Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mean length of utterance

Mean length of utterance (MLU) is a quantitative measure in linguistics that assesses the syntactic complexity of spoken language by calculating the average number of morphemes in a sample of utterances, typically obtained by dividing the total number of morphemes by the number of complete, intelligible utterances.^[1] This metric, which focuses on morphemes rather than words to account for grammatical inflections and derivations, provides a more precise indicator of language development than chronological age alone, particularly in early childhood.^[2] Originally proposed by developmental psychologist Roger Brown in his 1973 book A First Language: The Early Stages, MLU serves as a foundational tool for tracking the progression of grammatical structures in young children, correlating with stages of morphological and syntactic acquisition. MLU is most commonly applied in the study of typical and atypical child language acquisition, where values typically range from 1.0 (single words) in the earliest stages to around 4.0 by age 4–5 years in English-speaking children, after which it becomes less sensitive to further development.^[3] It has been validated as a reliable and responsive indicator of syntactic growth across discourse contexts in school-age children as well, though its interpretation requires consideration of language-specific norms, as direct application to non-English languages may overestimate or underestimate complexity without adjustments.^[4]^[5] In clinical settings, MLU helps identify delays in children with specific language impairment (SLI), showing concurrent validity and stable growth trajectories when compared to typically developing peers.^[6] Despite its widespread use, MLU's reliability depends on standardized sampling protocols, such as analyzing at least 50–100 utterances to minimize variability, and it is often supplemented with qualitative analyses of error patterns or discourse features for a fuller picture of language proficiency.^[7] Research continues to refine MLU variants, such as word-based measures for cross-linguistic applicability, underscoring its enduring role as a benchmark in developmental linguistics.^[2]

Definition and History

Definition

The mean length of utterance (MLU) is a quantitative measure used in linguistics to assess expressive language development, particularly in children, by calculating the average number of morphemes—or alternatively words—per utterance in a sample of spontaneous speech.^[8] It serves as an index of syntactic complexity and productivity, reflecting how speakers combine linguistic units to convey meaning. The basic formula for MLU is the total number of morphemes divided by the total number of utterances:

\text{MLU} = \frac{\text{total number of morphemes}}{\text{total number of utterances}}

This approach, originally proposed by Roger Brown in 1973 as a developmental index superior to chronological age, emphasizes morphemes to capture grammatical nuances beyond simple word counts.^[9] An utterance is defined as a natural unit of spoken language, typically bounded by pauses, breaths, or changes in intonation, representing a complete stretch of speech produced by a single speaker.^[10] In contrast, a morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a language, which cannot be further divided without losing significance; these include free morphemes, such as standalone words like "dog" or "run," and bound morphemes, such as affixes like "-s" indicating plurality.^[11] For example, the utterance "dogs run" consists of three morphemes: the free morpheme "dog," the bound morpheme "-s" for plural, and the free morpheme "run," which would contribute to the overall MLU calculation in a larger sample.^[12]

Historical Development

The concept of mean length of utterance (MLU), defined as the average number of morphemes in a child's spontaneous speech samples, was introduced by psychologist Roger Brown in his seminal 1973 book A First Language: The Early Stages. Brown argued that MLU provided a superior alternative to chronological age for delineating developmental stages in early language acquisition, as it directly reflected syntactic and morphological growth rather than relying on potentially variable maturational timelines. Based on longitudinal transcripts from three English-speaking children (Adam, Eve, and Sarah) recorded between 1962 and 1964, he established five stages corresponding to MLU ranges: Stage I (1.0–2.0), Stage II (2.0–2.5), Stage III (2.5–3.0), Stage IV (3.0–3.75), and Stage V (3.75–4.0+), each marked by the emergence of specific grammatical structures.^[13] Following its introduction, MLU gained rapid adoption in the 1970s and 1980s as a core metric in longitudinal studies of child language development, particularly for tracking expressive abilities in typically developing English-speaking children. Researchers frequently employed Brown's morpheme-based calculation in naturalistic speech analyses, enabling comparisons across diverse samples and highlighting patterns of syntactic expansion over time. This period saw MLU integrated into major developmental linguistics projects, solidifying its role as a standardized, age-independent benchmark for early grammatical proficiency.^[2] In the 1990s, refinements to MLU focused on its clinical utility, including the establishment of normative data for identifying developmental delays. A key milestone was the 1990 prospective study by Dorothy V. M. Bishop and Catherine Adams, which linked lower MLU scores at age 4.5 years in children with specific language impairment to persistent reading difficulties by age 8.5, underscoring MLU's predictive value for later literacy outcomes. Building on such work, Mabel L. Rice and colleagues provided updated MLU norms in 2010, offering 6-month interval benchmarks for children aged 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments, which enhanced its precision in differentiating typical from atypical development.)

Calculation Methods

Morpheme-Based Calculation

The morpheme-based calculation of mean length of utterance (MLU) is the standard method introduced by Roger Brown for assessing early language development in children, focusing on the average number of morphemes— the smallest meaningful units of language— per utterance.^[14] A free morpheme stands alone as a word, such as "cat" or "run," while a bound morpheme attaches to another, such as the plural "-s" in "cats" or the past tense "-ed" in "walked."^[15] This approach emphasizes morphological complexity by counting each morpheme separately, providing insight into a child's grammatical sophistication beyond mere word count.^[14] Brown's (1973) rules for identifying and tallying morphemes include the following key guidelines: count each free morpheme and bound morpheme as one unit, so "dogs" totals two morphemes ("dog" + "-s"); diminutives like "-y" in "doggie" count as a single morpheme rather than separate units; proper names, such as "Mommy," are treated as one morpheme regardless of their form; compound words like "birthday" or ritualized reduplications like "choo-choo" count as single morphemes; and irregular forms, such as the past tense "went," are counted as one despite their historical composition.^[14]^[16] Auxiliaries (e.g., "is"), catenatives (e.g., "gonna"), and inflections (e.g., possessive "'s," progressive "-ing") are each counted separately.^[16] These rules apply to spontaneous speech samples, excluding fillers like "um," exact imitations of prior utterances, routines such as songs or counting sequences, and unintelligible portions.^[14]^[15] To compute MLU, sum the total number of morphemes across a sample of 50 to 100 complete utterances and divide by the number of utterances analyzed:

\text{MLU} = \frac{\sum \text{number of morphemes in each utterance}}{\text{number of utterances}}

^[14] For example, consider a small sample of five utterances: "Dog run" (2 morphemes), "Cats play" (3), "Mommy go-ed" (3, with "-ed" as bound), "Big doggie" (3, with "-ie" as one), and "I see it" (3), totaling 14 morphemes. This yields an MLU of $14 / 5 = 2.8.^[15] In typically developing English-speaking children, MLU progresses predictably with age per Brown's stages: approximately 1.0 in the early period of 12-18 months (Stage I), rising to around 3.0 by 36-42 months (Stage IV), reflecting increasing use of grammatical structures.^[14]^[15] This morpheme-based method, while more precise for capturing syntax, contrasts with word-based alternatives that simplify analysis by treating inflected forms as single units.^[14]

Word-Based Calculation

The word-based calculation of mean length of utterance (MLU-w) provides a simpler alternative to morpheme counting by tallying whole words within utterances. This method involves segmenting a child's spontaneous speech into complete utterances—defined as independent clauses or communicative units—and counting each lexical item as a single word, including contractions such as "don't" or "I'm" treated as one unit. The total number of words across a sample (typically 50 to 100 utterances) is then divided by the number of utterances to yield the average.^[17]^[2] The formula for MLU-w is expressed as:

\text{MLU-w} = \frac{\text{total number of words}}{\text{total number of utterances}}

For instance, in the utterance "Dogs run fast," there are three words, resulting in an MLU-w of 3.0 if based on a single utterance; across multiple utterances, the average reflects overall syntactic maturity. This approach is particularly suitable for quick assessments in resource-limited settings due to its straightforward application without requiring detailed morphological analysis.^[17] Unlike morpheme-based MLU (MLU-m), which captures inflectional elements like plurals or past tenses as separate units, MLU-w is less sensitive to a language's morphological complexity, potentially underestimating grammatical detail in richly inflected tongues. However, studies on English-speaking children aged 3;0 to 3;10 have demonstrated a near-perfect correlation between MLU-w and MLU-m (r = 0.98), indicating that word-based measures effectively track gross language development.^[18] For languages with low inflectional morphology, where word and morpheme counts are nearly equivalent, MLU-w is recommended as a reliable and efficient metric, especially for initial screenings.^[2]

Sampling and Reliability Considerations

To ensure accurate measurement of mean length of utterance (MLU), language samples are typically collected as 50 to 100 spontaneous utterances from children in play-based or conversational settings, such as free play with toys or natural interactions, while avoiding structured elicitation techniques like direct questions or prompted responses that may constrain expressive output.^[19] This approach promotes representative data reflective of everyday language use, with samples often gathered over 20 to 30 minutes to capture sufficient variability without fatigue.^[20] Reliability of MLU calculations depends on several procedural factors, including inter-rater agreement, which can reach 90% or higher when transcribers receive standardized training in utterance segmentation and morpheme identification.^[21] Test-retest variability also diminishes with increased sample size; for instance, samples of 100 utterances yield more stable results than those of 50, as larger sets better account for fluctuations in child performance across sessions.^[22] Miller (1981) emphasized 100 intelligible utterances as optimal for diagnostic reliability, particularly in morpheme-based analyses. Decisions on excluding certain utterance types further impact reliability and MLU values; removing imitations, single-word yes/no responses, and elliptical answers (e.g., short replies to questions) typically raises the MLU by an average of 18%, depending on the child's age and discourse demands, as these exclusions eliminate non-informative or context-bound elements.^[23] Johnston's (2001) analysis of samples from typically developing children aged 2 to 5 years showed this adjustment reduces variability tied to adult-child interaction patterns while preserving the measure's sensitivity to syntactic growth.^[23] Discourse context exerts a notable influence on MLU outcomes, with narrative elicitation (e.g., story retelling) producing higher MLU values than free play, as the structured demands of narratives encourage longer, more complex utterances.^[24] In contrast, free play contexts yield more variable but ecologically valid samples, often resulting in MLU scores 0.5 to 1.0 morphemes lower than narrative tasks in preschoolers.^[25] Researchers recommend documenting context to interpret these differences appropriately.^[20]

Applications

In Child Language Acquisition

In child language acquisition, mean length of utterance (MLU) serves as a key indicator of syntactic and morphological development, correlating closely with established stages of language growth. For instance, an MLU between 1.0 and 2.0 typically aligns with the telegraphic speech phase, where children aged 18 to 30 months produce simple two-word combinations, as seen in the early emergence of basic grammatical morphemes. As MLU advances to 2.0-3.0, children around 30 to 42 months begin forming basic sentences with increased grammatical elements, reflecting greater sentence connectivity. Beyond an MLU of 3.0, typically from 42 months onward, children demonstrate complex syntax, incorporating embedded clauses and advanced morphology. These correspondences build on the foundational framework outlined by Brown (1973), who linked MLU progression to the sequential acquisition of 14 grammatical morphemes across five stages.^[26] Normative data for typically developing English-speaking children further illustrate MLU's role in tracking milestones. For example, children without language impairments exhibit an average MLU of 3.81 morphemes at age 3;0-3;5, rising to 4.57 at age 4;0-4;5, and reaching approximately 4.88 by age 5;0-5;5 in spontaneous speech samples. These age-referenced benchmarks, derived from large-scale longitudinal samples, provide a reliable gauge of expected progress in expressive language complexity during the preschool years.^[3] Early MLU also holds predictive value for subsequent language outcomes, particularly in vocabulary expansion and grammatical proficiency. Research demonstrates that initial MLU levels in preschoolers forecast syntactic development into school age, with higher early scores associated with more robust sentence structures and lexical diversity by ages 6-8.^[27] A 2022 analysis of school-age children's language samples confirmed MLU's sensitivity in capturing ongoing syntactic growth.^[28] This underscores its utility as an early prognostic tool for typical trajectories. Gender differences in MLU during this period are minimal overall, though girls tend to exhibit slightly higher values by age 4, potentially reflecting subtle advantages in syntactic maturity. Meta-analytic evidence across multiple studies supports this pattern, attributing small effect sizes to girls' marginally longer utterances in narrative and conversational contexts, without broad disparities in overall development.^[29]

In Clinical Assessment

In clinical assessment, mean length of utterance (MLU) serves as a key metric for diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) in children, where scores typically fall one standard deviation or more below age-matched norms, highlighting deficits in expressive syntax and morphology. This threshold helps clinicians identify children requiring intervention, as persistent low MLU distinguishes SLI from typical variation in language development. For instance, longitudinal data from children aged 3 to 9 years show that those with SLI maintain MLU levels approximately 0.5 to 1.0 morphemes below typically developing peers across 6-month intervals, underscoring the measure's sensitivity to ongoing impairment.^[3] Similarly, in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), MLU reveals expressive language challenges, with scores significantly lower than in neurotypical children after accounting for vocabulary size, nonverbal IQ, and utterance frequency; this pattern holds particularly for those aged 3 to 6 years with comorbid language delays.^[30] A landmark prospective study by Bishop and Adams (1990) further illustrates MLU's prognostic value, finding that reduced MLU at 4.5 years in children with early language impairments strongly predicts reading comprehension and decoding deficits at age 8, even after controlling for phonological skills.^[31] MLU also facilitates monitoring progress in speech-language therapy, where increases in scores post-intervention signal gains in utterance complexity and overall language proficiency. For example, expansion-based therapies targeting preschoolers with language delays have yielded MLU rises of 0.5 to 0.7 morphemes following structured sessions, demonstrating measurable advancement in grammatical development.^[32] To enhance diagnostic accuracy, clinicians routinely combine MLU from spontaneous language samples—calculated as total morphemes divided by number of utterances—with standardized assessments like the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), which evaluates receptive and expressive domains for a holistic profile of impairment.^[33] Recent research as of 2025 has begun exploring novel measures extending beyond traditional MLU to better characterize spoken language in autistic children, enhancing its clinical applications.^[34]

Cross-Linguistic Studies

Cross-linguistic studies of mean length of utterance (MLU) have highlighted the need for adaptations when applying this measure to languages with diverse morphological structures, moving beyond English-based baselines where MLU is typically calculated in morphemes or words.^[35] In agglutinative languages like those in the Southern Bantu family, including isiXhosa, Sesotho, Setswana, and Xitsonga, morphological complexity poses challenges to standard MLU application due to extensive use of affixes for noun classes and verb conjugations. A 2024 study of 448 toddlers aged 16–32 months validated MLU as a reliable index of early language development in these languages, despite the agglutinative nature, by using parent-report data from adapted MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MB-CDI). The research found higher MLU values compared to English norms, attributed to the inclusion of bound morphemes like prefixes and suffixes, necessitating adjusted developmental benchmarks for accurate assessment. For instance, MLU in morphemes (MLU-m) showed stronger correlations with grammar scores (r = 0.49–0.82 across languages) than in words, underscoring its utility in capturing morphosyntactic growth in such contexts.^[5] Applications of MLU in tonal, analytic languages like Mandarin reveal influences from specific parts of speech on utterance length. A 2024 investigation of 240 Mandarin-speaking children aged 3–6 years analyzed spontaneous language samples to determine how lexical categories affect MLU. Results indicated that prepositions and conjunctions positively contributed to longer utterances by facilitating syntactic connections, while interjections had a negative effect by shortening them due to their standalone nature. This suggests that MLU calculations in Mandarin should account for these category-specific patterns to better reflect developmental progress in sentence complexity.^[36] Comparative analyses of morpheme-based (MLU-m) versus word-based (MLU-w) calculations emphasize the former's advantages in morphologically rich languages during early development. In the aforementioned 2024 Southern Bantu study, MLU-m explained greater variance in grammar development (up to 49%) than MLU-w (up to 48%), as morpheme counting better captures the agglutinative layering of affixes essential to these languages' syntax. Similarly, a 2023 examination in Czech, another morphologically complex Slavic language, compared MLU variants in 109 toddlers and found morpheme-based measures more sensitive to inflectional changes in early stages, though word-based versions remained predictive overall. These findings support prioritizing MLU-m for initial developmental tracking in languages where morphology significantly expands utterance units.^[5]^[35] Recent advancements have validated MLU for school-age children beyond toddlerhood, incorporating varied discourse contexts and extending its use to bilingual populations. A 2022 study of 32 English-speaking children aged 5 and 8 years elicited language samples in narrative and question-answer tasks, demonstrating MLU's responsiveness to age and context differences, with strong correlations to syntactic metrics like clausal density (r > 0.70). This validation confirms MLU as a stable measure of syntactic growth in school-age discourse, and subsequent applications have adapted it for bilingual assessments, such as in Spanish-English samples, to evaluate balanced development across languages without monolingual bias.^[37]

Limitations and Alternatives

Criticisms and Variability

One major source of variability in MLU calculations stems from differences in sampling procedures, such as the discourse context in which speech samples are elicited; for instance, narrative tasks often yield higher MLU values than question-answer formats.^[38] Additionally, rater subjectivity in identifying and counting morphemes introduces further inconsistency, as decisions on utterance boundaries, bound morphemes, and elliptical responses can vary between analysts, leading to reliability coefficients that, while often high (e.g., >0.90 for intra-rater agreement), are not immune to interpretive differences.^[2] To mitigate such variability, standardized sampling procedures in controlled contexts are recommended, though they cannot eliminate all sources of fluctuation.^[38] Critics argue that MLU places undue emphasis on the quantity of linguistic elements over their quality, as longer utterances do not necessarily reflect greater grammatical sophistication and the measure overlooks semantic and pragmatic dimensions of language use. For example, a child producing repetitive or ungrammatical long strings might score higher than one using concise, contextually appropriate syntax, thus failing to capture meaningful communicative competence. Furthermore, while MLU correlates with Brown's early stages up to Stage V (around MLU 4.0–4.5), it has been shown to remain a valid and responsive indicator of syntactic growth in school-age children up to age 8 across discourse contexts.^[38] MLU is not considered diagnostic on its own for identifying language impairment or proficiency, necessitating complementary assessments to avoid misdiagnosis. Its use in proficiency assessment remains controversial due to cultural and socioeconomic biases embedded in normative data, which are predominantly derived from middle-class, Western samples and may penalize dialectal variations or input differences in low-socioeconomic environments, potentially overpathologizing diverse children's development. A 2024 study on Czech toddlers found strong correlations between word-based MLU and syntactic measures such as the Index of Productive Syntax, supporting its validity in morphologically complex languages.^[35]

Alternative Measures

While the mean length of utterance (MLU) provides a broad indicator of early syntactic development, alternative measures offer enhanced sensitivity to specific aspects of grammatical complexity, particularly beyond preschool years. One prominent alternative is the Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn), which evaluates the presence of 56 distinct syntactic and morphological forms across categories such as sentence types, clause structures, and word orders, producing a total score and subscores for nuanced profiling.^[39] Developed for assessing preschoolers, IPSyn demonstrates greater sensitivity to syntactic advancements in school-age children compared to MLU, capturing ongoing development in clause diversity and morphological accuracy.^[40] Another established measure is the Developmental Sentence Score (DSS), which analyzes 50 utterances by assigning weighted points to eight grammatical elements—including pronouns, verbs, negatives, conjunctions, and questions—yielding a score that reflects overall grammatical maturity on a developmental scale.^[41] Particularly effective for children aged 3 to 8 years, DSS emphasizes error patterns and structural completeness, providing clinicians with a standardized way to track progress in expressive grammar without relying solely on utterance length.^[42] The Subordination Index (SI) addresses limitations in measuring complex sentence embedding by calculating the ratio of total clauses (main and subordinate) to communication units in a language sample, highlighting the density of dependent clauses such as relative or adverbial structures.^[43] This metric is especially valuable for detecting syntactic growth after age 4, when MLU often plateaus, as it quantifies the integration of embedded clauses that signal advanced narrative and explanatory abilities.^[44] Comparisons among these measures reveal complementary strengths; for instance, IPSyn shows strong correlations with MLU (r ≈ 0.8) in typically developing children, yet it better captures syntactic diversity and subtype variations in clinical populations with developmental language disorders.^[45]

References

[1]
Mean length of utterance - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Mean length of utterance (MLU) is defined as the average number of morphemes per utterance in a speech sample, calculated by counting the total number of ...
[2]
Length of Utterance, in Morphemes or in Words?: MLU3-w, a ...
The mean length of utterace (MLU), which was proposed by Brown (1973) as a better index for language development in children than age, has been regularly ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[3]
Mean Length of Utterance Levels in 6-month Intervals for Children 3 ...
The mean length of children's utterances is a valuable estimate of their early language acquisition. The available normative data lacks documentation of ...
[4]
Measurement Properties of Mean Length of Utterance in School-Age ...
MLU is a responsive and valid measure of children's syntactic development across age and discourse context during the early school-age years.
[5]
Mean Length of Utterance: A study of early language development ...
Feb 8, 2024 · Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) has been widely used to measure children's early language development in a variety of languages.
[6]
[PDF] Mean Length of Utterance in Children With Specific Language ...
Purpose: Although mean length of utterance (MLU) is a useful benchmark in studies of children with specific language impairment (SLI), some empirical and ...
[7]
[PDF] Reliability of the Mean Length of Utterance Measure in Samples of ...
Mean length of utterance (MLU) is widely used in child language sample analysis as a way to quantify language development. The current study examines the ...
[8]
Mean length of utterance - APA Dictionary of Psychology
a measure of language development in young children based on the average length of utterances in their spontaneous speech. It is usually calculated by ...
[9]
Length of Utterance, in Morphemes or in Words?: MLU3-w, a ... - PMC
Jan 8, 2018 · The mean length of utterace (MLU), which was proposed by Brown (1973) as a better index for language development in children than age, ...
[10]
utterances - APA Dictionary of Psychology
Apr 19, 2018 · n. a unit of spoken language, which may be of any length but can usually be identified by conversational turn taking or by clear breaks in ...<|separator|>
[11]
MORPHEME | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
the smallest unit of language that has its own meaning, either a word or a part of a word. "Worker" contains two morphemes: "work" and "-er."
[12]
Definition and Examples of Morphemes in English - ThoughtCo
Apr 30, 2025 · Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in a language. They are commonly classified as either free morphemes, which can occur as separate ...
[13]
(PDF) A First Language: The Early Stages - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · A First Language: The Early Stages. September 1974; Modern Language Journal 58(5/6):268. DOI:10.2307/325028. Authors: Don L. F. Nilsen at ...
[14]
A First Language - Harvard University Press
Jul 1, 2009 · This longitudinal research project records the conversational performances of three children, studying both semantic and grammatical aspects of their language ...Missing: URL | Show results with:URL
[15]
Brown's Stages of Syntactic and Morphological Development
Nov 9, 2011 · Between 12 and 26 months, children are expected to have MLUm's (mean length of utterance measured in morphemes) of about 1.75 morphemes (range ...Missing: original paper
[16]
Browns Rules for MLU Calculation in Child Language Development
Rating 4.3 (12) Count as separate morphemes all inflections, for example, possessive [s], plural [s], third person singular [s], regular past [d], and progressive [ing].
[17]
Methodological issues in the calculation of mean length of utterance
Aug 7, 2025 · MLU is determined by counting either words (MLU-w) or morphemes (MLU-m) in a sample of spontaneous recorded utterances (typically 100 per child) ...
[18]
A comparative study between mean length of utterance in ...
A comparative study between mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLUm) and mean length of utterance in words (MLUw). Matthew D. Parker and Kent BrorsonView ...
[19]
Using Computer Programs for Language Sample Analysis
Nov 7, 2019 · While 50-utterance samples are likely adequate for computing broad measures of utterance length and lexical diversity, 100-utterance samples may ...
[20]
[PDF] The Use of MLU for Identifying Language Impairment in Preschool ...
Mean length of utterance (MLU) was the most frequently listed LSA procedure, with 91% usage (Loeb et al., 2000). On these surveys, one of the main reasons.
[21]
[PDF] AVAILABLE FROM - ERIC
This publication discusses Language Sample Analysis (LSA) for identifying language disorders, initiating intervention, and monitoring progress. It is available ...
[22]
A Comparison between Three Methods of Language Sampling
Aug 6, 2025 · The purpose of this study was to compare Conversation, Freeplay, and narrative speech in aspects of Mean Length of Utterance (MLU), Type-token ratio (TTR), and ...
[23]
Impact of Discourse Type and Elicitation Task on Language ...
Their results indicated that the expository elicitation context yielded higher MLU in morphemes (MLUM) than the personal narrative elicitation context.
[24]
Roger Brown, A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.
Roger Brown, A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Pp. xi + 437. Published online by Cambridge University Press.
[25]
Measurement Properties of Mean Length of Utterance in School-Age ...
Aug 5, 2022 · Brown (1973) argued that MLU indexed the constructional complexity of children's developing language. Yet, there is disagreement regarding ...
[26]
[PDF] Gender Differences in Children's Language: A Meta-Analysis ... - ERIC
In their study of 162. Greek-speaking children aged 4–12 years, they found that girls tended to express a larger vocabulary than boys, but only at certain ages ...
[27]
A prospective study of the relationship between specific language ...
Language and literacy skills were assessed in 83 8 1/2-year olds whose language development had been impaired at 4 years of age.
[28]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9911097/
[29]
The Relationship Between Standardized Measures of Language ...
This study investigated the relationship between scores on standardized tests (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals [CELF], Peabody Picture Vocabulary ...
[30]
Mean Length of Utterance in Czech Toddlers: Validity Estimates and ...
Purpose: We examined the properties of mean length of utterance (MLU) in Czech, a morphologically complex Slavic language. We compared the scores of MLU ...
[31]
Role of Parts of Speech in Utterance Length for Mandarin-Speaking ...
Nov 14, 2024 · Their results showed that the lexical words of children aged 1 year and 8 months were predictors of MLU for children aged 2 years and 1 month, ...
[32]
Measurement Properties of Mean Length of Utterance in School-Age ...
Aug 7, 2022 · The effect of age group on MLU was in the predicted direction: Language samples produced by 8-year-old children had greater MLUs than those ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1201513/
[34]
Index of Productive Syntax | Applied Psycholinguistics
Nov 28, 2008 · In the Index of Productive Syntax, occurrences of 56 syntactic and morphological forms are counted, yielding a total score and subscores for ...
[35]
A Revision of the Index of Productive Syntax - PubMed - NIH
Oct 24, 2018 · Purpose: The Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn; Scarborough, 1990) is widely used to measure syntax production in young children.
[36]
Developmental Sentence Analysis - Laura Louise Lee - Google Books
A grammatical assessment procedure for speech and language clinicians. Front Cover. Laura Louise Lee. Northwestern University Press, 1974.
[37]
[PDF] developmental sentence scoring: a clinical procedure for estimating ...
The DSS procedure gives weighted scores to a developmental order of pronouns, verbs, negatives, conjunctions, yes- no questions, and wh-questions. The mean ...
[38]
[PDF] Subordination Index - Salt Software
This guide contains the scoring rules for the Subordination Index (SI), and directions for using SALT to enter SI codes into a transcript and to generate ...
[39]
[PDF] Mean Length of Utterance and Use of Subordination Among
The Subordination Index produces a ratio of the total number of clauses to the total number of communication units (Miller et al., 2011).Missing: syntax | Show results with:syntax
[40]
[PDF] The Validity of a Transcript-Based Measure of Child Language ...
We also found strong correlations between IPSyn and MLU, and between. IPSyn and NDW at both time points, with stronger results for the first time point. (r's > ...