Normal Sequential Bilingual Language Development and Proficiency Attainment

Created by Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP Smart Speech Therapy LLC For Individual Use Only Do not resell, copy, or share downloads. Do not remove copyright

Description and Learning Objectives

 This presentation describes the sequence of typical sequential bilingual language development. It is part of a comprehensive “Multicultural Assessment and Treatment Bundle” which can be found here:  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/multicultural-assessment- and-treatment-bundle/  Learning objectives:  Discuss types of sequential bilingualism  List stages of bilingual language acquisition  Explain the difference between additive and subtractive bilingualism  Review academic language functions hierarchy  Describe Unified Competition Model  Discuss differences in L2 acquisition in younger and older learners

Sequential Bilingualism

 L2 acquisition after the first language (L1) is established  typically after 1 year of age (DeHower, 2005)  Sequential language learners (Majority Group)  Acquisition of L2 is supported and valued  English/French language and culture  Canada (Montreal & Quebec)  Likely to achieve a high degree of bilingual proficiency  Sequential language learners (Minority Group)  Language & culture of the group may not be supported or valued  US (Spanish in immigrant families)  Require numerous enriched opportunities to speak and be exposed to the non-majority language in order to reach proficiency  Socioeconomic status plays a huge role

Sequential Bilingualism: Stages of Language Acquisition

 Preproduction/non-verbal/observational stage (+/-3 months)  may attempt to rely on L1 in L2 situations  primary focus on comprehension  pointing, gesturing, yes/no  Early production/telegraphic speech (+/-6 months)  1-3 word utterances  rote phrases  Emergence of speech/productive usage of L2 (6 months to 2years)  Longer sentence use  Vocabulary expansion  Occasional grammar errors

Sequential Bilingualism: Stages of Language Acquisition

 Intermediate Proficiency of L2 (3-5 years)  Good comprehension  Asks questions  Share thoughts  Usage of complex sentences  Advanced Proficiency (5-7 years)  Develop specialized vocabulary,  Reach grade level performance  May still struggle w/t advanced academic language concepts

Bilingualism categorizations (Valdez & Figueora, 1994)

 Additive  First culture is valued  Second language is added  First language continues to be developed and maintained at high level  Elective Bilinguals  Learn another language in a formal setting  Foreign language requirement in school  Subtractive  Second language is introduced at the expense of the first language and culture, which diminish as a consequence (Cummins, 1994)  Circumstantial bilinguals (e.g., children of immigrants)  Learn L2 because they need it attend school  L1 skills usually decrease or may even be lost in favor of gaining L2

Subtractive Bilingualism

 Children with no schooling in birth language and less frequent use in the home more likely to lose their first language (Eilers et al., 2006)  Subtractive Bilingualism Effects  Family relationships  Self-esteem  Sense of cultural identity  Peer relationships  School performance

Maintaining L1 while Learning L2

 The attitudes of parents, siblings and peers toward the minority language can add value to, or subtract value from, the language.  Increasing the attractiveness of the minority language (i.e., via books or mass media) can help maintain that language  It is hugely important to show that L1 is a valued language! (Gottardo, & Grant, 2008)

Language Proficiency: Terminology

 L2 Learners (Cummins, 1996)  Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS)  Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)  Internationally Adopted Children (IA) (Gindis, 2005)  Communicative Language Competency (CLC)  Cognitive Language Mastery (CLM)

Acquisition Time Frames: L2 vs. IA

 L2 (Cummins, 1984)  BICS  1-3 years  CALP  5-7 years  IA (Gindis, 1999)  CLC  +/-6 months  CLM  ?

Second Language Acquisition Model

Cummins, 1984, pg 139 Face to face communication

Infer meaning

What is Academic Language?

 Higher level abstract/complex language students need to succeed in school  Navigate grade level written text  Conduct research  Organize information  Social and Academic Language  Not two totally separate entities  Exist along a continuum

Academic Language Functions Hierarchy

 Seek information  Ask -wh questions  Inform  Recount information  Compare  Name similarities and differences  Order  Sequence information  Classify  Group objects according to characteristics  Analyze  Identify relationships and patterns

Academic Language Functions Hierarchy (cont)

 Infer  Make inferences  Predict consequences  Justify and persuade  Give reasons for actions, decisions, or point of view  Solve problems  Determine solutions to problems  Synthesize  Integrate ideas to summarize information cohesively  Evaluate  Assess and verify  Confirm value

What is the optimal period for bilingual language acquisition? (Marinova-Todd, & Lightfoot, 2013)  We often see young children grasping the new language rapidly while older children struggling for years to attain the same level of proficiency  Does the age of exposure matter?  According to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg,1967) it does.  CPH is a period during the biological maturation of the brain during which languages are acquired easily with „native-like‟ level of proficiency  However, there a significant controversy over age when it ends (e.g., researchers place it anywhere from 2-16 years of age (Long, 1990)  According to the Unified Competition Model (MacWhinney, 2012) it doesn‟t!

Unified Competition Model (MacWhinney, 2012)

 Learning mechanisms underlying L1 and L2 acquisition are the same  Age differences observed in L2 acquisition are a result of different factors affecting L2 learning  Cognitive  Negative transfer from L1  Applying language structures from L1 to L2  Social  Isolation of the older L2 learner from the L2 society  Neural  Incorrect connections between L1 and L2 processing areas in the brain  (Marinova-Todd, & Lightfoot, 2013)

Sensitive period for native-like L2 acquisition

 Occurs at younger ages than previously believed  Brain organization is different for L2 acquisition after 5 years of age vs. before 5, when native-like organization for language is possible (De Houwer, 2005; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996)  Age of acquisition for older children (preadolescents and older) is related to  Learner‟s ability to perceive and produce speech sounds in their second language (Flege, 1992)  Frequency and continued use of the L1 is positively correlated to L2 pronunciation (Gottardo, & Grant, 2008)

Who learns faster: younger or older children?

 Early age of L2 exposure is associated with higher L2 oral skills and grammar proficiency (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009; DeKeyser et al., 2010)  However older learners learn more efficiently and at a faster rate (MacSwan & Pray, 2005)  Though the earlier children learn L2, the more likely they will achieve higher L2 proficiency, older post-pubescent learners can attain „native-like‟ L2 competency and can do it faster and more efficiently (Marinova-Todd, & Lightfoot, 2013)  Hours of targeted school instruction is what makes the difference (Celaya, Torras, & Pérez-Vidal, 2001; Navés, Torras, & Celaya, 2003)  Older learners had better L2 receptive vocabulary, reading skills, listening comprehension and oral proficiency (Ojima, et al., 2011)  But not pronunciation (Cenoz, 2002)  However, these differences are unlikely to negatively affect academic performance (Dixon et al., 2012)

Let’s talk about younger L2 learners (Marinova-Todd, & Lightfoot, 2013)  Have socio-cultural and personality factor advantages (Flege, 2009; Moyer, 2004) such as  L2 as the dominant language for interactions  More opportunities for L2 contact  Higher quality of L2 input exposure  More frequent usage of L2 vs. L1  More positive attitude toward L2 culture  Typically a greater sense of belonging and intention to stay in L2 context  However if L2 input is limited then even if they are young then they will not experience the same long-term L2 attainment advantage (Muñoz & Singleton, 2011).

Let’s talk about older learners (before puberty)

 Older students (ages 8-12) are faster, more efficient acquirers of school language than younger students (ages 4 -7) (Collier, 1987)  Younger students  Still developing first language competency  Reading and writing  Older students use their first language competency as a source of transferrable skills  Greater cognitive maturity  More strategies of acquiring new language

Let’s talk about older learners (after puberty)

 Significant variability among learners with respect to different aspects of language acquisition  Perception  Some older learners (12+) were able to achieve native-like speech perception (Flege & MacKay, 2004)  Grammatical judgment  Performance declined dramatically between 12 and 18 years of age, then leveled off (DeKeyser et al., 2010)  Native-like grammatical competence is possible for L2 learners after12 (Van Boxtel, Bongaerts, & Coppen, 2003)  Vocabulary development in L2  Typically delayed whether that language is acquired sequentially or simultaneously (August, Carlo, Dressler & Snow, 2005)

Affect of Age on L2 Acquisition

Factors influencing success of older learners

 Socioeconomic Status  Parental Education  Home Literacy Facilitation and Exposure  L1 Skills  Children with strong L1 skills show better acquisition of their second language (Cummins, 1991)  Similarity between L1 and L2  Maintenance of L1 use  Motivation to learn L2  Investment in L2 culture  Acquisition Context  Quality of input and opportunities for L2 interaction mediate second language outcomes (Dixon et al., 2012)

