i
CROSS-GENERALIZATION DIRECTIONALITY WITH SEMANTIC NAMING
TREATMENT IN BILINGUAL APHASIA
A Research Proposal
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
In
The Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
by
Jessica M. Beitzel, B.A.
Ashely E. Comeaux, B.A.
Margaret J. Dyer, B.S.
Katherine A. Kampen, B.S.
Louisiana Health Sciences Center
Communication Disorders Department
1900 Gravier, New Orleans, LA 70112
ii
Abstract
As the population of bilingual individuals with aphasia grows, it becomes increasingly
important for speech-language pathologists to determine the most effective manner to provide
therapy. Individuals with aphasia typically develop naming deficits. This study proposes to
provide semantic naming therapy to bilingual individuals with aphasia to target naming deficits.
The goal is to determine whether cross-linguistic generalization will occur as a result of therapy.
Additionally, results will be examined to determine the direction in which generalization occurs
(L1 to L2 or L2 to L1). Thirty-three individuals with aphasia will partake in treatment. Twentytwo of the participants are bilingual and will be randomly divided into two groups. The
remaining eleven participants are monolingual and will form the third group. The bilingual
individuals will receive semantic naming treatment in either L1 or L2, while participants in
group 3 will receive treatment in their native languages. Prior to intervention, a language use
questionnaire and family interview will be conducted to determine premorbid language
proficiency. At the onset of the study, the Boston Naming Test will be administered to determine
the participant’s post morbid naming abilities. Semantic naming cards will be developed
featuring functional vocabulary to be used for pretest, intervention, and posttest. A semantic
feature analysis map will be used to facilitate naming during intervention. Results are expected
to reveal within language and cross-language generalization as well as a clear directionality of
cross-linguistic generalization. By determining which language (L1 or L2) should be targeted in
intervention, speech language pathologists will be able to better treat individuals with bilingual
aphasia so that they may more efficiently regain their expressive abilities.
iii
Table of Contents
Title Page ....................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ iii
Biographical Sketches .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2-7
Method .................................................................................................................................................... 8-12
Participants ................................................................................................................................... 8-9
Materials .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 9-12
Groups................................................................................................................................. 9
Pre-test ............................................................................................................................... 9
Intervention ................................................................................................................. 10-12
Post-test ............................................................................................................................ 12
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 12
References ............................................................................................................................................. 12-13
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 14-22
Appendix B.................................................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix C.................................................................................................................................................. 24
1
Biographical Sketches
Jessica Beitzel is a graduate student at Louisiana State University Health and Sciences
Center in New Orleans, Louisiana seeking a Master’s degree in Communication Sciences and
Disorders to become a certified Speech and Language Pathologist. She is a Summa Cum Laude
graduate of Louisiana State University where she received her Bachelor of Arts degree in
English with a concentration in secondary education in May of 2011. While pursuing her
undergraduate degree, she gained experience reviewing scholarly articles for the purpose of
writing research papers on topics ranging from digital literacy to American immigration stories.
Ashley Comeaux is a graduate student at Louisiana State University Health and Sciences
Center in New Orleans, Louisiana seeking a Master’s degree in Communication Sciences and
Disorders to become a certified Speech and Language Pathologist. She is a graduate of the
University of New Orleans where she received her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology. While
pursuing her undergraduate degree at the University of New Orleans, she completed an experimental
design and methodology course. This course provided her with a hands-on introduction to the scientific
method and experimental/statistical design. She concluded this course by conducting her own
psychological study examining the differences of dietary awareness based on gender.
Margaret Dyer is a graduate student at Louisiana State University Health and Sciences
Center in New Orleans, Louisiana seeking a Master’s degree in Communication Sciences and
Disorders to become a certified Speech-Language Pathologist. She earned her Bachelor of
Science in English Education from the University of Louisiana (Lafayette) in 2006. During this
time, she wrote an honors thesis that postulated the effects of the educational act No Child Left
Behind on students in gifted education. After which she spent seven years teaching English to
middle and high school students. Ms. Dyer held several leadership roles during that time
including chair of the English department for four years at West St. John High School.
2
Katherine Kampen is a graduate student at Louisiana State University Health and
Sciences Center in New Orleans, Louisiana seeking a Master’s degree in Communication
Sciences and Disorders to become a certified Speech and Language Pathologist. She graduated
from Louisiana State University in May of 2013 with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in
Psychology. While studying at Louisiana State University, she worked as an undergraduate
student researcher under the supervision and direction of Dr. Wm. Drew Gouvier in the
Louisiana State University Psychological Services Center. She administered psychological tests
researching malingered ADHD and administered and scored common clinical and cognitive tests
in order to determine their usefulness in measuring college students’ attention, working memory,
and executive functional abilities. She has also had experience reviewing published articles and
writing research papers in various classes at Louisiana State University.
3
Introduction
Bilingual populations are growing in America. Specifically, the Hispanic population has
increased by 15.2 million between 2000 and 2010 (US Census Bureau, 2010). Therefore, in the
field of communication disorders, Speech-Language-Pathologists (SLPs) can expect an increase
in referrals for bilingual clients who demonstrate a variety of acquired cognitive and
communicative disorders, including aphasia (Lorenzen, 2008). Benson and Ardila (1996) define
aphasia as a loss or impairment of language function caused by brain damage (Benson & Ardila,
1996). As the population of bilingual individuals with aphasia increases, more research is being
conducted to examine patterns of recovery; in particular, extensive research has been done on
cross-linguistic generalization in semantic naming sequences. Semantic naming is a therapy
technique that targets naming deficits using visual stimuli and semantic feature analysis.
Although definitions of bilingualism are disputed, a salient definition is needed to operationally
define the participants of this study. A bilingual individual has competencies in two languages;
however, proficiency in first language (L1) and second language (L2) need not be equal. Factors
that contribute to an individual’s competency in a language include: age of acquisition, context
of use, and exposure (Wei, 2000). Symptoms, treatments, and outcomes of bilingual individuals
diagnosed with aphasia are more complex when compared to the patterns of monolingual people
with aphasia. The purpose of the present study is to determine the direction in which cross
linguistic generalization occurs when individuals with bilingual aphasia receive semantic naming
treatment.
It is critical to examine pre-existing models of bilingual language processing, which one
can use to predict patterns of results for studies involving cross-linguistic generalization.
Bilingual language processing models explore how L1 and L2 interact on the lexical and
4
semantic levels within one individual. According to Croft, Marshall, Pring, and Hardwick
(2011), two such models include the Revised Hierarchical Model (RHM) and the Bilingual
Interactive Activation Model (BIAM). Kroll and Stewart (1994), the authors of the RHM,
postulate that backwards translation (L2 to L1) is less complex than forward translation (L1 to
L2). They argued that L1 is more strongly linked to semantics (word concepts) than L2, because
the learning of L2 is predicated by understanding of L1. Therefore, when individuals are
attempting to translate a word from L1 to L2, they must first consider the word’s meaning.
Whereas, if individuals were translating from L2 to L1, they could bypass the word’s meaning
access the lexical equivalent in L1, and speed up translation processing time. If SLPs were to
consider the RHM model in treating bilingual aphasia, they would target therapy in L2 and look
for generalization to L1 (Kroll & Stewart, 1994).
A second model of bilingual language processing is the BIAM, a connectionist model
(Dijkstra and van Heuven 2002). The authors of the BIAM suggest that a bilingual individual has
a shared lexicon that stores all known words irrespective of language of origin. In this model,
when a bilingual individual is naming a word in one language, its equivalent in the other
language is activated simultaneously. The bilingual individual will then inhibit the word that is
not needed and express the word in the language that is appropriate for the given context. If
SLPs were proponents of the BIAM, they would expect to see within-language generalization
and between-language generalization with no primacy of L2 over L1. Results from previous
studies on the topic of cross-linguistic generalization have supported both models; however, to
date, there is not enough data to determine a strong correlation between any single bilingual
language processing model and patterns of between-language generalization in individuals with
bilingual aphasia (Croft et. al 2011).
5
Conclusions of a study by Edmonds and Kiran (2006) suggest that targeting the less
dominant language for treatment in clients with balanced premorbid competencies may be more
beneficial in enabling cross-linguistic generalization than targeting the proficient language of the
bilingual person with aphasia. In their study, the researchers investigated the effect of semantic
naming treatment on cross-linguistic generalization in three participants with English-Spanish
bilingual aphasia. A single-subject experimental design was used, wherein three participants (P1,
P2, and P3) received treatment in semantics to improve naming of English and Spanish items.
Researchers also used a number of methods to describe each participant’s language history and
estimate premorbid language-use patterns prior to stroke. These methods included a participant
interview and language-use questionnaire as well as interviewing one family member who could
corroborate the participant’s interview. The Boston Naming Test (BNT) and the Bilingual
Aphasia Test (BAT) were employed to test the results. Results found cross-linguistic
generalization in all participants, but the patterns of generalization were different for each
participant. These differences appear to be related to the participant’s premorbid language
proficiency level. P1 was equally proficient in both languages prior to stroke, while P2 and P3
were both premorbidly more proficient in English than in Spanish. P1, who was trained in L1,
showed generalization to L2, while P2 and P3, who were trained in L2, showed generalization to
L1.
One model that explains all three results is de Groot’s mixed model (de Groot, 1992; de
Groot et al., 1994 p. 744), “which allows flexibility in the strengths of connections between the
semantic system and each lexicon as well as between lexicons themselves based on relative
proficiencies across languages.” The revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and the
mixed model of bilingual access (de Groot, 1992) can explain the results of P2, who showed the
6
expected within-language generalization patterns when treated in English. P2 also demonstrated
cross-linguistic generalization when treated in his less dominant language- Spanish. While
results are preliminary because of limited number of participants and ranges of language
proficiencies, it seems (though clinically counterintuitive) that training the non-dominant
language in an individual with bilingual aphasia facilitates cross-linguistic generalization
(Edmonds & Kiran, 2006).
Kiran and Roberts (2010) used similar methods and a similar experimental design in their
study to the one used by Edmonds and Kiran (2006). Kiran and Roberts (2010) found different
patterns in their results but replicated and extended their results in two out of the four research
participants. The participants were diagnosed with aphasia at least six months prior to
participation in the study. All four women suffered a single stroke in the left hemisphere; two
women spoke English and Spanish and two women spoke English and French. The researchers
hypothesized that a primarily semantically-based treatment would lead to cross-language
generalization to the translations of the treated items and cross-language generalization to items
semantically related to the treated items in the untrained language. Kiran and Roberts (2010)
found evidence for the first hypothesis in only one of the four participants. Cross-language
generalizations for semantically related targets (the second hypothesis) occurred predominantly
in one participant and mildly in one other participant. This study presents several confounding
variables to consider in future studies. Self-reports of proficiency reflect each participant’s
subjective ideas of their abilities. Additionally, the reported age of acquisition of the second
language and the reliability and validity of semantic relatedness score may not be accurate. There
were also a small number of participants in this study: an issue present in all current studies on
cross-language generalization of treatment on individuals with aphasia.
7
In contrast with the previous studies discussed, additional studies support cross-linguistic
generalization from L1 to L2. Kohnert (2004) investigated generalization within and across
cognitive-linguistic domains. This case study followed treatments given to a 62-year-old
bilingual man with severe nonfluent aphasia. The participant was proficient in both Spanish and
English, with Spanish (L1) being his native language. He was reported to use both languages on
a daily basis premorbid. The participant suffered from a single embolic cerebral vascular
accident (CVA) to the middle left cerebral artery. The study was completed using two different
treatment phases. The first treatment dealt with non-linguistic information processing,
specifically non-verbal skill performance such as?? completed over a two-month period not quite
sure what they did here. After receiving individual therapy for 14 sessions for one hour each,
results of treatment were investigated and showed improvement in both L1 and L2. The second
phase of treatment focused on semantic skills with cognates and non-cognates; it was completed
during four one-hour individual therapy sessions. The results of the second treatment showed
cross-linguistic generalizations from L1 to L2 only for cognates (Kohnert, 2004). However, this
study is limited because it only examined one participant making the results difficult to
generalize to the population the amount of therapy sessions conducted in the different phases
vary drastically.
The case series conducted by Croft, Marshall, Pring, and Hardwick (2011) supports
Kohnert’s (2004) findings. The aim of the study was to examine the following questions: “Does
cross-linguistic generalization occur and does this generalization depend on the therapy
approach? Is cross-linguistic generalization more likely following treatment in L2 or L1? (Croft
et al., 2011). The study’s participants included five bilingual individuals with various types of
aphasia who spoke both Bengali and English. Four of the five participants identified Bengali as
8
L1 and identified English as L2, while the remaining participant identified English as L1 and
Bengali and L2. All five participants exhibited a right hemiparesis. They all received semantic
naming therapy and phonological processing therapy in both Bengali and English. The
researchers administered a picture-naming task for the purpose of assessment- twice prior to
therapy, once immediately post-therapy, and four weeks after termination of therapy. Results
revealed that semantic naming therapy was more effective in producing cross-linguistic
generalization than the phonological processing phase of therapy. Within-language gains in
alliance with the BIAM of bilingual language processing were observed; however, all instances
of cross-generalization occurred following treatment of L1. These findings are problematic in
that they conflict with the RHM and prohibit SLPs who do not have the same native language as
the client from providing the best possible therapy (Croft et al., 2011).
The goal of the present study is to replicate, revise, and extend past research on cross-language
generalization featuring semantic naming treatment in bilingual individuals with aphasia. Our
participants will be selected based on a number of factors devised by Kiran and Roberts (2010),
but with several modifications to control for confounding variables. Specifically, this study will
feature a larger sample size and adult participants who share the same following characteristics:
L1 and L2, premorbid language proficiency, loci of lesion, and formative assessment results.
Language proficiency in both languages will be determined through data collected by self-report
and family report. While divergent patterns of recovery have emerged, it is the goal of the
current study to identify whether to target L1 or L2 during therapy so as to better treat
individuals with bilingual aphasia with the goal of regaining expressive ability in all languages
needed for them to function in daily life. We hypothesize that by increasing the number of
9
participants and eliminating confounding variables, which limited previous studies, more
consistent patterns of cross-linguistic generalization will emerge.
Method
Participants
Thirty-three participants with nonfluent aphasia will take part in the study including 16
females and 17 males ranging from ages 55 to 65. For twenty-two participants, Spanish is the
native language (L1) while English is the second language (L2); these participants will be
divided into two groups. The remaining eleven participants are monolingual in either Spanish or
English and will form the third group. Premorbidly, individuals in the first two groups were
reportedly fluent in both languages. They use Spanish in the home and English in professional
and social settings. All participants in the bilingual groups achieved proficiency in L2 prior to
secondary school. Premorbid language proficiency will be determined by the language history
questionnaire (Appendix A), which will be verified by a family member who was familiar with
the participant’s language ability prior to the stroke (Ping, Sepanski, & Xiaowei, 2006).
Participants developed nonfluent aphasia as a result of a single embolic cerebral vascular
accident (CVA) to the middle left cerebral artery. Strokes occurred approximately twelve
months prior to the initiation of the study. At the onset of the study, the Boston Naming Test
(BNT), a 60-item test, will be administered to assess the participants’ word retrieval
performances. All participants in the bilingual groups had word-finding difficulties in both
Spanish and English, and will be given the BNT in both L1 and L2. Participants in the
monolingual group will also be given the BNT in their appropriate L1 language. It is expected
that results would indicate difficulty in word retrieval.
10
Intervention will be provided by three bilingual speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who
will each be assigned to one of the three groups. Each SLP will be proficient in both English and
Spanish. Prior to intervention, the SLPs will be trained by the researchers on the process of
gathering baseline data, providing intervention, and identifying correct responses. This training
will be conducted to ensure that each participant receives intervention in the same manner and
each participant will be evaluated using the same criteria.
Materials
Materials that will be used in this study to determine premorbid language proficiency
prior to intervention included the language history questionnaire to be corroborated by family
interview. Postmorbid language proficiency will be assessed using the Boston Naming Test
(BNT), which is a test developed to evaluate word retrieval abilities in individuals with aphasia.
The researchers will create a pool of 200 high frequency nouns that will be used for the pre-test,
intervention, and post-test. Nouns will be selected from various categories of everyday life:
places, business, transportation, house and furniture, body and clothing, and animals and nature.
A picture card will be created for each noun in both Spanish and English. The front of the card
will feature a picture of the noun and the back of the card will show the noun written in either
Spanish or English. Also, a semantic feature analysis map will be used to facilitate questioning
of attributes of target words. A log of notes will be recorded to monitor progress.
Procedures
Groups. For treatment, participants will be divided by gender and then randomly
assigned into three treatment groups. Intervention within each group will focus on semantic
naming. The first treatment group (group 1) will contain 5 females and 6 males and will receive
intervention only in L1. The second treatment group (group 2) will also contain 5 females and 6
11
males and will receive intervention only in L2. The final group (group 3) of monolingual
speakers will consist of three female English speakers, three female Spanish speakers, three male
English speakers, and two male Spanish speakers. Participants in group 3 will receive
intervention in their respective language only. Treatment will be provided to the three groups by
three bilingual speech-language pathologists proficient in both Spanish and English. All aspects
of the study, including assessment and intervention, will be completed in a clinical setting.
Pre-test. Demographic information and language proficiency will be obtained using a
language history questionnaire, which will be corroborated by family members. The BNT will
be administered to assess the participants’ proficiencies in English and/or Spanish. Following
these procedures, a baseline will be obtained using the 200 picture cards. The picture cards will
be shown, and participants in groups 1 and 2 will be instructed to name the noun in both Spanish
and English. Individuals in group 3 will name the items in their language. For groups 1 and 2,
responses will be recorded as incorrect if the individual cannot name the picture in Spanish or
English. For group 3, responses will be recorded as incorrect if the individual cannot name the
item. The SLPs will not provide additional cues or prompting.
Intervention. Participants will receive semantic naming treatment, a therapy technique
that develops the individual’s ability to access semantic networks, to improve accuracy when
naming the items previously failed during the pre-test. The purpose of the treatment for group 1
and group 2 is to demonstrate that semantic naming treatment in one language can lead to
generalization of semantic naming ability in the untrained language. The third group will be used
as a control group to determine effectiveness of the semantic naming treatment within one
language. Treatment will be given twice a week for one hour each session. The treatment
protocol will be arranged in a three level hierarchy.
12
At the first level of the hierarchy, the participant will be presented with a picture card and
asked to name it. If the participant is unable to name the card, the SLP will ask descriptive and
functional questions and provided a written representation of the questions. A semantic feature
analysis map (Appendix C) with example questions will be used to guide this process. For
example, using the target word “house” the SLP will describe aspects of that word using the
categories on the map (i.e. it’s located in a neighborhood; you live in it.) After using the
mapping tool, the SLP will show the picture card again. If the participant is still unable to name
the picture, the SLP will say the target word aloud and show the participant the word written on
the back of the picture card (Davis & Thompson Stanton, 2005). Once 80% accuracy is achieved
at this level, the SLP will move to the next level in the hierarchy.
At the second level, the SLP will show the picture card to the participant. If the response
is incorrect, the SLP will show the written word corresponding to the picture and say it aloud.
The mapping tool will be removed at the second level of the hierarchy. Intervention will continue
at this level until 80% accuracy is reached, then the SLP will move into the final level of the
hierarchy.
The goal of the final level of the hierarchy is for the participant to name the picture card
independently. This means responses will be given without a written or verbal model from the
SLP. This process will be completed for each word in the intervention set. Once 80% accuracy is
achieved at the final level of the hierarchy, intervention will be terminated and the participant
will be given the post-test.
Data will be collected and notes will be taken during each session to monitor progress.
Each independent response will be recorded as either correct or incorrect, and a percentage of
correct responses will be obtained. This percentage will be obtained by dividing the number of
13
correct responses by the total number of responses during the session. Intervention will be
discontinued after 80% accuracy is achieved for each set or after 30 consecutive sessions are
completed; whichever comes first (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006). To increase reliability a researcher
will observe every third session and record the participants’ responses. Afterwards, the
researcher and SLP will compare data to ensure that responses are being rated consistently and
accurately.
Post-test. A post-test will be given in order to measure the effectiveness of semantic
naming treatment and determine if generalization across languages occurs. Additionally, the
post-tests will be examined to determine the directionality of generalization. Participants in
group 1 will be shown the same cards used in intervention, but will be asked to name them in L2.
Participants in group 2 will also be shown the same cards used in intervention, but will be asked
to name them in L1. Participants in group 3 will be asked to name the same picture cards used
during intervention. Additionally, the Boston Naming Test will be administered in order to
compare the participant’s pre and post intervention performance.
Data Analysis
To analyze the results of the gathered data, analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used.
ANOVA analyzes the differences between group means and their associated procedures. This
test will be used to run a regression analysis to determine the impact that the independent
variable (the language in which treatment was given) had on the dependent variable
(generalization to the untrained language). Data will be recorded using the software SPSS and
statistical analyses will be completed.
References
14
Benson, D.F., & Ardila,A. (1996). Aphasia: A Clinical Perspective. New York, NY-- Oxford
University Press.
Croft, S., Marshall, J., Pring, T., & Hardwick, M. (2011). Therapy for naming difficulties in
bilingual aphasia: Which language benefits? International Journal Of Language &
Communication Disorders, 46(1), 48-62.
Davis, L. A., & Stanton, S. T. (2005) Semantic feature analysis as a functional therapy tool.
Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences & Disorders, 32, 85-92.
Dijkstra, A., & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (2002). Authors’ response: Modeling bilingual word
recognition: Past, present and future. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 219-224.
Edmonds, L. A., & Kiran, S. (2006). Effect of semantic naming treatment on crosslinguistic
generalization in bilingual aphasia. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research,
49(4), 729-748.
Kiran, S., & Roberts, P. M. (2010). Semantic feature analysis treatment in Spanish-English and
French-English bilingual aphasia. Aphasiology, 24(2), 231-261.
Kohnert, K. (2009). Cross-language generalization following treatment in bilingual speakers
with aphasia: A review. Seminars In Speech & Language, 30(3), 174-186
Kroll, J. F., Van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., & Green, D. W. (2010). The revised hierarchical
model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 13(3),
373-381.
Lorenzen, B., & Murray, L. L. (2008). Bilingual Aphasia: A theoretical and clinical review.
American Journal Of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 299-317.
Ping, L., Sepanski, S., & Xiaowei, Z. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based
interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202-210.
15
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). United States Census 2010: Allegany County, N.Y. Retrieved
September 29, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/2010census.
Wei, L. (2000). Dimensions of Bilingualism. The Bilingualism Reader, 33-25.
16
Appendix A
Language History Questionnaire created by Ping, Sepanski, & Xiaowei (2006).
Questionnaire
Contact Information:
Name: ____________________________________
E-mail: _____________________________________
Telephone: _________________________________
Today’s Date: ________________________________
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
PART A
1. Age (in years):
2. Sex (circle one):
Male/Female
3. Education (degree obtained or school level attended):
4(a). Country of origin:
4(b). Country of Residence:
17
5. If 4(a) and 4(b) are the same, how long have you lived in a foreign country where your second
language is spoken?
If 4(a) and 4(b) are different, how long have you been in the country of your current residence?
6. What is your native language? (If you grew up with more than one language, please specify)
7. Do you speak a second language? ____Yes
My second language is_____________________________
No (If you answered No, you need not to continue this form)
8. If you answered yes to question 6(b), please specify the age at which you started to learn your
second language in the following situations (write age next to any situation that applies).
At home_________
In school_________
After arriving in the second language speaking country_____
9. How did you learn your second language up to this point? (check all that apply)
Mainly through formal classroom instruction_____
Mainly through interacting with people_____
A mixture of both_____
Other (specify)_____
18
10. List all foreign languages you know in order of most proficient to least proficient. Rate your
ability on the following aspects in each language. Please rate according to the following scale
(write down the number in the table):
very poor
poor
fair
functional
good
very good
native-like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Language
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Proficiency
Proficiency
Fluency
Listening Ability
11. Provide the age at which you were first exposed to each foreign language in terms of
speaking, reading, and writing and the number of years you have spent on learning each
language.
Language
Age first exposed to the language
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Number of years
learning
19
12. Do you have a foreign accent in the languages you speak? If so, please rate the strength of
your accent on a scale from 1 (not much of an accent) to 7 (very strong accent).
Language
Accent (circle one)
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Strength
PART B
13. What language do/did you usually speak to your parents? (If not applicable for any reason,
write N/A)
20
14. What language do you usually speak with your family? (If not applicable for any reason,
write N/A)
15. What languages can/did your parents speak fluently? (If not applicable for any reason,
write N/A)
Mother: _________________________
Father: __________________________
16. What language or languages do/did your parents usually speak to each other at home? (If not
applicable for any reason, write N/A)
17. Write down the name of the language in which you received instruction in school, for each
schooling level:
Primary/elementary School __________
Secondary/Middle School __________
High School _________
College/University _________
18. Estimate, in terms of percentages, how often you use your native language and other
languages per day (in all daily activities combined):
Native language _____%
Second language ______%
other languages ______% (specify: ____________________)
21
(Total should equal 100%)
19. Estimate, in terms of hours per day, how often you watch TV or listen to radio in your native
language and other languages per day.
Native language _____ (hrs)
Second language ________ (hrs)
Other languages ___________________________ (specify the languages and hrs)
20. Estimate, in terms of hours per day, how often you read newspapers, magazines, and other
general reading materials in your native language and other languages per day.
Native language _____ (hrs)
Second language ________ (hrs)
Other languages ___________________________ (specify the languages and hrs)
21. estimate, in terms of hours per day, how often you use your native language and other
languages per day for work or study related activities (e.g., going to classes, writing papers,
talking to colleagues, classmates, or peers).
Native language _____ (hrs)
Second language ________ (hrs)
Other languages ___________________________ (specify the languages and hrs)
22. In which languages do you usually:
Add, multiply, and do simple arithmetic? _______________
22
Dream? ________________
Express anger or affection? _________________________
23. When you are speaking, do you ever mix words or sentences from the two or more languages
you know? (If no, skip to question 25).
24. List the languages that you mix and rate the frequency of mixing in normal conversation with
the following people, on a scale from 1 (mixing is very rare) to 5 (mixing is very frequent). Write
down the number in the box.
Relationship
Languages Mixed
Frequency of Mixing
Spouse/family members
Friends
Co-workers
25. In which language (among your best two languages) do you feel you usually do better? Write
the name of the language under each condition.
Reading
At home
At work
_______
_______
23
Writing
_______
_______
Speaking
_______
______
Understanding
_______
_______
26. Among the languages you know, which language is the one that you would prefer to use in
these situations?
At home
_______
At work
_______
At a party
_______
In general
_______
27. If you have lived or travelled in other countries for more than three months, please indicate
the name(s) of the country or countries, your length of stay, and the language(s) you learned or
tried to learn.
28. If you have taken a standardized test of proficiency for languages other than your native
language (e.g., ToeFL or Test of English as a Foreign Language), please indicate the scores you
received for each.
Language
_________________
Scores
__________________
Name of the Test
___________________
24
_________________
__________________
___________________
_________________
__________________
___________________
29. If there is anything else that you feel is interesting or important about your language
background or language use, please comment below.
25
Appendix B
Picture Cards
Front of the card-L2
Back of the card-L2
pencil
Front of the card-L1
Back of the card-L1
casa
26
Appendix C
Semantic Feature Analysis Map