Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:25:23.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recast type, repair, and acquisition in AAC mediated interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

Gloria SOTO Open the ORCID record for Gloria SOTO [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael T. CLARKE ,
Keith NELSON ,
Renee STAROWICZ  and
Gat SAVALDI-HARUSSI
Gloria SOTO*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech, Hearing and Language Sciences, San Francisco State University, USA
Michael T. CLARKE
Affiliation:
Research Department of Language and Cognition, University College London, UK
Keith NELSON
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Renee STAROWICZ
Affiliation:
Joint Doctoral Program in Special Education, San Francisco State University
Gat SAVALDI-HARUSSI
Affiliation:
Joint Doctoral Program in Special Education, San Francisco State University
*
*Corresponding author: Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, 1600 Holloway Av, San Francisco, CA94132. E-mail: gsoto@sfsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated the effects of different types of recasts and prompts on the rate of repair and spontaneous use of novel vocabulary by eight children with severe motor speech disabilities who used speech-generating technologies to communicate. Data came from 60 transcripts of clinical sessions that were part of a conversation-based intervention designed to teach them pronouns, verbs, and verb inflections. The results showed that, when presented alone, interrogative choice and declarative recasts led to the highest rates of child repair. The results also showed that when children were presented with recasts and prompts to repair, the rate of repair increased. Spontaneous use of linguistic targets was significantly and positively related to conversational sequences where the adult recast was followed by child repair. These findings suggest that using different recast types and prompts to repair may be beneficial for spontaneous use of linguistic targets in this population.

Keywords

adult inputrecastAAC
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 47 , Special Issue 1: The Influence of Input Quality and Communicative Interaction on Language Development Part 1 , January 2020 , pp. 250 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Learners’ noticing of recasts of morpho-syntactic errors: recast types and delayed recognition. System, 40(2), 226–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, N. D., & Nelson, K. E. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5(13), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binger, C., Maguire-Marshall, M., & Kent-Walsh, J. (2011). Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(1), 160–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boenisch, J., & Soto, G. (2015). The oral core vocabulary of typically developing English-speaking school-aged children: implications for AAC practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohannon, J. N. III, Padgett, R. J., Nelson, K. E., & Mark, M. (1996). Useful evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 551–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camarata, S., & Nelson, K. E. (2006). Conversational recast intervention with preschool and older children. In McCauley, R. & Fey, M. (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 237–64). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.Google ScholarPubMed
Camarata, S. M., Nelson, K. E., & Camarata, M. N. (1994). Comparison of conversational-recasting and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37, 1414–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 417–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (2014). Pragmatics in acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 41(S1), 105–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (2017). Conversation and language acquisition: a pragmatic approach. Language Learning and Development, 14(3), 170–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. T., Price, K., & Griffiths, T. (2016). Augmentative and alternative communication for children with cerebral palsy. Pediatrics and Child Health, 26, 373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. T., Soto, G., & Nelson, K. (2017). Language learning, recasts, and interaction involving AAC: background and potential for intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleave, P. L., Becker, S. D., Curran, M. K., Van Horne, A. J. O., & Fey, M. E. (2015). The efficacy of recasts in language intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 237–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, T. (2012). The comparative effectiveness of recasts and prompts in second language classrooms. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 7, 83–97.Google Scholar
Dowden, P. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication decision making for children with severely unintelligible speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(1), 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovach, T. M. (2009). Augmentative & alternative communication profile: a continuum of learning. Austin, TX: LinguiSystems.Google Scholar
Kovacs, T., & Hill, K. (2015). A tutorial on reliability testing in AAC language sample transcription and analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31, 148–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., Nockerts, A., Westerveld, M., & Gillon, G. (2012). Assessing language production using SALT software: a clinician's guide to language sample analysis. Middleton, WI: SALT Software.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1977). Facilitating children's syntax acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. E., Camarata, S. M., Welsh, J., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1996). Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific language impairment and younger language-normal children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39(4), 850–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plante, E., Ogilvie, T., Vance, R., Aguilar, J. M., Dailey, N. S., Meyers, C., & Burton, R. (2014). Variability in the language input to children enhances learning in a treatment context. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(4), 530–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Adamson, L. B., Cheslock, M., Smith, A., Barker, R. M., & Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 350–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruston, H. P., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Effects of a conversation intervention on the expressive vocabulary development of prekindergarten children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 303–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxton, M. (2005). ‘Recast’ in a new light: insights for practice from typical language studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, N. J., & Olswang, L. B. (1989). Using structured discourse as a language intervention technique with autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(3), 383–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soto, G., & Clarke, M. T. (2017). Effects of a conversation-based intervention on the linguistic skills of children with motor speech disorders who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(7), 1980–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soto, G., & Clarke, M. T. (2018). Conversation-based intervention for adolescents using augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(3), 180–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiegler, L. N., & Hoffman, P. R. (2001). Discourse-based intervention for word finding in children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34(4), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Tetzchner, S. (2018). Introduction to the special issue on aided language processes, development, and use: an international perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar