Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:23:18.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of phonological storage deficits in specific language impairment: A reconsideration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2006

Susan Ellis Weismer  and
Jan Edwards
Susan Ellis Weismer
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Jan Edwards
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In her Keynote Article, Gathercole (2006) presents a theoretical framework intended to account for evidence regarding the relation between nonword repetition and word learning. This framework stems from an impressive amount and breadth of research on this topic, including findings from adults and children with typical language abilities as well as language learning disorders. In this commentary we focus on claims relative to the interpretation of nonword repetition deficits in children with specific language impairment (SLI). One issue we address pertains to the nature of the proposed model of nonword processing and word learning, particularly with respect to phonological sensitivity and storage. The second issue we address relates to the assumption that a phonological storage deficit, although not sufficient, is necessary for SLI.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 556 - 562
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey T. M., & Hahn U. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 568– 591.Google Scholar
Beckman M. E., & Edwards J. 2000a. Lexical frequency effects on young children's imitative productions. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V (pp. 207– 217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beckman M. E., & Edwards J. 2000b. The ontogeny of phonological categories and the primacy of lexical learning in linguistic development. Child Development, 71, 240– 249.Google Scholar
Bishop D. V. M., Carlyon R., Deeks J, & Bishop S. 1999. Auditory temporal processing impairment: Neither necessary nor sufficient for causing language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1295– 1320.Google Scholar
Catts H., Adlof S., Hogan T., & Ellis Weismer S. 2005. Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1378– 1396.Google Scholar
Christiansen M. H., & Chater N. 2001. Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 82– 88.Google Scholar
Dollaghan C., & Campbell T. 1998. Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1136– 1146.Google Scholar
Edwards J., Beckman M. E., & Munson B. 2004. The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 421– 436.Google Scholar
Edwards J., & Lahey M. 1998. Nonword repetitions of children with specific language impairment: Exploration of some explanations for their inaccuracies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 279– 309.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer S. 2004. Memory and processing capacity. In R. Kent (Ed.), MIT encyclopedia of communication disorders. Boston: MIT Press.
Ellis Weismer S. 2005. Speech perception in specific language impairment. In D. Pisoni & R. Remez (Eds.), Handbook of speech perception (pp. 567– 588). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Ellis Weismer S., Evans J., & Hesketh L. J. 1999. An examination of verbal working memory capacity in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1249– 1260.Google Scholar
Ellis Weismer S., & Thordardottir E.T. 2002. Cognition and language. In P. Accardo, A. Capute, & B. Rogers (Eds.), Disorders of language development (pp. 21– 37). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Ellis Weismer S., Tomblin J. B., Zhang X., Buckwalter P., Chynoweth J. G. & Jones M. 2000. Nonword repetition performance in school-age children with and without language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 865– 878.Google Scholar
Elman J., Hare M., & McRae K. 2005. Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In M. Tomasello & D. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature–nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 111– 138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gathercole S. E. 2006. Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship [Keynote]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513– 543.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., & Baddeley A. D. 1990. Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336– 360.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., Frankish C., Pickering S. J., & Peaker S. 1999. Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 84– 95.Google Scholar
Gathercole S. E., Willis C., Emslie H. & Baddeley A. D. 1994. The children's test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological working memory. Memory, 2, 103– 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller C., Kail R., Leonard L., & Tomblin J.B. 2001. Speed of processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 416– 433.Google Scholar
Montgomery J. 2000. Relation of working memory to off-line and real-time sentence processing in children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 117– 148.Google Scholar
Munson B. 2001. Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 778– 792.Google Scholar
Munson B., Edwards J., & Beckman M.E. 2005. Relationships between nonword repetition accuracy and other measures of linguistic development in children with phonological disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 61– 78.Google Scholar
Munson B., Kurtz B. A., & Windsor J. 2005. The influence of vocabulary size, phonotactic probability, and wordlikeness on nonword repetitions of children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1033– 1047.Google Scholar
Plaut D. C., & Kello C.T. 1999. The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 381– 416). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seidenberg M. S., & MacDonald M. C. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 569– 588.Google Scholar
Stark R., & Heinz J. 1996. Perception of stop consonants in children with expressive and receptive–expressive language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 676– 686.Google Scholar
Storkel H. L. 2004. Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1454– 1468.Google Scholar
Tomblin J. B., Records N. L., & Zhang X. 1996. A system for the diagnosis of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 1284– 1294.Google Scholar
Tomblin J. B., Zhang X., Weiss A., Catts H., & Ellis Weismer S. 2004. Dimensions of individual differences in communication skills among primary grade children. In M. L. Rice & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies (pp. 53– 76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Windsor J., & Hwang M. 1999. Testing the generalized slowing hypothesis in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1205– 1218.Google Scholar