scholarly journals Why Words Are Hard for Adults With Developmental Language Impairments

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1845-1856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla K. McGregor ◽  
Ulla Licandro ◽  
Richard Arenas ◽  
Nichole Eden ◽  
Derek Stiles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Normal Development ◽  
Declarative Memory ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Learning Problems ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Word Meanings ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Similarities And Differences

Purpose To determine whether word learning problems associated with developmental language impairment (LI) reflect deficits in encoding or subsequent remembering of forms and meanings. Method Sixty-nine 18- to 25-year-olds with LI or without (the normal development [ND] group) took tests to measure learning of 16 word forms and meanings immediately after training (encoding) and 12 hr, 24 hr, and 1 week later (remembering). Half of the participants trained in the morning, and half trained in the evening. Results At immediate posttest, participants with LI performed more poorly on form and meaning than those with ND. Poor performance was more likely among those with more severe LI. The LI–ND gap for word form recall widened over 1 week. In contrast, the LI and ND groups demonstrated no difference in remembering word meanings over the week. In both groups, participants who trained in the evening, and therefore slept shortly after training, demonstrated greater gains in meaning recall than those who trained in the morning. Conclusions Some adults with LI have encoding deficits that limit the addition of word forms and meanings to the lexicon. Similarities and differences in patterns of remembering in the LI and ND groups motivate the hypothesis that consolidation of declarative memory is a strength for adults with LI.

Orosensory Perception, Speech Production, and Deafness

1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milo E. Bishop ◽  
Robert L. Ringel ◽  
Arthur S. House
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Functional Disorders ◽  
Form Discrimination ◽  
School Subjects ◽  
Oral Form ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The oral form-discrimination abilities of 18 orally educated and oriented deaf high school subjects were determined and compared to those of manually educated and oriented deaf subjects and normal-hearing subjects. The similarities and differences among the responses of the three groups were discussed and then compared to responses elicited from subjects with functional disorders of articulation. In general, the discrimination scores separated the manual deaf from the other two groups, particularly when differences in form shapes were involved in the test. The implications of the results for theories relating orosensory-discrimination abilities are discussed. It is postulated that, while a failure in oroperceptual functioning may lead to disorders of articulation, a failure to use the oral mechanism for speech activities, even in persons with normal orosensory capabilities, may result in poor performance on oroperceptual tasks.

Accuracy of the Denver-II in Developmental Screening

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221-1225
Author(s):  
Frances Page Glascoe ◽  
Karen E. Byrne ◽  
Linda G. Ashford ◽  
Katherine L. Johnson ◽  
Bernard Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Normal Development ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Developmental Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Mild Mental Retardation ◽  
Scoring Method ◽  
Day Care Centers ◽  
Developmental Problems ◽  
Further Development

One of the oldest and best known developmental screening tests was recently restandardized and revised as the Denver-II. Because it was published without evidence of its accuracy, the present study was undertaken with 104 children between 3 and 72 months of age attending one of five day-care centers. To determine the presence of developmental problems, children were administered individual measures of intelligence, speech-language, achievement, and adaptive behavior. A second psychological examiner, blind to the outcome of the diagnostic battery, administered the Denver-II. Developmental problems including language impairments, learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, and/or functional developmental delay were found in 17% of the children. The Denver-II identified correctly 83% and thus had high rates of sensitivity. However, more than half the children with normal development also received abnormal, questionable, or untestable Denver-II scores. Thus the test had limited specificity (43%) and a high overreferral rate. The alternative scoring method, categorizing questionable/untestable scores as normal, caused sensitivity to drop to 56% although specificity rose to 80%. Since neither scoring method produced acceptable levels of accuracy, an effort was made to locate the sources of accuracy and inaccuracy within the test. Only items in the language domain were modestly helpful in discriminating children with and without difficulties. The findings suggest that the authors of the Denver-II need to engage in further development of the instrument including revising scoring criteria and item placement in relation to children's ages. In the interim, test users should employ screening tests which are more accurate such as the Minnesota Inventories or the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test.

Context and paradigms

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Current Work ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Exemplar Model ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Pronunciation Variation ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Verbal Agreement

A small but growing body of research on English and Dutch has found that pronunciation of affixes in a word form is sensitive to paradigmatic probability – i.e., the probability of using that form over other words in the same morphological paradigm. Yet it remains unclear (a) how paradigmatic probability is best measured; (b) whether an increase in paradigmatic probability leads to phonetic enhancement or reduction; and (c) by what mechanism paradigmatic probability can affect pronunciation. The current work examines pronunciation variation of Russian verbal agreement suffixes. I show that there are two distinct patterns of variation, corresponding to two different measures of paradigmatic probability. One measure, pairwise paradigmatic probability, is associated with a pronunciation pattern that resembles phonetic enhancement. The second measure, lexeme paradigmatic probability, can show enhancement effects, but can also yield reduction effects more similar to those of contextual probability. I propose that these two patterns can be explained in an exemplar model of lexical storage. Reduction effects are the consequence of faster retrieval and encoding of an articulatory target, while effects that resemble enhancement result when the pronunciation target of both members of a pair of competing word forms is shifted towards the more frequent of two.

scholarly journals Heritability of Specific Language Impairment and Nonspecific Language Impairment at Ages 4 and 6 Years Across Phenotypes of Speech, Language, and Nonverbal Cognition

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 793-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mabel L. Rice ◽  
Catherine L. Taylor ◽  
Stephen R. Zubrick ◽  
Lesa Hoffman ◽  
Kathleen K. Earnest
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Structural Equation Models ◽  
Weighted Least Squares ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Causal Pathway

Purpose Early language and speech acquisition can be delayed in twin children, a twinning effect that diminishes between 4 and 6 years of age in a population-based sample. The purposes of this study were to examine how twinning effects influence the identification of children with language impairments at 4 and 6 years of age, comparing children with specific language impairment (SLI) and nonspecific language impairment (NLI); the likelihood that affectedness will be shared within monozygotic versus dizygotic twin pairs; and estimated levels of heritability for SLI and NLI. Twinning effects are predicted to result in elevated rates of language impairments in twins. Method The population-based twin sample included 1,354 children from 677 twin pairs, 214 monozygotic and 463 dizygotic, enrolled in a longitudinal study. Nine phenotypes from the same comprehensive direct behavioral assessment protocol were investigated at 4 and 6 years of age. Twinning effects were estimated for each phenotype at each age using structural equation models estimated via diagonally weighted least squares. Heritabilities were calculated for SLI and NLI. Results As predicted, the twinning effect increased the percentage of affected children in both groups across multiple language phenotypes, an effect that diminished with age yet was still not aligned to singleton age peers. Substantial heritability estimates replicated across language phenotypes and increased with age, even with the most lenient definition of affectedness, at −1 SD . Patterns of outcomes differed between SLI and NLI groups. Conclusions Nonverbal IQ is not on the same causal pathway as language impairments. Twinning effects on language acquisition affect classification of 4- and 6-year-old children as SLI and NLI, and heritability is most consistent in the SLI group. Clinical practice requires monitoring language acquisition of twins to avoid misdiagnosis when young or a missed diagnosis of language impairments at school entry.

Using Finiteness as a Clinical Marker to Identify Language Impairment

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 148-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Ash ◽  
Sean M. Redmond
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Clinical Marker ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Primary Measure

Intervention rates for children with language impairments vary widely across reports. Unfortunately, many language tests focus on areas of language that are not problematic for children with language impairments (LI). Over twenty years of research supports limitations in finiteness as a clinical marker of LI. However, speech language pathologists (SLPs) have been reluctant to include assessments of finiteness in clinical decisions for young school-age children. This article addresses the operational definition of finiteness which may have created a barrier to its clinical use. We recommend that SLPs include the Test of Early Grammatical Impairment as a primary measure of finiteness for identifying language impairment in children between 3 and 8 years of age because of its clinical flexibility and high levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Morphological Means in Russian: Clarification of the Concept

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Galina I. Panova ◽  
Tatiana V. Viktorina ◽  
Antonina E. Kuzmina
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Morphological Structure ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Similar Function ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
The Status ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Linguistic Units ◽  
The Russian Language

The concept of “morphological / grammatical means” is widely used in studies on the Russian language, although there is no generally accepted interpretation. This work analyzes the reflection of this concept in Russian studies and clarifies the status of those linguistic units that are traditionally referred to as morphological means: form-building affixes, alternating sounds (internal inflection), stress, supplementary word stems, auxiliary words, intonation, as well as word order. Our research has shown that these linguistic units have different functional status in the morphological structure of the Russian language. First, these are categorical, or actually morphological, means, represented by formative affixes and auxiliary words. They are carriers of morphological meanings in the structure of abstracted morphological forms – the basic units of inflectional Russian morphology. Secondly, a non-categorical means, syncretic and accidental for morphology, are supplementary stems that contain not only lexical, but also morphological meaning and thus duplicate the expression of morphological information in a word form with a form-building affix. Thirdly, these are linguistic units that are not elements of the morphological structure, but have morphological significance, which is manifested in their ability to differentiate homonymous morphological forms in the structure of word forms (alternating sounds and stress) or utterances (intonation). Word order can also perform a similar function. The study allows us to clarify the definition of the concept under consideration: morphological means are linguistic units that are carriers of morphological meanings and constituents of morphological forms.

First words and prosodic structures

2019 ◽  
pp. 93-121
Author(s):  
Marilyn May Vihman
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
American English ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
British English ◽  
Ambient Language ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Prosodic Structures ◽  
Language Influence ◽  
First Words

This chapter presents data from four to eight children each learning one of six languages, British English, Estonian, Finnish, French, Italian, and Welsh. As a basis for cross-linguistic comparison the chapter first considers similarities and differences in the target forms of the first words of these children. It then presents the children’s later prosodic structures, including American English in the comparison. The chapter considers the development changes apparent from comparing the first words with the later structures and quantifies the extent of variegation in first word targets and later child word forms. In concluding, it is found that common resources are strongly in evidence in the first words but by the later point there is good evidence of ambient language influence as well as of individual differences within the groups.

scholarly journals Complex sentence profiles in children with Specific Language Impairment: Are they really atypical?

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICK G. RICHES
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Complex Sentence ◽  
Unequal Variance ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Difficulties ◽  
Analyze Data

AbstractChildren with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have language difficulties of unknown origin. Syntactic profiles are atypical, with poor performance on non-canonical structures, e.g. object relatives, suggesting a localized deficit. However, existing analyses using ANOVAs are problematic because they do not systematically address unequal variance, or fully model random effects. Consequently, a Generalised Linear Model (GLM) was used to analyze data from a Sentence Repetition (SR) task involving relative clauses. seventeen children with SLI (mean age 6;7), twenty-one Language Matched (LM) children (mean age 4;8), and seventeen Age Matched (AM) children (mean age 6;5) repeated 100 canonical and non-canonical sentences. ANOVAs found a significant Group by Canonicity interaction for the SLI versus AM contrast only. However, the GLM found no significant interaction. Consequently, arguments for a localized deficit may depend on statistical methods which are prone to exaggerate profile differences. Nonetheless, a subgroup of SLI exhibited particularly severe structural language difficulties.

That Can't Be Right! What Causes Pragmatic Language Impairment Following Right Hemisphere Damage?

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingerith Martin ◽  
Skye McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Deficits ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Weak Central Coherence ◽  
Central Coherence ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Right Hemisphere Damage ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Pragmatic Language Impairment

AbstractRight hemisphere damage (RHD) following unilateral stroke is often associated with impairment of pragmatic language, specifically, the ability to comprehend inferences that arise from language used in context. Three kinds of cognitive deficits have been proposed to explain the pragmatic deficits in RHD individuals, impaired Theory of Mind (TOM), weak central coherence (CC), and impaired executive function (EF). This study aims to evaluate the explanatory ability of these theories in relation to the comprehension of nonliteral (ironic) jokes versus literal lies. Twenty-one RHD patients and 21 age-matched controls were assessed on tasks tapping TOM, CC processing and general inference ability (EF) and the comprehension of irony. Second-order TOM and EF were found to play a significant role. However, neither construct, either in isolation or combined, completely explained the poor performance of RHD patients on this task compared to control participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document