Fast Mapping and Word Learning by Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment in a Supported Learning Context: Effect of Encoding Cues, Phonotactic Probability, and Object Familiarity

Abstract

Purpose-This study investigated whether phonological or semantic encoding cues improved the fast mapping or word learning performance of preschoolers with specific language impairment (SLI) or typical development (TD) and whether performance varied for words containing high-or low-frequency sublexical sequences that named familiar or unfamiliar objects.Method-Forty-two preschoolers with SLI, 42 preschoolers with TD matched for age and gender to children with SLI, and 41 preschoolers with TD matched for expressive vocabulary and gender to children with SLI learned words in a supported learning context. Fast mapping, word learning, and post-task performance were assessed.Results-Encoding cues had no effect on fast mapping performance for any group, nor on the number of words children learned to comprehend. Encoding cues appeared to be detrimental to word production for children with TD. Across groups a clear learning advantage was observed for words with low-frequency sequences and to a lesser extent, words associated with an unfamiliar object. Conclusions-Resultssuggest that phonotactic probability and previous lexical knowledge affect word learning in similar ways for children with TD and SLI and that encoding cues were not beneficial for any group. A significant proportion of children with specific language impairment (SLI) have difficulty learning new words (Ellis Weismer & Hesketh, 1998;Horohov & Oetting, 2004;Kiernan & Gray, 1998;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2005Gray, , 2006Nash & Donaldson, 2005;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice, Oetting, Marquis, Bode, & Pae, 1994). This may affect other important areas of development including listening (Florit, Roch, Altoe & Levorato, 2009) and reading comprehension (Bishop & Adams, 2006;Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997;Scarborough, 2001; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). A growing body of research suggests that poor word learning by children with SLI is related to difficulty creating and storing phonological and semantic representations of new words and establishing a strong link between those representations (Alt & Plante, 2006; Gathercole, Hitch, Service & Martin, 1997;Gray, 2005;McGregor, Friedman, Reilly & Newman, 2002;Storkel, 2001Storkel, , 2003. These results are apparent in both fast mapping and slow mapping word learning studies.Fast mapping is the earliest stage of word learning when a child is exposed to a new word the first few times (Carey, 1978). Previous studies investigating children's ability to fast map Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shelley Gray, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, PO Box 870102, Tempe, AZ 85287-0102. Shelley.Gray@asu.edu. NIH Public AccessAuthor Manuscript J Speech Lang Hear Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 June 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript a lexical label to a novel referent have shown that preschoolers with language impairment may comprehend as well as their peers with typical development (TD) in fast mapping comprehension...

Does verb type affect action naming in specific language impairment (SLI)? Evidence from instrumentality and name relation

“…In a recent study investigating whether semantic or phonological encoding cues improved word retrieval in young children with TLD or SLI, Gray and Brinkley (2011) found that instead of helping, the different encoding cues had a detrimental effect on word learning. Based on the finding from the present studydthat instrumental verbs with a name relation were the easiest to retrieve of the semantically complex verbs attesteddraises the possibility that a combination of semantic and phonological cues may be more beneficial in teaching children complex word (verb) forms than therapists seeing a trade-off between semantic and/or phonological information.…”

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

“…In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al, 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al, 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al, 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).…”

“…Compared with peers with typically developing (TD) language skills, children with SLI exhibit slower vocabulary growth (Rescorla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997), difficulty learning new words (Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004;Alt & Suddarth, 2012), and limited expressive vocabulary (Gray & Brinkley, 2011). Experimental studies comparing children with SLI and TD language skills document significant difficulties in word learning.…”

“…In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al, 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al, 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al, 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).Due to these documented deficits in word learning and perhaps to their ease of administration and scoring, vocabulary tests are widely used by clinicians to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (Campbell, Bell, & Keith, 2001), as a method of identifying SLI in children for research studies (Rice et al, 1990;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice et al, 1994), or to document vocabulary growth (Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012). While numerous comprehensive language batteries are commercially available to clinicians, vocabulary tests are frequently used as a component of diagnostic evaluations of children to determine if a child meets the criteria for SLI (Betz et al, 2013), even though test manuals may not recommend them for this purpose (Brownell, 2000a).…”

Identifying Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Language Development

“…There is limited evidence, however, that interventions have capitalized upon this reciprocal relation. Whereas many intervention approaches directly target the content to be learned (e.g., a set of vocabulary words or a new syntactical construction), a smaller number have directly targeted the skills and strategies that support language learning, though a few notable exceptions exist (Gershkoff-Stowe & Hahn 2007, Gray & Brinkley 2011. One study asked whether 16-to 18-month-old children who were exposed to a high-practice set of unfamiliar words over 12 weeks would show an increased ability to learn a second set of low-practice words compared with a control group (Gershkoff-Stowe & Hahn 2007).…”