2016/02/23
Factors that might influence phonological
Phonology and
additional
language
learners
J van der Linde
EBP i.t.o assessment and treatment of
phonological and speech sound
disorders in bilingual children –
What we know . . . (Goldstein & Fabiano;2007)
 Bilingual
children – multiple challenges for
assessment and intervention
 Differentiate betweenphonological
difference and disorder!
Impact of L2 learner’s phonological
development on (bilingual children’s)
literacy development
L2 learners are faced with challenge –
learning academically through language of
classroom – discrepancy between their
language proficiency and that which is
required of them to master new academic
content and skills – alongside other L1
learners (Seef-Gabriel, 2003)
and speech sound development
 Class discussion
Requirements for normal (language) development
So . . .what happens if one is dysfunctional of
absent?
(cont.)
 Theories of BILINGUAL phonological representation:
Unitary system model (one phonological system based

on first language that separates into two phonological
systems over time)
 Dual system model (develop separate phonological
systems from start)
 Interactional dual systems model (two phonological
systems, but use sources from both for production –
separate language specific elements)
(cont.)
 Referto the Adapted Speech processing model
by Stackhouse and Wells, 1997 (Seeff-Gabriell, 2003)
 Input processing: Auditory perception (discrimination), lexican
representations (phonological –sound structure and semantic -
meaning representation )
 Output processing: motor programming, planning and execution
1
 2016/02/23

Requirements for Language Acquisition

Causal and contributing / risk factors for childhood language and learning disorders -
(also refer to Figure 3.8 p 71 in Owens 2012; pg 165-169 regarding
adult model) UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION PROCESSING (Owens, 2014, p 21….)
Contextual sensory Input
L
Type Otitis 4 Steps of information
Input Hearing processing:
Frequency Adult model spoken L Media 1. Attention (automatic
activation of the brain for
Consistency focus, NB to know which info is
NB to focus on)
Visual 2. Discrimination (ability to
Sensory
SensoryIntegration
Integration identify stimuli amongst others,
Verbal and Non-verbal
L Auditory compared to each other in
processing working memory, then
Contextual information Tactile compared to previously stored
Olfactory Kinesthetic info in long-term memory (B
and C). Linguistic info
Analysis & Synthesis Neuro-Physiological processes undergoes simultaneous –
overall meaning of message
coded-and successive- linear
Phonological Integrity coding on unit level of
Phonetic Integrity L language - coding.)
3. Organization (categorization
output of info for later retrieval)
Neuro-muscular integrity Cognitive-linguistic integrity 4. Memory/retrieval (accuracy
and speed of retrieval
7
increases with maturity)

(cont.) (cont.)
 Input processing- phonological development  Spelling –challenge for L2 learner (leads
starts very early in life.
to misunderstanding and general
 Research on vowel in infant babbling shows questions regarding their competence)
language specific developments as early as 10
months of age.
 Spelling: Strong correlations between:
 Consider the sensitive period for language
acquisition (period closes between 6 and  Words with same vowels in L1 and L2,
puberty)  Their auditory discrimination
 The older learner a is when starting to learn L2 the  Phonological representation
more challenging the process of mastering the
phonological system of that language and to
discriminate between the sounds.

(cont.)
 Older L2 learners tend to perceive segmentals and
(cont.)
supra-segmentals of L2 i.t.o. categories of L1. Will
perceive one sound as another and say the word • ‘Phonological interference’ – causing mispronunciations –
incorrectly (“burnt as bent”) loss of meaning in speech

 Although study had limitations – above mentioned

confirmed by Gildersleeve et al. ( 1996) – L2 Eng
speaking 3 year olds – less intelligible, more
consonant and vowel errors, more sound distortions
and present with more error patterns such as
‘backing’ than L1 Eng / Spanish speaking peers. L2
learners also had largest to 2 nd largest percentage
of phonological processes such as initial consonant
deletion, cluster reduction, final consonant deletion,
stopping, gliding and consonant devoicing.
Differences decrease over time.

 Input system has direct / domino effect on the

output system (processing)

2

(cont.)
 Literature – initially L2 segments may be
perceived i.t.o. L1 categories, but as
speaker becomes more proficient in L2,
new L2 categories begin to emerge
(cont.)
 ESL experience difficulties with spelling, auditory
discrimination and phonological representation
 Strongest correlation between spelling and non-
word auditory discrimination abilities
 Increased length of exposure EFL models –
positive effect on spelling, auditory discrimination
and phonological representation
 Semantic knowledge has positive impact on
auditory discrimination
Adapting assessment and intervention
methods – best practice for bilingual child
Assessment of bilingual children (protocol)
 Detailed case history
 Language spoken at home
 Exposure to other languages, context, duration
 Language spoken by child
 Academic language ...
 Obtain speech samples
 Single word and connected speech
 Both languages
2016/02/23
(cont.)
(Seeff-Gabriell, 2003 study)
 Discussion: what is the relationship
between the English spelling abilities of
adolescent ESL learners and their input
processing of SA English vowels?
(cont.)
 Based on this info educators and therapists can
determine – errors due to spelling rule error or
interplay between L1 and L2 phonological systems
 In spelling test – more meaningful to present words
in phrase (L2 learner draw on semantic knowledge
to assist auditory discrimination of phonemes not in
their L1)
 Input speech processing to receive continuous
attention within multilingual classroom (groups)
 Strong relationship between spelling and auditory
discrimination – alternative approach to teaching
spelling – contrasting phoneme or minimal pair
framework (changing phoneme, change meaning
of word)
(cont.)
 Perform independent analysis
 Organise inventory by place (bilabial, alveolar,
….) and manner (stops, nasals, …) of
intervention
 Perform relational analysis
 Overall consonant and vowel accuracy in each
language
 Analysis of shared and unshared elements
 Phonological pattern analysis
(Goldstein, Fabiano & Washington, 2005)
3

(cont.)
 Perform error analysis
 Sounds child does not attempt to produce
 Phonemes child tends to use in place of
another
 Using one phonological element relevant for
one language in another
 ‘There will never be a perfect test or set of
tests to adequately assess the
communication skills of a bilingual
individual….Tests are tools and the SLT need
to know how to use them most effectively
and equitably.’ (Langdon & Wiig, 2009)
(cont.)
 Considerations in assessment: resources
available for L2 learner, Structure of
language or languages spoken by L2
learner (sound system and written script),
literacy level of family and community
 Difference between dominance and
proficiency. May be dominant
(language most used) in one language
but that does not signify that learner is
proficient (mastered) in that language
(cont.)
 Constructing new language assessment
instruments presents 3 challenges:
1. Items in test must reflect structure of primary
language spoken by target population
2. Developers need to decide which words and
structures will best differentiate normal from
learner experiencing difficulty
3. Need to include dialectal differences in
syntactic, lexical and phonological forms
used by speakers of languages across several
geographical regions.
2016/02/23
(cont.)
 Multi-cultural issues in test interpretation
(Langdon & Wiig, 2009)
 Accurate assessment of language processing
and competence is very NB – these skills are
fundamental for learning and academic
success and progress.
 NB for the SLT to explore the syntactic
characteristics, orthography and relevant
aspects that may interfere learner’s ability to
acquire L2.
 Assessing L1 very NB – determine skill level in
L1
(cont.)
 Difference between spoken and written
language. May speak better about events /
occurrences in L1as they took place in
context where L1 is spoken, better L2
language related to Math or certain subject
– only exposed to concepts in L2 within
written or academic context.
 Pre-existing skills in L1 may decline over time
due to lack of practice or lack of continued
exposure over time (keep in mind when
assessing)
(cont.)
 SLT need to have linguistic and
professional experience to attempt
developing a language test. Keep in
mind:
1. Avoid word for words translation
2. Match normative sample with test
sample
3. Unbiased mode of elicitation of stimuli
4
 2016/02/23

(cont.) Intervention for bilingual

 Children who are less phonologically children
skilled in both L1 and L2 are at greater risk
for sustained delays (Goldstein et al.,  Limited research available
2005).
 Can use what you know about phonological
development
 TIMELY INTERVENTION NB
 EBP – THE QUESTION

 “In which language should I treat?”

vs
“When should I treat in each of the two
languages?”

 Phonological development not the same in every

language because structure of each language is
different
 Once approach is selected – can
TWO MAJOR APPOACHES TO INTERVENTION with bilingual
children consider other consideration to choose
 Bilingual approach language for intervention:
 Start treating errors / error patterns that are the same in  History
both languages (unstressed syllable deletion)
 /s/ in both languages  Frequency of language use
 Proficiencyin language
 Cross-linguistic approach
 Environment
 Focus on linguistic skills unique to each language (some
sounds and sound combinations only occur in I of the  Family considerations
languages)
also
 Phonological intervention
 Errors occurring in only one language –not the other

Multicultural issues in test

Goal attack strategies interpretation
 Vertical
 Horizontal Class discussion
 Cyclical

5

Bilingual children and Communication
disorders: a 30 year research
retrospective (Kohnert & Medina, 2009)
 Can children with communication
disorders learn 2 languages? Are they at a
disadvantage relative to monolingual
speakers with similar impairments? Will
changing the environment so that only
one language is used improve short- and
long-term outcomes for affected
children?
Differential diagnosis!
 Differential diagnosis: SLL and LI
 Grammar measures
 Pragmatic measures
 Language-learning measures
 Processing-based measures (language and
non-linguistic)
 Conclude: the importance of research!!!!
2016/02/23
Cont.
 Do gains made in a treated language transfer
to an untreated language?
 Will treatment in the home language for
sequential bilinguals help or hinder progress in
L2? Does treatment in a single language
produce superior outcomes to bilingual
treatment?
 How can we separate bilingual children with
speech or language impairments from their
typically developing peers?
???
 Any questions?
 Relevance in South Africa?