The Syntactic Density Score (SDS) is an index of language complexity computed from 10 variously weighted component variables. The SDS has been criticized as being redundant with one of its own component variables, as being arbitrarily weighted, and as having a serious scoring anomaly. The purposes of this study were to determine if group effects would be found by using the raw scores of the 10 variables without the weightings and to see which of these variables would contribute most to group differences among older children. Language samples from 72 learning disabled students and a matched group of normally achieving peers (age range 9.0 to 15.0) were analysed. A MANOVA revealed no significant overall effect for ability nor for ability X age inter action. These was, however, a significant effect of age. Discriminant analysis with stepwise variable selection identified gerunds, verbs, prepositional phrases and number of subordinate clauses per T-unit as components of the SDS which could be used to determine age group differences. Similar analysis of com ponent variables of the SDS is recommended for future studies, rather than using the derived SDS itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, R.L.1966: The verb system of present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton.
2.
Andolina, C.1980: Syntactic maturity and vocabulary richness of learning-disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities13, 372-77.
3.
Belanger, J.F.1978: Calculating the syntactic density score: a mathematical problem. Research in the Teaching of English10, 149-53.
4.
Brown, R.1973: A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press .
5.
Corroll, J.B.1960: Language development. In Harris, C. W., editor, Enclyclopedia of educational research , third edition, New York : Macmillan.
6.
Carrow, E.1973: Test for auditory comprehension of language. Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts.
7.
Chomsky, C.1972: Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review42, 1-33.
8.
Chomsky, N.1965: Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
9.
Ciani, A.J.1975: Syntactic maturity and vocabulary diversity in the oral language of first, second and third grade school children (doctoral dissertation , Indiana University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International35, 5983A.
10.
Dromi, E. and Berman, R.A.1982: A morphemic measure of early language development: data from modern Hebrew. Journal of Child Language9, 403-24.
11.
Fox, S.E.1971: Syntactic maturity and vocabulary diversity in oral language of kindergarten and primary school children (doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International31, 5930A-5931A.
12.
Golub, L.S. and Frederick, C.1971: Linguistic structures in the discourse of fourth and sixth graders. Technical Reports No. 166, Research and development Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
13.
Harner, L.1982: Immediacy and certainty: factors in understanding future reference. Journal of Child Language9, 115-24.
14.
Hopkins, C.J.1976: An investigation of the relationship of selected oral language measures and first-grade reading achievement. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 141 782.
15.
Hunt, K.W.1965: Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. National Council of Teachers of English Research Reports No. 3, Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
16.
Johnson, N.1976: A comparison of syntactic writing maturity with reading comprehension. Paper presented at the 1976 International Reading Association, Texas State Council Conference, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 141 794.
17.
Kidder, C.L.1974: Using the computer to measure syntactic density and vocabulary intensity in the writing of elementary school children (doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International35, 3524A.
Leu, D.J. Jr1982: Differences between oral and written discourse and the acquisition of reading proficiency. Journal of Reading Behavior14, 111-25.
20.
Newcomer, P., Goodman, L. and Hammill, D.1978: Test of language development. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
21.
O'Donnell, R.C.1976: A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English10, 31-38.
22.
O'Donnell, R.C., Griffin, W.J. and Norris, R.C.1967: Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: a transformational analysis. National Council of Teachers of English Research Reports No. 8, Champaign, Illinois : National Council of Teachers of English.
23.
O'Neal, M.R.1983: The use of the syntactic density score as an evaluative criterion measure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Education Research Association, Nashville, Tennessee, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 237 558.
24.
Richgeis, D.J. forthcoming: Grade school children's listening and reading comprehension of complex sentences. Reading Research and Instruction.
25.
Rubin, A.1980: A theoretical taxonomy of the differences between oral and written language. In Spiro, R.J., Bruce, B.C. and Brewer, W.F. , editors, Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
Scherer, N.J. and Coggins, T.E.1982: Responses to requests in the dialogues of mothers and their Stage 1 children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research25, 58-64.
27.
Simms, R.B. and Crump, W.D.1980: Language development among learning-disabled and normal students at intermediate and secondary age levels. Report No. G007900009, Washington DC: US Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.
28.
1983: Syntactic development in the oral language of learning disabled and normal students at the intermediate and secondary level. Learning Disability Quarterly6, 155-65.
29.
Stalnaker, L.D. and Creaghead, N.A., 1982: An examination of language samples obtained under three experimental conditions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools13, 121-28.
30.
Vihman, M.M.1982: The acquisition of morphology by a bilingual child: a whole-word approach. Applied Psycholinguistics3, 141-60.
31.
Yoshinoga, C.1983: Comparative analysis of narrative written discourse between hearing and and hearing-impaired school-age children. Report No. G008101038, Washington DC: US Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.
