CHAPTER 9

A Biological Basis for Individual Differences in Learning to Speak

Gisela E. Speidel

Children go ahnul learning language in diflcrcnt ways amI at different mlcs. Brown's (1973) Eve had ultcmnccs ;]vcnlging more than four morphemes when she was a lillie liver 2 years old: Admu's ultcranccs did not even quile reach that length when he was 3 years and H months old. Arc such variations due 10 different neurological organizalion. different general cognitive ability. or different kinds and amounts of language input? Most likely. all three HIClors playa role in the vari:uions ohserved in learning to speak and in the skill eventually .illt<lincd . Nevertheless. if the contribution ofc.u:h could he isnlatccJ. it would help us to unocrslund how language is iu:quircd ;'lnd help liS to compare language learn-ing 10 thc le,uning of other cognitivc skills.

Bretherton, McNew. Snyder. and Bates (1983) have drawn up a list of,tudies on the topic of language-learning styles. Among thc5C studies is K. Nelson's (1973) one. in which shc ((lund differences in the kinds or words children learned first: Language learning in one g.roup of children was object oriented; in the other. it was morc self-oriented. In another well-known study on individual dilTerences. Peters (1977) differentiated children according to predominant language-learning stmtegics (analytic or while the work by Nelson. Boaker. Denninger. Bonvill ian . and Kupl . .II1 (19H5) suggests thm cognitive ;,tnd emotional styles may affect learning. Several chapters in thili bllok give us further examples of individual dineren"es (Masur, Chapter 3 : Snow, Chapter 4: Uigiris. Brooone. & Kruper. Chapter 5: Nelson et al.. Chapter 13) .

In most of these studies. the efrects of language input. cognitive ability, and constitutional factors cannot be disentangled. Although we can probably never exert enough control over three to obtain nndings. there are methouologic;' 11 appnmches that can help us to understand more the con-tribution of each and how they interact with each other. One such approach is a longitudinal comparison on variahles helwcen children who have a

200 y G:L,is I'm Individllill Dilfcrcl1L'cs

specilic language di!<!ordcr. such ilS oc"cinpmcnlal dysphasia. and children whose language develops normally (e.g .• Grin1l1l. 1983. 1984. 1986: Grimm & Weiner!. 1987).

Another approach that may help in our search I,,, causes or individual differ-ences is 10 look at the simult.ancous ICOIrning of two Iirsllanguagcs. Bilingual lan-guage learning permits a cOl11lh'rison of Ihe manner in which the learning of each ufthc two langui.tgcs proceeds. Fnr instance. if two children show little oilTerence in Ihe ralc at which Ihcy learn one la"gunge. hUI a large difference in the rale al which they 1C".un the language. then nne can possibly rule out hiological and cognitive factors as the main causc!-. of this difference (unless one helieves Ihal Ihe two languages require different cognitive ahilitics). Envirnnmcnlal comJi-tions in which the second language is learned. such a!'. inpul. motivation. and so forth. would seem to he the most phlU:-.ihlc c<luse in this ca"te. On the other Imnd. if one child learns noth languages more than the other child. and the cug· nilivc and language cnvironmenls for the children arc then Ihere is strong support for II hiological hasis or Ihis difference in language learning.

This chupler describl!s a case study of two hilingual children. Mark amI his sislcr. Sally. who is 2 years older. During their 6 month!'. of life. they were wkcn care of mainly hy their Gernmn-speaking grandmother. who came to visit the ramily in the United States I,,, the purpose ofhcJping out with child care and who then returned 10 Germany. Sin(.:c hoth parents were native spe.lkers of German. the children heard only GernUlI1 in the home. unless English·spc .. king

came 10 Ihe or Ihey li!'.lened After the lir!'.t 6 months. they went to baby-sillers who spnke only English. Al age 21/:! they were enrolled in an English-speaking Montessori preschool. At age 5 they hegan 10 allcnu an

elemcntary school. After the Ii"t 6 month, or lire (during which they heard predominantly Ger

man), the amount of time exposed to the two approximatcly the same: The children were away from their parents ror approximately 8 to q hours during weekdays. However. the language-learning conditions for English Hnd German differcd: German was mainly heard from Iwn adult parents - where,ls English was heard frollllllany different adult and peer Illodels.

The two children greiltly in the case with which (hey learned 10 speak the two languagcs. SaJly learned to speak hoth languages quickly and rarely made errors. Mark, in contrasi. had much difficulty in learning to speak hoth lan-guages. and tilr a lime it secmed as ifhe were reconstructing the hlllguage ancw whcnevcr he spoke.

9.1 Hypothesis

In Chapter 7. a model for language learning and processing WOIS dcscrihed. Brielly. language processes arc viewed .IS p<Jrtly simultaneous activity in three types of neuml nelworks: a network for the incoming sounds.

9. I H ypUI hcsis 201

a network for processing the nonspcech-sound events accompanying speech. (i.e .• the meaning aspects oflanguagc). ami a network for planning and producing the speech sounds. Language learning is the development of these nctworks as well as their progressive integration with onc another. Learning to (,'ol1lprt'hc'''c/ language is viewed as the development of the incoming speech-sound and the meaning networks and thcir integmtinn . where:'ls learning to .\jJ(·llk is viewed as the development or the meaning and the networks ami their integration (sec Figure 7-1). In bilingual suhjeL:ts there arc two incoming spceL:h-sound nctworks and two speech-planning networks. one sci for eaf.:h language (sec Figure 7-2). The meaning networks probably serve hoth lunguage systems because they arc developed mainly hy nonspeech-sound events. (Although there may he separate mC:'lI1ing networks In the exlent (hat children have had distinct experiences in the two languages. The distinclion between compound or coordi-nate hilingualism isrelevant here: e.g .. Ervin & Osglxld. 1954: Weinreich. 1953.)

It is Ihoughtthat Mark's difficulty in learning tt) speak was due tn neurnlogical factors that slowed the development of the specch-planning networks. A sequence of evenls is suggest cd thai links allergies and neurological differences to difficul-ties with nrticul'ltion, short-term memory. speaking. and reading. In order 10 supporl the hypothesized events. this ch;,tptcr deals with the following topics:

(I) a hrief medical history of the two children: (2) a comparison Octween Murk's and Sully's le;lrning of (he two (3) a comparison between Mark's and Sully's learning to read: This piece ofinfor-

mation is included bec,luse Mark shtlwed symptoms of dyslexia. and recent \\'ork in dyslexia and specific reading delay have ShtlWn tlmt these difliculties arc often prcceded by difficulties in Ic:.trning to

(4) cognitive and linguistic test data on the two children: (5) description of dysphasic children's I,mguage developmenl ;.and their difliculty

with imitation and articulation: ,lOd (6) recent work un autoimmune disunlers ami their relationship tnlanguage .lOlI

reading difficullies.

Many of Mark's behaviors will seem nornmlto the reader. They will be seen as renecting the old wisdonlthat hoys arc slower to mature than girls. In part, Mark fits these ohserv.llions. Mark is nonmll. amI there arc many children who show sOllie of the same kinds of behaviors (hut arc described here as difliculties. However, he is very brighl. HI le<lst <IS hright OIS his sister. yet he st:lrted speaking amI rcading significantly latcr than she. Ahhnugh Illany of his skills were nor-mally developed for his age. they were delayed wilh respcc( 10 his lested mental age: although many or his dilTiculties arc not qualitatively different rmmthnse or other children. they arc more predominant. 1" say that Mark and Bmwn's (1973) Adam were slower in learning to spcnk they arc boys or hecause they have a maturational lag is 10 offer very !'.upcrficial explmHllions. We must begin In look more closely HI wh'lt .... Ihc:-.e development:11 l:lgS.

9.2 Medical History

Both Sally and Mark. had rcturrcnl houts of media. or mitldlc-c;lf infec-tions. Their infections were always treated immediately. However. Mark had Illore frequent infections illlll h;:uJ to have tuhes inserted to drain his middle C'IrS when he was 2 'h amI again when he was J 'Iz old . There is an a!'t!'lochltion hetwecn middle,c;'IT and langu;'lgc delay. hut the conne .... tion is nul clearly e"ahli,hed (Feag,ms. 1986: Feagans. I3I(Kld . & Tuhman. 1987: Feagans. Sallyal. HCllllcrsuTl. Collier. & ApplchmlTll. in prc:-.s ; Finit/.o & Friel-f>d!!i . 1987; Friel·l'd!!i. Finilzo·Heber. Cnnli. & Brown. Mcnyuk. 1980).

Developmental a form of .!lpc<:ilic rCliiding delay as!\ociatcd with language difficullics (e.g .• Bannulync. 1976: Rawson. 1968. 1981 : Vcllulinn. 1977) Ims recently hcen found tn he related to immune disorders (Galahurda. 1986: Geschwind & Behan. 1984: Ruscn. Shennan. & Galahllrda. 19K6) and In celiac dise;'lsc. II is of to no Ie that MOIrk !-iuflcred &IS " h:lhy from .. type of diarrhcli that W:I!-i linnlly diagnosed . when he W;:IS I 'h ye&lrs old. <1:-'

di:-'cOise . <In intestinal allergy 10 cerl:lin grains. The mother had :1 history of' aller-which had heen :lggravaled hy her previous pregnancy with Sally. and she

was receiving allergy !-Ihols during her pregnancy with Mark.

9.3 Language Development

The infornmtion in this section comes from two !-Iources: longilUdinal casc-:-.tudy uh:-.ef\'ation:-. for the fir:-.t 7 ye;'lrs and speech

9.3.1 Clise-l-listtJry Ohservatiuns

9.3 . 1.1 Early Lungllage Dcvelopmenl: Age, 7 Monlh, lu 2 )"ars

Sally learncd bulh i;lIIguage, readily wilhnul apparenl efror!. She beg"" wilh repetitive hahhling around 7 months mul hegan tu speak in words when she was a liule over I year old . From the heginning her speech was fairly intclligihle. and her language devchlpmcnt I(llhlwcd Ihe tJrderly pnJgressitlil descrihed by Bn)wn (1973). starting mainly with single referential words. then 2 words. ;lIId moving on to telegraphic-like speech and short sentences. At 18 months she had a vocabu-lary of over 25 German words. Her vocahulary in English was not reconJcd.

In contrast, Mark showed no repetitive hahhling and spoke nearly unintelli-gihl)' until he WOIS ovcr 2 YC;IfS old . He was nol silent. hut v(K..'i.lli7.ed with the imonation conlOur:-. uf sentences. reminiscent of the language. learning strategy called !it-.,Iall hy Pelers (\ 977). which she characlerized a, learning "I he lune bel()re the wonls." (Peters's usage of the term .t:£'.\'Iuil must be different iated from other usages of thut term. such a"i Grimm\, whidl will be later.) His mother was distressed that she did not umlersland him well enough to help him develop his spc.lking through and recasts of his language.

2Ul

Tal'lle Y-I. Sample of Mark's ActlUlI German Scntencc:-. and Hili Intended Sentences"

AlItl.ll

Du I11cin Brnt lIIi ll: h - in hull1 milch . 1\11 mcin e .... hall. Vennio; .. c n hah P."IXt.

\\chIUl rnir h ill. P;tPPil lI1ir. In lidqwwli rcingchn hilh - Ht)!<I

ll1i1du huh. Vcrgcsscn-Dcin lJriih.'hl.!n - Du hasi. l\lich 'lUslmlll. "'ann'!

., Age J ye:lf" . J mUlllh ... (11111111Ih ...

9.3.1.2 Age::! to 4 )(!:IfS

Inlendell

f\.'I.Il'h IlIcin Brnt in halh. kh Imh nlllllcincn Sped.: t!ct!c .. kh Imh p."p't .. 1. SI'!o. i h .1I mir \\Ch!!Cllln ,

hi li, mir tlil .. illle kh hin il1" Titlcpool rcingcg;tngcn und

llith dlc I-los n il!o.O; gCIll i.lcllI . Du h.I :,.1 Dein Briih.:hcn \ ergcs!<.clI . Kann h.·h ilu :-.kml len"!

Sally continued to progreso; t.luickly in hoth English and German. separating the two language, "'Inni:-.hingly well. She had no oh\' inus artil:ulation or :-.ynlactical prohlems and made few speech errors anti overgencralizi.ltinn,. She rarely mixed Gcrmiln anti English . Mark continued In show delayed intelliglhle :-,pccl'h . By ::! V! )Cilf!o. his had to the extent th'll .. c;lrcf'ul liMener could guc,s what he w:t:-. tr) ing (0 .sily. Once hi:-. utter-mce, could he underMonu. (he

... k ch:mu.:teriMic:-. ofhi:-. speech (Grimm. 19K6: Menyuk. 197M: Menyuk and LtlOney. 197(l)-;'lrticulatitm and wtml-tmfer pn)hlelll!'o-hec: lllie ttpp.lrcnt in hoth languages. lilhle 9- 1 how the word order in his sentcm:es is very different from that Ii.lr which he appeared In he Mriving. Murk's sentences were simil'lr to those made hy German children diagnosed as (Grimm. 19K3). He also had pronounced specch tlisnuencies anu was beginning In stalll-mer. A cnmp;lrison of iI sample of Mmk's aud Sally's spL"Cch uurinH cUl1vcrs;'llinns \\ hen they were hOlh ;tpproXillHitcly .. year, .IIHI 3 months old shows the differ-ence in Iheir ,kill in 'peaking Gerlllan (sec Ihe Appendix).

Other features Ihal indicated that I;.lI1guage Icarning was differcnl from Sally's were the following:

(II Irmllenlion tn the sound of rhymes: For ill,tance. he changel'''See you later. allig.llor. after a while 1.:rncndilc," 10 "Sec you later crnt..'ouile." Out of "Liar, IiOlr. pomls till tirc ." he erc,atcd. "Uigncr. I..ligner. pant:-. on fire ." (Li/gllt,,, means liar in Germ,IIl .) And he would :-.ay. "OIiC'. two. three. l(lUr. huckle my .shoe." in ... lead of "One. two. hUf.:kle my ,hoc: three. I(JUr. opcn the door."

(2) Difliculty with immediate imitation : When (old to :-'lIY. "( love YOll." he said "kh love Dp." as if it were t(lf him to translate thun 10 illlilute. Another time when told tn a ... k. "WiII'l DII 7UIll Picnic "omlllen'?" he said . "Dli Picnic k01ll1ll v.illT changing the word order ami dropping the inneclion,. In hnth

t, Bitlltlg.ic: .11 B ..... i ... II)f IlhJI\ ILllJ.lI DIITE:Tl!ncr"

he undcr:-.tond the mcs:-.agc. hut found it ca:-.icr to tran:-.fnrl1l the message than repeat it the \\'ay il was said.

0) He mixed the li.lng.uagcs when speaking. :11111(1ugh he \'irhmlly never rccci\\:d mixed inpul.

(.J) He madc mall}' ovcrgcncralizatiom •.

In to his difliculty with his comprehension of hnlh English and GeTman was good . Neither the parents. nor the hOlhysiltcr. nor later the prcschonIICi1chcr noticcLithat he had any diffkulty unocrstam1ing inslruclinns. commands. comments. anu SI) nn.

When Mark was 3 years and 3 months old and had mauc lillie prngrc:-.s in !'!pcaking either GeTman or he WtI:-. seen for a !"pccch ami hcaring cvalua· lion in English. This c"OIlu:uion confirmcd the more informal observ;'ltiuns: His comprehcnsilH\ \\'<lS excellent. scoring at the R41h pcrccntHc nn the Peahody Picture Vocahulary Test . and at the 9Hth percentile nn the Screening Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, In contrast. his expressive skills were .3 months helow his age wilh ditTiculties in repealing digits and words and with word-order problems 011 the Sequenccd In\,entory of COIllIl1Unic;:lIion Dcvelop-ment. He also had nUllIerous art iculat iun eJift1cuh with on the Goldman of Artieuloltion ,

9 .3. 1.3 Age:; to 7

Although English WilS hc(ullling more and llIore the languolge for Sally. she: stili separJted the tWtl languages perfectly and would speak Gcnmm to her parents. allhnugh began tn speak more English to her hrother, In hoth lan-guages. she spoke fluently. had few and raise and Illm.te few grJl1unaticill errors,

M.nk's speech hec.llne more intelligible. He continued to make Ilmny over-Fur tI lin,,! hc cre'lled" douhle pa ... t tense : (/1(1 ClIm('. (/ul .Wllt', ditl

look. In c/o:'(' sume of his ovcrgcllcrali7t1tinns did nut occur presumably because retrieval was madc by IlUlst ()flhe heing pnldllced for him (sec Bock. 19M:!: Bohannnll & Stanowicz. Chaptcr 6. volumc: Speidel & l-IcrrcsholT. ChJptcr 8. this volulilc. nn learning. to speak and Ihc limited-capacity processing systcm) . SOllie of his o\'ergcneralil:ttions were very intrk'''te and creative. A few examples of his usc ofanalngics to create words whose he Jid not rClllemher arejil',w(lm)' for primary teacher hau talked ahout primary and secondary colors that day). tlln.'l..'tll for ,hinl (amllog.y: }(IIII"III ,liftll. etc, l. ,lie ('0111;1111(' for III('I'OIlIimmlio" (possible the nominalizat ion of m,IIlY ,11(' IlIU ... ,lie ","IA' . /11(, .HlIi/.'. I..·/c. ). mtd "The have heen .wlth·,," (analogy: the cake should have heen ('alc',,) , Another elegant example of his word creations was 'I11f£'l'.'idllY. when he reasoned. "Actually. n''-Cf'Sc/lIY should come after Tuesdav."

He often -forgot the exact sound of words. ('.\'co\'{'ry fur ,Ji.\·('o\'('ry. IIU1I01I1;{' for tl/omic. iII"",illat('t! for h""i"al(',I. and gr('I:eI for prt'l:d. One of

9 .3 De\c!0plllclil 211-'

his charming examples occurred when he said that he would vote for an individual as ()f the United St:ltCS . "hecause lie Il1uch ('.\1'(.' '';111('111,''

me:tning ('.\·pcrh'nCt..'. (These eX:lIl1ple .. OIrc reminiscent of the dilid deSl.!rihcd hy Peters 119771 who learned htnguage so dilTerently from most of the children descnbed in the literaturc up to thai time.)

Murk's articulation anu syntactical during period, so that his kindergarten teiu.:hcr dlt.1 not notil:'e any diftlcultic!o. unt il she lIIade "ware of thelll . A :It :lgc 5 % ye:lrs described him as "having good langwlge and ,enlence formation skills and min·

Some and synlactic problems, however. wcre still at agc 7. The dilTicult sound I()r him then \\-'as Ih. for whi .. :h hc either 1 or J: 7imhgit'illg . or Fi,,,,J,.. ,\·gi1'illg for Thmlksgiving. andfi"." for Ihom . He still created sentence annnmlies. such as. "( don't think he li\'es in thai house (111\' lOll}! 1110,.(, " ; "You can hurp. hilt 110 OIU' ami h('w :v it": and "'I.JU ",Iumldll; ulII/pla;",,',I,"

Hi"learning to German wenl evcn more !-.lo\\'ly, As hi!ot English-speaking developed. he lIlore and more English to his piuent.s. A strange

cOllllllunic.llion evolved in which the German to him Hlld he replied in English , 11 if he werc ohli\' inus 10 their input. Yct Ihis could not actuall) have been the ,juce hi, vcry <lppropriale answers 10 their Ger· man that he had them well . 1·lis of German continued to grow. and he l ';UllC to uflderstund very cOlllplieHtcd and abstmct

On those .. however. when he t.Jit.l !oopC::lk in Gcrman he made o\'cr-and woru creations to hc WHuid make when !ooJlCak-

in!:! Engli!'lh. He many English word!'l in his German. often adding German gramllmtical endings to Englbh wonh. as illihe I(lllowing "la. kh Imh da ge.\"l1l11}:cn worden," ("Yes. I got thcre ,") "Wic viele luhre wird:, IlI.'iIen'!'· ("How many years will it last'!'") Typical suhslitutinns that he maue were thc English pronouns lie and .\"111: I(lr their German equivalents, for eXilmple. "He geht lur Schule: bevor .'ill(' hat gekormllen."

Upon return from a vbit to Germany al .age () (!'ICc the next his mol her wrotc about his German:

he gets nut very nil'e phmsc .... IhclI he lrouhle with vllCahulilry and \\ ilh gml1lmar. He usc ... the Engli.!ooh IIlIer 11/.:.' ncarl) evcr) third wunl . whilc "'rcJ(..ing in Gcrll1l1l1 . He 11111.'11 u"'c:-' wl)rds. 11()wever. if hc is SII)(l(lcd anll a!'!(..cd rllr (he Gcrn1il11 word. he e.lI1 come up wilh it. It i ... :IS if'he I::.ngh"ih wonl ... werc more rc'ldil) :w,.il:lhle .

With M1Tlle erfort hc oftcn could retrieve the German , For example. Mark had jusl linishcu bru,hing hi, Icelh :

M,\ Rti: , Dnddy. want to me'! DAD. Oh. Du riedlSl ", frisch . (011 . YOII .<11"'// .1"11 '/;"'.\11 . )

2U6 9 Bilsi, fur Individual Dlffcrcm:cs

MOM . Mark, wie riceltst Du'! (How do you .'iIIIt'II,!) MARK . Very good . MOM, Sag's auf deulsch , (Say it ill Gem"", , ) MARK . Sehr gul. (l'b'Y lIood. ) MOM . Was hal I'dppa gesag!'! (W/WI did Dadd.\· ,my?) MARK. So frisch . (Sofres" .)

In sum. at age 7. his speech was still highly variable-at times nuent. at times full of hesitations and disnuencies. bordering on stamnlering. This variahility seemed 10 he a funclion of the ideas he W<1S cxpressing- how cOTnplex Ihcy were and how oflen he had already put Ihem inlo words. Since he enjoyed speaking and delighled in lalking aboul his abundanl ideas. Ihe difficulties were not so nolice-ablc to Ihe casual ohserver. Yct the analyses of the speech samples that follow show thaI he still had greater difficulty in pUlling his Ihoughls into words Ihan his sister had at the same age.

9.3.1.4 Visils 10 Germany Every other year the family went on visits to Germany, During these visits Mark's use of Gennan increased markedly. especially on the trip just before his seventh birlhday, On Ihal Irip it was nOliced Ihal wilhin a 2-week perind (I) he spoke mainly German 10 German people and adopted the dialect intonation spoken in the area (which differed from his parents' dialecl); (2) his skill in speaking Gennan was not obviously dc1:lyed compared to that of the other German chil-dren wilh whom he played; and (3) his use of English dropped markedly. and he spoke now in German to his parenlS and used English only 10 lalk wilh his sister when they were not wilh olher children . Upon relurnmg to Ihc UnJled Slates. he look sevemlmonlhs 10 revcrl to his old pall ern of speaking mainly English 10 his parents while they !'Ipoke German 10 him . Interesting is the that he retained the dialect intonation. that is, the tune of the language. for a fairly long period of lime. . .

Sally showcd much less nuelu.tion in her language usc than Mark. Whtlc to Ihe United States. she responded in German when spoken to in German hy her par-ents and their friends. On visits to Germany. she retained lhis pallcrn. merely extending it to her playmates. On her return to the United States. she would again continue speaking German when to in Gcrnmn.

9.3.2 Speech Sum pies

Samples of the two children's in txllh of their languages were obtained when they were 6 years old - :I time when Mark's obvious speaking difficulties in Engli>h had all bUI vanished . The selling for Ihe samplcs in Ihe Iwu languages differed greally. The English ;ample was oblained in school by Ihe pe"on who had administered many of the tests descrihcd in the next section, It was a rela-tively structured conversation in which. among other things. the children were asked to look at a wordless picture hook. tu describe the events. and then to retell the :-.tory. The German sample obtained fr0l11 taped breakfast convcr!"lations.

9.4 Language .mu Cngnilivc Tcst Dala 207

Table 9-2. Results of Language Samples"

MLU (wnnh) f\:1:IZC wnrd!t/wurd, Gmlnll1alll' .. 1

Engli'h SaUl' Mark

6 .4 1l.(19 (l.US

5 (} 0 . 17 tl. 13

German SaUy Mark

S.H 4.9 0.0.1 (1.20 0 .0] tl.67

l1tblc 9-2 presents Ihe re;ullS uf Ihe analyses. The mea;ure of mean lenglh of utterJnce (MLU) showed that Mark mnde somewhat !'Ihorler utterances than Sally in English, He used twice as many maze words - that is "urns." repetitions, and false slart!"l - amJ made nearly three lime'\ as nmny grammatical errors. The pattern was identical in Gcrman. hut more pronounced. Again Mark had shorter ulterances. nearly 4 t hues as many male and 20 times us many gmmmat i-cal errors. Thus, although the interaction'\ and the settings from whieh the sam-ples in the two languages were differed greatly. Mark's with speaking them were iuentil'al.

9.4 Language and Cognitive Test Data

The!<.e data arc supplemented by a number or language. memory. and cognitive ahility tesls, Unless mentioned. the test", were all given when thc children were betwccn the ages of6 1/z and 7. EXl:epl for the paircd·associilte test. the tests have 'lge norms, and the children\ performance is us their relative standing within their age group. Theoretically Ihis standing. such as the pcrl'entile rank. :-.h(luld not change greatly ()Vcr time. EXl:ept t{lr the GCflnanlan-guage tcst, the tests were administered individually in English by a psychol11e-Irisl. The German test was administered hy their mother.

9.4.1 Cognitive Ability Tesls

BOlh children were given Ihe SIan ford Binct Inlelligence Tesl. Sally when she WitS

41h and Mark when he was 2112. Both scored in thc superior range of intelligence. On the Ravcn's Pmgressive Matrices Tesl. :1 nunverh .. 1 reasoning tcst, txJth chil-dren performed at the 99th percentile. In short. they hf.ld similar levels of cognitive ability. Mark look the Goldschmid-Ilentler Concept Formalion Test. a IcslofPi,,-getiancngnitivedevelopment. 'It age 5. He had 11 perfect conservation score, which according to Piagelian findings typically only happens around the :Iges 7 or 8.

9.4.2 Language Test.

The children were given Ihe Illinois Test of Psycholinguislic Ahilily (ITPA) for their dcvelopment of English nnd the Heidelberger SprOlehentwicklung!\(cst

5 c • • ..

English

TACL PPVT

COMPREHENSION

CEll AudU. Memory UTPAI

ELICITED IMITATION

9-1. Milr}.. \. amI performance nn English language IC ... ls .

(H .S. E·T) for German. Both children performed well on the ITPA. obtaining lunguagc (aver;.lged across "hove the 90th percentile. (Mark had been given the ITPA once beforc. when he W.IS 4 His percentile rank on thai earlier was nol significilOtly different from that on the later tC\ling.) Their perrormance on the German was lower. hut within the avemge range for their age. Thus. Sally and Mark did not differ greatly from each other when .111 average was taken of their pcrrnrmancc!-I across a series of different language tnsks.

The!\e re!-lulls !'ocemto contmdkt the ohserv;.llions ahove. However. the follow-ing. more tine-grained analysis will explain why the a\'erage perrormances were not different. Figure 9·1 shows their performance on two comprehension mea-sures. On the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language (TACL). hoth chil· dren obtained a at the 99th percentile rank. On the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Sally perllmlled at Ihe 85th percentile. and Mark at the 86th percentile. Thus. there was no dilTerence between them on these English comprehension tasks. The picture. however. is very different on elicited imita-tion on the Carrow Elicited Language Inventory (CEll) . Sally was able to repeat

9.4 LilllgUilt;C ;md Cognili\'c 'le,1 n.n:l

99

95

German H-S"E-T

20<)

• Sally o Mark

501--'--'--·_··1 40 30

20

10

Grammar Story Retell "conlenl-

COMPREHENSION

Ellcit.d Imitation

Sentence Formulation

PRODUCTION

9 2 ilnd Sillly\ pcrfi"lflnillll'C on German langlwge Ic!oots.

back the senlenccs :'Iccumlely, oht'lining a perccllIilc nmk score or9H. Mark. in contrJst. hOld diflkulty wilh such repetition and only nhwincd a percentile rank 01'42. (Mark's percentile rank Oil this lest at age 41/2 was virtually idenlicalto this later performance.)

Figure 9-2 shows the children's performance on similar language t:'lsks in German. The H-S-E-T has a section on grammar comprehension similar to the TACL. On this test we sec that Mark WilS actually better in comprehending German gramnmtkal constructions tlHln S:'llIy. Similarly, when a story-retclling tusk is scored in tcrms of contcnt units retold. Mark perform cd significantly better than Sally (90th "s. 42nd percentile. respectively). On a Gernmn elicited· imitation task. similar to the English CEll. hoth children had much more dim· cuhy imitating the Germ"n than the English scntences when their performance is compared to German chiklren of their age. Nevertheless. Sully was, as on the English test. significantly bettcr than Mark. Her imitation perfornmncc was at the 35th percentile, whereas his performance only reached the 7th percentile. On the formulated sentences task. a Hlsk on which children :'Ire given two words

210 9 Biologicnl Ba'\i:-. fur Individual

and must compose a sentence using those words. Sally obtained a percentile rank of 98. while Mark scoreu in the averJge mnge.

The sharp conlrdst between Mark's language comprehension skills and his pro-duction skills is besl shown on Ihe slory-relelling lask on Ihe H-S-E·T. Here Mark remembered the semantic content of the story extremely well: however. in his relelling of Ihe slory he used shorler senlences Ihan Sally. he made many more gnsmmatical errors per utterance-more than five limes as many-and he used a high percentage of translated words. whereas Sully used nonc.

Mark's t1ifficully in retrieving the sounds of words is seen in his aHempl al retelling Ihis slory. In recalling Ihe differenl things Ihat Ihe prolagonisl found. he used five different forms for the same semanlic concept. namely. Iwdjinmd. which in the German story version was always encoded as IllIt gefilluled (the tl

pronounced as injoo/) , The firsllime he used approprialely hlll gejwlded. In Ihe next uHemnce. he swilched 10 jillli (Ihe i pronounced as in ill : Ihis is Ihe verb stem of the German presentlense). The third time he creatcd his own past tense. gejilUlell. (lhe i again pronounced as above). Thcn hc crcaledjillul (Ihe /( as in joo/), and finally he u,ed Ihe English wordjmll/t!. All oflhese forms hc produced within two minutes. to describe whal had been encoded each time in the story as Iwt gej",uicli.

9.4.3 l ... lemury TcsL.

The difficulties with elicited imitation can he vicwcu as a difficuhy with verbal short-term memory as verbal short-term memory is Iypically measured by per-formance on cliciled repelition lasks (sce Chapler 7). If Ihis is indeed Ihe casCo Ihen Mark should also have more difficulty on olher lasks Ihal lap verbal shorl-term memory.

9.4 .3_1 Repelilion of Unrelaled Words The children were given Ihe Unrelaled Words Repelilion sublesl of Ihe Detroit Tesl of Lcarning Aplitude. On Ihis lesl children hear strings of unrelatcd words of increasing length amI have to repeat them back. Mark scored 8 monlhs below his chronological age, whereas Sally scored I year and 9 months above her age.

9.4.3.2 Digil Span Mark had much grealer difficulty wilh Ihe repel ilion of numbers on Ihe ITPA Ihan Sally. He oblained a percentile score of 34. whereas Sally oblained a per-cenlile ,core of 66 (scc Figure 9-1) . On an earlier lesling of Ihe ITPA. al age 4!h . Mark showed even grealer difficulties wilh digil span . falling below Ihe 20lh percenlile.

9.4.3.3 P.Jired-Associale Learning Both children were given a paired-associate task when they were 6 1h. The task consisled of remembering five pairs of nonsense syllables_ Mark remembered only one pair ufter the first presentation and took five trials to rcmember all five.

9.5 RCiUJing Dc\'clopI11Cnl 211

In contrasl. Sally rememhered Ihrce pairs after Ihe firsl trial and all five afler Ihe second trial .

From the difficulties that Mark had un these verhal memory tests. we can con-clude that his difriculty wilh elicited !'tcntencc imitation is not restricted 10 a specific difficulty with the aspcct!'t of Ihe elicited sentence-imitation but appears to be due 10 a more general memory problem which affects his abilily 10 imilale .,cries of ' peech sounds.

9.4 .3.4 Vi,ual Memory

To sec whether Mark's mcmory problem was re!'ttricled to verbal items. or whether it was an even more fund'lmcntal mcmory problcm. including visual processing, his perrormance un visual memory was assessed . He was given thc Visual Sequenlial Memory Tesl frnrn Ihe ITPA. In Ihis lesl Ihe child is brieOy shown a sequence or nonsense line dmwings and is asked In reconslrucl Ihe sequence from memory by selecting chips that have the nonsense line dmwings printed on them. Mark's visual memory was excellent. He obtained the lOP possi-ble scorc for age group. He was also given the Visual Motor Free Test. Again his performance was very high, ohtaining the be!'tl (XJssihle scnre.

9.4.4 Summary or Ti.'St Findings

From the tests findings, we M!C that

(I) Mark alld Sally have similar general inlelleclual ahililies: (2) Mark's comprehension ofhoth English Gernmn is excellent and «()mpaTa-

hIe 10 Sally's; (3) Mark has difliculty wilh certain a,('Ccls of speaking, and Ihis difficully is

present in hoth languages: (4) Mark's dUficuh)' with language production seems to be associated with

poorer shorHerm memory and (5) M.nk's memory diflkuhy seems to he reMriclcd In verbal cuntent.

9.5 Rcading Dc\'elopmcnt

The preschool in which Mark and Sally were enrolled uscd Ihe Monlcssori approach to reading, a very well-planned synthetic phonics program. Differences in the case with which Ihe children learned to read were already noticeable in Iheir preschool reporl ju,1 before Ihey were 5 years old , The preschoollearher wrole aboul Sally. "Sally has proceeded mpidly Ihrough Ihe Mm'eahle Alphabel exercises and made a smooth Imnsitinn intn reading." Two years later the same leacher wrole aboul Mark. "Work wilh Ihe Moveable Alphabel conlinues In improve. He is able to compose three letter phonetic words by dictation ur hy using piclure cards. His abilily 10 isolale sounds in words has improved . He would

212 9 Biologic .. 1 BiI:'ii, ljx lrulividu.tI D,flcrences

benefit rront continued auditory training in distinguishing beginning. mcdial. and linal sounds in words."

Sally learn cd to read withuut difficulty and without the help urher mothcr. Dy the time she was 6%. she was reading hooks like C!",rlotle:f 110bb and Pi""i UmliJIOckillli by herselr. ror pleasure. For Mark. on the other hand . Icarning to read was very arduous, hordering on painful. His mother tried 10 help him in dir!'erent ways. but it scemcd as irnothing worked. A diary report by the muthcr written when Mark was 6% years old (an age al which his classmates were already reading wcll) rcads:

His perforrnullce is so varicd. I really think Ihilt Mark slum's us how reading is linked In the e4lse of accessing word!-o. He i'i not good ilt l.lrticulating wurns properly. Important point though is that evcn though articulation 1Il:1} hc a prohlcm. it mlly nut hc thc way to rcmcdy the reuding delu),.

(Actmilly lhis reporl was written just at the beginning stages of an approach Ihat in the end became vcry successrul with Mark : ,ce Speidel. in preparatiun .)

The children wcre given the Gates ·McGinitie Reading Test. Level A, when they were 7 years old. Sally obtained the maximum scure possible un that test. which translated into a reading performance typical of chl1dren at the middle of third grade. Her actual reading perrormance was probably a year higher as csti· mated by her performance on laler administrations of lests wilh higher ceilings. Mark perrormed at the level typical or the middle or lirst grade. This was only V, year below his chronological age. but more than 2 ycars helow his mental age (ir his approximale IQ of 130 at age 7 is converted to OJ mental age score).

The description or dyslexics by Critchley (1981) litted Mark's reading behavior well: slow rcading with hesitation in decoding unfamiliar ur polysyllabic words. mirror Icucr cunfusions. omission of short words like .uticles. misreading 'he for a or tlri.,' for IlulI, of words for words that appear similar, and substi-tution of words for other words thai have more or less the same meaning , Mark • howed the typical dys lexic symptoms or letter and word reversals . rcading for [dt. IfU.\· for ,\'(lH', and erer), for l'cry. ;'lnd so forth . He wuuld also substitute words for other words Ihat had a similar meaning, but looked very dirlcrcnl graphically, reading/ox for wolf. lI'lI/C.'" for Jea. and cifmill for frightt'",!/I . IIIWlS

(,s ifhis ";,fl",lmclllor), oj,he graphic l'l..'prcs{'lIItl1ioll o1'",e word \l'lIS com"!(.'Icl/ 10 ;(,\' s{'mt""k n!I'rt.·sclIIlIlitm wit/lOut ,,,(' ,,/umc/i(.' rt'!1r(';fCllfmhm .

Several lindings from reading research <Ire relevunt to Mark's situation. First, like Murk, children with reading delay have difliculty with elicited !-Ientence imi· tat ion (e,g .. Mann. 1984: Mann & Liberman. 1984; Speidel & Power. 1987). Sccond . children who have dirliculty learning to read have trouble with pho· nemic awareness (e ,g .. Bmdley & Bryant. 1983: Dryant. 1986; Stanovich. 1986: Stanovieh. Cunningham. and & Cramer. 1984) . Although thc term "frOlwllir awareness suggests an ability to process incoming speech sounds. the tasks that arc actually used to assess it require highly developed and nexible speech·sound production skills. Phonemic-awareness tusks, ror example, ask. "Listen to the word !Jail: iryou take away the Ibl sound what word is lertT ' ur. "Say the word cal ;

(J,n De\'elopment,,1 Dysphasiil, Short-Term Memory. iliHI Articulatiun Prohlcms 213

now say the word til . What sound is missing from ill'!" BOlh the elicited sentence imitation and the phonemic-awareness wsk would seem to require facility in speech prOOuc'ion, that is. in accessing Ihe !-oJlCech-phmning networks.

Evidence ror the involvement of articulatory proces!-Ics in learning to read comes rrum the linding that direct articulatory Imining may help (Byrne. 1984: Lindamuod. 1985: Lundberg. Frost. & Peterson . 1988). Relevant here is alsu Daddeley's (1976: 1986) work . which views short-term verhal memory. such as elicited verbal imitation. as requiring Ihe operation of an articuilltory loop. Not only can increased verbal memory span in childrcn be traced to the developmcnt of articulatory skill, but also suppression of articulution will shorten verbal memory span (sec Baddeley. 1986. 1(" a review urrelevant studies) . With respect to reading. Daddeley (1986) hrings evidence to support his hypothesis that in learning to read one must draw upon this short-term articulatory storage system. Reviewing a series or studies on short-term verb.1I memory problems of children with reading delay. he concludes that these 4.:hildren "l1lay have an impairment of the functioning of the :trliculalory loop nmking it difficult 10 relain Ihe sequence or .ounds" (I'. 218) .

Even though Mark's articulation difliculties were nn longer obvious at this <lge, the mother's diary rcpnrt .lhnve suggesls that they were not lolally resolved. 11 is quite likely. thercrore. that his difliculty with speech· sound retrieval and pnxluc. lion is Ihl! basis or his problems wilh learning 10 read ,

9.6 Developmental Dysphasia, Short-Term Verbal Memory, and Articulation Problems .

Mark's d ifliculties in learning to speak were similar III those of children with developmental dysphllsia. although much less pronounced . These children hllve no gencral intellectual prohlems. hut their language is delaycd . Like Mark. these children have difficulty with elicited sentence imitation (Menyuk & Looney . 1976) . For inslallce, they will make the t(llluwing errors in imitation:

MOlh-i HO\\' will he get there'.' When will he come? They won't play with l11e. I can't sing.

Imi/alioll How he will gel there? When he will come'! They not play with me. I nn can sing.

Menyuk and Looney (1976) argue that the kinds or errors these children make suggest that they "relain representations of the sem.lntie aspects ofthes:e ."entencc types. how to express them. and little more." They hypothesize that this distorted decoding capacity is the result of limils on immediate memory.

Thcsc limits dn nnt a11o", timc for stnmgc of thc complelc phmsc or scnlcncc IIno a dccpcr anillysi!-o thun that required tn dcrivc l1Ieuning-hc:aring clcmcnts , . . One l"annnt even logically speculate noollt why Ihcse differenccs in lan-gUilgc procc)lsing cxist betwcen the two group, uf chlldrcn, hut c:m IInly !ttntc

216 'J Uitllugical fur 10lh\'idu:,1 Diffcrem:(.'"S

dyslexic children'! Docs it have anything to do with the organization of the hem;-'pheres Ilf Ihe Although in aduhs Ihere is evidence Ihal differenl menial function" lire loc:'lli7.cd ill different r ilfts of the two hemispheres. the on thinking modes of the !-ouch as analytic procc!-.sing by the left hemisphere and J:eJllIlt processing by Ihe righl. receive lillie ,uPP0rl (Cnrhallis. 1980. 1983: Gazzaniga. (987) . According 10 Cnrhallis (1983). Ihe only verillahle differences between the hemispheres at the outset of development is thai the h'fi hl'mi.\l'lu!rc ;J /JL'ller Ihall till' right at Ihe molOr platlllillg/t·.\'CCUliOIl of·'iII1ll1I jille sel/'WIICt'.\' o/mOl'l'tIl{'III,\'. This advantage wou\d make it the preferred hl!misphcrc for the locali7.lltion of s[lCcch.

It seems likely Ilml the origins nf Icft-lh!l1lisphcric spcciuli1.atiun arc motur r.lthcr than pcrccpulal. itsclfis most tllwinusl), iI motor phenmllc-lion , , . . the common ingredicnt underlying !o.JlCcch .lI1d the dtllllill<ml pmxi l' functions of the left cercbml hcmispherc uppcars 10 Ill! fine ('om»l/ 01'('''

sct/m'uaJ .if m ·U. Speaking. wriling. Ihrn\\'lng. and ilcllons described <l!<i l1Iilnipuhlli\'c all rCtluirc prccisc tcmpoml coordm.lliun . (p. (2)

In Chaptcr 7 it was indicated huw incredihly complex the neural activity for making. speech sounds is. sume sounds invulving the coordination of 35 or more musclc!l (Hardcastle. 1976). Making specch soundl-o rcquin.!!{ central spa-lial coordinale neuml syslems (Edwards. 1984: Kelso. Tuller & Barris. 1983: MacNeilage. 1970). or wlml i, called here Ihe speech-planning nClwllfks. If Ihe neuromuscular proccsses for planning or making speech S(lUnOS arc Ic!'Is erncie"l . or their aCCC!lS less available. then. it is argued. the dc"elopmcnt of lhe speech production system will be slower (given Ihe same amount (If input and practice). Anolher possibilily. suggested hy Liberman ami M,,"ingly's (1985) work . i,lhal the connections between the incoming and the networks arc not as efficient and Ihe activation of the incoming speech-snund networks cannot guide the dcvelopment of the speech-planning networks as ea,ily. Consequenlly. in children like Mark and in developmentally dysplmsic children. there may be either some annnmly in the auditory/speech areas of the left hemisphere. or some factor that interreres with the usual dominance or Ihe left hemisphere.

Recent research in developmental neurology and in dyslexia Illay throw some light on this issue. Postmortem analmnical examinat ion of brains of individuals known to have hccn dyslexic has reve'llcd that their bmins arc structurell somc-what differenlly from "normal" hrains. Typically. thefJlmllllll 1t.'IIl/}(u·uh'-an area in the cortex in which language. particularly auditory function,. arc localized - is larger in Ihe left Ihan in Ihe righl hemisphere. Galahurda (1986) has consistenlly found Ihal in Ihe hrains of dyslexics Ihe planumlemporale is equally large in bolh hemispheres. Moreover, Ihe planum lemporale in these dyslexic brains had abnormalities. such as dysplasias and ectopias. These were usually found more often in Ihe len planum lemporale Ihan in Ihe righl (Galahurua. 1986: Rosen. Sherman , & Galaburd" . (986) . A, Rosen el al. (1986) indie"le. Ihese kinds of

I) .X PUII:ng lilgclhcr Ihe Plcce", til' Ihc Punic 217

anonmlies arc notllllique to however. the time during development that they occur and their OInatmnicalloclition may be. Such anomalies may interfere with the de"chlpment of the usual cerehral dOlninance of the portion of the left hCI11h.pherc related 10 :-;pccch pl 'lnning and thcreby may slow the development of the specch motor-planning networks.

Onc thenry links these neurological .lIlol11alic'i: in 10 immune dis-orders. Animal analugue rcsearch has shown that immune-mediated reactions during geswtion nmy result in nUcrcd brain tissue resemhling lhal found in the planumlempnrale or dyslexics (Galahur"a. 1986: Rosen el:.l .. 1986). Epidemio-logical support this nOlinn : A HIlrly relationship hClween dyslexia and imlliune diMlrders well as ("cli:lc disc:t'c IHis hcen nhscrved (Geschwind & Behan. 1984). .

Clearly. we arc here on highly spccuhllivc ground . Articulatory prohlel1l!'ll1lay he cOJu!led hY'1 vOiriety or other environmcnlul /conMitul ion:li problems. A prime candidate Ii.lr .",uch anolher faclor ill articul .llory difficultic. ... is (Hitis media. ()r middle-car infection. These inrcctions ure related 10 languagc delay (e.g., Feagans el al .. in pre,s; Friel-I'-Jlli el al .. 1982: Iie",h . Plell, & Tibbels. 1987: Menyuk. 1985) . However. although il seems plmlsihlc to OIfgue tlmt car infections cause language delay. it nmy he thaI I he car infect ions and hlllgw.lge deli.ly arc connected in sume other way. (Sec Feagans el al.. in prcs",. for a of models.) Thai the rclationship may not he il directly calls .. tive one in every case i.' M.pported hya reporl hy Finilzn and Friel-Palli (1987) . who rounu a group of dllluren with sevcre otil is mcdil.l hut no );:lJ1guagc delay. Moreover. the incidence ofnnc or morc or medm in Ihe infmll pOpulHlion is high. around 75 '1r • of which 50?} 10 75% cun bt.! without overt symptollis and cun go unnoticed (Man:h,lJ1t et al.. 1984: SchwOIrt7 . Slool. Rmlri1:!uel , & Grundfuslcr. 1981 ).

\Vilh M.nk. the c.tr infecliuns were prnhanly sc!.:nndary. His language delay was noticed hef(lre the car infections hegan . series of c.tr infeclions. which occurred during hcr first 24 months of lile. would seem to have occurred during 'a prime language-developmcnt time. and yet she did not Nhow any signs of lan-gU<lge dehlY. Moreovcr. Mnrk showed no <.:mnprehcnsinn problems or inattention 10 language. which Feagan", (1986) suggests rncdi.ttes the later speaking prohlel1ls of children who have a history of prc"ioll' media olitis. However. the ear lions cannni be ruled oul ti!'l being the nrigimll cause in the slower developmenl of Mark:, speech .

9.8 Putting Together the Pieces of the PU7.zle

Although this ca!lC study many inleresting points for d iscussion guallnnguage le • .arning. wc will f"cus here on the lhfferent way!o. in which the two children's langunges developecJ and on Ihe pO!'lsihle rcnsons I(lr these differences. From the divcrse of inlormation aho\'e . 01 nllhcr clcllr piclure emerges of how their language learning proceeded . Mark's comprehension nrn("('".I",1 ",pll

21H l) lur Indi"i\luOl( Differences

and \\fa", as good as, if nnt better than. Sally·s. However. there wcre marked differences in the way (heir speaking dcvclo[ll.!d. Mark did not show the Iypical repetitive babbling during his prcword stage. Once he began tn .ItICmpt words. he had vcry unclear articulation. which m'lde the unucrst,lOding of his speech moSi difliculi . Whcn his specch became inlclligible, word-order problems hccamc evidenl. His initial stammering then itself into less pronounced speech distlucncics. He used many ovcrgcncmli7.allOnS ami word crc.niuns. Sally. in conlr.lSI. ditJ not show these dirticultics 10 any noticeable degree. grealer difficully with speaking tlmn with comprehension was evident in h01h of his languages.

Interpreting these ubservations in terms urlhe three-network language model, Ihe faci Ihal Mark's comprehension of Ihe Iwo languages devcloped as well as Sally's suggests that (he incoming speech-sound networks fur buth langUi.lges and the meaning networks. as well as the interconnection between these two network systems. were oevcloping al it similar rate in the two children.

Marl's difliculty with learning 10 !otpcak must. thererore. rencct some kind of diflicully in Ihe developme", uf Ihe 'peech.planning nelworks andlor Ihcir acce,"ibilily by Ihe meaning nelworks. The lack uf repclilive babbling in Mark can be sccn as Ihe I1rsl indicalion of Ihis basic diflicully wilh Ihe ,pecch-planning network.!' . Once he began to allcmpt speech. he had trouble with articulation and stammcred. His speech-evaluatiun rerurt described his speech as "very small oral movements:' Having difficulties with OIrticulatiun. Mark may have had trouble producing speech sounds while Ihe acoustic traces in the incoming speech-sound networks were still active. This. in turn. may have led tn poorer immediate verbal imitation.

Mark was aware nfhis memory problemli.1r limJing the !'>ounds llrwords. Once. Iheir !illher suggesled lu Mark and Sally Ihallhey lea," French . Mark answercd immcdialely, "Bul Ihcn I'll furgel my English . When I ,poke English, I forgul German." Anuther time. his mother became frustmted by the fact that Mark would always rcply in English when she spoke German 10 him, and shc askcd him why he didn't speak German tn her. I-Ie answered thai he had trouble remember-ing the German words and Ihal if he had 10 speak German he would Slulier. Anolher incidenl happened when Mark had made a prinl oflhe palm "fhis hand.

MARK. They look like vinc!'> (poilllillJ: 10 Ihe lim's Oil 'he prilll) . MOriIER. Veins. you mean'! (Molher "'.fpOlu/l'd ill !J,','aus" Jilt' "'tiS cllri-

011.\ ahow lhis e,.rol'. ) MAHK . Yea. veill'i. MoniER. Why did you say vlnes'! MARK. Bccause they sound alike and I didn't remember.

The facllhal Mark had diflicully wilh all kinds of shorHerm verbal memory tasks, thai is. he had trouble not only wilh repeating back sentences but al,;o repeal ing back digits and unrelated words ami learning to pair nonsense syllables. suggc!'>ts that his memory difficuhy was not rc!'>trictcd to syntax. but that it

9 N PUlling (he Piece .. of the 219

involvcd ;.IOything in v.'hkh he had to !'>Inre. for a hricflil11e.lhc nfspeech. This inlerpreHllion is consblenl wilh Baddeley and HilCh's (1974) and Baddeley's (1976. 19R6) notiun thai !'>hort-tefln verbalmcmory span is a runction ofa work-ing memory .IOU an Ul'licll/ulor" re/Il'ur.wllotlp. which :lctS"" a ".sliIVC system" and !'>upplemcnb the limited cupacitics of working memory (eL Speidel. Chapter 8 this: \'olume) ,

To skirt his handicap in recalling or the sounds of words. he used whatever other knowledge and cogniti\'c slills hc had .. I his disposal. He took advantage of the frelluent features of language: l'e1yi"g Iwad/.\' 011 lIlIa/ogie ,.('uwm;lIg. he relrie\'ed Ihe Ino!'>t commoll or forms I()r expres!'>ing the mcaning clements or his though'- he had many overgeneraliz.l-tions in both bound morpheme!'> and syntax . I-lis word crelltioJls can alMl bc secn ali the u!'>e of analogy tn lind wordli when the eXiu..:t of the words could not be Hcce!'>!'>ed in the s(lCech-pl.mning !'>)'Mem. He truly ut times "re-created" ;IS

Grimm Ihe speech sound!'> from 'he: pieces thaI were I11m,t readily accessihle to him al the mOlllent.

If.:.1\ a numher or language rcsearcher" have suggested (e,g,. Brml,m and Fraser. 1963: R. Clark. 1977: Grimm, 19K6: Menyuk & Luoney, 1976: Nelson, 19K7: Speidel . Ch.lpter 7. this \'{lIume). (lIle nced,,, a ,"itoreh(lUse of retllettlbercd phrase.s for thc induction of syntactic rules. thclI difl1culty with immediate imitution means difliculty with developing this Morehouse ror huilding syntactic patterns. The strange syntax that M • .trk ;md developrilcntally dysplwsi..: ..:hildrcn show dur-ing learning can be !\een the rc!tult of the memury prohlem. Shorter phrases. frC(IUeney. analogy. saliency. and cl1lOIionallarnllsallevcl are prnh;lhly somc of the ructors a!Teeting children',s retrieval when Frc4ueney in terlll"i uf identical repetition of II word or !'>entencc is perhaps not as impOrlmll ali fre-quency by analogy. either in form of linguistic putlCTI1"i. !'>ound similarity. or their cOl11hinntioll ( .. ee Moerk. Chapter 12, Ihis \,olume).

Mark's !<Ieemingly !'>tri.lnge way of resJlond1l1g in English when his pi.lrents spnke tn him in Genmm can he cxpl .. incd :IS li.lIlow!'>: Hili Genmm incoming spcech-sound lIetwork unu its integratiun wilh thl! me.ming networks were well devcl-oped. !-It} that his comprehension of German was high. However. either his !'>pcech-pl:mning network for Englr!'>h !'>peech MlUnds WH!t much more developed than the network Ii.>r German. or the Engli!'>h !'>pcech-planning network was 1110re readily. 1110re automatically .u..'ces!'>ihle to the mcaning nctwork!'>. The truth may lie Mllllewhere in hetween. The r.lct that on his visits to Germuny he quickly heg,1It tu !'>pcak GeTllH1Il fuirly well sugge\ts thai the TlHlIly yei.lrs or hearing GeTman had helped tn develop. at least to some extent. his German Spcccll-planning network willlOlII nmMa,,1 OI'f"-' pI(I('/;n- (sec activation Pat-tcrn D, Chapler 7).

With lime. wilh 1110re inpul and more practice. Mark's English·speaking skill bcg:m to apprnxinmtc hili In other word!'>. hi!\ networks and their intcgration with the meaning networks developed 10 a point where speaking prohlcll1s were not readily cvidl!nt. The role of Hutollmticity in this:

120 9 niul"l,!ic<l1 Bitsis rur Imh\'iLlual Dlrtcrcnccs

development is slulwn in his differential uscs of English and German. Thc access-ing (or retrieval) of (he speech-planning networks hy the meaning networks is not all-or-none. but is delermincd by other simult'lI1cous cvents in Ihe hrain. such as Ihe similarity hetwcen Ihe cues during learning and relrieval and how much other work the limited processing system is doing (see Bock. 1982; Bohannon & Stanowic7.. Chapler 6. this volume: Speidel & Herreshofr. Chapter 8. this volume). Thus. ullhough hy the limc MOIrk was 6 his morc automatic and effort-less way of cxprc"'!<Iing his thuughh Wll!ol in English. he was often cap<lble of accessing the German equivalcnt when he auended to the ta!<lk: thai is. when his centntl processor-working memory-was focused on the retrieval task.

Mark's difficulties. we SilW. next manifested Ihemselves in his learning to read. In the way that children Iypically learn 10 read. print comes 10 he associated with Ihe speech sounds of the language. Lcarningln read should therelhre involve the speech-planning network. and one would expect lhal delay in the developmcnt of this nctwork be rencclcd in slower rC<luing 'IC4uisition.

Although by age 6 Mark's spcel.·h WilS rairly Iluenl, one reason for his rcading dirficulty may be Ihat his speech-planning networks werc nol yel as ,Iutonmlic or as dcveloped as his siSler's. Somc evidcnce for this is the fllct th.1I he still had some arliculatory sound subslitutions up In the age of 7. Thc di.lry report in which his mother was pondering his prohlems with reading also suggests thut his <trticulalory systcm Was nol hHally in pl.lce whell he was learning to read. Finally. his elicited verhal intilalion pcrlilrmance at age 6 th was SIiII11lLlch lower than Sally's: A facl which. given Baddeley's (Baddeley. 1976. 1986; Baddeley & Hilch. 1974) work. probably renecls sOllie Iilrm or diflicully wilh Ihe articula-tory system or its accessihility.

Ifwe accept the hyptlihesis that the difference in the ease witll which Mark and Sally learned to speak is due 10 some basic difliculty associated with the spcech-planning networks. thcn the next question hecomcs. Wh:1l might be the cau!ooc of Ihi, diflicully'! The diflicully cannol be "nrii>uled 10 Ihe following ;

(I) dirferences in general cognitive ilhility. <IS thcy hoth h;ld simi!;.,r perfor-nmnces on intelligcnce tests :'lIId on nonverbal reasoning tests;

(2) bilingualism per sc. bccau.se Stilly had no special problcms in ICilrning to speak the two languOlges silllult:'l11colisly; and

(3) language-input differcnces hetween the two children. al le:lst not <IS the primary cause : It is highly unlikely that any differcnce in language input given to Mark and Sally was identical across bOlh languages as the input con-ditions in the two languages werc so different; yct. Mark showed in both languages the S;lIlte pattern of high comprehcnsiun ;and relatively slmvcr speech de\'c1opmcnl.

II seems. thcrelore, that language input and intellectual factors are not the primary causes of the ob!'oervcd differences in how the two childrcn learned to !'opcak, and th.lt we havc fairly !-Itmng cvidence lilr constitutional/neurological faclors :

'1,9 FOIl'lOf!<o Affl'l'tlllg Lc.lflung In .spc .. I.. 2:!1

( I) The hcginning ... of Mark's uirticultic!<I ,,'un be traced to a very cOIrly age. when hc showed no repctitive babbling. Therc i!-o lillic reason to suspect Ihat his environmcnt at thilt early age was MJ different from his sister's, bOlh being mainly cilred for by their grandmolher.

(2) Mark\ articuhlllon and verbal memory prohlcms arc similar In those of devclopmenlally dysphasic childrcn. allhlmgh Ic!\s pnlllilunccd. C(lOstitu-linnal f.aclnrs havc heen implictilo he tI c:lllse ufdY!<lphasit: children's difficul-lies (Grimlll_ 1986; Menyuk & 1."",ey. 1976).

(3) Mark's hlOguage ,lIld reading dil'licultic.!-o arc ... imilar 10 developmcntal dys-lexics. and like many dyslcxic!<l. he had chih.lhond celiac discllse. Recent research on dY!<llexia points to :'1 hiological C<:IU"'C, namely. anullmlies ill the ncural ti!'!slIe Ill' the languilge area!<l .

Allhough the picl:e ... of Ihe puzzle arc clearly IHH celllentcutogethcr with care-fully clmtmlktJ rC!<Icarch. they d(l lit quitc wcll ilm) Mtl11C picce:. arc OIlreCidy Hlirly wcll !<Iupportcd: (I) " biological basis for (2) the shorHerm verbal memory problem of children, and (3) the .!-ohort-term verhal mcmory and phoncmic·"w<lrcnes!<l pnlblct11s in re:lding delay. Bnnniltync (1976) has nlready put the pU7.llc piec-e!<l together for developfllentally children in a way !'oil11ilar to how they have heen put together in this study.

Moreovcr. wc have followed one olher hoy from birth until age 7 -a boy wilh a hackground thai diners in important ways from Mark's-a monolingual English- speaking. (lnly child (Spci,leI & Brandl. 19M7). This h(lY displayed Ihe idclllical pattern: cclhu; disease. no rcpetilivc babhling, unclcar speech and speech therapy. strange !'Iynlax. \\Turd crc.ttioll!'o with:1 heavy reliance Oil analogi -($II rC"!'Ioning. and re:'lding uclay with dY.!-ole1(ic !'IymptOll1s. Like Mark. he per. formed well on language comprehen!ooion Ie MS. wherem. on elicHed sentence illlilat ion he did vcry poorly.

Irwc look fIIore carefully. we will probahly !'iCC 1lli.lI1y more cascs like Mark's. For example. among the cxprcssive langui.lge·delayed ,:hiILiren stuLlieu hy \Vhilc-hur!<lt and his 'l!<Isociutc!<I (!<ICC \Vhitchur!<lt & DcO .. ryshe. Chaptcr t t. this volume). there llIay StUIIC children like Mark. However. not all such children will show all of Mark's dirlicultics in thc !'I'1II1C \\ny. Biologic,,1 act in sYfllhiosis with environmental and other con!<ltitutiollal I:u':hlr!'o. TlllIo;, celiac di.!-oca!'ic may not appear ifthc child is 1101 given the liM.lds. Dyslexia and ils mis-erable consequences lilr schooling will only he l11ilOifc.!-ot in socielie!'o in which there is un cmphasis on litemcy.

9.9 Faclors Arrccting Learning In Speak

The speed wilh which children learn 10 speak and Ihe level ,,1' skill "nained in speaking arc a function ofa number of factors, of which the dcgree or the initial dirliculty involving the !'opcech·planning ... is only nne. Marks\ longitudi-

222 'J BlOlogic .. 1 a.lsis fur Im.lividuill Dlffcrenl:cs

nal language development patlern shows that his initial difficulty with learning 10 speak decreases wilh age. Ily age 7 Mark"s difficuhy wilh English. his pre · rerred I:tnguage. was nOliceahle unly through c;.arcful :'1I1;'llysis of his speech, Although il is plausihle Ihal these improvements arc l1uc only 10 Ihe mafllrat;,m of his nervous system. another explanation. perhaps in cunjunclion with lion. is the following : Because of his dilTicuhy wilh the sJlCech·planning nel-works. Mark needed more input and more pmclicc opportunities than Sully for learning tn :o.peak .

It seems.thererore. that in the same way Ihal normal children's ahility to repeal back longer strings of words or sentences grows with more inpul and more pmc-lice (Iladdeley. 1986). dysphasic children's memory capacily will increase. Wilh time (more input ami more pmclicc). they should becume able tn store larger and larger chunks or language and evenwally should be able «I apply Ihe geslah-like language-learning slralegy Ihoughl 10 be so imporlanl by Grimm (1986) and 10 develop relalively normal synlax,

If speaking is seen as requiring memory. then the shorter the delay between hearing a word :.md first using it. the more likely it is that it will be remembered and retrieved in the future . hnrnediate imitation can he viewcd as immediate pmctke. as rehearsa' withuut tlelay. making later retrieval more prnbahlc. It would seelll. Ihererore. Ihal children who have a dinicully. like Mark. would benefil rrnm an illlilalive "ralegy (cL Snow. Chapler 4 . Ihis volume). Al fir" glance. however. Snow's data do nol seem (0 provide strong evidence for such a benefit. In her sample. imitativeness (the extenlln which an individualatlempts to imitale and accuracy in imi1Ution arc al hesll110derately related : The accurate hnitOitors arc not always highly imitat ive.

Huwever, the present hypothesis about initioll differences in ahility 10 imitate may us why this relationship is not a perfect one. If there arc differences in the efficiency with which the speech-planning nl!tworks develop (or in thl! efficiency of signal transmission helween the incoming speech-sound networks and the speech-planning networks). then those children with the more emdent systems will learn 10 nmke Ihe sounds of speedt morc quickly. and one could expcctthcir speech also to become coverlmore quickly. Thus. even though Ihey have good imitation abilily and may be prec(lCi(lU.s in their speech menl. they may not show much overt immediate imitation (sec Snow. Chapter 4 . this volume). Consequently. il is possibh' ,full an'rf imiw,iotl i.\· tml.r importa", filr !('umi"g to speak fin' children ",ho Kl't'ater ;"itial difficulty ",i,h wakillg Sp('(' ( '" .WIIIU!S. The role thai mothers appear 10 play in developing the imitative-ness of their child (cr. Masur. Chapter 3. this volume: Uzgiris et al.. Chapter 5. Ihis volume) may he parlicularly imporWllllilr children who have difficuhy wilh art iculat ion and verhal memory.

DilTercnces in inlelleclual abililY will also affecllhe degree hI which Ihe inil ial diflicuhy wilh arliculalion arrecls Ihe rale of learning hI speak and final speech attainment. Derhulst-Schlichting. at the Univer"ity of Utrechl. has worked with

9. 10 ConclUSion 223

DUlch language-delayed children ,,"d believes Ihal Ihere is a nonlinear rcialion-ship between intelligence and overt elrcels of 1:'lI1guagc impairmcnt: Children with average or low intelligence may 1101 be ahle 10 compcns:.llc in the same W:'IY

Ihal children with high intelligence can (personal communication), Mark's crea-tive word formations . hascd on patlcrn recognition. arc suggcslivc of such com-pensutnry sirategics.

