Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:59:20.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preschool-aged children have difficulty constructing and interpreting simple utterances composed of graphic symbols*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

ANN SUTTON ,
NATACHA TRUDEAU ,
JILL MORFORD ,
MONICA RIOS  and
MARIE-ANDRÉE POIRIER
ANN SUTTON*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
NATACHA TRUDEAU
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
JILL MORFORD
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
MONICA RIOS
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
MARIE-ANDRÉE POIRIER
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
Address for correspondence: Ann Sutton, École d'orthophonie et d'audiologie, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems while they are in the process of acquiring language face unique challenges because they use graphic symbols for communication. In contrast to the situation of typically developing children, they use different modalities for comprehension (auditory) and expression (visual). This study explored the ability of three- and four-year-old children without disabilities to perform tasks involving sequences of graphic symbols. Thirty participants were asked to transpose spoken simple sentences into graphic symbols by selecting individual symbols corresponding to the spoken words, and to interpret graphic symbol utterances by selecting one of four photographs corresponding to a sequence of three graphic symbols. The results showed that these were not simple tasks for the participants, and few of them performed in the expected manner – only one in transposition, and only one-third of participants in interpretation. Individual response strategies in some cases lead to contrasting response patterns. Children at this age level have not yet developed the skills required to deal with graphic symbols even though they have mastered the corresponding spoken language structures.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada. Parts of the data were presented at the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association meeting in Philadelphia in November 2004 and at the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association meeting in Boston in November 2007. The authors wish to thank all the children who participated in the study and the research assistants who collected the data.

References

REFERENCES

Acredolo, L. & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development 59, 450–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, A., Sevcik, R. & Romski, M. (2006). Visual–graphic symbol acquisition by pre-school age children with developmental and language delays. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 22, 10–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L. & Volterra, V. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults, 3rd edn.Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Blockberger, S. & Sutton, A. (2003). Towards linguistic competence: The language experiences and knowledge of children with extremely limited speech. In Light, J., Beukelman, D. & Reichle, J. (eds), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC, 63–106. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Bruno, J. & Trembath, D. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 22, 300–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaghan, T. (2005). Developing an intention to communicate through drawing. Enfance 1, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, T. & Rankin, M. (2002). Emergence of graphic symbol functioning and the question of domain specificity: A longitudinal training study. Child Development 73, 359–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chute, D. (1996). PowerLaboratory for Macintosh. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Clancy, P., Lee, H. & Zoh, M. (1986). Processing strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses: Universal principles and language-specific realizations. Cognition 24, 225–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLoache, J. & Burns, N. (1994). Symbolic functioning in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 15, 513–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLoache, J., Pierroutsakos, S. & Uttal, D. (2003). The origins of pictorial competence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, 114–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L., Thériault-Whalen, C. & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody. Toronto: Psycan.Google Scholar
Fallon, K., Light, J. & Achenbach, A. (2003). The semantic organization patterns of young children: Implications for augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 19, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. W. & Rose, S. P. (1996). Dynamic growth cycles of brain and cognitive development. In Thatcher, R., Lyon, G. R., Rumsey, J. & Krasnegor, N. (eds), Developmental neuroimaging: Mapping the development of brain and behavior, 263–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., Bullock, M. & Meck, E. (1980). Preschoolers' understanding of simple object transformations. Child Development 51, 691–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genesee, F., Paradis, J. & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development, Volume 2, 301–334. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Feldman, H. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science 197(4301), 401–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golomb, C. (2004). The child's creation of a pictorial world, 2nd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Groupe coopératif en orthophonie – Région Laval, Laurentides, Lanaudière (1995). Épreuve de compréhension de Carrow-Woolfolk, adaptation française du Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-R. Montréal: Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (1994). The Picture Communication Symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer Johnson.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1990). Constraints on representational change: Evidence from children's drawing. Cognition 34, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M.-C. & Cuckle, P. (1996). Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: Representing and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word. Cognition 58, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lust, B. (2006). Child language: Acquisition and growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play in the transition to language. Developmental Psychology 31, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mineo Mollica, B. (2003). Representational competence. In Light, J., Beukelman, D. & Reichle, J. (eds), Communicative competence for people who use AAC: From research to effective practice, 107–145. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Namy, L. (2005). Symbol use and symbolic representation: Developmental and comparative perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paul, R. (1998). Communication development in augmented modalities: Language without speech? In Paul, R. (ed.), Exploring the speech–language connection, 139–62. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Picard, D. & Vintner, A. (2005). Development of graphic formulas for the depiction of familiar objects. International Journal of Behavioral Development 29, 418–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochat, P. & Callaghan, T. (2005). What drives symbolic development? In Namy, L. (ed.), Symbol use and symbolic representation: Developmental and comparative perspectives, 25–46. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sevcik, R. (2006). Comprehension: An overlooked component in augmented language development. Disability and Rehabilitation 28, 159–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sevcik, R. & Romski, M. (2002). The role of language comprehension in establishing augmented conversations. In Reichle, J., Beukelman, D. & Light, J. (eds), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators, 453–74. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1994). Cognitive variability: A key to understanding cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 3, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. M. (1996). The medium or the message: A study of speaking children using communication boards. In von Tetzchner, S. & Jensen, M. H. (eds), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives, 119–36. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Smith, M. M. & Grove, N. C. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use AAC. In Light, J., Beukelman, D. & Reichle, J. (eds), Communicative competence for people who use AAC: From research to effective practice, 163–98. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Soto, G. (1999). Understanding the impact of graphic sign use on the message formulation structure. In Loncke, F., Clibbens, J., Arvidson, H. & Lloyd, L. L. (eds), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice, 40–48. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Stephenson, J. & Linfoot, K. (1996). Pictures as communication symbols for students with severe intellectual disability. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 12, 244–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, A. (1997). Children's comprehension performance prior to mastery of relative clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
Sutton, A., Gallagher, T., Morford, J. P. & Shahnaz, N. (2000). Relative clause sentence production using augmentative and alternative communcation systems. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 473–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, A., Gallagher, T., Morford, J. P. & Shahnaz, N. (2002). Interpretation of graphic symbol utterances. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 18, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, A., Morford, J. & Gallagher, T. (2004). Production and comprehension of graphic symbol utterances expressing complex propositions by adults who use AAC systems. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 349–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. (1995). Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., Dagenais, E., de Broeck, S. & Morford, J. (2007). Construction of graphic symbol utterances by children: The effect of structure and task demands. Journal of Speech–Language–Hearing Research 50, 1314–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., Morford, J., de Broeck, S., Dagenais, E., Pauzé, A.-M. & Vallée, V. (2006). Producing and interpreting symbol sequences: The impact of language development. Paper presented at the 12th biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Dusseldorf, Germany, August.Google Scholar
von Balkom, H. & Welle Donker-Gimbrère, M. (1996). A psycholinguistic approach to graphic language use. In von Tetzchner, S. & Jensen, M. H. (eds), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives, 153–70. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, K., Sevcik, R. & Romski, M. (1993). Emergence of visual graphic symbol combinations by youth with moderate or severe mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37, 883–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar