Spoken language development in school-aged children with cochlear implants as compared to hard-of-hearing children and children with specific language impairment

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 ◽  
pp. 203-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjolijn van Weerdenburg ◽  
Brigitte E. de Hoog ◽  
Harry Knoors ◽  
Ludo Verhoeven ◽  
Margreet C. Langereis
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
School Aged Children ◽  
Hearing Children

More general all-purpose verbs in children with specific language impairment? Evidence from Greek for not fully lexical verbs in language development

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 1029-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA KAMBANAROS ◽  
KLEANTHES K. GROHMANN
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Light Verbs ◽  
School Aged Children ◽  
Light Verb Constructions ◽  
Light Verb ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Relevant Category

ABSTRACTThis paper addresses verbal performance and overuse of “not fully lexical verbs” by children with specific language impairment (SLI) and peers with typical language development (TLD). Experimental data come from picture-naming and retell narratives. Fourteen school-aged children with SLI (mean age = 6 years, 9 months) participated alongside 50 language- and age-matched peers with TLD. The results revealed that children with SLI do not use light verb constructions but only general all-purpose (GAP) verbs when unable to produce single-word, specific lexical verbs. Moreover, they do not differ from language-matched TLD children in this respect. As such, GAP verbs should be viewed as symptoms of immature language or absent representations rather than impaired language. Consequently, when discussing not fully lexical verbs productions in (a)typical development, researchers should make the fundamental distinction between GAP verbs and light verbs, and focus on GAP verbs as the relevant category in SLI.

Foundations of Language Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Infants

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-32
Author(s):  
Dani Levine ◽  
Daniela Avelar ◽  
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff ◽  
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek ◽  
Derek M. Houston
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Language Input ◽  
Hearing Children

Copious evidence indicates that, even in the first year of life, children’s language development is beginning and is impacted by a wide array of cognitive and social processes. The extent to which these processes are dependent on early language input is a critical concern for most deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children, who, unlike hearing children, are usually not immersed in a language-rich environment until effective interventions, such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, are implemented. Importantly, some cognitive and social processes are not dependent on the early availability of language input and begin to develop before children are fitted for hearing aids or cochlear implants. Interventions involving parent training may be helpful for enhancing social underpinnings of language and for maximizing DHH children’s language learning once effective hearing devices are in place. Similarly, cognitive training for DHH children may also provide benefit to bolster language development.

Cognition and Communication

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 964-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith R. Johnston ◽  
Linda B. Smith ◽  
Peggy Box
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Object Type ◽  
Attentional Capacity ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Normal Language

Ten children with specific language impairment and 10 children with normal language development were asked to describe objects so that a listener could select them. Each trial targeted two out of a group of three toys. The targeted objects were identical or were similar in size or color. Children in the two groups did not differ in referential success, although children in both groups found the size items more difficult. Content analysis of the messages did reveal differences in the referential strategies used most frequently. Children with specific language impairment were more likely to mention the attributes of each object separately, rather than to describe the characteristics common to a pair of objects. Children in both groups talked about separate objects more often when talking about size than about color or object type. Use of this strategy could indicate the effects of attentional capacity on children's solutions to communication tasks.

scholarly journals Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: distinct profiles

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
JULIA LOMAKO ◽  
NATALIA GAGARINA ◽  
EKATERINA ABROSOVA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Production Studies ◽  
Two Populations

AbstractProduction studies show that both Russian-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) and bilingual children for whom Russian is a non-dominant language have difficulty distinguishing between the near-synonymous connectivesi‘and’ anda‘and/but’.Iis a preferred connective when reference is maintained, whereasais normally used for reference shift. We report an eye-tracking experiment comparing connective processing by Russian-speaking monolinguals with typical language development (TLD) with that of Russian–Dutch bilinguals and Russian-speaking monolinguals with SLI (age 5–6). The results demonstrate that the processing profiles of monolinguals with TLD and bilinguals are similar: both groups use connective semantics immediately for predicting further discourse. In contrast, children with SLI do not show sensitivity to these semantic differences. Despite similar production profiles, bilinguals and monolinguals with SLI are clearly different in connective processing. We discuss the implications of these results for the possible causes of the errors in the two populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document