Journal of Children's Communication Development
1997 Vol. 18, No. 2, 11-18
®1997 The Division for Children's Communication Development
Personal Narrative Structures of Children with SpecificLanguage Impairment
Lynn S. Bliss
Wayne State University
Karrie St. Pierre
Quincy Elementary School
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the narrative discourse of children with specific-language impairment (SLI)
and children with normal language development (NL). Their personal narratives were analyzed for length, number and complexity of narrative structures. The categories described by Glenn and Stein (1980) were used to identify narrative structures.
Differences between the groups were not obtained for length of narrative. The children with SLI produced fewer narrative
structures and less complex ones than their peers with NL. They did not produce narrative structures in which aims, motivations, and consequences occurred as frequently as did the children with NL. Clinical considerations are discussed.
N
arrative ability is critical for literacy attainment
(Sulzby & Zecker, 1991). Previous investigations
have demonstrated that oral narrative ability predicts and is related to academic achievement (deHirsh,
Jansky, & Langford, 1966; Dickinson & McCabe, 1 9 9 1 ;
Feagans, 1982; McCabe, 1996a). Elementary school children hear, tell, read and write narratives as part of their regular curriculum (Feagans, 1982). Innovative curricular uses
of narration include moral education projects, instruction
in argument development, oral history programs, and even
science instruction (McCabe, 1996a). There are also
numerous informal uses of narratives at school that promote relationships among children or between teachers
and children (Feagans, 1982). Narrative competence is
essential for school-age children to achieve intellectual and
social growth (McCabe, 1996a; Sulzby & Zecker, 1991).
The narrative abilities of children with nonimpaired
language (NL) have been thoroughly studied and reported
(Hudson & Shapiro, 1 9 9 1 ; McCabe, 1996a; Peterson &
McCabe, 1983; Preece, 1987). The narratives of children
with specific-language impairment (SLI) have also been
studied (McCabe, 1996a, 1996b; Johnston, 1982; Liles,
1985; Liles, Duffy, Merritt, & Purcell, 1995; Merritt & Liles,
1987; Sleight & Prinz, 1985). This population is important
to study because it is at risk not only with language and
discourse problems but also literacy attainment (Liles et al.,
1995; McCabe, 1996b). Children with SLI may need remediation in order to help them succeed academically.
The narratives of children with SLI have been analyzed
within the genres of fictional retelling and spontaneous
generation of f i c t i o n a l stories using a story grammar
approach (Graybeal,1981; Merritt & Liles,1987). Studies
indicate that their narratives are structured and contain
major episodes and action sequences Gohnston, 1982;
Merritt & Liles, 1987; Sleight & Prinz, 1985). Even though
the narratives of children with SLI tend to be short and consist of consequences of a c t i o n s , internal responses,
attempts and reactions, their knowledge of story grammar
is intact (Johnston, 1982; Liles, 1985; Merritt & Liles,
1987). Their narratives are more difficult to interpret as they
introduce additional characters, goals and consequences
(Liles, 1993). They may not be able to use efficiently their
knowledge of narrative discourse to produce complete stories (Merritt & Liles, 1987).
One genre that has not been explored extensively with
children with SLI is personal narratives, in which a speaker
describes past experiences. This narrative style reflects relatively unstructured discourse in comparison to narrative
retelling and fictional narrative production. Over fifty percent of the conversational narratives produced spontaneously by five to seven year-old children involve personal
experiences (Preece, 1987).
Previous research describing the personal narratives of
children with NL have revealed their discourse abilities; for
example, they talk longer and in a more complex style
when they discuss topics with which they are interested or
have a personal involvement than with remote or uninteresting topics (Cazden, 1970; Cowan, Weber, Hoddinott, &
Klein, 1967). Their personal narratives are more coherent at
an earlier age than their f i c t i o n a l stories (Hudson &
Shapiro, 1991). The reason for this difference is that personal narratives are elicited in conversation which requires a
speaker to relate sufficient background information to
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Personal Narrative Structure
11
obtain a listener's attention (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991).
There is also an increased motivation to communicate fully
with personal narratives because a speaker wants to relate
information that is interesting and unique in contrast to
r e t e l l i n g a story w h i c h may i n v o l v e o l d i n f o r m a t i o n
(Hudson & Shapiro, 1991).
Peterson and McCabe (1983) analyzed the personal
narratives produced by four to nine year-old children with
NL. They used the hierarchical coding system developed by
Glenn and Stein (1980) which focuses on narrative structure. Simpler narrative structures are distinguished from
more complex ones on the basis of the number of people,
actions, goals, consequences, internal states and interrelationships between individuals and events. Complex narrative structures require speakers to plan their discourse in
order to describe motivations and causal relationships
between events. Glenn and Stein (1980) identified two
types of narrative structures: sequences, which are relatively s i m p l e , a n d episodes, w h i c h are more c o m p l e x .
Sequences do not involve prior p l a n n i n g ; a narrator
describes people, settings or actions. Episodes are more
complex because internal states and interrelationships
between events are evident (descriptions and examples of
the structures in this hierarchy are presented in Appendix
A).
The Glenn and Stein (1980) hierarchy was shown to be
relevant for the development of narrative structures by children with NL (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Developmental
changes are e v i d e n t f r o m four to nine years of age.
Sequences are more evident in younger children while
older children use more episodes. Planning, goals and
motivations are more evident in the narratives of older children. In sum, eight and nine year old children construct
more advanced narratives because they include more
sophisticated relationships between events and characters.
The personal narratives of children with SLI have been
the source of one investigation. Miranda (1993) compared
the personal narratives of 10 school-aged children with SLI
and 10 children with NL matched by chronological age.
The children in the experimental group were enrolled in a
self-contained classroom for children with SLI. To be eligible for this classroom, they had to score at least two standard deviations below the mean on two standardized language tests. The narratives of the children with SLI were
more incomplete than those of their peers; they left out
more information which made their discourse difficult to
understand. The consequence of an incomplete narrative is
that a listener must fill in missing information. In addition,
the children w i t h SLI d i d not always relate events in
chronological order, resulting in narratives that were difficult to follow. They expanded their narratives by including
scripts and descriptions of their likes, dislikes, abilities and
inabilities. Miranda (1993) concluded that the children
with SLI were limited in their ability to produce coherent
personal narratives.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the
personal narrative structures of chidren with SLI and chil-
12
Personal Narrative Structure
dren with NL using the Glenn and Stein (1980) hierarchy.
This analysis was used in order to compare the narrative
structures produced by children with SLI and children with
NL. This analysis differs from previous investigations in its
focus. Other studies have concentrated on the microstructure of narration, such as cohesion (Liles, 1985), and story
grammar elements (Merritt & Liles, 1987; Sleight and Prinz,
1985), and dependency analysis (Miranda, 1993). The
results of these investigations have shown that while children with SLI have knowledge of microstructural aspects of
cohesion and story grammar elements, they do not always
include their knowledge in their narratives (Merrit & Liles,
1987). Their narratives are lacking at the microstructural
level. The Glenn and Stein (1980) approach offers an analysis at the macrostructural level. The structure of a complete
narrative is analyzed. This perspective is broader than
analyses conducted at the microstructural level and offers
insights regarding the ability of children with SLI to plan
and develop a complete narrative structure rather than to
focus on narrative components.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were twenty boys between the ages of 8:0
and 9:11 years who attended a public school in a suburban
area of Detroit. All of the children were Caucasian and
monolingual native speakers of English.
Ten of the children were diagnosed as languageimpaired by a certified speech-language pathologist. Their
chronological ages ranged from 8:0 to 9:9 years with a
mean of 8:7 years. They were enrolled in a self-contained
classroom for children with SLI. They achieved average or
above average nonverbal intelligence scores on either the
W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d
(Weschler, 1974) or the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983). Their expressive language behavior was evaluated by two assessment measures. The Test of Language Development-Primary (Hamill
& Newcomer, 1982) was administered to six of the children. The remaining four children received the Expressive
One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (Gardner, 1979). All the
children scored two standard deviations below the mean
for their chronological age on either test. The Token Test for
Children (DiSimoni, 1978) was administered to all of the
children to test their receptive language development. They
scored two standard deviations below the mean for their
chronological age.
The children with NL were matched to the children
with SLI on the basis of gender, chronological age within
six months and socioeconomic status. Language age was
not selected for a matching criterion because of the inherent biases and confounding age effects that are evident in
this variable (Plante, Swisher, Kiernan, & Restrepo, 1993).
Their age range was 8:0 to 9:11 years, with a mean age of
8:7 years. The children were enrolled in regular classrooms
and were performing adequately. They had normal visual
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
and auditory acuity and were not receiving educational,
speech or language support services. Each child demonstrated average intellectual ability w i t h i n one standard
deviation of the mean, as measured by the intelligence
used by the school district, The Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(Hieronymous, Hoover, & Linquist, 1986).
Procedure?
The Conversational Map protocol was used to elicit
personal narratives from the children (McCabe & Rollins,
1994; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Following this protocol,
the examiner presented each child with a verbal prompt
which consisted of a brief narrative described by the elicitor about an interesting experience, such as getting a shot
at the doctor's office, going to a birthday party, or going on
vacation. A follow-up question was asked, ''Did anything
like that ever happen to you?" If the child responded affirmatively, the examiner asked the child to describe the
event, by saying What happened? or Tell me about it If the
child responded negatively, another prompt was presented
to the child. Each narrative was expanded by using the following questions presented in random order: repetition of
the child's last utterance w i t h rising intonation, And?,
Anything else?, and Then what happened? These subprompts served to encourage narration while not directing
the content of the child's message (McCabe & Rollins,
1994). Five different prompts were presented to each child
(examples are presented in A p p e n d i x B). The longest
responses were selected for analysis. This procedure is used
in order to obtain maximal performance from children
(Peterson & M c C a b e , 1 9 8 3 ) . A n e x a m p l e of the
Conversational Map protocol and personal narratives from
a child w i t h NL and a child w i t h SLI are presented in
Appendix C.
They did not include any temporally related actions. For
example, a list of objects was presented. The number,
types, and frequencies of narrative structures were compared for both groups of children.
Twenty-five percent of the personal narrative structures
(15 in each group, SLI and NL) produced by each group
were selected randomly to determine intercoder reliability.
The intercoder reliability between an independent coder
and the second author was 97.2% for the identification of
c o m m u n i c a t i o n units. The percentage of agreement
between the two individuals was 9 0 % for both the number
and types of narrative structures.
RESULTS
The length of each narrative structure was determined
by the number of communication units produced by the
children. The mean number produced by the children with
SLI was 61.90 (SD=17.30) and by the children with NL was
74.50 (SD=34.40). An independent group f-test (Winer,
1973) was applied to the means. Significant differences
were not obtained in the number of communication units
between the groups.
The children with NL produced a total of 87 (M=8.70,
SD=3.31) narrative structures while the children with SLI
produced a total of 60 narrative structures ( M = 6 . 0 0 ,
SD=2.13). The means and standard deviations of each narrative structure are presented in table 1.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of types of personal narrative structures produced by children with
speech- language impairment (SLI) and children with
normal language development (NL).
SL
Pata Coding
The children sometimes spontaneously produced more
than one narrative structure for each narrative prompt. For
example, when asked about a shot at the doctor's office,
one child described two different experiences about shots.
These two descriptions were considered to represent different narrative structures. A narrative structure was identified
on the basis of the topic that each child discussed. Separate
events were considered to represent different narrative
structures.
Each narrative structure was divided into communicative units in order to determine length (Loban, 1976). A
communicative unit consists of either an independent
clause with optional modifiers and dependent clauses or a
response to a question in which the question constituents
are absent (MacLachlan & Chapman, 1988).
Each narrative structure was assigned to one of eight
n a r r a t i v e categories (see A p p e n d i x A). Seven w e r e
described by Glenn and Stein (1980). An additional structure, nondescriptive sequence, was added to the beginning
of the continuum because three of the personal narrative
structures of the children with SLI did not meet the minimal
requirements of the first structure descriptive sequence.
NL
Structures
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Nondescriptive seq.
.30
.68
.00
.00
Descriptive seq.
.20
.42
.50
1.58
Action seq.
.40
.84
.00
.00
1.90
1.60
2.30
2.11
Abbreviated episode 1.30
1.06
3.00
1.56
Complete episode
1.30
1.36
2.50
.85
Complex episode
.60
.76
.30
.68
Interactive episode
.00
.00
.10
.32
Reactive seq.
To determine whether the groups were significantly different in the number and types of narrative structures, a
M A N O V A was performed.
A significant
main
effect
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Personal Narrative Structure 13
between subjects for the group was found [F(1,18)=4.89, p
<.05]. There was also a significant main effect among categories for the groups [F(7,12)= 51.32, p <.001]. The interaction effect (Group X Category) was also significant, F
(7,12)=5.12, p <.01. To determine where significant differences were obtained between the groups for each narrative
structure, t tests were performed. This statistical test is used
to determine variable differences between groups following
a significant interaction effect (Winer, 1973). Significant differences were obtained between the groups for abbreviated
episodes [t (18)=-3.43, p <.01] and for complete episodes
[t (18)=-2.39, p <.05]. The two groups were not significantly different for the following narrative structures: nondescriptive, descriptive, action, and reactive sequences as
well as complex and interactive episodes.
DISCUSSION
The results of this investigation demonstrate that children with SLI exhibit relative strengths and weaknesses in
their use of personal narratives. Significant differences in
the narratives of the two groups of children were not found
for the number of communication units, which is one indication of narrative length. This result is not in agreement
with the research findings of Liles (1985) in which children
with SLI produced shorter fictional narratives than children
with NL. Liles (1985) used number of sentences while in
this investigation the number of communication units was
used. These measures are generally similar and would be
expected to yield consistent findings between the studies;
however, the tasks of the two studies differed. In the Liles
studies, fictional stories and a form of narrative retelling
were studied (Merritt & Liles, 1987; Liles, 1985). The reason for the difference in this investigtation and previous
ones may be the use of personal narratives. This discourse
genre maximizes children's performance (Hudson &
Shapiro, 1991). There is increased motivation to communicate in a personal narrative style in contrast to story
retelling or fictional narratives even within an unshared listener context. The speaker is motivated to relate something
unusual or interesting that has happened (Hudson &
Shapiro, 1991). According to Hudson and Shapiro (1991),
this motivational factor most likely results in increased personal narrative length in comparison to other narrative
genre forms.
The children with SLI produced fewer narrative structures than their peers. The children with NL spontaneously
produced additional narrative structures by adding on to
original ones or embedding one or more within their original stories. The children with SLI added extraneous information that did not constitute a narrative structure, such as
descriptions of common routines and abilities (scripts),
likes, and dislikes. Merritt and Liles (1987) also found that
some of their subjects with SLI produced extraneous information that was not relevant to their narratives. The
reduced number of narrative structures produced by the
children with SLI may be due to the complexity of narrative
14 Personal Narrative Structure
discourse. Children with SLI appear to avoid the rigors of
organization and sequencing that are required by narratives
(Miranda, 1993). Fewer demands are required for scriptal
discourse and listing of abilities and preferences than for
personal narrative discourse (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991).
Similarities were evident in the types of narrative structures that were produced by both groups of children. They
rarely used the simplest sequences (descriptive and action)
and most advanced narrative episodes (complex and interactive). The most popular forms were reactive sequences
and a b b r e v i a t e d and c o m p l e t e e p i s o d e s . Reactive
sequences consist of a description of routine events with a
simple causal relationship between them. Conceptualizing
and expressing motivational and other internal states and
goals are not included. It is a common narrative style for
children with NL of all ages, although younger children use
this style more than older ones (Peterson & McCabe, 1983).
The children with SLI were apparently able to construct
reactive sequences with similar frequencies as their peers
with NL because this genre reflects a relatively simple narrative structure. Abbreviated episodes do not involve consequences while complex ones have the results of actions.
They were common because they involve basic narrative
forms.
Differences between the groups occurred with relatively complex narrative discourse in which internal states,
goals and consequences are featured. Abbreviated and
complete episodes require purposive discourse with the
conceptualization and use of aims, motivations and/or consequences (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Two factors are relevant regarding the reduced frequencies of advanced structures by the children with SLI. First, cognitive limitations of
the children with SLI may have affected their narrative discourse abilities. Cognitive impairments have been shown to
be evident in children with SLI even though they score at
age level on nonverbal intelligence tests (Kamhi, Gentry, &
Mauer, 1990; Kamhi, Minor, & Mauer, 1990; Johnston,
1982). These tests assess cognitive functions that are different from those that are required for narrative discourse.
Some cognitive functions are involved in narrative discourse that are not tapped by conventional intelligence
tests. They consist of decontextualization; hierarchical organization; temporal and causal relationships; and conceptualizing and planning internal states, goals and attempts
(Peterson & McCabe, 1983). They are impaired for children
with SLI (Craig, 1991; Johnston, 1982; Liles, 1993; Merritt
& Liles, 1987). A cognitive deficit w i l l have a negative
impact on the narrative discourse abilities of children with
SLI (Craig, 1991; Johnston, 1982). The cognitive deficit limiting narration involves a reduced ability to plan and structure discourse, conceptualize mental states, and conceive
of consequences of actions.
The second factor that may explain the reduced performance of the children with SLI is capacity limitiation. This
deficit is reflected in the reduction of use of complex narrative strucures rather than the know/edge of these discourse
structures. In this investigation, every child with SLI used at
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
de Hirsch, K., Jansky, J.J., & Langford, W.S. (1996). Predicting language
failure. NY: Harper and Row.
Dickinson, D.K., & McCabe, A. (1991). A social interactionist account of
language and literacy development. In J. Kavanaugh (Ed.) The language continuum (pp. 1-40). Parkton, MD: York Press.
DiSimoni, F. (1978). The Token Test for Children. Hingham, MA: Teaching
Resources.
Feagans, L. (1982). The development and importance of narratives for
school adaptation. In L. Feagns & D. Farran (Eds.) The language of
children reread in poverty (pp. 95-116). NY: Academic Press.
Gardner, M.F. (1979) Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test.
Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Glenn, C.G., & Stein, N. (1980). Syntactic structures and real world
themes in stories generated by children. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.
Graybeal, C M . (1981). Memory for stories in language-impaired children.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 269-283.
Hammill, D., & Newcomer, P. (1982). Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Hedberg, N.L., & Westby, C.E. (1993). Analyzing storytelling skills Theory
to Practice. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
Hieronymous, A., Hoover, H., Linquist, E. (1986). Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills. Chicago: Riverside.
Hudson, J.A., & Shapiro (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children's scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In C.
Peterson & A. McCabe (Eds.) Developing narrative structure (pp. 89136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnston, J.R. (1982). Narratives: A new look at communication problems
in older language disordered children. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, ll,\ 44-155.
Johnston, J. R. (1991). Questions about cognition in children with specific
language impairment. In J. Miller (Ed.) Research on child language
disorders: A decade of progress (pp. 299-308). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Johnston, J.R., & Smith, L.B. (1989). Dimensional thinking in language
impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32, 3338.
Kamhi, A.G., Gentry, B., Maver, D, & Gholson, B. (1990). Analogical
learning and transfer in language-impaired children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55,140-148.
Kamhi, A.G., Minor, J., & Maver, D. (1990). Content analysis and intratest
performance profile on the Columbia and the TON I. Journal of
Speech and Research, 33, 375-379.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Liles, B.Z. (1985). Cohesion in the narratives of normal and language disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 123133.
Liles, B.Z. (1993). Narrative discourse in children with language disorders
and children with normal language: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 868-882.
Liles, B.Z., Duffy, J.J., Merritt, D.D., & Purcell, S.L. (1995). Measurement of
narrative discourse abilities in children with language disorders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 415-425.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade
Appreciation is extended to Lisbeth Stevens for her
twelve. (Research Report No.18). Urbana, II: National Council of
assistance in determining reliability. The contributions of
Teachers of English.
McCabe, A. (1996a). Chameleon readers: Teaching children to appreciate
the administrators, parents and children of the participating
all kinds of good stories. NY: McGraw-Hill.
school district are also appreciated.
McCabe, A. (1996b). Evaluation of narrative discourse skills. In K.N. Cole,
P.S. Dale, & D.J. Thai (Eds) Assessment of Communcation and
Language (pp. 121-142). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
REFERENCES
MacCabe, A., & Rollins, P.R. (1994). Assessment of preschool narrative
Cazden, C.B. (1970). The neglected situation in chillanguage research and
skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology: A Journal of
education. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language and Poverty: Perspectives
Clinical Practice, 73,45-56.
on a Theme (pp.81 -101). Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing.
MacLachlan, B., & Chapman, R. (1988). Communication breakdown in
Cowan, P., Weber, ]., Hoddinott, B., & Klein, J. (1967). Mean length of
normal and language learning disabled children's conversation and
spoken response as a function of stimulus, experimenter, and subnarration. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 2-7.
ject. Child Development, 38, 191 -203.
Merritt, D., & Liles, B. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with
Craig, H.K. (1991). Pragmatic characteristics of the child with specific lanand without language disorder: Story generation, story retelling, and
guage impairment: An interactionist perspective. In T. Gallagher (Ed.)
story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30,
Pragmatics of Language (pp.163-198). San Diego, CA: Singular Press.
539-552.
least one advanced narrative structure with the exception of
interactive episodes. The frequencies, however, were low
for each child with SLI (even though the children with SLI
produced more complex structures than their peers in the
control group). The children with SLI appeared to have
some knowledge of complex narrative structures which
involve aims, motivations and consequences. They did not,
however, use them frequently. There appears to be a gap
between their competence and performance regarding the
knowledge and use of relatively advanced narrative structures. Merritt and Liles (1987) also found evidence of this
gap. Although their subjects with SLI demonstrated story
grammar knowledge, they did not always incorporate every
story grammar element in their stories. Similar gaps
between competence and performance have been reported
elsewhere regarding children with SLI (Johnston, 1991;
Johnston & Smith, 1989).
Children with SLI have difficulty at two levels of narrative discourse: the microstructural level which involves
cohesion and story grammar elements and the macrostructure level which involves the planning of a complete narrative (Liles, et al., 1995). The results of this investigation suggest that narratives should receive primary focus in intervention in order to improve the child's discourse abilities as
well as to increase the chances for successful literacy
attainment (Hedberg & Westby, 1993; McCabe & Rollins,
1994). Intervention can follow the hierarchy described by
Glenn and Stein (1980). More advanced narrative structures
can be modeled and elicited after the more basic ones have
been acquired. This hierarchy has been shown to be developmentally appropriate for children with NL and may be
applied to children with SLI. A focus on goals, internal
states and motivations would enable children to conceive
of and plan more advanced narrative structures. Further
research needs to be conducted with children from different cultures and linguistic backgrounds. Cultural differences will affect narration and need to be considered in
assessment and intervention. The results of this investigation may not be generalizable to children from nonmainstream cultures.
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Personal Narrative Structure 15
Miranda, E. (1993). Dependency analysis of narrative discourse in language impaired and nonimpaired children. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Peterson, C , & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics:
Three ways of looking at a child's narrative. New York: Plenum.
Plante, E., Swisher, L, Kiernan, B., & Restrepo, M.A. (1993). Language
matches: Illuminating or confounding? Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 36, 772-776.
Preece, A. (1987). The range of narrative forms conversationally produced
by young children. Journal of Child Language, 14,
353-376.
Sleight, C, & Prinz, P. (1985). Use of abstracts, orientations, and codas in
narratives by language-disordered and nondisordered children.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 361 -371.
Sulzby, E., & Zecker, LB. (1991). The oral monologue as a form of emergent reading. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.) Developing
Narrative Structure (pp. 175-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.
Weschler, D. (1974). Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised.
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Winer, B.J. (1973). Statistical principles in experimental design. (2nd
Edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
APPENDIX A
Structural Patterns of Narratives (Peterson & McCabe, 1983)
Descriptive Sequence: Characters, settings and actions
are presented without causality or planned behavior. The
setting or temporally related events are described. Example
from a four year old girl (Peterson & McCabe, p. 72):
Adult: Did you ever get jabbed or stuck with anything?
Child: A monster did. I saw a monster in the water. At
the museum.
Adult: You saw a monster in the water at the museum.
Child: Because it was drowned.
Adult: It drowned? Oh.
Child: It was gone. There was Indians over there.
Adult: Oh, I see. There were Indians over there?
Child: Yeah. But they went to sleep. It's a statue.
Action sequence: Actions are presented chronologically and not causally. The focus of the narratives are on
actions. Goals and plans are not evident. Example from a
four year old girl (Peterson & McCabe, p. 72):
Adult: Have you ever been to Oberlin or Cleveland or
any place like that?
Child: I been, been to Christ Jovah's [sic] right there.
Adult: You've been where?
Child: Christ Jovah's house. Sometimes.
Adult: And?
Child: I just said, I, I said, "Hi, hello, and how are
you?" And then, and then, they go some place else and
then, and then I had a party, with, with, with, with candy
and...hmmmm...my, and my, um I don't know.
Adult: Any you what?
Child: I don't know what I did. I sure had a party.
Reactive sequence: A narrative that involves a series of
changes that automatically cause other changes to occur.
Planning is not involved. Causal relationships between
events are evident. However, there is no clearly specified
goal that motivates behavior. An example from a four year
old boy (Peterson & McCabe, p. 73):
16
Adult: What happened in the accident that you saw?
Child: Car got burned up.
Adult: A car got burned up? Tell me about what happened when the car burned up.
Child: There was three kids in there. Everybody got out
in, just in time, and, and, and then, my Dad didn't keep his
eyes on the road and we were almost wrecked.
Adult: You were almost wrecked too?
Child: Yeahhhh. I wouldn't want that to happen. I'd be
out of school about a week.
Abbreviated episode: The goals of a protagonist are
presented. Planning generally needs to be inferred by the
listener. This is the most basic structure in which an aim is
offered. There are two elements: a motive and either an
event or a consequence. An example from a seven year old
girl (Peterson & McCabe, pp. 73-74):
Child: I went to the hospital. And you know what? My
friend Scotty, you know, ohhh, did that hurt.
Adult: What happened?
Child: See, what was that round thing with the stick at
the top, that you hit a ball with, a hard ball?
Adult: A bat?
Child: Yeah. And he hit me, you know, I was in back of
him, and he hil me, and before I got in the house, it was
bleeding so hard. Way down to my legs.
Adult: Way down to your legs? Uh huh And?
Child: Well, Scotty. you know, he got a spanking.
Complete Episode: A narrative in which aims are
described but there is more evidence of planning than in
abbreviated episodes. The child must present at least two of
the following elements: event, motivating state, and
attempt. A consequence must be present. An example from
a six year old boy (Peterson & McCabe, p. 74):
Child: I remember when my brother got a sliver, a sliver.
Adult: Oh, tell me about it.
Child: We were playing outside. I don't know how it
happened. We were playing outside and when we came in
he had a sliver in his hand.
Adult: He had a sliver in his hand.
Child: Just before he took a bath my Dad came up and
took it out, and he was cry-ying. cry-y-ying. oow. ooh. He
cried for a little while. He started and he didn't want to get
into the tub. He started crying and crying.
Complex episode: This narrative is an elaboration of a
complete episode in one of four ways: embedded reactive
sequence, embedded complete episode, multiple plans, or
multiple plans with an embedded complete episode. An
example of an embedded reactive sequence follows from a
nine year old boy (Peterson & McCabe, p. 76):
Adult: Have you even been in the water?
Child: Yeah, I almost drowned one time.
Adult: You did?
Child: Yeah. My cousin was up and, we had, went
down to the Birmingham River, and, that, it was far away
from my house. We went down there and then we went,
we was wading in the water, then, there's this rock, and I
Personal Narrative Structure
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
slid on the rock and the water was over my head and then
it, I fell in and then I started to drown. My Mom said I
could help it but I was too scared to then. It was up
to h£r when she was bending down to get me.
Interactive episode: A narrative is presented in which
one set of events is described from two perspectives; both
individuals have aims and influence each other. An example from a seven year old boy (Peterson & McCabe, p. 81):
Adult: Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Child: Yeah, I got two sisters.
Adult: Do you ever fight with them?
Child: Yeah, I fight with my big sister a \QL
Adult: Oh, tell me about one of the fights that you had.
Child: Well, my little sister's cute, but my big sister.
she's awful and ugly. She got freckles too.
Adult: She's got freckles? Tell me about one of those
fights that you had.
Child: One time, we were watching television, And she
got, she got real tired and then she started saying, "Georgie,
would you go get me some milk?" And she got thirst. And I
said, "Why don't you get yourself some milk?" She covered
up the television and I punched her in the nose. It's, her
nose started bleeding. And, then, then she, she went and
told Mommy and I, I, she said she was gonna go tell
Mommy. I said, "If you do, I'll, I'll, I'll break the milk bottle,
I I'll hit, I'll pour the milk out on you." Had, that I got for
me, that I was drinking, and she, she went back and sat
down. She got her milk and she went back and sat down.
That was...Mom, Mommy was downstairs.
APPENDIX B
Prompts Used to Elicit Personal Narratives
(Modeled after Peterson & McCabe, 1983)
1) Last week I had a sore throat. I went to the doctor
and I had to get a shot. Have you ever gotten a shot at the
doctor's?
2) I went to a friend's birthday party last weekend.
Have you ever been to a birthday party?
3) Last month I went up North for a vacation. I went for
a walk on the beach and I went swimming. Have you ever
been in the water?
4) When I was about your age, I had a dog. She ran
away and she never came back. Did your dog ever run
away?
5) On my way home last night, I saw a car accident on
the expressway. Have you ever been in or seen a car accident?
6) Two weeks ago, I had to go to the hospital to have
some X-rays taken. Have you ever been to the hospital?
7) When I was about your age, I was smelling a flower
and there was a bee on it and it stung me right on my nose.
Did you ever get stung?
8) When I was eight, I broke my wrist. Have you ever
broken anything?
9) Last week I took my grandma's cat to the vet because
it had a sore on its tail. Did you ever take an animal to the
vet?
10) Yesterday, I spilled a glass of milk while I was eating
dinner. Have you ever had a spilling accident?
APPENDIX C
Example of the Conversational Map Elicitation Procedure
with Two Children
Child with SLI (8 years, 0 months):
Adult: On my way home last night, I saw a car accident
on the expressway. Have you ever been in one or seen an
accident?
Child: Yeah.
Adult: Can you tell me about it?
Child: OK, my mom was urn...there was a green light
and she was going and this car hit her. It was
a...she...m...she was uh, she had a limousine and she didn't
"wat" watching an' she was keep going an' hit....my mom
in the truck and then went and hit the limosine hit the
other car and another one hit the other car.
Adult: Then what happened?
Child: The police came. She didn't have, my mom didn't the license. She, my brother, had to go run home and
he, she, he couldn't go home and an' my mom had to ride
home but the police saw her.
Adult: The police saw her?
Child: Yeah?
Adult: Then what happened?
Child: She got a ticket.
Adult: Anything else?
Child: No, that's it.
Child with NL (8 years, 2 months):
Adult: When I was about your age, I was smelling a
flower and there was a bee on it and it stung me right on
my nose. Did you ever get stung?
Child: Yeah.
Adult: Can you tell me about it?
Child: Urn, I was playing with my friends and then I,
and then I urn I doin' some urn I fell and it stung me right
in the middle of my hand and urn and then my brother got
stung on the foot and he had to urn he had, he was really
bugging me and my mom said, "Is anything bothering
you?" and he goes, "I got stung this morning" and urn that
was the last time I seen my brother get stung but I got stung
by a jellyfish.
Adult: By a jellyfish?
Child: Yeah, it was laying on the beach in uh Florida
and I picked it up. I didn't know what it was so I, so I
touched the antennas, where the head is and then my Aunt
Judy said, "Put that down." And so 1 dropped it and I kept
going back and forth be...with urn in the sea to wash my
hand off because it was stinging me.
Adult: It was stinging you?
Child: Yeah it was.
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Personal Narrative Structure 17
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016