Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health

Editor-in-Chief: Merrick, Joav

Editorial Board: Birch, Diana ML / Blum, Robert W. / Greydanus, MD, Dr. HC (Athens), Donald E. / Hardoff, Daniel / Kerr, Mike / Levy, Howard B / Morad, Mohammed / Omar, Hatim A. / de Paul, Joaquin / Rydelius, Per-Anders / Shek, Daniel T.L. / Sher, Leo / Silber, Tomas J. / Towns, Susan / Urkin, Jacob / Verhofstadt-Deneve, Leni / Zeltzer, Lonnie / Tenenbaum, Ariel


CiteScore 2018: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.350
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.476

Online
ISSN
2191-0278
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Determining the development of syntax in typically-developing Indian adolescents using a syntactic analysis package

Swathi Shenoy
  • Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Mangalore, India
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sudhin KaruppaliORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2955-8107
Published Online: 2018-12-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2018-0059

Abstract

Background

The syntactic structures used by adolescents can be calculated by measuring various markers that have the scope of developing with age. The use of such markers can be influenced by the type and modality of discourse on the individual uses.

Aims

The present study was aimed at exploring the syntactic development in 10–16-year-old Indian adolescents using markers such as sentences, clauses, subordinators, coordinators, T-units and the subordination index (SI) using written expository texts.

Methods

The study followed a cross-sectional study design following a non-random convenient sampling procedure. A total number of 180 typically-developing adolescents divided into six groups participated in the study. Phase 1 of the study comprised the preparation of the stimuli; Phase 2 included the data collection; Phase 3 focused on the data analysis; and Phase 4 involved the statistical analysis performed on the obtained data.

Results

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a main level of significance at p < 0.05 for all variables (except SI) indicating an overall change in the development across the six age groups. Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis indicated poor significance between the groups in almost all the six variables.

Conclusions

Understanding the syntactic markers in the language of adolescents is essential to determine the academic and communicative effectiveness of these individuals.

Keywords: adolescent; coordinator; subordinator; subordination index; T-unit

References

  • [1]

    Nippold MA, Ward-Lonergan JM, Fanning JL. Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: a study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2005;36(2):125–38.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Nippold MA, Mansfield TC, Billow JL, Tomblin JB. Expository discourse in adolescents with language impairments: examining syntactic development. Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2008;17(4):356–66.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    Diessel H. On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In: Syntactic complexity: diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing; 2009. p. 251–76.Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Wang X-L. Maintaining three languages: the teenage years. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters; 2015. 315 p.Google Scholar

  • [5]

    Bulté B, Housen A. Evaluating short-term changes in L2 complexity development. Círculo Lingüística Apl a la Comun. 2015;63:42–76.Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Thuresson J. The syntactic development in the earlier stages of children’s first language acquisition. Sweden: Linnaeus University; 2011.Google Scholar

  • [7]

    Scott CM, Windsor J. General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(2):324–39.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Hirano K. Research on T-unit Measures in ESL. J Child Lang Acquis Dev. 1988;8(2):14–5.Google Scholar

  • [9]

    Nippold MA. Developmental markers in adolescent language: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1993;24(1):21–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Jalilevand N. Three measures often used in language samples analysis. J Child Lang Acquis Dev. 2014;2(1):1–12.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Singla AL. The relationship between lexicon and syntax in texts written in Catalan by school children and adolescents. Province of Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona; 2012.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Gustafson P. Written language development in adolescents: pause patterns and syntax in the writing process. Sweden: Lunds universitet; 2011.Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Scott CM. Producing complex sentences. Top Lang Disord. 1988;8(2):13–4.Google Scholar

  • [14]

    Paul R, Norbury C, Gosse C. Language disorders from infancy through adolescence – listening, speaking, reading, writing, and communicating, 5th ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017. 812 p.Google Scholar

  • [15]

    Berman H. Children and war: current understandings and future directions. Public Health Nurs. 2001;18(4):243–52.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Gummersall D, Strong C. Assessment of complex sentence production in a narrative context. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1999;30:152–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Lintunen P, Mäkilä M. Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: comparing the incomparable? Res Lang. 2014;12(4):377–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Ott DL. Syntactic and semantic development in adolescents’ persuasive discourse. Florida: Florida State University Libraries; 2013.Google Scholar

  • [19]

    Koutsoftas AD. School-age language development: application of the five domains of language across four modalities. In: Capone-Singleton N, Shulman BB, editor(s). Language development: foundations, processes, and clinical applications. MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2013. p. 215–29.Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Iuliano B. Expository and narrative discourse in adolescents with reading and language impairments: assessment and intervention. Amherst, MA, USA: University of Massachusetts Amherst; 2012.Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Pressley M, McCormick CB. Child and adolescent development for educators. New York, USA: Guilford Press, 2007. 498 p.Google Scholar

  • [22]

    Berman RA, Nir-sagiv B. Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: a developmental paradox. Discourse Process. 2007;43(2):79–120.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    Nippold MA. School-age children talk about chess: does knowledge drive syntactic complexity? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(4):856–71.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

    Karuppali S, Bhat J. Efficacy of using simile completion tasks as a measure to evaluate the figurative language abilities in adolescents aged between 10–15 years. Nepal J Med Sci. 2014;3(2):110–5.Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Maitreyee R, Goswami SP. Language proficiency questionnaire: an adaptation of LEAP-Q in Indian context. Unpublished dissertation. Mysore: University of Mysore; 2009.Google Scholar

  • [26]

    Berman RA, Nayditz R, Ravid D. Linguistic diagnostics of written texts in two school-age populations. Writ Lang Lit. 2011;14(2):161–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [27]

    Llinares A. Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts – Edited by Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto. Int J Appl Linguist. 2011;21(3):416–420.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28]

    DeCapua A. Compound sentences and introduction to complex sentences: adverbial clauses. New York, USA: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 279–312.Google Scholar

  • [29]

    Piaget J, Inhelder B. The psychology of the child. New York, USA: Basic Books; 2008. 192 p.Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Johansson V. Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: a developmental perspective. Work Pap. 2008;53:61–79.Google Scholar

  • [31]

    Crossley SA, Weston JL, McLain Sullivan ST, McNamara DS. The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: a linguistic analysis. Writ Commun. 2011;28(3):282–311.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [32]

    Rubin KH. The play observation scale. Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo; 1989.Google Scholar

  • [33]

    Nippold MA, Mansfield TC, Billow JL, Tomblin JB. Syntactic development in adolescents with a history of language impairments: a follow-up investigation. Am J speech-language Pathol. 2008;18(3):241–51.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [34]

    Loban W. Language development: kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No. 18; 1976.Google Scholar

  • [35]

    Hunt KW. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English (Research Report No. 3); 1965.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-03-19

Accepted: 2018-05-15

Published Online: 2018-12-08


Citation Information: International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20180059, ISSN (Online) 2191-0278, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2018-0059.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in