J. COMMUN. DISORD. 25 (1992). 175-199

ANOTHER LOOK AT SEMANTIC RELATIONAL CATEGORIES AND LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT

Earlier comparative studies of language-impaired and normal children involved semantic-relational analyses of broad categories (e.g., action, locative action, and so on) in which utterance types were not differentiated. In this study. locative action utterances were differentiated by the types of locative words used singly and in combination. The types of utterances used by a languageimpaired child were tracked between I year 6 months and 3 years and compared with those of three age- and MLU-matched normal children. The results suggested that differences in the semantic properties of language-impaired and normal children’s utterances may go undetected unless a fine-grained analysis is performed on the types of expressions used within a global relational category. The potential value of extending semantic-relational analyses by exploring word use in syntactic contexts is addressed.

INTRODUCTION For more than two decades, taxonomies have been used to characterize children’s semantic knowledge in ways that extend beyond an inventory of the particular words they understand and use (Bloom, 1970; Bloom, Lightbown, and Hood, 1975: Brown, 1973; Schlesinger, 1974). The relationship of verbs to the other words in early sentences has formed the basis for semantic relational categories such as action. state, locative action, and so on (Bloom, Lightbown, and Hood, 1975). These categories have been argued to be the foundation of emerging grammars (Bloom, 1970) and to apply across languages (Brown, 1973). In clinical practice, a speech-language pathologist may conduct a semantic relational analysis of a speech sample to identify categories of knowledge that are productive-that is to say, systematic or rule

Address correspondence to Ida J. Stockman. Ph.D.. Department Speech Sciences. 371 Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan East Lansing, Ml 48824. 031992 by Elsevier 655 .Avcnue

Science

of the America,.

Puhliyhing New

Co..

York.

of Audiology and State University.

175

Inc. NY

10010

I

OO? -99?4/92!$3.50

176

STOCKMAN

governed (Bloom and Lahey, 1978: Lahey, 1988; Lund and Duchan, 1988). Children who do not have productive use of utterances in a category can be singled out as developmentally different from those who do. Apparently, though, more needs to be known about children’s semantic relational knowledge if developmental levels are to be differentiated. Aside from frequency of use, studies have revealed little or no significant difference in the early semantic relational knowledge of language-impaired children and their age- or language-matched normal peers (cf. Coggins, 1979; Duchan and Erickson, 1976; Freedman and Carpenter, 1976; Leonard. Bolders. and Miller, 1976; and more recently, Reath, 1987). This outcome is surprising given the assumed linkage between semantic knowledge and cognitive development (Jackendoff. 1983; Johnston, 1985) and the evidence for cognitively based language deficits in the absence of frank mental retardation. See Johnston (1991) for a review of research in this area. However, semantic relational studies of normal and clinical groups typically have focused on broad categories of knowledge, each of which pools together utterances with different meanings, despite their identical surface structures. For example, the utterances included in the category of action code acts that can change an object’s physical state and those that cannot (cf. “he wipes the table” with “he measures the table”). Although these two types of utterances are not likely to emerge at the same time (MacWhirter, 1989), a coarse analysis of action utterances does not require their differences to be taken into account. The child’s corpus is searched for evidence of enough utterances within a semantic relational category to meet a criterion of “productive” use (Bloom and Lahey, 1978; Lahey, 1988; Lund and Duchan. 1988). Such an analysis can distinguish speakers who do and those who do not have sentences in a category. But it cannot distinguish speakers who may be at different developmental levels after a productivity criterion is met. Consequently, differences between the semantic knowledge of language-impaired children and their age-matched normal peers may not be detected unless a tine-grained analysis is conducted of the types of expressions used within a relational category. This study aimed to illustrate just this point by tracking the locative action expressions of a language-impaired child across age and comparing the productive ones with those of age-and MLU-matched normal peers. Locutive uction is a semantic relational category that refers broadly to the movement of objects from one place to another. It is recognized in adult syntax by the co-occurrence of a motion verb (e.g., “take,” “go, ” “put”) with a spatial locative term (e.g., “up,” “off.” “in”) as in “go up”: “take it off”; and “put it in”). This category was well suited to the purpose of this study. Movement

LOCATIVE

ACTION

177

and location are such dominant and universal themes in human experience that locative action relations are expressed as soon as normal children begin to put words together (Blake, 1984; Bloom, Lightbown and Hood, 1975; Miller, 1982; Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke, 1989). When language-impaired children do begin to talk, their earliest syntactic expressions also code locative action relations, even if mental retardation is present (Coggins, 1979). The early emergence of locative action expressions ought to make it possible to show that a coarse analysis of their use cannot differentiate between language-impaired and normal children at a young age. Whereas impaired children can be expected to have shorter and structurally simpler locative action expressions than age-matched normal children (Fokes and Konefal, 1981), no study has examined whether these two groups also differ in the type of locative meaning expressed. Further observations of locative action expressions can capitalize on research that shows how their semantic content may change as children get older. Bloom, Miller, and Hood (1975) revealed developmental changes in the type of meaning coded by the motion verb’s relation to its nominal or pronominal subject constituent. In sequential but variable order, normal children produced sentences that differed with respect to the coreferential status of the grammatical subject and object in sentences. Some children first produced sentences in which the subject referred to an agent (e.g., “mommy”) that differed from the moved as in the utterance, “mommy put the bread in object (e.g., “bread”) in which the subject the car.” Other children began with sentences named the moved object that also was either an agent (e.g., “mommy goes to the car.“) or a recipient of action (e.g., “tape recorder goes there.“). Unlike the work of Bloom, Miller, and Hood (1973, which focused on the preverb constituent, this study capitalized on Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke’s 1992 observation of the postverb constituents in locative action expressions. In a longitudinal study of African-American children, it was shown that developmental differences also can be revealed by a description of the kind of spatial locative words (e.g., “off,” constituents of sentences. These “UP," ‘&in”) used in the postverb categories arise from the roles that locative words play in coding particular aspects of movement entailed by their semantic-syntactic relationship to motion verbs. Movement events invariably involve three aspects, whether linguistically coded or not. An object first separates from a place (the source) and then travels on a trajectory (the path) until its movement is stopped at a new place (the goal). Whereas the verb in English carries some of the information about source, path, and

17x

STOCKMAN

goal aspects of movement. it is the locative word associated with the verb that marks these roles most often (Talmy, 1985). Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992) reported that source and path words were the earliest to proliferate in the locative action expressions of normal children (I :5-2:O). Using source words (e.g., “away.” “off,” “out”). the children talked about the separation of objects from a place. they talked about Using path words (e.g., “up,” “down, ” “around”) the object’s movement trajectory relative to a source. At later ages (I : I l-2:6). words (e.g., “in. ” “on”) that referred to the goal or end point of movement emerged. At still later ages (2;4-3;O). the children elaborated their locative action expressions further by combining a goal with a source or path word (e.g., “down on”). Although other studies of locative word use and development (e.g.. Ames and Learned, 1948; Bloom, 1973; Choi and Bowerman, 1991; Greenfield and Smith, 1976; Tomasello, 1987) seldom have been framed in terms of source, path, and goal word types. a reanalysis of these data can reveal the same early bias toward source/path words that was described in Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992). Moreover, children appear to focus earlier on separating than putting together actions in their play and exploratory behavior (Affolter. 1991; Lifter and Bloom, 1989). Clark and Carpenter (1989) have gone so far as to suggest that children’s early conceptual notion of source as the beginning point of action undergirds the development of not only locative expressions, but also possessive, causal, and comparative expressions. If a shift from source/path to goal word use reflects a fundamental developmental change, as Stockman andvaughn-Cooke(l992)claimed. then the locative action expressions of language-impaired children ought to be similarly patterned. At the same time. such a developmental shift in lexical use may well differentiate them from normal children after both groups productively use locative action expressions. A lexical elaboration model has particular appeal for revealing differences between impaired and normal language. Slow word acquisition is characteristic of delayed language (Leonard, 1988). and lexical development has received relatively less attention than other aspects of language in studies of impaired populations (Rice, Buhr, and Nemeth. 1990). In this study, the locative action expressions of one language-impaired child were tracked longitudinally and compared with Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke’s 1992 data for three normally developing children. The age at which each child’s locative action expressions became productive was identified. Then the utterances observed in the age range of productive use were analyzed to reveal whether the impaired child differed from his age- and language-matched normal peers with respect to (I) the type, number. and frequency of locative words used singly

LOCATIVE

179

ACTION

and combinatorially the age and order relative frequencies

METHOD

within the verb complements of emergent use of locative of use across age.

of sentences, and (2) word types and their

AND PROCEDURES

Subjects The four subjects were African-American children (two females and two males). They were monolingual native English speakers who had been selected among families participating in headstart programs in Washington, DC. All were observed longitudinally in the age range of 1:6-3;0 years, as summarized in Table 1. Three children (CH, AG, and SJ) were developing language normally, and one child (RJ) was not. The data on one clinical subject were instructive because access to longitudinal samples of delayed speech in early development remains rare. Longitudinal observations of the normal children offered the methodological advantage of using the same subjects as their own controls to make age- and language-matched peer comparisons with the impaired child. As a result, the normal subject comparisons at different ages involved children who were more homogeneous (except for age and language status) than the independent subject groups so typically used in such comparison studies. Normal Subjects. The three normally developing children (two females and one male) were the same ones used by Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992). All had uneventful gestational and birth histories. At the time of the study, they presented a normal physical appearance and had no history of chronic illness or obvious sensory, motor, or cognitive deficits. Social, linguistic, motor, and cognitive developmental milestones had been achieved at expected ages according to

Table 1. Subject and Data Characteristics Age range

S\

Sex

RJ CH AG SJ Total

M F M F

FX\l ample

I6 I :6 I :h I:11

MLU

Last aample

Flr\t vample

3 :o 3 .o 2.11 2:ll

.04 1.30 I.18 2.96

I

; “N Response, ” I\ synonymous with utterance. word refers lo locative word (e.g.. “in”).

range Last sample

I

.98 3.25 3.15 3.20

N multiwords N Sdlllpl.5 IX I7 I7 I2 h4

228 704 666 hl? 2210

N smgle words

Wordh absent

h0 I9 2s 4 I08

7 I3 45 23 R3

Word pEX”t lh6 h72 59h xi? 2019

STOCKMAN

180

parental report, observation.

available

medical

records,

and informal

investigator

Language-Delqed Suhj~1.1. RJ was a male subject with an unremarkable gestational and birth history. Relying on the same sources of information that were used for other subjects, RJ appeared normal at the outset of observation. He presented no obvious structural, sensory, or motor deficits. Major social, language, and gross motor milestones reportedly had been met at ages comparable to those of the normal children prior to the study. He was talking and using a few word combinations at I;6 years when the first speech sample was recorded. RJ’s language environment also was comparable to that of the normally developing children in that he, like them, was cared for exclusively in the home by family members. In fact, his environment was virtually identical to that of SJ. who was one of the normal subjects. As cousins, RJ and SJ lived in the same house with their mothers. The maternal grandmother, who also lived in the same house, cared for both of them during the day while their mothers worked or went to school. Although RJ was presumed to be a normally developing child when his language sampling began at 18 months, subsequent observations, made up to his third birthday, revealed that he was not like the other children. He talked less and his utterances were harder to understand. By the end of the data collection period, it was clear that his utterances had remained noticeably shorter on the average. For example, RJ’s mean length of utterance (MLU) expanded from I .05 at I ;6 years to just 1.98 by 3:0 (see Table I). This growth rate contrasted with that of the normal children, whose MLUs increased from a range of 1.18-l .30 at 1;6 years to a range of 3.15-3.25 at 3:0 years. RJ also focused on toys and play activities for shorter periods of time than did normal children. Sometimes he appeared to have difficulty grasping and handling unfamiliar objects. A diagnosis of language impairment with a recommendation for intervention was made by a speech-language pathologist when RJ was 4:4 years old, more than a year after language sampling had ended. The speech and language evaluation revealed a 6-month to 2-year delay in receptive vocabulary (Peubodv Picture Vocvrbulury Test). grammatical knowledge (Houston Test of‘ Languugr Development). articulation (Goldman-Fristoc~ Test of’ Articlrltrtion), and basic concepts (Boc~hm Test of’Brrsic Concepts). The results of the McCarthy Scales of’ Childreii’s Abilities revealed poorly developed skills in all areas, particularly fine motor skills, visual-motor coordination. visual memory, and spatial relations. Although RJ’s score was in the mentally retarded range (no estimate of

