This study taught the passive to two children with specific language impairment (aged 8;1 and 8;2). It employed usage-based principles including ‘constructional grounding’; using short structures as the basis for acquiring long structures, and ‘construction conspiracy’; encouraging analogies between partially overlapping constructions. Significant improvements in production and comprehension were observed, though generalizability is limited by factors including experimental design and control over treatment fidelity. It is suggested that interventions modelled on usage-based approaches could prove effective for treating complex structures.
Abbot-SmithKBehrensH (2006) How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science30: 995–1026.
2.
AdamsCCokeRCrutchleyAHeskethAReevesD (2001) Assessment of comprehension and expression. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
3.
BialystockE (1986) Children’s concept of word. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research15: 13–32.
4.
BishopDVM (2003) Test of reception of grammar (Trog-2). London: Harcourt Assessment.
5.
ChiatS (2001) Mapping theories of developmental language impairment: Premises. predictions and evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes16: 113–42.
6.
DickFWulfeckBKrupa-KwiatkowskiMBatesE (2004) The development of complex sentence interpretation in typically developing children compared with children with specific language impairments or early unilateral focal lesions. Developmental Science7: 360–77.
7.
DiesselHTomaselloM (2000) The development of relative constructions in early child speech. Cognitive Linguistics11: 131–52.
8.
DunnLMWhettonC (1982) The British picture vocabulary scale. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
9.
EbbelsS (2007) Teaching grammar to school-aged children with specific language impairment using shape coding. Child Language Teaching and Therapy23: 67–93.
10.
EbbelsSVan der LelyHKJ (2001) Meta-syntactic therapy using visual coding for children with severe persistent SLI. International Journal of Child Language Disorders36: 345–50.
11.
ElliotCD (1983) British ability scales. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
12.
FensonLDalePSReznickJS. (1993) The MacArthur communicative development inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.
13.
GathercoleSEBaddeleyAD (1996) The children’s test of non-word repetition. Hove: Psychology Press.
14.
GoldbergAE (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
IsraelMJohnsonCBrooksP (2000) From states to events: The acquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive Linguistics11: 103–29.
16.
KiddEBrandtSLievenETomaselloM (2007) Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes22: 860–97.
17.
KnowlesWMasidloverM (1982) The Derbyshire language scheme. Derbyshire County Council.
18.
LangackerRW (1982) Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language58: 22–80.
19.
LeonardL (2000) Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
LevenshteinVI (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics: Doklady10: 707–10.
21.
LevyHFriedmannN (2009) Treatment of syntactic movement in syntactic SLI: A case study. First Language29: 15–49.
22.
LumJAGBavinEL (2007) Analysis and control in children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research50: 1618–30.
23.
MaratsosMFoxDEBeckerJAChalkleyMA (1985) Semantic restrictions on children’s passives. Cognition19: 167–91.
24.
Medical Research Council (2010) A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council.
RiceS (1999) Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to and for in English. Brain and Language68: 268–76.
27.
RiceS (2003) Growth of a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisition. In: CuyckensHDirvenRTaylorJR (eds) Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 243–60.
28.
RichesNGLoucasTCharmanTSimonoffEBairdG (2010) Sentence repetition in adolescents with specific language impairments and autism: An investigation of complex syntax. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders45: 47–60.
29.
SchlichtingJEPTLutje SpelburgHC (1988) Functionele imitatie taalstucturen: Een behandelingsprograma [Functional imitation of language structures: An intervention programme]. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
30.
SlobinDI (1985) The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
31.
SlobinDIWelshCA (1968) Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. Working papers of the Language Behavior Research Laboratory, volume 10, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
32.
TakahashiH (2000) English imperatives and passives. In: FoolenEvan der LeekF (eds) Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics conference, Amsterdam, 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239–59.
33.
TomaselloM (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
Van der LelyHKJ (1996) Specifically language impaired and normally developing children: Verbal passive vs. adjectival passive sentence interpretation. Lingua98: 243–72.
35.
WechslerD (2002) Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. 3rd edition.London: Pearson.
36.
WiigEHSecordWSemelE (2006) Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals: Preschool. 2nd UK edition. London: Pearson/Harcourt.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
