Commentary on Keynote

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley Gray
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Phonological Loop ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Phonological Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Relationship

Our understanding the relationship between verbal short-term memory as indexed by nonword repetition and word learning must now incorporate myriad factors that were not as apparent 17 years ago when Gathercole and Baddeley (1989) proposed that “the phonological memory skills tapped by nonword repetition play a causal role in vocabulary development” (p. 211). In particular, successful nonword repetition involves more than the phonological loop, word learning happens by degrees, and is influenced by many factors other than phonology, and children with specific language impairment (SLI), who have served as test cases by virtue of consistently demonstrating phonological memory deficits, often exhibit other deficits with the potential to negatively impact word learning. Gathercole (2006) still makes the case for temporary phonological storage playing an important role in word learning, but with several caveats. I would like to add two.

Phonological networks and new word learning

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabet Service
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Perceptual Analysis ◽  
Motor Processes

The first report of a connection between vocabulary learning and phonological short-term memory was published in 1988 (Baddeley, Papagno, & Vallar, 1988). At that time, both Susan Gathercole and I were involved in longitudinal studies, investigating the relation between nonword repetition and language learning. We both found a connection. Now, almost 20 years later, in her Keynote Gathercole (2006) reviews a multitude of data bearing on the interpretation of this often replicated connection. Her main conclusions are three. First, both nonword repetition and word learning are constrained by the quality of temporary storage. She sees this storage as multiply determined, that is, affected by factors like perceptual analysis, phonological awareness (ability to identify and reflect on the speech sounds that make up words). Second, both nonword repetition and word learning are also affected by sensory, cognitive, and motor processes. Third, an impairment of phonological storage is typically associated with specific language impairment (SLI) but may not be a sole causal factor.

scholarly journals Beyond words: Phonological short-term memory and syntactic impairment in specific language impairment

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy V. M. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Molecular Genetic ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Specific Language

The assessment of nonword repetition in children goes back at least to 1974, when the Goldman–Fristoe–Woodcock Auditory Skills Battery was published, including a subtest (Sound Mimicry) assessing nonword repetition (Goldman, Fristoe, & Woodcock, 1974). Nevertheless, it was not until 20 years later, when Gathercole and Baddeley (1990) reported a study of short-term memory in children with specific language impairment (SLI), that a theoretical framework was developed linking deficits in nonword repetition to impaired language acquisition. Gathercole's Keynote in this issue (2006) tells the story of how this initial study revealed a striking nonword repetition deficit in children with SLI, complementing work on typically developing children showing a major role of phonological short-term memory (STM) in word learning. As she points out, the story is a complex one: phonological STM is not the only skill tapped by the nonword repetition task, and children may do poorly for different reasons. Furthermore, relationships between nonword repetition and word learning may be reciprocal, with vocabulary level affecting children's ability to segment nonwords efficiently and retain them in memory. However, the original finding, that deficient nonword repetition is a strong correlate of SLI, has stood the test of time, to the extent that poor performance on this test has been used successfully as a marker of a heritable phenotype in molecular genetic studies of SLI (Newbury, Monaco, & Bishop, 2005).

scholarly journals Word learning, phonological short-term memory, phonotactic probability and long-term memory: towards an integrated framework

2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1536) ◽  
pp. 3755-3771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prahlad Gupta ◽  
Jamie Tisdale
Keyword(s):  
Computational Model ◽  
Word Learning ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Phonotactic Probability ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Relationship

Word learning is studied in a multitude of ways, and it is often not clear what the relationship is between different phenomena. In this article, we begin by outlining a very simple functional framework that despite its simplicity can serve as a useful organizing scheme for thinking about various types of studies of word learning. We then review a number of themes that in recent years have emerged as important topics in the study of word learning, and relate them to the functional framework, noting nevertheless that these topics have tended to be somewhat separate areas of study. In the third part of the article, we describe a recent computational model and discuss how it offers a framework that can integrate and relate these various topics in word learning to each other. We conclude that issues that have typically been studied as separate topics can perhaps more fruitfully be thought of as closely integrated, with the present framework offering several suggestions about the nature of such integration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document