Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:45:47.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social biases toward children with speech and language impairments: A correlative causal model of language limitations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Mabel L. Rice ,
Pamela A. Hadley  and
Amy L. Alexander
Mabel L. Rice*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Pamela A. Hadley
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Amy L. Alexander
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Maberl L. Rice, Child Language Program, University of Kansas, 1082 Dole Center, Lawrence, KS 66045
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores adults' attitudes toward children with limited linguistic competency. Four groups of adult judges participated in this study: kindergarten teachers, women matched for age and education level with the teachers, undergraduate college students, and speech-language pathologists. The judges listened to audiotaped samples of preschool children's speech. Two triads of children were formed, matched for age, gender, and intelligence, but differing in communication abilities. The adults responded to questionnaire items addressing child attributes (e.g., intelligence, social maturity) and parental attributes (e.g., education level, SES). Systematic biases were revealed toward children with limited communication abilities. The biases are interpreted as reflective of adults' expectations for children's language.It is argued that adults call upon a correlative causal model of language acquisition to interpret individual differences in children's language abilities. Negative social and academic consequences of such misinterpretations are discussed. The visual similarity of the error to the target word was also determined. The RD group at all ages produced significantly fewer phonologically accurate misspellings than the children with normal achievement scores, whether the constrained or the unconstrained scoring system was used. The AD-poor spellers and the RD group produced significantly fewer phonologically constrained, accurate misspellings than the NA group. Using the unconstrained measure, the AD-poor spellers at the youngest age level displayed as much difficulty using rudimentary sound-symbol conversion rules as the RD group, while at the older age levels, they did as well as the NA group. AD-good spellers performed as well as the NA group on both measures at all age levels. Children who were good readers and spellers (Good RS) were compared with children who were poor readers and spellers (Poor RS) and with children who were good readers and poor spellers (Mixed RS). Mixed RS produced significantly more phonologically and visually accurate misspellings than Poor RS. In summary, subtypes of learning-disabled children use spelling strategies that are significantly different from each other. RD children have the most difficulty acquiring the knowledge of soundspelling correspondence rules that are necessary for English spelling skills. The performance of AD children depends on the complexity of the scoring system, age, and spelling ability. Those students whose knowledge of sound-spelling correspondence rules is sufficiently well developed for reading but not for spelling (good readers/poor spellers) develop their phonetic skills more slowly than the good readers/good spellers. The understanding and use of phonological rules varies according to the subtype of learning disability, with children with a reading disability performing the most poorly at all age levels.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 445 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Black, B. & Hazen, N. L. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted and unacquainted preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 26, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, E. L. (1991). Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J. (1990). Language attitudes and impression formation. In Giles, H. & Robinson, W. P. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387–412). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
Burroughs, E. I. & Tomblin, J. B. (1990). Speech and language correlates of adults’ judgments of children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
H. W., Catts (1990). Promoting successful transition to the primary grades: Prediction of reading problems in speech and language handicapped children. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., Katz, W. & Tallal, P. (1992). Delay vs. deviance in the language acquisition of language impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Giles, H. & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (1986). The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hains, A. H., Fowler, S. A., Schwartz, I. S., Kottwitz, E. & Rosenkoetter, S. (1990). A comparison of preschool and kindergarten teacher expectations for school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1986). The mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Illusory correlation as a basis for stereotyping. In Hamilton, D. L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 115–144). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hazen, N. L. & Black, B. (1989). Preschool peer communication skills: The role of social status and interaction context. Child Development, 60, 867–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and class-rooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshler, J. A. (1991). Preschool children's help to second language learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Lahey, M., Liebergott, J., Chesnick, M., Menyuk, P. & Adams, J. (1992). Variability in the use of grammatical morphemes: Implications for understanding language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R. & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Chapman, R. (1990). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) [computer program]. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. E., DeGracie, J. S. & Ayabe, C. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reck, U. M., Reck, G. G. & Keefe, S. (1987, 04). Teacher's perceptions of Appalachian and non-Appalachian students. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Reynell, J. K. (1985). Reynell Developmental Language Scales-Revised. Windsor: Nfer-Nelson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (1991). Children with specific language impairment: Toward a model of teachability. In Krasnegor, N. A., Rumbaugh, D. M., Schiefelbusch, R. L. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 447–480). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (1992). “Don't talk to him; He's weird”: A social consequences account of language and social interactions. In Kaiser, A. & Gray, D. (Eds.), Enhancing children's communication: Research foundations for intervention (pp. 139–158). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. & Oetting, J. B. (1991, 10). Morphological deficits of specific language impairment; A matter of missing functional categories? Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Sell, M. A. & Hadley, P. A. (1991). Social interactions of speech and language impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1299–1307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seligman, C. R., Tucker, G. R. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). The effects of speech style and other attributes on teachers’ attitudes toward pupils. Language in Society, 1, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. & Fasold, R. (1973). Language attitudes: Current trends and prospects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tabors, P. O. (1987). The development of communicative competence by second language learners in a nursery school classroom: An ethnolinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Taylor, O. (1973). Teachers’ attitude toward Black and non-standard English as measured by the language attitude scale. In Shuy, R. & Fasold, R. (Eds.), Language attitudes: Current trends and prospects (pp. 174–201). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Terrell, S. L. & Terrell, F. (1983). Effects of speaking Black English upon employment opportunities. ASHA, 25(6), 27–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Walsh, D. J. (1989). Changes in kindergarten: Why here? Why now? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, F. (1973a). Some recent studies in language attitudes. In Shuy, R. (Ed.), Some new directions in linguistics (pp. 121–149). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (1973b). Some research notes on dialect attitudes and stereotypes. In Shuy, R. W. & Fasold, R. W. (Eds.), Language attitudes: Current trends and prospects (pp. 113–128). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Winitz, H. (1969). Articulating acquisition and behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar