DEVELOPMENT OF SYNTAX IN A RETARDED GIRL USING PROCEDURES OF IMITATION, REINFORCEMENT, AND MODELLING¹

Abstract

Three experiments demonstrated the development and generalized use of a singular and plural declarative sentence in a child initially lacking sentence form responses. In each experiment, an adult(s) served as a language model(s), and consequences (sweets) were provided for imitation of the model. During training trials, an item(s) was displayed first to the model(s) then to the subject; these displays were accompanied by requests to label the item(s). Generalization was assessed by a number of probe trials that were periodically interspersed among training trials. During these trials, the subject was requested to label the displayed item(s) without any preceding labelling response from the model. Using these procedures, generalized use of a singular sentence ("That is one ") resulted in Experiment I, and generalized use of a plural sentence ("These are two ") resulted in Experiment II. In Experiment III, two models (a singular and a plural sentence model) were made available to the subject but imitation of only one model was reinforced during any one condition. Results indicated the subject labelled probe (generalization) items with the same sentence form that was modelled and reinforced during training trials.

Some Effects of Reinforcement Schedules in Teaching Picture Names to Retarded Children1

“…That this is the most effective way to schedule primary reinforcers has not been established. Although some studies have employed intermittent schedules of primary reinforcement in training the mentally retarded (e.g., Garcia, 1974;Garcia, Guess, and Byrnes, 1973;Guess and Baer, 1973;Twardosz and Baer, 1973), few have examined the effects of intermittent schedules in such procedures (but see Davidson and Osborne [1974] (WINTER 197 5) schedule parameters on normal children's matching-to-sample behavior).…”

Three Myths from the Language Acquisition Literature

“…Other studies reporting the use of reinforcement procedures to bolster grammaticality also appeared around this time (e.g., H. B. Clark & Sherman, 1975;Garcia, 1974;Garcia & Batista-Wallace, 1977;Garcia, Guess, & Byrnes, 1973;Hester & Hendrickson, 1977;Heward & Eachus, 1979;Martin, 1975;Sailor, 1971;StevensLong & Rasmussen, 1974) and during the ensuing decades (e.g., Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985;Chase, Ellenwood, & Madden, 2008;Greer & Yuan, 2008;Hernandez, Hanley, & Ingvarsson, 2007;Secan, Egel, & Tilley, 1989;Whitehurst & ValdezMenchaca, 1988;Wulfert & Hayes, 1988).…”

Interactional conditions of syntax acquisition: A review

“…The second step is the immediate imitation of the modelled construction by the child (Whitehurst and Novak, 1973). The third and final step is the reinforcement of correct child behaviour and neglect of incorrect constructions by the adult listener (Whitehurst, 1972;Garcia et al, 1973). As will be outlined below, the phases of imitation and reinforcement are often omitted without any observable detrimental effects in real life settings (Baldwin and Baldwin, 1981).…”