AJSLP

Research Article

Phonological Assessment and Analysis of Bilingual Preschoolers’ Spanish and English Word Productions Raúl Francisco Prezas,a Barbara Williams Hodson,a and Marlene Schommer-Aikinsa

Purpose: The major purpose of this study was to examine Spanish and English phonological productions (patterns/ deviations) of typically developing bilingual preschool children. Phonological scores were compared in order to determine if significant differences exist between (a) boys and girls, (b) 4- and 5-year-olds, and/or (c) their productions of Spanish and English words. Method: Fifty-six bilingual 4- and 5-year-old children (27 boys and 29 girls) who attended Head Start programs named stimulus items for Spanish and English phonological assessment instruments that were similar in procedures and analyses. Results: Multivariate analyses indicated no significant differences for phonological scores between boys and girls or between the 2 languages. Differences between the 4- and 5-year-olds, however, were significant, with the 5-year-olds

performing better than the 4-year-olds. Liquid deviations and omissions of consonants in clusters/sequences were the most frequently occurring phonological deviations. Conclusions: Phonological score differences between typically developing bilingual Spanish–English-speaking preschool boys and girls from similar backgrounds are not likely to be significant. Better phonological scores, however, can be expected for 5-year-olds than for 4-year-olds. Moreover, phonological deviation percentage scores of typically developing bilingual children for comparable Spanish and English assessment instruments are likely to be similar.

C

2009). Recommendations for accurate, nonbiased assessment practices for all U.S. children (including bilingual) exist (ASHA, 2010a; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004). For example, legal mandates state that school-based SLPs should assess speech performance in both the native and the second language of bilingual children (IDEA, 2004). Reportedly, however, monolingual SLPs rely primarily on speech assessments in English, even for children whose primary language is not English (Skahan, Watson, & Lof, 2007). Bilingual children are often over- or underidentified for special education services (Kritikos, 2003). Additional speech production data in both Spanish and English are needed for bilingual preschool children that can be used for reference purposes to help SLPs determine accurately whether a child’s performance is within “normal” limits or not.

hildren with speech sound disorders comprise the largest number of individuals on clinical caseloads in school settings in the United States (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2010b). Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have longstanding developmental milestones (e.g., Templin, 1957), as well as a number of protocols, that they can use to assess the speech sound productions of monolingual English speakers (Prezas & Hodson, 2007b). Speakers of other languages in the United States (e.g., Spanish), however, are steadily increasing (Shin & Kominski, 2010), and data for these children are sparse. The Hispanic population is the largest and fastest growing minority in the United States (more than 50 million people; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Moreover, the number of English language learners in U.S. schools has doubled in recent years. Spanish-speaking children represent 75% of all English language learners (Shatz & Wilkinson, 2010; Swanson,

Key Words: bilingual preschoolers, phonological acquisition, phonological analysis, phonological assessment, phonological deviations, Spanish

Phonological Acquisition in Bilingual Children a

Wichita State University, KS

Correspondence to Raúl Francisco Prezas: [email protected] Editor: Carol Scheffner Hammer Associate Editor: Ken Bleile Received October 3, 2012 Revision received April 7, 2013 Accepted October 27, 2013 DOI: 10.1044/2013_AJSLP-12-0132

176

Bilingualism, in its simplest form, has been defined as the ability to use more than one language with varying

Disclosure: A published test by the second author (Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns—Third Edition; Hodson, 2004) and computer software (Hodson Computerized Analysis of Phonological Patterns; Hodson, 2003) were used in this study. The other instrument (revised version of the Assessment of Phonological Processes—Spanish) is unpublished.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 23 • 176–185 • May 2014 • A American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

degrees of proficiency (Chin & Wigglesworth, 2007). Competence in each language varies from individual to individual: Some children learn both languages at the same time (i.e., simultaneous bilinguals), whereas other children acquire one language (L1) as an infant and learn a second language (L2) often in a school setting (i.e., sequential bilinguals; Jia, Kohnert, Collado, & Aquino-Garcia, 2006; Kohnert & Derr, 2004). Several acquisition theories have been posited in recent years to explain bilingualism and how bilingual children develop their phonological systems. The theory that guides predictions in the current study is a combination of dual systems with interaction, known as the interactional dual systems model (Paradis, 2001; for review, see Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b). According to this model, bilingual children develop two autonomous language systems that interact. One language may influence the other during phonological development and vice versa (e.g., cross-linguistic effects), thus affecting one another. Principles of the interactional dual systems model include acceleration, deceleration, and transfer. There is emerging evidence supporting acceleration/deceleration (Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b) and transfer (Fabiano & Goldstein, 2005; Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010). According to Fabiano-Smith and Goldstein (2010b), even though there is evidence to support a separation between two phonological systems, interaction does occur. Some investigators have reported that the level of interaction in transfer is low (e.g., Fabiano & Goldstein, 2005; Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010). Fabiano-Smith and Barlow (2010) also found evidence for separation of languages in their study of bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children. Some children, for example, produced sounds in one language but not the other. Fabiano-Smith and Barlow also found evidence of bidirectional transfer (i.e., Spanish-specific sounds found in English and English-specific sounds found in Spanish). These findings support the hypothesis of transfer (Paradis & Genesee, 1996) that also has been reported in other studies (e.g., Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b). The current consensus is that bilingual children have distinct systems, but that these systems interact in some way.

Phonological Productions in Bilingual Children Most children below the age of 4 years evidence some phonological deviations (e.g., substitutions). In order to determine whether a child has a speech sound disorder, SLPs need to be aware of typical speech sound development (patterns) and how a child’s productions differ (i.e., deviations) from the adult standard for that group (Prezas & Hodson, 2010). Phonetic similarities and differences exist between Spanish and English phonological systems (e.g., shared/unshared phonemes, allophonic variations; for a complete description, see Gildersleeve-Neumann, Kester, Davis, & Peña, 2008). Although phonetic differences between Spanish and English exist, language comparisons can be made by assessing common phonological deviations (e.g., cluster reduction) that occur in children’s utterances in both languages.

Studies of phonological productions in bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children are sparse. Some investigators have reported specific characteristics for sound classes of Spanish-speaking children (e.g., clusters; Barlow, 2005). More recently, researchers primarily have reported and compared phonetic inventories and acquisition of individual speech sounds (e.g., early-, middle-, late-developing sounds) of bilingual and monolingual children (e.g., FabianoSmith & Goldstein, 2010a). In regard to phonological “processes,” bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children have been reported to evidence similar productions compared to monolingual children at age 5 (Goldstein, Fabiano, & Washington, 2005), but not at age 3 (Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010a, 2010b; Gildersleeve-Neumann et al., 2008). Bilingual children generally have been found to have higher percentages of occurrence for specific deviations (e.g., cluster reduction and final consonant deletion) in English at age 3 (Gildersleeve-Neumann et al., 2008). In addition, investigators have purported that language dominance does not have an effect on phonological accuracy. Goldstein et al. (2005) assessed phonological processes of fifteen 5-year-old children who had been categorized as predominantly English, predominantly Spanish, or Spanish–English bilingual. The overall results indicated that differences in percentages of occurrence of phonological productions among the groups were not significant. Goldstein et al. additionally reported that percentages of cluster reduction, final consonant deletion, and stopping were higher in English than in Spanish. Percentages for unstressed syllable deletions and liquid simplifications, however, were higher in Spanish than in English. Other investigators also have analyzed phonological productions of bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children using analyses of traditional phonological processes (e.g., stopping, fronting). Brice, Carson, and O’Brien (2009), for example, investigated Spanish and English productions of 15 bilingual 4- and 5-year-old children from seven different dialectal backgrounds. Eight phonological targets were assessed via a single-word assessment. Percentage-of-occurrence means for all phonological processes were less than 8% in both languages. Although data were not provided regarding the productions of 4- and 5-year-old children separately, Brice et al. found that differences between languages were not significant, with the exception of stopping.

Phonological Patterns and Dialectal Considerations Analysis of phonological patterns. Prior investigators of typically developing bilingual children have reported analyses of phonological processes (e.g., Brice et al., 2009; Goldstein et al., 2005). From a clinical perspective, analyses that focus mainly on phonological processes (e.g., stopping, fronting) have certain limitations. The phonological process of fronting, for example, is not reflected in the final scores of a child who omits velars or substitutes / h/ for them (i.e., no examples of fronting). Most phonological process assessment score results, therefore, do not indicate when such a child totally lacks a consonant category such as velars in his or her speech productions. An analysis of phonological

Prezas et al.: Assessing Bilingual Phonological Productions

177

patterns that includes consonant category deficiencies and omissions, such as the Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns—Third Edition (HAPP–3; Hodson, 2004), offers an alternative way to analyze phonological productions. With the HAPP–3, consonant category deficiencies are coded and represented in the final score when a target consonant is omitted or if a consonant from another category is substituted (e.g., /w/ for liquid / l /; /d / for strident /z /), but not if the consonant substituted is from the same category (e.g., /s / for /z/). Omission categories are still coded for each omission (i.e., syllables, consonants in clusters/sequences, consonant singletons [prevocalic, intervocalic, and postvocalic]). Omissions and consonant category deficiencies are referred to as major phonological deviations, and their combined scores are referred to as total occurrences of major phonological deviations (TOMPD). Consonant sequences. Consonant sequences, which include all contiguous consonants even if syllable boundaries are crossed (e.g., estrella, basket), are included in an analysis of phonological patterns. Consonant clusters are also assessed under the “umbrella” of sequences, but to be true consonant clusters, of course, the consonants must be in the same syllable (e.g., tren, train; Bleile, 1995). It is important to note that, in Spanish, all combinations of /s/ with other consonants cross syllable boundaries. Thus, /s/ can occur as a singleton consonant in Spanish words but not as a true consonant cluster. Although some dialects of Spanish (e.g., Puerto Rican) delete /s/ in consonant sequences or substitute /h/, speakers of Mexican Spanish (the majority of Spanish speakers in the United States; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) usually produce /s/ in consonant sequences. Bilingual MexicanSpanish–speaking children with highly unintelligible speech, however, commonly delete /s/ in consonant sequences in both languages (e.g., [e_pexo] for /espexo/; Lozano, Hodson, & Prezas, 2009). Consonant sequences, therefore, need to be assessed for the dialects that include /s/ in their consonant sequences (e.g., Mexican) and also for determining severity (e.g., young highly unintelligible children usually delete /s/ in sequences; Hodson, 2010). Dialectical considerations. Whereas dialectal differences consist primarily of vowel differences for English, Spanish dialectal differences primarily affect consonants. In addition to differences in the production of /s/ and other consonant differences (e.g., Puerto Rican children commonly substitute /l/ for /R/ in coda position; for review, see Goldstein, 2001), typically developing Mexican children evidence certain differences in phonological productions compared to Puerto Rican children. Mexican children, for example, evidence lower percentages of postvocalic singleton deviations than do Puerto Rican children (Albarrán-Frías, 1996). Investigations of phonological productions. Most prior phonological investigations have reported solely on monolingual English-speaking children. Porter and Hodson (2001), for example, studied phonological productions of 520 Englishspeaking children (ranging in age from 3 to 7 years). They used the Assessment of Phonological Processes—Revised (APP–R; Hodson, 1986) to determine percentage scores for

10 APP–R phonological deviations. Three-year-old children were found to have percentage-of-occurrence means below 10% for all phonological deviations except consonant sequences and liquids. Percentage means were below 10% for 4-year-olds, except for liquids. By age 5 years, children in the study had acquired liquid /l/ and were approaching a commonly used acquisition criterion (85% correct; 15% deviations) for liquid /r/. Phonological deviation percentage-of-occurrence means were all below 5% for 6- and 7-year-olds in the study. The greatest changes were reported to occur between the ages of 3 and 4 years. Fewer studies exist regarding phonological productions of typically developing monolingual Spanish-speaking children. Stepanof (1990) used the Assessment of Phonological Processes—Spanish (APP–S; Hodson, 1985) to evaluate phonological deviations of monolingual 3- and 4-year-old Spanish-speaking children in Puerto Rico and found that 3-year-old children had percentage-of-occurrence means below 10% for all phonological deviations except consonant sequences, postvocalic singletons, liquids, and stridents. Percentage means were below 10% for 4-year-olds, except for postvocalic singletons, liquids, and stridents. Albarrán-Frías (1996) used the APP–S to assess phonological productions of monolingual 3- and 4-year-old typically developing Spanish-speaking children in Mexico City. Percentage-ofoccurrence means indicated that deviations for consonant sequences, liquids, and stridents were above 10% for 3-yearolds. The only category above 10% for the 4-year-olds involved strident deviations. In addition, other investigators have found that typically developing Spanish-speaking 4-year-olds have deviation percentage-of-occurrence means below 10% except for consonant sequences, tapped /R/, and trilled /r/ (e.g., Becker, 1982).

Purpose of Study Most studies of bilingual children’s Spanish and English productions have provided data for 20 or fewer bilingual participants (e.g., Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b; Goldstein & Bunta, 2012; Goldstein et al., 2005; Goldstein & Washington, 2001). In addition, most investigations of bilingual children’s phonological systems have involved only one age group (e.g., Goldstein & Washington, 2001) or have not provided information comparing productions across age groups (e.g., Brice et al., 2009). Moreover, a need still exists for additional data for Mexican bilingual children regarding their phonological patterns (including information related to consonant sequences) as well as to examine omissions and consonant category deficiencies in further detail. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Spanish and English phonological productions (patterns/deviations) of typically developing bilingual Spanish–English-speaking preschool children who speak the Mexican dialect. The first aim involved investigating Spanish and English phonological deviations/patterns of typically developing bilingual 4- and 5-year-old Spanish–English-speaking children. The second aim was to determine whether phonological assessment score differences were significant for language (Spanish vs. English),

178 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 23 • 176–185 • May 2014

age (5-year-olds vs. 4-year-olds), and gender (boys vs. girls). We hypothesized that phonological assessment score differences would not be significant for language or gender but that differences for age would be significant.

Method Participants Fifty-six bilingual Spanish–English-speaking preschool children between the ages of 4;0 (years;months) and 5;8 (chronological age mean = 4;11) participated in this study. All of the children attended a Head Start center in Wichita, KS. Children are eligible for Head Start only if family incomes are below the national poverty level. Monthly meetings at Head Start preschool centers were used to inform parents/caregivers of bilingual children about this investigation. Consent forms were signed and obtained from families of 66 children. Caregiver and teacher reports (via questionnaires and interviews) provided information regarding each child’s dialect, linguistic exposure (e.g., language dominance in the home/school), and any histories/concerns regarding the child’s speech/language/hearing. Inclusion criteria for participation in the study was as follows: (a) passing of a pure-tone audiometric screening, (b) no evidence of organic anomalies related to the speech and hearing mechanisms, (c) no prior history of speech/ language treatment services, (d) no caregiver/teacher concerns related to speech and language, (e) age-appropriate vocabulary abilities, and (f ) Mexican dialect of Spanish spoken in the home. Children who were identified as having other dialectal influences (e.g., South American) were not included in this study. Additionally, children who were not identified as being primarily Spanish speaking were not considered for the study. Four of the initial 66 children were withdrawn from their Head Start center prior to completion of data collection, one child did not want to continue after partial assessment, and another child was excluded from the study after the child was identified as being trilingual (i.e., English, Spanish, and Laotian). Four additional children, who did not meet criteria because of concerns related to speech and language, were not included in this study but were referred for appropriate testing. All 56 participants passed a hearing screening and did not have any organic anomalies related to speech and hearing. No concerns related to speech/language were reported. All participants demonstrated age-appropriate receptive vocabulary abilities based on results obtained from the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test: Spanish–Bilingual Edition (ROWPVT–SBE; Brownell, 2001). A caregiver questionnaire was used to determine each child’s language usage and exposure. Caregivers were asked to provide information related to the child’s demographics, language preference, and speech/language/hearing. Based on questionnaire responses, the caregivers of children in this study all reported a Mexican background/nationality and dialect. Caregivers were given an option to indicate any additional dialects/backgrounds (for inclusion criteria). Caregivers indicated that the Mexican

dialect of Spanish was the only dialect spoken in the home for all the participants in this study. The caregiver questionnaire also addressed language use in the home. Caregivers were asked which languages their child speaks in the home. Based on the data, 87% of respondents indicated Spanish was the primary and only language spoken in the home. The other 13% reported some English was spoken in the home. When asked which languages adults speak in the home, 96% of respondents indicated Spanish only, and 4% indicated both Spanish and English. When asked what language children speak to each other at home, 73% indicated Spanish only, 24% indicated Spanish and English, and 3% indicated English only. Caregivers also were asked which language their child used more in the home. All caregivers indicated that Spanish was the language used most at home. Teacher interviews provided additional information about the language environment in the school. All participants were identified as learning primarily English in the preschool center. Based on teacher reports, the Head Start classrooms of participants followed an English immersion program (with some directions provided in Spanish when needed by Spanish-speaking teacher aides). The 4-year-old children had been enrolled in the Head Start program for approximately 8 months. Based on school attendance records, two of the 4-year-old participants had transferred from another Head Start program mid-year. The 5-year-old children had been in the Head Start program for at least 17 months (based on school attendance and transfer records). Four of the 5-year-old participants had transferred from another Head Start program. Thus, participants in this study received input in and spoke both Spanish and English. Based on caregiver questionnaires, teacher interviews, and school reports, all children were identified as sequential bilinguals (i.e., children who acquired L1 at home and L2 mostly in the school setting; Jia et al., 2006). For comparison purposes, the children were divided into (a) older and younger age groups consisting of 28 4-year-olds (4;0–4;10, 15 boys and 13 girls) and 28 5-year-olds (5;0–5;8, 12 boys and 16 girls) and (b) gender groups: 27 boys and 29 girls.

Procedure All participants were tested individually in a quiet room at their Head Start center. Each phonological assessment instrument took approximately 15 min to administer. Testing for each child took place over a period of 2 to 3 days in a counterbalanced order for the two languages. Depending on the language responses sought for each session, instructions were given in the language (Spanish or English) being assessed that day. In addition, the examiner (the first author, a licensed bilingual SLP) began each session with a short conversation (in the target language for that day) with each child. Data for phonological productions in English were obtained via the HAPP–3, and data for phonological productions in Spanish were collected via an unpublished revision of the APP–S. The revised APP–S contains 44 Spanish words

Prezas et al.: Assessing Bilingual Phonological Productions

179

(see Appendix). The HAPP–3 and revised APP–S both use manipulatives and a few pictures, as well as some questions, to elicit spontaneous responses. Objects have been found to yield more spontaneous responses in Spanish-speaking children than pictures (Prezas & Hodson, 2007a), and preschool children generally prefer naming and manipulating objects (Hodson, 2010). To elicit responses for Spanish stimulus words, the examiner asked each child “Qué es esto?” (“What is this?”). If a child did not provide the name spontaneously, delayed imitation was used. Analysis procedures for the HAPP–3 and revised APP–S have many similarities. The HAPP–3 and revised APP–S both code for consonant category deficiencies and omissions and yield a TOMPD score. The revised APP–S also has the same number of total consonants (147) as the HAPP–3 (147 “true” consonants, excluding vocalic liquids) but fewer words (44) than the HAPP–3 (50). In general, Spanish words are more multisyllabic than English words, yielding more consonants per word. Both instruments analyze consonant sequences (e.g., /st/ as in estufa, /sk/ as in basket). In Spanish, all examples of /s/ adjacent to other consonants involve crossing syllable boundaries; thus, they are not true consonant clusters. It is important to assess /s/ as part of a consonant sequence in Spanish rather than as a preor postvocalic singleton (e.g., word initial) because consonant sequences provide a better representation of complexity (Hodson, 2011). It has been observed that Mexican-Spanish– speaking children with highly unintelligible speech delete /s/ in consonant sequences considerably more than when /s/ occurs as a singleton (Lozano et al., 2009). Scoring of omissions and consonant category deficiencies is similar for the HAPP–3 and APP–S. Omission categories, which are coded for omissions only, include (a) syllables; (b) consonants in sequences (e.g., toothbrush, estrella), which also include consonant clusters within syllable boundaries (e.g., blanco, plane); and (c) consonant singletons (i.e., [d] prevocalic, [e] intervocalic, [f ] postvocalic). Consonant categories assessed include (a) nasals, (b) glides, (c) liquids, (d) stridents, (e) velars, and (f ) other anterior nonstrident obstruents (included to capture examples of backing). Consonant category deficiencies are coded whenever the target consonant is omitted or when a consonant from a different category is substituted (e.g., nonstrident /t/ for strident /s/).

Transcription Procedure and Reliability Measures All APP–S and HAPP–3 productions were transcribed phonetically by the examiner at the time of utterance and were recorded using a Marantz (PMD 670) digital recorder and a SHURE microphone. All digital files for each participant were transferred from the digital recorder and stored on a Sony VAIO laptop computer. In addition to the live transcriptions by the examiner, a bilingual graduate student skilled in phonetic transcription of both languages listened to the recordings and independently transcribed all deviations phonetically for each child. The two independent transcriptions were compared for reliability purposes. Interjudge

agreement for transcription was 95%. A point-by-point agreement index was calculated for both interjudge and intrajudge reliability. The examiner and bilingual assistant also retranscribed 20% of the samples (randomly selected) to determine intrajudge agreement. Intrajudge agreement was 99% for the examiner and 98% for the bilingual assistant. After inter- and intrajudge agreements were calculated, the examiner and bilingual assistant listened again to all discrepant transcriptions until consensus was reached. The consensus transcriptions were used for statistical evaluations.

Scoring Phonological Deviations We calculated scores for the five omission types and the six consonant category deficiencies as well as TOMPD for each child in both languages. The TOMPD is obtained by adding the number of omissions and the number of consonant category deficiencies for each instrument for each child. Distortions and within-category substitutions (e.g., /m/ for /n / or /s/ for /z/), however, are not coded as major phonological deviations (these are coded on the Substitutions and Other Strategies forms). It has been observed clinically that most of these types of changes generally do not decrease intelligibility in either Spanish or English as much as do the major deviations. Child productions that reflect dialectal influence (e.g., Spanish /b/ for /v/ as in [beis]; /h/ for /x/ as in [espeho]) were not counted as errors. Percentages of occurrence were calculated for the five omission categories and the six consonant category deficiencies. Scores for English were obtained via the Hodson Computerized Analysis of Phonological Patterns, Third Edition (Hodson, 2003). Spanish percentages were calculated by the examiner and the bilingual assistant. Interjudge agreement for this was 98%. Intrajudge agreement percentages were obtained by the examiner and bilingual assistant rescoring 20% of randomly selected samples. Intrajudge agreement for phonological deviation percentages of occurrence was 99% for both the examiner and the bilingual assistant.

Data Analysis Phonological scores in both languages (i.e., TOMPDs) were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, v. 15.0) software. Phonological deviation percentages of occurrence were compared for age, gender, and language. Comparisons were conducted using multivariate analyses. Post hoc univariate comparisons explored significance of interactions within the multivariate analysis.

Results Spanish and English TOMPD scores served as an overall measure of phonological productions/deviations for each language. Cross-linguistic substitutions were noted for both languages but were not counted as deviations in this study. In Spanish, for example, differences included the following: English /h/ for Spanish /x/ (e.g., initial /x/ in jabon

180 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 23 • 176–185 • May 2014

produced as [h]) and American English [a] for tap /R/ and trill /r/. Cross-linguistic substitutions in English included Spanish [b] for /v/ (e.g., vase) and “syllable addition” /e/ added to /s/ cluster in English (e.g., [esmok] for smoke). In addition, cross-linguistic substitutions of Spanish monophthongs for English diphthongs occurred (e.g., [o] for /ou/). Percentage-of-occurrence means and SDs for 11 phonological deviations for the 4- and 5-year-olds in this study are provided in Table 1. The highest phonological deviation percentages of occurrence (most deviations) for these children occurred for liquids (omissions and substitutions of nonliquid sounds) and omissions of consonants in clusters/ sequences in both languages. TOMPD means and SDs are reported by language, age, and gender in Tables 2 and 3. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to further examine phonological deviations. Language (Spanish TOMPD, English TOMPD) served as the within-subjects factor; age (4-year-olds, 5-year-olds) and gender (boys, girls) served as between-subjects factors. Adjustments to the alpha value were set at .01 per Bonferroni corrections. Tests of betweensubjects effects revealed a main effect for age, F(1, 52) = 11.40, p < .01, h2 = .14 (with a large effect size [Sprinthall, 2012]). Productions of the 5-year-old children were more accurate (i.e., fewer deviations; average English TOMPD = 17.3; average Spanish TOMPD = 16.4) than those of the 4-year-olds in this study (average English TOMPD = 30.2; average Spanish TOMPD = 29.1). For the within-subjects factor (Wilks’ lambda), there was no significant main effect for language, F(1, 52) = 0.39 (ns) or for gender, F(1, 52) = 1.69 (ns). Furthermore, there were no significant interactions. In general, differences between English and Spanish TOMPD scores were not significant. Consonant category deficiencies (omissions and substitutions from other categories) were noted in both languages. In Spanish, a number of participants substituted /8/ for both tap /R/ and trill /r/ in singleton form (e.g., cuchara,

guitarra). Other Spanish deviations included the substitution of /j/ for tap /R/. English liquid substitutions included /w/ for /a/ for singletons (e.g., rock) and also in consonant clusters/ sequences (e.g., toothbrush) and /j/ for /l/ in some clusters (e.g., plane). Common consonant omissions in clusters/ sequences in both languages occurred. Examples of consonant omissions include the following: /l/ omitted from a consonant cluster (e.g., blanco, plane); /k/ omitted in a consonant sequence (e.g., pescado Y [pes_ado]); /a/ omitted in English CCC (e.g., toothbrush); /R/ omitted in Spanish CCC (e.g., sombrero).

Discussion The primary purpose of this investigation was to analyze and compare Spanish and English phonological deviations/ patterns of typically developing bilingual (Mexican dialect) 4and 5-year-old children. Phonological similarities and differences between language, age, and gender also were explored. TOMPD scores served as the measure for this comparison.

Phonological Deviations of Typically Developing Bilingual Children The phonological deviations (i.e., differing productions from the adult standard) that had the highest percentages of occurrence for 4- and 5-year-old children in this study were omissions of consonants in clusters/sequences and liquid deviations. Gildersleeve-Neumann et al. (2008) reported that bilingual Spanish–English-speaking 3-year-olds (Mexican dialect) had high percentages of errors for cluster reduction and final consonant deletion in English. Bilingual 4- and 5-year-olds in the current study also evidenced higher percentages of omissions of consonants in clusters/sequences in English, but percentages for postvocalic omissions (i.e., final consonant deletion) were below 10% for both groups. One explanation for the lower percentage of occurrence for

Table 1. Percentage-of-occurrence means (and SDs) for major phonological deviations. 4-year-olds Phonological deviation Omissions Syllables Consonant sequences Consonant singletons Prevocalic Intervocalic Postvocalic Consonant category deficiencies Sonorants Liquids Nasals Glides Obstruents Stridents Velars Other (anterior nonstridents)

5-year-olds

English M (SD)

Spanish M (SD)

English M (SD)

Spanish M (SD)

2.9 (4.8) 23.7 (17.9)

4.4 (4.9) 23.2 (20.0)

1.3 (3.2) 13.6 (8.9)

4.7 (4.9) 12.5 (12.2)

0.4 (1.3) 1.5 (3.5) 5.5 (5.6)

1.1 (2.1) 0.8 (1.7) 8.3 (13.7)

0.1 (0.8) 1.5 (3.5) 3.3 (5.1)

0.4 (1.3) 1.0 (1.4) 3.7 (5.3)

26.1 (23) 4.1 (6.0) 17.1 (20.7)

25.1 (20.8) 2.5 (4.2) 13.1 (12.6)

13.0 (16.9) 2.3 (4.4) 11.4 (14.3)

13.7 (13.5) 1.1 (2.3) 5.7 (7.1)

13.4 (11.6) 8.4 (8.4) 11.4 (6.0)

4.9 (9.2) 4.9 (6.2) 5.6 (4.0)

7.0 (5.9) 5.2 (5.5) 8.0 (5.3)

2.3 (4.1) 2.9 (4.2) 3.8 (2.9)

Prezas et al.: Assessing Bilingual Phonological Productions

181

Table 2. Total occurrences of major phonological deviations (TOMPD) in Spanish and English by gender and language.

Gender Boys Girls All

Number of participants

Spanish TOMPD M (SD)

English TOMPD M (SD)

27 29 56

21.0 (16.9) 24.4 (17.7) 22.7 (17.2)

21.7 (17.4) 25.7 (17.7) 23.8 (17.5)

their final consonant deletion may be due to the fact that the participants in this study were older and that final consonant deletion is generally low by age 4 years. Results from the current study also are comparable to other smaller scale studies of phonological skills of bilingual children from other dialects of Spanish. Goldstein and Washington (2001) found that Spanish and English differences (on percentages of consonants correct and percentages of occurrence) for phonological systems of 12 typically developing bilingual 4-year-old children (Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Nicaraguan dialects) were not significant: All English percentage-of-occurrence means were below 7%, and all Spanish percentage-of-occurrence means were below 10% except for liquid “simplification” (16.9%). Although these findings are in general agreement with the findings for the 4-year-olds in this study, participants from Goldstein and Washington’s study had fewer instances of liquid simplifications in English (1.3%) compared to bilingual (Mexican dialect) 4-year-old children in this study (26.1%). In a comparison of data from Goldstein et al. (2005), the 5-year-old children in the current study also had higher percentages of liquid deviations (13.7% in Spanish; 13% in English) than the other bilingual 5-year-olds who were described as “Latino” in origin (2.1% in Spanish; 0% in English). It is unclear whether these findings are due to the larger number of participants in the current study, differences in the analysis procedures, or possible dialectal differences.

Age and Gender Regarding age, the 4-year-old children evidenced significantly more phonological deviations (higher TOMPD scores) than the 5-year-old children in both languages. Omissions of consonants in clusters/sequences and liquid deviations were higher for the 4-year-olds than for the 5-year-olds. It can be stated that some typically developing bilingual Spanish– English-speaking participants, therefore, are still acquiring correct sound productions for sequences/clusters and liquids through the ages of 4 and 5 years. Other investigators (e.g., Table 3. TOMPD in Spanish and English by age and language.

Age group

Number of participants

Spanish TOMPD M (SD)

English TOMPD M (SD)

4-year-olds 5-year-olds All

28 28 56

29.1 (19.5) 16.4 (11.9) 22.7 (17.2)

30.2 (20.4) 17.3 (11.1) 23.8 (17.5)

Stepanof, 1990) found that comparable age differences occur for younger monolingual children. Differences between bilingual boys and girls in this study were not significant, which is similar to findings regarding gender in monolingual Spanish (e.g., Mason, Smith, & Hinshaw, 1976) and English (e.g., Haelsig & Madison, 1986) speakers.

Analysis of Phonological Patterns Consonant sequences and dialectal considerations. Based on the results, percentages of omissions of consonants in sequences obtained in this investigation were higher than percentages of cluster reduction from previously published data. This was expected because consonant sequences include all juxtaposed consonants even if syllable boundaries are crossed (e.g., estrella, basket), as well as consonant clusters (i.e., in same syllable). On some phonological assessment analyses (e.g., Goldstein & Iglesias, 2006), however, consonants that are part of consonant sequences are treated as initial and final singleton consonants and are counted as errors in those categories (i.e., initial consonant deletion, final consonant deletion). In the word estufa, for example, the /t/ and the /f/ are classified as initial consonants and the /s/ is classified as a final consonant. Rather than classifying the /s/ and the /t/ separately as singleton productions, both phonemes are treated as part of a consonant sequence on the HAPP–3 and the revised APP–S. Sequences are particularly important for evaluating the Mexican dialect of Spanish-speaking children because speakers of the Mexican dialect generally produce the /s/ in sequences (e.g., estrella produced as [estreja]), and all combinations of /s/ with other consonants in Spanish cross syllable boundaries. Thus, /s/ can occur as a singleton in Spanish words but not as a “true” consonant cluster. The combination of clusters and sequences, therefore, allows for comparison of /s/ clusters as well as sequences in English (e.g., basket) and also /s/ sequence accuracy in Spanish for speakers of the Mexican dialect. Comparisons of phonological patterns with previous data. The results from this investigation are in general agreement with monolingual studies of English-speaking children (e.g., Porter & Hodson, 2001) and Spanish-speaking children of Mexican and Puerto Rican dialects (e.g., AlbarránFrías, 1996; Becker, 1982; Stepanof, 1990). These studies were chosen for comparison for several reasons. First, similar assessment instruments were used (earlier versions of the HAPP–3 and the revised APP–S). In addition, the second author participated in the data analysis for all of these investigations. Moreover, bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children are often compared to their monolingual peers when making diagnostic decisions. The bilingual 4-year-old children from the current study had higher deviation percentage-of-occurrence means for consonant sequences, glides, postvocalic singletons, and stridents in English than monolingual English 4-year-old children from the Porter and Hodson study (2001). Interestingly, the bilingual 5-year-old children from the current study also had higher deviation percentage-of-occurrence means for

182 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 23 • 176–185 • May 2014

(Paradis & Genesee, 1996). Compared to monolingual children from previous studies (e.g., Albarrán-Frías, 1996; Porter & Hodson, 2001; Stepanof, 1990), bilingual children from the current study evidenced higher percentages (deviations) for most omission and consonant category deficiencies (e.g., consonant sequences). In addition, bilingual participants evidenced commensurate percentages for prevocalic singleton omissions in both languages (e.g., Albarrán-Frías, 1996; Porter & Hodson, 2001) and for nasals in Spanish (Albarrán-Frías, 1996). Additional evidence for possible between-language interaction was found. Bilingual children in this investigation omitted a higher percentage of postvocalic singletons in English than did monolingual Englishspeaking children from the Porter and Hodson (2001) study that used the APP-R. It is possible, therefore, that the bilingual children were applying a Spanish phonological rule (fewer final consonants) to their English productions, which led to a higher occurrence of postvocalic singleton omissions.

consonant sequences, glides, and stridents. English liquid deviations were comparable for bilingual and monolingual children. Spanish liquid deviations were comparable for bilingual and monolingual 4-year-old children. The bilingual 4-year-old children from the current study had higher deviation percentage-of-occurrence means for consonant sequences and glides in Spanish than previous investigations of monolingual Spanish-speaking 4-year-old children (AlbarránFrías, 1996; Becker, 1982). In addition, the bilingual 4-yearold children were found to have higher deviation percentages for consonant sequences, lower deviation percentages for final consonant deletion, and comparable liquid deviations compared to the monolingual 4-year-old Puerto Rican children (Stepanof, 1990). Interestingly, the bilingual 5-yearold children in the current study had similar Spanish deviations for consonant sequences and glides compared to the monolingual 4-year-old children from Spanish studies (e.g., Becker, 1982). These data may suggest differences in consonant sequence acquisition for bilingual Mexican children. Glide deviations. Interestingly, there were higher percentages of glide deviations in English than Spanish (percentage-of-occurrence means for glides were greater than 10 for both age groups and across languages except for the 5-year-olds in Spanish). Previous investigations have reported negligible glide deficiencies (i.e., percentages of occurrence below 10%) in monolingual English-speaking children (e.g., Porter & Hodson, 2001) and monolingual Spanishspeaking children (e.g., Albarrán-Frías, 1996; Becker, 1982). Goldstein and Washington (2001) reported that bilingual children produced glides with 100% accuracy in English and 90% accuracy in Spanish. Glide deviations, therefore, are not expected in children of this age, regardless of whether or not the children are bilingual. Glide differences may be related to differences in phonological analysis.

Although results from the current study further our understanding of bilingual phonological acquisition, additional research is needed. First, studies involving a larger age range are needed. Investigation of the phonological systems of younger children (i.e., 3-year-olds) and older children (i.e., 6- and 7-year-olds) most likely would provide additional useful data regarding the gradual learning of adult-like phonological patterns. Second, analyses of consonant sequences and clusters separately (e.g., /l/ clusters vs. /R/ clusters) may provide more information regarding specific cluster members. Future investigations also should include additional explorations of percentages of occurrence and possible dialectal differences in Spanish, as well as further study of consonant sequences versus clusters.

Theoretical Implications

Clinical Considerations

The findings from this study are in alignment with the interactional dual systems model (Paradis, 2001; Paradis & Genesee, 1996). Evidence supported the idea of two language systems that are not completely separate from one another. Some children, for example, produced sounds only in one language. This is consistent with findings from previous investigations of bilingual children (e.g., Fabiano-Smith & Barlow, 2010). In addition, evidence of bidirectional transfer (i.e., Spanish-specific sounds found in English words; Englishspecific sounds found in Spanish words) was observed. As noted in the Results section, some participants substituted Spanish /b/ in place of /v/ in English and evidenced “syllable addition,” where /e/ was added to /s/ clusters in English. Moreover, some children substituted the American /a/ for Spanish tapped /R/ and trilled /r/. These findings support the hypothesis of transfer (Paradis & Genesee, 1996) that also has been reported in other studies (e.g., Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, 2010b). Data from this investigation provide additional evidence for the hypothesis of deceleration but not acceleration

Based on the results from this study, typically developing bilingual children did not have significantly different phonological deviations for the two languages. This would suggest that if participants had a high percentage-ofoccurrence for a deviation category in one language, they would likely also have a higher percentage-of-occurrence for the same category in the other language. The percentage-ofoccurrence means for consonant sequences for 4-year-olds, for example, were 23.7% in English and 23.2% in Spanish. In addition, the percentage-of-occurrence means for liquid deviations for 4-year-olds were 26.1% in English and 25.1% in Spanish. A similar pattern emerged for the 5-year-old children in this study, with consonant sequence omissions and liquid deviations having very similar percentage-of-occurrence means between languages for the age group. These data provide support for Kohnert and Derr’s (2004) bilingual approach to intervention, which stated that shared phonemes (sounds that occur in both languages) should be selected first as treatment targets for bilingual children rather than sounds that are unique to each language (unshared sounds).

Limitations of Study and Future Research Needs

Prezas et al.: Assessing Bilingual Phonological Productions

183

Children with highly unintelligible speech, for example, also evidence high percentages of consonant sequence omissions and liquid deviations (Lozano et al., 2009). Bilingual children learning a second language invariably experiment with new speech sounds and learn to acquire correct productions over time. Phonological deviations will continue until the child replaces the deviations with correct productions. Knowledge of error types of typically developing bilingual children is critical. Moreover, SLPs need to be aware of dialectal differences as well as other common cross-linguistic influences. It is important to keep in mind that dialectal productions should be viewed as acceptable differences for bilingual children (i.e., not counted as an error on an assessment). This information, along with more information about common dialectal features for children with typically developing phonological systems, most likely will be useful to assist SLPs in making more informed decisions regarding assessment and treatment services.

Acknowledgments This research was possible because of the participation and support of staff, families, and children from the Head Start program in Wichita, KS. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Anthony DiLollo, Kathy Strattman, and the late Kenneth Burk for their input and suggestions regarding this study. We also express appreciation to Lacey Stratton for serving as our phonetic transcription assistant.

References Albarrán-Frías, M. D. (1996). Phonologies of Spanish-speaking children from Mexico City (Unpublished master’s thesis). Wichita State University, KS. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010a). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Professional issues statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy. doi:10.1044/policy.PI2010-00317 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010b). Schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics trends 1995–2010. Available from www.asha.org Barlow, J. A. (2005). Phonological change and the representation of consonant clusters in Spanish: A case study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19, 659–679. Becker, M. (1982). Phonological analysis of speech samples of monolingual Spanish-speaking intelligible four-year-olds (Unpublished master’s thesis). San Diego State University, CA. Bleile, K. (1995). Manual of articulation and phonological disorders. San Diego, CA: Singular. Brice, A. E., Carson, C. K., & O’Brien, J. D. (2009). Spanish– English articulation and phonology of 4- and 5-year-old preschool children: An initial investigation. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31, 3–14. doi:10.1177/1525740108327447 Brownell, R. (2001). Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test: Spanish–Bilingual Edition. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Chin, N. B., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Bilingualism: An advanced resource book. New York, NY: Routledge. Fabiano, L., & Goldstein, B. (2005). Phonological cross-linguistic influence in sequential Spanish–English bilingual children. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 56–63.

Fabiano-Smith, L., & Barlow, J. A. (2010). Interaction in bilingual phonological acquisition: Evidence from phonetic inventories. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 81–97. doi:10.1080/13670050902783528 Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010a). Early-, middle-, and late-developing sounds in monolingual and bilingual children: An exploratory investigation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 66–77. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0036) Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010b). Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish–English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 160–178. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0064) Gildersleeve-Neumann, C., Kester, E., Davis, E., & Peña, E. (2008). English speech sound development in preschool-age children from bilingual English–Spanish environments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 314–328. doi:10.1044/01611461(2008/030) Goldstein, B. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394–406. Goldstein, B. A., & Bunta, F. (2012). Positive and negative transfer in the phonological systems of bilingual speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 388–401. doi:10.1177/ 1367006911425817 Goldstein, B. A., Fabiano, L., & Washington, P. S. (2005). Phonological skills in predominantly English-speaking, predominantly Spanish-speaking, and Spanish–English bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 201–218. doi:0161–1461/05/3603–0201 Goldstein, B. A., & Iglesias, A. (2006). Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence—Spanish. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications. Goldstein, B., & Washington, P. S. (2001). An initial investigation of phonological patterns in typically developing 4-year-old Spanish–English bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 153–164. Haelsig, P., & Madison, C. (1986). A study of phonological processes exhibited by 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 95–106. Hodson, B. W. (1985). Assessment of Phonological Processes— Spanish. San Diego, CA: Los Amigos. Hodson, B. W. (1986). The Assessment of Phonological Processes— Revised. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hodson, B. W. (2003). Hodson Computerized Analysis of Phonological Patterns—Third Edition [Computer software]. Wichita, KS: Phonocomp. Hodson, B. W. (2004). Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns—Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hodson, B. W. (2010). Evaluating and enhancing children’s phonological systems: Research and theory to practice. Wichita, KS: Phonocomp. Hodson, B. W. (2011, April 5). Enhancing phonological patterns of young children with highly unintelligible speech. The ASHA Leader. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, §118 Stat. 2647 (2004). Jia, G., Kohnert, K., Collado, J., & Aquino-Garcia, F. (2006). Action naming in Spanish and English by sequential bilingual children and adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 588–602. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/042) Kohnert, K., & Derr, A. (2004). Language intervention with bilingual children. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish–English speakers (pp. 315–343). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

184 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 23 • 176–185 • May 2014

Kritikos, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists’ beliefs about language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 73–91. Lozano, V., Hodson, B., & Prezas, R. (2009, November). Adapting a phonological pattern approach for a highly unintelligible bilingual client. Poster presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, New Orleans, LA. Mason, M., Smith, M., & Hinshaw, M. (1976). Medida Española de articulación [Measurement of Spanish articulation]. San Ysidro, CA: San Ysidro School District. Paradis, J. (2001). Do bilingual two-year-olds have separate phonological systems? International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(1), 19–38. Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: Autonomous or interdependent? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 1–25. Porter, J. H., & Hodson, B. W. (2001). Collaborating to obtain phonological acquisition data for local schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 165–171. Prezas, R. F., & Hodson, B. W. (2007a, November). Comparing picture and object naming responses by Spanish-speaking preschoolers. Poster presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Boston, MA. Prezas, R. F., & Hodson, B. W. (2007b). Diagnostic evaluation of children with speech sound disorders. In S. Rvachew (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and literacy development (pp. 1–8). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/ topic.php?topId=21

Prezas, R. F., & Hodson, B. W. (2010). The cycles phonological remediation approach. In L. Williams, S. McLeod, & R. McCauley (Eds.), Interventions for speech sound disorders in children (pp. 137–158). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Shatz, M., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2010). Introduction. In M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The education of English language learners: Research to practice (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Shin, H. B., & Kominski, R. A. (2010). Language use in the United States: 2007 (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-12). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Skahan, S. M., Watson, M., & Lof, G. L. (2007). Speech-language pathologists’ assessment practices for children with suspected speech sound disorders: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 246–259. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2007/029) Sprinthall, R. C. (2012). Basic statistical analysis (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stepanof, E. R. (1990). Procesos phonologicos de niños Puertorriqueños de 3 y 4 años evidenciado en la prueba APP–Spanish [Phonological processes evidenced on the APP–Spanish by 3 and 4 year old Puerto Rican children]. Opphla, 8(2), 15–20. Swanson, C. B. (2009). Perspectives on a population: Englishlanguage learners in American schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education. Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. United States Census Bureau. (2011). Origin of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

Appendix List of Words in the Revised Version of the Assessment of Phonological Processes—Spanish árbol barco blanco brazo caballo caliente chicle clavo crema cuatro cuchara dientes escuela espejo estrella estufa falda flor frío guantes guitarra huevos

iglesia jabón lápiz leche lengua libro llaves manzana muñeca nariz negro pared pescado piedra plato puerta rojo sombrero teléfono tren uñas verde

Prezas et al.: Assessing Bilingual Phonological Productions

185

Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 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.