Affiliation:
1. University of Texas at Dallas
2. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City
3. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
4. University of Wisconsin—Madison
5. The Hanen Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Purpose
In working with children with language impairments, some clinical scholars and clinicians advocate using input that is simplified to the point of being ungrammatical (telegraphic input), while others advocate simplified but grammatical input. This article considers 2 types of external evidence on this topic.
Method
First, a meta-analysis of relevant research, including intervention studies and processing studies, is reported. Next, 4 experts present their opinions.
Results
Children in the majority of the intervention studies showed no difference in language comprehension based on type of input, although 1 study with very few children favored telegraphic input for language production. In the processing studies, which measured immediate comprehension, children from clinical populations responded inconsistently when listening to the 2 types of input. Children who had typical language, however, favored grammatical input in their responses. Regarding the experts' opinions, 2 suggest that telegraphic input is sometimes warranted; 1, who previously indirectly promoted its occasional use, no longer believes it should be used; and 1 provides reasons why telegraphic input should not be used and may even be harmful.
Conclusions
Empirical findings and expert views are summarized as ways of informing parents of the weak evidence base regarding the best type of input.
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Subject
Speech and Hearing,Linguistics and Language,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Otorhinolaryngology
Reference77 articles.
1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: An introduction [Technical report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [Position statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
3. Prosodic and Syntactic Bootstrapping and Their Clinical Applications
4. Specific Language Impairment and Grammatical Morphology
5. Grammatical Morphology Deficits in Spanish-Speaking Children With Specific Language Impairment
Cited by
25 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献