:t :a , -

J o ur nal of t he A! I I ndia I nst irute of Speech and I ! ear in g, I 9 90, Vol

XX I

LinguisticProfiteTest(LpT)_
Normative
datafor chircrren
in Gracres
I to ri
M.G. Suchitra & pratibha Karanth
Dept. of Speechpathotogy,
All India Institute of Speechanrl IIearing., Mysore

Abstract.
The study focussed on the collection of normarive
,lon' jo, schctol going chiltlren
from Grarle I to
GradevfortheLinguisticProfileTest(LPT'). lS0childrenrangingittagefrom6+yearstol0+yectrswere
thesubject'sinlhecurrent'stucly.Therevvere30subiect,sineachagegroup.
Meannntlstantlartltleviatiott
of LPT scc'res (tolal scores) vvere calculcttetl. lvean
antl .;tandartl tleviari.ans oJ each of the three
sections
(Phonology' syntax antl semanrics)
of LP'l wcts also obrainerl. |'he norruttive
data tvctukl be useful in
identifying childrenwith language tlisorder's
at particular linguistic revels anrl alsr., as tt
baselineJbr speech-
language therapy.
I'he qualitative analysis of the r)atct were in line
with the de.scriptive srudies on the aspects
oJ
languageie,PhonologY,SyntaxandSemantics.
l\leanscoreforthephonotogysecttontrash,igherwhen
compared to the other two sections, confirming the
earlierfinttings that phonological development
v)as almo.rt
conlplete by the time the clzild reaches 6 years
and beyond this the sctnte lever was m.rntainetl.
As chttnce
'factor was high in the Younger age zroups in grarnmaticality judgetlen.t
tasks (in the srtltox section), rhe
G rnnmatical Sensiti.''ityIndex (A' was calculated. 'l'he
) sensitivity Index intlicatetl an ittcrease in granLmali_
cal sensitivity tvilh an increase in age, confirrting
thefinrtin.g.s o/ the earlier stutly tltat a4uLL
like -<en.sitrvtry
was ocquired by atlolescence' 'f heJiruting''
in lhe 'sernanlic.sectio, ware,.iso.stnilar
ro tltose in tJle sjrtax
section' statistical analT'sis (Newman I Keul' s
RangeT-est) indicatecl sign.iJ'icantct([erence
a/notlg most oJ.the
agegroups(excepts6+&7+)fortatalscoresa.sv'ellttsforeacho.[thethree,sectirtnsofLpT.,crnJirmingthe

findings of the earlier studies that a rlevelopmenlal rtend vvns evitlent

among age group., tvtyz a ri.seat about
8 years and tending to slow tlownat about l0 years
ol age.
'I'he
Jindings of tke current st*tly are in rine with rhose,f c,ther i n v e s t i g a t o r s
who equale
metalinguistic awarenesswith orher skiils vvhich ell.erge
tctterin chikthoort at whir:h stcge tke child gives
evidenceof the abitity to
formulate antl makejudgementsabout language.

In tro d u cti o ndescriptionavailablcfrom an appropdate

The presentation combination of tcstresulrsthcchild,sabili_
of languagetests
hasassuntcdthatajudgementof ,,language tics and disabiliticswitlrin his language
disordcr"ntustbe basedon anunderstand- systcm (Harold and Thornas l931).
ing in both fonn andllnction, of what is Lo Duling the last dccacleor two, a
be expectedwilh chronologicalage. The plethora of languagctcstshavebeenpub_
Iishcdin thc rvest.Conscquently, thespeoch
 Apraxia of Speech/ I 3

Lehiste, I. (1972). the.riming oflurrerances and

linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical combination. Journal of the Acoustical Sociery of

Society of America, 5l , 2Ag-2024. A mer ica, 6 9(1), 263-274.

Lindblom,B. (i963). spcctrographic Rosenbek,J. C. (19S0). Apraxia ofspeech _ Rela-

srudyof vowei
reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society af tionshipro sturtering. Journal of F tuencyb isorders,
7 ))?'i51,
America, 35, 1773- li 81.
Lindblom, B. (1967 ). Vo weI d ur at i on and a modeI of Skenes,L. L. (1987). Durarionalchangesofapraxic

lipmandible co-ordination Speech Transmission speakers.J o u r na! r.sfCommunicat i o n D i sor der s, 2 0,

Lab., Royal Instiruteof Tcchnology, 6t-71.

epsR 4llg61 ,
pp.1-29. Weismer,G. & Fennel,A. M. (i9g5). Constancyof

Martin, A. d. & Rigrodsky,S. (1974). An investiga_ (acoustic)rclative timing measurcsin phrase-level

tion of phonologicalimpairmcnrin aphasia,parr 1. ut.tcrances. Journal of the Acousrical Society of

C ortex, 49 , 317 -328. A m e r i c a ,T S \ l ) , 4 9 - 5 j .

McNcilage, P. F. (1973). Moror control of scrial Wcrtz, R. T. (197U). Neruoparhologiesof speech

ordcring in spcech.PsychologyReview,77, 192-196. and language: An introductionto patient manage_

Nootcboom,S. G. (1 972). Sometimingfactors in the mcn!. In D. Johns (Ed.), ,,CtinicalManagement of

production and perception of vowels. Occasional N eurogenicC ommunicativeD isorders,' .
papcrs, University of Essex, Language Centre, B o s t o n : L i u l c B r o w n & C o m p a n y( 1 9 7 g ) .

Colchesrer,Scptcnrber19j2, 1, pp. 25. Zar, J. J. Biostatist ical Analysis . .prentice_Hall,Inc.

Pcterson,G. E. & Lchistc,I. (1960). Durationof Ncw Jersey. Secon<lEclition(1994).

syllablenucleiin English.Journal ofthe Acoustical Zieglcr, W. & von Cramon, D. (19S6). Timing

Sobiety of Am.eric a, 32, 693-7 03. dcficits in apraxiaofspcech. EuropeanArchivesof

Port, R. F. (.1981). Linguisric riming fackrrs in Psychiarr ir; N eur o log ica I Sc ience, 2 3 6, 44_49.
 Linguistic Profile Test I 15

- languageclinicianin the west hasa wide (Karanth, Ahuja, Nagaraj, Pandit, and
choice of languagetests for different pur- Shivashankar, 1991) hasbccncollectedand
posesin different theorcticalframeworks. analyzed. A picturisedversion of the test
The Indian sceneon thc other hand is for young childrenof 3-7 yearsof age has
' characterised
by an extremepaucityof lan- bccnconstructedandfield tested(UNICEF
guagetests. In the recent past some at- fundcdjoint project- RRTC. Madrasand
temptshave bcen madc to fill the lacunae NIHH, Bombay)in sevenIndianlanguages
(SST - Syntax ScrecningTest in Tamil - includingKrnnadaandHindi,Tamil,Oriya,
Sudha.198 1,Task& Stask- Tcstfor Acqui- Gujarathi,Marathiand Bengali.
sitionof Syntaxin Kannada- Vij ayalirkshmi. The LinguisticProfileTesthasthree
A.R. 1981, 3D - LanguageAcquisitionTest major scctionsdcaling with Phonology,
- G c e t h a1 9 8 6 K
, a m a l i n i 9 8 6 ,U s h a1 9 8 6 ) . Syntax and Scmanticsrespectivcly,with
Thedcvclopment of LinguisticProfileTcst discourscforming the tail end of the third
r.vasone such. scction.The choiceof methodswithinthese
The LinguisticProfilcTcst,hence- scctions coversa widc rangeoftaskssuchas
folth referredas (LPT) was designedwith p o i n t i n g r. c p c t i t " i onna, n r i n gi,n t l i c a t i o no f
the objcctiveof evaluatingand analyzing grammaticaland semantic acceptability,
adequate linguisticsamplesat thc Phono- l i s t i n g o f l c x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ,s e n t e n c e
logical, Syntax and Scmanticlcvcls. The complction,matchingsynonymsand ant-
testwas odginallydesigneda dccadeago onymsctc (Karanth1980 (a) & (b).
(Karanth,1980 a) in Kannada. Thc l'rame The currcnt study aimed at con-
lvorkof the testis suchthat, it canbc easily i'imringthe dcvelopmcntaltrendbasedon
cronsLructed in anylanguage . ovcr the last thc collectionof largescalenormativedata
tenyears,thc testhasbccnusedcxtcnsivcly on LPT for scl-roolgoing cirildrcnbctween
lvith clinical populations(both adultsand 6-10ycarsof age(i.e.from gradeI to grade
children)andhasbeenfound clinicallyusc- V). Normative scorcs of LPT would bc
ful, both lbr evaluationand as a basis for uscful in identifying school age children
rehabilitationand linguistic retrainingof rvithIanguagedisorders and alsoin finding
the communicativelydisabled(Karanth, out the arcaof de{'icit- i.e.,linguisticskills
1 9 8 0( a )& ( b ) , 1 9 8 1 1
, 9 8 4 ,1 9 8 8 i, 9 9 0 a n d andstructuresat difl'erentlinguisticlevels
1991). During this periodthe testhas un- whichis esscntial
to carry out a systematic
dergonesomerevisions.A parallclversion languagcrcmcdiation programmc.
of thetestr.vas developed in Hindi(Karanth,
Nlethodology
Pandit,and Gandhi1986). Dataona largc
numbcrof normaladultsandstrokepatients Sub.iects:
i n c l u d i n g a p h a s i c sa n d n o n a p h a s i c s . 30 childrcneach from sradeI to V
 I6 / Suchitra and Karanth

rangingin agefrom 6+ yearsto 10+years

groupswerefamiliar with writing
werethesubjects tasksand
in thecurrentstudy. the tasks involved in the test (LpT) were
Thesechildrenwere
similar to lhose exercisesgiven in their
(1) Healthynormalchildrenwith no physi_
classroomset up. For chilijren of the
cal or sensory age
disabilities. groups 6+ years and 7+ years ali
(2) Nativespeakers the three
of Kannada. sectionswere administeredindividually.
(3) Werestudyingin Kannada meclium. Apart from the LpT test format which was
Thesubjectdetailsarein Table1. routinclyused, separateresponse
Table 1 :
Age groups and rhe number of subjects
in eacb grorrp.
sheetswere
prepared for the sectionswhich were
- ad_
No. of subjrcts ministeredin group. While administering
Age Group N1ales Females Toral Section III - Scmantics_ the subsections
6+ years 15
wcre administered consecutively.The sub_
15 30
7 +y a r n tt jccts were instructedto carefully
30 listen to
6+years 13 n 30 eachsentence spokenby thc testerandindi_
9+ years 13 ll 30
l0+ years 20
cate whctherthe sentenccwas grammati_
l0 30
cally acccptable[/l or nor
[XJ ( on a pre_
paredresponse sheet).Examplesof correct
Proceclure: and incorrectforms were given and an
at_
The Linguistic profile Test was tcmpt was made to ascerLain that the sub_
administeredduring the secondterm of jects understooct
r.he the instructions.Thc test
academicyear. Unlike the earlier studies ltcms wcle presentedauditorily one
(Karanth 1984,Kudva lggl) where after
each theothcrwith adcquatetimebctween
items
subjcctwastestedindividuallyon all itenls for recorcJing rcsponses. Thc childrcn were
of all subsections,
for thesubjcctsof theagc [estedin quictclassroont situation.All rhe
groups 8+ yearsand 10+ ycars,the
section rcsponses wcrerccordcdon rcsponseshects.
I-Phonology and parts of section III_Se- Analysis : Thc tlata recorcledwere
tabu-
mantics(i.e.the subsections semanticdis_ lated and thc Mean and SD of LpT
scorcs
crimination, expression,iexical category, Ibr cachagcgroupwcrc computed.Further,
polar questions, paradigmatic
and Ncwman/Keul;sRangc .fcst was
used tcr
syntagmaticrelations) were administered lind out the significanceof diffcrcnce
individually. However,sectionII-syntax be_
lwccn mcanS.
and certainpartsof SectionIll_semantics Results:
(sub-sections
- synonymy,anlonymy,
hom_ Thc Mcan anciStandarcl Dcviation
onymy, semanticanomaly,semantic: coltti_ ol' LPT scol.cs(total scorcs)are given in
guity and semanticsimilariry)were
admin_ Table2. Tl'tcrcsultsindicatedthattheMean
isteredto groupsof l5 chiiclrenaslhcsc
ase scorc raltgcdfrom 20l.ll to 251.64. The
 Linguistic Profile'fest I )7

total scoreincreasedfrom 6+ yearsto l0+ Thc mean total scoresand standarddevia_

years.
tion of the three sectionsof LpT, namelv
Phonology,SyntaxandSemanticsaregiven
Table 2 : Mean and S.D. ofLpT Scorcs
in Table 3. Newman/ Keul's RangeTest
Age Croup NIqn Scorcs S.D was used to lind out the Significanceof
(fotal Scorcs)
diflcrence betweenMeans, the resultsof
6 +y e a n 201.t7
which are givcn in Table 4.
10.53
7+ yean 202.01 14.26
8 +y s n 235.14 17.44
9+ yers ?4Z.OO 14.24
10+ years 2Sl.64 I I .63

Table 3 : Nfean and StandardDcviarions for

Diffcrcnr Age Groups

Ag" Phonology Syntax Scmantics 'Iotai

Group Scorcs
l\'lean S.D. lltcan s.l). Mcan \ n l\{sn S.D.

I 87.46 2.55 5't.8? 7.43 56.32 7.70

(6+ years)
zot,17 10.5
3
II 88 . 8 2 2.88 55.95 n.|| 56.93 8.72 202.01
(7+ i'ears) t4.26

III 92.55 3.03 69.07 t3.62 72.00 8.96

(8+ years)
235.14 17.44
IV 93.79 3.20 70.87 '7.72
78.03 8.32 242.00 t4.24
(9+ ycars)

96.25 2.30 73.43 8.34 E1 . 9 3 5 . 88 25t.&

(l 0+ years)

Table 4 : Significancc of lho diffcrencc berwccn

l\lcans (Nc*.nan/Keul,s Rangc 1.csr). * _ ildjcargs
signi{icant diJTcrencear 0.05 level

Agc Groups. Total Scorcs l)honol ogv S) ntrx Scmantics

6+ Vs 7+
-
6+ Vs 8+
r *
6+ Vs p+
6+ Ys l0+
i *
7+ Vs 8+
* *
7+ Vs 9+
* *
7+ Vs l0+
t t
8+ Vs 9+
* *
8+ Vs l0+
* *
9+ Vs l0+
* *
l8 I Suchitra and Karanlh

It wasobservedthat theMean score SectionII - i.c.,Syntax rangesfrorn (57.87

obtaincd for Phonology was signi{icantly ! 7 .43) to (73.43+ 8.43) from Grade I to
higher than that for syntax and scmantics. GradcV. Inrprovementin mcantotal scores
In all the threc tasks therc was a suddcn is evidcnt I'lom 8+ years onwards thouglt
changein the performancebetwcenthe ages not as signil'icantas in Phonology.
of 7-8 yearcand the scorcsin all thc tasks In vicw of the lact that a chancc
increasedasa functionofagc. Fromthe age lactoris high in the youngcragegroupsin
of 7+ to 10+ years the chiltlrcn obtaincd g r a m m a t i c a l i t yj u d g c m c n t t a s k s , t h e
.
highest scorcsin Phonology {bllowcd by' GrammaticalitySensitivityIndcx (A') as
Scmanticsand Syntax. Howcverchildrcn givcn by Line.barger, Schwartzand Saffran
in the agc groupof 6+ ycArs,obtainedhigh- (19u3)was computcdfor cachchild in the
cstscoresin Phonologyfollowedby Syntax prcsentstudy. The GiammaticalityScnsi-
and Semantics. tivity Indcx(A') is a nonparan'letric
indexof
From thc mcan scoresobtainedbY scnsitivity basedupon thc estimatcdarca
thc childrcnin thcsclivc agcgroups,il.was undcr thc rcccivcropemting-characteristic
evidentthatbcginningwith a scorcoIaround (ROC) curvcwhich is thcorcticallyequalto
50 at the agc ol6 thcrc was a graclualbut thc proportionof correct rcsponscsattain-
consistcntincreasein scorcswith a sharp ablc in a two altcrnatcforccdchoicc proce-
rise around thc age o{' 7-8 years lbr tlrc clurcand assuchprovidcsa puremeasureof
semantic and syntactic scctionsof LPT. scnsitivity.
The resultsshorveda highcr levcloI phono- Thc mcanscoresof Index of sensi-
logical developmentthroughtltc itgc rangc LivityA'obtaincdby thcdiflcrentagcgroups
studied. on thc dilfcrcnt syntacticstructurcsin thc
In theearlierstudy(Karanth,1984), currcnLstudyis givcn in Table5.
Childrenbclow6 ycarcwcrc unablcto carry Thc avcragevalucA acrossthe five
out thc taskon scctionII -Syntax - which agcgroupscanbc scento incrcaselrom 0.61
calls for judgcmcntof syntacticacccptabil- in grammati-
to 0.80 indicatingan inctease
ity of a givcn itcm. Thcscchildrentcndcdto cal sensitivily with an incrcasein age.
accept or rcjcct all givcn itcms without Howevcr, the maximum scnsitivity
discrimination.At around5.10 years of (A' = 1.0)wasnot attaincdcvenby thc agc
age,childrcnwcrel'oundto attemptthe task of' I I ycrrs.
and perlorm at a chancclcvcl ol'50, gradu- The findingsclerrly showcda dif-
prol'icicncyby
ally achicvirrgabout80-9}a/a I'crcntial ratco l' acqui siti on o l' grammlti cal
about12.6yearsoI age,with a sharprisc itl scnsitivity across thcsc catcgories. Tbe
gramnraticalityjud gemcnt abiI ity bctwccn scnsitivity to plural markcrs was alrcady
6-9 yearsol'age. Thc meantotal scorcsin high throughout.On thc othcrhand,sensi-
 Linguistic Profile TesrI l9

Table 5 : Mean Scores of Jndex of Sensitiv.ity (A') for diffcrcnt ag,egroups

Sl.No. Icm 6+ ysrs 7+ yen 8+ ycars 9+ yers I 0+years

A. Vorphophonemic 0.54 0.56 0.7t) 0.87 0.87

slructure
B. Plural forms 0 . 85 0.ti0 0.ti7 0.ti9 0.89
C. Tenses o.52 0.50 0.(r5 0.64 0 . 58
D. PNG lrlarkcrs 0.69 0.66 0.80 0.E7 0.89
E- Case iUarkers 0.54 0.61 0.'t3 0.s0 0.86
F. Transitiye 0.65 0.63 0.84 0.82 o.8l
Inrronsivc &
Causariyes
G. Scnrencefypa 4.73 0.64 0.82 0.'19 0.87
II. Prcdicates 0.47 0.49 0.{ilt 0.67 0.87
I. Conjuncrions 0.60 0.62' 0.(r9 0.7? 0.72
cotnParativcs&
quolatlon
J. Condirional 0.61 0.64 0.70 0.12 0.72
Clauss
N. l,anlctPtal 0.47 0.55 0.6(, 0.69 0.69
constructiot

x 0.61 0.61 0.77 0.79 0.69

tivity to parlicipialconstructionswas Iow- indcx) wirlrin rhe catcgorywirh the highdst

cst at agc 6-7 ycars and increascdvcry scorcbcingrankcd I andthe lowest 11.
graduallyrcachingonly 0.7 at thc highcsr As sccn fiom thc tablc it was cvidcnt thar.
age level beingtcstedhcrc i.c., l0+ years. plu ralswcl'ct"hcmostscnsitivcin all thefive
In contrastscnsitivityto prcdicatcswaslow agc groupsstuclicdhcrc. Tlrc itcnrs i.c.,
in thc agcgroup of 6+ ycarsand 7+ ycars, morphophoncl'nicst.ructurcs,pNG ntark_
incrcascd dramaticallywithinthc ncxt ycar crs, and prcdicatcswcrc rcliltively
morc
(8+ ycars)and thc santewas maintaincd scnsitivc
contparcdto thercstof thc items,
across the older age grcups. The othcr showinga dcvclopmcntal
trcnd acrossthe
subcate goriesfall in bctwccnthcsecxtrcntcs agcgroupstuc'licd hcrc.Thc itemsi.c.,.casc
indicatingdiffcrentialscnsitivityto clifltr- m a r k c r s , t r a n s i t i v c ,
i n L r a n s i t i v ca n d
ent syntactic stl'uctures atvariousagcs.But causal.ivcs, scntcncctypes, conjunctivcs,
thcrc wasan ovcrall incrcascin scnsitivity conrparativcs andquotativcs andconditional
to all the structurcstcstcdacrossthc agc clauscscxhibitcda lorv
scnsitivitythrough-
rangcsstudicdhcrc. Thc varioussubcal._ out. Thc itcns i.c. participial
construcrtions
cgorics wcrc also rankcdin ordcr ol'tJc_ andtcnscs cxhibitcdlowcstscnsitivity across
crciisingscorcs(bascdon thc scnsitivitv illl thc lgc groupsstudic(l
hcrc.
20 I Suchitra and Karanth

Table. 6. Ranking of subcategories (items of Syntax seclion) basedon Scnsirivity indcr.

6+ys 7+yK 8+ yrs 9+ ys l0+yrs

Rank Items Rank Items Rank lrems Rant Items Rank ltems

l B 1 B I It I R 1.5 B&I)
2 B 2 D 2 t i
3 D 3.5 c&J 3 F 3 A.D.&[l
4 F 4 G 4 A.c.&lt
5 J 5 F 5 D 5 F
6 I 6 I ( r A ( r l l 6 . E
7.5 E&A 7 E 7 L 7 Q 7 F
9 C 8 A J 8.5 I&J 8.5 I&J-
10.5 K&It 9 K 9 r
1 0 c l 0 K r 0 K 1 0 K
l 1 H l l c l l c

The mean scoresand standarddcviation for thc dili'crcnt items of the Semantic
sectionaregiven in Table 7.
'l'able
7 : Mean and S.D. for diffcrent itcms of the Scmrnric Section of l-P'f

'l+
Items 6+
N o . X S . D . X S . D , s.D

4.2 t.4 4.2 r.2 4.8 0.9 4.7 0.9 5 0

5.0 0.0 5.0 0 5 0 5 . 0 5 0
1.3 4.3 1.3 4.5 l.l 4.6 0.9 4.6 1.0

I 19.4 2.2 i9.9 0.3 19.8 0.5 19.6 t.'l t9.9 0.2
2 rr.L J. I 6.8 z.<, 9.5 2.3 9.1 3.1 10.0 7.2
3 0.3 0.'l 0.4 0.9 2.2 1.6 3,6 1.7 3.6 1.7
4 0.2 0.8 0.6 I.3 2.6 1.6 3.2 l.E 4.0 1.2
5 0.03 0.? 0.03 0.2 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.5 t.z
6 7.4 Z.O /.o 2.2 9.0 0.9 8.9 0.8 9.2 0.9
7 2.3 r.7 2.0 1.1 3.5 l.5 1.2 4.4 1. 1
8 2.3 ].0 2.5 3.9 0.8 4.0 0.9 4.3 0.1
9 1.9 1. 2 7.3 0.8 ?.9 0.9 3.5 l.l 3.1 1.1
l0 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.4 2.8 1.6 3.1 3.8 1.2
II 0.4 l. I 0.5 1.0 2.4 1.6 2.9 r.6 3.5 1,7

Under the semanticsection,better [or nrostof thc items in ScctionIII-A (Se-

perforrnance wasobservedfor itemsin sec- mantic Discrimination)was higher (with
tion III-A - SemanticDiscriminationas scoresreachingmaximunllevelevenforthe
asainstSectionIII-B. The nreantotalscorcs Iowestagogroup(whcn compareclto scorcs
 Linguistic Profile Test | 2 I

in SectionIII-B SemanticExprcssion)wherc lbr all items was obvious acrossthe age

differential performancewas observedfor rangestudicdi.e.,with increasein age,the
the itenisacrossall agegroupsstudicdhere. pcrformanccwas better with a spurt in
Betterperformancefor itcm No. 2 (Fumi- growthof theseabilitiesat around8+ years.
ture)asagainstthe item No. 1 (Colour)and BetterpcrfbrrnancewasobservedIbr items
item No. 3 (Botly parts)was found. Maxi- Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, & 2 (i.e. Polar questions,
mum scoreshavebeenobtained by children scmantic,Syntagmaticrelationsand Lexi-
of 6+ yearsagegroupof item No.2, whcreas cal categoryrespcctivcly)and a compara-
the findingsfor the otheritcms (itcm No. I tivcly poorcrpcrformancewasobservcdfbr
& 3 ) indicate a gradualimprovementin iteni Nos. 3, 4, 11 & l0 (SynonymY,
performancefrom 8+ yearsagegroup,with Antonymy,Semanticsimilarity andsem'an-
perfomancereachingmaximum lcvcl only tic contiguityrespectively).
at thehighcstagegroupstudicd(i.e.l0 yrs). Thus the lindings in thc scmantic
The mean scoreson itent No. 1 - scctionof this studyweresirnilarto thosein
Naming under sectionIII - B - Setnantic thc syntax scctioni.e., Maximum scores
Expression,indicatedan overall betterper- wcfc not obtainedeven by the oldest age
formancecomparedto other itcms in this groupstudicd(i.c.,l0+ years).
section.withmaximumscoresattaincd evcn
Discussion
at 6+ ycarslcvcl (theyoungcstagcgroupin
the curent study). The performancewas Thc findingsin the Phonologicsec-
relativcly san"reacrossagc groups and re-tionwcrc in agrccmcnt with the findingsof
mained high throughout.It may bc scen thc carlicr sl"ucly (Karanth,1984),andcon-
that whilc thc pcrfbrrnanccon sclnanl.ic lirnicd thc carlicr obscrvationthat phono-
discriminationwASalrcldyhigh (Maximunt logicaldevclopmcntwas almos[complcte
scoreswere attainedcven at thc lowcstage by the timc thc child rcachcs6 yearsand
group studied i.e., 6+ ycars) thc pcr'for- bcyondihis thesamclcvcl wasmaintained.
manccon itcm No. 5, i.c.,Hornonynts(pro- The Iindingsin the Syntaxscctiotl
viding altematemeaningsfor words)was in tltcntcantotalscorcs
i.c.ln irnprovclltcnt
poor and remainslow throughoul- across ['rom 8+ ycars, wcrc in agrcementwith
the agegroups studied.Though thcrcwas thosc reportcd by Bohannon (1916),
an improvemcnt at [i+ years, the ovcrall (1979),Hakcs(1980)and
Karrnilo{'f-Smith
perlbrmanccrvaslowcr at all stages.Thc Tunmer& Bowcy( 1982).
Vanklcck( 19112),
othcr items fail in betwcentheseextrcmcs Thc ovcralllindingsof the Syntax
indicatingdif fercntialpcrlbnnanceto dif- ol'tlre currcl-ltstudy confinncd the
scclior"l
fcrcntscmlntic structurcs lt variousagcs. f indingsof thc prcviousstudy (Karanth,
An ovcrall incrcaseor bctter pcrformancc l98zl)and wcrc in agrccnlcnlrvith the con-
 22 I Suchitra and Karanth

clusion of the earlierstudy that adutt like The I'indingsin thc Scmanticsec-
sensitivityto grammaticality judgcmentis tion, i.e.lbr itcrns in SectionIII-A arc in
acquircdby adolescence. The findingsthat agrcemcntrviththc study by Hult"tenlocher,
beginning around 6-7 years, childrcn arc Smilcy and Ratncr, (1974) whcrein, it is
gradually ablc to make judgcmcntsmorc reportcdthat thc objcct conceptsscem to be
like adults by cvaluatingthe propcrticsol' anrongfirst "naturallanguageconccpts"to
the sentenceswas also in agreementwith bc acquircd, Childrcn comprehen<J and
theearlicrobservati
onsof Bohannon(1976), producc words which group perceptually
SchoolandRyan(1980)andHakcs(t9tt0). similarobjccts, bothanimateandinaninrate
The findingsol'thisstudy arc alsoin conso- b y a p p r o x i m a r c l y[ 4 m o n t h s ( C o l d i n -
nancewith Karmiloff-Snrirh"s (1979) as- Mcadow cL al 1976,Huttenlochcr,1974).
certuinthat by ageof 8 ycars the child has The in{brmation involvedin thccatcgoriza-
attaineda more abstractlcvcl of iinguistic tion is pcrccptualand may be rcpresentable
compctencewith which hc can cope witli- in the {brrn of prototypcsor imagesof the
outIunctional,scmanticandpragmatic
pro- avcrageunit. This early cnrcrgenccnright
cedurcsof normal languagc usagc. In a bcalsoducto thcirhavingbccnnamcdnrorc
morerccenIstudyon grammaticality judge- I ' r c q u e n t l y t h a n a n y o t h e r c a t c g o r y
ment tasks,carricdout in India,Vasantha, (Huttcnlochcr, Smilcy and Rarner,1983).
Shastryand Marurh(1989) rcportsimillr f stomina(1963)and Johnson(1977) l'r.om
findings [ha[ an increascin granrmatical thcir study rcportthat evcn tlroughanlong
judgcmcntability is sccn l-rom4.5 to 8:-5 thc carlicstadjcctivcsin chiltlrcnsvocabu-
yearswiLha dramaticimprovcmcntaroun.l Iary arc colour words,yet youngchililrcn
6.5+ 7 years.Vasanthaet al concludcthat are notoriouslybad at using colourworcls
by aboutthe ageof 8 ro 8.5 yearsan asymp- appropriatcly. Any complcLcaccounl.re-
totc is rcachedby which tirle thc perfor- gardingacrluisitionof colour words rvill
m a n c ci s a l m o s ta d u l tl i k c . H o w c v c rt l r c havc to ptoglcssin studiesthat relatctlris
rcsultsof theprescntstudyindicatcthatthis a s p c c to c h i l d ' sc o n c c p t u aal n dl i n g u i s t i c
might be lrue only of thc particularstruc- d c v c l o p m c n t .
tures includcd in tlreir srudy. Wirh rhb Thc {'indingsfor itcnrsin Section
inclusion of more conrplcx struct.ures
thc III-B agrcc with thosc of Bowcr (1914)
increasein grammatical judgcrnentability whcrcin carlicr rccognitionol' fanrili.arper-
canbe shownto incrcascuntil 12-14years sonsund objcctsin lrranydil't'crcnt
oi.icnra-
of age(Karanth,1984)and is alsocvidcnt tionsandcontcxtsat around6-7monthshas
from the findingsof thecurrcntstutlywhcrc bccnrcport"cdstatingthatcognitivcabilities
maximum scnsitivity(A = 1.0) is not at- thai arc prc-rccluisitcfor lcaming propcr
taincdevenat 11 yearsof age. nanresarc prcscnLwcll bcl'orcspccch.
 Linguistic Profile Tesr | 23

The rcsultsof studicson similar appcarin spontancous spccchin dataarenot

items (items similar to itcm nos. wolds Ibr inhcrcntproperticsof objcctslike
2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 1&0 l l o f L P T ) i n d i c a t er h a r colour or shapcrather thcy arc temporary
the lindingsareon similarlines with thatof sl.atessuchas hot, wct etc. In contrastto
the presentstudy. Howe & Hillman (1973) cithcr objcctor inhercntproper-ties
or tem-
found in theirstudy thatevcnlbur ycarolds porarystates,rclationalproperties(eg : big,
showed somc ability to discriminatebe- small) involvc a relationalnotion namely
tween sentenccs that violatcsclectionalre- thc comparisonol'a targctobjcct to some
strictionsandonesthatdo not. Researchon standard.Bdrrlcrt(1976) rcporrsthat chil-
children'sabilitiestb judge lhat scntcnccs drcn comprehcndthc comparativescnseof
are ambiguousalso suggcstthat t"lrisability b i g a n d s r n l l l b y 2 . 5 y c a r s. . N c l s o n &
i n c r c a s e sc o n s i d c r a b l yd u r i n g m i d d l e Bcncdict(1974) rcporr rhlI sccond'class
childhoodandeven bcyond(Kcsscl, 1970) rclativc appcarsonly after thc age of 6
Schultz& Pilon I973). Thc pcrfornrancc of ycars. Words that spccify rclationships
the 6 ycar old was sul'l'icicntlypoor for ali bctwccn pcoplc,objectsand eventsoccur
kinds of arnbiguitics resrccl.Acceptability cluitc carly in child's languagc,but the
tasksinvolvingscmanticrcstrictionshavc meaningso[ nrost rclationalwords are not
also bccn studicdby Howc and Hillman accluircdin all t"heirconrplcxity until thc
(1973)andJamesandMillcr(1973). Thcir child is 4 or -5ycarsor oldcr (cleVilliers &
study indicatcdthat borh5 and 7 ycar old de Villicrs, 1982). Sevcralsrudieshave
wcre capablco{' distinguishingbetwccrr dcviscdlanguagegamesto tcst childrcn's
meaningfuland anomalousscntencesin- knowlcdgc ol' spatial adjcctivcs. Clark
volving + aninratc<lr + hunransclcction. (1912)lcportsof a consisrcnt ordcrotdiffi-
The resultsof thc currclrtstudyarc in agrcc- cutty oI spatialadjcctivesin the opposite
ment.witl-rthe studicsof Howe & Hillman ganrc. So llso in the study by Carcy and
(1913)andJamesand Millcr (1973). Evcn Considinc,(1973). The youngcstchildren
tht:youngcstagegroup in thecuncnt study in Clark's study with a mcan age of 4.4
(6 + years)havc corrcctlyjudgcd the scn- could produccscmanticallyappropr.iate re-
tcnccNo.3ol'itcm 7. Whcrcaspoor pcrfor- sponscsto big and small. Whereasonly
mancc in tcmtsof'judging and cxplaining 82c/aandtiO7n gavc appropriatcrcsponses
the anrbiguityis lbund lbr scntcnces
No. l, to Iong/shortandtall/shortrespectivcly.For
2 & 5. ScntcnceNo. 4 lrasbccnacccptcdls othcr s^piltiitl
adjectivcs,thc thc pcrcentage
anomalouscven by thc youngcst group. of'appropriiltctcsponseswas457cfor high/
Thesetindingsarein linc wirh Lhcfindings low, lLc/a{or tlrick/thitr,7a/afor wide/nar-
of Huttenlockcr,Srnilcy& Rctncr (l9ti3) row, Zc/olbr dccp/shallow. Carcy &
who report that lhe carliestadjcctivcsto Consiclinc(1973)havenotcdthat the rela-
 24 I Suchitra ancl Karanth

tive frequencywith which eachpairappears ing developmentwherethe studiessought

in thelanguageof adults(Kucere& Francis to cxaminethe developments
occurringbe_
1967) and in the speechof 5 year ol<1s twccn the ages of 4-g years in tliverse
(Wepman& Hess 1969)also parriallypre_ mctalinguisticabilities.
dicts the order of difficulry of thcseadjec_
Accordingto Flavell (197g,tggt)
tives for children. Similar findings are the developmento[ all meta-abilities,in_
observcdin the current stucly. cludingmctalinguisticawareness is thought
Sack and Beilin (1971) reporrthat to occur gradually over a period of years
the abilitytojudge synonymyemergeslater duringchildhood.
thanthe abitity to undcrstandthe scntences
The findingsthar,from the ageof 7
being judged. The rcsulrs of this study yearsto 10 yearsthc childrenobtainedlow_
suggestthat thereis a substantialdcvelop_ esl scoresin syntaxfollowed by semantics
mentduringmiddlechildhoodof children,s and phonologywhereas the childrenof 6+
ability to judge synonymy and rhat this years,obtaincdlowcst scoresin semantics
developmentoccurslaterthan the dcvelop_ followed by syntaxand phonology cannot
ment of the ability to undcrstandthe sen_ bc attributcdto thedilfcrencein administra_
tcncesjudgcd. Further,they also suggest tion (i.e.partsof thetcsrbcing administered
that younger children (first graders and to the children of 6+ and 7+ years indi_
younger)may pcrformsystematically worse vidually and to the childrenof g+, 9+ and
thanchanceon synonymoussentencepairs. 10+ yearsin group) as the similar results
More recently,attentionhas boen havc been found in thc earlier studies
focusscdon linguisticdevelopmcnts occur- Karanth(19S4 a )n dK u d v a( 1 9 9 1 )w h e r c i n .
ring al'tcrageof 4-5 years,aroundthe time the testwas administere<J
individually.
when childrcnbcgin to leam to read. Rc_
Tlrc ovcrail findingsin lbe cunent
scarch(Tunmcr & Bowey, (1994) on rhe studywhich is in concurrcnce with the re_
nature of linguistic developmentduring sultsol'thc earlierstudiesKaranth(19g4),
middlcchildhoocl(rhcpcriodfrom 4_gyears) Rangasayce ct al (1988)andKudva (1991)
revealsthatnot only is therea continuation indicaterhelbllorving:
qf earlierdeveloprnentalprocesses, - As the difference in the younger
butthere age
emergesa new kind of linguistic function- groups i.e. 6+ and 7+ years is not statisticalty
sig
ing, which has been rcferrcd to as nificant thepicturisedversion of the test (RRTC
Test
Metalinguistic Battery) has beenfound to be use.fulfor tlte younger
clevelopmcnr. Hakes(19g0)
age groups i.e. below 7 years.
reportsthatthe revicw of existingliteratur.c
- LP'I' can be usedJor evaluating
suggestsrhar during middle childhooda chiltlren
above 7 years of age,thescoresin the age groupi
o1
wide varictyof linguisticabilities_ those 7+,8+,9+, and l0+ yearsbeing stati.stically signifi_
characterizcdas Metalinguisticshow strik_ cant for the total scores as well as
for the three
 Lingui.^tic profile Tesr | 25

sections of the LpT. In the p honology

section,where
most of the phonological developttent References
is complete by
6 years, the test (LpT) can be used to
check phono_ Bartlert.E.J.(1976). Cired in chaprer
logical compelence in chiltlren. 5. <ieVilliers.
J.C. and Dc Villiers, p.A. (Eds).
Language Acqui_
TheLinguisticprollle Testcanalso .sition (pp 121-150). Cambridge
: Harvard Univer_
beusedasabasisfor therapeutic programme sity Press. 1982.
i.e. the pcrformanceof an individual Bartlett, E.I. (1977). Citecl
in Huucnlocher, J.,
with
referenceto itcms within cachsection Smiley, P and Ratner,H. Whar
do word meaninss
can rcveal aborrrconccpLual
be looked into by the therapistfor developmenr? _Thcorv rJ.t
eg: in researchon action rvords. I)art
Syntax scction- the performanccon 5 : In Sciler, Th.B.
differ_ and Wanncn l\,lacher,W (Eds).
Concept Develop_
ent structurescan be observcdand nent and the DevelopmentofWord
notco meaning(pp 2i0-
down andappropriatestepsforrcmccliation 234), Ncw York: Springcr_Vcrlag.
19g3.
can be planned. In Semanticssection, Bicrwisch (1970). Cireclin chapter
5. de Villiers,
an
ideaabouttheacquisitionof J.G. and dcvillicrs,p.A. (Ecls).
concepts which Language Acquisi-
tir,tn-(Pp 121-150)Cambriclge
areincludcdin thescitcmsis of grcat : HarvarclUnivcrsitv
help in Prcs.s.1982.
planning spccch- languagethcrapy
cspe_ Bohannon, J.N. (1976).. Normal
cially in youngchildrcn with speech_lan_ granrntar ancl Sramblccl
in rliscrimination,imitarion ancl
conrore"
guage-hearingdisorders whoareyel to leam Ircnsion. C'hildDtvetopnent, 17,(lrp 669 Ogl
).
the basic aspectsof speechJanguagc. B o r . v c rT, . C . ( l 9 7 , l ) . C i r c c li n
C h a p r c5r . d e V i l l i c r s ,
J.C. , and dc Villiers, p.A. (Eds).
LanguageAcqui_
C o n cl u si o n sition. (Pp 121-l50) Cambrirlgc
: Hervarrl Uniuer_
sity l)ress.1982).
Thc LinguisticprollleTcst is usc_ Brorv, ft. (1973). A Fir:st language.
The Earlv
ful Ibr idcntiljcationof language stagcs. Londr>n: Ccurgc Allcn
disordcrs & Unrvin Ltd.
and also in findingout the areaof Carcy, S., an<lConsiclinc (1g-/3).
dclLcit. ,.7. Citeciin Chap-
Individuallinguisticprolilcs givc tcr .5.dc Villicrrs,J.G., ancl6e
Villiers, p.A. (Edr.
a clcar
picturcof thcpcrfonuancc LangLtageAcqui,sitiort.(lrp 121-150).
atvariouslevcls. Cambridge:
HarvarclUnivcrsiryPrcss.19g2.
The profiles canalso be uscdfbr rc_cvalua_
Clark, E.K. (lg]-Z). Cired in chaprcr
tion for assessingprogrcssfrom 5.cleVilliers,
time to J . G . ,a n d d c V i l l i e r s ,p . A . ( E d s ) .
L a n g u a g e, l c q u i -
time and as a basis for therapcutic ,tition. (l>p l2l 150). Cambridge
: Harvard Univer-
programmcs. sity l)rcss.1982.
C L r r k ,E . V . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . C i t c d i n c h a p r c r . 5 .
c t cV i l l i e r s ,
Acknorvleclgement J . C . a n d d e V i l l i e r s ,p . A . ( E d s ) .
L a n g u a g e A c q u i ._
'sition,(Pyt121-150).Canrbri<lgc
We areexrremclygratcfulto lhc : Hervar<lUniue.r_
aurhori- s i t v l ) r c s s .l 9 l J 2 .
iics,Heatll\{istrcsscQ. Sraffof J.S.S.primary School,
. S t r r : r s r v a t h i p t i n[ r_i.nrt,rh c p c r m i s s i o n C l a r k , H . H . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . c i r c <iln C h a p t e r
t o c o l l c c rt h c 5. clcVillicrs,
data at their schoolan<lthc children J.C., and dc Villicrs, p.A. (Etl.s).
rvhocnthusilis- Lttttguage,lcqui-
tically participaredin thc clatacollccrion sitir,tn.(Ilytl2 I -150). Carnbri<lge
: HarvarclUniuer-
proccss.
s i L 1I,) r c s s . 1 9 8 2 .
 26 I Suchitraand Karanth

dc Villiers, J.G. antt dc Villiers, l'.A. (1982). Lan- slty.

guageAcquisilion. Cambridge: HarvardUnivcrsiry Huttenlochcr,.I.,Smilcy, P., and Rarner,H. (1983)"
Press. Citcd in Part 5. Seilcr, Th. 8., ancl Wannernracher.
F l a v e l l J, . H .( 1 9 7 8 ) .C i r c di n P a r t I I I - 3 . 1 ) .T u n m e r , W. (Eds). Concept Development and the Develop-
W.E., Pratt, C., and Hcrrirnan, M.L. (Etls). me,il of lVord neaning (lrp 210-234). Ncrv york :
Metalinguistic Awarenessin chiltlren. Thcory, Re- SpringcrVcrl:rg. 1983.
searchand Implicarions(Pp 128-143). Ncw york : lstomina,Z. N{.( 1963). Circdin Chaprir.5.dc Villiers,
SpringerVcrlag. 1984. J.G.,and clc Villiers, p.A. (Eds). LanguageAcqui-
F l a v e l lJ, . H .( 1 9 8 1 ) .C i t c d i nI r a r t l l l - ( 3 . 1 ) T
. unmcr, sition. (Pp I 21- I 50). Cambriclge: HarvarclUniver-
W . 8 . , P r a t t , C . , l n c l H c r r i r n a n , l \ , 1 . L (. E d s ) . sity l)rcss.1-(ill2.
Metalingui.rticilwareness in childrcn. Thcory, Rc- Janrcs,S.L., and Miller, J,f. (1973). Cited in part Il
scarchand Implicarions(Pp i28-l 3). Ncw york . (2.3) Tunmcr, W.8., Prarr,C., and Herriman,M.L.
SpringcrVcrlag. 1984. (E<ls).M et a I i ng ui st ic rlwa r eneslgi n chi kl r en.' N ew
Ccctha,H. (198f.;).3D-LungLtageil<:qui.tition'l'est Y o r k : s p r i n g c rV e r l a g . 1 9 8 4 .
(3D-LAT). Disscrtation. 1v11,5,,r" : Universityof J o h n s o nE, . C . ( 1 9 7 0 ) .c i t c c il n c h a p r c r 5 . d cV i l l i c r s ,
lvlysore. J.C., and dc Villicrs, P.A. (E<ls).Languagetlcqui-
Goldin-Mcadow (1976). Circd in Part 5. Sciler, sition.(121-150). Canrbridce: HarvardUniversiry
Th.B., and Wanncn IVlachcr,W. (Eds). Concept I)rqss.1982.
Development and the Developrnent rtf lI/ord Mean- Kamalini, P. ( I 98 6). 3D -Lang Ltagetlcq ui,si t ion'{est
ing, (210-234). Ncw York : Springer Vcrlag. 19ti3.., and the Mentally Retarded. Disscrtation.
Mysorc :
H a k e s , D . T . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . T h c D c v c l o p m c n to f U n i v c r s i t vo f M v s o r c .
Mctalinguistic Abilirics in chil<lrcn. Bcrlin : Karirnth,P. (1980). t\ Comparative ilnalysis rl'
SwpringcrVcrlag. Apha.sicruul Sr:hizophrenicLanguage. Doc:toral
Harold,A.P., and Thomas,P.M. (1981). itppraisal Thcsis. Nlys<>rc : Univcrsity of lVIysorc.
and Diagnosis of Spcer:hand Language Disorders. Karanth,P.(i9ll0) b. "Linguistics antl Aphttsia -
( P p 1 0 2 - 1 5 7 ) .L o n d o n : P r c n t i c cH a l l . |e.ttingarul'l'ht:rapy" - Scr-ninaron Ncurolinguisrics
H c i d c r ,E . R . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . C i r c di n c h a f i t c r5 . d c . V i l l i c r s , an Aphasia. Annual ConfcrcnccISHA. Hyderabad.
J.G.,and dc Villicrs, Ir.A. (Eds). LanguageAr:qui- K a r a n t h , l )( .l 9 l t l ) . L i n g u i s r i c :sT h e rE v a l u i r i o na n d
s i l i r r l . ( l ) p l 2 l - 1 5 ( ) ) .C u n r h r i r l g:cH u r v a r rUl n i v c r - Rcnrcrrlirrti<rn of'Langurrgein Aphasics. Indittn Lin-
sity l)rcrss.
1982. 1 4 u i s r i c3s- ,4 , ( l r p 1 8 1- 1 8 7 ) . P u n e .
HeiderE
, . R .( 1 9 7 2 ) . C i t c di n c h a p r c r . 5d. e V i l l i c r s , l). ( 19ll4). I nter - r elat iottship s o.fLing ui.st ic
Krrrrrnth,
j.G. anddc Villicrs, P.A.(Eds). LanguageAcquisi- Deviturceantl Socktl Deviance - JCSSR young So-
tion. (l'p I 2l - 1.50). Carlhri<lgc: lllrvarrl Univcr- cial Scicntist'sFcllorvshipRclnrr. Nlysore: Cl1L.
sity.1982. Karanth.f).and R*nganrani,G.(1988). Linguisric
Howc, H.E., and Hillman,D. (1973). Citcd in Prol'ile'l'e.st - ln1tli:a1lrtn.tfor the Diagnosis and
chaptcr2. Uakcs, D.T.'l'he Nature of Lletalinguistic L'ltna g ement o!' La ng uag e D i.so r tler s. XIV Annu al
tlbilities. (Pp 21-40). Bcrlin : Springcr Vcrlag. Conl'erencc oI DraviclianLinguistic Associarion.
isso. Kuruntlr,I).Ahuja,J.K.,Nagaraja,D.,I?andit,R.,anil
Huttcnlochcr,
J. ( 1974).citcclin chaprcr5. dc Villicrs, Shivirshrrnk:rr,N.
(,l990). CrossCulturrtt Stuclie.s
of
J.C., and de Villicrs, P:r.(Eds).Longuage Acquisi- tlph.asfus- SytnposiurnctnAplttt.sias
- Language and
t i o n . ( P p 1 2 1 - 1 - 5 0 )C
. l n r b r i r l g c : H a r v u i dU n i v c r . Cognitirtn.I)rocccrclings
of the XIV WorlclCongress