c Pragmatic Language of African American Children and ...
38
Top Lang Disorders Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 8–45 Copyright c 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Pragmatic Language of African American Children and Adolescents A Systematic Synthesis of the Literature Yvette D. Hyter, Kenyatta O. Rivers, and Glenda DeJarnette Purpose: A systematic review and synthesis was performed on published articles and disser- tations produced between 1970 and 2013 that focused on selected pragmatic language behav- iors of African American children and adolescents. Methods: Electronic databases and hand searches of articles located in the databases were used to identify the published articles and dissertations. Each article or dissertation was reviewed by at least 2 of the authors to determine whether it met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Selected observations of the documents that met criteria for inclusion were recorded on the Primary Research Appraisal Tool (PRAT; DeJarnette, Hyter, & Rivers, 2012), a data gathering and analysis framework developed by the authors specifically for this systematic synthesis. Results: The literature search resulted in 92 re- search articles and dissertations, 37 of which were eliminated because they did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. The documents that met our inclusion criteria focused primarily on the struc- ture and/or content of narrative discourse rather than speech acts, other forms of discourse (e.g., conversation, expository), and presupposition/perspective taking skills. Six major themes identi- fied in the major findings are used to summarize studies reviewed for this systematic synthesis. Conclusions: We (a) explain the current state of knowledge about African American pragmatic language behaviors, (b) explain major findings and implications of the extant literature in this topi- cal area and how it may inform speech–language pathology practice, and (c) identify directions for future research on pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents. Key words: African American, communication functions, discourse, pragmatic language, presupposition, speech acts, systematic review and synthesis, theory of mind Author Affiliations: Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo (Dr Hyter); Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Central Florida, Orlando (Dr Rivers); and Department of Communication Disorders, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven (Dr DeJarnette). Yvette D. Hyter and Kenyatta O. Rivers have no finan- cial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose. Glenda DeJarnette discloses that she has received a faculty research grant from the Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors. P RAGMATICS is an area of international interest (Archer, Aijmer, & Wich- mann, 2012), which is studied in various Supplemental digital content is available for this ar- ticle. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.topicsin languagedisorders.com). Corresponding Author: Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC- SLP, Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5355 (yvette.hyter@wmich. edu and [email protected]). DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000043 Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 8
Transcript of c Pragmatic Language of African American Children and ...
Top Lang DisordersVol. 35, No. 1, pp. 8–45Copyright c© 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Pragmatic Language of AfricanAmerican Children andAdolescentsA Systematic Synthesis of theLiterature
Yvette D. Hyter, Kenyatta O. Rivers,and Glenda DeJarnette
Purpose: A systematic review and synthesis was performed on published articles and disser-tations produced between 1970 and 2013 that focused on selected pragmatic language behav-iors of African American children and adolescents. Methods: Electronic databases and handsearches of articles located in the databases were used to identify the published articles anddissertations. Each article or dissertation was reviewed by at least 2 of the authors to determinewhether it met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Selected observations of the documentsthat met criteria for inclusion were recorded on the Primary Research Appraisal Tool (PRAT;DeJarnette, Hyter, & Rivers, 2012), a data gathering and analysis framework developed by theauthors specifically for this systematic synthesis. Results: The literature search resulted in 92 re-search articles and dissertations, 37 of which were eliminated because they did not meet all of theinclusion criteria. The documents that met our inclusion criteria focused primarily on the struc-ture and/or content of narrative discourse rather than speech acts, other forms of discourse (e.g.,conversation, expository), and presupposition/perspective taking skills. Six major themes identi-fied in the major findings are used to summarize studies reviewed for this systematic synthesis.Conclusions: We (a) explain the current state of knowledge about African American pragmaticlanguage behaviors, (b) explain major findings and implications of the extant literature in this topi-cal area and how it may inform speech–language pathology practice, and (c) identify directions forfuture research on pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents. Key words:African American, communication functions, discourse, pragmatic language, presupposition,speech acts, systematic review and synthesis, theory of mind
Author Affiliations: Department of SpeechPathology and Audiology, Western MichiganUniversity, Kalamazoo (Dr Hyter); Department ofCommunication Sciences and Disorders, Universityof Central Florida, Orlando (Dr Rivers); andDepartment of Communication Disorders,Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven(Dr DeJarnette).
Yvette D. Hyter and Kenyatta O. Rivers have no finan-cial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose. GlendaDeJarnette discloses that she has received a facultyresearch grant from the Connecticut State UniversityAmerican Association of University Professors.
PRAGMATICS is an area of internationalinterest (Archer, Aijmer, & Wich-
mann, 2012), which is studied in various
Supplemental digital content is available for this ar-ticle. Direct URL citation appears in the printed textand is provided in the HTML and PDF versions ofthis article on the journal’s Web site (www.topicsinlanguagedisorders.com).
Corresponding Author: Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC-SLP, Western Michigan University, 1903 W. MichiganAve, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5355 ([email protected] and [email protected]).
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000043
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 9
disciplines, including speech–languagepathology, anthropology, linguistics, neu-roscience, philosophy of language, andsociology (Huang, 2012; Perkins, 2007; Xie& House, 2009). Scholars in each of thesedisciplines approach pragmatics from adifferent theoretical framework, resultingin varied conceptualizations of pragmatics.In general, however, pragmatics can bedescribed as a vast content area that consti-tutes a component of social communication(Adams, Baxendale, Lloyd, & Aldred, 2005;Coggins, Timler, & Olswang, 2007; Hyter,2007; Olswang, Coggins, & Timler, 2001).
According to Coggins et al. (2007), socialcommunication is the ability to use languageeffectively to influence others and to inter-pret situations. Social communication is notonly supported by pragmatics but also by so-cial cognitive skills and executive functioning(EF; Olswang et al., 2001; Timler, 2008), affectregulation (the reciprocal element of EF), andworking memory, which serves as the glueholding the other components of social com-munication together (Hyter, 2012; Hyter &Sloane, 2013). Perkins (2007) stressed the im-portance of approaches to pragmatics focus-ing, not only on the behaviors of individuals,but also on “underlying factors” (e.g., social–cultural, cognitive, and contextual) that moti-vate those behaviors (p. 32).
We use a holistic definition of pragmaticsin this article. This holistic definition is whatHuang (2012, p. 8) calls a “continental view.”It includes linguistic, nonlinguistic, and cog-nitive aspects of communication, as well asmacrolevel contexts (e.g., community, eco-logical, global, economic, political, or ideo-logical environments) that influence commu-nicative behaviors (Hyter, 2007, 2014; vanWormer & Besthorn, 2010).
Linguistic aspects of pragmatics refer tothe use of language to (1) communicate and(2) produce and regulate discourse in waysthat are effective on the basis of the require-ments of the communicative endeavor (deVilliers, 2004). This aspect of pragmatics in-cludes three components, the first of whichis speech acts or the communication of in-tentions (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). The sec-
ond component is the regulation and struc-ture of discourse (such as conversation, oraland written narratives, expository, and class-room discourse), which includes turn takingand repair strategies (Spinelli & Ripich, 1985;Stockman, Karasinski, & Guillory, 2008). Thethird component of pragmatics is presuppo-sition. It refers to making inferences aboutwhat communication partners know, and itincludes register switching, dialect shifts, andcode switching (Atlas, 2004; Roth & Spekman,1984a, 1984b). Presupposition also requiressocial cognitive skills, such as perspective tak-ing and theory of mind (Bates, 1976a, 1976b;de Villiers, 2004; Prutting & Kirchner, 1987).
Nonlinguistic aspects of pragmatics pro-vide a bridge between language and con-text in that gestures and body movements,facial expressions, and prosody provide in-formation about a communicator’s intentions(Bates, 1976a, 1976b; Kelly, 2001). Theseserve to facilitate the communication part-ner’s comprehension (Goldin-Meadow, 1999;McNeill, 1996, 2005). Cognitive aspects ofpragmatics focus on the cognitive skills (e.g.,implicature, inference or intention reading,perspective taking, and theory of mind)needed to interpret and comprehend what issaid in a given context (Bara, 2010; Perkins,2007; Schmid, 2012; Sperber & Wilson, 2002,2005). One’s social cultural history and in-fluences make up the macrolevel contextsfor communicative practices, as well as de-termine the roles or status of interlocutors(Hyter, 2007; Rivers, Hyter, & DeJarnette,2012; Sperber & Wilson, 2002, 2005).
Pragmatic language is important for everyaspect of human interaction. It is importantfor communicating effectively in diversesituational contexts (Levinson, 1983), aswell as with a range of communicationpartners (Hyter, 2007). As an aspect ofsocial communication (Hyter, 2012; Olswanget al., 2001), pragmatics plays a role in helpingcommunicators to see the world from others’perspectives (Epley & Caruso, 2009) and toregulate social interaction (Weiner & Schnei-der, 2002). Positive social interactions facili-tate prosocial behaviors, such as developingand maintaining interpersonal relationships
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
10 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
(Brinton, Robinson, & Fujiki, 2004). In addi-tion, pragmatics helps communicators makesense of social cues (Weiner, 2004) and canplay a role in academic outcomes (Boudreau,2008; Donahue, 1985; Eder, 1982; O’Neill,2014). Presupposition and inferring others’intentions, both components of pragmaticlanguage, facilitate comprehension of oraland written discourse, as well as figura-tive language (Troia, 2011). Multiple areasof cognition support pragmatic language(Hyter, 2012; Olswang et al., 2001; Perkins,2007), and cognitive impairments can affectpragmatic functioning (Perkins, 2007).
In addition, cultural practices are man-ifested through pragmatics (Hyter, 2007;Rivers et al., 2012). Culture can be definedas the assumptions, values, belief systems,and worldviews that guide daily practice ofgroups of people with a shared history ofproblem solving (Lustig & Koester, 2012;Ting-Toomey, 1999). It is an essential gen-erator of pragmatic language, as culturedetermines how one interprets the contextsin which communicative interactions occur,how one changes his or her own behavior onthe basis of his or her interpretation of thecommunicative context, and how one com-municates using linguistic, paralinguistic, andnonlinguistic communicative behaviors (seeDeJarnette, Rivers, & Hyter, 2015). Linguisticculture, which includes the attitudes, beliefs,and assumptions that groups of people haveabout their own group’s and other groups’ways of using language (Schiffman, 1996),also influences beliefs and perceptions oflanguage variations.
Pragmatic elements play a crucial rolein the daily lives of all communicators.This factor motivates our advocacy formore focused study of pragmatic languagebehaviors of African American children andadolescents. Although the language devel-opment of African American children andadolescents has been the focus of researchfor decades, at least since the late 1960s, mostresearch has concentrated on the structure(phonology, morphology, and syntax) andmeaning (semantics) of African AmericanEnglish (AAE; e.g., the work of Craig &
Washington, 1994, 1995, 2002; Dandy, 1991;Green, 2002, 2003; Newkirk-Turner, Oetting,& Stockman, 2014; Oetting et al., 2010;Roy, Oetting, & Moland, 2013; Seymour &Roeper, 1999; Smitherman, 1994; Stockman,2010; Stockman, Guillory, Seibert, & Boult,2013; Stockman & Vaughn-Cook, 1992; VanHofwegen & Wolfram, 2010). In contrast,there has been limited research regarding thepragmatic components of AAE.
One reason for this may be that, to date,there has not been a unifying frameworkfor examining the pragmatic language ofAfrican American children and adolescents(DeJarnette et al., 2015; Hwa-Froelich, Kasam-bira, & Moleski, 2007; Rivers et al., 2012). As aconsequence, much of the published researchon this population consists of small data sets(Hwa-Froelich et al., 2007), using inconsis-tent coding systems that might not reveal rel-evant pragmatic features (DeJarnette et al.,2015), and anecdotal accounts of languageuse (Battle, 1996; Bliss & McCabe, 2006, 2008;Collins, 1985; Gee, 1989a; Wyatt, 1995).
Knowledge of African American pragmaticlanguage is particularly important for speech–language pathologists and educators, becausemany African American children and adoles-cents may exhibit pragmatic language behav-iors that are culturally unique or differentthan their Euro American (EA) counterparts(Bliss & McCabe, 2008; DeJarnette et al., 2015;Hwa-Froelich, Kasambira, & Moleski, 2007;Rivers et al., 2012). Unfortunately, in this 21stcentury, the pragmatic language of AfricanAmerican children and adolescents is still notcompletely understood (Green, 2002; Riverset al., 2012). Such problems can be associ-ated with both over- and under-referrals forspeech–language services, as well as negativeperceptions of the communicative abilities ofAfrican American children and adolescents(Hwa-Froelich et al., 2004; Kramer, Rivers, &Ratusnik, 2000; Rivers et al., 2012).
Based on our concerns about gaps in theknowledge base regarding the pragmatic lan-guage of African American children and ado-lescents, we decided to conduct a systematicand synthesized review of the literature sothat clinicians, educators, and others will
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 11
be better equipped to distinguish languagedifferences and language disorders in class-rooms and other settings. We are aware ofno previous systematic and synthesized re-views of the literature on this topic. A searchof the Cochrane Collaboration systematic re-view database in August 2014 did not revealany published systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the pragmatic language of AfricanAmerican children and adolescents. Baker andMcLeod (2011) discussed the importance ofincorporating the methodological rigor andtransparency of systematic reviews with thecomprehensive coverage offered by narrativereviews or syntheses. That was our goal.
Accordingly, the purpose of this articlewas to review and synthesize peer-reviewedarticles and dissertations produced between1970 and 2013 regarding the pragmatic lan-guage of African American children and ado-lescents. The two-part goal was (1) to identifyliterature that has contributed to the knowl-edge base regarding pragmatic language ofAfrican American children and adolescentsand (2) to describe information that emergedfrom this literature that might inform practiceand future research in this area.
METHODS
A modified systematic review method wasused for including and excluding articles anddissertations and for extracting and codingdata from each of the included documents sothat they could be synthesized. Although typi-cal systematic reviews of the literature includeonly peer-reviewed articles published in jour-nals, we decided to include dissertations asviable data because we wanted to include anyempirical studies that could illuminate this un-derresearched topic.
Selecting primary research
Defining the time period
Although the concept of pragmatics datesback to the 1930s (Archer et al., 2012; Huang,2007; Morris, 1938), much of the seminalwork in the area of pragmatic language in
speech–language pathology emerged duringthe late 1960s, throughout the 1970s, and intothe 1980s (e.g., Austin, 1962; Bates, 1976a,1976b; Prutting & Kirchner, 1983, 1987;Searle, 1969; Wetherby & Prutting, 1984).In the 1970s, the field of speech–languagepathology was in the midst of a paradigmshift from a focus on language structure andmeaning to an increasing focus on languagefunctions. Consequently, the timeframe forthe literature search for this study was set tostart at 1970, because much of the 43-year pe-riod between 1970 and 2013 (i.e., from 1975to 2000) is what Duchan (2011) referred toas the “pragmatic revolution” in the field ofspeech–language pathology. This is the pe-riod when the cultural and situational con-texts of communication and language devel-opment began to be explored more regularlyin research investigations and discussions.
The literature search
An extensive search of the extant litera-ture produced between 1970 and 2013 wasconducted using five electronic databases andeight journals. The databases were SCOPUS,EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google Scholar, andDissertation Abstracts, each of which in-cluded multiple titles. In SCOPUS, wesearched the health sciences, social sciences,and humanities subject areas, which includedmore than 12,000 titles. In EBSCOhost, wesearched the education, health and medicine,literature and criticism, philosophy, psychol-ogy, and social sciences categories. In Pro-Quest, we searched the general database,which includes 53 ProQuest databases, alongwith the literature collections, political sci-ences, which included more than 150 titlesfrom scholarly journals, and social sciences,which had more than 1,600 scholarly jour-nals. These databases were selected becauseof their expansive reach across scholarly dis-ciplines and their likelihood of containingstudies on the pragmatic language abilities ofAfrican American children and adolescents.
Beyond these databases, journals exam-ined were the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; Language, Speech, and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Hearing Services in Schools; Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research;Journal of Black Studies; Topics in Lan-guage Disorders; Communication DisordersQuarterly; ECHO (the publication of the Na-tional Black Association of Speech-Languageand Hearing); and the Journal of Pragmatics.It should be noted that although the exten-sive search was conducted through 2013, noadditional studies have appeared in the extantliterature for 2014, as the authors conducted a“good faith measure” search of the literature,dissertation abstracts, and Cochran Collabora-tion database in August 2014.
Selected key words used to guide theliterature search were based on the waywe conceptualized pragmatics. These words,employed individually and in combination,were “African American,” “Black,” “dialectshifting,” “discourse,” “discourse regulation,”“intention reading,” “intentions,” “narrative,”“conversation,” “turn taking,” “repair,” “ex-pository,” “communication functions,” “com-munication intentions,” “persons of color,”“perspective taking,” “pragmatics,” “presup-position,” “theory of mind,” “social cogni-tion,” “social communication,” and “speechacts.” In addition to our search of the elec-tronic databases, a hand search of the refer-ences in the obtained articles was also con-ducted. Also, during five presentations aboutthis content area (at national conferences ofthe American Speech-Language-Hearing Asso-ciation (Hyter, Rivers, & DeJarnette, 2010b,2012b) and the National Black Association forSpeech-Language-Hearing [NBASLH] (Hyter,Rivers, & DeJarnette, 2010a, 2012a, 2013), theauthors polled audience members who iden-tified additional published literature that wasconsidered for this review.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria for this study were peer-reviewed, data-based articles and dissertationsthat (1) were published or conducted, respec-tively, during or after 1970 and (2) whose par-ticipant pool included at least 30% AfricanAmerican children or adolescents. We se-lected 30% as the cutoff number for African
American participants, because we wantedto make sure we did not exclude studiesthat identified relevant outcomes for AfricanAmerican children and adolescents althoughthey may have included other ethnic andracial groups in the participant pool. Confer-ence presentations, book chapters, and mas-ter’s theses were excluded from these data aswere articles that were published in languagesother than English and that included popula-tions located outside of the United States.
Data coding and analysis
The authors developed a tool, the PrimaryResearch Appraisal Tool (PRAT; DeJarnette,Hyter, & Rivers, 2012; see SupplementalDigital Content, available at: http://links.lww.com/TLD/A40), which served as a frame-work for organizing our observations of thedata. Each article and dissertation examinedin this study was coded using the PRAT.Coding consisted of reviewing each articleand dissertation and then marking “yes” or“no” to indicate the presence or absence ofa particular component. We wrote in eacharticle and dissertation’s research question(s)and/or purpose, method of data collection,findings, and implications of those findingsin the appropriate sections at the end of thePRAT.
Coding reliability was established in fourphases. First, each of the authors coded twoarticles in the data set. This was followed bya discussion about our coding decisions, sowe could calibrate our coding responses. Sec-ond, each author coded one-third (i.e., 30–31 of 92) of the articles and dissertations inthe data set. This second round of coding wasused to determine which articles matched theinclusion criteria and which ones did not.Third, after eliminating articles that did notmatch the inclusion criteria, the first authorrecoded 100% of the remaining articles us-ing calibration standards set in the first phase.Fourth, a random sampling of 10% of the arti-cles in the data set was reviewed and indepen-dently coded by each of the coauthors usingthe PRAT. The total number of agreements ofeach item on the PRAT was divided by the
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 13
total number of agreement opportunities1 toacquire an interrater agreement of 84%.
To achieve the second, more qualitativegoal of this systematic synthesis, we used aninductive thematic analysis approach to de-termine themes that emerged from purposestatements, major findings, and implicationsof research findings presented in the cor-pus (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Elo & Kyngas,2008; Harwood & Garry, 2003; Neuman,2006; Punch, 2014). First, research purposestatements were extracted from each arti-cle and dissertation and listed in a worddocument. Next, the “manifest” (i.e., overtlystated) content of each statement was identi-fied (Elo & Kyngas, 2008, p. 109). In otherwords, in the process of coding the state-ments, the coder is asking, “What is thispurpose statement about?” (Braun & Clarke,2006; Dey, 1993). Third, the manifest contentextracted from each purpose statement wasassigned a code. Codes described the basicunit of meaning inherent in the manifest con-tent of the research question (Braun & Clark,2006). Finally, themes were constructed fromthe codes. Themes comprise collections ofcodes, and they represent the core meaninginherent within the codes (Braun & Clarke,2006; Clarke & Braun, 2013; Neuman, 2006;Punch, 2014).
RESULTS
Search of the literature
The initial literature search yielded 92articles and dissertations published between1970 and 2013 that focused on some aspectof pragmatic language and reported at least30% of the participant pool as being childrenand/or adolescents who are African Ameri-can. Of these 92 articles and dissertations, 37were eliminated because they did not meet all
1Opportunities for agreement included written com-ments as well as checked boxes; thus, for each rater, atotal of 294 responses were examined for level of agree-ment with all other raters.
of the inclusion criteria. Specifically, 16 of thearticles were theoretical or a review of theliterature rather than a designed study (Ball,2002; Barnitz, 1994; Battle, 1996; Bliss &McCabe, 2006, 2008; Collins, 1985; deVilliars,2004; Gee, 1989a; Gutierrez-Clellen & Quinn,1993; Hyter, 2007; Johnson, 1995; McCabe,1997; Nichols, 1989; Stadler & Ward, 2005;Washington, 2001; Wyatt, 1995). One doc-ument (Hester & Langdon, 2008) was a pre-sentation rather than an article; two (Finger,2007; Renn, 2007) were a master’s thesisrather than a dissertation, and four (Craig &Washington, 1994, 1995, 2002; Robinson,1992) focused on language structure ratherthan language use, although discoursewas used to collect the samples for thesestudies.
Ten documents either did not meet the 30%criteria of African American participants ordid not provide sufficient information to de-termine whether 30% of the subjects wereAfrican American (Fuste-Hermann, Silliman,Bahr, Fasnacht, & Federico, 2006; Heath,1982; Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010;Hill & Coufal, 2005; Howes, Sanders, & Lee,2008; Hyter, 2003; Hyter, Rogers-Adkinson,Self, Friederich-Simmons, & Jantz, 2001; Lee,2006; McCabe & Rosenthal Rollins, 1994;Michaels, 1981); one (Myers, Rana, & Harris,1979) was an annotated bibliography ratherthan a peer-reviewed article or dissertation;one (Labov & Waletzky, 1967) was publishedbefore 1970; and two focused on a collegelevel or adult population (Norment, 1995; Sz-para & Wylie, 2007). The final corpus of 55documents comprised 39 (71%) articles and16 (29%) dissertations. Table 1 summarizesthe key findings for these 55 investigations.
Research purposes
Of the 55 articles and dissertations re-viewed, 36 (65%) included key research ques-tions, but 100% of the documents included apurpose statement. The reasons scholars pro-vided for investigating the pragmatic languageof African American children, and adolescentscan be divided both thematically and tempo-rally into four groups.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
14 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
1.B
all(
1992
)T
oin
vest
igat
ean
dch
arac
teri
zep
refe
rred
pat
tern
sfo
ro
rgan
izin
gex
per
ien
ces
amo
ng
AA
ado
lesc
ents
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Exp
osi
tory
102
(44%
)45
M;5
5F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:St
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
n
Par
tici
pan
to
bse
rvat
ion
;w
ritt
enar
tifa
cts
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anad
ole
scen
tsre
po
rted
stro
ng
pre
fere
nce
for
usi
ng
vern
acu
lar-
bas
edp
atte
rns
inac
adem
icw
riti
ng,
asth
eygo
to
lder
,al
tho
ugh
oth
ergr
ou
ps
pre
ferr
edve
rnac
ula
r-b
ased
org
aniz
atio
nal
pat
tern
sin
info
rmal
ora
lex
po
siti
on
.
Org
aniz
atio
no
fex
po
sito
ryd
isco
urs
eis
affe
cted
by
cult
ura
lpre
fere
nce
san
dye
ars
of
sch
oo
ling;
pre
fere
nce
for
org
aniz
atio
nal
pat
tern
sca
nb
evi
ewed
asan
ob
stac
leo
ra
reso
urc
efo
rsu
cces
sfu
llit
erac
y-re
late
dex
per
ien
ces.
2.B
all(
1996
)T
osh
are
info
rmat
ion
on
ho
wso
me
AA
Esp
eake
rsh
ave
succ
essf
ully
use
dth
eir
lan
guag
eab
iliti
esw
ith
inth
eco
nte
xt
of
exp
osi
tory
wri
tin
g;to
shar
ep
rin
cip
les
that
hav
eb
een
use
dto
guid
eD
r.B
all’s
wo
rkw
ith
lingu
isti
cally
div
erse
stu
den
ts
Dis
cou
rse:
Exp
osi
tory
4(1
00%
)2
M;2
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lAge
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Fiel
dn
ote
s;o
bse
rvat
ion
s;w
ritt
enar
tifa
cts;
dis
cuss
ion
s;su
rvey
s
Cu
ltu
rally
infl
uen
ced
dis
cou
rse
stra
tegi
esu
sed
;tw
oke
ygu
idin
gp
rin
cip
les
for
eval
uat
ing
AA
Ead
ole
scen
tsp
eake
rs(a
)A
AE
liter
acy
pra
ctic
esn
eed
tob
eac
cep
ted
,(b
)d
evic
esre
flec
tin
go
ralt
rad
itio
no
fA
AE
sho
uld
be
con
sid
ered
incu
rric
ula
.
Bro
ader
arra
yo
fd
iver
sevo
ices
nee
ds
tob
ein
clu
ded
inth
ew
riti
ng
curr
icu
lum
;nee
dto
bro
aden
wh
atis
valu
edin
nar
rati
ved
isco
urs
e.
3.B
lake
(198
4)D
isse
rta
tion
To
pro
vid
eev
iden
cean
da
des
crip
tio
no
fd
evel
op
men
to
fla
ngu
age
inB
lack
child
ren
.
Spee
chac
ts3
(100
%)
2M
;1F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eIn
fan
ts(1
8–24
mo
nth
s)Lo
wSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Vid
eo/a
ud
iore
cord
ing;
Mo
ther
–ch
ildin
tera
ctio
ns
AA
Efe
atu
res
wer
en
ot
ad
om
inan
tfa
cto
rin
child
ren
’sea
rly
lan
guag
e;in
tera
ctiv
ep
atte
rns
of
lan
guag
efu
nct
ion
sre
flec
ted
cult
ure
’sst
yle
of
com
mu
nic
atio
n;c
han
ges
inth
ere
lati
on
san
dfu
nct
ion
sin
flu
ence
dth
era
teo
fin
crea
sed
MLU
.
AA
child
ren
are
no
td
efici
ent
inla
ngu
age;
inte
ract
ive
com
mu
nic
atio
nsh
ow
edh
igh
deg
rees
of
inte
rper
son
alin
volv
emen
td
uri
ng
con
vers
atio
n—
ap
ote
nti
alco
nfl
ict
wit
hsc
ho
old
isco
urs
e;A
AE
feat
ure
sd
on
ot
inte
rfer
ew
ith
earl
yla
ngu
age
lear
nin
g.4.
Blis
s,C
ovi
ngt
on
,an
dM
cCab
e(1
999)
To
des
crib
eth
en
arra
tive
styl
eso
fA
Asp
eake
rsan
dto
dis
tin
guis
hn
arra
tive
defi
cits
fro
mim
pai
red
lan
guag
ep
roce
ssin
g.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve8
(100
%)
Som
eM
;So
me
F4
Typ
ical
lan
guag
e;4
Imp
aire
dla
ngu
age
2P
resc
ho
ol;
2Sc
ho
ola
ge
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
Pro
ble
ms
wit
hlin
guis
tic
pro
cess
ing
inb
oth
top
ic-c
ente
red
and
top
ic-a
sso
ciat
edn
arra
tive
sin
clu
ded
wo
rdre
trie
val
defi
cits
,dis
flu
enci
es,
ech
ola
lia,a
nd
per
seve
rati
on
.
Gu
idel
ines
pre
sen
ted
inth
isar
ticl
eca
nb
eu
sed
tod
iffe
ren
tiat
en
orm
alan
dim
pai
red
nar
rati
on
.To
pic
asso
ciat
ion
do
esn
ot
ind
icat
ela
ngu
age
imp
airm
ent.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 15
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
5.B
loo
me,
Kat
z,an
dC
ham
pio
n(2
003)
To
gen
erat
ein
sigh
tsab
ou
tn
arra
tive
dev
elo
pm
ent
by
dis
cuss
ing
the
use
of
two
dif
fere
nt
nar
rati
vest
yles
,n
arra
tive
sas
tex
t,an
dn
arra
tive
sas
per
form
ance
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve10
0(9
7%)
M;F
equ
ally
div
ided
Pre
sch
oo
lan
dki
nd
erga
rten
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Ora
lan
dw
ritt
enst
ory
telli
ng
Ch
ildre
nm
ayb
eso
cial
ized
insc
ho
olt
on
arra
tive
aste
xt;
this
soci
aliz
atio
nm
ayb
egin
earl
yan
dco
nst
itu
tea
maj
or
com
po
nen
to
fed
uca
tio
nal
fram
ewo
rks;
sch
oo
lsm
ayem
ph
asiz
en
arra
tive
aste
xt
and
dim
inis
hth
eim
po
rtan
ceo
fn
arra
tive
asp
erfo
rman
ce.
Nar
rati
ves
are
ob
ject
ified
and
sep
arat
edfr
om
the
sto
ryte
ller,
sto
ryte
llin
g,ev
ent,
and
soci
alre
lati
on
ship
s;em
ph
asis
on
nar
rati
veas
tex
tre
du
ces
the
crea
tive
pro
cess
of
nar
rati
ved
evel
op
men
tto
asu
pp
ort
ing
role
.
6.B
rid
gefo
rth
(198
8)D
isse
rta
tion
To
exte
nd
the
anal
ysis
of
the
mea
nin
gan
dfo
rms
acq
uis
itio
nto
the
fun
ctio
nal
lan
guag
eu
sep
atte
rns
amo
ng
3-an
d4.
5-ye
ar-o
ldB
lack
wo
rkin
gcl
ass
child
ren
,in
clu
din
gan
anal
ysis
of
emer
gin
gla
ngu
age
fun
ctio
ns
acro
ssb
oth
age
gro
up
s.
Spee
chac
ts8
(100
%)
4M
;4F
Pre
sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
les
inco
nve
rsat
ion
and
pla
y22
mic
ro-a
nd
5m
acro
fun
ctio
ns
iden
tifi
ed;
met
ho
do
logi
cali
ssu
esar
etr
ansc
rip
tio
no
fd
ata
(mu
stin
clu
de
con
tex
tual
info
rmat
ion
)an
dd
evel
op
men
to
fco
din
gsy
stem
(nee
dto
dev
elo
pa
fun
ctio
nal
cod
ing
syst
emth
atem
erge
sfr
om
the
dat
a).
Th
isst
ud
y’s
met
ho
do
logi
cal
issu
esh
ave
imp
licat
ion
sfo
rfu
ture
rese
arch
des
ign
s;q
ual
itat
ive
and
qu
anti
tati
vean
alys
eso
fth
isst
ud
ysh
ow
edse
vera
lpat
tern
so
fla
ngu
age
use
.
7.B
urn
s(2
004)
Dis
sert
ati
on
Tw
ost
ud
ies
wer
eco
nd
uct
ed.S
tud
y1
exam
ined
ho
wyo
un
gA
AE
spea
kers
,in
com
par
iso
nto
you
ng
GA
Esp
eake
rsag
ed4–
6ye
ars
org
aniz
eda
nar
rati
ved
uri
ng
ap
ictu
re-s
up
po
rted
task
.St
ud
y2
was
aco
mp
aris
on
of
nar
rati
veo
rgan
izat
ion
styl
eso
fh
igh
and
low
AA
Ed
iale
ctd
ensi
tysp
eake
rs.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
veSt
ud
y1:
78(6
8%)
Pre
sch
oo
lstu
dy
2:21
(100
%)
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
Stu
dy
1:T
rue
exp
erim
enta
l:W
ith
in-s
ub
ject
sd
esig
nSt
ud
y2:
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Pic
ture
elic
ited
nar
rati
ve;
Ass
essm
ent
sco
res
AA
Ean
dG
AE
spea
kers
sho
wed
equ
ival
ent
and
sign
ifica
nt
dev
elo
pm
ent
inn
arra
tive
skill
sb
etw
een
ages
4an
d6
year
s;n
osi
gnifi
can
tco
rrel
atio
nb
etw
een
ove
rall
nar
rati
vesc
ore
and
age
or
AA
Eu
se;
child
ren
mas
tere
dn
arra
tive
feat
ure
sb
y7–
8ye
ars;
no
corr
elat
ion
fou
nd
bet
wee
nt-
un
its
for
bac
kgro
un
din
form
atio
nan
dA
AE
den
sity
.
Nar
rati
vefe
atu
res
can
be
relia
bly
exam
ined
inA
AE
and
GA
Esp
eake
rs;4
-an
d5-
year
-old
sm
aste
red
few
ercr
itic
aln
arra
tive
feat
ure
sth
an6-
year
-old
s.A
AE
dia
lect
den
sity
isn
ot
ap
red
icto
ro
fn
arra
tive
org
aniz
atio
nal
styl
e.T
op
icas
soci
atio
nis
no
tle
ssw
elld
evel
op
edth
anto
pic
cen
tere
d;h
igh
po
int
anal
ysis
can
no
tb
eap
plie
dto
top
icas
soci
ativ
est
yle.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
16 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
8.C
elin
ska
(200
9)T
his
stu
dy
anal
yzed
per
son
alan
dfi
ctio
nal
nar
rati
ves
of
cult
ura
lly/e
thn
ical
lyd
iver
sest
ud
ents
wit
han
dw
ith
ou
tle
arn
ing
dis
abili
ties
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
82(4
1%)
41M
;41
F41
had
lear
nin
gd
isab
ility
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:St
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
nEl
icit
edp
erso
nal
nar
rati
ves
inco
nve
rsat
ion
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anan
dC
auca
sian
par
tici
pan
tsw
ith
and
wit
ho
ut
lear
nin
gd
isab
iliti
esp
rod
uce
dp
erso
nal
and
fict
ion
aln
arra
tive
sth
atw
ere
com
par
able
on
mo
stm
easu
res
of
nar
rati
vele
ngt
h,s
tru
ctu
ral
org
aniz
atio
n,a
nd
coh
eren
ce.T
he
two
gro
up
sd
iffe
red
wit
hre
spec
tto
thei
ru
seo
fgo
al-d
irec
ted
epis
od
icst
ruct
ure
s.St
ud
ents
wit
hle
arn
ing
dis
abili
tyte
nd
edto
reco
un
tev
ents
fro
mp
erso
nal
exp
erie
nce
inth
efo
rmo
fac
tio
nse
qu
ence
sra
ther
than
goal
-dir
ecte
dst
ruct
ure
s.In
thei
rfi
ctio
nal
nar
rati
ves,
thes
est
ud
ents
pro
du
ced
mo
rego
al-d
irec
ted
epis
od
esth
anth
eir
typ
ical
lyac
hie
vin
gp
eers
.
Ap
ply
mu
ltip
leap
pro
ach
esto
nar
rati
vean
alys
is;s
ho
uld
incl
ud
eb
oth
per
son
alan
dfi
ctio
nal
con
ten
t;n
arra
tive
abili
ties
may
no
tge
ner
aliz
eac
ross
nar
rati
vege
nre
s;sp
ecifi
cfe
atu
res
of
nar
rati
ves
may
be
asso
ciat
edw
ith
eth
nic
/cu
ltu
ralb
ackg
rou
nd
or
lear
nin
gd
isab
ility
.
9.C
ham
pio
n(1
995)
Dis
sert
ati
on
To
inve
stig
ate
the
pro
du
ctio
no
fn
arra
tive
so
fA
AE-
spea
kin
gch
ildre
n
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
15(1
00%
)5
M;1
0F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
geLo
wSE
S
Eth
no
grap
hic
Elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
form
toys
and
sto
ryp
rom
pts
Mo
reto
pic
-cen
tere
dn
arra
tive
sth
anto
pic
-ass
oci
ated
nar
rati
ves
pro
du
ced
;pro
du
ced
ara
nge
of
nar
rati
vest
ruct
ure
s;h
igh
erfr
equ
ency
of
com
ple
tean
dco
mp
lex
stru
ctu
res
than
any
oth
ers
fro
mSt
ory
Gra
mm
arA
nal
ysis
;hig
her
freq
uen
cyo
fcl
assi
cst
ruct
ure
than
any
oth
erin
Hig
hP
oin
tA
nal
ysis
Som
en
arra
tive
sco
nst
ruct
edar
ou
nd
mo
ralt
hem
es;s
om
eA
Asp
eake
rsu
sep
roso
dy
asco
nte
xtu
allin
ksto
the
stru
ctu
reo
fn
arra
tive
;im
po
rtan
tto
be
awar
eo
fp
roso
dic
pat
tern
s;St
ory
Gra
mm
aran
dH
igh
Po
int
can
be
app
lied
ton
arra
tive
so
fA
AE
spea
kers
;em
oti
on
alth
emes
may
pro
du
cem
ore
nar
rati
ves.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 17
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
10.C
ham
pio
n(1
998)
To
exam
ine
nar
rati
vest
ruct
ure
sam
on
gA
Ach
ildre
n.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
15(1
00%
)5
M;1
0F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
e
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:O
ne
gro
up
po
stte
std
esig
n
Elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
inco
nve
rsat
ion
Ch
ildre
nca
np
rod
uce
ara
nge
of
nar
rati
vest
ruct
ure
s—in
add
itio
nto
hig
hp
oin
tfo
un
d(1
)m
ora
lcen
tere
d,(
b)
per
form
ativ
e,(c
)d
isp
ute
Typ
eso
fp
rom
pts
and
cult
ura
lb
ackg
rou
nd
may
infl
uen
cen
arra
tive
stru
ctu
res,
wh
ich
are
valu
edin
thei
rco
mm
un
ity;
AA
child
ren
do
no
tp
rod
uce
on
lyo
ne
stru
ctu
re;A
Ach
ildre
np
rod
uce
mo
reto
pic
-ce
nte
red
than
top
ic-
asso
ciat
ing
nar
rati
ves.
11.C
ham
pio
n,
Seym
ou
r,an
dC
amar
ata
(199
5)
To
inve
stig
ate
the
pro
du
ctio
no
fn
arra
tive
so
fA
AE-
spea
kin
gch
ildre
nu
sin
gel
icit
atio
np
roce
du
res
that
wer
est
and
ard
acro
ssp
arti
cip
ants
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
36(1
00%
)T
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
fro
mco
nve
rsat
ion
and
pla
y;st
ory
pro
mp
ts
AA
child
ren
bet
wee
n6
and
10ye
ars
of
age
are
cap
able
of
pro
du
cin
gco
mp
lex
nar
rati
ves;
use
hig
her
leve
ln
arra
tive
stru
ctu
res
rou
tin
ely
Imp
ort
ant
for
rese
arch
ers
toev
alu
ate
nar
rati
vest
ruct
ure
usi
ng
an
um
ber
of
dif
fere
nt
con
cep
tual
fram
ewo
rks
toen
sure
child
’sco
mp
eten
cyis
no
tu
nd
eres
tim
ated
12.C
on
no
r&
Cra
ig(2
006)
To
det
erm
ine
imp
ort
ant
infl
uen
ces
on
ach
ieve
men
tb
yex
amin
ing
links
bet
wee
nA
Ast
ud
ents
’ora
lla
ngu
age
and
emer
gen
tlit
erac
ysk
ills.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve63
(100
%)
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Ass
essm
ent
sco
res;
bo
ok-
elic
ited
nar
rati
ves;
lan
guag
esa
mp
ling
Man
y(5
5)o
fth
ech
ildre
nu
sed
mo
rph
osy
nta
ctic
AA
Efo
rms
du
rin
go
raln
arra
tive
;8
did
no
t;p
resc
ho
ole
rsw
ho
freq
uen
tly
use
dA
AE
dem
on
stra
ted
stro
nge
rem
erge
nt
liter
acy
skill
s.N
oev
iden
ceth
atst
ud
ents
usi
ng
AA
Ew
ith
grea
ter
freq
uen
cyw
ou
ldh
ave
mo
red
iffi
cult
yle
arn
ing
earl
ylit
erac
ysk
ills.
Pre
sch
oo
lers
did
no
tre
spo
nd
toim
plic
itcu
esre
gard
ing
lan
guag
e;so
me
pre
sch
oo
lers
’dia
lect
shif
t.St
ud
ents
wh
ou
sed
AA
Ew
ith
grea
test
freq
uen
cyp
erfo
rmed
bes
to
nse
nte
nce
imit
atio
n.
Ove
rall
lingu
isti
csk
illis
ab
ette
rp
red
icto
ro
fre
adin
gth
anw
het
her
or
no
ta
child
use
sA
AE.
Dia
lect
shif
tin
gsh
ow
sem
ergi
ng
pra
gmat
icaw
aren
ess
that
lan
guag
eu
sed
ath
om
em
ayn
ot
be
the
lan
guag
eex
pec
ted
atsc
ho
ol.
Exp
licit
inst
ruct
ion
ind
iale
ctaw
aren
ess
may
con
trib
ute
tost
ron
ger
liter
acy
ou
tco
mes
.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
18 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
13.C
raig
and
Was
hin
gto
n(1
986)
To
exam
ine
inte
ract
ion
sb
etw
een
soci
alcl
ass
and
lingu
isti
cp
hen
om
ena
asth
eyre
late
dto
the
curr
ent
wid
ely
acce
pte
dm
od
elo
fsu
cces
sfu
ltu
rn-e
xch
ange
s
Dis
cou
rse:
Tu
rn-t
akin
g6
(100
%)
3M
;3F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling
Var
ied
rega
rdin
gn
um
ber
of
dif
fere
nt
AA
Efe
atu
res
ind
isco
urs
e;m
ost
utt
eran
ces
wer
ep
rod
uce
dn
on
sim
ult
aneo
usl
y(8
9%fo
rgi
rls
and
89.4
%fo
rb
oys
);su
cces
sfu
ltu
rnex
chan
ges
wer
efa
cilit
ated
by
no
nve
rbal
beh
avio
rs;v
erb
alb
ehav
iors
serv
edm
ino
rro
lein
dis
cou
rse
regu
lati
on
.
Cu
rren
tm
od
elfo
rsu
cces
sfu
ltu
rnex
chan
ges
can
be
use
dw
ith
spea
kers
wh
ose
lan
guag
ed
iffe
rsfr
om
SE.
On
lyo
ne
child
talk
sat
ati
me,
turn
exch
ange
sin
volv
edsp
eake
ran
dlis
ten
ercu
es;t
urn
allo
cati
on
cues
wer
ep
rim
arily
no
nve
rbal
.
14.C
raig
and
Was
hin
gto
n(2
004)
To
con
trib
ute
tocu
rren
tu
nd
erst
and
ing
of
sou
rces
of
syst
emat
icva
riat
ion
inch
ildA
AEn
glis
h(A
AE)
by
exam
inin
gth
eco
ntr
ibu
tio
no
fgr
ade
for
stu
den
tsin
elem
enta
rysc
ho
ols
.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
tin
g40
0(1
00%
)17
8M
;222
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Pre
sch
oo
lan
dsc
ho
ola
ge
Qu
asi-e
xp
erim
enta
l:N
on
ran
do
miz
edco
ntr
olg
rou
pp
rete
st–p
ost
test
des
ign
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling;
Pic
ture
des
crip
tio
nG
rad
ew
asa
sou
rce
of
syst
emat
icva
riat
ion
inA
AE
pro
du
ced
by
typ
ical
lyd
evel
op
ing
AA
stu
den
tsin
pre
sch
oo
lth
rou
ghel
emen
tary
grad
es;s
har
pd
eclin
ein
mo
rph
olo
gica
ld
iale
ctd
ensi
tyb
etw
een
kin
der
gart
enan
dfi
rst
grad
e.St
ud
ents
use
dla
rger
rep
erto
ire
of
mo
rph
osy
nta
ctic
feat
ure
sas
they
pro
gres
sed
thro
ugh
elem
enta
rygr
ades
.
Tw
op
erio
ds
of
dia
lect
shif
tin
go
ccu
rd
uri
ng
earl
ygr
ades
—o
ne
infi
rst
grad
efo
rsp
oke
nd
isco
urs
e;o
ne
atth
ird
grad
efo
ro
ralr
ead
ing;
stu
den
tsw
ho
are
mo
stlin
guis
tica
llyad
van
ced
dia
lect
shif
t;d
iale
ctsh
ifti
ng
isb
est
char
acte
rize
das
ash
arp
dec
line
that
occ
urs
ina
sho
rtti
me
fram
e;fi
rst
grad
eis
acr
itic
alti
me
for
occ
urr
ence
of
dia
lect
shif
tin
g;th
enth
ird
grad
e.15
.Cra
iget
al.
(200
9)T
oev
alu
ate
the
con
trib
uti
on
so
fd
iale
ctsh
ifti
ng
tore
adin
gac
hie
vem
ent
test
sco
res
of
AA
E-sp
eaki
ng
stu
den
tsw
hen
con
tro
llin
gfo
rth
eef
fect
of
SES,
ora
lla
ngu
age
abili
ties
,an
dw
riti
ng
skill
s.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
tin
g16
5(1
00%
)“h
alf”
M;“
hal
f”F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge
Exp
ost
fact
od
esig
nA
sses
smen
tsc
ore
s;la
ngu
age
sam
plin
g;re
spo
nse
toin
form
atio
nre
qu
ests
AA
Ep
rod
uct
ion
rate
sw
ere
inve
rsel
yre
late
dto
read
ing
ach
ieve
men
tsc
ore
san
dd
ecre
ased
sign
ifica
ntl
yb
etw
een
ora
lan
dw
ritt
enn
arra
tive
s.Lo
wer
rate
sin
wri
tin
gp
red
icte
da
sub
stan
tial
amo
un
to
fva
rian
cein
read
ing
sco
res
sho
win
gsi
gnifi
can
td
irec
tan
din
dir
ect
effe
cts
med
iate
db
yo
rall
angu
age
com
pre
hen
sio
n.
Th
ese
fin
din
gssu
pp
ort
the
dia
lect
shif
tin
g,re
adin
gac
hie
vem
ent
hyp
oth
esis
that
AA
Esp
eake
rsw
ho
lear
nto
use
GA
Ein
liter
acy
task
sw
illo
utp
erfo
rmth
eir
pee
rsw
ho
do
no
tle
arn
tou
seG
AE.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 19T
able
1.
Sele
cted
char
acte
rist
ics
of
anal
yzed
arti
cles
and
dis
sert
atio
ns
(Con
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
16.C
ure
nto
n(2
004)
To
inve
stig
ate
the
rela
tio
nsh
ipb
etw
een
nar
rati
vesk
ills
and
theo
ryo
fm
ind
for
low
-inco
me
child
ren
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Th
eory
of
min
d72
(50%
)32
M;4
0F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
Exp
ost
fact
oFa
lse
bel
ief
task
s;st
ory
rete
llu
sin
gFr
og
Wh
ere
Are
You
?(M
ayer
,19
69)
50%
of
AA
and
72%
of
EAch
ildre
np
erfo
rmed
fals
eb
elie
fta
sks
adeq
uat
ely;
old
erch
ildre
nh
adb
ette
rn
arra
tive
skill
sth
anyo
un
ger
child
ren
;AA
child
ren
less
likel
yto
pas
sfa
lse
bel
ief
than
EAch
ildre
n;
coh
eren
ceco
rrel
ated
wit
hin
tern
alst
ate
talk
;EA
fals
eb
elie
fd
idn
ot
acco
un
tfo
rva
rian
cein
child
ren
’sn
arra
tive
skill
s;A
Aw
ho
pas
sed
fals
eb
elie
veto
ldb
ette
rst
ori
es.
Po
or
per
form
ance
do
esn
ot
ind
icat
ech
ildd
on
ot
un
der
stan
dco
nce
pt
of
fals
eb
elie
f;A
Ach
ildre
nw
ou
ldb
eb
ette
rto
dem
on
stra
teth
eir
skill
sin
ata
skth
atta
pp
edm
ore
into
nar
rati
vem
od
eo
fth
ou
ght
rath
erth
anp
rop
osi
tio
nal
mo
de
of
tho
ugh
t;A
Afa
lse-
bel
ief
per
form
ance
pre
dic
ted
nar
rati
vesk
ills.
17.C
ure
nto
n,
Jon
es,C
raig
,an
dFl
anig
an(2
008)
To
exam
ine
ho
wyo
un
gch
ildre
nle
arn
tou
sea
sop
his
tica
ted
form
of
ora
lla
ngu
age
calle
dd
eco
nte
xtu
aliz
edd
isco
urs
e.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve33
(70%
)19
M;1
4F
Pre
sch
oo
lSc
ho
ola
ge
Tru
eex
per
imen
tal:
Wit
hin
sub
ject
sd
esig
n
Mo
ther
–ch
ildin
tera
ctio
n;
vid
eore
cord
ings
;sto
ryge
ner
atio
n
Sto
ryte
llin
gw
asth
eb
est
op
po
rtu
nit
yfo
rm
oth
ers
tosh
ow
case
dis
cou
rse
skill
s;st
ory
-cre
atin
gco
nte
xt
pro
vid
edb
est
op
po
rtu
nit
yfo
rch
ildre
nto
dem
on
stra
teo
rall
angu
age
skill
s;si
mila
ru
seo
fd
eco
nte
xtu
aliz
edsp
eech
inst
ory
read
ing
con
tex
t.M
oth
ers
wit
hh
igh
erlit
erac
yw
ere
mo
relik
ely
tou
sem
enta
llin
guis
tic
verb
sin
all3
con
tex
ts.
Allo
wch
ildto
pre
ten
dto
read
toyo
u;e
nco
ura
gep
aren
tsto
shar
eo
rals
tori
esw
ith
thei
rch
ildre
n;t
his
isw
her
ech
ildre
nar
eex
po
sed
toth
em
ost
sop
his
tica
ted
talk
.P
aren
t–ch
ildlit
erac
yin
terv
enti
on
sho
uld
enco
ura
ged
yad
sto
inte
ract
usi
ng
vari
ou
sfo
rms
of
sto
ries
.Nee
dto
exam
ine
qu
esti
on
ing
and
com
men
tte
chn
iqu
es.
18.C
ure
nto
nan
dJu
stic
e(2
004)
To
exp
lore
and
char
acte
rize
pre
sch
oo
lch
ildre
n’s
use
of
liter
ate
lan
guag
efe
atu
res
tod
eter
min
ew
het
her
thes
efe
atu
res
wer
ep
rese
nt
inn
arra
tive
san
dto
det
erm
ine
wh
eth
eru
sage
vari
edas
afu
nct
ion
of
age
and
/or
eth
nic
ity.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve67
(46%
)29
M;3
8F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:St
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
nSt
ory
gen
erat
ion
Lite
rate
lan
guag
efe
atu
res
occ
urr
edfo
r3-
to5-
year
-old
s.C
on
jun
ctio
nu
seis
po
siti
vely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
com
ple
xel
abo
rate
dn
ou
np
hra
ses
and
adve
rbs;
use
of
com
ple
xan
dsi
mp
leel
abo
rate
dn
ou
np
hra
ses
was
inve
rsel
yre
late
d;n
od
iffe
ren
cein
AA
and
EAra
tes,
bu
tag
e-re
late
dd
iffe
ren
ceo
ccu
rred
inu
seo
fm
enta
lsta
teve
rbs
and
con
jun
ctio
ns.
Res
ult
sar
ep
arti
cula
rly
rele
van
tfo
rch
ildre
nfr
om
low
SES,
ap
op
ula
tio
nth
atis
vuln
erab
lefo
rd
iffi
cult
ies
inlit
erac
yd
evel
op
men
t(J
ust
ice
&Ez
ell,
2001
).C
hild
ren
wh
od
on
ot
use
liter
ate
lan
guag
efe
atu
res
atth
era
tes
des
crib
edh
ere
may
rece
ive
targ
eted
assi
stan
cesu
pp
ort
ing
thei
ru
seo
fth
ese
feat
ure
s.P
rom
oti
ng
liter
ate
lan
guag
eu
sein
the
earl
iest
stag
eso
fd
evel
op
men
t,SL
Ps
may
pre
ven
tla
ter
dif
ficu
ltie
s.(c
on
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
20 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
Low
SES
use
dm
ore
AA
Eth
anG
AE;
par
tici
pan
tsfr
om
low
SES
cod
esw
itch
edle
sso
ften
than
tho
sefr
om
hig
hSE
S.19
.Ett
er-L
ewis
(198
5)D
isse
rta
tion
To
anal
yze
cod
esw
itch
ing
inth
ela
ngu
age
of
Bla
ckch
ildre
nin
ord
erto
des
crib
eso
cial
clas
sef
fect
so
nch
ildre
n’s
use
of
dia
lect
vari
ants
.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Co
de
swit
chin
g88
(100
)44
M;4
4F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Var
iety
of
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Co
nve
rsat
ion
;pic
ture
des
crip
tio
n;p
lay;
sen
ten
cere
pet
itio
n
Dif
fere
nt
pat
tern
so
fu
sefo
un
dfo
rp
arti
cip
ants
fro
mea
chSE
S;co
de
swit
chin
go
ccu
rred
leas
tin
con
vers
atio
nan
dm
ost
inp
up
pet
pla
y;p
arti
cip
ants
fro
mh
igh
SES
use
dm
ore
GA
Eth
anA
AE;
tho
sefr
om
All
child
ren
use
dA
AE
no
tle
ssth
an10
%d
uri
ng
each
task
.A
AE
spo
ken
by
mem
ber
so
fth
eB
lack
Am
eric
anco
mm
un
ity
and
isn
ot
un
iqu
eto
tho
sew
ho
lack
edu
cati
on
or
are
imp
ove
rish
ed.
20.F
ord
and
Milo
sky
(200
8)T
oex
amin
ew
het
her
you
ng
child
ren
wit
hT
Lan
dch
ildre
nw
ith
LIin
fer
emo
tio
ns
du
rin
gd
isco
urs
ean
dto
exam
ine
the
rela
tio
nsh
ipo
fth
isab
ility
toso
cial
com
pet
ence
.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Em
oti
on
alin
fere
nce
32(5
3%)
16ty
pic
al;
16la
ngu
age
imp
aire
dP
resc
ho
ol
Mix
edd
esig
nw
ith
mat
ched
sam
ple
sP
reex
per
imen
tal:
Stat
icgr
ou
pco
mp
aris
on
Exp
ost
fact
o
Act
ivat
edem
oti
on
sw
ith
vid
eo;a
sses
smen
tsc
ore
s;ve
rbal
resp
on
seti
me
TL
likel
yto
mak
eem
oti
on
alin
fere
nce
insh
ort
sto
ries
;LI
did
no
tm
ake
emo
tio
nal
infe
ren
ces;
abili
tyto
mak
eem
oti
on
alin
fere
nce
sp
red
icte
db
yla
ngu
age
mea
sure
s,V
RT
,an
dso
cial
com
pet
ence
.
Mak
ing
emo
tio
nal
infe
ren
ces
isre
late
dto
com
pre
hen
sio
nan
dso
cial
com
pet
ence
;sh
ou
ldb
ero
uti
nel
yas
sess
edan
dta
rget
edin
lan
guag
ein
terv
enti
on
.To
mak
ean
infe
ren
cere
qu
ires
wo
rdkn
ow
led
gean
dem
oti
on
alre
cogn
itio
n.
21.G
arre
tt(1
996)
Dis
sert
ati
on
To
inve
stig
ate
coh
esio
nin
the
ora
lnar
rati
ves
of
AA
child
ren
wh
ore
ado
nan
db
elo
wgr
ade
leve
l.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve40
(100
%)
20M
;20
Fo
n-g
rad
e–an
db
elo
w-g
rad
e–le
vel
read
ers
Sch
oo
lAge
Mid
dle
SES
Mix
edd
esig
nN
on
exp
erim
enta
l:D
escr
ipti
vean
dp
red
icti
veEx
po
stfa
cto
Nar
rati
vesa
mp
le;a
ud
iore
cord
ing
No
sign
ifica
nt
dif
fere
nce
inco
hes
ive
dev
ises
use
db
yav
erag
ean
db
elo
wav
erag
ere
ader
so
rb
ym
ales
and
fem
ales
;no
sign
ifica
nt
inte
ract
ion
bet
wee
nre
adin
gle
vela
nd
gen
der
;all
par
tici
pan
tsu
sed
refe
ren
cep
ron
ou
ns
mo
reth
anco
nju
nct
ion
sas
coh
esiv
ed
evic
es.T
ho
sew
ith
low
read
ing
sco
res
sho
wed
mo
rein
com
ple
teco
hes
ive
ties
and
less
amb
igu
ou
sti
esth
anp
eers
wit
hav
erag
ere
adin
g
Sho
uld
no
to
nly
focu
so
nlin
guis
tic
asp
ects
of
coh
esio
n;n
eed
toin
clu
de
no
nlin
guis
tic
asp
ects
of
dis
cou
rse.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 21
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
22.G
ee(1
989)
To
pro
vid
ea
lingu
isti
can
alys
iso
fst
ori
esto
off
era
view
of
psy
cho
lingu
isti
cally
rele
van
tst
ruct
ure
sch
arac
teri
stic
of
spo
ken
nar
rati
ves;
too
utl
ine
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve2
(50%
)0
M;2
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Sto
ryge
ner
atio
nN
arra
tive
styl
eis
asso
ciat
edw
ith
cult
ura
lid
enti
tyan
dp
rese
nta
tio
no
fse
lf;w
hen
AA
girl
told
sto
ryto
wh
ite
mal
e,sh
esw
itch
edn
arra
tive
styl
es
Sch
oo
lmay
no
tu
nd
erst
and
or
valu
eth
ecu
ltu
rals
tyle
of
exp
ress
ion
;do
esn
ot
see
its
con
nec
tio
nto
cult
ure
and
sen
seo
fse
lf;d
oes
no
tu
nd
erst
and
imp
licat
ion
so
fas
kin
gB
lack
child
tosw
itch
nar
rati
vest
yle
(lo
sese
lf);
do
esn
ot
give
acce
ssto
inst
ruct
ion
that
wo
uld
ensu
reab
ility
tosw
itch
styl
es.
23.G
idn
ey(1
995)
Dis
sert
ati
on
To
pre
sen
tan
anal
ysis
of
the
role
sth
atco
nju
nct
ion
sp
lay
inth
en
arra
tive
dis
cou
rse
of
AA
child
ren
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve22
(100
%)
11M
;11
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Inte
rvie
w“a
nd
”is
pri
nci
pal
con
nec
tive
use
dan
dis
use
din
ava
riet
yo
fw
ays;
child
ren
aged
10–1
2ye
ars
still
hea
vily
rely
on
“an
d.”
Use
of
con
nec
tive
sin
AA
Eh
ave
un
iqu
eas
pec
tsin
clu
din
g“b
ecau
se,”
bei
ng
use
dto
ind
icat
eca
use
asw
ella
sse
rve
pra
gmat
icfu
nct
ion
s;“a
nd
”u
sed
toco
ord
inat
eve
rbst
ruct
ure
s.
For
child
ren
wh
osp
eak
ad
iale
ct,t
he
tran
siti
on
fro
mo
ralt
ow
ritt
enis
wid
erth
anfo
rth
ose
wh
ose
ho
me
lan
guag
eis
clo
ser
toth
e“s
tan
dar
d.”
Incr
ease
dkn
ow
led
geo
fve
rbal
rep
erto
ire
of
AA
child
ren
may
hel
pte
ach
ers
and
adm
inis
trat
ors
tod
evis
em
ater
ials
that
take
into
acco
un
tch
ildre
n’s
ho
me
lan
guag
e(s)
.24
.Go
od
win
(198
0)T
oan
alyz
eth
ecu
ltu
ral
pro
ced
ure
su
sed
by
fem
ale
child
ren
too
rgan
ize
afo
rmo
fgo
ssip
dis
pu
teth
atth
eyca
ll,“h
e-sa
id-s
he-
said
.”T
osh
ow
wh
atty
pes
of
utt
eran
ces
gen
erat
eth
issp
eech
even
tan
du
nd
erst
and
ho
wp
arti
cip
ants
use
thei
rac
tio
ns
tora
nk
on
ean
oth
er.
Dis
cou
rse:
Dis
pu
tes
44(1
00%
)0
M;4
4F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Pla
yT
hir
dp
arti
esin
he-
said
-sh
e-sa
idar
eim
po
rtan
tn
ot
inth
eco
nfr
on
tati
on
bu
tin
the
rep
ort
ing
stag
e,th
eyac
tas
inst
igat
ors
inse
ttin
gu
pa
con
fro
nta
tio
nat
afu
ture
stag
e;sp
ecta
tors
wh
oat
tem
pt
toin
terv
ene
can
be
pen
aliz
edb
yth
ep
rin
cip
alac
tors
inth
ed
isp
ute
;co
mp
rom
ises
do
no
to
ccu
r.
Th
esp
eech
of
child
ren
atp
lay,
par
ticu
larl
yta
lkta
ken
tob
eai
mle
ssac
tivi
ty(M
alin
ow
ski,
1959
,p.3
15)
con
stit
ute
sp
ow
erfu
lm
anif
esta
tio
ns
of
lingu
isti
cco
mp
eten
ceas
wel
las
soci
alan
dcu
ltu
ral
com
pet
ence
.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
22 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015T
able
1.
Sele
cted
char
acte
rist
ics
of
anal
yzed
arti
cles
and
dis
sert
atio
ns
(Con
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
25.G
orm
an,
Fies
tas,
Pen
a,an
dR
eyn
old
sC
lark
(201
1)
To
anal
yze
the
effe
cts
of
cult
ure
on
the
crea
tive
and
styl
isti
cfe
atu
res
inn
arra
tive
pro
du
ctio
n
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve60
(33.
33%
)30
M;3
0F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge
Pre
exp
erim
enta
lSt
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
n
Pic
ture
bo
ok
elic
ited
nar
rati
veSi
mila
riti
esan
dd
iffe
ren
ces
fou
nd
bet
wee
net
hn
icgr
ou
ps.
No
sign
ifica
nt
dif
fere
nce
sw
ere
fou
nd
rega
rdin
go
rgan
izat
ion
alst
yle
or
use
of
par
alin
guis
tic
dev
ices
.AA
child
ren
incl
ud
edm
ore
fan
tasy
inth
eir
sto
ries
;Lat
ino
child
ren
incl
ud
edn
ames
char
acte
rsm
ore
oft
en;C
auca
sian
child
ren
mad
em
ore
refe
ren
ces
toth
en
atu
reo
fch
arac
ter
rela
tio
nsh
ips.
Cu
ltu
rein
flu
ence
sn
arra
tive
pro
du
ctio
nev
enin
ah
igh
lyst
ruct
ure
dn
arra
tive
task
on
the
bas
iso
fw
ord
less
pic
ture
bo
oks
.U
nd
erst
and
ing
of
nar
rati
vest
ruct
ure
,cre
ativ
ity,
and
styl
eis
imp
ort
ant
top
rovi
de
eco
logi
cally
valid
nar
rati
veas
sess
men
tan
din
terv
enti
on
.
26.H
amm
eran
dW
eiss
(199
9)Ex
plo
red
ho
wA
Am
oth
ers
and
thei
rin
fan
tsat
the
sin
gle-
wo
rdst
age
of
dev
elo
pm
ent
stru
ctu
red
thei
rp
lay
and
com
mu
nic
ated
wit
hea
cho
ther
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Pla
yin
tera
ctio
n12
(100
%)
4M
;8F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eIn
fan
ts6
Low
SES;
6M
idd
leSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
and
pre
dic
tive
Ass
essm
ent
sco
res;
inte
rvie
w;p
arti
cip
ant
ob
serv
atio
n;p
lay
Low
SES
and
mid
dle
SES
dya
ds
pla
yed
insi
mila
rw
ays;
ther
ew
asin
div
idu
alva
riab
ility
inb
oth
SES
gro
up
sre
gard
ing
pla
yan
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
pat
tern
s.
As
child
ren
gro
wo
lder
and
com
ple
xit
yo
fla
ngu
age
incr
ease
s,d
iffe
ren
ces
bet
wee
nlo
wan
dm
idd
leSE
Sm
igh
tap
pea
r,b
ut
itw
ou
ldn
ot
be
bec
ause
par
ents
pro
vid
eda
defi
cien
tla
ngu
age
lear
nin
gen
viro
nm
ent.
Low
erla
ngu
age
and
sch
oo
lo
utc
om
esm
ayre
sult
fro
mst
and
ard
ized
asse
ssm
ents
of
skill
sva
lued
by
mid
dle
SES;
and
inte
ract
ion
styl
esat
ho
me
are
dif
fere
nt
fro
mst
yles
the
child
isex
po
sed
toin
sch
oo
l.27
.Hes
ter
(199
7)D
isse
rtat
ion
:T
oex
amin
ere
lati
on
ship
sb
etw
een
nar
rati
vest
yle,
dia
lect
,an
dre
adin
gab
ility
.
Dis
sert
atio
n:N
arra
tive
56(1
00%
)14
AA
E;14
GA
E+
No
rmal
read
ing
14A
AE;
14G
AE
+Im
pai
red
read
ing
Sch
oo
lage
Low
and
mid
dle
SES
Exp
ost
fact
oFa
cto
rial
:Tw
o-fa
cto
rex
per
imen
tald
esig
n
Pic
ture
-elic
ited
nar
rati
veC
hild
ren
wit
hre
adin
gd
iso
rder
sre
gard
less
of
dia
lect
pro
du
ced
sho
rter
sto
ries
than
child
ren
wit
hn
orm
alre
adin
g;ch
ildre
nw
ith
read
ing
dis
ord
ers
pro
du
ced
few
erco
das
than
child
ren
wit
hn
orm
alre
adin
g.G
AE
spea
kers
use
dm
ore
adve
rsat
ives
for
coh
esio
nth
anA
AE;
all
child
ren
use
dm
ore
liter
ate
styl
efe
atu
res
infa
nta
syth
anin
scri
pt
sto
ry.
Nar
rati
vest
yle
ism
ore
clo
sely
rela
ted
tore
adin
gth
anto
dia
lect
;sto
ryty
pe
infl
uen
ces
nar
rati
vest
yle
feat
ure
s.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 23T
able
1.
Sele
cted
char
acte
rist
ics
of
anal
yzed
arti
cles
and
dis
sert
atio
ns
(Con
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
28.H
ort
on
-Ikar
d(2
009)
Exp
lore
dth
ety
pe
and
adeq
uac
yo
fco
hes
ive
dev
ices
pro
du
ced
by
sch
oo
l-age
dch
ildre
nw
ho
use
AA
E.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve33
(100
%)
18M
;15
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Mid
dle
/hig
hSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling
AA
Esp
eake
rsp
rod
uce
d5
dif
fere
nt
typ
eso
fA
AE
refe
ren
tial
toke
ns
bu
to
nly
two
(un
dif
fere
nti
ated
pro
no
un
and
pro
no
un
exte
nsi
on
)w
ere
use
das
coh
esiv
ed
evic
es.G
reat
erp
rofi
cien
cyin
usi
ng
per
son
alre
fere
nce
mar
kers
.A
gew
asa
sign
ifica
nt
fact
or
for
adeq
uac
yra
tes
of
per
son
al,d
emo
nst
rati
ve,
and
lex
ical
refe
ren
tial
coh
esio
nb
ut
no
tco
nju
nct
ive
mar
kers
.
At
you
nge
rag
es,t
he
typ
eo
fco
hes
ive
mar
ker
use
dim
pac
tsad
equ
acy
rate
s.Y
ou
nge
rch
ildre
nu
sep
erso
nal
refe
ren
cem
arke
rsm
ore
effi
cien
tly
than
dem
on
stra
tive
mar
kers
.As
child
ren
age
and
mat
ure
lingu
isti
cally
,th
eir
abili
ties
toad
equ
atel
yu
seth
ese
mar
kers
will
no
td
epen
do
nth
ety
pe
of
refe
ren
cem
arke
r.
29.H
wa-
Fro
elic
het
al.(
2007
)T
od
escr
ibe
the
com
mu
nic
ativ
efu
nct
ion
su
sed
by
AA
Hea
dSt
art
child
ren
du
rin
gp
lay
Spee
chac
ts16
(100
%)
8M
;8F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Par
tici
pan
to
bse
rvat
ion
;La
ngu
age
sam
plin
g;P
lay
Pre
sch
oo
lers
use
d5
of
the
10T
ou
gh(1
982)
fun
ctio
ns
and
the
Sto
ckm
an(1
996)
fun
ctio
ns
of
dir
ecti
ng,
imag
inin
g,re
po
rtin
g,o
blig
ated
resp
on
ses,
self
-mai
nta
inin
g.T
hey
did
no
to
ften
use
pre
dic
tio
n,
pro
ject
ion
,rea
son
ing,
rep
air,
and
verb
alro
uti
nes
.Si
gnifi
can
tge
nd
erd
iffe
ren
ces
wer
efo
un
dfo
rty
pes
of
fun
ctio
ns
and
typ
eso
fo
blig
ated
resp
on
ses.
No
sign
ifica
nt
dif
fere
nce
for
MLU
or
com
mu
nic
atio
nfu
nct
ion
sb
etw
een
sch
oo
lan
dag
egr
ou
p.
Co
mm
un
icat
ive
fun
ctio
ns
req
uir
ing
com
ple
xco
gnit
ive
pla
nn
ing
wer
en
ot
exp
ress
ed.
Bo
ysan
dgi
rls
pro
du
ced
iffe
ren
tco
mm
un
icat
ive
fun
ctio
ns.
AA
child
ren
pro
du
cea
vari
ety
of
fun
ctio
ns
rega
rdle
sso
fge
nd
er.P
atte
rns
of
use
can
hel
pte
ach
ers
and
SLP
sd
iscr
imin
ate
bet
wee
nd
iffe
ren
tan
dd
iso
rder
edco
mm
un
icat
ion
per
form
ance
.Lin
kin
glit
erat
eac
tivi
ties
and
pla
ym
ayin
crea
seu
seo
ffu
nct
ion
sre
qu
irin
gco
mp
lex
cogn
itiv
ep
lan
nin
g.
30.H
yon
and
Sulz
by
(199
4)T
oas
sess
the
freq
uen
cyo
fto
pic
asso
ciat
ing
nar
rati
ves
amo
ng
AA
kin
der
gart
ener
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve48
(100
%)
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eLo
wSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Pic
ture
-elic
ited
nar
rati
veSo
me
of
the
child
ren
(N=
16)
told
top
ic-a
sso
ciat
ive
sto
ries
;oth
ers
(N=
28)
told
top
ic-c
ente
red
sto
ries
.St
ory
bo
ok
and
fair
yta
leth
emes
and
stru
ctu
res
wer
ep
rese
nt
acro
sstw
on
arra
tive
styl
es.
To
pic
-ass
oci
atin
gn
arra
tive
sis
no
tth
ed
om
inan
tn
arra
tive
styl
ein
this
po
pu
lati
on
.T
hem
atic
and
stru
ctu
ral
char
acte
rist
ics
of
nar
rati
ves
are
bas
edo
nco
nte
xts
for
spee
chan
dlit
erac
yin
the
clas
sro
om
.(c
on
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
24 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015T
able
1.
Sele
cted
char
acte
rist
ics
of
anal
yzed
arti
cles
and
dis
sert
atio
ns
(Con
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
31.H
yter
(199
4)D
isse
rta
tion
To
char
acte
rize
the
lex
ical
,p
roso
dic
,an
dki
nes
icst
rate
gies
use
db
yp
read
ole
scen
tsp
eake
rso
fA
AE
tod
eno
tere
fere
nti
alco
hes
ion
ino
raln
arra
tive
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve30
(100
%)
15M
;15
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:O
ne
gro
up
po
stte
stM
ovi
e-el
icit
edn
arra
tive
wit
hFr
og
Goes
toD
inn
er(M
ayer
,O
sbo
rn,S
tum
er,&
Tem
ple
ton
,198
5).
Lex
ical
info
rmat
ion
isp
rim
arily
use
dto
com
mu
nic
ate
refe
ren
tial
coh
esio
n;p
roso
dic
and
kin
esic
cues
are
use
dto
sup
po
rtle
xic
alin
form
atio
n.
Vo
wel
elo
nga
tio
nan
dri
se–f
allc
on
tou
rsm
ark
char
acte
rsas
new
.Kin
esic
cues
acco
mp
anie
dle
xic
ally
un
dif
fere
nti
ated
pro
no
min
alre
fere
nce
san
dga
vein
form
atio
nn
ot
pro
vid
edle
xic
ally
.
Mo
rere
sear
chis
nee
ded
toev
alu
ate
the
inte
ract
ion
bet
wee
nle
xic
al,p
roso
dic
,an
dki
nes
icch
ann
els
du
rin
gn
arra
tive
dis
cou
rse.
Co
mp
lex
ity
of
stim
ulu
su
sed
toel
icit
the
nar
rati
vem
ayaf
fect
refe
ren
tial
cho
ices
and
clau
sal
stru
ctu
re.
32.K
asam
bir
a(2
008)
To
des
crib
eth
eco
gnit
ive–
com
mu
nic
ativ
efu
nct
ion
sd
emo
nst
rate
db
yp
resc
ho
ole
rsan
dth
eir
mo
ther
sd
uri
ng
teac
hin
gan
dp
lay
inte
ract
ion
sw
ith
focu
so
nco
mm
un
icat
ive
fun
ctio
ns.
Spee
chac
ts95
(35%
)44
M;5
1F
Pre
sch
oo
l51
%Lo
wSE
S;49
%“n
on
po
or”
Mix
edd
esig
nw
ith
fact
ori
al:C
om
bin
edex
per
imen
tala
nd
exp
ost
fact
od
esig
ns
Vid
eore
cord
ings
;pla
y;ad
ult
–ch
ildin
tera
ctio
ns
Sign
ifica
nt
rela
tio
nsh
ips
bet
wee
nm
oth
erco
mm
un
icat
ive
fun
ctio
ns
and
child
com
mu
nic
ativ
efu
nct
ion
s;d
emo
grap
hic
fact
ors
such
asSE
S,ge
nd
er,
race
/eth
nic
ity,
and
mo
ther
com
mu
nic
ativ
efu
nct
ion
sh
adst
ron
glin
kw
ith
child
ou
tco
mes
.
Pu
rpo
sefu
len
cou
rage
men
to
fch
ildse
lf-m
ain
tain
ing
inb
oys
may
be
use
fult
oin
crea
sefr
equ
ency
of
app
rop
riat
eu
seo
fla
ngu
age
tom
eet
nee
ds
du
rin
gco
nfl
ict;
raci
alet
hn
icd
iffe
ren
ced
emo
nst
rate
db
yA
Aan
dLa
tin
om
oth
ers.
Pre
sch
oo
ltea
cher
sm
ayn
eed
toad
just
tost
ud
ents
’n
eed
sco
nsi
der
ing
race
/eth
nic
ity,
SES,
and
gen
der
.33
.Lea
per
,T
enen
bau
m,
and
Shaf
fer
(199
9)
To
inve
stig
ate
gen
der
effe
cts
on
the
con
vers
atio
nal
stra
tegi
esu
sed
by
AA
child
ren
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Co
nve
rsat
ion
106
(100
%)
60M
;46
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Pee
r-to
-pee
rin
tera
ctio
n;
pla
yM
ost
com
mo
nco
mm
un
icat
ion
stra
tegi
esfo
rgi
rlo
rb
oy
pai
rsw
ere
colla
bora
tion
and
info
rmin
g.G
irlp
airs
wer
eh
igh
lyco
llab
ora
tive
;bo
yp
airs
wer
em
ore
likel
yto
use
con
tro
llin
gco
mm
un
icat
ion
acts
and
toen
gage
ind
om
inee
rin
gex
chan
ges
wh
ilep
layi
ng
wit
hp
up
pet
s;ge
nd
erd
iffe
ren
ces
ind
om
inee
rin
gex
chan
ges
wer
elim
ited
tosa
me
gen
der
inte
ract
ion
san
dd
idn
ot
occ
ur
inm
ixed
gen
der
inte
ract
ion
s.
Un
der
stan
din
gch
ange
sin
child
ren
’sb
ehav
iors
wh
enin
tera
ctin
gw
ith
ap
arti
cula
rge
nd
erca
nh
elp
teac
her
sd
eter
min
ew
het
her
asa
me-
sex
dya
dw
ou
ldb
eb
enefi
cial
for
ast
ud
ent
or
vice
vers
a.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 25
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
34.M
ain
ess,
Ch
amp
ion
,an
dM
cCab
e(2
002)
To
anal
yze
the
nar
rati
ves
of
AA
pre
ado
lesc
ents
usi
ng
dep
end
ency
anal
ysis
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve16
(100
%)
8M
;8F
Typ
ical
Lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
geLo
wan
dm
idd
leSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Co
nve
rsat
ion
;sto
ryp
rom
pts
Low
SES
child
ren
reac
hed
ah
igh
erle
velo
fp
rop
osi
tio
nth
anm
idd
leSE
Sch
ildre
n.
Gir
lsre
ach
eda
hig
her
leve
lo
fp
rop
osi
tio
nth
anb
oys
.C
hild
ren
pri
mar
ilyp
rod
uce
dto
pic
-cen
tere
dn
arra
tive
sth
atco
nsi
sted
of
94%
exp
licit
pro
po
siti
on
s;n
arra
tive
sco
nta
ined
littl
ere
po
rted
spee
ch.L
ow
SES
child
ren
pro
du
ced
mo
reel
abo
rate
nar
rati
ves
than
mid
dle
SES
child
ren
.
An
alyz
ing
nar
rati
ves
of
oth
erd
iver
segr
ou
ps
wit
hd
epen
den
cyan
alys
ism
ayb
eu
sefu
lbec
ause
of
its
app
licab
ility
toa
vari
ety
of
typ
eso
fd
isco
urs
ean
dit
isfr
eed
fro
mp
ote
nti
ally
cult
ure
-bo
un
das
sum
pti
on
s.
35.M
cGre
gor
(200
0)St
ud
y1:
To
colle
ctlo
cal
no
rms
on
nar
rati
ved
evel
op
men
t.St
ud
y2:
Mea
sure
the
sho
rt-t
erm
effe
cto
fp
eer
mo
del
so
np
resc
ho
ole
rs’
nar
rati
on
.St
ud
y3:
Exp
lore
wh
eth
erth
ein
flu
ence
of
pee
rsco
uld
be
use
dto
faci
litat
en
arra
tio
n.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
veSt
ud
y1:
52(1
00%
)St
ud
y2:
26(1
00%
)St
ud
y3:
14(1
00%
)P
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
Qu
asi-e
xp
erim
enta
l:N
on
ran
do
miz
edco
ntr
olg
rou
pp
rete
st–p
ost
test
des
ign
Pic
ture
bo
ok–
elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
Dev
elo
pm
enta
ldif
fere
nce
sin
bo
thth
en
um
ber
of
child
ren
wh
oev
iden
ced
the
use
of
stru
ctu
rala
nd
coh
esiv
eel
emen
tsan
dth
efr
equ
ency
wit
hw
hic
hth
ech
ildre
nu
sed
thes
eel
emen
ts.B
etw
een
3-an
d5-
year
s-o
lds,
mo
rech
ildre
nb
egan
tou
sese
ttin
gst
atem
ents
,co
mp
licat
ing
acti
on
s,an
dco
das
.C
oh
esiv
eel
emen
tsin
crea
sew
ith
age;
mo
rech
ildre
nu
sed
tem
po
ral
con
jun
ctio
ns.
Mo
rest
ruct
ura
lan
dco
hes
ive
toke
ns
inst
ori
eso
f4
year
old
sth
anin
tho
seo
f3
year
old
s.
Earl
yin
terv
enti
on
for
nar
rati
on
can
be
effe
ctiv
e.T
his
stu
dy
sugg
ests
the
viab
ility
of
acl
inic
ian
-pro
mp
ted
pee
r-m
edia
ted
app
roac
hto
trai
nin
gn
arra
tio
n.I
tal
sosh
ow
sth
eim
po
rtan
tad
van
tage
of
pee
r-m
edia
ted
inte
rven
tio
nb
ecau
seit
pro
mo
tes
inst
ruct
ion
alco
ngr
uen
cein
the
con
tex
to
fcu
ltu
rala
nd
lingu
isti
cm
ism
atch
esb
etw
een
clin
icia
nan
dcl
ien
t.C
olle
ctio
no
flo
cald
ata
allo
wed
iden
tifi
cati
on
of
ase
to
fst
ruct
ura
lan
dco
hes
ive
elem
ents
that
can
be
char
acte
rist
ical
lyex
pec
ted
inb
oo
k-b
ased
nar
rati
ves
of
the
par
ticu
lar
com
mu
nit
y.(c
on
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
26 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
36.M
idd
leto
n(1
992)
Dis
sert
ati
on
Exp
lore
sla
ngu
age
use
amo
ng
wo
rkin
g-cl
ass
child
ren
inte
ract
ing
inva
rio
us
nat
ura
listi
cco
nte
xts
wit
ho
ther
sin
thei
ren
viro
nm
ent.
Spee
chac
ts4
(100
%)
2M
;2F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
geLo
wSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Vid
eoan
dau
dio
reco
rdin
gs;l
angu
age
sam
plin
g
Th
ree
mo
stfr
equ
entl
yo
ccu
rrin
gm
icro
fun
ctio
ns
app
eari
ng
inla
ngu
age
of
all
sub
ject
sw
ere
rep
ort
ing
per
son
alfa
cts,
rep
ort
ing
per
son
alfe
elin
gs,a
nd
resp
on
din
gto
per
son
alq
ues
tio
ns.
Gen
der
dif
fere
nce
sw
ere
evid
ent
on
the
bas
iso
ffr
equ
ency
of
occ
urr
ence
of
fun
ctio
ns
use
dw
ith
mal
esu
sin
gta
un
tin
g,ca
llin
g,in
dir
ect
dir
ecti
ves,
and
com
pla
inin
gm
ore
than
fem
ales
.Fem
ales
use
dre
po
rtin
gp
erso
nal
fact
s,re
po
rtin
gp
erso
nal
feel
ings
,res
po
nd
ing
top
erso
nal
qu
esti
on
s,re
spo
nd
ing
toin
form
atio
nq
ues
tio
ns,
resp
on
din
gto
op
inio
n,a
nd
resp
on
din
gto
req
ues
tsfo
rcl
arifi
cati
on
mo
reth
anm
ales
.Mal
esu
sed
mo
re(N
=8)
mac
rofu
nct
ion
sth
anfe
mal
es(N
=6)
.
Th
isst
ud
yad
dre
sses
met
ho
do
logi
cali
ssu
esth
atim
pac
tth
efr
amew
ork
tob
eu
sed
infu
ture
rese
arch
,th
atis
,dat
aco
llect
ion
bas
edo
nn
atu
ralis
tic
acti
vity
(usi
ng
vid
eoan
dau
dio
);tr
ansc
rip
tio
no
fd
ata
elic
ited
fro
mp
ragm
atic
stu
die
s(i
nco
rpo
rate
dan
alys
iso
fu
tter
ance
sat
mic
roin
add
itio
nto
mac
role
vel.
Mic
role
velw
asm
ore
sen
siti
veto
ind
ivid
ual
dif
fere
nce
s);a
nd
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
aco
din
gsy
stem
app
rop
riat
efo
rth
isp
op
ula
tio
no
fsp
eake
rs.
Imp
ove
rish
edh
om
esd
on
ot
resu
ltin
defi
cien
tla
ngu
age
skill
s;h
om
een
viro
nm
ents
yiel
ded
agr
eat
dea
lof
fun
ctio
nal
lan
guag
e.
37.M
ills,
Wat
kin
s,an
dW
ash
ingt
on
(201
3)
To
inve
stig
ate
stru
ctu
ral
and
dia
lect
aln
arra
tive
char
acte
rist
ics
bet
wee
nfi
ctio
nal
and
per
son
aln
arra
tive
so
fA
Ach
ildre
n.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
43(1
00%
)T
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
68%
Low
SES
Tru
eex
per
imen
tal
des
ign
:Wit
hin
sub
ject
sd
esig
n
Fict
ion
alan
dp
erso
nal
nar
rati
ve;w
ord
less
bo
ok;
Sto
ryp
rom
pts
Stat
isti
cally
sign
ifica
nt
dif
fere
nce
sb
etw
een
the
two
typ
eso
fn
arra
tive
wer
efo
un
dfo
rb
oth
mac
rost
ruct
ure
san
dm
icro
stru
ctu
res,
bu
tn
ot
for
dia
lect
den
sity
.No
grad
e-re
late
dd
iffe
ren
ces
wer
efo
un
din
any
of
tho
sear
eas.
Exp
ress
ive
elab
ora
tio
nan
alys
ish
old
sp
rom
ise
asa
cult
ure
-fair
met
ho
do
fas
sess
ing
the
mac
rost
ruct
ura
lnar
rati
vela
ngu
age
skill
so
fyo
un
gsc
ho
ol-a
ged
AA
child
ren
.In
add
itio
n,w
ord
less
pic
ture
bo
oks
may
be
the
bes
tco
nte
xt
for
elic
itat
ion
of
fict
ion
aln
arra
tive
sth
atd
isp
lay
eval
uat
ive
elem
ents
.(c
on
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 27
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
38.N
elso
n(2
010)
To
inve
stig
ate
chan
ges
inm
ult
ileve
lin
dic
ato
rso
fw
ritt
enla
ngu
age
per
form
ance
by
AA
and
Euro
pea
nA
mer
ican
stu
den
ts,i
ncl
ud
ing
chan
ges
inA
AE
use
,as
asse
ssed
ino
rigi
nal
sto
ryp
rob
esw
ritt
enin
dep
end
entl
yin
thre
e1-
hr
sess
ion
sac
ross
the
sch
oo
lyea
r.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve38
(47%
)18
M;4
F(o
fA
A)
29T
ypic
alla
ngu
age
9Im
pai
red
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
geLo
wSE
S
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:St
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
nW
ritt
enar
tifa
cts;
Sto
ryp
rom
pts
Sign
ifica
nt
and
sim
ilar
incr
ease
sw
ere
fou
nd
for
AA
and
Euro
pea
nA
mer
ican
stu
den
tsin
sto
rysc
ore
s,to
taln
um
ber
of
wo
rds,
nu
mb
ero
fd
iffe
ren
tw
ord
s,an
dp
rop
ort
ion
of
wo
rds
spel
led
corr
ectl
y;ra
cial
gro
up
was
asi
gnifi
can
tb
etw
een
-gro
up
fact
or
on
lyfo
rA
AE
and
for
sen
ten
ceco
rrec
tnes
sm
easu
res;
and
alm
ost
no
asso
ciat
ion
sw
ere
fou
nd
bet
wee
nra
tes
of
AA
Efe
atu
reco
des
and
ind
epen
den
td
isco
urs
ean
dw
ord
-leve
lmea
sure
s.
Ad
iver
segr
ou
po
fst
ud
ents
,in
clu
din
gth
ose
wit
hd
isab
iliti
es,c
anim
pro
veth
eir
wri
tin
gab
iliti
eso
ver
the
cou
rse
of
asi
ngl
esc
ho
ol
year
wh
engi
ven
exte
nsi
ve,
exp
licit
inst
ruct
ion
inh
ow
toco
mm
un
icat
ein
wri
tin
g.
39.P
ena,
Gill
am,
Mal
ek,
Ru
iz-F
elte
r,R
esen
diz
,Fi
esta
s,an
dSa
bel
(200
6)
To
exam
ine
relia
bili
tyan
dcl
assi
fica
tio
nac
cura
cyo
fa
nar
rati
on
-bas
edd
ynam
icas
sess
men
tta
sk.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve30
(47%
)12
M;1
8F
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
Tru
eex
per
imen
tal
des
ign
:P
rete
st–p
ost
test
con
tro
lgro
up
des
ign
;w
ith
in-s
ub
ject
sd
esig
n
Sto
ryel
icit
edfr
om
wo
rdle
ssp
ictu
reb
oo
ksT
he
resu
lts
of
the
firs
tex
per
imen
tin
dic
ated
that
nar
rati
vem
easu
res
app
lied
tost
ori
esab
ou
t2
dif
fere
nt
wo
rdle
ssp
ictu
reb
oo
ksh
adgo
od
inte
rnal
con
sist
ency
.In
Exp
erim
ent
2,ty
pic
ally
dev
elo
pin
gch
ildre
nw
ho
rece
ived
med
iate
dle
arn
ing
dem
on
stra
ted
agr
eate
rp
rete
stto
po
stte
stch
ange
than
did
child
ren
inth
eLI
and
con
tro
lgro
up
s.
Th
efi
rst
exp
erim
ent
sup
po
rted
the
use
of
2w
ord
less
pic
ture
bo
oks
asst
imu
lus
mat
eria
lsfo
rco
llect
ing
nar
rati
ves
bef
ore
and
afte
rm
edia
tio
nw
ith
ina
dyn
amic
asse
ssm
ent
par
adig
m.T
he
seco
nd
exp
erim
ent
sup
po
rted
the
use
of
dyn
amic
asse
ssm
ent
for
accu
rate
lyid
enti
fyin
gla
ngu
age
imp
airm
ents
insc
ho
ol-a
ged
child
ren
.40
.Pet
ers
(198
3)D
isse
rta
tion
To
exam
ine
lan
guag
eu
sage
toac
cou
nt
for
the
soci
al/i
nte
ract
ive
dim
ensi
on
asw
ella
scu
ltu
rald
imen
sio
ns.
Dat
ad
eriv
edfr
om
the
rese
arch
sho
wh
ow
child
ren
fro
md
iffe
ren
tSE
Sb
ackg
rou
nd
su
sesp
eech
acts
toco
mm
un
icat
eid
eas
and
feel
ing
inch
angi
ng
situ
atio
ns.
Spee
chac
ts8
(100
%)
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
and
mid
dle
SES
Pre
exp
erim
enta
l:St
atic
gro
up
com
par
iso
nV
ideo
reco
rdin
gs;
adu
lt–c
hild
inte
ract
ion
s
LSES
par
tici
pan
tsp
rod
uce
das
man
yu
tter
ance
sas
MSE
Sch
ildre
nd
uri
ng
inte
ract
ion
sw
ith
mo
ther
san
dst
ran
gers
.C
hild
ren
spen
d6
min
mo
rew
ith
stra
nge
rsth
anm
oth
ers.
Bo
thSE
Sgr
ou
ps
pro
du
ced
mo
reu
tter
ance
sw
ith
mo
ther
than
wit
hst
ran
ger,
wit
hM
SES
pro
du
cin
g23
%m
ore
than
LSES
gro
up
;LSE
Sm
oth
ers
LSES
child
ren
may
nee
dm
ore
tim
ew
ith
stra
nge
rsto
acco
mp
lish
the
sam
eam
ou
nt
of
lan
guag
eas
MSE
Sch
ildre
n.T
his
stu
dy
also
pro
po
ses
au
niv
ersa
lset
of
sen
ten
cety
pe
cate
gori
esan
dco
mm
un
icat
ive
fun
ctio
ns.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
28 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
focu
sed
mo
reo
np
layi
ng
wit
hto
ysra
ther
than
stim
ula
tin
gla
ngu
age
abo
ut
toys
;MSE
San
dLS
ESp
rod
uce
dsi
mila
rse
nte
nce
typ
es,a
sw
ella
sco
mm
un
icat
ion
fun
ctio
nty
pes
(mo
stto
leas
tw
ere
info
rma
tive
s,re
gula
tive
s,im
agi
na
tive
s,so
cia
ls,
emoti
on
als
,an
dre
qu
esti
ves)
.41
.Pri
ce,R
ob
erts
,an
dJa
ckso
n(2
006)
To
des
crib
eth
est
ory
gram
mar
elem
ents
pre
sen
tin
child
ren
’sn
arra
tive
sd
uri
ng
ast
ory
rete
llin
gta
sk;t
od
eter
min
ew
het
her
ther
ear
ed
iffe
ren
ces
inth
en
um
ber
san
dty
pes
of
sto
ryel
emen
tsin
child
ren
’sn
arra
tive
s;to
exam
ine
the
rela
tio
nsh
ipb
etw
een
child
ren
’sn
arra
tive
san
dch
ildan
dfa
mily
bac
kgro
un
dch
arac
teri
stic
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
65(1
00%
)30
M;3
5F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Sto
ryre
telli
ng
usi
ng
Th
eB
us
Story
Lan
gua
geTes
t(R
enfr
ew,1
992)
Th
e4-
year
-old
sn
arra
ted
som
eat
tem
pts
toso
lve
the
sto
ry’s
pro
ble
man
del
emen
tso
fit
sen
din
g.U
po
nen
teri
ng
kin
der
gart
en,p
arti
cip
ants
had
hig
her
tota
lnar
rati
vesc
ore
san
din
clu
ded
mo
reo
fev
ery
typ
eo
fst
ory
gram
mar
elem
ent,
exce
pt
rela
tio
nsh
ip.
Th
eB
us
Sto
ryLa
ngu
age
Tes
tap
pea
rsto
be
anas
sess
men
tto
olt
hat
isse
nsi
tive
tost
ruct
ura
lgro
wth
inA
Ach
ildre
n’s
nar
rati
ves
fro
m4
year
sto
kin
der
gart
enen
try.
42.R
enn
(201
0)D
isse
rta
tion
To
pro
vid
em
ore
insi
ght
into
the
lingu
isti
cb
ehav
ior
of
you
thw
ho
are
lear
nin
gth
eso
cial
ram
ifica
tio
ns
of
spee
chst
yle.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
t88
(100
%)
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge71
%lo
wan
d29
%m
idd
leSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling
Th
ep
arti
cip
ants
use
dsi
gnifi
can
tly
mo
reA
AE
inin
form
alsi
tuat
ion
sth
anin
form
alsi
tuat
ion
s.T
hey
use
dal
mo
sttw
ice
asm
any
dif
fere
nt
AA
Efo
rms
inth
ein
form
alp
eer
envi
ron
men
t,in
dic
atin
gth
atth
esp
eake
rsp
oss
esse
da
vari
edin
ven
tory
of
vern
acu
lar
feat
ure
sb
ut
cho
seto
dra
wo
na
rest
rict
edra
nge
of
thes
efo
rms
un
der
form
alci
rcu
mst
ance
s.
Th
ere
sult
sre
veal
edsh
ifts
inth
eo
vera
llin
ven
tory
of
stru
ctu
res
use
db
yth
ep
arti
cip
ants
,in
dic
atin
gth
atad
ole
scen
tsh
ave
agr
ow
ing
awar
enes
so
fth
ero
leo
fsi
tuat
ion
alco
nte
xt
inad
just
ing
thei
rsp
eech
.In
add
itio
n,n
ot
alld
iale
ctfe
atu
res
exam
ined
wer
eim
plic
ated
insh
ifti
ng.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 29
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
43.R
enn
and
Ter
ry(2
009)
To
inve
stig
ate
wh
eth
era
sub
set
of
AA
vern
acu
lar
Engl
ish
feat
ure
sca
nb
eu
sed
toq
uan
tify
styl
isti
cva
riat
ion
insi
xth
grad
ers.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
t10
8(1
00%
)T
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
and
mid
dle
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling;
adu
lt–c
hild
inte
ract
ion
s;p
eer
inte
ract
ion
s
Th
esu
cces
so
fth
esu
bse
tm
easu
rein
dic
ated
that
am
easu
reco
nta
inin
ga
smal
ln
um
ber
of
feat
ure
sca
nb
eef
fect
ivel
yu
sed
toid
enti
fyst
yle
shif
tin
AA
VE.
An
alys
esre
veal
edth
atth
ela
rger
Dia
lect
Den
sity
Mea
sure
sw
ere
hig
hly
corr
elat
edw
ith
the
sub
test
mea
sure
,in
dic
atin
gth
ata
smal
lnu
mb
ero
ffe
atu
res
can
be
use
dto
relia
bly
refl
ect
styl
esh
ifti
ng.
44.R
iver
s(2
001)
Dis
sert
ati
on
:T
oin
vest
igat
eth
ein
flu
ence
of
pro
mp
to
nth
est
ruct
ure
and
con
ten
to
fA
AEn
glis
hn
arra
tive
s,as
wel
las
con
sid
erre
lati
on
ship
so
fth
ese
vari
able
sto
read
ing
and
exp
ress
ive
lan
guag
e.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve29
(100
%)
9M
;20
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Per
son
aln
arra
tive
;fi
ctio
nal
nar
rati
ve;
sto
ryp
rom
pts
Per
son
aln
arra
tive
sh
adfe
wer
wo
rds
and
t-u
nit
san
dh
igh
erty
pe-
toke
nra
tio
sth
anfi
ctio
nal
sto
ries
.
Th
ep
arti
cip
ants
dis
pla
yed
ara
nge
of
ora
lan
dlit
erat
est
yles
of
nar
rati
on
,an
dth
eycr
eate
linea
rlit
erat
e-b
ased
sto
ries
.
45.R
iver
s,R
osa
-Lu
go,a
nd
Hed
rick
(200
4)
To
inve
stig
ate
the
(1)
per
form
ance
of
AA
ado
lesc
ent
mal
esat
ten
din
gan
urb
an,h
igh
sch
oo
lon
the
Woodco
ckLa
ngu
age
Pro
fici
ency
Ba
tter
y-R
evis
ed(W
LPB
-R)
inan
atte
mp
tto
esta
blis
hlo
caln
orm
san
d(2
)re
lati
on
ship
bet
wee
nth
efr
equ
ency
of
AA
Efe
atu
res
pro
du
ced
by
AA
ado
lesc
ents
mal
esan
dth
eir
per
form
ance
on
the
WLP
B-R
.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
16(1
00%
)T
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Low
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Co
nve
rsat
ion
s;as
sess
men
tsc
ore
sN
osi
gnifi
can
tco
rrel
atio
nex
iste
db
etw
een
par
tici
pan
ts’W
LPB
-Rcl
ust
ersc
ore
and
thei
ru
sage
of
AA
Efe
atu
res.
Th
eW
LPB
-Rco
uld
po
ten
tial
lyb
eu
sed
toid
enti
fyst
ren
gth
san
dw
eakn
esse
sin
ado
lesc
ents
wh
ou
sen
on
-Gen
eral
Am
eric
anEn
glis
hd
iale
cts,
and
ther
eis
an
eed
for
loca
lno
rms
for
this
inst
rum
ent.
46.R
oss
,Oet
tin
g,an
dSt
aple
ton
(200
4)
To
inve
stig
ate
wh
eth
erch
ildre
nw
ho
spea
kA
AEn
glis
h(A
AE)
use
dh
ad
+V
-ed
tore
fer
tosi
mp
lep
ast
ten
sew
ith
inn
arra
tive
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ves
93(4
3%)
Typ
ical
and
imp
aire
dla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Tru
eex
per
imen
t:P
rete
st–p
ost
test
wit
hco
ntr
olg
rou
p
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling;
adu
lt–c
hild
pla
yA
bo
ut
hal
fo
fth
eA
AE
spea
kers
(an
dn
on
eo
fth
eSW
Esp
eake
rs)
pro
du
ced
ha
d+
V-e
das
ap
rete
rite
,an
dth
ese
form
sfr
equ
entl
yo
ccu
rred
inth
eco
mp
licat
ing
acti
on
clau
ses
of
nar
rati
ves.
AA
Esp
eake
rs’
use
of
pre
teri
teh
ad
+V
-ed
also
incr
ease
dw
ith
age
and
was
dir
ectl
yre
late
dto
nar
rati
vesk
ill.
Th
ere
isa
grea
td
ealt
ob
ele
arn
edb
yst
ud
yin
gd
iffe
ren
tty
pes
of
lan
guag
eva
riat
ion
(i.e
.,n
orm
alan
dim
pai
red
)at
the
sam
eti
me.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
30 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015T
able
1.
Sele
cted
char
acte
rist
ics
of
anal
yzed
arti
cles
and
dis
sert
atio
ns
(Con
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
47.S
chac
hte
ran
dC
raig
(201
3)T
oex
amin
eh
ow
mac
rost
ruct
ure
and
mic
rost
ruct
ure
feat
ure
san
dth
ep
rod
uct
ion
of
AA
Efe
atu
res
coo
ccu
rw
ith
inn
arra
tive
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve30
(100
%)
“hal
f”M
;“h
alf”
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
Hal
flo
wan
dh
alf
mid
dle
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Sto
ryte
llin
gta
skY
ou
ng
AA
E-sp
eaki
ng
stu
den
tsu
sed
ava
riet
yo
fSG
nar
rati
vefe
atu
res
tod
evel
op
the
plo
tin
thei
ro
rals
tori
es.
Yo
un
gch
ildre
nu
sed
bo
thA
AE
and
elab
ora
tive
feat
ure
sin
thei
rn
arra
tive
s.P
arti
cula
rA
AE
feat
ure
sfa
cilit
ated
plo
td
evel
op
men
t,an
dth
eu
seo
fm
ore
elab
ora
tive
feat
ure
sp
osi
tive
lyp
red
icte
dh
igh
ern
arra
tive
dev
elo
pm
ent
sco
res.
48.S
per
ry(1
991)
Dis
sert
ati
on
:T
oill
um
inat
eth
ed
evel
op
men
talp
atte
rno
fco
nve
rsat
ion
aln
arra
tio
nas
itis
con
verg
edu
po
nb
yco
nst
rain
tsfo
rth
com
ing
fro
mb
oth
the
ind
ivid
ual
and
oth
erp
erso
ns
inth
eso
cial
envi
ron
men
t.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve14
(100
%)
7M
;7F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Mid
dle
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Des
crip
tive
Vid
eoo
bse
rvat
ion
s;in
terv
iew
sSo
cial
izat
ion
goal
s,ch
ildre
arin
gp
ract
ices
(in
clu
din
gp
erce
pti
on
so
fch
ildab
iliti
esan
dd
esir
es),
and
soci
ocu
ltu
raln
orm
so
fn
arra
tio
nm
oti
vate
ho
wfa
mily
mem
ber
sjo
intl
yco
nst
ruct
nar
rati
vein
tera
ctio
ns
wit
hth
eir
tod
dle
rs.
An
alys
essu
gges
ted
that
mo
ther
sso
cial
ize
thei
rd
augh
ters
into
aco
llab
ora
tive
nar
rati
ng
styl
ean
dth
eir
son
sin
toa
solo
nar
rati
ng
styl
e.
49.S
per
ryan
dSp
erry
(199
6)T
oin
vest
igat
eyo
un
gch
ildre
n’s
pro
du
ctiv
eco
mp
eten
cew
ith
rega
rdto
vari
ou
sty
pes
of
nat
ura
llyo
ccu
rrin
gn
arra
tive
-like
con
vers
atio
n.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve8
(100
%)
4M
;4F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eT
od
dle
rsLo
wSE
S
Eth
no
grap
hic
Inte
ract
ion
wit
hco
mm
un
ity
mem
ber
s;vi
deo
reco
rdin
go
fo
bse
rvat
ion
s;in
terv
iew
s
Par
tici
pan
tsp
rod
uce
dm
ore
fict
ion
alth
ante
mp
ora
ln
arra
tive
-like
epis
od
es.
Fict
ion
alep
iso
des
wer
em
ore
com
ple
xth
ante
mp
ora
lep
iso
des
and
con
tain
edm
ore
new
mo
rph
eme
typ
esan
dev
ents
per
epis
od
e;p
arti
cip
ants
intr
od
uce
da
grea
ter
pro
po
rtio
no
ffi
ctio
nal
than
tem
po
rale
pis
od
esan
dm
orp
hem
ety
pes
,d
emo
nst
rati
ng
incr
ease
din
tere
stin
fict
ion
alto
pic
s.
Fict
ion
ald
isp
lace
men
tm
ayb
eea
sier
than
tem
po
ral
dis
pla
cem
ent
for
this
gro
up
of
child
ren
.
50.S
tock
man
etal
.(20
08)
To
des
crib
eth
ety
pes
and
freq
uen
cyo
fco
nve
rsat
ion
alre
pai
rsu
sed
by
AA
child
ren
inre
lati
on
ship
toth
eir
geo
grap
hic
loca
tio
ns
and
leve
lso
fp
erfo
rman
ceo
nco
mm
on
lyu
sed
spee
ch–l
angu
age
mea
sure
s.
Dis
cou
rse:
Co
nve
rsat
ion
120
(100
%)
48M
;72
F93
typ
ical
lan
guag
e27
imp
aire
dla
ngu
age
Pre
sch
oo
lLo
wSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Lan
guag
esa
mp
ling
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anch
ildre
nu
sed
the
sam
ety
pes
of
con
vers
atio
nal
rep
air
stra
tegi
esth
ath
ave
bee
no
bse
rved
amo
ng
you
ng
spea
kers
of
stan
dar
dEn
glis
hva
riet
ies.
Use
of
con
vers
atio
nal
rep
airs
sho
uld
be
incl
ud
edam
on
gth
ep
ragm
atic
beh
avio
rsex
pec
ted
for
3-ye
ar-o
ldA
Ach
ildre
n.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 31
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
51.T
erry
,Co
nn
or,
Tat
e,an
dLo
ve(2
010)
To
exam
ine
rela
tio
nsh
ips
bet
wee
nth
eu
seo
fn
on
mai
nst
ream
Am
eric
anEn
glis
hd
iale
cts,
liter
acy
skill
s,an
dsc
ho
ol
envi
ron
men
tam
on
gty
pic
ally
dev
elo
pin
gfi
rst
grad
ers
ino
rder
tod
escr
ibe
and
bet
ter
un
der
stan
dth
ed
iffi
cult
ies
man
ych
ildre
nfr
om
lingu
isti
cally
div
erse
bac
kgro
un
ds
exp
erie
nce
wh
ilele
arn
ing
tore
ad.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
t61
7(4
8%)
50%
M;5
0%F
90%
typ
ical
lan
guag
e10
%im
pai
red
lan
guag
eSc
ho
ola
ge
Tru
eex
per
imen
tal
Ass
essm
ent
mea
sure
sT
he
rela
tio
nsh
ips
bet
wee
nD
VA
Ran
dlit
erac
yo
utc
om
esd
epen
ded
on
the
ou
tco
me
of
inte
rest
and
sch
oo
lSES
.Ho
wev
er,
child
ren
’sra
ced
idn
ot
gen
eral
lyaf
fect
the
traj
ecto
ryo
rst
ren
gth
of
the
rela
tio
nsh
ips
bet
wee
no
utc
om
esan
dd
iale
ctva
riat
ion
.
Th
ere
lati
on
ship
bet
wee
nD
VA
Ran
dlit
erac
ysk
ills
isd
epen
den
tn
ot
on
lyo
nth
elit
erac
ysk
illit
self
bu
tal
soo
nth
eag
e/gr
ade
leve
lof
the
stu
den
tsan
dth
een
viro
nm
ents
inw
hic
hth
eyar
eed
uca
ted
.
52.T
erry
,Mill
s,B
ingh
am,
Man
sou
r,an
dM
aren
cin
(201
3)
Th
e4
pu
rpo
ses
of
this
stu
dy
wer
eto
des
crib
eo
ral
nar
rati
vep
erfo
rman
ceo
fty
pic
ally
dev
elo
pin
gA
Ap
reki
nd
erga
rten
ers
mac
ro-a
nd
mic
rost
ruct
ure
mea
sure
s;ex
amin
eco
ncu
rren
tan
dp
red
icti
vere
lati
on
sb
etw
een
nar
rati
vep
erfo
rman
ce,s
po
ken
dia
lect
use
,vo
cab
ula
ry,
and
sto
ryco
mp
reh
ensi
on
;to
exp
lore
chan
gein
nar
rati
vep
erfo
rman
ced
uri
ng
the
sch
oo
lyea
r.
Dis
cou
rse:
Co
nve
rsat
ion
146
(100
%)
47.4
%M
;56.
2%F
Pre
sch
oo
lLo
wSE
S
No
nex
per
imen
tal
des
ign
:Pre
dic
tive
Sto
ryR
etel
lusi
ng
Frog
Wh
ere
Are
You
?(M
ayer
,196
9)
Th
ep
arti
cip
ants
inth
isst
ud
yp
erfo
rmed
wit
hin
age-
app
rop
riat
eex
pec
tati
on
so
nea
chn
arra
tive
mea
sure
.In
gen
eral
,nar
rati
vep
erfo
rman
cew
asco
rrel
ated
wit
han
dp
red
icte
db
yco
mp
lex
syn
tax
and
voca
bu
lary
skill
san
dw
asn
ot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
spo
ken
dia
lect
use
.
Fin
din
gsfr
om
this
stu
dy
pro
vid
ecr
itic
aln
orm
ativ
ed
ata
on
ora
lnar
rati
vesk
ills
of
you
ng,
typ
ical
lyd
evel
op
ing
AA
child
ren
.T
hey
may
also
be
use
fuli
nin
terp
reti
ng
the
per
form
ance
of
AA
child
ren
bo
thw
ith
and
wit
ho
ut
lear
nin
gd
iffi
cult
ies
or
lan
guag
eim
pai
rmen
ts.
(con
tin
ues
)
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
32 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Tab
le1
.Se
lect
edch
arac
teri
stic
so
fan
alyz
edar
ticl
esan
dd
isse
rtat
ion
s(C
on
tin
ued
)
Art
icle
san
dD
isse
rtat
ion
sC
om
pri
sin
gC
orp
us
Res
earc
hP
urp
ose
Maj
or
Co
nst
ruct
Inve
stig
ated
Par
tici
pan
tC
har
acte
rist
ics
Res
earc
hD
esig
nD
ata-
Gat
her
ing
Pro
ced
ure
sM
ajo
rF
ind
ings
Imp
lica
tio
ns
of
Fin
din
gs
53.T
ho
mp
son
,C
raig
,an
dW
ash
ingt
on
(200
4)
To
pro
be
furt
her
ap
ote
nti
alre
lati
on
ship
bet
wee
nA
AE
and
lingu
isti
cco
mp
lex
ity
by
exam
inin
gA
AE
and
com
ple
xit
yin
the
sem
anti
cd
om
ain
.
Pre
sup
po
siti
on
:Dia
lect
shif
t50
(100
%)
26M
;24
FT
ypic
alla
ngu
age
Sch
oo
lage
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Rea
din
g;w
ritt
enar
tifa
cts;
pic
ture
des
crip
tio
nA
do
wn
war
dsh
ift
inco
ntr
asti
veA
AE
feat
ure
sw
asev
iden
tb
etw
een
spo
ken
dis
cou
rse
and
the
liter
acy
con
tex
ts.M
ore
stu
den
tsp
rod
uce
dm
ore
AA
Efe
atu
res
du
rin
gp
ictu
red
escr
ipti
on
than
wri
tin
g.B
oth
mo
rph
osy
nta
ctic
and
ph
on
olo
gica
lfea
ture
sch
arac
teri
zed
pic
ture
des
crip
tio
nco
nte
xt.
Ph
on
olo
gica
lfea
ture
sp
red
om
inat
edin
ora
lre
adin
g.M
orp
ho
syn
tact
icfe
atu
res
wer
ed
om
inan
tin
wri
tin
g.
AA
Efe
atu
reu
sage
dec
reas
edfr
om
ora
cyto
liter
acy
con
tex
ts.P
arti
cip
ants
dem
on
stra
ted
dis
tin
ctA
AE
feat
ure
pro
file
sin
ora
cyan
dlit
erac
yco
nte
xts
.
54.W
alla
ce,
Ro
ber
ts,a
nd
Lau
der
(199
8)
Focu
ses
on
pat
tern
so
fm
oth
er–i
nfa
nt
inte
ract
ion
inA
Am
oth
er–c
hild
dya
ds
and
the
rela
tio
nsh
ipb
etw
een
tho
sep
atte
rns
and
the
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
cogn
itiv
ean
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
Dis
cou
rse:
Co
nve
rsat
ion
92(1
00%
)44
M;4
8F
Infa
nts
(1-y
ear-
old
s)64
Low
and
28ab
ove
po
vert
y
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Mo
ther
affe
ctiv
ein
tera
ctiv
eb
ehav
iors
con
trib
ute
toea
rly
dev
elo
p;d
idac
tic
inte
ract
ion
sar
est
ron
gly
linke
dto
child
ren
’sem
ergi
ng
cogn
itiv
ean
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
abili
ties
.T
hes
eco
rrel
atio
ns
are
wea
ker
inim
po
veri
shed
dya
ds.
Mat
ern
alin
tera
ctiv
eb
ehav
iors
imp
act
infa
nt’
sco
mm
un
icat
ion
and
cogn
itiv
ed
evel
op
men
t.
55.Z
even
ber
gen
(199
6)D
isse
rta
tion
To
exam
ine
the
nar
rati
ved
evel
op
men
to
fC
auca
sian
,AA
,an
dLa
tin
och
ildre
nag
ed4–
6ye
ars
and
inve
stig
ate
the
rela
tio
nsh
ipb
etw
een
vari
ou
sas
pec
tso
fch
ildre
n’s
nar
rati
ved
evel
op
men
t.
Dis
cou
rse:
Nar
rati
ve13
8(3
8%)
51%
M;4
9%F
Typ
ical
lan
guag
eP
resc
ho
ol
Low
and
mid
dle
SES
No
nex
per
imen
tal:
Pre
dic
tive
Elic
ited
nar
rati
ves
inth
eco
nte
xt
of
sto
ry-
rete
llin
gta
sks
Emer
gen
tlit
erac
yp
rogr
amco
nd
uct
edin
Hea
dSt
art
was
effe
ctiv
ein
faci
litat
ing
child
ren
’sd
evel
op
men
to
fn
arra
tive
skill
s.
Nar
rati
ves
are
likel
yto
vary
dep
end
ing
up
on
the
nar
rati
veta
skan
dth
est
imu
liu
sed
.In
add
itio
n,
nar
rati
vesk
ills
atth
eb
egin
nin
go
fki
nd
erga
rten
are
pre
dic
tive
of
thei
rla
ter
emer
gen
tlit
erac
ysk
ills.
Note
.AA
=A
fric
anA
mer
ican
;AA
E=
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anEn
glis
h;A
AV
E=
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anV
ern
acu
lar
Engl
ish
;DV
AR
=d
iale
ctva
riat
ion
;EA
=Eu
roA
mer
ican
;F=
fem
ale;
GA
E=
Gen
eral
Am
eric
anEn
glis
h;L
I=
Lan
guag
eim
pai
red
;LS
ES=
Low
soci
oec
on
om
icst
atu
s;M
=m
ale;
MLU
=m
ean
len
gth
of
utt
eran
ce;M
SES
=M
idd
leso
cio
eco
no
mic
stat
us;
ND
W=
Nu
mb
ero
fD
iffe
ren
tW
ord
s;SE
=st
and
ard
Engl
ish
;SES
=so
cio
eco
no
mic
stat
us;
SG=
sto
rygr
amm
ar;
SWE
=so
uth
ern
Wh
ite
Engl
ish
;TL
=ty
pic
alla
ngu
age;
VR
T=
voic
ere
spo
nse
tim
e.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 33
The first purpose group was identified pri-marily among studies conducted in the 1980s.That was an era in which researchers focusedon examining and legitimizing African Amer-ican pragmatic language by examining com-municative functions and describing speechevents that were unique to African Americancommunities (e.g., Blake, 1984; Bridgeforth,1988; Goodwin, 1980).
The second purpose group was identifiedin research that spanned the 1980s and the1990s. At that point, the focus was on iden-tifying whether differences in language use,such as code switching or turn taking, existedfor African American children on the basis oftheir socioeconomic status (SES) and dialectdensity (e.g., Craig & Washington, 1986; Etter-Lewis, 1985; Peters, 1983).
The third purpose group is the largest one.It consists of research that was primarily con-ducted in the 1990s and the 2000s. It is akinto what one might call a narrative explo-sion, a time period when researchers werefocusing on various aspects of narrative de-velopment including production, style, con-tent, macro-organizational structures, and co-hesion (e.g., Bloome et al., 2003; Champion,1995; Champion et al., 1995; Curenton et al.,2008; Curenton & Justice, 2004; Garrett,1996; Hyon & Sulzby, 1994; Hyter, 1994).
The fourth purpose group is the smallest.It overlaps temporally with the third. Thisgroup consists of research that can be char-acterized as being focused on linking diverseforms of discourse with literacy and socialcompetence by examining discourse and AAEuse in relation to cognition, literacy, writ-ing, and assessment with typically developingand language- and/or reading-impaired popu-lations (e.g., Ball, 1996; Craig, Zhang, Hensel,& Quinn, 2009; Curenton, 2004; Nelson,2010; Pena et al., 2006).
Major constructs of pragmaticsinvestigated and overlooked
Of the 55 articles and dissertations thatwere examined, the majority focused onnarrative discourse. Specifically, 40 (73%)of the 55 articles and dissertations fo-cused on some form of discourse, six (11%)
focused on speech acts, and nine (16%) fo-cused on presupposition. Of the 40 articlesand dissertations that focused on discourse,five (12.5%) were about conversational dis-course, 31 (74%) about narrative discourse,and two (5%) were about expository dis-course. Two (5%) other articles were aboutother forms of discourse—disputes and playinteractions. Of the nine documents that fo-cused on presupposition, the majority (seven[78%]) addressed dialect shifting or codeswitching, and the other two (22%) focusedon Theory of Mind or emotional inferencingin relationship to narratives.
These data show that a disproportionatenumber of articles and dissertations werefocused on narrative discourse. This canmost likely be explained by a correspondingfocus on the relationship of narrative dis-course to the development of emergent andlater literacy skills (Connor & Craig, 2006; Paul& Smith, 1993; Peterson & McCabe, 1992;Zevenbergen, 1996). Research has shown thatrecalling, retelling, and generating narrativesserve as a link between oral and literate lan-guage use (Botting, 2002; Curenton & Jus-tice, 2004; Heath, 1982), support the devel-opment of word meanings and relationships(Biemiller, 2006; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,1985), and are associated with increasinglycomplex syntax (Hoffman, Norris, & Monjure,1996; Justice et al., 2006; Reilly, Losh, Bellugi,& Wulfeck, 2004). Narratives also engage so-cial cognitive skills, such as theory of mind(Guajardo & Watson, 2002).
Narratives are important, but they are notthe only form of discourse that is critical tosuccess in school. Beginning in Grades 3 andhigher, expository texts become a part of achild’s everyday life through the language de-mands of the school curriculum (Westby, Cu-latta, Lawrence, & Hall-Kenyon, 2010). Expos-itory text is the currency used in most mid-dle school and high school courses outside ofthe language arts courses (Westby & Culatta,2010). An increased focus on typical and im-paired expository text skills in African Amer-ican children and ways to support success inthe academic arena are an area sorely lackingin literature regarding the pragmatic language
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
34 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
of African American children and adolescents,which was highlighted in this systematicreview.
Another area where there is limited re-search is in the cognitive supports for prag-matic language, such as theory of mind andperspective taking. Only two articles (i.e.,Curenton, 2004; Ford & Milosky, 2008) wereidentified through our systematic review pro-cess that examined theory of mind and emo-tional inferencing abilities in African Ameri-can children. Theory of mind is an importantsocial cognitive skill that supports a child’sability to take the perspectives of others, in-fer mental and emotional states of others,understand why people may do what theydo, and to understand how their own be-havior may affect others (Timler, Olswang, &Coggins, 2005; Westby & Robinson, 2014).
Sampling size and study participants
Studies that comprised the final corpus in-cluded a range of numbers of participants,from 2 (Gee, 1989b) to 617 (Terry et al.,2010). Study participants were varied and in-cluded male and female participants of differ-ent age ranges (infants and toddlers [7% of thestudies], preschoolers [36%] and/or schoolage [62%]); and ability levels (typical [87%]and impaired [16%] in language or reading de-velopment). In addition, the studies examinedpragmatic language of children and adoles-cents from low (44%), middle (27%), and/orhigh (3.6%) SES, with the majority being lowincome.
Research design
Eight of the 55 studies that comprised thecorpus for this article incorporated more thanone type of research design. The majority(N = 34 [62%]) used nonexperimental de-scriptive designs. Others used preexperimen-tal designs2 (N = 9 [16%]) to test hypothe-ses regarding the effect of independent vari-
2Sources for the types and definitions of research designsused in this study are from Leedy and Ormrod, 2013, andMaxwell and Satake, 2006.
ables on dependent variables but without ran-domization and control. A small group em-ployed ex post facto designs (N = 6 [11%]; “af-ter the fact” or retrospective examination ofcausal relationships where independent vari-ables are observed rather than manipulated).Two researchers used quasi-experimental de-signs (N = 2 [3.6%]; nonrandomized designswith controls but where not all confoundingvariables are controlled). A few used true ex-perimental designs (N = 6 [11%]; i.e., random-ized designs where a hypothesis is tested bycontrolled experimentation to show relation-ships between independent and dependentvariables), factorial designs (N = 2 [3.6%]; i.e.,randomized designs that allow examination ofthe effects of multiple independent variableson the dependent variable), and ethnographicdesigns (N = 2 [3.6%]; i.e., systematic quali-tative studies involving rigorous observationand description of phenomena).
An examination of the types of research de-signs produced per decade covered in thisstudy shows that nonexperimental designshave been used throughout the 43-year pe-riod. In the 1990s, ethnographic, preexper-imental, ex post facto and factorial designsbegan to be used. Quasi-experimental studiesoccurred beginning in the 2000s, and true ex-perimental studies emerged in the years 2000through 2013. It appears that research de-signs associated with higher levels of evidence(quasi-experimental, true experimental, facto-rial) are beginning to be used more recentlyin studies examining pragmatic language ofAfrican American children.
Data-gathering procedures
Thirty-one different data-gathering methodswere used within the articles and disserta-tions reviewed for this study (see Table 1for data-gathering procedures implemented ineach of the documents in the corpus). Consis-tent with the topical focus of the articles anddissertations, the majority of methods usedwere elicited oral or written narratives us-ing a variety of approaches including Con-versational Mapping, story generation withwordless picture books such as Frog WhereAre You (Mayer, 1969), story prompts, story
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 35
retells with wordless books or movies, andpicture-elicited narratives.
Major research findings andimplications
We identified five common themes in thefindings of the reviewed studies. These aresummarized in Table 1 and discussed below.Many of the 55 articles that comprised the cor-pus for this study addressed several themes.
Methodological considerations
The findings of 11 studies incorporatedmethodological issues that should be consid-ered when collecting data, assessing, and/orproviding intervention to African Americanchildren and adolescents. The methodolog-ical considerations raised include the fol-lowing: (a) data collection and transcriptionmust include the context (Bridgeforth, 1988;Middleton, 1992) to capture and understandthe full range of pragmatic skills being ex-hibited; (b) more culturally fair practicesneed to be employed in research method-ology, such as expressive elaboration anal-ysis (Milles, Watkins, & Washington, 2013),dependency analysis (Mainess et al., 2002),dynamic assessment (Pena et al., 2006), andRenfrew’s (1992) The Bus Story Language Test(Price et al., 2006); (c) explicit writing instruc-tion tasks need to be considered as an inde-pendent variable in written narrative tasks;and (d) a comprehensive coding system that isappropriate for identifying and describing thecommunicative functions of African Americanchildren and adolescents, and that emergesfrom the data, is needed (Bridgeforth, 1988;Middleton, 1992). Of the four concerns forbetter research methodology in the study ofpragmatic behavior of African American chil-dren and adolescents, the need to include con-text in data collection is the only one that hasalready been addressed in the 43-year spanof research covered by this systematic syn-thesis of the literature. Culturally fair and ex-plicit writing tasks as part of the researchmethodology still need greater considerationin research efforts. In addition, the call fora more fitting communication function cod-ing system for African American children and
adolescents continues to be a need that wasvoiced for more than 22 years ago, and morerecently by DeJarnette et al. (2015).
Developmental trends
Six of the reviewed studies discussed de-velopmental trends regarding the pragmaticlanguage of African American children. Specif-ically, speakers of AAE and general AmericanEnglish (GAE) show similar development ofnarrative skills (Burns, 2004). Children from3 to 5 years of age begin to use narrativemacrostructures (e.g., setting, complicatingaction) and literate language features (Curen-ton & Justice, 2004; McGregor, 2000); how-ever, children who are 4 and 5 years of agehave not mastered as many of the “criticalnarrative features” (e.g., reference, tempo-ral links, and mental state expressions) as6-year-olds (Burns, 2004, p. 78). These andother narrative structures increase with age(McGregor, 2000) and are not affected by di-alect density (Burns, 2004). Two developmen-tal periods in which dialect shifting (reductionin the use of noncontrastive features) is signif-icant occur at first grade for spoken discourseand at third grade for reading (Craig & Wash-ington, 2004).
From the findings of research includedin the corpus of this systematic syn-thesis, we know that narratives can beexamined reliably beginning at 3 years of age.However, in order to tap the range of narra-tive abilities present in children and adoles-cents, researchers and clinicians are urged touse a number of different analysis tools, suchas, High Point Analysis and Story GrammarAnalysis (Champion et al., 1995). Overall, thefindings of these studies indicate that more re-search of AAE child and adolescent speakersneeds to examine the relationship between di-alect shifting and expression of mental states,completion of theory of mind tasks, and thecapacity to take other’s perspectives.
Differentiating typical from impairedfunctioning
Five studies highlighted differences be-tween typical pragmatic functioning andimpaired functioning. What is known from
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
36 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
these studies can be summarized in fivepoints. First, language processing problems,such as word retrieval deficits or persever-ation, will be revealed, whether a child isproducing narratives in the topic centered ortopic associative style (Bliss et al., 1999). Sec-ond, African American and EA students, withand without learning disabilities, produce nar-ratives that are comparable in terms of overallstructure, length, and cohesion. They differwith regard to goal-directed episodes, de-pending on the narrative genre, such as per-sonal or fictional stories, suggesting the im-portance of using more than one approach tonarrative analysis (Celinska, 2009; Championet al., 1995). Third, AAE speakers who learnto dialect shift in literacy activities will do bet-ter than their peers who do not dialect shift(Craig et al., 2009). Fourth, children with typ-ical language skills often make emotional in-ferences in narratives, but their counterpartswith language impairments may not, support-ing the importance of habitual assessment(and intervention if appropriate) of children’semotional inferencing skills (Ford & Milosky,2008). Fifth, children with reading disorders,regardless of language variation, will producefewer codas in their stories than those withtypical reading abilities (Hester, 1997). Corre-sponding with the implications noted previ-ously regarding developmental trends, moreresearch is required on emotional inferenc-ing, theory of mind, and perspective takingin African American children and adolescentswith and without language impairments.
Importance and effects of familysocialization
Three of the reviewed articles discussedfindings that addressed the effects of socializa-tion on child outcomes. What we know fromthese studies can be synthesized as four mainpoints. First, caregivers’ emotional interactivebehaviors are linked to their children’s cog-nitive and communication abilities (Wallaceet al., 1998). Second, mother–child dyadsfrom low SES and middle SES backgrounds en-gage in play in similar ways (Hammer & Weiss,1999). Third, male and female children may besocialized to organize narratives in particular
ways. For example, Sperry (1991) found thatfemale children constructed narratives morecollaboratively, whereas male children con-structed them more individually. Fourth, so-cialization has an impact on child communica-tive functions, and the “purposeful encour-agement” of particular communicative func-tions may be useful in a preschool classroom(Kasambira, 2008).
Characteristics of AAE pragmaticlanguage behavior
The characteristics of AAE pragmatic lan-guage behavior were described in 33 articlesand/or dissertations. We have learned fromthese articles that African American childrenuse a range of speech acts. Bridgeforth (1988)and Hwa-Froelich et al. (2007) used similartaxonomies to examine the speech acts pro-duced by young African American children;yet, some of the results differ between thesetwo studies, which may be a function of thedifferent data-gathering methods. There aregender differences in types of functions em-ployed by African American children (Hwa-Froelich et al., 2007; Leaper et al., 1999). Anexample is that girls are more likely to directactions of others or request objects and ac-tions, whereas boys are more likely to directtheir own actions, collaborate with others todirect play, and call others’ attention to ob-jects or events (Hwa-Froelich et al., 2007).
African American children who are speak-ers of AAE have been found to demonstratestrong emergent literacy skills (Connor &Craig, 2006) as well as the same types of con-versational repair strategies that GAE-speakingpeers use (Stockman et al., 2008). Other find-ings identified through this systematic synthe-sis of the literature focus primarily on twoareas, cognition and narration. With regardto cognition, African American children usecognitive skills to guide communicative inter-actions and demonstrate dialect-shifting skills(Renn, 2010; Thompson et al., 2004). In ad-dition, African American children are morelikely to demonstrate the cognitive skills offalse belief and emotional inferencing throughnarratives rather than provide the expected
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 37
response to false belief tasks (Curenton, 2004;Ford & Milosky, 2008).
African American children produce an ar-ray of narrative genres (e.g., dispute, fictional,fantasy, personal), and their personal narra-tives have been found to include fewer wordsand T-units than their fictional/fantasy narra-tives (Champion, 1998; Rivers, 2001). AfricanAmerican children produce more fantasy orfictional episodes in their stories, which havebeen found to have a complex episodic struc-ture (Gorman et al., 2011; Rivers, 2001;Sperry & Sperry, 1996). In addition, theymost often produce topic-centered narra-tives (Champion, 1995; Gee, 1989b; Hyon& Sulzby, 1994; Mainess et al., 2002), al-though African American children have beenshown to produce topic associative and othernarrative styles. Finally, nonverbal (kinesic)and paralinguistic (prosodic) cues should beclosely observed for the insights they may pro-vide about narrative cohesion skills (Garrett,1996; Hyter, 1994) and turn-taking behaviors(Craig & Washington, 1986). The implicationsof these findings are that AAE children andadolescents possess the cognitive skills to usepragmatic language to convey communicativefunctions and to engage in oral and writtendiscourse.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review and synthesis of theextant literature concerning pragmatic lan-guage usage among African American chil-dren and adolescents covered a total of 55manuscripts, all of which reported at least30% of the participants as being AfricanAmerican. Ninety-two articles and disserta-tions were identified to focus on pragmaticlanguage, but only 55 (60%) of these metour inclusion criteria. We recognize that thisresulted in some relevant articles being ex-cluded because the authors did not providedata about the proportion of children whowere African American (e.g., Hyter, 2003;Hyter et al., 2001) or because the study partic-ipants did not meet the inclusion criteria forthis study (e.g., Fuste-Hermann et al., 2006;McCabe & Rosenthal Rollins, 1994). We note
that there are other articles in the extant lit-erature, including doctoral dissertations, thatwere not included in this synthesis, but thatmay reveal additional behaviors and patternsabout African American children’s and adoles-cents’ pragmatic language that could be usefulto speech–language pathologists, educators,and others who work with this population inschool settings and elsewhere.
The majority of studies that met inclusioncriteria for this study focused on narrativemacrostructure and microstructure, whichare important skills for developing literacyand for supporting a more natural contextfor assessing a child’s language. It is clearfrom the literature that narrative productionis a useful context for assessing and sup-porting language skills that are necessary forliteracy development in children and ado-lescents (Hester, 19973; Schachter & Craig,2013; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001; vanKleeck, 2008). Narrative structure, however,is only one discourse type, and the gap inthe literature regarding African American chil-dren’s and adolescents’ pragmatics languageis notable with regard to the other equally im-portant components of pragmatics that canaffect social interactions with others, as wellas successful engagement within a classroom.Those other aspects of pragmatics includespeech acts (DeJarnette et al., 2015; Riverset al., 2012) that are unique expressions ofthe African American child and adolescent’ssocialization, as well as presupposition skills(Atlas, 2004; Bates, 1976a, 1976b; Roth &Spekman, 1984a, 1984b) and related cogni-tive skills, such as theory of mind, intentionreading, and perspective taking.
Three broad areas need to be investi-gated further with regard to pragmatic lan-guage skills in African American childrenand adolescents. The first area focuses on
3The authors want to acknowledge Dr. Eva Hester whohas made important contributions over the years to theliterature on the pragmatic language of African Americanchildren and adolescents. Dr. Hester passed away on July29, 2014, after years of struggle with heart disease.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
38 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
components of pragmatic language and re-lated skills that influence pragmatic language.This area includes narratives, speech acts, pre-suppositions, and theory of mind. Specific re-search questions to address within this areainclude the following:
� What are evidence-based procedures andstrategies for effectively evaluating thenarrative processing and production skillsof African American children and adoles-cents with and without language/literacydisorders?
� What are the effects of contextual factors,such as tasks, contexts, and demands, onthe spoken and written expository andnarrative productions of African Ameri-can children and adolescents?
� What are comprehensive frameworks forexplaining and evaluating the speech actsand presupposition skills of African Amer-ican children and adolescents with andwithout language disorders?
A second area of recommended focus is theidentification of culture sensitive (contrastive)and noncontrastive features of the full rangeof pragmatic language skills. Specific researchquestions that need to be addressed includethe following:
� What are the contrastive and noncon-trastive pragmatic behaviors for AAE-speaking children and adolescents rela-tive to GAE pragmatics?
� What are the cultural markers of socialskills development in AAE-speaking chil-dren and adolescents?
A third area of focus for further investiga-tion relates to the variation, trends, and tra-jectories in the development of pragmaticskills to guide assessment (e.g., determiningdifference versus disorder) and intervention.Research questions in this area include thefollowing:
� What are the trends and trajectories in thedevelopment of pragmatic skills for AAEchild and adolescent speakers that can in-form the development of assessment mea-sures and intervention strategies that cap-ture language use in situ?
� Are there individual variations such asage and/or gender effects in pragmaticbehavior performance for AAE-speakingchildren and adolescents and if so, howmight they be accounted for in the devel-opment of ecologically sound assessmentmeasures and intervention practice?
� What are the pragmatic skill differencesdisplayed by AAE-speaking children andadolescents with and without communi-cation impairment?
In conclusion, the results of this system-atic synthesis support the recommendationthat the full range of pragmatic language skillsof typically developing African American chil-dren and adolescents in varied social contextsand with different conversational partnersneeds to be further explored. For many years,studies with regard to pragmatic language inthis population have focused primarily on thestructural and content components of narra-tives. It is clear from the results of this study,however, that African American children’ andadolescents’ pragmatic language skills fall ona continuum. The continuum reflects thatpragmatic language skills of this populationare manifested in different ways and occurwith a range of conversational speakers indiverse settings and under different condi-tions. With more knowledge and a greaterunderstanding of these linguistic and nonlin-guistic skills, speech–language pathologists,educators, and others should be better able todistinguish language/literacy differences fromlanguage/literacy disorders in African Ameri-can children and adolescents.
REFERENCES
Adams, C., Baxendale, J., Lloyd, J., & Aldred, C. (2005).Pragmatic language impairment: Case studies of so-
cial and pragmatic language therapy. Child LanguageTeaching and Therapy, 21, 227–250.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 39
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmat-ics: An advanced resource book for students. Oxon,United Kingdom: Routledge.
Atlas, J. D. (2004). Presupposition. In L. R. Horn, & G. L.Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 29–52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, E., & McLeod, S. (2011). Evidence-based practicefor children with speech sound disorders: Part 1 narra-tive review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Servicesin Schools, 42, 102–139.
Ball, A. F. (1992). Cultural preference and the exposi-tory writing of African American adolescents. WrittenCommunication, 9, 501–532.
Ball, A. F. (1996). Expository writing patterns of AfricanAmerican students. The English Journal, 85(1), 27–36.
Ball, A. F. (2002). Three decades of research on classroomlife: Illuminating the classroom communicative livesof America’s at risk students. Review of Research inEducation, 26, 71–110.
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics: The mentalprocesses of communication. (J. Douthwaite, Trans.).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published1999).
Barnitz, J. G. (1994). Discourse diversity: Principles for au-thentic talk and literacy instruction. Journal of Read-ing, 37(7), 586–591.
Bates, E. (1976a). Pragmatics and sociolinguistics in childlanguage. In D. Morehead, & A. E. Morehead (Eds.),Language deficiency in children: Selected readings(pp. 411–463). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Bates, E. (1976b). Language and context: The acquisi-tion of pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Battle, D. E. (1996). Language learning and use by AfricanAmerican children. Topics in Language Disorders,16(4), 22–37.
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and in-struction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D.K. Dickinson, & Susan B. Newman (Eds.), Handbookof Early Literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 41–51). New York, NY:The Guilford Press.
Blake, I. J. K. (1984). Language development in working-class black children: An examination of form, con-tent, and use. Unpublished doctoral dissertations,Columbia University, New York.
Bliss, L. S., Covington, Z., & McCabe, A. (1999). Assess-ing the narratives of African American children. Con-temporary Issues in Communication Sciences andDisorders, 26, 160–167.
Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2006). Comparison of dis-course genres: Clinical implications. ContemporaryIssues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33,126–137.
Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2008). Personal narratives:Cultural differences and clinical implications. Topicsin Language Disorders, 28(2), 162–177.
Bloome, D., Katz, L., & Champion, T. (2003). Youngchildren’s narratives and ideologies of language inclassrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,205–223.
Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessmentof linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Lan-guage Teaching & Therapy, 18(1), 1–21.
Boudreau, D. (2008). Narrative abilities: Advances in re-search and implications for clinical practice. Topics inLanguage Disorders, 28, 99–114.
Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysisin psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(3), 77–101.
Bridgeforth, C. D. (1988). The identification and useof language functions in the speech of 3 and 41/2year old black children from working class fami-lies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, GeorgetownUniversity, Washington, DC.
Brinton, B., Robinson, L. A., & Fujiki, M. (2004). Descrip-tion of a program for social language intervention:“If you can have a conversation, you can have a rela-tionship” Language, Speech and Hearing Services inSchools, 25, 283–290.
Burns, F. A. (2004). Elicited and open-ended narrativesin African American children. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,MA.
Celinska, D. K. (2009). Narrative voices of early adoles-cents: Influences of learning disability and culturalbackground. International Journal of Special Edu-cation, 24(3), 150–172.
Champion, T. (1995). A description of narrative pro-duction and development in children speakers ofAfrican American English. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,Amherst, MA.
Champion, T. B. (1998). "Tell me somethin’ good": A de-scription of narrative structures among African Amer-ican children. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 251–286.
Champion, T., Seymour, H., & Camarata, S. (1995). Narra-tive discourse of African American children. Journalof Narrative and Life History, 5(4), 333–352.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analy-sis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategiesfor effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.
Coggins, T. E., Timler, G. R., & Olswang, L. B. (2007).A state of double jeopardy: Impact of prenatal alco-hol exposure and adverse environments on the socialcommunicative abilities of school age children withfetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Language, Speech,and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 117–127.
Collins, J. (1985). Some problems and purpose of narra-tive analysis in educational research. Journal of Edu-cation, 167(1), 57–70.
Connor, C. M., & Craig, H. K. (2006). African Americanpreschoolers’ language, emergent literacy skills, and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
40 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
use of African American English: A complex relation.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,49(4), 771–792.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (1986). Children’s turn-taking behaviors social linguistic interactions. Journalof Pragmatics, 10(2), 173–197.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (1994). The complex syntaxskills of African American preschoolers. Language,Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 181–190.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (1995). African American En-glish and linguistic complexity in preschool discourse:A second look. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser-vices in Schools, 26, 87–93.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2002). Oral language expec-tations for African American preschoolers and kinder-garteners. American Journal of Speech-LanguagePathology, 11, 59–70.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2004). Grade related changesin the production of African American English. Jour-nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,450–463.
Craig, H. K., Zhang, L., Hensel, S. L., & Quinn, E. J. (2009).African American English speaking students: An ex-amination of the relationship between dialect shiftingand reading outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 52, 839–855.
Curenton, S. M. (2004). The association between narra-tives and theory of mind for low-income preschool-ers. Early Education and Development, 15(2),121–146.
Curenton, S. M., Jones, M. J., Craig, H. K., & Flanigan,N. (2008). Use of contextualized talk across storycontexts: How oral storytelling and emergent readingcan scaffold children’s development. Early Educationand Development, 19(1), 161–187.
Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2004). African Americanand Caucasian preschoolers’ use of decontextualizedlanguage: Literate language features in oral narratives.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,35, 240–253.
Dandy, E. B. (1991). Black communications: Breakingdown the barriers. Chicago, IL: African AmericanImages.
DeJarnette, G., Hyter, Y. D., & Rivers, K. O. (2012). Pri-mary Research Appraisal Tool [PRAT]. Unpublisheddocument, Department of Communication Disorders,Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven,CT.
DeJarnette, G., Rivers, K. O., & Hyter, Y. D. (2015). Waysof examining speech acts in young African Americanchildren: Outside-in versus inside-out. Topics in Lan-guage Disorders, 35, 59–73.
de Villiers, P. (2004). Assessing pragmatic skills in elicitedproduction. Seminars in Speech and Language,25(1), 57–71.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendlyguide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Donahue, M. (1985). Communicative style in learningdisabled children: Some implications for classroomdiscourse. In D. N. Ripich, & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.),School discourse problems (pp. 97–124). San Diego,CA: College-Hill Press.
Duchan, J. (2011, May 15). The pragmatics revolution.Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/∼duchan/1975-2000.html
Eder, D. (1982). Differences in communicative stylesacross ability groups. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Com-municating in the classroom (pp. 164–182). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content anal-ysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),107–115.
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Perspective taking:Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman,W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook ofimagination and mental simulation (pp. 295–312).New York, NY: Psychological Press, Taylor and Fran-cis Group.
Etter-Lewis, G. (1985). Sociolinguistic patterns of code-switching in the language of preschool black chil-dren. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.
Finger, M. Y. (2007). Kindergarten children’s oral nar-rative production: Relations with ethnicity and so-cioeconomic status. Unpublished thesis, University ofMaryland, Baltimore.
Ford, J. A., & Milosky, L. M. (2008). Inference genera-tion during discourse and its relation to social compe-tence: An online investigation of abilities of childrenwith and without language impairment. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 367–380.
Fuste-Hermann, B., Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., Fasnacht,K. S., & Federico, J. E. (2006). Mental state verb pro-duction in the oral narratives of English and Span-ish speaker preadolescents: An exploratory study oflexical diversity and depth. Learning Disabilities Re-search & Practice, 21(1), 44–60.
Garrett, D. M. (1996). Discourse cohesion and lit-eracy development in suburban male and fe-male African American children. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Howard University, Washington,DC.
Gee, J. (1989a). The narrativization of experience in theoral style. Journal of Education, 171(1), 75–96.
Gee, J. (1989b). Two styles of narrative construction andtheir linguistic and educational implications. Journalof Education, 171(1), 97–113.
Gidney, C. L. (1995). Connective in the narrative dis-course of African American children. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Wash-ington, DC.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in commu-nication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,3(11), 419–429.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 41
Goodwin, M. H. (1980). He-said-she-said: Formal cul-tural procedures for the construction of gossipdispute activity. American Ethnologist, 7(4), 674–695.
Gorman, B. K., Fiestas, C. E., Pena, E. D., & Clark,M. R. (2011). Creative and stylistic devices employedby children during a storybook narrative task: A cross-cultural study. Language, Speech and Hearing Ser-vices in Schools, 42, 167–181.
Green, L. (2002). African American English. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.
Green, L. (2003 April). Syntactic and semantic patternsin child African American English. Texas LinguisticForum, 47, 55–69.
Guajardo, N. R., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Narrative dis-course and theory of mind development. The Journalof Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Hu-man Development, 163(3), 305–325.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Quinn, R. (1993). Assessingnarratives of children from diverse cultural/linguisticgroups. Language, Speech and Hearing Services inSchools, 24, 2–9.
Hammer, C. S., & Weiss, A. L. (1999). Guiding languagedevelopment: How African American mothers andtheir infants structure play interactions. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(5),1219–1233.
Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An overview of con-tent analysis. The Marketing Review, 3, 479–498.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narra-tive skills at home and school. Language in Society,11(1), 49–76.
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Sensitiv-ity of narrative organization measures using narrativeretells produced by young school-age children. Lan-guage Testing, 27(4), 603–626.
Hester, E. J. (1997). An investigation of the relation-ship between narrative style, dialect, and readingachievement in African American children. Disser-tations, University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Hester, E. J., & Langdon, N. (2008). Expressive elabora-tion of African American children: Script vs. fantasystories. Poster presentation at the annual conventionof the American Speech-Language Hearing Associa-tion, Chicago, IL.
Hill, J. W., & Coufal, K. L. (2005). Emotional/behavioraldisorders: A retrospective examination of social skills,linguistics, and student outcomes. CommunicationDisorders Quarterly, 27(1), 33–46.
Hoffman, P. R., Norris, J. A., & Monjure, J. (1996). Effectsof narrative intervention on a preschooler’s syntac-tic and phonological development. National StudentSpeech, Language, and Hearing Association Journal,23, 5–13.
Horton-Ikard, R. (2009). Cohesive adequacy in the narra-tive samples of school-age children who use AfricanAmerican English. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 40, 393–402.
Howes, C., Sanders, K., & Lee, L. (2008). Entering anew peer group in ethnically and linguistically diversechildcare classrooms. Social Development, 17(4),922–940.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.
Huang, Y. (2012). Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Ox-ford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hwa-Froelich, D., Kasambira, D. C., & Moleski, A. M.(2007). Communicative functions of African Ameri-can Head Start children. Communication DisordersQuarterly, 28(2), 77–91.
Hyon, S., & Sulzby, E. (1994). African American kinder-gartners’ spoken narratives: Topic associating andtopic centered styles. Linguistics and Education, 6,121–152.
Hyter, Y. D. (1994). A cross-channel description of refer-ence in the narratives of African American vernac-ular English speakers. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Hyter, Y. D. (2003). Language intervention for childrenwith emotional or behavioral disorders. BehavioralDisorders, 29(1), 65–76.
Hyter, Y. D. (2007). Pragmatic language assessment: Apragmatics-as-social practice model. Topics in Lan-guage Disorders, 27(2), 128–145.
Hyter, Y. D. (August 2012). Complex trauma and pre-natal alcohol exposure: Clinical implications. Amer-ican Speech, Language, Hearing Association SIG-16: Perspectives in School Based Issues, 13(2),32–42.
Hyter, Y. D. (2014). A conceptual framework for respon-sive global engagement in Communication Sciencesand Disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(2),103–120.
Hyter, Y. D., DeJarnette, G., & Rivers, K. O. (2013, April).Summarizing meta analysis: Pragmatic language ofAfrican American children. Seminar presented at theannual convention of the National Black Associationof Speech-Language-Hearing, Washington, DC.
Hyter, Y. D., Rivers, K. O., & DeJarnette, G. (2010,April). The state of pragmatic language research forchildren of color. Short Course presented at the an-nual convention of the National Black Association ofSpeech-Language-Hearing, Tampa, FL.
Hyter, Y. D., Rivers, K. O., & DeJarnette, G. (2012, April).Mining research of pragmatic language behavior inAfrican American children: A systematic literaturereview. Seminar presented at the annual conferenceof the National Black Association of Speech-Language-Hearing, Raleigh, NC.
Hyter, Y.D., Rogers-Atkinson, D. L., Self, T. L., Friedrich-Simmons, B., & Jantz, J. (2001). Pragmatic lan-guage intervention for children with language andemotional/behavioral disorders. CommunicationDisorders Quarterly, 23(1), 4–16.
Hyter, Y. D., & Sloane, M. (2013). Conceptual modelof social communication. Unpublished document,
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
42 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, West-ern Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Johnson, C. J. (1995). Expanding norms for narration.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,26, 326–341.
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz,T. A., Eisenberg, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2006). The in-dex of narrative microstructure: A clinical tool for ana-lyzing school-aged children’s narrative performances.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,15, 177–191.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Written languageawareness in preschool children from low-incomehouseholds: A descriptive analysis. CommunicationDisorders Quarterly, 22, 123–134.
Kasambira, D. C. F. (2008). Communicative functions ofpreschoolers and their mothers across cultures andsocioeconomic status. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Kelly, S. D. (2001). Broadening the units of analysisin communication: Speech and nonverbal behaviorsin pragmatic comprehension. Journal of Child Lan-guage, 29, 325–349.
Kraemer, R. J., Rivers, K. O., & Ratusnik, D. L. (2000).Sociolinguistic perceptions of African-American En-glish. The Negro Educational Review, 51(3–4),139–148.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oralversions of personal narratives. In J. Helm (Ed.), Pro-ceedings of the American ethnological society: Es-says on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seat-tle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Leaper, D., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Shaffer, T. G. (1999).Communication patterns of African American girls andboys from low-income urban backgrounds. Child De-velopment, 70(6), 1489–1503.
Lee, C. D. (2006). Every good bye ain’t gone: Analyzingthe cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. Interna-tional Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,19(3), 305–327.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research:Planning and design (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2012). Intercultural compe-tence (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mainess, K. J., Champion, T. B., & McCabe, A. (2002).Telling the unknown story complex and explicit narra-tion by African American preadolescents - Preliminaryexamination of gender and socioeconomic issues. Lin-guistics and Education, 13(2), 151–173.
Malinowski, B. (1959). The Problem of Meaning in Primi-tive Languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.),The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). New York,NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Maxwell, D. L., & Satake, E. (2006). Research and statis-tical methods in communication sciences and disor-ders. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? (A boy, a dogand a frog). New York, NY: Dial Book for YoungReaders.
Mayer, M., Osborn, S., Stumer, J., & Templeton, G. (1985).Frogs goes to dinner [VHS]. New York, NY: PhoenixFilms.
McCabe, A. (1997). Cultural background and storytelling:A review and implications for schooling. The Elemen-tary School Journal, 97(5), 453–473.
McCabe, A., & Rosenthal Rollins P. (1994). Assessmentof preschool narrative skills. American Journal ofSpeech-Language Pathology, 3, 45–56.
McGregor, K. K. (2000). The development and enhance-ment of narrative skills in a preschool classroom: To-wards a solution to clinician-client mismatch. Amer-ican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 55–71.
McNeill, D. (1996). Hand and mind: What gesturesreveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Michaels, S. (1981). Children’s narrative styles and differ-ential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10(3),423–442.
Middleton, L. D. (1992). An examination of languagefunctions among selected African American Englishspeakers in the home setting: An ethnographic ap-proach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, HowardUniversity, Washington, DC.
Mills, M. T., Watkins, R. V., & Washington, J. A. (2013).Structural and dialectal characteristics of the fictionaland personal narratives of school-age African Ameri-can children. Language, Speech and Hearing Servicesin Schools, 44, 211–223.
Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs.Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Myers, H., Rana, P., & Harris, M. (1979). Black child de-velopment in American 1927–2977. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985).Learning words from context. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 20(2), 233–253.
Nelson, N. W. (2010). Changes in story probes writtenacross third grade by African American students in awriting lab approach. Topics in Language Disorders,30(3), 223–252.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualita-tive and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Pear-son/Allyn & Bacon.
Newkirk-Turner, B., Oetting, J., & Stockman, I (2014).BE, DO, and modal auxiliaries of three-year-oldAfrican American English speakers. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 1383–1393.
Nichols, P. C. (1989). Storytelling in Carolina: Conti-nuities and contrasts. Anthropology and EducationQuarterly, 20(3), 232–245.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 43
Norment, N. (1995). Discourse features of African Amer-ican students’ writings. Journal of Black Studies,25(5), 558–576.
Oetting, J. B., Newkirk, B. L., Hartfield, L. R., Wynn, C. G.,Pruitt, S. L., & Garrity, A. W. (2010). Index of produc-tive syntax for children who speak African AmericanEnglish. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 41, 328–339.
Olswang, L., Coggins, T., & Timler, G. (2001). Outcomemeasures for school-age children with social commu-nication problems. Topics in Language Disorders,22(1), 50–73.
O’Neill, D. K. (2014). Assessing pragmatic language func-tioning in young children: It’s importance and chal-lenges. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic developingin first language acquisition (pp. 363–387). Philadel-phia, PA: John Benjamins B. V.
Paul, R., & Smith, R. (1993). Narrative skills in 4-year-oldswith normal, impaired, and late-developing language.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 592–598.
Pena, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Re-sendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamicassessment of school-age children’s narrative ability:An experimental investigation of classification accu-racy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 49,1037–1057.
Perkins, M. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, C. (1983). A pragmatic investigation of thespeech of selected black children. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Howard University, Washington,DC.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles ofnarrative elicitation: Effect on children’s narrativestructure and content. First Language, 12, 299–321.
Price, J. R., Roberts, J. E., & Jackson, S. C. (2006). Struc-tural development of the fictional narratives of AfricanAmerican preschoolers. Language, Speech and Hear-ing Services in Schools, 37, 178–190.
Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1983). Applied pragmatics.In T. Gallagher, & C. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic as-sessment and intervention issues in language (pp.29–64). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisalof the pragmatic aspects of language. The Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.
Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to social research:Quantitative and qualitative approaches. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004).‘Frog, where are you?’ Narratives in children with spe-cific language impairment, early focal brain injury, andWilliams syndrome. Brain and Language, 88, 229–247.
Renfrew, C. (1992). The Bus Story Language Test: A testof continuous speech. Oxford, England: Author.
Renn, J. (2007). Measuring style shift: A quantitativeanalysis of African American English. Unpublishedthesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Renn, J. (2010). Acquiring style: The development of di-alect shifting among American American children.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Renn, J., & Terry, J. M. (2009). Operationalizing style:Quantifying the use of style shift in the speechof African American adolescents. American Speech,84(4), 367–390.
Rivers, A. N. (2001). The influence of elicitation proce-dures on the structure and content of African Ameri-can English speaking children’s personal narrativesand fictional stories and relationships between nar-ratives and reading comprehension and expressivelanguage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North-western University, Evanston, IL.
Rivers, K.O., Hyter, Y., & DeJarnette, G. (2012). Parsingpragmatics. ASHA Leader, 17(13), 14–17.
Rivers, K. O., Rosa-Lugo, L. I., & Hedrick, D. L. (2004). Per-formance of African-American adolescents on a mea-sure of language proficiency. The Negro EducationalReview, 55(2), 117–127.
Robinson, T. L. (1992). An investigation of speech flu-ency skills in African American preschool childrenduring narrative discourse. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Howard University, Washington, DC.
Ross, S. H., Oetting, J. B., & Stapleton, B. (2004). Preteritehad +v-ed: A developmental narrative structure ofAfrican American English. American Speech, 79(2),167–193.
Roth, F., & Spekman, N. (1984a). Assessing the pragmaticabilities of children: Part 1. Organizational frameworkand assessment parameters. The Journal of Speechand Hearing Disorders, 49, 2–11.
Roth, F., & Spekman, N. (1984b). Assessing the pragmaticabilities of children: Part 2. Guidelines, considerations,and specific evaluation procedures. The Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 12–17.
Roy, J., Oetting, J. B., & Moland, C. W. (2013). Linguis-tic constraints on children’s overt marking of BE bydialect and age. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearing Research, 56, 933–944.
Schachter, R. E., & Craig, H. K. (2013). Students’ pro-duction of narrative and features during an emergentliteracy task. Language, Speech, and Hearing Servicesin Schools, 44, 227–238.
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and languagepolicy: The power of language. London: Routledge.
Schmid, H-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungener-alizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmaticapproach to the construal of meaning-in-context. InH-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 3–24).Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philos-ophy of language. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
44 TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Seymour, H. N., & Roeper, T. (1999). Grammatical acqui-sition of African American English. In O. L. Taylor, &L. Leonard (Eds.), Language acquisition across NorthAmerica: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspec-tives (pp. 109–153). San Diego, CA: Singular Publish-ing Co.
Smitherman, G. (1994). Black talk: Words and phrasesfrom the hood to the amen corner. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularityand mind reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In F. Jack-son, & M. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook of contem-porary philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
Sperry, L. L. (1991). The emergence and developmentof narrative competence in African American tod-dlers from a rural Alabama community. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,Chicago, IL.
Sperry, L. L., & Sperry, D. E. (1996). Early development ofnarrative skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 443–465.
Spinelli, F. M., & Ripich, D. N. (1985). Discourse andeducation. In D. N. Ripich, & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.),School discourse problems (pp. 3–10). San Diego, CA:College-Hill Press.
Stadler, M. A., & Ward, G. C. (2005). Supporting the narra-tive development of young children. Early ChildhoodEducation Journal, 33(2), 73–80.
Stockman, I. J. (1996). The promises and pitfalls of lan-guage sample analysis as an assessment tool for linguis-tic minority children. Language, Speech and HearingServices in Schools, 27, 355–366.
Stockman, I. J. (2010). A review of developmental and ap-plied language research on African American children:From a deficit to difference perspective on dialect dif-ferences. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 41, 23–38.
Stockman, I. J., Guillory, B., Seibert, M., & Boult, J. (2013).Toward validation of a minimal competence core ofmorphosyntax for African American children. Ameri-can Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 40–56.
Stockman, I. J., Karasinski, L., & Guillory, B. (2008).The use of conversational repairs by African Amer-ican preschoolers. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 39, 461–474.
Stockman, I. J., & Vaughn-Cook, F. B. (1992). Lexical elab-oration in children’s locative action expressions. ChildDevelopment, 63(5), 1104–1125.
Szpara, M. Y., & Wylie, C. E. (2007). Writing dif-ferences in teacher performance assessments: Aninvestigation of African American language andedited American English. Applied Linguistics, 29(2),244–266.
Tabors, P. O., Snow, C E., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001).Home and schools together: Supporting language andliteracy development. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O.
Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language:Young children learning at home and school (pp.313–334). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Terry, N. P., Connor, C. M., Tate, S. T., & Love, M. (2010).Examining relationships among dialect variation, liter-acy skills, and school context in first grade. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 126–145.
Terry, N. P., Mills, M. T., Bingham, G. E., Mansour,S., & Marencin, N. (2013). Oral narrative perfor-mance of African American prekindergartners whospeak nonmainstream American English. Language,Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 291–305.
Thompson, C. A., Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A.(2004). Variable production of African American En-glish across oracy and literacy contexts. LanguageSpeech and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 269–282.
Timler, G. R. (2008). Social communication: A frame-work for assessment and intervention. ASHA Leader,13(15), 10–13.
Timler, G. R., Olswang, L. B., & Coggins, T. E. (2005).“Do I know what I need to do?” A social communica-tion intervention for children with complex clinicalprofiles. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 36, 73–85.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cul-tures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tough, J. (1982). Talk for teaching and learning.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Troia, G. A. (2011). How might pragmatic language skillsaffect the written expression of students with lan-guage learning disabilities? Topics in language Dis-orders, 31(1), 40–53.
Van Hofwegen, J., & Wolfram, W. (2010). Coming ofage in African American English: A longitudinal study.Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(4), 427–455.
van Kleeck, A. (2008). Providing preschool foundationsfor later reading comprehension: The importanceof and ideas for targeting inferencing in storybook-sharing interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 45,627–643.
van Wormer, K., & Besthorn, F. H. (2010). Human behav-ior and the social environment, macro level: Groups,communities, and organizations. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
Wallace, I. F., Roberts, J. E., & Lodder, D. E. (1998). Inter-actions of African American infants and their mothers:Relations with development at 1 year of age. Journalof Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4),900–912.
Washington, J. A. (2001). Early literacy skills in AfricanAmerican children: Research considerations. Learn-ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 213–221.
Weiner, J. (2004). Do peer relationships foster be-havioral adjustment in children with learning
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children 45
disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 21–30.
Weiner, J., & Schneider, B. (2002). A multisource ex-ploration of friendship patterns of children with andwithout LD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,30, 127–141.
Westby, C. E., & Culatta, B. (2010). Forward. Topics inlanguage Disorders, 30(4), 272–214.
Westby, C. E., Culatta, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K.(2010). Summarizing expository text. Topics in Lan-guage Disorders, 30(4), 275–287.
Westby, C., & Robinson, L. (2014). Developmental per-spective for promoting theory of mind. Topics in Lan-guage Disorders, 34(4), 362–382.
Wetherby, A. M., & Prutting, C. (1984). Profiles of com-municative and cognitive-social abilities in Autisticchildren. Journal of Speech, Language, and HearingResearch, 27, 364–377.
Wyatt, T. A. (1995). Language development in AfricanAmerican English child speech. Linguistics and Edu-cation, 7, 7–22.
Xie, C., & House, J. (2009). Some aspects of pragmat-ics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural. Pragmat-ics and Cognition, 17(2), 421–439.
Zevenbergen, A. A. (1996). Narrative development insocioeconomically disadvantaged preschoolers. Un-published doctoral dissertation, State University ofNew York, Stony Brook.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
