Thoughts of a secondary school SLT

Tag: SALT

  • Is poor working memory the cause of comprehension difficulties in older students with language disorders?

    Students with language disorders have difficulties that extend beyond language. There is an extensive research literature linking weaknesses in broader cognitive skills such as attention, processing speed, executive functioning, short term and working memory with language disorders (Leonard et al, 2007, 2013, Henry and Botting, 2017).

    Short term and working memory have received particular attention. Whilst some studies have identified weaknesses in the nonverbal component, suggestive of domain-general impairments in this population, deficits in verbal short term memory (VSTM) and verbal working memory (VWM) have been more consistently reported, and found to be 2-3 times larger (Vugs et al, 2013). What’s more, poor performance on nonword repetition tasks, widely used to test VSTM, is even considered a clinical marker for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) (Bishop et al, 2016).

    VSTM and VWM are often used interchangeably, but VSTM might be more accurately considered a component of VWM. VSTM refers to the ability to hold information just heard in mind for a short period of time before it “decays” and has historically been thought of as a “storage space” with limited capacity. Indeed, most people are only able to keep three or four chunks of information in their heads at once (Montgomery et al, 2021).

    Meanwhile, VWM involves manipulation as well as storage of information, and is increasingly being thought of more as a “mental workspace”. Others have spoken of VWM in terms of a set of cognitive processes that include sustained attention, inhibition of irrelevant information, and the ability to switch simultaneously between maintenance of stored information and processing new information (Marton et al, 2007, Leonard et al, 2013).

    Various theories of working memory have been proposed in the past, one of the most influential being Baddeley and Hitch’s multicomponent model, made up of two passive storage systems: the “phonological loop” (or VSTM) and “visuo-spatial sketchpad”, as well as a “central executive” and “episodic buffer” (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974, Baddeley, 2000).

    According to this, the phonological loop stores speech-based and verbal information (and could be considered what we refer to as VSTM). Whilst information typically fades away after a couple of seconds, it is possible to keep it in an active state for longer through silent repetition (such as when you repeat a phone number or code to yourself). The visuospatial sketchpad stores visual information in a similar fashion, whilst the central executive acts as the control centre, dividing and switching attention between different tasks. Meanwhile, the episodic buffer binds the information together, and acts as an interface between short and long-term memory.

    VSTM and VWM are considered essential to learning in the classroom, from following lengthy instructions and understanding what’s going on in lessons, to keeping the steps of a task in mind and recalling the details of a story. Working memory has been found to be a more powerful predictor of academic achievement even than IQ (Alloway and Alloway, 2010). Students with poor VWM may appear inattentive, forgetful or careless, when really they are struggling to retain what was said.

    VWM is also considered to be intrinsically linked to comprehension of complex sentences, since certain elements have to be kept in mind, and even moved around whilst the next part is processed. Long, complex sentences require more processing time than simple sentences, and are not as easily understood (e.g. Marton et al, 2007), suggesting that increased VWM capacity is required to understand such sentences. Montgomery et al (2009) argued that comprehension of both simple and complex grammar is a mentally demanding task for school age children with and without language disorders that requires significant working memory resources.

    Other authors such as Balthazar and Scott (2023) have spoken at length about the various elements that can increase the processing “load” of a sentence. This includes the number of clauses, long distance dependencies (gaps), as well as (in English) anything that disrupts the subject-verb-object order such as passive constructions and post-modification of the noun phrase (see my post for more information).

    Take the following example sentence given by Marilyn Nippold (2010) from a science text book: “organisms that eat living corals, such as the crown-of-thorns sea star, can greatly damage reefs”. In this sentence, post-modification of the noun “organisms” with the phrase “that eat living corals, such as the crown-of-thorns sea star” results in an extended gap between the main subject and verb. This whole phrase must then be stored in VSTM (or the phonological loop according to the Baddeley model) until the reader reaches the main action, “can greatly damage” and understands what the sentence is about.

    For a student with a language disorder and limited VWM, this is likely to be challenging. Other studies have shown that adolescents with DLD do not understand complex sentences as well as their typically developing peers, despite similar performance for simple sentences (Montgomery et al, 2009). Some researchers have even gone so far as to argue that VWM difficulties, rather than poor language knowledge are the primary cause of receptive language difficulties in older students (Larson and McKinley, 2003).

    However, recent research suggests that the reality may be more complex. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that complex sentences are processed in different ways by those with and without language disorders, with working memory playing an unequal role in each. In a large scale study of 117 children with DLD and 117 typically developing peers aged 7-11, Montgomery et al (2021) investigated how a range of measures were connected with comprehension of simple and more complex sentences.

    They found that fluid reasoning and language knowledge residing in long-term memory (LTM) indirectly influenced comprehension of complex, non-canonical sentences in typically developing students. For those with DLD, on the other hand, controlled attention (an important facet of working memory), was more important (Montgomery et al, 2021).

    On the back of this research, they came up with a new memory model, the GEM (Gillam-Evans-Montgomery) model, where VWM serves as a conduit for fluid reasoning, controlled attention and long-term language knowledge. They argued that listeners face the challenge of a rapid incoming stream of speech in different ways (Montgomery et al, 2021).

    According to them, repeated experience with language allows most people to build up linguistic representations in long-term memory (LTM). Typically developing listeners are able to activate these patterns, some of which may take the form of multiword templates, to anticipate the types of words that are likely to come next, as well as to “chunk” the speech stream into noun phrases, verb phrases and even whole clauses. This information is then stored as chunks, reducing the demands on working memory capacity, before being reintegrated into a coherent whole (Montgomery et al, 2021).

    They hypothesized that students with DLD may have weaker, or non-existent representations of certain grammatical structures. This means that they will be unable to segment the speech stream in the same way as their peers, resulting in word by word processing which places enormous pressure on an already overstretched VWM. Accordingly, sentence processing is much more effortful for those with language disorders (Montgomery et al, 2021).

    This theory seems to be backed up by a review of the literature. Karavasilis et al (2023) found inconclusive evidence of a link between VSTM/ VWM and complex sentence comprehension in typically developing individuals. On the other hand, there was a consistent link between working memory and sentence comprehension in those with DLD. The authors concluded that, at least for children with DLD, a processing component is involved in comprehension of complex sentences.

    According to Montgomery et al (2021), the solution is not to attempt to improve students’ VWMs (which, in any case, has had limited success), but rather, to support their language representations in long-term memory.

    Notes

    Alloway, Tracy Packiam, and Ross G. Alloway. “Investigating the Predictive Roles of Working Memory and IQ in Academic Attainment.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 106, no. 1 (May 2010): 20–29.

    Baddeley, Alan D., and Graham J. Hitch. 1974. “Working Memory.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, edited by Gordon H. Bower, Vol. 8, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.

    Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.

    Baddeley, Alan. 2003. “Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4, no. 10: 829–39.

    Balthazar, Catherine H., and Cheryl M. Scott. “Sentences Are Key.” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 33, no. 2 (2023): 564–579.

    Bishop DVM, Snowling MJ, Thompson PA, Greenhalgh T, CATALISE consortium (2016)

    CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158753

    Haebig, Eileen, Christine Weber, Laurence B. Leonard, Patricia Deevy, and J. Bruce Tomblin. “Neural Patterns Elicited by Sentence Processing Uniquely Characterize Typical Development, SLI Recovery, and SLI Persistence.” Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 9, no. 1 (2017): 22.

    Henry, L. & Botting, N. (2017). Working memory and developmental language impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 33(1), pp. 19-32.

    Karavasilis, Gavriil, K. Diakogiorgi, and D. Papadopoulou. 2023. “The Role of Working Memory in the Comprehension of Syntactically Complex Sentences in Children with and without Developmental Language Disorder: A Literature Review.” Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society 28 (2): 205–222.

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

    Leonard, Laurence B., Patricia Deevy, James W. Miller, Chrystal Rameela, Robert Schwartz, and J. Bruce Tomblin. “Speed of Processing, Working Memory, and Language Impairment in Children.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, no. 2 (April 2007): 408–428. 

    Leonard, Laurence B., Patricia Deevy, Marc E. Fey, and Shelley L. Bredin-Oja. “Sentence Comprehension in Specific Language Impairment: A Task Designed to Distinguish between Cognitive Capacity and Syntactic Complexity.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56, no. 2 (April 2013): 577-589.

    Marton, Klara, Richard G. Schwartz, Lajos Farkas, and Valeriya Katsnelson. “Effect of Sentence Length and Complexity on Working Memory Performance in Hungarian Children with Specific Language Impairment: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42, no. 6 (2007): 691–711.

    McCauley, Stewart M., and Morten H. Christiansen. 2015. “Individual Differences in Chunking Ability Predict On-line Sentence Processing.” In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by D. C. Noelle et al., 1550–1555. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. 

    Montgomery, James W., and Julia L. Evans. 2009. “Complex Sentence Comprehension and Working Memory in Children with Specific Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, no. 2 (April): 269-288.

    Montgomery, James W., Ronald B. Gillam, and Julia L. Evans. “A New Memory Perspective on the Sentence Comprehension Deficits of School-Age Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Implications for Theory, Assessment, and Intervention.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 52, no. 2 (April 2021): 449–466.

    Newman, Sharlene D., Evie Malaia, Roy Seo, and Hu Cheng. “The effect of individual differences in working memory capacity on sentence comprehension: an fMRI study.” Brain and Language 125, no. 3 (2013): 269-277.

    Nippold, Marilyn A. 2010. “Back to School: Why the Speech-Language Pathologist Belongs in the Classroom.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 41 (4): 377–378.

    Vugs, B., Cuperus, J., Hendriks, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Visuospatial working memory in specific language impairment: A meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(9), 2596-2597.

  • What is literate language and how is it relevant at secondary school?

    By the time they start primary school, most children have a robust lexicon of words that they are able to employ for different purposes (Benson, 2009). However, as they progress through the years, they begin to learn more and more words, slowly acquiring a rich and varied vocabulary, capable of expressing great subtlety in meaning.

    This includes more abstract and technical terms, as well as low frequency, subject-specific “Tier 3” words. Many of these words will be multisyllabic and morphologically complex, containing a root word and at least one affix (a prefix or suffix) (Nippold, 2018). This stage of vocabulary acquisition is typically associated with literacy development and increased exposure to written materials which contain more of these “literate” forms.

    Written language differs from oral language in a number of ways, but chiefly in the amount of contextualization or abstraction (Benson, 2009). Whilst oral language is supported by non-linguistic information such as the speaker’s use of gesture and tone of voice, as well as the physical surroundings in which the interaction takes place, written language must stand alone (Rubin, 1987). (For more information about the differences between oral and written language, see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/06/how-are-oral-and-written-language-different/)

    This results in a particular style of language that is denser, with a more specified lexicon and advanced syntactic structures (Benson, 2009) to convey complex thoughts and relationships between ideas. This style, used in the “literate activities of reading, writing, listening to lectures, talking about language and thought and mastering the school curriculum” has been termed “literate language”, or the “literate lexicon” (Nippold, 1998, p.21).

    Words included under this umbrella are a wide range of conjunctions, adverbs of likelihood and magnitude, factive and non-factive verbs, metacognitive and metalinguistic verbs, polysemous and double function words, as well as adverbial conjuncts and derived nominals and adjectives (Nippold, 1998).

    Whilst simple coordinating conjunctions such as “and”, “but” and “so” are relied on in casual conversation, written and instructional discourse, especially at secondary level, is characterized by a wider range of subordinating conjunctions, including “whereas”, “unless” and “provided that”, to express more complex relationships between ideas (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    Although words such as “possibly”, “somewhat” and “barely” may not seem complicated, adverbs of likelihood and magnitude such as these are also key components of literate language, since they enable precision of thought that goes beyond simple, concrete descriptions.

    Certain types of verbs also contribute to the abstract nature and linguistic specificity of written discourse. Factive and non-factive verbs, such as “know”, “realise”, “believe” and “imagine” reflect different mental states and distinguish between concepts of truth and uncertainty. Metalinguistic verbs such as “assert”, “imply” and “concede”, as well as metacognitive verbs such as “hypothesise”, “infer” and “doubt” are also crucial for academic reasoning and constructing arguments.

    On a related note, polysemous and double function words such as “cold” or “sweet” require advanced metalinguistic awareness to understand that the same word can have different meanings depending on the context. Whilst many words have a casual, everyday sense that even young children will know, academic texts frequently feature the more abstract sense which won’t be learnt until later on (Nippold, 1998).

    At secondary level, adverbial conjuncts such as “consequently”, “subsequently”, “conversely”, and “ultimately” are also used increasingly (Nippold, 2016) in essays and other high level expository texts as a way of “signposting” information for the reader. These words connect ideas across sentences, rather than within sentences as conjunctions do.

    Other examples of literate words include derived nominals and derived adjectives. Derived nominals are nouns formed by adding suffixes to verbs, e.g. “condensation” from condense, whilstderived adjectives come from nouns e.g. “categorical” from category. Words such as these are commonly found in subjects such as science, mathematics and English literature (Nippold, 2018).

    In one study, Nippold examined a range of textbooks for the aforementioned subjects to see how often these types of words occurred. Out of a total of 16,028 words, she found 254 derived nominals and 273 derived adjectives. Although this may not seem like a huge number, she argued that they occurred often enough that any student who struggled with them could easily misinterpret key parts of the text (Nippold, 2018).

    Literate language also extends beyond the lexicon to certain types of sentence structure. Written sentences tend to be longer and more densely packed with information, with subordinate clauses arranged in hierarchical rather than linear fashion to highlight importance of ideas (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    According to Marilyn Nippold, these two features develop in tandem, in what she called the “lexicon-syntax interface” (Nippold, 2014). For example, she highlighted how the use of meta-cognitive verbs drives the use of nominal clauses, e.g. “she assumed that he would arrive” (Nippold, 2014). Elaborated noun phrases are also commonly used in subjects such as science to introduce specialist vocabulary, e.g. “sedimentary rocks, layers of compacted sand and marine shells, are formed over millions of years” (Balthazar et al, 2010).

    To reiterate, most children gradually develop an awareness of literate language features through repeated exposure to and engagement with complex written and instructional materials. Whilst young children tend to learn new words orally through informal conversation, this shifts around the fourth year of primary school (Nippold, 1998), as they move from the “learning to read” to the “reading to learn” stage.

    Older school children learn new words in three main ways: through direct instruction of curriculum vocabulary in their lessons, as well as employing the metalinguistic strategies of contextual abstraction and morphological analysis to their own independent reading (Nippold, 2018). These strategies entail working out the meanings of new words encountered in text from the context and from their constituent parts, respectively.

    Learning new words in this way requires not only metalinguistic awareness and knowledge of a range of different root words and affixes, but also a substantial amount of time spent reading challenging texts on a regular basis (Nippold, 2018). Research has found that active, proficient and motivated readers who are interested in a wide range of topics develop much larger vocabularies than struggling readers. (Nippold, 1998).

    Unfortunately, students with language disorders often fall into the latter category; many struggle to read at a basic level, or to understand what they read (Nippold, 2018). What’s more, those who did not manage to establish a solid basis in oral language skills earlier on in their schooling will have enormous difficulty engaging with more challenging literate language (Benson, 2009).

    Students with language disorders also tend to be less strategic learners (Nippold, 2018), with poorer metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness. Whilst this makes them less likely to use the aforementioned strategies, metalinguistic awareness is also intertwined with literate language on a deeper level, since words are chosen carefully to reflect nuances in meaning (Benson, 2009).

    Difficulties with literate language may appear subtle compared to more obvious oral language deficits. However, familiarity with this style is vital for academic success (Benson, 2009), and any difficulties will affect students’ ability to understand explanations in lectures and textbooks, to write essays and reports, and engage in debates. Ignorance of certain types of words such as derived nominals and adjectives may also hinder success in STEM related subjects and access to those fields (Nippold, 2018).

    For more information about the purpose and distinctive features of academic language, or “expository discourse”, please see my next post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/15/what-is-expository-discourse-and-how-is-it-relevant-at-secondary-school/

    Notes

    Balthazar, Catherine H., and Cheryl M. Scott. “The Grammar of Information: Challenges for Older Students with Language Impairments.” Topics in Language Disorders 30, no. 4 (2010): 313–327.

    Benson, Susan E. “Understanding Literate Language: Developmental and Clinical Issues.” Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 36 (Fall 2009): 174–78.

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

    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, Marilyn A. “Back to School.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 47, no. 4 (2016): 269–71.

    Nippold, Marilyn A. “The Literate Lexicon in Adolescents: Monitoring the Use and Understanding of Morphologically Complex Words.” Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 3, no. 1 (2018): 211–221.

    Rubin, Donald L. “Divergence and Convergence between Oral and Written Communication.” Topics in Language Disorders 7, no. 4 (1987): 1-18. 

  • What is expository discourse and how is it relevant at secondary school?

    Expository discourse, or “informational language”, as suggested by the name, is language used to explain, inform and describe (Ukrainetz, 2024). Also known as “the language of the curriculum”, it is the academic language used in class lectures and textbooks, and required in student presentations, essays and reports. It’s also used when explaining how to bake a cake, in a textbook explanation of photosynthesis, or in an essay describing the causes and consequences of a historical event.

    There are different varieties of exposition, such as description, enumeration, causation, and comparing and contrasting; each has its own particular organizational structure and distinguishing features. What connects these disparate activities is an intent to convey factual or technical information in an abstract, generalized way (Ukrainetz, 2024).

    Whilst conversation and narrative discourse tend to be more personal and social in nature, often referring to specific people and events, informational language tends to relate to more general concepts and processes. Although specific events or experiences may be mentioned, they are typically transcended to focus on “what generally happens”. This is reflected in the use of the present and infinitive tenses, compared to the narrative past tense (Ukrainetz, 2024).

    Whilst narrative discourse predominates at primary school, and continues to develop at secondary school, expository discourse comes to the fore. Although less familiar, it is central to teaching and learning at the secondary level, and students are expected to spend a large part of their day reading and listening to expository discourse (Scott, 2009).

    Worryingly, expository discourse is also one of the hardest genres to understand (Nippold, 2017). In one study, primary school children were found to have consistently poorer understanding of expository texts than narratives (Snyder and Caccamise, 2008). Correspondingly, Cheryl Scott (2009) notes that informational sentences written by adults tended to be longer and more complex than narrative sentences.

    In another landmark study, Marilyn Nippold and colleagues recruited 120 typically developing individuals from ages 7 to 49 in order to compare conversational and expository speech samples across different ages. The conversational samples were based on common subjects such as participants’ friends, families, school, or work. For the expository sample, they asked participants to explain the rules of their favourite game or sport (Nippold et al, 2005).

    The results revealed greater syntactic complexity for the expository samples compared to the conversational samples across all age groups. Nippold argued that the increased cognitive demands of the expository task had compelled the subjects to use more advanced sentence structures (Nippold et al, 2005). In a later article, she asserted that “complex thought encourages complex talk” (Nippold, 2014).

    So what exactly makes expository discourse more complex, and harder to understand? In a general sense, since its object is to convey new information, exposition is inherently more challenging (Nippold, 2017). More specifically, there are numerous lexical, grammatical and structural features that distinguish expository text and make it more challenging for the average person, let alone those with language disorders.

    Firstly, expository texts have a higher proportion of content words (nouns, adjectives and verbs) than narratives or conversational discourse (Balthazar et al, 2010). Compared to the small, familiar lexicon of casual conversation, exposition is distinguished by a richer, more varied vocabulary through which to convey its various concepts. Words tend to be more precise, abstract and technical, as well as multisyllabic and often morphologically complex. According to Beck’s three tier hierarchy, advanced Tier 2 words as well as low-frequency and specialized Tier 3 words are more commonly found (Beck et al, 2013; Ukrainetz, 2024).

    Informational sentences also tend to be longer and more complex, involving multiple subordinate clauses structured in a hierarchical rather than linear fashion so as to highlight the most important information (Balthazar et al, 2010). Specific grammatical features of exposition that may be particularly difficult to understand include nominalization and pre- and post-modification of the noun phrase (Ukrainetz, 2024).

    Nominalisation is the process of turning a verb into a noun, and is commonly used in both science and history, e.g. “evaporation” (from evaporate), “neutralization” (from neutralize) and “colonisation” (from colonise). It is useful for writers since it allows them to pack more information into a sentence, but harder for readers because it hides the agent and action, making sentences feel denser and more abstract.

    Pre- and post-modification refers to adding words before or after a noun to add detail, creating a noun phrase. Again, it is commonly used in science and can serve a useful function as a way of teaching new vocabulary (Balthazar et al, 2010), e.g. “Chlorophyll, a pigment that causes plants to be green, is vital for photosynthesis”, and “the microscopic capillaries connecting the smallest arteries to the smallest veins”.

    In the first sentence, the noun “chlorophyll” is modified by following it with the appositive, “a pigment that causes plants to be green”, creating a noun phrase with a definition embedded. In the second instance, the pre-modifier “microscopic” and the following participial phrase, “connecting the smallest arteries…” give clues to the meaning of the word “capillary” in terms of size and location.

    These structures provide a useful way of teaching new information without using too many words. However, a student with poor syntactic knowledge would struggle to decipher sentences such as these and might miss out on the explanations. (For a more detailed look at some of the linguistic features that distinguish expository discourse, please see my post on literate language.)

    As touched on briefly earlier, exposition encompasses a wide range of different subgenres, each with their own distinguishing features, and this too, makes it difficult to engage with. Whilst a student can rely on the familiar structure of a narrative, many different rules have to be learnt for exposition, and some varieties have almost no structure (Ukrainetz, 2024).

    Ultimately, understanding and expression of expository discourse is a complex task requiring a rich and varied vocabulary, advanced grammatical understanding, awareness of different organisational structures and topic knowledge as well as other cognitive skills such as adequate working memory. Unfortunately, students with language disorders tend to struggle in all of these areas.

    Notes

    Balthazar, Catherine H., and Cheryl M. Scott. “The Grammar of Information: Challenges for Older Students with Language Impairments.” Topics in Language Disorders 30, no. 4 (2010): 313–327.

    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, Marilyn A. 2017. “Reading Comprehension Deficits in Adolescents: Addressing Underlying Language Abilities.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 48 (2): 125–131.

    Nippold, Marilyn A., Linda J. Hesketh, Jill K. Duthie, and Tracy C. Mansfield. “Conversational versus Expository Discourse: A Study of Syntactic Development in Children, Adolescents, and Adults.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48, no. 5 (October 2005): 1048–64.

    Scott, Cheryl M. “A Case for the Sentence in Reading Comprehension.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, no. 2 (2009): 184-191.

    Snyder, Lynn, and Donna Caccamise. 2008. “Comprehension Processes for Expository Text: Building Meaning and Making Sense.” In New Directions in Communication Disorders Research: Integrative Approaches, edited by M. A. Nippold and C. M. Scott, 13–39. New York: Psychology Press.

    Ukrainetz, Teresa A. “Evidence-Based Expository Intervention: A Tutorial for Speech-Language Pathologists.” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 33, no. 2 (2024): 654–675.

  • How are oral and written language different?

    Written language is not just oral language “written down”, but is different in both style and function. Whilst oral language is typically less formal, with concrete, familiar words and simpler sentences, written language tends to be denser and more information-heavy, with specialist vocabulary and complex sentence structures (Benson, 2009).

    These differences can be traced back to the different functions of each type of language, and the contexts in which they occur. Whilst oral language is typically face to face, with communication partners who are known well to us, written language is more solitary, to an unknown readership. It follows that oral language tends to communicate more personal and social content, whereas written language tends to convey more logical and informational content. (Rubin, 1987).

    Writing may take place over an extended period of time, whereas oral language is typically more spontaneous. When you speak, the words disappear, but writing leaves a permanent visual trace, which “serves as an adjunct to short- and long-term memory” (Rubin, 1987, p.2), allowing the writer to reflect on and revise the ideas generated.

    Having briefly outlined the broad differences between the two modes, I will now detail the resulting differences in structure and style. Much of the content for this post was drawn from Rubin’s still highly relevant article, “Divergence and convergence between oral and written communication” (Rubin, 1987).

    Firstly, the face to face context of oral communication results in language that is less precise, with  a smaller, more familiar lexicon. Since speakers are typically in the same place at the same time, and may share a whole range of common experiences and associations, they may refer to objects in the surrounding environment, or discuss “in jokes” more obliquely. Prosody and other non-verbal communication also support the oral message, allowing speakers to be less specific (Rubin, 1987).

    The spontaneous nature of oral communication also influences its informal style, filled with hesitations, interjections, false starts and self-corrections. Since speakers must invent their subject matter in real time, language tends to be more fragmented and less cohesive with more tenuous connections. Sentences tend to be more basic as well as redundant, joined by simple connectives such as “and”, “but” or “so” (Rubin, 1987).

    This repetitive, more simplistic style of communication not only takes the pressure off the speaker, but also serves a role for the listener. Since they have no control over how fast or clearly their communication partner speaks, or any distracting environmental stimuli which may further affect the message, these integral elements of oral communication can help them to interpret the message the second time around. What’s more, immediate feedback allows any misunderstandings to be cleared up immediately (Rubin 1987).

    Writers, on the other hand, share no common physical or temporal context with their readers and cannot assume any prior understanding on their behalf. Unlike oral communication, writing is unsupported by any nonlinguistic clues and must stand alone. For the message to be understood, language must be precise, with referents clearly specified, using more advanced, technical terms and a greater range of vocabulary to clearly delineate meaning (Rubin, 1987).

    Since writing also allows time for reflection, it encourages greater creativity and higher level thought, which require more complex means of expression. This results in more elaborate language distinguished by longer clauses, advanced syntactic structures and a wider range of connectives as well as greater use of subordination as different propositions are organized in hierarchical fashion. Revision also allows writers to pack information more tightly and avoid repetition (Rubin, 1987).

    To support readers to understand this more complex, written language, writers need to ensure that their texts are cohesive, and appear as a unified whole. Writers also use organizational cues, such as transition statements, and orthographic markers such as punctuation and splitting ideas into paragraphs to support their readers to decipher their messages (Rubin, 1987).

    Rubin (1987) is quick to note that oral and written language are not completely distinct from one another, but overlap, and exist on a spectrum. At times, oral language may appear more “literate”, as in the prepared, formal speech of a barrister, whilst written language may contain more “orality”, as in a first person narrative, where we really “hear” the character’s voice (Rubin, 1987).

    He observes how the written language of novices is often not that far from their speech. But with repeated exposure to written text, students begin to develop an awareness of the differences between written and oral communication. Intent on exhibiting this distinction, some insecure writers may attempt to write in a hypercorrect way, in an unrealistic stereotype of what they think written language is. However, “for those who develop into expert, practiced writers… writing and speech reconverge” (Kroll, 1981 cited in Rubin, 1987, p13).

    As Speech and Language Therapists, knowing the differences between oral and written communication may help us in better understanding our students’ needs. Working in a secondary school context, I come across many who are competent oral communicators, but who struggle with the more technical vocabulary and advanced sentence structures characterized by the written form. These students will need our support to access the curriculum as they progress through school and are expected to engage with increasingly complex written materials.

    For more information about expository discourse, the heavily literate language of secondary school, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/04/15/what-is-expository-discourse-and-how-is-it-relevant-at-secondary-school/

    Notes

    Benson, Susan E. “Understanding Literate Language: Developmental and Clinical Issues.” Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 36 (Fall 2009): 174–78.

    Rubin, Donald L. “Divergence and Convergence between Oral and Written Communication.” Topics in Language Disorders 7, no. 4 (1987): 1-18. 

  • Why do some students struggle to understand what they read?

    Reading comprehension is not a single skill, but a complex task underpinned by a range of different abilities and knowledge (Catts, 2021). To understand a text, students must first have adequate sight reading and decoding abilities, as well as fluency in reading. They will need to have adequate background and vocabulary knowledge, and be able to use a range of metalinguistic strategies to work out the meanings of new words as well as to monitor and repair any gaps in understanding.

    They will also need adequate working memory to keep the relevant information in mind and piece it all together into a coherent whole. On top of all this, to truly engage with a text, students will need to infer, reason, compare and contrast, summarise information, problem solve and interpret. Given the complexity of the task, some have gone so far as to call it, “thinking guided by print” (Catts, 2009).

    Catts (2021) emphasized the particular importance of background knowledge in understanding a text. Whilst we may think of reading as a way of learning new information, research has shown that our prior knowledge of the general domain of the text greatly influences comprehension. In one study, poor decoders who were knowledgeable in the subject matter (baseball) outperformed good decoders with poor understanding of the subject (Catts, 2009).

    This may be because new information needs something to hook onto: an anchor (Catts, 2021). When we read a text, we are not so much learning new information, as we are integrating it with our own prior knowledge to create a dynamic “situational model” (Catts, 2009). Having an awareness of the topic can also prevent us from going off on the wrong track, and guide us in making inferences. It is likely that having some background knowledge will also allow students to think more deeply about the topic, due to freeing up working memory space (Catts, 2021).

    Another important aspect of reading comprehension which has sometimes been overlooked, yet is especially relevant to Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs), is sentence comprehension. In her article, “A Case for the Sentence in Reading Comprehension”, Cheryl Scott (2009) argues that many reading comprehension problems are actually the result of undetected sentence processing difficulties. There is a fair amount of evidence for her position.

    Traditionally, students with “literacy difficulties” have been split into two camps: “poor decoders” and “poor comprehenders”. Poor decoders are those who struggle to translate letters into sounds, to blend them together to make words, to read fluently: those who could also be described as “dyslexic”. Poor comprehenders, on the other hand, have no problem with the reading process itself, but they struggle to understand the meaning of a text. Approximately 5-10% of school children could be said to fit into this category (Catts et al, 2006).

    A range of studies have found evidence of weak underlying language abilities in this group. For example, Catts’s group of poor comprehenders scored near the 20% percentile for receptive vocabulary, and near the 30th percentile for grammatical understanding. He observes that although mild, and “subclinical”, these difficulties may be enough to have a significant impact on complex reading comprehension tasks. Whilst these difficulties were often present from kindergarten, only a small percentage of these children had met the criteria for a language disorder, with very few receiving support from an SLT (Catts et al, 2006).

    Despite these findings, reading comprehension interventions have traditionally prioritized the teaching of generic strategies over targeting any underlying language deficits. But Cheryl Scott (2009) observes that if a student is unable to parse individual sentences to derive meaning from them, then they will struggle to understand at text level. Marylin Nippold (2017) also questions how we can expect students to grasp the main idea, or to summarise a passage if they have not understood the individual sentences it is composed of.  Although reading comprehension strategies may be useful to some students, they are unlikely to be effective unless underlying language deficits are addressed first.

    Given the myriad skills required by the task of reading comprehension, it is no wonder that students with underlying language difficulties struggle so much. Besides having poorer vocabularies and syntactic ability as mentioned previously, some of these students may have associated difficulties with working memory and literacy. They are also likely to have poorer background knowledge by dint of their reading difficulties and possible reluctance with reading. Thus, a vicious cycle is born, where students see their difficulties compounded.

    As SLTs, it may be worth paying particular attention to the overlooked role of syntax (Nippold, 2017): something we are very specifically qualified to address. This is particularly relevant to the secondary school years, as students are expected to understand increasingly complex sentence structures (see my post). Indeed, it is no coincidence that a group of “poor comprehenders” typically emerge at this time (Scott, 2009). Unfortunately, there is still a great need for research in this area (Nippold, 2017).

    Notes

    Catts, Hugh W., Suzanne M. Adlof, and Susan Ellis Weismer. “Language Deficits in Poor Comprehenders: A Case for the Simple View of Reading.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, no. 2 (2006): 278–293.

    Catts, Hugh W. “The Narrow View of Reading Promotes a Broad View of Comprehension.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, no. 2 (April 2009): 178–183. 

    Catts, Hugh W. “Rethinking How to Promote Reading Comprehension.” American Educator 45, no. 4 (Winter 2021-2022): 26–33. 

    Nippold, Marilyn A. 2017. “Reading Comprehension Deficits in Adolescents: Addressing Underlying Language Abilities.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 48 (2): 125–131.

    Scott, Cheryl M. “A Case for the Sentence in Reading Comprehension.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, no. 2 (2009): 184-191.

  • What is cognitive referencing and should Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) use it?

    Cognitive referencing, also known as the discrepancy model, refers to the outdated practice of determining eligibility for a diagnosis, and/or Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) services by comparing an individual’s language abilities with their non-verbal IQ. According to this, children with language difficulties would be expected to have average overall intelligence, i.e. there ought to be a large “discrepancy” between their verbal and nonverbal scores in order to qualify for SALT support.

    The reason for this was that a certain level of cognition was believed necessary to make progress with language skills, and therefore to benefit from intervention. An individual’s nonverbal intelligence scores were considered the “ceiling” up to which progress could be made. In areas where services were very stretched, and where it was felt necessary to prioritise those who would benefit the most, below average IQ was sometimes used as a reason to deny services.

    This practice was quite common during the 1980s and 1990s, especially in school settings, and it is still used in some circles now. The previously used label of Specific Language Impairment (SLI), also used cognitive referencing as part of its “exclusionary criteria”. Since it was meant to identify language disorders that were “specific” in nature, i.e. occurring in the absence of any other difficulties, such as hearing impairment or general cognitive deficits, those with low non-verbal IQ were automatically excluded.

    However, the very notion of a “pure” language disorder is questionable, and the exception rather than the rule in clinical practice anyway. If we were to restrict support to only those who presented with “pure” language disorders, then we risk denying services to those most in need (Bishop et al, 2016). In 2016, a panel of experts rejected the label as “not reflecting clinical realities” (Bishop et al, 2016) and it has now been replaced with the more inclusive “Developmental Language Disorder” (DLD), which does not apply such restrictions.

    For further discussion on terminology, please see my article: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/02/26/developmental-language-disorder-a-brief-history-of-terminology/

    There are several other problems with cognitive referencing, and many experts in the field, e.g. Larson and McKinley (2003) have argued strongly against the practice over the years. For one thing, the supposedly nonverbal tests used are rarely a pure measure of nonverbal ability (Paul & Norbury, 2012). While the test items themselves use visual stimuli, some type of oral instructions are usually involved.

    What’s more, children who employ verbal strategies such as inner speech may have an advantage over their peers when solving the complex problems involved in these tests. Since those with language disorders do not tend to use these kind of strategies they are likely to score lower. Ironically, the very tests used to help identify those in need of support are likely to disadvantage those most in need.

    Secondly, whereas cognition was previously understood to underlie and to support language skills, the relationship between the two is now considered to be more complex and bi-directional. For a start, individuals with poor non-verbal ability, yet strong language ability do exist (Larson and McKinley, 2003). This finding alone appears to disprove the theory that a certain level of cognition is needed to make progress with language skills. And individuals with poor nonverbal IQ have been found to benefit from intervention too (Paul & Norbury, 2012, p. 7).

    Speaking of the interplay between verbal and nonverbal abilities, Marilyn Nippold (2014) observed in one paper how “complex talk reflects complex thought”. During one study, she found that challenging students to complete more demanding tasks or use more advanced forms of discourse pushed them to use longer, more complex sentence structures than they would otherwise. I imagine that both influence each other in a symbiotic way: if students’ understanding of a particular concept or topic is vague, and they lack the means to express themselves on it, then providing them with the words and sentence structures to do so may help to elucidate it for them.

    I have personally experienced how writing, the process of putting different words together, and rearranging sentences can help to develop and refine my thinking. Thought without words or images is likely possible, but I imagine it to be a hazy, undefined sort of thing; words can give form and solidity to those ideas forming in the background.

    As an optimist, I see in this an opportunity to support our students beyond what might be considered the boundaries of SLT; if we can give our students words and structures to help them think, then why wouldn’t we? Ultimately, I agree with Larson and McKinley (2003), who stress that we should be thinking of reasons to provide services to adolescents, rather than withhold them.

    Notes

    Bishop DVM, Snowling MJ, Thompson PA, Greenhalgh T, CATALISE consortium (2016)

    CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language

    Impairments in Children. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158753

    Bishop, D.V.M., Snowling, M.J., Thompson, P.A., Greenhalgh, T., and the CATALISE-2 consortium (2017). ​ Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. ​ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), pp. ​ 1068–1080. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12721​

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

    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.

    Norbury, C.F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., Vamvakas, G., & Pickles, A. ​ (2016). ​ The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study. ​ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(11), pp. 1247–1257. Available at: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12573