Conclusion

 The CPH theory of L2 acquisition “is likely to be wrong” (Li, 2013, p. 164)  Ultimate degree of L2 attainment is the result of a combination of social, environmental and psychological (vs. innate age-related biological) factors  Tends to predispose younger vs. older learners to greater L2 success  However, given the same level of support for L2 development, adolescents can also become highly proficient and can attain it faster than younger populations (Marinova-Todd, & Lightfoot, 2013)

Helpful Smart Speech Therapy Resources:

 Multicultural Assessment and Treatment Bundle  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/multicultural-assessment-and-treatment- bundle/  Language Difference vs. Language Disorder Packet  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/language-difference-vs-language-disorder- assessment-intervention-strategies-for-slps-working-with-bilingual-children/  Impact of Cultural and Linguistic Variables On Speech-Language Services  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/impact-of-cultural-and-linguistic-variables- on-speech-language-services/  Dynamic Assessment of Grammar  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/dynamic-assessment-of-grammar/  Understanding Complex Sentences  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/understanding-complex-sentences/  Vocabulary Development  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/vocabulary-development-working-with- disadvantaged-populations/

Select Helpful Resource Bundles

 General Assessment and Treatment Start-Up Bundle  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/general-assessment-and- treatment-start-up-bundle/  The Checklists Bundle  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/the-checklists-bundle/  Narrative Assessment Bundle  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/narrative-assessment- bundle/  Social Pragmatic Assessment and Treatment Bundle  http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/social-pragmatic- assessment-and-treatment-bundle/

References  Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.  August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50- 57.  Cenoz, J. (2002). Age differences in foreign language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 135–136, 125–142.  Celaya, M. L., Torras, M. R., & Perez-Vidal, C. (2001). Short and mid-term effects of an early start: An analysis of EFL written production. Eurosla Yearbook,1, 195–209.  Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of a second language for academic purposes. "TESOL Quarterly, (21)"6.  Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.  Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Eds), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70- 89). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

References

 Cummins, J. (1994) The Acquisition of English as a Second Language, in Spangenberg- Urbschat, K. and Pritchard, R. (eds) Reading Instruction for ESL Students Delaware: International Reading Association.  Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.  De Houwer, A. (2005). Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In J. F. Kroll, & A.M. de Groot. (Eds.),Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 30-48). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 413–438.  Dixon, Q. L., Zhao, J., Shin, J, Wu, S., Su, Jung, Burgess-Brigham, R., … Snow, C., (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82, 5-60.  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: Multilingual Matters. WWW.SMARTSPEECHTHERAPY.COM Copyright © 2013 Smart Speech Therapy LLC Page 28

References

 Flege, J. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In T. Piske, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.  Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 1–34.  Gindis, B. (1999) Language-Related Issues for International Adoptees and Adoptive Families. In: T. Tepper, L. Hannon, D. Sandstrom, Eds. “International Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities.” PNPIC, Meadow Lands , PA. , pp. 98-108  Gindis, B. (2005). Cognitive, language, and educational issues of children adopted from overseas orphanages. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 4 (3): 290-315.  Gottardo, A., & Grant, A. (2008). Defining bilingualism. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1-7). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=236  Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.  Li, P. (2013). Successive language acquisition. In F. Grosjean, & P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 145-168). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

References

 Marinova-Todd, S., & Lightfoot, C. (2013). Critical/sensitive period for second language acquisition. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1-8). London, ON: Western University. Retrieved from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=325  MacSwan, J., & Pray, L. (2005). Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate of acquisition among English language learners in a bilingual education program. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 653-678.  MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211 – 227). New York: Routledge.  Moyer, A. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition. An integrated approach to critical period inquiry. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching, 44:1, 1-35.  Naves, T. M., Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2003). Long-term effects of an early start: An analysis of EFL written production. Eurosla Yearbook, 3, 103–129.  Ojima, S.,Matsuba-Kurita, H., Nakamura, N.,Hoshino, & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Neural correlates of foreign language learning in childhood: A 3-year longitudinal ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 183-199.  van Boxtel, S., Bongaerts, T., & Coppen, P.-A. (2003). Native-like attainment in L2 syntax. Eurosla Yearbook, 3, 157–181

Contact Information: Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP

 Website/Blog: www.smartspeechtherapy.com/blog/  Store: http://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/shop/  Email: [email protected]  Facebook: www.facebook.com/SmartSpeechTherapyLlc  Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/elleseff/