Search

Purpose: The Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn) is a well-known language sample analysis tool. However, its psychometric properties have not been assessed across a wide sample of typically developing preschool-age children and children with language disorders. We sought to determine the profile of IPSyn scores by age over early childhood. We additionally explored whether the IPSyn could be shortened to fewer items without loss of information and whether the required language sample could be shortened from a current required number of 100 utterances to 50., Method: We used transcripts from the Child Language Data Exchange System, including 1,051 samples of adult-child conversational play with toys within the theoretical framework of item response theory. Samples included those from typically developing children as well as children with hearing loss, Down syndrome, and late language emergence., Results: The Verb Phrase and Sentence Structure subscales showed more stable developmental trajectories over the preschool years and greater differentiation between typical and atypical cohorts than did the Noun Phrase and Question/Negation subscales. A number of current IPSyn scoring items can be dropped without loss of information, and 50-utterance samples demonstrate most of the same psychometric properties of longer samples., Discussion: Our findings suggest ways in which the IPSyn can be automated and streamlined (proposed IPSyn-C) so as to provide useful clinical guidance with fewer items and a shorter required language sample. Reference values for the IPSyn-C are provided. Trajectories for one subscale (Question/Negation) appear inherently unstable and may require structured elicitation. Potential limitations, ramifications, and future directions are discussed., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16915690.

In this article, we review the advantages of language sample analysis (LSA) and explain how clinicians can make the process of LSA faster, easier, more accurate, and more insightful than LSA done "by hand" by using free, available software programs such as Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN). We demonstrate the utility of CLAN analysis in studying the expressive language of a very large cohort of 24-month-old toddlers tracked in a recent longitudinal study; toddlers in particular are the most likely group to receive LSA by clinicians, but existing reference "norms" for this population are based on fairly small cohorts of children. Finally, we demonstrate how a CLAN utility such as KidEval can now extract potential normative data from the very large number of corpora now available for English and other languages at the Child Language Data Exchange System project site. Most of the LSA measures that we studied appear to show developmental profiles suggesting that they may be of specifically higher value for children at certain ages, because they do not show an even developmental trajectory from 2 to 7 years of age., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

The Child Language Data Exchange System Project has developed methods for analyzing many aspects of child language development, including grammar, lexicon, discourse, gesture, phonology, and fluency. This article will describe the methods available for each of these six fields, and how they can be used for assessment in the clinical setting., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Purpose: The cross-modal picture-word interference task is used to examine contextual effects on spoken-word production. Previous work has documented lexical-phonological interference in children with specific language impairment (SLI) when a related distractor (e.g., bell) occurs prior to a picture to be named (e.g., a bed). In the current study, the authors examined whether interference also arises with nonwords as distractors., Method: In Study 1, children with SLI (N = 20; ages 7;1 [years;months] to 11;0) and age-matched controls named pictures accompanied by (a) phonologically related nonwords, (b) unrelated nonwords, or (c) the word go (baseline). Stimulus asynchrony (SA) varied across blocks with distractors occurring prior to (-300 ms, -100 ms) or after (+100 ms, +300 ms) the pictures. In Study 2, a cross-sectional sample of children (N = 48, 5;3 to 10;9) and adults (N = 16) performed the same task., Results: Child and adult control participants showed phonological priming (not interference) at early and late SAs, whereas children with SLI showed priming only at late SAs. Effect sizes correlated with language skills (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition scores; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003). In the cross-sectional sample, anticipatory priming at SA -300 varied with age, with larger effects in older children., Conclusions: Children with SLI utilize phonological information when it is available just in time for word production but fail to anticipate upcoming stimuli. Poor anticipatory processing may adversely affect language fluency in children with SLI.

This study investigated the formulation of verb argument structure in Catalan- and Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) and typically developing age-matched controls. We compared how language production can be guided by conceptual factors, such as the organization of the entities participating in an event and knowledge regarding argument structure. Eleven children with SLI (aged 3;8 to 6;6) and eleven control children participated in an eye-tracking experiment in which participants had to describe events with different argument structure in the presence of visual scenes. Picture descriptions, latency time and eye movements were recorded and analyzed. The picture description results showed that the percentage of responses in which children with SLI substituted a non-target verb for the target verb was significantly different from that for the control group. Children with SLI made more omissions of obligatory arguments, especially of themes, as the verb argument complexity increased. Moreover, when the number of arguments of the verb increased, the children took more time to begin their descriptions, but no differences between groups were found. For verb type latency, all children were significantly faster to start describing one-argument events than two- and three-argument events. No differences in latency time were found between two- and three-argument events. There were no significant differences between the groups. Eye-movement showed that children with SLI looked less at the event zone than the age-matched controls during the first two seconds. These differences between the groups were significant for three-argument verbs, and only marginally significant for one- and two-argument verbs. Children with SLI also spent significantly less time looking at the theme zones than their age-matched controls. We suggest that both processing limitations and deficits in the semantic representation of verbs may play a role in these difficulties.

Many researchers believe that there is a logical problem at the centre of language acquisition theory. According to this analysis, the input to the learner is too inconsistent and incomplete to determine the acquisition of grammar. Moreover, when corrective feedback is provided, children tend to ignore it. As a result, language learning must rely on additional constraints from universal grammar. To solve this logical problem, theorists have proposed a series of constraints and parameterizations on the form of universal grammar. Plausible alternatives to these constraints include: conservatism, item-based learning, indirect negative evidence, competition, cue construction, and monitoring. Careful analysis of child language corpora has cast doubt on claims regarding the absence of positive exemplars. Using demonstrably available positive data, simple learning procedures can be formulated for each of the syntactic structures that have traditionally motivated invocation of the logical problem. Within the perspective of emergentist theory (MacWhinney, 2001), the operation of a set of mutually supportive processes is viewed as providing multiple buffering for developmental outcomes. However, the fact that some syntactic structures are more difficult to learn than others can be used to highlight areas of intense grammatical competition and processing load.

Two experiments examined phonological priming in children and adults, using a cross-modal picture-word interference task. Pictures of familiar objects were presented on a computer screen, while interfering words (IWs) were presented over headphones. In terms of their relation to target pictures, IWs were either phonologically related, unrelated, neutral (the word go), or identical. Ninety children (30 aged 4;11 to 5;11, 30 aged 6;11 to 7;11, and 30 aged 9;5 to 11;9) and 30 adults were instructed to name the pictures as quickly as possible while ignoring the IWs. In Experiment 1, related IWs shared onset consonants with the names of the pictures. Across ages, participants named pictures faster with related IWs than with unrelated IWs. In Experiment 2, related IWs rhymed with the targets. Here, only the youngest children (five to seven-year-olds) named pictures faster with related IWs than with unrelated IWs. The results indicate that priming effects reach a peak during a time when articulatory information is being consolidated in the output phonological buffer. The disappearance of the rhyme priming effect with age may reflect the gradual emergence of the onset as an organizing structure in speech production. This increased prominence of the onset can be viewed as one component of a just-in-time, incrementalist approach to speech production that allows adults to speak more fluently than children.

Edwards (1992) presents a set of examples from the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) as prototypes of bad transcription practice. Her discussion is based upon four basic confusions. First, Edwards confuses old and discarded versions of CHAT with current CHAT. Second, she confuses the relation between CHAT standards with the implementation of these standards during the process of reformatting older corpora. Third, she confuses transcription for automatic analysis with transcription for documentation. Fourth, she confuses the CHAT guidelines with the larger CHILDES system. We argue that these confusions have misled Edwards into developing an overly rigid set of principles for data analysis which, if followed literally, could choke off progress in the analysis of spontaneous language samples.

In a previous issue of this Journal, MacWhinney & Snow (1985) laid out the basic sketch for an international system for exchanging and analysing child language transcript data. This system--the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES)--has developed three major tools for child language research: (1) the CHILDES database of transcripts, (2) the CHAT system for transcribing and coding data, and (3) the CLAN programs for analysing CHAT files. Here we sketch out the current shape of these three major tools and the organizational form of the CHILDES system. A forthcoming book (MacWhinney, in press) documents these tools in detail.