Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:42:07.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production and comprehension of graphic symbol utterances expressing complex propositions by adults who use augmentative and alternative communication systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2004

ANN SUTTON ,
JILL P. MORFORD  and
TANYA M. GALLAGHER
ANN SUTTON
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
JILL P. MORFORD
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
TANYA M. GALLAGHER
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explored production and comprehension of complex sentences constructed using a limited vocabulary on a graphic symbol display with voice output by 25 adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. When asked to construct subject (SS) and object (OS) relative clause sentences, only a minority of participants encoded SS and OS relative clause sentences using different word orders. When asked to interpret graphic symbol utterances, most participants chose an SS interpretation. Thus, the word order used most frequently in production appeared to have a single preferred interpretation. The relationship between the word orders produced in graphic symbol utterances and the way the same word orders are interpreted is not necessarily straightforward.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 349 - 371
Copyright
© 2004 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.)

References

Beukelman D., & Mirenda P. 1998. Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Blockberger S., & Sutton A. 2003. Towards linguistic competence: The language experiences and knowledge of children with extremely limited speech. In J. Light, D. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Boysson–Bardies B. de 1999. Comment la parole vient aux enfants. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.
Bruner J. 1975. From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–288.Google Scholar
Bruno J. 1989. Customizing a Minspeak vocabulary for a preliterate child: A case example. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 89–100.
Chapman R. 1992. Processes in language acquisition and disorders. St. Louis: Mosby.
Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Crain S. 1987. On performability: Structure and process in language understanding. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1, 127– 145.Google Scholar
Crain S., McKee C., & Emiliani M. 1990. Visiting relatives in Italy. In J. deVilliers & L. Frazier (Eds.). Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 335–356). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Crain S., & Thornton R. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gerber S., & Kraat A. 1992. Use of a developmental model of language acquisition: Applications to children using AAC systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 19– 32.Google Scholar
Hunt Berg M. 2001. Exploring CHILDES for multi-modal transcription in augmentative and alternative communication. In S. von Tetzchner & J. Clibbens (Eds.), Understanding the theoretical and methodological bases of augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 42–51). Toronto: ISAAC.
Johnson R. 1981. The Picture Communication Symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer–Johnson.
Johnson R. 1985. The Picture Communication Symbols—Book II. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer–Johnson.
Johnson R. 1992. The Picture Communication Symbols—Book III. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer–Johnson.
Kelford Smith A., Thurston S., Light J., Parners P., & O'Keefe B. 1989. The form and use of written communication produced by physically disabled individuals using microcomputers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 115– 124.Google Scholar
Kraat A. 1985. Communication interaction between aided and natural speaker: A state of the art report. Toronto: Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled.
Kraat A. 1991. Methodological issues in the study of language development among children using aided language: Reactant paper 1. In J. Bordin & E. Björck–Åkesson (Eds.), Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 118–123). Vällingby: Swedish Handicap Institute.
Liberman A., & Mattingly I. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 1, 1– 36.Google Scholar
Liberman A., & Mattingly I. 1989. A specialization for speech perception. Science, 243, 489– 494.Google Scholar
Lieven E. 1997. Variation in a cross-linguistic context. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 5, pp. 199–263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Light J., Collier B., & Parnes P. 1985. Communicative interaction between young nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers: Part 1—Disourse patterns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 74– 83.Google Scholar
Locke J., & Pearson D. 1990, Linguistic significance of babbling: Evidence from a tracheostomized infant. Journal of Child Language, 17, 1– 16.Google Scholar
Müller E., & Soto G. 2001. Capturing the complexity of aided interactions: A conversation analysis perspective. In S. von Tetzchner & J. Clibbens (Eds.), Understanding the theoretical and methodological bases of augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 64–83). Toronto: ISAAC.
Nakamura K., Newell A. F., Alm N., & Waller A. C. 1998. How do members of different language communities compose sentences with a picture-based communication system? A cross-cultural study of picture-based sentences constructed by English and Japanese speakers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 71– 80.Google Scholar
Nelson N. 1992. Performance is the prize: Language competence and performance among AAC users. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 3– 18.Google Scholar
Newcomer P., & Hammill D. 1982. Test of Language Development—Primary. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Nuyts, 1992. Aspects of a cognitive–pragmatic theory of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Peters A., & Menn L. 1993. False starts and filler syllables: Ways to learn grammatical morphemes. Language, 69, 742– 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith M. 1996. The medium or the message: A study of speaking children using communication boards. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 119–136). London: Whurr.
Smith M., & Grove N. 1999. The bimodal situation of children learning language using manual and graphic signs. In F. Loncke, J. Clibbens, & L. Lloyd (Eds.), New directions in AAC: Research and practice (pp. 9–30). London: Whurr.
Snow C. 1999. Social perspectives on the emergence of language. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 257–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Soto G. 1997. Multi-unit utterances and syntax in graphic symbol communication. In E. Björck–Åkesson & P. Lindsay (Eds.), Communication … naturally: Theoretical and methological issues in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 26–32). Västerås, Sweden: Mälardalen University Press.
Soto G. 1999. Understanding the impact of graphic sign use on the message structure characteristics of individuals with severe speech impairments. In F. Loncke, J. Clibbens, & L. Lloyd (Eds.), New directions in AAC: Research and practice (pp. 40–48). London: Whurr.
Soto G., & Toro–Zambrana W. 1995. Investigation of Blissymbol use from a language research paradigm. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 118– 130.Google Scholar
Studdert–Kennedy M. 1991. A note on linguistic nativism. In R. Hoffman & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sutton A. 1989. The social–verbal competence of AAC users. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 150– 164.Google Scholar
Sutton A., & Gallagher T. 1995. Comprehensive assessment of a child using an AAC system: A comparison of two techniques. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 4, 60– 68.Google Scholar
Sutton A., Gallagher T., Morford J., & Shahnaz N. 2000. Relative clause sentence production using AAC systems. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 473– 486.Google Scholar
Sutton A., Gallagher T., Morford J., & Shahnaz N. 2002. Interpretation of graphic symbol utterances. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 205– 213.Google Scholar
Sutton A., & Morford J. 1998. Constituent order in picture pointing sequences produced by speaking children using AAC. Applied Psycholinguistics, 191, 525– 536.Google Scholar
Sutton A., Soto G., & Blockberger S. 2002. Grammatical issues in graphic symbol communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 192– 204.Google Scholar
Tomasello M., & Brooks P. 1999. Early syntactic development: A constructionist grammar approach. In M. Barrett (Ed.), The development of language (pp. 161–190). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Traxler M. J., Morris R. K., & Seely R. E. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 69– 90.Google Scholar
Udwin O., & Yule W. 1990. Augmentative communication systems taught to cerebral palsied children—A longitudinal study: I. The acquisition of signs and symbols, and syntactic aspects of their use over time. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 25, 195– 309.Google Scholar
van Balkom H. 1998, August. Enhancing natural language compensation (NLC) through augmentative communication. Paper presented at the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Dublin.
van Balkom H., & Welle Donker–Gimbrère M. 1996. A psycholinguistic approach to graphic language use. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 153–170). London: Whurr.
von Tetzchner S. 2000. Introduction to augmentative and alternative communication (2nd ed.). London: Whurr.
von Tetzchner S., & Martinsen H. 1996. Words and strategies: Communicating with young children who use aided language. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 65–88). London: Whurr.