Williams Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder, first identified in 1961, that is characterized by, among other things, outgoing personalities and deficits in processing and adaptive behavior skils. These individuals frequently have comparatively low IQs with comparatively high language skills. While initially the facts of the preceding sentence were eagerly seized by proponents of the separation of intelligence and language, the accumulation of research has (as it so often does) muddied the picture.  Williams Syndrome and Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have frequently been used as converse examples of evidence to support the dissociation between cognition and language.  The cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker, has made this argument in several popular books.  In 1999 he wrote,

Overall, the genetic double dissociation is striking, suggesting that language is both a specialisation of the brain and that it depends on generative rules that are visible in the ability to compute regular forms.  The genes of one group of children [SLI] impair their grammar while sparing their intelligence; the genes of another group of children [WS] impair their intelligence while sparing their grammar.

Subsequent assertions by Pinker leaning more toward an inextricable relationship between genes and environment seem not to have been as widely read as his earlier work.

Comparisons of SLI and Williams Syndrome hinge on the notion that SLI is inherited.  While the research does suggest that at least a predisposition toward SLI is inherited, the complexity of its causes makes any comparisons like that of apples and oranges.  The exact cause of Williams Syndrome is known:  it is the result of missing genetic material on chromosome seven.  SLI is likely the result of a stew of ingredients, with varied recipes, and varied results.  Individuals with Williams Syndrome are gregarious.  They enjoy talking.  Is it any wonder that they may become relatively proficient at something they enjoy?  As with other human behaviors and skills, language acquisition will likely never be reduced to one cause.  Similarly, the fact that these individuals are poor puzzle solvers is more likely related to visual-spacial deficits than an impairment in some “puzzle solving” gene. 

People with Williams Syndrome are often outgoing...and smiling.

Anette Karmiloff-Smith has done a lot of great work on Williams Syndrome, much with a focus on accurately describing its characteristic language skills and deficits.  Many of her publications are available for download on her personal web site.  Language log has published an interesting post on the science and state of language research in Williams Syndrome, found here:  Language Log link.

The following language assessments are used for children of various ages.

Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) 

Ages 3-21.  Assesses listening comprehension and oral expression, using both scores to provide an oral composite.  Briefly assesses all domains of syntax, semantics, morphology, and pragmatics.  The OWLS is good at identifying the presence of language disorder, and identifying which area or areas are delayed.  If scores on the OWLS are low, additional testing can be done to obtain more specific information.  There is also a version of the OWLS that tests written expression.  The publisher’s site is here at Western Psychological Services.

Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) 

Two versions:  Ages 3-6 and 7-21.  There are 15 different subtests of the CASL; five tests in each area of semantics and syntax, four tests of supralinguistic skill measurement, and one test of pragmatic language.  Three, four, or five tests make up a global, or core composite, score, which varies for each age group.  The CASL can measure very specific things, and it’s not necessary to give each subtest required for a composite score.  If it’s necessary to get a composite, it can be very time consuming.  Research on these things has shown that the CASL is not the most specific test; in other words, the scores don’t always accurately identify the presence of a language disorder.  The CASL is best used to obtain additional information in specific areas.  The most useful subtests in this regard are the syntax construction, nonliteral language, and pragmatic judgment subtests.  More information is here at Western Psychological Services.

 Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 4 (CELF-4)

Two versions:  Ages 5-8 and 9-21.  The CELF-4 assesses expressive and receptive syntax, semantics, and morphology.  There are 14 subtests with 4 subtests required to obtain a core language standard score.  Subtests include:  concepts/following directions, word structure, recalling sentences, formulated sentences, word classes, word definitions, and understanding spoken paragraphs, among others.  The CELF-4 is said to have good validity compared to other language tests.  It can take awhile to administer, however, and because skills are combined, it can be difficult to identify specific deficits. Find more here at Pearson Assessment’s site.

Continue reading for more tests, including the TOSS, SPELT, TACL, ROWPVT, and EOWPVT.

 Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)

Ages 2-18.  Assesses reception of one word vocabulary using pictures.  Many of the words have varied affixes, but the ROWPVT doesn’t test for morphology; only vocabulary.  The ROWPVT is very similar to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.

Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT)

Ages 2-18.  Assesses expression of one word vocabulary using pictures.  The EOWPVT may be sensitive for some specific areas of difficulty, such as categories, parts, and functions, but again, it’s primarily semantics.

Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language – 3 (TACL-3)

Ages 3-10.  Assesses receptive language in the areas of Vocabulary, Grammatical Morphemes, and Elaborated Sentences and Phrases.  Scores on the TACL-3 seem to run high, but it’s a good test to determine type of language deficit.  Vocabulary weakness indicates the problem may be exposure, while syntax and morphology deficits indicate more complex processing difficulties.

Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test (SPELT – 3)

Ages 4-10. Assesses expressive morphology and syntax. Child answers specific questions about pictures, such as “Where is the cat?” “What do you think the boy will do?”.  The SPELT is very intensive and specific, but doesn’t take long to administer.

Test of Semantic Skills – Primary/Test of Semantic Skills – Intermediate (TOSS-P/TOSS-I)

Ages 4-8 for TOSS-P.  Ages 9-13 for TOSS-I.  These tests assess more comprehensive receptive and expressive aspects of word knowledge.  They include identifying and stating labels, categories, attributes, functions, and definitions.

Comparing Estimates of Vocabulary Acquisition

Many estimates of vocabulary size exist, with variability being their one constant.  The difficulties inherent in measuring vocabulary size have not stopped multiple researchers from coming up with their own numbers, some of which I’ve summarized below.

Despite the almost inevitable variation, the studies that support these estimates have told us some important things, such as…

• School age language acquisition occurs primarily through incidental experience more than formal teaching.
• Word learning shifts from concrete and functional to abstract and unusual.  This shift occurs gradually from third grade through the high school years.
• Environment matters.  Extreme environments extremely matter. 

There are many more of these studies than even what I’ve listed, and while I’m not saying I’ve seen it happen, it is possible that people could cherry pick ones that most support the point trying to be made.  Also, there is no consensus among anyone really, of what exactly counts for a word in these studies.  Does examine, examines, examined, etc. count as different words or variations of the same word?  Ultimately the numbers themselves aren’t as important as are examining what’s possible and what’s actually occurring.  We know from these studies that it is possible to learn many, many words – at rates of up to 14 words a day according to at least two sources.  Methods of teaching vocabulary – such as teaching categories, word webs, and using reading to facilitate vocabulary acquisition – can be helpful, but ultimately nothing works like an enriched experience.

Keep reading for more information about the sources of these studies.

Anglin (1993) from Wagovich and Newhoff; The Single Exposure:  Partial Word Growth Through Reading; The American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, November 2004.

 Beck and McKeown (1991) from Beck, I.L. and McKeown, M.G. (1991). Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68, 482-490. from http://balancedreading.com

 Goulden, Nation, and Read (1990) from this link:  http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/bibs/vocab/cup.html

 Lipsett/ Mehrabian and Owens numbers are from Language Development  – An Introduction; Robert E. Owens, Jr.; Allyn and Bacon; 1996

 Hart and Risely (1995) taken from American Educator, Spring 2003, excerpt from their 1995 book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children; Brookes Publishing

 Miller and Gildea (1997) from Later Language Development; Marilyn A. Nippold; Pro-Ed; 1998

The Matthew Effect - Named after a parable in The New Testament in which Jesus speaks (in fancier biblical words) of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  While the term has been bandied about in multiple fields, it’s special significance to special education was expounded by psychologist Keith Stanovich.  Because those who learn linguistic foundations, such as phonology, grammar, and reading, have the things they’ve learned, they then learn more.  Those without these foundations fall further behind.  A strong body of evidence supports The Matthew Effect’s common sense notion that the gap that exists in early language learning widens in part because of the very existence of the gap itself.

The Flynn Effect  – The research of James Flynn and others like him has demonstrated that IQs have gone up between 5 and 25 points among those in the general population during the past century.  While some have stated that this is proof positive of our ever increasing intelligence, explanatory opinions have ranged from more expansive schooling, to better nutrition, to better problem solving abilities due to the greater accessibility of puzzles and video games, as well as the greater complexity of society overall.  While a general consensus has remained out of reach, Flynn’s own hypothesis is that IQ testing correlates with intelligence more than it actually tests it.  Click here for a well balanced explanation.

Built by the mob? Or partial reinforcement?

The Partial Reinforcement Effect - This is the one that keeps building those large Las Vegas hotels.  Responses acquired after intermittent reinforcement (such as gambling wins) last longer than those acquired after continuous reinforcement.  Simply put, spacing rewards is the best way to reinforce desired behavior.  Despite it’s power, this one seems underutilized in education and teaching.  I think it just needs a catchier name.

The Spacing Effect - Repeated spaced presentations naturally aid our memory in learning, much more than presentations that occur bunched together.  If you read my earlier post, the spacing effect may be helping you learn about the spacing effect.

The Mozart Effect - Does listening to classical music actually improve intelligence?  Probably not, but click here to read about why this effect has been so easy to believe.

The Perceptual Magnet Effect – According to this theory, this enables us to more easily learn differences between sounds that exist in learned language.  We perceive a sound as its intended exemplar, even when not produced exactly as that exemplar.  Here’s more info.

In this article from Nature magazine, psychologist Paul Bloom discusses research suggesting that infants are born with the ability to distinguish phonology and certain aspects of meaning.  He specifically discusses a study that suggested babies are born with the ability to distinguish between loose fits and tight fits.  In English we lose this distinction, while in the Korean language the distinction is maintained with two separate verbs.  This research (and research like it) involves showing 5 month olds things like a ring around a post that is initially tight, until they bore of it and look away.  The researchers then show them the varying instances of the same or the converse – like a ring fitting loosely around a post.  If the babies seem more interested in the contrast they are said to be innately predisposed, which is in fact what happens.  For the study’s authors, Paul Bloom, and even St. Augustine, this kind of thing is considered evidence that we are all born with cognitive precursors to language – a variation of the famed Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Read on for my take… 

Could the explanations for the babies’ interest possibly be an innate predisposition toward novelty rather than the specific instances of novelty?  For one thing, by repeatedly exposing the babies to the stimulus (other studies use sounds) you are teaching them that the stimulus exists.  Their brains are being wired with something like this thought:  “Hey that sound exists!”  The innate part may be that once our brain is wired in such a manner – once it knows some bit of information – it is no longer as interested in it.  A new sound may pique interest because we are innately predisposed for novelty.

Could the explanations for the babies’ interest possibly be an innate predisposition toward novelty rather than the specific instances of novelty?  For one thing, by repeatedly exposing the babies to the stimulus (other studies use sounds) you are teaching them that the stimulus exists.  Their brains are being wired with something like this thought:  “Hey that sound exists!”  The innate part may be that once our brain is wired in such a manner – once it knows some bit of information – it is no longer as interested in it.  A new sound may pique interest because we are innately predisposed for novelty.

Could the explanations for the babies’ interest possibly be an innate predisposition toward novelty rather than the specific instances of novelty?  For one thing, by repeatedly exposing the babies to the stimulus (other studies use sounds) you are teaching them that the stimulus exists.  Their brains are being wired with something like this thought:  “Hey that sound exists!”  The innate part may be that once our brain is wired in such a manner – once it knows some bit of information – it is no longer as interested in it.  A new sound may pique interest because we are innately predisposed for novelty.  Continue reading for my take…

Could the explanations for the babies’ interest possibly be an innate predisposition toward novelty rather than the specific instances of novelty?  For one thing, by repeatedly exposing the babies to the stimulus (other studies use sounds) you are teaching them that the stimulus exists.  Their brains are being wired with something like this thought:  “Hey that sound exists!”  The innate part may be that once our brain is wired in such a manner – once it knows some bit of information – it is no longer as interested in it.  A new sound may pique interest because we are innately predisposed for novelty.

Over on PsyBlog is an excellent group of articles describing 10 crucial child development studies.  This list is laden with language acquisition.  Among the list are:

  Infant Memory Works From Very Early

  How Children Learn the Earth Isn’t Flat

  Infants Imitate Others When Only Weeks Old

  When Children Begin to Simulate Other Minds

  How Infants Start the Journey to the First Word

The signficance of language in these and other classic studies highlights the signficance of language in overall development.  This is a great list!