Symbolic Play of Children With Language Impairment

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Casby
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Symbolic Play ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language

There have been a number of studies that have reported on the symbolic play abilities of children assessed as demonstrating developmental language disorders or specific language impairment. In general, this research has reported significant differences in the symbolic play abilities of children with language impairment and those developing language normally. In most, though interestingly, not all cases, the differences reflected less developed symbolic play of the children with language impairments. It will be argued here that these reported differences should not be interpreted as demonstrative of marked deficits in the general representational or specific symbolic play competence of children with language impairments. It will be argued further that part of the research conducted to date on the symbolic play abilities of children with language impairment has been confounded by the encroachment of language into the research procedures, that the level of play often investigated has not been unquestionably symbolic in nature, and that the actual differences in symbolic play have not been substantial.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Green
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public School ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
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.

Trying to Make Sense of Developmental Language Disorders

1998 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Ideal World ◽  
Identification Criterion ◽  
Research Populations

In this article, I share my thoughts concerning what children with developmental language disorders should be called, how they should be defined, and how we might differentiate children with specific language impairment (SLI) from other children with developmental language disorders. Among other things, I attempt to show why a lack of congruence between clinical and research constructs should be expected. Researchers and clinicians use different identification criterion and procedures because clinical and educational objectives are different from research objectives. While recognizing these differences, I suggest several possible ways to differentiate a subgroup of children with SLI from the general population of children with developmental language disorders without using nonverbal IQ. Even if researchers are able to identify this unique group of children, clinicians may never embrace the SLI construct. In the best of all possible worlds, clinicians would be familiar with how researchers define SLI and appreciate the value of research that attempts to identify distinct subgroups of children with developmental language disorders. Researchers, in this ideal world, would recognize and acknowledge the lack of congruence between the research populations of SLI and the larger clinical population of children with developmental language disorders.

Clinical Lessons From Studies of Children With Specific Language Impairment

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mabel L. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Speech Impairments ◽  
Media Advocacy ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Causal Pathways ◽  
Clinical Category

Purpose This clinical focus article addresses a current debate contrasting the long-standing label of “specific language impairment” (SLI) with a recent alternative, “developmental language disorders” (DLDs); the criteria for SLI yields a subset of children defined as DLD. Recent social media advocacy for DLD asserts that the two categories of children are clinically equivalent, and therefore, DLD can be used as a label for which SLI criteria would hold. Coupled with DLD advocacy is the assumption that research on SLI has not yielded clinically relevant outcomes. This clinical focus article challenges those assumptions. The clinical focus article is framed as parallels between precision medicine and evidence-based practice. The purposes of this clinical focus article are as follows: (a) revisit the legacy of research on SLI; (b) describe language development in children with SLI into adulthood; (c) address widespread but erroneous assumptions about relationships between speech impairments and language impairments, and relationships between nonverbal IQ and language impairments; (d) briefly review evidence for causal pathways; and (e) present clinical lessons from research on children with SLI. Method Narrative review is the method used in the study. Conclusions The purposes of the clinical focus article were met by reviews, commentary, and supporting arguments in each section. The conclusions are that the research and clinical category of SLI is needed for accurate and precise clinical practice, including diagnosis, prognosis, clinical goals, sequencing of tasks for success, and consideration of language disorders in the context of a broad thicket of related consequences.

The Role of Early Auditory Discrimination Deficits in Language Disorders

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 239-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teija Kujala
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Auditory Discrimination ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Language Problems

Language impairments can have a devastating effect on the individual’s life. Brain damage such as stroke may cause varying degrees of impaired language. Even milder language problems, such as developmental dyslexia or specific language impairment, can have long-lasting detrimental effects on the individual’s life, affecting both success at school as well as motivation and even self-esteem. In recent years, the mismatch negativity (MMN) has been intensively applied to study the neural basis of language impairments. These studies have shown that the MMN, which reflects the early stages of cortical sound discrimination, is abnormal in a large variety of language impairments. Furthermore, a close relationship between the MMN and some language disorders is suggested by significant correlations between the MMN and language test results. Further support is provided by follow-up studies suggesting that the MMN parameters may predict future language problems in children and by investigations indicating that intervention programs with an ameliorating effect also concurrently change the MMN. However, when interpreting the implications of MMN results it is important to acknowledge that this response specifically reflects early stages of auditory discrimination and should, therefore, be combined with measures probing the further steps of auditory processing for a more complete picture of the underlying deficits of language. The current review addresses how the MMN can be used in determining auditory impairments in language disorders such as aphasia, dyslexia, autism spectrum, and specific language impairment.

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.

Children with specific language impairment. Laurence B. Leonard. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. Pp. 339.

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-311
Author(s):  
Lynne E. Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Sensory Deficits ◽  
Nature Versus Nurture ◽  
Linguistic Impairment

Laurence Leonard is one of the most prolific and well-respected researchers in the area of specific language impairment (SLI) in children, and he is well qualified to write a book surveying the topic. SLI is a disorder of unknown origin, which appears to have a genetic component, causing delays and disorders of language development in children of normal nonverbal intelligence with no significant medical, emotional, or sensory deficits. The primary purpose of this book is to provide a comprehensive review of research in the field of SLI, and Leonard has the minute knowledge necessary to succeed at the task. The coverage in the book reaches back to the earliest nineteenth-century descriptions of children who fit the profile and then moves forward quickly to the massive literature that has accumulated on the topic in the last 20 years. Following the introductory historical and definitional section, Leonard goes on to describe the nature of the linguistic impairment in SLI, including important cross-linguistic accounts and nonlinguistic cognitive issues. The book also covers hypotheses of causation, in a “nature versus nurture” section, and clinical issues of assessment and intervention. Part V, on theory, may be of most interest to psycholinguists who are not language disorders specialists. Overall, there is no doubt that this book is both an excellent introduction for those unfamiliar with SLI and a welcome overview and resource for experts. Leonard's knowledge is encyclopedic, his presentation erudite, and his grasp of detail unfailingly impressive.

Bilingualism as a kind of therapy?

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aafke Hulk ◽  
Sharon Unsworth
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Child Language ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Bilingual Development ◽  
Challenging Question

In her very interesting Keynote Article, Johanne Paradis gives a clear overview of recent research at the interface of bilingual development and child language disorders, and highlights its theoretical and clinical implications. She raises the challenging question of “whether bilingualism can be viewed as a kind of ‘therapy’ for SLI.” At first sight, this is perhaps a surprising question, because one of the predominant views in the literature is that bilingual children with specific language impairment (SLI) will exhibit difficulties and perhaps a “double delay.” It is this challenging question that we consider in more detail here.

scholarly journals Are Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia Distinct Disorders?

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1378-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh W. Catts ◽  
Suzanne M. Adlof ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Susan Ellis Weismer
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Reading Development ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Typical Development ◽  
Specific Language

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific language impairment (SLI) and dyslexia are distinct developmental disorders. Method: Study 1 investigated the overlap between SLI identified in kindergarten and dyslexia identified in 2nd, 4th, or 8th grades in a representative sample of 527 children. Study 2 examined phonological processing in a subsample of participants, including 21 children with dyslexia only, 43 children with SLI only, 18 children with SLI and dyslexia, and 165 children with typical language/reading development. Measures of phonological awareness and nonword repetition were considered. Results: Study 1 showed limited but statistically significant overlap between SLI and dyslexia. Study 2 found that children with dyslexia or a combination of dyslexia and SLI performed significantly less well on measures of phonological processing than did children with SLI only and those with typical development. Children with SLI only showed only mild deficits in phonological processing compared with typical children. Conclusions: These results support the view that SLI and dyslexia are distinct but potentially comorbid developmental language disorders. A deficit in phonological processing is closely associated with dyslexia but not with SLI when it occurs in the absence of dyslexia.

Early Verb-Related Vulnerability Among Children With Specific Language Impairment

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1384-1397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela A. Hadley
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Grammatical Development ◽  
Very Young Children ◽  
Developmental Progression

The purpose of this study was to characterize the nature of early grammatical development among very young children with specific language impairment (SLI). Grammatical development was examined for two subtypes: (a) children with expressive language impairments only (SLI-E) and (b) children with both receptive and expressive language impairments (SLI-RE). In particular, characteristics of noun-phrase (NP) and verb-phrase (VP) elaboration were examined longitudinally to determine whether structures associated with NP and VP emerged together following a typical developmental progression. Group analyses did not reveal any differences between the subtypes on the Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn; Scarborough, 1990). However, specific weakness in VP elaboration was revealed on the IPSyn as well as in more extensive productivity analyses. The contribution of these findings to a developmentally sensitive grammatical description of SLI for very young children is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document