Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
-
Alcock, K., Meints, K., & Rowland, C. F. (2025). Gesture screening in young infants: Highly sensitive to risk factors for communication delay. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 60(1): e13150. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.13150.
Abstract
Introduction
Children's early language and communication skills are efficiently measured using parent report, for example, communicative development inventories (CDIs). These have scalable potential to determine risk of later language delay, and associations between delay and risk factors such as prematurity and poverty. However, there may be measurement difficulties in parent reports, including anomalous directions of association between child age/socioeconomic status and reported language. Findings vary on whether parents may report older infants as having smaller vocabularies than younger infants, for example.
Methods
We analysed data from the UK Communicative Development Inventory (Words and Gestures); UK-CDI (W&G) to determine whether anomalous associations would be replicated in this population, and/or with gesture. In total 1204 families of children aged 8–18 months (598 girls, matched to UK population for income, parental education and ethnicity as far as possible) completed Vocabulary and Gesture scales of the UK-CDI (W&G).
Results
Overall scores on the Gesture scale showed more significant relationships with biological risk factors including prematurity than did Vocabulary scores. Gesture also showed more straightforward relationships with social risk factors including income. Relationships between vocabulary and social risk factors were less straightforward; some at-risk groups reported higher vocabulary scores than other groups.
Discussion
We conclude that vocabulary report may be less accurate than gesture for this age. Parents have greater knowledge of language than gesture milestones, hence may report expectations for vocabulary, not observed vocabulary. We also conclude that gesture should be included in early language scales partly because of its greater, more straightforward association with many risk factors for language delay.
-
Donnelly, S., Kidd, E., Verkuilen, J., & Rowland, C. F. (2025). The separability of early vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Journal of Memory and Language, 141: 104586. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2024.104586.
Abstract
A long-standing question in language development concerns the nature of the relationship between early lexical and grammatical knowledge. The very strong correlation between the two has led some to argue that lexical and grammatical knowledge may be inseparable, consistent with psycholinguistic theories that eschew a distinction between the two systems. However, little research has explicitly examined whether early lexical and grammatical knowledge are statistically separable. Moreover, there are two under-appreciated methodological challenges in such research. First, the relationship between lexical and grammatical knowledge may change during development. Second, non-linear mappings between true and observed scores on scales of lexical and grammatical knowledge could lead to spurious multidimensionality. In the present study, we overcome these challenges by using vocabulary and grammar data from several developmental time points and a statistical method robust to such non-linear mappings. In Study 1, we examined item-level vocabulary and grammar data from two American English samples from a large online repository of data from studies employing a commonly used language development scale. We found clear evidence that vocabulary and grammar were separable by two years of age. In Study 2, we combined data from two longitudinal studies of language acquisition that used the same scale (at 18/19, 21, 24 and 30 months) and found evidence that vocabulary and grammar were, under some conditions, separable by 18 months. Results indicate that, while there is clearly a very strong relationship between vocabulary and grammar knowledge in early language development, the two are separable. Implications for the mechanisms underlying language development are discussed. -
Muhinyi, A., Stewart, A. J., & Rowland, C. F. (2025). Encouraging use of complex language in preschoolers: A classroom-based storybook intervention study. Language Learning and Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15475441.2024.2443447.
Abstract
Preschoolers’ exposure to abstract language (i.e. talk beyond the here and now) during shared reading is associated with language development. This randomized intervention study tested whether preschoolers’ repeated exposure to simple and complex stories (as defined by the inferential demands of the story), and the extratextual talk associated with such stories, would lead to differences in language production during shared reading and to differential gains in vocabulary and narrative skills post intervention. An experimenter read scripted stories to 34 children (3;07–4;11) assigned to one of two story conditions (simple or complex) in small-groups, twice weekly over six weeks. Results showed that children in the complex story condition produced more complex language (as indexed by their mean length of utterance, use of mental and communication verbs, and use of subordinate clauses). However, post-intervention, children’s vocabulary and narrative skills did not differ between conditions. Specific kinds of stories and corresponding extratextual talk by adults may not only increase children’s exposure to rich and challenging input from the extratextual talk, but can also provide valuable opportunities for children to produce complex language. Theoretical and methodological implications are also discussed. -
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Clark, V. (2009). A Semantics-Based Approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33(7), 1301-1316. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01055.x.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that children retreat from argument-structure overgeneralization errors (e.g., *Don’t giggle me) by inferring that frequently encountered verbs are unlikely to be grammatical in unattested constructions, and by making use of syntax-semantics correspondences (e.g., verbs denoting internally caused actions such as giggling cannot normally be used causatively). The present study tested a new account based on a unitary learning mechanism that combines both of these processes. Seventy-two participants (ages 5–6, 9–10, and adults) rated overgeneralization errors with higher (*The funny man’s joke giggled Bart) and lower (*The funny man giggled Bart) degrees of direct external causation. The errors with more-direct causation were rated as less unacceptable than those with less-direct causation. This finding is consistent with the new account, under which children acquire—in an incremental and probabilistic fashion—the meaning of particular constructions (e.g., transitive causative = direct external causation) and particular verbs, rejecting generalizations where the incompatibility between the two is too great. -
Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 225-266. doi:10.1515/COGL.2009.014.
Abstract
Positive and negative what, why and yes/no questions with the 3sg auxiliaries can and does were elicited from 50 children aged 3;3–4;3. In support of the constructivist “schema-combination” account, only children who produced a particular positive question type correctly (e.g., What does she want?) produced a characteristic “auxiliary-doubling” error (e.g., *What does she doesn't want?) for the corresponding negative question type. This suggests that these errors are formed by superimposing a positive question frame (e.g., What does THING PROCESS?) and an inappropriate negative frame (e.g., She doesn't PROCESS) learned from declarative utterances. In addition, a significant correlation between input frequency and correct production was observed for 11 of the 12 lexical frames (e.g., What does THING PROCESS?), although some negative question types showed higher rates of error than one might expect based on input frequency alone. Implications for constructivist and generativist theories of question-acquisition are discussed. -
Dabrowska, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. (2009). The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 571-597. doi:10.1515/COGL.2009.025.
Abstract
A number of researchers have claimed that questions and other constructions with long distance dependencies (LDDs) are acquired relatively early, by age 4 or even earlier, in spite of their complexity. Analysis of LDD questions in the input available to children suggests that they are extremely stereotypical, raising the possibility that children learn lexically specific templates such as WH do you think S-GAP? rather than general rules of the kind postulated in traditional linguistic accounts of this construction. We describe three elicited imitation experiments with children aged from 4;6 to 6;9 and adult controls. Participants were asked to repeat prototypical questions (i.e., questions which match the hypothesised template), unprototypical questions (which depart from it in several respects) and declarative counterparts of both types of interrogative sentences. The children performed significantly better on the prototypical variants of both constructions, even when both variants contained exactly the same lexical material, while adults showed prototypicality e¤ects for LDD questions only. These results suggest that a general declarative complementation construction emerges quite late in development (after age 6), and that even adults rely on lexically specific templates for LDD questions. -
Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2009). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 2: The modals and auxiliary DO. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1471-1492. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0037a).
Abstract
Purpose: The study of auxiliary acquisition is central to work on language development and has attracted theoretical work from both nativist and constructivist approaches. This study is part of a 2-part companion set that represents a unique attempt to trace the development of auxiliary syntax by using a longitudinal elicitation methodology. The aim of the research described in this part is to track the development of modal auxiliaries and auxiliary DO in questions and declaratives to provide a more complete picture of the development of the auxiliary system in English-speaking children. Method: Twelve English-speaking children participated in 2 tasks designed to elicit auxiliaries CAN, WILL, and DOES in declaratives and yes/no questions. They completed each task 6 times in total between the ages of 2;10 (years;months) and 3;6. Results: The children’s levels of correct use of the target auxiliaries differed in complex ways according to auxiliary, polarity, and sentence structure, and these relations changed over development. An analysis of the children’s errors also revealed complex interactions between these factors. Conclusions: These data cannot be explained in full by existing theories of auxiliary acquisition. Researchers working within both generativist and constructivist frameworks need to develop more detailed theories of acquisition that predict the pattern of acquisition observed. -
Theakston, A., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Introduction to Special Issue: Cognitive approaches to language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 477-480. doi:10.1515/COGL.2009.021.
-
Theakston, A. L., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 1: Auxiliary BE. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1449-1470. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0037).
Abstract
Purpose: The question of how and when English-speaking children acquire auxiliaries is the subject of extensive debate. Some researchers posit the existence of innately given Universal Grammar principles to guide acquisition, although some aspects of the auxiliary system must be learned from the input. Others suggest that auxiliaries can be learned without Universal Grammar, citing evidence of piecemeal learning in their support. This study represents a unique attempt to trace the development of auxiliary syntax by using a longitudinal elicitation methodology. Method: Twelve English-speaking children participated in 3 tasks designed to elicit auxiliary BE in declaratives and yes/no and wh-questions. They completed each task 6 times in total between the ages of 2;10 (years;months) and 3;6. Results: The children’s levels of correct use of 2 forms of BE (is,are) differed according to auxiliary form and sentence structure, and these relations changed over development. An analysis of the children’s errors also revealed complex interactions between these factors. Conclusion: These data are problematic for existing accounts of auxiliary acquisition and highlight the need for researchers working within both generativist and constructivist frameworks to develop more detailed theories of acquisition that directly predict the pattern of acquisition observed. -
Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V., & Rowland, C. F. (1996). Observational and checklist measures of vocabulary composition: What do they mean? Journal of Child Language, 23(3), 573-590. doi:10.1017/S0305000900008953.
Abstract
Observational and checklist measures of vocabulary composition have both recently been used to look at the absolute proportion of nouns in children's early vocabularies. However, they have tended to generate rather different results. The present study is an attempt to investigate the relationship between such measures in a sample of 26 children between 1;1 and 2;1 at approximately 50 and 100 words. The results show that although observational and checklist measures are significantly correlated, there are also systematic quantitative differences between them which seem to reflect a combination of checklist, maternal-report and observational sampling biases. This suggests that, although both kinds of measure may represent good indices of differences in vocabulary size and composition across children and hence be useful as dependent variables in correlational research, neither may be ideal for estimating the absolute proportion of nouns in children's vocabularies. The implication is that questions which rely on information about the absolute proportion of particular kinds of words in children's vocabularies can only be properly addressed by detailed longitudinal studies in which an attempt is made to collect more comprehensive vocabulary records for individual children.
Share this page