Thus, past tense is a better fit and appears to be easier with verbs high in telicity, whereas progressive and present-tense contexts may be easier on verbs low in telicity. These atelic verbs are more likely than telic verbs to be used and inflected in the present tense or with progressive aspect (e.g., walking, crying Owen Van Horne & Green Fager, 2015 Wulff, Ellis, Römer, Bardovi-Harlig, & Leblanc, 2009).
In contrast, verbs that are rated as low in telicity (atelic) typically depict actions and events that are not complete (e.g., walk, run, cry). Both children and adults tend to use these verbs and accurately inflect them in past-tense contexts. For example, verbs that are rated as high in telicity reflect completed event semantics (e.g., jumped, tripped, spilled). Within the area of event semantics, telicity refers to the completed nature of the event. It is well known that the phonological form of the verb stem influences inflection accuracy (e.g., Tomas, Demuth, Smith-Lock, & Petocz, 2015), but stem frequency, inflected form frequency, and event semantics also influence accuracy.
Some verbs are more or less likely to be correctly inflected with regular past tense by speakers of the language. The specific problem space for the study was regular past-tense –ed for children with DLD. This holds even if this means that the child's initial attempts at using these targets will be less accurate than would be the case with a developmental approach.
#Speech bug squish series#
According to this hypothesis, instead of selecting therapy targets on the basis of their progression within a developmental series (e.g., simple sentences before complex sentences), we should select them on the basis of underlying linguistic organization. The alternative is built on the hypothesis that targets that best illustrate relevant linguistic contrasts are key to successful language intervention. In this article, we consider an alternative to the developmental approach to target selection. This, in turn, shapes their productions and, thus, the input for the next generation of learners (e.g., the production–distribution–comprehension hypothesis MacDonald, 2013). This assumption is consistent with the theoretical construct of the zone of proximal development ( Vygotsky, 1978) and with more recent theories positing that the input children hear shapes the acquisition process. They assume that beginning with easier, earlier acquired targets will lead to greater or more rapid learning than beginning with those that are harder or later acquired (e.g., Crystal, 1985 Weiler, 2013).
Clinicians often take a developmental approach to teaching grammatical morphemes. In the preschool years, grammatical morphemes are frequent targets of language intervention for these children. Children with developmental language disorder (DLD formerly known as specific language impairment Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE-2 consortium, 2016) show a protracted language learning trajectory, and as such, they often require language intervention.
0 kommentar(er)
