Although recent evidence has shown that conversational contexts may be more effective in achieving spontaneous use of language targets, many clinicians continue to employ more structured and less naturalistic contexts for their therapy. The purpose of the current article is to present a therapy approach that is structured, yet incorporates the communicative aspects of more naturalistic language therapy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Camarata, S.M., & Nelson, K.E. (1992). Treatment efficacy as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6, 167—178.
2.
Cleave, P.L., & Fey, M.E. (1997). Two approaches to the facilitation of grammar in children with language impairments: Rationale and description. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 22—32.
3.
Cole, K.N., & Dale, P.S. (1986). Direct language instruction and interactive language instruction with language delayed preschool children: A comparison study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 206—217.
4.
Connell, P.J. (1987a). Teaching language form, meaning, and function to specific-language-impaired children. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Disorders of first language development (pp. 40—75). New York : Cambridge University Press.
5.
Connell, P.J. (1987b). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 105—113.
6.
Connell, P.J., & Stone, C.A. (1992). Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 844—852.
7.
Craig, H. (1983). Applications of pragmatic language models for intervention. In T. M. Gallagher & C. A. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language (pp. 101—127). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
8.
Dvortcsak, A., Ingersoll, B., & Buckendorf, R. (2003, November). A comparison of social-pragmatic developmental approaches to naturalistic behavior approaches . Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL.
9.
Fey, M.E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10.
Fey, M.E., Long, S.H., & Finestack, L.H. (2003). Ten principles of grammar facilitation for children with specific language impairment. American Journal of Speech—LanguagePathology, 12, 3—15.
11.
Friedman, P., & Friedman, K.A. (1980). Accounting for individual differences when comparing the effectiveness of remedial language teaching methods. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 151—170.
12.
Goffman, L., & Leonard, J. (2000). Growth of language skills in preschool children with specific language impairment: Implications for assessment and intervention . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 151—161.
13.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1986). Goldman—Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
14.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411—420.
15.
Johnston, J.R. (1985). Fit, focus, and functionality: An essay on early language intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy , 1, 125—134.
16.
Law, J. (1997). Evaluating intervention for language-impaired children: A review of the literature. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 1—14.
17.
Leonard, L.B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Leonard, L.B., & Fey, M.E. (1991). Facilitating grammatical development: The contribution of pragmatics. In T. M. Gallagher (Ed.), Pragmatics of language: Clinical practice issues (pp. 333—355). San Diego, CA: Singular.
19.
Mentis, M. (1994). Topic management in discourse: Assessment and intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 14, 29—54.
20.
Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J.M. (1979). At morning it's lunchtime: A scriptal view of children's dialogues. Discourse Processes , 2, 73—94.
21.
Nelson, K.E., Camarata, S.M., Welsh, J., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1996). Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatments on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific language impairments and younger language-normal children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 850—859.
22.
Nelson, K.E., Welsh, J., Camarata, S.M., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1995). Available input for language-impaired children and younger children of matched language levels. First Language , 15, 1—17.
23.
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
24.
Rogers-Warren, A.K., & Warren, S.F. (1980). Mands for verbalization: Facilitating the generalization of newly trained language in children. Behavior Modification , 4, 230—245.
25.
Scarborough, H. (1990). Index of productive syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 1—22.
26.
Schuele, C.M., & Hadley, P.A. (1999). Potential advantages of introducing specific language impairment to families. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 11—22.
27.
Shriberg, L., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological disorders II: A conceptual framework for management. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 242—256.
28.
Stremel, K., & Waryas, C. (1974). A behavioral-psycholinguistic approach to language training. In L. V. McReynolds (Ed.), Developing systematic procedures for training children's language (pp. 96—130; ASHA Monographs, Number 18). Washington, DC: American Speech and Hearing Association.
29.
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Van Riper, C. (1968). How to get a small child to talk. WMU Journal of SpeechTherapy, 5, 1—2.
31.
Watkins, R.V. (1994). Grammatical challenges for children with specific language impairments. In R. V. Watkins & M. L. Rice (Eds.), Specific language impairments in children (pp. 53—68). Baltimore : Brookes.
32.
Yoder, P.J., & Warren, S.F. (1998). Maternal responsivity predicts the extent to which prelinguistic intervention facilitates generalized intentional communication . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1207—1219.
33.
Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (1992). Preschool language scale—3. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
