Cohesion Repairs in the Narratives of Normal-Language and Language-Disordered School-Age Children

Abstract

The self-initiated repairs produced by 14 normal-language and 14 language-disordered children during a story retelling task are described. When grammatical repairs and repairs to text meaning were analysed, no group differences were found for either repair type. Both groups initiated significantly more repairs to text meaning. When repairs to text meaning were probed for the cohesive aspects of the repair activity, there were no group differences for the frequency or the types of cohesive repairs that were initiated. However, differences were significant for the success of the cohesive repair attempts and for the location of the repairs. Normal-language and language-disordered children appear to share similar strategies for monitoring narrative discourse, but they differ in their abilities to actualize their monitoring attention.

Narrative Abilities

“…Across studies, compared with TD peers, children with LI produce narratives that are poorer linguistically (i.e., with more limited lexical diversity and fluency, shorter utterances, and more limited grammatical complexity and accuracy), as well as structurally (i.e., with fewer episodes, fewer story grammar components and information units recalled, poorer overall quality), than TD peers (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987;Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999;Clifford, 1995;Crais & Chapman, 1987;Graybeal, 1981;Liles, 1985Liles, , 1987McFadden & Gillam, 1996;Merritt & Liles, 1987;Pearce, McCormack & James, 2003;Purcell & Liles, 1992;Reilly, Losh, Bellugi, & Wulfeck, 2004;Ripich & Griffith, 1988;Wagner, Sahlen, & Nettelbladt, 1999). Across studies, compared with TD peers, children with LI produce narratives that are poorer linguistically (i.e., with more limited lexical diversity and fluency, shorter utterances, and more limited grammatical complexity and accuracy), as well as structurally (i.e., with fewer episodes, fewer story grammar components and information units recalled, poorer overall quality), than TD peers (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987;Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999;Clifford, 1995;Crais & Chapman, 1987;Graybeal, 1981;Liles, 1985Liles, , 1987McFadden & Gillam, 1996;Merritt & Liles, 1987;Pearce, McCormack & James, 2003;Purcell & Liles, 1992;Reilly, Losh, Bellugi, & Wulfeck, 2004;Ripich & Griffith, 1988;Wagner, Sahlen, & Nettelbladt, 1999).…”

Discourse Deficits Associated with Psychiatric Disorders and with Language Impairments in Children

“…The findings of studies examining fluency in the discourse of children with LI suggest that these children may exhibit more disruptions in their flow of speech, with the exception of repairs. However, when they do recognize the need to make repairs they are less successful in their attempts (Purcell & Liles, 1992).…”

Conversational Repair in Pediatric Epilepsy

“…The monitoring skills involved in repair appear to be cognitive rather than linguistic (MacLachlan & Chapman, 1988;Purcell & Liles, 1992;van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Children acquire these skills from the toddler period through age 10 years (Evans, 1985;Rogers, 1978).…”

“…Whereas young children use repetition more frequently than other repair strategies, 9-year-old children also use strategies, such as postponement and revision, that provide the listener with more background information and help clarify the conversational text (Brinton et al, 1986;Purcell & Liles, 1992).…”