Thoughts of a secondary school SLT

Category: Uncategorized

  • Later language development: what Speech and Language Therapists need to know about the secondary school years

    Until relatively recently, the topic of later language development had been somewhat neglected. Whilst early childhood is seen as a time of rapid linguistic growth, later language development has been described as “gradual and protracted” (Nippold, 1998, p.3). Still, recent research has elucidated the many important advancements that occur during this period, calling into question the myth that language development is complete by school age.

    What’s normal?

    Whilst the early period is still considered the time of primary language acquisition, there is now a consensus that language development continues into adulthood and has no fixed end point. In the case of vocabulary, for example, even older adults may learn new words as they pursue different hobbies and read widely. On the other hand, some adults never master all grammatical structures, especially if they did not continue on to further education, where more scholarly forms are in more common usage (Nippold, 1998).

    Wide variation is thus characteristic of language development in the later years. As students begin secondary school, choose certain subjects, drop others, and take on extra-curricular activities, they also develop increasingly specialised vocabularies to match their interests: language becomes ever more individual to the student (Nippold, 1998). What’s more, with slang terms, hesitations, and non-specific phrases such as “like” and “stuff” increasingly common in adolescent language, even typical development may appear disordered (Larson and McKinley, 2003). Nippold (1998) points out that even well-educated adults make grammatical errors from time to time.

    These factors make it more difficult to set guidelines and to define what is “normal” during the adolescent years. And because change is slow and gradual, we may need to compare students across very different age groups to see the differences (Nippold, 1998, p.3).

    Walter Loban (1976) was the first person to document language growth into early adulthood through a longitudinal study comparing a low language ability group with a high language ability group. Since then, various other experts in the field have written about the topic, and a body of research now exists in the area. I have drawn mainly on the amazing work of Marylin Nippold in writing this blog post, particularly her book, “Later language development” (Nippold, 1998).

    Vocabulary

    One important development that occurs during the later years is the expansion of vocabulary. Whilst a 6 year old knows roughly 18,000 words, this increases to at least 60,000 in early adulthood (Nippold, 2024). As students progress through school and participate in the “literate” activities of reading, writing, academic discussion and accessing the curriculum, they begin to acquire more technical and specialist vocabulary, as well as concepts such as adverbs of magnitude and likelihood, and metacognitive and metalinguistic verbs (Nippold, 1998).

    Learning a word is also a gradual, rather than an all or nothing process (Nippold, 1998), and many qualitative improvements occur over time. As we encounter words in different contexts, semantic representations strengthen, and new meanings are added to words already in the repertoire: whilst a young child will typically know the physical meaning of a “double function” word such as “cold”, it is only later that she will learn its psychological meaning, and understand how these different meanings overlap (Nippold, 1998, p.15). Slowly, an organised semantic network develops, as connections between similar words are strengthened (Nippold, 1998).

    The way that we learn words also changes. When we are young, we learn words incidentally, through oral input, but when we begin secondary school, a lot of curriculum vocabulary is taught directly in class. Another important source of learning at this age is the written word, as students are exposed to more unusual, abstract and complex vocabulary and structures through their independent reading. Many young readers learn to utilise morphological and contextual clues to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words they encounter, supported by developing metacognitive skills and a greater awareness of derivational morphology (Nippold, 1998).

    Syntax

    Syntax also develops in various, subtle ways. Considerable growth occurs at both the intrasentential1 and the intersentential2 levels. Individual sentences increase in length, complexity, and density of information (Nippold, 1998). Loban (1976) observed small, but regular increases in sentence length throughout the school years, although Nippold (1998) cautions us that the length of utterance depends very much on the context. All speakers tend to use shorter sentences when communicating in informal, conversational contexts, and longer sentences in more formal contexts, or when required to explain and give detailed information, such as when telling the rules of a game (Nippold, 1998, 2014).

    Clausal density is another sign of mature development. Whilst a 5 year old may be able to form grammatically correct sentences containing a range of subordinate clauses, the ability to construct longer sentences containing multiple, embedded subordinate clauses to express increasingly complex and abstract thoughts continues to develop into adulthood (Nippold, Mansfield, Billow and Tomblin, 2009). Improved understanding and use of a range of subordinating, coordinating and correlative conjunctions goes alongside this (Nippold, 1998).

    Certain types of clause, such as nominal, adverbial and relative clauses are also used increasingly (Nippold, 2024); the latter, in particular are a common sign of maturing language (Loban, 1976). For a detailed look at these, and other aspects of advanced grammar, I highly recommended Nippold’s book: “A grammar guide for Speech-Language Pathologists” (Nippold, 2014).

    Still, a long, clunky sentence is not necessarily a sign of mature language skills when the message could be expressed more succinctly. Loban (1976) found that during the later stages of adolescence, his low language ability group unexpectedly appeared to catch up with his high language group at one point, in terms of the average number of dependent clauses used per communication unit. However, upon deeper analysis, he found that the higher language group were using more sophisticated sentence structures which enabled them to be more concise.

    Rather than continuing to add on further clauses, sentences may be expanded in other ways, such as elaboration of noun and verb phrases through the use of appositives, infinitives, gerunds, prepositional phrases, and others. Indeed, the presence and combination of low-frequency syntactic structures such as these is another characteristic of mature language (Nippold, 1998). Students also learn to link different sentences together using adverbial conjuncts and other devices to produce cohesive discourse (Nippold, 1998).

    Discourse & comprehension

    Narratives are the most dominant type of discourse throughout primary school, and young children already know a lot about storytelling. At secondary school, students learn to construct longer, more detailed and organised narratives containing multiple episodes, whilst giving more space for their characters’ feelings and motivations. At the same time, other types of discourse, such as expository discourse3, persuasion and negotiation come to the fore (Nippold, 1998).

    Comprehension also improves slowly, and older children develop the important ability to process larger units of discourse (Nelson, 1998). Still, Larson and McKinley (2003) caution that we should not expect pre-adolescents and adolescents to understand everything we say to them, since some grammatical structures may not even be understood by adults. Anyone who has read complex academic prose can tell you that some sentences are just harder to understand than others.

    Figurative language & pragmatics

    Abstract thought, and with it figurative language such as similes, metaphors, idioms and proverbs also develops over time. Research has found that preschoolers have some awareness of this type of language, but that deeper understanding emerges during the school years and adolescence. Similarly, jokes, slang and ambiguous language become increasingly important, since they are linked to students’ self-esteem and peer-acceptance (Nippold, 1998). Conversational and pragmatic skills also develop, with older students more able to adapt their communication to different contexts (Nippold, 2024).

    Whilst many linguistic achievements appear to be “built in”, we have seen how school itself, and the contexts in which students find themselves can influence language development. Similarly, the increasing demands of formal education, which typically include reading challenging material, and extended written assignments sometimes requiring independent research may push forward cognitive and linguistic growth (Paul and Norbury, 2012, Nippold, 2024). As Nippold says, “complex thought encourages complex talk” (Nippold, 2014).

    Final thoughts

    Despite the amount of research now available, later language development is still widely ignored. Larson and McKinley (2003) found that very few university programs across the USA offered modules on this topic, and my experience at a UK university in 2012 was similar. In a small survey that I carried out last year, around half of my fellow SLTs did not feel they had the knowledge to work with this age group, with a further 25% feeling unsure, suggesting that perhaps not much has changed. I hope this summary has helped; for a more in-depth look at later language development and a deeper understanding of grammar, I highly recommend Marilyn Nippold’s excellent books (Nippold, 1998, 2023).

    To find out more about what a language disorders might look like in the later years, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/01/07/what-is-developmental-language-disorder-dld/

    Notes

    Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub. 

    Loban, W. (1976) Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Nelson, N. W. (1998) Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L. and Tomblin, J. B. (2009) ‘Syntactic development in adolescents with a history of language impairments: a follow-up investigation’, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(3), pp. 241–251. 

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2014). Language Intervention at the Middle School: Complex Talk Reflects Complex Thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 45. 153-156. 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027.

    Nippold, M.A. (2023). Grammar guide for speech-language pathologists: Steps to analyzing complex syntax. San Diego: Plural Publishing.

    Nippold, Marilyn. (2024). Language Development in School-Age Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. 10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00374-4.

    Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

    1. Within sentences ↩︎
    2. Between sentences ↩︎
    3. Discourse aiming to explain or inform; this is the language of the classroom, of lectures, textbooks, reports, etc.  ↩︎

  • What causes language disorders?

    In the relatively short history of our field, much has been learned about language development and what is considered “normal” at different stages. This research, leading to the creation of a kind of “syllabus” to be followed, has allowed SLTs to carry out much of the work that we do (Paul & Norbury, 2012). However, we are still some way from understanding the precise nature of language disorders and their underlying causes. Here’s what we do know.

    There’s a general consensus that most cases of language disorder are likely due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors (Bishop, 2014). Family studies, especially twin studies have revealed that language disorders are highly heritable and tend to run in families.

    In 2001, researchers even found that a single disordered gene, FOXP2 caused a severe speech and language disorder in three generations of one family (Paul & Norbury, 2012, p. 3). However, it does not seem to be associated with more common forms of Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Paul and Norbury (2012) also point out that genes do not directly encode behaviour, so searching for a specific “language gene” makes little sense. It is more likely that several are involved.

    Other research has highlighted the importance of environmental factors. The strong association between socio-economic status (SES) and language ability is well-established (Bishop, 2014). Many studies over the years have revealed that individuals in high SES groups are more likely to have strong language abilities, whilst those in disadvantaged, low SES groups are more likely to have weaker language skills (Loban, 1976).

    Roy and Chiat (2013) note that those in low SES groups are disproportionately affected by language disorders. They observe that SES status affects children’s outcomes through the quality of the physical and psychological environments that they experience. Whilst SES status is typically based on indices such as the main carers’ education and income levels, other factors such as exposure to toxins and stress, nutritional intake, parenting style and cognitive stimulation often go alongside poverty and SES.

    Similarly, the language input we receive when we are young is likely to influence the course of our development. In one study, it was found that children in a low SES “welfare” group heard only a quarter of the words that those growing up in professional families heard in a week (Roy and Chiat, 2013).

    However, there may be more to this than meets the eye. Language ability is likely to affect SES categorization in the first place, since those with language disorders are less likely to go on to formal education, and more likely to be unemployed or “underemployed” (Larson and McKinley, 2003). What we assume to be the effects of poverty may in fact be related to undiagnosed parental language disorders. In other words, the heritable aspect of these situations may have been overlooked.

    (For more information about whether there is a difference between language disadvantage and language disorder, please see my blog post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/03/06/language-disorders-is-there-a-difference-between-disadvantage-and-disorder/ .)

    This is not to say that our surroundings have no influence. We know from fields such as medicine that our environments are capable of influencing gene expression, brain structure and functioning. Leveraging the positive effects of the environment is what allows intervention to work, and changes in the gray matter or the brain have even been observed following Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) (Paul and Norbury, 2012).

    Language disorders, then, do not have a single cause. Instead, it seems likely that multiple interacting risk factors co-occur to give rise to the pattern of difficulties seen in DLD (Paul & Norbury, 2012). How these factors affect the brain is another question. But whatever the precise mechanisms involved, it does seem that the brains of people with DLD are wired differently.

    Whilst DLD is not associated with gross lesions in the brain, recent neuroimaging studies have identified subtle differences in cerebral volume, symmetry and blood flow in those affected (Abbot and Love, 2023). The research is still limited and often conflicting, but there has been some consensus across a few areas.

    Firstly, a part of the brain called the “planum temporale”, located in the temporal lobe has been theorized to be involved in language processing. In typically developing individuals, this region is usually bigger on the left-hand side, but those with DLD tend to have more symmetrical brains, and in some, it is actually larger on the right. Some researchers have attributed this to the brain compensating for some deficiency on the left-hand side (Abbot and Love, 2023).

    Differences in the gray and white matter around other regions associated with language such as the inferior frontal gyrus and caudate nucleus have also been observed. Reduced blood flow and activation of these areas was found in tandem. Finally, the brains of individuals with DLD were found to be smaller overall (Abbot and Love, 2023).

    Many questions remain. Exactly how do these differences map onto the behaviours that we see? Do structural brain differences cause language disorders, or could a different type of functioning associated with language disorders lead to observable differences over time? Some studies also revealed that whilst most parents of children with DLD had similar atypical brain structures to their offspring, they did not all exhibit the same difficulties, further confusing the issue (Paul and Norbury, 2012). Despite all of these discoveries, the connection between the brain and the difficulties we see in DLD remains unclear.

    For a discussion around which terminology to use, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/02/26/developmental-language-disorder-a-brief-history-of-terminology/

    Notes

    Abbott, N., & Love, T. (2023). Bridging the Divide: Brain and Behavior in Developmental Language Disorder. Brain Sciences, 13(11), 1606.

    Bishop, D.V.M. (2014). Ten questions about terminology for children with unexplained language problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(4), pp. 381-415.

    Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub. 

    Loban, W. (1976) Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

    Roy, P. and Chiat, S. (2013). Teasing apart disadvantage from disorder The case of poor language. In: Marshall, C. R. (Ed.), Current Issues in Developmental Disorders. Current Issues in Developmental Psychology. (pp. 125-150). PSYCHOLOGY PRESS.