Nominal Number and Language Pathologies

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 ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
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.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murza ◽  
Barbara J. Ehren
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
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.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Developmental Language Disorder and Autism: Commonalities and Differences on Language

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 589
Author(s):  
Natasa Georgiou ◽  
George Spanoudis
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Autism Group ◽  
Developmental Conditions

Language and communication deficits characterize both autism spectrum disorder and developmental language disorder, and the possibility of there being a common profile of these is a matter of tireless debate in the research community. This experimental study addresses the relation of these two developmental conditions in the critical topic of language. Α total of 103 children (79 males, 24 females) participated in the present study. Specifically, the study’s sample consisted of 40 children with autism, 28 children with developmental language disorder, and 35 typically developing children between 6 and 12 years old. All children completed language and cognitive measures. The results showed that there is a subgroup inside the autism group of children who demonstrate language difficulties similar to children with developmental language disorder. Specifically, two different subgroups were derived from the autism group; those with language impairment and those without. Both autism and language-impaired groups scored lower than typically developing children on all language measures indicating a common pathology in language ability. The results of this study shed light on the relation between the two disorders, supporting the assumption of a subgroup with language impairment inside the autism spectrum disorder population. The common picture presented by the two developmental conditions highlights the need for further research in the field.

scholarly journals The Effects of Frequency and Predictability on Repetition in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1165-1180
Author(s):  
Justin B. Kueser ◽  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
High Predictability ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
Mean Length Of Utterance ◽  
Repetition Task

Purpose Studies have shown that children with typical development (TD) respond to frequency and predictability when repeating nonidiomatic multiword sequences (e.g., go wash your hands ). We extended these findings by explicitly examining the interaction between frequency and predictability in a repetition task for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and children with TD. Method We created 48 four-word phrases, manipulating two factors: the frequency of occurrence of the entire four-word phrase (e.g., look in the mirror vs. look in the basket ) and the predictability of the fourth word in the phrase given the preceding three words (e.g., corn on the ___ vs. look in the ___ ). These phrases were presented in a repetition task to 17 children with DLD ( M age = 58.89 months), 19 same-age children with TD ( M age = 59.79 months), and 17 younger children with TD matched to the DLD group on nonword repetition and mean length of utterance ( M age = 38.94 months). Children's repetitions were judged for the presence or absence of word and morphological errors. Only the first three words of the sequence were scored (e.g., look in the ). Results We found a main effect of sequence frequency, with high-frequency sequences being repeated more accurately than low-frequency sequences, modulated by a significant interaction with predictability, where the effect of sequence frequency was larger for sequences with high-predictability contexts than for sequences with low-predictability contexts. We also found a significant effect of group, with children with DLD demonstrating poorer overall performance, particularly when compared to the same-age group with TD. Conclusions Frequency and predictability are strong predictors of language production in children with TD. These factors also have effects for children with DLD, raising important clinical questions about the design of facilitative contexts for the teaching of difficult linguistic forms.

scholarly journals Sentence Repetition as a Clinical Marker of Developmental Language Disorder: Evidence From Arabic

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Juhayna Taha ◽  
Vesna Stojanovik ◽  
Emma Pagnamenta
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Scoring Methods ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Function Words ◽  
Sentence Repetition ◽  
Palestinian Arabic ◽  
Arabic Speaking ◽  
Repetition Task

Purpose: Research on the typical and impaired grammatical acquisition of Arabic is limited. This study systematically examined the morphosyntactic abilities of Arabic-speaking children with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) using a novel sentence repetition task. The usefulness of the task as an indicator of DLD in Arabic was determined. Method: A LITMUS (Language Impairment Testing in Multilingual Settings) sentence repetition task was developed in Palestinian Arabic (LITMUS-SR-PA-72) and administered to 30 children with DLD ( M = 61.50 months, SD = 11.27) and 60 age-matched typically developing (TD) children ( M = 63.85 months, SD = 10.16). The task targeted grammatical structures known to be problematic for Arabic-speaking children with DLD (language specific) and children with DLD across languages (language independent). Responses were scored using binary, error, and structural scoring methods. Results: Children with DLD scored below TD children on the LITMUS-SR-PA-72, in general, and in the repetition of language-specific and language-independent structures. The frequency of morphosyntactic errors was higher in the DLD group relative to the TD group. Despite the large similarity of the type of morphosyntactic errors between the two groups, some atypical errors were exclusively produced by the DLD group. The three scoring methods showed good diagnostic power in the discrimination between children with DLD and children without DLD. Conclusions: Sentence repetition was an area of difficulty for Palestinian Arabic–speaking children with DLD. The DLD group demonstrated difficulties with language-specific and language-independent structures, particularly complex sentences with noncanonical word order. Most grammatical errors made by the DLD group resembled those of the TD group and were mostly omissions or substitutions of grammatical affixes or omissions of function words. SR appears to hold promise as a good indicator for the presence or absence of DLD in Arabic. Further validation of these findings using population-based studies is warranted. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16968043

scholarly journals The Utility of an English Semantics Measure for Identifying Developmental Language Disorder in Spanish–English Bilinguals

