Cross-linguistic and multilingual aspects of speech sound disorders in children

SLP Challenges  To distinguish differences due to language learning context from disorder.  Until recently, no standardised tests existed for monolingual Maltese-speaking and bilingual Maltese- English speaking children.  The SLPs depended on their adaptation of standardised English tests and their intuition.

Maltese-English Speech Assessment (MESA) Grech, Dodd & Franklin (2011)

The Assessment: MESA Administered on children in Maltese and/or English reflecting language usage  Articulation – 42 pictures  Phonology – 42 pictures  Consistency – 17 pictures x 3  Oro-motor Skills – DDK, single and sequenced movements  Phonotactics – word repetition of words (clusters + multi-syllabic words)

MESA  Leads to differential diagnosis of different types of speech disorder;  assesses articulation, oro-motor skills, phonology and consistency with monolingual and bilingual Maltese children. QUICK AND EASY TO ADMINISTER MESA is based on Dodd & McCormack’s (1995) model of speech processing for differential diagnosis of phonological disorders.

MESA norms indicate that monolingual and bilingual children have different profiles of error patterns and rates of speech development. Bilingualism in Malta is not a negative factor for speech development and leads to faster acquisition of phonology. 20 Maltese-English 100 'Monolingual' in 18 90 Malta 16 Bilingual 80 14 Maltese 'Monolingual' 70 Monolingual in 12 60 the UK 10 50 40 Bilingual Maltese- 8 30 English 6 20 4 10 4;0-5;5 5;6- 2 0 0 3;0-3;11 3;0-3;5 3;6-3;11 4;0-4;11 5;0-6;0 Error patterns Percentage Consonant Correct (PCC)

Christina Gildersleeve-Neumann - Portland State University Brian A. Goldstein – Temple University, PA

Bilingual Children with SSD • Little information on intervention for speech sound disorders • Even less on bilingual children • Heterogeneous nature of bilinguals • Each child needs individualized  Treatment approach  Plan for language(s) of intervention 107

Bilingual Speech Sound Disorder • Disorder and cause of disorder is the same as in monolinguals  Theoretical framework won’t change  But need to account for language needs, socio-cultural framework • Intervention factors to consider  Type of speech sound disorder  Specific needs of child  Languages of bilingual  Culture and values of bilingual and family 108

Intervention Decision Steps 1. Choose Intervention Approach • For speech sound disorders, treatment can be  Phonetic (articulatory)  Phonemic (phonological)  Combination  Consider Language(s) of Intervention • Language or history or relative experience with each language • Current communication needs • Future communication needs • What other supports they are receiving 109

Intervention Decision Steps 3. Select Language(s) of Intervention • Monolingual in L1 • Monolingual in L2 • Bilingual  Skills common to both languages treated in both languages • Crosslinguistic  Attention to specific aspects of either Spanish or English 110

Language of Intervention Factors • How well does child speak L1 and English? • Is it possible to conduct treatment in English? • What language is spoken in home? Who speaks it and in what situations? How frequently is child around it? • Is maintenance of L1 important to the family? The client? • Is there support from school, academic setting for home language? Goldstein, 2000 111

Exceptions to Treating Both Languages • Only home language  Not in school yet  Child with severe disabilities whose environment likely L1 environment only  If L2 is elective(?) • Only school language  Communication skills functional in both  Communication skills for English academics poor 112

Research on Intervention Approaches • If only treat in one language  Most likely to see transfer from home to second language environment (L2) (Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992) • Treatment for both languages eventually needed  Some effects of treatment won’t transfer  Some sounds need specific instruction if different across languages (Dodd, Holm, & Wi, 1997) 113

Intervention Transfer  Most likely to see transfer when stimuli chosen to reflect phonological aspects of the two languages (Yavaş & Goldstein 1998)  Strategy: Teach cross-linguistic transfer 114

Selecting Intervention Targets  Approaches  Shared phonemes  Phonemes existing in both Spanish and English  Overall Effect  Unshared phonemes  Phonemes found in English or Spanish only 115

Choosing Across-Language Targets 1. Error rates similar in both languages • Consider importance of syllable or segmental property in both languages 2. Errors of unequal frequency across languages • Likely affect intelligibility differently in each language.  Example, Final Consonant Deletion  In Spanish-English, more likely to negatively affect English 3. Target errors occurring in one language only • Intervention only required in one language • Typically selected after treated cross-language targets  May treat earlier if language treated in is of greater functional 116 importance to child or effect on one language extreme

Transfer Effects Not Universal • Treatment of phonetic error (distortion) transferred • Treatment of phonemic error (syllable error pattern) did not (Holm, Dodd, & Ozanne, 1997) 117

Application: Effectiveness of Bilingual Treatment • Bilingual treatment for two Spanish-English sequential bilingual boys with SSDs • Multiple Probe Across Behavior Design Study • Two 5-year-old boys  Treatment 2 to 3 times per week for 8 weeks  Home environment  Parents Spanish-speaking  English used 0-10% of the time  Academic Year preschool environment  English used 50% of the time  Treatment language ratio  Spanish 2 days, English 1 day 118 Gildersleeve-Neumann & Goldstein, 2012

Treatment Design • Treatment Targets • 3 targets • 2 in English and Spanish • 3rd monitored but not treated • Session Format  50 minutes long  5 minute treatment probes  20 minutes each for the two treatment targets  5 minutes for metalinguistic application of targets to other language  40-50 productions per target  Words and phrases of varying lengths were utilized.  Combination of phonetic and phonemic strategies 119

Overall ReCHsIuLDlt1s CHILD 2 Error Pattern % Accuracy Error Pattern % Accuracy /s/ Liquid Dental PCC PVC /s/ Liquid Dental PCC PVC cluster cluster Frics cluster Frics English Pre 0 29 8 62 86 0 0 0 41 74 Post 73 60 9 81 95 12 27 13 54 88 Spanish Pre 8 18 42 74 95 0 0 5 41 89 Post 83 57 44 85 96 11 12 5 49 91 120

Summary  Speech skills of both children improved in both languages  Treatment focused more on Spanish than English  Children’s skills stronger in Spanish  Parents could aid with practice – words, phrases  Children could discuss and apply information from Spanish to English  Assistance in generalization through application 121

Final Summary • Each bilingual child with SSD unique  Language(s) & targets of intervention based on individual needs  Consider changes to decisions over time • Select goals based on present and future needs of child • Monitor effects to both languages through probes • Alter treatment as necessary • Bilingual child has same prognosis fro success as monolingual child  Given that each child receives best treatment for their needs • Bilingual intervention can result in improvement in both languages  Not yet known if more efficient than monolingual treatment 122

Brian A. Goldstein – Temple University, PA http://geology.com/world/world-map.shtml