Expressive language delay in children with Down syndrome
The productive language skills of a group of children with Down syndrome were compared with those of normally developing children, and children with learning difficulties but not Down syndrome. The three groups of children were matched for their level of verbal comprehension skills. The children with learning difficulties were the same age as those with Down syndrome, the normally developing children younger. The South Tyneside Assessment of Syntactic Structures (STASS) was used to elicit language samples from the children, which were analysed using the Language Assessment Remediation Screening Procedure (LARSP) and percentage scores obtained. Although the children with Down syndrome produced as many utterances as the other two groups, their language contained significantly fewer Stage III and IV structures. They also showed a deficit in pronouns and auxiliary verbs used in comparison with the other two groups. Implications for language teaching are discussed in the light of these findings.
Jenkins C. Expressive language delay in children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice. 1993;1(1);10-14.
Speech and language is a major problem for many people with Down's syndrome.
Even those who are relatively capable in other areas of life may have great
difficulty in communicating with people who do not know them well. This
can result in a restriction of opportunities for full integration and participation
in society. In their study of adolescents with Down's syndrome,
and Sacks (1987 p. 52) say,
They will have great difficulty in leading ordinary lives in the community.
Shopping, travelling on buses, buying a meal in a cafe and using a telephone
will be difficult, if not impossible, for most of them.
They go on to ask: "How do you get to know someone and make friends if you
cannot talk to each other?".
Early research into language and Down's syndrome concentrated on whether
its development in children with Down's syndrome was similar to that in
a normal child, only slower, or whether it differed significantly from the
usual pattern. These studies, for example
found no evidence to support the idea of deviation from the normal developmental
course and confirmed what Lenneberg (1967) described as the "stretched -
More recently, however, three circumstances have emerged which may shed
some light on the nature of the problem. Firstly, language development in
children with Down's syndrome lags behind other areas of their development,
particularly cognitive development (Cunningham
et al. 1985). Secondly, there is evidence that this gap becomes greater
as the children grow older (Coggins
& Stoel-Gammon 1982), and thirdly, some aspects of language development
itself seem to be more delayed than others, (Rondal
1988).These factors provide evidence for the theory that the linguistic
system in people with Down's syndrome may be as
Rondal (1988) says, truly
Communication is a broad term, and effective communication requires a number
of different skills. It seems from several different studies that the development
and use of the structural aspects of language, that is, the system of rules
by which we join words together to form phrases and sentences, is a particular
problem in Down's syndrome. Structural language (syntax or grammar) includes
such things as verb tenses, question forms, pronouns, prepositions and negative
constructions, as well as the length and complexity of the sentences. A
lack of skills in this area will lead to difficulty in communicating precise
meaning to the listener, and consequently cause misunderstandings and frustrations.
It is less clear from the research whether the understanding of language
(verbal comprehension) is affected to the same extent as production (expressive
language). A study by Miller (1988) seems to indicate that, on average,
production is more delayed than understanding, while
suggests that both are affected equally.
This present study attempted to look in some detail at the ability of children
with Down's syndrome to use syntactical language and compare this with normally
developing younger children with the same level of comprehension.
A group of 8 children and young people with Down's syndrome was matched
for verbal comprehension with 8 normally developing younger children and
5 children and young people with learning difficulties, but not Down's syndrome.
This third also matched the Down syndrome group for chronological age. The
Down syndrome group of 5 girls and 3 boys had ages ranging from 6 years
6 months to 13 years 6 months (78 - 162 months) with a mean age of 11 years
6 months (138 months). 7 of the children were aged between 10 years 4 months
and 13 years 6 months, while 1 child was rather younger, at 6 years 6 months.
For the normally developing group, 8 children attending a local pre-school
class were chosen, 5 girls and 3 boys, aged from 3 years 4 months to 4.00
years (40 - 48 months) with a mean of 3 years 9 months (45 months). The
third group had only 5 subjects, 3 girls and 2 boys because in many cases
there were other problems which affected communication, for example autism,
cerebral palsy, severe behaviour problems or extremely short attention span,
making them unsuitable for the study. In this group the ages for 4 of the
subjects ranged from 11 years 4 months to 13 years 10 months, while 1 younger
child was matched for age with the younger child in the group with Down's
syndrome. Her age was 6 years 9 months and the mean age for the group was
11 years 9 months.
Initially, all the children's understanding of language was assessed using
Verbal Comprehension Scale A of the Reynell Developmental Language Scales,
2nd Revision (Reynell
and Huntley, 1985). The verbal comprehension scores ranged from 3 years
3 months to 4 years 11 months (39 - 59 months) with a mean of 4 years 1
month (49 months) for the pre-school children (Group A), 3 years 2 months
to 4 years 11 months (38 - 59 months) with a mean of 4 years 3 months (51
months) for the Down syndrome children and 3 years 3 months to 4 years 11
months (39 - 59 months) for the non- Down syndrome group with learning difficulties
(Group C). These figures are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. Range and means of chronological
and verbal comprehension ages per group (in months)
|Range of CA
||40 - 48
||78 - 162
||81 - 166
Although it would have been ideal to have collected spontaneous samples
of the children's language for analysis, not only was this unrealistic within
the time available, but it would have presented particular problems with
the Down syndrome group because of their poor intelligibility.
and Woolnough (1988) found that intelligibility was very dependent on
the listener's knowledge of the context.
STASS (South Tyneside Assessment of Syntactic Structures,
and Ainley 1988) is designed to encourage children to produce a range
of linguistic structures, using pictures which the children found attractive
and stimulating. The language samples obtained are then analysed using the
principles of LARSP ( Language Assessment Remediation Screening Procedure;
Crystal, Garman and Fletcher 1976), Stages I to IV, where Stage I structures
are the simplest and Stage IV the most complex. STASS also records a range
of auxiliary verbs (e.g. is, can, will used with another verb, as in "she
is crying"), prepositions (in, under, behind, etc.), and pronouns (he, she,
them, etc.). The children's STASS assessments were video-taped and analysed
later, with the help of additional notes taken at the time. Any spontaneous
comments were also recorded for analysis.
The transcribed utterances were analysed into clause, phrase, and word structures
and expansions, following LARSP procedures. In order to obtain a numerical
score so that the performances of the three groups could be compared, the
number of target structures at each of the 4 stages within the STASS assessment
was calculated and each child's score was presented as a percentage of the
possible target structures. A mean percentage score was then obtained for
The mean percentage scores for each group at each of the stages, together
with an overall score for all the stages combined were then compared for
statistical significance using two procedures. A Kruskall - Wallis analysis
of variance compared Groups A, B and C, while a Mann - Whitney U - Wilcoxon
Rank test compared pairs of groups (A/B, B/C, A/C). Table 2 shows the mean
percentage of structures used per group at each stage.
Table 2. Mean % of structures used
|Group A Mean %
|Group B Mean %
|Group C Mean %
|Groups A/B/C sig diff(p) KW
|Groups A/B sig diff(p) MW
|Groups A/C sig diff(p) MW
|Groups B/C sig diff(p) MW
The children with Down syndrome (Group B) used, on average, a higher number
of structures at Stages I and II than either of the other 2 groups, and
this was statistically significant when compared with the pre-school children
(Group A). At Stages III and IV, the children with Down syndrome used fewer
structures than either of the other groups. In total, the number of structures
used throughout the assessment by each group was quite similar, with the
largest number used by Group C (learning difficulties), while Groups A and
B differed by only 1.75%.
The auxiliary verbs, prepositions and pronouns used by each child were recorded
and a percentage of the target calculated and averaged for the groups. The
Kruskall- Wallis and Mann Whitney statistical tests were carried out as
above. These scores are set out in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean % of auxiliaries,
prepositions and pronouns used per group
|Gp A Mean%
|Gp B Mean%
|Gp C Mean%
|Gps A/B/C sig diff(p) K-W
|Gps A/B sig diff(p) MW
|Gps B/C sig diff(p) MW
Seven auxiliary verbs, 7 prepositions and 13 pronouns are targeted in the
STASS assessment. 2 children in Group A used 6 of the verbs, and although
the highest score in both Groups B and C was 5, when the mean scores for
this section were calculated, the children with Down syndrome used significantly
fewer auxiliary verbs than both of the others in the Kruskall- Wallis comparison
and significantly fewer than the pre-school children using the Mann Whitney.
With prepositions, the performance of the pre-school children and those
with Down syndrome was identical, with the children with learning difficulties
having a slightly, but not significantly, higher average. Overall there
was no real disparity between the groups in the use of prepositions.
Of the 13 possible pronouns, only 2 children in Group B used 8, compared
with Group A where only 2 children used fewer than 8, with 2 children using
11 out of 13. Only 1 child in Group C used fewer than 8 pronouns while 2
of them used 10. The mean totals for Groups A and C were very similar, while
Group B used significantly fewer pronouns in all the statistical comparisons.
Probably the most interesting finding of this study is apparent when the
developmental progression of the 3 groups, from Stage I to Stage IV is compared.
Two of the groups have very similar profiles, while the third group differs
markedly. As 2 groups were made up of children of similar ages, all with
learning difficulties, it might have been expected that these groups would
have similar linguistic skills. This, however, did not prove to be the case.
Groups A and C, the normally developing children aged 3 and 4 years and
the group with learning difficulties but not Down syndrome had very similar
profiles, with the highest number of structures used at Stage III. Group
B, on the other hand, the children with Down syndrome, had their highest
scores at Stage I and steadily decreased at each stage thereafter, as illustrated
in Figure 1. This demonstrates that the linguistic output of the children
with Down syndrome was significantly less mature than either their non-
Down syndrome peers or younger normal children with the same level of comprehension.
It also indicates that this is a problem specifically related to expressive
language, rather than affecting comprehension equally.
Figure 1. Mean percentage of structures used at each stage
Gp A = Pre-school, Gp B = Down syndrome, Gp C = Learning Difficulties
Further differences between the groups emerge in the comparison of auxiliary
verbs, prepositions and pronouns. As seen in Figure 2, both with auxiliary
verbs and pronouns, it is, once again, the children with Down syndrome who
do significantly less well than the other 2 groups. However, there is a
curious contrast to this with prepositions. Here, their mean score is identical
to that of the younger group, with the other children with learning difficulties
scoring slightly, but not significantly higher.
Figure 2. Mean percentage of auxiliaries, prepositions and pronouns
used per group
Gp A = Pre-school, Gp B = Down syndrome, Gp C = Learning Difficulties
It is interesting to speculate on why the Down syndrome group perform comparatively
better with prepositions. One possible explanation, without anything other
than personal experience and observation to support it, is that there may
be more emphasis in schools and therapy sessions on teaching prepositions
than pronouns or auxiliary verbs.
While the effect of using fewer pronouns may be that language is clumsier
and less refined, it is still possible to communicate effectively by using
nouns instead. The lack of auxiliary verbs, on the other hand, will have
a profound effect on the ability to convey information verbally. Auxiliary
verbs are needed to indicate the future tense (he's going to jump), many
aspects of the past tense (he was jumping) and to form complex clauses.
When Miller (1987, p 245) says: "Apparently, individuals with Down syndrome
fail to transcend time and space in their productive language, talking instead
about objects and events immediately present both in time and space", this
could be explained, in part at least, by a deficit in the acquisition and
use of auxiliary verbs.
Implications for Practice
Explanations put forward for the language problems of people with Down syndrome
fall roughly into two groups: those citing social and environmental factors
and those suggesting a specific neurological processing deficit, interfering
with the acquisition of language. There are many studies with evidence to
substantiate both theories, but perhaps the most likely explanation is that
both social and environmental influences and language processing difficulties
play a part and together have a compounding effect.
What implications does this study have for intervention and teaching? Firstly,
there are indications that changing the ways in which adults interact with
young children with Down syndrome could have a positive effect (Jones
1977, Smith et al. 1988), for example by encouraging parents and teachers
to allow more opportunities for the child to initiate communication, so
the child becomes more pro-active and less reactive communicatively. Also,
developing strategies of expanding the child's utterances rather than repeating
them back. This involves an element of risk- taking because of the poor
intelligibility, but combined with greater opportunities for initiating
language would allow for more experimentation with language, as happens
in normal development.
Secondly, if teaching strategies are to be effective, they need to build
on the strengths and minimise the weaknesses. Perhaps in Down syndrome this
means using visual channels as much as possible to augment and help overcome
the auditory processing deficits. Examples of this would be the use of the
written word, visual symbols (e.g. Rebus) and other visual media such as
signing systems, not only as an aid to understanding but also for "cueing"
new expressive language structures.
Maybe language teaching needs to be particularly targeted at the area of
syntactic skills. Some of this is happening already, of course, but these
interventions need to be carefully evaluated to show which particular aspects
have the most value. If the children with Down syndrome in this study did
do as well as the other groups in the use of prepositions because these
are more often specifically taught, then it would seem logical that the
same would apply to other verbal concepts.
Finally, consideration should be given to teaching them to use strategies
to supplement their spoken language. Both
Bray and Woolnough (1988) and
and Sacks (1987) describe the lack of ability adolescents with Down
syndrome have to deal with situations where they are not understood even
by their families. Both studies found that some youngsters successfully
used signing to overcome difficulties. As most people with Down syndrome
learn to sign easily, there seems some value in continuing to use it even
after verbal communication is well established, to resort to in times of
difficulty. Role play and other similar techniques could be used to give
older children and adults experience of using different repair strategies
when misunderstandings occur.
One thing is certain, that the problems people with Down syndrome have in
communicating verbally will not go away, but possibly the more that is known
about the nature of the problems, the more effective interventions will
- Armstrong, S & Ainley,
M. (1988) South Tyneside Assessment of Syntactic Structures.
- Bray, M. & Woolnough, L.(1988)
The language skills of children with Down syndrome aged 12 to 16 years.
Child Language Teaching and Therapy 4(3), 311- 324.
- Buckley, S. & Sacks, B.(1987)
The Adolescent with Down Syndrome. Portsmouth Down Syndrome Trust.
- Coggins, T.E.
& Stoel-Gammon, C. (1982) Clarification strategies used by four Down
syndrome children for maintaining normal conversational interaction. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17, 65-67.
D., Garman, M. & Fletcher, P. (1976) The Grammatical Analysis of
Language Disability. Arnold.
Cunningham, C.C., Glenn, S.M., Wilkinson, P. & Sloper, P. (1985) Mental
ability, symbolic play and receptive and expressive language ability of
young children with Down syndrome. Journal of Child Psychiatry,
- Fowler, A.E. (1990) Language Abilities
in Children with Down syndrome; Evidence for a Specific Syntactic Delay.
In Ciccetti & Beeghly (Eds) Children with Down syndrome. A Developmental
Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
- Jones, O.H.M. (1977) Mother child
communication with pre-linguistic Down syndrome and normal infants. In:
Studies in Mother-Infant Interaction, Academic Press, New York.
- Lenneberg, E.H. (1967) Biological
Foundations of Language Wiley, New York.
- Miller, J.F. (1987) Language and Communication
Characteristics of Children with Down syndrome. In Pueschel, S., Tingey,
C., Rynders, J.E., Crocker, A.C. & Crutcher, D.M. (Eds) New Perspectives
on Down Syndrome, Paul Brooks Pub & Co.
- Miller, J.F. (1988) Developmental
Asynchrony of Language Development in Children with Down syndrome. In Nadel,
L. (Ed) The Psychobiology of Down Syndrome. MIT Press
- Reynell, J., & Huntley,
M. (1985) Reynell Developmental Language Scales, 2nd Revision
- Rondal, J. (1988) Down syndrome. In
Bishop, D. & Mogford, K. (Eds) Language Development in Exceptional Circumstances.
DSE's Reading and Language Intervention for Children with Down Syndrome (RLI) is an evidence-based programme designed to teach reading and language skills to children with Down syndrome.
RLI incorporates best practice in structured activities delivered in fast-paced daily teaching sessions. It was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial and found to improve rates of progress compared to ordinary teaching.
Find out more...