Language Development in Normal Children and in Disease – An Interactional Approach to Typical Language Development and Children with Language Impairment

Chapter

Abstract

The aim of the present chapter is to give an account of an interactional perspective on language development of typical children as well as of children in disease, more specifically children with language impairment (LI). The chapter presents three important theoretical frameworks for child language development: nativism, connectionism, and interactionism. This is followed by an overview of the commonly accepted stepwise progression in the development of language in children and a presentation of the characteristics and etiology of LI. An interactional perspective is brought to the fore, particularly focusing on aspects of child–adult interaction in everyday and clinical contexts. It is claimed that language acquisition ought to comprise not only features of vocabulary and grammar development but also the subtleties of human social interaction. It is argued that to become and be perceived as a competent participant in social interaction requires the development of interactional skills such as learning and adapting to turn-taking patterns, acquiring an interactional behavior adequate for specific social activities, and participation frameworks. The opportunities for doing so are often more limited for children with LI than for children with typical language development, which in turn may have a negative effect on the developmental potential in children with LI.

Keywords

Migration Posit Peri Stake Aphasia 

Abbreviations

C

Child with typical language development

CA

Conversation analysis

CLI

Child with language impairment

ICD-10

The International Classifications of Diseases and Related Health Problems

LI

Language impairment

SLP

Speech and language pathologist

Notes

Acknowledgments

The report on analyses of SLP–child interaction (Plejert and Samuelsson, 2008) is part of a research project funded by the Swedish Research Council (VR 2005-1361).

References

  1. Atkinson D. Towards a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Mod Lang J. 2002;86(4):525–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley A. Working memory and language: an overview. J Comm Disord. 2003;36(3):189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop DVM. Uncommon understanding. Development and disorders of language comprehension in children. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop DVM. Development of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC): a method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(6):879–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom L. One word at a time: the use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton; 1973.Google Scholar
  6. Bortfeld H, Morgan LJ, Michnick Golinkoff R, Rathbun, K. Mommy and me: familiar names help launch babies into speech-stream segmentation. Psychol Sci. 2005;16(4):298–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botting N, Conti-Ramsden G. In: Verhoeven L, van Balkom H, editors. Classification of developmental language disorders. Theoretical issues and clinical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2004. pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
  8. Braine M. The ontogeny of English phrase structure: the first phase. Language. 1963;39:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown R. A first language: the early stages. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; 1973.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  11. Clark E. Later lexical development and word formation. In: Fletcher P, MacWhinney B, editors. The handbook of child language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1995. pp. 393–412.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis NC. Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Lang Learn. 1998;48:631–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernald A, Simon T. Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Dev Psychol. 1984;20:104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner H. Talking about speech. An interactional approach to working with children with speech and sound difficulties. Unpublished manual. Department of Human Communication Sciences, Sheffield University, UK; 2003 (cited with permission from the author).Google Scholar
  15. Gardner H. Training others in the art of therapy for speech sound disorders: an interactional approach. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2006;22(1):27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerken L. The metrical basis of children’s subjectless sentences. J Mem Lang. 1991;30:431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodwin C., editor. Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  18. Hansson K, Nettelbladt U, Nilholm C. Contextual influence on the language production of children with speech/language impairment. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000;35:31–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Håkansson G. Språkinläring hos barn [Language acquisition in children]. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Jacoby S, Ochs E. Co-construction: an introduction. Res Lang Soc Interact. 1995;28(3):171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kay DA, Anglin JM. Overextension and underextension in the child’s expressive and receptive speech. J Child Lang. 1982;9(1):83–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim M, Mc Gregor K, Thompson KC. Early lexical development in English- and Korean-speaking children: language-general and language-specific patterns. J Child Lang. 2000;27:225–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhl PK, Andruski J E, Chistovich IA, Chistovich LA, Kozhevnikova EV, Ryskina VL, Stolyarova EL, Sundberg U, Lacerda F. Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science. 1997;277(5326):684–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leonard LB. Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  25. Nettelbladt U, Hansson K, Nilholm C. Why ask questions? Contextual effects on grammatical structure in the language production of children with specific language impairment. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2001;17(2):89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ors M. Specific language impairment. Neurophysiological studies of children and parents. Doctoral dissertation. Lund: Lund University; 2003.Google Scholar
  27. Plante E, Swisher L, Vance R, Rapcsak S. MRI findings in boys with specific language impairment. Brain Lang. 1991;41:52–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plejert C, Samuelsson C. Recycling in clinical interaction involving children with and without language impairment. Commun Med. 2008;5(2):69–80.Google Scholar
  29. Plunkett K, Marchman V. From rote learning to system building: acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition. 1993;48:21–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radford J, Tarplee C. The management of conversational topic by a ten year old child with pragmatic difficulties. Clin Linguist Phon. 2000;14(5):387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL. On learning the past tense of English verbs. In: McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE, the PDP Research Group, editors. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol 2: psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1986. pp. 216–71.Google Scholar
  32. Schegloff EA. Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundberg U. Mother tongue – phonetic aspects of infant-directed speech. Doctoral Dissertation. Stockholm: University of Stockholm; 1993.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky L. Thought and language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  35. Wertsch VJ. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  36. Wootton AJ. Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and CommunicationLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Division of Speech Language Pathology, Department of Experimental MedicineLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations