PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Heather K J van der Lely

Publications and source records attributed to Heather K J van der Lely.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: the impact of phonotactics.

Is past tense production better modelled by a Single Mechanism or a Words and Rules model? We present data concerning a phenomenon that has not been considered by either model-regular past tense verbs with contrasting phonotactics. One set of verbs contains clusters at the inflected verb end that also occur in monomorphemic words ('monomorphemically legal clusters', MLC) whereas the other has clusters that can only occur in inflected forms ('monomorphemically illegal clusters', MIC). We argue that if children apply a morphological rule, phonotactics will not affect performance. Conversely, if children store past tense forms, they will perform better on verbs with MLCs because these clusters are more frequent. We investigated three populations--typically developing children, Grammatical-SLI (G-SLI) and Williams Syndrome (WS)--using past tense elicitation tasks. In Experiment 1 we reanalyse data from van der Lely and Ullman [van der Lely, H. K. J. & Ullman, M. (2001). Past tense morphology in specifically language impaired and normally developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16: 177-217] and show that G-SLI children perform better on MLC verbs, whereas for typically developing children phonotactics do not affect performance. In Experiment 2 we replicate these findings in new groups of G-SLI and typically developing children. In Experiment 3 we reanalyse data from Thomas et al. [Thomas, M. S. C., Grant, J., Barham, Z., Gsodl, M., Laing, E., Lakusta, L., Tyler, L.K., Grice, S., Paterson, S. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001) Past tense formation in Williams Syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16: 143-176] and show that phonotactics do not affect performance in individuals with WS. We argue that the results elucidate the underlying nature of morphology in these populations, and are better accommodated within a Words and Rules model of past tense acquisition.

Humans↗

Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI.

Specific language-impairment (SLI) is a disorder of language acquisition in children who otherwise appear to be normally developing. Controversy surrounds whether SLI results from impairment to a "domain-specific" system devoted to language itself or from some more "domain-general" system. I compare these two views of SLI, and focus on three components of grammar that are good candidates for domain-specificity: syntax, morphology and phonology. I argue that the disorder is heterogeneous, and that deficits of different subgroups potentially stem from different underlying causes. Interestingly, although poor sensory or non-verbal abilities often co-occur with SLI, there is no evidence that these impairments cause the grammatical deficits found in SLI. Moreover, evidence suggests that impairment in at least one subgroup is specific to grammar.

Adolescent↗

Grammatical language impairment and the specificity of cognitive domains: relations between auditory and language abilities.

Grammatical-specific language impairment (G-SLI) in children, arguably, provides evidence for the existence of a specialised grammatical sub-system in the brain, necessary for normal language development. Some researchers challenge this, claiming that domain-general, low-level auditory deficits, particular to rapid processing, cause phonological deficits and thereby SLI. We investigate this possibility by testing the auditory discrimination abilities of G-SLI children for speech and non-speech sounds, at varying presentation rates, and controlling for the effects of age and language on performance. For non-speech formant transitions, 69% of the G-SLI children showed normal auditory processing, whereas for the same acoustic information in speech, only 31% did so. For rapidly presented tones, 46% of the G-SLI children performed normally. Auditory performance with speech and non-speech sounds differentiated the G-SLI children from their age-matched controls, whereas speed of processing did not. The G-SLI children evinced no relationship between their auditory and phonological/grammatical abilities. We found no consistent evidence that a deficit in processing rapid acoustic information causes or maintains G-SLI. The findings, from at least those G-SLI children who do not exhibit any auditory deficits, provide further evidence supporting the existence of a primary domain-specific deficit underlying G-SLI.

Adult↗

Development of the Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test to assess key markers of specific language and literacy difficulties in young children.

BACKGROUND: Despite a large body of evidence regarding reliable indicators of language deficits in young children, there has not been a standardized, quick screen for language impairment. The Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test was therefore designed as a short, reliable assessment of young children's language abilities. AIMS: GAPS was designed to provide a quick screening test to assess whether pre- and early school entry children have the necessary grammar and pre-reading phonological skills needed for education and social development. This paper reports the theoretical background to the test, the pilot study and reliability, and the standardization. METHODS: This 10-min test comprises 11 test sentences and eight test nonsense words for direct imitation and is designed to highlight significant markers of language impairment and reading difficulties. To standardize the GAPS, 668 children aged 3.4-6.6 were tested across the UK, taking into account population distribution and socio-economic status. The test was carried out by a range of health and education professionals as well as by students and carers using only simple, written instructions. RESULTS: GAPS is effective in detecting a range of children in need of further in-depth assessment or monitoring for language difficulties. The results concur with those from much larger epidemiological studies using lengthy testing procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The GAPS test (1) provides a successful screening tool; (2) is designed to be administered by professionals and non-professionals alike; and (3) facilitates identification of language impairment or at-risk factors of reading impairment in the early educational years. Thus, the test affords a first step in a process of assessment and targeted intervention to enable children to reach their potential.

Age Distribution↗