In shUrl. as Galaburua (1986) has argued so well. Ihe inilial dinerences in hmin organi7 .. at inn may be acccntuated or Ilmy oecolllc unnol iccahle depcnding on other internal ami eXlernal factors, Learning to speak is probably similar 10 other skilllearning-u function of a numher of constitutional differences. input. and praclice. Thus. final a"ainmenl in speaking skill is probahly Ihe resuh or Ihe inilial degree or dirficuhy wilh arlicul",ion illlemcling wilh such secondary vari-ables as intellectual abilities. quanlity and qU<llity of inpul. the illlitutivene:o.s of Ihe child . Ihe quanlilY and qualilY of pmclice opporlunilies. and perhaps Ihe dem;:lI1d!oo of the language (German syntnx nHly be initially more difficult. ,IS it is quile variable) . Children whose diflicuhy wilh ,"Iiculalion is very severe. who Imve low cognitivc abilities. and little language input/practice may never altai II ncxihle cOlllmand of intricate syntact ical cOI1!ootruclions. On the other hand. chil-dren with the !tame initial arliculatory difficulty may. on the oasis of compensa-tory cognilive ahililies. rich language inpul. imilulivencss. and many speaking oppOrlunilies. come 10 have speaking skills Ihal arc nOI noliccably dirrerelll rrom children who have not hud those inilial difficulties in learning to speak.

In closing this discussion about differences in learning 10 speak. an importanl methodological poinl is suggcsled by the above argumenl. The conlrihutions of a specifically language-related hiological factor will hecmne less noticeable as the other variables necessary for learning to speak come into play, Difrerences in learning 10 speak due to neurological differences of the speech-planning networks will he muS! readily nul iced early in Ihe develupmenl ur Ihe child.

9_10 Conclusion

Research on mcmory. on normal <lnd delayed speech development. ami on delayed rCtltling was hroughllo hear on undcrst;.mding the different ways in which two bilingual children learned III speak ;:lIld to read . Speaking. in contmsl to speech comprehension. requires the develllplllenl of an intricate I1lt)(nr skill-the arl iculat ion of words: it requires the smoot hand ntpid rcproouct ion of sounds of words and their syntactic arrangement. Speaking. Ihcreforc. re()uires shorHcnn and long-term verbaimelllory. in other words. immediate ami delayed verbal imilaliun. Findings wilh develuplllemally dysphasic children puinl uul that a memory span of certain length may be necessary Ihr learning to use correct word urder. The develupment of verbal memory span is prohahly a funct ion of articulatory skill.

224 '> Oitllugil.11 for Indh idual •

One sourcc of individual dilfercncc!-I in IC:lrning to !'opcak. therefore. j'l thought «J be the rate or the n:lture uf the devclopment of cenlral neur:'11 thnt organize and !-Icr\'C m. for Ihe neuromuscular chain of events required in arliculation and in >peaking. Research with developmentally dys-phasic and dyslexic children sugge>ts that the case with which these speech-planning !ty!ootems uevelop may have a hiological Initial in the ability to produce !tpcech will interact with differences in nmwerhal cog· nilive ability. in imilaliveneso.;. and in Ihe amount and kind of inpul /pr.lctke. In short. allained level of speaking skill is multidetcrmincu.

Imitation (overt or covert) .!'oervcs a memory function and should help to lay the found:llinns and lu consolid'lte the neural pl.lI1ning for !tpeeL:h, If'there arc indeed individual differences in the case wilh which these neural speech-planning netwurks develop. the role of overt imikllion is more difficull to lrace: Children who more quick 10 develop networks may also be the ones who arc more quick to coverl speech , This would mean that those children who ure precocious in learning to spcuk Il1UY e<lrly on begin 10 covert imitation and show little uvert imitation <IS .1 rche;'lrsal 1II1.ochanisl11.

Clearly. Ihio.; Illodel must still come under :-.Iringcnt IC!ooling. In 'he mean-timc it wi1l hopefully serve:as an impetus 10 integrate findings from thc various disciplines that arc presently only concerned wilh separate pieces or the lan-guage pUll Ie.

Ack"oH'IeclKmelll,\', I wish to thank Keith Nelson ami Herrcshorr for their insightful suggestiuns .and Janet Cooke for her helpful editorial as.!'oist.ance and comments,

Rererences

Baddeley, A. (1986) , m,,·kill}.: mell/ory. Oxford : Clurcndoll Baddeley, A.D. (197h). -nit· psy( '10'01.:.\ of IIU'UW"Y, New )'(Irk : Basic Bilddeley. A.D .• & 11ilch. GJ. (1974). WorkilliI mcmory. In G H . Dower (Ed ., . TIlt'

tlf It'llmillg lIlItl 1II00il'l"im, (Vol. 12. pro 47- 901 , Ncw York; AClIllcmic Press.

Dann.llyne. A , (197(1) . n',ulUlK mltl "'ami,,}: IIi,mbil"h'.'i: P.(.\( ·lrolll.t:y. lIf.·um· p.(YI'llOloKY. tiwKlltt.'.;,\ tllIIl n'",c,limit", . Springfield. IL: Th'lmils.

Bock. 1.K . ( 19K2). Toward a C'tlgnilive psycfu)I"gy uf InltmllatilHi .. 1.")11.

IribulioliS 10 senlelU:c fnnnulatilln , Rt'l'il'II', 89. I-·n. Bradlcy. L.. & Bryant. P.E, (l9K3), Calegoril.ing sounds and learning In rC.ld-A causal

connection, Ntl',,"':. JOI. 419-421. BrClhertlln . I.. McNew. S . . Snyder. L.. & Bates, E. (19K3), Inlii\'idual differences at 20

llIonlhs: Analytic holislic stralegies in language m:quisitinn, Jo"mll11ifClriM UlIl-10, 293-320,

Brown. R. (1973). A ji,:I" ImrgrWK(': -nw l'III'ly .1·ltlKi',\". MA: H.u\,urd Univcr-sity Press.

9 . 10 Ctllldu ... itlll 225

Umwn. R., & C. (1963 ). Thc (11 .. ynt.lX . In C.N. Curcr & B. (Ed .. ,). !', .. rhtll hd.UI·inr IIIItI /t·m·lfi",t.: . I'mbl"III' mltl"mn'.Ht.'x (pp. 15H- 2(1). New 'hrJ.. ,

Uryan!. P E. (I'JR(l. Apnl) ,,,,'un-"I'.H. d,m"., mill rnltlmg. S}lHptJ!ooium HI Ihe Anllual Alllcricilll bhluilitlllill Rc!-c,m:h A'''''lCialinll tvk't.'ling. DC.

B) rne. D. (1IJg4) , On le.II.:hing IIflit:IlIi1lnry plUIIIClic, viu un nrlhogmphy. Mf'lllOr,\' & "i,ioll . 12.1 8 1- 189.

Clilfk . R. (1977). Whill'!oo Ihe or lIuillll iOIl'! JOIlll/tll of CI"M 4. 341 - 35R , Cnrhilllis. M . (I IJRJ) . IIl1mo" ',,'nnltl\'. Ncw )'ink: Al'mlclllit: Pres o.; , CnrhaUi,. l\'1.c. (11)80). Lmemlil)' and 1II}lh , rlmtTltlll' 35 . 284- 295 . Crnehl!!). (t'1RI). D},k ... iil : An o\"cf\' iew. 111 GTh. P:I\' hdi" & T. R, (Ed .. ,). Dy,\·.

k,';u Il'.'it'urd, flllIl il,I' Ol'pliCilliow' 10 l'dllUlliOl' ' pp, 14:\41. New York: Wiley, dc t\junaguerr..t . J .. Jaeggi. A . . GllIgmml. E. Knl'her, E. Mm.:quanl . M .. Roth. S .. &

Schmid . E (t'176) , The de\'elopmenl ilnd in childrcn, In D.M. & A E . Normal m,,1 df'./icil'lII "hiM hmKlmgt' (pp. 34:; -

385) , B:lftlllltlrc. MD' Park Edw' lnh. M . /)J\tmh·r.\ of lIrliOl/tliiOIl , Ne\\ Springcr-Verlag , Ervin, S.M . . & S.E. (1954) . Set:tlnd IUllgU.,t;'C ICilrning illld Jmmrul

tlJ A/morlll,,1 mill Sodal P.wc/lOlo.If.\, -IY. 139- 146, Fc"gilll' , L (11)H6) . Oliti, l11eaJlOl in cluldrcn. A IIII,.jcl ur erfects antJ impllc.uinns fur inler

\ enliun , In J led ). (hili.\' "'f'llia mltl dllM dt',dopm,'''' (pp, 192- 208). P:lrk. hili. MD. '"rio..

L .. 13lnud . I. . & Tuhman. lG. (ill pre,!'.), Olilh media: M,,.jcl, of cffl'cls illld illlplk.llitllls It" illlerventilJII.

Feagan!'.. L .. SanYil1. M .. Hcnder!ooon, E . Collier. A .• & Appelbaum . M. (in Mid. dlc car disease in e<lfly childhood and liller langua1:!c skills. Journal f!l H'tiitllric P.n'-d/Olo}:\', .

Fmillt) , '1' .• & I!ncl · lloltl i. S, (l9K7. April) , f h ,H'J.\"I/I( '1JI of hl '"rillK ill i"jimll lint/ \'O""}: d"lt/n'lI , 'I1If' olith II/('t/ill (1IIm,t/mi '. S) IIlpOSllll1i Ihe Bicnniill Mceling nf the Su(! iety 1(lr Rescan:h in Child Dcvelupmcnt . n .. 1t ililOrc. Mil

Fricl · P:IIli. S . . Finitw Heher. T .. Conti, G .. & Bru\\.lI. C.K , (19R2). LanguOIgc del.IY in inf:mls iI!'.slId;lted wilh middle cilr illld mild. f1ut:llHlling impairment. PL'clitllr;,' IlIji.'I'liOIl,\' D;S('flJ". I. I 04-1 ()I),

Gill .. hurdil . A.tv1. (llJHli, Dccclllber). KCYlltlic AlkJress Iu Ihe Com'cillinn urlhe HilWllii AsslK:i:llillll. l1'III"llIlu. 1-11.

Gilll .. migli . M , ( I t)K7J, n,illkill): ill III,' '1\'0 t'('rdm,llu:mi.lph,'I'f.'.'i. Vlcnilry prcsenl,,1 inn OIl Ihc Third Inlcrniitiullill ConfcfClIl'C UII Thinking, H,,"ululu. III.

GCM'hwifllJ. N .. & Behan. P. (l9M4). ullcmlily. hUrtlumes anti imlHunity. In N. Gcsch. wintJ & A.M. Galilhurua (Ells.). jimm/mirm,\' ,if f't'rt'hml t/omilltllwt' fpp. 211 224), Call1bridge. MA : tlar\,ilrd Univcr!oolly

Grimm. 11 . (19K3) , Oil lin' "IInrt'/t,,;m. of jlllnl/ol fmt/ nll'mlll ,IJ,'IIt'I'f'IO/JlJIl'IIf lif Itmglla}:(' .HrllCllIn'.\' i" IIormal awl II.Hl'lrtlJifo /u·( ' 'idlOo/t·,..\,. Ii IOllX;lIulilwl .wlld\' (Ocl'OIsiunal P;lpcr No, 5), Honululu. HI : The Kmtlch:llilcha SchlHlls. .

Grimlll. H, (lfJH4) . Zur Fmge tlcr spadllichen Erwcrhcn dys-phao.;i ... chc Kinder die Spmche nnders'! III E, Oo.;kar (cd. ) . . \imldll'nl·ah .. VJIlld,lwtJIuA.t .

(pp, 30-53) . Berlin- de Gruylcr.

Grimm. H. (1986) . Develupmental New theuretie,ll perspectives anti cmpiri · tal resulls. 71,(, Gl'mlllll )1"',,1111 (if P,fiYl 'lmltJg \,. II . 8-:!2.

Grimm. H .• & Weinert. !" ( 19K7. July). [)l't'iWII "",gllllgr proccs,\illg ill tl\:'1Jlw,'ik d,i/· dn'lt, P'Jper presentcd at the Fuurth Intern:1I innal Congress fur the Study or Child Lan-guage. Lund. Sweden.

Hardcu\it)e , W.J. (1970). Ph.uioloJ:.\· tif 5IW(' t'h . Ncu 'hrk : Al';adcmic Prc!'o!'o. Heath. R.W, . PleH , J. D . . & TihhcHS. K.A. (19K1). Some l·lltlcmir",,,I. l'llmie.

wul.wK·iulcorrl'ia/('.\' of m;1tI It('tlrillg dy.'ijimclioll;1I pn',"f 'lm,,"·r.\·. Hnnululu. HI : Center for Development (If Early Edul·ation. Ktlmhehallleha Schlxlis.

Kelso. lA .• Tuller. R .. & K.S , (l9K3). A "dynmnic pallern" (In the cuntrol and cnordin .. tiun of movemcnt. In P,E M:II:Neiluge (cd.}. '11'1' prodllction of "'Pl'l'ch (pp. 137 173). New Ynrk: Springer-Verlag.

Lihernmn. A.V. & Mottlingly.I.G. (1985). Tin: mOl or theory ul'speech perccption re\'ised. CoglJilhm. 2/. 1- 36.

Llndanmnd. P. (11)85 . Dcl'emhcr) , COJ,!nili\'f'ly t" I,ll1m,): till' ,'per'd, Imk , Sympmium prc!-oClllatiun Oil Ihe 351h Annual N;uiunill Rem.ling Cnnlcrcl1cc. Sitn Diego. California.

Lundhcrg. I.. Frosl . J .. & Peterson. O. (19IUO. Elff.."c:ts of lin extensive' pro&ram fur stimulating phunulogical ilWarenc!-os in preschuolchildren. R('lIding Rr'J"iln·It QUlIrtt'ri.\'. 23. 263 - 2R4 .

MacNeilage. P. F. (1970) , Mowr cuntrol of seri.,1 ordering uf !-opccch , p.\Tf'/wlo):iml R(,,·il'U'. 77. 182- 19(),

Mann. V.A. (1984). Reading ill1d limgu.'gc Nt'l'it'll'. oJ. 1- 1.5 , Milnn. V.A .. & Lihennan. t.V. (l9H4). Phnnnlngic;II ""'.Irene ...... and vcrhill ,:.,hnrHcnn

111emnry. JOllrlltll u '"mi"J.: Di,Wlhili'it· .... 17. 592-599. Mareh:mt. c.o. . Shuring. P.A .• Turczyk. V.A .• Wilsikowski. D.E .. Tutilmsi. M.A .. &

Kinncy. S.E. (1984). Course and nutcnmc ufotilb media in early inl:ull')': A prospec-ti\,e study. 111(' JOImwl ,if H'dimrie,\'. 102. 826-83 I.

Mcnyuk. p, (1978), Linguistic problems in children wilh dc\,clnpllIcnt:tI dysphasia. In M,A. (Ed. ). DCI'l'iol'"u'IIIt11 duphm;" , LomJon: Academic Pre ... !--

P. (19Rtl) . Pre"hct ing speedl and languagc with olit; \ mcdia. In IF. Kavimagh (Ed.). O,i,;,,' mt',lia tllIIl ,'hiM tI"I'f'l0l'nJ('J/I (pp. 83-96), Parkton: Ynrk Press.

Mcnyuk. P . • & Looney. P.L. (1916). A problem ofl;mguagc disurder: Lcngth vcrsus struc· lure. In D. M. Mnrehc:ld & A. E. Morehead (Eds.) . No,.",,,1 "",1 th'fld('''' fllihll'lU):m'I-W (pp. 259-279). Baitilllnre. MD: Univcrsity P:trk Press.

Mnrehead. D.t\.'I.. & IngrJm. D. (976). The de\'elnpmem uf base syntilx in nnrl11al and linguistically dc\'ianlchildrcn, In D.M. Morehead & A,E. Morehead (Eds. ). No,.mal tllltl ,hpdt'lII l'hiltllullglltl!-:t' (pp. 209-23H), Baltimore. MIJ: Pmk Pre!--s.

Nelsun . K. (1913), Structure IImJ slr.llcgy in learning to 1,,11;;. MOl/OKnll'l!.\' ,if,hl' SOC;("y [or R('.w!utrh ill ChiM DITrl"I'IIICIII, -IHe 149) .

Nelson. K. E. (1987) . StllllC i(IOS fnulltlle pcrspcl't ive of the r:lrc event cltt;niti,'c curnfl:trisnn thenry of I;mguuge acquisition. In K.E. Nelsun & A. vlIn Kleed (Eds ,). CiliMn',,:,' (V,,1. 6. Pfl. 289 :n I). '·hlbdille. NJ: Erlbaulll.

Nelson. K.l: .. Bilker. N.D . • Denninger. M .. Bon\,illi:lI1. J.D .. & Kilphm. BJ. (1985) , Coo"-ir' ver!tus do. jt·lIJ;ui,,: ilnd ic· initillting language in young children. l,.ingui.'itk,\'. 23. 433-353.

Peter!t. A. (1977) l..anglmge learning str.llegics. ))oc!-- the whole e'lu;althc sum of the pan,! Lm):,mgt·. 53. 560 573.

Apf>C fKJix 217

Raws()!). M. 0. (1968). Df.,,·l'/"lmu'IIwllllllgllflgl' .-k/"lt w 'co"'pli,\'IIII/{'lIts (if tlys . h·."il'I",.\:\'. Baltimorc. MD: John Hupkins University Press. (Reprimcd in papcrhack. 1978. Cambridge. MA : Edul'aturs Pubh\ihing Scrvice,)

R&lw!--on. M .B. (1981) , A dlver!-oity IImdel Ih r dy!-olexin . In a .T, Il'J\lidi!t & T.R, rt 'J"lIrcil alld II,," 1I1'1,1'I 'mi(ltH til t',hwmioll (pp. 13- 34) , New 'hrl;; :

Wiley. Rusen. G.D .• Shermnn. G F .. & Galotbunla. AM , (J IJR6). Biolo):lf'ul hll,'nw,irm,\' ill dn·.

II-xitl . In lR . Ohrzul & G.W. Hynd (Eds. ). CIliM 1II·"mloJ.:\'. IfI!. I . -nlt'on' wld T(''''''tl ;l ·It (pp. 155- J7J), New Yifr"" : Acudemic Pre ... , .

Rumelh ilrt. .. & "'kClellnnd. 1. L , (1987) , Leilrning Ihe uf English \'crhs: Implicit rules or p:lrallcl di"tributed proccssing. In B, M:lcWhinney (Ed ,). 'iflc"'Kllagl' lIl'qu;Jithm (pp, 195-248). HiII!tllale. Erlbaum,

S<.:hw:lrtz. R.H .• Swnl . S,E .. Rodriguez . WJ, . & Grundfllst. K.M , (l9KI). Acute otiti\i mediil: li.Jwilrd u more prcdse dclillilinn. CIi"h'al P('t/iatric.\. 20. 549-554.

Speidel. G,E ,. &. Bmndl. B. ( 1987. April). IIIdil l ,h",1 ill Inm,i"x '0 .'qlt'ai.: tllltl 111 n'ml. P:lpcr prcscnll'tl ut the Riclluilll Meet ing HI' chc Suciely fflr Research ;n Child Dc\,chlpmcnt . Ball inulrc . MD.

Speidel. a .E .. & Ptlwer. M , ( 1987. April) . A of la".t:lIlIgl' .d .. ill-f ;" It'lImillJ.: to n:"d, P'Jper prcsented lit the Bienlliul Meeting uf the Society for RC,\iearch in Cluld Dcvelopment . Baltinulre. MD.

SHlOovich . f\. , . Cunninl!-h.lIl1 . A.E .. & emmer. B B. (19R4). Assessing phonologie .. 1 in klOdergilrlcn children: I!--!--ues t:umpambIIIlY. )ollmlll of £Xf'aiml'II-

lui OuM JX. 175- 19() Stannvieh. K.E. (l1J8fl, . Mallhew effl't.,ts in rCiKling: Some of intl;\'id.

11011 differences in thc itcquisilion nf literacy. Rl'.\'t'dn·/t Qllflrtf·rh. 11. )61-406.

Vellulino. F. (1977) , Alternat ive concepHmlizat ions of E"idence in support of a \'crhal ·delicit h)l'lUlhe,h. , !lan'anl Edlll'lllimltll R/',·h 'II'. 47. ;n-l - 354 .

Wcinreich. W (1953), ill The Huguc : Mouton .

Appendix

COllrl'l',wliOIl bl'/II 't!ell Sally (lIppm.l'itlutll' .J y£,ars tim/ 3 mOlllhs) lIlIlll'l'r fathl'/' about God. (/eatlr, tIIulparadi.\'('.

FATHER. Und w{) ist die Seclc'! (AIIl/lI'hel'(, ;,\' Ih£' Joul.'!) 5'1.1-1". Bcion lichen GOll. (lI'ilh 1/'" d"tlr God. ) FATIlbR. la . die i!tt hcim lichen Gnll. illl Paradics, ()('.\', it i.\· ",i,h 'lit' ,/t'lIr God

ill IHlrm/i.\('. ) S,\I.I.Y. Aher wo ktl nncn Parra. (Bill ,rherl' ('(III Ihl'Y .\'h·('p. Pappa'!) FATH ER. 1m P'Jrtu..lics "'.mn man schlafcn. warm man will. (/11 pal'lu/i,'!l' YOII ClIlI

sh'l'p "'''('lIl'I'('/' YOII it'lltil . ) SAt I\,. Wcnn man tot bt. gel? ell'hl'" Oil(' i.\· (h'ud. \,(,,\"!)

SAII..Y. Aher. als ich J>-Jradics (1II1t 'h,w' IW;J:l't) - und dann we!! gelll. dann brauchcn die Leutc .,chlafcn und dcr liene Gnlt am..'h. der nUl's :luch wenn Schlafcnlcit iM. (B",. II'h"1I 'pomtli.'U' - alld II"." NO lIIt't1\'. ,h('11 lh£'