Janna B. Oetting

Effects of input manipulations on the word learning abilities of children with and without specific language impairment

Three input variables were manipulated during a story-viewing task to examine the word learning abilities of children with and without specific language impairment (SLI). The variables were presentation rate, sentence complexity, and word type. Fifty-four children participated: 18 were identified as SLI and 36 served as normally developing age-matched or language-matched controls. The stimuli involved a videotaped reading of two stories that had novel words embedded in the narrative, and word learning was measured by examining the childrens ability to infer the meanings of the novel words from the story viewing context. A picture pointing task and a real word synonym task served as comprehension probes. A nonword repetition task and a battery of language tests were also administered. Two of the three input manipulations affected the childrens scores. Across both probes, word type resulted in a main effect, with children from all three groups earning higher scores for verbs than nouns. On the picture pointing probe, presentation rate interacted with group. The interaction reflected lower scores in the fast rate than the slow rate for the children with SLI but not for the controls. Childrens nonword repetition scores and standardized tests of vocabulary and syntax were moderately correlated with each other, and together these variables accounted for significant variation in the childrens story viewing scores even after age, IQ, and articulation ability were controlled. The vocabulary and syntax tests contributed unique variance whereas nonword repetition contributed shared variance.

The clinical utility of nonword repetition for children living in the rural south of the US

Nonword repetition (NWR) tasks have been shown to minimize cultural biases in language assessment. In the current study, we further examined the clinical utility of NWR with 83 children who lived in the rural south of the US; 33 were African American and 50 were White, with 16 classified as specifically language impaired (SLI) 6‐year‐olds and 67 classified as either age‐matched or younger controls. Main effects were found for group, with the children in the SLI group earning lower NWR scores than the controls. A main effect for syllable length but not race was also documented. The group and syllable length effects could not be explained by differences in the childrens articulation abilities or by potential differences in the childrens use of vernacular dialect. Discriminant analysis indicated that NWR had a diagnostic accuracy rate of 81% for the 6‐year‐olds, but sensitivity was low (56%). When combined with scores from one other nonbiased assessment tool, however, the diagnostic accuracy of NWR increased to 90%, with rates of sensitivity and specificity above 80%.

Southern African-American English use across groups

The goal of the current work was to examine variations in Southern African-American English (SAAE) in speakers who differed in their age (preschool vs. adult) and place of residency (rural vs. urban). A total of 49 language samples were used as data. Twenty-four were from rural 4- and 6-year-olds, 17 were from urban 3-year-olds, and eight were from urban teen mothers. Results indicated that there were more similarities than differences between the groups, and patterns of SAAE were comparable to reports of AAE in other parts of the country. Results from a correlational analysis also indicated that descriptions of SAAE, and most likely other variations of AAE, can be captured in a general manner through the coding of 10 core patterns. In future studies, researchers in communication disorders should be able to use these data-driven findings to reduce the labor-intensive nature of quantifying the AAE dialect status of participants.

Subject Relatives by Children with and without SLI across Different Dialects of English

This study examined whether childrens use of subject relative clauses differs as a function of their English dialect (African American English, AAE vs. Southern White English, SWE vs. Mainstream American English, MAE) and clinical diagnosis (specific language impairment, SLI vs. typically developing, TD). The data were spontaneous language samples from 87 AAE‐ and 53 SWE‐speaking children, aged 3 to 6 years. Data on MAE came from previously published studies. Results were that the TD child speakers of AAE and SWE presented similar rates and types of subject relative clauses within their samples, but the rates at which they supplied the relative marker within these clauses varied from those that have been reported for TD child speakers of MAE. Nevertheless, across both AAE and SWE, the rates at which the children with SLI produced relative markers within clauses were lower than the rates of their TD peers, and these findings could not be explained by differences in the childrens overall rates of non‐mainstream English pattern use. These findings are consistent with studies of MAE‐speaking children, and they also show across‐dialect similarities in the grammatical deficits of children with SLI.

Sentence Recall by Children With SLI Across Two Nonmainstream Dialects of English

PURPOSE The inability to accurately recall sentences has proven to be a clinical marker of specific language impairment (SLI); this task yields moderate-to-high levels of sensitivity and specificity. However, it is not yet known if these results hold for speakers of dialects whose nonmainstream grammatical productions overlap with those that are produced at high rates by children with SLI. METHOD Using matched groups of 70 African American English speakers and 36 Southern White English speakers and dialect-strategic scoring, we examined childrens sentence recall abilities as a function of their dialect and clinical status (SLI vs. typically developing [TD]). RESULTS For both dialects, the SLI group earned lower sentence recall scores than the TD group with sensitivity and specificity values ranging from .80 to .94, depending on the analysis. Children with SLI, as compared with TD controls, manifested lower levels of verbatim recall, more ungrammatical recalls when the recall was not exact, and higher levels of error on targeted functional categories, especially those marking tense. CONCLUSION When matched groups are examined and dialect-strategic scoring is used, sentence recall yields moderate-to-high levels of diagnostic accuracy to identify SLI within speakers of nonmainstream dialects of English.

Evaluating the Grammars of Children Who Speak Nonmainstream Dialects of English.

In this article, we review three responses to the study and evaluation of grammar in children who speak nonmainstream dialects of English. Then we introduce a fourth, system-based response that views nonmainstream dialects of English, such as African American English (AAE) and Southern White English (SWE) as made up of dialect-specific and dialect-universal features. To illustrate the usefulness of a system-based approach and to distinguish our two terms from others in the dialect literature, we present AAE and SWE relative clause data from two previously published studies. Following this, we present new findings from AAE- and SWE-speaking childrens use of past tense and past participles to further demonstrate the value of examining larger units (i.e., systems) of a grammar to identify a childs language strengths and weaknesses. We conclude by arguing that a system-based approach moves clinicians, educators, and researchers beyond a preoccupation with the nonmainstream aspects of childrens dialects while also moving us beyond Browns 14 morphemes. Although the focus of the article is on assessment, the content is relevant to the treatment of grammar because effective promotion of any childs grammar (including the grammars of those who speak nonmainstream dialects of English) will occur only when clinicians, educators, and researchers begin to view the childs grammar as a system rather than as a sum of its parts.

BE, DO, and Modal Auxiliaries of 3-Year-Old African American English Speakers.

PURPOSE This study examined African American English-speaking childrens use of BE, DO, and modal auxiliaries. METHOD The data were based on language samples obtained from 48 three-year-olds. Analyses examined rates of marking by auxiliary type, auxiliary surface form, succeeding element, and syntactic construction and by a number of child variables. RESULTS The children produced 3 different types of marking (mainstream overt, nonmainstream overt, zero) for auxiliaries, and the distribution of these markings varied by auxiliary type. The childrens nonmainstream dialect densities were related to their marking of BE and DO but not modals. Marking of BE was influenced by its surface form and the succeeding verbal element, and marking of BE and DO was influenced by syntactic construction. CONCLUSIONS Results extend previous studies by showing dialect-specific effects for childrens use of auxiliaries and by showing these effects to vary by auxiliary type and childrens nonmainstream dialect densities. Some aspects of the childrens auxiliary systems (i.e., pattern of marking across auxiliaries and effects of syntactic construction) were also consistent with what has been documented for children who speak other dialects of English. These findings show dialect-specific and dialect-universal aspects of African American English to be present early in childrens acquisition of auxiliaries.

Children's relative clause markers in two non-mainstream dialects of English

We examined childrens productions of mainstream and non-mainstream relative clause markers (e.g. that, who, which, what, where, Ø) in African American English (AAE) and Southern White English (SWE) as a function of three linguistic variables (syntactic role of the marker, humanness of the antecedent and adjacency of the noun phrase head). The data were language samples from 99 typically developing 4–6-year-olds: 61 spoke AAE and 38 spoke SWE. The majority of the childrens relative clauses included mainstream markers. Non-mainstream markers were rare, with 3–6% involving Ø subjects and 2% involving what. The children produced who exclusively as subjects and with human antecedents, where exclusively as locatives and with non-human antecedents and Ø and what primarily as direct objects or objects of prepositions and with non-human antecedents. Although AAE- and SWE-speaking children produce some non-mainstream relative markers, the majority of their markers are mainstream. Their use of relative markers is also influenced by linguistic variables in ways that are consistent with a wide range of mainstream and non-mainstream English dialects. These findings show across-dialect similarity in childrens relative clauses, even though characterisation of relative clauses as a contrastive dialect structure remains justified.

Working memory performance in children with and without specific language impairment in two nonmainstream dialects of English

Using speakers of either African American English or Southern White English, we asked whether a working memory measure was linguistically unbiased, that is, equally able to distinguish between children with and without specific language impairment (SLI) across dialects, with similar error profiles and similar correlations to standardized test scores. We also examined whether the measure was affected by a childs nonmainstream dialect density. Fifty-three kindergarteners with SLI and 53 typically developing controls (70 African American English, 36 Southern White English) were given a size judgment working memory task, which involved reordering items by physical size before recall, as well as tests of syntax, vocabulary, intelligence, and nonmainstream density. Across dialects, children with SLI earned significantly poorer span scores than controls, and made more nonlist errors. Span and standardized language test performance were correlated; however, they were also both correlated with nonmainstream density. After partialing out density, span continued to differentiate the groups and correlate with syntax measures in both dialects. Thus, working memory performance can distinguish between children with and without SLI and is equally related to syntactic abilities across dialects. However, the correlation between span and nonmainstream dialect density indicates that processing-based verbal working memory tasks may not be as free from linguistic bias as often thought. Additional studies are needed to further explore this relationship.

Development of Auxiliaries in Young Children Learning African American English

PURPOSE We examined language samples of young children learning African American English (AAE) to determine if and when their use of auxiliaries shows dialect-universal and dialect-specific effects. METHOD The data were longitudinal language samples obtained from two children, ages 18 to 36 months, and three children, ages 33 to 51 months. Dialect-universal analyses examined age of first form and early uses of BE, DO, and modal auxiliaries. Dialect-specific analyses focused on rates of overt marking by auxiliary type and syntactic construction and for BE by surface form and succeeding element. RESULTS Initial production of auxiliaries occurred between 19 and 24 months. The childrens forms were initially restricted and produced in syntactically simple constructions. Over time, they were expanded in ways that showed their rates of marking to vary by auxiliary type, their rates of BE and DO marking to vary by syntactic construction, and their rates of BE marking to vary by surface form and succeeding element. CONCLUSIONS Development of auxiliaries by young children learning AAE shows both dialect-universal and dialect-specific effects. The findings are presented within a development chart to guide clinicians in the assessment of children learning AAE and in the treatment of AAE-speaking children with language impairment.