Language Intervention Isn't Just Spoken: Assessment and Treatment of a Deaf Signing Child With Specific Language Impairment

Language Production ◽

Visual Analysis ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Language Disorders ◽

Parent Satisfaction ◽

Language Intervention ◽

Fine Motor ◽

Starting Point

Purpose This case study describes the language evaluation and treatment of a 5-year-old boy, Lucas, who is Deaf, uses American Sign Language (ASL), and presented with a language disorder despite native access to ASL and no additional diagnosis that would explain the language difficulties. Method Lucas participated in an evaluation where his nonverbal IQ, fine motor, and receptive/expressive language skills were assessed. Language assessment included both formal and informal evaluation procedures. Language intervention was delivered across 7 weeks through focused stimulation. Results Evaluation findings supported diagnosis of a language disorder unexplained by other factors. Visual analysis revealed an improvement in some behaviors targeted during intervention (i.e., number of different verbs and pronouns), but not others. In addition, descriptive analysis indicated qualitative improvement in Lucas' language production. Parent satisfaction survey results showed a high level of satisfaction with therapy progress, in addition to a belief that Lucas improved in language areas targeted. Conclusions This study adds to the growing body of literature that unexplained language disorders in signed languages exist and provides preliminary evidence for positive outcomes from language intervention for a Deaf signing child. The case described can inform professionals who work with Deaf signing children (e.g., speech-language pathologists, teachers of the Deaf, and parents of Deaf children) and serve as a potential starting point in evaluation and treatment of signed language disorders. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16725601

A Developmental Disorder of Signed Language Production in a Native Deaf Signer of ASL

Languages ◽

10.3390/languages5040040 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 40

Author(s):

David Quinto-Pozos ◽

Frances Cooley

Keyword(s):

American Sign Language ◽

Language Processing ◽

Language Production ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Deaf Children ◽

Fine Motor ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Case Study Methodology ◽

Signed Language

Evidence for a Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) could surface with language processing/comprehension, language production, or a combination of both. Whereas, various studies have described cases of DLD in signing deaf children, there exist few detailed examples of deaf children who exhibit production issues in the absence of processing or comprehension challenges or motor deficits. We describe such a situation by detailing a case study of “Gregory”, a deaf native signer of American Sign Language (ASL). We adopt a detailed case-study methodology for obtaining information from Gregory’s family and school, which we combine with linguistic and non-linguistic data that we collected through one-on-one sessions with Gregory. The results provide evidence of persistent issues with language production (in particular, atypical articulation of some phonological aspects of signs), yet typical comprehension skills and unremarkable fine-motor motor skills. We also provide a snapshot of Gregory’s rich linguistic environment, which we speculate, may serve to attenuate his production deficit. The results of this study have implications for the provision of language services for signing deaf children in schools and also for language therapists. We propose that language therapists who are fluent in signed language be trained to work with signing children.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups ◽

10.1044/2019_pers-sig1-2019-0007 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 6-11 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Laurence B. Leonard

Keyword(s):

Language Impairment ◽

Scientific Literature ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Language Disorders ◽

Unknown Origin ◽

The Past ◽

History Of ◽

The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

Oral and Verbal Praxis in Impaired Language Learners

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.1177/00315125211056421 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 003151252110564

Author(s):

Swapna Narayanan ◽

Kavya Vijayan ◽

Mekhala Vastare Guruprasad ◽

Prashanth Prabhu P ◽

Animesh Barman

Keyword(s):

Language Production ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Speech Sound ◽

Clinical Group ◽

Assessment Protocol ◽

Sequential Movements ◽

Oral Motor ◽

Co Morbidity ◽

Significant Difference

In the context of language descriptions, the terms oral and verbal praxis refer to volitional movements for performing oral gestures and movements for speech. These movements involve programming articulators and rapid sequences of muscle firings that are required for speech sound productions. A growing body of research has highlighted the links between oral motor kinematics and language production skills in both typically developing (TD) children and children with developmental language disorders, including Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Yet, there have been limited attempts to assess the link between non-linguistic and linguistic development. In the present study, we investigated oral and verbal praxis behaviors in children with SLI. Fifteen children with SLI formed a clinical group and 15 children with typical development who were matched to the clinical group for chronological age, gender, and socio-economic status formed the TD group. We assessed participants in both groups for their language abilities with age-appropriate standardized language tests. To investigate oral and verbal praxis behaviors, we administered the Assessment Protocol for Oral Motor, Oral Praxis and Verbal Praxis Skills to the two groups. We used the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test to compare the two groups with respect to oral and verbal praxis measures; and we found a significant difference between isolated and sequential movements in the oral praxis section in two age subgroups of these groups ( p ≤ .05). Spearman’s correlations revealed a strong correlation between core language scores and sequential movements in the younger children with SLI and in TD children. These results showed co-morbidity between SLI and poor oral motor skills, suggesting that SLI is not just a language disorder, but a group of co-morbid conditions that include oral motor and verbal praxis difficulties.

Interaction of Language Processing and Motor Skill in Children With Specific Language Impairment

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0215) ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 57 (1) ◽

pp. 158-171 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Andrea C. DiDonato Brumbach ◽

Lisa Goffman

Keyword(s):

Language Processing ◽

Motor Skill ◽

Language Impairment ◽

Language Production ◽

Syntactic Structure ◽

Fine Motor ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Specific Language ◽

Speech Motor

Purpose To examine how language production interacts with speech motor and gross and fine motor skill in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Method Eleven children with SLI and 12 age-matched peers (4–6 years) produced structurally primed sentences containing particles and prepositions. Utterances were analyzed for errors and for articulatory duration and variability. Standard measures of motor, language, and articulation skill were also obtained. Results Sentences containing particles, as compared with prepositions, were less likely to be produced in a priming task and were longer in duration, suggesting increased difficulty with this syntactic structure. Children with SLI demonstrated higher articulatory variability and poorer gross and fine motor skills compared with aged-matched controls. Articulatory variability was correlated with generalized gross and fine motor performance. Conclusions Children with SLI show co-occurring speech motor and generalized motor deficits. Current theories do not fully account for the present findings, though the procedural deficit hypothesis provides a framework for interpreting overlap among language and motor domains.

The Specific Language Impairment/Developmental Language Disorders Forum: Fostering a Discussion of Terminology

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups ◽

10.1044/2019_persp-19-00184 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 3-5 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Laura Green

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Public School ◽

Language Impairment ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Language Disorders ◽

Language Deficits ◽

Developmental Language Disorders ◽

Specific Language

Purpose This prologue provides an introduction to the SIG 1 Perspectives forum addressing use of a more recently applied term, developmental language disorder (DLD), as well as a term that has been used in research for several decades, specific language impairment (SLI), to describe children who exhibit language deficits. Included are brief summaries of the 5 articles that comprise the forum. Conclusion The articles in this SLI/DLD forum offer perspectives on the use of both terms. Implications include their application in clinical practice, advocacy, research, treatment, funding, and public school speech/language services.

Phonological characteristics of novel gesture production in children with developmental language disorder: Longitudinal findings

Applied Psycholinguistics ◽

10.1017/s0142716421000540 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-30

Author(s):

Laiah Factor ◽

Lisa Goffman

Keyword(s):

Language Impairment ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Fine Motor ◽

Production Study ◽

Manual Gesture ◽

Motor Outcomes ◽

Gross Motor Skill ◽

Gesture Production

Abstract Children with developmental language disorder (DLD; aka specific language impairment) are characterized based on deficits in language, especially morphosyntax, in the absence of other explanatory conditions. However, deficits in speech production, as well as fine and gross motor skill, have also been observed, implicating both the linguistic and motor systems. Situated at the intersection of these domains, and providing insight into both, is manual gesture. In the current work, we asked whether children with DLD showed phonological deficits in the production of novel gestures and whether gesture production at 4 years of age is related to language and motor outcomes two years later. Twenty-eight children (14 with DLD) participated in a two-year longitudinal novel gesture production study. At the first and final time points, language and fine motor skills were measured and gestures were analyzed for phonological feature accuracy, including handshape, path, and orientation. Results indicated that, while early deficits in phonological accuracy did not persist for children with DLD, all children struggled with orientation while handshape was the most accurate. Early handshape and orientation accuracy were also predictive of later language skill, but only for the children with DLD. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Clinical Linguistics

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.337 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Louise Cummings

Keyword(s):

Cleft Lip And Palate ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Full Range ◽

Language Disorders ◽

Communication Disorders ◽

Classification Systems ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Wide Range ◽

Language Pathology

Clinical linguistics is the branch of linguistics that applies linguistic concepts and theories to the study of language disorders. As the name suggests, clinical linguistics is a dual-facing discipline. Although the conceptual roots of this field are in linguistics, its domain of application is the vast array of clinical disorders that may compromise the use and understanding of language. Both dimensions of clinical linguistics can be addressed through an examination of specific linguistic deficits in individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders, craniofacial anomalies, adult-onset neurological impairments, psychiatric disorders, and neurodegenerative disorders. Clinical linguists are interested in the full range of linguistic deficits in these conditions, including phonetic deficits of children with cleft lip and palate, morphosyntactic errors in children with specific language impairment, and pragmatic language impairments in adults with schizophrenia. Like many applied disciplines in linguistics, clinical linguistics sits at the intersection of a number of areas. The relationship of clinical linguistics to the study of communication disorders and to speech-language pathology (speech and language therapy in the United Kingdom) are two particularly important points of intersection. Speech-language pathology is the area of clinical practice that assesses and treats children and adults with communication disorders. All language disorders restrict an individual’s ability to communicate freely with others in a range of contexts and settings. So language disorders are first and foremost communication disorders. To understand language disorders, it is useful to think of them in terms of points of breakdown on a communication cycle that tracks the progress of a linguistic utterance from its conception in the mind of a speaker to its comprehension by a hearer. This cycle permits the introduction of a number of important distinctions in language pathology, such as the distinction between a receptive and an expressive language disorder, and between a developmental and an acquired language disorder. The cycle is also a useful model with which to conceptualize a range of communication disorders other than language disorders. These other disorders, which include hearing, voice, and fluency disorders, are also relevant to clinical linguistics. Clinical linguistics draws on the conceptual resources of the full range of linguistic disciplines to describe and explain language disorders. These disciplines include phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. Each of these linguistic disciplines contributes concepts and theories that can shed light on the nature of language disorder. A wide range of tools and approaches are used by clinical linguists and speech-language pathologists to assess, diagnose, and treat language disorders. They include the use of standardized and norm-referenced tests, communication checklists and profiles (some administered by clinicians, others by parents, teachers, and caregivers), and qualitative methods such as conversation analysis and discourse analysis. Finally, clinical linguists can contribute to debates about the nosology of language disorders. In order to do so, however, they must have an understanding of the place of language disorders in internationally recognized classification systems such as the 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) of the American Psychiatric Association.

Considering the Language Disorder Label Debate From a School Speech-Language Pathology Lens

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups ◽

10.1044/2019_persp-19-00077 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 47-54

Author(s):

Kimberly A. Murza ◽

Barbara J. Ehren

Keyword(s):

Language Impairment ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Public Awareness ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Speech Language Pathologist ◽

School Based ◽

Language Pathology ◽

Education Act

Purpose The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder . Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

Nominal Number and Language Pathologies

The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198795858.013.14 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 290-304

Author(s):

Britta Biedermann ◽

Nora Fieder ◽

Karen Smith-Lock

Keyword(s):

Language Impairment ◽

Language Production ◽

Developmental Delays ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Number Processing ◽

Cognitive Neuropsychology ◽

Underlying Mechanisms ◽

Grammatical Number ◽

Insight Into

This chapter provides an overview of the evidence on grammatical number processing taken from cognitive neuropsychology, including developmental delays and impairments of language (e.g. developmental language disorder, and Williams syndrome) and aphasia, an acquired language impairment after brain injury. These types of language impairment can give insight into the functional architecture of nominal number processing by looking at error patterns that arise in each of the aforementioned populations. By classifying observed responses in language production tasks into non-number and number errors, we are able to reveal underlying mechanisms of syntactic rules and their representations when they develop, but also learn about processes and representation of number when this information breaks down.

Learning, Forgetting, and Relearning: Skill Learning in Children With Language Impairment

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2014_ajslp-13-0031 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 696-707 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Esther Adi-Japha ◽

Haia Abu-Asba

Keyword(s):

Motor Skills ◽

Skill Acquisition ◽

Language Impairment ◽

Skill Learning ◽

Group Differences ◽

Fine Motor ◽

Specific Language ◽

Retention Testing ◽

Over Time

Purpose The current study tested whether the difficulties of children with specific language impairment (SLI) in skill acquisition are related to learning processes that occur while practicing a new skill or to the passage of time between practice and later performance. Method The acquisition and retention of a new complex grapho-motor symbol were studied in 5-year-old children with SLI and peers matched for age and nonverbal IQ. The children practiced the production of the symbol for 4 consecutive days. Retention testing took place 10 days later. Results Children with SLI began each practice day slower than their peers but attained similar levels of performance by its end. Although they increased their performance speed within sessions more than their peers, they did not retain their learning as well between sessions. The loss in speed was largest in the 10-day retention interval. They were also less accurate, but accuracy differences decreased over time. Between-session group differences in speed could not fully be accounted for based on fine motor skills. Conclusions In spite of effective within-session learning, children with SLI did not retain the new skill well. The deficit may be attributed to task forgetting in the presence of delayed consolidation processes.