University of Colorado, BoulderCU ScholarSpeech, Language, and Hearing Services GraduateTheses & Dissertations Speech, Language and Hearing Services

Spring 1-1-2012

The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills inEarly Sequential Cantonese-English BilingualChildrenKristina Louise KoenigUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, klkoenig@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.colorado.edu/slhs_gradetds

Part of the Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, EducationalAssessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Speech and Hearing Science Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Speech, Language and Hearing Services at CU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion inSpeech, Language, and Hearing Services Graduate Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Scholar. For more information, pleasecontact cuscholaradmin@colorado.edu.

Recommended CitationKoenig, Kristina Louise, "The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children"(2012). Speech, Language, and Hearing Services Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 16.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEXICAL-SEMANTIC SKILLS IN EARLY

SEQUENTIAL CANTONESE-ENGLISH BILINGUAL CHILDREN

by

KRISTINA KOENIG

B.A., Wesleyan University, 2004

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Colorado at Boulder in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences

2012

This thesis entitled:

The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children

written by Kristina Koenig has been approved by the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences

Pui Fong Kan, Ph. D.

Brenda Schick, Ph. D.

Bhuvana Narasimhan, Ph. D.

Date

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards

of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.

IRB protocol # 11-0034

iii

Koenig, Kristina (M.A., Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences) The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English Bilingual Children Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Pui Fong Kan

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore lexical-semantic development in early

sequential bilingual children who speak Cantonese (L1) as a home language from birth

and started to learn English (L2) as a second language in a preschool setting.

Linguistically- and culturally- appropriate picture naming and picture identification tasks

were developed to assess participants’ expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge.

In Study 1, seventy children participated in picture naming and picture identification

tasks comparing their performance as a function of language (L1 or L2), modality

(expressive or receptive), age, length of time at the preschool, and performance on

standardized vocabulary assessment tools. In Study 2, the results on these tasks of five

children on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) were compared with typically

developing, age-matched peers. Results from Study 1 indicate that there is a correlation

between a child’s scores with their age, time in school and their scores on standardized

tools in both tasks in English and picture identification tasks in Cantonese, but not with

picture naming in Cantonese. Results from Study 2 show that only one of five children on

IEPs had noticeably lower scores in tasks in both languages when compared to typically-

developing peers. This underscores the importance of a culturally and linguistically

appropriate assessment tool in distinguishing bilingual children who have a language

difference from those with a language disorder.

iv

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all who helped make this project possible. In particular, I am

deeply grateful to my amazing advisor, Dr. Pui Fong Kan. Her tireless patience, support

and infectious passion have made this project a tremendously rewarding learning

experience. There are no words for how much I appreciate all of the work she has put into

this. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Brenda

Schick and Dr. Bhuvana Narasimhan, who have generously offered their time and

impressive knowledge in support of this project. Also, this would not have been possible

without the work of the research assistants who worked so hard on this project! Thank

you!

I extend a big thank you to all of the staff, teachers, parents and students at the

Head Start preschools in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for so much for your kindness

and help in facilitating the assessments with all of the children. Getting to know you

made this project very rewarding.

v

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 1 Lexical-Semantic Development in Monolingual Children………………….. 3

Lexical-Semantic Development in Early Sequential Bilingual Children…... 7 Assessing Lexical-Semantic Skills…………………………………………… 14

The Current Study…………………………………………………………….17 Study 1………………………………………………………………………………... 21 Method………………………………………………………………………………... 21

Participants…………………………………………………………………... 21 Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 22

Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary tasks…………………….. 22 Standardized measures……………………………………………… 23

Results………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Question 1 ……………………………………………………………….…… 26

Question 2……………………………………………………………….….… 28 Question 3……………………………………………………………….….… 28 Additional Analyses………………………………………………………….. 29 Summary of Results………………………………………………………….. 29

Study 2………………………………………………………………………………... 30 Method………………………………………………………………………………... 30

Participants…………………………………………………………………... 30 Procedures……………………………………………………………………. 31

Analyses………………………………………...…………………….. 31 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 31 Study 2…..……………………………………………………………….…… 32 Discussion.……………………………………………………………………………. 35 Lexical-Semantic Development in Typically-Developing Children………. 35

Language Disorders and Language Differences…………………………… 39 Limitations and Future Studies………………………………………………42

References…………………………………………………………………………….. 44

Appendices.…………………………………………………………………………… 60 Appendix A: Parent Questionnaire

Language and Learning Experience, Cantonese………………..….. 60 Language and Learning Experience, English….…………..……….. 62

Appendix B: Items in Each Task Picture Naming……………………………………………………….. 64 Picture Identification……………………………………………….... 66

vi

Tables

Table 1: Participant information…………………………………………………… 21 Table 2: Mean Scores on Picture Naming and Picture Identification Tasks……. 24 Table 3: Correlation between scores on tasks and standardized tools…………... 26 Table 4: Correlation between Picture Naming and Picture Identification scores with age of participant and time of attendance at preschool…………………..……… 27 Table 5: A comparison between scores of children with an IEP and typically-developing children…………………………………….……………. 33

vii

Figures

Figure 1: Performance on vocabulary tasks in Cantonese and English………….25 Figure 2: Sample Scatter Plot: Correlation between Age and Picture Identification Scores in English……………………………………………………..27

1

The Development of Lexical-Semantic Skills in Early Sequential Cantonese-English

Bilingual Children

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the lexical development of early sequential

bilingual children who speak Cantonese as a home language (L1) and begin learning

English, a second language (L2), in preschool. In particular, this study examines lexical

development in L1 and L2, looking at the effects of age and time spent in a Cantonese-

English bilingual preschool. A vocabulary tool developed specifically for this population

will be compared with two available standardized assessment tools in English. Finally,

the test results of five children who are receiving speech-language services will be

compared with age- and language-matched typically developing peers.

Vocabulary development is a fundamental aspect of children’s language

acquisition. In the past decades, there has been growing research into the area of lexical-

semantic development in bilingual children (e.g., Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Sheng, Liu, &

Kan, 2011). It is no easy task to determine whether a bilingual child has a language

disorder or whether the child is simply following a typical process of acquiring a second

language (e.g., Håkansson, Salameh & Nettelbladt, 2003; Anderson, 2004; Kohnert,

2008). Children who begin learning a second language in the preschool years do not

perform the same as monolingual children on standardized assessments; rather their

scores on standardized assessments are below expected levels (Bialystok, 2008). The

assessment tools available for detecting language disorders in children are not appropriate

for the unique speaker-hearer that is a bilingual child. This combination of factors results

2

in difficulty in distinguishing between language differences and language disorders in

bilingual children.

This study attempts to understand in greater depth vocabulary development in

early sequential bilingual Cantonese-English speaking preschool children, an

understudied population. I will be comparing children’s results on a more culturally and

linguistically appropriate assessment tool for vocabulary knowledge in Cantonese-

English speaking preschool children with two commonly used vocabulary assessment

tools (i.e., the Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT) and the

Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) for monolingual English-

speaking children.

When examining proportions of students receiving special education services, the

complexity of identifying bilingual children with a language disorder is evident. A range

of studies show that children are often over-identified, under-identified or misidentified

as having a language disorder (Kohnert, 2008). For instance, younger bilingual children

may go undiagnosed as having a language disorder, with their difficulties simply

attributed to second language learning (e.g., Samson & Lasaux, 2009). Older bilingual

children are often significantly over-identified as being ‘at risk’ for language impairments

(e.g., Westman, Korkman, Mickos & Byring, 2008) or diagnosed with ‘severe language

impairment’ (e.g., Salameh, Nettlebladt, Håkansson, & Gullberg, 2002). School-aged

English language learners (ELLs) are often disproportionately enrolled in special

education settings (e.g., de Valenzuela, Copeland, Qi & Park, 2006; Artiles, Rueda,

Salzar, & Higareda, 2005). The way in which language assessments are conducted, and

the consequent inappropriate educational placement of sequential bilingual children, may

3

be due to, in part, misunderstandings of language proficiency and second language

acquisition (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1996).

The number of children who are bilingual is increasing rapidly (National Center

for Education Statistics, 2009), so understanding their language development is important.

Studying the vocabulary development of early sequential bilingual children can give us

further insight into children’s language, experience and general cognitive mechanisms

(e.g., Kohnert et al., 2009), into the environmental factors that facilitate growth or loss of

a sequential bilingual child’s L1, and into ways to distinguish between language disorder

and language difference in developing bilingual children.

The literature review below explores lexical-semantic development in

monolingual and bilingual children with and without language disorders. Next, an

overview of what is known, thus far, about the progression of L1 and L2 language skills

in early sequential bilinguals will be provided. Finally, methods that have been used to

assess bilingual child’s vocabulary skills will be discussed.

Lexical-Semantic Development in Monolingual Children

During the preschool years, there is a blossoming in a child’s language from

combining simple words about the immediate environment (of the here and now) to

having paradigmatic semantic networks about abstract and complex concepts (Kaderavek

& Justice, 2004; Kamhi & Catts, 2005; Kohnert & Kan, 2007). The vocabularies of

monolingual children from middle-class families soar from approximately 1,000 words at

3 years of age to between 6,000 and 14,000 words by age 5 (e.g., Kohnert, 2008; Hirsh-

Pasek & Golinkoff, 2002; Bloom, 2000). At this age, learning a word involves

4

connecting the phonological form of the word to its meaning, as well as knowing how the

word can combine with morphemes and the possible syntactic roles it can fulfill (Clark,

1993). Understanding the meaning of words is fundamental to a child’s language

development (Rice & Watkins, 1996). Children’s impressive lexical abilities at this age

are thought to be indicative of the skills they will have down the road, particularly as

indicators of future literacy skills and academic success (e.g., Adams, 1990; Chaney,

1994; Kastner, May & Hildman, 2001; Ouellette, 2006; Ricketts, Nation & Bishop, 2007;

Rohde & Thompson, 2007; Swanson, Rosston, Gerber, & Solari, 2008; Tunmer et al.,

1988).

Research shows that monolingual children learn new vocabulary from a variety of

experiences at preschool and at home (DeTemple, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hubbs-Tait

et al., 2002; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Patterson, 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999;

Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990; Snow & Goldfield, 1983; Tabors, Roach, &

Snow, 2001; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001;Vermeer, 2001; Wells, 1985; Whitehurst

et al., 1994). For instance, at school, children learn while being taught, read to, and while

interacting with teachers and peers. At home, children learn new vocabulary while

watching television, during joint book reading time, and while interacting with parents,

siblings and friends.

In monolingual children, research shows that the size of a child’s vocabulary is

strongly correlated with exposure (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995). For example, Hoff (2003)

compared the lexical development of monolingual children in families from middle- and

high-socioeconomic classes. She found that children whose mothers spoke in longer

utterances, using a more diverse vocabulary, built their expressive vocabulary at a faster

5

rate than children whose mothers had shorter utterances and less variety in their

vocabulary.

The mechanisms by which children acquire new vocabulary through exposure to

the language in their environment include fast mapping and quick incidental learning

(QUIL). In fast mapping, a critical initial stage in learning words, a child links the

phonological properties of a novel word with lexical or syntactic information after only

one or two exposures (e.g. Kan & Kohnert, 2008). In QUIL, children learn words in

discourse when there are fewer cues that match the form to the referent (Oetting, Rice, &

Swank, 1995; Rice, Buhr, & Nemeth, 1990; Rice & Woodsmall, 1988). Children can also

learn new words when being explicitly taught words (Biemiller, 2006). Children build

their lexicons in a variety of ways, learning as many as nine new words each day (Bloom,

1973; Clark, 1993; Templin, 1957).

An insufficient lexicon has been documented in a wide range of language

disorders though the extent is unknown (Dollaghan, 1987). Difficulties with lexical

acquisition, including QUIL, in children with LI have been revealed in studies (e.g., Rice

et al., 1990). There are also many reports of less accuracy in picture naming (eg., Lahey

& Edwards, 1999; Leonard et al., 1998). Thus, the ability to accurately measure lexical

skills in all children who may have language impairments is critical. Measuring

expressive and receptive vocabulary knowledge is commonly part of screens or

assessment tests that are used with children, including those of preschool age.

Among monolingual children, it is generally accepted that comprehension of

words precedes production of words (e.g. Fenson, Dale, Reznick, & Bates, 1994). This is

reflected in children’s scores on vocabulary assessments, with children’s expressive

6

vocabularies generally larger than their receptive vocabularies (e.g., Benedict, 1979).

Picture identification is often used to assess receptive vocabulary, or comprehension, and

picture naming to assess expressive vocabulary. The task of picture identification to

assess vocabulary comprehension is used in tools like the Receptive One Word Picture

Identification Test. Rice and Watkins (1996) provide a very thorough discussion of all the

ways in which picture identification can give insight into children’s lexical acquisition.

At its most basic, however, picture identification assesses a child’s vocabulary

comprehension. Generally, children enjoy looking and pointing at pictures (Binet &

Simon, 1916). In picture identification, children are required to understand the task,

comprehend the word and then point to the corresponding picture.

The relatively complex process of picture naming that measures a child’s

vocabulary and involves three cognitive processes (Johnson, Paivio, & Clark, 1996). The

first of these stages are identifying the object. Then, the child must activate and select the

appropriate word, among all of their words. In the final stage a lexical response is

generated by executing articulatory commands. Problems with picture naming could be

due to difficulties at any of these stages such as general processing difficulties, a limited

vocabulary or spare semantic representation, word finding difficulties or phonological

difficulties.

Children, both monolingual and bilingual, exhibit vocabulary growth without

marked discernible increases in grammatical skills until a certain threshold of vocabulary

knowledge is reached (Caselli, Casadio, & Bates, 1999; Marchman & Martinez-Sussman,

2002; Thal, Bates, Goodman & Jahn-Samilo, 1997). In a cross-sectional study of

bilingual toddlers, Marchman, Martinez-Sussman and Dale (2004) concluded that

7

mastery of vocabulary is a core part of what makes grammatical acquisition possible.

Thus, understanding lexical-semantic skills is crucial to understanding grammatical

deficits, which is a primary characteristic in monolingual children with language

impairments (Leonard, 1998). Little is known about bilingual children’s lexical

development, and hardly any research has been conducted with early sequential bilingual

children whose home language is Cantonese.

Lexical-Semantic Development in Early Sequential Bilingual Children

While English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States,

increasingly, children are speaking more than one language. Among preschoolers in

Head Start programs in the United States, 30 percent of children are learning two

languages (Hammer et al., 2012). In the 15 years between 1992 and 2007, the percentage

of 5- to 17-year-old children who spoke a language other than English at home rose from

9 percent to 20 percent, with nearly 11 million children speaking a language other than

English at home (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). This proportion is

expected to double by 2030 (Davis & Bauman, 2008). Understanding more about the

language development in these bilingual children is imperative if we are to accurately

identify which children have language disorders and provide adequate services for them.

Bilingual researchers tend to define “bilinguals” as individuals who show “both

regular use and communicative competence” in both languages (Grosjean, 1992, pp 51).

In practice, language proficiency and language use are used to determine the relative

proficiency of each language. For example, a bilingual is considered to be proficient in a

second language, when their L2 or both of their languages meet native speaker

8

expectations of vocabulary size or grammatical skills (see Bedore et al. 2012 for review).

A bilingual often has a language which is more dominant, which means that the relative

proficiency of one language is higher than another (Gathercole & Thomas, 2009) or the

language to which the child has the most exposure (Grosjean, 2010). While children are

developing however, one language might not be completely dominant. Children’s

strengths and weaknesses may be spread between the two languages spoken (e.g.,

Kohnert et al., 2009). Bilingualism is usually not balanced perfectly in an individual, with

both languages spoken equally and fluently, “like two monolinguals in one person”

(Grosjean, 1989).

The terms simultaneous and sequential bilingualism are used to describe the

different contexts in which bilingualism can develop. Although there is some debate

about the details of classification (e.g., Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004), in general, an

individual who has had exposure to both languages from birth is referred to as

simultaneous bilingual. The term early sequential bilingual indicates that the individual

was exposed to and has already established one language from birth, and acquires their

second language later, for instance, when entering preschool at age 3 (Hammer et al.,

2004). The early sequential bilingual children that will be discussed in this study learn a

minority L1 language (Cantonese) from birth, and begin learning the majority L2

language (English) upon entering preschool.

This is reflected in the research, which shows that bilingual children have smaller

vocabularies in each language than children who speak one of those languages (e.g.,

Bialystok, Luk, Peets & Yang, 2010; Oller, Pearson & Cobo-Lewis, 2007; Peña, Iglesias,

& Lidz, 2001; Peña, & Quinn, 1997; Schiff-Myers, 1992; Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, &

9

Oller, 1992). These smaller vocabularies will set off red flags on standardized tests

designed for monolinguals. For example, a study that compared large samples of

bilingual children to monolingual children’s performance on the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test (PPVT), a test measuring receptive vocabulary, showed that the mean

standard score for bilinguals was significantly lower than that of monolingual English

speaking children (Bialystok et al., 2010).

However, typically developing bilingual children’s language is not compromised,

rather, their combined vocabulary is found to be equal to or greater than the vocabulary

of monolingual children. Bilingual children’s vocabulary is organized differently than

monolingual children. They do not simply have two separate, identical and growing

vocabulary stores. Bilingual children’s vocabulary knowledge is spread across two

languages. Children may learn different sets of words in different situations in their lives,

depending on the language of that context (Bialystok et al., 2010). Whereas typically-

developing bilingual children have a higher level of language in one or more languages,

bilingual children with language impairments tend to have lower language skills in both

languages (e.g., Håkansson, et al., 2003).

Language development in bilingual children is highly dynamic, changing with age

and exposure to each language (Kohnert et al., 2009). With great diversity in the

language experiences of bilingual children, a child’s language proficiency and dominance

vary greatly and change as they mature (Kohnert & Bates, 2002). Children’s dominance

will shift gradually, and different domains may be dominant in each language at different

times in a child’s development. Bilingual children often exhibit idiosyncratic dominance

in different domains (eg., Paradis et al., 2003), which will fluctuate as a child gets older.

10

Bilingual children may show an increasing lexicon without noticeable growth in

grammatical skills until a certain number of words are acquired (Caselli, Casadio, &

Bates, 1999; Marchman & Martinez-Sussman, 2002; Thal, Bates, Goodman, & Jahn-

Samilo, 1997). Growth in a bilingual child’s vocabulary and grammatical skills will

therefore not necessarily correspond. For example, children followed longitudinally and

tested at regular intervals exhibited shifts in dominance when measured by Mean Length

of Utterance (MLU, Yip & Matthews, 2006) and in phonology, semantics and syntax

(Verhoeven, 2007).

There is even variation between children, who may be in very similar

circumstances, due to individual characteristics in language processing skills (Castilla,

Restrepo, & Perez-Leroux, 2009; Conboy & Thal, 2006). A child’s language learning

skills may even differ between their languages (Castilla et al., 2009; Conboy & Thal,

2006; Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997).

While a monolingual child’s language input is concentrated in one language,

bilingual children receive less input in each language they are learning and have less

opportunity to practice each language (e.g. Peña, Gillam, Bedore, & Bohman, 2012). As

with monolingual children, bilingual children’s vocabulary is correlated with exposure in

each language (Marchman & Martinez-Sussman, 2002; Marchman, Martinez-Sussman,

& Dale, 2004; Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997). Due to the different

contexts in which bilingual children speak their languages, they often have substantial

vocabulary knowledge in one language that they do not have in the other, and vice versa.

Bilingual children may be adding the same words in both languages to their lexicon

(translation equivalents or doublets) or different words in each of their vocabularies, for

11

which they have no equivalent in the other language (singlets) (Pearson, Fernández, &

Oller, 1995). When children are tested, they tend to perform below the mean in

vocabulary tests in each language (Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1992). Studies

indicate that the languages of bilingual children range from a 14.6% overlap in 16- to 17-

month olds and 37.2% overlap in 22- to 23- month olds (Pearson, Fernández, & Oller,

1993) to approximately a 65% overlap in vocabulary in first graders (Umbel, Pearson,

Fernández, & Oller, 1992).

The organization of bilingual semantic systems is a complex topic of great interest,

particularly theories about the extent to which the semantic systems of bilinguals are

shared or separate, and how they are organized (see Francis, 1999, for an extensive

review). The Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) focuses on the different strategies

bilinguals use in building their lexicons as their experience with their L1 and L2 grows

(Kroll, van Hell, Tokowicz, & Green, 2010). The RHM model incorporates the word

association model and the concept mediation model described by Potter, So, Von Eckardt,

and Feldman (1984). In the RHM, mapping the word to the concept depends on the

phonology and lexical system of each language. However, the L1 and L2 share

conceptual representations. When learning vocabulary, the RHM posits that individuals

initially gain access to concepts in their L2 through the L1. Once individuals are more

fluent in their L2, they no longer mediate through the L1, but have links directly between

each lexicon and the concept. Experimental evidence strongly suggests that picture

naming in fluent bilinguals is concept mediated in both L1 and L2 (Francis, Augustini, &

Sáenz, 2003; Sholl, Sankaranarayanan, Kroll, 1995).

12

At the same time as sequential bilingual children are immersed in their L2, they

are using their L1 less often. It is likely that, by using the language less frequently, the

size of the lexicon used shrinks, which can lead to an eventual loss of vocabulary (Kravin,

1992). Without additional L1 support, a child’s dominant language may shift from the L1

to the L2 as they develop (Paradis, 2007). Evidence suggests that children can lose their

first language relatively quickly once they begin learning a second language, a process

called language loss, or attrition (Paradis, 2007). This phenomenon has been called

subtractive bilingualism, so named by Wallace Lambert (Lambert, 1975, 1977, 1981).

Research shows that this may occur the fastest in children who learn L2 at a younger age

(Mägiste, 1992; Jia & Aaronson, 2003). Most research in the area of L1 loss has shown

that one of the areas greatest affected are an individual’s vocabulary (Gal, 1989; Smith,

1989; Weltens & Grendel, 1993). The domain of semantics has been seen to shift

dominance between languages earlier than other domains in early sequential bilingual

children (Bedore et al., 2012).

In a large-scale study of Spanish-English sequential bilingual children, Wong

Fillmore (1991) pointed to beginning to learn the majority L2 language during the

preschool age as a major factor contributing to L1 attrition. Families who attended

English-only or bilingual preschools were more likely to describe their children’s L2

skills as deficient or non-existent.

In a longitudinal case study of a Spanish-English bilingual child, Anderson (1999)

observed a noticeable decline in a child’s use of different nouns and verbs across time.

For instance, the child would use general terms such as demonstrative pronouns (eg. eso,

that one), rather than the specific appropriate noun. Anderson (2004) suggests that one

13

way in which a lexicon may shrink is that children begin using earlier linguistic forms in

the L1.

Kohnert (2007) suggests that a child’s L1 may be more vulnerable to attrition

when there are great linguistic and cultural differences between the child’s home

language and the community language. For example, in Kan and Kohnert’s (2005) study

of Hmong-English speaking preschoolers, rapid growth in the English lexicon was seen

while lexical skills in Hmong had stabilized. A similar study was done with Mandarin-

English speaking children aged 3-8 years (Sheng, Luk, & Kan, 2011). Their results

showed a relative stagnation of Mandarin skills in comparison to significant growth of

English lexical skills.

In a longitudinal study done over two years, Hammer, Lawrence and Miccio

(2008) evaluated the receptive vocabularies of simultaneous and sequential Spanish-

English speaking bilingual preschoolers in Head Start programs. They found that

although bilingual children’s Spanish and English improved during the preschool years,

the Spanish (L1) language growth was not as much as that of their English (L2) language

growth. A negative pattern was noted in the children’s auditory comprehension of

Spanish. Indeed, other studies have shown regression or loss of L1 proficiency (Francis,

2005; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Leseman, 2000).

In contrast, a few studies have shown that with the introduction of the L2 there is

continued growth in the L1, though it is slower than expected (Cobo-Lewis, Pearson,

Eilers, & Umbel, 2002; Gathercole & Thomas, 2009; Jia, Kohnert, Callado, & Aquino-

Garcia, 2006; Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999; Rodriguez,

Diaz, Duran, & Espinosa, 1995; and Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999).

14

There are a host of psychological and social-environmental factors that can affect

proficiency in L1 and L2, such as more exposure to the L1 and community support for

the minority language (Anderson, 2004; Paradis, 2007; Pearson, 2007).

In summary, extensive research shows that children who speak a minority L1

experience a shift to dominance in the majority L2, particularly after early exposure to

the L1 during the preschool years. If the child’s lexical-semantic development in the L1

does not actually regress, it levels off or slows its pace.

Assessing Lexical-Semantic Skills

Language disorders are the most common developmental problem observed in

preschool children in the United States (Rossetti, 2001). Having a language impairment

means that the development of a child’s language is significantly delayed in comparison

to development of other areas, such as nonverbal intelligence and socio-emotional skills

(e.g., Håkansson, Salameh & Nettelbladt, 2003). Many children with language

impairments begin to talk at a later age (Rescorla, 2005). Extensive research on language

impairment in monolinguals has been done (for an extensive review see Leonard, 1998).

Consistent evidence indicates that monolingual children with language impairment have a

slower than expected lexical (Crystal, 1987) and grammatical development (Leonard,

1998). Bilingual children with language disorders exhibit difficulty with a range of

linguistic characteristics, depending on features that are specific to each language (e.g.,

Kohnert et al., 2009). While research on semantic organization in bilingual children with

language impairments is limited, bilingual children with language impairments appear to

have more shallow semantic representations, with semantic networks that are more sparse

15

and poorly connected than typically developing bilingual peers (see Peña, Kester, &

Sheng, 2012, for a summary).

Evaluation of language skills in bilingual children is quite a challenge (e.g.,

Kapantzoglou, Restrepo, & Thompson, 2012). Not only can typically developing

bilingual children exhibit similar characteristics as children with language impairments,

but the assessment tools we have to differentiate between these groups are insufficient.

Picture naming and picture identification tasks, such as the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Task (PPVT, Dunn & Dunn, 1997; Dunn et al., 1986), the Expressive One

Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R, Gardner, 1990) and Receptive

One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT, Gardner, 1985) are very commonly used

to assess the breadth of a child’s vocabulary.

Traditionally, in assessing vocabulary knowledge, Speech Language Pathologists

rely on standardized assessments. The ease in administering and scoring makes them cost

efficient, as well as the “easily quantifiable, rather than messy and complex, displays of

skill and knowledge” (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn, & Gardner, 1991, p. 43). When we are

attempting to determine what is typical or atypical language, we rely on language ability

standards that are based on socially constructed sets of rules that dictate appropriate or

idealized ways of speaking (Erickson, 1984; Gumperz, 1982). Language tests operate on

the presumption that there is a great deal of homogeneity of exposure to the items in the

test (Figueroa & Garcia, 1994) and to the sociolinguistic aspects of test-taking situations

within groups of test takers (Mehan, Hertweck & Meihls, 1986; Miller-Jones, 1989).

Oftentimes, in clinical practice, due to an insufficient number of bilingual

clinicians, if there is concern about a bilingual child’s language, they may be assessed

16

solely in English. In general, when bilingual children are tested only in the mainstream

language, they perform more poorly than monolingual children (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk,

2008; Bialystok et al., 2010; Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1993). This is likely because

their language experience and knowledge are spread between two languages (e.g.,

Bialystok et al., 2008; Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1992).

Assessing a child in their L1 is not necessarily a solution either, however, even if

a standardized assessment tool is available in that child’s L1. When a child is assessed in

their first language, the norms still apply to monolingual children and not necessarily to

bilingual/multicultural children (Horton-Ikard & Ellis Weismer, 2007; Restrepo &

Silverman, 2001). Also, unfortunately, many assessment tools have been directly

translated from English into a second language. In Langdon’s (1992) review of 21

Spanish language tests, she found that not only had many tests been translated directly

from English to Spanish, but none had adequate reliability data and many were not

normed or were poorly normed. For example, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

(PPVT, Dunn et al., 1986), a very common measure of vocabulary, was translated into

Spanish to be the Test de vocabulario imagenes-Peabody (TVIP; Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, &

Dunn, 1986). However, the dialect used in the assessment tool is inappropriate for the

majority of Spanish-speaking children in the USA (Castillan Spanish vs. Mexican

Spanish), the words in Spanish are not used in the same frequency in English, and the

tool was normed with ‘preposterous’ assumptions about culture and language (Prewitt

Diaz, 1988; Tomayo, 1987). Fernández, Pearson, Umbel, Oller, and Molinet-Molina

(1992), in using the TVIP for their research, also found that these differences made some

17

items that appear earlier on in the task more difficult than items that appear later in the

task, placing children at a disadvantage for they reached the ceiling sooner.

Rather than use tools that are either directly translated from English, or are

intended for monolinguals, a bilingual child should be assessed in both languages

(Chamberlain & Medinos-Landurand, 1991; de Montford Supple, 1996). To gain an

understanding of the child’s language development, a tool that has been designed

specifically for bilingual children, that meet reliability and validity criteria, should be

used (Restrepo & Silverman, 2001). This current study sets out to begin developing a tool

that is linguistically and culturally appropriate for early sequential Cantonese-English

speaking children.

The Current Study

This study examined the lexical-semantic development in children who speak

Cantonese (L1) as a home language and start to learn English (L2) in preschool settings.

Cantonese is the third most popular language in the United States (Lewis, 2009) and the

second most influential variety of Chinese (Fung, 2009) after Mandarin. There are

estimated to be 55.5 million Cantonese-Chinese speakers in the world, with 94% in

southern China, and the cities of Hong Kong and Macau (Lewis, 2009). Spoken

Cantonese is different from English in that it is a monosyllabic tonal language and uses

classifiers for nouns.

The Cantonese-English bilingual participants were recruited and tested in a Head

Start program in San Francisco, CA. San Francisco is home of the country’s oldest of the

prominent American Chinatowns still in existence. Tsui (2009) provides a detailed

description of San Francisco’s Chinatown, detailing the constant flow of immigrants,

18

with families moving out and new immigrants moving in, drawn by affordable rents and

available community services. Immigration here tends to be family-based, and largely

built of people emigrating from Guangdong Province, a Cantonese-speaking area in

southern China. San Francisco’s Chinatown is considered a gateway for new residents

and a refuge for old ones. Tsui reports that while many adults continue to speak their first

language, they strongly wish for their children to learn English well.

In this study, I examined the vocabulary development of these Cantonese-English

speaking early sequential bilingual preschoolers. I explored this population’s lexical-

semantic development, cross-sectionally examining how their Cantonese vocabulary

changes as they spend more time in a Cantonese-English bilingual preschool. Picture

naming and picture identification tools were developed to assess Cantonese-English

speaking children’s vocabulary in both languages. Rather than a simple translation of an

English-speaking standardized test into Cantonese, items were carefully selected that

have high frequency of occurrence in Cantonese, English and in both languages. I

compared the children’s performance on these tools to the standardized measures of the

EOWPVT and ROWPVT. Finally, I compared the test results of these typically

developing children with children receiving speech-language services.

There are two studies in this project. In Study 1, I examined typically-developing

Cantonese-English bilingual children’s vocabulary development in both languages. The

following questions were explored:

1. Is there a correlation between age and early sequential bilingual children’s vocabulary

knowledge in L1 and in L2?

19

2. Is children’s L2 experience in school related to children’s vocabulary knowledge in L1

and in L2?

3. Is there a relationship between how children perform on the picture naming and picture

identification tasks and the standardized measures of the EOWPVT and the ROWPVT?

In this study, picture identification and picture naming tasks were developed in

Cantonese and in English to probe age-related changes in cross-language distribution of

lexical knowledge.

I expected that the results analyzing the children’s language skills would replicate

what has been found in previous studies (e.g., Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Leseman, 2000;

Schaerlaekens et al., 1995). My hypothesis is that there are effects of age and language

on both measures. However, on the basis of previous studies (e.g., Leseman, 2000), I

anticipated that there would be an interaction between age and language skills. I predicted

that older children would outperform younger children on the vocabulary tasks in English

while children’s vocabulary skills in Cantonese would not show a great increase.

Previous studies show that while English is supported at home and in the larger

community, the amount of Cantonese used at home typically remains stable (e.g., Pearson,

2007).

I examined the correlation between the children’s vocabulary skills in both

languages and the extent of their L2 experience in school, as indexed by months studying

in school. I predicted that as the children spend more time at school, with an increased

exposure to English, their vocabulary skills in English would be more developed (e.g.,

Pearson, 2007).

20

I explored the correlation between how children perform on the measures we

developed compare to the standardized measures of the Expressive One Word Picture

Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) and the Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test

(ROWPVT). The picture naming and picture identification tasks that were developed

included items that were likely to be singlets in both English and Cantonese, as well as

words that are likely to be translation equivalents. The EOWPVT and ROWPVT were

developed for measuring children’s receptive and expressive English vocabulary with

words that are culturally Anglo-American.

I had considered both possibilities in my predictions, uncertain as to whether there

would be a correlation or not among these measures. I had estimated that there may be

correlation between the English language picture naming and picture identification

measures and the standardized measures because the children do have exposure to

English, including some vocabulary that children who grow up in mainstream families

have. These children have learned English mainly in preschool settings and may be

familiar with the items from EOWPVT and ROWPVT. However, I also considered the

possibility that since the children’s Cantonese lexicon was not considered, there may not

be a correlation.

In Study 2, I will compare the test results of children who receive Speech-

Language therapy services with the larger group of typically developing children using

the picture naming and picture identification tasks that were designed for this population.

I predict that the results of these children on the picture naming and picture identification

will be noticeably different from the larger sample of typically developing children.

21

Study 1

Method

Participants.

Participants included 70 children ranging in age from 3;0 to 5;4 years of age. The

average participant age was 4;5. Cantonese, the minority language, is spoken mostly at

home and receives little support beyond the home setting. Children begin learning

English upon entering a Head Start program in San Francisco, CA. Participants had an

average of 1.5 years experience at Head Start, ranging from 1 month to 2.5 years. These

participants were from low-income families in the San Francisco area. Table 1 provides

further details about the participants, including their scores on the picture naming and

picture identification tasks.

Table 1 Participant Information Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age (months) 36 65 54.3 7.7 Time in school (months)

1 29 17.1 7.6

All children in Study 1 were typically developing, as reported by parents and

teachers. A parent of each child completed a questionnaire regarding the child’s language

and educational history with the assistance of a Cantonese-speaking teacher they were

familiar with (See Appendix A for the questionnaire used). Children were determined to

be typically developing if they were reported to have age-expected progress in school and

normal motor, cognitive, social-emotional, speech and language development as reported

by parents and teacher (e.g., Gray, 2003).

22

Procedures.

Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary tasks.

A picture naming task and a picture identification task in Cantonese and English

were developed to measure children’s receptive and expressive vocabulary skills. Target

items included words that were consistent with children’s cultural experience in

Cantonese-speaking and English-speaking settings (see Appendix B for a list of all items).

Although predominately nouns, the target items included a mixture of concrete objects,

animate beings, verbs, and adjectives that are culturally appropriate for Cantonese-

English bilingual children growing up in the United States. ‘Ginger’ and ‘bitter’ were

items in the Chinese tasks. ‘Ice cream’ and ‘bicycle’ were items from the English-only

tasks. Examples of items consistent with both cultures include a picture of a ‘hand’ and a

‘car’. The stimuli were selected from the MacArthur Communicative Development

Inventory (MCDI, Fenson et al., 1991; 1996), a Chinese adaptation of the MCDI (Tartiff

& Fletcher, 2008) and from a study of name agreement between Chinese and American

English speakers (Yoon et al., 2004). Photographs of each target were selected from Art

Explosion Photo Objects (Nova Development, 2006), and from Google image. The

picture naming tasks consisted of 102 pictures. The picture identification task consisted

of 90 pictures. Each array included three foils in the same semantic category as the target

item. All pictures were carefully selected as to correctly represent the meaning of the

word from a Chinese-American perspective. Disagreements between American and

Chinese researchers designing the task arose on specific items (for instance, ‘truck’ was

perceived differently from their different cultural backgrounds). Target items were not

repeated across the picture naming and picture identification tasks. All target items and

23

picture identification foils were identical in both English and Cantonese. The language of

testing was counterbalanced within each participant group.

The two tasks were administered in Cantonese and English on two different

occasions. Trained personnel, who were native speakers of the respective language,

conducted testing with each child individually in a quiet space at the child’s school.

Practice items preceded each experimental task.

In the Picture Naming task, picture stimuli were presented individually on an iPad.

The question, “What is it?” was asked for pictures of nouns that were shown in the

English session, and “呢個係乜野呀?” (“What is it?”) in the Cantonese session. For

verbs, the question, “What is he/she doing?” was asked. For adjectives, an object or

individual was briefly described (e.g., “This man is tall”) and then the child was asked

about another object or individual that illustrated the other extreme (i.e., “short”). The

total number of pictures named in each language was recorded. Alternative responses

reflecting dialectical or acceptable variations of Cantonese were credited. If a child did

not respond after approximately 10 seconds, the item was scored as “no response.”

In the Picture Identification task, the target picture was shown with the three foils

in a quadrant. The four pictures, equal in size, were shown to the children on the screen

of an iPad. Instructions were to look at the pictures and point to the picture that best

matched the word just heard (e.g. “Show me ____.”).

Standardized measures.

Trained personnel, native English speakers, administered the EOWPVT and the

ROWPVT. Testing was conducted with each child individually in a quiet space at the

24

child’s school. Following the guidelines, examples of each task were completed with the

child before commencing the test.

In the ROWPVT, the child was instructed to point to the picture that represented

the word spoken aloud to the child. The EOWPVT was administered by using the prompt

“What is this?” In both tasks, the basal was established by eight correct consecutive

responses. The ceiling was reached when a child had six consecutive incorrect responses.

Results

To examine receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge in Cantonese (L1)

and English (L2), performance score in Cantonese (L1) and English (L2) were obtained,

consisting of the total correct in each language. The maximum number of correct

responses in Picture Naming was 81, and in Picture Identification was 84. The mean of

all responses in each type of task was calculated, along with standard deviation, are

shown in Table 2 below. A graph of the results, showing the mean percentage and

standard error for each task in both languages, are shown in Figure 1.

25

Figure 1. Performance on vocabulary tasks in Cantonese and English

Results showed that on average, children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies in

Cantonese were stronger than their English vocabularies Receptive vocabulary: F(1, 69,

= 50, p < 0.001; Expressive vocabulary: F(1, 69), = 27.49, p < 0.001.

Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between and

across languages and tasks (See Table 3). There was a correlation between the children’s

performance on the picture naming and picture identification tasks in both Cantonese (r

=.5, p <.01) and English (r =.89, p <.01). There was a correlation between the scores in

picture identification (r =.65, p <.01) and in the picture naming scores (r =.24, p <.05).

0102030405060708090100

PictureIdenti7ication PictureNaming

Meanpercentageofcorrect

responses

Task

Cantonese

English

26

Question 1. Is there an age effect on sequential bilingual children’ vocabulary

knowledge in L1 and in L2?

There is a strong correlation between age and lexical-semantic development, as

measured by the tasks that were developed. In English, there was a correlation between

age and the picture identification task (r =.39, p < .01) and between age and picture

naming (r =.40, p < .01) . In Cantonese, there was a correlation for picture identification

(r = .40, p < .01), but no correlation with picture naming (r = .09, p > .05). See Table 4,

below, for further details.

27

The scatter plot below, showing the correlation between age and picture identification

scores in English, is an example of how the results appear.

Note: PID_E = Picture Identification task in English.

28

Question 2. Is children’s L2 experience in school related to children’s vocabulary

knowledge in L1 and in L2?

Similarly, the time spent in school (i.e., an indicator of L2 experience) was

correlated with children’s vocabulary knowledge, on all tasks with the exception of

picture naming in Cantonese. In Cantonese, there was a correlation with picture

identification (r = .42, p < .001), but no correlation with picture naming (r = .11, p >

0.05). In English, time in school was correlated with picture identification (r =.42, p

< .001) and with picture naming (r =.41, p < .001). See table 3 for more details.

Question 3. Is there a relationship between how children perform on the picture

naming and picture identification tasks and the standardized measures of the EOWPVT

and the ROWPVT?

Results showed very high correlations between performance on the EOWPVT and

the ROWPVT for the picture identification or picture naming tasks in English (See Table

2). For receptive vocabulary, children’s ROWPVT scores were correlated with picture

identification in English (r = .78, p < .001). For expressive language, children’s

EOWPVT scores were correlated with picture naming in English (r = .89, p < .001).

Moreover, there were correlations across modality in the English measures (EOWPVT

and picture identification, r = .78, p < .001; ROWPVT and picture naming, r = .82, p

< .001). In addition, there was also a cross-language correlation between performance in

the Cantonese picture identification task and on the ROWPVT (r =.44, p <.001) and the

EOWPVT (r =.59, p <.001). There was no correlation between the standardized

vocabulary assessment tools and the Cantonese picture naming tasks (ROWPVT: r = 0.01,

p > .05; EOWPVT: r =.16, p > .05).

29

Additional Analyses

Throughout testing, certain patterns of responses were observed in the children’s

responses to the picture naming task in English. Frequently, children would impose a

Cantonese way of saying a word onto English. For example, children might say, “baby

car” (which is what stroller, or ‘BB车’means when directly translated from Cantonese

‘child + car’). Other instances included overgeneralization of words in English. In

Cantonese, sofa and chair both have the same word. In English, many children did not

know the exact word for sofa, and so would simply call it, ‘chair,’ as they would in

Cantonese. Children often did the same thing with the word, ‘shirt,’ using the same word

to name t-shirt, button down shirt and jacket.

A final interesting, though less common, observation was the influence of pop

culture on children’s naming in English. More than one child identified the image of a

housecat as, ‘baby jaguar,’ much to the confusion and amusement of the people

administering the task. It was only much later was ‘baby jaguar’ discovered to be the

name of a character in the popular children’s television show, ‘Go Diego, Go!’ a spinoff

of the show ‘Dora the Explorer.’

Summary of Results

In Study 1, it was found that age and time spent at school were correlated with

children’s vocabulary test results in English and with picture identification in Cantonese.

The standardized test results of the ROWPVT and the EOWPVT were correlated with the

scores on the developed tasks in English and picture identification in Cantonese, but not

the picture naming task in Cantonese.

30

Study 2

The main goal of Study 2 is to compare the test results of children with language

impairments with the larger group of typically developing children. I will compare the

data of these children with typically developing children who are in the same age range

(within 1 month of one another) and who have been identified as having a similar

language input at home. I predict that the results of these children on the picture naming

and picture identification will be noticeably different from the larger sample of typically

developing children. Possible clinical implications of doing this are that in the future, the

picture naming and picture identification tasks could potentially be used as culturally

appropriate screening tools for potential language impairments.

Method

Participants.

Participants were five children between 3;6 and 5;2 years of age. These five

children were qualified to receive services from a speech-language pathologist and were

on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), receiving clinical services at the time of

testing. Further details about the IEP or services received were unknown.

However, parents and teachers of each child stated that they had concerns about

their language skills. Parents and teachers of preschool aged bilingual children have been

found to be relatively reliable at describing their children’s language skills (Gutiérrez-

Clellen & Kreiter, 2003; Thordardottir & Weismer, 1996). Additionally, with the

exception of language, articulation or phonological problems, the parents reported no

evidence of a neurological or additional developmental disorder.

31

Cantonese, the minority language, is spoken mostly at home and does not receive

much support beyond the home setting. Children begin learning English upon entering a

Head Start program in San Francisco, CA. These participants were from low-income

families in the San Francisco area. These participants were matched with a typically

developing peer who is within 1 month of the same age and has a similar language

experience at home.

Procedures.

These five children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies were measured by the

Cantonese-English bilingual vocabulary measures. The procedures were identical to

those of Study 1.

Analyses.

I first identified age-matched typically-developing bilingual children from the

participants in Study 1. These five children also had similar L2 experience with the

children with IEPs. Then, I compared the scores of each child who has been identified as

having an IEP and language difficulties, with the performance with his/her typically-

developing peer.

Results

Study 2 How do children with language impairments compare with the larger

group of typically developing children using the picture naming and picture identification

tasks?

32

Children who are receiving services for a language impairment were matched by

gender and age (within one month) to a child who is typically developing. See Table 5

for a summary of their results.

33

34

Analyses focus on the performance of the children with IEPs and their age-

matched and L2-experienced matched children. Trends in the results of these two groups

of children will be discussed. The results can be divided up into two case studies.

The first case study involves the children in cases 1 and 4 (C1 and C4) and their

typically-developing peers. In comparing C1 and T1, there are very noticeable

differences in their scores. The child who is on the IEP clearly had much lower scores on

the tasks in both languages than the age-matched typically-developing child. C1 also

scored better on picture identification than picture naming in both Cantonese and English.

Similarly, C4’s scores were lower than her age-matched comparison T4, though not quite

as strikingly as in cases C1 and T1.

Cases C2 and T2 look a little different, with scores that are very similar to one

another. The only task in which there was a difference of more than ten points was in

picture naming in Cantonese. C2, the child with an IEP, had a higher score than T2, the

typically-developing child. The final two cases, C3 and T3, and C5 and T5, show a

different pattern in their results from those previously discussed. In these two cases, the

children on IEPs have nearly equivalent scores on picture identification in Cantonese

when compared to the typically-developing children (C3 has 78, T3 has 83; C5 has 68

and T5 has 69), but moderately lower picture naming scores in Cantonese (C3 has 47, T3

has 74; C5 has 49 and T5 has 73). However, when comparing their scores in English, the

children on an IEP perform better than the typically-developing children both in picture

identification (C3 has 81, T3 has 73; C5 has 75 and T5 has 43) and picture naming (C3

has 65, T3 has 52; C5 has 69 and T5 has 4).

35

In summary, of five children who are receiving speech-language services, only

one of them had lower scores in both Cantonese and English than their age- and

language-matched typically-developing peer.

Discussion

Lexical-semantic development has been a focus in the early language development

of bilingual children (e.g., Patterson, 1998, 2000). This project offers further insights into

this, through the study of Cantonese-speaking children who begin learning English once

they begin attending a bilingual preschool. Two measures were developed that were

consistent with the language experiences of these young children; picture naming and

picture identification. Each task was administered in English and Cantonese, the

presentation counterbalanced across participants.

Lexical-semantic Development in Typically-Developing Children

Correlations in performance on these tasks were performed looking at the

correlation with participants’ age, length of time of attendance at the preschool, and

performance on standardized vocabulary tests (the EOWPVT and ROWPVT). This

allows understanding of various factors that may correlate with vocabulary development,

as well as a comparison between the tasks that have been developed for this Cantonese-

English speaking preschool population with already-existing standardized tools for

vocabulary in English.

The children’s scores were higher in picture identification tasks than in the picture

naming tasks in both their L1 and L2. This is consistent with what is known about

vocabulary acquisition in typical monolingual language learners, with lexical-semantic

mappings receptively far outnumbering the number of words produced (Tomasello, 2003).

36

Additionally, this is in line with what has been found about lexical-semantic development

in bilingual children, who may have an even greater difference in performance on

receptive and expressive vocabulary tasks than monolingual children (Yan & Nicoladis,

2009).

Overall, participants scored higher in the Cantonese tasks than the English tasks

(See Figure 1). Although the children have a wide range of language experiences, they

have had most exposure to Cantonese at home from birth, and only beginning to learn

English once they began preschool. This is consistent with what is known about how

language experience and usage are correlated in bilingual children. Among older

sequential bilingual children, it has been found that English, as the majority language and

the language used in academic settings (e.g., reading and writing), can have a

disproportionately high effect on children’s lexical-semantic knowledge in toddlers

(Pearson et al., 1997) and elementary school children (Oller & Eilers, 2002). It is likely

that their dominance would shift to their L2 in the coming years, as other studies have

found (eg. Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999). Further

longitudinal studies are needed to see how their relative vocabulary skills shift with more

exposure to English.

I made several predictions about the performance of the participants in response to

the picture identification and picture naming tasks. My prediction that children’s age and

length of experience at preschool would be correlated with their time spent at school was

correct, for the most part. Picture identification in Cantonese and English, and picture

naming in English correlated with age and time spent in preschool. The picture naming

scores in Cantonese did not correlate with age or time in school, however. In contrast

37

with previous studies in which vocabulary growth was only in L2 but not in L1 (e.g., Kan

& Kohnert, 2005; Leseman, 2000), picture identification scores in L1 were correlated

with age.

Additionally, it was predicted that there may or may not be a correlation between

performance on the tasks developed and the standardized tools. There was, however,

quite a correlation, especially with the English tasks and the picture identification tasks in

Cantonese. Once again, however, there was not a correlation with picture naming in

Cantonese.

Correlation between picture identification in Cantonese and English measures may

suggest that there is a relationship between a child’s receptive lexical-semantic skills in

their L1 and developing vocabulary in their L2. Though vocabulary appears to be a more

cross-linguistically independent domain (Cobo-Lewis, Eilers, Pearson, & Umbel, 2002;

Conboy & Thal, 2006; Simon-Cereijido & Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2009), the children’s skills

in Cantonese may be helping them acquire new words in English.

A possible explanation for this lack of correlation with picture naming in Cantonese

is that the children are experiencing effects on their L1 from the introduction of the L2.

The task of picture naming requires that children have a more solid grasp of a word

before they are able to produce it (e.g., Fenson et al., 1994, Benedict, 1979). It is possible

that some children are beginning to experience a shift in L1 dominance to L2 dominance,

or a weakening in their L1 skills, while others remain more dominant in L1. Other studies

have documented a shift in dominance in sequential bilingual children, leading to a

weakening in L1 skills as children’s L2 becomes stronger (Kan & Kohnert, 2005;

Kohnert & Bates, 2002; Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999). This could create a great

38

deal of variation in the children’s vocabulary knowledge in their L2, resulting in a lack of

correlation in the L1 expressive vocabulary skills with age and time spent in school.

An alternative explanation is that due to the interaction between the children’s L1

and L2, there is not a correlation between expressive Cantonese vocabulary and age/time

spent in school. Going back to the theories of a shared semantic representation, bilingual

individuals have shared conceptual representation of translation equivalents in their

languages (Francis, 1999). Previous studies have found that younger children have fewer

translation equivalents in their lexicon (Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Pena, Bedore, Zlatic-

Giunta, 2002). Kan & Kohnert (2005) found that children had a greater percentage of

translation equivalents in picture identification than in picture naming. Perhaps

interference occurs as children acquire new words in their L1, in the domain of

expressive vocabulary, as shown in picture naming. Additional analyses would be needed

to verify this hypothesis.

Additionally, the sheer number of factors that can affect a child’s language

development should not be overlooked. The individual schools and homes the children

come from will have some degree of variance in language input, which will impact

vocabulary production (Pearson et al., 1997). Family perception of the L1 and L2, the

education and fluency of the parents and number of interactions with peers in each

language are only a few of the factors that impact a bilingual child’s language (Anderson,

2004). Finally, each individual child has their own process in emotional, cognitive and

social development that can affect language acquisition (Bialystok, 2001).

Clinical implications of this study are the further validation of the importance of

assessing bilingual children in both of their languages. Even in children as young as

39

preschool-aged are impacted by learning a majority L2. Children can be overidentified as

having language disorders if they are not assessed appropriately (Samson & Lasaux,

2009).

Language Disorders and Language Differences

Despite having begun life as monolinguals, early sequential bilingual children’s

language is different from that of monolinguals. Children with language disorders tend to

have poorer language scores when assessed than children typically-developing children.

Generally, one to two standard deviations below the norm is required to be diagnosed

with a language impairment (Kohnert et al., 2009). Evidence is clear that vocabulary

acquisition, so often used to diagnose language disorders, will look different in these

children (eg., Umbel et al., 1992). Vocabulary is a feature that identifies young children

as having a language impairment (Rescorla, 2005). Bilingual children as a whole, even if

they are typically developing, score lower on standardized tests designed for monolingual

children (Oller et al., 2007; Bialystok et al., 2010). Attempting to assess these children

for a language disorder, using solely their L1 or their L2, will be unsuccessful (e.g.,

Patterson & Pearson, 2012).

Language development has been found to be strongly correlated with exposure in

monolingual (Hart & Risley, 1995) and bilingual children (Marchman et al., 2002;

Marchman et al, 2004; Pearson et al., 1997). Especially given that children’s language

skills in a given domain can shift as they mature (Kohnert & Bates, 2002), it is essential

to evaluate bilingual children’s language skills in both of their languages (Håkansson et

al., 2003). It is no surprise that bilingual children are so often misidentified as having a

language disorder (Kohnert, 2008). In reality, their language development is different

40

from what, in the United States, is considered the norm: monolingualism. Using

appropriate methods of assessing lexical development is necessary to distinguish between

language difference and language disorder.

In this study, picture identification and picture naming tasks were designed to

assess children’s expressive and receptive vocabularies in Cantonese and English. In the

second part of this study, we compared children who are typically developing and

children who are receiving speech-language services through an IEP. The assessment

tool designed for this population was culturally and linguistically appropriate, using

words that are frequently occurring in English, Cantonese and both languages. In contrast

to my prediction that typically developing children would have higher scores than

children with IEPs on these tasks, there was a great range in how the children scored on

the tasks in comparison to one another.

Of the five children that were identified to have language issues, only one child

(C1) had lower scores than his age-matched and L2-experience-matched typically-

developing peer, C1 and T1, the case study where the typically developing child (T1) had

scores much higher than the child on an IEP (C1), was closer to what I would have

expected from all of the children who were suspected of having a language disorder. C1’s

vocabulary skills were low in both Cantonese and Cantonese, when compared to T1, a

typically developing, same-age, same-language background peer. Monolingual children

with language disorders have been shown to have difficulties with receptive and

expressive vocabulary (Leonard et al., 1998; Rice et al., 1990). In bilingual children with

a language impairment, vocabulary skills would be low in both languages. C1’s low

scores in both his L1 and L2 are consistent with the performance of a bilingual child with

41

a language disorder. In contrast, the other children (i.e., C2, C3, C4, and C5) had similar

scores to their peers.

As previously discussed, the information we had about the children who are on

IEPs was not extensive. One important unknown pieces of information is how,

specifically, each child was assessed by the speech language pathologist. Children may

have been assessed only in English, which would not have accurately portrayed the

child’s language skills (eg., Bialystok et al.2010). Additionally, assessing a child’s

language using the Cantonese translation of English tools would not have been

appropriate either (eg. Langdon, 1992). Although it may be possible that the children who

are on IEPs were identified as needing services initially, but at the point that they were

assessed for this study, had made gains in their skills and no longer needed them.

However, looking at the scores obtained by this small group of children on IEPs,

the need for a culturally and linguistically appropriate tool for this population is apparent.

Several of the children that were assessed may have a language difference, rather than a

language disorder. A pattern observed among these children with IEPs was lower

expressive vocabulary skills in Cantonese, but greater English skills. As many

researchers have observed, bilingual children’s language skills are distributed between

their two languages. These children, while their picture naming skills are not as high as

their peers, have higher English vocabulary skills. As Håkansson et al (2003) noted,

children with language disorders would not have strong language skills in either language

(eg., Kohnert et al., 2009). It may be that these children are already showing signs of

language shift. One possibility is that as their lexical-semantic knowledge grows in

English, their Cantonese expressive vocabulary is leveling off or growing at a slower rate.

42

Several other studies have found that this happens in early sequential bilingual children

learning a majority second language in preschool (eg., Kan & Kohnert, 2005; Sheng et al.,

2011). Further study of this population, with a larger sample of children with a language

impairment, would be necessary to explore this possibility further.

The language development of a bilingual child is a complex process. Distinguishing

between children who have a language difference, as they go through the process of

acquiring a second language, and children with a language disorder cannot easily be done

with the tools we have available. A vocabulary tool that is appropriate for this culturally

and linguistically distinct bilingual population would be valuable in identifying any

children who may have a disorder, distinguishing them from children who simply have a

language difference.

Limitations and Future Studies

Limitations and ideas for future studies are discussed briefly. This study included

early sequential Cantonese-English speaking preschool children from a low

socioeconomic background. Whether these results can be applied to other Cantonese-

English speaking children is unknown. Further studies into this population would benefit

from examining the effects of a wider ranger of factors, such as a variety of

socioeconomic backgrounds, families that have more of a mix of home-language patterns

or schools that are strictly English-speaking only with children. Additionally, it would be

interesting to study a population of early sequential Cantonese-English bilingual children

who do not live in an area such as San Francisco’s Chinatown, and compare these results

with those of an area with even less community support of the home language.

43

The comparison between the children on IEPs and the larger group of typically

developing children is on such a small scale, is especially difficult to make when so little

is known about the children who are on IEPs. In a future study, a knowing the specific

diagnosis of a child and a larger sample of children would be necessary to be able to

gather information as to the performance of children with a language disorder on this tool,

and as the usefulness of this tool for identifying Cantonese-English speaking children

with language disorders.

44

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press. Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages, Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 1-18. Anderson, R. (1996). Assessming the grammar of Spanish-speaking children: A

comparison of two procedures. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 333-345.

Anderson, R. T. (1999). First language loss: A case study of a bilingual child’s

productive skills in her first language. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 4-16.

Anderson, R. T. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-speaking children: Patterns of loss

and implications for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187-211). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. s. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in

minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 382-300.

Backus, A. (1999). Mixed native languages: A challenge to the monolithic view of

language. Topics in Language Disorders, 19, 11-22. Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene,

K., Bohman, T. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1-14.

Benedict, H. (1979). Early lexical development: Comprehension and production. Journal

of Child Language, 6, 183-200. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of

vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 522-538. Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in

monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 525-531.

Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school

45

learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 41-51). New York: Guilford Press.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Vineland,

NJ: The Training School. Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single word utterances before syntax.

The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Bohman, T., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010).

What they hear and what they say: Language performance in young Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. 13, 325-344.

Caselli, M. C., Casadio, P., & Bates, E. (1999). A comparison of the transition from first

words to grammar in English and Italian. Journal of Child Language, 26, 69-112. Castilla, A. P., Restrepo, M. A., & Perez-Leroux, A. T. (2009). Individual differences and

language interdependence: a study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish-English preschool children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(5), 565-580.

Caterino, L. C. (1990). Step-by-step procedure for the assessment of language minority

children. In A. Barona & E. Garcia (Eds.), Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issues in educational equity (pp. 269-282). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Chamberlain, P., & Medinos-Landurand, P. (1991). Practical considerations for the

assessment of LEP students with special needs. In E. V. Hamayan & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 111-156). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness, and emergent

literacy skills of 3-year-old children in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 371-394.

Cheuk, D. K. L., Wong, V. & Leung, G. M. (2005). Multilingual home environment and

specific language impairment: A case-control study in Chinese children. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 19, 303-314.

Clark, E. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

46

Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Pearson, B. Z., Eilers, R. E., & Umbel, V. C. (2002). Effects of bilingualism and bilingual education on oral and written English skills: A multifactor study of standardized test outcomes. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 64-97. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Conboy, B. T., & Thal, D. J. (2006). Ties between lexicon and grammar: Cross-sectional

and longitudinal studies of bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 77, 712-735. Crutchley, A., Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). Bilingualism and specific

language development in children attending language units. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 267-276.

Crystal, D. (1987). Teaching vocabulary: The case of r asemantic curriculum. Child

Language Teaching and Therapy, 3, 40-56. Davis, J. W., & Bauman, K. J. (2008). School enrollment in the United States: 2006.

Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. de Groot, A. M. B., & Hoeks, J. C. C. (!995). The development of bilingual memory:

Evidence from word translation by trilinguals. Language Learning, 45, 683-724. De Houwer, A. (2003). Home languages spoken in officially monolingual Flanders: A

survey. In K. Bochmann, P. Nelde, & W. Wock (Eds.). Methodology of conflict linguistics (pp. 71-87). St. Augustin, Germany: Asgard.

de Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Qi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining

educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-441.

DeTemple, J. (2001). Parents and children reading books together. In D. Dickinson & P.

Tabors (eds.), Beginning literacy with language, pp.31-52. Baltimore: MD: Brookes Publishing.

Dollaghan, C. (1987). Fast mapping in normal and language-impaired children. Journal

of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 218-222. Dunn, L. M. (1987). Bilingual Hispanic children on the U.S. mainland: A review of

research on the cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic development. Circle Pines: N: American Guidance Services.

Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Luga, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Examiners manual for

the Test de Vocabulario en Imagines Peabody: Adaptacion Hispanoamericana. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

Dickinson, D. K. (1984). First impressions: Children’s knowledge of words gained from

47

a single exposure. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 359-373. Dollaghan, C. A. (1985). Child meets word: “Fast mapping” in preschool children.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 449-454. Dollaghan, C. A. (1987). Fast mapping in normal and language-impaired children.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 218-222. Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In

C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.

Dunn, L. M., Padilla, R., Lugo, S., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de vocabulario en

Imagenes Peabody. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. 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, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Erickson, F. (1984). Rhetoric, anecdote, and rhapsody: Coherence strategies in a

conversation among Black American adolescents. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 81-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J.S., & Bates, E. (1994). Variability in early

communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (5, Serial No. 242).

Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J.S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., et al. (1991).

MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Fernández, M. C., Pearson, B. Z., Umbel, V. M., Oller, D. K., & Molinet-Molina, M.

(1992). Bilingual receptive vocabulary in Hispanic preschool children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 268-276.

Figueroa, R. A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge

gaps and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56, 145-152. Figueroa, R. A., & Garcia, E. (1994). Issues in testing students from culturally and

linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 2, 10-19. Francis, N. (2005). Research findings on early first language attrition: Implications for

the discussion on critical periods in language acquisition. Language Learning, 55, 491-531.

48

Francis, W. (1999). Cognitive integration of language and memory in bilinguals: Semantic representation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 193-222.

Francis, W. S., Augustini, B. K., & Sáenz, S. P. (2003). Repetition priming in picture

naming and translation depends on shared processes and their difficulty: Evidence from Spanish-English Bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1283-1297.

Fung, R. S. – Y. (2009). Characteristics of Chinese in relation to language disorders. In S.

P. Law, B. S. Weekes, A. M.-Y. Wong (Eds.)., Language disorders in speakers of Chinese (pp. 1-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gal, S. (1989). Lexical innovation and loss: The use and value of restricted Hungarian. In

N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp. 313-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, M. (1985). Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, CA:

Academic Therapy Publications. Gardner, M. (1990). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Novato,

CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Gathercole, V. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development:

Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 213-237.

Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I., & Tracy, R. (1996). Bilingual boot-strapping. Linguistics, 34,

901-926. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2006). Bilingual Acquisition. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.)

Handbook of Language Development (pp. 324-342). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual Language Development & Disorders:

A Handbook on Bilingualism & Second Language Learning, Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Goldberg, H., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2008). Lexical acquisition over time in minority

first language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 41-65.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in

one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15. Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In R. Harris (Ed.). Cognitive

processing in bilinguals (pp. 51-62). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

49

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (1996). Language Diversity: Implications for Assessment. In K.

N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of Communication and Language (pp. 29-56)

Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. & Kreiter, J. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition

using parent and teacher reports, 24, 267-288. Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., Restrepo, M. A., Bedore, L., Peña, L., & Anderson, R. (2000).

Language sample analysis: Methodological considerations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88-98.

Håkansson, G., Salameh, E., & Nettelbladt, U. (2003). Measuring language development

in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment. Linguistics, 41, 255-288.

Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B. L., Lopez, L. M., Scarpino, S. E., &

Goldstein, B. (2012). Predicting Spanish-English Bilingual Children’s Language Abilities, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, (IN PRESS??)

Hammer, C.S., Lawrence, F.R., & Miccio, A.W. (2008). Exposure to English before and

after entry into Head Start: Bilingual children’s receptive language growth in Spanish and English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11 (1), 30-56.

Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Rodriguez, B. L., (2004). Bilingual Language

acquisition and the Child Socialization Process. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 21-50). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French immersion.

French Language Studies, 2, 159-183. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of

young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Heibeck, T. H., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: An examination of

fast mapping. Child Development, 58, 1021-1034. Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2002) Language development. In N. Salkind (Ed).

Child Development. New York, Macmillan, 227-232 Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects

50

early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74, 1368-1378.

Hoff, E. & Tian, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language.

Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 271-278 Hoff, E. (2009). Language Development (4th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage

Learning Horton-Ikard, R., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2007). A preliminary examination of vocabulary

and word learning in African American toddlers from middle and low socioeconomic status homes. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(4), 381-392.

Hubbs-Tait, L., Culp, L., McDonald, A., Huey, E., Culp, R., Starost, H., & Hare, C.

(2002). Relation of head start attendance to children’s cognitive and social outcomes: Moderation of family risk. Early Childhood Research Quartery, 17, 539-558.

Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents

learning English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131-161. Jia, G., Kohnert, K., Collado, J., & Aquino-Garcia, F. (2006). Action naming in Spanish

and English by sequential bilingual children and adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(3), 588-602.

Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture

naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113-139. Jorshchick, L., Quick, A. E., Glasser, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). German-

English-speaking children’s mixed NPs with ‘correct’ agreement. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 173-183.

Kaderavek, J., & Justice, L. (2004). Embeded-explicit emergent literacy intervention II:

Goal selection and implementation in early childhood classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 212-228.

Kamhi, A. & Catts, H. (2005). Reading development. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.),

Language and Reading Disabilities. 2nd Ed. (pp. 26-49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2005). Preschoolers learning Hmong and English: Lexical-

semantic skills in L1 and L2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 372-383.

Kan, P. F. & Kohnert, K. (2008). Fast mapping by bilingual preschool children. Journal

of Child Language, 35, 495-514.

51

Kastner, J. W., May, W., & Hildman, L. (2001). Relationship between language skills

and academic achievement in first grade. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 381-390. Kohnert, K. (2002). Picture naming in early sequential bilinguals: A 1-year follow-up.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 749-771. Kohnert, K. (2004). Processing skills in early sequential bilinguals. In B. Goldstein (Ed.),

Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 53-76). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Kohnert, K. (2008). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. San Diego, CA:

Plural Publishing. Kohnert, K., & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and

cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 347-359.

Kohnert, K. & Kan, P. F. (2007). Lexical skills in young children learning a second

language: Methods, results, and clinical applications. In J. Centeno, L. L. Obler & R. Anderson (Eds.), Studying communication disorders in Spanish-speakers: Theoretical, research and clinical aspects (pp. 156-168). Clevedon, England: Multilingual matters.

Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Ebert, K. D. (2009). Primary or “specific” language

impairment and children learning a second language. Brain & Language, 109, 101-111.

Kravin, H. (1992). Erosion of a language in bilingual development. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8, 138-154. Kroll, J. F., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised

hierarchical model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 373-381.

Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in a word-translation variant of

the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 76-83. Lahey, M., & Edwards, J. (1999). Naming errors of children with specific language

impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 195-205. Lambert, W. E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A.

Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and

52

sociocultural consequences. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and educational implications. New York: Academic.

Lambert, W. E. (1981). Bilingualism and language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native

language and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Science.

Lambert, W. E. & Taylor, D. M. (1996). Language in the lives of ethnic minorities:

Cuban- American families in Miami. Applied Linguistics, 17, 477-500. Leonard, L. B. (1992). Specific language impairment in three languages: Some cross-

linguistic evidence. In P. Fletcher & D. Hall (Eds.), Specific speech and language disorders in children. (pp. 118-126). San Diego, CA: Singular.

Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press. Leonard, L. B., Sabbadini, L., Leonard, J. S., & Volterra, V. (1987). Specific language

impairment in children: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 233-252.

Leseman, P. (2000). Bilingual vocabulary development of Turkish preschoolers in the

Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 93-112. Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL

International. Online version http://www.ethnologue.com Li, P. (2009). Lexical organization and competition in first and second languages:

Computational and neural mechanisms. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 33(4), 629-664.

Lin, P., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1990). Category typicality, cultural

familiarity, and the development of category knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 26, 805-813.

Mägiste, E. (1992). Second language learning in elementary and high school students.

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 355-365. Marchman, V. A., & Martinez-Sussman, C. (2002). Concurrent validity of

caregiver/parent report measures of language for children who are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 983, 997.

Marchman, V. A., Martinez-Sussman, C., & Dale, P. S. (2004). The language-specific

nature of grammatical development: evidence from bilingual language learners. Developmental Science, 7(2), 212-224.

53

Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped:

Decision making in students’ educationl careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Miller-Jones, D. (1989). Culture and testing. American Psychologist, 44(2), 360-366. Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meaning meanings

from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 238-270.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge:

Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtin (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Language minority school-age children.

Retrieved from the Institutes of Education Sciences web site: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

Oetting, J. B., Rice, M. L., & Swank, L. K. (1995). Quick incidental learning (QUIL) of

words by school-age children with and without SLI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 434-445.

Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (Eds.) (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children.

Clevedon: Multilingual matters. Oller, D. K., & Pearson, B. Z. (2002). Assessing the effects of bilingualism: a

background. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children, pp. 64-97. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Ouellette, G.P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word

reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554-566.

Paivio, A., Clark, J. M., Digdon, N., & Bons, T. (1989). Referential processing:

Reciprocity and correlates of naming and imaging. Memory & Cognition, 17, 163-174.

Paradis, J. (2007). Second language acquisition in childhood. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz

(Eds.) Handbook of Language Development (pp. 324-342). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects

of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60(3), 651-680.

54

Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children with SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(1), 113-127.

Patterson, J. (2002). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading and

television experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 493-508.

Patterson, J. L. & Pearson, B. Z. (2012). Bilingual Lexical Development, Assessment,

and Intervention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.) Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers. 2nd Ed. (pp. 113-129). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co..

Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (3rd edition). St

Louis, MO: Elsevier. Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relationship of

input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 41-58.

Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual

infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93-120.

Peña, E. D. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model and its language applications. In K.

N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 281-307). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Peña, E. D., Bedore, L. M., & Zlatic-Guinta, R. (2002). Category-generation performance

of bilingual children: The influence of condition, category, and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 938-947.

Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Bedore, L. M., & Bohman, T. M. (2012). Risk for poor

performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20, 302-314.

Peña, E. D., Kester, E.S., & Sheng, L. (2012). Semantic development in Spanish-English

bilinguals: Theory, assessment, and intervention. In B. Goldstein (Ed.) Bilingual language development & disorders in Spanish-English speakers. 2nd Ed. (pp. 131-149). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co..

Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1994). Selection of preschool language tests: A data-based

approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 15-24.

55

Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and more proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23-38.

Prewitt Diaz, J. O. (1988). Assessment of Puerto Rican children in bilingual education

programs in the United States: A critique of Lloyd M. Dunn’s monograph. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10 (3), 237-252.

Rescorla, L. (2005). Age 13 language and reading outcomes in late-talking toddlers.

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 459-472. Reese, E., & Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects children’s emergent

literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 20-28. Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of Spanish-speaking children with specific language

impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1398-1411. Restrepo, M. A., & Silverman, S. (2001). The validity of the Spanish Preschool Language

Scale for use with bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 382-393.

Rice, M. L., Buhr, J. C., & Nemeth, M. (1990). Fast mapping word learning abilities of

language-delayed preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 55, 33-42.

Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. C. (1990). Words from “Sesame

Street”: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421-428.

Rice, M. L., & Watkins, R. V. (1996). “Show Me X”: New views of an old assessment

technique. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of Communication and Language (pp. 183-206). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Children’s word learning

when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420-429. Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some,

but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of reading, 11, 235-257. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with

cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92. Rodriguez, J., Diaz, R., Duran, D., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The impact of bilingual

preschool education on the language development of Spanish-speaking children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 475-490.

56

Rossetti, L. (2001). Communication intervention: Birth to three (2nd ed.). San Diego: CA: Singular Publishing Group.

Salameh, E.-K., Nettlebladt, U., Håkansson, G., & Gullberg, B. (2002). Language

impairment in Swedish bilingual children: a comparison between bilingual and monolingual children in Malmo. Acta Paediatrica, 91, 229-234.

Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2002). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional

design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schaerlaekens, A., Zink, J., & Verheyden, L. (1995). Comparative vocabulary

development in kindergarten classes with a mixed population of monolinguals, simultaneous and successive bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, 477-495.

Schiff-Myers, N. B. (1992). Considering arrested language development and language

loss in the assessment of second language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 156-164.

Schwartz, R., & Leonard, L. (1982). Do children pick and choose? Phonologial selection

and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 9, 319-336. Sheng, L., Lu, Y., & Kan, P. F. (2011). Lexical Development in Mandarin-English

Bilingual Children, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 579-587 Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming

and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6, 45-49.

Simon-Cereijido, G., & Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual

evaluation of the interdependence between lexicon and grammar. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 17-22.

Smith, M. A. S. (1989). Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. In K. Hyltenstam & L.

K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp. 185-201). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Snodgrass, J. G. (1993). Translating versus picture naming. In R. Schreuder & B.

Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language

acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551-569. Storkel, H. L. & Rogers, M. A. (2000). The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical

acquisition. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14, 407-425.

57

Swanson, H. L., Rosston, K., Gerber, M., & Solari, E. (2008). Influence of oral language

and phonological processing on children’s bilingual reading. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 413-429.

Tabors, P., Roach, K., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment:

Final results. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (eds.), Beginning Literacy with Language, pp. 111-138. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Tabors, P., Snow, C. E., & Dickinson, D. (2001). Homes and schools together:

Supporting language and literacy development. In D. Dickinson & P. Tabors (eds.), Beginning literacy with language, pp. 313-334. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Tardiff, T. and Fletcher, P. Chinese Communicative Development Inventories: User's

Guide and Manual (2008), Peking University Medical Press, Beijing, China. Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children, their development and

interrelationships (Institute of Child Welfare, Monograph Series 26). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Thal, D. J., Bates, E., Goodman, J., & Jahn-Samilo, J. (1997). Continuity of language

abilities: An exploratory study of late- and early-talking toddlers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13(3), 239-273.

Thordardottir, E., & Weismer, S. (1996). Language assessment via parent report:

Development of a screening instrument for Icelandic children. First Language, 16, 265-285.

Tomayo, J. M. (1987). Frequency of use as a measure of word difficulty in bilingual

vocabulary test construction and translation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 893-902.

Tsui, B. (2009). American Chinatown: A People’s history of five neighborhoods. New

York, NY: Free Press. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and

beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158. Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners:

What are the best predictors? Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 9(1), 33-49. Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring

bilingual children’s receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 1012-1020. Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer, and phonological awareness.

58

Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 425-439. Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and

frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217-234. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: The

Psychological Corporation. Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years: Language at home and

at school (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Weltens, B., & Grendel, M. (1993). Attrition of vocabulary knowledge. In R. Schreuder

& B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 135-156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Westby, C. E. (1990). Ethnographic interviewing: Asking the right questions to the right

people in the right ways. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 13, 101-111.

Westby, C. E. (1994). Multicultural issues. In J. B. Tombling, H. L. Morris, & D. C.

Spriestersbach (Eds.), Diagnosis in speech-language pathology (pp. 29-51). San Diego: Singular.

Westman, M., Korkman, M., Mickos, A., & Byring, R. (2008). Language profiles of

monolingual and bilingual Finnish preschool children at risk for language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43, 699-711.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, S. A., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E.

(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689.

Winsler, A., Diaz, R., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. (1999). When learning a second

language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development in low-income Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349-362.

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well:

Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education,17, 31-74.

Wong, A.M.-Y., Leung, C., Siu, E. K.-L., Lam, C. C.-C. & Chan, G. P.-S. (2011).

Development of a language subtest in a developmental assessment scale to

59

identify Chinese preschool children with special needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 297-305.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346. Wyatt, T. A. (1993, May). Standardized language assessment and Larry P.: A review.

California Speech Hearing Association, 17-18. Yan, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Finding le mot juste: Differences between bilingual and

monolingual children’s access in comprehension and production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(3), 323-335.

Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2006). Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition:

A case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(2), 97-116.

Yoon, C., Feinberg, F., Luo, T., Hedden, T., Gutchess, A.H., Chen, H.M., Mikels, J.A.,

Jiao, S., & Park, D.C. (2004). A cross-culturally standardized set of pictures for younger and older adults: American and Chinese norms for name agreement, concept agreement, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 639-649.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1993). Preschool Language Scale-3:

Spanish Edition. San Antonio, Tx: The Psychological Corporation.

60

Appendix A

語言學習經驗

出生日期: 年齡: 性別 F M

1. 孩子的父親最高的教育是什麼? 沒有完成小學 小學 中學 大學 其他 ________

2. 孩子的 母親最高的教育是什麼? 沒有完成小學 小學 中學 大學 其他 ________

3. 你有沒有擔心對孩子的語言, 聽力或學習的能力？ 有 沒有

如果有，你有什麼擔心? (你可以選擇不回答) _______________________________________

如果有，你的孩子有沒有個人化教育計劃 (IEP)？ 有 沒有

4. 你的孩子在什麼年齡開始在啟明學校上學?

5. 你的孩子是不是在啟明學校開始學習英語? 是 不是

6. 你的孩子在家說什麼語言的 (你可以選擇一項以上):

台山話 粵語 英語 其他

7. 你的孩子在學校說什麼語言的 (你可以選擇一項以上):

台山話 粵語 英語 其他

8. 你的孩子喜歡說那種語言? (你可以選擇一項以上):

台山話 粵語 英語 其他

9. 你的孩子說那種語言說得較好? (你可以選擇一項以上):

台山話 粵語 英語 其他

10. 一般來說你的孩子用多少時間種語言用以下語言的?

台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 __________

11. 在以下環境或與以下的人, 你的孩子使用什麼語言？ 如果孩子使用超過一種語言, 請註明使用百分比。

在家裡 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

在學校 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

61

當孩子閱讀時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

當孩子閱讀 寫字 時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

當孩子看電視時 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

與 他/她的父母 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

與 他/她的祖父母 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

與 他/她的哥哥姐姐 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

與 他/她的弟弟妹妹 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

與 他/她的 朋友 台山話 _____ % 粵語 _____ % 英語 ______ % 其他 ___ ____%

12. 你的孩子 每週 用多少個小時間做以下的事情?…

看電視 (或錄像帶)? ___________

與朋友一起玩? __________________

與兄弟姐妹玩? __________________

留在家中? _______________

13. 你的孩子多少個朋友講以下的語言?

單講粵語？ ______ 單講英語？ ________ 講粵語和英語？ _______ 講其它語言？ _________

62

Language Learning Experience Date of birth: Age: Gender F M

1. What is the highest education the child’s father received? __________

mother? __________ 2. Do you have concerns about the child’s speech, language, hearing or learning ability?

yes no If yes, what are the concerns? (optional) _______________________________________ If yes, does your child have an IEP? yes no

3. At what age did the child start to go to school? 4. What language(s) does the child speak at home:

Cantonese (including Tai San) English Other 5. What language(s) does the child speak at school: Cantonese English

Other 6. Which language does the child feel more comfortable speaking? Cantonese

English Other 7. In which language does the child feel he/she have better skills? Cantonese

English Other 8. Did your child start to learn English at Kai Ming? yes no

9. At what age did the child start to go to Kai Ming? ________ 10. In general what percent of your child’s time is spent using each language?

Cantonese _____ % English ______ % Other __________ 11. What language(s) does the child use in the following settings or with the following

people? If the child uses more than one language in each setting, please indicate the percent of your use in each language. at home Cantonese ____ % English ____%

Other ____% in school Cantonese ____ % English ____%

Other ____% when the child read Chinese ____ % English ____%

Other ____%

63

when the child write Chinese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

when the child watch TV/video Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other %

with parents Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

with grandparents Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

with older siblings Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

with younger siblings Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

with friends Cantonese ____ % English ____% Other ____%

12. How many hours a week do the child spend watching TV or video? ___________

with friends? __________________ with siblings? __________________

staying at home? _______________ 13. How many friends of your child speak the following languages?

Cantonese only? ______ English only? ________

Both Cantonese and English? _______ Other languages? _________

64

Appendix B Picture Naming Task Items adapted from Cantonese/Mandarin CDI (Tardiff & Fletcher, 2008)

1. Rice 2. Noodles 3. Pork dumpling 4. Crab 5. Soy sauce 6. Green onion 7. Brush hair 8. Short (height) 9. Small 10. Sweet 11. Sour 12. Chopsticks 13. Rice cooker 14. Tea pot 15. Mirror 16. Stroller

Items that are shared across Chinese and American cultures (Adapted from Yoon et al., 2004)

1. Elephant 2. Bear 3. Horse 4. Donkey 5. Lion 6. Wolf 7. Fox 8. Pen 9. Leg 10. Hand 11. Hair 12. Knee 13. Foot 14. Neck 15. Ear 16. Donkey 17. Chicken 18. Grasshopper 19. Crayon 20. Belly button 21. Sheep

65

22. Forehead 23. Cheek 24. Harp 25. Flute 26. Tooth 27. Tummy 28. Paper 29. Apple 30. Orange 31. Pear 32. Strawberry 33. Head 34. Trumpet 35. Paintbrush 36. Sausages 37. Taxi 38. (Air)plane 39. Boat 40. Piano 41. Car 42. Train 43. Bus 44. Bee 45. Cabinet 46. TV 47. Desk 48. Sofa 49. Bathtub

Items adapted from the Bates-MacArthur CDI norm from children who grow up in mainstream American families (Dale & Fenson, 1996)

1. Dog 2. Broken 3. Ladybug 4. Kitchen 5. Wash (verb) 6. Money 7. Walk (verb) 8. Drink (verb) 9. Pants 10. Flower 11. Grape 12. Bird 13. Bubbles 14. Wet

66

15. Water 16. Dirty 17. Skirt 18. Shirt 19. Cup 20. Play (verb) 21. Bottle 22. Shoe 23. Cat 24. Window 25. T-shirt 26. Hug (verb) 27. Ball 28. Pizza 29. Cheese 30. Paper 31. Light 32. Blanket 33. Baby 34. Hat 35. Juice 36. Fly (verb) 37. Telephone

Picture Identification Task Items adapted from Cantonese/Mandarin CDI (Tardiff & Fletcher, 2008)

1. Tea 2. Porridge 3. Pot 4. Tomato 5. Shrimp dumpling 6. Ginger 7. Cough 8. Barbeque pork bun 9. Toothpaste 10. Onion 11. Kite 12. Umbrella 13. Wok 14. Bitter 15. Suck (verb) 16. Tofu

67

Items that are shared across Chinese and American cultures (Adapted from Yoon et al., 2004)

1. Peach 2. Pencil 3. Watermelon 4. Guitar 5. Banana 6. Rabbit 7. Eye(s) 8. Toe 9. Spider 10. Violin 11. Pig 12. Ant 13. Duck 14. Fish 15. Crayon 16. Tuba 17. Tiger 18. Nose 19. Jeep 20. Beef 21. Truck 22. Arm 23. Boar 24. Lip 25. Pineapple 26. Drums 27. Motorcycle 28. Mouth 29. Deer 30. Cow 31. Beetle 32. Eyebrow 33. Mosquito 34. Bed 35. Chair 36. Table 37. Chest 38. Dresser

Items adapted from the Bates-MacArthur CDI norm from children who grow up in mainstream American families (Dale & Fenson, 1996)

1. Pillow

68

2. Jacket 3. Underwear 4. Cold 5. Milk 6. Bicycle 7. Balloon 8. Spoon 9. Key 10. Sweater 11. Eat 12. Open 13. Cry 14. Hot 15. Door 16. Ice cream 17. Cookie 18. Bath 19. Tree 20. Cake 21. Book 22. Fall 23. Outside 24. Bowl 25. Sock 26. Egg 27. Button 28. Fork 29. Computer 30. Soap 31. Big 32. Spaghetti 33. Kiss 34. Toothbrush 35. Bathroom 36. Puppy