Implications of using a vocabulary test standardised on monoglots, with dual‐language children

Abstract

ABSTRACT Abudarham (1987) has advocated the use of the conceptual vocabulary (CV) (Swain, 1972) when assessing the vocabulary of dual‐language (DL) subjects. CV refers to the ability to name referents in either language. It is thus, a measure of ‘naming power’ rather than vocabulary in L1 and/or L2. A DL subject may respond correctly to 40 test stimuli in a ‘bilingual’ test. However, these may refer to only 20 referents known in both languages. On the other hand, 30 correct responses in only one language may relate to 30 different referents. The former's CV would be 20 and that of the latter, despite an ‘inferior’ vocabulary, would be 30. Using CV as a measure of language ability at a lexical level could help in the differential diagnosis between an L2 or a specific language‐learning problem. The response to the first 75 items of the British Picture Vocabulary Scales (BPVS) (Dunn et al., 1982) by 392 DL (Spanish/English) Gibraltarian children, aged 4–12 years, were analysed. Each item was presented in both languages. The raw scores for L1, L2 and CV were converted to standard scores (SSs) (see the BPVS manual (Dunn et al., 1982)). Although this could be justified for responses in English (Abudarham, 1995), there is little psychometric justification for doing so for performance in L1 (Spanish) or CV. However, as Genesee (1989) points out, ‘the purpose of this type of examination is not to prove the hypothesis that DL children's lexical development (L1, L2, CV) is comparable to their monoglot peers’, since the available data are not considered to be adequate, but rather to establish tenability'. A SS of more than 85 was obtained in English by children up to the age of 4;11 and in Spanish by children up to the age of 5;5. Depending on the language tested, all children above these respective ages could be considered as having a language problem and be referred for language therapy. Given that all these subjects were considered to have no learning or language disability, the results give alarming warnings regarding the use of language tests standardised on monoglots, with DL children. When, however, the SSs for CV were calculated, subjects up to the age of 7;5 were within ‘normal limits’. The results of this study show that CV is a more valid indicator of the true lexico‐conceptual skills of a DL child. However, they also show the dangers of testing in only one language or even in both independently. According to these results, the performance of a 5 1/2‐year‐old child in L2 or LI might make him eligible for speech and language therapy. However, his CV SS would not. This type of child may well need help with his second (or first) language but would probably not need language therapy. Finally, the total vocabulary of a DL child should not be assessed as if it comprised two separate languages.