Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:47:10.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Departures in the spoken narratives of normal and language-disordered children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Betty Z. Liles  and
Sherry Purcell
Betty Z. Liles*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Sherry Purcell
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
*
Betty Z. Liles, U-85, Department of Communication Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spoken narratives of 38 normal and language-disordered children (CA 7;6–10;6) were analyzed by describing their departures from the original text during recall. The narrative texts were presented to an adult listener following each child's viewing of a 35-minute film. The following departure types were compared across groups: (a) acceptable departures from the original text meaning, (b) unacceptable departures from the original text meaning, (c) grammatical departures (i.e., agrammatical utterances), (d) exact repetitions of words or phrases, (e) unacceptable departures from the text's meaning correctly repaired, (f) unacceptable departures from the text meaning incorrectly repaired, (g) departures from text meaning left unrepaired, and (h) repaired grammatical departures. Results indicated that both groups used a higher rate of acceptable departures from the original text meaning than any other departure type, with the normal children producing a higher rate of acceptable departures and a lower rate of unacceptable grammatical departures. Both groups repaired fewer unacceptable grammatical departures than unacceptable departures from text meaning. The groups did not differ in their tendency to ignore grammatical departures. Implications for language processing in narrative discourse are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 185 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Baker, H., & Leland, B. (1967). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (1975). The relationship between syntax discrimination and sentence imitation in children. Child Development, 46, 444–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botvin, G. J., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1977). The development of structural complexity in children's narratives. Developmental Psychology, 13, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrow, E. (1973). Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language. Austin, TX: Urban Research Group.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Andersen, E. S. (1979, March). Spontaneous repairs: Awareness in the process of acquiring language. Paper presented at the Symposium on Reflection on Metacognition, Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco.Google Scholar
deVilliers, J., & deVilliers, P. (1974). Competence and performance in child language: Are children really competent to judge? Child Development, 1, 11–22.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. (1965) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Minneapolis: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Evans, M. A. (1985). Self-initiated speech repairs: A reflection of communicative monitoring in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 365–371.Google Scholar
Garber, M. (1979). An examination and comparison of selected cohesive features found in child produced texts and beginning reading materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. (1972). The emergence of the child as grammarian. Cognition, 1, 137–164.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R. (1982). Coincidence or causality in linguistic and cognitive skills: A reply to van Kleeck. Merrill-Palmer Quanerly, 28(2), 267–274.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary Engtish, 42, 639–643.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. S. (1970). Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In Goodman, K. & Niles, O. (Eds.), Reading: Process and program (pp. 3–38). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1977). Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 317–333.Google Scholar
Goodman, Y., & Burke, C. (1971). Reading Miscue Inventory. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hakes, D. (1980). The development of metalinguistic abilities in children. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English, London: Longman.Google Scholar
James, S., & Miller, J. (1973). Children's awareness of semantic constraints in sentences. Child Development, 44, 69–76.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. R. (1982). Narratives: A new look at communication problems in older languagedisordered children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 13, 144–145.Google Scholar
Kamhi, A., & Koenig, L. (1985). Metalinguistic awareness in normal and language-disordered children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 16, 199–210.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Psychological processes underlying pronominalization and non-pronominalization in children's connected discourse. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora (pp. 231–250). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (Rev. ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (1974). Developmental Sentence Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Bolders, J., & Curtis, R. (1977). On the nature of children's judgments of linguistic features: Semantic relations and grammatical morphemes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liles, B. Z. (1985a). Cohesion in the narratives of normal and language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 123–133.Google Scholar
Liles, B. Z. (1985b). Production and comprehension of narrative discourse in normal and language-disordered children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 409–427.Google Scholar
Liles, B. Z., & Schulman, M. (1980). The grammaticality task: A tool for language assessment and language intervention. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 11, 260–266.Google Scholar
Liles, B. Z., Schulman, M., & Bartlett, S. (1977). Judgments of grammaticality in normal and language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merritt, D. (1985). Story grammar ability in normal and language-disordered children: A comparison of story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1977). The Test of Language Development. Austin, TX: Empire Press.Google Scholar
Page, W. D. (1982). The Altercue Comprehension Technique. Storrs: University of Connecticut Cooperative Corp.Google Scholar
Sabin, E. J., Clemmer, E. J., O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1979). A pausological approach to speech development. In Siegman, A. W. & Feldstein, S. (Eds.), Of speech and time: Temporal speech patterns in inlerpersonal context (pp. 742–775). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scheffé, H. A. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1978). Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and summarizingstories. In Dressler, W. U. (Ed.), Current trends in textlinguistics (pp. 61–81). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Kleeck, A. (1984). Assessment and intervention: Does “meta” matter? In Wallach, G. P. & Butler, K. G. (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children (pp. 179–198). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
van Kleeck, A., & Bryant, D. (1983, October). A diary study of very early emerging metalinguistic skills. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Wiig, E., & Semel-Mintz, E. (1980). Clinical evaluation of language functions. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar