Heilmann, J., Ellis Weismer, S., Evans, J.
and C. Hollar. (2005). Utility of the
MacArthur–Bates Communicative
Development Inventory in Identifying
Language Abilities of Late-Talking and
Typically Developing Toddlers. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14,
40-51 IRIS 10/1
Naming & SLI
37-924-01
Sharon-Armon-Lotem
Bar-Ilan University

Dockrell et al.(1998) – 25% of children
with language impairment have word
finding difficulties (WFD)
*Lahey, M., and J. Edwards (1999). Naming
Errors of Children With Specific Language
Impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research 42 195-205
 Children with SLI are less accurate at
naming pictures of common objects
(nouns) than age-matched peers with no
language impairment (NLI)
Items in online naming task
Possible sources
Lexico-Semantic deficits
 Phonological processing deficits
 Lexical retrieval problems
 Mapping of lexical competence onto other
language modules

Lexical-Semantic organization in
SLI (Sheng & McGregor 2010)

Online word
association
task: “Say the
first word that
comes to your
mind”.
McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly,
R.M., and N. C. Capone. (2002). Semantic
Representation and Naming in Children With
Specific Language Impairment. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
45 998-1014 INBAL 10/1
Gray, S. (2004). Word Learning by
Preschoolers With Specific Language
Impairment Predictors and Poor Learners.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research 47 1117-1132 SARIT 10/1
Object & Action Naming
Sheng, L. & K. K. McGregor. 2010. Object
and action naming in children with SLI
Is there a difference between nouns and
verbs?
Nouns vs. verbs
Nouns are processed in the posterior
areas of the left hemisphere
 Verbs are processed in Broca’s area, in
the frontal or prefrontal motor areas of the
left hemisphere

>
<
Patterns of Naming Objects and Actions
in Monolingual and Bilingual CypriotGreek Children with SLI and WFDs

Maria Kambanaros, PhD CSP MSPA (EUC)

M.Kambanaros@euc.ac.cy

Kleanthes. K. Grohmann, PhD (UCY)
Eleni Theodorou, MSc (UCY)

Paper presented at COST Action IS0804

Participants
children with SLI – ages 6-11
 13 children with WFD – ages 6-11
 30 children with TLD – ages 6-7
8

Task – Naming
 42
objects
 42 actions
Finding – correct percentage
*
*
What influences success?
Frequency – only TLD object naming
 Age of acquisition – both object and action
naming by all groups
 Word imageability & Picture complexity both object and action naming by SLI and
WFD, only object naming by TLD

Possible sources
Lexico-Semantic deficits
 Phonological processing deficits
 Lexical retrieval problems
 Mapping of lexical competence onto other
language modules

Rate of input and lexical
learning
Fast speaking rates have an adverse
effect on comprehension and production.
 Temporal processing constraints for
rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal
stimuli in children with SLI (Tallal et al.)

Auditory (temporal processing)
deficit hypothesis
Merzenich, M. Jenkins, W., Johnston, P., S., Schreiner, C., Miller, S.
L. & Tallal, P., (1996) Temporal Processing Deficits of LanguageLearning Impaired Children Ameliorated by Training, Science, v.
271, p. 77-81. (=Fast ForWord)


Task: discriminate between speech stimuli -six syllable contrasts
([ba] versus [da], [da] versus [ta], [ε] versus [ae], [dab] versus [daeb],
[sa] versus [sta] and [sa] versus [sha]).
Findings:

LI group made most errors discriminating syllables which were
differentiated by consonants and fewest errors on those differentiated
by vowels.
 The LI group was significantly poorer than the normal in discriminating
all syllables that incorporated brief temporal cues followed rapidly in
succession by other acoustic cues.
 They also were impaired in discriminating [sa] versus [sha].
 They were unimpaired discriminating stimuli differentiated by vowels.
Ellis Weismer and Hesketh (1993)


Novel word learning.
Linguistic input conditions:





16 kindergarten children: 8 with SLI and 8 with TLD.
Rate Condition yielded significant differences:



variations in speaking rate,
Emphatic versus neutral stress
use of supplemental visual cues (i.e., gestures).
Production: slow > fast, normal > fast.
Comprehension: slow > fast.
A trend for the group with SLI to exhibit more
pronounced effects in response to rate variations.
Ellis Weismer and Hesketh
(1996)
Research questions (p. 179):
1. Do prosodic manipulations of the linguistic
input involving variations in speaking rate
affect lexical learning by children with SLI?
2. Do these linguistic input modifications
result in different patterns of performance for
children with SLI than for those with NL
development?
32 7-years old children: 16 with SLI and 16
with TLD.
 Novel word learning (CVC and CVCC)
 Three speeds – every child receives all
three with different items.
 Testing for production, comprehension
and recognition (where RT was
measured).

*
Production

CVCC were more difficult than CVC
Possible sources
Lexico-Semantic deficits
 Phonological processing deficits
 Lexical retrieval problems
 Mapping of lexical competence onto other
language modules

Pizzioli, Fabrizio & Marie-Anne Schelstraete.
2011. Auditory lexical decision in children
with specific language impairment. BUCLD
Sound detection and discrimination
Lexical decision task – word/nonword
Possible sources
Lexico-Semantic deficits
 Phonological processing deficits
 Lexical retrieval problems
 Mapping of lexical competence onto other
language modules
