INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road A nn Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 75-26,649 RESLER, Cheri Florence, 1948- THE SEMANTIC FUNCTION OF EARLY LANGUAGE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1975 Speech Pathology
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 THE SEMANTIC FUNCTION OF EARLY LANGUAGE
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Cheri Florence Resler, M.A« *****
The Ohio State University 1975
Approved by
Reading Committee Ruth B. Irwin, Chairman Sheila M. Goff James D* MacDonald Advijgjfr Department of Communication VITA: CHERI F. RESLER
I. Identification
Name: Cheri F. Resler
Present Employment: Director, The Ohio State University Speech and Hearing Clinic
Certification: CCC - Speech
Address: 730 South Sixth Street Columbus, Ohio 43206
Telephone: 614 - 444-7362
Birthdnte: August 6 , 1948
Social Security No.: 281-44-7687
II. Education
Institution Dates Degrees Mnjor
Muskingum College 9/66 - 9/69 B.A. Speech
The Ohio State University 9/69 “ 9/70 M.A. Speech and Hear ing Science (Speech Path ology).
The Ohio State University 9/72 (expected June, 1975) Hi.D. Speech and Hear ing Science (Speech Path ology).
III. Professional Experience
Dates Job title, institution, employer
September 1972 to present Director of the Speech and Hearing Clinic, The Ohio State University, Ruth B. Irwin
March 1973 to present Speech Pathologist, Riverside Methodist Hospital, Janice E. Barnes
11 June 1973 to present Supervisor, Pickaway County Speech and Hearing Clinic, Sheila M. Goff
January, 1971 to July, 1972 Research Associate, Memphis State University, John V. Irwin
January, 1971 to July, 1972 Clinical Instructor, Memphis State University, Louise M* Ward
September, 1970 to December, 1970 Speech Pathologist, Lake County Easter Seal Therapy Center, Waukegan, Illinois, Mrs* Cunningham
January, 1969 to September, 1970 Social Rehabilitation Service Training, The Ohio State University, John W. Black
IV. Administrative Experience
Clinical Director, The Ohio State University Speech and Hearing Clinic, September, 1972 to present.
Administrative Assistant to Section Head, The Ohio State Univer sity Section of Speech and Hearing Science 197^ to present.
Project Director, Psi lota Xi Diagnostic Clinic, The Ohio State University Speech and Hearing Clinic, September, 197^ to present.
Chairman, Clinical Staff, The Ohio State University Section of Speech and Hearing Science, 1972 to present*
Budget Committee, The Ohio State University Section of Speech and Hearing Science, 1973 to present.
Public Relations Committee, The Ohio State University Section of Speech and Hearing Science, 1973 to present.
Co-chairman, Clinical Committee, The Ohio State University Section of Speech and Hearing Science, 1973 “ 197^«
Coordinator of Clinical Training and Research, The Ohio State University Section of Speech and Hearing Science, 1973 “ 197^»
iii V Professional Presentations
A* Research Papers
Deal and Rosier, "The Efficacy of Three Treatment Paradigms for Apraxia of Speech in Adults," $lat Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, November, 1974, Las Vegas, Nevada.
MacDonald, Rosier, and Hartman, "Semantic Development of Normal Children; A study with the Environmental Language Inventory," 51st Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, November, 1974, h0® Vegas, Nev.
B. Workshops
Paired - Stimuli Workshop (given quarterly), The Ohio State University Training Program in Speech Pathology, September, 1973 to present.
The Triota Screening Battery Workshop (given quarterly), The Ohio State University Training program in Speech Path ology, September, 1973 to present.
Paired - Stimuli Workshop, Director, Northeastern Ohio Regional Conference, March 14, 1975«
Paired - Stimuli Workshop, Montgomery County Board of Education, Co-ordinator - Instructor, July 22 - July 26,1974.
"Articulation Modification, Use of the Paired - Stimuli Technique," 28th Annual Conference of the Ohio Speech and Hearing Association, Columbus, Ohio, April, 1974.
The Psi Iota Xi Pre Collegiate Institute in Speech Pathology and Audiology, The Ohio State University, June, 1974.
The Psi Iota Xi Pre Collegiate Institute in Speech Pathology and Audiology, The Ohio State University, June, 1973*
The Environmental Language Inventory , (Evaluation and Treat ment) Workshop, The Ohio State University Training Program in Speech Pathology, January, 1973•
Paired - Stimuli Workshop (given quarterly) Memphis State University, January 1971 to July 1972.
The Triota Screening Battery Workshop (given quarterly) Memphis State University, January 1971 to July 1972.
iv VI. Publications
MacDonald and Resler, "Language Development of Normal Preschool Children, Implications for Training Retarded Children," Par tially supported by Grant #1, Ohio Department of Mental Health and Retardation,1973*
Deal and Resler, "Modification of the Eight-Step Task, Continuum for Treatment of Apraxia of Speech in Adults," (in press)
Rosier and Deal, "A Preliminary Report of the Paired-Stimuli Parent Training Program", (submitted for publication).
Resler and Deal, "Treatment for Apraxia of Speecht A Three- Phase Conversational Program," (in preparation).
0"Koefe, Resler, and Deal, "Articulation Intervention with the Visually Handicapped," (in preparation).
MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, "Semantic Development of Normal Children; A Study with the Environmental Language Inventory" (in preparation).
VII. Teaching
Graduate level Clinical Training Experiences in articulation, language, neuropathologies of speech, and stuttering.
Graduate-l/ndergraduate level course in diagnosis and appraisal of speech pathologies.
VIII. Professional Memberships
American Speech and Hearing Association
The Ohio State University Psycholinguistics Study Group
IX. Honors and Certification
Certificate of Clinical Competence, Speech, 1971* The American Speech and Hearing Association.
Cwens, National Academic Honorary for Women, Muskingum College, 19&7«
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page VITA ...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... viii
Chapter I* Introduction • 1 The Problem 1 Specific Questions .••.••••••■•... 2 Need for the Study • ••••••••«*•... 2 Definition of Terms 3 Organization of the S t u d y ...... • . . 7
II. Review of the Literature 8 The Rich Interpretation* Semantic Rules .... 10 Cross Cultural Studies 12 Diagnosis and Treatment of the Language-Delayed. 12
III. Procedures of the Study 18 Subject Selection •••••»■••••••*• 18 Procedures 19
IV. Results and Discussion 26 Null Hypotheses 26 Statistical Treatment of the Data ...... 27 The Semantic Function of the Child Language During the Developmental Period •••••• 27 The Developmental Pattern of Semantic Function • 35
vi Chapter Page
V, Summary and Conclusions 46 Summary of Procedures • ••••••••■*.• 46 Findings 46 Implications for Language Intervention • . • • 52 Suggestions for Further Study ...•••••• 54
Appendix A, Triota Screening Battery Forms ...... 57 B, Reliability Criterion F o r m ...... 60 C, Raw Data • •••••••••»••••••■• 66
Refemeces 71
vii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1 — Semantic Rules as described by Schlesinger (1971) and Bloom (1970) ...... 11
Table 2 - Functions of Two-Word Sentences in Child Speech, with Examples from Several Languages* 13
Table 3 - Roger Brown (1973a) offers the following data that can be ordered developmentally * * * * . 16
Table 4 - Scoring of the Semantic Function of Child Language, based on 100 utterance sample * * . 23
Table 5 “ Computing the Mean Length of Utterance of 100 Utterance Sample *..•••.*.•. 23
Table 6 - The theoretical (expected) and actual (observed) frequencies of occurrence of the eight semantic rules in 100 utterance samples of 40 language developing children, the direction and difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values « • • • • 29
Table 7 - The relative percentage of occurrence of each of the eight semantic rules in the 100 utter ance sample of 40 language developing children JO
Table 8 - The expected frequencies, based on the 40 sub ject sample, and the actual frequency of occur rence of the e i g h t semantic rules found in the subgroup I (M*L*U# 2*00—2*49) *•••*• •* 32
Table 9 - The expected frequencies, based on the 40 sub ject sample, and the actual frequency of occur rence of the eight semantic rules found in subgroup II (M.L.U* 2*50-2*99)• • •••••• 33
Table 10 - The expected frequencies, based on the 40 sub ject sample, and the actual frequency of occur rence of the eight semantic rules found in subgroup III (M*L*U* 3*00-3*49) ••••••• 34
viii TABLE PAGE
Table 11 - Tlie expected frequencies, based on the 40 subject sample, and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in subgroup IV (M.L.U. 3-50-3*99) • ••••• 36
Table 12 - The percentage of occurrence and the actual fre quency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules for Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49), Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99), Group III (M.L.U. 3.00-3.49), and Group IV (M.L.U. 3.50-3.99) ...... 37
Table 13 - The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. (2.00-2.49) data and the actual fre quency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99), the direc tion of difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values 39
Table 14 - The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group III (M.L.U. 3*00-3.49), the direction of difference between the observed and expected fre quencies, and the computed Chi Square values • 40
Table 15 - The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group IV (M.L.U. 3-50-3*99), the direction of difference between the observed and expected fre quencies, and the computed Chi Square values • 41
Table 16 - The expected frequencies, based on Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99), and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group III (M.L.U. 3*00-3.49),the direction of difference between the observed and expected fre quencies, and the computed Chi Square values • 43
Table 17 - The expected frequencies, based on Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99). and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group III (M.L.U. 3 .OO-3.49), the direction of difference between the observed and expected fre quencies, and the computed Chi Square values • 44
ix TABLE PAGE
Table 18 - A summary of a series of Chi Square analyses. 48
Table 19 ~ Hierarchy of units for training language from a two word to a four word level ...... 55
x CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Basic philosophic curiosities seem to hold man's interest across centuries. One of these perplexities is how man, as a child, develops the complex language system which becomes his primary vehicle for communication. In some of our earliest historical records, one finds Psnmmetichus, ruler of Egypt in the seventh century B.C., conducting an experiment in developmental psycholinguistics: Psnmmetichus ... took at random from an ordinary family, two newly born infants, and gave them to a shepherd to be brought up amongst his flocks, under strict orders that no one should utter a word in their presence. They were to be kept by themselves in a lonely cottage ... (Herodotus, 195**, p. 1 ). Psammetichus was interested in determining whether or not the Egyptians were the original race of mankind. He reasoned that if the isolated children spontaneously developed the language of the Egyptians, he would have the proof that he needed. In two years, one of the children uttered his first word, "becos" which is the Phrygian word for bread. The Egyptians then conceded that the Phrygians had the right to claim greater antiquity (Slobin, 1972, p. 71)• Although the methodology of this experiment is dubious both scientifically and ethically, it illustrates the hold of this question and the belief that understanding the origin of language would illuminate the nature of man (Dale, 1970, p. l). Although research methodology is more sophisticated today, few investigators have studied the communicative intent of the children's utterances during the language acquisition period. It seems necessary to establish the role that early language plays in the child's com municative development. Once one can define what children tend to talk about, more appropriate language intervention strategies may be developed. The Problem The purpose of this study was to isolate and describe the
1. pattern of the child's semantic development during the acquisition of language. Specific Questions 1. What semantic functions characterize the child's utterances at four increasing levels of mean length utterance (2 .0-2 .49, 2.5-2.99, 3.0-3.49, 3.5-3.99)? 2. What is the developmental sequence of the use of the seman tic rules during language acquisition?
NEED FOR THE STUDY
The goal of the language pathologist is to assist the child/adult with deviant language to communicate effectively. Chomsky (1957) presented the notion that basic transformational rules permit man to produce an infinite number of novel utterances. If one accepts Chomsky's theory, then this finite set of rules becomes the logical fundamental base for language intervention strategies. Recently, speech pathologists have recognized that certain aspects of the transformational point of view may also provide a useful procedural framework for the treatment of children with deviant language. Possibly the most important aspect is the following: because we are capable of generating an infin ite number of utterances never before heard, we must, at some level at least, learn language as a finite set of rules (Leonard, 1973, p. m ) . Psycholinguistics have attempted to isolate and define this finite set of rules from shortly after Chomskyan Revolution (Green, 1972) to the present. During the 1960's, analysis of the syntactic structure of child language (Braine, 1963; Brown and Bellugi, 1964; Brown and Frazer, 1963; Miller and Ervin, 1964; and McNeill, 196b) were undertaken in hope that the basic rules governed word order. In the 1970's, however, a shift from syntactic to semantic analysis took place. Investigators now believe the basic fundamental rules which govern child utterances are the semantic relationships expressed by the child. Bloom (1970) and Scheslinger (1971) isolated and defined these rules. MacDonald and Blott (1974) and Miller and Yoder (1972) developed language intervention strategies based on the semantic function during the early development of language* However, as Miller (1973) emphasizes, the selection and sequence of the train ing units for these programs "could not be done with any degree of confidence" because there is little known about the pattern of semantic development in the normal child* It is the purpose of this investigation to attempt to define the pattern of semantic development of language of the normal child* The task of the clinician faced with teaching language skills to a deviant child is enormous* Considering the infinite number of utterances a child could produce, it is clear that the clinician must call on some basic rules to teach the ••• language deviant child ••• (Leonard, 1973* P* 182)* It is the hope of this investigator that the results of this study will provide the needed normative base for the construction of valid language intervention strategies*
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Terms used in this study will be defined as follows* Psycholinguistics George Miller (1967) defines psycholinguistics as the study of the overlap between the disciplines of psychology and linguistics* Psychologists have long recognized that human minds feed on linguistic symbols* Linguists have always admitted that some kind of psychosocial motor must move the machinery of grammar and lexicon* Sooner or later they were certain to examine their intersection self-consciously* Perhaps, it was also inevitable that the result would be called "psycholin guistics" (Miller, 19^7* P* 70)* To Dan Slobin (1971) psycholinguistics is the study of the acquisition and use of language* Psycholinguistics brings together theoretical and empirical tools of both psychology and linguistics to study the mental processes underlying the acquisition and use of language. Linguists are engaged in the formal description of an im portant segment of human knowledge - namely the structure of language. This structure includes speech sounds and meanings and the complex system of grammar, which relates sounds and meanings* Psychologists want to know how children acquire such systems and how such systems function when people are actu ally speaking and understanding sentences (Slobin, 1971) P* !)• 3 Developmental Psycholinguistics
Developmental psycholinguistics, first defined as a field of study by David McNeill (1966b ), is the investigation of language acquisition/learning during the developmental period. "Child language" is studied as an entity separate from "adult language".
Generative Grammar
Noam Chomsky (1964) presented the theory of generative grammar. He proposed that man's language system was essentially a three- component grammar. Each of these three components, phonology, syntax, and semantics, developed from basic rule systems which enable man to produce an infinite number of novel utterances. It is interesting to note that the earlier version of Chomsky's theory (1957) contained no semantic component.
Phonology
The study of linguistically significant aspects of speech sounds, or how speech sounds serve as units of linguistic structure, is called phonology (Williams, 1972). The phonological rules differ from language to language. The phonemes which characterize the French language are different from those in English. In addition, the sounds which acceptably precede and follow certain phonemes also differ from language to language.
Semantics
The study of linguistic meanings or the communicative intent of man's language is colled semantics. Communicative semantic strategies differ according to variables including age, ethnic group, and environmental location. In this study, the semantic function of the language of the developing child is analyzed. A finite set of semantically based rules seem to describe the commun icative strategies of the child during the language acquisitidn period.
4 Child Language - Adult Language
Phillip Dale (1972) proposed that the child and adult use language for different purposes. For the adult, "speaking and listening consist of converting knowledge into action whereas in language acquisition, action - the sentences the child hears and produces must be converted to knowledge". When the child is between the ages of one and two years, he begins to produce novel two-word sentences. Children use words to encode their experiences. The child's cognitive perception of the world around him changes as he begins to develop encoding and decod ing abilities. By the time the child becomes school age, his language structure approximates adult language. Hynes (1973122) believes that ... both increased age levels and exposure to complex stimulus message have an effect on the complexity of the child language. Age is a crucial factor in child language develop ment. Both encoding and decoding performance are largely dependent on the age of the child. According to Chomsky (1972) by the age of five the task of language acquisition has already been accomplished. The child of six exhibits competence with his native language that appears to approximate adult competence. Descrepanciee between his grammar and adult grammar are rarely revealed in spontaneous speech. DeHirsch (1970) and Rosnich and Wood (1973) agreed with Chomsky (1972) and add that before the child enters school he has already used all the grammatical structures he will ever produce. The language of the child during the developmental period (roughly one to five years of age) is unique. Slobin (1972, p. 72) concludes ... that children form a variety of word categories of their own - based on the function of words in their own language systems - and so words must be looked at in the light of the child's total system rather than in terms of the adult system, which he has not yet mastered. Franciscato (1968) expressed similiar ideas and added that although the child's vocabulary is made up of "words heard in his
5 milieu", the child's utterances are generally very different from adult models. In summary, the concept of "child language" will be used in this paper to indicate the language system of the child during the developmental period (prior to five/six years of age). Adult language refers to the language system used by individuals ranging from normally developing school age children (circa age six) through adults.
Telegraphic Speech
The Telegraphic Speech Theory proposes that the child uses a language system which consists primarily of nouns and verbs and results in utterances which resemble the content of adult telegrams. Brown and Frazer (19&3) Qnt* Brown and Bellugi (19h(t) report that the telegraphic characterization fit the spontaneous and imitative utter ances of language developing children. This theory is based on the assumption that a child learns his native language by imitating adult models due to the child's short attention and memory spans, the child is developmentally able to regurgitate only a "telegraphic" representation of that which he hears.
Pivot Grammar
Martin Braine (19&3) believed that the early two-word utter ances of children were governed by pivot-graramar rules. He proposed that the child's sentences could be described by three syntactic constructions 1 ) pivot^ ♦ open, 2 ) open ♦ pivot^, and 3 ) open + open. In general, the pivot class is small and expands slowly. Pivots occur primarily in the initial position of the sentence but not always. Examples of pivot^ words are all gone, more, hij pivot^ words include off, on, fall and so forth. Open words occur with greater frequency in the child language. The open words can occur alone, while pivot words do not. Examples of pivot grammar con structions are as follows!
6 more page pivot^ + open blanket on open ♦ pivot^ mommy sock open ♦ open
Roger Brown (1973a) refers to the pivot grammar description of child language as "the lean interpretation" because the child's communica tive intent and the situational context are not included in the analysis.
Cognition
Cognition is defined as the act of knowing} percepted; aware ness. It is said to be synonomous with knowledge and sensation (Thorndyke and Barnhart, 19&3t In this study, the child's cognitive ability refers to the child's ability to perceive, under stand and store as knowledge.
Mean Length of Utterance (M.L.U.)
'Ibis refers to the average sentence length, based in this study,on 100 utterances.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This roport consists of five chapters! Chapter I, tho problem to bo investigated, the need for the study, and definition of terms are presented; Chapter II is devoted to a review of the literature relevant to the problem; in Chapter III, procedures of the study are discussed; Chapter IV is composed of analysis and discussion of results; and in Chapter V, the study is summarized, conclusions are drawn, and implications are made.
7 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The language pathologist is currently faced with the serious problem of determining appropriate training units for the language- delayed child. Before creating a training program for the delayed child, it is necessary to establish a pattern of normal development. This normative schema may then be used as a basis for designing diagnostic and treatment procedures for children with language delayed development. 'Hie field of developmental psycholinguistics has recently experienced a dramatic shift in orientation. Within the area of normal language development, there have been rapidly changing views (and new insights) regard ing the basic elements acquired in initial language learn ing. These changing views represent a shift from viewing syntactic units to a recognition that acquisition is probably based on semantic units, at least in the early stages of development (Miller, 1973, P* 2). Earlier studies (firaine, 1963, Brown and Bellugi, 1964; Brown and Frazer, 1963; Miller and Ervin, 1964; McNeill, 196b) explored the syntactic structure of child language. These investigations were based on the assumption that because of limited attention and memory span, the child is only able to produce telegraphic representa tion of the adult language he hears. Efforts to classify child language, however, as inadequate replications of adult models (i.e. telegraphic speech, pivot grammars) yielded controversial results and were soon to be contradicted (Blount, 1969* Kerman, 1969; Bloom, 1970; Bowerman, 1970; Schlesinger, 1971; Brown, 1973s). Many of the rejected studies on the syntactical analysis of early language were undertaken by Roger Brown. In an article pub lished in 1973* he states, For reasons which must seem very strange to the outsider not immersed in the linguistics of the 1960’s, the first anal yses of child sentences in this period were in terms of pure syntax, in abstraction from semantics, with no real attention paid to what the children might intend to communicate (Brown, 1973b, P. 10O). 8 The primary examples of this syntactic analysis of child language were telegraphic speech and pivot-grammar theories. Drown recently offered his opinion of these syntactic models by stating, "It seems to be clear enough to workers in this field that Telegraphic Speech and Pivot Grammar are false leads that we need not even bother to describe" (Brown, 1973b, p. 100). New assumptions about early child language developed. 1) The child does not merely speak a garbled version of tie adult language around him, handicapped by limited attention and memory span, but instead speaks his own language with its own characteristic patterns. 2) The child himself must act as a linguist. He must extract from a. finite set of utterances, and underlying rules in order to create his own novel utterances (Dale, 1970, p. 46). With this general shift in philosophy, psycholinguists (Bloom, 1970; Holzman, 1971; Slobin, 1971; Schelsinger, 1971; Chomsky, 1972; Brown, 1973a; Miller, 1973), began to explore child language as a unique entity separate from adult language. Carol Chomsky (1972, p. 25) concluded that, What a child learns as he acquires language is a complex set of rules that enable him to understand and produce the sen tences of his language. He interverbalizes these rules from what he hears by a process of active construction as yet little understood. His earliest utterances, even at the stage when he begins to put two words together to make sentences are innovative and rule governed. The evidence shows he is not just repeating fragments of sentences he has heard, but creating his own sen tences according to grammatical rules that he continually con structs and revises. In summary, developmental language studies of the 1960's were characterized by syntactical analysis of the early utterances of children. Authors publishing in the 1970's offer findings which refute theories of the previous decade. "However, along with their attacks, especially on Pivot-Grammar, Bloom (1970) and Schlesinger (1971) made a positive contribution" by isolating and defining the semantic rules which govern early child's language (Brown, 1973b, p. 9 8 )* The semantic intent of the child became the focal point of interest, but did not replace curiosity about the child's syntactic-
9 grammatical constructs. Brown (l973a » P» 114) summarizes the shift ing developmental psycholinguistic theory as follows: It moves from the early nonsemantic "lean" characteriza tions t telegraphic speech and pivot grammar, to various semantic "rich" characterizations in terms of relations, cases, operations, and the like. I think the discussions as a whole show that tele graphic speech and pivot grammar are characterizations which fit the data we now have only insofar as they correspond to semantic characterizations and they do this quite imperfectly showing rather clearly that a semantic characterization or what I have called "rich interpretation" is the superior approach. The Rich Interpretation: Semantic Rules The semantic rules which govern early child’s language were first defined by Schlesinger (1971) and Bloom (1970). Schlesinger studied language samples collected by Braine (19^3), Brown and Frazier (l9b3), Brown and Bellugi (1964), Miller and Ervin (1964)^ and McNeill (1966) and proposed that eight semantic rules govern two-word utter ances in children. Bloom (1970)1 working independently of Schlesinger found similar results, as may be seen in Table I. These semantic t relationships seem to "represent linguistically the sensori-motor intelligence which develops, according to Piaget's research" before the child begins to combine words into sentences (Brown, 1973a » P* 64). Analysis of child language in terms of the semantic relation ships allows for a rich interpretation of child language. For example, "Eve lunch" may be classified as agent and object because the enviro- mental situation is included in the analysis. ("Eve is having lunch"). If only the printed words were considered, the child's semantic intent would be questionable. The child could produce the same two-word combination in order to discriminate Eve's lunch from someone else's lunch. Language is used by the child to encode linguistically his personal semantic definitions of his environment. The purpose of the rich interpretation is to capture the child's cognitive-semantic intent by studying the child's verbal interaction with the situational context.
10 TABLE I The Semantic Rules as described by Schlesinger (1971 / arid Bloom (I97O) SCHLESINGER BLOOM Rules Example Rules Example Agent and Action Bambi go. Subject and Predicate Airplane goes. Action and Object See sock. Verb and Object Throw ball. Agent and Object Eve lunch.(Eve is having lunch) Subject and Object Kathryn ball.(Kathryn will throw the ball Modifier and Head Pretty boat. Attributive Party hat. (This is a party hat.) Genitive Mommy sock. (Mommy’s Recurrence Sore*cookie. Negation and X No wash. Nonexistence All gone magazine. Rejection No dirty soap. (I don't want) Denial No truck (denying the Mother's, "Here’s the truck.") X and Dative Throw Daddy. Introducer and X That blue. Demonstrative with predi- Sweater chair (sweater cate nominatives is on the chair.) X and Locative Baby high chair. Subject and locaction That ball? Verb and location Sit chair. Noticing reaction Hi Daddy Cross Cultural Studies
Research efforts which followed the isolation and definition of semantic rules by Bloom and Schlesinger, have provided additional support for the functional existence of these basic rules. Slobin (1972, p. 72) believes that "children in all nations seem to learn languages in much the same way". He has gathered "reasonably firm data on the acquisition of 18 languages and suggestive findings for 12 others which indicate that "although the data are still scanty for many of these languages, a common picture of human-language devel opment is beginning to emerge". Slobin concludes that a basic set of semantic rules which govern the utterances of children speaking English, German, Russian, Finnish, Turkish, Samoan and Luo, probably govern examples of two-year old speech in any language (Slobin, 1972). Examples of the functions of two-word sentences in children's speech in many languages, are presented in Table 2 ■ Brown (1973a) after studying 33 reports of 12 different languages, agrees with Slobin (1971) that basic semantic rules are characteristic of language of children during early development. Eight basic semantic rules seem to characterize the two-word utterances of children. Slobin (1971) and Brown (1973) have suggested that based on cross-cultural studies to date, (these studies, by the way, represent about a one per cent sample of the world's languages), these semantic rules may, indeed, be characteristic of the emerging language of children of every nationality and tongue. If, in fact, these semantic rules represent the concepts normally developing children tend to encode verbally, then it would seem theoretically sound to develop diagnostic and treatment strategies based on this normal developmental schema of language acquisition.
Diagnosis and Treatment of the Lannuage Delayed
Language intervention programs developed by MacDonald and Blott (1974) and Miller and Yoder (1972) are based on the language acquisition theories of Bloom (1970) and the semantic rules defined by Bloom (1970) and Schlesinger (1971)• Bloom (1970) believes that
12 TABLE 2
T A B L E 2-1 Functions ot Two-Word Sentences in Child Speech, with Examples fromSeveral Lnnuuogcs'
Fun ction of Ulfcranco English Cornsjn Russian Finnish Luo Samoan
Locate, there book bitch da Tasya tarn tuossa Rina en saa Keith lea n a n io that car (book there) (Tasya there) (there Rina) (it clock) (Keith there) see doggie gukuk wauwau vetta siina m a w en d o (sec doGgie) (water there) (this visitor)
Demand, more milk m c h r m ilch ycsche moloko a n n a Rina miya tamtam m ai pope desire give candy (more milk) (more milk) (give Rina) (give-me candy) (give deli) w a n t cum bitte apfel d a y chasy adway chant fta moe (please apple) (give watch) (1 want food) (want sleep)
Negate1’ no wet nicht blasen vody'net ci susi bed a onge le 'at (n o t e a t) no wash (not blow) (water no) (n o t w o lf) (my slasher not hu ngry kaffe nein ■ gus’tyu-tyu enaa pipi absent) um a m ea allgone milk (coffee no) (goose allgone) (anymore sore) (allgone thing)
Describe Bambi go pttppe kommt mama prua takki pois chungu biro pa'u pope event or mail come (doii comes) (mama walk) (cat away) (European (fall doll) situatio n* h it ball tiktak bungt papa bay-bay Seppo putoo comes) ouhi skul tapaie 'oe block fall (clock bangs) (papa sleep) (Scppo fall) (he-went school) (r„ i you) bab y sofa sitzen korka upala built 'bun ban’ omoyo cciurr.a tu 'd Inlo highchair (sofa sit) (crust fell) (garage 'car') (she-dries (p u t d o w n) m es s c r nasbla yaechko maize) schneiden (found egg) (cut knife)
In d ic a te m y shoe m ein ball mami chashka ta ti a u to kom bab a lolo a'u possession m a m a d ress (my ball) ' (mama's cup) (a u n t c a r) (chair father) (can o y m y) m am a s h ut pu p m oya polo 'oe (mama'.s hat) (n a v el m y) (ball your) paluni mama (batoon mama)
M o d ify, pretty dress milch heiss m am a rik k i auto piypiy kech fa'ali'i pope q u a lify big bo at (m ilk hot) khoroshaya (broken car) (popper hot) (headstrong baby) armor wauv/au (mama good) to rn i iso gwen madichol (poor doggie) papa bol'shoy (tower big) (chicken black) (p a p a big)
Question' where ball wo ball gdu papa missu palle fca p u p afu (whore ball) (where papa) (where ball) (where Runnfu)
SOURCe: Reprinted from Slobin. D. L. Universale of grammatical development in children, [n O- R- Fiores d'Arcaiv And W, J, M, Ad Levcil llMs.), vances in pj)cholin£uiilics, Amsterdam; North Holland-Publishing Company, 1970. Tabic 1, pp I7S-I79. Reprinted vvuh ,-icrmixuun of the publithcr.
■The examples come from a variety of studies, published and unpublished, Data from the three nun-lndo-Furopenn Iji-.-un.-.ex are drawn from the reran doctoral dixxrrationx of Melissa Uowcrm.m (Harvard, m progress: Finnishl. lien Ulcninl I IlcrLc.uy, ler.d; Luoi. Keith Kerman (rierkeley, I9f»d: Samoan). The examples given here are rcptcrenlulivc of ntany more tillcranees of the same ivj-c in each lan.tuape. "1 ne order of the two words in the utterance is generally lixcu in alt of tiie languages except Finnish, where boltt orders can tv; used freely tor same utterance types by some elntdren, ■lllouiu (C olim iliiii dissert., 1Vfi.v) has noted three dillereiil torts of nepaiion: (I) non-existence (e.g., "n o wet." rvie.tiniig “ dry"). (2) rejec tion (e.g., "no wash", inclining "don't wasti me"), and (3) denial (e.g., "n o girl," denying a ('receding asset union that u boy was a gnlj. ■Descriptions arc of several lyi'es: (1) agent 4- action (e.g., "Unmbi go"), (2) action object (e.g., "h it baU";. (3) agent — oejcct (e.g., "mama bread," meaning "inuntn is cutting bread"), (•)) locnfivc (e.g., "baby highchair." meaning "throw it tsa daddy"), (Thu use of the ter minology of grammatical cusc is suggestive here; cf. I-'illmore's discussion of sleep coses as unslerlying linguistic univcrsals.) 'In addition to wh-quc-slicim, yes-no questions enn be made by pronouncing any two-word uttcrnnce with rising intonation.vs ub thcexccp- tion o f Finnish. (Melissa Duwxrirusn reports thnt the emergence of yes-na^jucstions is, accordingly, exceptionally late in Finnish child language.)
13 in order for language to develop in the child, three major components are necessary, l) cognitive-perceptual development, 2) linguistic experience, and 3 ) nonverbal linguistic experience. In order to acquire the language system, the child must be capable of perceiving objects, events and relationships in his envir onment: he must be exposed to the language system which can be used to express those objects, events and relationships he recognizes: and he must have direct experience with those objects, events and relationships in his environment. "The interaction of these three components points out, that in general, children do not talk in the absence of something to talk about", (Bloom, 1970, p. 10). Bloom's three components provide a framework for understanding what Slobin (1970, p. 25) calls a general cognitive operating principle, "The semantic relationships which a child can express and interpret in speech are limited by his level of cognitive development". Cognitive development appears to be primary in setting the pace for language development: many language forms cannot be acquired until the child is capable of grasping their meaning (Miller and Yoder, 1972). The language intervention procedures for the child delayed in language should be directed toward improving the child's ability to encode linguistically the semantic relationships which define his cognitive environment. The language treatment programs of MacDonald and Blott (1974) and Miller and Yoder (1972) were developed to train the language delayed child in this manner. The study of language development has recently moved away from a focus on the structure of adult grammar (Chomsky, 1957) toward an emphasis on two aspects of children's language: the rules governing the structures of early utterances (Brown, 1973a) and the content specifying the semantic function of those structures (Bloom, 1970; Schlesinger, 1971)• The strength of evidence for a finite set of rules governing early utterances across several languages (Brown, 1973; Slobin, 1970) encourages us to consider these rules as candidates for the content of diagnosis and treatment of severe language delay (MacDonald and Blott, 1974, p. 244). MacDonald and Blott have selected as the content for the diagnosis and training the eight semantic rules of Bloom and Schlesinger. The early language intervention program of Miller and Yoder
Ik (1972) is also based on the semantic function of the child's language. "The semantic functions are basic elements to be taught in the teach ing program" (Miller, 1973). Miller and Yoder (1972) emphasize that the content for the intervention program should follow the pattern of the language development in the normal child. The content for language training for retarded children should be taken from the data available on language develop ment in normal children and this content should be taught in the same sequence that it is acquired by the normal child (Miller and Yoder, 1972, p. 10). The content for initial language training should be based on the semantic rules which characterize early child language. The next primary problem to be considered is the ordering of these semantically based training units. Miller (1973* P« 3) concludes that, ... the ordering of the content can be approached logically in two ways. First, order of content can be according to the frequency of occurence of semantic functions expressed by normal children. Secondly, content order may be according to sequence in which semantic functions are acquired by normal children. Miller (1973) adds, however, that the selection and sequence of training units for his program "could not be done with any degree of confidence because of the limited number of subjects studied, which have been reported in the literature. These developmental data (Table 3) describe children from the 1.10-2.06 MLU level. The psycholinguists have been studying these language samples to isolate and define the components of the child's grammar. Recently these scholars have included in their investigations the semantic or communicative intent of the child's first utterances. After the child begins to produce three and four sentences, however, the child language is analyzed primarily in terms of syntactic units. The goal of the language pathologist, however, is to teach the language-delayed child to communicate effectively. Granted, with out appropriate syntax, the child could be unintelligible. On the other hand, if the child speaks without semantic intent, he is not using language to encode his thoughts. It seems necessary, then, to define the semantic functions, as well as syntactic construction, 15 TABLE 3 Roger Brown (1973^) offers the following data that can be ordered developraentally.
CHILD* SEX MLU AGE at DATA CHARACTER OF DATA INVESTIGATOR LANGUAGE
Eric I M 1.10 1*7 4 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Kendall I F 1.10 - 2 full days,transcribed on scene Bo we rm an Am. Eng. Gia I F 1.12 1:7 7 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Eric II M 1.19 1:0 6 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Gregory M 1:7.5-1:11.5 Cumulative inventory Braine Am. Eng. Andrew M 1:7.5-1:11.5 Cumulative inventory Braine Am. Eng. Steven M 1:11.5-2:0.5 12 day sessions, taped Braine Am. Eng. Christy F 2: 0 - 2 0 Taped weekly, 45 min. sessions Miller,Ervin Am. Eng. Susan F 1:8-2:0 Taped weekly, 45 min. sessions Miller,Ervin Am. Eng. Kathryn IF 1.32 1:9 7*5 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Gia II F 1.34 1:9 7*5 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Eric III M 1.42 1:10 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Seppo I M 1.42 1:11 2 hrs. taped over 1 month Bowerman Finnish Kendall II M 1.48 1:11 1*5 hrs. taped over 2 days Bowerman Am. Eng. Viveka F 1.50 1:11 hrs. taped over 1 month Rydin Swedish Sipili M 1.52 2:6 6*! hrs. taped over 1 week Kerman Samoan Tofi M 1.60 2:2 2 hrs. taped over 1 week Kerman Samoan Eve I F 1.68 1:6 3*5 hrs. taped over 6 weeks Fraser, Brown Am. Eng. Sarah I F 1.73 2:3 3 hrs. taped over 6 weeks Cazden, Brown Am . Eng. Seppo II M 1.81 2:2 2 hrs. taped over 1 month Bowerman Finish Rina I F 1.83 2:1 2 hrs. taped over 1 month Bowerman Finish Pepe M 1.85 2:6 4 hrs. taped in 2 consecutive days Tolbert Spanish(Mex) Kathryn II F 1.92 1:11 9 hrs. taped Bloom Am. Eng. Adam I M 2.06 2:3 2 hrs. taped over 1 month Bellugi,Brown Am . Eng.
* Roman numberals after children's names were assigned by investigators and refer to specific ordered analyses: all children are in Stage 1 by our definition. found in the child's language during the developmental period. Although a great deal has been written about the syntactic structures used by children during the language acquisition period (Berko, 195&1 I960; DeVilliers and DeVilliers, 1972; and Menyuk 1963a, 1963b, 1964a, 1964b, 1969)* the literature offers little, at present, in terms of defining the semantic function of the child's language during this period. Thus, it is the purpose of this study, to isolate and des cribe the pattern of the child's semantic development during the language-learning period.
17
t CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY
This study was undertaken to isolate and define the pattern of the child's semantic development during the acquisition of language. In this chapter, the subjects, materials) methodological) administration) and scoring procedures are discussed.
SUBJECT SELECTION
A total of 40 subjects were selected from the Child Care Pilot Program, a university preschool, and from the Singer Learning Center preschool program. Subjects were required to meet the following criteria! l) pass the speech, language and hearing subtests of The Triota Screening Battery (Irwin, 1972); 2) have a mean length of utterance of 100 utterance sample between 2.0 and 4.0 words. The subjects were divided into four groups based on mean length of utterance derived from a 100 utterance sample as follows: Group I M.L.U. 2.00*2.49 Group II M.L.U. 2.50-2.99 Group III M.L.U. 3-00-3.49 Group IV M.L.U. 3-50-3-99 Subjects were grouped according to a mean length of utterance because it is ... a simple index of grammatical development. Almost every new kind of knowledge increases length! the number of semantic roles expressed in a sentence, the addition of obli gatory morphemes, coding modulations of meaning, the addition of negative forms and auxiliaries used in interrogative and negative modalities and, of course, embedding and corrdinating (Brown, 1973&* P» ^3* 5^)- Further, Brown found very little correlation between a child's chronological age and his mean length of utterance. The results of the pilot study for this dissertation provide support for Brown's contention (MacDonald, Rosiertand Hartman), that linguistic
18 abilities and age do not necessarily develop at similar rates* In summary, because children acquire language at varying developmental rates chronologically, the subjects were grouped according to a measure of linguistic complexity, mean length of utterance (M*L*U.)*
PROCEDURES
All of the 40 subjects participated in two tasks* First, The Triota Screening Battery was administered to all subjects* Each subject was required to pass all subtests of the battery in order to be included in this study* Secondly, a sample of 100 utterances of each child's spontaneous speech was recorded in a play situation in a preschool classroom* Each of the subjects was placed in one of four groups, based on the mean length of utterance derived from the 100 utterances* The Triota Screening Battery This instrument was used to screen the speech,hearing and language behaviors of the subjects in this study* This battery, developed by Irwin (1972), contains the following five basic parts! l) Identification! 2) Pure-tone screening examination; 3 ) A ten- word articulation sample, The Triota Ten Word Testt 4) A sample of spontaneous speech; 5) Supplemental information* The scoring form and stimuli pictures are included in Appendix A* The ndninistration and scoring of The Triota Screening Battery was done by The Ohio State University Speech and Hearing Screening Team under the supervision of the investigator* The investigator was trained to administer and score The Triota Screening Battery by John V, Irwin, creator of the battery* The screening team works as a unit, with each member responsible for particular subtests of the screening battery os follows! Indentification* The identifying information including the child's name and birthdate was recorded by the classroom teacher prior to testing* Pure-tone Screening Examination* One member of the screening team was responsible for pure-tone hearing screening* The examiner screened the frequencies from 250 Hz through 6000 Hz at approximately . 19 20db (some allowance was made for environmental noise)* If the results indicated further testing, the child failed the hearing subtest and JF was circled on his form* The letter £ was circled, if the child passed the subtest* If the hearing test were not attempted, the examiner circled NA* The examiner circled UNS to indicate unsatisfactory (uncooperative subject, faulty equipment, or presence of environmental factors not conducive to valid examina tion)* Articulation* One member of the screening team was responsible for testing the child's articulatory ability on The Triota Ten Word Test* The child was presented with line drawings (Appendix A, figure 2) which represented the following words: chair, scissors, Santa Claus, forks, toothbrush, matches, stove, ring, screwdriver, and turtle. The 54 phonemes were scored as correct, omission, distortion, addition or substitution. If the child produced the phoneme correctly, the examiner left the recording area blank. If the phoneme were produced unacceptably, the examiner used the following scoring systems: omission = 1 , distortion * 2 , addition a 3 , substitution = the phonetic symbol for the sound substituted* The phonemes tested were weighted according to frequency of occurrence of phonemes in English. Spontaneous Speech* The examiner rated the child's spontaneous speech in terms of the following characteristics: intelligibility, voice, flow (stuttering, cluttering), language and listeming. Supplemental Information* For the area labeled "Referred", the examiner circled Yes to indicate that the child had been referred to the screening team by the parent, teacher, or principal as a child with a suspected communication disorder* Space at the bottom of the recording form was allotted for clinical notes*
Samples of Language The collection of the 100 utterances from each child was under taken by the investigator and selected graduate students from the Speech and Hearing Science Section, The Ohio State University, under the investigator's supervision* The mean length of utterance and
20 occurrence of the eight semantic rules described by Schlesinger (1971) and presented on Table I, Chapter 2 of this dissertation, were obtained for each sample* All scoring of the samples was done by the investigator* To elicit the free sample of 100 utterances, the procedure described in Diagnostic Methods in Speech Pathology was used (Johnson, Darley, and Spriesterbach, 1963* PP* 163-167)* The recorder made a verbatim transcription of each child's utterances as they were spoken. The recorder did not attempt to interact with the child or to engage the child in conversation; he merely recorded a sample of the child's language as the child played in the pre school classroom* All classroom activity related materials were available to the children during the recording of the samples* The samples were obtained during the spontaneous play or snack periods at the day care center. During these periods, the children were free to inter act verbally with peers and teachers* Toys, games, and art supplies were available to the children during the play periods* The collec tion of the language samples was not attempted during the structured classroom activities* The investigator did not attempt to engage the child in conversation or elicit specific responses from him* Scoring of Semantic Function* Each utterance of a child's language sample was scored in terms of semantic function* The eight basic semantic rules, first defined by Schlesinger (1971) as agent and action, action and object, agent and object, modifier and head (word modified), negation and X (referent being negated), X (entity or action) and dative, X (entity or action) and locative, and introducer and X (referent being noticed), were used to analyze the semantic function of the language samples* This rule system was employed for the analysis because these eight basic semantic relationships appear to be the basic building blocks of early language develop ment across cultures (Slobin, 1971)* (Further explanation of the eight semantic relationships may be found in Chapter XI)* The occurrence of each semantic rule in each utterance of
21 the 100 utterance sample was scored. For examplet “Daddy throw” would be scored as agent ♦ action, while "red ball” would be scored as modifier + head. Longer utterances might contain several semantic rules, for example, "Daddy threw the red ball" would be scored as agent + action, action + object, agent + object and modifier + head. The total number of occurrences of each of the eight semantic rules was tabulated for each language sample. As is observed in Table 4, the child produced the agent * action semantic relationship 39 times, agent + object relationship 30 times, action + object 37 times and so forth. The total number of semantic relationships found in the subject's 100 utterance sample was 154. ^ Reliability. A criterion scoring sample, to assess interjudge reliability on this scoring procedure, was developed as part of the pilot study for this dissertation (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 1973)• Th” criterion scoring sample included 120 utterances. In the pilot study, children were grouped according to age in five successive age level categories (2 years — 4 years). The criterion scoring sample contained an eight-utterance sample from three of the children at each of the age groups. The utterances were obtained from the children's responses to the Environmental Lannuage Inventory which was one of the tests used in the pilot study. The investiga tor's reliability in scoring these language parameters was establish ed at above 97 per cent level of agreement with the criterion sample and two other judges. Further examples of the scoring pro cedures are found in Appendix B which contains the entire criterion scoring sample. Computing Mean Length of Utterance. Mean Length of utterance was also computed for all 100 utterance samples. The procedure out lined in Diagnostic Methods in Speech Pathology (Johnson, Darley, and Spriesterbach, 19&3, P* 164), was followed. The total number of utterances was tabulated in terms of sentence length. Then, the total number of utterances was divided by the total number of words in the sample. The breakdown of the number of utterances and TABLE 4 Scoring of the Semantic Function of Child Language, based on lOO utterance sample. The categories are based on Schlesinger's (1971) eight semantic rules. The “question” role is a possible ninth category and is not included in the total number of semantic rules.
Subject: D.A. M.L.U.: 2.14 / Group II: 2.0-2.49 M.L.U.
Agent + Action + Agent + Modifier Negation X + Introducer Ques Semantic Rule Action Object Object + Head + X Dative ♦ X tion TOTAL
Occurrence of 39 37 30 20 14 0 3 (11) 154 Semantic Rule words for subject D.A. as shown in Table For example, he pro duced 24 two-word utterances containing 48 words* The total number of utterances (100) was divided by the total number of words (214) to obtain the mean length of utterance, 2.14. Subject D.A. was, then, placed in Group I which contained samples with a mean length of utterance between 2*00 to 2.49 words.
24 TABLE 5
Computing the Mean Length of Utterance of a 100 Utterance Sample.
Subject: D.A. M.L.U.: 2.14 Group II: 2.0-2.49 M.L.U.
Vords per utterance 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
Number of words 18 24 44 4 0 100
Number of utterances 18 48 132 16 0 214 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to isolate and define the semantic function of children's language during the developmental period. This normative pattern would provide direction for language intervention strategies for the delayed language child. A language sample of 100 utterances was obtained for each of the 40 subjects, ten subjects in each of four groups of increasing linguistic complexity as determined by mean length utterance.
In this chapter, the null hypotheses, statistical treatment of the data, and the reBuls will be discussed.
The Null Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were submitted to statisical treatment. Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference between the expected and obtained frequencies of occurrence of the eight semantic rules in the total sample of 40 subjects. Hypothesis 2. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies based on the total sample and the fre quencies obtained from each of the four subgroups. Hypothesis 3. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies, based on Group I data, and the fre quencies obtained from Groups II, III and IV. Hypothesis 4. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies, based on Group II data and the fre quencies obtained from Group III. Hypothesis 5. There is no significant difference between
26 the expected frequencies based on Group III data and the fre quencies obtained from Group IV. Hypothesis 6 . There is no significant correlation between mean length of utterance and chronological age for the total sample of 4O subjects.
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA
Samples were collected for this study to represent 1) children's language during the developmental period (M.L.U. 2.00-4.00) and 2) language at four increasing levels of linguistic complexity (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49; 2 .50-2 .99; 3«00-3»49; 3»50-3*99)» The data representing the entire group of 40 subjects were first subjected to statistical treatment and then further analysis between subgroups was undertaken. The Chi Square Test for Goodness of Fit was employed to test the first five hypotheses in this study. This statistical method compares the observed frequencies with the theoretical or expected frequencies* In this study, the theoretical frequencies were gener ated first under the assumption that each of the eight rules occurred an equal number of times. Secondly, theoretical frequencies were generated from Group I data, using the relative proportion of occurrence of the eight rules in Group I as a baseline with which to compare the actual frequencies obtained in the remaining three groups. Thirdly, to analyze further intergroup differences, theoreti cal frequencies were generated from Group II and III data and com pared with the observed frequencies of Group III and IV, respectively. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation was applied to Hypothesis 6 .
THE SEMANTIC FUNCTION OF CHILDREN'S LANGUAGE DURING THE DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD
As indicated in Chapter II, language during the developmental period is characterized by eight semantic functions: agent and action, action and object, agent and object, modifer and head, negation and X, X and dative, introducer and X, and X and locative. There is little information, however, regarding the relative fre- 27 quency of occurrence of the eight functions* The following null hypothesis was, therefore, subjected to statistical analysis. Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference between the expected and obtained frequencies of occurrence of the eight semantic rules in the total sample of 40 subjects. In order to test Hypothesis 1 . a theoretical distribution was constructed based on the assumption that each rule would occur an equal number of times. It was then possible to test this assump tion by employing the Chi Square Test for Goodness of Fit which compares the observed frequencies with the theoretical or expected frequencies. The data used for this test was summarized in Table 6 . The expected distribution was generated under the assumption that each rule would occur an equal number of times or 796.25 times. The data in the "observed" column are the actual frequencies gen erated by the 40 subjects. Overall, the actual distribution of the eight semantic rules does not fit the assumption that each rule would occur an equal num ber of times. As may be seen in Table 6 , four of the rules occurred significantly more times than expected. While each rule was expected to occur 796.25 times, agent and action occurred 1445 times, action and object 1491 times, agent and object 929 times, and modifier and head 873 times. Conversly, four of the rules occurred significantly fewer times than was expected with introducer and X 6l7 times, X and locative 593 times, negation and X occurring 323 times, X and dative 101 times. Thus, Hypothesis 1. that there is no significant differ ence between the expected and obtained frequencies of occurrence of the eight semantic rules in the total sample of 40 subjects, was rejected. On the rejected assumption, each rule would have comprised 12.5 percent of the total sample. The observed percentage of occurrence for each rule is noted in Table 7» It is interesting to note that the first four rules of the table, action and object, agent and action, agent and object and modifier and head, comprise nearly 75 percent of the total number of rules, with the first two rules
28 TABLE 6
The theoretical (expected) and actual (observed) frequencies of occurrence of the eight semantic rules in 100 utterances of 40 language-developing children, the direction of the difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values*
Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules Q-E Frequency Frequency i
1. Agent and Action 796.25 1443 ♦ 525.32**
2. Action and Object 796.25 1491 ♦ 606.19**
3- Agent and Object 796.25 929 ♦ 22.13**
4. Modifier and Head 796.25 873 ♦ 7.40*
5- Negation and X 796.25 323 - 287.28 **
6. X and Dative 796.25 101 - 607.0 6 **
7. X and Locative 796.25 593 - 51.88**
8. Introducer and X „7S 6l£ - 40^25,**
Totals 6370 6370 2141.61***
* « xf (ldf) a 6.64, significant at .,01 level. ** « xf (ldf) » 10.83, significant at .,001 level. •*• » X2 (7df) ■ 24.3 2 , significant at ■,001 level•
29 TABLE 7
The relative percentage of occurrence of each of the eight semantic rules in the 100 utterances of 40 language-developing children. (The rules are presented in rank order with the most frequently occurring rules first).
Semantic Rule Percentage Occurrence
1. Action and Object 23.41
2* Agent and Action 22.65
3. Agent and Object 14.58
4. Modifier and Head 13.70
5. Introducer and X 9.68
6. X and Locative 9-30
7. Negation and X 5.07
8. X and Dative 1.58
30 accounting for approximately 30 percent of the rules found in the total sample. On the other hand, X and dative, occurred 101 times of a total 63&3 t making up less than 2 percent of the total number of rules in the sample. The second major assumption was that the distribution of the eight rules of each of the four subgroups (Group I a M.L.U. 2.00-2.49, Group 11 « M.L.U. 2.30-2.99* Group 111 » M.L.U. 3 .00- 3.49, Group IV = M.L.U. 3»50-3*99) vas the same as the distribu tion found in the sample for the entire 40 subjects. A Chi Square Analysis for Goodness of Fit was employed to test this assumption. The obtained distribution of the eight rules for the entire sample became the theoretical distribution for this analysis. The obtained frequencies for each subgroup was then compared to the theoretical 2 base. The results of the X, analyses done to compare the obtained frequencies of each subgroup with the expected frequencies based on the distribution of the rules for the entire sample, are provided in Tables 8 and 9* The results of the Chi Square Test for Goodness of Fit for Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) are summarized in Table 8 . For all but two of the semantic rules, no significant differences were found. The rule X and locative, however, appeared to occur significantly more at the 2:00-2.49 M.L.U. level than in the group as a whole, while the agent and object rule occurred significantly fewer times. For Group II (M.L.U. 2*30-2.99) for all rules except introducer and X, no significant differences were found. The frequency of occurr ence of introducer and X was found to occur significantly more times at this M.L.U. level than in the sample as a whole. These results are provided in Table 9» Somewhat similar results were found for Group III (M.L.U. 3 .OO-3 .4 9 ) in that again no signifi cant differences for the frequency of occurrence of the rules were found for the first seven rules, as shown in Table 10. The eighth rule, introducer and X, however, occurred significantly fewer times at this M.L.U. level than in the sample as a whole.
31 TABLE 8
The expected frequencies, based on the 40-subject sample, and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Subgroup I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49). Table 8 also includes the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values.
C D Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic+4 Rules1 _ 0—E Frequency Frequency £ i. Agent and Action 225.82 197 - 3.68
2 . Action and Object 233-40 251 + 1.33
3. Agent and Object 145.36 104 - 11.77**
4. Modifier and Head 136.59 142 ♦ .21
5. Negation and X 50.55 53 ♦ .12
6 . X and Dative 15.85 18 ♦ .29
7. X and Locative 92.82 137 ♦ 21.03 **
8 . Introducer and X 96.61 -22 - •03
Totals 997 997 38.46***
• - £ (ldf) 0 6.64, significant at •01 level• *• . x2 (ldf) • IO.831 significant at •OOl level. **• = X 2 (7df) - 24.32, significant at •001 level.
32 TABLE 9
Hie expected frequencies, based on the 40-subject sample, and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Subgroup II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99)* Table 9 also includes the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values.
Expected (E) Observed (0) _ _ Semantic Rules X2 Frequency Frequency —
1. Agent and Action 332.28 310 - 1.49
2. Action and Object 343.42 343 - .00
3* Agent and Object 213.89 194 - 1.85
4. Modifier and Head 200.98 217 ♦ 1.28
5. Negation and X 74.38 74 - .00 CO 6. X and Dative 23.33 20 - .
7. X and Locative 136.58 128 •m .54
8. Introducer and X 142.15 181 ♦ 10.62’
Totals 1467 1467 16.26
* a X2 (ldf) b 6.64, significant at .01 level.
33 TABLE 10
The expected frequencies, based on the 40-aubject sample, and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Subgroup 111 (M.L.U. 3*00-3.49)• Table 10 also includes the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values.
Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules X2 Frequency Frequency ——
1 . Agent and Action 438.05 441 + .02
2 . Action and Object 452.75 464 ♦ .28
3. Agent and Object 281.98 295 ♦ •60
4. Modifier and Head 264.96 284 ♦ 1.37
5. Negation and X 98.05 97 - .01
6 . X and Dative 30.75 31 .00
7- X and Locative 180.06 177 - .05
8. introducer and X 187.40 145 - 9.591
Totals 1934 1934 11.92
* » X2 (ldf) a 3*64, significant at the .05 level.
34 In Table 11 the results of the Chi Square analysis for Group IV (M.L.U. 3.50-3.99) are provided. For the rules action and object, negation and X, X and dative and introducer and X, no significant differences were found. Two rules agent and action and agent and object occurred significantly more times in this group than in the sample as a whole, while the rules modifier and head and X and loca tive occurred significantly fewer times. Thus, Hypothesis 2 that there is no significant difference between expected frequencies based on the total sample and the fre quencies obtained from each of the four subgroups was rejected. The percentage of occurrence of each of the eight semantic rules within each of the four subgroups is presented in Table 12. For all four groups, approximately 50 percent of the utterances were characterized by the rules agent and action and action and object, while the rule X and dative, represented less than 2 percent of the utterances. Roughly 5 percent or less of the utterances were scored as negation and X across groups. The remaining four rules, agent and object, modifier and head, X and locative and introducer and X, represented between 8 and 17 percent of the utterances.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL PATTERN OF SEMANTIC FUNCTION
In order to investigate the possibility of changing develop mental pattern of the use of the semantic rules by children as a mean length utterance increased, two additional hypotheses were subjected to statistical analysis. These two hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 3. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies, based on Group I data, and the frequencies obtained from Groups II, III and IV. To investigate the possibility of developmental patterning of the semantic rules^ first, Group I was established as a theoretical "baseline". The obtained frequencies of occurrence of the eight miles for Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) were used to generate the
35 TABLE 11
The expected frequencies, based on the 40-subject sample, and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Subgroup IV (M.L.U* 3-50-3*99). Table 11 also includes the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values.
Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules Frequency Frequency —— x 2
1 . Agent and Action 446.66 495 + 5.23*
2 . Action and Object 461.65 433 - 1.79
3. Agent and Object 287.52 336 ♦ 8 .17*
4. Modifier and Head 270.16 230 - 5-97*
5- Negation and X 99.98 99 mm .01
6. X and Dative 31.35 32 ♦ .01
7. X and Locative 183.59 151 - 5.79*
8. Introducer and X 191.09 126 ♦ -Jd l
Totals 1972 1972 27.10*
* o X2 (ldf) ■ 3*84, significant at the .03 level. ** a Xp (ldf) ■ 6.64, significant at the .01 level. *** a X2 (7df) a 23.32, significant at the .001 level.
36 TABLE 12
The percentage of occurrence and actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules for Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49), Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99)* Group III (M.L.U. 3*00-3.49), and Group IV (M.L.U. 3*50-3-99) within group data are baBed on 100 utterance language samples for ten subjects. V. n © u *o c © o © Qj 0 > 3 c c +» -p •rt © •H © T3 ■P o o o +> o V t 33 T3 > -O +> d •rl fl) § 0) •H 2 * i © TJ +> + * T3 •n TJ 'O CD *0 S3 § s +» "O © C O OCA a a « C d C C 8 < <3 < < 3 o < o s i z 3 X Q x .3 w Group I Frequency of Occurrence 197 251 104 142 53 18 137 95 997 Relative Proportion 19.76 25*18 10.43 14.24 5.23 1.80 13.74 9.53 Group II Frequency of Occurrence 310 343 194 217 74 20 128 181 1467 Relative Proportion 21.13 23.38 13.22 14.79 5.04 1.36 8.73 12.34 Group III Frequency of Occurrence 441 464 295 284 97 31 177 145 1934 Relative Proportion 22.80 23.99 15.25 14.68 5.02 1.60 9.15 7-50 Group IV Frequency of Occurrence 495 433 336 230 99 32 151 196 £972 Relative Proportion 25.10 21.96 17.04 11.66 5.02 1.62 7.66 9.94 37 expected frequencies for the remaining three groups of increasing linguistic complexity. The Chi Square Test for Goodness of Fit was employed to compare the observed frequencies from Groups 11, III and IV with the expected frequencies generated from Group I. The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2*99) are presented in Table 13* As the linguistic complexity of the utterances increased from the 2.00-2.49 to the 2.50-2.99 M.L.U. level, three significant changes were noted. The agent and object rules and the introducer and X were used significantly less frequently. For the remaining five rules, no significant changes were noted. A comparison of the expected frequencies generated from Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) and the frequencies obtained from the language samples for Group III (M.L.U. 3»0O-3»49) may be found in Table 14. The rule agent and object occurred signficantly more frequently in Group III than was expected, while the rule X and locative and introducer and X occurred significantly less fre quently than expected. For the remaining four rules, no signifi cant changes were found. The expected frequencies based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) and the frequencies obtained from Group IV (3»50-3»99) are presented in Table 15. The rules agent and action and agent and object, again occurred significantly more times, while action and object, modifier and head, and X and locative occurred significantly less frequently than expected. Thus, Hypothesis 3 a that there is no significant difference between the distribution of the eight semantic rules found for sub jects with a mean length utterance of 2.00-2.49 and subjects with a mean length utterance of 2.50-2.99* 3»0O-3«49, and 3*50-3«99 was rejected. To investigate the potential developmental pattern of the use of the semantic rules* the data from Group I(M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) 38 TABLE 13 The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group 11 (M.L.U. 2*50-2.99), the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values. Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules X2 Frequency Frequency 1. Agent and Action 289.88 310 ♦ 1.40 2 . Action and Object 369.39 343 - I.89 3. Agent and Object 153*01 194 + 10.98* 4. Modifer and Head 206.90 217 ♦ 3.14 5. Negation and X 78.04 74 - 2.09 6 . X and Dative 26.04 20 - 1.55 7. X and Locative 201.57 128 - 26.85** 8 . Introducer and X 139.81 181 + 12.14** Totals 1467 1467 60.04*** • «» X 2 (ldf) a 6.64, significant at the .01 level. ** « X2 (ldf) ■ 10.6 3 , significant at the .001 level. - X2 (7df) « 24*32, significant at the .001 level. 39 TABLE 14 The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U* 2*00-2*49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group III (M.L.U. 3*00-3*49), the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values* Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules Frequency Frequency — X 2 1. Agent and Action 382.16 441 ♦ 1.36 2. Action and Object 486*98 464 - 1.08 3- Agent and Object 201.72 295 ♦ 43.13** 4. Modifier and Head 275•40 284 ♦ -27 5. Negation and X 102.89 97 mm .34 6. X and Dative 34.81 31 - .42 7. X and Locative 265.73 177 - 29.63** 8. Introducer and X 184-31 Oil - 8.38* Totals 1934 1934 84.61*** * o X2 (ldf) o 6*64, significant at the *01 level* ** » X 2 (ldf) • 10.83* significant at the .001 level. *** » X2 (7df) a 24*36, significant at the *001 level. 40 TABLE 15 The expected frequencies, based on Group I (M.L.U. 2.00-2.49) data and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group IV (M.L.U. 3«50-3.99) 1 the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and the computed Chi Square values. Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules Frequency Frequency —— i. Agent and Action 389.67 495 ♦ 28.47*"1 2. Action and Object 496.55 433 tm 8 .13* 3- Agent and Object 205.68 336 + 82.57** 4. Modifier and Head 280.81 230 - 9.19* 5. Negation and X 104.91 99 - •33 6. X and Dative 35.50 32 - .35 7. X and Locative 270.95 151 - 53.10** 8. Introducer and X 187.93 196 + Totals 1972 1972 182.49**' * o X 2 (ldf) a 6.64, significant at •01 level. •* » X 2 (ldf) » 10.83t significant at •001 level• a X2 (7df) b 24.82, significant at .001 level. 41 were used first to generate expected frequencies for Groups II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99)» Group III (M.L.U. 3-00-3.49) and Group IV (M.L.U. 3.50-3.99). Secondly, in order to measure possible changes directly between the groups as mean length utterance increased, two additional hypotheses were subjected to statistical treatment. These two hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 4. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies, based on Group I data, and the frequencies obtained from Group III. Hypothesis 5. There is no significant difference between the expected frequencies based on Group III data and the frequencies obtained from Group IV. The obtained frequencies from the Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99) data were UBed to generate expected frequencies for Group III (M.L.U. 3.00-3.49) and the Group III (M.L.U. 3.00-3.49) data was used to generate expected frequencies for Group IV (M.L.U. 3.50-3.99)* The results of the Chi Square analysis of the obtained and expected frequencies of the occurrence of the eight semantic rules for Group III (M.L.U. 3*00-3.49) are presented in Table 16. In this study, as mean length utterances increased from the 2.50- 2.99 level to the 3*00-3.49 level, the agent and object rule occurred significantly more times while the introducer and X rule occurred significantly less times. In Table 17 the Chi Square analysis of the obtained and expected frequencies for Group IV (M.L.U. 3*50- 3 .9 9 ) are presented. As utterance length increases from the 3*00- 3.49 level to the 3 .50-3*99 level, three rules, agent and action, action and object and introducer and X occur significantly more times, while modifier and head and X and locative occur significantly fewer times than expected. Thus, Hypothesis 4 , that there is no significant difference between the expected frequencies, based on Group II data and the frequencies obtained from Group III and Hypothesis 5 . that there is no significant difference between the expected frequencies based on 42 TABLE 16 The expected frequencies, based on Group II (M.L.U. 2.50-2.99), and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group III (M.L.U. 3.00-3.49), the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values. Expected (E) Observed (0) q _e Semantic Rules X2 Frequency Frequency ■■■■■ 1. Agent and Action 408.65 441 + 2.56 2. Action and Object 452.17 464 + .31 3. Agent and Object 255-67 295 + 6.05* 4. Modifier and Head 286.04 284 - .01 5. Negation and X 97.47 97 - .00 6. X and Dative 26.30 31 + .84 7. X and Locative 168.84 177 + .39 8. Introducer and X 238.66 142 - 36.76* Totals 1933.80 1934 49.92* * = X2 = = 3*84, significant at .05 level. •* * X2 * (ldf) = 10.83 , significant at .001 level. *** =X2 b (7df) = 24.32, significant at .001 level. 43 TABLE 17 The expected frequencies, based on Group III (M.L.U. 3.00-3.49), and the actual frequency of occurrence of the eight semantic rules found in Group IV (M.L.U. 3.50-3.99), the direction of difference between the observed and expected frequencies and the computed Chi Square values. Expected (E) Observed (0) Semantic Rules Q-E Frequency Frequency I 2 1. Agent and Action 449.61 495 ♦ 4.58* 2. Action and Object 473-08 433 mm 3.40 3- Agent and Object 300.73 336 * 4.30* 4. Modifier and Head 289.49 230 - 12.23** 5- Negation and X 98.99 99 ♦ .00 6. X and Dative 31.55 32 ♦ .00 7- X and Locative 180.44 151 - 4.80* 8. Introducer and X i47..?P I2i + 15.64** Totals 1971.79 1972 44.95*** * «= xf (ldf) a 3*84, significant at .05 level. ** ■ X2(ldf) o 10.83 *: significant at .001 level. *** - £ 2(7df) a 24.34, significant at .001 level. 44 Group III data and the frequencies obtained from Group IV were rejected. In order to evaluate the correlation between mean length of utterance and chronological age, Hypothesis 6 , that there is no significant correlation between mean length of utterance and the chronological age for the total sample of 40 subjects, was sub jected to statistical treatment* Results of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation indicated a significant correlation (r_ = .5 2 ) at the .01 level. This degree of significance indicates that M.L.U. and Chronological Age are correlated with greater signifi cance than chance, although a correlation of .52 for 40 subjects is not considered to be a strong one. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was rejected. 45 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to isolate and define the pattern of the child's semantic development during the acquisition of language. The chapter includes a summary of procedures, statis tical findings, implications for language intervention, and sugges tions for further research. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES A total of 40 subjects were selected from the Child Care Pilot Program, a university preschool, and from the Singer Learning Center preschool program. All subjects, after being screened for possible speech and hearing disorders, were placed in one of four groups: Group I a M.L.U. 2.00-2.49, Group II a M.L.U. 2*50~2.99, Group III = M.L.U. 3.00-3.49, Group IV * 3-50-3.99- The Triota Screening Battery was administered to all children. Only those children who passed this screening could be considered as subjects. The battery was scored according to directions. Secondly, a sample of 100 utterances of each child's speech was recorded during the child's play activity in his preschool. These samples were scored in terms of eight semantic rules, agent and action, action and object, agent and object, modifer and head, negation and X, X and dative, X and locative and introducer and X. Mean length of utterance and the frequency of occurrence of each of the semantic rules found in the language sample were computed for each subject. FINDINGS After statistical treatment of the data, the following signi ficant findings were noted: 46 1. The results of the Chi Square Test for Goodness of Fit indicated that the eight semantic rules do not occur equally in the language of children whose average sentence length is between two and four words* Four of the rules, agent and action, action and object, agent and object and modifier and head occurred signi ficantly more frequently than expected. The remaining rules, nega tion and X, X and dative, X and locative and introducer and X occurred significantly less frequently than expected. Similar re sults were obtained from responses on imitative tasks performed by subjects for the pilot study for this dissertation (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 1974). On conversational tasks in the pilot study, however, X and locative was ranked third while modifier and head ranked seventh in frequency of occurrence. Nevertheless, the concepts of agent, action and object tend to be expressed most fre quently in early language which provides empirical evidence to support Bloom (1970), Brown (1973a) and other psycholinguists who believo that the combination of these three concepts dominates the language of children. 2. Significant changes in the use of six of the semantic rules were noted when viewed in terms of M.L.U. The two least fre quently used rules, X and dative and negation and X, always occurred as expected. The significant findings related to the use of the eight rules will be discussed in terms of each individual rule. A summary table of the analyses presented in Chapter IV, is provided in Table 18 (p.48)* Both Table 12 (p.37) and Table 18 will be referred to frequently in the following discussion. Agent and Action As may be observed in Table 12, the relative proportion-of the use of this rule tended to increase as utterance length increased. When each M.L.U. subgroup was compared to the entire 40 subject sample, the rule agent and action was used Bignficantly more fre quently in Group IV than in the group as a whole. Developmentally, when comparing Groups II, III and IV to Group I, agent and action was 47 A TABLE 18 In this Table a series of Chi Square analyses (presented in Chapter IV) are summarized. The three grids provide tabular representation of the frequency of occurrence of the semantic rules within a sub group when the obtained frequencies for 1) each subgroup are compared with expected frequencies generated by the 40 subject sample (Grid l), 2) subgroups II, III and IV are compared with the expected frequencies generated by subgroup I data (Grid 2), and 3) subgroup II are com pared to expected frequencies generated by subgroup I data, sub group III are compared to expected frequencies of subgroup II data, and subgroup IV are compared to expected frequencies generated by subgroup III data (Grid 3)« GRID 1 GRID 2 GRID 3 I II III IV II III IV [I/I III/II IV/III 1. Ag/Ac E E E + E + + EE + 2. Ac/Ob E E E E E E - EE E 3. Ag/Ob - E E + + + ♦ E E E 4. M/H E E E- E E-EE - 5. N/x EE E E E E EE E E 6. X/D E E E E E EE EE E 7. X/L + E E- - - - E - CO M • E + ■“ E + — E + —E E = The rule occurred as expected. + = The rule occurred more frequently than expected. - = The rule occurred less frequently than expected. 48 used significantly more in Groups III and IV, as may be seen in Table 18. Further, comparison of entire group changes, indicated that the rule was used significantly more in Group IV than Group III. It would appear that a significant increase in the use of the rule agent and action occurs after an M.L.U* of 3*0 is achieved and further that this increasing use of the rule continues as M.L.U. increases. These findings tend to support Bloom's notion that the concept of agent is used more frequently as sentence length increases (Bloom, 1970). In addition, similar results were found in the pilot study (MacDonald, Rosier, and Hartman, 1974). Action and Object This rule tended to occur with most frequency as M.L.U. decreased, as may be observed in Table 12. For example, action and object was the most frequently used rule in Groups I, II and III being replaced by agent and action in Group IV, as may be seen in Table 18. Signifi cant change in the expected frequency of occurrence of this rule was noted only when Group IV was compared to Group I. These data tend to provide empirical evidence for the theory that the early world of the child is very action-oriented following the sensori-motor schema devel oped by Piaget (Brown, 1973a)* In addition support for Bloom's notion that early nouns are primarily used to express the concept of object and later the concept of agent dominates the child's utterances is noted (Bloom, 1970). Again, similar results for the rule, action and object, were found in the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 1974). Agent and Object This rule tended to occur more frequently as sentence length increased, as shown in Table 12. When Groups II, III, and IV were compared to Group I, the rule occurred significantly more than expected in all groups (Table 18). Further intergroup analysis indicates that the rule occurred more frequently in Group II than in I and Group IV than in II. The rule occurred as expected when Group IV was compared to Group III. On the other hand, when compared to 49 the entire group, agent and object tended to occur significantly more in Group IV and less in Group I than in the group as a whole (Table 18). These data support the notion expressed by Bloom (1970) that agent-type words occur more frequently as sentence length increases and that as a child begins to use three-word utterances his dominate sentence type is agent-action-object. Modifier and Head As may be observed in Table 12, this rule occurred with approx imately the same relative proportion for Groups I, II, and III. For Groups I and II, modifier and head was the third most frequently used rule, replaced by agent and object in Groups III and IV. When comparing each subgroup to the entire group and in the analysis of intergroup changes, modifier and head occurred as would be expected in all but Group IV. A decrease in the use of modifier and head was consistently noted in all Group IV analyses (Table 18). The dominant use of the construction agent-action-object may explain the decrease in frequency of occurrence of this rule. It is inter esting to note that in the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hart man, 197(t) modifier and head ranked as the seventh most frequently used rule on conversational tasks, which may indicate that the stimuli used to elicit this rule were not maximally effective. Negation and X As may be observed in Table 12, this rule ranked seventh in frequency of occurrence. Intergroup analyses indicated that no significant changes were noted regarding the frequency of occurrence of this rule. In the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 1974) negation * X ranked sixth on imitative tasks and fifth on cued conversational tasks, indicating that the stimuli used may have provided more opportunity for use of this rule than occurs in completely unstructured verbal interaction. 50 X + Dative As may be observed in Table 12, this rule ranked eighth across groups describing less than 2 percent of the utterances consistently. In the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 197(0 X + dative ranked as the least most frequently used rule on both imitative and cued conversational tasks. Brown (1973®) and Bloom (1970) do not include X 4- dative as a semantic rule, which would tend to be con sistent with the above findings. X 4- Locative The frequency of occurrence of this rule tended to decrease as sentence length increased, as indicated in Table 12. When compared to the entire group, this rule tended to occur more in Group I and less frequently in Group IV than expected. Intergroup analysis indicated that the occurrence of X + locative decreased significantly when each subgroup was compared to Group I and when Group IV was compared to Group III. In the results of the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 1974) this trend was also noted. This rule, appears to occur significantly more in language samples with mean utterance lengths between 2.00 and 2.50 than in samples character ized by longer utterances (2.50-4.00 words). These data are empiri cal support for Scheslinger's (1971) conclusion that locatives are among the first relational concepts realized in the child's speech. Introducer and X The frequency of occurrence of this rule does not seem to increase or decrease consistently as M.L.U. increases (Table 12). When each subgroup was compared to the entire 40 subject sample, introducer and X occurred as expected in Group I, more frequently in Group II, less frequently in Group III and more frequently in Group IV. When all groups were compared to Group I, the rule occurred significantly more in Group II, and less in Group III. Intergroup analyses indicated that the rule occurred less in Group III than in Group II and more in Group IV than in Group III. 51 When compared to the pilot study, the rule ranked as the sixth rule for imitative and seventh rule for cued conversational tasks which was generally consistent in terms of the rank order position of the occurrence of the rule in the data obtained in this study. In general, a developmental trend to describe the use of the rule introduce: and X was not found. In fact, the results from this study were somewhat baffling. One possible explanation for the inconsis tent results found in this study could be that the definition of the rule introducer and X by Scheslinger (1971), is not as specific as the definitions of the other rules. The rule may operate as a slightly nebulous category which covers utterances not otherwise scorable. On the other hand, perhaps, this rule would be more easily defined as a subcategory of other rules. For example, the utterance "the car" could be scored as modifier and head, "there car" as a locative, and "see car" as action and object. These find ings indicate the need for further research regarding the operational definition of this rule. 3 . Mean length of utterance and chronological age were found to correlate (r_ = .52) at the .01 level of significance. Although, this is not an exceptionally strong correlation,these results are in> conflict with both the results of the pilot study (MacDonald, Resler, and Hartman, 197^) and Brown's (1973a) findings regarding M.L.U. and age. IMPLICATIONS FOR LANGUAGE INTERVENTION This study was undertaken for two primary reasons: l) to provide data to describe the semantic function of the child's language during the developmental period, and 2) to provide a data base for planning language intervention strategies. The following section of this chapter provides discussion of a language interven tion strategy based on the results of this dissertation. -52 More striking than four distinct patterns of rule usage independently characterizing each subgroup, is the definite hier archy of rule usage, which emerged to describe the entire sample of 40 subjects* The rules were used with nearly the same proportionate frequency and rank order across groups. The rules, agent and action, action and object, were consistently the most frequently used rules comprising about 50 percent of the rules used. While rules such as negation and X and X and dative, were used least across groups equallying less than 10 percent of total rules. After mean length of utterance reached the t'nree-word level, agent and object ranked as the third most used rule replacing modifier and head. Of the three remaining rules, (modifier and head, X and locative, and introducer and X), modifier and head, tended to occur with greatest frequency, although the three rules seemed to be used with nearly the same proportionate frequencies. It would then logically follow that when planning language intervention strategies, the language pathologist would begin by training the concepts of agent and action and action and object. Once these rules are learned as two- word utterances, they may be combined to make one three-word con struction, agent-action-object. The treatment program should then be designed to systematically increase mean length utterance with the addition of modifiers, introducers, and locatives. Because the rule, negation and X was found to occupy approximately 5 percent and the rule X and dative occurred less than 2 percent of the time, they would not be emphasized in initial treatment programming. In summary, the linguistic complexity of the child's utter ances seem to increase in two ways. First, as object and situa tional constancy develop, the number of semantic functions or intentions the child desires and needs to express verbally also increases. Secondly, at the same time the length of the child's utterances also increases. When training the language - delayed 53 child, one can follow systematically this developmental pattern by constantly increasing both length of utterance and variety of seman tic intention. Specific content hierarchy for treatment programming may be seen in Table 19. Both length of utterance and the number of underlying semantic rules are increased systematically with refer ence to the percentage of occurrence. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The study was undertaken to begin to analyze the semantic function of early language. Using the same or similar raw data, a number of additional studies could be undertaken. Some suggestions for further research are as follows: 1. When an attempt is made to analyze the early semantic function of a child's language, it is necessary to rely oh a number of arbitrary categories. In this study, the eight basic rules, first described by Schlesinger (1971), were used in order that data reduc tion, analysis and comparison could occur. These pre-established theoretical rules were applied to a large number of language sample with average sentence lengths ranging from 2.00-4.00 words. Thus, rules generated by two-word utterances were used to compare a variety of sentence lengths. Subsequent studies might be designed to examine the semantic rules which govern longer utterances. For example, all the three-word sentences could be extracted from the raw data collected for this study, and organized into new semantic rule groups. 2. Because approximately 50 percent of the rules found in the 40 language samples were agent and action, and action and object, it would be interesting to develop subcategories of these major rules. For example, the sentence "He is happy", was scored as agent and action when a rule such as agent and experience would have been more appropriate and descriptive. Additional analyses of the major semantic rules could be undertaken. The raw data collected for this study could be analyzed in a variety of ways. The type and fre- 54 TABLE 19 Hierarchy of Units for Training Language From a Two-Word to a Four-Word Level NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE OF UTTERANCE UNDERLYING OCCURRENCE OF RULES TO TEACH LENGTH SEMANTIC RULES ADDITIONAL RULE IN 40 SUBJECT SAMPLE Action and Object 2 Words 2 23.19 Agent and Action 2 Words 2 22.36 Agent and Action and Object 3 Words 3 14.17 Agent and Action and Modifier and Object 4 Words 4 13.68 Introducer and Action and Modifier and Object 4 Words 4 9.87 Agent and Action and Object and Location 4 Words 4 9.13 55 quency of vocabulary could bo tabulated. Hie syntactic-grammati cal structures could be analyzed. The linguistic constructions used by children which would be considered as errors in adult lang uage could be studied. 4. Regarding mean length of utterance and chronological age, children with a low M.L.U. and high C.A. could be placed in one group, and children with high M.L.U. and low C.A. in another. A comparison of environmental factors, including age of sibling, mother-child relationship and so forth could be undertaken. 5. Perhaps, basic semantic intentions occur in similar rela tive proportions for all mean length of utterance levels. At all levels of linguistic complexity, language may be reduced to certain common semantic functions. An interesting study would be to analyze adult language or the language of the school age child in terms of the semantic intent of the utterance. 56 I APPENDIX A Triota Screening Battery Forms 57 FIGUilK I tk io ta screening form SOURCE: TEACHER: EXA!iItlER:_ SUBJECT:_ SUBJECT il Last F irs t l-lfddlc Date: / / B irthdale: / / Mo. Day Yr. i to. “ Day Yr. Grade: P K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 1 0 1 1 12 + SL EMR TMR Sex 1 Race: 1 2 Hearing: 1 3 4 M 8 W P HA UBS Scoring Instructions: For omission, distortion, or addition error, place code number in the space to the right of the diagonal line. For substitution, write the phonetic symbo.l for the sound substituted to the right of trie diagonal line. Legend: 1 = Omission 2 = Distortion 3 = Addition 1. CHAIR 2. SCISSORS 3. SAflTA CLAUS 4. FORKS t,- 5. TOOTHBRUSH G. MATCHES 7. STOVE ■■ 8. RIHG 9. SCREWDRIVER 10. TURTLE I Artie. Test: 1 2 Spon. Sample: 1 2 NA UIIS NA UIIS In te l 1. 1 2 Voice: 1 2 3 r, OK UilS OK pi tch q u a lity loudness FI ow: 1 '* 2 3 Language: 1 2 3 OK suttering other OK vocab. syntax Li stening: 1 2 Referred: 1 2 OK UNS Yes No Clinical liotes: 1 2 Yes No 58 FIGURE 2 - TRIOTA STIMULUS PICTURES ^ S ~ L > do no |y H (|\j>. \ « 5 = 0 Ay,-0s & i \ ///•/ ' \oQQ 1 n c 3 < 7 ^j.rj o \ / 8 [ IT DL 1 I W V 1 " " 59 APPENDIX B Reliability Criterion Form 60 * I *X ♦ H ♦H X D Age 2-2# ♦ + + . X Ag/ Ag/ Ob Act./Ob Ag / Ob 35 X A. Kr. j j 1 1. She ia writing X X X 2 The milk fell down 3* There is a tree up there X X 4. Don't want it X X 5. No doll X XXX 6* I want it. You h ve it XX X 7* Right there X 8. The big ball there X X B. Roo 1. This is walking X 2 , I want to play ball XX X 3* I want to play piano XX X 4. You love baby X XX 3* Not a dog X 6. Put on her X 7* You put it away X XX 8. I hit it XX X C. Je. 1. He walk X 2. I want to play with the bal XX X 3. Tree fell dawn X X 4. I don't want it X X X X 5. You make her stop crying XX X X 6. Throw the ball X 7* Put it in the bag X 8. A daddy* I want the daddy X . X X 61 £> O fQ o \ X X o X \ +» + + + ♦ + II Ago 2)4-3 o CO < <, < X X X X M A. Sh. X 1. Just got some holes in my tights X X X 2 . I want to do it now X XX XX 3. There are some circles here XX X X 4. She a wearing some clothes X 5. That looks like 6. Throw it X X X X X X 7. I put a baby in a plastic bag 8. This is a book X B. Re. 1 . I kiss X 2 . doggie X X 3. She went down 4. No my dolly X X X 5. No dog v X 6. My dolly X X 7. No rolled it X X 6. No want it C. Em. 1. Birdie in a pool X 2. They’re eating X 3. It's snowing x 4. I have to put this away X X X X 3. No, that's a baby X X 6. No I want to go upstairs X X X 7. Put in the cup X 8. Right here . :x 62 \ Ob Ob / / s a X / / + ♦ Ill Age > 3 # ♦ + I I X X L + Ag Ag Act. Act. Ag/ Ag/ Ob X z X A. Me. 1 X 1. He is Bwimraing 2. You kicked the ball XXX 3. You're playing with the ball XXX 4. That is round x 5. Sing rock-a-bye baby, then X X make her go to sleep? X X X 6. Hit my knee 7. I put her in the bag X X X X X 8. This one B. Ta. 1. It's a nice day X X 2. Watching T.V. X 3* He's climbing on the tree X X 4. I don't know it XXXX 5* No I see it X X XX 6. I put it on XXX X 7. On the chair X 8. This one X C. Ra. 1. He is in a swimming pool X X X 2. Dudes are eating X 3. He is kicking the tree XX X X 4. A color shirt 5. I know where it is - in back of you XX X X 6. Throw it X 7* In the cup X 8. The little ball * X 63 x r - o XI g \ as X Q X \ • IV Ago 3# - 4 +> + + + + + < < z X w A. Be* < X X 1. Charlies Brown is splashing in X X 2 . Donald Duck spilled his milk X X X X 3. I rolled it over to you X X X X X X 4. It is big 5. No, it's a baby X X 6 . Throw it X 7. I put it in X XX X X 8. This one B. Era. 1. The little boy is going to the swimming pool and he splashed X XX X it. X XX 2 . You kicked the ball and it X rolled down X XX X 3. You throwed the ball up high X X X . X and then you catched it down X X X X 4. The little one is littler than X X this one X 5. She kissed me. She's a very X X X X nice doll. X X X X 6. Kick the ball X 7. I put the doll in the bag X X X X 8. Yes he's straight X C. Kr. I. But sometimes you can turn upside down. X X 2. He's watching T.V. X X X 3. He's kicking the tree X X X 4. She has black eyes X XX X 5. No it's a girl baby X XX 6 . I want put it on her X XX X 7* It's right up there X X 8. No it's a man X X 6 4 Ob Ob Ob / / + H +H X / / / / + + + V. Ago 4-4H I I + X Act. Act. Ag Ag Ag z X A. El. 1. The baby is walking X 2. Throwing the ball up and X catching it X X 3* A doll fall off the chair X X 4. Doll is lying on her lap XXX 5# I don't know X X 6. Throw the ball X 7. The cup. The ball is in the > * X X 8. It's a book B. He. 1. Read book X 2. Snoopy tree X 3. I want to go potty X X X 4. It's a tree X 5« No stop crying X 6. Want to throw the ball X 7. Right there X 8. Read a book X C. P e . 1. I guess I won't do it. That's X silly one X X XXX X 2. Kick ball X 3. You threw X X 4. I don't know. I'll show you XX X 3. She is not crying X X 6. I don't know what to do X XXX 7. Put the baby in there X X 8. This one 1 X i>5 APPENDIX C Raw Data 66 GROUP I M.L.U. 2.00-2.49 C.A. Sub* M.L.U. UTTERANCES/WORDS SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS (Mo) 1 2 ? 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTALAA AO AGO MH NXXDXL IX TOTAL An* 2.00 23 26 49 24 1 lOO 10 23 6 25 1 21 7 93 26 9Q 72 4 200 Me. 2.12 57 30 36 27 6 1 lOO 20 15 8 6 9 6 14 12 90 30 72 81 24 ? 212 So. 2.17 23 20 51 21 8 100 11 8 6 20 2 1 13 12 73 20 102 ?2 217 Je. 2.17 26 20 51 22 6 1 100 16 23 4 17 2 17 4 83 20 102 66 24 ? 217 To. 2.25 28 14 54 26 5 1 100 20 36 13 12 8 2 12 5 108 14 108 78 20 ? 225 Wi. 2.32 34 18 32 40 10 104 11 27 4 18 3 1 14 10 88 18 64 120 4o 242 Aa. 2.34 45 14 19 33 19 15 5 3 108 40 35 23 28 16 1 8 15 166 14 ?» 99 76 7? ?° 21 253 He. 2.35 18 21 39 26 12 2 100 27 25 13 7 2 2 14 5 95 21 78 78 48 10 Ch. 2.37 39 17 42 30 12 101 24 31 12 8 9 1 15 14 114 17 84 9° 48 239 Re. 2.45 13 21 24 44 11 100 37 34 28 17 14 3 10 143 21 48 1?2 44 245 GROUP II M.L.U. 2.50-2.99 M.L.U. UTTERANCES/WORDS SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL AA AO AGO MH NX XD XL IX TOTAL 2.53 34 16 30 33 17 2 100 12 29 8 12 2 1 13 29 106 16 60 99 68 10______2^3______2.67 28 17 23 44 11 3 1 1 100 32 28 14 27 3 0 13 27 144 17 46 132 44 15 6 7______26£______2.69 30 18 28 33 13 6 2 100 20 28 11 11 13 8 6 18 115 18 56 99 52 30______14______2§2______2.75 32 9 36 32 17 6 100 34 40 20 27 5 13 12 151 9 72 96 68 30______225______2.85 41 2 35 41 20 2 100 29 54 21 38 4 4 12 14 176 2 70 123 80 10______285______2.91 4l 16 31 24 15 7 5 1 1 100 31 22 15 17 6 O 20 10 121 16 62 72 60 35 30 7 9 291______2.92 27 23 22 27 16 12 5 2 108 21 29 10 12 5 3 14 16 110 23 44 81 64 60 30 14______216______2.94 46 20 22 26 15 12 3 2 100 34 31 24 18 2 3 12 18 142 20 44 78 60 60 18 14______224______2.94 32 36 40 20 5 101 32 36 23 26 16 3 8 16 160 ______72 120 80 25______222______2.98 26 17 21 28 19 14 2 101 46 40 35 13 7 23 22 186 17 42 84 76 70 12______201______GROUP III M.L.U. 3.00-3.49 MT1I (Mo) UTTERANCES/WORDS SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL AA AO AGO MH NX XD XL TOTAL 3.09 34 15 26 17 27 9 4 2 100 33 51 28 32 10 5 10 179 15 52 51 108 45 24 14______222______3.16 31 8 12 49 35 5 109 55 54 36 18 12 8 198 _ 8 24 147 140 25______2^ ______3-17 26 10 27 30 19 8 1 1 2 2 100 37 26 12 15 11 6 30 152 10 54 90 76 40 6 7 16 18____ 317______3.17 34 18 20 23 18 13 5 2 1 100 49 43 32 21 12 0 19 184 18 40 69 72 65 30 14______9____ 317______3.20 25 12 23 21 32 5 3 4 100 56 49 39 25 3 O 10 192 12 46 63 128 25 18 28______220______3.29 30 4 22 39 19 10 4 2 100 35 57 28 38 8 o 17 196 4 44 117 76 50 24 14______222______3.36 32 10 10 38 20 20 2 100 51 48 37 34 3 4 19 215 10 20 114 80 100 12______336 3.41 33 8 24 26 18 14 6 3 1 100 52 41 33 45 11 1 19 217 8 48 78 72 70 36 21 8______241______3.44 33 8 14 29 35 12 7 106 37 5 4 28 25 24 6 23 215 8 28 87 140 60 42______3.45 33 5 18 33 21 18 5 1 100 36 41 22 33 3 9 22 186 5 36 99 84 90 24 7______2!il______GROUP IV M.L.U. 3*50-3*99 C.A. Sub. M.L.U. UTTERANCES/WORDS SEMANTIC FUNCTIONS (Mo) 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 TOTALAA AO AGO MHNXXD XL IX TOTAL Ho. 3.63 34 16 14 16 28 14 15 4 1 109 48 57 38 28 9 6 10 20 216 16 28 48 112 60 90 28 8 396 Mi. 3.64 42 12 11 27 33 12 7 3 3 108 58 49 39 22 16 3 15 8 210 12 22 81 132 60 42 21 24 394 Tr. 3.64 46 19 13 22 22 17 8 4 1 101 43 37 23 15 9 3 20 13 163 19 26 66 88 85 48 28 8 368 Sc. 3*71 45 7 19 34 24 12 8 5 3 1 113 51 39 33 19 8 0 12 16 178 7 38 102 96 60 48 33 24 9 419 Ch. 3*75 54 11 17 17 21 19 8 4 3 100 53 33 27 25 12 4 15 22 191 11 34 ?1 84 93 48 28 24 375_ _ Ha. 3*79 47 6 15 28 22 12 12 3 1 1 100 54 48 42 15 6 l 22 21 209 6 3° 84 88 60 72 21 8 10 .379. Br. 3*79 45 17 17 7 16 21 16 6 100 41 35 32 31 5 0 4 18 166 17 34 21 64 105 96 42 379 Ju. 3.86 49 5 13 34 20 9 11 5 1 1 1 100 45 40 36 30 11 5 15 20 202 5 26 102 80 43 66 33 8 9 10 386 Li. 3.88 42 8 9 24 24 18 9 6 2 100 49 52 35 23 14 9 20 36 238 8 18 72 96 90 34 42 8 388 We. 3*91 46 7 14 19 26 20 7 4 2 1 100 53 43 31 22 9 1 18 22 199 7 28 37 104 100 42 28 16 9 391 REFERENCES Berko, J. "The Child's Learning of English Morphology," Word. 14, 1958* PP- 150-177. . "The Acquisition of Grammatical Categories in Children," Word. 16, I960, p. 287. Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. M.l.T. Research Monographs, No. 59, 1970. Blount, Ben G. "Acquisition of Language by Luo Children," PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Braine, M.D.S. "The Ontogeny of English Phrase Structure: The First Phase," Language. 39, 1963* pp. 1-14. Brown, Roger. First Language. Boston: Harvard University, 1973&. « "Development of the First Language in the Human Species," American Psychologist. February 1973b* pp. 97-106. ______and Bellugi, U. "Three Processes in the Child's Acquisition of Syntax," Harvard Educational Review. 34, 1964, p. 133. ______and Frazer, C. "The Acquisition of Syntax," C.N. Cofer and B.S. Musgrave (Eds.) Verbal Behavior and Learning: Problems and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963* PP* 28-73* Bowerman, M.F. "The Pivot-Open Class Distinction," Unpublished paper, Harvard University, 1969* Chomsky, Carol. "Stages in Language Development and Reading Exposure," Harvard Educational Review. 42(1), February, 1972, pp. 1-33. Chomsky, Noam. "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory," The Structure of Language. J.A. Fodor and J.J. Katz (Eds.) Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964. . Syntactic Structures. The Hague, Netherlands, Mouton, 1957* Dale, Phillip. Language Development: Structure and Function. The Dryden Press Inc., Hinsdale, Illinois, 1972. 71 deHirsch, Katrina* "A Review of Early Language Development," Developmental Medical Chid Neurology* 12(1), February, 1970, pp. 87-97• DeVilliers, Peter A*, DeVilliers, Jill G. Early Judgements of Semantic and Syntactic Acceptability by Children, Journal of Psycholinguietic Research. 1(4), 1972, pp. 229-310. Francesiato, G. "On the Role of the Word in FirBt Language Acquisition," Lingua-21. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 144-153* Green, Judith. Psycholinguistics. Bungay, Soffolk, The Chaucer Press, 1972. Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by A. de Selincourt. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954. Holzman, Mathilda S. "Ellipsis in Discourse: Implications for Linguistic Analysis by Computer, The Child's Acquisition of Language and Semantic Theory," Language and Speech, 14, January - March, 1971. Hynes, G.E. "The Effects of Complexity of Enviommental Language on Children's Sentence Production and Understanding," Speech Teacher. 20(2), March, 19731 PP* 121-130. Irwin, John V. "The Triota: A Coroputurized-Screening Battery," Acta Symbollea. Vol. 3 (1 ), 1972. Johnson, Darley and Spriestersbach. Diagnostic Methods in Speech Pathology. New York: Harper and Row, 1963* Keraan, Keith T. "The Acquisition of Language by Samoan Children," Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkely, 1989. Leonard, Laurence B. "Teaching by the Rules," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 38(2), May, 1973* MacDonald, J.D. and Blott, J.P. "Environmental Language Intervention: The Rationale for a Diagnostic and Training Strategy Through Rules, Contect and Generalization," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 39(3), August, 1974,i-pp* 244-257* , Resler, C. and Hartman, M. "Semantic Development of Normal Children: A Study with the Environmental Language Inventory," 51st Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, November, 197&* 72 McNeill, David, "The Creation of Language by Children," J.Lyons and R.J. Wales (Eds*)* Psycholinguistics Papers* Edenburghr University of Edenburgh Press, 1966a, pp. 99-132. » "Developmental Psycholinguistics," F* Smith and G. Miller (Eds*)* The Genesis of Language! A Psycholinguistic Approach. Cambridge, Mass.x M.I.T. Press, 1966* Menyuk, Paula* "A Preliminary Evaluation of Grammatical Capacity in Children," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 2, 1963a, pp. 429-439. . "Syntactic Structures in the Language of Children," Child Development* 34, 1963b, pp. 407-422. . "Alternation of Rules in Children's Grammar," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior* 3» 1964a, pp. 408-488. . "Comparison of Grammar of Children with Functionally Deviant and Normal Speech," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research* 7, 1964b, pp. 109-121. • Sentences Children Use. Cambridge, Mass.x M.I.T. Press, 1969. Miller, George. The Psychology of Communications. Baltimore, Maryland, Penguin Books, 1967* Miller, Jon F., Yoder, David E«, "On Developing the Content for a Language Teaching Program," Mental Retardation. 10(2), 1972, PP. 9-11. . "Normal Language Development! Its Application in a Language Teaching Program". A paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Detroit, Michigan, October, 1973* Miller, Wick and Ervin, Susan. "The Development of Grammar in Child Language". Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown (Eds.). The Acquisition of Language. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development. 29*92, 1964, pp. 9-34. Rodnick, Royce and Wood, Barbara* "The Communication Strategies of Children," Speech Teacher. 22(2), March, 1973t PP* 114-124. Schlesinger, I.M. "Production of Utterances and Language Acquisition," Dan I. Slobin (Ed.). The Ontogenesis of Grammar. New Yorkx Academic Press, 1971# PP* 63-101. 73 Slobin, D.L„ "Univornnlo of Grammatical Development in Children," G.B. Flores d'Arcaia and W.J.M. Levett (Eds«)« Advancer, in Psycholingnintico. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1970* . Paycholiiifiiiiatlcn* Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Forosman and Company, 1971• . "They Learn The Same V.ray All Around tho World," Payer.'ilony Todayo 6(2 ), Mary, 1972, pp. 71~74» Thorndiko and Barnhart, The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, 1963* P- 334. Williams, F. Language and Speech, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972. 74