Executive functions in mono- and bilingual children with language impairment – issues for speech-language pathology

Sandgren, Olof; Holmström, Ketty

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01074

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the small sample size, the current study demonstrates that language acquisition in ELLs is not a stand-alone process and that working memory measures could be a predictor of language outcomes, which can provide important information about multilingual language development (Chiat & Roy, 2008; Paradis, 2010; Sandgren & Holmström, 2015). This can be particularly useful in furnishing educators and clinicians with important information about whether precautionary language intervention is necessary for an ELL, as a low score on working memory tests combined with low scores on language measures could be an indicator that a child needs extra support so that, by implication, their future academic success is supported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Previous research indicates that measures of non-linguistic processing may provide important information about language development in multilingual contexts (Paradis, 2010; Sandgren & Holmström, 2015), especially in the preschool years (Chiat & Roy, 2008). It is therefore important to determine which cognitive measures underpin language processes and which of these measures can predict future language outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory as predictors of future English outcomes in young ELLs

White

2020

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim of the study: The aim of this longitudinal study was twofold: first, to determine whether the relationship between working memory measures and language performance in young English language learners (ELL) remains constant over the year. The second aim was to determine if performance on working memory tasks predicts future performance on language measures. Methodology: The participants were 27 ELLs between the ages of 5 and 6 years who were in their first year of formal schooling and attended the same mid-low socioeconomic status school in South Africa. The participants were tested three times throughout the year on tasks of working memory and an English assessment battery. Data analysis and results: Mixed effects models and multiple linear regression were used to address the aims of the study. The first aim of the study showed that there are significant correlations between all working memory measures and all language measures in varying strengths across the year. The second research aim further elaborated on this by showing that both phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory are implicated in the acquisition of syntax, semantics and pragmatics at different points throughout the year. Implications and originality: Language acquisition in ELLs is not a stand-alone process and working memory measures may be able to predict future language outcomes. This could indicate that working memory measures may be used as an indicator for who may need language intervention, at a time when the ELL only has limited English proficiency and limited English exposure. This research is the first of its kind to originate from Africa, with a sample from low socioeconomic, culturally and linguistically diverse circumstances who are exposed to English consistently for the first time and are tested with working memory tasks with less strong language components.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory as predictors of future English outcomes in young ELLs

White

2020

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cognitive abilities between monolinguals and bilinguals with DLD were comparable in working memory 34,37 , short term memory 34 , inhibition, nonverbal switching 37 , sustained attention and attentional control 38 , executive control and alerting 39 and in measures of digit span and card sorting 40 . Advantages for bilinguals with DLD were seen in processing speed 41,42 and an orienting effect was noted for both bilinguals with and without DLD 39 .…”

Section: Developmental Language Disordermentioning

confidence: 95%

Language and Cognition in Bilingual Neurodivergent Children: A Review of Recent Research

Leung,

Molnar

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This narrative review provides an updated overview of the effects of bilingualism on language and cognition of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Our multi-pronged search yielded literature conducted with populations with developmental language disorder, autism spectrum disorder and attentional disorders, hearing impairment and other neurodevelopmental disorders and conditions. Although much of the focus remains on developmental language disorder and autism spectrum disorder, research interests are slowly growing to fill in the gaps of how bilingualism affects other populations with differential patterns of development. Our review shows that a conclusive understanding of this relationship is hindered by the assessment types (i.e., not validated for bilinguals) and practices (e.g., confounds, languages assessed) involved in the evaluation of bilingual children. Areas such as acquired pediatric disorders remain understudied. Defining, measuring, and reporting bilingualism as multi-dimensional, persists as an obstacle to cross-comparison between children with different disorders. Recommendations for further investigations in this area are provided.

show abstract

“…In addition, children with low language may also tend to have lower cognitive control skills. Deficits in inhibition and/or shifting, which are the components of cognitive control most associated with language control, have been demonstrated in both monolingual children with DLD (e.g., Marton, 2008;Spaulding, 2010;Farrant et al, 2012;Henry et al, 2012;Epstein et al, 2014;Kapa and Plante, 2015;Roello et al, 2015;Vissers et al, 2015;Pauls and Archibald, 2016;Sikora et al, 2019) and bilingual children with low language or a diagnosis of DLD (e.g., Iluz-Cohen and Armon-Lotem, 2013;Engel, de Abreu et al, 2014;Sandgren and Holmstrom, 2015;Pauls and Archibald, 2016), although findings have been somewhat mixed with regard to shifting (e.g., Dibbets et al, 2006;Im-Bolter et al, 2006;Laloi, 2015). Therefore, it is possible that low cognitive control could have a negative effect on language control in children with low language, but these effects may be difficult to separate from the effects of limited language ability.…”

Section: Integrating Cognitive and Linguistic Predictors Of Language Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive and Linguistic Predictors of Language Control in Bilingual Children

Gross

Kaushanskaya

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to communicate effectively with a variety of conversation partners and in a variety of settings, bilingual children must develop language control, the ability to control which language is used for production. Past work has focused on linguistic skills as the limiting factor in children's ability to control their language choice, while cognitive control has been the focus of adult models of language control. The current study examined the effects of both language ability and cognitive control on language control in 4−6 year old Spanish/English bilingual children with a broad range of language skills, including those with low skills in both languages. To measure language control, children participated in an interactive scripted confederate dialogue paradigm in which they took turns describing picture scenes with video partners who presented themselves as monolingual speakers of English or monolingual speakers of Spanish. The paradigm had two conditions: a single-language context, in which children interacted with only one partner, and a dual-language context, in which children needed to switch between languages to address different partners. The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) indexed cognitive control. The findings revealed an overall effect of language ability, such that children with lower language skills were more likely to produce words in the language not understood by their conversation partner. There was also an effect of cognitive control on children's ability to adjust to the dual-language context. Based on these findings, we suggest that a model of language control in children should consider both linguistic and cognitive factors. However, language ability appears to be the main limiting factor, with cognitive control playing a more restricted role in adapting to a dual-language context.

show abstract

Executive functions in mono- and bilingual children with language impairment – issues for speech-language pathology

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory as predictors of future English outcomes in young ELLs

Phonological working memory and non-verbal complex working memory as predictors of future English outcomes in young ELLs

Language and Cognition in Bilingual Neurodivergent Children: A Review of Recent Research

Cognitive and Linguistic Predictors of Language Control in Bilingual Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About