Secondary data analysis generates core vocabulary lists for Tagalog and English, suggesting AAC improvements.
Purpose: A large proportion of children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices to communicate are bilingual. However, many AAC devices predominantly feature vocabulary that is translated from English into the child's other language, lacking cultural and linguistic responsiveness. This can limit effective communication for bilingual users. The primary goal of the present study was to develop core vocabulary lists in Tagalog and in English for Tagalog–English bilingual preschoolers to create a more linguistically and culturally appropriate foundation for AAC systems used by these children. The secondary goal was to design linguistically responsive bilingual communication boards for Tagalog–English bilingual preschoolers using the core vocabulary lists. Method: Secondary data analysis was conducted using a data set of personal narrative language samples from 100 Tagalog–English bilingual children from Metro Manila. In this data set, the language samples were pared down to a list of single vocabulary words. Frequency and commonality scores were calculated for each vocabulary word to generate separate core vocabulary lists for Tagalog and English. Results: Applying the frequency score criteria, a total of 193 Tagalog words, 28 English words, and 60 Tagalog affixes were identified as frequently used by Tagalog–English bilinguals. Using the commonality score criteria, 56 Tagalog words, three English words, and 11 Tagalog affixes were identified as core vocabulary. These findings guided the creation of both a Tagalog communication board and a bilingual Tagalog–English communication board. The bilingual board integrated Tagalog and English core vocabulary into a single board. Conclusion: The established Tagalog–English core vocabulary lists provide a foundation for the development of bilingual AAC systems that allow bilinguals equitable access to communication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ocampo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: