home site map our company advisory board contact us update profile
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| News & Information » News » Articles » Interviews » Ask the Expert » Submissions |
| » 800.242.5183» Email Us |
| Home | Articles | Article Details |
  |
|
9/20/2004 Language in Context: History, Developmental Milestones, and Implications for Intervention Margot E. Kelman, M.S., CCC-SLP | |
| Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences Wichita State University Introduction: The ability to communicate is fostered and mastered through natural interactions in our world. We develop effective communication skills by engaging in conversations. Conversational skills become the centerpiece for communication development. When we engage in conversation, pragmatic skills are used. Among the many skills that encompass pragmatics, the conversational abilities of turn taking and topic initiation and maintenance are essential for discourse. Children with language impairments often do not follow typical developmental paths with respect to pragmatic abilities. Research in typical and atypical pragmatic skills can be used to guide speech language pathologists (SLPs) to facilitate a strong link between what is known about language in context, to what is used in treatment protocols. SLPs should consider eliminating strategies with no realistic carryover to the real world. Language as a social tool, should be approached in a manner consistent with the everyday communicative environment. Pragmatics: Pragmatics is the study of language in context (McTear, 1985). Linguists generally agree that pragmatics is the overall organizing principle of language, including a set of rules, functions, purposes or intents within the communicative context (Hulit & Howard, 2002; Owens, 2001). In pragmatics, the emphasis is on the way language is used for communication, rather than the way language is structured. We make use of pragmatic skills when we engage in conversation. The analysis of conversation has roots in several disciplines: philosophy, psychology, linguistics, sociology, anthropology and speech-language pathology. According to Bates (1976), pragmatics originated in 1932 with philosopher Charles Peirce, when he developed his theory of ‘semiotics.’ Probably the most widely cited early definition is that of Charles Morris (1946) who divided linguistic science into syntactics (the relations among signs), semantics (the relations among signs and referents) and pragmatics (the relations among signs and their users). The study of language in context did not gain recognition until the 1970s. Prior to that time, child language research focused on linguistically relevant knowledge, influenced by Chomsky’s (1957) transformational grammar. A shift in emphasis began in the 1960s with contributions from Austin (1962) and his student Searle (1969), who originated ‘speech act theory,’ focusing on the instrumental aspects of communication. Hymes (1962) and Slobin (1967) voiced objections to the preoccupation with a purely syntactic conceptualization of linguistic competence. They believed linguistic competence represented only one component of what a language user must know to be competent with language. In the early 1970s the focus on language shifted to relational semantics. Bloom (1970), Schlesinger (1971), and Brown (1973) studied children’s language at the two-word stage and devised lists of semantic relations. This period acknowledged the necessity of looking at events embracing the utterances to classify those utterances. Once an appreciation for the underlying syntax and semantic relations was gained, researchers began looking for the conceptual scaffolding to support these language competencies, giving birth to the “cognitive period” (Duchan, 1984). According to Duchan (1984), the cognitive bases of language were influenced by the work of Bever (1970), Slobin (1973), and Strohner and Nelson (1974). The pragmatics movement, with roots in the linguistic and cognitive domains, began in earnest in the mid-1970s. The linguistic and cognitive frameworks contributed to the understanding of what occurs in the minds of young children. The shift to defining language in terms of its use, based on the social interaction between conversational partners, truly launched pragmatics into revolutionary change (Duchan, 1984). Researchers wanted to know how the context of language influenced meaning and how language served different functions for speakers under varying circumstances. Early work in pragmatics served to identify functions of the first communicative attempts by children, where communicative gestures and utterances were classified into functional groupings such as requests, comments, and greetings (Dore, 1974, 1975; Halliday, 1975). Gradually, by the late 1970s, investigators attended to the social and interpersonal aspects of children’s language. A segment of applied speech act theory moved the discipline toward a social view of language learning, where researchers analyzed children’s use of prelinguistic communication for social ends. For example, Bates (1979) identified a distinction between a set of gestures that preverbal children make to obtain an object, identified as protoimperatives, and another set of gestures whose purpose is purely social, termed protodeclaratives. Natural language learning approaches proliferated in the literature (Bloom & Lahey, 1978; McLean & Snyder-McLean, 1978, Miller, 1978). A new type of clinical practice evolved, with interest in how messages are used and how they fit into the situational and cultural contexts of everyday life communication. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, speech-language pathology underwent a dramatic theoretical shift toward pragmatic models of child language acquisition (Craig, 1983; Prutting, 1982). Major reorientations in views regarding the nature and treatment of language disorders in children took place (DeMaio, 1984). A consensus evolved that goals of language intervention programs must address the semantic content, structural forms, and pragmatic functions of children’s language (Constable, 1986). New therapies were developed, focusing on communication in context. As Duchan (2001) describes, the act of conversation acquired new status as an important communication domain, with its own learning and performance requirements. Clinicians reasoned that to become a competent conversationalist, clients needed to develop various conversational skills. The underlying tenet was that language develops within the context of communication, and in addition to cognitive and linguistic processes, social interaction is a critical factor in language acquisition (DeMaio, 1984). Within language acquisition is the study of discourse phenomena, including mastering turn-taking skills (DeMaio, 1982) and initiating and maintaining conversational topics (Bedrosian, 1985; Brinton & Fujiki, 1984). The skills of turn taking and topic initiation and maintenance share an integral relationship. Turns are often taken or given when topics are ended. Both skills are necessary for effective conversation. Conversational Turn Taking: A conversation is a joint production resulting from interactional ‘work’ by the participants (McTear, 1985). In conversations, participants regularly take turns, switching between roles of speaker and listener, while assuming responsibilities of each. Turn taking skills are part of the building blocks essential for acquisition of later conversational skills. Cooperative turn taking is the pattern followed in all our communicative, work, and play interactions (McLean & Snyder-McLean, 1999). As human beings, we follow rules of the interaction process; therefore, it is only natural that the rules of turn taking are integrated early within infants. While talking to babies, adults usually pause after each comment or question, leaving time for the baby to respond. Any response from the infant is typically treated as if the baby had responded meaningfully. As children become more skilled in their ability to attend to and manipulate objects, adults apply the same strategy, i.e., “do something to the object and wait” (McLean & Snyder-McLean, 1999). Here, young children are being taught basic turn taking skills of (1) fill your turn, and (2) wait your next turn by allowing a turn from your partner. Thus, adults set up models and interactions that allow children to learn and follow rules of interaction. The child is given an opportunity to discover and practice a skill with someone who already knows it. Evidence of communicative turn taking is seen well before the child begins to use words. Infants show an awareness of pragmatics or communicative function long before they have a linguistic code (Bates 1976; Dore, 1975; Halliday, 1975). As the young child moves from prelinguisitic to linguistic communication, develops specific communicative intentions, and begins to use presuppositions, a turn taking style more closely resembling adult conversation emerges (Hulit & Howard, 2002). Throughout infancy and the early toddler year, children are engaged in interactional behaviors with their parents and caregivers. Behaviors such as joint reference and joint action form the foundation of rudimentary turn taking. The child at age two still has much to learn about turn taking and the common courtesies of conversation. In general, the two-year-old is able to respond to his or her conversational partner and engage in short dialogues of a few turns on a given topic (Owens, 2001). Although the two-year-old is able to participate in conversations with one or two partners, the child does not always allow the speaker to complete his or her turn before trying to speak (Hulit & Howard, 2002). Ervin-Tripp (1979) found that most of these interruptions occur at syntactic junctures or when the speaker’s prosody appears to signal conversational right-of-way. By age two, simultaneous vocalizations that were quite common among infants and their mothers decrease significantly and a more mature alternating pattern of turn taking predominates (Elias & Broerse, 1996). By two-and-a-half years, Kaye and Charney (1981) found that conversational turn taking between mothers and children is very smooth, with less than five percent of the turns of either partner interrupted by the other partner. The child at this age devotes only two turns per conversational topic, and has difficulty conversing about topics that are absent or events in the past (Hulit & Howard, 2002). Pause time between turns is not yet mastered at age two. Whereas the adult allows about one second between turns, the two-year-old allows longer pauses. However, by the third birthday, the child recognizes that these longer pauses can be interpreted to mean that no response will follow, so the child adjusts and shortens the response time to maintain the turn. Craig and Gallagher (1983) found that by age three, the child is developing sensitivity to the time factor in conversational exchanges. If a time delay between turns is longer than one second, the child concludes that no response is forthcoming. In a study by Garvey (1984), preschoolers were found to lack the precise timing of conversational turns. According to Garvey, rather than anticipating upcoming conversational boundaries, the children relied on obvious cues that a speaker was finished, which often resulted in long pauses between turns. As the three-year-old becomes more aware of the social aspects of discourse, he or she acknowledges the partner’s turns with fillers, such as “yeah” and “uh-huh” (Owens, 2001). Some preschoolers are able to handle conversations involving two partners but struggle with three-party conversations (Ervin-Tripp, 1979). The child may interrupt to capture his or her turn in the conversation. At age three, the child has not yet mastered how and when to interrupt according to the rules of conversational etiquette. As the child nears four years of age, turn taking takes on another level of sophistication. The child begins to use the pause in a conversation as a cue for initiating a turn (Garvey & Berninger, 1981). Of greater significance, the child begins to take into consideration what is likely to be included in the next turn. In other words, the child shows awareness of what is being discussed in the present turn and anticipates how the topic will be completed in succeeding terms (McTear, 1985). The four-year-old also becomes sensitive to problems the partner may have in finishing his or her turn. When the child senses difficulty, he or she may attempt to help by completing what is perceived as the partner’s thought (Hulit & Howard, 2002). By the time the child enters school, turn taking skills have been developed considerably. In interaction with adults, children tend to stay involved in conversations and appear to be good turn takers. In peer interactions, however, children are more likely to show a disruption of turn taking (Schober-Peterson & Johnson, 1991). Topic Initiation and Topic Maintenance: A topic can be defined as the content about which we speak (Owens, 2001). It is the cohesion in the conversation. Once a topic is introduced, it can be maintained by having a conversational partner comment on the topic (by adding information), alter the focus of the topic, or request more information. Topics can be changed by introducing a new one, reintroducing a previous one, or by ending the conversation (Owens, 2001). Mothers and other caregivers often treat infant behaviors as if they were communicative in nature, establishing them as topic initiations to which they provide an appropriate response. Clear cases of intentional initiations have been identified in infants as young as nine months of age. Foster (1979) studied the development of topic initiations in children from one month to two-and-a-half years of age. She found that the earliest strategic initiations (i.e., those that ascribed some communicative intention to the child) involved self-topics, where the child would try to gain attention with a cry. For these initiations, Foster found it sufficed for the child to attract the adult’s attention. As early as one year of age, the child is highly skilled at initiating a topic by a combination of glances, gestures, vocalizations, and verbalizations. Topics are typically maintained for only one or two turns at this age, except within well-established routines (e.g., bathing, dressing) because these routines provide a structure for discourse (Owens, 2001). At this age, the child’s utterances on the topic usually consist of imitations of the adult or comments on items that are physically present. By age two, the child is capable of maintaining a topic in adjacent pairs of utterances. These utterances typically follow a pattern, such as question/answer. For example, the child may respond when given a choice such as, “Do you want milk or juice?” Between two and three years of age, the child gains a limited ability to maintain coherent topics (Foster, 1986). The child is not very adept at maintaining conversation by adding or seeking new information in each turn or using one comment to prompt a new but related response. The primary strategy for maintaining conversation at this age is to repeat part or all of the utterance just produced by the conversational partner. By three-and-a-half years, approximately three-fourths of the child’s utterances are on the established topic. Topics may last through more turns when children are enacting familiar scenarios or engaging in sociodramatic play, describing a physically present object or an ongoing event, and problem solving (Schober-Peterson & Johnson, 1989). Throughout the preschool years, children use repetition to remain on topic (Keenan, 1974, 1977). Although the preschool child may be maintaining a topic through three or four turns, not much new information is contributed. At this age, the conversation is maintained primarily through repeating part of what the older conversational partner has already said or by asking questions about the partner’s comments. Five-year-olds continue to use frequent repetition to acknowledge, provide cohesion, and fill turns (Owens, 2001). Brinton and Fujiki (1984) found that even in the early elementary years, children seldom add significant information to a conversation, and continue to be considered conversational followers. At five years of age, topics change rapidly. In a study by Brinton and Fujiki (1984), five-year-olds were found to discuss an average of fifty different topics within a fifteen-minute period; however, topics were maintained for an average of only five utterances. Brinton and Fujiki concluded that five-year-olds are still not highly skilled at sustaining topics of conversation. A study by Schober-Peterson and Johnson (1989) found that some four-year-olds are capable of extended participation to dialogue, at least part of the time. Schober-Peterson and Johnson contend that the types of toys and props available in the conversational setting have a significant impact on the level of topic exchange. Pragmatic Abilities and the Child with Language Impairment: Although the developmental milestones of turn taking and topic skills as guidelines or “benchmarks” can be used for typical development, speech-language pathologists know there are many children who do not engage in these skills in a developmentally appropriate manner. These children, for one reason or another, have not developed communicative competence. The majority of research in pragmatic skills has been conducted with children whose language is developing typically, although studies focusing on the interactive aspects of communication in populations with disorders exist. Some studies investigating pragmatic abilities in children with language impairments suggest that these children follow the same developmental sequence and exhibit the same range of pragmatic strategies as do typical children in a comparable linguistic stage (Fey, Leonard, & Wilcox, 1981; Gallagher & Darnton, 1978; Skarakis & Greenfield, 1982). However, other researchers (Fey & Leonard, 1983; Fey, Leonard, & Wilcox, 1981; Gallagher & Darnton, 1978; Skarakis & Greenfield, 1982) have reported differences in the proportional use of these strategies, evidenced by a qualitatively distinct pattern of interaction among the children with language impairment. One of the most prominent traits of children with language impairment is the tendency toward responding rather than initiating verbal information (Fey & Leonard, 1983). These studies suggest that many children with limited language abilities are conversationally reticent, avoiding initiating and maintaining topics of conversation. This, in turn, could place major constraints on elaborating their language use (DeMaio, 1982). The preschool child with pragmatic deficits may exhibit limitations in one or more of the following communicative/interactional areas: (1) communicative functions; (2) gaze interaction skills; (3) prototypical behaviors such as protodeclaratives and protoimperatives; (4) attention and joint action schemes; (5) awareness of agent, action, or object contingencies; (6) turn taking; (7) gestures or imitation behaviors (Tiegerman-Farber, 1995). Prelinguistic behaviors such as pointing or rudimentary turn taking may not be present in young children with language impairments resulting in communicative behaviors that are different from the normal developmental sequence. Many of these children do not develop a range of communicative functions, limiting their social interactions. Social context facilitates learning in typical children; however, children with language impairments often avoid social interactions. Improving social functioning in children with language impairments, therefore, is of primary importance. Many aspects of language are affected in children with language learning impairments (Wallach & Butler, 1995). In the area of pragmatics, children with language learning disability may have little problem with turn taking but difficulty initiating and maintaining a conversation and difficulty answering questions or requesting clarification (Owens, 1999). Children who do not understand the purpose of conversations are often reluctant to introduce topics for discussion. The child with language impairment may not be adept at introducing topics clearly or may have very limited topics (Dollaghan & Miller, 1986). The advent of pragmatic function studies not only revolutionized how language abilities are viewed from a developmental perspective, they also influenced how communicative skills are evaluated and how intervention is provided if development is lacking. Researchers and clinicians in the field of speech-language pathology have promoted several strategies and techniques to address communicative language delay and disorders in young children. In the following section, the clinical implications of intervention for remediation of pragmatic skills are discussed. Language in Context: Implications for Intervention: Since the 1970s, there has been a major reorientation in views regarding the nature and treatment of language disorders in children. The evolution of pragmatics has broadened the scope of knowledge regarding children’s language impairments to include not only lexical and syntactic difficulties, but also a variety of difficulties related to language use (DeMaio, 1984). It is accepted that language is developed within a conversational context, and that, in addition to linguistic and cognitive processes, social interaction is a critical factor in language acquisition. Two views of pragmatics intervention have evolved. The traditional model sees language as a composite of various rule systems --- five interrelated components, consisting of equal representations of syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics. In this model, pragmatics is one of five equal aspects of language, offering a specific set of rules for working on each component of the language system. The instructional focus here is a structured behavioral paradigm. The focus of the traditional language intervention model is on isolated linguistic constructs rather than the interrelationship of these units. Although emphasis may include content, form, and use, the overall design is commonly additive rather than integrative (Craig, 1983). Goals are typically stated in terms of specific language units, not enhancing communication. Although there has been a shift away from this model, many speech-language pathologists continue to practice a traditional approach in their intervention of pragmatic disorders. The functional model, a more holistic approach to intervention, views pragmatics as the overall organizing aspect of language, encapsulating syntax, semantics, morphology, and phonology. In the functional view, the overarching pragmatics model requires an interactive conversational approach to intervention, similar to the environment in which the language will be used. Intervention is considered bidirectional and child-oriented (Snow, Midkiff-Borunda, Small, & Proctor, 1984). A functional language intervention model attempts to target language features that the child uses in everyday context, such as the home or the classroom, and to adapt that context so that it facilitates the learning of language (Owens, 1999). In the clinical setting, speech-language pathologists are becoming increasingly aware of the effects of context on communication; however, despite twenty years of research in this arena, the awareness of this empirical evidence has not made its way into clinical practice. Traditional language intervention goals continue to target language forms, ignoring language use. Although a theoretical shift has occurred toward more functional pragmatic models, many treatment programs continue to emphasize syntax and semantics without communicative context (Brinton & Fujiki, 1993; Fujiki & Brinton, 1984). If children learn language best in a conversational context, then the intervention methodology should flow logically from this concept of language. As Owens (1999) stated, “The speech-language pathologist must be a master of the conversational context” (p.10). Unfortunately, due to large caseloads, time constraints, use of old methods learned years earlier in graduate school, and lack of an easy published “kit” to use, many speech-language pathologists shy away from incorporating into intervention the dynamic nature of conversational contexts. Instead, clinicians structure intervention as they have always done, relying on overworked verbal cues such as Tell me about this picture, What’s that?, or What is he doing? to elicit specific language structures. This interaction is often artificial, with clinicians asking questions to which they already know the answer. These types of questions require minimal elliptical responses, resulting in interaction that is qualitatively different from the child’s normal use of language. Reinforcing a correct response to contrived clinical stimuli such as, “What is this?” while holding up an object may not result in the child acquiring the use of a linguistic form but, rather, teach a conditioned behavior that will not transfer out of the remediation setting and will likely serve to tightly constrain effective communication. If the primary goal is communication, then a more natural conversational exchange must be practiced. Speech-language pathologists need to cease use of strategies that have no realistic carryover to the real world. Many clinicians were trained “the old way” and have become complacent in using familiar intervention strategies. For these clinicians, a paradigm shift is necessary, in addition to conscious, realistic thought about what the children on their caseload really need to be communicatively competent. The remediation of conversational abilities requires the use of actual conversational situations (Owens, 1999). Language intervention is a dynamic process. If language is a social tool and the goal is to prepare for generalized use, then it follows that language should be addressed in conditions similar to the everyday environment. Speech-language pathologists should be providing children with the best possible environment from which to learn language. Thus, the speech-language pathologist must modify the interactional context within which language is practiced so that it closely resembles or takes place within the child’s ongoing everyday communication environment. Emphasis is placed then on interactive situations that the child encounters in everyday life. For the clinician, this will require going beyond the clinical setting to more natural communicative settings. The functional approach changes the nature of the clinical interaction and the role of the speech-language pathologist. The functional approach recognizes the need to include family members and teachers as language facilitators, so that intervention can generalize to the child’s everyday communication contexts. Other adults (parents, teachers, aides) must act as language facilitators to assist in increasing the child’s potential for communication success (Craig, 1983). Children need to experience newly acquired language in a variety of communicative environments. Language will differ within each context and with each facilitator, broadening and enhancing the child’s communication experience. With the use of language facilitators, the role of the speech-language pathologist is altered. Rather than sole practitioner of the child’s social interactions, the speech-language pathologist becomes a programmer of the child’s environment, manipulating the variables to ensure successful communication and generalization. Use of a functional approach to pragmatics intervention requires the speech-language pathologist to be mindful of certain principles that facilitate learning and communication. These principles, adapted from Manolson (1992), and Owens (1999) include:
Clinicians can provide frequent opportunities for turn taking simply by creating brief pauses after their utterances to provide the child with a turn at speaking. The structuring of turns can enhance children’s involvement during conversations as well as provide them with considerable opportunity to communicate. Studies by Ervin-Tripp (1979) and Garvey and Berninger (1981) indicated that pause patterns between turns are an extremely salient characteristic of adult-child and child-child interaction. Children with more severe communication problems may require considerable time to formulate their response; however, according to DeMaio (1985), pauses in excess of eight seconds may cause the verbal interaction to break down. If there are long pauses, DeMaio suggests use of parallel talk or self-talk during long periods of silence. Clinicians must be cognizant of how much talking they are doing in comparison to the child. The more the clinician speaks, the less opportunity the child will have. Therefore, clinicians should strive to minimize the number of utterances they use per speaking turn so the child has ample opportunity to engage in the conversation. Careful attention to turn taking strategies will provide a more favorable environment for the child with pragmatic challenges. In regard to topic initiation and maintenance, the research states that children with language impairment tend to be responders rather than initiators of verbal information. The way in which clinicians approach these children in treatment will have a tremendous effect on their functional role in conversations. Rather than requesting information through direct questions, the clinician should strive to be more of a responder by commenting on the child’s involvement in an activity. DeMaio (1985) found that this pattern of interaction leads children intentionally to initiate verbal interaction within a relatively short period of time. DeMaio does not suggest the clinician engage exclusively in response patterns, but rather, use a greater number and variety of responses than the child. The way in which adults respond to children can assist in helping them initiate topics and maintain the flow of conversations. DeMaio (1982) suggested that clinicians incorporate a greater variety of back channel responses (e.g., messages such as “mm-hmm,” “yeah,” “I know;” and brief restatements) to allow children to initiate topics. Children with language disorders exhibit a desperate need for structure and redundancy of all kinds (Constable, 1986). Establishing a repertoire of routine scripted events is one way in which pragmatic skills can be acquired and practiced over time. Scripts contain shared event knowledge based on common experiences. Constable’s use of scripts that utilized dynamic, real life materials encouraged children to talk to each other. Familiar activities of high interest, such as making popcorn or pudding, provide specific situations in which children learn social language skills in context. It became clear to Constable and her colleagues that children used more spontaneous language, employed more complex semantic-syntactic interactions, and oriented to the communicative acts of others during these specific intervention activities than during others. If an environment is simply created and structured and allows the child to initiate more than the adult, then many materials already available can be integrated. Clinicians do not need to feel overwhelmed by the thought of completely restructuring their program and materials. By adjusting the types of linguistic techniques used within turn taking and topics, a framework for advancing children’s communicative contexts can be achieved. There are other benefits to language intervention with a conversational context emphasis. The focus on conversational skills in intervention not only enhances a child’s language use but also can do much to improve other aspects of a child’s life. For example, studies have found that early conversational ability appears to be critical to later academic success (Loban, 1976, Olson, 1977). Both Loban and Olson noted a relationship between school achievement and oral language abilities. Specifically, Olson suggested that the competencies needed to succeed in school are based on the abilities to understand and construct conversation. Conversational ability appears to play a significant role in the development of social competence and is a key prerequisite for the acquisition of skills related to friendship (Dodge, 1983; Donahue, 1983; Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen, 1975; Hops & Finch, 1985). It is imperative that clinicians strive for realistic communicative settings to maximize children’s learning of language within natural conversational context. The effects of naturalistic interventions can have far reaching effects. References: Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Bates E. (1979). The emergence of symbols. New York: Academic Press. Bedrosian, J. (1985). An approach to developing conversational competence. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 231-255). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: Wiley. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1984). Development of topic manipulation skills in discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 350-358. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1993). Language, social skills, and socioemotional behavior. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 194-198. Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, K. (1999). From oracy to literacy: Changing clinical perceptions. Topics in Language Disorders, 20 (1), 14-32. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Constable, C. (1986). The application of scripts in the organization of language intervention contexts. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Event knowledge: Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Craig, H. (1983). Applications of pragmatic language models for intervention. In T. Gallagher & C. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language (pp. 101-127). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Craig, H., & Gallagher, T. (1983). Adult-child discourse: The conversational relevance of pauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 347-360. DeMaio, L. (1982). Conversational turn-taking: A salient dimension of children’s language learning (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press. DeMaio, L. (1984). Establishing communication networks through interactive play: A method for language programming in the clinic. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5, 199-210. Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1387-1399. Dollaghan, C., & Miller, J. (1986). Observational methods in the study of communicative competence. In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language competence: Assessment and intervention (pp. 99-129). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Donahue, M. (1984). Learning disabled children’s conversational competence: An attempt to activate an inactive listener. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 21-36. Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 343-350. Dore, J. (1975). Holophrases, speech acts and language universals. Journal of Child Language, 2, 21-40. Duchan, J. (1984). Language assessment: The pragmatics revolution. In R. Naremore (Ed.), Language science: Recent advances. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Duchan, J. (2001). Getting here: The first hundred years of speech-language therapy in America. Retrieved from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~duchan/history.html. Elias, G., & Broerse, J. (1996). Developmental changes in the incidence and likelihood of simultaneous talk during the first two years: A question of function. Journal of Child Language, 23, 201-217. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Children’s verbal turn-taking. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Fey, M., & Leonard, L. (1983). Pragmatic skills of children with specific language impairment. In T.Gallagher and C. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Fey, M., Leonard, L., & Wilcox, K. (1981). Speech style modifications in language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 91-97. Foster, S. (1986). Learning topic management in the preschool years. Journal of Child Language, 13, 231-250. Fujiki, M. & Brinton, B. (1984). Supplementing language therapy: Working with the classroom teacher. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 301-311. Gallagher, T., & Darnton, N. (1978). Conversational aspects of the speech of language disordered children: Revision behaviors. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 21, 118-136. Garvey, C. (1975). Requests and responses in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 2, 41-63. Garvey, C. (1984). Children’s talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garvey, C. & Berninger, G. (1981). Timing and turn taking in children’s conversations. Discourse Processes, 4, 27-57. Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46, 709-718. Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean. In E. Lennenberg & E. Lennenberg (Eds.), Foundations of language development: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Academic Press. Hops, H., & Finch, M. (1985). Social competence and skill: A reassessment. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 23-39). New York: Springer-Verlag. Hulit, L., & Howard, M. (2002). Born to talk: An introduction to speech and language development (3rd edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington DC: American Anthropological Association. Kaye, K., & Charney, R. (1981). Conversational asymmetry between mothers and children. Journal of Child Language, 8, 35-49. Keenan, E. (1974). Conversational competence in children. Journal of Child Language, 1, 163-183. Keenan, E. (1977). Making it last: Repetition in children’s discourse. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 125-138). New York: Academic Press. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (No. 18). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. McLean, J., & Snyder-McLean, L. (1978). A transactional approach to early language training: Derivation of a model system. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. McLean, J., & Snyder-McLean, L. (1999). How children learn language. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group. McTear, M.F. (1979). Hey! I’ve got something to tell you: How preschool children initiate conversational exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 3(4), 331-336. McTear, M. (1985). Children’s conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. Manolson, A. (1992). It takes two to talk. Toronto, Canada: Hanen Centre. Miller, L. (1978). Pragmatics and early childhood language disorders: Communicative interactions in a half-hour sample. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 419-436. Morris, C. (1946). Signs, language, and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Olson, D. (1977). From text to utterance: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257-281. Owens, R. (1999). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention (3rd edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Owens, R. (2001). Language development: An introduction (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Prutting, C. (1982). Pragmatics as social competence. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 123-134. Schlesinger, I. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press. Schober-Peterson, D., & Johnson, C. (1989). Conversational topics of 4-year-olds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 857-870. Schober-Peterson, D., & Johnson, C. (1991). Non-dialogue speech during preschool interactions. Journal of Child Language, 18, 153-170. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skarakis, E., & Greenfield, P. (1982). The role of new and old information in the verbal expression of language disabled children, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Slobin, D. (1967). A field manual for cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communicative competence. Berkeley, CA: Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. Snow, C., Midkiff-Borunda, S., Small, A., & Proctor, A. (1984). Therapy as social interaction: Analyzing the contexts for language remediation. Topics in Language Disorders, 4(4), 72-85. Sonnenmeier, R.M. (1994). Script-based language intervention: Learning to participate in life events. In J. Duchan, L. Hewitt, & R. Sonnenmeier (Eds.), Pragmatics: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wallach, G., & Butler, K. (1995). Language learning disabilities: Moving in from the edge. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(1), 1-26. | |