Cognition and Communication

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 964-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith R. Johnston ◽  
Linda B. Smith ◽  
Peggy Box

Ten children with specific language impairment and 10 children with normal language development were asked to describe objects so that a listener could select them. Each trial targeted two out of a group of three toys. The targeted objects were identical or were similar in size or color. Children in the two groups did not differ in referential success, although children in both groups found the size items more difficult. Content analysis of the messages did reveal differences in the referential strategies used most frequently. Children with specific language impairment were more likely to mention the attributes of each object separately, rather than to describe the characteristics common to a pair of objects. Children in both groups talked about separate objects more often when talking about size than about color or object type. Use of this strategy could indicate the effects of attentional capacity on children's solutions to communication tasks.

1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (18) ◽  
pp. 226-227
Author(s):  
Paul Fletcher ◽  
Mike Garman ◽  
Michael Johnson ◽  
Christina Schelletter ◽  
Louisette Stodel

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1290-1302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Rescorla ◽  
Marijke Goossens

Twenty toddlers with expressive specific language impairment (SLI-E) and 20 toddlers with normal language development were compared in their symbolic play development. The groups did not differ in amount of engagement with the toys or in functional conventional play behaviors. However, the children with SLI-E displayed less decentered play (use of play schemes with a doll or another person), less well-developed sequential play, and fewer occurrences of symbolic play transformations (use of a neutral object or an absent object to carry out pretending). The provision of structure in the form of thematically related toy sets, instructions, and modeling did not reduce the discrepancy between demonstrated play behaviors of toddlers with SLI-E and their normally developing peers. Three possible explanations for this discrepancy are considered: a "stylistic" difference in play, a developmental lag in symbol use, or a deficit in retrieval of stored symbolic representation.


1989 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard

ABSTRACTTheories of language learnability have focused on “normal” language development, but there is a group of children, termed “specifically language-impaired,” for whom these theories are also appropriate. These children present an interesting learnability problem because they develop language slowly, the intermediate points in their development differ in certain respects from the usual developmental stages, and they do not always achieve the adult level of language functioning. In this article, specifically language-impaired children are treated as normal learners dealing with an input that is distorted in principled ways. When the children are viewed from this perspective, Pinker's (1984) theory can account for many of the features of their language.


1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane C. Visto ◽  
Jerry L. Cranford ◽  
Rosalind Scudder

The present study investigated whether children with specific language impairment (SLI) differed from children with normal language learning in their ability to process binaural temporal information. The SLI group was matched with peers of the same chronological age, as well as peers with similar language age. All three subject groups were tested with measures of complex sound localization involving the precedence effect phenomenon. Subjects were required to track the apparent motion of a “moving” fused auditory image (FAI). Movement of the FAI was simulated by varying the delay incrementally between pairs of clicks presented, one each, from two matched loudspeakers placed on opposite sides of the child’s head. With this task, the SLI subjects’ performances were found to be similar to their language age-matched but chronologically younger peers. Both groups exhibited tracking skills that were statistically poorer than that of the chronologically age-matched group. Additional tests indicated this effect was not due to differences in motoric tracking abilities nor to the SLI subjects’ abilities to perceive small binaural time cues. Thus, children with SLI appear to be impaired in their ability to use binaural acoustic information in a dynamic ongoing fashion. The requirements for processing such nonlinguistic acoustic information in a “dynamic and ongoing” fashion may be similar to those involved in the ongoing processing of rapid changes in the temporal and spectral components of the speech chain.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
JULIA LOMAKO ◽  
NATALIA GAGARINA ◽  
EKATERINA ABROSOVA ◽  
...  

AbstractProduction studies show that both Russian-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) and bilingual children for whom Russian is a non-dominant language have difficulty distinguishing between the near-synonymous connectivesi‘and’ anda‘and/but’.Iis a preferred connective when reference is maintained, whereasais normally used for reference shift. We report an eye-tracking experiment comparing connective processing by Russian-speaking monolinguals with typical language development (TLD) with that of Russian–Dutch bilinguals and Russian-speaking monolinguals with SLI (age 5–6). The results demonstrate that the processing profiles of monolinguals with TLD and bilinguals are similar: both groups use connective semantics immediately for predicting further discourse. In contrast, children with SLI do not show sensitivity to these semantic differences. Despite similar production profiles, bilinguals and monolinguals with SLI are clearly different in connective processing. We discuss the implications of these results for the possible causes of the errors in the two populations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document