Language Development
in Children and Adolescents with Down
Syndrome
Robin Chapman, Ph.D.
Waisman Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Acknowledgements
Research supported by NIH grant R01HD23353 with additional support from the
National Down Syndrome Society. We thank
the participants and their parents.
Thanks to Colleagues:








Dr. Donna Boudreau
Cynthia Bridge
Katherine Gigstead
Dr. Linda J. Hesketh
Dr. Maura Johnson
Dr. Mina JohnsonGlenberg
Dr. Elizabeth KayRaining Bird
Dr. Doris J. Kistler










Dr. Andrea McDuffie
Dr. Sally Miles
Dr. Jon Miller
Dr. Giuliana Miolo
Dr. Scott E. Schwartz
Dr. Hye-Kyeung Seung
Dr. Elin Thordardottir
Heidi Sindberg
Dr. Nadia Teitler
Dr. Laura Wagner
Questions:







Is language acquisition modular or interactive?
Is there a specific behavioral phenotype in
children with Down syndrome?
What is the developmental trajectory of language
skills?
What factors predict language production?
What factors predict language comprehension?
What factors improve word learning?
What factors improve storytelling?
Modular vs. Interactionist Theory
(Chapman, 2000)


Modular view of language predicts a specific
language deficit in both comprehension and
production
Interactionist view predicts multiple
dissociations, including comprehension and
production, arising developmentally
Developmental Emergence of Language in Down Syndrome:
Evidence for Interactionist Position (Chapman, 2004)
I. SOCIAL INTERACTION
Person
*
Sounds
Heard
Babble
Object
Action
*slower emergence of emotional affect recognition in DS
(spollak@wisc.edu) and frequent hearing impairment
Developmental Emergence of Language
II.
OBJECT INTERACTION
Sounds
Heard
Person
Object
Babble
*
Action
*More prolonged attention to people than objects in DS
Developmental Emergence of Language
III.
CANONICAL BABBLING
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
Babble
Object
Action
* Slower Development of Canonical Babbling, &
Frequent Hearing Impairment, in DS
Developmental Emergence of Language
IV.
JOINT ATTENTION
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
Babble
Object
Action
* Slower Babbling Development & Affective
Comprehension in Down Syndrome
Developmental Emergence of Language
V. COMPREHENSION OF WORDS, COMMUNICATIVE INTENT
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
*
Words
Object
Action
* Slower Development of Communicative Requesting
in Down Syndrome
Developmental Emergence of Language
VI. USE OF WORDS
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
*
Words
Object
Action
* Slower Development of Expressive Vocabulary in
Down Syndrome, including Signs
Developmental Emergence of Language
VII. SIMPLE SENTENCES
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
*
Words
Object
*
* *
Action
* Slower Development of Sentence Production in Down Syndrome
Developmental Emergence of Language
VIII.
COMPLEX SENTENCES
Sounds
Heard
Person
*
*
Words
Object
*
Action
* Slower Development of Complex Syntax Production
for Complex Events in Down Syndrome
The phenotype in infancy




Learning delays accelerate at ages 2-4
Slower transition from babbling to speech; poorer
intelligibility
Delays relative to cognition in nonverbal requesting,
rate of expressive vocabulary development, rate of
increase in sentence length
Comprehension comparable to cognition
The phenotype in childhood




Selective deficits in verbal short-term memory
Longer period of phonological errors and more
variability; poorer intelligibility
Expressive language delay relative to
comprehension and cognition
Grammatical morphology deficit relative to
sentence length in production
The phenotype in
adolescence

Deficits in both working verbal memory and
visual short-term memory

Intelligibility problems; more variability in
fundamental frequency, rate, stress placement


Expressive language deficit greatest in
grammatical morphemes, least in vocabulary;
MLU shows longitudinal gain
Sentence comprehension begins to lag
cognition, and shows longitudinal loss;
vocabulary comprehension a strength on PPVT
The phenotype in
young adulthood

Continuing auditory short-term memory deficit

Continuing progress in intelligibility

Continuing progress in expressive syntax: MLU increase,
complex sentence acquisition

Continuing strengths in size of comprehension vocabulary

Loss of elaborated sentence comprehension
Predicted Comprehension
for Ages 7.5, 12.5 and 17.5
Predicted Comprehension when
Auditory ST Memory Intercept is at
25%ile, mean, or 75%ile
Predicted Comprehension when
Visual S-T Memory Intercept is at
25%ile, Mean, or 75%ile
Predicted MLU when Syntax
Comprehension Intercept is at
25%ile, Mean or 75%ile
Predicted MLU when Syntax
Comprehension slope is at 25%ile,
Mean or 75%ile
Predictors of individual
difference:



For Syntax Comprehension: age, auditory shortterm memory, visual short-term memory
For Syntax Production (MLU): syntax
comprehension
For Grammatical morpheme comprehension and
fast mapping of words: hearing
Implications


Evidence is consistent with an interactionist
account of language learning,
Multiple targets for early intervention
-object play and exploration schemes
-requesting
-babbling/speech motor skills
-intelligible communication (signing)
-affective comprehension
-Hearing!
Implications, cont’d




Shifting intervention targets with
development
Need for continuing language intervention in
adolescence, including complex syntax &
literacy
Need to target BOTH comprehension and
production, at different levels
Importance of hearing status for
intelligibility & grammatical morpheme
comprehension
Evidence for specificity of phenotype
in adolescence: DS vs. CI
(Chapman, 2006)

Comprehension deficits in DS vs. CI of unknown origin
(nonverbal MA/CA match)

Production deficit in DS in adolescence in interview language sample

Phonological working memory plays an important role in
comprehension and production performance by both groups
* NRT (long-term knowledge) is more important for DS
* digit span & visual short-term memory more important
for CI

Hearing status affects DS grammatical morpheme
comprehension and interview-MLU
Fast mapping of
novel words



DS children & adolescents= MA match
(Chapman, Kay-Raining
Bird & Schwartz, 1990; Kay-Raining Bird, E., Chapman, R.S., & Schwartz, S.E. (2004).
With multiple words, DS=MA in comprehension but
DS<MA in production
(Chapman, 2003)
DS adolescents = syntax comprehension TD match in
using speaker intent to infer object referent
McDuffie, A., Sindberg, H., Hesketh, L., & Chapman, R. (in press).

Repeated mention of words speeds access in
comprehension, for DS
(Chapman, Sindberg, Bridge, Gigstead, & Hesketh, 2006)
Narratives in children
& adolescents
•
Event content of remembered silent film:
DS = MA controls despite shorter MLU
(Boudreau & Chapman, 2000)
•
Plot line & theme elements of wordless picturebooks:
DS > MLU comparison group;
DS = syntax comprehension group
(Miles & Chapman, 2002)
•
Presence (vs. absence) of picture support:
increases DS MLU to syntax comprehension group level
(Seung & Chapman, 2002; Miles, Chapman, & Sindberg,2006)
Repeated Narratives

Repeated retellings of a wordless picture book lead to
increases in plot line/theme expression and MLU (Miles &
Chapman 2005)


Examiner scaffolding with questions yields higher MLU & improves
expression of location setting information (Miles, Sindberg, Bridge &
Chapman, 2002) and number of different words used (Miles 2005)
Storytelling strategies (Miles, Chapman & Sindberg, 2004):
-task approached as retelling of related events
-evaluations and character speech used by both DS & syntax
comprehension controls
-use of inference increased across sessions
-more multiple utterances in DS group
Plot line/Theme Content of
Repeated Narratives,
DS vs. Syntax comprehension
matched group (Miles & Chapman, 2005)
(D = DS, T = TD)
MLU of Repeated Narratives,
DS vs. Syntax comprehension
matched group (Miles & Chapman, 2005)
Answers:




Language acquisition is interactive, emergent,
non-modular
Children with Down syndrome show a Specific
Language Impairment
Trajectory: MLU and complex syntax increase
with age: No evidence of a critical period
Trajectory: Syntax comprehension declines in
late adolescence and young adulthood
Answers, continued



Language comprehension
predicts language production
Auditory and visual short-term memory predict
language comprehension
hearing also predicts
grammatical morphology & intelligibility
Implications for
Language Intervention



Need for language intervention in
adolescence, including literacy
Need to target both comprehension and
production, at different levels
Repeated mention of novel word in play
improves speed of its comprehension
Implications for
Intervention , cont’d



Need to provide hearing support for
intelligibility and grammatical morpheme
comprehension
Helpfulness of picture support for
narrative content & MLU
Helpfulness of narrative practice for MLU
Methodological
implications


Comprehension Assessment
-Vocabulary: frequency vs. concept (PPVT vs TACL-voc)
-Past use of PPVT as MA match has mismatched TD groups
and overestimated adolescent DS MA
-Syntax: differential effects of hearing on morphology &
sentence structure
Language Samples
-Conversation vs. narration
-Visual support for narration
Some Thoughts about
Future Research




Importance of modeling individual
differences in studying DD populations
Imaging: to illuminate short-term
memory contributions
Genome variation: to predict IDs in
longitudinal language & cognitive
trajectories
Genetic dissection of learning will
remap our dissection of phenotype
References

Abbeduto, L. & Chapman, R.S. (2005). Language and
communication skills in children with Down syndrome and Fragile x.
In P. Fletcher & J. Miller, Eds., Trends in language acquisition
research, vol 4: Developmental theory and language disorders.
Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.



Boudreau, D. & Chapman, R.S. (2000).The relationship between
event representation and linguistic skill in narratives of children and
adolescents with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 43, 1146-1159.
Chapman, R.S. (1999). Language and cognitive development in
children and adolescents with Down syndrome. In J.F. Miller, L.A.
Leavitt, and M. Leddy, Eds., Improving the communication of people
with Down syndrome. (Pp. 41-60). Baltimore: Brookes.
Chapman, R.S. (2000). Childrens’ language learning: An
interactionist perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 41, 33-54.
References, ctd.

Chapman, R.S. (2003). Language and communication in individuals
with Down syndrome. (pp. 1-34) In L. Abbeduto (Ed.,),
International Review of Research in Mental Retardation: Language
and Communication, vol. 27. Academic Press.



Chapman, R.S. (2006). Language learning in Down syndrome: the
speech and language profile compared to adolescents with
cognitive impairment of unknown origin.
Downs Syndrome Research & Practice, 10, 61-66.
Chapman, R.S., & Hesketh, L.J. (2000). Behavioral phenotype of
individuals with Down syndrome. Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disability Research Reviews, 6, 84-95.
Chapman, R.S. & Hesketh, L.J. (2001). Language, cognition, and
short-term memory in individuals with Down syndrome. Down
Syndrome Research and Practice, 7, 1-7.
References, ctd.




Chapman, R.S., Hesketh, L.J., & Kistler, D. (2002). Predicting
longitudinal change in language production and comprehension in
individuals with Down syndrome: Hierarchical linear modeling.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 902-915.
Chapman, R.S., Seung, H-K., Schwartz, S.E. & Kay-Raining Bird, E.
(2000). Predicting language development in children and
adolescents with Down syndrome: The role of comprehension.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 340-350.
Chapman, R.S., Sindberg, H., Bridge, C., Gigstead, K. & Hesketh, L.J.
(2006). Effect of memory support and elicited production on fast
mapping of new words by adolescents with Down syndrome.
Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 49, 3-15.
Johnson-Glenberg, M.C. & Chapman, R.S. (2004). Predictors of
parent-child language during novel task play: A comparison
between children who are typically developing and individuals with
Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research., 48,
225-38.
References, ctd.


Kay-Raining Bird, E., Chapman, R.S., & Schwartz, S.E. (2004). Fast
mapping of words and story recall by children with Down syndrome.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 12861300.
McDuffie, A., Sindberg, H., Hesketh, L., & Chapman, R. (in press).
Use of speaker intent and grammatical cues in fast-mapping by
adolescents with DS. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research.


Miles, S. & Chapman, R.S. (2005). The relationship between adult
scaffolding and narrative expression by adolescents with Down
syndrome. Poster presented at the Symposium on Research in Child
Language Disorders, Madison, WI, June 10.
Miles, S. & Chapman, R.S. (2002). Narrative content as described by
individuals with Down syndrome and typically developing children.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 175-189.
References, ctd.




Miles, S., Chapman, R.S. & Sindberg, H. (2006). Sampling context
affects MLU in the language of adolescents with Down syndrome.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 325-227.
Miolo, G., Chapman, R.S., & Sindberg, H. (2005). Sentence
comprehension in adolescents with Down syndrome and typically
developing children: Role of sentence voice, visual context, and
auditory-verbal short-term memory. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 48, 172-188.
Seung, H-K. & Chapman, R.S. (2000). Digit span in individuals with
Down syndrome and typically developing children: Temporal
aspects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
609-620..
Seung, H.K., & Chapman, R. S. (2003). The effect of story
presentation rates on story retelling by individuals with Down
syndrome. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 601-618.
Poetry



The Dreamer Who Counted the Dead
Images of a Complex World:
The Art & Poetry of Chaos
On Retirement: 75 Poems