Introduction: special issue on atypical development.
Introduction: special issue on atypical development.
复制标题
简介：非典型发展特刊。
DOI：
10.1017/s0305000912000578
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Bavin,EdithL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Naigles,LetitiaR;Bavin,EdithL
1 https：//doi. org/10.1017/S 0305000912000578由剑桥大学出版社在线发布具有特定类型非典型神经基质的儿童应该表现出语言发展的非典型过程和/或产物。然而，考虑到这些儿童语言发展的特殊性是公认的，我们可以问为什么我们应该研究他们，当（a）有数十亿典型发展的儿童学习数千种语言，其语言发展尚未完全理解，（B）具有非典型语言发展的儿童提出了额外的研究挑战，包括招募足够大的患有障碍的儿童样本进行分析，这些分析将提供信息并允许概括，决定如何最好地将该组与具有典型语言发展的对照组相匹配，并以适当的方法评估儿童的语文能力，以找出他们在语文方面的强项和弱项。从临床的角度来看，语言发展是在一个特定的非典型人群中进行研究，以确定语言的哪些方面似乎难以获得，以便设计和实施适当的干预措施。因此，典型案例是非典型案例的比较标准。然而，从研究的角度来看，这些是交换的：非典型案例的研究是为了更好地理解典型案例。非典型案例提供了“自然实验”（Gleitman，1984），以揭示什么是必要的，什么是足够的儿童语言习得发生和成功。也就是说，通过研究儿童的非典型语言发展，我们希望更多地了解（1）哪些潜在的（非语言）成分是必需的，它们是必需的，（2）哪些过程是有弹性的或强大的，（3）语言的哪些成分似乎与给定的障碍有关（即完整或受损）。在这期特刊的文章中，我们看到了所有这三种疾病的例子。例如，几种神经发育障碍（唐氏综合征（DS），威廉姆斯综合征（WS））对受影响儿童的整体智商产生了负面影响。语言习得在多大程度上需要“正常”智力？关于这个问题的早期研究注意到心理年龄和词汇量之间的紧密联系（在Cicchetti和Beeghly，1990中进行了回顾）;儿童学习单词的倾向显然取决于他们形成和整合概念的能力。使用标准化的测试数据，Finestack，Sterling和Abbeduto提供了一些令人信服的证据，表明DS学龄儿童的语法明显受损;比智力年龄匹配的脆性X综合征儿童或典型发育（TD）儿童受损更严重。此外，正如预期的心理年龄匹配，词汇水平并没有在三组之间的差异，因此，语法习得似乎差异更受DS比词汇。在他们的文章中，Levy和Eilam专注于语法领域中可能受损的东西;他们检查了
1 https://doi. org/10.1017/S0305000912000578 Published online by Cambridge University Press children with specific kinds of atypical neural substrates should show atypical processes and/or products of language development. However, given that the atypicality of language development in these children is acknowledged, we can ask why we should study them when (a) there are billions of typically developing children learning thousands of languages whose language development is not yet fully understood, and (b) children with atypical language development present with additional challenges for study, which include recruiting large enough samples of children with a disorder to conduct analyses that will be informative and allow generalization, deciding how best to match the group with a comparison group with typical language development, and assessing the children in appropriate ways to identify their language strengths and weaknesses. From a clinical point of view, language development is studied in a specific atypical population in order to characterize just which aspects of language seem to be acquired with difficulty so that appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented. Thus, the typical case is the standard of comparison for the atypical case. From a research point of view, though, these are switched: the atypical case is investigated in order to better understand the typical case. Atypical cases provide ‘natural experiments’(Gleitman, 1984) for revealing what is necessary and what is sufficient for child language acquisition to occur–and to succeed. That is, by investigating atypical language development in children, we hope to gain more understanding of (1) which underlying (non-linguistic) components are required and what they are required for,(2) which processes are resilient or robust, and (3) which components of language appear to be associated (ie either intact or impaired) within a given disorder. In the articles included in this special issue we see examples of all three of these.For example, several neurodevelopmental disorders (Down syndrome (DS), Williams syndrome (WS)) negatively impact the overall IQ of the affected children. To what extent is ‘normal’intelligence required for language acquisition? Early research on this question noted how tightly linked were mental age and vocabulary size (reviewed in Cicchetti & Beeghly, 1990); children’s propensity to learn words clearly depends on their ability to form and integrate concepts. Using standardized test data, Finestack, Sterling and Abbeduto provide some compelling evidence that grammar is significantly impaired in school-age children with DS; more impaired than in mental-age-matched children with Fragile X syndrome or typically developing (TD) children. Moreover, as expected by the mentalage matching, vocabulary levels did not differ among the three groups; thus, grammar acquisition seems differentially more impacted by DS than is vocabulary. In their article, Levy and Eilam focus on just what might be impaired in the grammatical realm; they examine the spontaneous speech of