform better than the typically-developing children both in picture
identification (C3 has 81, T3 has 73; C5 has 75 and T5 has 43) and picture naming (C3
has 65, T3 has 52; C5 has 69 and T5 has 4).
35
In summary, of five children who are receiving speech-language services, only
one of them had lower scores in both Cantonese and English than their age- and
language-matched typically-developing peer.
Discussion
Lexical-semantic development has been a focus in the early language development
of bilingual children (e.g., Patterson, 1998, 2000). This project offers further insights into
this, through the study of Cantonese-speaking children who begin learning English once
they begin attending a bilingual preschool. Two measures were developed that were
consistent with the language experiences of these young children; picture naming and
picture identification. Each task was administered in English and Cantonese, the
presentation counterbalanced across participants.
Lexical-semantic Development in Typically-Developing Children
Correlations in performance on these tasks were performed looking at the
correlation with participants’ age, length of time of attendance at the preschool, and
performance on standardized vocabulary tests (the EOWPVT and ROWPVT). This
allows understanding of various factors that may correlate with vocabulary development,
as well as a comparison between the tasks that have been developed for this Cantonese-
English speaking preschool population with already-existing standardized tools for
vocabulary in English.
The children’s scores were higher in picture identification tasks than in the picture
naming tasks in both their L1 and L2. This is consistent with what is known about
vocabulary acquisition in typical monolingual language learners, with lexical-semantic
mappings receptively far outnumbering the number of words produced (Tomasello, 2003).
36
Additionally, this is in line with what has been found about lexical-semantic development
in bilingual children, who may have an even greater difference in performance on
receptive and expressive vocabulary tasks than monolingual children (Yan & Nicoladis,
2009).
Overall, participants scored higher in the Cantonese tasks than the English tasks
(See Figure 1). Although the children have a wide range of language experiences, they
have had most exposure to Cantonese at home from birth, and only beginning to learn
English once they began preschool. This is consistent with what is known about how
language experience and usage are correlated in bilingual children. Among older
sequential bilingual children, it has been found that English, as the majority language and
the language used in academic settings (e.g., reading and writing), can have a
disproportionately high effect on children’s lexical-semantic knowledge in toddlers
(Pearson et al., 1997) and elementary school children (Oller & Eilers, 2002). It is likely
that their dominance would shift to their L2 in the coming years, as other studies have
found (eg. Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999). Further
longitudinal studies are needed to see how their relative vocabulary skills shift with more
exposure to English.
I made several predictions about the performance of the participants in response to
the picture identification and picture naming tasks. My prediction that children’s age and
length of experience at preschool would be correlated with their time spent at school was
correct, for the most part. Picture identification in Cantonese and English, and picture
naming in English correlated with age and time spent in preschool. The picture naming
scores in Cantonese did not correlate with age or time in school, however. In contrast
37
with previous studies in which vocabulary growth was only in L2 but not in L1 (e.g., Kan
& Kohnert, 2005; Leseman, 2000), picture identification scores in L1 were correlated
with age.
Additionally, it was predicted that there may or may not be a correlation between
performance on the tasks developed and the standardized tools. There was, however,
quite a correlation, especially with the English tasks and the picture identification tasks in
Cantonese. Once again, however, there was not a correlation with picture naming in
Cantonese.
Correlation between picture identification in Cantonese and English measures may
suggest that there is a relationship between a child’s receptive lexical-semantic skills in
their L1 and developing vocabulary in their L2. Though vocabulary appears to be a more
cross-linguistically independent domain (Cobo-Lewis, Eilers, Pearson, & Umbel, 2002;
Conboy & Thal, 2006; Simon-Cereijido & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2009), the children’s skills
in Cantonese may be helping them acquire new words in English.
A possible explanation for this lack of correlation with picture naming in Cantonese
is that the children are experiencing effects on their L1 from the introduction of the L2.
The task of picture naming requires that children have a more solid grasp of a word
before they are able to produce it (e.g., Fenson et al., 1994, Benedict, 1979). It is possible
that some children are beginning to experience a shift in L1 dominance to L2 dominance,
or a weakening in their L1 skills, while others remain more dominant in L1. Other studies
have documented a shift in dominance in sequential bilingual children, leading to a
weakening in L1 skills as children’s L2 becomes stronger (Kan & Kohnert, 2005;
Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999). This could create a great
38
deal of variation in the children’s vocabulary knowledge in their L2, resulting in a lack of
correlation in the L1 expressive vocabulary skills with age and time spent in school.
An alternative explanation is that due to the interaction between the children’s L1
and L2, there is not a correlation between expressive Cantonese vocabulary and age/time
spent in school. Going back to the theories of a shared semantic representation, bilingual
individuals have shared conceptual representation of translation equivalents in their
languages (Francis, 1999). Previous studies have found that younger children have fewer
translation equivalents in their lexicon (Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Pena, Bedore, Zlatic-
Giunta, 2002). Kan & Kohnert (2005) found that children had a greater percentage of
translation equivalents in picture identification than in picture naming. Perhaps
interference occurs as children acquire new words in their L1, in the domain of
expressive vocabulary, as shown in picture naming. Additional analyses would be needed
to verify this hypothesis.
Additionally, the sheer number of factors that can affect a child’s language
development should not be overlooked. The individual schools and homes the children
come from will have some degree of variance in language input, which will impact
vocabulary production (Pearson et al., 1997). Family perception of the L1 and L2, the
education and fluency of the parents and number of interactions with peers in each
language are only a few of the factors that impact a bilingual child’s language (Anderson,
2004). Finally, each individual child has their own process in emotional, cognitive and
social development that can affect language acquisition (Bialystok, 2001).
Clinical implications of this study are the further validation of the importance of
assessing bilingual children in both of their languages. Even in children as young as
39
preschool-aged are impacted by learning a majority L2. Children can be overidentified as
having language disorders if they are not assessed appropriately (Samson & Lasaux,
2009).
Language Disorders and Language Differences
Despite having begun life as monolinguals, early sequential bilingual children’s
language is different from that of monolinguals. Children with language disorders tend to
have poorer language scores when assessed than children typically-developing children.
Generally, one to two standard deviations below the norm is required to be diagnosed
with a language impairment (Kohnert et al., 2009). Evidence is clear that vocabulary
acquisition, so often used to diagnose language disorders, will look different in these
children (eg., Umbel et al., 1992). Vocabulary is a feature that identifies young children
as having a language impairment (Rescorla, 2005). Bilingual children as a whole, even if
they are typically developing, score lower on standardized tests designed for monolingual
children (Oller et al., 2007; Bialystok et al., 2010). Attempting to assess these children
for a language disorder, using solely their L1 or their L2, will be unsuccessful (e.g.,
Patterson & Pearson, 2012).
Language development has been found to be strongly correlated with exposure in
monolingual (Hart & Risley, 1995) and bilingual children (Marchman et al., 2002;
Marchman et al, 2004; Pearson et al., 1997). Especially given that children’s language
skills in a given domain can shift as they mature (Kohnert & Bates, 2002), it is essential
to evaluate bilingual children’s language skills in both of their languages (Håkansson et
al., 2003). It is no surprise that bilingual children are so often misidentified as having a
language disorder (Kohnert, 2008). In reality, their language development is different
40
from what, in the United States, is considered the norm: monolingualism. Using
appropriate methods of assessing lexical development is necessary to distinguish between
language difference and language disorder.
In this study, picture identification and picture naming tasks were designed to
assess children’s expressive and receptive vocabularies in Cantonese and English. In the
second part of this study, we compared children who are typically developing and
children who are receiving speech-language services through an IEP. The assessment
tool designed for this population was culturally and linguistically appropriate, using
words that are frequently occurring in English, Cantonese and both languages. In contrast
to my prediction that typically developing children would have higher scores than
children with IEPs on these tasks, there was a great range in how the children scored on
the tasks in comparison to one another.
Of the five children that were identified to have language issues, only one child
(C1) had lower scores than his age-matched and L2-experience-matched typically-
developing peer, C1 and T1, the case study where the typically developing child (T1) had
scores much higher than the child on an IEP (C1), was closer to what I would have
expected from all of the children who were suspected of having a language disorder. C1’s
vocabulary skills were low in both Cantonese and Cantonese, when compared to T1, a
typically developing, same-age, same-language background peer. Monolingual children
with language disorders have been shown to have difficulties with receptive and
expressive vocabulary (Leonard et al., 1998; Rice et al., 1990). In bilingual children with
a language impairment, vocabulary skills would be low in both languages. C1’s low
scores in both his L1 and L2 are consistent with the performance of a bilingual child with
41
a language disorder. In contrast, the other children (i.e., C2, C3, C4, and C5) had similar
scores to their peers.
As previously discussed, the information we had about the children who are on
IEPs was not extensive. One important unknown pieces of information is how,
specifically, each child was assessed by the speech language pathologist. Children may
have been assessed only in English, which would not have accurately portrayed the
child’s language skills (eg., Bialystok et al.2010). Additionally, assessing a child’s
language using the Cantonese translation of English tools would not have been
appropriate either (eg. Langdon, 1992). Although it may be possible that the children who
are on IEPs were identified as needing services initially, but at the point that they were
assessed for this study, had made gains in their skills and no longer needed them.
However, looking at the scores obtained by this small group of children on IEPs,
the need for a culturally and linguistically appropriate tool for this population is apparent.
Several of the children that were assessed may have a language difference, rather than a
language disorder. A pattern observed among these children with IEPs was lower
expressive vocabulary skills in Cantonese, but greater English skills. As many
researchers have observed, bilingual children’s language skills are distributed between
their two languages. These children, while their picture naming skills are not as high as
their peers, have higher English vocabulary skills. As Håkansson et al (2003) noted,
children with language disorders would not have strong language skills in either language
(eg., Kohnert et al., 2009). It may be that these children are already showing signs of
language shift. One possibility is that as their lexical-semantic knowledge grows in
English, their Cantonese expressive vocabulary is leveling off or growing at a slower rate.
42
Several other studies have found that this happens in early sequential bilingual children
learning a majority second language in preschool (eg., Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Sheng et al.,
2011). Further study of this population, with a larger sample of children with a language
impairment, would be necessary to explore this possibility further.
The language development of a bilingual child is a complex process. Distinguishing
between children who have a language difference, as they go through the process of
acquiring a second language, and children with a language disorder cannot easily be done
with the tools we have available. A vocabulary tool that is appropriate for this culturally
and linguistically distinct bilingual population would be valuable in identifying any
children who may have a disorder, distinguishing them from children who simply have a
language difference.
Limitations and Future Studies
Limitations and ideas for future studies are discussed briefly. This study included
early sequential Cantonese-English speaking preschool children from a low
socioeconomic background. Whether these results can be applied to other Cantonese-
English speaking children is unknown. Further studies into this population would benefit
from examining the effects of a wider ranger of factors, such as a variety of
socioeconomic backgrounds, families that have more of a mix of home-language patterns
or schools that are strictly English-speaking only with children. Additionally, it would be
interesting to study a population of early sequential Cantonese-English bilingual children
who do not live in an area such as San Francisco’s Chinatown, and compare these results
with those of an area with even less community support of the home language.
43
The comparison between the children on IEPs and the larger group of typically
developing children is on such a small scale, is especially difficult to make when so little
is known about the children who are on IEPs. In a future study, a knowing the specific
diagnosis of a child and a larger sample of children would be necessary to be able to
gather information as to the performance of children with a language disorder on this tool,
and as the usefulness of this tool for identifying Cantonese-English speaking children
with language disorders.
44
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages, Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 1-18. Anderson, R. (1996). Assessming the grammar of Spanish-speaking children: A
comparison of two procedures. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 333-345.
Anderson, R. T. (1999). First language loss: A case study of a bilingual child’s
productive skills in her first language. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 4-16.
Anderson, R. T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss
and implications for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187-211). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. s. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 382-300.
Backus, A. (1999). Mixed native languages: A challenge to the monolithic view of
language. Topics in Language Disorders, 19, 11-22. Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene,
K., Bohman, T. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1-14.
Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production. Journal
of Child Language, 6, 183-200. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of
vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 522-538. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in
monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 525-531.
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school
45
learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 41-51). New York: Guilford Press.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Vineland,
NJ: The Training School. Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single word utterances before syntax.
The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Bohman, T., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010).
What they hear and what they say: Language performance in young Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. 13, 325-344.
Caselli, M. C., Casadio, P., & Bates, E. (1999). A comparison of the transition from first
words to grammar in English and Italian. Journal of Child Language, 26, 69-112. Castilla, A. P., Restrepo, M. A., & Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2009). Individual differences and
language interdependence: a study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish-English preschool children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(5), 565-580.
Caterino, L. C. (1990). Step-by-step procedure for the assessment of language minority
children. In A. Barona & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issues in educational equity (pp. 269-282). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Chamberlain, P., & Medinos-Landurand, P. (1991). Practical considerations for the
assessment of LEP students with special needs. In E. V. Hamayan & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 111-156). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness, and emergent
literacy skills of 3-year-old children in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 371-394.
Cheuk, D. K. L., Wong, V. & Leung, G. M. (2005). Multilingual home environment and
specific language impairment: A case-control study in Chinese children. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 19, 303-314.
Clark, E. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
46
Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E., & Umbel, V. C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and bilingual education on oral and written English skills: A multifactor study of standardized test outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 64-97. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Conboy, B. T., & Thal, D. J. (2006). Ties between lexicon and grammar: Cross-sectional
and longitudinal studies of bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 77, 712-735. Crutchley, A., Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). Bilingualism and specific
language development in children attending language units. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 267-276.
Crystal, D. (1987). Teaching vocabulary: The case of r asemantic curriculum. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 3, 40-56. Davis, J. W., & Bauman, K. J. (2008). School enrollment in the United States: 2006.
Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. de Groot, A. M. B., & Hoeks, J. C. C. (!995). The development of bilingual memory:
Evidence from word translation by trilinguals. Language Learning, 45, 683-724. De Houwer, A. (2003). Home languages spoken in officially monolingual Flanders: A
survey. In K. Bochmann, P. Nelde, & W. Wock (Eds.). Methodology of conflict linguistics (pp. 71-87). St. Augustin, Germany: Asgard.
de Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Qi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining
educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-441.
DeTemple, J. (2001). Parents and children reading books together. In D. Dickinson & P.
Tabors (eds.), Beginning literacy with language, pp.31-52. Baltimore: MD: Brookes Publishing.
Dollaghan, C. (1987). Fast mapping in normal and language-impaired children. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 218-222. Dunn, L. M. (1987). Bilingual Hispanic children on the U.S. mainland: A review of
research on the cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. Circle Pines: N: American Guidance Services.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Luga, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Examiners manual for
the Test de Vocabulario en Imagines Peabody: Adaptacion Hispanoamericana. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Dickinson, D. K. (1984). First impressions: Children’s knowledge of words gained from
47
a single exposure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 359-373. Dollaghan, C. A. (1985). Child meets word: “Fast mapping” in preschool children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 449-454. Dollaghan, C. A. (1987). Fast mapping in normal and language-impaired children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 218-222. Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In
C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, R., Lugo, S., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de vocabulario en
Imagenes Peabody. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Eilers, R. E., Pearson, B. Z., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (2006). Social Factors in Bilingual
Development: The Miami Experience. In P. McCardle & E. Hoff (Eds.), Childhood Bilingualism: Research on Infancy through School Age (pp. 68-90). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Erickson, F. (1984). Rhetoric, anecdote, and rhapsody: Coherence strategies in a
conversation among Black American adolescents. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 81-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J.S., & Bates, E. (1994). Variability in early
communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (5, Serial No. 242).
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J.S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., et al. (1991).
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Fernández, M. C., Pearson, B. Z., Umbel, V. M., Oller, D. K., & Molinet-Molina, M.
(1992). Bilingual receptive vocabulary in Hispanic preschool children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 268-276.
Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge
gaps and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56, 145-152. Figueroa, R. A., & Garcia, E. (1994). Issues in testing students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 2, 10-19. Francis, N. (2005). Research findings on early first language attrition: Implications for
the discussion on critical periods in language acquisition. Language Learning, 55, 491-531.
48
Francis, W. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 193-222.
Francis, W. S., Augustini, B. K., & Sáenz, S. P. (2003). Repetition priming in picture
naming and translation depends on shared processes and their difficulty: Evidence from Spanish-English Bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1283-1297.
Fung, R. S. – Y. (2009). Characteristics of Chinese in relation to language disorders. In S.
P. Law, B. S. Weekes, A. M.-Y. Wong (Eds.)., Language disorders in speakers of Chinese (pp. 1-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gal, S. (1989). Lexical innovation and loss: The use and value of restricted Hungarian. In
N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp. 313-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, M. (1985). Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, CA:
Academic Therapy Publications. Gardner, M. (1990). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Novato,
CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Gathercole, V. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development:
Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 213-237.
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I., & Tracy, R. (1996). Bilingual boot-strapping. Linguistics, 34,
901-926. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2006). Bilingual Acquisition. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.)
Handbook of Language Development (pp. 324-342). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual Language Development & Disorders:
A Handbook on Bilingualism & Second Language Learning, Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Goldberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority
first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41-65.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in
one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15. Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In R. Harris (Ed.). Cognitive
processing in bilinguals (pp. 51-62). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
49
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (1996). Language Diversity: Implications for Assessment. In K.
N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of Communication and Language (pp. 29-56)
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition
using parent and teacher reports, 24, 267-288. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., Restrepo, M. A., Bedore, L., Peña, L., & Anderson, R. (2000).
Language sample analysis: Methodological considerations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88-98.
Håkansson, G., Salameh, E., & Nettelbladt, U. (2003). Measuring language development
in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment. Linguistics, 41, 255-288.
Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B. L., Lopez, L. M., Scarpino, S. E., &
Goldstein, B. (2012). Predicting Spanish-English Bilingual Children’s Language Abilities, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, (IN PRESS??)
Hammer, C.S., Lawrence, F.R., & Miccio, A.W. (2008). Exposure to English before and
after entry into Head Start: Bilingual children’s receptive language growth in Spanish and English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11 (1), 30-56.
Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Rodriguez, B. L., (2004). Bilingual Language
acquisition and the Child Socialization Process. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 21-50). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French immersion.
French Language Studies, 2, 159-183. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Heibeck, T. H., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: An examination of
fast mapping. Child Development, 58, 1021-1034. Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2002) Language development. In N. Salkind (Ed).
Child Development. New York, Macmillan, 227-232 Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects
50
early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368-1378.
Hoff, E. & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 271-278 Hoff, E. (2009). Language Development (4th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage
Learning Horton-Ikard, R., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2007). A preliminary examination of vocabulary
and word learning in African American toddlers from middle and low socioeconomic status homes. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(4), 381-392.
Hubbs-Tait, L., Culp, L., McDonald, A., Huey, E., Culp, R., Starost, H., & Hare, C.
(2002). Relation of head start attendance to children’s cognitive and social outcomes: Moderation of family risk. Early Childhood Research Quartery, 17, 539-558.
Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents
learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131-161. Jia, G., Kohnert, K., Collado, J., & Aquino-Garcia, F. (2006). Action naming in Spanish
and English by sequential bilingual children and adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(3), 588-602.
Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture
naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113-139. Jorshchick, L., Quick, A. E., Glasser, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). German-
English-speaking children’s mixed NPs with ‘correct’ agreement. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 173-183.
Kaderavek, J., & Justice, L. (2004). Embeded-explicit emergent literacy intervention II:
Goal selection and implementation in early childhood classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 212-228.
Kamhi, A. & Catts, H. (2005). Reading development. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.),
Language and Reading Disabilities. 2nd Ed. (pp. 26-49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-
semantic skills in L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 372-383.
Kan, P. F. & Kohnert, K. (2008). Fast mapping by bilingual preschool children. Journal
of Child Language, 35, 495-514.
51
Kastner, J. W., May, W., & Hildman, L. (2001). Relationship between language skills
and academic achievement in first grade. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 381-390. Kohnert, K. (2002). Picture naming in early sequential bilinguals: A 1-year follow-up.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 749-771. Kohnert, K. (2004). Processing skills in early sequential bilinguals. In B. Goldstein (Ed.),
Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 53-76). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego, CA:
Plural Publishing. Kohnert, K., & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and
cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 347-359.
Kohnert, K. & Kan, P. F. (2007). Lexical skills in young children learning a second
language: Methods, results, and clinical applications. In J. Centeno, L. L. Obler & R. Anderson (Eds.), Studying communication disorders in Spanish-speakers: Theoretical, research and clinical aspects (pp. 156-168). Clevedon, England: Multilingual matters.
Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Ebert, K. D. (2009). Primary or “specific” language
impairment and children learning a second language. Brain & Language, 109, 101-111.
Kravin, H. (1992). Erosion of a language in bilingual development. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8, 138-154. Kroll, J. F., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised
hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373-381.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in a word-translation variant of
the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 76-83. Lahey, M., & Edwards, J. (1999). Naming errors of children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 195-205. Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A.
Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and
52
sociocultural consequences. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and educational implications. New York: Academic.
Lambert, W. E. (1981). Bilingualism and language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native
language and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Science.
Lambert, W. E. & Taylor, D. M. (1996). Language in the lives of ethnic minorities:
Cuban- American families in Miami. Applied Linguistics, 17, 477-500. Leonard, L. B. (1992). Specific language impairment in three languages: Some cross-
linguistic evidence. In P. Fletcher & D. Hall (Eds.), Specific speech and language disorders in children. (pp. 118-126). San Diego, CA: Singular.
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. Leonard, L. B., Sabbadini, L., Leonard, J. S., & Volterra, V. (1987). Specific language
impairment in children: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 233-252.
Leseman, P. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the
Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 93-112. Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL
International. Online version http://www.ethnologue.com Li, P. (2009). Lexical organization and competition in first and second languages:
Computational and neural mechanisms. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 33(4), 629-664.
Lin, P., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1990). Category typicality, cultural
familiarity, and the development of category knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 26, 805-813.
Mägiste, E. (1992). Second language learning in elementary and high school students.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 355-365. Marchman, V. A., & Martinez-Sussman, C. (2002). Concurrent validity of
caregiver/parent report measures of language for children who are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 983, 997.
Marchman, V. A., Martinez-Sussman, C., & Dale, P. S. (2004). The language-specific
nature of grammatical development: evidence from bilingual language learners. Developmental Science, 7(2), 212-224.
53
Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped:
Decision making in students’ educationl careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Miller-Jones, D. (1989). Culture and testing. American Psychologist, 44(2), 360-366. Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meaning meanings
from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 238-270.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge:
Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtin (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Language minority school-age children.
Retrieved from the Institutes of Education Sciences web site: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96
Oetting, J. B., Rice, M. L., & Swank, L. K. (1995). Quick incidental learning (QUIL) of
words by school-age children with and without SLI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 434-445.
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.) (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children.
Clevedon: Multilingual matters. Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: a
background. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 64-97. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Ouellette, G.P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word
reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554-566.
Paivio, A., Clark, J. M., Digdon, N., & Bons, T. (1989). Referential processing:
Reciprocity and correlates of naming and imaging. Memory & Cognition, 17, 163-174.
Paradis, J. (2007). Second language acquisition in childhood. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz
(Eds.) Handbook of Language Development (pp. 324-342). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects
of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60(3), 651-680.
54
Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(1), 113-127.
Patterson, J. (2002). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading and
television experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 493-508.
Patterson, J. L. & Pearson, B. Z. (2012). Bilingual Lexical Development, Assessment,
and Intervention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.) Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers. 2nd Ed. (pp. 113-129). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co..
Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (3rd edition). St
Louis, MO: Elsevier. Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relationship of
input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 41-58.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual
infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93-120.
Peña, E. D. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model and its language applications. In K.
N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 281-307). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Peña, E. D., Bedore, L. M., & Zlatic-Guinta, R. (2002). Category-generation performance
of bilingual children: The influence of condition, category, and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 938-947.
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Bedore, L. M., & Bohman, T. M. (2012). Risk for poor
performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 302-314.
Peña, E. D., Kester, E.S., & Sheng, L. (2012). Semantic development in Spanish-English
bilinguals: Theory, assessment, and intervention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.) Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers. 2nd Ed. (pp. 131-149). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co..
Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1994). Selection of preschool language tests: A data-based
approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 15-24.
55
Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and more proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23-38.
Prewitt Diaz, J. O. (1988). Assessment of Puerto Rican children in bilingual education
programs in the United States: A critique of Lloyd M. Dunn’s monograph. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10 (3), 237-252.
Rescorla, L. (2005). Age 13 language and reading outcomes in late-talking toddlers.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 459-472. Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects children’s emergent
literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 20-28. Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of Spanish-speaking children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1398-1411. Restrepo, M. A., & Silverman, S. (2001). The validity of the Spanish Preschool Language
Scale for use with bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 382-393.
Rice, M. L., Buhr, J. C., & Nemeth, M. (1990). Fast mapping word learning abilities of
language-delayed preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 55, 33-42.
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. C. (1990). Words from “Sesame
Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421-428.
Rice, M. L., & Watkins, R. V. (1996). “Show Me X”: New views of an old assessment
technique. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of Communication and Language (pp. 183-206). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Children’s word learning
when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420-429. Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some,
but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of reading, 11, 235-257. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with
cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92. Rodriguez, J., Diaz, R., Duran, D., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The impact of bilingual
preschool education on the language development of Spanish-speaking children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 475-490.
56
Rossetti, L. (2001). Communication intervention: Birth to three (2nd ed.). San Diego: CA: Singular Publishing Group.
Salameh, E.-K., Nettlebladt, U., Håkansson, G., & Gullberg, B. (2002). Language
impairment in Swedish bilingual children: a comparison between bilingual and monolingual children in Malmo. Acta Paediatrica, 91, 229-234.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2002). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional
design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaerlaekens, A., Zink, J., & Verheyden, L. (1995). Comparative vocabulary
development in kindergarten classes with a mixed population of monolinguals, simultaneous and successive bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, 477-495.
Schiff-Myers, N. B. (1992). Considering arrested language development and language
loss in the assessment of second language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 156-164.
Schwartz, R., & Leonard, L. (1982). Do children pick and choose? Phonologial selection
and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 9, 319-336. Sheng, L., Lu, Y., & Kan, P. F. (2011). Lexical Development in Mandarin-English
Bilingual Children, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 579-587 Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming
and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45-49.
Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual
evaluation of the interdependence between lexicon and grammar. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 17-22.
Smith, M. A. S. (1989). Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. In K. Hyltenstam & L.
K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp. 185-201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Snodgrass, J. G. (1993). Translating versus picture naming. In R. Schreuder & B.
Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language
acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551-569. Storkel, H. L. & Rogers, M. A. (2000). The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical
acquisition. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14, 407-425.
57
Swanson, H. L., Rosston, K., Gerber, M., & Solari, E. (2008). Influence of oral language
and phonological processing on children’s bilingual reading. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 413-429.
Tabors, P., Roach, K., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment:
Final results. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (eds.), Beginning Literacy with Language, pp. 111-138. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Tabors, P., Snow, C. E., & Dickinson, D. (2001). Homes and schools together:
Supporting language and literacy development. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (eds.), Beginning literacy with language, pp. 313-334. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Tardiff, T. and Fletcher, P. Chinese Communicative Development Inventories: User's
Guide and Manual (2008), Peking University Medical Press, Beijing, China. Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children, their development and
interrelationships (Institute of Child Welfare, Monograph Series 26). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Thal, D. J., Bates, E., Goodman, J., & Jahn-Samilo, J. (1997). Continuity of language
abilities: An exploratory study of late- and early-talking toddlers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13(3), 239-273.
Thordardottir, E., & Weismer, S. (1996). Language assessment via parent report:
Development of a screening instrument for Icelandic children. First Language, 16, 265-285.
Tomayo, J. M. (1987). Frequency of use as a measure of word difficulty in bilingual
vocabulary test construction and translation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 893-902.
Tsui, B. (2009). American Chinatown: A People’s history of five neighborhoods. New
York, NY: Free Press. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and
beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158. Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners:
What are the best predictors? Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 9(1), 33-49. Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring
bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012-1020. Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer, and phonological awareness.
58
Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 425-439. Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and
frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217-234. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: The
Psychological Corporation. Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years: Language at home and
at school (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Weltens, B., & Grendel, M. (1993). Attrition of vocabulary knowledge. In R. Schreuder
& B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 135-156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Westby, C. E. (1990). Ethnographic interviewing: Asking the right questions to the right
people in the right ways. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 13, 101-111.
Westby, C. E. (1994). Multicultural issues. In J. B. Tombling, H. L. Morris, & D. C.
Spriestersbach (Eds.), Diagnosis in speech-language pathology (pp. 29-51). San Diego: Singular.
Westman, M., Korkman, M., Mickos, A., & Byring, R. (2008). Language profiles of
monolingual and bilingual Finnish preschool children at risk for language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43, 699-711.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, S. A., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E.
(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. (1999). When learning a second
language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development in low-income Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349-362.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well:
Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education,17, 31-74.
Wong, A.M.-Y., Leung, C., Siu, E. K.-L., Lam, C. C.-C. & Chan, G. P.-S. (2011).
Development of a language subtest in a developmental assessment scale to
59
identify Chinese preschool children with special needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 297-305.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346. Wyatt, T. A. (1993, May). Standardized language assessment and Larry P.: A review.
California Speech Hearing Association, 17-18. Yan, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Finding le mot juste: Differences between bilingual and
monolingual children’s access in comprehension and production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335.
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2006). Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition:
A case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(2), 97-116.
Yoon, C., Feinberg, F., Luo, T., Hedden, T., Gutchess, A.H., Chen, H.M., Mikels, J.A.,
Jiao, S., & Park, D.C. (2004). A cross-culturally standardized set of pictures for younger and older adults: American and Chinese norms for name agreement, concept agreement, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 639-649.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1993). Preschool Language Scale-3:
Spanish Edition. San Antonio, Tx: The Psychological Corporation.
60
Appendix A
語言學習經驗
出生日期: 年齡: 性別 F M
1. 孩子的父親最高的教育是什麼? 沒有完成小學 小學 中學 大學 其他 ________
2. 孩子的 母親最高的教育是什麼? 沒有完成小學 小學 中學 大學 其他 ________
3. 你有沒有擔心對孩子的語言, 聽力或學習的能力? 有 沒有
如果有,你有什麼擔心? (你可以選擇不回答) _______________________________________
如果有,你的孩子有沒有個人化教育計劃 (IEP)? 有 沒有
4. 你的孩子在什麼年齡開始在啟明學校上學?
5. 你的孩子是不是在啟明學校開始學習英語? 是 不是
6. 你的孩子在家說什麼語言的 (你可以選擇一項以上):
台山話 粵語 英語 其他
7. 你的孩子在學校說什麼語言的 (你可以選擇一項以上):
台山話 粵語 英語 其他
8. 你的孩子喜歡說那種語言? (你可以選擇一項以上):
台山話 粵語 英語 其他
9. 你的孩子說那種語言說得較好? (你可以選擇一項以上):
台山話 粵語 英語 其他
10. 一般來說你的孩子用多少時間種語言用以下語言的?
台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 __________
11. 在以下環境或與以下的人, 你的孩子使用什麼語言? 如果孩子使用超過一種語言, 請註明使用百分比。
在家裡 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
在學校 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
61
當孩子閱讀時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
當孩子閱讀 寫字 時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
當孩子看電視時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
與 他/她的父母 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
與 他/她的祖父母 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
與 他/她的哥哥姐姐 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
與 他/她的弟弟妹妹 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
與 他/她的 朋友 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%
12. 你的孩子 每週 用多少個小時間做以下的事情?…
看電視 (或錄像帶)? ___________
與朋友一起玩? __________________
與兄弟姐妹玩? __________________
留在家中? _______________
13. 你的孩子多少個朋友講以下的語言?
單講粵語? ______ 單講英語? ________ 講粵語和英語? _______ 講其它語言? _________
62
Language Learning Experience Date of birth: Age: Gender F M
1. What is the highest education the child’s father received? __________
mother? __________ 2. Do you have concerns about the child’s speech, language, hearing or learning ability?
yes no If yes, what are the concerns? (optional) _______________________________________ If yes, does your child have an IEP? yes no
3. At what age did the child start to go to school? 4. What language(s) does the child speak at home:
Cantonese (including Tai San) English Other 5. What language(s) does the child speak at school: Cantonese English
Other 6. Which language does the child feel more comfortable speaking? Cantonese
English Other 7. In which language does the child feel he/she have better skills? Cantonese
English Other 8. Did your child start to learn English at Kai Ming? yes no
9. At what age did the child start to go to Kai Ming? ________ 10. In general what percent of your child’s time is spent using each language?
Cantonese _____ % English ______ % Other __________ 11. What language(s) does the child use in the following settings or with the following
people? If the child uses more than one language in each setting, please indicate the percent of your use in each language. at home Cantonese ____ % English ____%
Other ____% in school Cantonese ____ % English ____%
Other ____% when the child read Chinese ____ % English ____%
Other ____%
63
when the child write Chinese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
when the child watch TV/video Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other %
with parents Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
with grandparents Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
with older siblings Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
with younger siblings Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
with friends Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%
12. How many hours a week do the child spend watching TV or video? ___________
with friends? __________________ with siblings? __________________
staying at home? _______________ 13. How many friends of your child speak the following languages?
Cantonese only? ______ English only? ________
Both Cantonese and English? _______ Other languages? _________
64
Appendix B Picture Naming Task Items adapted from Cantonese/Mandarin CDI (Tardiff & Fletcher, 2008)
1. Rice 2. Noodles 3. Pork dumpling 4. Crab 5. Soy sauce 6. Green onion 7. Brush hair 8. Short (height) 9. Small 10. Sweet 11. Sour 12. Chopsticks 13. Rice cooker 14. Tea pot 15. Mirror 16. Stroller
Items that are shared across Chinese and American cultures (Adapted from Yoon et al., 2004)
1. Elephant 2. Bear 3. Horse 4. Donkey 5. Lion 6. Wolf 7. Fox 8. Pen 9. Leg 10. Hand 11. Hair 12. Knee 13. Foot 14. Neck 15. Ear 16. Donkey 17. Chicken 18. Grasshopper 19. Crayon 20. Belly button 21. Sheep
65
22. Forehead 23. Cheek 24. Harp 25. Flute 26. Tooth 27. Tummy 28. Paper 29. Apple 30. Orange 31. Pear 32. Strawberry 33. Head 34. Trumpet 35. Paintbrush 36. Sausages 37. Taxi 38. (Air)plane 39. Boat 40. Piano 41. Car 42. Train 43. Bus 44. Bee 45. Cabinet 46. TV 47. Desk 48. Sofa 49. Bathtub
Items adapted from the Bates-MacArthur CDI norm from children who grow up in mainstream American families (Dale & Fenson, 1996)
1. Dog 2. Broken 3. Ladybug 4. Kitchen 5. Wash (verb) 6. Money 7. Walk (verb) 8. Drink (verb) 9. Pants 10. Flower 11. Grape 12. Bird 13. Bubbles 14. Wet
66
15. Water 16. Dirty 17. Skirt 18. Shirt 19. Cup 20. Play (verb) 21. Bottle 22. Shoe 23. Cat 24. Window 25. T-shirt 26. Hug (verb) 27. Ball 28. Pizza 29. Cheese 30. Paper 31. Light 32. Blanket 33. Baby 34. Hat 35. Juice 36. Fly (verb) 37. Telephone
Picture Identification Task Items adapted from Cantonese/Mandarin CDI (Tardiff & Fletcher, 2008)
1. Tea 2. Porridge 3. Pot 4. Tomato 5. Shrimp dumpling 6. Ginger 7. Cough 8. Barbeque pork bun 9. Toothpaste 10. Onion 11. Kite 12. Umbrella 13. Wok 14. Bitter 15. Suck (verb) 16. Tofu
67
Items that are shared across Chinese and American cultures (Adapted from Yoon et al., 2004)
1. Peach 2. Pencil 3. Watermelon 4. Guitar 5. Banana 6. Rabbit 7. Eye(s) 8. Toe 9. Spider 10. Violin 11. Pig 12. Ant 13. Duck 14. Fish 15. Crayon 16. Tuba 17. Tiger 18. Nose 19. Jeep 20. Beef 21. Truck 22. Arm 23. Boar 24. Lip 25. Pineapple 26. Drums 27. Motorcycle 28. Mouth 29. Deer 30. Cow 31. Beetle 32. Eyebrow 33. Mosquito 34. Bed 35. Chair 36. Table 37. Chest 38. Dresser
Items adapted from the Bates-MacArthur CDI norm from children who grow up in mainstream American families (Dale & Fenson, 1996)
1. Pillow
68
2. Jacket 3. Underwear 4. Cold 5. Milk 6. Bicycle 7. Balloon 8. Spoon 9. Key 10. Sweater 11. Eat 12. Open 13. Cry 14. Hot 15. Door 16. Ice cream 17. Cookie 18. Bath 19. Tree 20. Cake 21. Book 22. Fall 23. Outside 24. Bowl 25. Sock 26. Egg 27. Button 28. Fork 29. Computer 30. Soap 31. Big 32. Spaghetti 33. Kiss 34. Toothbrush 35. Bathroom 36. Puppy