Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning PDF

CHAPTER 1 1 2...

CHAPTER 1 1 2 Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning Sima Gerber, PhD, CCC-SLP, and Lorain Szabo Wankoff, PhD, CCC-SLP Objectives Explore the continuum of the traditional “nature– Describe a contemporary model of language nurture” debate as it relates to the acquisition of acquisition within the broader science of child language development Understand the historical impact of the nature, Propose a perspective on using theories of nurture, and interactionist perspectives on the language acquisition to guide the assessment of and field of speech-language pathology intervention for children with language disorders Introduction The charge for this chapter is to review the continuum of nature, nurture, and interactionist perspectives and Traditionally, the theoretical approaches that are to discuss their impact on the world of speech-language included in accounts of language acquisition occupy pathology. By tracing the roots of and variations of the different positions on a continuum with regard to how nativistic, behavioral, and interactionist approaches to much emphasis is placed on the internal wiring of the the development of language, we can begin to under- child (i.e., the child’s given biological nature) versus the stand how the trends in modern language science have environmental input that the child receives (i.e., nurture). affected the profession of speech-language pathology In contrast to these two views, an interactionist approach over the last 50 or so years. to language development focuses not only on the struc- As we consider the status of the nature–nurture tures and mechanisms internal to the child, but also on debate, the contemporary science of child development the powerful influence that experiential and social fac- informs this discussion in interesting new ways. In fact, tors have in concert with unobservable mental faculties. this science suggests that the nature–nurture question 21 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 21 21/03/13 10:47 AM  22 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications as it relates to child development is obsolete. As Siegel theory of language development will provide an outline (1999) suggests, “There is no need to choose between of what is learned by a child when they acquire language. brain or mind, biology or experience, nature or nurture. Secondly, theories of language development that have These divisions are unhelpful and inhibit clear thinking explanatory adequacy will account for not only the facts about an important and complex subject: the developing of language development, but also the mechanisms of human mind” (p. xii). language learning—that is, “how” language is learned Speech-language pathologists, whether they have (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2005; Chomsky, 1965). articulated it or not, have always believed that experi- Different paradigms and their differing perspectives ence has the power to shift the direction of development will be described as they relate to two questions: and, by inference, the child’s developing neurological What do children acquire when they acquire system. We now have evidence from contemporary ­language? science that supports the claim that experience affects Which processes account for how children ­acquire brain ­architecture—which is welcome news to parents language? and educators alike. In fact, Siegel (1999) speaks of the ­neurobiology of interpersonal experiences and the way in which the structure and function of the brain Nature: Rationalist Paradigm are shaped by these experiences: “human connections According to the rationalist philosophy, which gave rise shape the neural connections from which the mind to the nature perspective, the processes of the human emerges” (p. 2). Knowing the elements of experience intellect (e.g., sensation, perception, thinking, and prob- that lead to further learning and healthy functioning lem solving) are characterized by principles of organi- translates immediately and significantly into the thera- zation. These processes of cognition are qualitatively peutic interactions we facilitate with children who are different from the fairly disorganized events that occur experiencing atypical ­development. in the observable world. The organizing principles and As the science of the relationship between biology processes that characterize cognitive structures are said and experience becomes better defined, both new and to enable humans to make sense of events in the world. seasoned students of speech-language pathology are From this perspective, speaking and understanding lan- obligated to periodically and frequently revisit what we guage are considered fundamentally human traits that are know about the interaction between the contributions of biologically determined. In contrast, reading and writing the child’s inborn capacities and the environmental influ- require explicit teaching to develop these abilities and are ences that lead to the capacity to understand and produce learned with much more effort and repetition, typically language. We have come a long way from the unparalleled in a school setting (Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Sakai, 2005). moment when Chomsky (1957) introduced the notion of the innate abilities that children bring to the task of Biological Bases learning language. As amazing as this moment was for students of child language, it was somewhat bewildering Although Chomsky was among the first to suggest that for those of us who wanted to help children who were humans possess linguistic knowledge at birth, the psy- not learning language naturally and/or easily. We won- chologist Eric Lenneberg (1967) provided much of the dered how to apply Chomsky’s thinking, as we imagined groundwork for the view that language is biologically what the implications of innate mechanisms were for based. He argued that language, like walking but unlike language-disordered children. The question of how best writing, shows evidence of the following properties: to apply the science of language acquisition to the practice Little variation within the species. Lenneberg ­argued of speech-language pathology continues to be one of the that all languages are characterized by a system most important academic and clinical issues in our field. of phonology, words, and syntax. Specific organic correlates. Lenneberg ­argued that like walking but unlike writing, there is Nature, Nurture, and Interactionist a universal timetable for the acquisition of Views ­language. He suggested that critical periods Theories of language acquisition are considered central to ­exist for s­ econd-language learning as well as for the information that speech-language pathologists must ­rehabilitation after language loss due to injury or learn for several reasons. First, a descriptively a­ dequate insult to brain function. 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 22 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 23 Heredity. According to Lenneberg, even with envi- this seminal work demonstrated that babies can make ronmental deprivation, the capacity for language finer phonetic discriminations at 6 months of age than exists—although it might be manifested in the they can at 10 months when their experience with their use of signing, as seen in individuals with hear- own language is more extensive (Trehub, 1976; Werker ing impairment. & Tees, 1984). At 6 months babies can discriminate No history within species. Lenneberg argued that between sounds that are not in the native language they ­because we have no evidence for a more primi- have heard but at 10 months babies can only discrimi- tive human language, language must be an inher- nate sounds in their own language. ently human phenomenon. (Lenneberg, 1967) The most recent and compelling evidence support- ing a biological basis for language comes from findings Recent arguments for the biological basis of language that newborns adjust their high-amplitude sucking to typically refer to data in several related areas. These preferentially listen to speech as compared to complex include cerebral asymmetries for speech and language; nonspeech analogues. In a study by Vouloumanos and critical periods for speech and language development; Werker (2007), infants were presented with isolated sylla- speech perception processes in infancy; central nervous bles of human speech contrasted with nonspeech stimuli system development; and genetic evidence from speech that controlled for critical spectral and temporal param- and language disorders research (Sakai, 2005; Werker & eters of speech. With similar stimuli, it had previously Tees, 1984). Furthermore, over the last 30 years, inves- been demonstrated that infants as young as two months tigators have combined basic research in first language of age preferred listening to speech. In the Vouloumanos acquisition with research in brain imagery to understand and Werker (2007) study, newborn babies, who were how children become multilingual (Lust, 2007). 1 to 4 days old, demonstrated a similar bias for listening Those who argue for the biological basis of language to speech when their contingent sucking responses to cite data on cerebral asymmetries that are present even speech and nonspeech sounds were compared. at birth in areas of the brain that are critical for language Arguments for the biological basis for speech and lan- functioning. For example, the Sylvian fissure is longer guage also find support in the research on the growth and the planum temporale is larger on the left side of and development of the central nervous system in the the brain than on the right side in the majority of fetal early years of life. These developments include mas- and newborn brains. Furthermore, the degree of asym- sive increases in brain weight, the formation of myelin metry appears to increase as the brain matures, whereas sheaths on the axons, and increases in the number of plasticity of the brain decreases over time (Sakai, 2005). neuronal connectors in the cortex during the first years Evidence for a critical period for language learning of life—all of which correlate with advancements in lan- has traditionally come from studies of individuals who guage abilities. Finally, data from genetic studies that have experienced cerebral damage and language impair- show strong patterns of inheritance for family members ments after puberty. Rehabilitating the loss of language of children with specific language impairment also pro- that occurs prior to puberty has typically been found vide support for proponents of a biological basis of lan- to be less challenging than when this loss occurs after guage development (Sakai, 2005). puberty (Sakai, 2005). Similarly, a critical period for learning language is often cited as evidence that second languages are easier to acquire before puberty than after. Transformational Generative Grammar—Chomsky Finally, in the unique case of a child named Genie who was not exposed to language early in life, great difficul- Within the nature perspective, the theory of Noam ties in the acquisition of morphology and syntax were Chomsky is central. The early versions of Chomsky’s noted (Curtiss, 1974). Transformational Generative Grammar (1957, 1965) Findings from now-classic studies in infant speech described the innate, generative knowledge that enables perception have lent tremendous support for the nature the native speaker to produce a potentially infinite num- thesis. In the original work, Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk, ber of novel utterances, utterances they have never heard and Vigorito (1971) demonstrated that the sucking pat- before or spoken, and to understand an infinite number terns of infants were modified as speech sound stimuli of utterances based on knowledge of the r­ ule-system. were changed. Infants as young as 1 month old could Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar perceive the distinctions between /b/ and /p/ in the sylla- (1957, 1965) and then Government Binding, also known bles [ba] and [pa]. Interestingly, the studies that ­followed as Principles and Parameters (Chomsky, 1982) were 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 23 21/03/13 10:47 AM  24 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications elaborate descriptions of the native speaker–hearer’s grammar (e.g., syntax, semantics, and phonology) and language knowledge of the components of language: categories or units of language (e.g., parts of speech or syntax, semantics, and phonology. In the syntactic phonological features) (McNeil, 1970). Later accounts component, which was central to the Transformational described the innate capacities as inherent biases or con- Generative Grammar, the underlying level of meaning straints that empowered children to treat linguistic input of an utterance was represented by the deep structure, in particular ways (Wexler, 1999). Thus children learning whereas the superficial form of an utterance (the syn- English might be listening for word order to signal gram- tactic form that we hear or produce) was represented by matical relations, whereas children learning Hungarian the surface structure. Thus, for example, the spoken sen- might be listening for noun inflections for that informa- tence “Wash yourself” would have as its Deep Structure tion (Berko-Gleason, 2005; Slobin, 1979). all the important elements of meaning: YOU (which is In response to the early Chomskian accounts of lan- the understood grammatical subject) + (Present Tense guage knowledge, researchers in the early 1960s stud- Marker) + WASH + YOU (the grammatical object). In the ied the emerging grammar of the young child while syntactic component, the deep structures and surface focusing on syntactic rules. In the late 1960s and early structures of particular sentences were linked through a 1970s, however, Semantic Generativists focused on series of transformations that were captured and repre- the role of semantics in language and language learn- sented by transformational rules. For example, the Deep ing (Fillmore, 1968). Thus developmental psycholin- Structure of the spoken sentence “Wash yourself” would guistic research shifted from an interest in syntax to look like this: an interest in the semantic knowledge that supports the development of syntax. Young children’s knowl- YOU + TENSE MARKER + WASH + YOU edge of underlying semantic relations (e.g., agent, action, and object) was viewed as the impetus for their To describe how the spoken form of a sentence was developing grammar, because semantic relations typi- derived, Chomsky invoked the concept of transforma- cally occurred in predictable positions in sentences. tional rule. The deep structure was said to undergo a For example, in the frequently used declarative sen- series of transformations (called a derivation), which tence type, the agent occupies the initial position and would yield the final form of the spoken utterance: is typically the grammatical subject of the sentence “Wash yourself.” (Schlesinger, 1977). According to Chomsky’s (1965) early view, the child With the advent of the work of developmental psy- brought a language acquisition device (LAD) armed with cholinguists such as Lois Bloom (1970), semantics or the linguistic universals to the task of language learning. content of child language was considered key to deter- Each native speaker–hearer of a language appeared to mining the child’s grammar. The importance of nonlin- possess a wealth of knowledge about his or her “gram- guistic context in interpreting the meaning of the child’s mar.” Chomsky termed this knowledge linguistic com- language was emphasized. Further, the acquisition of petence. In his account of language acquisition, the LAD semantic categories such as spatial terms, dimensional was said to enable children to develop a language sys- terms, and semantic features was investigated in an tem fairly rapidly. This language system was sufficiently effort to understand the unfolding of the child’s semantic complex and generative, allowing children to create a knowledge (Clark, 1973). potentially infinite number of novel utterances. This A revised theory of language, called Government capacity was termed linguistic creativity, an ability that Binding Theory, was formulated in its most compre- every native speaker-hearer clearly possessed (Chomsky, hensive form by Chomsky in 1982. This account of 1957, 1965). language described idiosyncratic parameters of par- Chomsky’s description of language acquisition, ticular languages as well as universal principles across according to Transformational Generative Grammar, sug- different languages. The idiosyncratic patterns of par- gested that the child’s innate LAD armed with language ticular languages were captured in the “parameters,” universals could explain not only the rapidity and uni- which were set differently for different languages. For formity of the language acquisition process, but also the example, the fact that a particular language differs in complexity of the language knowledge that is acquired the direction in which it embeds its clauses to form (Chomsky, 1982, 1988). Early formulations argued that complex sentences (right or left branching) is captured children were endowed with formal and substantive lin- in the parameter setting of the particular language guistic universals, such as the three components of the (Leonard & Loeb, 1988). 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 24 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 25 According to Transformational Generative Grammar occur first, as in sentences 2 and 3. Thus speakers of and Principles and Parameters accounts of language Japanese and Mandarin Chinese will have little difficulty acquisition, the child operated as a mini-linguist. That recognizing referentially dependent forms or pronomi- is, the child utilized not only the universal features that nals that precede the referents for which they stand (as languages have in common, but would ultimately estab- in sentences 2 and 3). By comparison, English-speaking lish the parameters that make his particular language children will be slower in acquiring left-branching sen- unique. As the child accrued more and more examples tences (Leonard & Loeb, 1988). of his own language, he could generate hypotheses Pinker and Jackendoff (2005) suggest Chomsky has about how his language works, and these hypotheses scaled down his Extended Standard Theory (Chomsky, would eventually be either confirmed or disconfirmed. 1972) and Government Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1982) Ultimately, the child was said to intuit a finite set of to create a “parsimonious” and “elegant” theory that is generative rules—that is, rules with the capacity to ­ truly minimalist in its description of what the language ­generate and understand a potentially infinite number faculty is (p. 219). In this version of his theory, Chomsky of novel utterances. has reduced the language faculty to its narrowest form Research in language development was also influenced and has excluded information that had previously been by Chomsky’s theory of Principles and Parameters. For incorporated on semantics, morphology, phonology, and example, as noted by Leonard and Loeb (1988), the fol- grammatical relations. The minimalist commitment to lowing three sentences appear to be superficially simi- including only the barest of necessities in the theory lar in that all three italicized forms have an antecedent. dictates only the inclusion of a level of representation However, the forms in sentences 1 and 2 are anaphors for meaning, a level of representation for sound, and and are bound by the governing category (they refer to the a recursive element called “merge” that provides the head noun), whereas the pronominal “they” in sentence 3 mechanism for joining words or phrases. This element can refer to a noun outside of the governing noun. accounts for the linguistic novelty of productions for native speaker-hearers and young children. 1. The girls liked each other. 2. The boys hurt themselves. 3. The children knew they were naughty. A Contemporary View In language development, children’s use of simple Pinker and Jackendoff (2005) maintain that Chomsky pronominals without antecedents (e.g., Mark likes him) Minimalist View is inadequate because it ignores 25 years precedes their use of anaphors or pronouns with ante- of research in the areas of phonology, morphology, syn- cedents. Sentences with pronominals, which refer to tactic word order, lexical entries, and the connection of a a noun outside of the head noun, are acquired later grammar to language processing, all of which are critical (Leonard & Loeb, 1988). for a theory of language acquisition. Cross-linguistic evidence in child language has been a Pinker and Jackendoff (2005) address more chal- rich source of data supporting Chomsky’s theory, as dis- lenging questions, such as “What is included in the cussed by Leonard and Loeb (1988). For example, unlike language faculty?” by arguing that the language faculty Japanese- and Mandarin Chinese–speaking children, is an adaptation for the communication of knowledge. English-speaking children find the following sentences This specialized language faculty triggers the develop- to be of increasing difficulty: ment of linguistic knowledge that uses at least four dif- ferent mechanisms for conveying semantic relations: 1. David fell to the ground when he reached the hierarchical structure, linear order, agreement, and ­finish line. case. According to these authors, the four mechanisms 2. When David reached the finish line, he fell to the are sometimes used redundantly. In arguing against the ground. Minimalist Program, Pinker and Jackendoff suggest that 3. When he reached the finish line, David fell to the how the specialized language faculty is characterized ground. must be based on existing research, not on a program In English, the branching direction parameter is set or theory that is incompatible with the facts. for right branching, where subordinate material typi- In the more recent incarnations of the “nature” para- cally occurs after the main clause, as in sentence 1. In digm, Pinker (2006) addresses the question, “What are Japanese and Mandarin Chinese, a left branching setting the innate mechanisms necessary for language learn- is required, so that subordinate material will typically ing to take place?” Certain cognitive accomplishments, 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 25 21/03/13 10:47 AM  26 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications such as the representational function (i.e., the ability to younger children with comparable mean length of utter- represent objects or ideas mentally), are known prerequi- ance (MLUs), and these differences persist over time. sites for language to unfold. Furthermore, metacognitive Of interest here is the explanation that the grammatical control or executive functioning that serves to monitor limitations are based in the underlying grammatical rep- the incoming stimuli, the motor output, and the learning resentations. For example, the extended optional infini- that takes place must be accounted for as well. Finally, tive account (Rice, Wexler, & Cleave, 1995) suggests that individuals must operate with an unfolding theory of the omission of finiteness markers, such as past -ed and mind (i.e., the ability to attribute mental states such as third person -s, persists for a longer time in children with beliefs, intents, desires, knowledge, pretend, to oneself SLI than in typically developing children. and others, and to understand that others have beliefs, In terms of the assessment of and intervention with desires, and intentions that are different from one’s own) children with language impairments, the nature hypoth- (Premack and Woodruff, 1978) as the “language instinct” eses led the way for many of the hallmarks of the clinical or the language faculty does its work. work of a speech-language pathologist. The use of sam- Despite the impact of nature arguments of language ples of spontaneous language as the data from which to acquisition, the limitations of this view are worth not- determine children’s linguistic knowledge was an exam- ing. For example, contrary to earlier findings, recent ple of the methodology learned from linguistic inquiry. evidence suggests that caretakers do respond to the For example, assessing children’s language to describe language errors of youngsters, including the syntactic their knowledge of the rules of the grammar, particularly ones (Saxton, Galloway, & Backley, 1999). Furthermore, in terms of morphology and syntax, was clearly an out- the assumption that language acquisition is essentially growth of the work of the linguists and psycholinguists completed by four or five years of age has not been sup- of the time. Determining children’s mean length of utter- ported, nor has the critical period been clearly identified ance and measuring their linguistic progress relative to (Hulit & Howard, 2002). Finally, the notion that language this parameter (rather than relative to their chronological is acquired through a species-specific LAD is controver- age) revolutionized our thinking about the stages and sial, as research into animal communication raises the expectations of language acquisition. These assessment question of whether language is fully unique to humans goals and procedures brought our clinical evaluations (Pinker, 1984). into a new era and have had a lasting impact on our evaluation protocols. In reference to intervention for children with language Implications from a Nature Perspective: challenges, following the introduction of the nature per- Understanding, Assessing, and Treating Children spective, goals of therapy were written based on infer- with Language ­Disorders ences about what children needed to learn about the From the nature perspective, the assumptions about rules of their language and what they were ready to learn children who fail to develop language typically include given their stage of language acquisition. The focus of the possibility that the child is experiencing deficits in these goals was clearly on syntax and, less frequently, the innate mechanisms that the child brings to the task on the semantics of language. Typical intervention goals of learning language and constructing grammar. In fact, addressed the child’s lexicon, morphological elements, these possibilities are considered most relevant to the and syntactic structures that represent the foundations of discussion of children who are referred to as having a the linguistic system. Emphasis on expanding the child’s specific language impairment (SLI). Children with spe- length of utterance, the use of various sentence types, cific language impairment are characterized by their and the use of Brown’s (1973) 14 grammatical morphemes difficulties in the acquisition and processing of syntax took center stage in the intervention process. and grammatical morphology in addition to delays in In reference to strategies of language intervention, the the acquisition of vocabulary, especially verbs (Seiger- notion of enhancing the processing of the informative Gardner, 2010). These children seem endowed with elements in the linguistic signal also can be traced to our many of the developmental capacities that are neces- interpretations of the work of the nature perspective. For sary for learning language, yet fall behind their typically example, to increase the salience of the linguistic input developing peers in the acquisition of a linguistic sys- a clinician might use prosodic and syntactic bootstrap- tem, in particular, the acquisition of the morphosyntactic ping techniques. Bootstrapping is a term that refers to rules of the grammar. In fact, children with SLI often the child’s ability to take information s/he knows to learn have less well-developed morphosyntactic systems than new information. Prosodic bootstrapping refers to the 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 26 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 27 placement of target elements at the end of the utterance even before the meat powder was introduced. Through for greater salience (e.g., a response such as Yes, she is classical conditioning, an association (a conditioned might be used to emphasize the copula form). Syntactic response) was formed between the bell and salivation; bootstrapping refers to the child’s use of grammar to this association had not previously existed. While the learn new language forms. For example, teaching a par- meat powder was termed the “unconditioned stimulus,” ticular verb form in several linguistic contexts heightens the bell became the “conditioned stimulus.” Salivation the child’s awareness of varied syntactic uses of the form was the “unconditioned response” to the meat powder (e.g., She is pushing me; Who pushed her?; Don’t push) and the “conditioned response” to the bell. The phenom- (Nelson, 1998). enon of stimulus generalization was observed as well. Despite the undeniable impact of linguistic theory on That is, although the conditioned response would fade the field of speech-language pathology, a clear limitation or become extinguished with time, before its extinction, that followed us into the present is this theory’s more some salivation could be elicited by similar bells (Cairns narrow focus on language form. Given that many chil- & Cairns, 1975; Pavlov, 1902). Pavlov’s classical condi- dren who experience difficulties in learning language tioning paradigm introduced the world of psychology to are challenged in areas such as the development of the the concepts of stimulus, response, paired association, precursors to language (e.g., prelinguistic skills such as and stimulus generalization, all of which are typically using gestures), cognitive development (e.g., object per- integrated into clinical practice with the paradigm of manence), and social–affective development (e.g., eye operant conditioning. contact and joint attention with a communication part- ner), interventions must often override attention to the Operant Conditioning structure of the language. Nonetheless, by embracing the thinking of linguists, the work of speech-language The paradigm of operant conditioning, including the pathologists moved into the realm of linguistic science. notion of a verbal operant such as “tacts” (naming behaviors) and “mands” (commands), was developed by B. F. Skinner (1957). Proponents of this nurture view Nurture: Behaviorist Paradigm argued that although environmental stimuli were not Based on the evidence gathered so far, it appears that always identifiable, the frequency of certain behaviors the nature argument alone is not sufficient to explain the or antecedent behaviors could be increased if positive child’s accomplishment in developing language. Rather, reinforcers (or consequences) were contingent upon the relative importance of an innate language faculty the targets. versus environmental influence continues to be viewed The principles of operant conditioning were derived as controversial. from and based on observations made and data collected Historically, the impetus for the nurture argument in in animal laboratories. For example, if a rat in a cage learning and language was the “blank slate” philosophy received reinforcement with pellets of food for its bar of John Locke (1960/1690). This empiricist approach pressing (i.e., bar pressing that was initially accidental), eventually gave rise to behaviorism in psychology. the frequency of its bar pressing was found to increase. According to this perspective, explanations of behavior Also, the type of response could be shaped through a rely only on observable phenomena; in the most radical schedule of reinforcement of successive approximations version of this position, no inferences regarding internal, to the target stimulus. unobservable events are made. Thus researchers and In these views, explanations for the acquisition of theoreticians who focused on the impact of the envi- speech and language relied heavily on the role of imi- ronment targeted primarily observable and measurable tation as well as paired associations between uncondi- events to explain development. tioned stimuli (e.g., food or a bottle) and unconditioned responses (e.g., physiological vocalizations). Invoking principles of classical conditioning, phonological produc- Classical Conditioning tions or vocalizations would be the conditioned responses Classical conditioning was associated with the twentieth- to the ­caretaker’s vocalizations (i.e., conditioned stimuli) century Russian physiologist Pavlov (1902). In his most that had been paired with the unconditioned stimuli (e.g., famous experiment, a dog was presented with food food or bottle). along with the ringing of a bell. After repeated pairings The law of effect (i.e., the intensity and frequency of a of the two, the dogs would salivate upon hearing the bell response will increase with reinforcement, a p ­ rinciple of 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 27 21/03/13 10:47 AM  28 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications operant conditioning) was utilized to explain the acqui- the anchor of speech and language evaluations. In addi- sition of the production of words. Language acquisition tion, principles from this approach have been used in was viewed as the result of gradual or systematic rein- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) legisla- forcement of desirable or target behaviors. Thus, initially, tion and its amendments. For example, legal documents gross approximations of the target (e.g., any vocalization such as the individualized education plan and individual at all) would be reinforced. According to this view, par- family service plan must be generated for children with ents would teach children language through both imita- special needs, including those with language disorders, tion training of words and phrases as well as the shaping to assure that these children receive the assessments and of phrases and sentences through successive approxima- services to which they are entitled. These documents tions of adult-like speech. identify goals, which are written in terms of observable From the perspective of conditioning, the sentence behaviors, specify mandates for treatment, indicate was described as a chain of associated events. Each performance criteria for achieving goals, and clarify the word would serve as the response to the preceding word context in which the target behavior is to be elicited. and the stimulus to the following word. According to the The primary concern is to quantify behavioral change argument, grammatical categories and various sentence so as to document the treatment efficacy of the inter- types could be learned through contextual generalization. vention used. In this sense, the construct of assessment In this explanation, children would generalize grammati- expanded to include not only the initial evaluation of cal categories based on word position (Braine, 1966). the child, but also periodic, data-driven reevaluations to As with the nature theories, nurture explanations had determine the extent of the child’s progress and learning some limitations. Although selective reinforcement and relative to previously established goals. paired associations could account for certain aspects of Turning to intervention, the use of behavioral pro- sound and word learning, relying solely on principles grams such as applied behavioral analysis and variations of behaviorism to explain the acquisition of language of this methodology is reflected in a great deal of the knowledge proved inadequate. Stimulus–response expla- work done within the speech-language pathology field. nations could not begin to describe or explain the devel- More than 40 years of research generated from this opment of the complex system of language knowledge perspective has documented treatment efficacy in the that the young child acquires in such a short amount training of children with communication and language of time. Behaviorists were challenged to account for impairments. During the 1960s and 1970s, language unobservable meaning knowledge, utterance novelty training programs were developed under the aegis of and complexity, and the rapidity with which language the stimulus–response psychology model (Gray & Ryan, was typically acquired. Critics argued that parents more 1973). Many of these programs were characterized by typically would give children feedback about their inac- the use of constructs from classical and operant condi- curacies in meaning rather than about their inaccuracies tioning, including the identification of antecedent and in syntax. consequent events, specification of the desired response, determination of effective reinforcers, implementation of schedules of reinforcement, and use of strategies Implications from a Nurture Perspective: such as imitation, shaping, successive approximations, ­Understanding, Assessing, and Treating Children prompting, modeling, and generalization. While behav- with Language Disorders ioral approaches to intervention vary, their common Given the constructs of the nurture theories, these con- characteristics include the use of structured contexts cepts ultimately added little to our understanding of the of learning, adult-directed operant conditioning proce- underlying origins of language disorders in children. dures, and reliance on preset curricula. Nevertheless, the impact of the behavioral paradigm Applied behavior analysis (ABA) introduced by Lovaas on assessment and intervention has been pervasive in (1977) was an outgrowth of the operant conditioning our field. paradigm and has continued to be a popular approach to In reference to assessment protocols, the emphasis on enhancing language development, particularly for chil- observation of behavior, data-driven descriptions, quan- dren on the autistic spectrum. In ABA, an individualized tification, and measurement began to define speech- treatment program is developed for each child. Based language pathologists’ evaluation of language. The use on the child’s strengths and weaknesses, a curriculum of standardized, formal tests for identifying deficits in focusing on skills such as matching, imitation, play, all areas of language became, and has continued to be, and receptive and expressive language is developed. 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 28 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 29 Variations of Lovaas’ ABA method include the Natural these views. While they are grouped together as inter- Language Paradigm and Pivotal Response Treatment actionist views in this section, the implications of each (Koegel & Koegel, 2006), which addresses the child’s perspective for speech-language pathologists are dealt motivation and self-initiations, such as requesting items with separately to reflect the unique contribution each that he wants. has had on the discipline. Criticisms of behavioral approaches have often cen- tered on the child’s difficulty with generalization, that Information Processing Models is, using his newly learned behaviors in the contexts of his daily life (e.g., using the utterance More cookies to In a historical description of information processing request cookies during snack time at home in addition approaches to language, Klein and Moses (1999) note to during snack time at school where the utterance was that in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth taught.) Milieu or incidental teaching was designed to century, Broca and Gall were among the first researchers address this issue by using naturally occurring learn- to try to locate language functions in the brain. The con- ing contexts and child-initiated topics in an attempt to nection between brain function and language was stud- enhance generalization (Warren & Kaiser, 1986). ied in victims of brain injury due to stroke, in patients As Nelson (1998) suggests, the irony of using behav- with traumatic war-related injuries, and, ultimately, in ioral approaches for language intervention was that children with language disorders and learning disabili- “language seems to be too complex a system for some ties. Descriptions of brain function and modes of lan- children to master on their own, but breaking it down guage processing as well as perceptual–motor aspects into manageable pieces does not make it simpler so of childhood language disorders were described by much as different” (p. 61). Nonetheless, the use of Cruickshank (1967) and Johnson and Mykelbust (1967). structured approaches to language intervention has An information processing model of language was held tremendous appeal for speech-language patholo- eventually developed by Osgood (1963). Osgood’s model gists and policy makers who are attracted to the science identified the modalities that were said to underlie lan- underlying evidence-based practice, that is, treatment guage functioning—namely, visual and auditory mem- approaches that have been supported by well-designed ory, auditory discrimination, visual association, visual research studies. The significant incongruity between reception, and auditory closure. Traditional information- the foundational principles of the nature arguments (role processing accounts of language development described of the child’s inborn capacities) and the nurture argu- language processing as a series of steps that were said to ments (role of the child’s environment) has presented occur consecutively or serially, where the steps included a dilemma for clinicians who are looking to theoretical attention, sensation, speech perception, lexical search, paradigms to govern their work. This need for rapproche- syntactic processing, and memory storage (Cairns & ment of conflicting ideologies has been, and continues Cairns, 1975). to be, a frequently revisited theme in the clinical practice More recent information-processing accounts of lan- of speech-language pathologists. guage, which are sometimes referred to as “connec- tionist,” describe parallel processing rather than serial processing of language. According to this view, networks Interactionist: Cognitive Interactionist of processors are connected and several operations Paradigm or decisions may occur simultaneously (Bohannon & Interactionist models of language development can Bonvillian, 2005). These multilayered networks of con- be discussed relative to two paradigms: cognitive nections function to interpret linguistic input from the interactionist (Information Processing and Cognitive- exemplars provided to them. The statistical properties of Constructivist) and social interactionist (Social-Cognitive, syntactic forms determine their rate of acquisition, and Social-Pragmatic, and Intentionality Model). Within cues that consistently signal particular meanings should each of these paradigms, various perspectives can be be acquired first. described, all of which presume that the child brings some Research reported by Bates and MacWhinney (1987) preexisting information to the task of language learning and MacWhinney (1987) has offered support for this view and that her environmental input plays a significant role by using data from the acquisition of several languages, in her language development. The specifics of what the including French, English, Italian, Turkish, and Hungarian. child brings to language learning and how the environ- For example, Turkish children, whose l­anguage has an ment interacts with these innate capacities varies within extremely reliable case-marking system, master case 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 29 21/03/13 10:47 AM  30 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications considerably sooner than word order, which has often child’s comprehension and/or production of language. been considered a universal cue to sentence meaning Viewed from a somewhat different perspective, language over other cues (Bohannon & Bonvillian, 2005; Slobin & intervention programs designed to facilitate the child’s Bever, 1982). development of executive functions such as organiza- Critics of the connectionist model include those who tion, memory, and retrieval reflect the notion that dis- question the paradigm on theoretical grounds. While crete language functions underlie language learning and information processing networks might provide neat can be remediated if deficient, resulting in improved explanations for describing linguistic rules, they resem- language performance. ble biological systems only superficially (Berko-Gleason, Information-processing models have clearly had far- 2005; Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1988; Sampson, 1987). Most reaching effects on the field of communication disor- importantly, these connectionist accounts omit any men- ders. Our clinical wisdom tells us that this is a productive tion of social interaction. approach to take with some children who have language- learning difficulties. However, the idea that this per- spective describes the challenges faced by all children Implications from an Information Processing with language disorders and, therefore, represents the Perspective: Understanding, Assessing, and Treating approach to be taken with all children would be criti- Children with Language Disorders cized from within the clinical world of speech-language Clearly, the information-processing perspective supports pathology as well as from more contemporary research the view that the origins of the language-disordered child’s findings about the relationship between processing and difficulties lie in the ability to successfully process the language acquisition (Gillam et al., 2008). information necessary for learning a language. In fact, this perspective resonates in contemporary arguments that claim that deficits in information processing and execu- Cognitive-Constructivist Models tive functioning underlie language-learning disabilities. Jean Piaget, a Swiss biologist who referred to himself In terms of language assessment, the models described as a genetic epistemologist, became fascinated with the earlier served as the impetus for the development of acquisition of knowledge and the “activity” of the body many tests that continue to be used widely by speech- and mind that lead to intellectual growth (Flavell, 1963). language pathologists. For example, the Illinois Test of His keen observations of children as they engaged in Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) developed by Osgood exploration, play, and problem solving provided the data (1963) reflected the notion of different levels of language for his model of functional invariants: functioning (e.g., receptive, expressive, and associative) and different modalities of language (e.g., verbal, audi- Schemas, or mental structures, correspond to tory, and visual). The idea of discrete components of consistencies in the infant’s or child’s behaviors processing that can be isolated, tested, and ultimately or actions (e.g. the child who frequently mouths remediated is a familiar construct in contemporary prac- and sucks objects after grasping them is said to tice. Use of formal language testing continues to be the be using his or her “sucking” schema). accepted protocol for securing speech and language ser- Assimilation occurs when a child applies a men- vices for children suspected of having language-learning tal schema to an event; it embodies play, explo- difficulties. The proliferation of speech and language test- ration, and learning about the environment. The ing materials in the last 40 years speaks to this practice. young child will apply his or her sucking schema In fact, the ITPA-3 (Hammill, Mather, & Roberts, 2001), a to the features inherent in the various objects revision of the earlier test, suggests the continuing inter- that are grasped and will repeat the behavior est in this approach to language assessment. over and over for the sake of play. In reference to treatment, many speech-language Accommodation occurs as a result of the child’s pathologists support the use of intervention programs new experience with an object, event, or person, that reflect the belief in processing mechanisms as and embodies the child’s ability to incorporate the underpinnings for language learning. Consider the the new information, resulting in changes in prevalence of auditory processing programs such as Fast the child’s mental schemas. Each time the child ForWord and auditory integration training. The premise applies his or her sucking schema to a d ­ ifferent of these programs is that the child’s difficulty in process- object, the sucking behavior will be slightly ing auditory signals has contributed to disruption in the modified to incorporate features of the object. 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 30 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 31 Adaptation consists of assimilation and c­ hildren might have unrecognized cognitive deficits led ­accommodation (i.e., the mechanisms for to a reconsideration of what was meant by “normal” cog- the ­acquisition of knowledge) as described nition and to a new arena for studying the relationship above. (Piaget, 1952) between aspects of cognition and linguistic development (Johnston, 1994). From a Piagetian perspective, learning is accom- This view of the cognitive underpinnings to lan- plished throughout the lifespan by active participation guage found a place in the assessment protocols used of infants, children, and adults. For example, children by speech-language pathologists in a number of ways. pursue their goals and interests while their mental sche- First, assessment of the sensorimotor stages of develop- mas are adapted to new experiences. Children were said ment was now included in language evaluations as clini- to direct their own learning as they encountered new cians began to assess children’s abilities in areas such as experiences and challenges during their ongoing interac- object permanence (i.e., the ability to understand that an tions in the world (Flavell, 1963). object exists even if it is not present, seen when children Piaget (1952) noted that there were qualitative differ- search for a hidden object), means-end behavior (i.e., the ences in how children would respond to external events ability to execute a series of steps to reach a goal, such over time. These qualitative differences were captured as pulling a string on a toy to retrieve it), and causality in his account of developmental stages from birth until (i.e., the ability to understand the connection between formal, scientific operational thought, the cornerstone a cause and an effect such as hitting the mobile to start of scientific inquiry. the music). Second, children’s play itself was seen as a In the realm of language development, the traditional rich source of information about their ideas and sche- Piagetian view maintains that a direct relationship exists mas as well as their overall cognitive achievements. The between cognitive achievements and later linguistic use of developmental paradigms to systematically assess attainments. More specifically, Piagetian theory predicts stages of play became a central component of language that cognitive prerequisites for early word learning, in evaluations and is considered by many to be the heart of the sensorimotor period (i.e., the first two years of life) the assessment process (Westby, 1980, 2000). The inter- include concepts of object permanence, intentional- est in children’s symbolic capacity, rather than language ity, causality, deferred imitation, and ­ symbolic play alone, moved the assessment process beyond children’s (Piaget, 1955). rules of language to the potential foundations for their thinking and, therefore, talking. In reference to intervention, Piaget’s theories and the Implications from a Cognitive-Constructivist subsequent applications of these theories to the study ­Perspective: Understanding, Assessing, and Treating of language acquisition had a tremendous impact on Children with Language Disorders both the goals and the contexts of language interven- Given the relationship between language and other tion. For example, the repertoire of goals typically began ­cognitive skills presented by Piaget (1955), the notion to include cognitive behaviors such as the sensorimo- that children with language disorders might be exhibiting tor developments mentioned earlier. The notion that language delays because of their cognitive deficits was a children must acquire a broad foundation of ideas and direct outgrowth of interest in the cognitive-­constructivist world knowledge prior to talking gave speech-language views. The nature of language disorders was recon- pathologists license to facilitate development in areas sidered from this perspective with an eye toward other than language. ­identifying the cognitive prerequisites to language, from The importance of children’s developmental stage, birth through early childhood, as the potential source rather than just their chronological age, was empha- of the disruption in language learning. In addition, the sized as intervention was planned according to what fact that language was just one of a number of symbolic was developmentally appropriate for each child’s cogni- behaviors (i.e., the ability to use a word, or an object to tive stage. Furthermore, the emphasis on play as both a stand for or represent something else) paved the way for goal and a context of therapy represented another dis- ­considering language impairments as a reflection of a tinct shift in focus away from linguistic goals and struc- ­symbolic disorder rather than a language disorder alone. tured, adult-directed interactions. The view that children In fact, this period marked the beginning of a new line of were active learners in their developmental processes inquiry relative to the cognitive abilities of children with led speech-language pathologists to encourage children specific language impairment. The possibility that these to interact more freely with toys and objects as they 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 31 21/03/13 10:47 AM  32 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications explored the world and learned through this exploration. is likely to receive an enthusiastic response from the Although the relationship between certain types of cog- adult. When the child begins to use gestures and vocal- nitive achievements and language was delineated, the izations to show, point, or give objects, the caregiver will exact nature of this relationship—including the particu- typically respond verbally, vocally, or gesturally to the lar cognitive prerequisites to language—was not neces- child. When using “deictic terms” (e.g., here, there, this, sarily agreed upon. Nonetheless, the idea that cognitive that, you, me) with changing referents, caregivers incor- foundations support language acquisition and that the porate spatial and contextual cues to assist children two are integrally related throughout the developmental in comprehending this terminology. “Naming” occurs process shifted and broadened the work (and play) of the when the child can associate a label with a referent, speech-language pathologist. which is accomplished receptively before it is accom- plished expressively. Bruner also introduced the notion of scaffolding as Interactionist: Social Interactionist one way in which caregivers facilitate language learning ­Paradigm and dialogue. Caregivers are said to adjust the degree of linguistic and nonlinguistic support that they offer to Social-Cognitive Models children as they are learning language. For example, as Other developmental interactionists who have influenced the young child becomes more verbal, the caretaker will the language learning research include Vygotsky (1986) typically need to provide less nonverbal cuing during and Bruner (1975, 1977). Vygotsky believed that chil- conversation (Bruner, 1975, 1977). dren’s cognitive development resulted from interaction In contemporary social-cognitive research, children between children’s innate skills and their social experi- are said to possess a unique capacity that enables them ences with peers, adults, and the culture in general. In to learn language by interpreting the intentions of those addition, Vygotsky is well known for his description of who interact with them. Social cognitive views, such the “zone of proximal development”—that is, the area as that advocated by Paul Bloom (2000), suggest that between what a child can accomplish independently and children learning language need at least a primitive what he can accomplish with another person who has theory of mind to enable them to adequately interpret greater knowledge, experience, or skill in the area and the intentions of others. Children’s requisite cognitive who provides some scaffolding (i.e., help). When col- abilities allow them to process information, while their laborating on a task, the child and the adult engage in a preformed concepts for entities in the world serve as dialogue that is then stored away by the child for future the basis for word learning and language development. use as “private speech” (e.g., self-directed talk or when a While helpful adults might accelerate or assist in the pro- youngster is “talking to himself”) According to Vygotsky, cess of word learning, as long as children can infer the when language emerges in the form of private speech, it referential intentions of others, no other social support is can be used as a tool to guide and direct problem-solving necessary. Tomasello, Carpenter, and Liszkowski (2007) and other cognitive activities. support the view that children’s inference of intentional- Similarly, Bruner’s work (1975, 1977) was pioneer- ity is critical for word and language learning. ing relative to social interactionist theories of language According to Tomasello (2003), pointing gestures are acquisition. Bruner (1977) suggested that when care- an important part of the system of shared intentional- givers and their infants engage in joint referencing, ity. Prior to language use, pointing not only establishes they share a common focus of interest that ultimately joint attention, but also serves to influence the mental contributes to language acquisition. Three mechanisms states of others by attempting to influence how another (indicating, deictic terms, and naming) serve to establish thinks, feels, and acts (Tomasello et al., 2007; Goldin- joint reference between a caregiver and baby, essentially Meadow, 2007). In support of this view, Goldin-Meadow laying the groundwork to enter the language acquisition (2007) suggests that pointing at 14 months is a better process. According to Bruner, the caregiver that uses an predictor of lexical vocabulary than the speech of the “indicator” is using gestural, postural, or vocal means caretaker. Pointing serves the child by not only draw- to get the baby’s attention. With time, these indicators ing attention to the self, but also to the objects that she become more conventional symbols as the caregiver finds interesting enough to communicate about. The adjusts his or her communication to the level of the child’s use of pointing or gesture with words also helps child. If the child reaches for an object that the caretaker her segue into syntax. For example, “children combine is holding or if the child looks at the caretaker, the child pointing gestures with words to express sentence-like 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 32 21/03/13 10:47 AM  Chapter 2 | Historical and Contemporary Views of Language Learning | 33 meanings (‘eat’ + point at cookie) months before they A pragmatic approach to child language was taken by can express the same meanings in word + word combi- Halliday (1975) who described the functions of his son nation (‘eat + cookie’)” (Goldin-Meadow, 2007, p. 741). Nigel’s nonlinguistic communication. These functions From the perspective discussed here, language use included satisfying needs, controlling the behaviors of originates from shared attention and the interpreta- others, interacting, and expressing emotion and inter- tion of intentionality. The basic processes that explain est. With his first words, Nigel could explore and catego- language learning in this view are the understanding rize things in his environment, imagine or pretend, and of intentions and children’s general cognitive abilities, inform others of his experiences. including pattern abstraction and category construc- John Dore (1974, 1975) identified the primitive speech tion. Owing to their unique social capabilities, human acts of children at the one-word stage of language (e.g., infants learn to interpret the communicative inten- labeling, answering, requesting an action, requesting an tions of others, communicate their own intentions, answer, calling, greeting, protesting, repeating/imitating, and utilize their cognitive resources to create language and practicing) as well as the speech acts of children at knowledge that is both interpersonally driven and intra- multiword stages of language development. Beyond such personally developed. speech acts, research in the area of pragmatics addressed the child’s knowledge of presupposition (Greenfield & Smith, 1976) and the child’s understanding of conver- Social-Pragmatic Models sational protocol, including topic control and conversa- Pragmatics in linguistic theory has traditionally tional turn-taking (Bloom, Rocissano, & Hood, 1976). been concerned with the functions of language, One of the research topics that grew out of social- speaker–­ listener roles, conversational discourse, and pragmatic views of language was the nature of the adult ­presupposition. Research in the pragmatics of language input to babies and young children. Since the 1970s, originated in the work of Austin (1962) and Searle researchers in child language have noted that adults (1969). In terms of the functions of adult language, lin- speak differently to very young children than they do to guists identified three types of speech acts: perlocutions, other people. These patterns, which have been referred illocutions, and locutions. Perlocutions referred to how to as “motherese,” are characterized by utterances that ­listeners interpreted the speaker’s speech acts; illocutions are shorter in length, simpler in grammatical complex- referred to the intentions of the speaker; and locutions ity, and slower in rate of speech. Also typical of moth- referred to the meanings expressed in the utterance. erese is the use of fewer verbs, fewer tense markers, In describing how intentionality develops in young and vocabulary that is less diverse and more concrete children, Bates, Camaioni, and Volterra (1975) used this (Phillips, 1973; Snow, 1973, 1978, 1999). paradigm of functional categories. During the perlocu- In a similar vein, more recent studies have described tionary stage, which was said to extend from birth to child-directed speech (CDS) as contextually redundant 9 months, the child’s actions and behaviors are given and perceptually salient. Because most CDS refers to communicative intent by the caretaker. For example, the here and now (i.e., codes an ongoing action or activ- the caretaker might interpret a baby’s cooing as a sign of ity within the child’s view), it is contextually redundant happiness or contentment. The illocutionary stage (8 to (Akhtar, Dunham, & Dunham, 1991; Tomasello, 1988). In 12 months) marks the period of time when children first terms of perceptual salience, CDS typically has an over- produce their truly intentional behaviors, either vocally all higher fundamental frequency, exaggerated stress, a or gesturally. Gestures such as showing, giving, or point- wider range of intonation, more distinct pausing, and, ing, perhaps accompanied with vocalizations, are typi- as noted earlier, an overall slower rate (Lund & Duchan, cally used. During this time, children are said to produce 1993). Researchers suggest that the vocal and gram- the nonlinguistic precursor to the declarative referred to matical parameters of the primary linguistic data that as the protodeclarative (e.g., gesturing or vocalizing to are provided by the caretaker make semantic, syntactic, point out an object or event) as well as the nonlinguistic phonological, and pragmatic information more accessible precursor to the imperative referred to as the protoim- to the young infant, who is innately wired to receive this perative (e.g., gesturing or vocalizing to request an object information. Findings from a number of studies have sug- or an event). The third stage, referred to as the locution- gested that infant-directed speech facilitates segmentation ary stage (12 months of age), is characterized by the of the speech stream, which in turn leads to the discovery use of words produced with gestures to convey specific of phonemes and words (Kuhl, 2004; Saffran, Senghas, & meanings and intentions. Trueswell, 2001; Thiessen, Hill, & Saffran, 2005). 85041_CH02_Printer.indd 33 21/03/13 10:47 AM  34 | Language Development: Foundations, Processes, and Clinical Applications It should be emphasized that although CDS has been use in assessment as the functions of language and the found in many different cultures and languages through- forms that were used to express these functions (nonlin- out the world (e.g., Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Marathi, guistic and linguistic, conventional and unconventional) and Comanche), CDS is not used to the same extent were analyzed. Simultaneously, taxonomies of conversa- in all communities (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2000). For tional skills that addressed speaker–listener roles, topic example, in the findings reported by Brice-Heath (1983), control, and topic expansion (Prutting & Kirchner, 1987) child-directed speech was not as prevalent in one of the were included in the battery of assessment tools as the Carolina Piedmont communities studied. evaluation of language expanded beyond vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and semantics. These theories of language also had a dramatic effect Implications from a Social-Cognitive and on the interventions used with children with language ­Social-Pragmatic Perspective: Understanding, disorders. Expanding the repertoire of language inter- ­Assessing, and Treating Children with Language vention goals to prelinguistic and nonlinguistic domains Disorders of communication and recognizing all the categories of Some theories of language acquisition have had a pro- pragmatics as potential targets of therapy marked a shift found impact on the study of specific p ­ opulations of that allowed speech-language pathologists to more accu- ­language-impaired children. For example, s­ ocial-­cognitive rately address the nature of many children’s language and social-pragmatic theories, which clarified the and communication impairments. Intervention pro- ­relationship between children’s capacity for interaction grams such as It Takes Two to Talk (Pepper and Weitzman, and their capacity to learn to comprehend and produce 2004) and More than Words (Sussman, 1999) are excel- language, spoke directly to the profiles of children with lent examples of applications of the social-pragmatic autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). theories to the goals and strategies of language develop- Children with autism often present challenges in ment for children with language challenges. In both of intentionality, both in their own communication and ­ these programs, the emphasis on parent training reflects in their understanding of others’ ­ communication. In one of the hallmarks of social-pragmatic models. fact, the difficulty in reading these children’s ­intentions Over time, it became clear that there were a number set them apart from typically developing children and of groups of language-disordered children who dem- from other groups of children with language i­mpairments. onstrated problems in pragmatic abilities, including Based on social-cognitive and social-pragmatic views children with SLI and children with language-learning of language acquisition, speech-language pathologists disabilities. As a consequence, speech-language pathol- working with children on the autistic spectrum began to ogists began to more frequently generate intervention broaden their understanding of why these ­children expe- goals that embraced prelinguistic precursors to language, rienced such severe difficulties in the acquisition and functions of language, conversational skills, adjacency use of language. Atypical behaviors, such as ­echolalia, and contingency, discourse genres, communication were reconsidered. Using taxonomies of communica- repair, listener adaptation, and, to some extent, the tive intentions, the ground-breaking work of Prizant and social-emotional underpinnings of the pragmatics of Duchan (1981) as related to the functions of echolalia language. Finally, an interest in addressing the language and delayed echolalia opened the door for ­considering and conversational skills needed for successful peer that the “inappropriate” behaviors of children with ASD interactions emerged primarily as a result of our deeper were, in fact, communicative and ­intentional, albeit in understanding of social-cognitive and social-pragmatic ­unconventional ways. models of language. Many taxonomies of pragmatic development that focused on nonlinguistic aspects of communication Intentionality Model also contributed to expanding the understanding of the nature of communication impairments in children whose We end this section on interactionist views of language deficits went far beyond their linguistic systems. The acquisition with a contemporary model that reflects an emphasis on gesture, facial expression, body language, integrated perspective on the developmental language eye gaze, presupposition, and listener perspective as process. This model has particular resonance and rele- foundations of communicative competence helped us to vance for understanding,