Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T05:19:48.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relation between grammatical development and mean length of utterance in morphemes*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Thomas Klee  and
Martha Deitz Fitzgerald
Thomas Klee
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Martha Deitz Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A widely held practice in many studies of child language development and disorders has been to employ an easily calculated numerical metric, mean length of utterance measured in morphemes (MLU), as a ‘general index of grammatical development’. While this practice seems to have found acceptance among many students of child language, the usefulness of MLU past Stage II has been assumed but never empirically tested. This study evaluated the grammatical performance and MLU of 18 normally developing 2- and 3-year-old children and found that MLU did not correlate significantly with age (r = 0·26), nor did it discriminate children's profiles of grammatical development.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 251 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Asha, . (1975). Guidelines for identification audiometry. Asha 17. 94–9.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P. A., Weber, J., Hoddinott, B. A. & Klein, J. (1967). Mean length of spoken response as a function of stimulus, experimenter, and subject. ChDev 38. 191–203.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1974). Review of Brown (1973). JChLang 1. 289–307.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1979). Working with LARSP. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling linguistic disability. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability: a procedure for assessment and remediation. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Darley, F. L. & Moll, K. L. (1960). Reliability of language measures and size of language sample. JSHR 3. 166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. (1973 a). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. JPsycholingRes 2. 267–78.Google ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, J. G. (1973 b). Development of the use of word order in comprehension. JPsycholingRes 2. 331–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Erreich, A. (1980). ‘Why you won't play with me?’ Non-inversion errors in wh-questions. Paper presented to the Fifth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Freedman, P. P. & Carpenter, R. L. (1976). Semantic relations used by normal and language-impaired children at Stage I. JSHR 19. 784–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grifliths, P. (1974). Review of M. Bowerman, Early syntactic development. JChLang 1. 111–23.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. R. & Schery, T. K. (1976). The use of grammatical morphemes by children with communication disorders. In Morehead, D. M. & Morehead, A. E. (eds), Normal and deficient child language. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. J. (eds), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, C. A., James, S. L. & Saxman, J. H. (1979). A comparison of language samples elicited at home and in the clinic. JSHD 44. 321–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B. (1979). Language impairment in children. MPQ 25. 205–32.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Bolders, J. G. & Miller, J. A. (1976). An examination of the semantic relations reflected in the language usage of normal and language-disordered children. JSHR 19. 371–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Steckol, K. & Schwartz, R. (1978). Semantic relations and utterance length in child language. In Peng, F. & von Rafiler-Engel, W. (eds), Language acquisition and developmental kinesics. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1964). Comparison of grammar of children with functionally deviant and normal speech. JSHR 7. 109–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. JSHR 24. 154–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Minifie, F., Darley, F. L. & Sherman, D. (1963). Temporal reliability of seven language measures. JSHR 6. 139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehead, D. M. & Ingram, D. (1973). The development of base syntax in normal and linguistically deviant children. JSHR 16. 330–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nice, M. M. (1925). Length of sentences as a criterion of a child's progress in speech. JEdPsychol 16. 370–9.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rondal, J. (1978). Maternal speech to normal and Down's syndrome children matched for mean utterance length. In Meyers, C. E. (ed.), Quality of life in severely and profoundly mentally retarded people: research foundationsfor improvement. Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
Shriner, T. H. (1969). A review of mean length of response as a measure of expressive language development in children. JSHD 34. 61–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, G. M. (1962). Interexaminer reliability for mean length of response. JSHR 5. 91–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed