Influence of Semantic Richness on Word Form Learning in Children With Developmental Language Disorder.

The sample is small: 36 children, 18 per group, so any comparison between the groups rests on small numbers. The three conditions were always given in the same order, no cue first, sparse second, rich third. The drop in accuracy with the rich cue therefore cannot be separated from that condition simply being the last thing the children did. Only Sessions 2 and 3 are reported; the first session, in which children heard the word forms with no meaning at all, was not included. Comprehension and naming were tested only once per word, and the authors themselves say these single instances may not capture how well a child has learned a word's meaning. The pictures differed between conditions (a tool and an instrument for the sparse cue; a creature and a vehicle with a face for the rich cue), and the authors say features of the objects themselves may explain part of the comprehension result. All the novel words shared one stress pattern and one consonant-vowel shape, so the findings say nothing about more varied word forms. The task was imitating made-up words in a lab, not learning words a child actually needs.

The work was funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (grants R01 DC018410 and R01 DC04826). The paper's funding and conflicts section names only these grants and thanks the families who took part. No commercial sponsor or competing interest is declared.

Do not conclude from this study that giving a child rich word meaning is harmful. The rich cue was always the third and last condition, so its effect cannot be separated from timing, and the authors state they would not recommend teaching words without their referents. Do not read the small differences between the two groups as a reliable size of effect either; there were only 18 children per group.