Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Grammatical Morphology in Children Learning English as a Second Language: Implication of Similarities With Specific Language Impairment

Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical Morphology in Children Learning English as a Second Language: Implication of Similarities With Specific Language Impairment. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 3603-0172.

This study examines similarities between the expressive language characteristics of typically developing children in the early stages of learning English as a second language (TD ESL) and monolingual children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). This study focuses on grammatical ability in both groups, since grammatical morphology is an area of noted difficulty for both monolingual children with SLI and TD ESL. Also, this study examines if the overlap between these two groups might cause erroneous assessment of TD ESL (Missed identity & Mistaken identity).

The grammatical ability of 24 school age children within their first year and a half of learning English as a second language was compared with monolingual children with SLI. Children with engaged in two tasks: (1) Spontaneous Speech, and (2) Elicited Speech using the Test of Early Grammatical Impairment (TEGI; M. Rice & K. Waxler, 2001). Error types were examined in two grammatical composites: (1) non-tense group (progressive aspect –ing; preposition in & on; plural –s; articles the & a; copula and auxiliary BE), and (2) Tense group (third person singular –s; past tense –ed; irregular past tense; copula and auxiliary BE). Results revealed the same error patterns for both groups: a) tense morphology was less accurate than nontense morphology. b) errors of ommission with grammatical morphemes were more common than errors of commission. c) these patterns were the same for spontaneous and elicited data.

The study findings suggest that using ‘translated’ English standardized test with bilingual children may lead to erroneous assessment. The authors agree with the recommendations of the TEGI test that the TEGI is not recommended for nonnative English speakers.

The studies suggest that an important focus for future research is to compare ESL children with and without SLI, because any finding will have a significant effect on the process of assessment with this population of children.

Blogger: Areej Balilah.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Communication, Listening, Cognitive and Speech Perception Skills in Children With Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) or Specific Language Impairment

Article: Ferguson, M. & Hall, R. (2011). Communication, Listening, Cognitive and Speech Perception Skills in Children With Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) or Specific Language Impairment (SLI), 54, 211-227.


Children with an Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) have difficulty interpreting the sounds around them, while those with a Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have difficulty learning language. In many ways, however, the difficulties of children with APD and SLI overlap making differentiating between them complex. It is possible that specialists from different areas may give varying diagnoses to a child (APD, SLI, Dyslexia, etc.), based upon their specialty. There is a great need for clear diagnostic measures to distinguish between children with APD, SLI and other language disorders. This would allow for adequate identification and provisions to be made as early as possible.

Ferguson and Hall's study (2011) focuses on finding measures to differentiate between children with APD and SLI. The children were divided into 3 groups: an APD group (n=19), an SLI group (n=22) and an unselected control group comprised of children in Mainstream School (MS) group (n=47). The children were tested with a widespread set of diagnostic tools including measures of speech intelligibility (clarity), intelligence, phonological (speech sound) processing, memory, and others. Parents completed questionnaires related to their child's communication, listening behaviour, and attention. The APD group was found to have more difficulty listening at varying levels of distractor noise (by parental report) than either the SLI or MS groups. Interestingly, the researchers found no significant difference between the APD and SLI groups on the other measures. Overall, the results suggest that children with APD and SLI may be difficult to distinguish on standard measures of achievement.

This was an excellent foundational study. From this it is evident that in the future, more specific tests should be used to find differences between the APD and SLI groups. In addition, more careful matching of the control group to the affected groups may prove useful.


Blogger: Michaela Holmes is a student in the Graduate Neuroscience program at Western completing a Masters degree under the supervision of Drs. David Purcell and Lisa Archibald. Her work is examining auditory feedback in children with SLI and those with typical development. She hails from Vancouver, B.C., and is the oldest of 5 red-headed sisters!