Language Development for Mainstreamed Severely Handicapped Non-Verbal Children

Author(s): Carole Edelsky and T. J. Rosegrant

Source: Language Arts, Vol. 58, No. 1, Professional Concerns (January 1981), pp. 68-76
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41961270 .
Accessed: 07/12/2014 15:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Language Arts.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Carole
Edelsky
T. J. Rosegrant

Language
Mainstreamed
Handicapped

Development

for

Severely
Non-Verbal

Children
The 1975 passing of Public Law 94.142, the Education forAll Handicapped Children
Act, declared that an estimated 7-8 million handicapped children had the rightto
free,appropriate education. By law the states were given a two-yeargrace period to
plan for the education of handicapped children with a full obligation to meet the
educational needs of childrenfromthreeto eighteen years of age by the Fall of 1978.
The term "handicapped children" referredto mentally retarded, hard of hearing,
deaf, speech impaired, visually or health impaired children, or children with
specific learning disabilities, who by reason thereofrequire special education and
service (P.L. 94.142). Yet in 1980 it is apparent that states are at widely varying
stages of compliance. The difficultyin implementationprobably stems frominsufficient funds, programs,policies, materials, stafftraining,and related servcies.
Basic to P.L. 94.142 is a right to education, which requires schools to find,
locate, and evaluate every handicapped child ages three to twenty-one.School personnel, along with parents, are required to plan an Individualized Education Program for each handicapped child, which includes regular and special education
services. Parents are guaranteed involvement in I.E.P.'s and are to be given due
process if their child's rightsare not observed by the school district.Handicapped
students are to receive placement according to the least restrictivealternative.This
means that these children are to be educated with their non-handicapped peers, or
placed in a programout of the "mainstream" only if it is deemed more appropriate.
Testing and evaluation must be based on multiple criteria,be culturallyindiscriminatory, be in the child's primary language, and include multiple testing approaches. For fiscalyear 1979 the federalappropriations relatingto P.L. 94.142 were
approximately804 million dollars (Sunderlin 1979).
Under the "handicapped" umbrella term a wide range of differenttypes of
68

Language Arts, Volume 58, Number 1, January1981

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"special needs" children is evident. For many of the subpopulations (e.g., retarded,
deaf, blind, learning disabled, aphasie), research, programsfortraining,and materials exist to help guide the classroom teacher and clinicians primarilyconcerned
with the language development of these children. Although much of this guiding
"support" is neither specific to mainstreamed classrooms nor theoretically
grounded in the most currentviewpoints regardingthe nature of language, at least
it exists. There is scarcelyany such support, however, forthose who work with one
sub-population of children: children with severe and multiple physical handicaps,
seemingly of average intelligence, and with attendant productive language disabilities (forexample, cerebral palsy).
With an increasing number of severely handicapped children in regularclassrooms, disparities are found between what is needed and what exists. Those of us
concerned with the development of language and language-relatedprocesses forall
children in regular classrooms have much to seriously consider. The overall concern, of course, is what would promote language development for these multiple
handicapped youngsters when mainstreamed. In other words, what are the legal
and professional obligations incurred by the phrase "least restrictiveenvironment"?
Broadly,we take "least restrictive"to mean "most conducive" to enhancing a
child's language development in the "most similar-to-real-worldcontexts." We believe this is our legal obligation, the intentof the law (Sunderlin 1979). More important, however, is our contentionthat our firstobligation as professionals is a negative one: to make certainthat we do not create more restrictiveenvironments.
On the one hand, there are tangential research findings to suggest that some
language environmentsmay be more restrictive(and therefore,possibly damaging)
forlanguage development. We are referringhere to findings on the deviant nature
of child-parentlanguage interactionswith already language disabled children (de
Villiers and de Villiers 1978), and on the problems in transferability
and authenticof
the
of
small
bits
of
some
of
ity
"learning"
sub-groups handicapped
language by
children under conditions of imitation and reward (Cohen and Plaskon 1978). On
the other hand, there is neither research establishing the longitudinal differential
effectivenessof language development programs forthese children (Menyuk 1975),
nor research on language acquisition in this population to conclusively indicate
what would be the least restrictiveenvironment. In a recent review of child language disabilities by well respected psycholinguistic researchers (deVilliers and
deVilliers 1978) there was not a mention of these children (cerebral palsy, non verbal). Clearly more research is needed. At this point, however, since we cannot be
guided by conclusive research, we have placed our confidence in educational linguistic theory, tempered by observation and experience with a group of six to
twelve-year-oldcerebral palsied children. That confidence leads us to propose certain principles to be considered in planning least restrictivelanguage development
environmentsfor these multiply handicapped children. The principles will most
likely be familiarto many readers of Language Arts, since they also referto good
language arts environments for "normal" youngsters. They have special significance and implications, however, for these children with extraordinarilyspecial
needs.
Language Development forMainstreamed Non-Verbal Children

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

69

The principles we have identified are: 1) knowledgeable teachers, 2) enhancenvironments,

3) appropriate programs and materials, 4) appropriate technoling
and 6) sophisticated notions of individualization. Alassessment,
5)
ogy, adequate
all
of
these
though
principles are interrelated, each is important and distinct
to
warrant
separate discussion.
enough
Knowledgeable Teachers
We are referringhere to the need for teachers to have an understanding of the
nature of language, language acquisition (normal and deviant), language interactions that co-occur with language acquisition, and language-in-use. Such basic understanding would include awareness of still unresolved major issues in these
areas.
Specifically,certain educational linguistic concepts (Spolsky 1978) should be
profoundlyunderstood by teachers. In relation to the nature of language, teachers
should know thatlanguage is systematic,finitelyrule-governedyet infinitelymeaningful(Halliday 1980). Contraryto the message of most speech pathologyliterature,
normal language acquisition should be understood as a process whereby children
create and test hypotheses about language systems and indeed create language for
themselves ratherthan "learn" it (Gilbert 1974). This happens as children use language (as opposed to practicing it for later use) for here-and-now non-linguistic
purposes. It is imperative that language arts educators know in the deepest sense
that: 1) though children may apply differentstrategies as the acquire language
(Bloom, Lightbown, and Hood 1975), they always acquire it through real use,
throughattemptsto encode or interpretintentions (Lindfors1980); 2) development
in one aspect of language or in one language-relatedprocess can affectdevelopment
in another (Crittenden1976); and 3) the native language is still being acquired during the elementaryschool years (Ingram 1975; Emerson 1980).
As fornon-normal language acquisition, teachers must be aware that there is
still a controversyover whether this acquisition is merelydelayed, trulydeviant, or
delayed and deviant depending on the child's attendanthandicaps (Menyuk 1975;
Morehead and Morehead 1976).
Knowledgeable teachers would know that certain featuresof parent/childinteractionseem to "conspire" to provide an optimum contextforlanguage acquisition. Presentationof a whole systemratherthan discrete parts, talk about the hereand-now, individualized interaction,focus on meaning, and an encouraging, relaxed stance are such features (Edelsky 1978). Informedteachers would also know
that these featuresand others are sometimes distortedin interactionswith children
with language problems. This is not to say that such interactionscause the disabilities. However, they may exacerbate the problems.
Teachers who understand language also know that language-in-use is intentional, situationallyvaried (Hymes 1972), and entails pragmatic competence. The
latter,though never exactly synchronized with syntacticcompetence, is nevertheless often more aberrant in language disabled children (Dale 1980). Additionally,
language arts professionalsmust realize the significanceof a particulartype of variation in language use by handicapped children- variation which interacts with
channel (oral or written)and participantrole (receiver or producer).
70

Language Arts

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient.Teachers must also have certain

beliefs and values regardinglanguage. They should love language play and experience intellectual excitement in the face of language diversity. They should want
children to engage in intrinsicallypurposeful activities, enjoy seeing children initiating interactionsand wrestling with problems, and appreciate the complexity
and design of a "messy" curriculum.
Enhancing Environments
Here we referto physical, affective,interactive,and non-teacherpersonnel features
of an environmentthat is conducive to language growth. Obviously, for severely
handicapped children,there needs to be appropriate space forsafe and easy movement. Not so obviously, there should also be comfortableand varied furniture.At
least some of these children would not have to spend entire school days in wheelchairs if bean bag chairs were available foroccasional use.
In no case is it more compelling thatone teach the whole child. Deficiencies in
physical abilities do not entail deficienciesin the abilityto feel,thoughtheydo make
expression of those feelingsexceedingly difficult.Imagine being able to understand
but nottalk,being strapped intoa wheelchair,and feelingworriedabout some coming
eventor simplyfeelingplayful- all while being taughta school lesson. David, age ten,
and Brent,age seven, severelyimpaired by cerebralpalsy, were such children.Fortunately,theyeach had perceptiveaides. In David's case, anxieties about his parents'
safetyon an impending trip erupted during a word recognition lesson. His aide,
knowinghim well, noticed a changed expression around his eyes. Was he worried,she
asked. His head sticklaboriouslyleaned towardtheword "yes" on thecommunication
board. A combination of informationgleaned fromprevious contactswith parents,
guesses, and labored feedbackin the formof headstickpointing by David resultedin
elicitingthe immediate source of the anxiety. Rather than stopping with elicitation,
this talented aide then went on to provide David with verbalized reflectionsof his
feelings,validation that his feelingswere real, right,and shared by many people in
similarsituations,all beforereturningto thelesson. Anothercase: Brent'ssmile, along
with his pointing to a wildly incorrectnumber in answer to a question about "how
many," was what tipped offhis aide. "I'll bet you think2 and 2 are 17," she teased.
Laughter fromBrent. "How old do you thinkI am- and you betterbe careful," she
mockinglywarned. A slow journey of the headstick toward its target and then a
collapse on 70. Brentlaughed as he worked to get his headstickerectagain. The "silly
number answer" game continued forawhile beforethe aide resumed the arithmetic
lesson. Both of these instances and many othersprovide evidence forthe existenceof
emotion that needs attentionand expression, no matterthat they live in a disabled
body unable to talk.
Not only do these children have an emotional life that must not be ignored,
but these communication difficultiescan have a reciprocal and devastating impact
on that emotional and social life (Morehead and Morehead 1976). Teaching the
whole child, including the enhancement of both theirreceptive language related to
the socio-emotional domain and whatever technical systems can be devised for
producing messages, can result in increased socially adaptive behavior (Baron and
Isensee 1977).
Language Development forMainstreamed Non-Verbal Children

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

71

Interactiveaspects of the environmenthave been included in the preceding

discussion of the need to teach the whole child. Other featuresof classroom interaction that should be considered here are the frequencyof peer interactionsand the
variety and authenticityof interactions. Severely physically impaired children in
mainstreamed classrooms need to interactwith the non-handicapped children in
the class- and that need is reciprocal. Language development owes much to peer
interactions(Ervin-Trippand Mitchell-Kernan1977) thatare genuine and authentic.
Since genuineness and authenticitymay be easier to come by among peers, peer
interactionhas double value. Encouragement of peer interactionwill provide authenticity,but not necessarily functionalvariety,however, since children in many
classrooms tend to use a limited range of language functions(Pinnell 1975) unless
teachers plan for a wider range (Staab 1980). There must thereforebe deliberate
effortsto avoid a predominance of the few usual language functions- procedural
directing and reporting. A mainstream example, where an ambulatoryand minimally verbal cerebral palsied child reaped the benefits of wise interactiveenvironment established by her teacher,occurredwhen Sharon got into a water fightin the
bathroom with "normal" Denise. Both Sharon and Denise were sent to the principal; Sharon was not "saved the trouble or the time" (Scofield 1978) of having to
explain. On their return,both she and Denise had to collaborativelywork out a
plan, in writing,about how the school could avoid student water fights.
If interactionsneed to be authentic and varied, so does curriculum.For these
children, too, art and music must not be saved, like dessert, until the main course
worksheets are consumed- or leftoffthe menu entirely.Nor should they be used
only in the service of "basic skills." Why not use paint, clay, and music in projects
that would provide both authentic and meaningfulcontextsforthe varied activity
as well as interactionwith other children?
Beneficial environments for language development of severely handicapped
children must be all this. But how can one teacher do this? One teacher can't.
Therefore,the law has wisely mandated that an aide be assigned to each child who
needs one, full time if necessary. This is not always done, as several recent and
pending lawsuits attest, but language arts educators should know that it must
be- foreveryone's sake.
Appropriate Programsand Materials
These should be developed in relation to level, interest,and sequence. Though all
children should experience language programs that begin where they are, this is
especially important for severely multiply handicapped children. They are often
summarilyjudged as being at a lower level in all language-related processes because they are in fact minimally able in production. Compounding the problem,
they then have difficultycommunicating the mismatch between ability and material.
Children with a limited supply of energy require high interestmaterials to
keep them engaged in extraordinarilydifficulteffortsto accomplish the "simplest
things." Put yourself in the place of one of these children- a wheelchair, often
stationaryforhours during the day (not due to lack of caring fromfamilybut due to
72

Language Arts

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

lack of resources). Once a week, your fatherworks in the garden and takes you
outside with him for your one regular, other-than-maintenanceweekly activity.
How high would that garden be on your interestscale? A wise programdeveloper
would incorporate gardens as a topic into materials designed for you. Unfortunately, developers of published materials don't know about your garden, or about
the personal histories of other individuals. Programs prepared formass use, therefore,may be inadequate forthis population.
Appropriate sequencing means that programs,materials,and activitiesshould
be used flexibly. Sequences in language-process programs tend to be based on
adult logic ratherthan child strategies(Cazden 1972). Moreover, recentresearch on
writing(Graves 1980), on reading (Smith 1978), and on language acquisition processes (Lindfors 1980) discredits notions of qualitatively differentstages in the development of these processes. Therefore,though carefullysequenced programsmay
seem logicallynecessary fromthe adult viewpoint, theymay not be necessary- and
- fromthe viewpoint of the individual learnerwho
may even be counter-productive
has little energy to expend on sub-steps irrelevantto his/herparticular learning
strategies. Again, an example featuringa cerebral palsied child: Daniel "writes"
(dictates, by means of pointing to words on a communicationboard) ingenious and
complex stories. He does this by firstidentifyingkey words and then going back
and fillingin most functors,descriptors,and so on. His teacher,however, is slowly
teaching him how to compose in the "right" sequence, by dictatingfull sentences
in linear order. Daniel is learning. His stories are becoming dull, short,correct,and
minus any characteridentifiableas Daniel.
AppropriateTechnology
Classrooms that promote language development for multiply physically handicapped children must also have what is not yet available- workable, theoretically
sound technologyto make language production easier and faster(it can take a child
a half hour to literallyuse his/herhead to point out the words forone sentence with
a headstick on a communication board). Technology to make reception easier (for
example, silent reading, listening to read-aloud stories) could be supplied by
people with or without tape recorders or by automatic page-turning machines.
Technology for production, however, has not yet been developed. Two-feet wide
communication boards are unwieldy and taxing, and thus create more ratherthan
less restrictiveenvironments. The 200 words supplied by the board might be increased in number and put onto a computer programthat could be scanned at the
direction of a child-controlled light. The decrease in physical effortdemanded
would still not solve the problem of faulty theoretical assumptions underlying
communication boards, however. Language is composed of finitesystems that encode infinite meanings, as knowledgeable teachers know. Word lists constrain
those meanings. Some technological device must be developed that allows forboth
the expenditure of minimal physical effortand the generationof infinitemeanings.
Perhaps some formof computerized light-sensitivetypewritercombined with artificialvoice renditions of typed messages would be an answer. Until some device is
developed for fast and easy communication of basic necessities as well as more
Language Development forMainstreamed Non-Verbal Children

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

73

complex transactionalto expressive to poetic messages (Britton1978), severelyphysically handicapped non-verbal children will be totallydependent forlanguage production on the knowledge, sensitivity,and patience of people around them.
Adequate Assessment
This is not easily attained. In fact, because of the difficultiesinvolved in testing
non-verbal, motoricallyimpaired children, satisfactoryassessment has not yet been
achieved even by researchers with few subjects and no school districtand classroom demands to meet. Still, certain issues must be considered as we attemptto
improve means of assessment. At the least, we must begin to devise experience-fair
(not only culture-fair)test items. Testing for knowledge of positional terms (e.g.,
under, beside) or geographic facts(e.g., location of rivers) of childrenwho are rarely
out of a wheelchair, who do no manipulating (e.g., sorting,stacking,building) of
objects, and who have never even been to the grocerystore, let alone on a trip, is
like testingrural Navajo children on formsof underwaterocean life.
When tests are given, physically handicapped children need various forms,
more time, and physical assistance. A few horrible examples: a spina bifida child
who could not "fill in the circle" by herselfwas denied the assistance of an aide
during standardized reading achievement testing because it was feared that the
aide would "cheat" forher; cerebral palsied children with aides to do the marking
have had to meet the same time limits as "normals" even though it takes them a
huge amount of time just to point out one answer with headsticks; a brightnonverbal cerebral palsied boy was assigned no aide during a language arts test and
resortedto a strategyof screamingso his aide could be found. Aftershe arrivedand
calmed him down, she elicited the source of his distress. "They'll thinkI'm stupid,"
he dictated.
Such examples should never occur. Mainstreaming does not mean that all
children must functionin the same way in relation to the same items in the same
period of time. Nor does assessment mean thatwe findout only what childrencan't
do in order to startfromdeficits.Assessment could just as well mean observations
and other means of finding out what children can do in order to expand on
abilities. The severely physicallyhandicapped children we have seen have a sense
of humor (both receptivelyand productivelyin "dictation"), use metaphors, and
invent ways to overcome the constraints imposed by 200-word communication
boards. Flexible and sensitive means must also be devised to assess language comprehension, since production and receptionwill be verydifferentin these children.
Surely, what we have seen, composition-in-actionor even finished products,
could be used to assess production as well as development if assessment did not
have to be standardized and norm-referenced.
Sophisticated Notions of Individualization
The preceding discussion of assessment is also clearly related to our position here
that notions of individualizing must reflectthe diversityrepresentedby real people
in real classrooms. Too often, individualization means simply alteringthe rate of
74

Language Arts

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

progressionthrougha program. We are referringto individualization at the physical, cognitive, and affectivelevels.
Physically,individualization forseverelyhandicapped children means freeing
them as much as possible- providing drinks of water without waiting forsignals,
developing systemssuch as bells sewn on belts or jackets forthe part of theirbodies
over which they have most control(Sadacca 1980) so thatbathroomor help requests
can be easily signalled, applying restrainingdevices for spastic and involuntarily
moving body parts when energy must be focused on a task.
At the cognitive level, individualization means developing activitiesaround a
child's topics of interest,testingchildren in varied ways, and allowing each child's
communication strategiesand intentionsto be the source of curriculum.
Affectively,individualization means explicit attentionto the degree and type
of emotional and social stress a child experiences. Further,it means accommodation
to the way stress interactswith that child's physical and intellectualstates. Some
severely physically handicapped children with no easy outlets for stress suffer
strong physical reaction to excitementof any kind. Often, the reaction produces
fatigue which then interfereswith subsequent activity.Physical and occupational
therapists and teachers will need to work together increasingly in the service of
these children. It is not the case that attentionto the affectiveis merelyhumane or
that time devoted to physical therapyis merelyrecreational.Both are crucial needs
forthis population.
We began by showing the likelihood that regular teachers will be tryingto
"do" language arts in regularclassrooms with most un-regularchildren- those with
severe multiple, physical, and language handicaps. A general lack of preparedness
forthis eventualitywas then discussed. Given the absence of well-developed plans
forenhancing language-related processes in least restrictiveenvironmentsforthese
children,a priorityfordevelopment of such plans must be established. Toward that
end, we proposed six principles that should be considered as these plans are developed. Our principles are stringent,but we believe they are theoreticallygrounded,
coherent,and legally and professionalyjustified. Puttingthem into practice would
- but would reap even greaterrewards.
require great effort
References
Baron,N. and Isenee, L. "Iconicityand Learnability."Paper presentedat the 2nd annual
BostonUniversity
on LanguageDevelopment,October,1977.
Conference
Bloom,L.; Lightbown,L.; and Hood, L. "Structureand Variationin Child Language."
, serialnumber160,number
oftheSocietyforResearchin ChildDevelopment
Monograph
2, 1975.
on ComposBritton,
J."The ComposingProcessesand theFunctionsofWriting."In Research
editedby C. Cooperand L. Odell. Urbana,IL: NCTE, 1978.
ing:PointsofDeparture,
Cazden, C. ChildLanguageandEducation.New York:Holt,Rinehartand Winston,1972.
Cohen, S. and Plaskon,S. "Selectinga Reading Approachforthe MainstreamedChild."
LanguageArts55 (1978):966-970.
A. "Review of ThelmaWeeks' TheSlow SpeechDevelopment
Crittenden,
of a BrightChild/'
Journal
ofChildLanguage3 (1976):137-143.
Dale, P. "Is EarlyPragmaticDevelopmentMeasurable?"Journal
of ChildLanguage7 (1980):
1-12.
deVilliers,J. and deVilliers,P. LanguageAcquisition.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press,1978.
Language Development forMainstreamed Non-Verbal Children

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

75

Edelsky,C. "TeachingOral Language/'LanguageArts55 (1978):291-296.

ofCorrectand ReversedSentenceswith'if'."Journalof
Emerson,H. "Children'sJudgements
ChildLanguage7 (1980):137-155.
S. and Mitchell-Kernan,
C. ChildDiscourse.New York:AcademicPress,1977.
Ervin-Tripp,
Gilbert,J. "Review of J. Irwinand M. Marge (eds.) Principles
of Childhood
LanguageDisabilities."
Journal
ofChildLanguage1 (1974):153-156.
ofArizona,Programon Languageand LiterGraves,D. LectureNotes,EED 695E,University
acy,1/25/80.
of Arizona,Programon Language
Halliday,M. A. K. LectureNotes,EED 695E,University
and Literacy,
3/7/80.
In Functions
editedbyC. Cazden,D.
Hymes,D. "Introduction."
ofLanguagein theClassroom,
Hymesand V. John.New York:TeacherCollegePress,1972.
Are Acquiredby Children."In Developmental
Ingram,D. "If and When Transformations
, edited by D. Dato. Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Press,
Psycholinguistics
1975.
1980.
Lindfors,
J.Children's
LanguageandLearning.
EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall,
Menyuk,P. "Childrenwith Language Problems:What's the Problem."In Developmental
, editedby D. Dato. Washington,DC: GeorgetownUniversity
Press,
Psycholinguistics
1975.
ChildLanguage.Baltimore:University
Morehead,D. and Morehead,A. NormalandDeficient
ParkPress,1976.
Classrooms."TheoryintoPractice14 (1975):318-327.
Pinnell,G. "Languagein Primary
Sadacca,F. PersonalCommunication,
May 1980.
Scofield,S. "The Language-delayedChild in the MainstreamedPrimaryClassroom."LanguageArts55 (1978):719-123.
Smith,F. Understanding
, Second Edition.New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston,
Reading
1978.
Spolsky,B. Educational
Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse, 1978.
Linguistics.
Staab, C. "Elicitationof LanguageFunctionsfromSpecificActivitieswithina Kindergarten
Classroom."Doctoraldissertation,
ArizonaStateUniversity,
1980.
: EducationIs for All Children.
Sunderlin, S., Editor. The Most EnablingEnvironment
D.C.: AssociationforChildhoodEducationInternational,
1979.
Washington,
Van Kleeck, A. "The Effectsof Children'sLanguage ComprehensionLevel on Adult's
Talk."Journal
Child-directed
ofSpeechandHearingResearch(in press).
Carole Edelskyand T. J. Rosegrantare AssistantProfessorsat Arizona
State University
, Tempe,Arizona.

76

Language Arts

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 15:15:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions