Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2014; 30(3): 267–278 © 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication ISSN 0743-4618 print/ISSN 1477-3848 online DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2014.921240

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Monolingual and Bilingual Children With and Without Primary Language Impairment: Core Vocabulary Comparison MANON ROBILLARD*, CHANTAL MAYER-CRITTENDEN, MICHÈLE MINOR-CORRIVEAU & ROXANNE BÉLANGER Speech-Language Pathology Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Abstract Core vocabulary is an important component of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems for school-aged children who have complex communication needs. One method of identifying core vocabulary for these individuals is to study the vocabulary of speaking children. To date, the use of core vocabulary by speaking bilingual children has not been well documented. The present study compared the core vocabulary used by children who are monolingual (French), and bilingual (French–English; English–French). We also gathered and compared language samples from French-speaking children identified as having primary language impairment (PLI), with the goal of better understanding the language differences demonstrated by children with this disability. Language samples were collected from a total of 57 children within a school setting, in a region where French is a minority language. Contrary to the hypothesis, the analysis of language transcripts revealed that there were no important differences between the core words from the groups studied.

Keywords: Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC); Core vocabulary; Bilingualism; Primary language impairment; Children

To date, most research on vocabulary use has occurred with monolingual speaking children; however many children grow up in bilingual (or even trilingual) environments. Since children who require the use of AAC strategies to communicate may live in a bilingual community, empirical data is needed to determine whether or not bilingual children make use of vocabulary in a way similar to monolingual children. We also were interested in the use of language by speaking children with and without language impairment. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine frequently used vocabulary items as used by monolingual children, bilingual children, and children with primary language impairment, with the goal of informing vocabulary selection for children with complex communication needs who are growing up in bilingual communities.

Introduction Vocabulary selection is an important aspect of successful augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention (Beukelman, McGinnis, & Morrow, 1991; Fallon, Light, & Paige, 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992). The identification of appropriate vocabulary is an important first step in the development of effective and efficient AAC systems (Fallon et al., 2001). Numerous studies have stated the importance of including frequently used vocabulary in AAC systems (e.g., Beukelman et al., 1991; Fallon et al., 2001; Trembath, Balandin, & Togher, 2007). In fact, research has demonstrated that approximately 200–250 words represent 80% of what speaking children say (e.g., Beukelman, Jones, & Rowan, 1989; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Trembath et al., 2007). These words, which make up a large percentage of what we say and are frequently used by a large percentage of individuals, are sometimes referred to as core vocabulary. It has been suggested that with a few hundred of these core words, a child who uses AAC could express the majority of the most frequently used words (Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987).

Vocabulary and AAC Speaking children typically demonstrate a large and diverse expressive vocabulary as they enter school: approximately 2,100 words by the age of 5 years old and 2, 600 words by the age of 6 (Stahl, 1999). However, trying to provide all of these words in an AAC system

*Correspondence: Manon Robillard, Speech-Language Pathology Program, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, P3E 2C6. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 26 June 2013; revised 15 December 2013; accepted 18 January 2014)

267

268

M. Robillard et al.

can create challenges for many young children with complex communication needs and for the individuals who support the development of the AAC systems. Unlike older children and adults who can generate their own messages by using the alphabet to spell, preliterate children are unable to generate the needed vocabulary by spelling (Banajee, Dicarlo, & Buras Stricklin, 2003; Zangari, 2012). For this reason, young children with complex communication needs must rely on the words chosen, programmed, and organized by their caregivers and others (Carlson, 1981). Given that young children must rely on adults such as their parents, teachers, and therapists to select the vocabulary they need (Beukelman et al., 1991; Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Marvin, Beukelman, & Bilyeu, 1994), it is important that these caregivers know which words are needed for participation and to support language development (Morreale, Osborn, & Pearson, 2000; Witkowski & Baker, 2012). There are a number of strategies for identifying needed vocabulary, including open-ended surveys and word lists (which are often based on transcriptions of conversations by speaking peers). When people are surveyed and asked to list frequently used words, they tend to provide a large number of common names (e.g., book, bed, coat) rather than functional words (e.g., I, the, that), even though the latter actually have a greater frequency in everyday language (Beukelman et al., 1991; Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Marvin et al., 1994; Richards, 1974). Word frequency lists have been suggested as a method for identifying the vocabulary necessary for young children. Caregivers are provided with lists of commonly used words, and are asked to identify those that they believe will be most useful to the child. The lists are typically based on a combination of words identified as important by professionals, as well as transcriptions of conversations by the population of interest (e.g., children, seniors). It is often hypothesized that children who make use of AAC will have communication needs similar to those who communicate verbally; therefore, compiling word lists based on the speaking population has been the preferred technique for establishing vocabulary to be programmed in AAC systems (Beukelman et al., 1991; Marvin et al., 1994). Studies conducted with speaking children can provide a rich source of information for the creation of standard word lists that will assist in the selection of vocabulary for children who use AAC (Trembath et al., 2007). However, these lists need to be used with caution (Yorkston, Smith, & Beukelman, 1990) because an effective AAC system must contain not only frequently used vocabulary as identified from research with other individuals but also the individualized vocabulary that will be of particular interest to the specific child (e.g., family member names, favorite activities). Because vocabulary selection can be difficult, Dark and Balandin (2007) recommend the inclusion of a variety of vocabulary selection tools, such as word lists, categorical inventories, direct observation, recording of conversations during activities, and environmental and ecological inventories.

Core and Fringe Vocabulary In developing an AAC system, practitioners often consider the identification of core and fringe vocabulary; these terms are discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. CoreVocabulary. The words that are used most frequently by a person can vary greatly from one person to the next, depending on personal interests and environments. The term core vocabulary is used to identify words that are characterized both by their high frequency of use and their high degree of commonality among users (Banajee et al., 2003; Beukelman et al., 1989; Yorkston, Honsinger, Dowden, & Marriner, 1989). In examining the research on core vocabularies, it becomes clear that a relatively small number of words can capture a large percentage of the words typically spoken in conversations by both children and adults (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Fallon et al., 2001; Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987; Yorkston et al., 1989). Pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, determinants, auxiliary verbs, and adverbs are frequently found on core word lists (Trembath et al., 2007). These small words are the framework of language (Banajee et al., 2003) because they are necessary for the formulation of sentences and to connect utterances, thus allowing for proper syntax (Marvin et al., 1994). A study by Clendon and Erickson (2008) established that the same is true for written language; a relatively small amount of core words was needed to represent significant portions of children’s written language samples. The presence or absence of core words within an AAC system can have a great impact on children’s face-to-face communication and development of their reading and writing skills. The inclusion of core words in AAC systems can facilitate the production of syntactically complete sentences. However, researchers agree that although core words provide a flexible framework for communication, they lack meaning when used in isolation (e.g., Trembath et al., 2007). The inclusion of vocabulary specific to the child and the environment, sometimes referred to as fringe vocabulary, is necessary for effective communication and the success of AAC (Balandin & Iacono, 1998; Beukelman et al., 1991; Yorkston et al., 1989). Fringe Vocabulary. Fringe vocabulary items are often large in number, change frequently, and are highly individualized (Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987; Yorkston et al., 1989). They are specific to a person’s interests and environment and have a low degree of commonality among users (Trembath et al., 2007). Fringe words are less commonly used, but are necessary because they are the words used to communicate specific content. To accurately communicate their messages, children with complex communication needs would need an AAC system that includes both core and fringe vocabularies (Nyberg, Kushler, & Higginbotham, 1994). ConseAugmentative and Alternative Communication

Vocabulary, Bilingulism and PLI quently, it is important to have a balance between the two types of vocabulary. Because core words have a higher frequency and higher commonality among users, the focus of this study was to gather core vocabulary rather than fringe vocabulary, which is very individualized. Previous Research on Core Vocabulary Many researchers have compiled recordings from children for the purpose of creating core word lists (e.g., Banajee et al., 2003; Beukelman et al., 1991; Crestani, Clendon, & Hemsley, 2010; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Marvin et al., 1994; Trembath et al., 2007). Some studies have shown that children, teenagers, and adults use the same core vocabulary, and that it remains the same across multiple environments (Baker, Hill, & Devylder, 2000; Banajee et al., 2003). Other researchers have investigated the commonality of core vocabularies across groups of individuals with and without disabilities. In 2007, a German study by Boenisch and Sachse compared the vocabulary of children with typical development to that of children with physical disabilities. They found that the 100 most frequent words used by children with typical development accounted for 65% of their words, and the 100 most frequent words used by children with physical disabilities accounted for 66% of their words. However, further analyses of the language used by these two groups revealed that the children with physical disabilities produced on average 30–45% fewer words as well as 30% fewer prepositions than the children with typical development (Boenisch, 2009). Impact of Bilingualism and Primary Language Impairment This study was designed to investigate the core vocabularies of speaking children growing up in a bilingual environment, including children with primary language impairment. Bilingual Children. On a global scale, bilingualism is very common (Lewis, 2009). Some children who use AAC to communicate live in bilingual communities or homes in which either both parents are bilingual, or one parent is monolingual and the other is bilingual. In northern Ontario, Canada, children raised in homes in which French is typically spoken often become bilingual speakers (French–English) at an early age due to the strong influence of the English majority language in the surrounding community (Laflamme & Bernier, 1998; Laflamme, Corbett, & Southcott, 2008; Laflamme & Reguigui, 2003). For many of these children, it is not unusual that they are learning two languages at the same time from an early age, as they hear both French and English, either at home or in in different environments. There are also many children who are raised in predominantly English-speaking homes who attend French-speaking schools. Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and the Law on © 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

269

French Language Education in Ontario (2011) grant English-speaking children the right to attend minority language schools, in this case French schools, provided they meet certain minimal requirements. Thus, the extent of exposure to the French language before school entry varies; for some, it is nil. For this study, some of the said bilingual children, the English-dominant children, were actually Anglophone children learning French as a second language (L2), and for many, the classroom was their first – and certainly their most important – exposure to French. They were therefore learning the L2 sequentially because they had learned one language before the other (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). According to Peña, Bedore, and Zlatic-Giunta (2002), bilingual children must process and organize more words than monolingual children because they may be exposed to two words for each referent (concrete object or concept designated by a word). However, according to Pearson, Fernàndez, Lewedag, and Oller (1997), bilingual children, especially those who are acquiring an L2 sequentially, do not live the same experiences in both languages. For example, some children are exposed to French solely at school and to English solely at home. Thus, they do not necessarily have two words, or doublets, in each language for the same referent, because they do not have the same knowledge or lexicon in both languages (Pearson et al., 1997). Moreover, the vocabulary size of bilingual children in each language has been shown to be smaller than the vocabulary size of monolingual children (e.g., Bialystok, Barac, Blaye, & Poulin-Dubois, 2010; Bialystok, Luk, Peets, & Yang, 2010; Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2008; Junker & Stockman, 2002; Oller, Pearson, & Cobo-Lewis, 2007; Patterson, 2002; Pearson et al., 1997; Pearson, Fernàndez, & Oller, 1993; Ucelli & Pàez, 2007). However, some studies have reported that bilingual school-aged children have similar receptive vocabulary skills as their monolingual peers (Cromdal, 1999; Yan & Nicoladis, 2009). This is also true for their expressive vocabulary skills when there is dominance in one language (Pearson et al., 1993). However, balanced bilingual children tend to have a smaller vocabulary even when both languages are combined (Elin Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard, & Naves, 2006; Yan & Nicoladis, 2009). Because of the wide variety of research questions that have been addressed, and the wide variety of research findings, it is not clear what commonality would be seen across core lists for these groups. Primary Language Impairment. The term specific language impairment (SLI) defines a high-incidence developmental disorder assumed to be the result of innate factors impacting language learning without any observed sensory, motor, or neurological impairments (Leonard, 1998). The term primary language impairment (PLI) includes the subtle non-linguistic processing weaknesses that exist together with the more obvious language delays included in SLI, such as processing information, speed of processing, and working memory

270

M. Robillard et al.

(Kohnert, Windsor, & Ebert, 2009; Tomblin, Zhang, Buckwalter, & O’Brien, 2003). It is estimated that 7% of school-aged children have language impairments (Tomblin et al., 1997). Consequently, it may be important to consider this variable in order to determine whether the core words used by young children with primary language impairment differ from those used by children who are acquiring language without any difficulty. For example, a French-speaking child with typical development produces approximately 50 words between 16 and 17 months of age (Boudreault, Cabriol, Trudeau, Poulin-Dubois, & Sutton, 2007), while a child with a language impairment produces his or her first words much later (Trauner, Wulfeck, Tallal, & Hesselink, 1995). Consequently, the sentences produced by children with language impairment would not be as complete as those of children whose language proficiency is within the norm (Parisse & Maillart, 2004; Rice et al., 2010). In addition, their stories are shorter and less complex (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2004; MayerCrittenden, 2013; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Studies conducted in Quebec, Canada, by Elin Thordardottir (2011); and in Ontario by Mayer-Crittenden (2013), show that French-speaking children with language impairments in both majority and minority linguistic contexts experience difficulties in a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic areas, be it lexical, morphosyntactic, syntactic, or narrative. It seems reasonable to suggest that these children would not use the same core words as children whose language proficiency is within the norm, but research to date has not compared the core words of these two groups. It was hypothesized that their core words would differ, given the differences in vocabularies and syntax. Research Objective of the Current Study In order for children with complex communication needs to communicate fully in a broad range of contexts, core words are necessary when developing vocabulary for an AAC system (Witkowski & Baker, 2012). For these children to learn to read and write, the inclusion of core words is also essential (Witkowski & Baker, 2012). Of course, the addition of fringe words that reflect the interests, personality, and environment of each child is also indispensable. Lists of core words have been compiled from recordings of monolingual children without language impairments in countries such as the United States and Australia (e.g., Banajee et al., 2003, Beukelman, McGinnis, & Morrow, 1991; Crestani et al., 2010; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Marvin et al., 1994; Trembath et al., 2007). Clinicians are faced with numerous challenges, however, when selecting vocabulary for French monolingual and bilingual (French–English and English– French) children who use AAC and attend a French school, but live in an area where English is the majority language. Not only have core vocabulary lists not been developed for children with complex commu-

nication needs who communicate in these linguistic environments but it is uncertain if lists that have been developed for other children with different language experiences would be beneficial to children who are exposed to more than one language. Bilingual children often have reduced vocabulary in each of their languages, as do children with a primary language impairment (e.g., Hammer et al., 2008; Junker & Stockman, 2002; Oller et al., 2007; Patterson, 2002; Pearson et al., 1993; Pearson et al., 1997; Ucelli & Pàez, 2007). Therefore, it would be possible that bilingual children and those with PLI would use fewer core words.Yet, the impact of bilingualism on core vocabulary use has not been reported. Likewise, it is not known whether or not children with PLI use the same core words as children without language impairments. It was hypothesized that the core words used by these groups would vary; however, to date, no empirical study has reported a comparison of the core vocabulary used by children with normal language proficiency (monolingual and bilingual children), and children who have language impairments. The specific research questions for this study were: (a) Do monolingual (French) and bilingual (French–English; English–French) children use the same core words in French?, and (b) Do children with and without primary language impairment use the same French core vocabulary?

Method Recruitment Recruitment was conducted from a sample of children who had participated in a study on bilingualism led by the second author of the current study (MayerCrittenden, Robillard, Thordardottir, B é langer, & Minor-Corriveau, manuscript in preparation). Following the latter’s consent and ethics approval to use data collected for secondary purposes, the results of the language samples were available for this new study. Participants A total of 57 children aged 53–77 months (M ⫽ 66.91, SD ⫽ 6.87) participated in this study. There were 34 girls and 23 boys; 23 of the children attended junior kindergarten and 34 attended senior kindergarten in one of the seven elementary schools from the Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario (CSPGNO) of the City of Greater Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. These are French schools in a region where French is a minority language and English is the majority language. Linguistic Status The linguistic status was determined based on the results of a study on bilingualism conducted by the second author (Mayer-Crittenden et al., manuscript in preparation). The children’s parents had responded to a questionnaire that focused on their linguistic background, Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Vocabulary, Bilingulism and PLI which permitted the proper classification of the children as French monolingual (French), French–English bilingual (French dominant), or English–French bilingual (English dominant). The participants were divided into three linguistic groups based on the following: their first language (L1), the languages used in a variety of contexts, and language exposure in different environments. The children identified as belonging to the monolingual French group were exposed to 5 hours or less of English per week, which is in accordance with studies by Elin Thordardottir, Keheyia, Lesard, Sutton, and Trudeau (2010) and Mayer-Crittenden, Thordardottir, Robillard, Minor-Corriveau, and Bélanger (in press). The bilingual French–English (French dominant) group was exposed to more than 5 hours, but less than 25 hours of English per week (Mayer-Crittenden et al., manuscript in preparation). The bilingual English–French (English dominant) group was exposed to more than 25 hours of English per week, which corresponds to the language ratio established by Pearson et al. (1997) as the cut off for being considered a bilingual speaker. For the present study, six children, four girls and two boys, aged 57–77 months, were part of the monolingual French group (M) 69.83, SD ⫽ 7.39). A total of 22, 12 girls and 10 boys, aged 54–76 months (M ⫽ 69.83, SD ⫽ 7.25) were part of the bilingual French-dominant group. A total of 19 children, 11 girls and 8 boys, aged from 53–76 months (M ⫽ 67.21, SD ⫽ 6.56) were part of the bilingual English-dominant group. A total of 10 children – 7 girls and 3 boys – were excluded from the first three groups because they had been identified as having a language impairment in the study conducted by Mayer-Crittenden et al. (manuscript in preparation) and by their school board speech-language pathologist. Those children, aged 57–77 months (M ⫽ 64.8, SD ⫽ 6.39), formed the PLI group and were analyzed separately. All 10 of these children were considered to be from bilingual environments: 3 were identified as French dominant and 7 were identified as English dominant. Environment All of the children were recorded in their classroom throughout an entire school day. During the recordings, the teachers followed their usual schedule, including for activities led by the teacher and the child, such as free play. So as not to interfere with the organic and environmental flow of the routine, no attempt was made to ensure that every child participated for comparable periods of time in activities led by the teacher or the child. Children were free to participate in classroom activities as they had been doing in this familiar context for the previous year or two. Material To record the speech samples, the children wore a small Sony digital voice recorder (model ICD-PX312)1. In order to maximize their comfort, the children had the choice of wearing the device around their waist in a © 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

271

pouch designed for cell phones, or around their neck using a lanyard. Procedure The recordings were spread over a period of 10 school days, but samples were collected from each child on one single day. Typically, more than one child was recorded simultaneously in the same classroom. A research assistant participated in fitting the children with the equipment upon their arrival to school. The assistant remained at the school all day to help the children put on and remove the recorders as needed. Children were instructed to ignore the recorder. One child refused to wear it and did not participate in the study. In order to allow the children to play at will the recorders were removed during recess and gym. The recorders were not sound activated. Samples were collected from the time the child arrived at school (8:35 a.m. – 8:50 a.m.) until the last bell rang at 3:15 p.m. The length of the recording was 4 to 5 hours per participant. The variation can be explained by the fact that some children participated in activities during which they had to remove the recorders, while some did not. For example, on some days, some children spent recess inside the classroom due to rain and continued to wear the recorders. Transcription of Speech Samples. Five trained research assistants participated in the transcription of the recordings. They transcribed the samples according to a predetermined protocol (see Appendix A) based on the study by Trembath et al. (2007). Only the intelligible words were retained. Words relating to the recording equipment as well as words repeated in songs or in activities were omitted. Filler words were transcribed and considered as words (e.g., hum, euh). As in previous studies (e.g., Trembath et al., 2007) and for confidentiality reasons, the CN code was substituted for the names of the children while the names of teachers and other adults in the classroom were replaced with the TN code. Analysis of Transcripts. The analysis of the transcriptions was performed using the Systemic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) software (Miller & Chapman, 1990). Only the codes that were necessary for this study were used. Two trained research assistants participated in this analysis. Inter-rater Agreement. The inter-rater agreement was established for the transcription of speech samples and for the SALT analysis. In all, 25% of the recordings were transcribed by a second research assistant, to examine whether the same words were transcribed; for the SALT analyses, whether the assistants used the same codes was examined. When disagreements occurred regarding the transcriptions, the two assistants listened to the recordings together to decide on the words used by the child. The inter-rater agreement of the transcriptions

272

M. Robillard et al.

was 70%. Given the noisy environment in which data was collected, it is believed that this rate is acceptable. Due to the ambient noise, it was sometimes difficult to hear the children’s voices and to differentiate one child from another. The fact that the children could not be seen during the transcription may have had an effect on the reliability of the transcriptions. However, since similar studies have not reported an inter-rater agreement, it is not possible to judge this value. For the SALT analyses, we examined whether the same codes were used during transcriptions. The same comparison approach was adopted for the SALT analyses. The inter-rater agreement for the codes used in the SALT analyses was 96.6%. Data Analysis In order to calculate the frequency of words, descriptive analyses were performed. The transcriptions were first divided into their four respective groups: French, French dominant, English dominant, and PLI. The number of different words per group and the frequency of use for each word were calculated using the SALT software. The commonality of words was calculated by assigning one point for each child who used a given word. The maximum value of the commonality score was equal to the number of participants in the group (the maximum commonality score was 6 for the French group, 22 for the French-dominant group, 19 for the English-dominant group, and 10 for the group with primary language impairment). The core words were determined using the same selection criteria used in previous studies related to core vocabulary (e.g., Beukelman et al., 1989; Trembath et al., 2007; Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987). To be coded as a core word, the word had to be used frequently by the individuals in the group (a frequency of use of at least 0.5 per 1000 words) and had to be used by multiple individuals in the group (used by at least 50% of the participants). These two criteria were necessary for a word to be included on the core list. All other words were classified as being fringe. Although some of the bilingual children used English words on occasion, only French words were retained for this analysis. For the frequency analysis, some words were combined. For example, contracted forms and non-contracted forms of a word were combined (e.g., je and j’ – I). In addition, the inflectional forms of the same morpheme that were subject to frequent errors among children were also combined in order to not overestimate or underestimate their frequency (e.g., le, la, l’ and les – THE). The same was done for the inflectional forms of the same lexeme (e.g., chat, chats, chattes and chattes – CAT, CATS). In addition, the different forms of the same verb that are sometimes subject to errors among children (e.g., fais, fait, faite, and faites – MAKE) were grouped. However, the infinitive forms were recorded separately or grouped with their homophone (e.g., lire – READ / faire –MAKE/ aller, allé, allée, allés, allées – GO).

Results French-Only (Monolingual) Group The total number of words used by the French-only group (n ⫽ 6) was 14,648 (average of 2,441 words per participant). Because the frequency had to be equal to or greater than 0.5 per 1000 words for a word to be considered as core, a word for this group had to appear at least 7.3 times in the combined transcript to be retained. The commonality of words was then calculated. Because words needed to be used by 50% of the participants, a word required a commonality score of at least 3 to be considered a core word. Following these calculations, 216 core words (accounting for 11,740 of the words used) were retained. These words represented 80.15% of the total sample. The 50 most frequent core words accounted for 57.46% of the total words in the sample, the most frequent 40 words accounted for 53.50% of the sample, and the 10 most frequent words accounted for 28.11% of the sample. The complete list of core words consisted of 216 words, including determinants (e.g., le, la, l’, les – THE), personal pronouns (e.g., je, j’ – I), demonstrative pronouns (ça – THAT), interrogative pronouns (quoi – WHAT), conjunctions (et – AND), verbs (regarde, regardes, regardent – LOOK), adverbs (comme – AS), interrogative adverbs (comment – HOW), prepositions (de – FROM, OF, ABOUT), interjections (ok, okay – OK, OKAY) and indefinite adjectives (tout, toute, toutes – ALL). Only one noun (Madame, French for Mrs) was found on this list; there were no object names. French-Dominant (Bilingual) Group The transcriptions of the 22 French-dominant children were combined into one transcription, in order to perform the necessary analysis. The total words recorded for this group was 49,088 (average of 2,584 words per participant). Words needed a frequency of at least 24.5 to be included and a commonality score of at least 11 to be counted as a core word. Following these calculations, 192 core words were retained among the French-dominant children, representing 72.82% of the sample. The 50, 40, and 10 most frequent core words represented 55.54%, 51.64% and 26.83% of the sample, respectively. The words on the 192-word list included the same parts of speech (determinants, personal pronouns, etc.) as for the monolingual (French-only) group and, once again, no object names were found on this list. English-Dominant (Bilingual) Group For the English-dominant children, 19 transcriptions were combined to obtain the total number of words used and the usage frequency of each word. These children used a total of 43,711 words (average of 1,987 words per participant). A word needed a frequency of at least 21.9 and a commonality of at least10 to be included on the list of core words. Following these calculations, 182 core words were retained, representing 68.45% of the Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Vocabulary, Bilingulism and PLI Table I. Percentage of Identical Words Between Monolinguals, Bilinguals and Children with Primary Language Impairments (PLI).

French French French-dominant English-dominant PLI

–

Frenchdominant

Englishdominant

79.72% –

75.58% 86.01% –

PLI 74.65% 72.54% 79.58% –

sample. The 50, 40, and 10 most frequent core words represented 52.90%, 49.00%, and 25.14% of the sample, respectively. As for the monolingual (French-only) and bilingual (French-dominant) children, similar parts of speech were observed, and no object names were found on this list. PLI Group To calculate the core words of the children with primary language impairment, the transcriptions of the 10 children with language impairments were combined. Because the participants spoke 19,022 words (average of 1,902 words per child), a word needed a frequency of 9.5 to be included and a commonality score of at least 5 to be counted. Following these calculations, 190 words were retained as core words. The core words among children with primary language impairment represented 77.85% of total words. The 50, 40, and 10 most frequent core words represented 59.62%, 55.35%, and 29.63% of the sample, respectively. As was the case for the other groups, no object names were on this list. Comparison Between Groups To compare the commonality of core vocabulary across the four different groups, the percentage of identical words between the lists of core words was calculated. Table I shows the percentage of words that appeared on both core lists for two compared groups. The 10 most frequent core words between the four groups were then compared; 9 were identical among the French and the French-dominant children, and 9 were Table II. Comparison of the Ten Most Frequent French Core Words, and their Ranking of Frequency of Use, for the Four Groups Studied.

FrenchEnglishFrench-only dominant dominant Je, j’ – I 1(49.25) 1 (49.25)* Le, la, l, les – THE 2 (42.19) 2 (44.06) Ça – THAT 5 (24.99) 3 (26.89) C’est – IT’S 4 (28.06) 4 (25.42) Tu, t’ – YOU 6 (22.80) 10 (10.76) Un, une, des – A, AN 3 (30.52) 5 (24.28) A, as – HAS, HAVE 7 (22.05) 8 (19.76) Moi – ME 8 (20.62) 6 (23.67) Pas – NOT 9 (20.62) 7 (22.12) Ai – HAVE 10 (19.23) –

1 (40.97) 2 (40.22) 3 (28.28) 4 (27.27) 9 (17.46) 5 (22.21) 7 (18.76) 8 (18.74) 6 (21.50) –

PLI 2 (47.16) 1 (49.99) 3 (31.96) 4 (28.70) – 5 (27.39) – 6 (25.13) 7 (23.23) 8 (21.45)

*Number of times a word was used per 1,000 words of language sample. © 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

273

identical among the French and the English-dominant groups. Moreover, the 10 most frequent words among the French-dominant and English-dominant children were identical, with the exception that they differed in sequence. Among the children with language impairments, 8 words were identical to those of the Frenchmonolingual children, the French-dominant children, and the English-dominant children. These words are presented in Table II.

Discussion The goal of this study was to compare the core vocabulary of monolingual children, bilingual children, and children with primary language impairment. From full-day recordings in a school environment, lists of core words were created for the following four groups: French-only (monolingual), French-dominant (French– English bilingual), English-dominant (English–French bilingual), and PLI. The groups were then compared, in order to answer the research questions. French Core Words: Monolingual Versus Bilingual French-only (Monolinguals). In the French-monolingual group, 216 core words were identified, which represented 80.15% of the words used. These numbers were very similar to studies conducted in English in the United States and Australia and support the fact that approximately 200–250 words represent 80% of what speaking children say (Banajee et al., 2003; Crestani et al., 2010; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Marvin et al., 1994; Trembath et al., 2007). Regardless of the language, the number of core words and the percentage of total spoken words for which they account are similar. Similar to the English studies, French-speaking children’s core words are mostly function words, and not nouns. French-dominant and English-dominant (Bilinguals). Among the bilingual French-dominant group, 192 core words were identified, which represented 72.82% of the sample (total words spoken). For the bilingual Englishdominant group, 182 core words were identified, representing 68.45% of the total words spoken. There were few differences between the core word lists of the two groups: 86.01% of the words were identical between the two groups, and the 10 most frequent words were the same words (although their sequence differed). An additional comparison of interest was between the children who were bilingual and monolingual (French only). The percentage of identical core words between the French-only and the French-dominant (bilingual) children was 79.72%, and the percentage between the French-only and the English-dominant (dominant) children was 75.58%. Between the bilinguals and the monolinguals, the 10 most frequent words differed by one word only, and the 40 most frequent words differed by only four words. This would

274

M. Robillard et al.

mean that bilingual children attending a French school demonstrate a similar use of high frequency French words as children who speak French. The results of this study demonstrate that monolingual (French only) and bilingual (French–English; English–French) children essentially use the same core words in French. A possible explanation for the similarity between the core words of the monolinguals and those of the bilingual children is that the recordings took place at the end of the school year, after the junior kindergarten children were exposed to an environment that is rich in French vocabulary for 9 months, while the senior kindergarten children had been immersed in this environment for almost 2 years and so had higher exposure to French only French Core Words: Children with and Without Primary Language Impairment PLI Group. This group used 190 core words, which accounted for 77.85% of the words in the combined transcripts for this group. Although no formal statistical analysis was conducted, the number of core words and the percentage of total words did not appear to differ from those of the monolingual group or the two bilingual groups. Moreover, 74.65% of the core words were the same as those of the monolingual children, 72.54% were the same as those of the French-dominant children, and 79.58% were the same as those of Englishdominant children. Even if the overall language skills of the children with and without primary language impairment differed, the words they used most often did not differ in this study, the results of which provide evidence that children with and without primary language impairment use the same core words in French. It is interesting to consider these findings within the broader context of past research on children with primary language impairment. Although they had the same core vocabulary, the fact that they used the same core words at the same frequency as children without language impairments does not provide us with information regarding the proper use of the words. In addition, the syntax and the complexity of their sentences could have been affected. Past research provides evidence that these children demonstrate a reduced average length of utterance (Parisse & Maillart, 2004; Rice, Smolik, Perpick, Thompson, Rytting, & Blossom, 2010) and produce more incomplete sentences (Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2004; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Perhaps most important is the size of total vocabulary, with past research indicating that children with primary language impairment have a less extensive vocabulary (e.g., Oller et al., 2007; Patterson, 2002; Pearson et al., 1993; Pearson et al., 1997; Ucelli & Pàez, 2007); the size of total vocabulary was not examined in this study. French Core Words: All Groups Combined Given that no important differences were observed in our descriptive analysis between the French,

French-dominant, English-dominant and PLI groups, the transcriptions of all 57 children were combined. Having a single list will facilitate the task of those who develop AAC systems for francophone or bilingual children attending French schools, because they will not need to determine the language dominance of the child (francophone, French-dominant bilingual or Englishdominant bilingual), which can be a complex process. Core words for the sample as a whole were calculated based on all of the recordings, and 200 words, representing 73.03% of all words, were retained. The 50, 40, and 10 most frequent words represented 54.55%, 50.95%, and 26.62%, respectively. The list of the 40 most frequent core words for the sample as a whole can be found in Appendix B. As in previous studies (e.g., Fallon et al., 2001; Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987; Yorkston et al., 1989), the number of core words used by the children in this study was limited (the largest list had 216 words); however, they were used often and by half or more of the participants. Results of this study also support previous studies (e.g., Trembath et al., 2007) stating that core words are not usually nouns but rather are most often pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, determinants, verbs, and adverbs. The provision of this vocabulary and instruction in its use raises interesting intervention challenges. For example, although this vocabulary is needed to create sentences that are syntactically complete, its use often presents challenges for representing words in symbol or picture format when traditional orthography is not an option. In addition, for children with physical disabilities who experience difficulty in selecting vocabulary, these words, while important, may not be considered priorities to support communication by either the person with complex communication needs or his or her communication partner, who may place an emphasis on speed of communication. At the same time, it is recognized that the absence of these core words could greatly impact the ability to create sentences that are syntactically complete. For young children, achievement in school relies on the ability to communicate with others (Morreale et al., 2000; Witkowski & Baker, 2012). The inability to create syntactically correct sentences, at those times when doing so is a priority (e.g., preparing for a classroom presentation) could negatively impact on a child’s academic participation and self-esteem/image. Core words may be especially important for learning and using written language (Clendon & Erickson, 2008). Although children who use AAC can communicate face-to-face in a telegraphic style (e.g., without articles), the absence of core words within AAC systems could have a considerable impact on the development of their reading and writing skills. Because function words cannot be easily represented for children who are pre-literate, future studies are needed to investigate the best representational method for these function words. For example, it may be just as easy for some children to learn the written form versus an abstract symbol that represents the word. Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Vocabulary, Bilingulism and PLI Clinical Implications Although this study did not gather vocabulary from children who use AAC to communicate, results do have clinical implications for these children. The core vocabulary list gathered from the sample as a whole can support clinicians and families during the vocabulary selection process for young children who attend a French school, whether they are monolingual or bilingual. While providing a flexible framework for communication, the core words gathered from this study are not intended to be used alone, as they could lack meaning when used in isolation. Careful thought needs to be given to the combination of core and fringe vocabulary. The inclusion of fringe vocabulary that is specific to the child and the environment would be recommended and necessary for the success of AAC (Balandin & Iacono, 1998; Beukelman et al., 1991; Yorkston et al., 1989). Results may be similar for children who speak other languages, but future studies are needed to support this hypothesis. Because object names are most often chosen during the vocabulary selection process (Adamson, Romski, Deffenbach, & Sevcik, 1992), the AAC team should carefully consider the need for the core words from this list in developing AAC systems for young children. As part of this process, family members and others who are in the child’s environments should participate in the selection of fringe vocabulary. Additionally, input from a variety of sources will be needed to ensure that the AAC system can be used appropriately in a variety of linguistic environments (e.g., that the gloss for the symbols is available in the needed languages, in this case, French and/or English). Limitations The noisy classrooms made the transcription process very difficult and may have had a negative impact on inter-rater reliability. Video recordings could have facilitated the transcription task, but this was not the preferred method of data collection because filming each child would have been disruptive to the classroom and would have potentially impacted the vocabulary used. The vocabulary used by the children could have been impacted by the fact that the recordings were all made within a school setting rather than at home or during a recreational activity. Although studies such as Banajee et al. (2003), who analyzed the vocabulary of 50 children aged 24–36 months, have shown that core vocabulary does not change across different environments, the participants of the current study were older than those in the Banajee et al. study, and differences may be observed in different environments for this population. Also, the fact that the recordings were all limited to one specific time of the year (i.e., spring) could have impacted the words used by the children. In addition, because the French vocabulary was gathered in a region where French was a minority language, it is not known © 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

275

if the children’s French core words would be the same if they were gathered in different areas of Canada or other countries where French is a majority language. The length of recordings varied between children because some participated in more activities where they did not speak, for example, within the library environment. Some children participated in several structured activities; while others had more time for free play, therefore giving them more opportunities to talk and to interact with other children. For the bilingual children, the fact that the recordings took place at the end of the school year may have impacted their vocabulary since they had been exposed to French since the beginning of the school year. Had the study been conducted in the fall, the core words used by the bilingual children may have differed greatly. Finally, the small participant size of each group was also a limitation, because the French and PLI groups were much smaller than the two bilingual groups. Future Research Future research should investigate children of different age groups and languages, in order to compare results. Ideally, the samples of children to be compared would be large enough to represent a range of linguistic skills, would meet precise inclusion/exclusion criteria, and would be of equivalent size (to support statistical analysis). Future studies should also include recordings from different environments at different times of the year, in order to further understanding of the impact of bilingualism and language impairments on core vocabulary use. In order to obtain a list of core words that may be more useful for clinicians, future studies should analyze the data by looking at the top 10% of the words from each category (e.g., nouns, verbs, modifiers). In this way, they could support the availability of a range of vocabulary items for the child with complex communication needs. Additionally, future research should investigate the development of common metrics (e.g., how many words are needed to represent 80% of the total words spoken?) in order to support comparisons between published studies.

Conclusion The goal of this study was to compare the core words used by monolingual and bilingual children and children with and without language impairments in a French-speaking school environment. Contrary to the hypothesis, the analysis of language transcripts from recordings made during an entire school day revealed that there were no important differences between the lists of core words among the four groups studied: monolingual French, bilingual French-dominant, bilingual English-dominant, and children with primary language impairment. This preliminary data suggests that the same core words could be provided in AAC systems for children

276

M. Robillard et al.

who are monolingual or bilingual and have language impairments. These findings could facilitate the vocabulary selection process for families and speech-language pathologists, because a different list of core words is not needed for these distinctive populations. Future research to investigate additional strategies to support participation in bilingual communities for children with complex communication needs is required.

Author Note This research was performed as part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. The authors would like to thank the Conseil Scolaire Public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario (CSPGNO) for the partnership that allowed this research to be conducted. Thank you to the research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Mélissa Therrien, Karine Daoust, Melissa Lariviere, Williane Kanyamuneza, Danelle Lefebvre, Michelle Brouillette, Ashley DeCaen, and Maxine Perrin. The authors would also like to thank Ali Reguigui and Simon Laflamme for their guidance.

Note 1. Sony Digital Voice Recorder Model ICD-PX312, Sony Electronics Inc., Tokyo, Japan c., 2014. Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article. This research was made possible through a partial financial contribution from Health Canada. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official views of Health Canada.

References Adamson, L., Romski, M., Deffenbach, K., & Sevcik, R. (1992). Symbol vocabulary and the focus of conversations: Augmenting language development for young with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1333–1343. doi: 10.1177/108835760101600302 Baker, B. R., Hill, K., & Devylder. R. (2000). Core Vocabulary is the same across environments. Proceedings of the Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, California State University, Northridge, CA. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/cod/ conf/2000/proceedings/0259Baker.htm Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1998). A few well-chosen words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 147–161. doi: 10.1080/07434619812331278326 Banajee, M., Dicarlo, C., & Buras Stricklin, S. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 67–73. doi: 10.1080/0743461031000112034 Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bialystok, E., Barac, R., Blaye, A., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2010). Word mapping and executive functioning in young monolingual

and bilingual children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 485–508. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2010.516420 Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 525–531. doi: 10.1017/ S1366728909990423 Beukelman, D. R., Jones, R. S., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 243–248. doi: 10.1080/07434618912331275296 Beukelman, D. R., McGinnis, J., & Morrow, D. (1991). Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 171–185. doi: 10.1080/07434619112331275883 Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Co. Boenisch, J. (2009). Kinder ohne Lautsprache. Grundlagen, Entwicklungen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Unterstützten Kommunikation [Children without speech. Development and research results for augmentative communication]. Loeper: Karlsruhe. Boenisch, J., & Sachse, S. (2007). Sprachförderung von anfang an zum einsatz von kern- und fandvokabular in derfrühen Förderung [Language development from the beginning for the use of core and fringe vocabulary. In: Augmentative and Alternative Communication]. Unterstützte Kommunikation, 3, 23–27. Boudreault, M.-C., Cabirol, É.-A., Trudeau, N., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Sutton, A. (2007). Les Inventaires Macarthur du développement de la communication: validité et données normatives préliminaires [MacArthur communication development inventories: Validity and preliminary normative data]. Canadian Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology and Audiology, 31, 27–37. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). La Charte des droits et libertés. Retrieved from http://www.charterofrights.ca/ fr/02_00_01. Carlson, F. (1981). A format for selecting vocabulary for the non-speaking child. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 12, 240–245. Clendon, S. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2008). The vocabulary of beginning writers: Implications for children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative communication, 24, 281–293. doi: 10.1080/07434610802463999 Crestani, C-A. M., Clendon, S. A., & Hemsley, B. (2010). Words needed for sharing a story: Implications for vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual & developmental Disability, 35, 268–278. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2010.513966 Cromdal, J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 1–20. Dark, L., & Balandin, S. (2007). Prediction and selection of vocabulary for two leisure activities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 288–299. doi: 10.1080/07434610 601152140 Elin Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between the bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 1–20. doi: 10.1177/1367006910379299 Elin Thordardottir, E., Keheyia, E., Lessard, N., Sutton, A., & Trudeau, N. (2010). Typical performance on tests of language knowledge and language processing of French-speaking 5-year-olds. Revue Canadienne d’Orthophonie et d’Audiologie, 34, 5–16. Elin Thordardottir, E., Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M., & Naves, R. (2006). Bilingual assessment: Can over-all proficiency be estimated from separate assessment of two languages? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 4, 1–21. Fallon, K. A., Light, J. C., & Paige, T. K. (2001). Enhancing vocabulary selection for preschoolers who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). American Journal of

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Vocabulary, Bilingulism and PLI Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 81–94. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360 (2001/010) Fried-Oken, M., & More, L. (1992). An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 41–56. doi: 10.1080/07434619212331276033 Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. (2004). Narrative development and disorders in bilingual children. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (pp. 235–256). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Hammer, C., Lawrence, F., & Miccio, A. (2008). Exposure to English before and after entry into head start: Bilingual children’s receptive language growth in Spanish and English. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 30–56. doi: 10.2167/beb376.0 Junker, D. A., & Stockman, I. J. (2002). Expressive vocabulary of German-English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 281–395. doi: 1058-0360/02/ 1104-0434 Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., Ebert, K.D. (2009). Primary or ‘specific’ language impairment and children learning a second language. Brain and Language, 109, 101–111. doi: 10.1016/j. bandl.2008.01.009 Laflamme, S., & Bernier, C. (1998). Vivre dans l’alternance linguistique : Médias, langue et littératie en Ontario français [Living in a multilingual environment]. Sudbury: Centre franco-ontarien de ressources en alphabétisation. Laflamme, S., Corbett, N., & Southcott, C. (2008). Usage des médias et langue de communication dans la communauté francophone du nord-ouest de l’Ontario [Use of media and the language of communication in the Francophone community of northwestern Ontario]. Revue du Nouvel-Ontario, 33, 69–94. doi: 10.7202/019786ar Laflamme, S., & Reguigui, A. (2003). Homogénéité et Distinction. [Homogeneity and distinction] Prise de Parole : Sudbury. Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lewis, M. P. (Ed.). (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved from http:// www.ethnologue.com/ Marvin, C. A., Beukelman, D. R., & Bilyeu, D. (1994). Vocabularyuse patterns in preschool children: Effects of context and time sampling. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 224–236. doi: 10.1080/07434619412331276930 Mayer-Crittenden, C. (2013). Les compétences linguistiques et cognitives des enfants bilingues en situation linguistique minoritaire [Language and cognitive skills of bilingual children living in a linguistic minority setting]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Laurentian University, Sudbury. Mayer-Crittenden, C., Robillard, M., Thordardottir, E., Bélanger, R. & Minor-Corriveau, M. (manuscript in preparation). Learning a minority language in a bilingual community. Mayer-Crittenden, C., Thordardottir, E., Robillard, M., MinorCorriveau, M., & Bélanger, R. (in press). Données langagières franco-ontariennes: effets du contexte minoritaire et du bilinguisme [Franco-ontarian language data: effects of a minority context and bilingualism]. Revue canadienne des orthophonistes et des audiologistes (RCOA). Canadian Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology and Audiology (CJSLPA). Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1990). Systematic analysis of language transcripts: Software for analyzing English and Spanish language transcripts (SALT). University of Wisconsin, Madison: Language Analysis Laboratory. Morreale, S. P., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication is important: A rationale for the centrality of the study of communication.Journal of theAssociation for Communication Administration, 29, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/03634520701861713 Nyberg, E., Kushler, C., & Higginbotham, D.J. (1994). Corpus analysis and vocabulary selection for word prediction in a multimodal system. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference

© 2014 International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

277

of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Netherlands. Oller, K. D., Pearson, B., & Cobo-Lewis, A. (2007). Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 191–230. doi: 10.1017.S0142716407070117 Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2004). Le développement morphosyntaxique des enfants présentant des troubles de développement du langage: données francophones. Enfance, 56, 20–35. doi:10.3917/enf.561.0020 Patterson, J. (2002). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading and television experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 493–508. doi: 10.1017. S0142716402004010 Pearson, B. Z., Fernàndez, S., Lewedag, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors in lexical learning of bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41–58. doi: 10.1017/ S014271640009863 Pearson, B. Z, Fernàndez, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00174.x Peña, B., Bedore, L. M., & Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002). Category-generation performance of bilingual children: The influence of condition, category, and language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 938–947. doi: 1092-4388/02/4505-0938 Rice, M.L., Smolik, F., Perpick, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 333–349. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0183) Richards, J. C. (1974). Word lists: Problems and prospects. Regional English Language Center Journal, 5, 69–84. doi: 10.1177/003368827400500207 Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339. doi: 1092-4388/00/4302-0324 Stahl, S.A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books. Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O’Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 1245–1260. doi: 1092-4388/97/4006-1245 Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., & O’Brien, M. (2003). The stability of primary language disorder: Four years after kindergarten diagnosis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1283–1296. doi: 1092-4388/03/4606-1283 Trauner, D.,Wulfeck, B., Tallal, P., & Hesselink, J. (1995). Neurologic and MRI profiles of language impaired children (CND-9513). University of California, San Diego: Center for Research in Language. Trembath, D., Balandin, S., & Togher, L. (2007). Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32, 291–301. doi: 10.1080/13668250701689298 Ucelli, P., & Pàez, M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and Spanish skills. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 225–236. doi: 0161-1461/07/3803-0225 Vanderheiden, G. C., & Kelso, D. P. (1987). Comparative analysis of fixed-vocabulary communication acceleration techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 196–206. doi: 10.1080/07434618712331274519 Witkowski, D., & Baker, B. (2012). Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for nonliterate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 74–81. doi: 10.1044/aac21.3.74 Yan, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Finding ‘le mot juste’: Differences between bilingual and monolingual children’s lexical access

278

M. Robillard et al.

in comprehension and production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 323–335. doi: 10.1017/S1366728909990101 Yorkston, K. M., Honsinger, M. J., Dowden, P. A., & Marriner, N. (1989). Vocabulary selection: A case report. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 101–108. doi: 10.1080/07434618912331275076 Yorkston, K. M., Smith, K., & Beukelman, D. (1990). Extended communication samples of augmented communicators I:

A comparison of individualized versus standard single-word vocabularies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 217–224. Zangari, C. (2012). Helping the general education team support students who use AAC. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 82–91. doi: 10.1044/ aac21.3.82

Appendix A

Appendix B

Transcription Rules Based on the Study by Trembath et al. (2007)

The 40 Most Frequent French Core words for Monolinguals, Bilinguals and Children with Primary Language Impairment.

1. Each utterance will be transcribed on a separate line. Utterances will be defined by changes in intonation and pauses of two seconds or more. 2. Sound repetitions (e.g., c-cochon) or syllable repetitions (e.g., beau-beaucoup) will be transcribed as a single word. 3. Interjections (um, huh, oh, etc.) will be typed accordingly and counted as words. Prolongations and other vocalizations will not be included. 4. Numbers will be transcribed as words. 5. Swears will be transcribed. 6. Sound imitations (e.g., animal noises, car noises) will be inserted in parentheses and omitted from the analyses. 7. Words repeated in songs or games will be transcribed only once. 8. Names of characters in books and movies will be transcribed as single words. 9. Children’s names will be coded as (CN). 10. Teacher or adult names will be coded as (TN). 11. Unintelligible words will not be transcribed and will be represented by the (X) code.

Words je, j’ – I le, la, l’, les – THE ça – THAT c’est – IT’S un, une, des – A moi – ME pas – NOT tu, t’ – YOU a, as – HAS, HAVE ai – HAVE non – NO madame, madames – MRS. va, vas, vais – GO, GOES on – WE oui – YES de, d’ – FROM, OF, ABOUT il, elle, ils, elles – HE, SHE, THEY à – TO ma, mon – MY peux, peut – CAN fais, fait, faite, faites – DO, DID ok, okay – OK, OKAY regarde, regardes, regardent – LOOK est–ce que, est–ce qu’ – IS THAT veux, veut – WANT es, est – ARE, IS et – AND deux – TWO quoi – WHAT comme – AS, LIKE dans, dedans – IN, INSIDE là – THERE oh – OH pour – FOR tout, toute, toutes – ALL toi – YOU sais, sait – KNOW faire – MAKE dis, dit – SAY ici – HERE

Frequency

Commonality

44.37 44.12 28.03 27.36 26.10 22.04 21.87 19.17 19.07 17.75 17.18 15.20 13.62 12.22 11.96 11.62 11.31 10.84 10.80 9.53 9.27 9.24 8.80 7.35 7.33 7.13 6.74 5.93 5.90 5.86 5.79 5.65 5.35 4.96 4.89 4.88 4.68 4.38 4.36 4.26

57 57 57 57 56 56 55 56 57 57 57 57 56 57 57 57 55 57 57 54 56 56 56 55 57 56 56 57 55 57 57 56 57 54 54 56 55 51 51 53

Note. English translations may not always be exact, as some words cannot be directly translated from French.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Copyright of AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.