Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2011


TAMAR H. GOLLAN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego
GALI H. WEISSBERGER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego & San Diego State University
ELIN RUNNQVIST
Affiliation:
Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
ROSA I. MONTOYA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego
CYNTHIA M. CERA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This study investigated correspondence between different measures of bilingual language proficiency contrasting self-report, proficiency interview, and picture naming skills. Fifty-two young (Experiment 1) and 20 aging (Experiment 2) Spanish–English bilinguals provided self-ratings of proficiency level, were interviewed for spoken proficiency, and named pictures in a Multilingual Naming Test (MINT); in Experiment 1, the Boston Naming Test (BNT) was also used. Self-ratings, proficiency interview, and the MINT did not differ significantly in classifying bilinguals into language-dominance groups, but naming tests (especially the BNT) classified bilinguals as more English-dominant than other measures. Strong correlations were observed between measures of proficiency in each language and language-dominance, but not degree of balanced bilingualism (index scores). Depending on the measure, up to 60% of bilinguals scored best in their self-reported non-dominant language. The BNT distorted bilingual assessment by underestimating ability in Spanish. These results illustrate what self-ratings can and cannot provide, illustrate the pitfalls of testing bilinguals with measures designed for monolinguals, and invite a multi-measure goal-driven approach to classifying bilinguals into dominance groups.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

The authors thank Jeanine Treffers-Daller, Michael Daller, Liz Peña, Alexandra Dunn, two anonymous reviewers and the editorial staff at BLC for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was supported by R01 grants (NIDCD 011492, NICHD050287 and NICHD 051030), and by a P50 (AG05131) from NIH/NIA. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.


References

Allegri, R. F., Mangone, C. A., Fernandez Villavicencio, A., Rymberg, S., Taragano, F. E., & Baumann, D. (1997). Spanish Boston Naming Test norms. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 416420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., García, M., & Cortez, C. (2005). Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: When does it make a difference? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 188200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., Bohman, T., & Gillam, R. B. (2011). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish/English bilingual children. Ms., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Byrd, D. A., Sanchez, D., & Manly, J. J. (2005). Neuropsychological test performance among Caribbean-born and U.S.-born African American elderly: The role of age, education and reading level. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27, 10561069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphical system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavioral Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computation, 25, 257271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 12831296.Google ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain & Language, 94, 94103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daller, M. (2011). The measurement of bilingual proficiency: Introduction. Special Issue of International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 123127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2002). Corpus del Español (100 million words, 1200s–1900s). http://www.corpusdelespanol.org (retrieved January, 2011).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 410+ million words, 1990–present. http://www.americancorpus.org (retrieved January, 2011).Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Plata, C. M., Vicioso, B., Hynan, L., Evans, H. M., Diaz-Arrastia, R., Lacritz, L., & Cullum Munro, C. (2007). Development of the Texas Spanish Naming Test: A test for Spanish speakers’. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22, 288304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Dunn, A. L., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2009). A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale, Bilingualism, Language, and Cognition, 12, 273289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Examiner's manual for the Test De Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody: Adaptiacion Hispanoamericana. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R. A., & Piske, T. (2002). Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 567598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., & Acenas, L. A. (2004). What is a TOT? Cognate and translation effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 246269.Google ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., & Brown, A. S. (2006). From tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) data to theoretical implications in two steps: When more TOTs means better retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 462483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Fennema-Notestine, C., Montoya, R. I., & Jernigan, T. L. (2007). The bilingual effect on Boston Naming Test performance. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 197208.Google ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., & Ferreira, V. S. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost-benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 640665.Google ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 787814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Salmon, D. P., Montoya, R. I., & da Pena, E. (2010). Accessibility of the nondominant language in picture naming: A counterintuitive effect of dementia on bilingual language production. Neuropsychologia, 48, 13561366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gollan, T. H., & Silverberg, N. B. (2001). Tip-of-the-tongue states in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 6384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K., & D'Andrea, D. (1992). Some properties of bilingual maintenance and loss in mexican background high-school students. Applied Linguistics, 13, 7299.Google Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Costa, A. (2008). Does bilingualism hamper lexical access in speech production? Acta Psychologica, 127, 277288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test – Second Edition. Circle Pine, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Kohnert, K. J., Hernandez, A. E., & Bates, E. (1998). Bilingual performance on the Boston Naming Test: Preliminary norms in Spanish and English. Brain and Language, 65, 422440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.) (2005). The handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language History Questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 202210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, V. P. C., Rickard Liow, S. J., Lincoln, M., Chan, Y. H., & Onslow, M. (2008). Determining language dominance in English–Mandarin bilinguals: Development of a self-report classification tool for clinical use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 389412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Examiner's Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Mattis, S. (1988). Dementia Rating Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D., & Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Report of the NINCDS–ADRDA Work Group. Neurology, 34, 939944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, M., & Libben, G. (1987). The assessment of bilingual aphasia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Patricacou, A., Psallida, E., Pring, T., & Dipper, L. (2007). The Boston Naming Test in Greek: Normative data and the effects of age and education on naming. Aphasiology, 21 (12), 11571170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language and Learning, 43, 93120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78, 12551264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peña-Casanova, J., Quiñones-Úbeda, S., Gramunt-Fombuena, N., Aguilar, M., Casas, L., Molinuevo, J. L., Robles, A., Rodríguez, D., Sagrario Barquero, M., Antúnez, C., Martínez-Parra, C., Frank-García, A., Fernández, M., Molano, A., Alfonso, V., Sol, J. M., Blesa, R., & the NEURONORMA Study Team (2009). Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): Norms for Boston Naming Test and Token Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 343354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, P. M., & Deslauriers, L. (1999). Picture naming of cognate and non-cognate nouns in bilingual aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, P. M., Garcia, L. J., Desrochers, A., & Hernandez, D. (2002). English performance of proficient bilingual adults on the Boston Naming Test. Aphasiology, 16, 635645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Araujo, K. Weekes, V. A., Caracciolo, V., Padilla, M., & Ostrosky-Solis, F. (2000). Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish–English bilinguals. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 1724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandoval, T. C., Gollan, T. H., Ferreira, V. S., & Salmon, D. P. (2010). What causes the bilingual disadvantage in verbal fluency: The dual-task analogy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 231252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (2000). LEXESP: Léxico informatizado del español. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Shipley, W. C. (1946). Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Silverberg, S., & Samuel, A. G. (2004). The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 381398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J. (2011). Operationalising and measuring language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 147163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children's receptive vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 10121020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Assche, E., Duyck, W., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Diependaele, K. (2009). Does bilingualism change native-language reading? Cognate effects in a sentence context. Psychological Science, 20, 923927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weintraub, S., Salmon, D., Mercaldo, N., Ferris, S., Graff-Radford, N. R., Chui, H., Cummings, J., DeCarli, C., Foster, N. L., Galasko, D., Peskind, E., Dietrich, W., Beekly, D. L., Kukull, W. A., & Morris, J. C. (2009). The Alzheimer's Disease Centers’ Uniform Data Set (UDS): The neuropsychologic test battery. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 23, 91101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodcock, R. W., & Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Bateria Woodcock – Muñoz Pruebas de Aprovechamiento – Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar

Gollan Supplementary Appendices

Gollan Supplementary Appendices

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 225 KB

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 41
Total number of PDF views: 584 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-6c64649b67-phtvg Total loading time: 0.317 Render date: 2020-12-03T12:36:34.843Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 12:15:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: A Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish–English bilinguals*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *