Intervention forChildren with Language Delay:

Insights fromTypical Language Acquisition

Matthew SaxtonMatthew SaxtonNovember 1November 1stst 2006 2006

Collaborators

Eleri BevanEleri Bevan

Julie DockrellJulie Dockrell

Jo van HerwegenJo van Herwegen

James LawJames Law

Specific Language Impairment““when a child fails to make normal progress in when a child fails to make normal progress in

language learning for no obvious reason”language learning for no obvious reason”Bishop (2004, p.309)Bishop (2004, p.309)

no other developmental or sensory deficitsno other developmental or sensory deficits normal IQnormal IQ no hearing or visual impairmentno hearing or visual impairment no childhood schizophrenia, infantile autism, no childhood schizophrenia, infantile autism,

neurological causesneurological causes

Incidence and Impact of SLI

7% of children7% of childrenoral languageoral language literacyliteracynumeracynumeracybehaviourbehaviourpeer relationspeer relations

Complex Aetiology

deficits can occur at every level of deficits can occur at every level of language:language:

phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, pragmaticspragmatics

many different profiles of delay and many different profiles of delay and disorderdisorder

Diagnosis

diverse approaches:diverse approaches: clinical judgementsclinical judgements language test batterieslanguage test batteries cognitive testscognitive tests tests of sensory functioningtests of sensory functioning

Problems in Assessment

assessment batteries often incompleteassessment batteries often incompletepopulations of children included varypopulations of children included varyno statistical analysesno statistical analysesclinical judgements onlyclinical judgements only

Causes of SLI

linguistic:linguistic: sparse morphology hypothesissparse morphology hypothesis optional finiteness marking on Vsoptional finiteness marking on Vsdomain general:domain general: Rapid Auditory Processing deficitRapid Auditory Processing deficit limited working memorylimited working memory

Consequences of SLI

need for evidence-based interventionneed for evidence-based intervention insights from research on Typical Language insights from research on Typical Language

(TL) development(TL) development corrective input for morphological errorscorrective input for morphological errors

Morphosyntactic Deficits

It’s a flying finches, they are.It’s a flying finches, they are.She remembered when she hurts herself the She remembered when she hurts herself the

other day.other day.The boys eat four cookie.The boys eat four cookie.Carol is cry in the church.Carol is cry in the church.

Morphosyntactic Errors

universal feature of universal feature of typicaltypical development development alsoalso

errors of omission errors of omission andand commission: commission: I want apple.I want apple. I breaked a glassI breaked a glass..

Typical Language Development

all TL children make errorsall TL children make errorsall TL children eventually retreat from errorall TL children eventually retreat from error

Negative Evidence

evidence that a given structure is evidence that a given structure is ungrammaticalungrammatical

parental corrections of child errorsparental corrections of child errors

‘No Negative Evidence’ Problem

longstanding assumption:longstanding assumption: parents do parents do notnot correct their children’s errors correct their children’s errors ‘‘no negative evidence’no negative evidence’

Cazden (1965), Brown & Hanlon (1970)Cazden (1965), Brown & Hanlon (1970)

““A basic premise of almost all work on A basic premise of almost all work on language acquisition in a generative language acquisition in a generative framework is that learning must progress framework is that learning must progress without the aid of overt correction without the aid of overt correction ―― that that is, the learner will not receive "negative is, the learner will not receive "negative evidence," in the form of adult feedback evidence," in the form of adult feedback telling the child that his or her utterances do telling the child that his or her utterances do not conform with those of the adult not conform with those of the adult grammar.”grammar.”

Weissenborn, Goodluck & Roeper (1992:9)Weissenborn, Goodluck & Roeper (1992:9)

Does it Matter?

‘‘no negative evidence’ assumptionno negative evidence’ assumption“ “ ... one of the most important discoveries ... one of the most important discoveries

in the history of psychology”in the history of psychology”(Pinker, 1988, p.104)(Pinker, 1988, p.104)

Argument fromPoverty of Stimulus (APS)

‘‘no negative evidence’:no negative evidence’: traditional empirical support for APStraditional empirical support for APS

Empirical Support for APS

it depends what counts as it depends what counts as negative evidencenegative evidenceBrown & Hanlon (1970: 202):Brown & Hanlon (1970: 202): parental Approval and Disapproval:parental Approval and Disapproval:

Eve:Eve: Mama isn’t boy, he a girl.Mama isn’t boy, he a girl.

Mother:Mother: Yes, that’s right.Yes, that’s right.

There is not “even a shred of evidence that approval and disapproval are contingent on syntactic correctness.”

Brown & Hanlon (1970:201)

Possible Forms of Correction

signal of disapproval?signal of disapproval?a meaningful pause or look?a meaningful pause or look?explicit grammar lesson?explicit grammar lesson?clarification requests?clarification requests?a direct contrast between child and adult a direct contrast between child and adult

forms?forms?

Beyond Disapproval

““repeats of ill-formed utterances usually repeats of ill-formed utterances usually contained corrections and so could be contained corrections and so could be instructive.”instructive.”

Brown & Hanlon (1970:197)Brown & Hanlon (1970:197)

Diary Study

Matthew with Alex (aged 4 years)Matthew with Alex (aged 4 years)aimaim: deliberately correct child’s errors and : deliberately correct child’s errors and

gauge effectgauge effect

A:A: That .... that ... that says you can’t go That .... that ... that says you can’t go there.there.

M:M: Hmm.Hmm.

A:A: That says you can’t go there.That says you can’t go there.

M:M: Why can’t you go there?Why can’t you go there?

A:A: ‘Cos that’s the part ‘Cos that’s the part whowho you / l / .... you / l / .... whowho you see ....you see ....

M:M: It’s the ....It’s the ....

A:A: .... over..... over.

M:M: It’s the part It’s the part wherewhere you what? you what?

A:A: WhereWhere you look over. you look over.

A:A: I’m I’m easy to eat you up.easy to eat you up.

M:M: You canYou can eat me up easily? eat me up easily?

A:A: Yeah.Yeah.

M:M: What?What?

A:A: I can eat you up.... [ I can eat you up.... [ bangbang ] ]

M:M: I bet you can’t.I bet you can’t.

A:A: I bet you I .... I, I, I can.I bet you I .... I, I, I can.

I bet you can’t I bet you can’t eat me up easily.eat me up easily.

M:M: What you doing?What you doing?

A:A: I’m I’m rolling about.rolling about.

M:M: You’re You’re spinning round,spinning round, are you? are you?

A:A: I’m rolling ....I’m rolling ....

I’m I’m spinning aroundspinning around .... ....

.... on your chair..... on your chair.

M:M: Hmm.Hmm.

M:M: You have to shut the doors / w / in winter.You have to shut the doors / w / in winter.

A:A: Yeah, but I don’t want to.Yeah, but I don’t want to.

It’s too It’s too boredbored if I shut the door every day. if I shut the door every day.

M:M: It’s not It’s not boringboring..

A:A: It is.It is.

M:M: What do you mean?What do you mean?

A:A: What?What?

M:M: Why do you say that?Why do you say that?

A:A: Because it’s .... because it’s .... too....Because it’s .... because it’s .... too....

It’s too It’s too boringboring..

Direct Contrast Hypothesis

Child:Child: He was the He was the baddestbaddest one. one.

Adult:Adult: Yeah, he sounds like the Yeah, he sounds like the worst.worst.

juxtaposition of erroneous and correct forms:juxtaposition of erroneous and correct forms: unique discourse contextunique discourse context child may perceive adult form as being in child may perceive adult form as being in

contrastcontrast with their own with their own

Empirical Support for the Contrast Theory Iexperimental and observationalexperimental and observational

(Farrar, 1992; Saxton, 1997)(Farrar, 1992; Saxton, 1997)mother, father and siblingsmother, father and siblings

(Strapp, 1999)(Strapp, 1999) immediate and longer-term effectsimmediate and longer-term effects

(Saxton, 2000; Saxton et al., 1998)(Saxton, 2000; Saxton et al., 1998)

Empirical Support II

beyond L1 English: Japanese, Korean, beyond L1 English: Japanese, Korean, FrenchFrench(Izumi, 2002; Chouinard & Clark, 2003;(Izumi, 2002; Chouinard & Clark, 2003;O’Grady & Lee, 2006)O’Grady & Lee, 2006)

second language acquisitionsecond language acquisition(Mackey et al., 2003)(Mackey et al., 2003)

APS Revisited

no empirical support for ‘no negative no empirical support for ‘no negative evidence’ assumptionevidence’ assumption

of little value in specifying principles of of little value in specifying principles of Universal GrammarUniversal Grammar

Current Project

evidence-based:evidence-based: intervention based on negative evidenceintervention based on negative evidence targeted:targeted: specific aspects of language difficultyspecific aspects of language difficulty

selected (morphosyntax)selected (morphosyntax)

Selection Criteria I

no reported hearing difficulties or neuro-no reported hearing difficulties or neuro-motor problemsmotor problems

language test scores:language test scores: 1.5 or more SDs below the norm1.5 or more SDs below the norm above 5th percentile on block building above 5th percentile on block building

(British Abilities Scale)(British Abilities Scale)

Selection Criteria II

no evidence of pronounced speech no evidence of pronounced speech articulation difficultiesarticulation difficulties

no marked pragmatic difficultiesno marked pragmatic difficultieserror-rates for target structures higher than error-rates for target structures higher than

those found in TL children those found in TL children

Intervention Regime

negative evidence supplied for six weeksnegative evidence supplied for six weeksassessment:assessment: pre-, mid- and post-interventionpre-, mid- and post-intervention expressive language: hexagon taskexpressive language: hexagon task receptive language: grammaticality receptive language: grammaticality

judgement taskjudgement task

Grammaticality Judgement Task

do children reject sentences with missing do children reject sentences with missing morphemes?morphemes?

copulacopula auxiliary verbsauxiliary verbs articlesarticles

Summary

language delay is a significant problem for language delay is a significant problem for many childrenmany children

interventions need to be evidence-based and interventions need to be evidence-based and targetedtargeted

the Contrast theory provides an evidence the Contrast theory provides an evidence base for interventionbase for intervention

current project findings: watch this space.....current project findings: watch this space.....