Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:35:22.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greater intelligibility in verbal routines with young children with developmental delays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Paul J. Yoder  and
Betty Davies
Paul J. Yoder*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Betty Davies
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Paul J. Yoder, Peabody Box 154, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unintelligible speech of many developmentally delayed children poses problems for language intervention and language assessment efforts. Eighteen developmentally delayed children in Brown's (1973) stage I and their parents participated in two studies of the relationship between verbal routines and the intelligibility of developmentally delayed children's speech. The first study demonstrated that more intelligible child speech was found in routines than in nonroutines. To determine if routine utterances were articulated more accurately than nonroutine utterances, the second study extracted a representative sample of routine and nonroutine utterances from their visual and discourse contexts and asked two naive observers to transcribe them. To investigate the possible effect of contextual information, the naive observers transcribed the extracted utterances under context-information-present and context-information- absent conditions. The results indicated that extracted utterances were more intelligible under context-information-present conditions. The results were interpreted as indicating that child speech was more intelligible in routines than nonroutines because routines provide adults with more context information for interpreting ambiguous child utterances.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 77 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edition-Revised (pp. 31–32). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Baumeister, A., & Kupstas, F. (1987, 04). The new morbidity: Implications for prevention and amelioration. Presentation to the Royal Society of Medicine Conference on social and environmental factors in the prevention and amelioration of mental retardation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. W. (1988). Articulation and phonological disorders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Brannon, J. B. (1964). Visual feedback of glossal motions and its influence on the speech of deaf children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). First language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bzoch, K., & League, R. (1971). Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scale. Gainesville, FL: Anhinga Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, K. L., Leonard, L., & Mervis, C. B. (1986). The effect of feedback on young children's inappropriate word usage. Journal of Child Language, 13, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constable, C. M. (1986). The application of scripts in the organization of language intervention contexts. In Nelson, K. (Ed.), Event knowledge: Structure and function in development (pp. 205–230). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conti-Ramsden, C., & Friel-Patti, P. (1987). Scriptedness: A factor in children's variation in language use? In Nelson, K. & van Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hedrick, D. L., Prather, E. M., & Tobin, A. R. (1984). Sequenced In ventory of Communication Development-Revised: Test Manual. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. R., Norris, J. A., & Monjure, J. (1990). Comparison of process targeting and whole language treatments for phonologically delayed preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 21, 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Standard Classification of Occupations. (1968). Geneva: International Labor Office.Google Scholar
Lahey, M., Launer, P. B., & Schiff-Myers, N. (1983). Prediction of production: Elicited imitation and spontaneous speech productions of language disordered children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manolson, A. (1985). It takes two to talk: A Hanan early language parent guidebook. Toronto: Hanan Resource Centre.Google Scholar
McGarr, N. (1983). The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1983). SALT: Systematic analysis of language transcripts. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Monsen, R. B. (1983). The oral speech intelligibility of hearing-impaired talkers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osberger, M. J. (in press). Speech intelligibility in the hearing impaired: Research and clinical implications. In Kent's, R. D. (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders: Theory, measurement, and management. Philadelphia: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prutting, C. A., Gallagher, T. M., & Mulac, A. (1975). The expressive portion of the NSST compared to a spontaneous language sample. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, S. (1982). The language of the mentally retarded: Development, processes, and intervention. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Handbook of applied psycholinguistics (pp. 329–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. G., Chapman, K., Prelock, P. A., Terrell, B. Y., & Rowan, L. E. (1985). Facilitation of early syntax through discourse structure. Journal of Child Language, 12, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shatz, M. (1983). Communication. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Cognitive development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sitler, R., Schiavetti, N., & Metz, D. (1983). Contextual effects in the measurement of hearing impaired speakers' intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 30–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, C. E., Perlmann, R., & Nathan, D. C. (1987). Why routines are different: Toward a multiple-factors model of the relation between input and language acquisition. In Nelson, K. & van Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6, pp. 65–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snyder-McLean, L., Solomonson, B., McLean, J., & Sack, S. (1984). Structuring joint action routines: A strategy for facilitating communication and language development in the classroom. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stutsman, R. (1948). Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. Chicago: C. H. Stoelting.Google Scholar
Swift, E., & Rosin, P. (1990). A remediation sequence to improve speech intelligibility for students with Down syndrome. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 21, 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. (1963). Intelligibffity of the speech of deaf children. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (Document No. 106, pp. 245–261). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Yarrow, M. R., & Waxler, C. Z. (1979). Observing interaction: A confrontation with methodology. In Cairns, R. B. (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 37–66). Hifisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yoder, P. J., & Davies, B. (1991). Verbal routines as a context for eliciting language use in young children with developmental disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar