Assessing the Emergence of Grammar in Toddlers at Risk for Specific Language Impairment

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to identify areas of grammatical development that can be incorporated into risk-factor assessment models for toddlers between the ages of 2 and 3. A simple framework is presented for conceptualizing three early grammatical accomplishments: the acquisition of an initial verb lexicon, production of early sentence types, and the onset of tense marking. Strategies for using parent-report instruments and structure-specific language sampling to assess these areas in a time-efficient manner are provided.

KEYWORDS

Late-talking children - specific language impairment - grammar - tense marking

REFERENCES

• 1 Ellis Weismer S. Typical talkers, late talkers, and children with specific language impairment: a language endowment spectrum?. In: Paul R The Influence of Developmental Perspectives on Research and Practice in Communication Disorders: A Festschrift for Robin S, Chapman. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates In press
• 2 Paul R. Clinical implications of the natural history of slow expressive language development.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996;  5 5-21
• 3 Rescorla L. Language and reading outcomes to age 9 in late talking toddlers.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;  45 360-371
• 4 Thal D. Early identification of language impairment: what are the best strategies?. Presented at: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention 2005 San Diego, CA;
• 5 Thal D, Katich J. Predicaments in early identification of specific language impairment: does the early bird always catch the worm?. In: Cole K, Dale P, Thal D Assessment of Communication and Language. Baltimore, MD; Brookes 1996: 1-28
• 6 Tomblin J, Records N, Buckwalter P, Zhang X, Smith E, O'Brien M. Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;  40 1245-1260
• 7 Stothard S, Snowling M, Bishop D, Chipchase B, Kaplan C. Language-impaired preschoolers: a follow-up into adolescence.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 407-418
• 8 Tomblin J. Adolescent outcomes of developmental language disorder in kindergarten. Presented at: Symposium for Research in Child Language Disorders June 2005 Madison, WI;
• 9 Leonard L. Children with Specific Language Impairment. Boston, MA; MIT Press 1998
• 10 Levy Y, Schaeffer J. Language Competence across Populations: Toward a Definition of Specific Language Impairment. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum 2003
• 11 Oetting J, Hadley P. The morphosyntactic deficits of children with developmental disabilities. In: Schwartz R The Handbook of Child Language Disorders. In press
• 12 Rice M. A unified model of specific and general language delay: grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In: Levy Y, Schaeffer J Language Competence across Populations: Toward a Definition of Specific Language Impairment. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum 2003: 63-95
• 13 Rice M. Growth models of developmental language disorders. In: Rice ML, Warren SF Developmental Language Disorders: From Phenotypes to Etiologies. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum 2004: 207-240
• 14 Bedore L, Leonard L. Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: a discriminant function analysis.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 1185-1192
• 15 Bishop D VM, Snowling M J. Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: same or different?.  Psychol Bull. 2004;  130 858-886
• 16 Rice M L, Wexler K, Cleave P L. Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive.  J Speech Hear Res. 1995;  38 850-863
• 17 Rice M, Wexler K. Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children.  J Speech Hear Res. 1996;  39 1239-1257
• 18 Rice M, Wexler K, Hershberger S. Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairments.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 1412-1431
• 19 Tager-Flusberg H, Cooper J. Present and future possibilities for defining a phenotype for specific language impairment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;  42 1275-1278
• 20 Rice M L, Wexler K. Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment. San Antonio, TX; Psychological Corporation 2001
• 21 Brown R. A First Language. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press 1973
• 22 Hadley P, Olson J, Earle C. Clinical decision-making with late-talking children. Presented at: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention 2005 San Diego, CA;
• 23 Bates E, Marchman V, Thal D et al.. Developmental and stylistic variation in the composition of early vocabulary.  J Child Lang. 1994;  21 85-123
• 24 Dale P S, Fenson L. Lexical development norms for young children.  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;  28 125-127
• 25 Brinkmeier J. Verb lexicons and the transition to word combinations in children at risk for SLI [master's thesis]. DeKalb, IL; Northern Illinois University 2002
• 26 Hadley P, Short H. The onset of tense marking in children at risk for specific language impairment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;  48 1344-1362
• 27 Olswang L, Long S, Fletcher P. Verbs in the emergence of word combinations in young children with specific expressive language impairment.  Eur J Disord Commun. 1997;  32 15-33
• 28 Rispoli M. The mosaic acquisition of grammatical relations.  J Child Lang. 1991;  18 517-551
• 29 Klee T, Gavin W, Letts C. Development of a reference profile of children's grammatical development. Presented at: Joint Conference of the International Congress for the Study of Child Language/Symposium for Research on Child Language Disorders 2002 Madison, WI;
• 30 Hadley P. Early verb-related vulnerability among children with specific language impairment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 1384-1397
• 31 Radford A. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Cambridge, UK; Basil Blackwell 1990
• 32 Hadley P, Rice M. Emergent uses of BE and DO: evidence from children with specific language impairment.  Lang Acquisition. 1996;  5 209-243
• 33 Rispoli M, Hadley P. The acquisition and automaticity of finiteness marking. Presented at: Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders June 2005 Madison, WI;
• 34 Conti-Ramsden G, Jones M. Verb use in specific language impairment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;  40 1298-1313
• 35 Eyer J, Leonard L. Functional categories and specific language impairment: a case study.  Lang Acquisition. 1995;  4 177-203
• 36 Leonard L, Camarata S, Brown B, Camarata M. Tense and agreement in the speech of children with specific language impairment: patterns of generalization through intervention.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;  47 1363-1379
• 37 Johnson B, Fey M. Interaction of lexical and grammatical aspect in toddlers' language.  J Child Lang. 2006;  33 401-417
• 38 Bishop D VM. DeFries-Fulker analysis of twin data with skewed distributions: cautions and recommendations from a study of children's use of verb inflections.  Behav Genet. 2005;  35 479-490
• 39 Bishop D V, Adams C V, Norbury C F. Using nonword repetition to distinguish genetic and environmental influences on early literacy development: a study of 6-year old twins.  Am J Med Genet Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2004;  129 94-96
• 40 Bishop D VM, Adams C V, Norbury C F. Distinct genetic influences on grammar and phonological short-term memory deficits: evidence from 6-year-old twins.  Genes Brain Behav. 2006;  5 158-169
• 41 Scarborough H. Index of productive syntax. Appl Psycholinguistics.  1990;  11 1-22
• 42 Rescorla L. The Language Development Survey: a screening tool for delayed language in toddlers.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;  54 587-599
• 43 Zimmerman I L, Steiner V G, Pond R E. Preschool Language Scale-3. San Antonio, TX; The Psychological Corporation 1992
• 44 Fenson L, Dale P, Reznick J et al.. MacArthur Communicative Developmental Inventories. San Diego, CA; Singular Publishing 1993
• 45 Rice M, Haney K, Wexler K. Family histories of children with SLI who show extended optional infinitives.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 419-432
• 46 Wilson S. Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English.  J Child Lang. 2003;  30 75-115
• 47 Hadley P, Holt J. Individual differences in the onset of tense marking: a growth curve analysis.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. , In press
• 48 Lyytinen H, Ahonen T, Eklund K et al.. Developmental pathways of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia during the first years of life.  Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;  20 535-554
• 49 Lyytinen P, Lyytinen H. Growth and predictive relations of vocabulary and inflectional morphology in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia.  Appl Psycholinguistics. 2004;  25 397-411
• 50 Lyytinen P, Poikkeus A, Laakso M, Eklund K, Lyytinen H. Language development and symbolic play in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 873-885
• 51 Scarborough H, Dobrich W. Development of children with early language delay.  J Speech Hear Res. 1990;  33 70-83
• 52 Fenson L, Dale P, Reznick S et al.. MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: User's Guide and Technical Manual. Baltimore, MD; Brookes Publishing 2003
• 53 Furey J, Watkins R. Accuracy of online language sampling: a focus on verbs.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2002;  11 434-439
• 54 Hadley P. Validating a rate-based measure of early grammatical abilities: unique syntactic types.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1999;  8 261-272
• 55 Wilcox M, Hadley P, Bacon C. Linking science and practice in management of childhood language disorders: models and problem-solving strategies.  Top Lang Disord. 1998;  18 10-22
• 56 Bacon C, Wilcox J, Brown J. Online appraisal of toddlers' linguistic progress during classroom-based intervention. Presented at: Conference of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1997 Boston, MA;
• 57 Bryant C. Assessing the emergence of tense marking in young children: is parent report valid [master's thesis]?. DeKalb, IL; Northern Illinois University 2003
• 58 Hadley P A. The emergence of tense markers in children at risk for SLI. Presented at: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention November 2003 Chicago, IL;
• 59 Olswang L B, Rodriguez B, Timler G. Recommending intervention for toddlers with specific language learning difficulties: we may not have all the answers, but we know a lot.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1998;  7 23-32
• 60 Allen R. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 8th ed. New York, NY; Oxford University Press 1990

APPENDIX A

Transitivity Classes

Our approach to the transitivity classification of verbs in the single-word stage follows the procedures of Olswang et al.[27] We consulted prototypical definitions found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. [60] Verbs were identified as prototypically transitive when the first two definitions classified the verb as transitive. Verbs were identified as prototypically intransitive when the first two definitions classified a verb as intransitive. When both transitive and intransitive senses were identified in the first two definitions, the verb was classified as ditransitive.

Transitive verbs take or require a direct object to form a grammatical sentence.

• Kiss: I kiss Pooh.

• *I kiss. (ungrammatical without a direct object)

• Push: Daddy threw the ball.

• *Daddy threw. (ungrammatical without a direct object)

• Intransitive verbs do not take or require a direct object to form a grammatical sentence.

• Fall: The tower fell.

• *The tower fell the ground. (ungrammatical with a direct object)

• The tower fell to the ground. (requires a preposition for elaboration)

• Sleep: The baby is sleeping.

• *The baby is sleeping a bed. (ungrammatical with a direct object)

• The baby is sleeping in a bed. (requires a preposition for elaboration)

Ditransitive verbs may or may not take direct objects; depending on discourse context.

• Eat: I'm eating. (intransitive)

• I'm eating breakfast. (transitive)

• Open: The door opened. (intransitive)

• I opened the door. (transitive)

Semantic Classes

State verbs refer to the condition of someone or something, whereas action verbs refer to events. These two classes can be differentiated by several morphological criteria when referring to the present moment. To refer to the condition of someone or something at the present moment, state verbs will be grammatical with simple present tense morphology (e.g., it fits, he wants that), but ungrammatical in the present progressive (e.g., *he is wanting that). In contrast, action verbs are grammatical in the present progressive (e.g., she is walking). Importantly, when action verbs appear in utterances such as she walks or bunny hops, the verbs do not refer to the present moment, but rather take on a generic or habitual meaning. The following tests can be used to determine if a verb is a state verb or an action verb.

• Simple present test: Right now he / it verbs.

• States: Right now he needs a nap / she has a doll.

• Actions: *Right now he sleeps / jumps. (ungrammatical)

• Present progressive test: Right now he / it is verbing.

• Actions: Right now he is sleeping / jumping.

• States: *Right now he is needing a nap / she is having a doll. (ungrammatical)

• Response to present progressive question test: What's he / it doing?

• Actions: sleeping / jumping / eating

• States: *needing a nap / having a doll (ungrammatical)

Sentence Types

Subject-verb-object sentences are formed with transitive verbs. Examples include:

• She kissed Pooh.

• Cookie Monster ate a cookie.

• Daddy threw the ball.

Subject-verb sentences are formed with intransitive verbs. Nonobligatory noun phrases must be attached to the basic subject-verb sentence structure via prepositions. Examples include:

• The tower fell.

• The tower fell to the ground.

• The baby is sleeping.

• The baby is sleeping in a bed.

• Mr. Potato Head's nose goes in here.