Table Of ContentSTUDY GROUP SERIES titles published to date*
1. Infantile Autism: Concepts, Characteristics and Treatment
2. Cellular Organelles and Membranes in Mental Retardation
3. The Brain in Unclassified Mental Retardation
4. Mental Retardation and Behavioural Research
5. Assessment for Learning in the Mentally Handicapped
6. Experiments in the Rehabilitation of the Mentally Handicapped
7. Language, Cognitive Deficits, and Retardation
* 1—5 published by Churchill Livingstone
Language,
Cognitive Deficits,
and Retardation
Study Group 7
Held at Friends House, London
on 11-13 December, 1972
under the auspices of
The Institute for Research
into Mental and
Multiple Handicap
Edited by
NEIL O'CONNOR, MA, PhD
Published for the Institute for Research
into Mental and Multiple Handicap
BUTTERWORTHS, LONDON AND BOSTON
THE BUTTERWORTH GROUP
ENGLAND
Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.
London: 88 Kingsway, WC2B 6AB
AUSTRALIA
Butterworths Pty Ltd.
Sydney: 586 Pacific Highway, NSW 2067
Melbourne: 343 Little Collins Street, 3000
Brisbane: 240 Queen Street, 4000
CANADA
Butterworth & Co. (Canada) Ltd.
Toronto: 2265 Midland Avenue, Scarborough, Ontario MIP 4S1
NEW ZEALAND
Butterworths of New Zealand Ltd.
Wellington: 26-28 Waring Taylor Street, 1
SOUTH AFRICA
Butterworth & Co. (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd.
Durban: 152-154 Gale Street
U.S.A.
Butterworth
161 Ash Street,
Reading: Mass. 01867
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
including photocopying and recording, without the written
permission of the copyright holder, application for which
should be addressed to the publisher. Such written
permission must also be obtained before any part of this
publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
First published 1975
© Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 1975
ISBN 0 407 00007 0
Suggested UDC Number: 159.946.3/.4:159.922.76
Suggested Additional Numbers: 159.953.5:4:159.922.76
371.92:4
616.899-053.4/.5:371.92:4
Printed in England by The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton
Contributors and Participants
L. Bartak, MA
Lecturer, Department of Child Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry (University
of London), De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
D. C. Bennet, MA, PhD
Lecturer in Phonetics and Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies,
(University of London), Malet Street, London WC1E 7AP
R. Beresford, MA
Lecturer in Phonetics, Sub-Department of Speech,
School of Education (University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne),
46 Leazes Terrace, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 4L2
M. Berger, BA, DipPsychol
Senior Lecturer in Child Development,
Department of Child Development and Educational Psychology,
Institute of Education (University of London),
24 Woburn Square, London WC1H OAA
R. Conrad, MA, PhD
Research Psychologist,
MRC Applied Psychology Unit,
15 Chaucer Road,
Cambridge CB2 2EF
R. F. Cromer, AB, AM, PhD
Research Psychologist, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit,
Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WC1H OAN
D. Crystal, BA, PhD
Reader in Linguistic Science,
Department of Linguistic Science (University of Reading),
Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AH
IX
CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS
Barbara J. Dodd, LACST
Research Assistant, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit,
Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WCIH OAN
A. J. Fourcin, BSc, PhD
Reader in Experimental Phonetics, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics,
University College (University of London),
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Uta Frith, PhD, DipPsychol
Research Psychologist, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit,
Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WCIH OAN
N. C. Graham, BA, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Education (University of Aston),
Gosta Green, Birmingham B4 7ET
Beate M. Hermelin, BA, PhD
Research Psychologist, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit,
Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WCIH OAN
P. Herriot, BA, MEd, PhD
Reader in Psychology,
Department of Social Science and Humanities (City University),
St. John Street, London EC1Y 4PB
Patricia Howlin, BA, MSc
Research Psychologist, Institute of Psychiatry (University of London),
De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
P. N. Johnson-Laird, BA, PhD
Lecturer, Centre for Research in Perception & Cognition,
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology (University of Sussex),
Brighton BN1 9QY
A. R. Jonckheere, BSc, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology,
University College (University of London),
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
E. H. Lenneberg, MA, PhD
Professor of Psychology and Neurobiology,
Department of Psychology and Neurology (Cornell University),
Ithaca, New York 14850, U.S.A.
J. McFie, MA, MD, MRCPsych
Consultant Psychologist, Charing Cross Hospital,
Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF
x
CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS
G. P. Morris, BA, PhD
(deceased)
Senior Clinical Psychologist, Darenth Park Hospital, Dartford, Kent
J. Morton, MA, PhD
MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 2EF
N. O'Connor, MA, PhD
Director, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit,
Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WC1H OAN
D. M. Ricks, BA, MD, MRCPsych, DPM
Hon. Consultant in Mental Handicap, Departments of Paediatrics & Child
Psychiatry, University College Hospital,
Gower Street, London, WC1
M. Rutter, MD, FRCP, FRCPsych, DPM
Professor of Child Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry (University of London),
De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Joanna Ryan, MA, PhD
Research Psychologist, Unit for Research on the Medical Applications
of Psychology (University of Cambridge),
5 Salisbury Villas, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JQ
Hermina Sinclair, DPsych
Professor of Psycholinguistics, Ecole de Psychologie et des Sciences de
l'Education (Universite de Geneve),
Palais Wilson, 1211 Geneve 14, Switzerland
N. V. Smith, MA, PhD
Reader in Linguistics, University College (University of London),
Malet Street, London WC1E 7HP
Elizabeth K. Warrington, BSc, PhD
Psychologist, Department of Psychology,
National Hospital for Nervous Diseases,
Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG
Lorna Wing, MD, DPM
MRC, Social Psychiatry Unit,
Institute of Psychiatry (University of London),
De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
W. Yule, MA, DipPsych
Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology,
Institute of Psychiatry (University of London),
De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
XI
Acknowledgements
This Study Group was assisted financially by the Kennedy Foundation, to
which the Institute extends its gratitude. Thanks are due to the staff of the
MRC Developmental Psychology Unit, London, for hospitality and secretarial
help.
xn
Introduction
Neil O'Connor
The dispute between Chomsky (1959) and Skinner (1957) concerning the
roles of imitation and stimulus-response learning in language acquisition is
an important issue for our approach to language handicap, whether in the
subnormal, the deaf, the autistic or the aphasic child. Many authors (e.g.
Brown and Bellugi, 1964; Fraser, Bellugi and Brown, 1963) have contributed
to this dispute. Amongst these contributions, Bever, Fodor and Weksel's
(1965) characterization of the independent and generative nature of language
learning is a cogent attack on any use of a Hullian-type stimulus-response
generalization view of language acquisition.
Psycholinguists may have presented clinicians with one problem but they
themselves face another: i.e. how can language be acquired, if not by imitation ?
In other words, how do children match input and output in either phonologi
cal or syntactic usage? Miller and McNeill (1969) have argued that children
derive from individual examples of language a rule system which governs
their speech without ever being explicitly exposed to this system. Slobin
(1971), agreeing with this observation, assumes an innate capacity to process
the surface information and deduce its internal structure. Such views suggest
that some language is empirically acquired, but that on the basis of a limited
number of examples, a further analysis is made which enables the child to
produce entirely novel language. Slobin (1971) has pointed out that children
at first learn the correct forms of irregular verbs, but later on misapply to
these same verbs the rules for regular verbs, saying 'breaked' when they
formerly said 'broke'. This phenomenon is reminiscent of that noted by
Lenneberg (1967) concerning the babbling of speech sounds by children who
subsequently find the combination of these same sounds difficult. The mechan
isms are of course different, but the history is superficially similar. In fact,
1
INTRODUCTION
although most of the recent research on cognitive deficit and language has
centred round the acquisition of syntax, one might say that a parallel revolu
tion in our approach to language has occurred through the insights of
Jakobson (1941) concerning phonological development in young children.
Lenneberg (1967) with Down's syndrome children and Smith (1973) with
normal children have both offered much evidence bearing on the role of
mental and chronological development in phonological growth. Lenneberg
has, for example, made some considerable advance in demonstrating the
normal nature of babbling in Down's syndrome children.
Thus in both syntax and phonology, there have been revolutions in
approach which justify a review of the effects which neuropathology and
psychopathology might have on language acquisition in the handicapped.
This might be especially appropriate in the case of subnormality, which in
the past has appeared to reflect normal development in children, though at a
slower pace. But further information might be sought by considering the
manner in which other types of impairment, e.g. deafness or aphasia, might
affect the acquisition of language. How is the new revolution relevant to
teaching and learning processes in children with these different kinds of
handicap? How can study of these different kinds of pathology help us to
understand points of theory concerning the new syntax or the new phonology ?
Whilst the current approach to language acquisition raises problems of
the association of logic and grammar, similar questions have been at the
heart of research concerning subnormality and cognitive handicap for some
time. Binet (Binet and Simon, 1908) asked one of these central questions:
how is language related to thought? It has been answered by those interested
in language development in normal and subnormal children in several ways.
Piaget (1946) and his colleagues believe that comprehension precedes and
must precede linguistic expression, Luria (1961) has sometimes suggested
that some thought cannot occur other than through language, while Vygotsky
(1962) has put forward the view that prior to a certain stage of growth,
language and thought can develop in parallel and independent ways until at
the age of 5, 6 or 7 they come together and thereafter operate as one. Binet,
however, offered a more perplexing and perhaps more appealing interpretation.
He saw thought as completely independent of language and imagery and
much richer than either.
Questions arising from impaired development in children cannot be viewed
with profit by considering the problem of the subnormal alone. That is why
in the following pages aphasic, spastic, deaf and autistic children are discussed.
The reasons for this comparative approach have been discussed by O'Connor
(1973) elsewhere; briefly, one could say that comparative studies of one
psychological phenomenon (such as coding) across several subgroups would
have certain advantages in indicating whether a central or peripheral handicap
was involved. This strategy seems preferable to studies of one diagnostic
2
O'CONNOR
group if one is reviewing disturbances of speech output. This applies whether
we consider semantic or syntactic coding. Thus if input is affected without
any obvious damage to semantic coding, such a situation might be envisaged
as characteristic of the deaf; with autism, language failure may be the product
not so much of input deficit as of a failure of semantic coding. These kinds
of hypotheses, whatever we believe their resolution will be, can help us to
examine our hypothetical models of language acquisition, comprehension and
production. If we consider one kind of handicap alone, we cannot easily
either understand the cognitive deficit involved or throw any light on the
underlying model. If, however, we compare performance in several kinds of
deficit on different aspects of language behaviour, it is conceivable that we
might learn something both about the deficits and the whole problem of the
relationship between semantics and syntax, which Binet rightly foresaw as the
key issue in language learning, especially in association with mental or
physical handicap.
Such problems are discussed in the following pages. It goes without saying
that the fundamental issue of the relationship between semantics and syntax,
the acquisition of the rules governing them and their interaction are not
resolved here. However, progress is made in relation to the problem of how
sub-diagnoses affect the model of language learning. Piaget states that
comprehension is closely related to the production of language and precedes it.
The results with autistic and aphasic children reported here by Bartak and
Rutter and with deaf, subnormal and autistic children by Hermelin and
O'Connor, which are in accord with one another, suggest that Piaget's view
is only part of the story. Sometimes syntax waits on comprehension, but by
no means always. Conrad's comments on overt and covert speech are entirely
relevant to this problem and echo Luria's (1961) observation about subnormals
who, while not lacking speech, do not readily use it as a mediator in coding
or recall. A further aspect of Bartak and Rutter's findings concerns gesture
and, like Tubbs' (1966) finding with the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic
Ability shows the relevance of another aspect of Piaget's views. 'Signing'
appears to be an essential aspect of communication and of the development
of language, even if other deficits sometimes prevent the development of
speech.
Thus dysphasic children, who never learn either to speak or to read
adequately, may readily learn a system of communication with plastic signs
(Hughes, 1974). Wing also notes the facility of this group with finger sign
language, although as all the clinicians who contributed here agree, few
autistic children use signs. This comparison might be said to bring us close
to the whole question of semantic and syntactic deep structures.
The structure of this study group was based on a theoretically hierarchical
pattern. Lenneberg and Smith present theoretical papers on syntax and
phonology respectively, each matched with clinical papers which give rise to
3
