Complex Syntax Production in Informational Writing by Students With Language Impairment From Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Topics in Language Disorders Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1097/tld.0000000000000325
Shannon Hall-Mills, Carla Wood
{"title":"Complex Syntax Production in Informational Writing by Students With Language Impairment From Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds","authors":"Shannon Hall-Mills, Carla Wood","doi":"10.1097/tld.0000000000000325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The primary objective of this study was to compare the syntactic complexity of informational texts produced by fifth-grade students (a) with and without language impairment and (b) with and without native English-speaking proficiency on a curriculum-based reading and writing task. Expository writing samples produced by 114 children enrolled in the fifth grade were analyzed at the utterance level for five features of complex syntax, including the frequency of utterances containing complex syntax and specific clause types (conjoined, subordinate, relative, full complement). For each of the four groups, we report frequency counts, means, standard deviations, and ranges of performance across the five syntax measures. Multivariate analysis of variance revealed there were significant group differences on measures. Specifically, children with typical language development, regardless of English proficiency level, wrote more words, utterances, and different word roots than their peers with language impairment. When productivity (i.e., text length) in the writing samples was controlled, multivariate analysis of variance revealed there was a significant difference between groups in use of relative clauses, but not for the use of conjoined, subordinate, or full complement clauses. In particular, English proficient students with language impairment produced a greater proportion of utterances with relative clauses. A post hoc correlation analysis showed moderate, positive correlations among writing cohesion and variables of complex syntax. We consider multiple implications for clinical practice and further research.","PeriodicalId":51604,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Language Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Language Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0000000000000325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to compare the syntactic complexity of informational texts produced by fifth-grade students (a) with and without language impairment and (b) with and without native English-speaking proficiency on a curriculum-based reading and writing task. Expository writing samples produced by 114 children enrolled in the fifth grade were analyzed at the utterance level for five features of complex syntax, including the frequency of utterances containing complex syntax and specific clause types (conjoined, subordinate, relative, full complement). For each of the four groups, we report frequency counts, means, standard deviations, and ranges of performance across the five syntax measures. Multivariate analysis of variance revealed there were significant group differences on measures. Specifically, children with typical language development, regardless of English proficiency level, wrote more words, utterances, and different word roots than their peers with language impairment. When productivity (i.e., text length) in the writing samples was controlled, multivariate analysis of variance revealed there was a significant difference between groups in use of relative clauses, but not for the use of conjoined, subordinate, or full complement clauses. In particular, English proficient students with language impairment produced a greater proportion of utterances with relative clauses. A post hoc correlation analysis showed moderate, positive correlations among writing cohesion and variables of complex syntax. We consider multiple implications for clinical practice and further research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同语言背景的语言障碍学生信息写作中的复杂句法生成
本研究的主要目的是比较五年级学生(a)有和没有语言障碍,(b)有和没有英语母语水平)在基于课程的阅读和写作任务中所写的信息文本的句法复杂性。本文对114名五年级学生的说明性写作样本进行了话语层面的复杂句法特征分析,包括复杂句法的话语频率和特定的从句类型(连词、从属、关系、完整补语)。对于四组中的每一组,我们报告了五种语法度量的频率计数、平均值、标准偏差和性能范围。多变量方差分析显示组间测量值差异显著。具体来说,具有典型语言发展的儿童,无论英语水平如何,都比有语言障碍的同龄人写出更多的单词、话语和不同的词根。当写作样本的生产力(即文本长度)受到控制时,多变量方差分析显示,两组之间在使用关系分句方面存在显著差异,但在使用连词、从属分句或完整补语分句方面没有显著差异。特别是,英语熟练但有语言障碍的学生使用关系从句的比例更高。事后相关分析表明,写作衔接与复杂句法变量之间存在适度的正相关关系。我们考虑临床实践和进一步研究的多重含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Topics in Language Disorders (TLD) is a double-blind peer-reviewed topical journal that has dual purposes: (1) to serve as a scholarly resource for researchers and clinicians who share an interest in spoken and written language development and disorders across the lifespan, with a focus on interdisciplinary and international concerns; and (2) to provide relevant information to support theoretically sound, culturally sensitive, research-based clinical practices.
期刊最新文献
Implementing Strategy-Based Instruction for Struggling Writers via Telepractice Effects of Integrating Different Types of Physical Activity Into Virtual Rapid Word Learning Instruction for Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Innovations in Language and Literacy for Children and Adolescents With Language Disorders Using Multiliteracies to Target Critical Media Literacy for Adolescents With Language Learning Disabilities Coordinating Multiple Language Levels in Writing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1