Cultural and Linguistic Practice with Children with Developmental Language Disorder: Findings from an International Practitioner Survey.

BACKGROUND: The cultural and language diversity across many European countries presents a range of challenges and opportunities for speech and language therapists and other practitioners working with children with developmental language disorders (DLD) and their families. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore practitioners' perceptions of cultural and linguistic differences in response to children with DLD across different countries. METHODS: A survey was developed by practitioners and researchers working with children with DLD across Europe and beyond as part of the work of Cost Action IS1406. Data from 1,358 practitioners from 8 European countries - Ireland, UK, Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Spain, Norway and Sweden - and 2 neighbour countries - Turkey and Lebanon - were included in the present analyses, which address two groups of questions. The first focuses on practitioners' perceptions of the way that parents think about cultural differences and their relationship to language development in their children. The second concerns the extent to which practitioners consider themselves to have the skills to work with children from other cultures and using different languages. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Most countries present a similar profile with intermediate results about their perception of cultural issues, but Lebanon and Turkey are the group with the most positive responses. In terms of bilingual issues most practitioners indicated that they only worked in their country's primary language. The only country where this was not the case was Lebanon. Professionals from Spain and Lebanon form a subgroup in terms of their confidence to work with different cultural/language groups. The paper highlights both the universal importance of cultural and linguistic competence in managing young children's needs and indicates that in most cases professionals do not think they have the necessary expertise to work with cultural and linguistic diversity.

Noun and verb knowledge in monolingual preschool children across 17 languages: Data from Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (LITMUS-CLT).

This article investigates the cross-linguistic comparability of the newly developed lexical assessment tool Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (LITMUS-CLT). LITMUS-CLT is a part the Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings (LITMUS) battery (Armon-Lotem, de Jong & Meir, 2015). Here we analyse results on receptive and expressive word knowledge tasks for nouns and verbs across 17 languages from eight different language families: Baltic (Lithuanian), Bantu (isiXhosa), Finnic (Finnish), Germanic (Afrikaans, British English, South African English, German, Luxembourgish, Norwegian, Swedish), Romance (Catalan, Italian), Semitic (Hebrew), Slavic (Polish, Serbian, Slovak) and Turkic (Turkish). The participants were 639 monolingual children aged 3;0-6;11 living in 15 different countries. Differences in vocabulary size were small between 16 of the languages; but isiXhosa-speaking children knew significantly fewer words than speakers of the other languages. There was a robust effect of word class: accuracy was higher for nouns than verbs. Furthermore, comprehension was more advanced than production. Results are discussed in the context of cross-linguistic comparisons of lexical development in monolingual and bilingual populations.

Ratings of age of acquisition of 299 words across 25 languages: Is there a cross-linguistic order of words?

We present a new set of subjective age-of-acquisition (AoA) ratings for 299 words (158 nouns, 141 verbs) in 25 languages from five language families (Afro-Asiatic: Semitic languages; Altaic: one Turkic language: Indo-European: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Slavic, and Romance languages; Niger-Congo: one Bantu language; Uralic: Finnic and Ugric languages). Adult native speakers reported the age at which they had learned each word. We present a comparison of the AoA ratings across all languages by contrasting them in pairs. This comparison shows a consistency in the orders of ratings across the 25 languages. The data were then analyzed (1) to ascertain how the demographic characteristics of the participants influenced AoA estimations and (2) to assess differences caused by the exact form of the target question (when did you learn vs. when do children learn this word); (3) to compare the ratings obtained in our study to those of previous studies; and (4) to assess the validity of our study by comparison with quasi-objective AoA norms derived from the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MB-CDI). All 299 words were judged as being acquired early (mostly before the age of 6 years). AoA ratings were associated with the raters' social or language status, but not with the raters' age or education. Parents reported words as being learned earlier, and bilinguals reported learning them later. Estimations of the age at which children learn the words revealed significantly lower ratings of AoA. Finally, comparisons with previous AoA and MB-CDI norms support the validity of the present estimations. Our AoA ratings are available for research or other purposes.