Top Lang Disorders
Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 8–45
c 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright Pragmatic Language of African
American Children and
Adolescents
A Systematic Synthesis of the
Literature
Yvette D. Hyter, Kenyatta O. Rivers,
and Glenda DeJarnette
Purpose: A systematic review and synthesis was performed on published articles and dissertations produced between 1970 and 2013 that focused on selected pragmatic language behaviors of African American children and adolescents. Methods: Electronic databases and hand
searches of articles located in the databases were used to identify the published articles and
dissertations. Each article or dissertation was reviewed by at least 2 of the authors to determine
whether it met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Selected observations of the documents
that met criteria for inclusion were recorded on the Primary Research Appraisal Tool (PRAT;
DeJarnette, Hyter, & Rivers, 2012), a data gathering and analysis framework developed by the
authors specifically for this systematic synthesis. Results: The literature search resulted in 92 research articles and dissertations, 37 of which were eliminated because they did not meet all of the
inclusion criteria. The documents that met our inclusion criteria focused primarily on the structure and/or content of narrative discourse rather than speech acts, other forms of discourse (e.g.,
conversation, expository), and presupposition/perspective taking skills. Six major themes identified in the major findings are used to summarize studies reviewed for this systematic synthesis.
Conclusions: We (a) explain the current state of knowledge about African American pragmatic
language behaviors, (b) explain major findings and implications of the extant literature in this topical area and how it may inform speech–language pathology practice, and (c) identify directions for
future research on pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents. Key words:
African American, communication functions, discourse, pragmatic language, presupposition,
speech acts, systematic review and synthesis, theory of mind
P
RAGMATICS is an area of international
interest (Archer, Aijmer, & Wichmann, 2012), which is studied in various
Author Affiliations: Department of Speech
Pathology and Audiology, Western Michigan
University, Kalamazoo (Dr Hyter); Department of
Communication Sciences and Disorders, University
of Central Florida, Orlando (Dr Rivers); and
Department of Communication Disorders,
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven
(Dr DeJarnette).
Yvette D. Hyter and Kenyatta O. Rivers have no financial or nonfinancial relationships to disclose. Glenda
DeJarnette discloses that she has received a faculty
research grant from the Connecticut State University
American Association of University Professors.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text
and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of
this article on the journal’s Web site (www.topicsin
languagedisorders.com).
Corresponding Author: Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCCSLP, Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan
Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5355 (yvette.hyter@wmich.
edu and [email protected]).
DOI: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000043
8
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
disciplines,
including
speech–language
pathology, anthropology, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy of language, and
sociology (Huang, 2012; Perkins, 2007; Xie
& House, 2009). Scholars in each of these
disciplines approach pragmatics from a
different theoretical framework, resulting
in varied conceptualizations of pragmatics.
In general, however, pragmatics can be
described as a vast content area that constitutes a component of social communication
(Adams, Baxendale, Lloyd, & Aldred, 2005;
Coggins, Timler, & Olswang, 2007; Hyter,
2007; Olswang, Coggins, & Timler, 2001).
According to Coggins et al. (2007), social
communication is the ability to use language
effectively to influence others and to interpret situations. Social communication is not
only supported by pragmatics but also by social cognitive skills and executive functioning
(EF; Olswang et al., 2001; Timler, 2008), affect
regulation (the reciprocal element of EF), and
working memory, which serves as the glue
holding the other components of social communication together (Hyter, 2012; Hyter &
Sloane, 2013). Perkins (2007) stressed the importance of approaches to pragmatics focusing, not only on the behaviors of individuals,
but also on “underlying factors” (e.g., social–
cultural, cognitive, and contextual) that motivate those behaviors (p. 32).
We use a holistic definition of pragmatics
in this article. This holistic definition is what
Huang (2012, p. 8) calls a “continental view.”
It includes linguistic, nonlinguistic, and cognitive aspects of communication, as well as
macrolevel contexts (e.g., community, ecological, global, economic, political, or ideological environments) that influence communicative behaviors (Hyter, 2007, 2014; van
Wormer & Besthorn, 2010).
Linguistic aspects of pragmatics refer to
the use of language to (1) communicate and
(2) produce and regulate discourse in ways
that are effective on the basis of the requirements of the communicative endeavor (de
Villiers, 2004). This aspect of pragmatics includes three components, the first of which
is speech acts or the communication of intentions (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). The sec-
9
ond component is the regulation and structure of discourse (such as conversation, oral
and written narratives, expository, and classroom discourse), which includes turn taking
and repair strategies (Spinelli & Ripich, 1985;
Stockman, Karasinski, & Guillory, 2008). The
third component of pragmatics is presupposition. It refers to making inferences about
what communication partners know, and it
includes register switching, dialect shifts, and
code switching (Atlas, 2004; Roth & Spekman,
1984a, 1984b). Presupposition also requires
social cognitive skills, such as perspective taking and theory of mind (Bates, 1976a, 1976b;
de Villiers, 2004; Prutting & Kirchner, 1987).
Nonlinguistic aspects of pragmatics provide a bridge between language and context in that gestures and body movements,
facial expressions, and prosody provide information about a communicator’s intentions
(Bates, 1976a, 1976b; Kelly, 2001). These
serve to facilitate the communication partner’s comprehension (Goldin-Meadow, 1999;
McNeill, 1996, 2005). Cognitive aspects of
pragmatics focus on the cognitive skills (e.g.,
implicature, inference or intention reading,
perspective taking, and theory of mind)
needed to interpret and comprehend what is
said in a given context (Bara, 2010; Perkins,
2007; Schmid, 2012; Sperber & Wilson, 2002,
2005). One’s social cultural history and influences make up the macrolevel contexts
for communicative practices, as well as determine the roles or status of interlocutors
(Hyter, 2007; Rivers, Hyter, & DeJarnette,
2012; Sperber & Wilson, 2002, 2005).
Pragmatic language is important for every
aspect of human interaction. It is important
for communicating effectively in diverse
situational contexts (Levinson, 1983), as
well as with a range of communication
partners (Hyter, 2007). As an aspect of
social communication (Hyter, 2012; Olswang
et al., 2001), pragmatics plays a role in helping
communicators to see the world from others’
perspectives (Epley & Caruso, 2009) and to
regulate social interaction (Weiner & Schneider, 2002). Positive social interactions facilitate prosocial behaviors, such as developing
and maintaining interpersonal relationships
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
10
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
(Brinton, Robinson, & Fujiki, 2004). In addition, pragmatics helps communicators make
sense of social cues (Weiner, 2004) and can
play a role in academic outcomes (Boudreau,
2008; Donahue, 1985; Eder, 1982; O’Neill,
2014). Presupposition and inferring others’
intentions, both components of pragmatic
language, facilitate comprehension of oral
and written discourse, as well as figurative language (Troia, 2011). Multiple areas
of cognition support pragmatic language
(Hyter, 2012; Olswang et al., 2001; Perkins,
2007), and cognitive impairments can affect
pragmatic functioning (Perkins, 2007).
In addition, cultural practices are manifested through pragmatics (Hyter, 2007;
Rivers et al., 2012). Culture can be defined
as the assumptions, values, belief systems,
and worldviews that guide daily practice of
groups of people with a shared history of
problem solving (Lustig & Koester, 2012;
Ting-Toomey, 1999). It is an essential generator of pragmatic language, as culture
determines how one interprets the contexts
in which communicative interactions occur,
how one changes his or her own behavior on
the basis of his or her interpretation of the
communicative context, and how one communicates using linguistic, paralinguistic, and
nonlinguistic communicative behaviors (see
DeJarnette, Rivers, & Hyter, 2015). Linguistic
culture, which includes the attitudes, beliefs,
and assumptions that groups of people have
about their own group’s and other groups’
ways of using language (Schiffman, 1996),
also influences beliefs and perceptions of
language variations.
Pragmatic elements play a crucial role
in the daily lives of all communicators.
This factor motivates our advocacy for
more focused study of pragmatic language
behaviors of African American children and
adolescents. Although the language development of African American children and
adolescents has been the focus of research
for decades, at least since the late 1960s, most
research has concentrated on the structure
(phonology, morphology, and syntax) and
meaning (semantics) of African American
English (AAE; e.g., the work of Craig &
Washington, 1994, 1995, 2002; Dandy, 1991;
Green, 2002, 2003; Newkirk-Turner, Oetting,
& Stockman, 2014; Oetting et al., 2010;
Roy, Oetting, & Moland, 2013; Seymour &
Roeper, 1999; Smitherman, 1994; Stockman,
2010; Stockman, Guillory, Seibert, & Boult,
2013; Stockman & Vaughn-Cook, 1992; Van
Hofwegen & Wolfram, 2010). In contrast,
there has been limited research regarding the
pragmatic components of AAE.
One reason for this may be that, to date,
there has not been a unifying framework
for examining the pragmatic language of
African American children and adolescents
(DeJarnette et al., 2015; Hwa-Froelich, Kasambira, & Moleski, 2007; Rivers et al., 2012). As a
consequence, much of the published research
on this population consists of small data sets
(Hwa-Froelich et al., 2007), using inconsistent coding systems that might not reveal relevant pragmatic features (DeJarnette et al.,
2015), and anecdotal accounts of language
use (Battle, 1996; Bliss & McCabe, 2006, 2008;
Collins, 1985; Gee, 1989a; Wyatt, 1995).
Knowledge of African American pragmatic
language is particularly important for speech–
language pathologists and educators, because
many African American children and adolescents may exhibit pragmatic language behaviors that are culturally unique or different
than their Euro American (EA) counterparts
(Bliss & McCabe, 2008; DeJarnette et al., 2015;
Hwa-Froelich, Kasambira, & Moleski, 2007;
Rivers et al., 2012). Unfortunately, in this 21st
century, the pragmatic language of African
American children and adolescents is still not
completely understood (Green, 2002; Rivers
et al., 2012). Such problems can be associated with both over- and under-referrals for
speech–language services, as well as negative
perceptions of the communicative abilities of
African American children and adolescents
(Hwa-Froelich et al., 2004; Kramer, Rivers, &
Ratusnik, 2000; Rivers et al., 2012).
Based on our concerns about gaps in the
knowledge base regarding the pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents, we decided to conduct a systematic
and synthesized review of the literature so
that clinicians, educators, and others will
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
be better equipped to distinguish language
differences and language disorders in classrooms and other settings. We are aware of
no previous systematic and synthesized reviews of the literature on this topic. A search
of the Cochrane Collaboration systematic review database in August 2014 did not reveal
any published systematic reviews or metaanalyses on the pragmatic language of African
American children and adolescents. Baker and
McLeod (2011) discussed the importance of
incorporating the methodological rigor and
transparency of systematic reviews with the
comprehensive coverage offered by narrative
reviews or syntheses. That was our goal.
Accordingly, the purpose of this article
was to review and synthesize peer-reviewed
articles and dissertations produced between
1970 and 2013 regarding the pragmatic language of African American children and adolescents. The two-part goal was (1) to identify
literature that has contributed to the knowledge base regarding pragmatic language of
African American children and adolescents
and (2) to describe information that emerged
from this literature that might inform practice
and future research in this area.
METHODS
A modified systematic review method was
used for including and excluding articles and
dissertations and for extracting and coding
data from each of the included documents so
that they could be synthesized. Although typical systematic reviews of the literature include
only peer-reviewed articles published in journals, we decided to include dissertations as
viable data because we wanted to include any
empirical studies that could illuminate this underresearched topic.
Selecting primary research
Defining the time period
Although the concept of pragmatics dates
back to the 1930s (Archer et al., 2012; Huang,
2007; Morris, 1938), much of the seminal
work in the area of pragmatic language in
11
speech–language pathology emerged during
the late 1960s, throughout the 1970s, and into
the 1980s (e.g., Austin, 1962; Bates, 1976a,
1976b; Prutting & Kirchner, 1983, 1987;
Searle, 1969; Wetherby & Prutting, 1984).
In the 1970s, the field of speech–language
pathology was in the midst of a paradigm
shift from a focus on language structure and
meaning to an increasing focus on language
functions. Consequently, the timeframe for
the literature search for this study was set to
start at 1970, because much of the 43-year period between 1970 and 2013 (i.e., from 1975
to 2000) is what Duchan (2011) referred to
as the “pragmatic revolution” in the field of
speech–language pathology. This is the period when the cultural and situational contexts of communication and language development began to be explored more regularly
in research investigations and discussions.
The literature search
An extensive search of the extant literature produced between 1970 and 2013 was
conducted using five electronic databases and
eight journals. The databases were SCOPUS,
EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and
Dissertation Abstracts, each of which included multiple titles. In SCOPUS, we
searched the health sciences, social sciences,
and humanities subject areas, which included
more than 12,000 titles. In EBSCOhost, we
searched the education, health and medicine,
literature and criticism, philosophy, psychology, and social sciences categories. In ProQuest, we searched the general database,
which includes 53 ProQuest databases, along
with the literature collections, political sciences, which included more than 150 titles
from scholarly journals, and social sciences,
which had more than 1,600 scholarly journals. These databases were selected because
of their expansive reach across scholarly disciplines and their likelihood of containing
studies on the pragmatic language abilities of
African American children and adolescents.
Beyond these databases, journals examined were the American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology; Language, Speech, and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Hearing Services in Schools; Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research;
Journal of Black Studies; Topics in Language Disorders; Communication Disorders
Quarterly; ECHO (the publication of the National Black Association of Speech-Language
and Hearing); and the Journal of Pragmatics.
It should be noted that although the extensive search was conducted through 2013, no
additional studies have appeared in the extant
literature for 2014, as the authors conducted a
“good faith measure” search of the literature,
dissertation abstracts, and Cochran Collaboration database in August 2014.
Selected key words used to guide the
literature search were based on the way
we conceptualized pragmatics. These words,
employed individually and in combination,
were “African American,” “Black,” “dialect
shifting,” “discourse,” “discourse regulation,”
“intention reading,” “intentions,” “narrative,”
“conversation,” “turn taking,” “repair,” “expository,” “communication functions,” “communication intentions,” “persons of color,”
“perspective taking,” “pragmatics,” “presupposition,” “theory of mind,” “social cognition,” “social communication,” and “speech
acts.” In addition to our search of the electronic databases, a hand search of the references in the obtained articles was also conducted. Also, during five presentations about
this content area (at national conferences of
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (Hyter, Rivers, & DeJarnette, 2010b,
2012b) and the National Black Association for
Speech-Language-Hearing [NBASLH] (Hyter,
Rivers, & DeJarnette, 2010a, 2012a, 2013), the
authors polled audience members who identified additional published literature that was
considered for this review.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria for this study were peerreviewed, data-based articles and dissertations
that (1) were published or conducted, respectively, during or after 1970 and (2) whose participant pool included at least 30% African
American children or adolescents. We selected 30% as the cutoff number for African
American participants, because we wanted
to make sure we did not exclude studies
that identified relevant outcomes for African
American children and adolescents although
they may have included other ethnic and
racial groups in the participant pool. Conference presentations, book chapters, and master’s theses were excluded from these data as
were articles that were published in languages
other than English and that included populations located outside of the United States.
Data coding and analysis
The authors developed a tool, the Primary
Research Appraisal Tool (PRAT; DeJarnette,
Hyter, & Rivers, 2012; see Supplemental
Digital Content, available at: http://links.lww
.com/TLD/A40), which served as a framework for organizing our observations of the
data. Each article and dissertation examined
in this study was coded using the PRAT.
Coding consisted of reviewing each article
and dissertation and then marking “yes” or
“no” to indicate the presence or absence of
a particular component. We wrote in each
article and dissertation’s research question(s)
and/or purpose, method of data collection,
findings, and implications of those findings
in the appropriate sections at the end of the
PRAT.
Coding reliability was established in four
phases. First, each of the authors coded two
articles in the data set. This was followed by
a discussion about our coding decisions, so
we could calibrate our coding responses. Second, each author coded one-third (i.e., 30–
31 of 92) of the articles and dissertations in
the data set. This second round of coding was
used to determine which articles matched the
inclusion criteria and which ones did not.
Third, after eliminating articles that did not
match the inclusion criteria, the first author
recoded 100% of the remaining articles using calibration standards set in the first phase.
Fourth, a random sampling of 10% of the articles in the data set was reviewed and independently coded by each of the coauthors using
the PRAT. The total number of agreements of
each item on the PRAT was divided by the
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
total number of agreement opportunities1 to
acquire an interrater agreement of 84%.
To achieve the second, more qualitative
goal of this systematic synthesis, we used an
inductive thematic analysis approach to determine themes that emerged from purpose
statements, major findings, and implications
of research findings presented in the corpus (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Elo & Kyngas,
2008; Harwood & Garry, 2003; Neuman,
2006; Punch, 2014). First, research purpose
statements were extracted from each article and dissertation and listed in a word
document. Next, the “manifest” (i.e., overtly
stated) content of each statement was identified (Elo & Kyngas, 2008, p. 109). In other
words, in the process of coding the statements, the coder is asking, “What is this
purpose statement about?” (Braun & Clarke,
2006; Dey, 1993). Third, the manifest content
extracted from each purpose statement was
assigned a code. Codes described the basic
unit of meaning inherent in the manifest content of the research question (Braun & Clark,
2006). Finally, themes were constructed from
the codes. Themes comprise collections of
codes, and they represent the core meaning
inherent within the codes (Braun & Clarke,
2006; Clarke & Braun, 2013; Neuman, 2006;
Punch, 2014).
RESULTS
Search of the literature
The initial literature search yielded 92
articles and dissertations published between
1970 and 2013 that focused on some aspect
of pragmatic language and reported at least
30% of the participant pool as being children
and/or adolescents who are African American. Of these 92 articles and dissertations, 37
were eliminated because they did not meet all
1 Opportunities for agreement included written comments as well as checked boxes; thus, for each rater, a
total of 294 responses were examined for level of agreement with all other raters.
13
of the inclusion criteria. Specifically, 16 of the
articles were theoretical or a review of the
literature rather than a designed study (Ball,
2002; Barnitz, 1994; Battle, 1996; Bliss &
McCabe, 2006, 2008; Collins, 1985; deVilliars,
2004; Gee, 1989a; Gutierrez-Clellen & Quinn,
1993; Hyter, 2007; Johnson, 1995; McCabe,
1997; Nichols, 1989; Stadler & Ward, 2005;
Washington, 2001; Wyatt, 1995). One document (Hester & Langdon, 2008) was a presentation rather than an article; two (Finger,
2007; Renn, 2007) were a master’s thesis
rather than a dissertation, and four (Craig &
Washington, 1994, 1995, 2002; Robinson,
1992) focused on language structure rather
than language use, although discourse
was used to collect the samples for these
studies.
Ten documents either did not meet the 30%
criteria of African American participants or
did not provide sufficient information to determine whether 30% of the subjects were
African American (Fuste-Hermann, Silliman,
Bahr, Fasnacht, & Federico, 2006; Heath,
1982; Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010;
Hill & Coufal, 2005; Howes, Sanders, & Lee,
2008; Hyter, 2003; Hyter, Rogers-Adkinson,
Self, Friederich-Simmons, & Jantz, 2001; Lee,
2006; McCabe & Rosenthal Rollins, 1994;
Michaels, 1981); one (Myers, Rana, & Harris,
1979) was an annotated bibliography rather
than a peer-reviewed article or dissertation;
one (Labov & Waletzky, 1967) was published
before 1970; and two focused on a college
level or adult population (Norment, 1995; Szpara & Wylie, 2007). The final corpus of 55
documents comprised 39 (71%) articles and
16 (29%) dissertations. Table 1 summarizes
the key findings for these 55 investigations.
Research purposes
Of the 55 articles and dissertations reviewed, 36 (65%) included key research questions, but 100% of the documents included a
purpose statement. The reasons scholars provided for investigating the pragmatic language
of African American children, and adolescents
can be divided both thematically and temporally into four groups.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
4. Bliss,
Covington, and
McCabe (1999)
To describe the narrative
styles of AA speakers and
to distinguish narrative
deficits from impaired
language processing.
To share information on
how some AAE speakers
have successfully used
their language abilities
within the context of
expository writing; to
share principles that have
been used to guide
Dr. Ball’s work with
linguistically diverse
students
To provide evidence and a
description of
development of language
in Black children.
2. Ball (1996)
3. Blake (1984)
Dissertation
To investigate
and characterize
preferred patterns for
organizing experiences
among AA adolescents.
Research Purpose
1. Ball (1992)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Speech acts
Discourse: Expository
Discourse: Expository
Major
Construct
Investigated
8 (100%)
Some M; Some F
4 Typical language;
4 Impaired
language
2 Preschool;
2 School age
3 (100%)
2 M; 1 F
Typical language
Infants (18–
24 months)
Low SES
4 (100%)
2 M; 2 F
Typical language
School Age
Low SES
102 (44%)
45 M; 55 F
Typical language
School age
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
Research Design
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations
Elicited narratives
Video/audio recording;
Mother–child
interactions
Field notes; observations;
written artifacts;
discussions; surveys
Participant observation;
written artifacts
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Major Findings
Problems with linguistic
processing in both
topic-centered and
topic-associated narratives
included word retrieval
deficits, disfluencies,
echolalia, and
perseveration.
AAE features were not a
dominant factor in
children’s early language;
interactive patterns of
language functions
reflected culture’s style of
communication; changes in
the relations and functions
influenced the rate of
increased MLU.
African American adolescents
reported strong preference
for using vernacular-based
patterns in academic
writing, as they got older,
although other groups
preferred vernacular-based
organizational patterns in
informal oral exposition.
Culturally influenced
discourse strategies used;
two key guiding principles
for evaluating AAE
adolescent speakers (a) AAE
literacy practices need to be
accepted, (b) devices
reflecting oral tradition of
AAE should be considered
in curricula.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
AA children are not deficient
in language; interactive
communication showed
high degrees of
interpersonal involvement
during conversation—a
potential conflict with
school discourse; AAE
features do not interfere
with early language
learning.
Guidelines presented in this
article can be used to
differentiate normal and
impaired narration. Topic
association does not
indicate language
impairment.
Organization of expository
discourse is affected by
cultural preferences and
years of schooling;
preference for
organizational patterns can
be viewed as an obstacle or
a resource for successful
literacy-related experiences.
Broader array of diverse voices
needs to be included in the
writing curriculum; need to
broaden what is valued in
narrative discourse.
14
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To extend the analysis of
the meaning and forms
acquisition to the
functional language use
patterns among 3- and
4.5-year-old Black
working class children,
including an analysis of
emerging language
functions across both age
groups.
Two studies were
conducted. Study 1
examined how young
AAE speakers, in
comparison to young
GAE speakers aged 4–6
years organized a
narrative during a
picture-supported task.
Study 2 was a comparison
of narrative organization
styles of high and low
AAE dialect density
speakers.
6. Bridgeforth
(1988)
Dissertation
7. Burns (2004)
Dissertation
To generate insights about
narrative development by
discussing the use of two
different narrative styles,
narratives as text, and
narratives as
performance.
Research Purpose
5. Bloome, Katz,
and Champion
(2003)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Speech acts
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
Study 1: 78 (68%)
Preschool study 2:
21 (100%)
School age
Low SES
8 (100%)
4 M; 4 F
Preschool age
Low SES
100 (97%)
M; F equally divided
Preschool and
kindergarten
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Study 1: True
experimental:
Within-subjects
design
Study 2:
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Picture elicited narrative;
Assessment scores
Language samples in
conversation and play
Oral and written story
telling
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
AAE and GAE speakers
showed equivalent and
significant development in
narrative skills between
ages 4 and 6 years; no
significant correlation
between overall narrative
score and age or AAE use;
children mastered narrative
features by 7–8 years; no
correlation found between
t-units for background
information and AAE
density.
Children may be socialized in
school to narrative as text;
this socialization may begin
early and constitute a major
component of educational
frameworks; schools may
emphasize narrative as text
and diminish the
importance of narrative as
performance.
22 micro- and 5
macrofunctions identified;
methodological issues are
transcription of data (must
include contextual
information) and
development of coding
system (need to develop a
functional coding system
that emerges from the data).
Implications of Findings
Narrative features can be
reliably examined in AAE
and GAE speakers; 4- and
5-year-olds mastered fewer
critical narrative features
than 6-year-olds. AAE dialect
density is not a predictor of
narrative organizational
style. Topic association is
not less well developed
than topic centered; high
point analysis cannot be
applied to topic associative
style.
(continues)
This study’s methodological
issues have implications for
future research designs;
qualitative and quantitative
analyses of this study
showed several patterns of
language use.
Narratives are objectified and
separated from the
storyteller, storytelling,
event, and social
relationships; emphasis on
narrative as text reduces the
creative process of narrative
development to a
supporting role.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
15
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
This study analyzed
personal and fictional
narratives of
culturally/ethnically
diverse students with and
without learning
disabilities
To investigate the
production of narratives
of AAE-speaking children
9. Champion
(1995)
Dissertation
Research Purpose
8. Celinska (2009)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narratives
Discourse: Narratives
Major
Construct
Investigated
15 (100%)
5 M; 10 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
82 (41%)
41 M; 41 F
41 had learning
disability
School age
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Ethnographic
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
Research Design
Elicited narratives form
toys and story prompts
Elicited personal
narratives in
conversation
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
African American and
Caucasian participants with
and without learning
disabilities produced
personal and fictional
narratives that were
comparable on most
measures of narrative
length, structural
organization, and
coherence. The two groups
differed with respect to
their use of goal-directed
episodic structures.
Students with learning
disability tended to recount
events from personal
experience in the form of
action sequences rather
than goal-directed
structures. In their fictional
narratives, these students
produced more
goal-directed episodes than
their typically achieving
peers.
More topic-centered
narratives than
topic-associated narratives
produced; produced a
range of narrative
structures; higher
frequency of complete and
complex structures than
any others from Story
Grammar Analysis; higher
frequency of classic
structure than any other in
High Point Analysis
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Some narratives constructed
around moral themes; some
AA speakers use prosody as
contextual links to the
structure of narrative;
important to be aware of
prosodic patterns; Story
Grammar and High Point
can be applied to narratives
of AAE speakers; emotional
themes may produce more
narratives.
Apply multiple approaches to
narrative analysis; should
include both personal and
fictional content; narrative
abilities may not generalize
across narrative genres;
specific features of
narratives may be
associated with
ethnic/cultural background
or learning disability.
16
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To investigate the
production of narratives
of AAE-speaking children
using elicitation
procedures that were
standard across
participants.
To determine important
influences on
achievement by
examining links between
AA students’ oral
language and emergent
literacy skills.
11. Champion,
Seymour, and
Camarata
(1995)
12. Connor &
Craig (2006)
To examine narrative
structures among AA
children.
Research Purpose
10. Champion
(1998)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narratives
Discourse: Narratives
Major
Construct
Investigated
63 (100%)
Typical language
Preschool
Low SES
36 (100%)
Typical language
School age
15 (100%)
5 M; 10 F
Typical language
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Preexperimental: One
group posttest
design
Research Design
Assessment scores;
book-elicited
narratives; language
sampling
Elicited narratives from
conversation and play;
story prompts
Elicited narratives in
conversation
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Many (55) of the children
used morphosyntactic AAE
forms during oral narrative;
8 did not; preschoolers who
frequently used AAE
demonstrated stronger
emergent literacy skills. No
evidence that students
using AAE with greater
frequency would have more
difficulty learning early
literacy skills. Preschoolers
did not respond to implicit
cues regarding language;
some preschoolers’ dialect
shift. Students who used
AAE with greatest
frequency performed best
on sentence imitation.
AA children between 6 and 10
years of age are capable of
producing complex
narratives; use higher level
narrative structures
routinely
Children can produce a range
of narrative structures—in
addition to high point found
(1) moral centered, (b)
performative, (c) dispute
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Overall linguistic skill is a
better predictor of reading
than whether or not a child
uses AAE. Dialect shifting
shows emerging pragmatic
awareness that language
used at home may not be
the language expected at
school.
Explicit instruction in dialect
awareness may contribute
to stronger literacy
outcomes.
Types of prompts and cultural
background may influence
narrative structures, which
are valued in their
community; AA children do
not produce only one
structure; AA children
produce more topiccentered than topicassociating narratives.
Important for researchers to
evaluate narrative structure
using a number of different
conceptual frameworks to
ensure child’s competency
is not underestimated
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
17
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To examine interactions
between social class and
linguistic phenomena as
they related to the
current widely accepted
model of successful
turn-exchanges
To contribute to current
understanding of sources
of systematic variation in
child AA English (AAE) by
examining the
contribution of grade for
students in elementary
schools.
To evaluate the
contributions of dialect
shifting to reading
achievement test scores
of AAE-speaking students
when controlling for the
effect of SES, oral
language abilities, and
writing skills.
14. Craig and
Washington
(2004)
15. Craig et al.
(2009)
Research Purpose
13. Craig and
Washington
(1986)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Presupposition: Dialect
shifting
Presupposition: Dialect
shifting
Discourse: Turn-taking
Major
Construct
Investigated
165 (100%)
“half” M; “half” F
Typical language
School age
400 (100%)
178 M; 222 F
Typical language
Preschool and
school age
6 (100%)
3 M; 3 F
Typical language
Preschool
Participant
Characteristics
Ex post facto design
Quasi-experimental:
Nonrandomized
control group
pretest–posttest
design
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Assessment scores;
language sampling;
response to
information requests
Language sampling;
Picture description
Language sampling
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Varied regarding number of
different AAE features in
discourse; most utterances
were produced
nonsimultaneously (89% for
girls and 89.4% for boys);
successful turn exchanges
were facilitated by
nonverbal behaviors; verbal
behaviors served minor role
in discourse regulation.
Grade was a source of
systematic variation in AAE
produced by typically
developing AA students in
preschool through
elementary grades; sharp
decline in morphological
dialect density between
kindergarten and first grade.
Students used larger
repertoire of
morphosyntactic features as
they progressed through
elementary grades.
AAE production rates were
inversely related to reading
achievement scores and
decreased significantly
between oral and written
narratives. Lower rates in
writing predicted a
substantial amount of
variance in reading scores
showing significant direct
and indirect effects
mediated by oral language
comprehension.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Two periods of dialect shifting
occur during early
grades—one in first grade
for spoken discourse; one at
third grade for oral reading;
students who are most
linguistically advanced
dialect shift; dialect shifting
is best characterized as a
sharp decline that occurs in
a short time frame; first
grade is a critical time for
occurrence of dialect
shifting; then third grade.
These findings support the
dialect shifting, reading
achievement hypothesis
that AAE speakers who
learn to use GAE in literacy
tasks will outperform their
peers who do not learn to
use GAE.
Current model for successful
turn exchanges can be used
with speakers whose
language differs from SE.
Only one child talks at a
time, turn exchanges
involved speaker and
listener cues; turn
allocation cues were
primarily nonverbal.
18
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To investigate the
relationship between
narrative skills and theory
of mind for low-income
children
To examine how young
children learn to use a
sophisticated form of oral
language called
decontextualized
discourse.
To explore and characterize
preschool children’s use
of literate language
features to determine
whether these features
were present in
narratives and to
determine whether usage
varied as a function of
age and/or ethnicity.
17. Curenton,
Jones, Craig,
and Flanigan
(2008)
18. Curenton and
Justice (2004)
Research Purpose
16. Curenton
(2004)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Presupposition: Theory
of mind
Major
Construct
Investigated
67 (46%)
29 M; 38 F
Typical language
Preschool
Low SES
33 (70%)
19 M; 14 F
Preschool
School age
72 (50%)
32 M; 40 F
Typical language
Preschool
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Mother–child interaction;
video recordings; story
generation
Story generation
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
False belief tasks; story
retell using Frog Where
Are You? (Mayer,
1969)
Data-Gathering
Procedures
True experimental:
Within subjects
design
Ex post facto
Research Design
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
50% of AA and 72% of EA
children performed false
belief tasks adequately;
older children had better
narrative skills than younger
children; AA children less
likely to pass false belief
than EA children;
coherence correlated with
internal state talk; EA false
belief did not account for
variance in children’s
narrative skills; AA who
passed false believe told
better stories.
Story telling was the best
opportunity for mothers to
showcase discourse skills;
story-creating context
provided best opportunity
for children to demonstrate
oral language skills; similar
use of decontextualized
speech in story reading
context. Mothers with
higher literacy were more
likely to use mental
linguistic verbs in all 3
contexts.
Literate language features
occurred for 3- to
5-year-olds. Conjunction use
is positively associated with
complex elaborated noun
phrases and adverbs; use of
complex and simple
elaborated noun phrases
was inversely related; no
difference in AA and EA
rates, but age-related
difference occurred in use
of mental state verbs and
conjunctions.
Implications of Findings
Results are particularly
relevant for children from
low SES, a population that is
vulnerable for difficulties in
literacy development
(Justice & Ezell, 2001).
Children who do not use
literate language features at
the rates described here
may receive targeted
assistance supporting their
use of these features.
Promoting literate language
use in the earliest stages of
development, SLPs may
prevent later difficulties.
(continues)
Allow child to pretend to read
to you; encourage parents
to share oral stories with
their children; this is where
children are exposed to the
most sophisticated talk.
Parent–child literacy
intervention should
encourage dyads to interact
using various forms of
stories. Need to examine
questioning and comment
techniques.
Poor performance does not
indicate child do not
understand concept of false
belief; AA children would
be better to demonstrate
their skills in a task that
tapped more into narrative
mode of thought rather
than propositional mode of
thought; AA false-belief
performance predicted
narrative skills.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
19
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To analyze code switching
in the language of Black
children in order to
describe social class
effects on children’s use
of dialect variants.
To examine whether young
children with TL and
children with LI infer
emotions during
discourse and to examine
the relationship of this
ability to social
competence.
To investigate cohesion in
the oral narratives of AA
children who read on and
below grade level.
20. Ford and
Milosky (2008)
21. Garrett (1996)
Dissertation
Research Purpose
19. Etter-Lewis
(1985)
Dissertation
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Presupposition:
Emotional inference
Presupposition: Code
switching
Major
Construct
Investigated
40 (100%)
20 M; 20 F
on-grade– and
below-grade–level
readers
School Age
Middle SES
32 (53%)
16 typical;
16 language
impaired
Preschool
88 (100)
44 M; 44 F
Typical language
Preschool
Variety of SES
Participant
Characteristics
Mixed design
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive and
predictive
Ex post facto
Mixed design with
matched samples
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
Ex post facto
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Narrative sample; audio
recording
Activated emotions with
video; assessment
scores; verbal response
time
Low SES used more AAE
than GAE; participants
from low SES code
switched less often
than those from high
SES.
Conversation; picture
description; play;
sentence repetition
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
No significant difference in
cohesive devises used by
average and below average
readers or by males and
females; no significant
interaction between
reading level and gender; all
participants used reference
pronouns more than
conjunctions as cohesive
devices. Those with low
reading scores showed
more incomplete cohesive
ties and less ambiguous ties
than peers with average
reading
Different patterns of use
found for participants from
each SES; code switching
occurred least in
conversation and most in
puppet play; participants
from high SES used more
GAE than AAE; those from
TL likely to make emotional
inference in short stories; LI
did not make emotional
inferences; ability to make
emotional inferences
predicted by language
measures, VRT, and social
competence.
Major Findings
(continues)
All children used AAE not less
than 10% during each task.
AAE spoken by members of
the Black American
community and is not
unique to those who lack
education or are
impoverished.
Making emotional inferences
is related to comprehension
and social competence;
should be routinely
assessed and targeted in
language intervention. To
make an inference requires
word knowledge and
emotional recognition.
Should not only focus on
linguistic aspects of
cohesion; need to include
nonlinguistic aspects of
discourse.
Implications of Findings
20
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To provide a linguistic
analysis of stories to offer
a view of
psycholinguistically
relevant structures
characteristic of spoken
narratives; to outline
To present an analysis of the
roles that conjunctions
play in the narrative
discourse of AA children.
To analyze the cultural
procedures used by
female children to
organize a form of gossip
dispute that they call,
“he-said-she-said.” To
show what types of
utterances generate this
speech event and
understand how
participants use their
actions to rank one
another.
23. Gidney (1995)
Dissertation
24. Goodwin
(1980)
Research Purpose
22. Gee (1989)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Disputes
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
44 (100%)
0 M; 44 F
Typical language
School age
22 (100%)
11 M; 11 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
2 (50%)
0 M; 2 F
Typical language
School age
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Play
Interview
Story generation
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Third parties in
he-said-she-said are
important not in the
confrontation but in the
reporting stage, they act as
instigators in setting up a
confrontation at a future
stage; spectators who
attempt to intervene can be
penalized by the principal
actors in the dispute;
compromises do not occur.
“and” is principal connective
used and is used in a variety
of ways; children aged
10–12 years still heavily rely
on “and.” Use of
connectives in AAE have
unique aspects including
“because,” being used to
indicate cause as well as
serve pragmatic functions;
“and” used to coordinate
verb structures.
Narrative style is associated
with cultural identity and
presentation of self; when
AA girl told story to white
male, she switched
narrative styles
Implications of Findings
(continues)
School may not understand or
value the cultural style of
expression; does not see its
connection to culture and
sense of self; does not
understand implications of
asking Black child to switch
narrative style (lose self);
does not give access to
instruction that would
ensure ability to switch
styles.
For children who speak a
dialect, the transition from
oral to written is wider than
for those whose home
language is closer to the
“standard.” Increased
knowledge of verbal
repertoire of AA children
may help teachers and
administrators to devise
materials that take into
account children’s home
language(s).
The speech of children at
play, particularly talk taken
to be aimless activity
(Malinowski, 1959, p. 315)
constitutes powerful
manifestations of linguistic
competence as well as
social and cultural
competence.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
21
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To analyze the effects of
culture on the creative
and stylistic features in
narrative production
Explored how AA mothers
and their infants at the
single-word stage of
development structured
their play and
communicated with each
other.
To examine relationships
between narrative style,
dialect, and reading
ability.
26. Hammer and
Weiss (1999)
27. Hester (1997)
Dissertation:
Research Purpose
25. Gorman,
Fiestas, Peña,
and Reynolds
Clark (2011)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Dissertation: Narrative
Discourse: Play
interaction
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
56 (100%)
14 AAE; 14 GAE +
Normal reading
14 AAE; 14 GAE +
Impaired reading
School age
Low and middle SES
12 (100%)
4 M; 8 F
Typical language
Infants
6 Low SES;
6 Middle SES
60 (33.33%)
30 M; 30 F
Typical language
School age
Participant
Characteristics
Assessment scores;
interview; participant
observation; play
Picture-elicited narrative
Ex post facto
Factorial: Two-factor
experimental design
Picture book elicited
narrative
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive and
predictive
Preexperimental
Static group
comparison
Research Design
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Children with reading
disorders regardless of
dialect produced shorter
stories than children with
normal reading; children
with reading disorders
produced fewer codas than
children with normal
reading. GAE speakers used
more adversatives for
cohesion than AAE; all
children used more literate
style features in fantasy than
in script story.
Similarities and differences
found between ethnic
groups. No significant
differences were found
regarding organizational
style or use of paralinguistic
devices. AA children
included more fantasy in
their stories; Latino children
included names characters
more often; Caucasian
children made more
references to the nature of
character relationships.
Low SES and middle SES dyads
played in similar ways;
there was individual
variability in both SES
groups regarding play and
communication patterns.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
As children grow older and
complexity of language
increases, differences
between low and middle
SES might appear, but it
would not be because
parents provided a deficient
language learning
environment. Lower
language and school
outcomes may result from
standardized assessments of
skills valued by middle SES;
and interaction styles at
home are different from
styles the child is exposed
to in school.
Narrative style is more closely
related to reading than to
dialect; story type
influences narrative style
features.
Culture influences narrative
production even in a highly
structured narrative task on
the basis of wordless
picture books.
Understanding of narrative
structure, creativity, and
style is important to provide
ecologically valid narrative
assessment and
intervention.
22
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Explored the type and
adequacy of cohesive
devices produced by
school-aged children who
use AAE.
To describe the
communicative functions
used by AA Head Start
children during play
To assess the frequency of
topic associating
narratives among AA
kindergarteners.
29. Hwa-Froelich
et al. (2007)
30. Hyon and
Sulzby (1994)
Research Purpose
28. Horton-Ikard
(2009)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Speech acts
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
48 (100%)
Typical language
Low SES
16 (100%)
8 M; 8 F
Typical language
Preschool
Low SES
33 (100%)
18 M; 15 F
Typical language
School age
Middle/high SES
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Picture-elicited narrative
Participant observation;
Language sampling;
Play
Language sampling
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
AAE speakers produced 5
different types of AAE
referential tokens but only
two (undifferentiated
pronoun and pronoun
extension) were used as
cohesive devices. Greater
proficiency in using
personal reference markers.
Age was a significant factor
for adequacy rates of
personal, demonstrative,
and lexical referential
cohesion but not
conjunctive markers.
Preschoolers used 5 of the 10
Tough (1982) functions and
the Stockman (1996)
functions of directing,
imagining, reporting,
obligated responses,
self-maintaining. They did
not often use prediction,
projection, reasoning,
repair, and verbal routines.
Significant gender
differences were found for
types of functions and types
of obligated responses. No
significant difference for
MLU or communication
functions between school
and age group.
Communicative functions
requiring complex
cognitive planning were not
expressed.
Some of the children (N = 16)
told topic-associative
stories; others (N = 28) told
topic-centered stories.
Storybook and fairy tale
themes and structures were
present across two
narrative styles.
Implications of Findings
Topic-associating narratives is
not the dominant narrative
style in this population.
Thematic and structural
characteristics of narratives
are based on contexts for
speech and literacy in the
classroom.
(continues)
Boys and girls produce
different communicative
functions. AA children
produce a variety of
functions regardless of
gender. Patterns of use can
help teachers and SLPs
discriminate between
different and disordered
communication
performance. Linking
literate activities and play
may increase use of
functions requiring
complex cognitive
planning.
At younger ages, the type of
cohesive marker used
impacts adequacy rates.
Younger children use
personal reference markers
more efficiently than
demonstrative markers. As
children age and mature
linguistically, their abilities
to adequately use these
markers will not depend on
the type of reference
marker.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
23
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To characterize the lexical,
prosodic, and kinesic
strategies used by
preadolescent speakers
of AAE to denote
referential cohesion in
oral narratives.
To describe the
cognitive–communicative
functions demonstrated
by preschoolers and their
mothers during teaching
and play interactions with
focus on communicative
functions.
To investigate gender
effects on the
conversational strategies
used by AA children.
32. Kasambira
(2008)
33. Leaper,
Tenenbaum,
and Shaffer
(1999)
Research Purpose
31. Hyter (1994)
Dissertation
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse:
Conversation
Speech acts
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
106 (100%)
60 M; 46 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
95 (35%)
44 M; 51 F
Preschool
51% Low SES;
49% “non poor”
30 (100%)
15 M; 15 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Video recordings; play;
adult–child
interactions
Peer-to-peer interaction;
play
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Movie-elicited narrative
with Frog Goes to
Dinner (Mayer,
Osborn, Stumer, &
Templeton, 1985).
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Mixed design with
factorial: Combined
experimental and ex
post facto designs
Preexperimental: One
group posttest
Research Design
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Most common
communication strategies
for girl or boy pairs were
collaboration and
informing. Girl pairs were
highly collaborative; boy
pairs were more likely to
use controlling
communication acts and to
engage in domineering
exchanges while playing
with puppets; gender
differences in domineering
exchanges were limited to
same gender interactions
and did not occur in mixed
gender interactions.
Lexical information is
primarily used to
communicate referential
cohesion; prosodic and
kinesic cues are used to
support lexical information.
Vowel elongation and
rise–fall contours mark
characters as new. Kinesic
cues accompanied lexically
undifferentiated
pronominal references and
gave information not
provided lexically.
Significant relationships
between mother
communicative functions
and child communicative
functions; demographic
factors such as SES, gender,
race/ethnicity, and mother
communicative functions
had strong link with child
outcomes.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Purposeful encouragement of
child self-maintaining in
boys may be useful to
increase frequency of
appropriate use of language
to meet needs during
conflict; racial ethnic
difference demonstrated by
AA and Latino mothers.
Preschool teachers may
need to adjust to students’
needs considering
race/ethnicity, SES, and
gender.
Understanding changes in
children’s behaviors when
interacting with a particular
gender can help teachers
determine whether a
same-sex dyad would be
beneficial for a student or
vice versa.
More research is needed to
evaluate the interaction
between lexical, prosodic,
and kinesic channels during
narrative discourse.
Complexity of stimulus
used to elicit the narrative
may affect referential
choices and clausal
structure.
24
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To analyze the narratives of
AA preadolescents using
dependency analysis.
Study 1: To collect local
norms on narrative
development.
Study 2: Measure the
short-term effect of peer
models on preschoolers’
narration.
Study 3: Explore whether
the influence of peers
could be used to facilitate
narration.
35. McGregor
(2000)
Research Purpose
34. Mainess,
Champion, and
McCabe
(2002)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
Study 1: 52 (100%)
Study 2: 26 (100%)
Study 3: 14 (100%)
Preschool
Low SES
16 (100%)
8 M; 8 F
Typical Language
School age
Low and middle SES
Participant
Characteristics
Quasi-experimental:
Nonrandomized
control group
pretest–posttest
design
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Picture book–elicited
narratives
Conversation; story
prompts
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Low SES children reached a
higher level of proposition
than middle SES children.
Girls reached a higher level
of proposition than boys.
Children primarily
produced topic-centered
narratives that consisted of
94% explicit propositions;
narratives contained little
reported speech. Low SES
children produced more
elaborate narratives than
middle SES children.
Developmental differences in
both the number of
children who evidenced the
use of structural and
cohesive elements and the
frequency with which the
children used these
elements. Between 3- and
5-years-olds, more children
began to use setting
statements, complicating
actions, and codas.
Cohesive elements increase
with age; more children
used temporal
conjunctions. More
structural and cohesive
tokens in stories of 4 year
olds than in those of 3 year
olds.
Implications of Findings
Early intervention for
narration can be effective.
This study suggests the
viability of a
clinician-prompted
peer-mediated approach to
training narration. It also
shows the important
advantage of peer-mediated
intervention because it
promotes instructional
congruence in the context
of cultural and linguistic
mismatches between
clinician and client.
Collection of local data
allowed identification of a
set of structural and
cohesive elements that can
be characteristically
expected in book-based
narratives of the particular
community.
(continues)
Analyzing narratives of other
diverse groups with
dependency analysis may
be useful because of its
applicability to a variety of
types of discourse and it is
freed from potentially
culture-bound assumptions.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
25
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Explores language use
among working-class
children interacting in
various naturalistic
contexts with others in
their environment.
To investigate structural
and dialectal narrative
characteristics between
fictional and personal
narratives of AA children.
37. Mills, Watkins,
and
Washington
(2013)
Research Purpose
36. Middleton
(1992)
Dissertation
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Discourse: Narratives
Speech acts
Major
Construct
Investigated
43 (100%)
Typical language
School age
68% Low SES
4 (100%)
2 M; 2 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
True experimental
design: Within
subjects design
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Fictional and personal
narrative; wordless
book; Story prompts
Video and audio
recordings; language
sampling
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Three most frequently
occurring micro functions
appearing in language of all
subjects were reporting
personal facts, reporting
personal feelings, and
responding to personal
questions. Gender
differences were evident on
the basis of frequency of
occurrence of functions
used with males using
taunting, calling, indirect
directives, and complaining
more than females. Females
used reporting personal
facts, reporting personal
feelings, responding to
personal questions,
responding to information
questions, responding to
opinion, and responding to
requests for clarification
more than males. Males
used more (N = 8) macro
functions than females
(N = 6).
Statistically significant
differences between the
two types of narrative were
found for both
macrostructures and
microstructures, but not for
dialect density. No
grade-related differences
were found in any of those
areas.
Implications of Findings
Expressive elaboration
analysis holds promise as a
culture-fair method of
assessing the
macrostructural narrative
language skills of young
school-aged AA children. In
addition, wordless picture
books may be the best
context for elicitation of
fictional narratives that
display evaluative elements.
(continues)
This study addresses
methodological issues that
impact the framework to be
used in future research, that
is, data collection based on
naturalistic activity (using
video and audio);
transcription of data elicited
from pragmatic studies
(incorporated analysis of
utterances at micro in
addition to macro level.
Micro level was more
sensitive to individual
differences); and
development of a coding
system appropriate for this
population of speakers.
Impoverished homes do not
result in deficient language
skills; home environments
yielded a great deal of
functional language.
26
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To investigate changes in
multilevel indicators of
written language
performance by AA and
European American
students, including
changes in AAE use, as
assessed in original story
probes written
independently in three
1-hr sessions across the
school year.
To examine reliability and
classification accuracy of
a narration-based
dynamic assessment task.
To examine language usage
to account for the
social/interactive
dimension as well as
cultural dimensions. Data
derived from the research
show how children from
different SES
backgrounds use speech
acts to communicate
ideas and feeling in
changing situations.
39. Peña, Gillam,
Malek,
Ruiz-Felter,
Resendiz,
Fiestas, and
Sabel (2006)
40. Peters (1983)
Dissertation
Research Purpose
38. Nelson (2010)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
30 (47%)
12 M; 18 F
School age
Low SES
8 (100%)
Typical language
Preschool
Low and middle SES
Speech acts
38 (47%)
18 M; 4 F (of AA)
29 Typical language
9 Impaired language
School age
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
True experimental
design:
Pretest–posttest
control group
design;
within-subjects
design
Preexperimental: Static
group comparison
Research Design
Video recordings;
adult–child
interactions
Story elicited from
wordless picture books
Written artifacts; Story
prompts
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Significant and similar
increases were found for
AA and European American
students in story scores,
total number of words,
number of different words,
and proportion of words
spelled correctly; racial
group was a significant
between-group factor only
for AAE and for sentence
correctness measures; and
almost no associations were
found between rates of AAE
feature codes and
independent discourse and
word-level measures.
The results of the first
experiment indicated that
narrative measures applied
to stories about 2 different
wordless picture books had
good internal consistency.
In Experiment 2, typically
developing children who
received mediated learning
demonstrated a greater
pretest to posttest change
than did children in the LI
and control groups.
LSES participants produced as
many utterances as MSES
children during interactions
with mothers and strangers.
Children spend 6 min more
with strangers than
mothers. Both SES groups
produced more utterances
with mother than with
stranger, with MSES
producing 23% more than
LSES group; LSES mothers
Implications of Findings
(continues)
The first experiment
supported the use of 2
wordless picture books as
stimulus materials for
collecting narratives before
and after mediation within a
dynamic assessment
paradigm. The second
experiment supported the
use of dynamic assessment
for accurately identifying
language impairments in
school-aged children.
LSES children may need more
time with strangers to
accomplish the same
amount of language as MSES
children. This study also
proposes a universal set of
sentence type categories
and communicative
functions.
A diverse group of students,
including those with
disabilities, can improve
their writing abilities over
the course of a single school
year when given extensive,
explicit instruction in how
to communicate in writing.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
27
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
42. Renn (2010)
Dissertation
41. Price, Roberts,
and Jackson
(2006)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
To describe the story
grammar elements
present in children’s
narratives during a story
retelling task; to
determine whether there
are differences in the
numbers and types of
story elements in
children’s narratives; to
examine the relationship
between children’s
narratives and child and
family background
characteristics.
To provide more insight
into the linguistic
behavior of youth who
are learning the social
ramifications of speech
style.
Research Purpose
Presupposition: Dialect
shift
Discourse: Narratives
Major
Construct
Investigated
88 (100%)
Typical language
School age
71% low and 29%
middle SES
65 (100%)
30 M; 35 F
Typical language
Preschool
Low SES
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Language sampling
Story retelling using The
Bus Story Language
Test (Renfrew, 1992)
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
The participants used
significantly more AAE in
informal situations than in
formal situations. They used
almost twice as many
different AAE forms in the
informal peer environment,
indicating that the speakers
possessed a varied
inventory of vernacular
features but chose to draw
on a restricted range of
these forms under formal
circumstances.
focused more on playing
with toys rather than
stimulating language about
toys; MSES and LSES
produced similar sentence
types, as well as
communication function
types (most to least were
informatives, regulatives,
imaginatives, socials,
emotionals, and
requestives).
The 4-year-olds narrated some
attempts to solve the story’s
problem and elements of its
ending. Upon entering
kindergarten, participants
had higher total narrative
scores and included more
of every type of story
grammar element, except
relationship.
(continues)
The results revealed shifts in
the overall inventory of
structures used by the
participants, indicating that
adolescents have a growing
awareness of the role of
situational context in
adjusting their speech. In
addition, not all dialect
features examined were
implicated in shifting.
The Bus Story Language Test
appears to be an assessment
tool that is sensitive to
structural growth in AA
children’s narratives from
4 years to kindergarten
entry.
Implications of Findings
28
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To investigate the influence
of prompt on the
structure and content of
AA English narratives, as
well as consider
relationships of these
variables to reading and
expressive language.
To investigate the (1)
performance of AA
adolescent males
attending an urban, high
school on the Woodcock
Language Proficiency
Battery-Revised
(WLPB-R) in an attempt
to establish local norms
and (2) relationship
between the frequency of
AAE features produced
by AA adolescents males
and their performance on
the WLPB-R.
To investigate whether
children who speak AA
English (AAE) used had
+ V-ed to refer to simple
past tense within
narratives.
44. Rivers (2001)
Dissertation:
46. Ross, Oetting,
and Stapleton
(2004)
45. Rivers,
Rosa-Lugo, and
Hedrick (2004)
To investigate whether a
subset of AA vernacular
English features can be
used to quantify stylistic
variation in sixth graders.
Research Purpose
43. Renn and
Terry (2009)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
16 (100%)
Typical language
School age
Low SES
93 (43%)
Typical and impaired
language
School age
Discourse: Narratives
29 (100%)
9 M; 20 F
Typical language
School age
Low SES
108 (100%)
Typical language
School age
Low and middle SES
Participant
Characteristics
Discourse: Narratives
Discourse: Narrative
Presupposition: Dialect
shift
Major
Construct
Investigated
True experiment:
Pretest–posttest
with control group
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Language sampling;
adult–child play
Conversations;
assessment scores
Personal narrative;
fictional narrative;
story prompts
Language sampling;
adult–child
interactions; peer
interactions
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
About half of the AAE
speakers (and none of the
SWE speakers) produced
had + V-ed as a preterite,
and these forms frequently
occurred in the
complicating action clauses
of narratives. AAE speakers’
use of preterite had + V-ed
also increased with age and
was directly related to
narrative skill.
No significant correlation
existed between
participants’ WLPB-R
cluster score and their
usage of AAE features.
Personal narratives had fewer
words and t-units and
higher type-token ratios
than fictional stories.
The success of the subset
measure indicated that a
measure containing a small
number of features can be
effectively used to identify
style shift in AAVE.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
There is a great deal to be
learned by studying
different types of language
variation (i.e., normal and
impaired) at the same time.
The WLPB-R could potentially
be used to identify
strengths and weaknesses
in adolescents who use
non-General American
English dialects, and there is
a need for local norms for
this instrument.
Analyses revealed that the
larger Dialect Density
Measures were highly
correlated with the subtest
measure, indicating that a
small number of features
can be used to reliably
reflect style shifting.
The participants displayed a
range of oral and literate
styles of narration, and they
create linear literate-based
stories.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
29
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To examine how
macrostructure and
microstructure features
and the production of
AAE features cooccur
within narratives.
To illuminate the
developmental pattern of
conversational narration
as it is converged upon by
constraints forthcoming
from both the individual
and other persons in the
social environment.
To investigate young
children’s productive
competence with regard
to various types of
naturally occurring
narrative-like
conversation.
To describe the types and
frequency of
conversational repairs
used by AA children in
relationship to their
geographic locations and
levels of performance on
commonly used
speech–language
measures.
48. Sperry (1991)
Dissertation:
49. Sperry and
Sperry (1996)
50. Stockman
et al. (2008)
Research Purpose
47. Schachter and
Craig (2013)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
8 (100%)
4 M; 4 F
Typical language
Toddlers
Low SES
120 (100%)
48 M; 72 F
93 typical language
27 impaired
language
Preschool
Low SES
Discourse:
Conversation
14 (100%)
7 M; 7 F
Typical language
Preschool
Middle SES
30 (100%)
“half” M; “half” F
Typical language
School age
Half low and half
middle SES
Participant
Characteristics
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse: Narrative
Major
Construct
Investigated
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Ethnographic
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Nonexperimental:
Descriptive
Research Design
Language sampling
Interaction with
community members;
video recording of
observations;
interviews
Video observations;
interviews
Storytelling task
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
Socialization goals,
childrearing practices
(including perceptions of
child abilities and desires),
and sociocultural norms of
narration motivate how
family members jointly
construct narrative
interactions with their
toddlers.
Participants produced more
fictional than temporal
narrative-like episodes.
Fictional episodes were
more complex than
temporal episodes and
contained more new
morpheme types and events
per episode; participants
introduced a greater
proportion of fictional than
temporal episodes and
morpheme types,
demonstrating increased
interest in fictional topics.
African American children
used the same types of
conversational repair
strategies that have been
observed among young
speakers of standard English
varieties.
Young AAE-speaking students
used a variety of SG
narrative features to
develop the plot in their
oral stories.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Use of conversational repairs
should be included among
the pragmatic behaviors
expected for 3-year-old
AA children.
Fictional displacement may be
easier than temporal
displacement for this group
of children.
Young children used both AAE
and elaborative features in
their narratives. Particular
AAE features facilitated plot
development, and the use
of more elaborative features
positively predicted higher
narrative development
scores.
Analyses suggested that
mothers socialize their
daughters into a
collaborative narrating style
and their sons into a solo
narrating style.
30
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
52. Terry, Mills,
Bingham,
Mansour, and
Marencin
(2013)
51. Terry, Connor,
Tate, and Love
(2010)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
To examine relationships
between the use of
nonmainstream
American English dialects,
literacy skills, and school
environment among
typically developing first
graders in order to
describe and better
understand the
difficulties many children
from linguistically diverse
backgrounds experience
while learning to read.
The 4 purposes of this study
were to describe oral
narrative performance of
typically developing AA
prekindergarteners
macro- and
microstructure measures;
examine concurrent and
predictive relations
between narrative
performance, spoken
dialect use, vocabulary,
and story
comprehension; to
explore change in
narrative performance
during the school year.
Research Purpose
Discourse:
Conversation
Presupposition: Dialect
shift
Major
Construct
Investigated
146 (100%)
47.4% M; 56.2% F
Preschool
Low SES
617 (48%)
50% M; 50% F
90% typical language
10% impaired
language
School age
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental
design: Predictive
True experimental
Research Design
Story Retell using Frog
Where Are You?
(Mayer, 1969)
Assessment measures
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
Major Findings
The participants in this study
performed within
age-appropriate
expectations on each
narrative measure. In
general, narrative
performance was correlated
with and predicted by
complex syntax and
vocabulary skills and was
not associated with spoken
dialect use.
The relationships between
DVAR and literacy
outcomes depended on the
outcome of interest and
school SES. However,
children’s race did not
generally affect the
trajectory or strength of the
relationships between
outcomes and dialect
variation.
Implications of Findings
(continues)
Findings from this study
provide critical normative
data on oral narrative skills
of young, typically
developing AA children.
They may also be useful in
interpreting the
performance of AA children
both with and without
learning difficulties or
language impairments.
The relationship between
DVAR and literacy skills is
dependent not only on the
literacy skill itself but also
on the age/grade level of
the students and the
environments in which they
are educated.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
31
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Focuses on patterns of
mother–infant interaction
in AA mother–child dyads
and the relationship
between those patterns
and the development of
cognitive and
communication
To examine the narrative
development of
Caucasian, AA, and Latino
children aged 4–6 years
and investigate the
relationship between
various aspects of
children’s narrative
development.
54. Wallace,
Roberts, and
Lauder (1998)
55. Zevenbergen
(1996)
Dissertation
Discourse: Narrative
Discourse:
Conversation
Presupposition: Dialect
shift
Major
Construct
Investigated
138 (38%)
51% M; 49% F
Typical language
Preschool
Low and middle SES
92 (100%)
44 M; 48 F
Infants (1-year-olds)
64 Low and 28
above poverty
50 (100%)
26 M; 24 F
Typical language
School age
Participant
Characteristics
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Nonexperimental:
Predictive
Research Design
Elicited narratives in the
context of storyretelling tasks
Reading; written artifacts;
picture description
Data-Gathering
Procedures
Major Findings
A downward shift in
contrastive AAE features
was evident between
spoken discourse and the
literacy contexts. More
students produced more
AAE features during picture
description than writing.
Both morphosyntactic and
phonological features
characterized picture
description context.
Phonological features
predominated in oral
reading. Morphosyntactic
features were dominant in
writing.
Mother affective interactive
behaviors contribute to
early develop; didactic
interactions are strongly
linked to children’s
emerging cognitive and
communication abilities.
These correlations are
weaker in impoverished
dyads.
Emergent literacy program
conducted in Head Start
was effective in facilitating
children’s development of
narrative skills.
Implications of Findings
Narratives are likely to vary
depending upon the
narrative task and the
stimuli used. In addition,
narrative skills at the
beginning of kindergarten
are predictive of their later
emergent literacy skills.
Maternal interactive behaviors
impact infant’s
communication and
cognitive development.
AAE feature usage decreased
from oracy to literacy
contexts. Participants
demonstrated distinct AAE
feature profiles in oracy and
literacy contexts.
Note. AA = African American; AAE = African American English; AAVE = African American Vernacular English; DVAR = dialect variation; EA = Euro American; F = female; GAE = General American English; LI = Language impaired;
LSES = Low socioeconomic status; M = male; MLU = mean length of utterance; MSES = Middle socioeconomic status; NDW = Number of Different Words; SE = standard English; SES = socioeconomic status; SG = story grammar;
SWE = southern White English; TL = typical language; VRT = voice response time.
To probe further a potential
relationship between
AAE and linguistic
complexity by examining
AAE and complexity in
the semantic domain.
Research Purpose
53. Thompson,
Craig, and
Washington
(2004)
Articles and
Dissertations
Comprising
Corpus
Table 1. Selected characteristics of analyzed articles and dissertations (Continued)
32
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
The first purpose group was identified primarily among studies conducted in the 1980s.
That was an era in which researchers focused
on examining and legitimizing African American pragmatic language by examining communicative functions and describing speech
events that were unique to African American
communities (e.g., Blake, 1984; Bridgeforth,
1988; Goodwin, 1980).
The second purpose group was identified
in research that spanned the 1980s and the
1990s. At that point, the focus was on identifying whether differences in language use,
such as code switching or turn taking, existed
for African American children on the basis of
their socioeconomic status (SES) and dialect
density (e.g., Craig & Washington, 1986; EtterLewis, 1985; Peters, 1983).
The third purpose group is the largest one.
It consists of research that was primarily conducted in the 1990s and the 2000s. It is akin
to what one might call a narrative explosion, a time period when researchers were
focusing on various aspects of narrative development including production, style, content, macro-organizational structures, and cohesion (e.g., Bloome et al., 2003; Champion,
1995; Champion et al., 1995; Curenton et al.,
2008; Curenton & Justice, 2004; Garrett,
1996; Hyon & Sulzby, 1994; Hyter, 1994).
The fourth purpose group is the smallest.
It overlaps temporally with the third. This
group consists of research that can be characterized as being focused on linking diverse
forms of discourse with literacy and social
competence by examining discourse and AAE
use in relation to cognition, literacy, writing, and assessment with typically developing
and language- and/or reading-impaired populations (e.g., Ball, 1996; Craig, Zhang, Hensel,
& Quinn, 2009; Curenton, 2004; Nelson,
2010; Peña et al., 2006).
Major constructs of pragmatics
investigated and overlooked
Of the 55 articles and dissertations that
were examined, the majority focused on
narrative discourse. Specifically, 40 (73%)
of the 55 articles and dissertations focused on some form of discourse, six (11%)
33
focused on speech acts, and nine (16%) focused on presupposition. Of the 40 articles
and dissertations that focused on discourse,
five (12.5%) were about conversational discourse, 31 (74%) about narrative discourse,
and two (5%) were about expository discourse. Two (5%) other articles were about
other forms of discourse—disputes and play
interactions. Of the nine documents that focused on presupposition, the majority (seven
[78%]) addressed dialect shifting or code
switching, and the other two (22%) focused
on Theory of Mind or emotional inferencing
in relationship to narratives.
These data show that a disproportionate
number of articles and dissertations were
focused on narrative discourse. This can
most likely be explained by a corresponding
focus on the relationship of narrative discourse to the development of emergent and
later literacy skills (Connor & Craig, 2006; Paul
& Smith, 1993; Peterson & McCabe, 1992;
Zevenbergen, 1996). Research has shown that
recalling, retelling, and generating narratives
serve as a link between oral and literate language use (Botting, 2002; Curenton & Justice, 2004; Heath, 1982), support the development of word meanings and relationships
(Biemiller, 2006; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,
1985), and are associated with increasingly
complex syntax (Hoffman, Norris, & Monjure,
1996; Justice et al., 2006; Reilly, Losh, Bellugi,
& Wulfeck, 2004). Narratives also engage social cognitive skills, such as theory of mind
(Guajardo & Watson, 2002).
Narratives are important, but they are not
the only form of discourse that is critical to
success in school. Beginning in Grades 3 and
higher, expository texts become a part of a
child’s everyday life through the language demands of the school curriculum (Westby, Culatta, Lawrence, & Hall-Kenyon, 2010). Expository text is the currency used in most middle school and high school courses outside of
the language arts courses (Westby & Culatta,
2010). An increased focus on typical and impaired expository text skills in African American children and ways to support success in
the academic arena are an area sorely lacking
in literature regarding the pragmatic language
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
34
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
of African American children and adolescents,
which was highlighted in this systematic
review.
Another area where there is limited research is in the cognitive supports for pragmatic language, such as theory of mind and
perspective taking. Only two articles (i.e.,
Curenton, 2004; Ford & Milosky, 2008) were
identified through our systematic review process that examined theory of mind and emotional inferencing abilities in African American children. Theory of mind is an important
social cognitive skill that supports a child’s
ability to take the perspectives of others, infer mental and emotional states of others,
understand why people may do what they
do, and to understand how their own behavior may affect others (Timler, Olswang, &
Coggins, 2005; Westby & Robinson, 2014).
Sampling size and study participants
Studies that comprised the final corpus included a range of numbers of participants,
from 2 (Gee, 1989b) to 617 (Terry et al.,
2010). Study participants were varied and included male and female participants of different age ranges (infants and toddlers [7% of the
studies], preschoolers [36%] and/or school
age [62%]); and ability levels (typical [87%]
and impaired [16%] in language or reading development). In addition, the studies examined
pragmatic language of children and adolescents from low (44%), middle (27%), and/or
high (3.6%) SES, with the majority being low
income.
Research design
Eight of the 55 studies that comprised the
corpus for this article incorporated more than
one type of research design. The majority
(N = 34 [62%]) used nonexperimental descriptive designs. Others used preexperimental designs2 (N = 9 [16%]) to test hypotheses regarding the effect of independent vari-
2 Sources for the types and definitions of research designs
used in this study are from Leedy and Ormrod, 2013, and
Maxwell and Satake, 2006.
ables on dependent variables but without randomization and control. A small group employed ex post facto designs (N = 6 [11%]; “after the fact” or retrospective examination of
causal relationships where independent variables are observed rather than manipulated).
Two researchers used quasi-experimental designs (N = 2 [3.6%]; nonrandomized designs
with controls but where not all confounding
variables are controlled). A few used true experimental designs (N = 6 [11%]; i.e., randomized designs where a hypothesis is tested by
controlled experimentation to show relationships between independent and dependent
variables), factorial designs (N = 2 [3.6%]; i.e.,
randomized designs that allow examination of
the effects of multiple independent variables
on the dependent variable), and ethnographic
designs (N = 2 [3.6%]; i.e., systematic qualitative studies involving rigorous observation
and description of phenomena).
An examination of the types of research designs produced per decade covered in this
study shows that nonexperimental designs
have been used throughout the 43-year period. In the 1990s, ethnographic, preexperimental, ex post facto and factorial designs
began to be used. Quasi-experimental studies
occurred beginning in the 2000s, and true experimental studies emerged in the years 2000
through 2013. It appears that research designs associated with higher levels of evidence
(quasi-experimental, true experimental, factorial) are beginning to be used more recently
in studies examining pragmatic language of
African American children.
Data-gathering procedures
Thirty-one different data-gathering methods
were used within the articles and dissertations reviewed for this study (see Table 1
for data-gathering procedures implemented in
each of the documents in the corpus). Consistent with the topical focus of the articles and
dissertations, the majority of methods used
were elicited oral or written narratives using a variety of approaches including Conversational Mapping, story generation with
wordless picture books such as Frog Where
Are You (Mayer, 1969), story prompts, story
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
retells with wordless books or movies, and
picture-elicited narratives.
Major research findings and
implications
We identified five common themes in the
findings of the reviewed studies. These are
summarized in Table 1 and discussed below.
Many of the 55 articles that comprised the corpus for this study addressed several themes.
Methodological considerations
The findings of 11 studies incorporated
methodological issues that should be considered when collecting data, assessing, and/or
providing intervention to African American
children and adolescents. The methodological considerations raised include the following: (a) data collection and transcription
must include the context (Bridgeforth, 1988;
Middleton, 1992) to capture and understand
the full range of pragmatic skills being exhibited; (b) more culturally fair practices
need to be employed in research methodology, such as expressive elaboration analysis (Milles, Watkins, & Washington, 2013),
dependency analysis (Mainess et al., 2002),
dynamic assessment (Peña et al., 2006), and
Renfrew’s (1992) The Bus Story Language Test
(Price et al., 2006); (c) explicit writing instruction tasks need to be considered as an independent variable in written narrative tasks;
and (d) a comprehensive coding system that is
appropriate for identifying and describing the
communicative functions of African American
children and adolescents, and that emerges
from the data, is needed (Bridgeforth, 1988;
Middleton, 1992). Of the four concerns for
better research methodology in the study of
pragmatic behavior of African American children and adolescents, the need to include context in data collection is the only one that has
already been addressed in the 43-year span
of research covered by this systematic synthesis of the literature. Culturally fair and explicit writing tasks as part of the research
methodology still need greater consideration
in research efforts. In addition, the call for
a more fitting communication function coding system for African American children and
35
adolescents continues to be a need that was
voiced for more than 22 years ago, and more
recently by DeJarnette et al. (2015).
Developmental trends
Six of the reviewed studies discussed developmental trends regarding the pragmatic
language of African American children. Specifically, speakers of AAE and general American
English (GAE) show similar development of
narrative skills (Burns, 2004). Children from
3 to 5 years of age begin to use narrative
macrostructures (e.g., setting, complicating
action) and literate language features (Curenton & Justice, 2004; McGregor, 2000); however, children who are 4 and 5 years of age
have not mastered as many of the “critical
narrative features” (e.g., reference, temporal links, and mental state expressions) as
6-year-olds (Burns, 2004, p. 78). These and
other narrative structures increase with age
(McGregor, 2000) and are not affected by dialect density (Burns, 2004). Two developmental periods in which dialect shifting (reduction
in the use of noncontrastive features) is significant occur at first grade for spoken discourse
and at third grade for reading (Craig & Washington, 2004).
From the findings of research included
in the corpus of this systematic synthesis, we know that narratives can be
examined reliably beginning at 3 years of age.
However, in order to tap the range of narrative abilities present in children and adolescents, researchers and clinicians are urged to
use a number of different analysis tools, such
as, High Point Analysis and Story Grammar
Analysis (Champion et al., 1995). Overall, the
findings of these studies indicate that more research of AAE child and adolescent speakers
needs to examine the relationship between dialect shifting and expression of mental states,
completion of theory of mind tasks, and the
capacity to take other’s perspectives.
Differentiating typical from impaired
functioning
Five studies highlighted differences between typical pragmatic functioning and
impaired functioning. What is known from
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
36
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
these studies can be summarized in five
points. First, language processing problems,
such as word retrieval deficits or perseveration, will be revealed, whether a child is
producing narratives in the topic centered or
topic associative style (Bliss et al., 1999). Second, African American and EA students, with
and without learning disabilities, produce narratives that are comparable in terms of overall
structure, length, and cohesion. They differ
with regard to goal-directed episodes, depending on the narrative genre, such as personal or fictional stories, suggesting the importance of using more than one approach to
narrative analysis (Celinska, 2009; Champion
et al., 1995). Third, AAE speakers who learn
to dialect shift in literacy activities will do better than their peers who do not dialect shift
(Craig et al., 2009). Fourth, children with typical language skills often make emotional inferences in narratives, but their counterparts
with language impairments may not, supporting the importance of habitual assessment
(and intervention if appropriate) of children’s
emotional inferencing skills (Ford & Milosky,
2008). Fifth, children with reading disorders,
regardless of language variation, will produce
fewer codas in their stories than those with
typical reading abilities (Hester, 1997). Corresponding with the implications noted previously regarding developmental trends, more
research is required on emotional inferencing, theory of mind, and perspective taking
in African American children and adolescents
with and without language impairments.
Importance and effects of family
socialization
Three of the reviewed articles discussed
findings that addressed the effects of socialization on child outcomes. What we know from
these studies can be synthesized as four main
points. First, caregivers’ emotional interactive
behaviors are linked to their children’s cognitive and communication abilities (Wallace
et al., 1998). Second, mother–child dyads
from low SES and middle SES backgrounds engage in play in similar ways (Hammer & Weiss,
1999). Third, male and female children may be
socialized to organize narratives in particular
ways. For example, Sperry (1991) found that
female children constructed narratives more
collaboratively, whereas male children constructed them more individually. Fourth, socialization has an impact on child communicative functions, and the “purposeful encouragement” of particular communicative functions may be useful in a preschool classroom
(Kasambira, 2008).
Characteristics of AAE pragmatic
language behavior
The characteristics of AAE pragmatic language behavior were described in 33 articles
and/or dissertations. We have learned from
these articles that African American children
use a range of speech acts. Bridgeforth (1988)
and Hwa-Froelich et al. (2007) used similar
taxonomies to examine the speech acts produced by young African American children;
yet, some of the results differ between these
two studies, which may be a function of the
different data-gathering methods. There are
gender differences in types of functions employed by African American children (HwaFroelich et al., 2007; Leaper et al., 1999). An
example is that girls are more likely to direct
actions of others or request objects and actions, whereas boys are more likely to direct
their own actions, collaborate with others to
direct play, and call others’ attention to objects or events (Hwa-Froelich et al., 2007).
African American children who are speakers of AAE have been found to demonstrate
strong emergent literacy skills (Connor &
Craig, 2006) as well as the same types of conversational repair strategies that GAE-speaking
peers use (Stockman et al., 2008). Other findings identified through this systematic synthesis of the literature focus primarily on two
areas, cognition and narration. With regard
to cognition, African American children use
cognitive skills to guide communicative interactions and demonstrate dialect-shifting skills
(Renn, 2010; Thompson et al., 2004). In addition, African American children are more
likely to demonstrate the cognitive skills of
false belief and emotional inferencing through
narratives rather than provide the expected
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
response to false belief tasks (Curenton, 2004;
Ford & Milosky, 2008).
African American children produce an array of narrative genres (e.g., dispute, fictional,
fantasy, personal), and their personal narratives have been found to include fewer words
and T-units than their fictional/fantasy narratives (Champion, 1998; Rivers, 2001). African
American children produce more fantasy or
fictional episodes in their stories, which have
been found to have a complex episodic structure (Gorman et al., 2011; Rivers, 2001;
Sperry & Sperry, 1996). In addition, they
most often produce topic-centered narratives (Champion, 1995; Gee, 1989b; Hyon
& Sulzby, 1994; Mainess et al., 2002), although African American children have been
shown to produce topic associative and other
narrative styles. Finally, nonverbal (kinesic)
and paralinguistic (prosodic) cues should be
closely observed for the insights they may provide about narrative cohesion skills (Garrett,
1996; Hyter, 1994) and turn-taking behaviors
(Craig & Washington, 1986). The implications
of these findings are that AAE children and
adolescents possess the cognitive skills to use
pragmatic language to convey communicative
functions and to engage in oral and written
discourse.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review and synthesis of the
extant literature concerning pragmatic language usage among African American children and adolescents covered a total of 55
manuscripts, all of which reported at least
30% of the participants as being African
American. Ninety-two articles and dissertations were identified to focus on pragmatic
language, but only 55 (60%) of these met
our inclusion criteria. We recognize that this
resulted in some relevant articles being excluded because the authors did not provide
data about the proportion of children who
were African American (e.g., Hyter, 2003;
Hyter et al., 2001) or because the study participants did not meet the inclusion criteria for
this study (e.g., Fuste-Hermann et al., 2006;
McCabe & Rosenthal Rollins, 1994). We note
37
that there are other articles in the extant literature, including doctoral dissertations, that
were not included in this synthesis, but that
may reveal additional behaviors and patterns
about African American children’s and adolescents’ pragmatic language that could be useful
to speech–language pathologists, educators,
and others who work with this population in
school settings and elsewhere.
The majority of studies that met inclusion
criteria for this study focused on narrative
macrostructure and microstructure, which
are important skills for developing literacy
and for supporting a more natural context
for assessing a child’s language. It is clear
from the literature that narrative production
is a useful context for assessing and supporting language skills that are necessary for
literacy development in children and adolescents (Hester, 19973 ; Schachter & Craig,
2013; Tabors, Snow, & Dickinson, 2001; van
Kleeck, 2008). Narrative structure, however,
is only one discourse type, and the gap in
the literature regarding African American children’s and adolescents’ pragmatics language
is notable with regard to the other equally important components of pragmatics that can
affect social interactions with others, as well
as successful engagement within a classroom.
