Exam 3 Flashcards
Language development similarities across cultures
All languages are made up of the same basic units (i.e. all languages have nouns and verbs)
Basic course of language development (babbling, one-word stage, etc.) consistent across languages
Language development differences among cultures
Different sounds in different languages
Early vocabulary differs across languages
Early grammar differs according to richness and regularity of morphology
Adults in different cultures talk to children differently- amount, infant directed speech, explicit instruction
Language socialization
The process of learning how language is used in one’s culture
Different cultures emphasize different values through the use of different language practices
Members of different cultural groups may use language differently to convey similar ideas (directness, negativity, challenging adult authority)
How are language and cognition related? Possibilities?
Language expresses independent cognition, language and cognition develop in tandem, language influences linguistic thought, language advances cognition, language shapes thought (Whorf hypothesis)
Possibility 1: Language expresses independent cognition
Language and thought are independent systems
Cognition develops before/independently of language
Piaget: interactions with the world are the source of cognitive development; language comes later and allows us to express our thoughts
Fodor: conceptual understandings of the world are innate and make up the “language of thought” or mentalese- the process of language acquisition involves mapping words onto pre-existing concepts
Possibility 2: Language and cognition develop in tandem
Words and concepts develop together and are mutually influential
Theory theory: the child constructs a conceptual understanding of the world based on continually changing/updating experience- as children acquire new concepts, they seek words for those concepts; as children learn new words, they seek the concepts that those words describe
Evidence for language and cognition developing in tandem
Correspondence between children’s production of words and understanding of concepts- e.g., understanding of causality related to production of “uh-oh”
Labels as invitations for category formation- children who learn a name for a novel object or animal are more likely to notice the similarity between that object and other members of the same category than children who did not learn a name
Possibility 3: Language influences linguistic thought only
Two types of thought (Slobin): Nonlinguistic cognition (like Piaget or Fodor)- innate to all humans or acquired identically by speakers of all languages Verbal thought- shaped by an individual's language
Evidence for language influencing linguistic thought only
In English, if we use a pronoun for a person, we have to specify their sex- “my friend is having a party on Friday. s/he lives on Main St.”
In Hungarian, the same pronoun is used for males and females, so you don’t have to specify sex unless you want to- hungarian speakers often have difficulty learning the distinction between he and she
In Spanish, there are two different past tense forms- one for continuous actions of longer duration (e.g., “I lived in Mexico) and another for actions that happened at a single time point (e.g., “I was born in Mexico”)
In English, we only have one version of past tense- English speakers often have difficulty learning when to use each past tense form in Spanish (and other Romance languages)
Possibility 4: Language advances cognition
Much of what we learn about the world (facts and conceptual understanding) is not learned through direct observation- history, religion and culture, chemistry and biology, geography
We have to learn from other people’s verbal testimony
Cultural differences in the information that is presented to children (and how it is presented) are related to differences in thinking about the world
Possbility 5: Language shapes thought- the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Linguistic determinism: the language you speak determines the way you think about/view/conceptualize the world; the linguistic categories of your language determine the conceptual categories you recognize
Linguistic relativity: the language you speak affects the way you think about/view/conceptualize the world; the linguistic categories of your language influence thought
Tests of the Whorf hypothesis
Early test: color perception
Modern tests: number, grammatical gender, spacial relations
Early Whorf tests: color perception
General consensus: the number of color terms a language has does not influence speakers’ perception of color
The speaker’s ability to name the color does have some effect on their memory for a particular shade
This evidence against the influence of language on color perception was taken as initial evidence that Whorf was wrong
Modern Whorf tests: number, grammatical gender, spacial relations
Recently, researchers have questioned whether color was the best domain to test the Whorf hypothesis- perception is biologically determined
Other domains of cognition may be more readily shaped by language- numbers, analogy, autobiographical memory, noun and verb meaning, grammatical gender, spatial relations, motion
Possibility 5 1/2: Language is the medium for thought
Very similar to the traditional Whorf hypothesis
Says that some kinds of thought (i.e., higher cognition) require language to carry out
When language is used for these kinds of thought, the particular language used influences the way these thoughts are carried out
Testing the Whorf hypothesis: number words and concepts
Humans and many other animals have an intrinsic ability to track quantities of three items or fewer- infants, moneys, pigeons, etc. can easily distinguish between 2 and 3, but have difficulty distinguishing 4 and 6
Learning number words seems to be necessary for learning number concepts- many children will point and recite number words before they really know how to count
Some languages spoken by small, non-industrialized tribes do not have number words that can represent all quantities- one, two, more than two; speakers of these languages do not seem to distinguish between quantities larger than three (e.g., 4 vs. 6)
Testing the Whorf hypothesis: Grammatical gender
In many languages, nouns have grammatical gender
The grammatical gender system of a language does not seem to influence how speakers perceive nouns
Speakers provide more “feminine” adjectives to describe nouns with feminine gender and more “masculine” adjectives to describe nouns with masculine gender
Speakers rated pictures of feminine-noun objects as more similar to women, masculine-noun objects as more similar to men
Speakers assigned female voices to feminine-noun objects, male voices to masculine-noun objects
Testing the Whorf hypothesis: Spacial relations
Some languages, like English, encode relative spatial relations- positions are described relative to their self or to other objects/locations- “in front of me,” “to the left of the bookshelf”
Other languages encode absolute spatial relations- positions are described using cardinal directions- “west of me,” “north of the bookshelf”
Speakers of absolute languages are better at cardinal directions than speakers of relative languages
What conclusions do these modern studies of the Whorf hypothesis draw?
Speakers of absolute languages make more responses based on cardinal directions
Speakers of more relative languages make more responses based on relative position
But, Li and Gleitman found that English speakers made more absolute responses when they were outside. Their explanation: the differences found in behavior among speakers of different languages simply reflect their culture’s tendency to rely on external landmarks. It is not that the language is causing them to develop this tendency to use absolute frame of reference; it is that their way of life leads to both the use of absolute language and the tendency to use an absolute frame of reference
Simultaneous bilingualism
Exposure to two languages from birth
Two main questions:
How do children differentiate between the two languages?
How does bilingual language development compare to monolingual language development?
Sequential bilingualism
Exposure to one language from birth, then a second language is introduced later
Language differentiation
How and when do bilingual language learners begin to distinguish between the two languages they hear?
Fusion hypothesis
Children begin with one system for both languages and only later begin to separate the lexicon and the syntactic rules of each language
Differentiation with autonomous development
Each language is a separate system from the beginning and the two do not influence each other
Differentiation with interdependent development
Children differentiate between the two languages, but the two systems influence each other
Phoneme discrimination
At 6 months, both English monolingual and French-English bilingual infants can differentiate French and English phonemes
At 10 months, French-English bilinguals still discriminate phonemes in both languages, but English monolinguals can only do it for English
This suggests that the timeline for developing phonetic systems is similar for monolinguals and bilinguals
Evidence for differentiation of phonology: Language dominance
Amount of exposure to each language may also play a role
French-English 14-17 month olds differ on their ability to differentiate between phoneme contrasts in each language (Werker, Weikum, & Yoshida, 2006)
If one language is dominant, the intact may develop a perceptual system that is more sensitive to the contrasts of that language
Evidence for differentiation of lexicon: Mutual exclusivity
Multilingual 17-18 month-olds are more likely than monolinguals to accept two names for the same thing (Byers-Heinlein & Werker, 2009)
Evidence for differentiation of morphosyntax: Code-switching
The use of more than one language (or dialect or register) within the same conversation, or even within the same sentence, example “sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español”
Code switching is not an indication of incompetence-adult bilinguals who are fully fluent in both languages often use code-switching when communicating with other proficient bilinguals
Competent code-switchers follow certain rules of combining languages- the rules of code-switching are dependent on the grammatical rules of each language involved
Code switching occurs in such a way as to avoid syntactic violations in either language
Children tend to follow these same rules
Evidence for differentiation of pragmatics: switching languages to be understood
Most children switched languages after a non-specific request (1-3)
Most did not require that the experimenter explicitly ask them to switch languages (Comeau et. al, 2007)
Effects of bilingualism
The evidence shows that bilingual children have a separate system for each language
Vocabulary size and growth in each language
Bilingual children tend to know fewer words in each language than monolingual children know in their only language
But bilingual children may know as many or more words across languages
Gramatical (morphosyntactic) development in each language
Bilingual children reach grammatical milestones at the same time as monolingual children
Early delays that have been shown in some studies disappear by age 10
Metalinguistic awareness
Refers to the knowledge of the concept of language and awareness of how it works
Bilingual children have been shown to have an advantage over monolinguals in metalinguistic tasks- syntax, phonology, pragmatics
Cognitive flexibility
Evidence suggests a benefit of bilingualism on cognitive flexibility
Symbol substitution task:
In English this is called an airplane, but in this game its name is turtle. Can the turtle fly? How does it fly?
In this game, the way we say I is to say macaroni. How do we say, “I am warm?”
To be successful on this task, child must realize that words can be substituted for each other and be able to temporarily abandon the rules of English and substitute the rules of the game language
Bilingualism and executive function
Carlson & Melzoff
Compared native bilingual and monolingual kindergarteners on EF tasks- including DCCS, Simon Says, Gift delay
Controlling for SES, verbal ability, and age, bilingual children performed significantly better on EF tasks involving conflict- no advantage for delay tasks
This advantage has since been shown as early as 24 months
Bilingual brain development
In native bilinguals, the same areas of the brain are used for processing both languages
Bilinguals use the same brain areas for language as do monolinguals
The two language systems are not represented in distinct physical areas
However, individuals who acquire their second language later in childhood show differences from native bilinguals in processing syntax
Sequential bilingualism
It is commonly believed that children can acquire a second language as quickly and easily as they acquire their first language
In fact, second language acquisition is often quite different from first language acquisition- different input conditions, one linguistic system already in place
Influences on second language development
Sociocultural environment
Child characteristics
Age of acquisition
Sociocultural environment
Acceptance of social groups that speak different languages
Learner’s motivation to acquire a second language- instrumental (e.g., for work or school), integrative (to feel like part of the community)
Child characteristics
Phonological memory, sociability, age of acquisition
Age of acquisition
The age at which a child begins to learn a second language can effect immediate and long-term outcomes
Older children initially learn more quickly than younger children
Children who start learning L2 at an earlier age eventually master the language more fully than children who began learning at an older age- phonology, syntax
Earlier acquisition is related to long-term mastery of the grammar and phonology of L2
Though younger children may lag behind older children when they first begin to acquire a new language
Early exposure to a language may prepare an individual to produce the sounds (but not the grammar) of that language
Age of acquisition influence on grammatical development
Participants listened to sentences of English and judged whether they were grammatical or ungrammatical, example “The farmer bought two pigs at the market” vs. “The farmer bought two pig at the market”
Earlier acquisition was associated with better judgements of grammaticality
Individuals who began learning between 3 and 7 performed as well as native English monolinguals
There was a steady decline in performance as age of acquisition increased
Age of acquisition influence on phonology
Earlier age of acquisition is also associated with better mastery of the phonology of L2
Adults who began learning their second language in early childhood may sound like native speakers, while those who began learning later are likely to have a noticeable non-native accent
Early exposure to a language can benefit later phonological mastery of the language even if the language is not spoken in childhood
Age of acquisition benefits of “childhood overhearing”
Childhood overhearing does NOT benefit later morphosyntax
Childhood overhearing DOES benefit later pronunciation
An example of the phonological benefit of overhearing in childhood: childhood overhearers demonstrated voice onset times for stop consonants that were no different from native pronunciations, while late L2 learners pronounced the consonants more like English consonants
Bilingual education
Involves instruction in more than one language- e.g., science class taught in Spanish and English
Not equivalent to standard language instruction- e.g., Spanish class where language is explicitly taught
Different goals of bilingual instruction:
Teach the majority language to a minority group
Give the children the benefits of a second language
Bilingual school
Instruction in more than one language
Immersion school
Earlier immersion –> better proficiency
Immersion students performed equally well in math and science
Standard language instruction
Class where one language is explicitly taught
Phonology in the school years
By kindergarten, most children can produce most of the phonemes of their language- some more difficult sounds take a few more years to master
But phonological skills continue to develop- phonological awareness, phonological memory, phonological representations and comprehension in a noisy environment
Phonological skills are important because they are related to reading skill
Accent and dialect
Young children acquire the accent/dialect they hear most commonly in the input (i.e., their caregiver’s accent)
When children get to school and start spending more time with peers, they may begin to sound more like their peers than their parents- regional dialect differences if the family has moved to a different area
Sociolect of the child/adolescent’s group of friends- valley girl speech emerged among teenagers
Older children and teenagers may choose to use different dialects/sociolects in different situations- may use a particular accent to demonstrate group membership
Phonological awareness in preschoolers
Can recognize words that start with the same sound
Identify rhyming words
Identify the sound that beans with a word (more difficulty with consonant cluster onsets)
Phonological awareness in kindergartners
Can tap out the number of syllables in a word
Separate words into their component phonemes (phonemic awareness)- e.g., cat= “c” “a” “t”
Phonological awareness
Preschoolers with more exposure to songs, nursery rhymes, and word games have better phonological awareness
English-speaking children with better phonological awareness in preschool have more advanced reading skill in at age 6
Reading an alphabetic system is related to maintenance of phonological awareness in adulthood
Illiterate adults show low levels of phonological awareness
Adults who read a non-alphabetic written language also show low levels of phonological awareness
Why is phonology important for academic achievement?
Because it is related to reading skill
Vocabulary size
During the school years, children’s vocabularies continue to grow rapidly
Characteristics of words learned during the school years
Compared to words learned before school, words learned in elementary school are:
Longer in length
Less commonly used
More specialized in meaning (less general)
More formal in usage
More internally complex (greater number of morphemes)
Deriving new words
During the early school years, children’s understanding of how words can be built from other words improves
Derivation: adding morphemes to change the part of speech of a word- e.g., adjective + ly= adverb; adjective + ness = noun
Forming compound words
Combining two words into one This ability also continues to improve into adulthood What would you call: A house that a black bird lives in? Someone who builds houses for birds? A bird who builds houses?
Learning new words
Preschoolers: fast-mapping
By age 5: quick incidental learning
School years- direct instruction
Quick incidental word learning
Learning new words in context without explicit labeling- books, movies, TV, conversations in the real world
Grammar in school years
By the time they get to school, children have already mastered most of the morphology and syntax of their language
Sentence length and complexity in the school years
Children’s sentences become longer and more complex as they use complex syntax more frequently
Combinations of sentences into longer utterances in the school years
Older children are better able to combine sentences into longer monologues or narratives- use grammatical structures to make their discourse easier to follow
Conversational skill
Developments in conversational skill continue into the school years- more contingent responses, longer dialogue, more responses related to the attitudes/beliefs of the other speaker, rather than just responding to factual content
Gender-typed conversation changes may reflect the different social orders in groups of boys and girls- boys play competitively in large, hierarchically-arranged groups; girls play non-competitively in small groups or pairs of similar social status
Narrative skill
“Good” Western narratives, as judged by Western adults, have:
Coherence: the events in the story are all related
Cohesion: sentences are linked to each other
Story grammar: setting- place and characters, episodes- events, problems, resolutions of problems
Developmental change in narrative
Age 3-4: events are disconnected
Age 5: more coherent and cohesive, but some events not resolved
Age 6: can tell a good single-episode story
By age 10, children can coordinate and resolve multiple events in a story with all of the major components
Comprehension monitoring
Preschoolers are able to take the listener into consideration, but even 5-year-olds sometimes fail to provide adequate information- referential communication task, children are better at repairing their message to aid understanding if they realize on their own that the original communication failed
5-year-olds also tolerate insufficient communication from others- they are overconfident in their understanding, they don’t realize that the message was insufficient
Understanding nonliteral language
Understanding of metaphor/simile, idioms, irony and sarcasm improves across middle to late childhood and into adolescence
Why is nonliteral language more difficult to understand and produce than literal language?
Requires inhibiting a literal interpretation in favor of a nonliteral interpretation (executive function skill)
Often requires flexible alternation between literal and nonliteral meaning (executive function skill)
Requires an understanding that the speaker intends a nonliteral interpretation (theory of mind skill)
How does school influence language development?
Kindergartners’ and first-graders’ lexical and grammatical skills improve more when school is in session than during summer vacation
Providing definitions
Children in Western schools improve in their ability to provide formal definitions of words The larger (superordinate) category containing the word being defined The characteristics that distinguish this word from others
Input from teachers
Sophistication of vocabulary
Use of complex sentences
Analytic talk- providing further explanation and description
Correcting the content of children’s speech
The language of school and cultural mismatch
Learning the language and culture of the Western formal school setting is particularly difficult for children from other cultures
Known-answer question: teachers often ask questions that they themselves know the answer to (e.g., “what’s 2+2?”)
American parents do this too: “Where’s your nose?”
Non-Western parents are less likely to do this, so the structure is unfamiliar to their children when they reach school
If the child’s narrative style differs from the teacher’s, the teacher may have difficulty providing feedback or scaffolding
How natural is reading?
Human invent oral (or signed) communication systems anytime they interact with each other
In contrast, written language has only emerged a few times in human history- most languages in human history have no writing system
Children do not require formal instruction to learn oral or signed language
In contrast, most children do require formal instruction to learn how to read
Relations between spoken and written language
Proficient oral language does not lead to literacy
But proficient oral language can aid reading skill
Writing systems
Alphabets, syllabaries, logographies
Alphabets
Based on the alphabetic principle: each written symbol (letter) corresponds to a single phoneme- English, Korean, Greek, Arabic, Urdu, Russian, etc.
Syllabaries
Each symbol corresponds to a syllable- Japanese, Cherokee
Logographies
Each symbol corresponds to a word or multiple words- Chinese
Relations between phonology and reading
Phonological awareness in pre-readers is related to their later reading ability through 4th grade
Phonological awareness is a predictor of dyslexia
Letter knowledge (knowing the names and sounds of letters) is also related to later reading ability and predictive of dyslexia
Phonological awareness is particularly important in the early stages of reading
Relations between vocabulary and reading
Children with higher vocabularies tend to be better readers than children with lower vocabularies
Vocabulary is particularly important for later stages of reading after the basics have been established- reading comprehension vs. “sounding out” words
Mutual influence between vocabulary and reading ability- children with higher vocabularies read more, children who read more learn more words
Understanding decontextualized language
Spoken language is often contextualized- we talk about things that are happening right here, right now
Written language is almost always decontextualized- the context doesn’t help you decode the meanings of the words
Children’s experience with decontextualized spoken language (narratives, being read to) is related to their early literacy
Role of dialect in learning to read
Many ethnic and social groups speak dialects that differ from the “standard” version of the language- e.g., Southern American English, Black English, New York Latino English, Chicano English
These dialects have systematic morphosyntax and phonology that differs in some respects from Standard American English
Speakers of these dialects may have difficulty learning to read and write Standard American English because the grammar, phonology, and lexicon differ from their native dialect
Emergent literacy
Basic skills related to literacy that predict later reading and writing proficiency:
Phonological awareness, letter knowledge
Knowledge about books and using books
Understanding the function of reading/writing
Early experiences related to literacy achievement
Language use in the home- longer discourse and richer vocabulary
Family literacy- reading at home
Learning the reading process
Reading consists of:
Recognizing the printed words
Comprehending the larger meaning
Alphabetic principle
Early readers have to sound out every word
With reading experience, readers are able to recognize more words on sign and reading becomes more fluid and faster
Matthew effect
Kids who start out as good readers read more and become better reader
Kids who start out as poor readers read less and don’t improve
Individual differences
Low-SES children are more likely to have reading difficulty than higher-SES children- many potential sources for this difference
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
A specific reading difficulty; reading ability lower than expected for the child’s IQ
The most common view is that dyslexia stems from an underlying phonological deficit
Some researchers believe that there is also a general deficit in processing speed
Methods for teaching reading
Phonics method
Whole word approach
Whole language approach
Phonics method
Teaches children to decode the written word
Learn sound-letter correspondences first and build up to whole words
Bottom-up approach
Whole world approach
Teaches children “sight words”
Learn whole words first and decode into individual sound-letter correspondence from there
Top-down approach
Whole language approach
Gives children exposure to written word through literature
Interesting books and life experiences will give children a desire to read
Which method is the best?
Phonics method
Characteristics of signed languages
Lexicon: signs
Sub-lexical components (like phonemes/morphemes): hand shape, location, movement
Grammar: combinations of signs, non-manual signs (facial expression)
Sign languages have no correspondence to the spoken language of the culture- ASL has nothing in common with English
Education for Deaf children: oral schools
Historically, Deaf schools have emphasized oral language skill only
No signing allowed
Goal: mastery of spoken language
Education for Deaf children: total communication
Recently, the total communication approach has become more popular then the oralist approach
Use sign language or gesture (e.g., cued speech) to supplement spoken language
Goal: mastery of spoken language
Education for Deaf children: bilingual-bicultural
Acquire sign language as a first language, then begin to learn to read/write and/or speak the spoken language
Goal: full bilingualism and exposure to Deaf and hearing culture
Deaf children of hearing parents
Deaf children born to hearing parents who don’t sign receive no linguistic input from their parents
Children create home sign systems to communicate with family members- not full language, but contain words and basic grammar
Some have their first exposure to sign language in school
Some (i.e., those who attend oralist schools) may never be exposed to fluent sign, or only in adulthood
Age of acquisition of ASL is related to fluency and proficiency 30 years later
Deaf children of Deaf parents
Children whose parents are native signers acquire sign language just like hearing children acquire spoken language- similar milestones and timecourse (slightly earlier first words), similar grammatical acquisition- overregularization, pronoun reversal
Children whose parents are non-native (but fluent) signers still demonstrate typical language development- proficiency of parent input is related to children’s language skill, but children can make use of imperfect input
Cochlear implants
Device that is implanted inside the inner ear that converts sound waves into an electrical signal that stimulates the auditory nerve- results in simulated hearing, more channels –> better simulation of actual sound
Cochlear implant influence on oral language
Deaf children who receive cochlear implants have better oral language skill than deaf children without cochlear implants
Not as good as children born hearing
Age of implantation effets
Age of implantation is related to oral language skill
Earlier implantation –> increased ability to interpret simulated sounds in a meaningful way
The cochlear implant debate
Most hearing parents who have a child born deaf do not see a downside to cochlear implants
Many members of the Deaf community think that cochlear implants are a threat to their culture- argue that deafness is not a disability that needs to be fixed, believe that deaf children should learn sign language and join the Deaf community
Many deaf children of hearing parents feel torn between two cultures- not “true” members of the Deaf community because they are not native signers, can’t fully participate in hearing culture because they can’t hear
Hearing children of Deaf parents (CODAs)
CODAs with native signing parents acquire sign language just like deaf children
If both parents are deaf, CODAs may not receive spoken input from their caregivers- may receive spoken input from other family members, childcare, etc.
Acquire spoken language once they enter school
Very little research on CODA language development
Language in blind children
Infants who are born blind have access to all of the same linguistic input as sighted infants
Blindness: lack of access to nonverbal communication cues
Do not have access to eye gaze, pointing, joint attention
Language milestones in blind children
Reach most language milestones at the same time as sighted children
Phonological errors in blind children
Phonological errors for similar phonemes like /b/ vs. /m/
Vocabulary in blind children
Fewer words for objects that can’t be touched
More words for objects associated with sounds
Undergeneralization of nouns
Later acquisition of “helping verbs” - probably related to fewer questions in parental input
Holistic speech in blind children
More holistic, rather than analytic, speech
Didja, wanna
Children with cognitive impairments
Studying language in children with cognitive impairments is useful for understanding the relation between language and general cognition
Relations between language and cognition
If language is independent from other cognition, then it should be possible for a child to have a cognitive impairment that does not affect language
If language is dependent on other cognition, then children’s language should be affected to the same degree as other cognitive skills
These questions are studied by comparing general IQ scores on language tasks
Down syndrome: language skill relative to cognitive skill
Children with Down syndrome’s language skills are more impaired than other cognitive skills- low language skill for IQ
Phonology in children with Down syndrome
Difficulties with production that can last into adulthood
Vocabulary in children with Down syndrome
Late to acquire first words, low productive vocabulary for mental age, comprehension in line with mental age
Grammar in children with Down syndrome
Very slow development, follow the typical timecourse but much more slowly
Communication in children with Down syndrome
Interested in communication from infancy
Difficulties with secondary intersubjectivity
Early conversational skill in childhood but difficulty in adulthood with more complex conversation and pragmatic rules
Language skill relative to cognitive skill in children with Williams syndrome
Children with Williams syndrome have language that is less impaired than other cognitive skills
Narratives in children with Williams syndrome
Can tell complex narratives
Vocabulary in children with Williams syndrome
Can use advanced vocabulary
Still not on par with typically developing children of the same age, but relatively unimpaired for their mental age
Production vs. comprehension in children with Williams syndrome
Production precedes comprehension
Different timecourse than typically developing kids
Don’t always understand the words they produce
Sociability in children with Williams syndrome
Very social and interested in conversation with others
Memorization in children with Williams syndrome
Rely more on memory than understanding the rules of language and conversation
Autism spectrum
Wide range of language and cognitive abilities
Some autistic individuals never produce language or only produce echolalic speech- repeating what they have heard from another person
How autistic language differs from typically developing children
Unusual prosodic patterns Differences in pitch and volume Similar vocabulary growth, but less vocabulary for mental-state words Most impaired in communicative and sociopragmatic development Little to no joint attention No pointing Pronoun reversal Difficulties with nonliteral language Limited range of conversational topics
Specific language impairment
Children with language impairments that are not explained by hearing impairments, cognitive impairments, or autism
Differences between children with SLI and typically-developing children
Tend to be late talkers
Have smaller and slower growing vocabularies with very few verbs
Particularly impaired in morphology and syntax
Potential causes of SLI
Auditory processing- not supported by research
Phonological memory
Cognition- symbolic understanding, mental imagery, planning, reasoning, interference
Language device impairment- “missing rule hypothesis”
Language environment- not supported by research
Neurobiology and genetics
