Caroline Rowland

Publications

Displaying 1 - 11 of 11
  • 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.
  • Noble, C., Sala, G., Peter, M., Lingwood, J., Rowland, C. F., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. (2019). The impact of shared book reading on children's language skills: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28: 100290. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100290.

    Abstract

    Shared book reading is thought to have a positive impact on young children's language development, with shared reading interventions often run in an attempt to boost children's language skills. However, despite the volume of research in this area, a number of issues remain outstanding. The current meta-analysis explored whether shared reading interventions are equally effective (a) across a range of study designs; (b) across a range of different outcome variables; and (c) for children from different SES groups. It also explored the potentially moderating effects of intervention duration, child age, use of dialogic reading techniques, person delivering the intervention and mode of intervention delivery.

    Our results show that, while there is an effect of shared reading on language development, this effect is smaller than reported in previous meta-analyses (
     = 0.194, p = .002). They also show that this effect is moderated by the type of control group used and is negligible in studies with active control groups (  = 0.028, p = .703). Finally, they show no significant effects of differences in outcome variable (ps ≥ .286), socio-economic status (p = .658), or any of our other potential moderators (ps ≥ .077), and non-significant effects for studies with follow-ups (  = 0.139, p = .200). On the basis of these results, we make a number of recommendations for researchers and educators about the design and implementation of future shared reading interventions.

    Additional information

    Supplementary data
  • Peter, M. S., & Rowland, C. F. (2019). Aligning developmental and processing accounts of implicit and statistical learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 555-572. doi:10.1111/tops.12396.

    Abstract

    A long‐standing question in child language research concerns how children achieve mature syntactic knowledge in the face of a complex linguistic environment. A widely accepted view is that this process involves extracting distributional regularities from the environment in a manner that is incidental and happens, for the most part, without the learner's awareness. In this way, the debate speaks to two associated but separate literatures in language acquisition: statistical learning and implicit learning. Both fields have explored this issue in some depth but, at present, neither the results from the infant studies used by the statistical learning literature nor the artificial grammar learning tasks studies from the implicit learning literature can be used to fully explain how children's syntax becomes adult‐like. In this work, we consider an alternative explanation—that children use error‐based learning to become mature syntax users. We discuss this proposal in the light of the behavioral findings from structural priming studies and the computational findings from Chang, Dell, and Bock's (2006) dual‐path model, which incorporates properties from both statistical and implicit learning, and offers an explanation for syntax learning and structural priming using a common error‐based learning mechanism. We then turn our attention to future directions for the field, here suggesting how structural priming might inform the statistical learning and implicit learning literature on the nature of the learning mechanism.
  • Peter, M. S., Durrant, S., Jessop, A., Bidgood, A., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2019). Does speed of processing or vocabulary size predict later language growth in toddlers? Cognitive Psychology, 115: 101238. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101238.

    Abstract

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the way that children acquire cognitive representations
    depends critically on how their processing system is developing. In particular, recent studies
    suggest that individual differences in language processing speed play an important role in explaining
    the speed with which children acquire language. Inconsistencies across studies, however,
    mean that it is not clear whether this relationship is causal or correlational, whether it is
    present right across development, or whether it extends beyond word learning to affect other
    aspects of language learning, like syntax acquisition. To address these issues, the current study
    used the looking-while-listening paradigm devised by Fernald, Swingley, and Pinto (2001) to test
    the speed with which a large longitudinal cohort of children (the Language 0–5 Project) processed
    language at 19, 25, and 31 months of age, and took multiple measures of vocabulary (UKCDI,
    Lincoln CDI, CDI-III) and syntax (Lincoln CDI) between 8 and 37 months of age. Processing
    speed correlated with vocabulary size - though this relationship changed over time, and was
    observed only when there was variation in how well the items used in the looking-while-listening
    task were known. Fast processing speed was a positive predictor of subsequent vocabulary
    growth, but only for children with smaller vocabularies. Faster processing speed did, however,
    predict faster syntactic growth across the whole sample, even when controlling for concurrent
    vocabulary. The results indicate a relatively direct relationship between processing speed and
    syntactic development, but point to a more complex interaction between processing speed, vocabulary
    size and subsequent vocabulary growth.
  • Rowland, C. F., & Kidd, E. (2019). Key issues and future directions: How do children acquire language? In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 181-185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Wolf, M. C., Smith, A. C., Meyer, A. S., & Rowland, C. F. (2019). Modality effects in vocabulary acquisition. In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freksa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2019) (pp. 1212-1218). Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society.

    Abstract

    It is unknown whether modality affects the efficiency with which humans learn novel word forms and their meanings, with previous studies reporting both written and auditory advantages. The current study implements controls whose absence in previous work likely offers explanation for such contradictory findings. In two novel word learning experiments, participants were trained and tested on pseudoword - novel object pairs, with controls on: modality of test, modality of meaning, duration of exposure and transparency of word form. In both experiments word forms were presented in either their written or spoken form, each paired with a pictorial meaning (novel object). Following a 20-minute filler task, participants were tested on their ability to identify the picture-word form pairs on which they were trained. A between subjects design generated four participant groups per experiment 1) written training, written test; 2) written training, spoken test; 3) spoken training, written test; 4) spoken training, spoken test. In Experiment 1 the written stimulus was presented for a time period equal to the duration of the spoken form. Results showed that when the duration of exposure was equal, participants displayed a written training benefit. Given words can be read faster than the time taken for the spoken form to unfold, in Experiment 2 the written form was presented for 300 ms, sufficient time to read the word yet 65% shorter than the duration of the spoken form. No modality effect was observed under these conditions, when exposure to the word form was equivalent. These results demonstrate, at least for proficient readers, that when exposure to the word form is controlled across modalities the efficiency with which word form-meaning associations are learnt does not differ. Our results therefore suggest that, although we typically begin as aural-only word learners, we ultimately converge on developing learning mechanisms that learn equally efficiently from both written and spoken materials.
  • Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Rowland, C. F., & Filik, R. (2003). Children's comprehension of sentences with focus particles. Cognition, 89(3), 263-294. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00126-4.

    Abstract

    We report three studies investigating children's and adults' comprehension of sentences containing the focus particle only. In Experiments 1 and 2, four groups of participants (6–7 years, 8–10 years, 11–12 years and adult) compared sentences with only in different syntactic positions against pictures that matched or mismatched events described by the sentence. Contrary to previous findings (Crain, S., Ni, W., & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing and modularity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Philip, W., & Lynch, E. (1999). Felicity, relevance, and acquisition of the grammar of every and only. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University conference on language development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press) we found that young children predominantly made errors by failing to process contrast information rather than errors in which they failed to use syntactic information to restrict the scope of the particle. Experiment 3 replicated these findings with pre-schoolers.
  • Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 609-635. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005695.

    Abstract

    Accounts that specify semantic and/or syntactic complexity as the primary determinant of the order in which children acquire particular words or grammatical constructions have been highly influential in the literature on question acquisition. One explanation of wh-question acquisition in particular suggests that the order in which English speaking children acquire wh-questions is determined by two interlocking linguistic factors; the syntactic function of the wh-word that heads the question and the semantic generality (or ‘lightness’) of the main verb (Bloom, Merkin & Wootten, 1982; Bloom, 1991). Another more recent view, however, is that acquisition is influenced by the relative frequency with which children hear particular wh-words and verbs in their input (e.g. Rowland & Pine, 2000). In the present study over 300 hours of naturalistic data from twelve two- to three-year-old children and their mothers were analysed in order to assess the relative contribution of complexity and input frequency to wh-question acquisition. The analyses revealed, first, that the acquisition order of wh-questions could be predicted successfully from the frequency with which particular wh-words and verbs occurred in the children's input and, second, that syntactic and semantic complexity did not reliably predict acquisition once input frequency was taken into account. These results suggest that the relationship between acquisition and complexity may be a by-product of the high correlation between complexity and the frequency with which mothers use particular wh-words and verbs. We interpret the results in terms of a constructivist view of language acquisition.
  • Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2003). The development of inversion in wh-questions: a reply to Van Valin. Journal of Child Language, 30(1), 197-212. doi:10.1017/S0305000902005445.

    Abstract

    Van Valin (Journal of Child Language29, 2002, 161–75) presents a critique of Rowland & Pine (Journal of Child Language27, 2000, 157–81) and argues that the wh-question data from Adam (in Brown, A first language, Cambridge, MA, 1973) cannot be explained in terms of input frequencies as we suggest. Instead, he suggests that the data can be more successfully accounted for in terms of Role and Reference Grammar. In this note we re-examine the pattern of inversion and uninversion in Adam's wh-questions and argue that the RRG explanation cannot account for some of the developmental facts it was designed to explain.

Share this page