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 776-788
Author(s):  
Javier Jasso ◽  
Stephanie McMillen ◽  
Jissel B. Anaya ◽  
Lisa M. Bedore ◽  
Elizabeth D. Peña
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Task Type ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Experience ◽  
Old Spanish ◽  
Test Version ◽  
High Level ◽  
Level Of Experience

Purpose We examined the English semantic performance of three hundred twenty-seven 7- to 10-year-old Spanish–English bilinguals with ( n = 66) and without ( n = 261) developmental language disorder (DLD) with varying levels of English experience to classify groups. Method English semantic performance on the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment—Middle Extension Experimental Test Version (Peña et al., 2008) was evaluated by language experience, language ability, and task type. Items that best identified DLD for children with balanced and high English experience were selected. Separately, items that best identified children with high Spanish experience were selected. Results Typically developing bilingual children performed significantly higher than their peers with DLD across semantic tasks, with differences associated with task type. Classification accuracy was fair when item selection corresponded to balanced or high level of experience in English, but poor for children with high Spanish experience. Selecting items specifically for children with high Spanish experience improved classification accuracy. Conclusions Tailoring semantic items based on children's experience is a promising direction toward organizing items on a continuum of exposure. Here, classification effectively ruled in impairment. Future work to refine semantic items that more accurately represent the continuum of exposure may help rule out language impairment.

scholarly journals Developmental Language Disorder: Applications for Advocacy, Research, and Clinical Service

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla K. McGregor ◽  
Lisa Goffman ◽  
Amanda Owen Van Horne ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Lizbeth H. Finestack
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Deficit ◽  
English Speaking

Purpose The CATALISE group (Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE Consortium, 2016; Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE-2 Consortium, 2017) recommended that the term developmental language disorder (DLD) be used to refer to neurodevelopmental language deficit. In this tutorial, we explain the appropriate application of the term and present advantages in adhering to the CATALISE recommendations. Conclusion Both specific language impairment and DLD refer to a neurodevelopmental condition that impairs spoken language, is long-standing and, is not associated with any known causal condition. The applications of the terms specific language impairment and DLD differ in breadth and the extent to which identification depends upon functional impact. Use of the term DLD would link advocacy efforts in the United States to those in other English-speaking countries. The criteria for identifying DLD presented in the CATALISE consensus offer opportunities for scientific progress while aligning well with practice in U.S. public schools.

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.

Developmental Language Disorder and the Assessment of Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Cristina McKean
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Developmental language disorder (DLD), previously known as specific language impairment (SLI), is a long-term developmental disorder affecting approximately 7.5% of children. Language abilities in children with DLD are variable and can be challenging to ascertain with confidence. This chapter aims to discuss some of the challenges associated with assessing the language skills of children with DLD through an overview of different forms of language assessment including standardized language testing, language sample analysis, and observations. Uses and limitations of the different forms of assessment are considered, bearing in mind the different functions of assessment and the need to gain a full understanding of children’s profiles of strength and weakness and communicative functioning in context. The authors conclude with requirements for best practice in assessment and promising avenues of development in this area.

scholarly journals Phonological and grammatical production in children with developmental language disorder and children with hearing impairment

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Sundström ◽  
Ulrika Löfkvist ◽  
Björn Lyxell ◽  
Christina Samuelsson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
First Language ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
Stress Patterns

Children with hearing impairment (HI) are at an increased risk of developing speech and language problems similar to those of children with developmental language disorder (DLD), including difficulties with phonology and grammar. This study investigated similarities and differences in phonological and grammatical production between children with bilateral sensorineural HI ( n = 14) and children with DLD ( n = 30) between 4-6 years of age and age-matched controls with typical language development and normal hearing (TLD) ( n = 29), all with Swedish as their first language. Production of consonants, vowels, stress patterns and tonal word accents was assessed in a picture naming task, and in a word and nonword repetition task. Grammatical production was assessed for verb and noun morphology, and syntax. While performance for both children with HI and DLD were generally significantly below that of the controls with TLD, production of accents and syntax emerged as relative strengths. There were few differences between the between the children with HI and DLD, but noun–adjective agreement in predicative was more challenging for the children with HI. The results have implications for language assessment and planning of intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document