I have a tendency to dwell on the past, and being that I’m a speech-language pathologist, I also dwell on past tense verbs. Amanda Owen Van Horne and her research team have recently uncovered some interesting findings that may alter how clinicians go about targeting the ‘ed’ past-tense morpheme. Specifically, they have found that utilizing verbs that are complex (based on phonological make-up, frequency, and duration) can bring about better acquisition and generalization. A little more info on this complexity piece…… phonological complexity refers to the sounds present in the inflection, or ending, of the verb. Adding a single sound (/d/) to a vowel-final verb (e.g., “stay” to “stayed”) is not as complex as when the ending of the verb results in a consonant cluster (e.g. “missed” /mIst/). Even more complex would be the addition of the full syllable /Id/ (e.g., “planted”). Frequency is related to how often the verb is used or how common it is (e.g., “jumped” vs “leaped”). Finally, duration, or in formal terms, ‘telecity,’ relates to the completeness of the action. For instance, “dropped” conveys a definite ending of the action. In the sentence, “The boy dropped the box of cereal and hundreds of Cheerios were scattered across the floor (true story),” it is understood that the action, “dropped,” happened once and it was complete. In contrast, an ‘atelic’ verb, like “scrubbed,” has a less concrete ending and could be indefinitely continuous (I should know this concept all too well as I recently “scrubbed” toddler graffiti off of furniture, and it took FOREVER.). Returning to the point of this all, the results of their research suggest that choosing more complex verbs (those that have complex phonological forms, are atelic, and are not frequently used) bring forth more favorable performance and generalization of the regular past-tense maker (‘ed’).
This is how the research went down…..Owen Van Horne et. al. selected a group of twenty students ranging in age from four to ten years of age with a diagnosis of developmental language disorder (specific language impairment). The children were divided into two groups and were given treatment for past-tense ‘ed.’ One group started therapy with ‘easy’ verbs, while the other group started with ‘hard’ verbs (based on the parameters listed above). Performance was assessed via probes and narrative retells at three different points: prior to treatment, right after intervention, and 6-8 weeks after the treatment period. Results on both the structured probes and narratives indicated that the group that started therapy with the more complex (harder) verbs displayed more gains immediately after treatment and weeks after the intervention period. It should be noted, however, that carryover to other morphemes (i.e., irregular past tense forms) was not noted.
Why the heck is this important? As clinicians, it is in our clients’ best interest to choose therapy practices that maximize their progress. Given the results of the current study, we can be more mindful of the verbs we use during intervention and select more complex stimuli. By adjusting our therapy practices, our clients can achieve better generalization of their goals. As for those who are like me and can’t get over the past (missing that plane, not giving that special someone a chance, and not getting those shoes that were on sale), well Owen Van Horne does not provide a suggestion, but she probably would say that more complex situations would actually make the problem worse.
Resources:
The Brains: Amanda J. Owen Van Horne, Maura Curran, Caroline Larson, and Marc E. Fey
The article: Owen Van Horne, A. J., Curran, M., Larson, C., & Fey, M.E. (2018). Effects of a complexity based approach on generalization of past tense -ed and related morphemes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, 681-693.
Brainy Bits Blog 