Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
77 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
EBP triangle sides |
-external scientific evidence -clinical expertise/expert opinion -client/patient/caregiver perspectives |
|
|
how adults learn words |
theory of word learning |
|
|
triggering |
first time you hear a new word, triggered in lexicon (TOWL) |
|
|
configuration |
you've heard a word once or twice and recognize it, may recognize some statistical properties compared to other words (TOWL) |
|
|
engagement |
word is fully engaged as part of lexicon (TOWL) |
|
|
neighborhood density |
-lexical characteristic that influences performance on working memory and phonological awareness tasks -number of words that are phonologically similar to a target word (ex. "cat" -> "hat") -adults able to respond to a word with sparse neighborhood more quickly- less competition |
|
|
Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996 |
-based on the language input they hear, infants are able to learn and remember particular groupings (i.e. words) with clear boundaries -link together syllables with high probabilites -experience-dependent mechanisms drive word segmentation "Some aspects of early development may turn out to be best characterized as resulting from innately biased statistical learning mechanisms rather than innate knowledge." -determination of word boundaries based on exposure to langauge |
|
|
positional phoneme average |
used in calculation of phonotactic probability- frequency of one phoneme in words in certain position |
|
|
biphone average |
used in calculation of phonotactic probability- how likely phonemes are likely to occur in a position and occur together in that position |
|
|
Thiessen, HIll, & Saffran (2005) |
-infant-directed speech -prosodic cues in ID speech may facilitate the word segmentation process "ID speech enables infants to more easily use statistical information than AD speech, even in situations where AD and ID speech contain the same statistical structure." -infants can also learn from speech without exaggerated prosodic cues, but they may speed up the segmentation process |
|
|
infant-directed speech |
slower rate, higher fundamental frequency, greater pitch variation, longer lauses, repetitive infonational structures, simplified sentence structures |
|
|
play |
-essential for teaching children how and what to learn- have to teach play first (real vs. pretend) -some children may not have ability to imagine if language is too weak -children need a lot of repetition, use modeling and a lot of language |
|
|
schemata |
-building blocks of knowledge -relate to objects, social scripts, or activities Piaget |
|
|
Conner et al. (2014) |
play in early childhood evaluation system -exploratory, simple pretend, complex pretend -intervention focused on play and language skills -intervention: read a book, plan, play, review, tied to PIECES measure; saw increases in all measures "Being able to demonstrate higher levels od play reflects children's ability to think creatively and imaginatively." "Language improvement is beneficial, because language is crucial to children's cognitive development, social skills, social-communicative skills, and academic outcomes." -language and play can be improved, often in a short amount of time |
|
|
SLP treatment is made up of
|
theory + clinical practice |
|
|
central question of language acquisition |
are we born with language (or the capacity for language) or do we learn it? |
|
|
empiricist |
environment, learning, nurture -based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience |
|
|
nativist |
inborn, inherited, present at birth |
|
|
the empiricist/nativist debate is primarily about |
morpho-syntax -it's generally accepted that phonology, semantics, and pragmatics are influenced primarily by your language learning environment (believing this does not necessarily make you an empiricist) |
|
|
the big shots |
developmental- Piaget social interaction- Vygotsky behavioral- Skinner cognitive/generative- Chomsky more recently- Pinker, Tomasello, and P. Bloom |
|
|
Jean Piaget |
developmental three basic components: -schemata -transition processes -stages of cognitive development -focus on development, not all learning -constructivist- nature and nurture to construct knowledge |
|
|
transition processes- assimilation |
applying existing schema to a new situation |
|
|
transition processes- accommodation |
changing schema due to new information |
|
|
transition processes- equilibration |
driving force of development |
|
|
stages of cognitive development (Piaget) |
-sensori-motor (0-2) -pre-operational (2-7) -concrete operational (7-11) -formal operational (11+) |
|
|
relevence of Piaget to SLP/teacher/parent |
-assumes that child is in pursuit of equilibrium and requires teaching to reach it -need to know child's stage, can't skip -language cannot progress beyond cognitive base |
|
|
Piaget- strengths and weaknesses |
strengths- acknowledgement that children are not just dumb adults but different, recognizes internal and external influence weaknesses- stages are limiting, age ranges may be inaccurate, no acknowledged influence of personal, socio-cultural, etc. differences |
|
|
Lev Vygotsky |
social interaction -social development theory -constructivist + culture -social learning precedes language -elementary mental functions that mature into higher mental functions -cultural environment shapes cognitive development- tools of intellectual adaptation two main components: -more knowledgeable other (MKO) -zone of proximal development (ZPD) |
|
|
elementary mental functions |
-attention -sensation -perception -memory |
|
|
more knowledgeable other (MKO) |
can act as a teacher, can be an adult, peer, or computer game |
|
|
zone of proximal development (ZPD) |
-difference between what a child can acquire independently and what a child can acquire with assistance -can't teach outside the ZPD -child can't advance beyond current level without assistance |
|
|
Vygotsky- strengths and weaknesses |
strengths- emphasis on social interaction reflects function of language, accounts for socio-cultural differences weaknesses- theories are unfinished, de-emphasizes underlying cognitive processes |
|
|
relevence of Vygotsky to SLP/teacher/parent |
-take on role of MKO -need to move within ZPD |
|
|
B.F. Skinner |
behavioral -behavior can be shaped through praise/punishment -language is a behavior -behaviorist/empiricist -three-term contingency model |
|
|
Skinner's three-term contingency model |
-discriminative stimulus (ex. tell dog "sit") -operant response (ex. dog sits) -reinforcer/punisher (ex. give dog a treat) |
|
|
Skinner- strengths and weaknesses |
strengths- behavior modification is effective, unintentional acts by children are positively reinforced and become normative behavior weaknesses- what about complexity/generativity?, complete disregard for underlying cognitive processes |
|
|
relevence of Skinner to SLP/teacher/parent |
operant conditioning works! -sticker charts, M&Ms, etc. |
|
|
Noam Chomsky |
nativist- generative/universal grammar -entered scene with critique of Skinner -universal grammar -domain specific/modular -poverty of the stimulus -innate set of "switches"- instant language acquisition but requires child-directed language |
|
|
universal grammar |
explanation for speed of language acquisition "poverty of the stimulus" -even true for "non-traditional languages" such as ASL, pidgins, and creoles (but these are all learned as a native language) |
|
|
domain specific/modular |
language acquisition is its own mechanism, not tied to other cognitive processes |
|
|
"poverty of the stimulus" |
-grammatical rules are unlearnable based on input (ex. subjuct-auxiliary inversion in questions- "You are happy." and "Are you happy?") -with longer sentence, two hypotheses: 1. first auxiliary verb moves to the front of the sentence 2. "main" auxiliary verb in the sentence moves to the front (true) argument for nativism: -children don't hear very complicated sentences to witness cases with two hypotheses -just based on evidence of simple sentences, children could not possibly decide between two rules -if rule 2 was not innately known to infants, we would expect to see this type of error more- but we don't, so it must be innately "known" |
|
|
Chomsky- strengths and weaknesses |
strengths- explains language explosion, validated by pidgins/creoles weaknesses- not every language is English, over-reliance on native speaker's instincts, "the study of meaning and reference and of the use of language should be excluded from the field of linguistics" |
|
|
relevence of Chomsky to SLP/teacher/parent |
is there a place for us at all? |
|
|
what if we had to recreate language where there was one? |
-possibly innate? -each generation builds on the next -if we generate it, how could it be only innate? |
|
|
Tomasello |
-best comparison of human language with closest primate relatives is gesture, not vocalization -primates use gesture for imperative purposes, not declarative -lack the ability to establish joint attentional framework, which very young human infants do -an ability and motivation to establish shared intentionality is unique to humans and a prerequisite to language -concerned with pragmatics |
|
|
Bloom |
-concerned with semantics -believes that the acquisition of word meaning is not driven by any special language learning capacities, but powered by more general abilities such as: understanding other's intentions, leaning, memory, induction, categorization, conceptual mastery, even syntactic skill -children recruit these general abilities to master semantics |
|
|
Pinker |
nativist -concerned with syntax -believes that language is modular -hard-wired in humans as an "instinct" -believes we "know" language the way a spider knows how to spin a web- without being taught, just a piece of innate knowledge that is part of what makes us human -references two key points (from Chomsky): 1. language must not be mastered through simple stimulus-response learning because nearly every utterance we use is one that we have not previously heard- it is not a response, it is generative 2. children master an incredibly complex grammatical system without explicit instruction and are able to apply that system to understand an infinite set of unfamiliar sentences |
|
|
nativists (Chomsky, Pinker) usually focus on |
syntax |
|
|
language disorder |
an impairment in comprehension and/or use of a spoken, written, and/or symbol system -may involve form, content, or function |
|
|
language form |
phonology, morphology, syntax |
|
|
children with language disorders have difficulty acquiring |
morphosyntax -particular areas of weakness: past tense, third person singular, present progressive, auxiliary be (ex. "I am two"), auxiliary do (ex. "I do not dance") |
|
|
fast mapping |
how quickly a child can map a connection between a label for an object and the object itself -typical children can do it after only one exposure -a lot of research shows that children with language impairments can't fast map, need at least twice as much exposure to learn new words -different impairments can affect ability to fast map |
|
|
research often uses |
non-words |
|
|
children with a language disorder need at least _____ the exposures to an object to be able to name it |
two times |
|
|
pragmatics |
use of language, often includes picking up on subtle aspects of language (sarcasm, if someone is asking a question or trying to end a conversation, humor, figurative language, etc.) -relies on advanced knowledge of meaning of language |
|
|
how do we know if a child has an impairment in the area of form, content, or use? |
-language sampling -check if using marks and indicators appropriate to their age -look at how/where they struggle and what they need support with |
|
|
two schools of thought on what is classified as an impairment |
1. to understand what is classified as an impairment, you have to know normal development 2. to understand what is classified as an impairment, you have to know what is needed to function in the child's environment- what is affected, if they are struggling or not |
|
|
Specific Language Impairment (SLI) |
impairment in language learning with no obvious cause language standardized score <85 nonverbal IQ score is >85 -everything that supports language is intact, but they still have an impairment |
|
|
is SLI rare? |
no- 7-10% of kindergarten students have SLI -a great mystery in our field |
|
|
signs of language impairment in a big classroom |
-behavioral difficulties because they don't understand what's happening or are frustrated -may be very quiet -leaving off tenses, shorter sentences, words in wrong order, difficulty with vocabulary |
|
|
how to help children with SLI |
give them strategies to compensate for their difficulties; arm them with ammunition to be successful in their lives inside and outside of the classroom |
|
|
when SLI often becomes apparent |
3rd-4th grade- move from learning to read to reading to learn |
|
|
cause of SLI |
we don't know but we're doing a lot of research -correlation does not equal causation -NOT poor parenting -good parenting acts as a shield, but poor parenting does not cause it |
|
|
Montgomery & Leonard (the surface account) vs. Rice, Wexler, & Cleave (the extended optional infinitive) |
expressive vs. receptive language |
|
|
Montgomery & Leonard article |
the surface account- children with SLI have difficulty processing morphemes of brief duration -ex. /s/ in plurals, finite morphemes in English (past tense, third person singular, present progressive, auxiliary be/do), contractions -reason why they drop these morphemes- can perceive the sounds, but phonetic substance isn't enough to hold it in memory so they only get the root -input- children "calculating" input to determine patterns, implicit learning, only holding strong, high phonetic substance sounds -assessment- look for defecits in morphemes of low salience and how they use and process various morphemes -treatment- make morphemes more salient, enhance duration or amplitude, give more exposure |
|
|
Rice, Wexler, & Cleave article |
extended optional infinitive account- modular approach -deficits in finite markers (past tense, third person singular, present progressive, auxiliary be/do), not plurals -not related to environmental input -these markers are optional until about age 3, after that it's a delay -specific to finite markers- doesn't have to do with phonetic substance -assessment- focus on finite markers, language sample -treatment- reset grammatical parameters, teach finite markers, teach tense -know specifically what the child can't do and teach it |
|
|
general deficit account |
-says that children with SLI are not impaired "specifically" in the area of language -lower nonverbal IQ, slower reation time (is this really SLI? problem with study) -focus on overall impairments, not just language -assessment- look at overall processing speed -treatment- not clear |
|
|
prognosis of SLI |
long-term langauge difficulties -grammatical deficits seen in writing later -deficits in language processing as adults |
|
|
SLI in clinical practice |
-know the theoretical basis of treatment, have a basis and rationale for what you are doing -have an idea of long-term outlook -not parents' fault -"wait and see" approach not successful |
|
|
late talker |
-24 months with fewer than 50 words in expressive vocabulary and/or no expressive word combinations (2-word or 3-word phrases)- some wiggle room ~14-15% of 2-year-olds are late talkers -should understand at least double what they produce but could be more -excludes diagnosis of anything else -pacifier could contribute -can't get IQ until age 7 or 8 so can't have SLI diagnosis until then -#1 reason for referral for language evaluation |
|
|
late talker and SLI- same? |
all children with SLI were late talkers, but not all late talkers will have SLI -should always intervene, better to be safe than sorry |
|
|
late talker vs. SLI |
late talkers- less than 50 words by 24 months and/or no word combinations SLI- below normal language skills, normal nonverbal language skills, no other (language) diagnosis |
|
|
late talkers are likely to be |
low average across childhood |
|
|
risk factors for LI in late talkers |
-ear infections -family history of speech/language delay -receptive delay -no use of sequenced gestures -small consonant inventory or low consonant-vowel production -small number of verbs in vocabulary -this is all correlatonal, not causal -look at risk factors when deciding whether to treat |
|
|
Zubric et al. article |
-most comprehensive study of late talkers to date -determined prevalence of late talkers and group differences between late talkers and typically-developing peers (showed basis for diagnosis with lack of words and word combinations, no parental relation, risk factors) |
|
|
late talkers likely to |
-have a sibling -have a parent with a history of late talking -be male -be born at 32 weeks or less -be 85% or less of optimal birth weight -likely to have overall developmental delays |
|
|
what to do for late talkers? |
-parent training programs- responsiveness to child, imitation and expansion -NOT watchful waiting, pediatricians recommend but get them evaluated -try to get child into a "good" preschool -treat as early as possible |
