Introduction: Research in recent years has explored the vocabulary size (lexical breadth) of bili... more Introduction: Research in recent years has explored the vocabulary size (lexical breadth) of bilingual children, but less is known about the richness of bilingual word knowledge (lexical depth), and about how knowledge of words in the two languages interact. This study explores how bilingual narrative intervention with vocabulary instruction in each language may modulate crosslinguistic influence (CLI) between the languages of bilingual kindergarten children, focusing on CLI of lexical knowledge, and which factors modulate performance.Methods: Forty-one typically developing English-Hebrew bilingual children (M = 64.63 months) participated. A bilingual adaptation of Story Champs narrative intervention program (Spencer and Petersen, 2012) was used to deliver vocabulary instruction in separate blocks of home language (HL) and school language (SL) sessions. Different intervention words were targeted in each language, but the children were tested on all target words in both languages. Le...
Bilingual language development is different from monolingual language development. The lack of ap... more Bilingual language development is different from monolingual language development. The lack of appropriate assessment tools geared to the bilingual population has led to inaccurate over-diagnosis of bilingual children with typical language development (TLD) as children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and under-diagnosis of bilingual children with DLD. The present paper addresses this challenge by focusing on Hebrew as a second language (L2) of bilingual preschool children whose first language (L1) is either English or Russian, taking into consideration both chronological age (CA) and age of onset of bilingualism (AOB). This study aimed to generate bilingual standards for a monolingual screening test, Goralnik Screening Test for Hebrewby arriving at appropriate bilingual typical development cut-off points. A total of 443 bilingual Hebrew speaking children (397 with TLD and 46 with DLD), ages 61-78 months (M = 70; SD = 4), 199 with L1 English and 244 with L1 Russian, took part in the study. The results demonstrate low diagnostic accuracy when a monolingual test with monolingual norms is used for bilingual children, in contrast with increased diagnostic accuracy when bilingual standards are used for bilingual children. The paper concludes by showing the importance of bilingual standards when assessing clinical populations with varying ages of acquisition, and in particular, for those who were exposed to their second language after the age of four.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 2022
Purpose: Diagnostic tools developed for monolinguals are frequently used for bilingual linguistic... more Purpose: Diagnostic tools developed for monolinguals are frequently used for bilingual linguistic assessment. The absence of evaluation criteria for using monolingual norms for bilinguals contributes to inconsistent diagnostic procedures, impacting research and clinical practice. This study considers the reliance on monolingual tools to assess the heritage language to identify bilingual atypical language development (ALD) even when bilingual norms are available for the societal language. Method: One hundred thirty-one English–Hebrew bilingual children aged 5;6–5;11 (years;months) were assessed using diagnostic tools. Bilingual standards are available for the societal language but not for the heritage language. Fifteen English–Hebrew bilingual children were suspected of ALD. They were individually compared with 116 typically developing bilingual peers. The Core Language Score and seven subtest standardized scores of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool–Second Ed...
The purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of e-book reading to promoting word... more The purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of e-book reading to promoting word learning among kindergarteners with specific language impairment (SLI) compared to those with typical language development (TLD). We also tested the contribution of three types of dictionary support provided in the e-book. All dictionary words were given a pictorial and auditory support while a third of them were given a short definition, a third were defined using the story content, and a third were given a combined definition. Twenty kindergarteners with SLI and 20 with TLD were read the e-book with dictionary support 5 times. Each child was exposed to the three types of dictionary support in each e-book reading. Receptive knowledge, word definitions and use of target words were measured pre and post intervention. A significant improvement in new word learning following the e-book reading was found in the children's receptive knowledge, word definitions and use of target words. Nonetheless, children with TLD progressed in words use more than children with SLI. The two groups progressed to a greater extent in explaining new words following the provision of a dictionary definition and following story context definition. Children with SLI progressed in words' use following the definition of a dictionary. The combined definition was especially efficient for children in the two groups with had a low initial level of using new words. Combined definition was also efficient for explaining new words for TLD children with initially high language level. We conclude that children with SLI like children with TLD can benefit from ebook reading and can learn new words at different levels when the e-book is well designed in assisting children with definitions of difficult words..
Awareness of language structure has been studied in bilinguals, but there is limited research on ... more Awareness of language structure has been studied in bilinguals, but there is limited research on how language dominance is related to metalinguistic awareness, and whether metalinguistic awareness predicts vocabulary size. The present study aims to explore the role of language dominance in the relation between vocabulary size in both languages of bilingual children and metalinguistic awareness in the societal language. It evaluates the impact of two metalinguistic awareness abilities, morphological and lexical awareness, on receptive and expressive vocabulary size. This is of special interest since most studies focus on the impact of exposure on vocabulary size but very few explore the impact of the interaction between metalinguistic awareness and dominance. 5-6-year-old preschool children with typical language development participated in the study: 15 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the societal language (SL) Hebrew, 21 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the Heritage language (HL) Russian and 32 monolingual children. Dominance was determined by relative proficiency, based on standardized tests in the two languages. Tasks of morphological and lexical awareness were administered in SL-Hebrew, along with measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary size in both languages. Vocabulary size in SL-Hebrew was significantly higher for SL-dominant bilinguals (who performed like monolinguals) than for HL-dominant bilinguals, while HL-Russian vocabulary size was higher for HL-dominant bilinguals than for SL-dominant bilinguals. A hierarchical regression analyzing the relationship between vocabulary size and metalinguistic awareness showed that dominance, lexical metalinguistic awareness and the interaction between the two were predictors of both receptive and expressive vocabulary size. Morphological metalinguistic awareness was not a predictor of vocabulary size. The relationship between lexical awareness and SL-vocabulary size was limited to the HL-dominant group. HL-dominant bilinguals relied on lexical metalinguistic awareness, measured by fast mapping abilities, that is, the abilities to acquire new words, in expanding their vocabulary size, whereas SL-dominant bilinguals and monolinguals did not. This difference reflects the milestones of lexical acquisition the different groups have reached. These findings show that metalinguistic awareness should also be taken into consideration when evaluating the variables that influence vocabulary size among bilinguals though different ways in different dominance groups.
Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five gro... more Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five groups of immigrant (English-Hebrew, Georgian-Hebrew Russian-Hebrew) and indigenous bilinguals (Arabic-Hebrew, Hebrew-English). Participants recalled memories in response to cue words and then were asked to report the language of retrieval and provide a more elaborate narrative. More memories were 'same language' memories, recalled in the language of the experimental session/cue word, but as many as 48 % of the memories were crossovers, i.e. memories reported in a language other than the language of the session/cue word. In an effort to examine the ecological validity of the self-reported language of the memories, the frequency of CS in the elaborated narratives was investigated. For the entire sample, more CS was found for self-reported crossover memories in L2 sessions. In a further analysis of CS in crossover memories, collapsed across L1 and L2 sessions, significant differences emerged between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals are discussed in terms of the role of activation in crossover memories.
Introduction: Research in recent years has explored the vocabulary size (lexical breadth) of bili... more Introduction: Research in recent years has explored the vocabulary size (lexical breadth) of bilingual children, but less is known about the richness of bilingual word knowledge (lexical depth), and about how knowledge of words in the two languages interact. This study explores how bilingual narrative intervention with vocabulary instruction in each language may modulate crosslinguistic influence (CLI) between the languages of bilingual kindergarten children, focusing on CLI of lexical knowledge, and which factors modulate performance.Methods: Forty-one typically developing English-Hebrew bilingual children (M = 64.63 months) participated. A bilingual adaptation of Story Champs narrative intervention program (Spencer and Petersen, 2012) was used to deliver vocabulary instruction in separate blocks of home language (HL) and school language (SL) sessions. Different intervention words were targeted in each language, but the children were tested on all target words in both languages. Le...
Bilingual language development is different from monolingual language development. The lack of ap... more Bilingual language development is different from monolingual language development. The lack of appropriate assessment tools geared to the bilingual population has led to inaccurate over-diagnosis of bilingual children with typical language development (TLD) as children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and under-diagnosis of bilingual children with DLD. The present paper addresses this challenge by focusing on Hebrew as a second language (L2) of bilingual preschool children whose first language (L1) is either English or Russian, taking into consideration both chronological age (CA) and age of onset of bilingualism (AOB). This study aimed to generate bilingual standards for a monolingual screening test, Goralnik Screening Test for Hebrewby arriving at appropriate bilingual typical development cut-off points. A total of 443 bilingual Hebrew speaking children (397 with TLD and 46 with DLD), ages 61-78 months (M = 70; SD = 4), 199 with L1 English and 244 with L1 Russian, took part in the study. The results demonstrate low diagnostic accuracy when a monolingual test with monolingual norms is used for bilingual children, in contrast with increased diagnostic accuracy when bilingual standards are used for bilingual children. The paper concludes by showing the importance of bilingual standards when assessing clinical populations with varying ages of acquisition, and in particular, for those who were exposed to their second language after the age of four.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 2022
Purpose: Diagnostic tools developed for monolinguals are frequently used for bilingual linguistic... more Purpose: Diagnostic tools developed for monolinguals are frequently used for bilingual linguistic assessment. The absence of evaluation criteria for using monolingual norms for bilinguals contributes to inconsistent diagnostic procedures, impacting research and clinical practice. This study considers the reliance on monolingual tools to assess the heritage language to identify bilingual atypical language development (ALD) even when bilingual norms are available for the societal language. Method: One hundred thirty-one English–Hebrew bilingual children aged 5;6–5;11 (years;months) were assessed using diagnostic tools. Bilingual standards are available for the societal language but not for the heritage language. Fifteen English–Hebrew bilingual children were suspected of ALD. They were individually compared with 116 typically developing bilingual peers. The Core Language Score and seven subtest standardized scores of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool–Second Ed...
The purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of e-book reading to promoting word... more The purpose of the current study was to examine the efficacy of e-book reading to promoting word learning among kindergarteners with specific language impairment (SLI) compared to those with typical language development (TLD). We also tested the contribution of three types of dictionary support provided in the e-book. All dictionary words were given a pictorial and auditory support while a third of them were given a short definition, a third were defined using the story content, and a third were given a combined definition. Twenty kindergarteners with SLI and 20 with TLD were read the e-book with dictionary support 5 times. Each child was exposed to the three types of dictionary support in each e-book reading. Receptive knowledge, word definitions and use of target words were measured pre and post intervention. A significant improvement in new word learning following the e-book reading was found in the children's receptive knowledge, word definitions and use of target words. Nonetheless, children with TLD progressed in words use more than children with SLI. The two groups progressed to a greater extent in explaining new words following the provision of a dictionary definition and following story context definition. Children with SLI progressed in words' use following the definition of a dictionary. The combined definition was especially efficient for children in the two groups with had a low initial level of using new words. Combined definition was also efficient for explaining new words for TLD children with initially high language level. We conclude that children with SLI like children with TLD can benefit from ebook reading and can learn new words at different levels when the e-book is well designed in assisting children with definitions of difficult words..
Awareness of language structure has been studied in bilinguals, but there is limited research on ... more Awareness of language structure has been studied in bilinguals, but there is limited research on how language dominance is related to metalinguistic awareness, and whether metalinguistic awareness predicts vocabulary size. The present study aims to explore the role of language dominance in the relation between vocabulary size in both languages of bilingual children and metalinguistic awareness in the societal language. It evaluates the impact of two metalinguistic awareness abilities, morphological and lexical awareness, on receptive and expressive vocabulary size. This is of special interest since most studies focus on the impact of exposure on vocabulary size but very few explore the impact of the interaction between metalinguistic awareness and dominance. 5-6-year-old preschool children with typical language development participated in the study: 15 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the societal language (SL) Hebrew, 21 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children dominant in the Heritage language (HL) Russian and 32 monolingual children. Dominance was determined by relative proficiency, based on standardized tests in the two languages. Tasks of morphological and lexical awareness were administered in SL-Hebrew, along with measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary size in both languages. Vocabulary size in SL-Hebrew was significantly higher for SL-dominant bilinguals (who performed like monolinguals) than for HL-dominant bilinguals, while HL-Russian vocabulary size was higher for HL-dominant bilinguals than for SL-dominant bilinguals. A hierarchical regression analyzing the relationship between vocabulary size and metalinguistic awareness showed that dominance, lexical metalinguistic awareness and the interaction between the two were predictors of both receptive and expressive vocabulary size. Morphological metalinguistic awareness was not a predictor of vocabulary size. The relationship between lexical awareness and SL-vocabulary size was limited to the HL-dominant group. HL-dominant bilinguals relied on lexical metalinguistic awareness, measured by fast mapping abilities, that is, the abilities to acquire new words, in expanding their vocabulary size, whereas SL-dominant bilinguals and monolinguals did not. This difference reflects the milestones of lexical acquisition the different groups have reached. These findings show that metalinguistic awareness should also be taken into consideration when evaluating the variables that influence vocabulary size among bilinguals though different ways in different dominance groups.
Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five gro... more Two indices of bilingualism, crossover memories and codeswitching (CS), were explored in five groups of immigrant (English-Hebrew, Georgian-Hebrew Russian-Hebrew) and indigenous bilinguals (Arabic-Hebrew, Hebrew-English). Participants recalled memories in response to cue words and then were asked to report the language of retrieval and provide a more elaborate narrative. More memories were 'same language' memories, recalled in the language of the experimental session/cue word, but as many as 48 % of the memories were crossovers, i.e. memories reported in a language other than the language of the session/cue word. In an effort to examine the ecological validity of the self-reported language of the memories, the frequency of CS in the elaborated narratives was investigated. For the entire sample, more CS was found for self-reported crossover memories in L2 sessions. In a further analysis of CS in crossover memories, collapsed across L1 and L2 sessions, significant differences emerged between immigrants and indigenous bilinguals. Differences between immigrant and non-immigrant bilinguals are discussed in terms of the role of activation in crossover memories.
Uploads
Papers by Carmit Altman