Heilmann, J., Ellis Weismer, S., Evans, J. and C. Hollar. (2005). Utility of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventory in Identifying Language Abilities of Late-Talking and Typically Developing Toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 40-51 IRIS 10/1

Naming & SLI

37-924-01Sharon-Armon-Lotem

Bar-Ilan University

Dockrell et al.(1998) – 25% of children with language impairment have word finding difficulties (WFD)

*Lahey, M., and J. Edwards (1999). Naming Errors of Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 42 195-205 Children with SLI are less accurate at naming pictures of common objects (nouns) than age-matched peers with no language impairment (NLI)

Items in online naming task

Possible sources

Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other

language modules

Lexical-Semantic organization in SLI (Sheng & McGregor 2010)

Online word association task: “Say the first word that comes to your mind”.

McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly, R.M., and N. C. Capone. (2002). Semantic Representation and Naming in Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 45 998-1014 INBAL 10/1

Gray, S. (2004). Word Learning by Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment Predictors and Poor Learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47 1117-1132 SARIT 10/1

Object & Action Naming

Sheng, L. & K. K. McGregor. 2010. Object and action naming in children with SLI

Is there a difference between nouns and verbs?

Nouns vs. verbs

Nouns are processed in the posterior areas of the left hemisphere

Verbs are processed in Broca’s area, in the frontal or prefrontal motor areas of the left hemisphere

<

>

Patterns of Naming Objects and Actions in Monolingual and Bilingual Cypriot-Greek Children with SLI and WFDsMaria Kambanaros, PhD CSP MSPA (EUC)M.Kambanaros@euc.ac.cy

Kleanthes. K. Grohmann, PhD (UCY)Eleni Theodorou, MSc (UCY)

Paper presented at COST Action IS0804

Participants8 children with SLI – ages 6-1113 children with WFD – ages 6-1130 children with TLD – ages 6-7

Task – Naming 42 objects42 actions

Finding – correct percentage

* *

What influences success?

Frequency – only TLD object naming Age of acquisition – both object and action

naming by all groups Word imageability & Picture complexity -

both object and action naming by SLI and WFD, only object naming by TLD

Possible sources

Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other

language modules

Rate of input and lexical learning Fast speaking rates have an adverse

effect on comprehension and production. Temporal processing constraints for

rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli in children with SLI (Tallal et al.)

Auditory (temporal processing) deficit hypothesis

Merzenich, M. Jenkins, W., Johnston, P., S., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L. & Tallal, P., (1996) Temporal Processing Deficits of Language-Learning Impaired Children Ameliorated by Training, Science, v. 271, p. 77-81. (=Fast ForWord)

Task: discriminate between speech stimuli -six syllable contrasts ([ba] versus [da], [da] versus [ta], [ε] versus [ae], [dab] versus [daeb], [sa] versus [sta] and [sa] versus [sha]).

Findings: LI group made most errors discriminating syllables which were

differentiated by consonants and fewest errors on those differentiated by vowels.

The LI group was significantly poorer than the normal in discriminating all syllables that incorporated brief temporal cues followed rapidly in succession by other acoustic cues.

They also were impaired in discriminating [sa] versus [sha]. They were unimpaired discriminating stimuli differentiated by vowels.

Ellis Weismer and Hesketh (1993)

Novel word learning. Linguistic input conditions:

variations in speaking rate, Emphatic versus neutral stress use of supplemental visual cues (i.e., gestures).

16 kindergarten children: 8 with SLI and 8 with TLD. Rate Condition yielded significant differences:

Production: slow > fast, normal > fast. Comprehension: slow > fast.

A trend for the group with SLI to exhibit more pronounced effects in response to rate variations.

Ellis Weismer and Hesketh (1996) Research questions (p. 179):

1. Do prosodic manipulations of the linguistic input involving variations in speaking rate affect lexical learning by children with SLI?

2. Do these linguistic input modifications result in different patterns of performance for children with SLI than for those with NL development?

32 7-years old children: 16 with SLI and 16 with TLD.

Novel word learning (CVC and CVCC) Three speeds – every child receives all

three with different items. Testing for production, comprehension and

recognition (where RT was measured).

*

Production

CVCC were more difficult than CVC

Possible sources

Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other

language modules

Pizzioli, Fabrizio & Marie-Anne Schelstraete. 2011. Auditory lexical decision in children with specific language impairment. BUCLD

Sound detection and discrimination

Lexical decision task – word/nonword

Possible sources

Lexico-Semantic deficits Phonological processing deficits Lexical retrieval problems Mapping of lexical competence onto other

language modules