Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:23:37.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The generalisation of linguistic constructions in children with or without developmental language disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2020

Magali KRZEMIEN ,
Esther SERET  and
Christelle MAILLART
Magali KRZEMIEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Research Unit on Childhood, University of Liège, Belgium
Esther SERET
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Research Unit on Childhood, University of Liège, Belgium
Christelle MAILLART
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Research Unit on Childhood, University of Liège, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Magali Krzemien, B.38b, 30 rue de l'Aunaie, 4000 Liège, Belgium, mkrzemien@alumni.uliege.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The generalisation of linguistic constructions is performed through analogical reasoning. Children with developmental language disorders (DLD) are impaired in analogical reasoning and in generalisation. However, these processes are improved by an input involving variability and similarity. Here we investigated the performance of children with or without DLD in a construction generalisation task. We also compared their performance following training with an input involving progressive alignment (combining similarity and variability) or high variability. Progressive alignment improves construction generalisation in children with or without DLD, which could have implications for our understanding of language development and for interventions conducted with children with DLD.

Keywords

Generalisationconstructionsdevelopmental language disordersinhibition
Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , March 2021 , pp. 413 - 427
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aguilar, J. M., Plante, E., & Sandoval, M. (2018). Exemplar variability facilitates retention of word learning by children with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(1), 72–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, D. V., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & Catalise-2 Consortium. (2017). Phase 2 of CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1068–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 6, 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatham, C. H., Claus, E. D., Kim, A., Curran, T., Banich, M. T., & Munakata, Y. (2012). Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition. PloS One, 7(2), e31546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childers, J. B., Parrish, R., Olson, C. V., Burch, C., Fung, G., & McIntyre, K. P. (2016). Early verb learning: How do children learn how to compare events? Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collisson, B. A., Grela, B., Spaulding, T., Rueckl, J. G., & Magnuson, J. S. (2015). Individual differences in the shape bias in preschool children with specific language impairment and typical language development: Theoretical and clinical implications. Developmental Science, 3, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conti-Ramsden, G., & Windfuhr, K. (2002). Productivity with word order and morphology: A comparative look at children with SLI and children with normal language abilities. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, A. K. (2016). The roles of analogy, categorization, and generalization in entrenchment. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 269–288). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993 ). Echelle de vocabulaire en images peabody. Toronto, Canada: Psychan.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Anggoro, F. K., & Klibanoff, R. S. (2011). Structure mapping and relational language support children's learning of relational categories. Child Development, 82(4), 1173–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., & Colhoun, J. (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In Glatzeder, B., Goel, V. & Müller, A. (Eds.), Towards a theory of thinking (pp. 35–48). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Hoyos, C. (2017). Analogy and abstraction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 672–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Hung, B. (2007). Comparison facilitates children's learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurten, M., Catale, C., & Meulemans, T. (2016). Involvement of executive functions in children's metamemory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, M. B. (2017). Grammatical constructions as relational categories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 776–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldwater, M. B., Tomlinson, M. T., Echols, C. H., & Love, B. C. (2011). Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, K., & Leonard, L. B. (2003). The use and productivity of verb morphology in specific language impairment: An examination of Swedish. Linguistics, 41(2), 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im-Bolter, N., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2006). Processing limitations in children with specific language impairment: The role of executive function. Child Development, 77(6), 1822–1841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). A comparison of verb use in children with specific language impairment and their younger siblings. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 1298–1313.Google Scholar
Kamhi, A. G. (2014). Improving clinical practices for children with language and learning disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khomsi, A. (2001). ELO: Evaluation du langage oral. Paris, France: ECPS.Google Scholar
Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67(6), 2797–2822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecocq, P. (1996). L'ECOSSE: Une épreuve de compréhension syntaxico-sémantique. Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B., Davis, J., & Deevy, P. (2007). Phonotactic probability and past tense use by children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21, 747–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, S., Maillart, C., & Parisse, C. (2014b). Analogical mapping across modalities in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(9), 2158–2171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, S., Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2014a). Le manque de généralisation chez les enfants dysphasiques: Une étude longitudinale. ANAE, 131, 1–9.Google Scholar
Leroy, S., Parisse, C., & Maillart, C. (2012). Analogical reasoning in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 26(4), 380–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). Manulex: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(2), 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, L. K., Samuelson, L. K., Malloy, L. M., & Schiffer, R. N. (2010). Learn locally, think globally: Exemplar variability supports higher-order generalization and word learning. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1894–1902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plante, E., Gómez, R., & Gerken, L. (2002). Sensitivity to word order cues by normal and language/learning disabled adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 35(5), 453–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plante, E., Ogilvie, T., Vance, R., Aguilar, J. M., Dailey, N. S., Meyers, C., Lieser, A. M., & Burton, R. (2014). Variability in the language input to children enhances learning in a treatment context. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (2012). E-Prime 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.comGoogle Scholar
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children's development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(3), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–35). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Snape, S., & Krott, A. (2018a). The benefit of simultaneously encountered exemplars and of exemplar variability to verb learning. Journal of Child Language, 1–11.Google Scholar
Snape, S., & Krott, A. (2018b). The role of inhibition in moving beyond perceptually focused noun extensions. First Language, 38(1), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souto, S. M., Leonard, L. B., Deevy, P., Fey, M. E., & Bredin-Oja, S. L. (2016). Subordinate clause comprehension and tense/agreement inconsistency in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibaut, J.-P., French, R., & Vezneva, M. (2010). The development of analogy making in children: Cognitive load and executive functions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 69–88). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vang Christensen, R., & Hansson, K. (2012). The use and productivity of past tense morphology in specific language impairment: An examination of Danish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1671–1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Koss Torkildsen, J., Dailey, N. S., Aguilar, J. M., Gómez, R., & Plante, E. (2013). Exemplar variability facilitates rapid learning of an otherwise unlearnable grammar by individuals with language-based learning disability. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(2), 618–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. (2009). Echelle non verbale d'intelligence de Wechsler. Montreuil, France: ECPA.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J. K., Thomson, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in 5 year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(3), 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar