Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165
Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of Specific
Language Impairment and
Semantic-Pragmatic Disorder in Bilinguals
Heila Jordaan Gill Shaw-Ridley Jean Serfontein Kerry Orelowitz
Nicole Monaghan
Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Key Words
Bilingualism W Language impairment
Abstract
This study explored the notion that the extent
to which language-impaired children can be-
come bilingual depends on the type of lan-
guage impairment. Single-case studies were
conducted on two 7-year-old bilingual chil-
dren, who had both been exposed to English
and Afrikaans consistently and regularly
from an early age. The subjects presented
with specific language impairment (SLI) and
semantic-pragmatic disorder (SPD), respec-
tively. They were assessed on a battery of
cognitive and linguistic tests in both their lan-
guages. Results indicate that the SLI subject,
who presented with a deficit in successive
processing on the Cognitive Assessment
System, had difficulty in acquiring the sur-
face features of both languages. She devel-
oped much better proficiency in English than
in Afrikaans, despite substantial exposure to
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
ABC 1021–7762/01/0533–0153$17.50/0
Fax + 41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch Accessible online at:
www.karger.com www.karger.com/journals/fpl
the latter. The SPD subject, whose cognitive
profile was characterised by planning and
attention deficits, but a strength in succes-
sive processing, presented with equal profi-
ciency in both languages. The theoretical and
clinical implications of this research are dis-
cussed.
Copyright © 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
This study focuses on specific language im-
pairment (SLI) and semantic-pragmatic dis-
order (SPD) in bilingual children. While a
great deal is known about monolingual lan-
guage impairment, far less is known about the
manifestations of language impairment in bil-
ingual children. It is important that research
into language impairment in bilinguals is con-
ducted so that a number of unanswered theo-
retical and clinical questions are addressed.
The study of bilinguals with language im-
pairment can shed light on the processes in-
Heila Jordaan
Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology
University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, PO Wits
2050 Johannesburg (South Africa)
Tel. +27 11 717 4580, Fax +27 11 717 4572, E-Mail hjordaan@icon.co.za
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
volved in successfully acquiring more than
one language, as well as confirming the exis-
tence of subtypes. The same manifestations of
language impairment in both languages of a
bilingual child would provide conclusive evi-
dence for the existence of a specific syndrome
or cluster of symptoms. Studying the specific
processes of linguistic breakdown in each lan-
guage also provides insight into those aspects
of the impairment that are common to both
languages, and would possibly generalise
across languages in intervention, and those
that are language-specific, and would require
specific remedial focus in each language.
Some of the most pressing clinical ques-
tions are: (1) the extent to which language-
impaired children can successfully acquire
more than one language and, related to this,
(2) whether they should be exposed to two lan-
guages in their environments, (3) whether lan-
guage intervention should be conducted in
more than one language, and (4) whether this
affects decisions regarding the choice of lan-
guage of instruction in school, and thus educa-
tional placement.
The hypothesis of this study is that since
language-impaired children are not a homoge-
neous group, the answers to the above ques-
tions may depend on the type of language
impairment that any particular child presents
with. This hypothesis is based on the premise
that in order to acquire language, and more
specifically, in order to acquire more than one
language, certain cognitive processes within
the learner would need to be intact [1]. While
it is acknowledged that the variables deter-
mining the outcome of bilingual exposure are
varied and complex and that learner charac-
teristics only form one part of the equation,
there can be no doubt that cognitive process-
ing deficits underlying a language impairment
may have an inhibiting effect on the acquisi-
tion of proficiency in two languages. With
respect to the cognitive representation of lan-
154 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165
guages in bilinguals, Cummins [2, 3] has pro-
posed the Common Underlying Proficiency
model of bilingualism, suggesting that both
languages of a bilingual individual operate
through the same central processing system.
This implies that the underlying cognitive
representation of the two languages is not sep-
arate, although the surface features of each
language are represented separately. One can
therefore assume that the underlying cogni-
tive processing deficit in a bilingual language-
impaired child should manifest similarly in
both languages. However, the type of deficit
may determine the extent to which the child is
able to manage bilingual acquisition.
Recent research on monolingual language-
impaired children has shown that different
cognitive processes are required for different
aspects of language processing, and that there
is a close relationship between underlying cog-
nitive processing deficits and the type of lan-
guage impairment [4]. This research is based
on the results of testing using the Cognitive
Assessment System (CAS) developed by Das
and Naglieri [5]. This neuropsychological test
for children was developed within the Plan-
ning, Attention and Simultaneous and Suc-
cessive Processing (PASS) framework, which
in turn is based on Luria’s ‘three principal
functional units of the brain whose participa-
tion is necessary for any type of mental activi-
ty’ [6, p. 36]. The PASS model has been
described in detail by Cummins and Das [7],
Das [8], and Naglieri and Das [6, 9] and will
not be elaborated on here. The previously
mentioned research by Shaw-Ridley et al. [4]
has assessed over 70 monolingual children
presenting with two broadly recognised types
of language impairment: SLI and SPD. The
results show the underlying cognitive process-
ing deficit in SLI to be poor successive pro-
cessing, resulting predominantly in difficul-
ties with the surface features of language
(phonology, morphology, and syntax); while
Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/
Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
the underlying attention and planning deficit
in semantic-pragmatic disorder has been
shown to manifest in poor organisation of dis-
course and pragmatic and social communica-
tion difficulties [10, 11]. Currently there is no
research investigating whether children with
SLI and SPD differ with respect to the out-
come of bilingual language acquisition. This
study was therefore a preliminary investiga-
tion of the cognitive and linguistic processing
of 2 bilingual children with SLI and SPD,
respectively.
The aim was to describe the language profi-
ciency in each language of each subject and to
relate the linguistic profiles to the cognitive
processing profiles of the subjects.
Research Design
A parallel single-subject descriptive design
was adopted for this research. The heteroge-
neity of the population of language-impaired
children and difficulty in matching impair-
ment and proficiency in two languages render
this design appropriate for studying language
impairment in bilinguals [12]. The limitation
of single-subject research is the lack of gener-
alisability of findings to the broader popula-
tion, and the findings of this study would thus
relate only to the 2 subjects investigated.
Subjects
The subjects selected for this study were both 7-
year-old, English-Afrikaans bilinguals, where bilin-
gualism refers to ‘... the result of early, simultaneous,
regular, and continued exposure to more than one lan-
guage’ [13, p. 222]. The subjects were required to be
older than 5 for two reasons: (1) By the age of 5 the
existence and type of language impairment in children
is considered to be ‘persistent’ [14] and there could
therefore be no possibility that the subjects would have
a normal developmental language delay only. (2) The
CAS [5] used to establish the cognitive processing pro-
Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI
and SPD
files of the subjects is only appropriate for children
above the age of 5.
Subject 1: SLI
Subject 1, M., is a 7-year 7-month-old girl. She
comes from a predominantly Afrikaans family who
speak English and Afrikaans at home. M. is thus
exposed to Afrikaans extensively in the family context.
She is currently in grade 2 at an English school, and
previously attended an English nursery school and play
group. From an early age, when M. began to talk, she
had difficulty expressing herself, and was unintelligible
to people outside her immediate family. She was
assessed at a University Child Guidance Clinic when
she was approximately 3 years old. Results indicated
that her speech and language development in both lan-
guages was significantly delayed. M. attended speech
therapy in Afrikaans when she was 3, but progress was
slow and therapy was terminated. M. began therapy
again, in English, when she was about 5 years old, after
she was diagnosed with SLI by an educational psychol-
ogist. The exact definition of SLI is controversial, but
there seems to be general agreement that it is an unex-
pected and unexplained developmental language im-
pairment [15] characterised by severe problems of
comprehension and/or expression of spoken language
[16], in the absence of hearing loss, otitis media with
effusion, neurological dysfunction, oral structure ab-
normalities, disordered oral motor functioning or im-
paired physical and social interactions [17]. It is often
described as the impairment between verbal and non-
verbal abilities [18]. Results of a cognitive assessment
indicated that M. was functioning in the very superior
range intellectually, but her language development was
significantly weaker than her cognitive processing abil-
ities. It was recommended that M. receive intensive
speech and language therapy with specific focus on
developing her language skills. M.’s auditory language
processing difficulties have persisted and at present
her progress at school is still negatively affected by
problems in literacy acquisition as a result of poor
phonological processing.
Subject 2: SPD
Subject 2, T., is a 7-year 6-month-old bilingual boy.
His first language is Afrikaans. Both T.’s parents are
first-language speakers of Afrikaans, but are proficient
in English. They communicate with T. in Afrikaans. T.
was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and SPD at 4
years of age. The diagnosis of SPD was made by a
speech-language pathologist, on the basis of difficulties
in conceptualisation and organising language for ap-
propriate and effective communication [19]. SPD chil-
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 155
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
Table 1. Language tests and assessment procedures

Language Language ability English tests Afrikaans tests

domain assessed

Content vocabulary British Picture Afrikaanse Reseptiewe

comprehension Vocabulary Scale [22]
oral definitions Test of Language Development:
Primary (TOLD-P3), subtest of
Oral Vocabulary [24]
word finding Renfrew: Word Finding
Vocabulary Test [25]
Form understanding TOLD-P3 subtest of
of grammatical Grammatic Understanding
structures
expressive syntax Language Assessment
Remediation and Screening
Procedure (LARSP) [26]
Use use of language Conversational Analysis [27]
in context
(discourse) Narrative Coherence
Analysis [28]
Woordeskattoets (ARW) [23]
Afrikaans translation of
Test of Language Development:
Primary (TOLD-3), subtest of
Oral Vocabulary [24]
Afrikaans translation of
Renfrew: Word Finding Test [25]
Afrikaans translation of
TOLD-P3 subtest of
Grammatic Understanding [24]
Afrikaans translation of
Language Assessment
Remediation and Screening
Procedure (LARSP) [26]
Conversational Analysis [27]
Narrative Coherence
Analysis [28]

dren have particular difficulty in conversational inter-
action [20]. The content of their conversation has been
described as ‘odd’, ‘loose’, ‘tangential’, ‘irrelevant’ and
‘inappropriate’ [20]. Furthermore, they present with
comprehension deficits for the meaning of verbal mes-
sages, difficulty interpreting figurative speech and ten-
dencies to perseverate and circumlocute [19]. Many of
the symptoms associated with SPD overlap with other
disorders such as autism, Asperger’s syndrome and
brain injury. In fact, there is some confusion as to
whether SPD is a separate disorder or a term used to
describe the language and communication problems in
the above-mentioned disorders [20]. There is, how-
ever, agreement that groups of children with this clus-
ter of symptoms do exist.
T. attended an Afrikaans playgroup from 18
months to 2 years. He then attended a special educa-
tional facility for learning-disabled children, followed
by a special school for physically disabled children.
Both of these schools used Afrikaans and English for
instructional purposes. Eventually T. was placed at a
school for children with pervasive developmental dis-
orders, which he has attended for the past 3 years. He
has been exposed only to English at this facility. T.’s
mother feels that he speaks both English and Afrikaans
fluently, with some errors still evident in English.
Procedure
The cognitive and language assessments were con-
ducted over several sessions on separate occasions.
The assessments were conducted in both English and
Afrikaans, by qualified speech-language pathologists
with postgraduate qualifications and experience in
child assessment, who speak English and Afrikaans as
their first languages.
Cognitive Assessment
The CAS [5] used in this study is only available in
English, and was translated into Afrikaans by 2 bilin-
gual English-Afrikaans speech-language pathologists,
who agreed on the translations. It should be noted that
translation was not felt to be problematic since perfor-

156 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/

Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
Table 2. CAS results: Table of meaningful discrepancies for SLI subject

Cognitive Standard scores Difference from the Strength or weakness at

processes child’s mean p = 0.05
English Afrikaans English Afrikaans English Afrikaans

Planning 127 121 +4.5 +8.5 non- non-

superior superior significant significant
Simultaneous 131 112 +8.5 –0.5 non- non-
processing very superior high average significant significant
Attention 132 125 +9.5 +12.5 non- strength
very superior superior significant
Successive 100 92 –22.5 –20.5 significant significant
processing average average weakness weakness
Total 128 116
superior high average
Child’s mean 122.5 112.5

mance on the CAS is not dependent on language com-
petence except in the understanding of instructions.
The subtests assessing planning and attention are en-
tirely non-verbal while the successive processing sub-
tests involve word and sentence repetition. The word
series subtest consists of a closed set of single-syllable
words arranged in different combinations, with a sys-
tematic increase in the number of words per series. All
words translate directly into single-syllable words in
Afrikaans. The sentences do not carry semantic mean-
ing and are comprised of colour terms in a series of
sentence structures of increasing complexity (e.g. The
yellow and green brown the purple; The red who blues
the yellow browned on the green). The similar structure
of English and Afrikaans makes direct translation pos-
sible, while retaining the syntactic complexity and
length in terms of the number of syllables per sentence.
All the simultaneous processing subtests are non-ver-
bal except for the verbal spatial relations subtest,
which involves the identification of a picture described
by the examiner (e.g. Which picture shows the dog in
front of the man). Once again, all the items on this sub-
test can be translated directly into Afrikaans without
changing complexity or semantic meaning. The CAS
was scored according to the instructions in the manual.
Raw scores and scaled scores were computed for each
of the twelve subtests. Composite scores were then
computed for the four processing areas. These are
reflected in tables 2 and 3. Descriptive categories cor-
responding to standard scores are used to provide
explanations of the subjects’ performance [5]. Mean-
ingful discrepancies between composite standard
scores on each subtest are calculated, by subtracting
each standard score from the child’s mean score, there-
by providing information regarding the child’s cogni-
tive processing strengths and weaknesses [5]. Signifi-
cant differences are derived from the test manual.
Language Assessment
Equivalent batteries of English and Afrikaans tests
and analysis procedures, designed to assess all lan-
guage domains: content, form and use [21], were
administered to obtain comprehensive and representa-
tive language profiles of the subjects. The tests were
administered and scored according to the test manuals,
revealing raw, standard or scaled, and age-equivalent
scores. Table 1 represents the tests that were adminis-
tered to tap each language domain in English and Afri-
kaans, respectively.
As is evident in table 1, a number of Afrikaans
translations of English tests and procedures were used.
This was necessary because standardised versions of
these tests are not available in Afrikaans. The trans-
lated tests are, however, considered to be equivalent to
the English versions with respect to constructs, voca-
bulary and grammatical structures assessed. The trans-
lated Afrikaans tests are commonly used by speech-
language pathologists in South Africa and found to be

Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 157
and SPD
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
Table 3. CAS results: table of meaningful discrepancies for SPD subject

Cognitive Standard scores Difference from the Strength or weakness at

processes child’s mean p = 0.05
English Afrikaans English Afrikaans English Afrikaans

Planning 51 47 –26.25 –18 significant significant

well below well below weakness weakness
average average
Simultaneous 87 74 +9.75 +9 non- non-
processing low average below significant significant
average
Attention 61 53 –16.25 –12 significant significant
well below well below weakness weakness
average average
Successive 110 86 +32.75 +21 significant significant
processing high average low average strength strength
Total 72 53
below well below
average average
Child’s mean 77.25 65

applicable to the Afrikaans-speaking population. This
is probably because of the similarity in structure be-
tween English and Afrikaans. A 15-min spontaneous
language sample was obtained in both English and
Afrikaans using picture stimuli, depicting actions in
everyday situations, such as a girl and her mother mak-
ing chocolate pudding; a broken-down car; and chil-
dren at a birthday party. The conversational samples
involved discussion of each situation, and the subjects
were asked to relate the situations to their own person-
al experiences [19]. The samples were recorded on
audiotape, transcribed orthographically and analysed
according to the Language Assessment Remediation
and Screening Procedure (LARSP) [26], as well as
a conversational analysis procedure described by
McLaughlin [27].
Conversational elements were rated as ‘appro-
priate’ or ‘inappropriate’ in both the English and Afri-
kaans conversations, by 2 speech-language patholo-
gists, who were fluent first-language speakers of En-
glish and Afrikaans, respectively. The following ele-
ments were considered: turn-taking; presupposition,
including: anaphoric reference, deixis, grammatical el-
lipsis, and style shifting; as well as topic maintenance.
Narrative discourse samples were obtained in both
English and Afrikaans, using a wordless picture story
book [29]. The narratives were recorded on audiotape
and were later transcribed orthographically. The pa-
rameters of narrative coherence suggested by Sinoff
[28] were rated by 2 speech-language pathologists,
fluent in English and Afrikaans, respectively, on a five-
point scale ranging from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’.
In both the conversational and narrative analyses,
inter-rater agreement was determined by considering
the point-to-point agreement on each of the parame-
ters. In the case of disagreement, ratings were deter-
mined by general consensus. The following parameters
of narrative coherence was assessed: temporal organis-
ation (the logical, sequential sequence of events of a
story); relevance (the appropriateness of the descrip-
tion of the events relating to the story as a whole);
development of character (the elaboration of various
aspects of the characters evident in the story); support-
ing description (the presentation of setting including
place, time and action of events) and ending (the speci-
fication of the outcome or resolution of the story).

158 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/

Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
 Cognitive Assessment Results
Tables 2 and 3 reflect the significant dis-
crepancies, derived from the CAS test man-
ual, that provide information about the sub-
jects’ strengths and weaknesses in cognitive
processing.
SLI Subject
Although the overall cognitive profiles
were the same in English and Afrikaans, the
SLI subject’s performance on the CAS was
better in English. The language of testing thus
affected her results. Some of the variation
across languages may have been due to tester
differences and situational variation. How-
ever, since the difference between English and
Afrikaans is mirrored in all the other test
results, these were probably not significant
influences. As would be expected, she per-
formed better when tested in her stronger lan-
guage. This finding has significant implica-
tions for obtaining accurate results on cogni-
tive testing of bilingual children with SLI.
As is evident from table 2, her perfor-
mance on the CAS in both English and Afri-
kaans showed successive processing to be a
significant weakness in relation to the other
cognitive processing areas, despite the scaled
score falling within the average range. As
already mentioned, this underlying successive
processing deficit manifests itself in difficul-
ties with language acquisition. According to
Das and Naglieri [5] the child may experience
difficulties in many areas including: articula-
tion of separate sounds in a consecutive se-
ries, comprehension when word order drives
meaning, execution of movements in order,
perception of speech stimuli in sequence, seri-
al organisation of spoken speech, and working
with sounds in a specific order. These difficul-
ties become apparent when considered in the
light of M.’s developmental and current lan-
guage difficulties.
Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI
and SPD
SPD Subject
The contents of table 3 show that the SPD
subject also obtained the same overall cogni-
tive processing profiles in both languages. He
obtained slightly better scores on the English
version of the test, but this is felt to be due to
his poor attention and concentration during
the Afrikaans test session rather than a lan-
guage dominance effect. This is further sub-
stantiated by the fact that he obtained very
similar results across languages in all the lan-
guage tests.
T. demonstrates a significant strength in
successive processing, with poorest perfor-
mance on the planning and attention process-
ing areas. Simultaneous processing was found
to be neither a strength nor a weakness. Over-
all, T.’s cognitive processing is below average
in both languages.
The results obtained for both subjects sup-
port previous research findings on mono-
linguals that the cognitive processing profile
of SLI is characterised by poor successive pro-
cessing and that of SPD by poor planning and
attention [4]. Furthermore, these findings are
strenghtened by the similarity in the overall
cognitive profiles for both the languages of the
subjects.
Language Assessment Results
The results of the language assessment bat-
tery are presented in tables 4–6.
SLI Subject
The SLI subject performed consistently
better in English than in Afrikaans across all
language domains, indicating that her English
proficiency is better developed.
Her performance in both receptive voca-
bulary tests may be considered weak when
evaluated against her superior cognitive po-
tential. This difficulty in acquiring word
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 159
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
Table 4. Results of language assessments pertaining to content for SLI and SPD subjects

Language Tests/procedures Subject with SLI Subject with SPD

ability
English Afrikaans English Afrikaans

Receptive British Picture 101 65 88 77

vocabulary Vocabulary Scale/ average poor low average below average
Afrikaanse Reseptiewe
Woordeskattoets:
standard scores
Expressive Oral Vocabulary 14 7 7 10
vocabulary subtest of TOLD-P3: above average below average below average average
scaled scores
Renfrew: 5.3–5.4 years raw score too 4.9–4.10 years 4.4–4.5 years
Word Finding below average low to establish below average below average
Vocabulary Test: age-equivalent
age-equivalent scores score

Table 5. Results of language assessments pertaining to form for SLI and SPD subjects

Language Tests/procedures Subject with SLI Subject with SPD

ability
English Afrikaans English Afrikaans

Receptive syntax Grammatic Understanding 15 12 10 8

subtest of TOLD-P3: superior average average average
scaled scores
Expressive syntax LARSP analysis
total number of sentences 89 59 92 73
mean sentence length 4.3 2.14 4.05 5.08
mean number of sentences/turn 1.71 0.91 1.4 1.1
spontaneous utterances: responses 0.59 0.31 0.5 0.4
minor: major utterances 0.47 1.03 0.8 0.8
clause structure representation
stage II 16% 43% 23% 12%
stage III 46% 38% 48% 54%
stage IV 24% 14% 21% 20%
stage V 15% 5% 7% 14%
number of types:
clause structure 19 8 17 16
phrase structure 22 10 19 20
word structure 9 5 8 9

160 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/

Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
Table 6. Results of language assessments pertaining to use for SLI and SPD subjects

Language Tests/procedures Subject with SLI Subject with SPD

ability
English Afrikaans English Afrikaans

Use of conversational analysis:

language turn-taking appropriate inappropriate appropriate appropriate
in context presupposition appropriate inappropriate inappropriate inappropriate
topic maintenance appropriate appropriate inappropriate inappropriate
narrative analysis:
temporal organisation good poor poor very poor
relevance good poor fair very poor
development of character good poor poor very poor
supporting description fair poor very poor very poor
ending good poor poor very poor

meaning may be due to her relative weakness
in successive processing, which results in poor
memory for the sequential nature of language
stimuli. This is substantiated by the reduced
vocabulary scores in both languages.
M. demonstrates a good ability to provide
oral definitions in English, suggesting a rela-
tive strength in this area. Her oral definitions
in Afrikaans were characterised by extensive
code switching, reflecting correct knowledge
of the word meanings and thus an intact con-
ceptual vocabulary [30]. She was, however,
unable to express the word definitions in Afri-
kaans. The Afrikaans score does not, there-
fore, reflect her word definition abilities accu-
rately, and merely confirms her dominance in
English.
Age-equivalent scores obtained on the
Renfrew Word Finding Vocabulary Test re-
veal the presence of poor confrontational
naming abilities, in both English and Afri-
kaans. Confrontation naming difficulties may
be due to poor semantic knowledge or to poor
phonological memory [31]. In M.’s case both
deficits may be operating, and may well be
due to her underlying successive processing
difficulty causing significant problems in the
retention of sound sequences for the phono-
logical representation of words [31].
The SLI subject’s performance on the
Grammatic Understanding subtest reveals an
overall strength with regards to comprehen-
sion of sentences, with superior performance
in English compared to an average perfor-
mance in Afrikaans, which confirms that her
exposure to Afrikaans has been consistent and
has resulted in the development of adequate
comprehension. It also indicates that her lan-
guage impairment is mostly at an expressive
level.
With respect to expressive syntax, she fea-
tured significantly better on the LARSP in
English than in Afrikaans. There was a longer
interaction in English, and a greater mean
number of sentences per turn. Her mean sen-
tence length was higher in English than in
Afrikaans. Performance in English was more
spontaneous, indicated by a larger ratio of
spontaneous utterances to responses. The sub-
ject therefore initiated and provided informa-
tion more frequently in English. The subject’s
weakness in Afrikaans was evidenced further
by the presence of a high ratio of minor to
major utterances, in comparison to English.

Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 161
and SPD
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
This was indicative of a limited ability to
communicate in full, elaborated sentences in
Afrikaans. Performance in English continued
to dominate over Afrikaans in the analysis of
clause structures. The majority of clause
structures used in English were of stage III
complexity, whereas the majority of clause
structures used in Afrikaans were of stage II
complexity only. In English there was a fairly
even distribution of clause structures across
the stages. In contrast, the clauses used were
not as evenly distributed in Afrikaans, with
very few clauses at stages III and IV. Superior
performance in English was further supported
by the extensive use of clause, phrase and
word structure types. The subject therefore
has a more generative system in English, using
a wider range of structure types across the lin-
guistic profile. The SLI subject demonstrated
good use of language in context, particularly
in English. Her relatively poor ratings on the
narrative and conversational discourse tasks
in Afrikaans are felt to be due to her poor
command of the content and form of the lan-
guage, and not a deficit in organising dis-
course or communicating appropriately.
SPD Subject
The SPD subject’s overall performance
across all language domains is very similar
and balanced in English and Afrikaans. He
demonstrates a very depressed level of seman-
tic knowledge and functioning. He has signifi-
cant difficulty with confrontational naming as
seen in his depressed performance on both the
English and Afrikaans Renfrew tests. In con-
trast to the subject with SLI, T.’s problem
with this task may be due to poor semantic
knowledge and not to difficulties with retain-
ing the phonological representation of words.
The SPD subject attained average scores in
both languages on the Grammatic Under-
standing subtest, showing a relative strength
in the ability to comprehend grammatical
162 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165
structures. His expressive syntax is also well
developed in both languages. His English and
Afrikaans sentences were similar in length
and the mean number of sentences per turn,
as well as the proportion of spontaneous utter-
ances to responses and the proportion of mi-
nor to major utterances were similar in both
languages. Balanced performance across lan-
guages was further evidenced in the propor-
tional representation of clause structures at
each stage of the LARSP profile. The majority
of clause structures used were of stage III com-
plexity. Few clause structures were used in
stage V in English, however, more were used
in Afrikaans, showing slightly more complex
use of clause structures in Afrikaans than in
English. A similar proportion of phrase struc-
tures were used in English and Afrikaans with
the majority occurring in stage III. There is no
notable difference in the number of clause,
phrase and word structure types across the
languages, showing similar abilities to gener-
ate language structures in both languages.
The SPD subject’s use of language is as
weak as his semantic system. He demon-
strates very poor organisation of conversa-
tional and narrative discourse and his com-
munication is mostly inappropriate in both
languages. This confirms his diagnosis as an
SPD subject.
Discussion of Results
The overall impression of the SLI subject’s
linguistic profile is that she is dominant in
English, showing significant difficulties par-
ticularly in the expression of her weaker lan-
guage, Afrikaans. Considered in conjunction
with the subtle difficulties still evident in En-
glish (word learning deficits and word find-
ings problems), and the high level of exposure
to Afrikaans, it can be concluded that she
demonstrates difficulty with bilingual acqui-
Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/
Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
sition. Her underlying successive processing
deficit may have precluded the successful ac-
quisition of particularly the surface features of
the two languages, which is particularly de-
pendent on the language learning capabilities
identified by Carroll cited in McLaughlin [1]:
phonetic coding ability (auditory processing
and memory of phonological information);
grammatical sensitivity (the ability to identify
grammatical patterns), and good auditory
memory. Caroll identified these abilities as
constituting an aptitude for language learning
that enables some individuals to acquire lan-
guages more successfully than others. These
capabilities can be linked to successive pro-
cessing and are not under conscious control,
relying on what Paradis [32] refers to as proce-
dural memory. According to the Cummins [2,
3] model, the surface features of each lan-
guage need to be learned separately in bilin-
gualism. It is our view that the subject with
SLI may have been unable to allocate suffi-
cient processing resources to both languages
at the same time, and may thus have devel-
oped dominance in one of her languages. Fur-
thermore, a plausible explanation for this SLI
child’s poor performance in Afrikaans, de-
spite the significant exposure to this language
at home, is provided by research showing that
SLI children have difficulty learning language
incidentally in unstructured environments
[33, 34] and require more structured input to
learn language. The nature of M.’s exposure to
Afrikaans has not been as structured or di-
rected as her exposure to English and this may
account for her dominance in English. Had
she received continuous structured interven-
tion in both languages her language profiles
may have been different. The therapy she
received in English focused on the structural
properties of the language relying substantial-
ly on metalinguistic strategies. This involves
explicit rather than implicit memory [32]. Im-
plicit memory would be employed in acquir-
Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI
and SPD
ing language in naturalistic contexts, but M.
seemed unable to use implicit memory and
relied on explicit memory strategies to ac-
quire language. This would account for her
optimal learning of English through struc-
tured language intervention. It is also possible
that the age at which intervention was begun
in English enabled M. to employ such metal-
inguistic strategies more effectively than
when she received therapy in Afrikaans at an
earlier age, when she was not yet able to
employ these strategies.
In contrast, the SPD subject’s cognitive
processing profile is characterised by deficits
in attention and planning. These processes
fall into the realm of executive functioning,
and have been linked to pragmatic and social
communication difficulties [10, 11]. This is
evident in T.’s poor discourse organisation in
the narrative and conversational tasks. T. per-
formed better on the measures of language
structure than on the semantic-pragmatic as-
pects of language, thus supporting the hypoth-
esis that a strength in successive processing
facilitates the acquisition of the surface fea-
tures of language. The learning of these sur-
face features is relatively unaffected by poor
attention and planning, and hence this child
with SPD has acquired a second language
with no significant difficulty. The impairment
affects the common underlying proficiency of
both languages and is expressed similarly in
both languages. This subject has therefore
successfully managed bilingual exposure
within the limitations of the semantic-prag-
matic deficit. In our clinical experience other
children with SPD have demonstrated similar
abilities. These children may even benefit
from bilingual intervention and education
aimed at improving their semantic knowledge
and pragmatic abilities. Such intervention
should generalise across languages, thus
strengthening the common underlying profi-
ciency of both languages. If the focus of inter-
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 163
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
vention is also to improve attention and plan-
ning, this generalisation should occur.
Conclusion
This study has shown that in the case of the
2 subjects studied, the extent to which lan-
guage-impaired children can acquire two lan-
guages successfully can be argued to depend
on the type of language impairment. While
the subject with SPD could cope with bilin-
gual input, the subject with SLI had more dif-
ficulty with naturalistic bilingual input. Fur-
ther research with larger groups of both nor-
mally developing and language-impaired bil-
ingual children may well reveal different re-
sults especially in the light of the complex
interaction between the quality and quantity
of language exposure and the language learn-
ing capabilities of individual children. The
question of bilingual versus monolingual in-
tervention and which language to focus on in
intervention and education with SLI children
in particular remains a difficult issue. This
may not be the language that is used in
unstructured interactions, but rather the lan-
guage that has been acquired in a more fo-
cused, structured environment. The results of
this study suggest that intervention with chil-
dren with SLI should furthermore be directed
at those skills involved in successive process-
ing. The similar linguistic profiles in both lan-
guages of each of the subjects in this study
lends support to the two types of language
impairment (SLI and SPD) currently used to
categorise the symptoms of language impair-
ment.
The Common Underlying Proficiency
model [2, 3] of bilingual representation is also
validated by the different manifestations of
language impairment in these 2 bilingual chil-
dren. The relationship between the linguistic
profiles of these children and their underlying
cognitive processing deficits provides further
support for the theories regarding the cogni-
tive processes involved in bilingual language
acquisition. In addition to further research on
larger samples of children with SLI and SPD
to confirm or refute the findings of this study,
it is suggested that research attention also be
focused on the cognitive processing profiles of
children with different types of language im-
pairments, in order to assess their suitability
for bilingual educational programmes and/or
bilingual intervention. Within the group of
children with SLI, there may be further sub-
groups with differing profiles of underlying
cognitive deficit [6], who may respond differ-
ently to bilingual input, and further investiga-
tion of the SLI group, in particular, is there-
fore indicated.

References

1 McLaughlin B: The relationship be-
tween first and second languages:
Language proficiency and language
aptitude; in Harley B, Allen P, Cum-
mins J, Swain M: The Development
of Second Language Proficiency.
New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
2 Cummins J: The construct of lan-
guage proficiency in bilingual educa-
tion; in Alatis JE (ed): Georgetown
University Round Table on Lan-
guages and Linguistics. Washington,
Georgetown University Press,
1980.
3 Cummins B: Bilingualism and Mi-
nority Language Children. Ontario,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu-
cation, 1981.
4 Shaw-Ridley G, Penn C, Rosenthal
L: A comparative case study explor-
ing the underlying basis of commu-
nication difficulties in high func-
tioning pervasive developmental
disorders. South African Speech-
Language and Hearing Association
Annu Conf, Durban, 1999.

164 Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165 Jordaan/Shaw-Ridley/Serfontein/

Orelowitz/Monaghan
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by:
 5 Das JP, Naglieri JA: Cognitive As-
sessment System: Administration
and Scoring Manual. Illinois, River-
side Publishing, 1997.
6 Naglieri JA, Das JP: Planning-arou-
sal-simultaneous-successive (Pass):
A model for assessment. J Speech
Pathol 1988;26:35–48.
7 Cummins J, Das JP: Simultaneous
and successive syntheses and lin-
guistic processes. Int J Psychol 1978;
13:129–138.
8 Das JP: Beyond a unidimensional
scale of merit. Intelligence 1992;6:
137–149.
9 Naglieri JA, Das JP: Planning, at-
tention, simultaneous and succes-
sive (pass) cognitive processes as a
model for intelligence. J Psychoeduc
Assess 1990;8:303–337.
10 Alexander GE, Crutcher MD, De
Long MR: Basal ganglia-thalamo-
cortical circuits: Parallel substrates
for motor, oculomotor, ‘prefrontal’,
and ‘limbic’ functions. Prog Brain
Res 1990;85:119–146.
11 Mega MS, Cummings JL: Frontal
subcortical circuits and neuropsy-
chiatric disorders. J Neuropsychia-
try Clin Neurosci 1994;6:359–370.
12 Heiman GA: Research Methods in
Psychology. Boston, Houghton Mif-
flin, 1995.
13 De Houwer A: Bilingual language
acquisition; in Fletcher P, Mac-
Whinney B (eds). The Handbook of
Child Language. Oxford, Blackwell,
1995.
14 Law J: The Early Identification of
Language Impaired Children. Lon-
don, Chapman & Hall, 1992.
Cognitive and Linguistic Profiles of SLI
and SPD
15 Tomblin JB, Smith E, Zhang X: Epi-
demiology of specific language im-
pairment: Prenatal and perinatal
risk factors. J Commun Disord
1997;30:325–344.
16 Stark RE, Tallal P: Selection of chil-
dren with specific language deficits.
J Speech Hear Disord 1981;46:114–
122.
17 Leonard LB: Children with Specific
Language Impairment. Cambridge,
Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, 1998.
18 Aram DM, Morris R, Hall NE: Clin-
ical and research congruence in
identifying children with specific
language impairment. J Speech
Hear Res 1993;36:580–591.
19 Adams C, Bishop DVM: Conversa-
tional characteristics of children
with semantic-pragmatic disorder. I.
Exchange structure, turntaking, re-
pair and cohesion. Br J Disord Com-
mun 1989;24;3:210–239.
20 Coulter L: Semantic-pragmatic dis-
order with application of selected
pragmatic concepts. Int J Lang
Commun Disord 1998;33:434–437.
21 Bloom L, Lahey M: Language De-
velopment and Language Disorders.
New York, Wiley & Sons, 1978.
22 Dunn LM, Dunn LM, Whetton C,
Burley J: British Picture Vocabulary
Scale, ed 2. Windsor, NFER-Nel-
son, 1997.
23 Buitendag MM: Afrikaanse Resep-
tiewe Woordeskattoets. Pretoria,
Raad vir Geesteswetenskaplike Na-
vorsing, 1994.
Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:153–165
24 Newcomer PL, Hammill DD: Test
of Language Development: Primary,
ed 3 (TOLD-P3). Austin, Pro-Ed,
1997.
25 Renfrew CE: Word Finding Voca-
bulary Test. Winslow, Winslow
Press, 1995.
26 Crystal D: Profiling Linguistic Dis-
ability. London, Arnold, 1982.
27 McLaughlin S: Introduction to Lan-
guage Development. San Diego, Sin-
gular Publishing Group, 1998.
28 Sinoff A: Coherence and the Verb in
Narratives of Hearing Impaired
Children; unpublished PhD thesis
University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, 1993.
29 Mayer M: Frog on His Own. Hong
Kong, Puffin Pied Piper, 1973.
30 Abudarham S: Conceptual vocabu-
lary as a measure of lexical profi-
ciency of dual language children.
Proc Int Symp on Commun Disord
in Biling Populations, Haifa, 1995. J
Israeli Speech Hear Lang Assoc
1996;19.
31 Gathercole SE: Word learning in
language-impaired children. Child
Lang Teach Ther 1993;9:187–199.
32 Paradis M: The cognitive neuropsy-
chology of bilingualism; in De Groot
AMB, Kroll JF (eds): Tutorials in
Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Per-
spectives. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1997.
33 Reed VA: An Introduction to Chil-
dren with Language Disorders. New
York, Macmillan College Publishing
Company, 1994.
34 Yoder PJ, Kaiser AP, Alpert CL: An
exploratory study of the interaction
between language teaching methods
and child characteristics. J Speech
Hear Res 1991;34:155–167.
165
163.15.154.53 - 4/29/2018 9:55:08 PM
Kaohsiung Medical University Library
Downloaded by: