Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:33:10.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological working memory and language development: What are the measures and what do they measure?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Cornelia Hamann
Cornelia Hamann*
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In line with the recent trend in comparative analysis of different populations (see Friedmann & Rusou, 2015, as an example), Pierce, Genesee, Delcenserie, and Morgan (2017) present a comprehensive review of different language outcomes in populations that have received qualitatively and quantitatively different input during the first year of life, from enriched stimuli in bilingual situations to no stimuli at all in the case of children with profound hearing impairment. The claims derived from these data deserve some comment, however, and need some caveats about the measures used, which I will provide in the following with a brief discussion of complementing research and the presentation of some new data derived from the Bilingual Language Development (BiLaD) Project, a recent French/German collaboration studying bilingual populations with and without specific language impairment (SLI).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 1313 - 1321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abed Ibrahim, L., & Hamann, C. (2017). Bilingual Arabic-German and Turkish-German children with and without language impairment: Comparing performance in sentence and nonword repetition tasks. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 1–17). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S., de Jong, J., & Meir, N. (Eds.) (2016). Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling bilingualism form language impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chiat, S., & Polišenská, K. (2016). A framework for crosslinguistic nonword repetition tests: Effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on children's performance. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. Advance online publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Délage, H., Monjauze, C., Hamann, C., & Tuller, L. (2008). Relative clauses in atypical acquisition of French. In Gavarró, A. & Freitas, M. J. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 166–176). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
dos Santos, C., & Ferré, S. (2016). A nonword repetition task to assess bilingual children's phonology. Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10489223.2016.1243692 Google Scholar
Engel de Abreu, P., Baldassi, M., Puglisi, M., & Befi-Lopes, D. (2013). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural effects on verbal working memory and vocabulary: Testing language minority children with an immigrant background. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 56, 630–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleckstein, A., Prévost, P., Tuller, L., Sizaret, E., & Zebib, R. (2016). How to identify SLI in bilingual children: A study on sentence repetition in French. Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10489223.2016.1192635 Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., & Gvion, A. (2003). Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation in aphasia: A dissociation between semantic-syntactic and phonological reactivation. Brain and Language, 86, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, N., & Rusou, D. (2015). Critical period for first language: The crucial role of input during the first year of life. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2015.06.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimm, A., Ferré, S., dos Santos, C., & Chiat, S. (2014). Can nonwords be language independent? Cross-linguistic evidence from monolingual and bilingual acquisition of French, German and Lebanese. Paper presented at the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lein, T., Hamann, C., Rothweiler, M., Abed Ibrahim, L., Chilla, S., & San, H. (2016). SLI in bilinguals: Testing complex syntax and semantics in German. In Stringer, D., Garrett, J., Halloran, B., & Mossman, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2015) (pp. 124–135). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pierce, L. J., Genesee, F., Delcenserie, A., & Morgan, G. (2017). Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1265–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szterman, R., & Friedmann, N. (2015). Insights into the syntactic deficit of children with hearing impairment from a sentence repetition task. In Hamann, C. & Ruigendijk, E. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2013 (pp. 492–504). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ullmann, M. T., & Pierpoint, E. I. (2005). Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebib, R., Hamann, C., Prévost, P., Abed Ibrahim, L., & Tuller, L. (2016). Syntactic complexity, verbal working memory, and executive function in bilingual children with and without SLI: A sentence repetition study in France and in Germany. Paper presented at the German Linguistics Society, Konstanz, Germany.Google Scholar