Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:00:51.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating quantitative measures of grammatical complexity in spontaneous speech samples*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Joanna Blake ,
Georgia Quartaro  and
Susan Onorati
Joanna Blake*
Affiliation:
York University
Georgia Quartaro
Affiliation:
York University
Susan Onorati
Affiliation:
York University
*
Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St, North York, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The validity of MLU and a measure of syntactic complexity were tested against LARSP on spontaneous speech samples from 87 children, ranging in age from 1;6 to 4;9. Change in some LARSP clausal measures was found across MLU stages up to MLU 4.5. For the measure of syntactic complexity, no such ceiling was found for the clausal connectivity score in LARSP or for average clausal complexity in LARSP. Neither MLU nor the measure of syntactic complexity indexed LARSP phrasal complexity. It is concluded that MLU is a valid measure of clausal complexity up to 4·5 and that our measure of syntactic complexity is more valid at more advanced stages.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 139 - 152
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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by grants to the first author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Faculty of Arts of York University. We would like to thank Wendy Austin, Marsha Cannon, Judith Codd, Helen Downie, Mary-Lynne Stordy, Evelyn Vingilis and Susan Wetstein for their assistance in recording and transcribing the speech samples and in analysing the data. We are also very grateful to the staff and children of the Canadian Infacare, Friendship Lodge, Hydrokids, Pelmo Park, Tender Loving Care, Woodbine, and York University day care centres for their participation in the study.

References

REFERENCES

Blake, J. & Quartaro, G. (1990). Manual for recording, transcribing, and analyzing preschool children's speech samples. York University Dept. of Psychology Report No. 189.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, S. (1987). The relationship between age and MLU in young children: a second look at Klee & Fitzgerald's data. Journal of Child Language 14, 169–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crystal, D. (1974). Review of R. Brown (1973). A first language. In Journal of Child Language 1, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling linguistic disability. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976, 1981). The grammatical analysis of language disability: a procedure for assessment and remediation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Dromi, E. & Berman, R. A. (1982). A morphemic measure of early language development: data from modern Hebrew. Journal of Child Language 9, 403–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klee, T. & Fitzgerald, M. D. (1985). The relation between grammatical development and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Child Language 12, 251–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klee, T. M. & Paul, R. (1981). A comparison of six structural analysis procedures: a case study. In Miller, J. F. (ed.), Assessing language production in children: experimental procedures. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24, 154–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ramer, A. L. H. (1977). The development of syntactic complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 6, 145–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rondal, J. A., Ghiotto, M., Bredart, S. & Bachelet, J.-F. (1987). Age-relation, reliability and grammatical validity of measures of utterance length. Journal of Child Language 14, 433–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed