Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:20:19.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constituent order in picture pointing sequences produced by speaking children using AAC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ann E. Sutton  and
Jill P. Morford
Ann E. Sutton*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Jill P. Morford
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
*
Mackay Center, 3500 Boulevard Decarie, Montreal, Quebec H4A 3J5, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) picture boards often produce sequences of symbols that do not reflect the grammatical structure of the language spoken in their environment. These irregularities may reflect an incomplete or incorrect representation of linguistic structure. Alternatively, they may simply be the result of constraints on the communication mode itself. This study examined constituent order and deletion in picture board communication in children who are known to have intact linguistic knowledge (i.e., normally developing native speakers of English). The results suggest that English syntactic knowledge is not automatically applied to picture board communication. Additional skills may be required to transpose linguistic knowledge into the visual-graphic modality used in AAC systems. Moreover, the regularity of non-English responses suggests that there is a bias for specific structures in visual communication systems.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 525 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1992). Linguistic expression and its relation to modality. In Coulter, G. (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology (pp. 273–290). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Bedrosian, J. (1995). Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11. 6–10.Google Scholar
Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1992). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. (1993). Language development in children with abnormal structure or function of the speech apparatus. In Bishop, D. & Mogford, K. (Eds.), Language development in exceptional circumstances (pp. 220–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1988). Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I., & Braine, M. (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 217–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Bruno, J. (1989). Customizing a Minspeak™ system for a preliterate child: A case example. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S. (1974). Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp. 1–25). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, S., & Kraat, A. (1992). Use of a developmental model of language acquisition: Applications to children using AAC systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 19–32.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C. (1984). Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and non-effects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49, 1–121.Google Scholar
Grove, N., Dockrell, J., & Woll, B. (1996). The two-word stage in manual signs: Language development in signers with intellectual impairments. In von Tetzchner, S. & Jensen, M. (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 101–118). Lonon: Whurr.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, D. J. (1995). Use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research: Confessions of a research infidel. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmquist, E., Sandberg, A., & Hedelin, L. (1994). Linguistics, AAC, and metalinguistics in communicatively handicapped children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt-Berg, M, & Schick, B. (1995, December). Learning graphic symbols: Do children have a categorical bias? Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association meeting, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (1981). Picture communication symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson.Google Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kraat, A. (1985). Communication interaction between aided and natural speakers: A state of the art report. Toronto: Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled.Google Scholar
Kraat, A. (1991). Methodological issues in the study of language development for children using AAC systems (Reactant Paper no. 1). In Brodin, J. & Bjorck-Akesson, E. (Eds.), Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 118–123). Stockholm: The Swedish Handicap Institute.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1962). Understanding language without ability to speak: Case report. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Light, J., Collier, B., & Pames, P. (1985). Communicative interaction between young nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers: Part I – Discourse patterns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, C. (1973). A deaf man's sign language–Its nature and position relative to spoken languages. Linguistics, 101, 72–88.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1995). Parameters in acquisition. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 10–35). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. (1996a). Insights to language from the study of gesture: A review of research on the gestural communication of non-signing deaf people. Language and Communication, 16, 165–178.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. (1996b). Tendance d'ordre dans un système de signes domestiques. In Dubuisson, C. & Bouchard, D. (Eds.), Spécificités de la recherche linguistique sur les langues signées (pp. 5–16). Montréal: Association canadienne-francaise pour l'avancement des sciences.Google Scholar
Nadeau, M. (1993). Y a-t-il un ordre des signes en LSQ? In Dubuisson, C. & Nadeau, M. (Eds.), Études sur la langue des signes québécoise (pp. 83–101). Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. (1992). Performance is the prize: Language competence and performance among AAC users. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 3–18.Google Scholar
Ninio, A., & Snow, C. (1988). Language acquisition through language use: The functional sources of children's early utterances. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I., & Braine, M. (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 12–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1995). The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 73–94). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Padden, C. (1983). Interaction in morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1996). The medium or the message: A study of speaking children using communication boards. In von Tetzchner, S. & Jensen, M. (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 119–137). London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Supalla, S. (1991). Manually Coded English: The modality question in signed language development. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research (Vol. 2, pp. 85–109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, A. (1996, 08). Language theory and intervention practice.Paper presented at the Language Development Symposium, Fourth ISAAC Research Symposium, International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication meeting,Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Udwin, O., & Yule, W. (1990). Augmentative communication systems taught to cerebral palsied children – A longitudinal study. I. The acquisition of signs and symbols, and syntactic aspects of their use over time. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 25, 295–309.Google Scholar
Udwin, O., & Yule, W. (1991). Augmentative communication systems taught to cerebral palsied children – A longitudinal study. I. The pragmatic features of sign and symbol use. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 26, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Tetzchner, S., & Jensen, M. (Eds.). (1996). Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives. London: Whurr.Google Scholar