Search for: All records

Purpose: Stuttering-like disfluencies (SLDs) and typical disfluencies (TDs) are both more likely to occur as utterance length increases. However, longer and shorter utterances differ by more than the number of morphemes: They may also serve different communicative functions or describe different ideas. Decontextualized language, or language that describes events and concepts outside of the “here and now,” is associated with longer utterances. Prior work has shown that language samples taken in decontextualized contexts contain more disfluencies, but averaging across an entire language sample creates a confound between utterance length and decontextualization as contributors to stuttering. We coded individual utterances from naturalistic play samples to test the hypothesis that decontextualized language leads to increased disfluencies above and beyond the effects of utterance length. Method: We used archival transcripts of language samples from 15 preschool children who stutter (CWS) and 15 age- and sex-matched children who do not stutter (CWNS). Utterances were coded as either contextualized or decontextualized, and we used mixed-effects logistic regression to investigate the impact of utterance length and decontextualization on SLDs and TDs. Results: CWS were more likely to stutter when producing decontextualized utterances, even when controlling for utterance length. An interaction between decontextualization and utterance length indicated that the effect of decontextualization was greatest for shorter utterances. TDs increased in decontextualized utterances when controlling for utterance length for both CWS and CWNS. The effect of decontextualization on TDs did not differ statistically between the two groups. Conclusions: The increased working memory demands associated with decontextualized language contribute to increased language planning effort. This leads to increased TD in CWS and CWNS. Under a multifactorial dynamic model of stuttering, the increased language demands may also contribute to increased stuttering in CWS due to instabilities in their speech motor systems. 

Abstract Research has suggested that children who speak African American English (AAE) have difficulty using features produced in Mainstream American English (MAE) but not AAE, to comprehend sentences in MAE. However, past studies mainly examined dialect features, such as verbal -s , that are produced as final consonants with shorter durations when produced in conversation which impacts their phonetic saliency. Therefore, it is unclear if previous results are due to the phonetic saliency of the feature or how AAE speakers process MAE dialect features more generally. This study evaluated if there were group differences in how AAE- and MAE-speaking children used the auxiliary verbs was and were, a dialect feature with increased phonetic saliency but produced differently between the dialects, to interpret sentences in MAE. Participants aged 6, 5–10, and 0 years, who spoke MAE or AAE, completed the DELV-ST, a vocabulary measure (PVT), and a sentence comprehension task. In the sentence comprehension task, participants heard sentences in MAE that had either unambiguous or ambiguous subjects. Sentences with ambiguous subjects were used to evaluate group differences in sentence comprehension. AAE-speaking children were less likely than MAE-speaking children to use the auxiliary verbs was and were to interpret sentences in MAE. Furthermore, dialect density was predictive of Black participant’s sensitivity to the auxiliary verb. This finding is consistent with how the auxiliary verb is produced between the two dialects: was is used to mark both singular and plural subjects in AAE, while MAE uses was for singular and were for plural subjects. This study demonstrated that even when the dialect feature is more phonetically salient, differences between how verb morphology is produced in AAE and MAE impact how AAE-speaking children comprehend MAE sentences. 

Socioeconomic status (SES) differences in language development are ubiquitous, but existing research has yet to wrestle with how language gaps reflect ( a) differences in relevant concepts for communication, ( b) comprehension strategies to access meanings, and ( c) production practices that express social identity. In child-directed input, parents use verbs to describe similar concepts across SES, and the largest gaps emerge when frequent meanings are being conveyed. During comprehension, children acquire infrequent aspects of grammar across SES but differ in context-specific strategies for interpreting likely meanings. In production, children are sensitive to sociolinguistic implications and adopt context-specific strategies to signal social identity. This suggests that language is a flexible medium for communicating thoughts and that SES effects signal latent differences in meanings and identities across social classes. Whether language gaps contribute to achievement gaps may depend on the extent to which learning and communication draw on these meanings and value these identities. 

As members of the editorial team at Language Acquisition, we read Kidd and Garcia’s target article with enthusiasm. In our commentary, we outline some specific ideas for how journals can help to alleviate the issues raised by Kidd and Garcia, some of which are in progress or in place at Language Acquisition, and some of which we hope to undertake alongside other journals in the field. We focus on concrete steps, acknowledging that systemic changes, too, will be required to ensure that our science reflects the diversity of languages learned.