Non-Word Repetition
37-924-01
Theoretical Approaches to Specific Language
Impairment (SLI)
Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
Bar Ilan University
What is a Non-Word Repetition
task?
In a non-word repetition task the child in
asked to repeat pseudo words and/or nonwords of 1-5 syllables, with or without a
cluster at the onset, middle or coda.
Pseudo word: target-like
Non-word: not target-like
GAPS - Grammar and Phonology
Screening Test
Gardner, H., Froud, K., McClelland, A. & van der Lely, H. (2006) The
development of the Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test
to assess key markers of specific language difficulties in young
children. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders
dep, pif, dremp, klest, tobilf, difimp,
bademper, fakester, padrepper, difrimple




What contributes to the complexity of these words?
Are they English like?
Could they be used as is in a Hebrew test?
Which considerations should apply?
The processing
involved in NWR






NW >>
Auditory processing
>>
Phonological Analysis
>>
Phonological storage
(and learning for real
words) >>
Speech motor
planning >>
Output
These can be
influenced by:







Hearing loss
Phonotactic
frequency
Language dominance
Stimulus length
STM deficit
Complexity
Articulatory deficit
What is NWR testing then?

Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory
and language: An overview. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
ANNA 13/12
Phonological working memory
(phonological loop)
“Working memory (WM) according to Baddeley (1986) is a
multicomponent, capacity-limited system that comprises a
controlling ‘‘central executive’’ and that includes an articulatory loop
system. The central executive ... is thought to regulate information
flow within WM, retrieval of information from other memory systems,
and the processing and storage of information. The articulatory loop
… includes a capacity-limited phonological short-term store and an
articulatory control process … that acts to refresh and maintain
speech material in the store for a brief period. The articulatory loop’s
function is to store verbal input temporarily, especially novel
phonological input (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998), while
other cognitive tasks such as auditory comprehension take place.
The ability to temporarily store novel material also allows the listener
the opportunity to create long-term phonological representations of
that material (Baddeley et al1998).” (Montgomery 2003, p. 222)
Digit Span
Gray, S. 2003. Diagnostic accuracy and test-retest reliability of
nonword repetition and digit span tasks administered to preschool
children with specific language impairment. Journal of
Communication disorders 36, 129-151
SLI (4-5;11)
NL (age)
Digit Span
Mean
S.D.
1.86
0.99
3.73
1.78
Min
0.00
1.00
Max
4.00
9.00
NWR [N=20]
Mean
S.D.
8.68
3.39
16.41
1.79
Min
3.00
12.00
Max
18.00
19.00
Linguistic Knowledge

Knowledge of lexical composition
 Size
of vocabulary
 Abstract representation / Poor
representational system
 Less efficient mechanism for using lexical
knowledge

Speech output
Non-word repetition & word
learning – TLD, L1
At the age of 4 (Gathercole, Service, Hitch, Adams and Martin 1999)
At the age of 5 & 13 (Gathercole, Service, Hitch, Adams and Martin 1999)
L2 Acquisition (Masoura and Gathercole 1999)
 Success
on NWR reflects vocabulary
size in childhood
 Success on NWR correlates with the
rate of learning new words even to
adulthood

Chiat, S. (2006). The developmental
trajectory of nonword repetition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 552-556. ODELYA
13/12
NWR & SLI
NRT - Nonword Repetition Test
Dollaghan, C., and Campbell, T. F. 1998. Nonword Repetition and
Child Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research Vol.41 1136-1146




What contributes to the complexity of these words?
Are they English like?
Could they be used as is in a Hebrew test?
Which considerations should apply?
CNRep - Children's Test of
Nonword Repetition
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Baddeley,
A. D., and H. Emslie H. (1994) The
Children's Test of Nonword Repetition: a
test of phonological working memory.
Memory 2(2):103-27.
(Tables from Archibald, L. M. D., &
Gathercole, S. (2006))
How are they different?
# of words
# of Syllable
Clusters
Weak syllable with reduced
vowels (hampent)
Lexical components
(morphemes)
Prosodic pattern
Score
Test
+
NRT
16
1-4
- (CV structure, no late acquired
phonemes)
- (acoustically salient only)
+
-
Natural for English
Online
(correct/incorrect)
Morpho/Lexical abilities
+ ….
Equal stress on each syllable
From transcription (percentage of
correct phoneme)
Basic phonological processing or
memory skills
CNRep
40
2-5
+
Archibald, L. M. D., & Gathercole, S. (2006). Nonword repetition: A
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing .comparison of tests
.Research, 49, 970–983


Subjects: 36 native speakers: 12 SLI (9;8), 12 TD age (9;9), 12 TD
language (6;1). Same SES
Scores on standardized test:
Which one is easier?
Within group: CNRep is easier than NRT
 Across group: The gap is more significant
on CNRep

What influences these results?
How does NWR fairs with other
tasks?
Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Processing and linguistic markers in
young children with specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1029–1037.
Children with SLI are significantly worse
on all four markers
 NWR and past tense marking yield the
best results (sensitivity & specificity).
 Adding past tense to NWR raises the
predictive ability (from 81% to 87%)
 While verb morphology is useful for 4-5
y.o. in English, NWR might be more
promising for other languages

Sentence Repetition
37-924-01
Theoretical Approaches to Specific Language
Impairment (SLI)
Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
Bar Ilan University
Child: Want other one spoon, Daddy
2. Father: You mean, you want THE OTHER SPOON
3. Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please.
4. Father: Can you say “the other spoon”?
5. Child: Other … one … spoon.
6. Father: Say … “other”.
7. Child: Other.
8. Father: “Spoon”.
9. Child: Spoon.
10. Father: “Other … spoon.”
11. Child: Other … Spoon. Now give me other one spoon?
12. (From Pinker1994, p. 281)
1.
Elicited imitation as an
experimental technique
Filling the gap
 Word order (e.g. in relative clauses)

Filling the gap (Slobin & Welsh
1973, from Lust et al. p. 58)
Adult: The red beads and the brown beads
are here
Child: Brown beads here and red beads
here
‫& ‪Relative clauses (Friedmann‬‬
‫)‪Lavi, 2006‬‬
‫נסיין‪ :‬זו הילדה שסבתא נשקה‬
‫ילד‪ :‬זו הילדה שנשקה את סבתא‬
Sentence repetition as a
linguistic evaluation tool
How does SR work? (Bley-Vroman and
Chaudron, 1994):
 The
subject hears the input, processes it, and
forms a representation.
 The representation includes information at
various levels.
 The representation is kept in STM
 The subject formulates (and produces) a
sentence based on the representation,
comparing it to the model.
What influences success on SR? What
does it check?
 Verbal
memory
 Word length
 Sentence length
 Syntactic complexity
 Predictability
Verbal memory span



Devesovi, A. & Caselli, M. C. 2007. Sentence repetition
as a measure of early grammatical development in
Italian. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 42, 2 187-208.
Subjects: 100 Italian preschoolers.
Method: SR, spontaneous speech, verbal memory span
Findings:


MLU, articles omission and use of the verbs in the sentence
imitation task correlated with the same measures of their free
speech.
Positive correlations between verbal memory span and
performance of both the imitation task and the free speech .
Word length
Willis, C.S. & Gathercole, S.E. (2001).
Phonological short-term memory contributions to
sentence processing in young children .
Memory.349-363 ,9 ,


Subjects: 30 children, 4-5 (Mean 4;6, SD, 4.28 months)
Material: SR followed by picture selection with sentences
containing either short or longer words (different in
number of syllables), and varied in syntactic structure.
Short
the prepositions in and on
6.50
the prepositions above and below
7.00
reversible sentences (e.g., The fox is chased by the horse)
7.00
sentences containing a relative clause (e.g., The book is on the box 8.00
that is red)
sentences of an X-but-not-Y construction (e.g., The box but not
8.50
the chair is red)
embedded sentences (e.g., The shoe the comb is on is blue
9.00
Long
9.75
10.00
9.00
10.75
12.75
12.75
Repetition but not comprehension of the
sentences was significantly influenced by word
length.
Sentence length (Armon-Lotem et
al. under revisions)

Frequency of errors by type of error

45
40
35
30
25
20

15
10
5
0
CI om
om
TD
CI-sub
LI-S
sub
LI-L

Substitution with code
interference: The baby
laughed on the clown.
Substitution with no code
interference: The baby
laughed to the clown.
Omission with code
interference: The
elephant pulled *(down)
the zebra's pants.
Omission with no code
interference: The baby
laughed *(at) the clown.
Syntactic complexity
Friedmann, N., & Lavi, H. (2006). On the order
of acquisition of A-movement, Wh-movement
and V-C movement. In A. Belletti, E. Bennati, C.
Chesi, E. Di Domenico, & I. Ferrari (Eds.),
Language acquisition and development (pp.
211-217). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Press/CSP.


Subjects: 60 Hebrew speaking children aged
2;2-3;10: 21 children aged 2;2-2;9, 19 children
aged 2;10-3;2, and 20 children aged 3;3-3;10.
Task: SR - 80 sentences (8 categories by
syntactic complexity), 4 words.
Basic SV order:
A movement:
Wh movement:
V-C movement:
A-S-V unergative-PP
A-S-V transitive-O
A-S-V unaccusative-PP
Topicalization O-S-V-A
Subject relatives
Object relatives
A-V unergative-S-PP
A-V transitive-S-O
yesterday the-boy jumped in-the-garden
yesterday the-boy built tower
yesterday the-girl fell in-the-garden
ACC-the-tower the-boy built yesterday
(I)-saw ACC-the-girl that-kissed ACC-grandma
(I)-saw ACC-the-girl that-grandma kissed
yesterday jumped the-boy in-the-garden
yesterday built the-boy tower
"No correlation was found between repetition of any of the
movement types and age (Rpb < 0.22 for all the sentences with
movement), and no significant difference in repetition was detected
between the three age groups: For example, a 2;3 year old girl
succeeded in repeating all the V-C sentences, whereas a 3;10 boy
failed in them. Two girls aged 2;5 succeeded in repeating Wh
sentences, whereas 4 children aged 3;7 failed in them." (p. 214)
Predictability
Valian, V. Prasada, S. & Scarpa, J. 2006. Direct object predictability:
effects on young
children's imitation of sentences. Journal of
Child Language, 33, 247-269.

Predictability- It is easier to repeat sentences with highly
predictable objects than sentences with less predictable objects.
a. The dog chews a bone.
b. The dog chews a crayon

Subjects: 24/23 two-year-olds (mean 28 month, range 25-32) with
TLD

Task 1: Sentence repetition 6-8 morphemes.
Task 2: Sentence repetition 6-8 morphemes + a stickers game

SR & SLI
Gardner,H., Froud,K., McClelland,A., van der
Lely,H. K. J. (2006). The development of the
Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test
to assess key markers of specific language
difficulties in young children. International
Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders 41(5), 513-540.
A significant effect of age group: F(4, 618)547.53, p,0.001