![]() ![]() PROCESSING AND REPRESENTATIONAL ACCOUNTS OF SLI Accordingly, another goal of this article is to make a unique contribution to our understanding of the nature of SLI in all affected children through examining bilingual affected children. ![]() Therefore, research on bilingual children with SLI could shed light on this theoretical debate, which has hitherto been addressed primarily with data from monolinguals only. Each of these perspectives makes different predictions for the outcome of children with SLI learning two languages. (For more information on SLI, see Leonard, 1998.) The debate about the mechanisms causing SLI consists of two main perspectives: cognitive/perceptual processing accounts and linguistic representational accounts. Children with SLI exhibit typical social–emotional development, hearing and motor–speech abilities, and have IQs within the normal limits, but have language abilities significantly below age expectations. There is an ongoing debate concerning the mechanisms causing specific language impairment (SLI), which is a developmental language disorder that has no readily identifiable etiology such as hearing loss, autism, or mental retardation. Consequently, one goal of this article was to provide some grounding for evidence-based practices with bilingual children presenting with language disorders.īilingualism in children with language-learning disabilities has significant theoretical as well as applied relevance. Studies directly examining bilingual children with language disorders are few, and are limited in terms of what they contribute to our understanding of whether bilingualism impacts negatively on affected children (see Paradis, Crago, Genesee, & Rice, 2003, for elaboration). The majority of the research literature on dual language development and disorders is oriented toward giving advice to educators and speech–language pathologists in their assessment and intervention practices in multilingual settings (Juarez, 1983 Kohnert et al., 2005 Roseberry-McKibbin, 1995 Westernoff, 1991). The common sense notion is that a disordered language faculty could not possibly cope with learning two languages. (For further elaboration, see Genesee et al., 2004 Juarez, 1983 Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, & Duran, 2005.) These practices and the beliefs that underlie them are problematic because they are based on common sense rather than evidence. In addition, if two languages are spoken in the home of a child with language disorder, speech–language pathologists often recommend that the household switch to using just one language. For example, parents of children with language-learning disabilities are often counseled out of French immersion schools by principals, teachers, and other professionals. Anecdotal experiences of my own and those of my colleagues with speech–language pathologists, school psychologists, elementary school teachers, pediatricians, and parents have revealed that there is a widespread negative attitude about children with language disorder learning two languages. Children who present with language-learning disabilities are usually thought to be unsuitable candidates for dual-language learning in childhood. Although attitudes have shifted greatly toward accepting bilingualism in childhood as healthy and perhaps advantageous, these attitudes only apply to children who are typically developing (TD). In the first half of the 20th century it was commonly thought that bilingualism in early childhood was detrimental to children's linguistic and intellectual development, but an established body of research since that time has shown that bilingualism either has neutral or enhancing effects on children's cognitive development (see reviews in Bialystok, 2001 Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004 Hakuta, 1986). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |