Mean Length of Utterance-words in children with typical language development aged 4 to 5 years
Extensão média do enunciado-palavras em crianças de 4 e 5 anos com desenvolvimento típico da linguagem
Maria Emília Santos; Sofia Lynce; Sara Carvalho; Mariana Cacela; Ana Mineiro
Abstract
Purpose: to analyze the Mean Length of Utterance-words (MLU-w) in children aged 4;00-5;05 years.
Methods: ninety two Portuguese children with normal development were observed: 49 girls and 43 boys, divided in age range groups of six months. A sample of 100 utterances produced in spontaneous discourse was collected from each child. The utterances were transcribed and analyzed.
Results: MLU-w was shown to vary between 4,5 to 5 words, progressing with age. This progression had been previously observed in US English and in Brazilian Portuguese speaking children, although in European Portuguese the number of words is overall a little higher. Both boys and girls performed similarly. Years of parents formal education showed some influence, but not in all age groups. Results showed a positive and significant correlation with a formal test for language assessment, both in comprehension as in language production.
Conclusion: the MLU-w is a good measure of language development up to 5 years. The values found can serve as a normative reference for Portuguese children, but also in comparative studies on the development of spontaneous language.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: analisar a Extensão Média do Enunciado-palavras (EME-p) em crianças entre os 4;00 e os 5;05.
Métodos: foram observadas 92 crianças portuguesas com desenvolvimento típico: 49 meninas e 43 meninos, divididas em grupos etários com 6 meses de intervalo. Foi recolhida para cada criança uma amostra de 100 enunciados produzidos em discurso espontâneo. Os enunciados foram transcritos e analisados.
Resultados: a EME-p variou de 4,5 a 5 palavras, aumentando com a idade. Esta progressão foi verificada anteriormente em crianças falantes de Inglês dos EUA e de Português do Brasil, embora no Português Europeu o número de palavras seja, no geral, um pouco superior. O desempenho de meninos e meninas foi idêntico. A escolaridade dos pais mostrou ter alguma influência, mas não em todos os grupos etários. Os resultados mostraram uma correlação positiva e significante com um teste formal de linguagem, tanto na compreensão, como na expressão.
Conclusão: a EME-p é uma boa medida de desenvolvimento da linguagem até aos 5 anos. Os valores encontrados podem servir como referência normativa relativamente às crianças portuguesas, mas também em estudos comparativos sobre o desenvolvimento da linguagem espontânea.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Gries ST, Stol S. Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: variability based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics. 2009;16:217-42.
2. Parker MD, Brorson, K. A comparative study between mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLUm) and mean length of utterance in words (MLUw). First Language. 2005;25:365-76.
3. Roy D. New horizons in the study of child language acquisition. Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2009, 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, September 6-10; Brighton, United Kingdom; 2009.
4. Eisenbeiss S. Production methods in language acquisition research. In: Blom E, Unsworth S, editors. Experimental methods in language acquisition research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2010. P. 11-34.
5. Rice ML, Redmond SM, Hoffman, L. Mean Length of Utterance in children with Specific Language Impairment and in younger control children shows current validity and stable and parallel growth trajectories. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2006;49:793-808.
6. Retherford, KS. Guide to analysis of language transcripts. 3rd edition. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications; 2000.
7. Brown R. A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1973.
8. Miller JF. Assessing language production in children. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1981.
9. Hickey T. Mean length of utterance and the acquisition of Irish. Journal of Child Language. 1991;18:553-69.
10. Nice MM. Length of sentences as a criterion of a child's progress in speech. Journal of Education Psychology. 1925;16:370-9.
11. Eisenberg SL, Fersko TM, Undgreen C. The use of MLU for identifying impairment in preschool children: a review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2001;10:323-42.
12. Arif H, Bol GW. Counting MLU in morphemes and MLU in words in a normally developing child and child with language disorder: a comparative study. Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics. 2008;1:167-82.
13. Oosthuizen H, Southwood, F. Methodological issues in the calculation of mean length of utterance. South African Journal of Communication Disorders. 2009;56:76-87.
14. Gutiérrez-Clellen VF, Restrepo MA, Peña LB, Anderson R. Language sample analysis in Spanish speaking children: methodological consideration. Journal of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2000;31:88-98.
15. Bol GW. Optimal subjects in Dutch child language. In: Koster C, Wijnen F, editors. Proceeding of the Groningen assembly on language acquisition. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition; 1996. P. 125-33.
16. Klee T. Developmental and diagnostic characteristics of quantitative measures of children's language production. Topics in Language Disorders. 1992;12:28-41.
17. Wieczorek R. Using MLU to study early language development in English. Psychology of Language and Communication. 2010;14:59-69.
18. Blake J, Quartaro G, Onorati S. Evaluating quantitative measures of grammatical complexity in spontaneous speech samples. Journal of Child Language. 1993;20:139-52.
19. Özçalişkan S, Goldin-Meadow S. Sex differences in language first appear in gesture. Developmental Science. 2010;13:752-60.
20. Ramer ALH. Syntactic styles in emerging language. Journal of Child Language. 1976;3:49-62.
21. Davies A. An introduction to applied Linguistics – from practice to theory. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh textbooks in applied Linguistics; 2007.
22. Klee T, Stokes SF, Wong AMY, Fletcher P, Gavin WJ. Utterance length and lexical diversity in Cantonese-speaking children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 2004;47:1396-410.
23. Jackson SC, Roberts JE. Complex syntax production of African American preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2001; 4:1083-96.
24. Tse SK, Chan C, Kwong SM, Li H. Sex differences in syntactic development: evidence from Cantonese-speaking preschoolers in Hong-Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2002;26:509-17.
25. Le Normand M-T, Parisse C, Cohen H. Lexical diversity and productivity in French preschoolers. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. 2008;22:47-58.
26. Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, Haynes OM. Specific and general language performance across early childhood: stability and gender consideration. First Language. 2004;24:267-304.
27. Walker D, Greenwood C, Hart B, Carta J. Prediction of school outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Children and Poverty. 1994;65:606-21.
28. Hoff E. The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development. 2003;74:1368-78.
29. Rice ML, Smolik F, Perpich D, Thompson T, Rytting N, Blossom M. Mean Length of Utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2010;53:333-49.
30. Araújo K, Befi-Lopes. Extensão média do enunciado de crianças entre 2 e 4 anos de idade: diferenças no uso de palavras e morfemas. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia. 2004;9:156-63.
31. Sua-Kay E, Tavares MD. Teste de avaliação da linguagem na criança – TALC. Lisboa: Oficina Didáctica; 2008.
32. Lund NJ, Duchan JF. Assessing children's language in naturalistic contexts. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1993.
33. Miller JF, Chapman RS. Systematic analysis of language transcripts [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin; 1991.
34. Villalva A. Morfologia do Português. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta; 2008.
35. Heilmann JJ. Myths and realities of language sample analysis. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education. 2010;17:4-8.
36. McEwen S. Learning to speak like girls and boys: a developmental study in gender and narrative style. Language, Information and Computation. 1996;11:449-58.
Submetido em:
27/01/2015
Aceito em:
23/04/2015
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email