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.

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.

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).

The role of phonological storage deficits in specific language impairment: A reconsideration

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Ellis Weismer ◽  
Jan Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Learning Disorders ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Nonword Processing

In her Keynote Article, Gathercole (2006) presents a theoretical framework intended to account for evidence regarding the relation between nonword repetition and word learning. This framework stems from an impressive amount and breadth of research on this topic, including findings from adults and children with typical language abilities as well as language learning disorders. In this commentary we focus on claims relative to the interpretation of nonword repetition deficits in children with specific language impairment (SLI). One issue we address pertains to the nature of the proposed model of nonword processing and word learning, particularly with respect to phonological sensitivity and storage. The second issue we address relates to the assumption that a phonological storage deficit, although not sufficient, is necessary for SLI.

Working Memory and Language

2007 ◽  
pp. 756-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Gathercole
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Human Capabilities ◽  
Term Memory

This article examines what roles, if any, working memory plays in the human capabilities to handle language. One possibility is that language comprehension is dependent upon working memory, as a consequence of the ephemeral nature of the speech input. A second is that the working memory system supports the learning of language rather than language processing per se. The article argues that in fact this is by far the most significant contribution made by working memory to the human facility with language. Individually and in concert, the subsystems of working memory play vital and highly specific roles, both in language learning in particular and in learning more generally. The article first describes the concept of working memory, and then discusses sentence processing and short-term memory, vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory, and specific language impairment and working memory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document