Dual Language Learner: Characteristics, Assessment, and Treatment
Background Information
According to Genesee, Paradis, and Crago (2004), most children are brought up in multilingual societies and families, which require them to learn at least two different languages in the course of their growth. Some of them begin to learn more than one language immediately after their birth, while others are not introduced to additional languages until they are admitted into early educational programs. A study done by William (2015) found that for every ten American students, one of them must be an English Learner (EL), with about 75% of them having been born inherently in the United States. Goldenberg, Nemeth, Hicks, and Zepeda (2013) identified that America’s public schools and early childhood programs had about four million dual language learners. They equally noted that the number of DLLs was likely to rise, and therefore, the government was required to devise appropriate programs for such unique needs. Fortunately, the racial, ethnic, and linguistic profiles of schools in the United States have begun to change rapidly to incorporate the language diversities caused by multilingualism.
The population of English Learners in the United States manifests several variations, even though 80% of them are Spanish speakers (William, 2015). The learners differ in terms of socioeconomic condition, countries of origin, age of introduction to dual languages, culture, fluency in both dialects, accessibility to community and family resources, and the quantity of English spoken by the parents. There equally is significant inconsistency within the dissimilar language clusters of dual language learners (Williams, 2015). For instance, speakers in the Latino society in the United States have some typical features, but differ based on their inherent region or country. This paper would, therefore, describe the various language features of dual language learners, the assessment strategies, and the appropriate treatment interventions. It is, however, essential to note that DLLs learning English and Spanish would be fundamentally used for this research, given that the two languages are predominant in the United States.
Characteristics of Dual Language Learners
- Language Development and Processing
Various studies have been published on the development and processing of language among the dual language learners. The reviews have been structured around such aspects as language processing, word processing, development of vocabulary, semantic development, development of grammar, oral comprehension, and the development of pragmatics. Equally, code-switching and transfer, as well as other factors that affect the development of children, have been taken into account. Conboy and Mills (2006) examined the variation in processing speed among the DLLs when using either the minority language or the dominant dialect. They found out that DLLs had a higher processing speed when using the predominant language as opposed to the minority dialect. They equally established that different regions of the brain were involved when a learner used either of the dialects. It, therefore, seems that the brain organization and speed of processing languages for DLLs may be different for distinct dialects depending on the learner’s experience and the level of knowledge in a particular lingo. According to Marchman, Fernald, and Hurtado (2010), dual language learners showed higher language processing speed in the dialects that they were frequently exposed to as opposed to those they rarely interacted with. It is, however, essential to note that monolinguals had a higher language processing speed than DLLs when subjected to similar evaluation tasks.
On phonological development, Bosch and Sebastián-Gallés (2001) found no variations in the abilities of monolinguals and DLLs to differentiate between two distinct dialects. Regarding the production of speech sound by children, (Kehoe, 2002) established that the development of DLLs speech sound could be delayed in their minority language as compared to single language speakers. Fabiano-Smith and Goldstein (2010) demonstrated that DLLs had higher phonological accuracy in the sounds that were common between the two languages as opposed to those sounds that were distinct for every dialect. No clear evidence has been published to demonstrate the variation in accuracy between the non-dominant and dominant languages among the DLLs. On vocabulary development, various studies have found that nouns stand out in the vocabulary of DLLs during their early years more than the other classes of words. Pearson, Fenández, Lewedeg, and Oller (1997) indicated that DLLs and monolinguals had an equivalent rate of vocabulary growth even though DLLs recorded a slower rate of vocabulary growth than monolinguals in individual languages.
Even though researchers have paid minimal attention to the oral comprehension as a measure of DLLs’ ability to develop and processes twin languages, a study conducted by Hammer, Lawrence, and Miccio (2008) established that monolinguals exhibited higher oral comprehension of either Spanish or English than DLLs during the first two years in the Head Start. However, in the subsequent years, both the monolingual and the bilingual learners achieved a balanced score in all tasks that examined their oral comprehension of English. And, because English was used as the language of instruction in Head Start, the comprehension of Spanish increased only for the two preliminary years before it began to decrease subsequently. Importantly, taking the DLLs to a summer vacation was found to increase the oral comprehension of those who had lower scores during the two preschool years and to decrease the understanding of those learners who had higher scores.
Understanding the grammatical development among dual language learners is vital for assessing language disorders. Studies on the topic have revealed that introducing children to two languages simultaneously from their birthday enabled them to develop two different language systems. Children introduced to Spanish and English developed grammatical systems of both languages. While one could suppose that DLLs would experience some difficulties creating a distinction between the two grammatical systems, research has shown that learning grammatical rules of the two dialects posed no challenge to the bilingual children. In terms of syntactic and morphological development, monolingual children were more accurate in generating the target syntax and morphology than the DLLs even though the pattern of development in the latter group was similar to the former category.
- Language Loss
Various studies conducted in Florida have demonstrated that most students manifest excellent oral skills in English than Spanish. Interestingly, even students with a Spanish origin showed English language dominance, raising questions of whether they had experienced language loss or was it that the first language had not been appropriately transferred to them. However, Brice, Carson, and O’Brien (2009) established that the early exposure of children to the English language in the family environment accounted for the development of proficiency in the dialect at the expense of Spanish lingo. In their study, they found that four-year-old learners from Spanish speaking backgrounds illustrated the strong effects of English on their vocabulary and phonology skills in Spanish. They equally showed that children could achieve a balanced bilingual language development if two languages were introduced to them in almost the same amount; for instance, 40% Spanish and 60% English. Learners were, however, likely to experience language loss if they were simultaneously exposed to the two dialects under non-ideal conditions (Anderson, 1999).
In most cases, dual language learners were likely to experience native language loss because of the minority status that such a dialect had been assigned. In other words, native Spanish speakers could lose their first language in the attempt to learn English under non-ideal conditions, recognizing that English is a predominant language in the United States, used for conversations, educational instructions, and media communications. Consequently, the loss of the native dialect at the expense of English could potentially lead to diminished communication with family members and delayed development of complete academic language skills ((Thomas and Collier, 2017). In some rare occasions, the language of the learner could look like a language learning disability (Cummins, 1984, 1998). It is, therefore, essential that a particular threshold is attained in the first language of the dual language learners before they are introduced to the second language to prevent language loss.
- Code-Switching
Code-switching refers to the practice and ability to swap between two or extra languages in the course of a conversation while transfer denotes the influence of the native dialect of a learner on the acquisition of an additional language. Despite their tender age, DLL children have been found to exhibit similar code-switching structural constraints like adult individuals, paying close attention to syntactic and morphological requirements of each language. The only variation that occurred was between the non-dominant and dominant languages, in which the later language filled in the space of the former lingo in all mixed conversations. Code-switching, therefore, seemed to serve as a compensatory plan in occasions where DLLs failed to locate the target word or phrase in one language. According to Jisa (2000), the frequency and type of code-switching depended on the age of the DLLs when they began to generate their non-dominant dialect. It is, however, essential to note that some features of code-switching are unique to a particular language, whereas other characteristics are alike across different dialects.
- Cognition
In terms of cognitive abilities, research has shown that dual language learners have higher cognition than monolingual children. In a number of tasks meant to examine their cognitive levels, DLLs attained higher scores in mental flexibility, the ability to judge sentence grammaticality, and the capacity to distinguish phonetic resemblance from semantic similarity. This advantage over monolinguals could be as a result of the struggle by the DLLs to minimize interference between the two dialects in order to achieve effective communication in one. The high executive demands could have enhanced the development of executive functions of the brain, particularly the inhibitory role.
Assessment Strategies for Dual Language Learners
Assessment of language development among dual language learners is essential for establishing language impairments. However, before conducting such an evaluation, professionals should be sure of both the non-dominant and dominant languages of the learner. In cases where a language pathologist is not sure about the dominant language of the learner, he or she could use interviews and questionnaires to assess the learner and their parents. It is important to note that the assessment of the dominant language of a learner reflects their true language abilities that would otherwise be concealed by the non-dominant dialect.
Dynamic assessment, which examines a child’s learning potential, is perhaps the best technique that could be used to evaluate language development among dual language learners. This “test-teach-retest” approach provides reasons that could account for the poor performance of a learner. At the beginning of the procedure, the learner is subjected to a standard test upon which their scores are recorded. In the subsequent session, the respective learner is made to undertake a specifically tailored mediated learning experience before they are again subjected to the original test. The variation in scores between the test and retest procedures could significantly indicate the responsiveness of the child to the mediated learning experience.
In most trials, dual language learners with normal language development have registered a high variation between the two test scores. A learner with a low difference could further be investigated to ascertain if they have language learning impairments. In a more precise way, language and speech pathologists could use narratives, non-word repetition, and fast mapping to dynamically assess DLLs’ language abilities as well as impairments. Fast mapping assesses the ability of a child to learn a word; non-word repetition examines the child’s potential to pay attention, to hear a particular sound, retain it, and later produce the same sound; narratives assess delays, which can signal the pathologist of the underlying language impairments.
Treatment of language Impairments among DLLs
Irrespective of whether they have language impairments or not, dual language learners should receive treatment and interventions, which ensure that both languages are supported and developed. At no point should a teacher fail to support the improvement of both languages in a learner on the basis that bilingualism could delay their language development. Learning two languages simultaneously could enhance the cognitive and linguistic abilities of DLLs. Importantly, teachers and medical personnel dealing with dual language learners should be familiar with their unique characteristics to avoid misdiagnosis and wrong programming.
In cases where particular learners are suspected or ascertained to have language impairments, the pathologist could use a two-step method to isolate and remedy such incidences. In the initial phase of the approach, the affected children are referred and assessed by a specialist to identify whether they have impairments or could be at risk. All the ‘at risk’ learners are made to undertake a “language enriched program.” Typical language developments should, however, not be confused with ‘at risk’ attributes. Immediately after the first stage, the ‘at risk’ learners are examined again to evaluate their response to phase one’s “language enriched program.” It is from the second stage that learners with language impairments can be accurately identified and referred to a speech and language pathologist for further specialized interventions.
A Summary of an Article on DLL’s Assessment
In their article, Kapantzoglou, Restrepo, and Thompson (2012), examined the effectiveness of dynamic assessment in isolating primary language impairments (PLI) among bilingual children. The researchers particularly assessed the word learning ability of bilingual children using the given assessment technique. Fifteen Spanish-speaking children, about four to five years, with normal linguistic development and thirteen with PLI were respectively used as experimental and control groups for the study. Each of the participants was made to participate in a 40-minute word learning dynamic assessment session. The study findings indicated that children with normal linguistic development related the semantic and phonological representations faster than those children with primary linguistic disorders. Dynamic assessment was, therefore, found to be a reliable approach that could distinguish children with TLD from those with PLI.
References
Anderson R. T. (2004). Phonological acquisition in preschoolers learning a second language via immersion: A longitudinal study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics.
Anderson, R. (1999). Impact of first language loss on grammar in a bilingual child. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21(4), 4-16.
Brice, A. & Brice, R. (2009). (Ed.s). Language development: Monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Old Tappan, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Brice, A., & Wertheim, E. (2004/2005). Language differentiation in young bilingual children. Tejas. Texas Journal of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, 28, 24-31.
Brice, A., Carson, C., & O’Brien, J. (2009). Spanish-English articulation and phonology of four and five-year-old preschool children: An initial investigation. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), 3-14.
Brice, A., Miller, K., & Brice, R. G. (2006). Language in the English as a second language and the general education classroom: A tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 240-247.
Conboy B. T. & Mills DL (2006). Two languages, one developing brain: Event-related potentials to words in bilingual toddlers. Developmental Science.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1998). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. Presentation to the California State Board of Education, Sacramento,
Fernández, F. R. & Liceras J. M. (2010). Copula omission in the developing English grammar of English/Spanish bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Golberg H., Paradis J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics.
Goldstein B. A., Bunta F., Lange J., Rodriguez J. & Burrows L. (2010). The effects of measures of language experience and language ability on segmental accuracy in bilingual children. American journal of speech-language pathology/American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Goldstein B. A., Fabiano L. & Washington P. S. (2005). Phonological skills in predominantly English-speaking, predominantly Spanish-speaking, and Spanish-English bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.
Kapantzoglou, M., Restrepo, M. A., & Thompson, M. S. (2012). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills: Identifying language impairment in bilingual children—Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools.
Thomas, P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.