Abstract
This study aimed to describe core words of written personal narratives to inform the implementation of AAC supports for literacy instruction. Investigators analyzed lexical diversity, frequency of specific word use and types of words that made up 70% of the total words used in 211 written narrative samples from children in first grade (n =94) and fourth grade (n=117). Across grades 191 different words made up 70% of the total words used in the 211 written narrative samples. The top 50 words were comprised of content words (64%) and function words (36%). Grade differences were noted in diversity and types of words, including differences in the number of words comprising the core (132 words for children in first grade and 207 for fourth grade) and a higher proportion of abstract nouns for children in fourth grade based on the 200 most frequently occurring words for each grade.
Keywords: Core vocabulary, Written narratives, School age, Abstract nouns
Literacy success for all students is a national priority in the United States (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005) and is identified as a global priority by UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Bokova, 2014). As Bokova stated, in her capacity as president of UNESCO, “Literacy is much more than an educational priority…We wish to see a century where every child is able to read and to use this skill to gain autonomy” (retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/news/unesco-world-literacy-day). Within literacy achievement, the focus has been on reading skills; however there has been a growing focus on how children become proficient writers (Miller & McArdle, 2011; Troia, 2007). Further, written narratives are often used in progress monitoring to provide snapshots of numerous interconnected language skills including vocabulary, grammar, sentence formation, and story structure (Scott, 2005; Singer & Bashir, 2004; Wise, Sevcik, Morris, Lovett, & Wolf, 2007). School-age children with typical development receive guided practice opportunities on a variety of writing tasks. Children with complex communication needs may receive less instructional focus on writing development and literacy skills in general (Sturm & Clendon, 2004). In response, the current research explores the vocabulary of writing for school-age children within a structured task, in the hope that the findings will be useful to inform design of AAC systems and instructional supports.
Importance of Vocabulary Selection for AAC
Although literacy is the goal for all children, AAC systems are not always designed in a way that allows children to engage in language and literacy activities to the same extent as children who are typically developing (Smith & Grove, 1996; Sturm & Clendon, 2004). One notable challenge is ensuring children have access to the vocabulary they need to meet the varied school-age language and literacy demands, including supports for written language development and practice opportunities with written narratives. Expressive vocabulary may be artificially constrained by the lexical items available on a child’s AAC system (Sutton, Soto, & Blockberger, 2002).
Approaches to vocabulary selection for AAC systems may still focus disproportionately on words to serve basic communication needs (Morrow, Mirenda, Beukelman, & Yorkston, 1993) or individual word preferences (Thistle & Wilkinson, 2015). In a recent survey of professionals, only 15% of clinicians with more than 13 years of experience reported leveraging word frequency information when selecting core vocabulary for an AAC system (Thistle & Wilkinson, 2015). The term core vocabulary refers to words that are frequently occurring which may be considered central to expressive vocabulary, and reflect a range of word classes that can be used across contexts (Boenisch & Soto, 2015; Witkowski & Baker, 2012). Given that clinicians may not be considering core vocabulary in word selection (Snodgrass, Stoner, & Angell, 2013), there may be insufficient lexical access for classroom literacy tasks and available vocabulary may not be sufficient to support desired growth in literacy development as the child engages in more sophisticated language experiences and complex language tasks in school (Sturm & Clendon, 2004).
Additional studies of core vocabulary are needed, particularly with increasingly complex school-age language and literacy demands in mind. Although numerous studies have examined oral vocabulary use of young children (Banajee, Dicarlo, & Buras Sticklin, 2003; Beukelman, Jones, & Rowan, 1997 Crestani, Clendon, & Hemsley, 2010; Fallon, Light, & Paige, 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Trembath, Balandin, & Togher, 2007) and identified core vocabulary lists for AAC systems, such lists may not be generalizable to written narratives given the known differences between written and oral communication in children (Hooper, Roberts, Nelson, Zeisel, & Fannin, 2010; Lienemann, Graham, Leader-Janssen, & Ried, 2006), including differences in types of words such as the use of abstract nouns and more formal language features prevalent in written constructions.
Core Vocabulary of Written Samples
In order to examine core vocabulary within children’s written narratives, the investigators turned to the literature on frequently occurring words in written language tasks. Relatively few studies comprise the literature base on vocabulary of AAC systems for written language tasks; fewer still consider word types between different grades, or include samples from children of ethnic backgrounds proportional to the demographics of the United States. The existing studies set a foundation of the methods and expected overlap in the core vocabulary across studies. Three studies in particular will be reviewed in more detail as they form the background for our research on what comprises a child’s core vocabulary for writing and how it can be applied to AAC programming.
In a seminal study, McGinnis and Beukelman (1989) described written vocabulary samples of elementary school students in order to provide insights for the vocabulary selection for a student’s AAC device. The study involved written samples on a variety of topics (e.g., letter writing, science topics, hobbies, and pets) by 374 students in second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of primarily White Caucasian middle income backgrounds. Findings for the letter-writing task indicated that the 23 most frequently used words in all the samples represented 39% of the total written sample. The authors reported that 131 words occurred at least once per every 1000 words in the sample. The core word bank was comprised of 161 words. This core word bank accounted for 70% of the different words in the samples, while 200 words comprised 76% of vocabulary children used in the writing tasks. Additionally, the authors considered commonalities across grades and found that, on average, the top 23 words were used across all five grades by almost all children.
Another study that explored vocabulary use in writing included young children in first through fourth grade who wrote on self-selected writing topics across a 6-week period (Clendon & Erickson, 2008). This study compared 125 children from North Carolina to 113 children from New Zealand. The children in both groups represented a variety of ethnic groups, all with English as their first language. A total of 2,721 writing samples were gathered from 238 children with 1–33 samples per child. Mean scores for total number of words and number of different words were calculated across the set of writing samples produced by a child, which generated an average ratio of different/total words of .73 for first grade and .63 for fourth grade. The writing samples contained a total of 85,759 words, comprised of 5,724 different words. After gathering a list of core vocabulary words, this study found that 163 words accounted for 70% of the total words used. Grammatical words were more common than content words, comprising 70% of the 50 most frequently occurring words, 56% of the 100 most frequently occurring core words, and 45% of the top 150 core words.
The findings of Clendon and Erickson (2008) were substantiated by Clendon, Sturm, and Cali (2013), who analyzed vocabulary in written language samples from 124 children with typical development in kindergarten (n = 65) and first grade (n = 59). The investigators gathered 457 written samples (two to six samples per child) using self-selected topics on nine different writing tasks (labeling, story, narrative retell, plan, procedure, description, report, opinion, and explanation) with the most common being narrative retells (28%) and opinions (24%). The participants were primarily Caucasian (72%) with 2% Hispanic, 24% African American and 2% Asian American. School level socio-economic status was reported, with participating schools ranging from 22%–90% free and reduced lunch eligibility. The results indicated that 140 core words in this age group made up 70% of the vocabulary of the samples. Based on word frequency, structure and grammatical words were more common than content words. Some vocabulary was specific to particular writing genres. For example, going occurred in response to some writing prompts but not others. In contrast, some words such as mom were high frequency across multiple writing genres.
Taking the studies together, it appears there are similarities and differences expected between core words in written samples. Clendon et al. (2013) reported 58% overlap in the top 50 most frequently occurring words in their findings compared to the letter writing activities in the McGinnis and Beukelman study (1989). This is similar to the previous study (Clendon & Erickson, 2008), which reported 62% overlap in core words based on the top 50 words in their samples and the letter writing task of McGinnis and Beukelman. Further, there was 56% overlap in the language arts writing task. Clendon et al. (2013) reported that 20 out of 50 of the top core vocabulary words matched two other studies’ findings. The distribution of different word types or word choice varied across the studies. The authors speculated that differences may be related to the different contexts used for the writing tasks (e.g., letter writing, language arts, science, and open-ended topics). Differences in the distribution of the types of words (e.g., grammatical words, nouns, and function words) may also be related to the grade levels of participants, which differed across studies.
Grade Level Word Choice Differences: Abstract Nouns
Based on review of a broader literature base, word choice differences between grades may also be expected with regard to the use of abstract nouns (Graves, 1975; Hooper et al., 2010; Lienemann et al., 2006; Myhill & Fisher, 2010). Researchers define abstract nouns such as happiness, life, and opportunity, as “intangible entities, inner states, and emotions” (Sun & Nippold, 2012, p. 3). In contrast, concrete nouns refer to that which physically exists, such as house, ball, and apple. Concrete nouns are thought to be processed more quickly; acquired nouns are thought to be processed earlier and more easily recalled (Kroll & Merves, 1986; Walker & Hulme, 1999). The use of abstract nouns may be more prevalent in written language samples of older children who may leverage written language opportunities to plan word choice, organize and revise. As such, the frequency and variety of children’s use of these nouns may be expected to differ across grades. This is supported by the findings of Sun and Nippold, who examined the use of abstract nouns in relation to other indexes of written language. Based on their analysis of written samples of 120 school-age children (40 in each of three grades: fifth, eighth, and eleventh), the investigators reported a significant main effect of grade on the frequency of use of these nouns.
Purpose of Current Study
Based on the assumption that the available lexicon affects acquisition and use of vocabulary and recognizing the importance of written language development, we presume that having appropriate lexical access for written language narratives is critical. There is a wealth of literature establishing the importance of written language development, writing practice, and narrative construction in children (Graves, 1975; Hooper et al., 2010; Lienemann et al., 2006; Myhill & Fisher, 2010), yet insufficient studies on core vocabulary to equip children with complex communication needs to participate in written language practice. Existing studies may not reflect the contemporary composition of societal diversity as previous findings are primarily based on students of Caucasian backgrounds. It is may also be important to examine core vocabulary within a structured writing task with a consistent writing prompt that can be easily replicated or utilized for daily writing tasks (Connelly, Dockrell, Walter, & Critten, 2012; Dockrell, Ricketts, Charman, & Lindsay, 2014).
Past studies on vocabulary development for children who use AAC provide a foundation for this research area; however, more research and replication is needed to identify a contemporary core word-bank contextualized in a structured written personal narrative and within a diverse sample of children reflecting current composition of first and fourth grade. The current study aims to identify a core word-bank from the written samples of children in first and fourth grade. The primary research questions are as follows:
How many different words comprise school-aged children’s written core vocabulary (based on 70% of total words used)?
What types of words comprise the top 50 most frequently occurring words in the children’s written samples (e.g., nouns, verbs, and function words)?
Are there grade level differences in types of core words (e.g., abstract nouns) used by children in first and fourth grade?
Methods
Participants
Written samples for this study were obtained from a larger study of 1023 writing samples of twins in Florida in first to ninth grade (Taylor, Hart, Mikolajewski, & Schatschneider, 2013). The project was approved by the human subjects review committee at Florida State University to study the written language samples of the twins. From the larger study following twin development more broadly, the investigators utilized all samples from two grade levels of interest, first and fourth grade to examine core vocabulary. The two grades were selected to allow for examination of potential vocabulary differences in word choice by grade and based on the recommendation of previous researchers suggesting that the core words of beginning writers may be most relevant to children with complex communication needs (Clendon & Erickson, 2008).
Using grade as the only criterion, a total of 211 participants’ writing samples were examined. The participants were comprised of 94 children in first grade and 117 children in fourth grade, 57% of whom were female and 43% of participants were male. Of the total sample, 49% were White/Caucasian, 32% were Hispanic/Latino(a), 9% were Black/African American, 5% were Asian, 1% were Native American or Pacific Islander, and 4% were reported as being of mixed racial/ethnic background. A small percentage of participants (5%) reportedly had academic delays or difficulty in language, reading, or spelling. For the current study all samples were included regardless of the language background of participating children, in an effort to obtain an inclusive sample of the vocabulary use of children with varied abilities.
Materials and Previous Collection
Families who provided signed consent received a packet of materials in the mail. Participants were given a variety of tasks for each of the twins to complete, including a written personal narrative task. The paper contained the typed prompt, “One day when I got home from school…” which was similar to written prompts used in other studies (Connelly et al., 2012; Dockrell, et al., 2007; Wechsler, 2005). The writing task was untimed and not constrained in length. Parents were instructed to allow children to complete the task independently and that it should take approximately 10–15 min. Parents were asked to report any deviations from the instructions and return the narrative in the stamped envelope provided.
Procedures and Analysis
Students in speech-language pathology entered the written samples electronically and the investigators ensured accuracy. An accuracy check of 35% of the samples indicated 99% accuracy in the conversion of the samples from paper to electronic format. The Systematic Analysis of Language Transcriptions (SALT) program (Miller & Iglesias, 2012) was utilized to derive the word list of the collective lexicon used in the personal narratives, the percentage of transcripts that contained the word, and the total number of occurrences of each word across first and fourth grade samples. To answer the first research question the lists were put in ascending order by the number of occurrences in order to rank order the most frequently occurring words and identify the core vocabulary.
The procedures for determining the core vocabulary followed methods of previous studies. Generally across studies, core vocabulary has been operationalized as the set of words that represents 70%–80% of the total vocabulary generated. McGinnis and Beukelman (1989) reported that a core list of 161 words comprised 70% of children’s vocabulary in letter writing while 200 words made up 76% of the sample. Similarly in Clendon and Erickson’s (2008) study, 163 words accounted for 70% of the total words used in written samples. Based on the previous methods, the current study used a 70% cut off. Within the word list, misspelled words were excluded from the occurrence list if the word was unidentifiable (i.e., neither author recognized an intended word) or if the two reviewers did not independently generate the same intended word.
To answer the second research question, descriptive statistics were analyzed to examine the percentages of nouns, verbs, and function words. To further explore types of words used, the top 25 nouns and verbs for each grade were identified. In order to provide an accurate list of the most frequently occurring nouns and verbs all forms of the words were considered in the total, including plural and possessive forms of nouns and past, present, and future tenses of the verbs.
To answer the third research question, the investigators further inspected similarities and differences between the first and fourth grade vocabulary of written samples. Grade level differences were examined for word types by examining the use of abstract nouns and action versus mental state verbs. Action verbs reference observable actions, motion, or movement which may be more transparent in meaning (Mineo, Peischl, & Pennington, 2008) indicating something a person, animal, or force of nature can do such as jump, run, sweep, and eat. In contrast, mental state verbs involve cognitive processing or non-observable acts such as remember, compare, and love (Curenton & Justice, 2004; Moore, Furrow, Chiasson, & Patriquin, 1994). To examine the use of abstract nouns and mental state verbs in the core vocabulary of children by grade, each noun in the top 200 most frequently occurring words was independently categorized by each author. A researcher-compiled list of abstract nouns and mental state verbs was consulted whenever the authors were uncertain. The list was compiled prior to the start of the study by compiling across multiple open access web sources for a combined list of abstract nouns and mental state verbs for quick reference.
Results
Overall Core Word-Bank
From the 217 written samples, there were 27,391 total words made up of 3,781 different words. Table 1 shows the core vocabulary bank from the combination of all the samples. It is sorted by the total occurrences but also reflects the percentage of transcripts that contained the word and the frequency of the word per 1000 words. In total, 191 different words made up 70% of the entire written sample, which was considered the core vocabulary of the sample (Clendon & Erickson, 2008). The top 50 words of this core vocabulary accounted for 51% of the total word count. The top 50 words were made up of 64% content words (including nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) and 36% function words (such as articles and prepositions).
Table 1.
Most Frequently Occurring Words for Combined First and Fourth Grades
| Word | Occurrences | #/1000 words | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I** | 1829 | 66.77 |
| 2 | and** | 1117 | 40.78 |
| 3 | the** | 1109 | 40.49 |
| 4 | my** | 866 | 31.62 |
| 5 | to** | 801 | 29.24 |
| 6 | a** | 692 | 25.26 |
| 7 | was** | 639 | 23.33 |
| 8 | we** | 525 | 19.17 |
| 9 | it** | 496 | 18.11 |
| 10 | in** | 286 | 10.44 |
| 11 | so* | 256 | 9.35 |
| 12 | then* | 251 | 9.16 |
| 13 | of** | 241 | 8.80 |
| 14 | that* | 238 | 8.69 |
| 15 | got** | 236 | 8.62 |
| 16 | on** | 232 | 8.47 |
| 17 | said* | 219 | 8.00 |
| 18 | when* | 202 | 7.37 |
| 19 | me** | 198 | 7.23 |
| 20 | went | 196 | 7.16 |
| 21 | mom* | 194 | 7.08 |
| 22 | for* | 186 | 6.79 |
| 23 | with* | 174 | 6.35 |
| 24 | go* | 157 | 5.73 |
| 25 | home* | 157 | 5.73 |
| 26 | had* | 147 | 5.37 |
| 27 | you** | 143 | 5.22 |
| 28 | out* | 132 | 4.82 |
| 29 | is** | 129 | 4.71 |
| 30 | at** | 127 | 4.64 |
| 31 | up** | 125 | 4.56 |
| 32 | he* | 120 | 4.38 |
| 33 | but* | 117 | 4.27 |
| 34 | were* | 115 | 4.20 |
| 35 | there* | 114 | 4.16 |
| 36 | day* | 113 | 4.13 |
| 37 | she* | 113 | 4.13 |
| 38 | all** | 108 | 3.94 |
| 39 | one* | 100 | 3.65 |
| 40 | play* | 98 | 3.58 |
| 41 | house* | 97 | 3.54 |
| 42 | do* | 96 | 3.50 |
| 43 | as | 94 | 3.43 |
| 44 | her* | 93 | 3.40 |
| 45 | what | 93 | 3.40 |
| 46 | time* | 89 | 3.25 |
| 47 | dad* | 87 | 3.18 |
| 48 | saw | 87 | 3.18 |
| 49 | after* | 86 | 3.14 |
| 50 | school* | 85 | 3.10 |
| 51 | like | 84 | 3.07 |
| 52 | get* | 83 | 3.03 |
| 53 | from | 79 | 2.88 |
| 54 | have** | 78 | 2.85 |
| 55 | did** | 77 | 2.81 |
| 56 | came** | 77 | 2.81 |
| 57 | back** | 74 | 2.70 |
| 58 | they | 73 | 2.67 |
| 59 | our** | 69 | 2.52 |
| 60 | next* | 67 | 2.45 |
| 61 | him | 65 | 2.37 |
| 62 | asked | 65 | 2.37 |
| 63 | bed | 61 | 2.23 |
| 64 | going** | 60 | 2.19 |
| 65 | played* | 59 | 2.15 |
| 66 | because* | 57 | 2.08 |
| 67 | door | 56 | 2.04 |
| 68 | are** | 55 | 2.01 |
| 69 | some* | 55 | 2.01 |
| 70 | could | 54 | 1.97 |
| 71 | started | 54 | 1.97 |
| 72 | took* | 53 | 1.93 |
| 73 | be* | 52 | 1.90 |
| 74 | down | 52 | 1.90 |
| 75 | fun | 52 | 1.90 |
| 76 | will** | 52 | 1.90 |
| 77 | homework | 52 | 1.90 |
| 78 | about | 51 | 1.86 |
| 79 | put* | 46 | 1.68 |
| 80 | them* | 46 | 1.68 |
| 81 | two** | 46 | 1.68 |
| 82 | not* | 45 | 1.64 |
| 83 | your | 45 | 1.64 |
| 84 | if* | 44 | 1.61 |
| 85 | dog* | 43 | 1.57 |
| 86 | this** | 43 | 1.57 |
| 87 | little* | 43 | 1.57 |
| 88 | over* | 42 | 1.53 |
| 89 | where | 42 | 1.53 |
| 90 | first** | 40 | 1.46 |
| 91 | good** | 40 | 1.46 |
| 92 | take | 40 | 1.46 |
| 93 | TV | 40 | 1.46 |
| 94 | room | 39 | 1.42 |
| 95 | told | 39 | 1.42 |
| 96 | thought | 39 | 1.42 |
| 97 | sister** | 39 | 1.42 |
| 98 | car | 38 | 1.39 |
| 99 | eat* | 38 | 1.39 |
| 100 | just | 38 | 1.39 |
| 101 | friend** | 38 | 1.39 |
| 102 | into * | 37 | 1.35 |
| 103 | know* | 36 | 1.31 |
| 104 | an ** | 35 | 1.28 |
| 105 | his** | 35 | 1.28 |
| 106 | see* | 35 | 1.28 |
| 107 | didn’t | 35 | 1.28 |
| 108 | can* | 34 | 1.24 |
| 109 | big** | 33 | 1.20 |
| 110 | found | 33 | 1.20 |
| 111 | pool** | 33 | 1.20 |
| 112 | ran | 33 | 1.20 |
| 113 | inside | 32 | 1.17 |
| 114 | water* | 32 | 1.17 |
| 115 | finally | 32 | 1.17 |
| 116 | made* | 31 | 1.13 |
| 117 | very* | 31 | 1.13 |
| 118 | brother* | 31 | 1.13 |
| 119 | would | 31 | 1.13 |
| 120 | by | 30 | 1.10 |
| 121 | end | 30 | 1.10 |
| 122 | no | 30 | 1.10 |
| 123 | say | 29 | 1.06 |
| 124 | walked | 29 | 1.06 |
| 125 | want* | 29 | 1.06 |
| 126 | later | 29 | 1.06 |
| 127 | outside | 29 | 1.06 |
| 128 | ate | 29 | 1.06 |
| 129 | left | 28 | 1.02 |
| 130 | new** | 28 | 1.02 |
| 131 | game** | 28 | 1.02 |
| 132 | right | 28 | 1.02 |
| 133 | opened | 28 | 1.02 |
| 134 | off | 27 | 0.99 |
| 135 | friends** | 27 | 0.99 |
| 136 | night | 27 | 0.99 |
| 137 | around | 26 | 0.95 |
| 138 | best* | 26 | 0.95 |
| 139 | gave* | 26 | 0.95 |
| 140 | thing | 26 | 0.95 |
| 141 | really* | 26 | 0.95 |
| 142 | name | 25 | 0.91 |
| 143 | work | 25 | 0.91 |
| 144 | again | 25 | 0.91 |
| 145 | wanted | 24 | 0.88 |
| 146 | never | 24 | 0.88 |
| 147 | think | 24 | 0.88 |
| 148 | birthday* | 24 | 0.88 |
| 149 | away | 23 | 0.84 |
| 150 | side | 23 | 0.84 |
| 151 | games | 23 | 0.84 |
| 152 | happy | 23 | 0.84 |
| 153 | dinner | 23 | 0.84 |
| 154 | ever | 23 | 0.84 |
| 155 | heard | 23 | 0.84 |
| 156 | called | 22 | 0.80 |
| 157 | food | 22 | 0.80 |
| 158 | now | 22 | 0.80 |
| 159 | while | 22 | 0.80 |
| 160 | why | 22 | 0.80 |
| 161 | something | 22 | 0.80 |
| 162 | okay | 22 | 0.80 |
| 163 | or | 21 | 0.77 |
| 164 | other | 21 | 0.77 |
| 165 | before | 21 | 0.77 |
| 166 | cat* | 21 | 0.77 |
| 167 | minutes | 21 | 0.77 |
| 168 | don’t | 20 | 0.73 |
| 169 | oh | 20 | 0.73 |
| 170 | way | 20 | 0.73 |
| 171 | ready | 20 | 0.73 |
| 172 | watched | 20 | 0.73 |
| 173 | its | 19 | 0.69 |
| 174 | love* | 19 | 0.69 |
| 175 | more | 19 | 0.69 |
| 176 | team | 19 | 0.69 |
| 177 | come | 19 | 0.69 |
| 178 | family* | 19 | 0.69 |
| 179 | here | 19 | 0.69 |
| 180 | sleep | 19 | 0.69 |
| 181 | lot* | 19 | 0.69 |
| 182 | until | 19 | 0.69 |
| 183 | am** | 18 | 0.66 |
| 184 | bus | 18 | 0.66 |
| 185 | hours | 18 | 0.66 |
| 186 | how | 18 | 0.66 |
| 187 | still | 18 | 0.66 |
| 188 | too* | 18 | 0.66 |
| 189 | yelled | 18 | 0.66 |
| 190 | turned | 18 | 0.66 |
| 191 | last* | 18 | 0.66 |
Note.
Denotes words that appear in the core word list of the study by Clendon, Sturm, and Cali (2013) but not in their 50 most frequently occurring list.
Denotes words that appear in the 50 most frequently occurring words on the core word list of the study by Clendon et al. (2013).
First Grade
The first grade participants used a mean number of different words of 36.99 (SD = 21.06) and an average of 61.07 total words in individual narratives (SD = 45.07). Combining the first grade samples, there were a total of 5,423 words with 1,246 different words. In total, 132 different words made up 70% of the entire sample, which was considered the core vocabulary for the first grade written sample. Table 2 shows the 50 most frequently occurring words for the first grade writing samples. The top 50 words accounted for 56% of the total word count. These 50 words were made up of 66% content words (36% nouns and 30% verbs) and 34% function words.
Table 2.
First Grade: 50 Most Frequently Occurring Words
| Word | Occurrences | #/1000 words | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I | 421 | 77.63 |
| 2 | and | 274 | 50.53 |
| 3 | my | 258 | 47.58 |
| 4 | the | 182 | 33.56 |
| 5 | to | 173 | 31.90 |
| 6 | a | 143 | 26.37 |
| 7 | was | 130 | 23.97 |
| 8 | we | 114 | 21.02 |
| 9 | it | 106 | 19.55 |
| 10 | then | 74 | 13.65 |
| 11 | go | 62 | 11.43 |
| 12 | home | 59 | 10.88 |
| 13 | in | 53 | 9.77 |
| 14 | mom | 51 | 9.40 |
| 15 | got | 48 | 8.85 |
| 16 | with | 48 | 8.85 |
| 17 | went | 45 | 8.30 |
| 18 | me | 43 | 7.93 |
| 19 | when | 40 | 7.38 |
| 20 | on | 39 | 7.19 |
| 21 | so | 38 | 7.01 |
| 22 | said | 38 | 7.01 |
| 23 | play | 36 | 6.64 |
| 24 | for | 35 | 6.45 |
| 25 | of | 33 | 6.09 |
| 26 | that | 30 | 5.53 |
| 27 | do | 29 | 5.35 |
| 28 | day | 28 | 5.16 |
| 29 | had | 28 | 5.16 |
| 30 | one | 28 | 5.16 |
| 31 | is | 27 | 4.98 |
| 32 | at | 26 | 4.79 |
| 33 | will | 24 | 4.43 |
| 34 | eat | 23 | 4.24 |
| 35 | dad | 23 | 4.24 |
| 36 | school | 23 | 4.24 |
| 37 | fun | 21 | 3.87 |
| 38 | there | 21 | 3.87 |
| 39 | she | 20 | 3.69 |
| 40 | them | 20 | 3.69 |
| 41 | homework | 20 | 3.69 |
| 42 | like | 19 | 3.50 |
| 43 | played | 19 | 3.50 |
| 44 | out | 18 | 3.32 |
| 45 | he | 18 | 3.32 |
| 46 | are | 18 | 3.32 |
| 47 | house | 18 | 3.32 |
| 48 | saw | 17 | 3.13 |
| 49 | you | 17 | 3.13 |
| 50 | they | 17 | 3.13 |
The 25 most frequently occurring nouns of the first grade sample (excluding pronouns) are found in Table 3. These nouns occurred in the narratives an average of 3.28 times per 1000 words in the sample. Table 4 shows the 25 most frequently occurring verbs by grade. The verbs are listed by their infinitive form, but all forms of the verbs were combined in order to get the total number of occurrences in the sample. The top 25 verbs in the first grade sample occurred an average of 5.9 times per 1000 words in the sample. The verbs were largely action verbs (i.e., observable motion) such as play, eat, said, run, read, and saw. The 50 most frequently occurring words for first grade also contained three mental state verbs: love, know, and want. Among the 200 most frequently occurring words, there were 60 different nouns; 30% (18/60) were abstract nouns (e.g., time) and 70% (42/60) were concrete nouns (e.g., dog).
Table 3.
Most Frequently Used Nouns by Grade
| First grade | Fourth grade | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Noun | Occurrences | #/1000 words | Noun | Occurrences | #/1000 words | |
| 1 | home | 60 | 11.06 | mom (mom’s) | 148 | 6.74 |
| 2 | mom | 51 | 9.40 | home | 97 | 4.42 |
| 3 | day (days) | 30 | 5.53 | day (days) | 86 | 3.91 |
| 4 | dad (dad’s) | 24 | 4.43 | house (houses) | 80 | 3.64 |
| 5 | friend (friends) | 24 | 4.43 | time (times) | 74 | 3.37 |
| 6 | school | 23 | 4.24 | Dad (dad) | 66 | 3.00 |
| 7 | fun | 21 | 3.87 | school | 62 | 2.82 |
| 8 | homework | 20 | 3.69 | bed | 47 | 2.14 |
| 9 | house | 18 | 3.32 | door | 47 | 2.14 |
| 10 | TV | 15 | 2.77 | friend (friends) | 42 | 1.91 |
| 11 | bed | 14 | 2.58 | dog (dogs) | 39 | 1.78 |
| 12 | birthday | 14 | 2.58 | game (games) | 39 | 1.78 |
| 13 | Sister | 13 | 2.40 | sister (sisters) | 33 | 1.50 |
| 14 | game (games) | 12 | 2.21 | car | 32 | 1.46 |
| 15 | dog | 11 | 2.03 | homework | 32 | 1.46 |
| 16 | family | 11 | 2.03 | fun | 31 | 1.41 |
| 17 | toy (toys) | 11 | 2.03 | room | 30 | 1.37 |
| 18 | dinner | 10 | 1.84 | water | 28 | 1.27 |
| 19 | door | 9 | 1.66 | minute (minutes) | 28 | 1.27 |
| 20 | mommy | 9 | 1.66 | brother (brother) | 27 | 1.23 |
| 21 | pool | 9 | 1.66 | tree (trees) | 26 | 1.18 |
| 22 | room | 9 | 1.66 | TV | 25 | 1.14 |
| 23 | duck | 9 | 1.66 | pool | 24 | 1.09 |
| 24 | sleep | 9 | 1.66 | name (names) | 22 | 1.00 |
| 25 | bath | 8 | 1.48 | outside | 20 | 0.91 |
| 26 | cat | 8 | 1.48 | |||
Note. Taken from the list of most occurring words from the written samples. Pronouns are not included but all plural and possessive forms of the noun were added.
Table 4.
Most Frequently Used Verbs by Grade
| First grade | Fourth grade | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Verb | Occurrences | #/1000 words | Verb | Occurrences | #/1000 words | |
| 1 | To be (is, was, were, are) | 199 | 36.70 | To be (is, was, were, are) | 1421 | 64.68 |
| 2 | To go (went, going) | 115 | 21.21 | To go (went, going) | 928 | 42.24 |
| 3 | To get (got) | 64 | 11.80 | To get (got) | 843 | 38.37 |
| 4 | To play (playing, played) | 57 | 10.51 | To say (said) | 631 | 28.72 |
| 5 | To do (does, doing, did) | 48 | 8.85 | To have (had) | 609 | 27.72 |
| 6 | To say (said) | 44 | 8.11 | To do (does, doing, did) | 550 | 25.04 |
| 7 | To have (had) | 41 | 7.56 | To play (playing, played) | 509 | 23.17 |
| 8 | To eat | 34 | 6.27 | To see (saw) | 418 | 19.03 |
| 9 | To take (takes, taking, took) | 29 | 5.35 | To come (comes, coming, came) | 417 | 18.98 |
| 10 | To see (saw) | 27 | 4.98 | To ask (asked) | 234 | 10.65 |
| 11 | To come (comes, coming, came) | 19 | 3.50 | To take (takes, taking, took) | 221 | 10.06 |
| 12 | To make (made) | 13 | 2.40 | To start (started) | 208 | 9.47 |
| 13 | To work (working, worked) | 11 | 2.03 | To like (likes) | 206 | 9.38 |
| 14 | To name (named) | 11 | 2.03 | To think (thinking, thought) | 193 | 8.79 |
| 15 | To run (ran) | 10 | 1.84 | To tell (telling, told) | 188 | 8.56 |
| 16 | To ask (asked) | 10 | 1.84 | To walk (walks, walking, walked) | 180 | 8.19 |
| 17 | To find (found, finding) | 9 | 1.66 | To look (looks, looked) | 177 | 8.06 |
| 18 | To love (loved) | 9 | 1.66 | To want (wanted) | 162 | 7.37 |
| 19 | To look (looks, looked) | 9 | 1.66 | To know (knowing) | 156 | 7.10 |
| 20 | To know (knowing) | 8 | 1.48 | To open (opens, opened) | 152 | 6.92 |
| 21 | To give (gives, gave) | 8 | 1.48 | To find (finding, found) | 149 | 6.78 |
| 22 | To read (reading) | 7 | 1.29 | To make (made) | 146 | 6.65 |
| 23 | To start (started) | 6 | 1.11 | To run (ran) | 132 | 6.01 |
| 24 | To call (called) | 6 | 1.11 | To leave (left) | 126 | 5.74 |
| 25 | To want (wanted) | 6 | 1.11 | To give (gave) | 119 | 5.42 |
Note. Taken from the list of most occurring words from written samples. The words are listed in their infinitive form. All forms of the verbs were added to reach a total number of occurrences, including the forms provided in parentheses.
Fourth Grade
The fourth grade participants used a mean number of different words of 96.58 (SD = 42.26) and 179.96 total words in individual narratives on average (SD = 91.10). The combined fourth grade list had a total of 21,968 words with 3,013 different words. In total, 207 words made up 70% of the entire sample, which was considered the core vocabulary for the fourth grade written samples. The 50 most frequently occurring words (displayed in Table 5) were comprised of 54% content words and 46% function words.
Table 5.
Fourth Grade: 50 most frequently occurring words.
| Word | Occurrences | #/1000 words | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I | 1421 | 64.68 |
| 2 | The | 928 | 42.24 |
| 3 | And | 843 | 38.37 |
| 4 | To | 631 | 28.72 |
| 5 | my | 609 | 27.72 |
| 6 | A | 550 | 25.04 |
| 7 | was | 509 | 23.17 |
| 8 | we | 418 | 19.03 |
| 9 | It | 417 | 18.98 |
| 10 | In | 234 | 10.65 |
| 11 | So | 221 | 10.06 |
| 12 | Of | 208 | 9.47 |
| 13 | that | 206 | 9.38 |
| 14 | On | 193 | 8.79 |
| 15 | got | 188 | 8.56 |
| 16 | said | 180 | 8.19 |
| 17 | then | 177 | 8.06 |
| 18 | when | 162 | 7.37 |
| 19 | me | 156 | 7.10 |
| 20 | for | 152 | 6.92 |
| 21 | went | 149 | 6.78 |
| 22 | mom | 146 | 6.65 |
| 23 | you | 132 | 6.01 |
| 24 | with | 126 | 5.74 |
| 25 | had | 119 | 5.42 |
| 26 | out | 114 | 5.19 |
| 27 | up | 110 | 5.01 |
| 28 | he | 106 | 4.83 |
| 29 | is | 104 | 4.73 |
| 30 | but | 103 | 4.69 |
| 31 | at | 101 | 4.60 |
| 32 | were | 101 | 4.60 |
| 33 | got | 98 | 4.46 |
| 34 | home | 97 | 4.42 |
| 35 | all | 97 | 4.42 |
| 36 | she | 94 | 4.28 |
| 37 | there | 94 | 4.28 |
| 38 | as | 92 | 4.19 |
| 39 | day | 85 | 3.87 |
| 40 | her | 85 | 3.87 |
| 41 | what | 81 | 3.69 |
| 42 | time | 79 | 3.60 |
| 43 | house | 79 | 3.60 |
| 44 | after | 77 | 3.51 |
| 45 | one | 73 | 3.32 |
| 46 | saw | 70 | 3.19 |
| 47 | do | 69 | 3.14 |
| 48 | get | 68 | 3.10 |
| 49 | came | 67 | 3.05 |
| 50 | our | 66 | 3.00 |
Table 3 shows the 25 most frequently occurring nouns for the fourth grade sample (excluding pronouns). The top nouns occurred in the sample an average of 2.16 times per 1,000 words in the sample. Table 4 shows the top 25 most frequently used verbs in the fourth grade sample. The most common verbs occurred an average of 5.52 times per 1,000 words through the entire fourth grade sample. The verbs were primarily comprised of action verbs but included some mental state verbs including think, want, know, and like. Among the 200 most frequently occurring words, the fourth grade samples demonstrated a smaller proportion of nouns overall (45/200) compared to first grade, but a larger number of abstract nouns. Of the nouns in the 200 most frequently occurring words, 44.4% (20/45) were abstract (e.g., thought) and 55.5% (25/45) were concrete nouns (e.g., water).
Discussion
This descriptive study identified a list of 191 core vocabulary words used by school-age children in their written narratives following the written prompt of “One day when I got home from school…” The key findings substantiate previous results in the literature suggesting a core word bank can be identified for children that comprises 70% or more of their words and that the most frequently occurring words reflect a variety of word types (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). Children in fourth grade used a higher proportion of abstract nouns than children in first grade, based on comparison of nouns in the 200 most frequently occurring words for each grade.
Core Vocabulary
Findings of the current study show similarities to previous studies of frequency of occurrence of words in children’s written language, which further substantiates the existence of a core set of words. There was 46% overlap in words (88/191) between the core word list of the current study and the 140 words reported in Clendon et al. (2013). There were commonalities between the 50 most frequently occurring words in the current study and those identified in Clendon et al. (2013). Comparing the most frequent 50 words between the two studies, 21 words (42%) are present in both studies’ 50 most frequently occurring list. An additional 26 words (52%) appear lower down on Clendon and colleague’s 140 core word list, but not within the 50 most frequently occurring. These commonalities are indicated with asterisks in Table 1. Additionally, comparing the top 50 words in the current study to the work of McGinnis and Beukelman. (1989) for the letter-writing task, there were 27 (54%) words in common between the two studies’ 50 most frequently occurring words.
Differences across studies are thought to be partially attributable to differences in the context of the task. The writing task in the McGinnis and Beukelman (1989) study involved letter writing and as a result, some of the most frequently occurring words on their list appear to be more prevalent in letter writing such as dear, pen pal, and name. In contrast, the task of the current study asked students to write about experiences after school and consequently some of the words in the top 50 may be more prevalent in after-school contexts such as house, home, day, dad, and play. Along the same lines, the Clendon et al. (2013) samples were collected in the spring, which may explain why some words (Easter, eggs, field, bunny, rabbit) were among their core word list but were not observed in the current study. The top 50 words generated from the current study also contained other connectives including: when, then, after, and that, and basic concepts such as up and down, which were perhaps related to the discourse and context of the samples in the current study.
Additionally, the size of the core vocabulary was similar although somewhat larger in the present study when compared to past studies. In the current study, the core was comprised of 191 words, compared to Clendon and Erickson (2008) and Clendon et al. (2013), who reported 70% core-word lexicons consisting of 163 and 140 words, respectively. Differences in size of the core could be due to the different prompts the children were given or the differences in age groups across studies. It is also possible that the list of words important for written personal narratives is larger than that generated by the writing tasks in other studies (e.g., opinion or letter writing).
Grade Differences
The finding that there were differences between the grades in terms of lexical diversity was not surprising. The first grade children had 1,246 different words and the children in fourth grade had 3,013 different words in their samples. Of the previous studies, the current study’s findings for first grade are most similar to the word list of the Clendon et al. (2013) study. The similarities in findings may be at least partially attributed to the similarities in age groups. The participants of their study were entirely kindergarten and first grade students. Compared to the Clendon et al. study, the first grade sample in the current study showed 37 of the same top 50 most frequently occurring words, providing additional evidence for the importance of inclusion of these words on AAC systems to support written narratives.
Grade Differences in Types of Words
The percentage of function words in the current study varied by grade (46% for fourth grade and 34% for first grade) and overall was lower than previous studies (70% or more in Clendon & Erickson, 2008; Clendon et al., 2013). The current findings highlighted a higher proportion of linguistic function words and abstract nouns in the older grade compared to first grade. Additionally, words such as but, after, and as appeared on the fourth grade list only. The grade comparison findings taken together reflect more sophistication in the word-bank of children in fourth grade.
Limitations
Several limitations should be noted, particularly related to the retrospective nature of the study, in that the sample characteristics and collection were derived from a larger study. Although the larger study investigated written language performance, it was not designed to sample across contexts or particular word types. The writing prompt was not specifically designed to elicit words that would be useful to school contexts or abstract nouns. It should also be noted that the current study is not an exhaustive list of linguistic comparisons of the written samples or grade level differences. Although written samples from nine grades were available in the larger dataset, it was not feasible for the current project to examine all grades. It cannot be assumed that children in other grades would demonstrate a similar size of the core vocabulary or a similar representation of grammatical words within the core.
Results should be interpreted cautiously in light of the context created by the specific prompt. Given the prompt, “One day when I got home from school…” it is likely that the children chose to talk about after-school or home-related things. It cannot be assumed that the same words would be derived from written samples that utilized a different writing prompt or writing context. It is likely that the specific prompt accounts for the high occurrence of words such as homework, school, and home but this cannot be further disentangled given that only one writing sample for each participant was available.
Clinical Implications
Despite the limitations of the study, the key findings have implications for word selection in designing AAC systems to ensure word selection accommodates not only oral communication but also the demands and opportunities of written language tasks. The overall core vocabulary or word-bank that was identified in Table 1 may be useful in supporting written personal narrative experiences on a child’s AAC system. The findings are thought to be relevant to children from Hispanic/Latino(a) backgrounds due to the fact that one third of the participant pool (32%) reported Hispanic/Latino(a) backgrounds. The most frequently occurring word list by children in first and fourth grade substantiates previous practical recommendations that core words of children’s written language should include more than simple concrete nouns and verbs. The descriptive data may be useful for educational teams in constructing AAC supports for written language activities, particularly with a prompt similar to the current study.
The findings of the study also highlight the importance of grade level differences in the vocabulary array included in written personal narratives. The differences between the first and fourth grade word banks substantiates that the vocabulary array for communication systems should not stay stagnant across elementary grades, but should instead be designed to facilitate experience and practice with an increasingly complex lexicon for written language development. The more complex core vocabulary of children in fourth grade compared to first grade also highlights the importance of transitioning to an alphabetic system as soon as feasibly possible, to match the demands of an evolving and advancing lexicon of elementary school. An alphabetic system becomes critical to assuring access to an unrestricted word bank, given that children in fourth grade used a higher proportion of abstract nouns, and that abstract nouns and linguistic function words are not easily represented by a picture/image-based symbol system.
The core words identified in the current study may be useful in designing intervention guided-practice with written personal narratives, particularly with a similar prompt. The most frequently used words in narratives for this sample may provide a foundation of words to practice sentence building as well as to practice constructing written narratives. Such lists could provide the basis for a study on the effectiveness of the use of a core word bank in narrative-related interventions for children who rely on AAC for communication.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend gratitude to the Learning Disabilities Center at Florida State University for allowing us to collaborate on the written narrative sample analyses and families for their participation. The project would not have been possible without the support of families who took time to participate in the study.
References
- Banajee M, Dicarlo C, Buras Stricklin S. Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2003;19:67–73. doi: 10.1080/0743461031000112034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Boenisch J, Soto G. The oral core vocabulary of typically developing English speaking school-aged children: Implications for AAC practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2015;31:77–84. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2014.1001521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bokova I. UNESCO World Literacy Day. 2014 Aug 28; Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/news/unesco-world-literacy-day.
- Beukelman DR, Jones RS, Rowan M. Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 1989;7:171–185. doi: 10.1080/07434619112331275883. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Capps R, Fix M, Murray J, Ost J, Passel JS, Herwantoro S. The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Urban Institute (NJ1); 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Clendon SA, Erickson KA. The vocabulary of beginning writers: Implications for children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2008;24:281–293. doi: 10.1080/07434610802463999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clendon SA, Sturm JM, Cali KS. Vocabulary use across genres: Implications for students with complex communication needs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2013;44:61–72. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/10-0112). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Connelly V, Dockrell JE, Walter K, Critten S. Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication. 2012;29:278–302. doi: 10.1177/0741088312451109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Crestani CAM, Clendon SA, Hemsley B. Words needed for sharing a story: Implications for vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2010;35:268–278. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2010.513966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Curenton SM, Justice LM. African American and Caucasian preschoolers’ use of decontextualized language: Literate language features in oral narratives. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. 2004;35:240–253. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2004/023). doi:0161-1461/04/3503-0240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dockrell JE, Ricketts J, Charman T, Lindsay G. Exploring writing products in students with language impairments and autism spectrum disorders. Learning and Instruction. 2014;32:81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fallon KA, Light JC, Paige TK. Enhancing vocabulary selection for preschoolers who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2001;10:881–94. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2001/010). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fried-Oken M, More L. An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 1992;8:41–56. doi: 10.1080/07434619212331276033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Graves D. An examination of the writing process of seven-year-old children. Research in the Teaching of English. 1975;9:227–241. [Google Scholar]
- Hooper SR, Roberts JE, Nelson L, Zeisel S, Fannin DK. Preschool predictors of narrative writing skills in elementary school children. American Psychological Association School Psychology Quarterly. 2010:25. doi: 10.1037/a001888329. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Kroll JF, Merves JS. Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1986;12:92–102. [Google Scholar]
- Lienemann TO, Graham S, Leader-Janssen B, Reid R. Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in the second grade. Journal of Special Education. 2006;40:66–78. [Google Scholar]
- McGinnis JS, Beukelman DR. Vocabulary requirements for writing activities for the academically mainstreamed student with disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 1989;5:183–191. doi: 10.1080/07434618912331275186. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Miller JF, Iglesias A. Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT), English & Spanish (Version 12) [Computer software] Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin – Madison, Waisman Center, Language Analysis Laboratory; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Miller B, McArdle P. Reflections on the need for continued research on writing. Reading and Writing. 2011;24:121–132. doi: 10.1007/s11145-101-9267-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mineo BA, Peischl D, Pennington C. Moving targets: The effect of animation on identification of action word representations. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication. 2008;24:162–173. doi: 10.1080/07434610802109915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore C, Furrow D, Chiasson L, Patriquin M. Developmental relationships between production and comprehension of mental terms. First Language. 1994;14:1–17. doi: 10.1177/014272379401404001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Morrow DR, Mirenda P, Beukelman DR, Yorkston KM. Vocabulary selection for augmentative communication systems: A comparison of three techniques. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 1993;2:19–30. doi: 10.1080/07434619112331275883. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Myhill D, Fisher R. Writing development: Cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic perspectives. Journal of Research in Reading. 2010;33:1–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01428.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Scott C. Learning to write. In: Catts H, Kamhi A, editors. Language and reading disabilities. 2. 2005. pp. 233–273. [Google Scholar]
- Singer B, Bashir A. Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In: Stone CA, Silliman ER, Ehren BJ, Apel K, editors. Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders. New York: Guilford Press; 2004. pp. 559–582. [Google Scholar]
- Snodgrass MR, Stoner JB, Angell ME. Teaching conceptually referenced core vocabulary for initial augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2013;29:322–333. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.848932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith M, Grove N. Input/output asymmetries – Implications for language development in AAC. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication; Vancouver, Canada. August 7–10.1996. [Google Scholar]
- Sturm JM, Clendon SA. Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: Fostering the relationship. Topics in Language Disorders. 2004;24:76–91. doi: 10.1097/00011363-200401000-00008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sun L, Nippold MA. Narrative writing in children and adolescents: Examining the literate lexicon. Language Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools. 2012;43:2–13. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0099). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sutton A, Soto G, Blockberger S. Grammatical issues in graphic symbol communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2002;18:192–204. doi: 10.1080/07434610212331281271. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor JE, Hart SA, Mikolajewski AJ, Schatschneider C. An update on the Florida state twin registry. Twin Research and Human Genetics. 2013;16:471–475. doi: 10.1017/thg.2012.74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thistle JJ, Wilkinson KM. Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: Current practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2015:1–13. doi: 10.31109/07434618.2015.1035798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trembath D, Balandin S, Togher L. Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2007;32:291–301. doi: 10.1080/13668250701689298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Troia GA. Research in writing instruction: What we know and what we need to know. In: Pressley M, Billman A, Perry K, Refitt K, Reynolds JM, editors. Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Walker I, Hulme C. Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1999;25:1256–1271. [Google Scholar]
- Wechsler D. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIATT-II) London: Pearson: Harcourt Assessment; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wise JC, Sevcik RA, Morris RD, Lovett MD, Wolf W. The relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2007;50:1093–1109. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/076). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Witkowski D, Baker B. Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for nonliterate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2012;21:74–81. doi: 10.1044/aac21.3.1-ce. [DOI] [Google Scholar]