Patterns of Correspondence and Non-Correspondence Between Play and Language in Developmentally Delayed Preschoolers.

This study examined relationships between symbolic play and language in ten developmentally delayed preschool children. As predicted, individual subject data revealed instances of correspondence and non-corre spondence between developmental levels of symbolic play and communication forms. Several patterns of play language relationships are discussed and suggestions for treatment programming are provided. Recent literature in the areas of symbolic play for examining parallel structural developments and language have increased our understanding across both domains in late sensorimotor and of the developmental course of these symbolic early preoperational stages. Shore, O'Connell modes of expression substantially. Both pretend and Bates (in press) compared combinatorial play and language require that the child mentally abilities in play and language in a longitudinal represent reality through the manipulation of study of 30 children at 20 and 28 months of symbols and both are regarded as indices of the age. As one index of the gestural (play)-language child's level of symbolic functioning (Piaget, relationship, the authors compared mean length 1962; Werner & Kaplan, 1963). Whether symof utterance (MLU) and mean length of gestural bolic play and language develop as by-products sequence (MLS) at the two age levels. They of some superordinate system of symbolic orfound comparable lengths of schemes in play ganization as posited by Piaget (1962) or whether and language at 20 months; however, by 28 symbolic play and language develop as indemonths language sequences were longer due to pendent and unrelated forms of abstract symthe children's acquisition of morphological end bolization has been addressed theoretically but ings and function words. has seen little empirical investigation. Support for play-language relationships is also Recent studies of play and language have found in studies with populations of develop demonstrated correlational relationships bementally disabled children. Westby (1980) re tween the two domains which supports an unported parallel developments in play and lan derlying representational structure as the basis guage for both normally developing and men for symbolic functioning in both areas. Bates, tally retarded children. Ungerer and Sigman Camaioni, and Volterra (1975) found a corre(1980) showed that advanced abilities in recep spondence between initial pretend, play and the tive vocabulary corresponded with a higher fre onset of words in normal children through 13 quency of advanced symbolic play schemes in months of age. Later, Bates, Benigni, & Brethautistic children. Hill and McCune-Nicolich erton, Camaioni, and Volterra (1979) reported (1981) observed that Down's syndrome children striking correspondences between both the conwho failed to combine symbolic play acts (e.g., tent (gestural naming vs. vocal naming) and the feed doll then comb doll's hair) also failed to structure of play and language behaviors. Niproduce simple word combinations. In a study colich (1977) described synchrony in the emerof both normal and retarded children Casby and genceof primitive two-word structures (e.g., allRuder (1981) reported positive correlations be gone baby) with unplanned multischeme play tween the transitional period of language ac and later two-word syntactic constructions with quisition from single to two-word utterances and more advanced planned multischeme play. the ability to represent one object with another. McCune-Nicolich (1981) suggests that "symbolic Skarakis-Doyle and Prutting (1982) examined play might provide a useful converging operation the development of play and language in three for identifying structural turning points in lanlanguage disordered children between 22 and guage" (p. 795). She has proposed a framework 31 months of age over a six month period. Their Language in Developmentally Delayed Preschoolers / 5 This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.211 on Mon, 08 Aug 2016 06:06:08 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms TABLE 1 cific language behaviors and specific non-lin Individual Subject Descriptions guistic cognitive behaviors. The first model— "direct causal model"—predicts that one be havior or domain is necessary for the develop ment of another. The second model—"homol ogy through shared base"—predicts that two behaviors which appear at approximately the same time, emerge from an underlying "soft ware" common to both domains. The third model—"analogy through common task con straints"—predicts that two behaviors emerge closely in development because of independent but structurally similar task requirements. While the precise nature of the developmental rela tionship between symbolic play and language continues to remain undetermined, the majority of research appears to support the hypothesis (homology model) that these two symbolic do mains share some common underlying properties which give synchrony to developments in both