Can bilingualism be a benefit for children with SLI? Sharon Armon-Lotem The Bilingual SLI Project Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

Can bilingualism Can bilingualism be a benefit for be a benefit for children with children with SLI?SLI?

Sharon Armon-LotemSharon Armon-Lotem

The Bilingual SLI The Bilingual SLI ProjectProject

Bar-Ilan University, Bar-Ilan University, IsraelIsrael

2

AcknowledgementAcknowledgement

This research was supported in part This research was supported in part by THE ISRAEL SCIENCE by THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant No.938) and by FOUNDATION (grant No.938) and by the BMBF funded Consortium the BMBF funded Consortium “Migration and societal Integration”.“Migration and societal Integration”.

This work has been done This work has been done in collaboration with:in collaboration with:

Carmit Altman, Jonathan Fine, Elinor Saiegh-Carmit Altman, Jonathan Fine, Elinor Saiegh-Haddad and Joel Walters (Bar-Ilan University), Haddad and Joel Walters (Bar-Ilan University), and Galit Adam (Tel-Aviv University)and Galit Adam (Tel-Aviv University)

Hebrew Team:Hebrew Team:Anat Blass, Efrat Harel, Anat Blass, Efrat Harel, Michal Giladi, Ruti Litt, Michal Giladi, Ruti Litt, Lyle Lustigman, Sharon PoratLyle Lustigman, Sharon Porat

English Team: English Team: Audry Levant, Efrat Shimon, Dori BraudeAudry Levant, Efrat Shimon, Dori Braude

Russian Team:Russian Team: Lusina Danelyants, Galina Gordishevsky, Olga Lusina Danelyants, Galina Gordishevsky, Olga Gupol, Nadya Kogan, Rina RaichlinGupol, Nadya Kogan, Rina Raichlin

DefinitionsDefinitions

► Specific/Primary Language Impairment Specific/Primary Language Impairment (SLI/PLI)(SLI/PLI)Children with normal performance IQ, who score 12 Children with normal performance IQ, who score 12 months/1 SD below chronological age on months/1 SD below chronological age on standardized language tests, and have standardized language tests, and have nono: hearing : hearing disabilities, emotional or behavior problems, disabilities, emotional or behavior problems, observed neurological deficit, or severe observed neurological deficit, or severe articulation/phonological deficit.articulation/phonological deficit.

► Bilingual children – A functional definitionBilingual children – A functional definitionChildren with bilingual background who are able to Children with bilingual background who are able to function in both languages (carry out a conversation function in both languages (carry out a conversation and understand). This includes both simultaneous and understand). This includes both simultaneous bilinguals and sequential bilinguals.bilinguals and sequential bilinguals.

► Bilingual SLI (BISLI)Bilingual SLI (BISLI)

Bilingual children whoBilingual children who are are below chronological age below chronological age in in both languages . both languages .

Introduction- Children in Introduction- Children in Multilingual SocietyMultilingual Society

► Dramatic increases in numbers of children being Dramatic increases in numbers of children being raised bilingually in multilingual communities due raised bilingually in multilingual communities due to European migrations.to European migrations.

► 20% of children entering Hebrew speaking secular 20% of children entering Hebrew speaking secular schools in Israel in 2004 speak a language other schools in Israel in 2004 speak a language other than Hebrew at home (than Hebrew at home (Central Bureau of Statistics, Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006)2006)..

► Threefold increase in bilingual children since 2000 Threefold increase in bilingual children since 2000 in Ireland, Italy and Spain and 50% increase since in Ireland, Italy and Spain and 50% increase since 2005 in UK (ec.europa.eu/education) 2005 in UK (ec.europa.eu/education)

► Limited screening and diagnostic instruments to Limited screening and diagnostic instruments to distinguish language-impaired migrant children distinguish language-impaired migrant children from those who will eventually catch up with their from those who will eventually catch up with their monolingual peers.monolingual peers.

► As a result: frequent As a result: frequent misdiagnosis misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis - The scope of Misdiagnosis - The scope of the problemthe problem

► Israel (Iluz-Cohen 2009) – only 5 of 14 Israel (Iluz-Cohen 2009) – only 5 of 14 bilingual children in language preschools bilingual children in language preschools were impaired in both languageswere impaired in both languages

► The Netherlands (de Jong 2009): Non-The Netherlands (de Jong 2009): Non-native speakers in Dutch schoolsnative speakers in Dutch schools

– – Mainstream schools: 14%Mainstream schools: 14%

– – Special schools: 19%Special schools: 19%

– – Schools for language-impaired children: Schools for language-impaired children: 24%24%

► Germany (Berlin) - multilingual children Germany (Berlin) - multilingual children are underrepresented in special schools are underrepresented in special schools for children with SLI (Moser 2007)for children with SLI (Moser 2007)

Central Issues (Paradis 2010)Central Issues (Paradis 2010)

►Are bilingualism and SLI “Are bilingualism and SLI “two of a two of a kindkind?” (Crago & Paradis, 2003)?” (Crago & Paradis, 2003)

►Do bilingual children with SLI show a Do bilingual children with SLI show a ""double delaydouble delay?” (Paradis 2007; ?” (Paradis 2007; Paradis et al. 2003; Paradis et al. Paradis et al. 2003; Paradis et al. 2005/6). 2005/6).

►Can bilingualism be a benefit Can bilingualism be a benefit for for children with SLI? children with SLI?

““Two of a Kind” ?Two of a Kind” ?► Some parallels are found between the language of Some parallels are found between the language of

sequential bilingual children and the language of sequential bilingual children and the language of children with SLI – e.g., both use bare verbs (*children with SLI – e.g., both use bare verbs (*He He gogo). ).

► Paradis & Crago 2000 - while children with SLI tend Paradis & Crago 2000 - while children with SLI tend to to omitomit the auxiliary in past or future periphrastic the auxiliary in past or future periphrastic verb constructions, L2 children verb constructions, L2 children substitutesubstitute the the auxiliary with the base or present tense form. auxiliary with the base or present tense form.

► Paradis (2008) - only L2 children generalize the use Paradis (2008) - only L2 children generalize the use of BE, in order to fill a gap between their of BE, in order to fill a gap between their communicative demands and their knowledge of communicative demands and their knowledge of the L2 with a morphosyntactic expression. the L2 with a morphosyntactic expression.

► Both the high proportions of Both the high proportions of substitutionsubstitution errors errors and the overgeneralization of BE single out L2 and the overgeneralization of BE single out L2 children with TLD from children with SLI. children with TLD from children with SLI.

SLI in Hebrew monolinguals SLI in Hebrew monolinguals Dromi et al. (1993, 1999)Dromi et al. (1993, 1999)

►Predictions: With verbal morphology so Predictions: With verbal morphology so central in Hebrew, a Semitic language, central in Hebrew, a Semitic language, it was predicted thatit was predicted that a very few inflections, if any, would pose a a very few inflections, if any, would pose a

problem for children with SLI. problem for children with SLI. inflections which carry more features inflections which carry more features

would be more difficult than those which would be more difficult than those which carry fewer features with errors that show carry fewer features with errors that show a simpler feature complex. a simpler feature complex.

►Method: Hebrew speaking children Method: Hebrew speaking children with SLI, ages 4-6, using a sentence with SLI, ages 4-6, using a sentence completion task and enactments. completion task and enactments.

FindingsFindings

► Sentence completion: while monolingual children Sentence completion: while monolingual children with TLD scored at ceiling, children with SLI showed with TLD scored at ceiling, children with SLI showed 80% success when one feature was involved, but 80% success when one feature was involved, but hardly ever produce the target morpheme which hardly ever produce the target morpheme which represented two features (fem. pl.). represented two features (fem. pl.).

► Enactment: while monolingual children with TLD Enactment: while monolingual children with TLD scored at ceiling, children with SLI showed 80% scored at ceiling, children with SLI showed 80% success when one feature was involved, but only success when one feature was involved, but only 60% success when two features (person and 60% success when two features (person and gender) were involved.gender) were involved.

► While in English most errors are omissions, in While in English most errors are omissions, in Hebrew most errors are substitutions in which a Hebrew most errors are substitutions in which a morpheme which marks just one feature was used morpheme which marks just one feature was used to replace a morpheme which marks two features to replace a morpheme which marks two features

Study I – Inflections Use in L2 Study I – Inflections Use in L2 Hebrew by Bilinguals with TLDHebrew by Bilinguals with TLD

## AgeAge LoELoE Hebrew Hebrew evaluatioevaluationn

L2 evaluationL2 evaluation

RussianRussian--HebrewHebrew

1515 5-75-7 2<2< Within Within norms norms (Goralnik (Goralnik 1995)1995)

No history of language No history of language impairment in Russian. impairment in Russian.

Z-score higher than -1 Z-score higher than -1 (based on 80 Russian-(based on 80 Russian-Hebrew bilinguals in regular Hebrew bilinguals in regular preschools) on NWR, preschools) on NWR, sentence imitation, and MLU sentence imitation, and MLU in narrative in Russianin narrative in Russian

EnglishEnglish--HebrewHebrew

(Shimo(Shimon 2008)n 2008)

1111 5-75-7 2<2< Within Within norms norms Goralnik Goralnik 1995)1995)

Within norms Within norms (CELF2 (CELF2 preschool)preschool)

Sentence completionSentence completion TLD vs. MOSLITLD vs. MOSLI

MOSLI (Dromi et al. , 1999)

*

*

Major FindingsMajor Findings► Speakers of Hebrew as L2 whose L1 is English, Speakers of Hebrew as L2 whose L1 is English,

are almost at ceiling for all three morphemes are almost at ceiling for all three morphemes after two years of exposure to Hebrewafter two years of exposure to Hebrew

► Speakers of Hebrew whose L1 is Russian with a Speakers of Hebrew whose L1 is Russian with a similar length of exposure are at ceiling for two similar length of exposure are at ceiling for two of the three morphemes, but score like of the three morphemes, but score like monolingual children with SLI on the plural monolingual children with SLI on the plural morpheme.morpheme.

► The few errors documented in the Hebrew L2 The few errors documented in the Hebrew L2 data were erroneous choice of tense which did data were erroneous choice of tense which did not involve a fewer number of features, or, for not involve a fewer number of features, or, for the children with L1 Russian use of the more the children with L1 Russian use of the more complex agreement morpheme (fem. pl.) due complex agreement morpheme (fem. pl.) due to code interference from L1 Russian. to code interference from L1 Russian.

► These data confirm that SLI and L2 are not These data confirm that SLI and L2 are not "two of a kind"."two of a kind".

““Double Delay” ?Double Delay” ?

► Rational:Rational: Due to limited processing capacity (LPC) Due to limited processing capacity (LPC)

children with SLI would need more exposure to children with SLI would need more exposure to fully acquire linguistic paradigms.fully acquire linguistic paradigms.

Bilingual children with SLI have less frequent Bilingual children with SLI have less frequent exposure to each language by being bilingual, exposure to each language by being bilingual, and have functionally less exposure being SLI. and have functionally less exposure being SLI.

Thus, a "double delay" is expected among Thus, a "double delay" is expected among bilingual children with SLIbilingual children with SLI

► Bilingual children with SLI are as accurate Bilingual children with SLI are as accurate as monolingual children with SLI in their as monolingual children with SLI in their use of ten different grammatical use of ten different grammatical morphemes in their spontaneous speech morphemes in their spontaneous speech (Paradis 2007; Paradis et al. 2003; Paradis (Paradis 2007; Paradis et al. 2003; Paradis et al. 2005/6). et al. 2005/6).

Study II – Language use in Narrative Study II – Language use in Narrative (Moldinov 2010)(Moldinov 2010)Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Hebrew Monolinguals with SLI Hebrew Monolinguals with SLI

► Task: telling a story from a set of picturesTask: telling a story from a set of pictures

## AgeAge LoELoE Hebrew Hebrew scorescore

L2 evaluationL2 evaluation

BiTLDBiTLD 2020 5;0-6;25;0-6;2 2<2< Within Within normsnorms(Goralnik (Goralnik 1995)1995)

No history of language No history of language impairment in Russian. impairment in Russian.

Z-score higher than -1 Z-score higher than -1 (based on 80 Russian-(based on 80 Russian-Hebrew bilinguals in Hebrew bilinguals in regular preschools) on regular preschools) on NWR, sentence imitation, NWR, sentence imitation, and MLU in narrative in and MLU in narrative in RussianRussian

BiSLIBiSLI 99 6;3-6;3-6;106;10

2<2< < -1.5 < -1.5 SDSD

parents reported delay in parents reported delay in L1 Russian. All were L1 Russian. All were receiving treatment by an receiving treatment by an SLPSLP

MoSLMoSLII

1414 5;1-6;55;1-6;5 < -1.5 < -1.5 SDSD

MoSLIMoSLI BiSLIBiSLI BiTLDBiTLD

Mean Mean ## of of clausesclauses

13.9313.93 12.2212.22 15.815.8

Mean # of wordsMean # of words 44.9644.96 40.2240.22 57.1557.15

MLCMLC 3.233.23 3.293.29 3.293.29

Syntactic Syntactic complexitycomplexity

0.0120.012 0.0060.006 0.080.08

CohesionCohesion 5.95.9 6.86.8 8.28.2

Syntactic complexity = # of complex clauses/# of clauses

Cohesion = # of coordinators/# of clauses

FindingsFindings

► No significant difference between No significant difference between MoSLI and BiSLI on a range of MoSLI and BiSLI on a range of linguistic measureslinguistic measures

► Significant difference between BiTLD Significant difference between BiTLD and the two SLI groupsand the two SLI groups

► Impaired bilinguals achieve a similar Impaired bilinguals achieve a similar level of performance to impaired level of performance to impaired monolinguals, thus showing no monolinguals, thus showing no double delay effects for the impaired double delay effects for the impaired children.children.

Study III – Hebrew Inflections Study III – Hebrew Inflections in BISLIin BISLI

► 9 bilingual English-Hebrew children, ages 5-7, 9 bilingual English-Hebrew children, ages 5-7, who attend language preschool following an who attend language preschool following an earlier diagnosis for SLI.earlier diagnosis for SLI.

► The bilingual children were all sequential The bilingual children were all sequential bilinguals and were exposed to Hebrew for at bilinguals and were exposed to Hebrew for at least two years. least two years.

► All scored lower than -1 SD below norm on the All scored lower than -1 SD below norm on the CELF2 preschool for English and lower than -1.5 CELF2 preschool for English and lower than -1.5 SD below norm on the Goralnik for Hebrew. SD below norm on the Goralnik for Hebrew.

► Monolingual SLI (MoSLI) from Dromi et al (1999)Monolingual SLI (MoSLI) from Dromi et al (1999)

EnactmentEnactmentBISLI and MOSLIBISLI and MOSLI

BISLI MOSLI

Major FindingsMajor Findings

► On the three inflectional categories which On the three inflectional categories which were tested in both studies, no significant were tested in both studies, no significant difference was found between the two difference was found between the two groups, neither in the degree of success, nor groups, neither in the degree of success, nor in the type of errors (choosing the 3rd person in the type of errors (choosing the 3rd person form which has no suffix instead of a form form which has no suffix instead of a form inflected with a suffix for 1st or 2nd person). inflected with a suffix for 1st or 2nd person).

► Impaired bilinguals achieve a similar level of Impaired bilinguals achieve a similar level of performance to impaired monolinguals, thus performance to impaired monolinguals, thus showing no double delay effects for the showing no double delay effects for the impaired children.impaired children.

Sentence completionSentence completionBISLI and MOSLIBISLI and MOSLI

MOSLI

?

Major FindingsMajor Findings

► Bilingual children with SLI are not only as Bilingual children with SLI are not only as accurate as monolingual children with SLI, accurate as monolingual children with SLI, and sometimes even do better and sometimes even do better

► In the present tense, bilingual children with In the present tense, bilingual children with SLI do better than Dromi et al.'s monolingual SLI do better than Dromi et al.'s monolingual children with SLIchildren with SLI

► This is noteworthy in the use of the rare and This is noteworthy in the use of the rare and marked feminine plural. marked feminine plural.

► Can bilingualism be beneficial for children Can bilingualism be beneficial for children with SLI?with SLI?

Can Bilingualism be a Benefit?Can Bilingualism be a Benefit?

► Does bilingualism offer compensatory mechanisms Does bilingualism offer compensatory mechanisms for children with SLI, either by counteracting the for children with SLI, either by counteracting the effects of limitations in processing abilities or of effects of limitations in processing abilities or of impaired linguistic system? impaired linguistic system?

► Bialystok (2007) - bilingual children have certain Bialystok (2007) - bilingual children have certain superior executive functions which are manifested superior executive functions which are manifested by enhanced metalinguistic awareness.by enhanced metalinguistic awareness.

► Roeper (2009) - bilingualism can be instructive, due Roeper (2009) - bilingualism can be instructive, due to the organization of the dual linguistic system.to the organization of the dual linguistic system.

► Can bilingual children with SLI rely on their Can bilingual children with SLI rely on their knowledge of L1 in acquiring the L2, in a way which knowledge of L1 in acquiring the L2, in a way which gives them an advantage over monolingual children gives them an advantage over monolingual children with SLI? with SLI?

Two Examples of Linguistic Two Examples of Linguistic BenefitsBenefits

►Reference in NarrativeReference in Narrative►PrepositionPreposition

Study IV - Reference in Narrative:Study IV - Reference in Narrative:English-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & English-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Hebrew Monolinguals with SLI (Jaber Hebrew Monolinguals with SLI (Jaber 2009)2009)

► Task - telling a story from a set of pictures (Goralnik 1995)Task - telling a story from a set of pictures (Goralnik 1995)

## AgeAge LoELoE Hebrew Hebrew scorescore

(Goralnik (Goralnik 1995)1995)

L2 evaluation L2 evaluation (CELF2 (CELF2 preschool)preschool)

BiTLDBiTLD 99 5-75-7 2<2< Within Within normsnorms

Within normsWithin norms

BiSLIBiSLI 88 5-75-7 2<2< < -1.5 SD< -1.5 SD < -1 SD< -1 SD

MoSLIMoSLI 88 5-75-7 < -1.5 SD< -1.5 SD

Sample narrative (MoSLI)Sample narrative (MoSLI)

אכלואכלו ו ואכלואכלואמא הכינה לילדים שלה אוכל ואמא הכינה לילדים שלה אוכל ואח"כ בא לו זבוב. אח"כ בא לו זבוב.

אח"כ הוא כעסאח"כ הוא כעס לה בייגלה בזנב לה בייגלה בזנבשמושמואח"כ אח"כ לה בשערות משהו חם לה בשערות משהו חםשמושמואח"כ אח"כ אותה וזהו. אותה וזהו.ניקוניקואח"כ אח"כ

Mom prepared food for her children and Mom prepared food for her children and propro ate.pl and ate.pl and propro ate.pl ate.pl Then, came a fly. Then, came a fly. Then, Then, hehe was angry was angryThen, Then, propro put.pl put.pl a pretzel on a pretzel on herher tail. tail.Then, Then, propro put.pl something hot in put.pl something hot in herher hair hairThen, Then, propro cleaned.pl cleaned.pl herher and that’s it and that’s it

Referencing by a Pronoun

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MOSLI BISLI BITLD

Correct referencing: subject Correct referencing: non-subject

Incorrect referencing

Referencing by a Null Subject in the Narrative

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MOSLI BISLI BITLD

Correct referencing Incorrect referencing

Major FindingsMajor Findings

►English-Hebrew bilingual children with English-Hebrew bilingual children with SLI benefit from bilingualism when SLI benefit from bilingualism when making a reference in the narrative, making a reference in the narrative, both in the use of null subject and in both in the use of null subject and in the use of accusative pronounsthe use of accusative pronouns

►The more restricted use of null subject The more restricted use of null subject and the accusative pronouns in English and the accusative pronouns in English helps these children use this structure helps these children use this structure in the L2in the L2

Study V - The use of Prepositions:Study V - The use of Prepositions:Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI, Russian-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI, English-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & English-Hebrew Bilinguals with SLI & Hebrew Monolinguals with SLIHebrew Monolinguals with SLI

## AgeAge LoELoE Hebrew Hebrew score score (Goralnik (Goralnik 1995)1995)

L2 evaluationL2 evaluation

English-English-HebrewHebrew

88 5-75-7 2<2< < -1.5 < -1.5 SDSD

< -1 SD < -1 SD (CELF2 (CELF2 preschool)preschool)

Russian-Russian-HebrewHebrew

33 6-76-7 2<2< < -1.5 < -1.5 SDSD

parents reported delay in L1 parents reported delay in L1 Russian. All were receiving Russian. All were receiving treatment by an SLPtreatment by an SLP

MoSLIMoSLI 88 5;6-5;6-77

< -1.5 < -1.5 SDSD

► Task – Sentence Repetition, two types of prepositionTask – Sentence Repetition, two types of preposition..

A few words on A few words on prepositionsprepositions

► Prepositions are a locus of code interference Prepositions are a locus of code interference in bilingual populations.in bilingual populations.

► Some children with SLI show omission of Some children with SLI show omission of prepositions (Roeper et al., 2001)prepositions (Roeper et al., 2001)

► Hebrew - two major types of prepositions: Hebrew - two major types of prepositions: restricted prepositions (e.g., restricted prepositions (e.g., laugh laugh atat) - have ) - have

mainly a grammatical functionmainly a grammatical function free prepositions (temporals and locatives, e.g., free prepositions (temporals and locatives, e.g.,

onon the table/ the table/inin the morning the morning) - have a semantic ) - have a semantic function, as well, contributing to the meaning of function, as well, contributing to the meaning of the sentence.the sentence.

► English – a third type:English – a third type: restricted prepositions in particle verbs (restricted prepositions in particle verbs (turn turn onon, ,

look look forfor) - have a semantic function, changing the ) - have a semantic function, changing the meaning of the verbmeaning of the verb

Prepositions and SLI: Prepositions and SLI: PredicationsPredications► Children with SLI show difficulties with structures which are Children with SLI show difficulties with structures which are

grammatically motivated, and do better with structures grammatically motivated, and do better with structures which are semantically motivatedwhich are semantically motivated

► In Hebrew, restricted prepositions have a very limited In Hebrew, restricted prepositions have a very limited semantic motivation and their omission is expectedsemantic motivation and their omission is expected

► In English, a sub-group of the restricted prepositions In English, a sub-group of the restricted prepositions (particles) changes the meaning of the verb and has a (particles) changes the meaning of the verb and has a semantic basis semantic basis

► Particles in particle verbs in English promote awareness of Particles in particle verbs in English promote awareness of the obligatoriness of prepositions in phrasal verbs in both the obligatoriness of prepositions in phrasal verbs in both languages of a English-Hebrew bilingual child, and can languages of a English-Hebrew bilingual child, and can facilitate the use of obligatory prepositions in a language facilitate the use of obligatory prepositions in a language which has no particles (e.g, Hebrew).which has no particles (e.g, Hebrew).

► Children with BISLI whose L1 is English have a better chance Children with BISLI whose L1 is English have a better chance at realizing that restricted prepositions are indeed at realizing that restricted prepositions are indeed obligatory, than children who have no place in their obligatory, than children who have no place in their language where restricted prepositions are semantically language where restricted prepositions are semantically motivated (e.g., monolingual Hebrew speaking children with motivated (e.g., monolingual Hebrew speaking children with SLI, or Russian-Hebrew bilinguals with SLI). SLI, or Russian-Hebrew bilinguals with SLI).

Error type per preposition typeError type per preposition type

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

R-prep F-prep R-prep F-prep R-prep F-prep

BISLI-EH [N=8] LPS-RH [N=3] MoSLI [N=8]

Frequency of errors by error type per preposition type

ci-sub sub ci-om om

DiscussionDiscussion

► English-Hebrew bilingual children benefit English-Hebrew bilingual children benefit from the bilingual situation in the use of from the bilingual situation in the use of prepositionpreposition

► Russian-Hebrew bilingual children, whose L1 Russian-Hebrew bilingual children, whose L1 Russian has no particles, do not show Russian has no particles, do not show benefits of bilingualism. benefits of bilingualism.

► Such findings suggest that knowing one Such findings suggest that knowing one language could help children with SLI language could help children with SLI bootstrap the learning of a second one. bootstrap the learning of a second one.

► Bootstrapping depends on the nature of the Bootstrapping depends on the nature of the two languages.two languages.

ConclusionConclusion

►L2 knowledge and impaired L2 knowledge and impaired knowledge are not "two of a kind“knowledge are not "two of a kind“

►bilingualism does not lead to a "dual bilingualism does not lead to a "dual delay" in bilingual children with SLI delay" in bilingual children with SLI

►Bilingualism might have a Bilingualism might have a facilitative effect and an instructive facilitative effect and an instructive value for children with SLIvalue for children with SLI

Thank youThank you

תודהתודה

Спасибо