LOCATIVE

ACTION

181

severity was given), it was not viewed as a reliable estimate of ability given his extremely distractible behavior during all testing. Ritalin had been prescribed to curb RJ’s hyperactivity, but he was not medicated when tested. RJ had continued to receive speech and language therapy and special education placement for school instruction up to age 8;7 when the last follow-up report was obtained in 1988.

Data Sampling Procedure Language samples were videotaped every 3-4 weeks for 18 months during loosely structured play and routine social interactions with the investigator and family members. The activities were not tailored to elicit locative action expressions. The goal was to obtain a broad sample of the linguistic features used by African-American speakers of Black English (BE). See Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1989) for a more detailed description of the data collection procedures. The data for the normal children, as taken from Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992), included 17 samples each for AG (I ;6-2; I 1) and CH (1;6-3;0), and 12 for SJ (1;l I-2;ll). The data for RJ, the languageimpaired child, included 18 samples (1:6-3;O) from the same data archives. Altogether, 64 2-hour language samples were analyzed. The children talked about movement events using single locative words and multiword utterances, as shown in Table 1. Given the study’s focus on lexical use in syntactic context, the data analysis was based on just the 2019 multiword utterances with locative words. They made up 71% of RJ’s data and at least 90% of every normal child’s data.

Identification of Utterances for Analysis The procedures for identifying RJ’s locative action expressions followed those described in Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992). At least two passes were made through every language sample. The first pass eliminated imitative, unclear, and recitative utterances from the analysis. In subsequent passes, locative action utterances were identified and assigned to a source, path, or goal category using linguistic and contextual evidence of meaning. The assignment of RJ’s utterances to lexical categories reflected the consensus of two observers (the investigator and a graduate student research assistant in communicative sciences). The procedures used to make category assignments were reported by Stockman and VaughnCooke (1992) to yield reliable judgments. Investigator-participant assignments agreed reasonably well with those of 3 to 4 observers, who were

182

STOCKMAN

naive to the study’s goals. For the locative action/state assignments. the item-by-item agreement between the judgments of four naive observers and those resulting from investigator participation averaged 94% (SD = 4.8) for a stratified random sample of 80 utterances. Agreement averaged 89% (SD = 3.0) for the assignment of 125 utterances to the source, path, goal. and combined categories of locative word types. Ident$urtiotl of’ Loctrtil-r Actiorl Uttcrvrr~ws. The linguistic evidence alone usually was sufficient to separate locative action utterances, which had both a locative word and an action-motion verb, from utterances that had neither linguistic feature (i.e.. nonlocatives) and those that did not have action/motion verbs (i.e.. locative states).’ Utterances in which motion verbs co-occurred with nonlocative particle uses of locative words (e.g., “blow trlj.” “come o/z, “pass ~rlj”) were excluded by requiring all the utterances to ask either a situationally or proappropriate “where” question (e.g.. “Where are you going?“) vide a suitable answer to the test question. “where did (X) move to?” For locative utterances with partial linguistic information (i.e.. an absent verb or locative word). evidence of meaning was sought from the utterance context as has been done in previous studies (Bloom, Lightbown, and Hood, 1975: Gopnik, 1982: Miller. 1982; Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke. 1992). The context included what was said and done by the child and other participants before, during. and after an uttcrante. At the time of the utterance, the child or someone else often was seen moving the object coded in the utterance, and the action was relevant to the goals of communication. For example, a child’s request for action (e.g.. “put some in my cup”) could not be met unless an object was relocated. By visually inspecting the moved object’s spatial relation to the characteristics of the objects that served as locative sites, it also was possible to verify that a locative word was used in a conventional manner. For example, if an object was moved into a container at the time the had to do child used the word. “in.” it was inferred that the utterance with “containmen!” regardless of whether an object of the preposition was expressed to name the container (cf. “Put the ball in” with “put the ball in the box”). Utterances were excluded from the analysis as

’ Utterance\ designated a\ locative action included “motion” action verbs (e.g.. “go.” “walk”) in the \ense of travel (after Miller. 1972). When locative word\ here paired with “tear”). the utterance\ typically coded the place of other action verb\ (e.g.. “wa\h.” act\ and not B change of locative state.

LOCATIVE

ACTION

183

errors when the locative words did not match conventional use, as for example, when “on” instead of “in” referred to containment. Source, Path, Gotrl C‘clteaor~ Assignment. RJ’s locative action utterances were scanned for words that correspond with source, path, and goal types as identified in semantic descriptions of English (Bennett, 1975; Quirk, Greenbaum. Leech, and Svartvik, 1985) and in developmental studies of the lexicon as summarized in Johnston (1988) and Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke(l992). The communicative contexts also were observed to determine if RJ’s conditions of word use matched those that had been described for the normal children in Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992). Utterances with “away.” “off,” “out,” and so on were designated as source expressions when the situational context showed that the child or someone else detached an object from a place, and the separation was relevant to the communicative goals. For example, RJ (2;ll) said “git it out,” while trying to open the hand puppet’s mouth as the investigator pretended to make the puppet chew. The object of the preposition, if expressed, named the object’s place (the mouth, in the example utterance) before its movement. Utterances with the words, “up” and “down,” were designated as path expressions when they referred to an object’s movement direction. The path nearly always could be interpreted relative to the place from which the object could be seen moving. For example, RJ talked about objects moving up and away from his own body (e.g., “put it down”). If given, the prepositional object in path utterances named the place that oriented the movement rather than the place from or to which the object moved. Utterances with the words, “in,” or “on,” for example, were designated as goal expressions when the situational context showed the coming together of the object with a location, and the contact was relevant to the communicative goals. For example, RJ at 2;ll said, “put in mouth,” while moving a cookie from his hand (the source) into the puppet’s mouth (the goal). The prepositional object (e.g., “mouth”) named the object’s place following its movement. Utterances with combined terms included at least two locative words within the same verb complement. Each referred to different aspects of the locative event. For example, RJ (2;l I) said, “put hack in there,” when he no longer wanted to play with the race cars. In this utterance, the word, “in,” coded movement to a container whereas the word; “back,” referred to the object’s return to a former location. Such a lexical combination was not viewed as an unanalyzed form because each locative word had appeared separately in other utterances (e.g.,

STOCKMAN

184

“put hacli”l”put than one locative

in”). and the word, “back.” combined word (cf. “back in” with “back up”).

with more

Data Analysis The productivity criterion was judged to have been met when four different syntactic constructions with at least two different verbs within or across language samples were observed. RJ met this criterion at 2:2 years. In his age range of productive use (2;2-3;0 years), RJ’s locative action utterances were compared with those of normal children in the same age range and with these same children at younger ages (I ; 6-2;l years) and a comparable MLU. The MLU was computed for SO consecutive utterances from each sample using Brown’s (1973) rules. A one-way-analysis of variance revealed no significant difference between RJ’s MLU (1.64, SD = .23) as averaged across samples in the 2;2-3;0 age range and that of younger (I ;6-2;l) language-matched peers, CH (1.89, SD = .59). AG (1.65; SD = .32) and SJ (2.21; SD = .29). F(#4. 22) = I .Sl, p > .05. RJ’s MLU differed significantly from these normal peers at the same ages, CH (3.28; SD = .60). AG (2.64; SD = .43) and SJ (2.61; SD = .35). F) (&3,33) = 22.7.~ < .Ol, (HSD = .61).

RESULTS Because RJ met the productivity criterion at a later age (2;2) than did the normally developing CH (1:6)‘. AG (1;8), and SJ (1;l I), even a coarse analysis of locative action utterances provided evidence of developmental delay. However, an analysis focused simply on the presence or absence of productive category use obviously could not have distinguished RJ from age-matched normal peers in his age range of productive use (2;2-3;0 years). The possibility of doing so diminished with age as his increased verbal output allowed a larger number and variety of locative action expressions to be observed. Yet differences between his utterances and those of his normal peers were revealed by making more detailed observations of locative action utterances than is required of a coarse semantic relational analysis. Age-related devel-

z Of the four locative action utterances used to meet the criterion for CH, two had identical surface forms (“get away”). However. they referred to different events. and the locative word, “away.” was pronounced with unstressed syllable deletion in one case and not the other. Since the two utterances appeared to be functionally different. it seemed unreasonable to wait until the next sampling period to credit her with productive use. particularly given that a total of 7 locative action utterances were observed.

LOCATIVE

opmental expected,

185

ACTION

differences among the normal children given Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke’s

also were apparent (1992) findings.

as

Distribution of Locative Word Types and Verbs Observations can be made about the children’s locative action utterances in terms of the type, number, and frequency of locative words used as single and combined terms in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Source, Path, and Goal Word Use. In Table 2, it is clear that RJ, like his age- and MLU-matched normal peers, embedded source (e.g., and goal (e.g., “out, ” “Off,” “ away”), path (e.g., “up, ““down”), “in, ” “on”) words in sentences. Nonetheless, RJ’s lexical distribution differed in certain ways from both groups of normal peers. He used fewer (N = 10) words than did each age-matched peer, CH (20), SJ (19), AG (18), although the chi-square statistic was not significant, x2 (df 3, N = 67) = 3.74, p > .05. Since RJ produced fewer locative action utterances than did the normal children (see Table l), it was not surprising that every word in his inventory except “out” was used less frequently as well. Each word’s frequency was more than two standard deviations below the mean frequencies of the age-matched group, except for “away,” “up,” and “in.” The number (10) of words used by RJ in the age range of productive use did not differ significantly from the 9 (AG), 10 (SJ), and 13 (CH) used by younger MLCr-matched normal peers, xz (df3, N = 42) = .84, p > .05. But, RJ used certain words more often than they did. The frequencies of “out,” “off,” “in, ” “on” were more than two standard deviations above the mean frequencies shown for the normal group. Locative Word Combinations in Verb Complements. In Table 3, it can be seen that RJ used significantly fewer locative word combinations (N = 2) in verb complements than did his age-matched peers, SJ (17), AG (14), and CH (14), x2 (df3, N = 47) = 11.75, p < .Ol. Significant subject differences also were observed when RJ’s small number of utterances with combinations (N = 15) was compared with the numbers used by SJ (49), AG (26), and CH (32), x2 (df3, N = 122) = 19.81, p < .Ol. Whereas RJ’s use of two combinations (“back in”; “back up”) was within the range of l-4 combinations used by younger MLU-matched peers, significantly more (N = 15) of his utterances had combined locatives than did SJ (2), AG (2). and CH (4), x2 (df3, N = 23) = 20.2, p < .Ol.

186

STOCKMAN

Table 2. The Number, Types.

and Tokens of Locative Words Productive Expressions Relative to Age- and Language-Matched Averaged across Subjects

Used in KJs Normal Children

as

6.7

4.2“’

35

il.3

12.7

IO.7

7.2‘

32

‘77.3

12.7

4

‘2Y.O

Ii.0

Y.0

10.X

4.0

5.3

Y.3

16.3

0.4

II

“iY.1

15.3

IS.6

23

‘X.7

7.1

7.6

0.3

0.6

‘32.3

5.0 X.0

6.6

I.5

IT.3

2.1 I.5

1.7

37

‘Y4.7

36.2

2X

‘7X.7

IX 6 7.2

40.3

I I.5

3 I .o

72

*x.7

1.5

‘16.0

93.6 II

5.3

5.0

4.3

6.7

4.0

3.0

I .o

0.0

49.0

17x

570

73.6

2.1

IO

IY

I.0

Vrrh Types. RJ not only used a restricted inventory of locative words and combinations in his locative action expressions. but the number of motion verbs used in them was limited as well. He used just three general purpose verbs, “get,” “put,” “go,” compared with 24, 25, and 29 for SJ, AC. and CH. respectively.

LOCATIVE

187

ACTION

Table 3. Locative Normal Children

Word Combinations

Used by RJ and Age- and MLU-Matched

Normal

Delayed RJ

Age

1:6-?:I

SJ

CH

AG

up there down

(MLU-matched)

up here

right

there

back

up (2)

back

here

back

to

over

here

Types

2

I

4

Tokens

2

2

4

2;2-33 (Age-matched)

back

in (14)

back

back

up

back on

in (6)

(I?)

back

to (5)

down

there

down

here

down

at

down

on

down

in

types

Total

tokens

back

up (5)

back

by

back

on (2)

back

together

down

there

back

here

down

to (2)

down

here

over

there

over

there

(41

there

(3) (8)

up here

up right

there

up there

with

up there

(4)

upstairs

with

away

I”

away

right

,n

over

here

over

there

over

to

around (2)

away

up there

in here

there

(2)

(4)

there

up in

down

(4)

up here up there

here

(2)

here

over

to here to

Total

back

on (21

here (6)

here in

Tokens

in

back

over

around

Types

(2)

back

(3)

from

in there

(3)

with wth

2

17

14

I4

15

49

26

32

2

I8

I5

I6

I5

51

28

36

Age and Order of Locative Word Emergence Figure 1 displays the ages at which locative words used in syntactic expressions met a “first use” criterion. This criterion of emergence (in contradistinction to the criterion of “productivity”) required a word to be twice observed in two utterances with different verbs (the minimal evidence needed to judge that it was a separate lexeme from the verb and was not an accidental occurrence). In Figure 1, all the words that met the first use criterion in RJ’s corpus are shown. For the normal children, data are displayed just for the words and combinations that RJ used. Despite the aforementioned differences in the range and frequency

(2)

I

1;6

t

” out out

out

29

’ I away

I

I

in in

I

I

I

back up

I”

0"

”

I

I

I

down

t

I

where where

off

2;6 I

Age

I

I

locative

I

up

I

I

words relative

I 2;6

back

back in back in

on in ____________________-----_________ there

UD back

away

“‘I’

goal and combined

I

2;o

there where there there

0”

0”

off off off back back down down back down UP out __________________________________

up

”

Figure 1. Age of RJ’s first use of source/path,

Combined Words

Goal Words

Source/Path Words

“P

away

away

I

1;6

I

I

t

I

I

I

3;O

I 3;o

where

back m

back in --_________ back up

_--____ RJ

Normal S s

I

to normal children.

:

I

LOCATIVE

ACTION

189

of RJ’s word use, the lexical categories emerged in the same order in his speech as they did for the normal children. Source and path expressions (1;7-2;4) emerged before goal ones (2;3-3;O). A single locative word was embedded in sentences earlier (1;7 years) than combined terms 2; 10. There also was nothing unusual about the order in which words emerged within each lexical category. RJ’s inventory was restricted to the earliest words that the normally developing children used in each category. The source words, “out,” “off,” and “away,” were used and not the later acquired word, “from.” The early path words. “up” and “down,” were used and not the later acquired “over,” and “around.” The goal words, “in” and “on,” were used rather than the later acquired ones like “under,” “beside,” and so on. RJ’s locative word combinations conformed with children’s earliest tendency to use a goal word with a source or path one, as described in Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke ( 1992). However, every word except “out” appeared 3 to 9 months later in RJ’s utterances than in those of the normal children. The time period separating the emergence of source and path expressions and the later used goal and combined expressions was noticeably longer for RJ than for the normal children. Locative words in all three lexical categories emerged within the first three to four months after the sampling of CH and AG’s language began at I;6 years, and all lexical categories were represented in SJ’s first speech sample at 1;1 I. RJ’s first goal word, “in.” at 2;3 years appeared 8 months later than his first source word, “out” at 1;7. The first combined locative at 2;lO appeared 7 months later than the first goal word at 2:3. This slow acquisition of locative words resulted in the use of different types of locative action expressions at each age when his overall frequency of use was compared to that of normal children, as described below.

Relative Frequency of Lexical Categories In Figure 2, The proportions of RJ’s locative expressions in the source plus path, goal, and combined categories can be compared with the proportions averaged across the three normal children in three age ranges. The first range (I ;6-2; 1) was the time period in which the impaired child had no productive locative action utterances. The two subsequent age ranges were derived by evenly dividing his remaining samples of productive use within the 2;2-3;0 year range. The MLU shown for each age range was averaged across samples for the language-impaired child and across samples and subjects for normal children. The relative frequency data in Figure 2 were consistent with the ordered emergence of category types as shown in Figure 1. RJ’s age trend, like that of the normal children, was characterized by early pre-

P

1

Category S/P Age N

o.oI

SO

1

.oo

N

Age

=

45

G 1;6-2;l 3 yrs

No Multiword USe

SD=

MLti 1.03

G I;6 - 2;l yrs 42 - 126

Mean MLlJ = I .9? SD= .3S

C

C

Figure 2. The proportions of source/path. children in three age ranges.

s

0 n

i

t

r

0

P

r 0

0.0

so

.oo

Category S/F

0 n s

i

0 r t

P

r 0

P

1

locative

MLl: = 1.S.l

goal. and combined

I.q

B = Delayed Subject

2;2 - 2;6 yrs 177 - 180

Mean MLU = 2.70 SD= .4?

A = Normal Subjects

utterances

I

SIP

observed

ASIP 0.0

.50 -

0.0 ---

C

C’

for RJ and normal

2;7 - 3;o yrs 91

G

1

369

3:o yrs

G 313

27

LOCATIVE

ACTION

191

dominate use of source/path expressions, the first ones to emerge. As children got older, utterances with the later acquired goal words occurred more frequently, whereas those with combined terms, the latest ones to emerge. were relatively infrequent at every age. These age shifts in the relative frequency of use, which are obvious from visual inspection of Figure 2, were statistically significant. The Pearson chisquare statistic revealed an age-dependent distribution of utterance types for RJ, x2 (df2, N = 163) = 34.2, p < .Ol; for AC, (df4, N 596) = 41.7, p < .Ol: for SJ, x2 (df4, N = 585) = 41.9, p < .Ol, and for CH, xz (df4. N 672) = 26.9, p < .Ol. When compared to age-matched normal peers, RJ’s distribution of utterance types reflected an earlier developmental pattern, and his MLU was more than 2 standard deviations below their mean values. Between 2;2 and 2;6 years, he used significantly more source/path than goal expressions, x2 (dfl, N = 72) = 32.0, p < .05), while age-matched normal peers exhibited no significant category difference, x’ (@ I, N = 517) = I .50, p > .05. Between 2;7 and 3;0, RJ used as many goal as source/path expressions, x2 (df 1, N = 91) = .20, p > .05) while agematched peers used goal expressions predominantly, x2 (df I, N = 961) = 42.8, p < .Ol). In sum, an overall smaller percentage (35%) of RJ’s utterances were of the later acquired goal type than were those of his normal peers (57% on the average, SD = 4.2). The characteristics of RJ’s utterances were not consistently like those of younger normal children either. His distribution of utterance types at 2;2-2;6 was comparable to that of MLU-matched normal children at 1;6-2;1, who, like him, used significantly more source/path than goal expressions, x2 (dfl, N = 254) = 47.6, p < .OOl. But at 2;7-3;0, RJ’s pattern of use was more advanced than these younger normal children when his utterances were no longer dominated by the use of earlier acquired source/path words. Yet RJ’s MLUs in neither age range differed significantly from these younger normal children, F (df = 4, 22) = 1.5 1, p > .05. Although his nearly equal use of source/path and goal expressions at 2;7-3;0 was comparable to the distribution shown for the younger normal children at 2;2-2;6, his average MLU (1.83; SD = .22) was significantly lower than CH (3.16, SD = .86); AG (2.57, SD = .19) and SJ (2.64, SD = .35). A one-way analysis of variance supported a significant MLU treatment effect, F (df 3, 18) = 11.79, p < .Ol (HSD = .84). Thus, a comparable pattern of word use did not predict a comparable MLU. DISCUSSION This study was motivated by the tendency in both research and clinical practices to focus on the productive use of broad semantic-relational categories in children’s speech. In this study of the locative action

192

STOCKMAN

category, significant developmental differences were revealed between the productive expressions of a language-impaired child and those of his age- and language-matched normal peers. Not only did the impaired child produce fewer and shorter utterances, as has been reported in other studies (see review in Miller, 1991). but his utterances also had different semantic properties, given their distribution of locative words. RJ talked less often about the goals of movement than did his agematched normal peers. When he did so, the range of spatial locative relationships expressed was limited by the small number of locative terms used. Such developmental differences clearly would be obscured by a coarse analysis, which disregards the types of meanings that the lexicon allows to be expressed within the locative action category. The observation that RJ, like the normal children, shifted from early predominate use of source/path expressions to increasing use of goal types as he got older indicated delayed rather than atypical development. It was not surprising, therefore, that his utterances were similar in some ways to those of younger normal children. However, asynchronous patterns were observed here too, as other studies have shown (e.g., Johnston and Kamhi, 1984). Longitudinal data made it possible to reveal ages at which the impaired child’s utterances had different semantic properties than did normal children, but the same MLU, or the same semantic properties but a different MLU. Such observations have, with good reason, raised questions about the adequacy of the MLU as an overall measure of language status (Miller. 1991). The MLU ought to be particularly insensitive to lexical semantic differences. Once the syntax makes grammatical slots available for locative words. the MLU obviously cannot detect developmental changes related to the number, type, and frequency of different words used in a slot. Yet it was just this kind of fine-grained analysis of utterance meaning in this study that exposed salient developmental differences among utterances within the same semantic-relational category. In the absence of such an analysis, we run the risk of assuming erroneously that languageimpaired and normal children do not differ in their semantic relational knowledge.

Research Implications Although the findings of this study clearly exposed the need to undertake fine-grained descriptions of children’s developing semantic-relational knowledge, more research ought to be done. Research aimed at replicating these findings using larger numbers of subjects would be an obvious extension of this study’s focus on just a few children. It is recognized, furthermore, that the developmental patterns dc-

LOCATIVE

ACTION

193

scribed here were based only on language production. Different factors appear to mediate comprehension and production, inasmuch as utterances can be produced without comprehension (e.g., Leonard, Newhoff, and Fey, 1980) and can be understood without production (Dollaghan, 1987). Comprehension studies should reveal whether this study and the one by Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke 1992 have exposed patterns of developing locative action utterances that are independent of speech production constraints. Regardless of whether language comprehension or production is targeted for observation, further exploration of the lexicon as a basis for making tine-grained developmental distinctions in semantic relational knowledge is warranted. Whereas vocabulary deficits among the language-impaired are well known, the ways in which vocabulary acquisition may be influenced by syntactic context have been less well studied. This is the case despite the fact that children ordinarily do not hear and say locative words (or any words) in isolation from other words in utterances and make use of syntactic context to derive word meaning (Gleitman, 1990). In locative action expressions, words must be mapped onto grammatical contexts that refer to movement events. It is the verb’s reference to movement that licenses its co-occurring locative word complements as source, path, or goal referents in English. This means that the word “in,” for example, does not refer only to a containment relationship between two objects. It also refers to a goal of movement when expressed as the locative argument of motion verbs in grammatical contexts. Learning “in,” therefore, is likely influenced by the requirements for talking about containment as a movement goal. Stockman (1991) argued that the requirements for using locative words such as “in” differ for dynamic and static expressions. Future research may reveal that language deficits are intricately linked to the requirements for using words in sentences. The potential value of this line of investigation justifies some discussion of what these demands might be and their implication for understanding normal and delayed semantic development . In discussing why goal words emerged later than source/path ones, Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992) pointed out that goal words are heard and produced in longer and grammatically more complex sentences than are source/path words. This is because in English, goal words often are expressed with a prepositional object. In contrast, source/path words may be heard and used as particles and adverbs that do not take objects (cf. “go away,” “go up”). Utterances with combined terms, which include more than one locative word in the

194

STOCKMAN

verb complement, are longer than source/path utterances even without objects. The reduced length of RJ’s utterances makes it reasonable to believe that utterances with goal and combined locative terms emerged late because his simple grammar could not accommodate their use as easily as source/path ones. Such an explanation. however, must be tempered by other observations. All of RJ’s goal and combined expressions were those for which a prepositional object either was not required (e.g.. “put there”) or was optional (e.g., “go in,” “put in.” “put back in”). These were among the normal children’s earliest used goal words as well. Utterances with goal and combined terms, therefore, did not have to be any longer than source/path ones. Yet they still emerged later than source/path words in all the children’s speech even though the syntax of source/path expressions had provided a grammatical complement slot for their use. The reason for the later emergence may have less to do with knowledge of grammatical structure per se than with the cognitive representation of object relational knowledge. Stockman and Vaughn-Cooke (1992) argued that less complex object relationships underlie the use of source/path than goal expressions. Source/path expressions code the moved object’s relationship to one place. One can talk about either its separation from a source (“go out”) or movement trajectory relative to the source (“go up”) without noticing where it comes to rest. In contrast, goal expressions (“go in”) require attention to the moved object’s spatial relationship to a resting location. What makes the place a locative goal, though, is its cause-effect relationship to movement and a prior locative state. Otherwise, the object’s location becomes simply a static event. The linking of a resting location to a previous one via movement means that goal expressions code the moved object’s relationship to at least fn10 places. However, an object cannot be in two places at the same time. Only one of the places connected with the relocative event can be experienced in the perceptual field. while the other one must be imagined or mentally represented. For example, upon seeing a ball at the source position (i.e., before it moves), an utterance such as, “put hall on the table.” makes sense only if the child anticipates or imagines the place that results from movement. If an object is seen at its new place (i.e.. after movement), then an utterance such as “ball went on the table,” makes sense only if the child imagines or mentally represents the possibility that the ball was in a different place prior to its new location. In a critical review of the research on infant search for moved objects, Harris (1987) concluded that babies

LOCATIVE

ACTION

195

do not at first connect locations with causal movement in regular and redictable ways; but they learn to do so over a period of time. Apparently though, goal expressions require more than the knowledge that movement can cause an object to relocate. After goal expressions had emerged in RJ’s speech, he still used fewer locative terms in syntactically available grammatical slots than did his age-matched peers. Moreover, RJ’s less frequent use of nearly every locative word as well indicates that a word’s use can be limited. even when something is known about its meaning and a grammatical slot is available for its use. This outcome may occur because speakers cannot sensibly insert a known word into any sentence and have it make sense. For example, in one context (e.g., “put the “in,” may express a sensible relationship ball in the box”), but not in another one (e.g., “put the ball in the table”). Not all objects have a containment relationship with one another in the real world, and when they do, the relationships need not be reciprocal ones. Shoes of certain sizes can be put inside of boxes, and boxes of certain sizes can be put inside of shoes. But boxes are not usually put inside of balls. The child must figure out whether it is the ball or the box that is the container to express as a prepositional object of “in.” Restricted knowledge about the range of objects that can enter into a containment relationship could have the effect of reducing the number of sentences with a word such as “in.” Or if children’s errors are studied, as Miller (1990) suggests ought to be done, the lack of object knowledge may show up when a locative word expresses the wrong object relationship, as when “on” instead of “in” is used to code containment. Knowledge of object relationships is expected to grow out of experience with objects and events. The amount of such experience is an obvious difference between older and younger children. Thus, one should not be surprised by this study’s findings of asynchronous performances, which favored more advanced patterns for the older impaired than younger normal children. Future studies may reveal the strongest differences in semantic-relational knowledge among language-impaired children and their age- and language-matched normal peers when the lexicon is explored in syntactic contexts. Preparation of this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. BNS 841 8587 and the National Institute of Education under grant No. G-80-0135. I am grateful to Fay VaughnCooke, April Massey, Vickie Ford, and Katie Ried for their assistance with data transcription and locative judgments.

196

STOCKMAN

REFERENCES Affolter, F. (1991). Perception, Interaction, andLanguage (F. Affolter, Trans.). New York: Springer-Verlag. (Original work published 1987.) Ames, L., and Learned, J. (1948). The development of verbalized space in the young child. The Jolrrnul of Genetic Psychology 72:63-84. Bennett, D. (1975). Sputiul and Tempo& London: Longman.

Uses oj’English

Blake, I. (1984). Language development dren: An examination of form, content tation, Columbia University.

in working-class black chiland use. Unpublished Disser-

Bloom, L. (1970). Lunguuge Development: Form Emerging Grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bloom, ances

Prepositions.

und

Frdnction

in

L. (1973). One Word at u Time: The Use of Single- Word Utterbefore Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.

Bloom, L., and Lahey, M. (1978). Lunguuge gLtu.ge Disorders. New York: John Wiley.

Development

and Lun-

Bloom, L., Lightbown, P., and Hood. L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 40 (Serial No. 160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bloom, L., Miller, P., and Hood, L. (1975). Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology 9:3-55. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Brown, R. (1973). A First Lunguuge: bridge University Press.

The Eurly Stages.

London:

Cam-

Choi, S., and Bowerman. M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 4 1:83- I2 1. Clark, E., and Carpenter, acquisition. Lunguuge Coggins,

K. (1989). The notion 65(I): I-30.

T. (1979). Relational

meaning

encoded

of source

in language

in the two-word

utter-

LOCATIVE

antes

of Stage

Hearing

197

ACTION

1 Down’s

Research

syndrome

qf Speech

Journal

children.

Duchan, J., and Erickson, R. (1976). Normal and retarded understanding of semantic relations in different verbal Journal

of Speech

and

22( 1): 166-178.

and Hearing

Research

Dollaghan, C.A. (1987). Fast mapping dered children. Journal of Speech

children’s contexts.

19:767-776.

in normal and

and language-disor-

Hearing

Disorders

52:

218-222.

Fokes, J., and Konefal, J. (1981). Children’s use of four semantic cases in two conditions. Journal of Communication Disorders 14:497-506. Freedman, P., and Carpenter, R. (1976). Semantic relations used by normal and language impaired children at Stage I. Journal ofSpeech and Hearing

Gleitman, guage

Research

19:784-795.

L. (1990). The structural I( 1):3-55.

sources

of verb

meanings.

Lan-

Acquisition

Gopnik, A. (1982). Words and plans: ment of intelligent action. Journal Greenfield,

Early

qf

language

and the develop-

Child Language

9:617-663.

J. (1976). The Structure of Communication Development. New York: Academic Press.

P., and Smith,

in Early Language

Harris, P. (1987). The development of search. In P. Salapateka and L. Cohen (eds.) Handbook qf Infant Perception, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 155-207. Jackendoff, Press.

R. (1983). Semantics

and Cognition.

Cambridge,

MA: MIT

Johnston, J. (1985). Cognitive prerequisites: The evidence from children learning English. In D. Slobin (ed)., The Cross-Linguistic StrrdJ of Language Acquisition Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 703-746. Johnston, J. (1988). Children’s verbal representation of spatial location. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Krit-Chevsky, and U. Bellugi (eds.), Spatial Cognition: Brain Bases and De\,elopment. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 195-205. Johnston, J. (1991). Questions about cognition in children with specific language impairment. In J. Miller (ed.), Research on Child Language Disorders: A Decade of Progress. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, pp. 299-307.

198

STOCKMAN

Johnston, J. and Kamhi. A. (1984). Syntactic and semantic aspects of the utterances of language-impaired children: The same can be less. Merrill-Pulmer Qrrurterly, 30, 65-85. Lahey. New

M. (1988). Langtruge York: MacMillan.

Disorders

rrrld Lungttuge

De\Belopment.

Leonard, L. (1988). Lexical development and processing in specific language impairment. In R.L. Schiefelbusch and L.L. Lloyd (eds.), Lungrrnge Perspecti\vs: Acytrisition, Rrturdution. und Intcr\~ention. Austin, TX: Pro-ed, 2nd ed.. pp. 69-87. Leonard, L.. Bolders, J.. and Miller. J. (1976). An examination of the semantic relations reflected in the language usage of normal and language disordered children ( 1976). Jorrrnul of’ Speech und Ht’urittg Rescurch 19:37 l-392. Leonard. L.. Newhoff. M., and Fey. M. (1980). Some instances ofword usage in the absence of comprehension. Jorrrnul ofChild Lrrng~rrrge 7: 189-196. Lifter, K., and Bloom, L. (1989). Object knowledge and the emergence of language. Infcrttt Behtrl,ior und Dr\~elopment 12:375-423. Lund, N. and Duchan. Nutrrralistic Contexts.

J. (1988). Assessing Children’s Lrrngtcugr Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

in

MacWhirter. S. (1989). Strhcutegories of’Action Verbs in Children’s Ltrngtruge. Unpublished masters thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Ml. Miller, G. (1972). English verbs and lexical memory. In A.W. Processes in Htrnzun Memory. 335-372.

of motion: A case study in semantics Melton and E. Martin (Eds.), Coding Washington, DC: Winston Press. pp

Miller. J. (1991). Research on language disorders in children: A progress report. In J. Miller (ed.). Rrseurch on Child Lungtrugc Disorders: A Decude of Progress. Austin, TX: Pro-ed. pp. 3-22. Miller, P. (1982). Amy. Press.

Wendy

und Beth.

Austin:

University

of Texas

Quirk, E.. Greenbaum. S.. Leech. G., and Svartvik. J. (1985). A Cornprehen.si\,e Grutntnrtr of the English Lutlgtruge. London: Longman.

LOCATIVE

199

ACTION

Reath, L. (1987). A comparative study of locative meaning produced by normal and language impaired children in a structured environment. Unpublished Master’s thesis: Michigan State University. Rice, M., Buhr, J.C., and Nemeth, ing abilities of language-delayed Heuring Disorders 55133-42.

M. (1990). Fast mapping word learnpreschooler. Journal ofSpeech und

Schlesinger, I. (1974). Relational concepts underlying language. In R.L. Schiefelbusch and L. Lloyd teds.). Language Perspectives - Acquisition, Retardation and Intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press. Stockman, 1. (1991, October). Lexical bias in dynamic and static locative expressions. A paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA. Stockman, I., and Vaughn-Cooke, F.B. (1989). Addressing new questions about black children’s language. In R. Rasold and D. Schriffin teds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory: Language Change and Vuriution, Vol. 52. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Co., pp. 275-300. Stockman, I., and Vaughn-Cooke, F. (1992). Lexical elaboration in children’s locative action expressions. Child Development, 63(5). 1104-I 125. Talmy, form. Vol. land:

L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical In T. Shopen ted.). Language Typology Dyntuctic Description, 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge, EngCambridge University Press, pp 49-57.

Tomasello, M. (1987). Learning to use prepositions: nul of Child Language 14:79-98.

A case study. Jour-