Those other aspects of pragmatics include
speech acts (DeJarnette et al., 2015; Rivers
et al., 2012) that are unique expressions of
the African American child and adolescent’s
socialization, as well as presupposition skills
(Atlas, 2004; Bates, 1976a, 1976b; Roth &
Spekman, 1984a, 1984b) and related cognitive skills, such as theory of mind, intention
reading, and perspective taking.
Three broad areas need to be investigated further with regard to pragmatic language skills in African American children
and adolescents. The first area focuses on
3 The
authors want to acknowledge Dr. Eva Hester who
has made important contributions over the years to the
literature on the pragmatic language of African American
children and adolescents. Dr. Hester passed away on July
29, 2014, after years of struggle with heart disease.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
38
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
components of pragmatic language and related skills that influence pragmatic language.
This area includes narratives, speech acts, presuppositions, and theory of mind. Specific research questions to address within this area
include the following:
r What are evidence-based procedures and
strategies for effectively evaluating the
narrative processing and production skills
of African American children and adolescents with and without language/literacy
disorders?
r What are the effects of contextual factors,
such as tasks, contexts, and demands, on
the spoken and written expository and
narrative productions of African American children and adolescents?
r What are comprehensive frameworks for
explaining and evaluating the speech acts
and presupposition skills of African American children and adolescents with and
without language disorders?
A second area of recommended focus is the
identification of culture sensitive (contrastive)
and noncontrastive features of the full range
of pragmatic language skills. Specific research
questions that need to be addressed include
the following:
r What are the contrastive and noncontrastive pragmatic behaviors for AAEspeaking children and adolescents relative to GAE pragmatics?
r What are the cultural markers of social
skills development in AAE-speaking children and adolescents?
A third area of focus for further investigation relates to the variation, trends, and trajectories in the development of pragmatic
skills to guide assessment (e.g., determining
difference versus disorder) and intervention.
Research questions in this area include the
following:
r What are the trends and trajectories in the
development of pragmatic skills for AAE
child and adolescent speakers that can inform the development of assessment measures and intervention strategies that capture language use in situ?
r Are there individual variations such as
age and/or gender effects in pragmatic
behavior performance for AAE-speaking
children and adolescents and if so, how
might they be accounted for in the development of ecologically sound assessment
measures and intervention practice?
r What are the pragmatic skill differences
displayed by AAE-speaking children and
adolescents with and without communication impairment?
In conclusion, the results of this systematic synthesis support the recommendation
that the full range of pragmatic language skills
of typically developing African American children and adolescents in varied social contexts
and with different conversational partners
needs to be further explored. For many years,
studies with regard to pragmatic language in
this population have focused primarily on the
structural and content components of narratives. It is clear from the results of this study,
however, that African American children’ and
adolescents’ pragmatic language skills fall on
a continuum. The continuum reflects that
pragmatic language skills of this population
are manifested in different ways and occur
with a range of conversational speakers in
diverse settings and under different conditions. With more knowledge and a greater
understanding of these linguistic and nonlinguistic skills, speech–language pathologists,
educators, and others should be better able to
distinguish language/literacy differences from
language/literacy disorders in African American children and adolescents.
REFERENCES
Adams, C., Baxendale, J., Lloyd, J., & Aldred, C. (2005).
Pragmatic language impairment: Case studies of so-
cial and pragmatic language therapy. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 21, 227–250.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. Oxon,
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Atlas, J. D. (2004). Presupposition. In L. R. Horn, & G. L.
Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 29–
52). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, E., & McLeod, S. (2011). Evidence-based practice
for children with speech sound disorders: Part 1 narrative review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 42, 102–139.
Ball, A. F. (1992). Cultural preference and the expository writing of African American adolescents. Written
Communication, 9, 501–532.
Ball, A. F. (1996). Expository writing patterns of African
American students. The English Journal, 85(1), 27–
36.
Ball, A. F. (2002). Three decades of research on classroom
life: Illuminating the classroom communicative lives
of America’s at risk students. Review of Research in
Education, 26, 71–110.
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics: The mental
processes of communication. (J. Douthwaite, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published
1999).
Barnitz, J. G. (1994). Discourse diversity: Principles for authentic talk and literacy instruction. Journal of Reading, 37(7), 586–591.
Bates, E. (1976a). Pragmatics and sociolinguistics in child
language. In D. Morehead, & A. E. Morehead (Eds.),
Language deficiency in children: Selected readings
(pp. 411–463). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Bates, E. (1976b). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Battle, D. E. (1996). Language learning and use by African
American children. Topics in Language Disorders,
16(4), 22–37.
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D.
K. Dickinson, & Susan B. Newman (Eds.), Handbook
of Early Literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 41–51). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Blake, I. J. K. (1984). Language development in workingclass black children: An examination of form, content, and use. Unpublished doctoral dissertations,
Columbia University, New York.
Bliss, L. S., Covington, Z., & McCabe, A. (1999). Assessing the narratives of African American children. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and
Disorders, 26, 160–167.
Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2006). Comparison of discourse genres: Clinical implications. Contemporary
Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33,
126–137.
Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2008). Personal narratives:
Cultural differences and clinical implications. Topics
in Language Disorders, 28(2), 162–177.
39
Bloome, D., Katz, L., & Champion, T. (2003). Young
children’s narratives and ideologies of language in
classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,
205–223.
Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment
of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 18(1), 1–21.
Boudreau, D. (2008). Narrative abilities: Advances in research and implications for clinical practice. Topics in
Language Disorders, 28, 99–114.
Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis
in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(3), 77–101.
Bridgeforth, C. D. (1988). The identification and use
of language functions in the speech of 3 and 41/2
year old black children from working class families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown
University, Washington, DC.
Brinton, B., Robinson, L. A., & Fujiki, M. (2004). Description of a program for social language intervention:
“If you can have a conversation, you can have a relationship” Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 25, 283–290.
Burns, F. A. (2004). Elicited and open-ended narratives
in African American children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA.
Celinska, D. K. (2009). Narrative voices of early adolescents: Influences of learning disability and cultural
background. International Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 150–172.
Champion, T. (1995). A description of narrative production and development in children speakers of
African American English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
Amherst, MA.
Champion, T. B. (1998). "Tell me somethin’ good": A description of narrative structures among African American children. Linguistics and Education, 9(3), 251–
286.
Champion, T., Seymour, H., & Camarata, S. (1995). Narrative discourse of African American children. Journal
of Narrative and Life History, 5(4), 333–352.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies
for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–
123.
Coggins, T. E., Timler, G. R., & Olswang, L. B. (2007).
A state of double jeopardy: Impact of prenatal alcohol exposure and adverse environments on the social
communicative abilities of school age children with
fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 117–127.
Collins, J. (1985). Some problems and purpose of narrative analysis in educational research. Journal of Education, 167(1), 57–70.
Connor, C. M., & Craig, H. K. (2006). African American
preschoolers’ language, emergent literacy skills, and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
40
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
use of African American English: A complex relation.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
49(4), 771–792.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (1986). Children’s turntaking behaviors social linguistic interactions. Journal
of Pragmatics, 10(2), 173–197.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (1994). The complex syntax
skills of African American preschoolers. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 181–
190.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (1995). African American English and linguistic complexity in preschool discourse:
A second look. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 87–93.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2002). Oral language expectations for African American preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 11, 59–70.
Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2004). Grade related changes
in the production of African American English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,
450–463.
Craig, H. K., Zhang, L., Hensel, S. L., & Quinn, E. J. (2009).
African American English speaking students: An examination of the relationship between dialect shifting
and reading outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 52, 839–855.
Curenton, S. M. (2004). The association between narratives and theory of mind for low-income preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 15(2),
121–146.
Curenton, S. M., Jones, M. J., Craig, H. K., & Flanigan,
N. (2008). Use of contextualized talk across story
contexts: How oral storytelling and emergent reading
can scaffold children’s development. Early Education
and Development, 19(1), 161–187.
Curenton, S. M., & Justice, L. M. (2004). African American
and Caucasian preschoolers’ use of decontextualized
language: Literate language features in oral narratives.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
35, 240–253.
Dandy, E. B. (1991). Black communications: Breaking
down the barriers. Chicago, IL: African American
Images.
DeJarnette, G., Hyter, Y. D., & Rivers, K. O. (2012). Primary Research Appraisal Tool [PRAT]. Unpublished
document, Department of Communication Disorders,
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven,
CT.
DeJarnette, G., Rivers, K. O., & Hyter, Y. D. (2015). Ways
of examining speech acts in young African American
children: Outside-in versus inside-out. Topics in Language Disorders, 35, 59–73.
de Villiers, P. (2004). Assessing pragmatic skills in elicited
production. Seminars in Speech and Language,
25(1), 57–71.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly
guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Donahue, M. (1985). Communicative style in learning
disabled children: Some implications for classroom
discourse. In D. N. Ripich, & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.),
School discourse problems (pp. 97–124). San Diego,
CA: College-Hill Press.
Duchan, J. (2011, May 15). The pragmatics revolution.
Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.acsu.buffalo
.edu/∼duchan/1975-2000.html
Eder, D. (1982). Differences in communicative styles
across ability groups. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 164–182). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),
107–115.
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Perspective taking:
Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman,
W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of
imagination and mental simulation (pp. 295–312).
New York, NY: Psychological Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Etter-Lewis, G. (1985). Sociolinguistic patterns of codeswitching in the language of preschool black children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Finger, M. Y. (2007). Kindergarten children’s oral narrative production: Relations with ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Unpublished thesis, University of
Maryland, Baltimore.
Ford, J. A., & Milosky, L. M. (2008). Inference generation during discourse and its relation to social competence: An online investigation of abilities of children
with and without language impairment. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 367–
380.
Fuste-Hermann, B., Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., Fasnacht,
K. S., & Federico, J. E. (2006). Mental state verb production in the oral narratives of English and Spanish speaker preadolescents: An exploratory study of
lexical diversity and depth. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(1), 44–60.
Garrett, D. M. (1996). Discourse cohesion and literacy development in suburban male and female African American children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University, Washington,
DC.
Gee, J. (1989a). The narrativization of experience in the
oral style. Journal of Education, 171(1), 75–96.
Gee, J. (1989b). Two styles of narrative construction and
their linguistic and educational implications. Journal
of Education, 171(1), 97–113.
Gidney, C. L. (1995). Connective in the narrative discourse of African American children. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
3(11), 419–429.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
Goodwin, M. H. (1980). He-said-she-said: Formal cultural procedures for the construction of gossip
dispute activity. American Ethnologist, 7(4), 674–
695.
Gorman, B. K., Fiestas, C. E., Peña, E. D., & Clark,
M. R. (2011). Creative and stylistic devices employed
by children during a storybook narrative task: A crosscultural study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 167–181.
Green, L. (2002). African American English. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Green, L. (2003 April). Syntactic and semantic patterns
in child African American English. Texas Linguistic
Forum, 47, 55–69.
Guajardo, N. R., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Narrative discourse and theory of mind development. The Journal
of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 163(3), 305–325.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Quinn, R. (1993). Assessing
narratives of children from diverse cultural/linguistic
groups. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 24, 2–9.
Hammer, C. S., & Weiss, A. L. (1999). Guiding language
development: How African American mothers and
their infants structure play interactions. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(5),
1219–1233.
Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An overview of content analysis. The Marketing Review, 3, 479–498.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society,
11(1), 49–76.
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Sensitivity of narrative organization measures using narrative
retells produced by young school-age children. Language Testing, 27(4), 603–626.
Hester, E. J. (1997). An investigation of the relationship between narrative style, dialect, and reading
achievement in African American children. Dissertations, University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Hester, E. J., & Langdon, N. (2008). Expressive elaboration of African American children: Script vs. fantasy
stories. Poster presentation at the annual convention
of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Chicago, IL.
Hill, J. W., & Coufal, K. L. (2005). Emotional/behavioral
disorders: A retrospective examination of social skills,
linguistics, and student outcomes. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 27(1), 33–46.
Hoffman, P. R., Norris, J. A., & Monjure, J. (1996). Effects
of narrative intervention on a preschooler’s syntactic and phonological development. National Student
Speech, Language, and Hearing Association Journal,
23, 5–13.
Horton-Ikard, R. (2009). Cohesive adequacy in the narrative samples of school-age children who use African
American English. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 393–402.
41
Howes, C., Sanders, K., & Lee, L. (2008). Entering a
new peer group in ethnically and linguistically diverse
childcare classrooms. Social Development, 17(4),
922–940.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Huang, Y. (2012). Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hwa-Froelich, D., Kasambira, D. C., & Moleski, A. M.
(2007). Communicative functions of African American Head Start children. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 28(2), 77–91.
Hyon, S., & Sulzby, E. (1994). African American kindergartners’ spoken narratives: Topic associating and
topic centered styles. Linguistics and Education, 6,
121–152.
Hyter, Y. D. (1994). A cross-channel description of reference in the narratives of African American vernacular English speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
Hyter, Y. D. (2003). Language intervention for children
with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 29(1), 65–76.
Hyter, Y. D. (2007). Pragmatic language assessment: A
pragmatics-as-social practice model. Topics in Language Disorders, 27(2), 128–145.
Hyter, Y. D. (August 2012). Complex trauma and prenatal alcohol exposure: Clinical implications. American Speech, Language, Hearing Association SIG16: Perspectives in School Based Issues, 13(2),
32–42.
Hyter, Y. D. (2014). A conceptual framework for responsive global engagement in Communication Sciences
and Disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(2),
103–120.
Hyter, Y. D., DeJarnette, G., & Rivers, K. O. (2013, April).
Summarizing meta analysis: Pragmatic language of
African American children. Seminar presented at the
annual convention of the National Black Association
of Speech-Language-Hearing, Washington, DC.
Hyter, Y. D., Rivers, K. O., & DeJarnette, G. (2010,
April). The state of pragmatic language research for
children of color. Short Course presented at the annual convention of the National Black Association of
Speech-Language-Hearing, Tampa, FL.
Hyter, Y. D., Rivers, K. O., & DeJarnette, G. (2012, April).
Mining research of pragmatic language behavior in
African American children: A systematic literature
review. Seminar presented at the annual conference
of the National Black Association of Speech-LanguageHearing, Raleigh, NC.
Hyter, Y.D., Rogers-Atkinson, D. L., Self, T. L., FriedrichSimmons, B., & Jantz, J. (2001). Pragmatic language intervention for children with language and
emotional/behavioral disorders. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 23(1), 4–16.
Hyter, Y. D., & Sloane, M. (2013). Conceptual model
of social communication. Unpublished document,
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
42
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Johnson, C. J. (1995). Expanding norms for narration.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
26, 326–341.
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz,
T. A., Eisenberg, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2006). The index of narrative microstructure: A clinical tool for analyzing school-aged children’s narrative performances.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
15, 177–191.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001). Written language
awareness in preschool children from low-income
households: A descriptive analysis. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 22, 123–134.
Kasambira, D. C. F. (2008). Communicative functions of
preschoolers and their mothers across cultures and
socioeconomic status. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Kelly, S. D. (2001). Broadening the units of analysis
in communication: Speech and nonverbal behaviors
in pragmatic comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 29, 325–349.
Kraemer, R. J., Rivers, K. O., & Ratusnik, D. L. (2000).
Sociolinguistic perceptions of African-American English. The Negro Educational Review, 51(3–4),
139–148.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral
versions of personal narratives. In J. Helm (Ed.), Proceedings of the American ethnological society: Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Leaper, D., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Shaffer, T. G. (1999).
Communication patterns of African American girls and
boys from low-income urban backgrounds. Child Development, 70(6), 1489–1503.
Lee, C. D. (2006). Every good bye ain’t gone: Analyzing
the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
19(3), 305–327.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research:
Planning and design (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2012). Intercultural competence (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mainess, K. J., Champion, T. B., & McCabe, A. (2002).
Telling the unknown story complex and explicit narration by African American preadolescents - Preliminary
examination of gender and socioeconomic issues. Linguistics and Education, 13(2), 151–173.
Malinowski, B. (1959). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.),
The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). New York,
NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Maxwell, D. L., & Satake, E. (2006). Research and statistical methods in communication sciences and disorders. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? (A boy, a dog
and a frog). New York, NY: Dial Book for Young
Readers.
Mayer, M., Osborn, S., Stumer, J., & Templeton, G. (1985).
Frogs goes to dinner [VHS]. New York, NY: Phoenix
Films.
McCabe, A. (1997). Cultural background and storytelling:
A review and implications for schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 453–473.
McCabe, A., & Rosenthal Rollins P. (1994). Assessment
of preschool narrative skills. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 3, 45–56.
McGregor, K. K. (2000). The development and enhancement of narrative skills in a preschool classroom: Towards a solution to clinician-client mismatch. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 55–
71.
McNeill, D. (1996). Hand and mind: What gestures
reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Michaels, S. (1981). Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10(3),
423–442.
Middleton, L. D. (1992). An examination of language
functions among selected African American English
speakers in the home setting: An ethnographic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard
University, Washington, DC.
Mills, M. T., Watkins, R. V., & Washington, J. A. (2013).
Structural and dialectal characteristics of the fictional
and personal narratives of school-age African American children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services
in Schools, 44, 211–223.
Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs.
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Myers, H., Rana, P., & Harris, M. (1979). Black child development in American 1927–2977. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985).
Learning words from context. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253.
Nelson, N. W. (2010). Changes in story probes written
across third grade by African American students in a
writing lab approach. Topics in Language Disorders,
30(3), 223–252.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Newkirk-Turner, B., Oetting, J., & Stockman, I (2014).
BE, DO, and modal auxiliaries of three-year-old
African American English speakers. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 1383–
1393.
Nichols, P. C. (1989). Storytelling in Carolina: Continuities and contrasts. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 20(3), 232–245.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
Norment, N. (1995). Discourse features of African American students’ writings. Journal of Black Studies,
25(5), 558–576.
Oetting, J. B., Newkirk, B. L., Hartfield, L. R., Wynn, C. G.,
Pruitt, S. L., & Garrity, A. W. (2010). Index of productive syntax for children who speak African American
English. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 328–339.
Olswang, L., Coggins, T., & Timler, G. (2001). Outcome
measures for school-age children with social communication problems. Topics in Language Disorders,
22(1), 50–73.
O’Neill, D. K. (2014). Assessing pragmatic language functioning in young children: It’s importance and challenges. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic developing
in first language acquisition (pp. 363–387). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins B. V.
Paul, R., & Smith, R. (1993). Narrative skills in 4-year-olds
with normal, impaired, and late-developing language.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 592–
598.
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamic
assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability:
An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 49,
1037–1057.
Perkins, M. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, C. (1983). A pragmatic investigation of the
speech of selected black children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University, Washington,
DC.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles of
narrative elicitation: Effect on children’s narrative
structure and content. First Language, 12, 299–
321.
Price, J. R., Roberts, J. E., & Jackson, S. C. (2006). Structural development of the fictional narratives of African
American preschoolers. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 178–190.
Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1983). Applied pragmatics.
In T. Gallagher, & C. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language (pp.
29–64). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisal
of the pragmatic aspects of language. The Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.
Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to social research:
Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004).
‘Frog, where are you?’ Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury, and
Williams syndrome. Brain and Language, 88, 229–
247.
Renfrew, C. (1992). The Bus Story Language Test: A test
of continuous speech. Oxford, England: Author.
43
Renn, J. (2007). Measuring style shift: A quantitative
analysis of African American English. Unpublished
thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Renn, J. (2010). Acquiring style: The development of dialect shifting among American American children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Renn, J., & Terry, J. M. (2009). Operationalizing style:
Quantifying the use of style shift in the speech
of African American adolescents. American Speech,
84(4), 367–390.
Rivers, A. N. (2001). The influence of elicitation procedures on the structure and content of African American English speaking children’s personal narratives
and fictional stories and relationships between narratives and reading comprehension and expressive
language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Rivers, K.O., Hyter, Y., & DeJarnette, G. (2012). Parsing
pragmatics. ASHA Leader, 17(13), 14–17.
Rivers, K. O., Rosa-Lugo, L. I., & Hedrick, D. L. (2004). Performance of African-American adolescents on a measure of language proficiency. The Negro Educational
Review, 55(2), 117–127.
Robinson, T. L. (1992). An investigation of speech fluency skills in African American preschool children
during narrative discourse. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Howard University, Washington, DC.
Ross, S. H., Oetting, J. B., & Stapleton, B. (2004). Preterite
had +v-ed: A developmental narrative structure of
African American English. American Speech, 79(2),
167–193.
Roth, F., & Spekman, N. (1984a). Assessing the pragmatic
abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational framework
and assessment parameters. The Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 49, 2–11.
Roth, F., & Spekman, N. (1984b). Assessing the pragmatic
abilities of children: Part 2. Guidelines, considerations,
and specific evaluation procedures. The Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 12–17.
Roy, J., Oetting, J. B., & Moland, C. W. (2013). Linguistic constraints on children’s overt marking of BE by
dialect and age. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 56, 933–944.
Schachter, R. E., & Craig, H. K. (2013). Students’ production of narrative and features during an emergent
literacy task. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 44, 227–238.
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language
policy: The power of language. London: Routledge.
Schmid, H-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic
approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In
H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 3–24).
Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
44
TOPICS IN LANGUAGE DISORDERS/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
Seymour, H. N., & Roeper, T. (1999). Grammatical acquisition of African American English. In O. L. Taylor, &
L. Leonard (Eds.), Language acquisition across North
America: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 109–153). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Co.
Smitherman, G. (1994). Black talk: Words and phrases
from the hood to the amen corner. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity
and mind reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2005). Pragmatics. In F. Jackson, & M. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy (pp. 468–501). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Sperry, L. L. (1991). The emergence and development
of narrative competence in African American toddlers from a rural Alabama community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,
Chicago, IL.
Sperry, L. L., & Sperry, D. E. (1996). Early development of
narrative skills. Cognitive Development, 11, 443–465.
Spinelli, F. M., & Ripich, D. N. (1985). Discourse and
education. In D. N. Ripich, & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.),
School discourse problems (pp. 3–10). San Diego, CA:
College-Hill Press.
Stadler, M. A., & Ward, G. C. (2005). Supporting the narrative development of young children. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 33(2), 73–80.
Stockman, I. J. (1996). The promises and pitfalls of language sample analysis as an assessment tool for linguistic minority children. Language, Speech and Hearing
Services in Schools, 27, 355–366.
Stockman, I. J. (2010). A review of developmental and applied language research on African American children:
From a deficit to difference perspective on dialect differences. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 23–38.
Stockman, I. J., Guillory, B., Seibert, M., & Boult, J. (2013).
Toward validation of a minimal competence core of
morphosyntax for African American children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 40–
56.
Stockman, I. J., Karasinski, L., & Guillory, B. (2008).
The use of conversational repairs by African American preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 39, 461–474.
Stockman, I. J., & Vaughn-Cook, F. B. (1992). Lexical elaboration in children’s locative action expressions. Child
Development, 63(5), 1104–1125.
Szpara, M. Y., & Wylie, C. E. (2007). Writing differences in teacher performance assessments: An
investigation of African American language and
edited American English. Applied Linguistics, 29(2),
244–266.
Tabors, P. O., Snow, C E., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001).
Home and schools together: Supporting language and
literacy development. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O.
Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language:
Young children learning at home and school (pp.
313–334). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Terry, N. P., Connor, C. M., Tate, S. T., & Love, M. (2010).
Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 126–
145.
Terry, N. P., Mills, M. T., Bingham, G. E., Mansour,
S., & Marencin, N. (2013). Oral narrative performance of African American prekindergartners who
speak nonmainstream American English. Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 291–
305.
Thompson, C. A., Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A.
(2004). Variable production of African American English across oracy and literacy contexts. Language
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 269–
282.
Timler, G. R. (2008). Social communication: A framework for assessment and intervention. ASHA Leader,
13(15), 10–13.
Timler, G. R., Olswang, L. B., & Coggins, T. E. (2005).
“Do I know what I need to do?” A social communication intervention for children with complex clinical
profiles. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 36, 73–85.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tough, J. (1982). Talk for teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Troia, G. A. (2011). How might pragmatic language skills
affect the written expression of students with language learning disabilities? Topics in language Disorders, 31(1), 40–53.
Van Hofwegen, J., & Wolfram, W. (2010). Coming of
age in African American English: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(4), 427–455.
van Kleeck, A. (2008). Providing preschool foundations
for later reading comprehension: The importance
of and ideas for targeting inferencing in storybooksharing interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 45,
627–643.
van Wormer, K., & Besthorn, F. H. (2010). Human behavior and the social environment, macro level: Groups,
communities, and organizations. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Wallace, I. F., Roberts, J. E., & Lodder, D. E. (1998). Interactions of African American infants and their mothers:
Relations with development at 1 year of age. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4),
900–912.
Washington, J. A. (2001). Early literacy skills in African
American children: Research considerations. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 213–
221.
Weiner, J. (2004). Do peer relationships foster behavioral adjustment in children with learning
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Pragmatic Language of African American Children
disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 21–
30.
Weiner, J., & Schneider, B. (2002). A multisource exploration of friendship patterns of children with and
without LD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30, 127–141.
Westby, C. E., & Culatta, B. (2010). Forward. Topics in
language Disorders, 30(4), 272–214.
Westby, C. E., Culatta, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K.
(2010). Summarizing expository text. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 275–287.
Westby, C., & Robinson, L. (2014). Developmental perspective for promoting theory of mind. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 362–382.
45
Wetherby, A. M., & Prutting, C. (1984). Profiles of communicative and cognitive-social abilities in Autistic
children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 27, 364–377.
Wyatt, T. A. (1995). Language development in African
American English child speech. Linguistics and Education, 7, 7–22.
Xie, C., & House, J. (2009). Some aspects of pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 421–439.
Zevenbergen, A. A. (1996). Narrative development in
socioeconomically disadvantaged preschoolers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of
New York, Stony Brook.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.