Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density.
Saved in:
| Title: | Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | McDonald, Janet L.1 psmcdo@lsu.edu, Oetting, Janna B.2 |
| Source: | Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. May2019, Vol. 62 Issue 5, p1381-1391. 11p. 4 Charts. |
| Subject Terms: | *Repetition (Learning process), *Dialects, *Variation in language, *Language acquisition, Language disorders in children, Task performance, Descriptive statistics |
| Abstract: | Purpose: Nonword repetition (NWR) has been proposed as a culturally and linguistically fair measure of children's language abilities that is useful for the identification of specific language impairment (SLI). However, Moyle, Heilmann, and Finneran (2014) suggested that the density of a child's nonmainstream forms also influences NWR in ways that could complicate its use. Using speakers of either African American English (AAE) or Southern White English (SWE), we asked if NWR performance differed in children with SLI and same dialect-speaking typically developing (TD) children and if nonmainstream form density impacted their scores. Method: The participants were 106 kindergartners (AAE: SLI n = 35; TD n = 35; SWE: SLI n = 18; TD n = 18; groups matched for age and IQ) who performed the NWR task of Dollaghan and Campbell (1998). Nonmainstream form density measures were gathered from listener judgments of conversational samples. Results: NWR performance differed between those with and without SLI, but the difference was smaller in AAE than in SWE, especially at the longest syllable length. Nonmainstream form density was found to further explain NWR performance beyond the children's SLI status for AAE speakers; density and SLI status were confounded for the SWE speakers, making it harder to disentangle the effects of each in that dialect. Conclusions: Results indicate the NWR may differ in diagnostic utility between speakers of different dialects. Results also support Moyle et al.'s (2014) finding that density affects NWR. Thus, NWR is more sensitive to dialectal differences than originally assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 136684698 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McDonald%2C+Janet+L%2E%22">McDonald, Janet L.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> psmcdo@lsu.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Oetting%2C+Janna+B%2E%22">Oetting, Janna B.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Speech%2C+Language+%26+Hearing+Research%22">Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research</searchLink>. May2019, Vol. 62 Issue 5, p1381-1391. 11p. 4 Charts. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Repetition+%28Learning+process%29%22">Repetition (Learning process)</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dialects%22">Dialects</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Variation+in+language%22">Variation in language</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+acquisition%22">Language acquisition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+disorders+in+children%22">Language disorders in children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Task+performance%22">Task performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Purpose: Nonword repetition (NWR) has been proposed as a culturally and linguistically fair measure of children's language abilities that is useful for the identification of specific language impairment (SLI). However, Moyle, Heilmann, and Finneran (2014) suggested that the density of a child's nonmainstream forms also influences NWR in ways that could complicate its use. Using speakers of either African American English (AAE) or Southern White English (SWE), we asked if NWR performance differed in children with SLI and same dialect-speaking typically developing (TD) children and if nonmainstream form density impacted their scores. Method: The participants were 106 kindergartners (AAE: SLI n = 35; TD n = 35; SWE: SLI n = 18; TD n = 18; groups matched for age and IQ) who performed the NWR task of Dollaghan and Campbell (1998). Nonmainstream form density measures were gathered from listener judgments of conversational samples. Results: NWR performance differed between those with and without SLI, but the difference was smaller in AAE than in SWE, especially at the longest syllable length. Nonmainstream form density was found to further explain NWR performance beyond the children's SLI status for AAE speakers; density and SLI status were confounded for the SWE speakers, making it harder to disentangle the effects of each in that dialect. Conclusions: Results indicate the NWR may differ in diagnostic utility between speakers of different dialects. Results also support Moyle et al.'s (2014) finding that density affects NWR. Thus, NWR is more sensitive to dialectal differences than originally assumed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=136684698 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0253 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 1381 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Repetition (Learning process) Type: general – SubjectFull: Dialects Type: general – SubjectFull: Variation in language Type: general – SubjectFull: Language acquisition Type: general – SubjectFull: Language disorders in children Type: general – SubjectFull: Task performance Type: general – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: McDonald, Janet L. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Oetting, Janna B. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Text: May2019 Type: published Y: 2019 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 10924388 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 62 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
