Aspects of grammar sensitive to procedural memory deficits in children with specific language impairment.
Kids with SLI stumble on grammar tasks that tap sequencing—screen inflectional morphology and non-adjacent dependencies, not just general language.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sengottuvel et al. (2013) compared grammar skills in kids with specific language impairment (SLI) and typically developing peers. They looked at two grammar spots that lean on sequencing: adding word endings like -ed and tracking non-adjacent word pairs such as 'the cat that is big sleeps.'
The team used quick picture-choice tasks. Kids saw a picture and picked the sentence that matched it. This set-up kept memory load low so poor sequencing would show up clearly.
What they found
Children with SLI scored lower on both ending-word and non-adjacent grammar tasks. The gap stayed even when the kids understood the vocabulary, pointing to a weak sequencing system rather than missing words.
The same SLI group also learned a simple button sequence more slowly. Grammar trouble tracked with sequence trouble, fitting the idea that one brain circuit handles both.
How this fits with other research
Vugs et al. (2013) pooled data from many studies and found medium-sized visuospatial working-memory deficits in SLI. Kuppuraj narrows the target: the hurt lies in procedural sequencing, not in every memory box.
Goldstein et al. (1991) saw a similar sequential weakness in high-functioning autism and language-impaired kids. Both groups stumbled on step-by-step tasks, hinting that sequential processing may be a shared soft spot across developmental disorders.
Laposa et al. (2017) looked at adults with dyslexia and found sequencing problems only when the task was hard. SLI kids, in contrast, showed trouble even on easy grammar choices, suggesting their sequencing deficit is deeper and earlier-appearing.
Why it matters
When you test a child with slow or odd language, add quick probes for word endings and non-adjacent pairs. Poor scores here can flag a sequencing-based SLI even if vocabulary looks fine. Pair those probes with a simple motor-sequence game; if that is also slow, you have a coherent account to share with parents and teachers. Targeting sequence skills in therapy—through patterned drills or structured grammar games—may lift both grammar and procedural learning in these kids.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a five-item probe for past-tense -ed and non-adjacent agreement during your next language intake; note if errors cluster with poor motor sequence learning.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Procedural deficit hypothesis claims that language deficit in children with specific language impairment is affiliated to sequence learning problems. However, studies did not explore on aspects of grammar vulnerable to sequence learning deficits. The present study makes predictions for aspects of grammar that could be sensitive to procedural deficits based on core ideas of procedural deficit hypothesis. The hypothesis for the present study was that the grammatical operations that require greater sequencing abilities (such as inflectional operations) would be more affected in children with language impairment. Further, the influence of sequencing difficulties would be even greater in agglutinating inflectional languages. An adapted serial reaction time task for sequence learning measurements along with grammatical tasks on derivation, inflection, and sentence complexity were examined on typically developing and language impaired children. Results were in favor of procedural deficit hypothesis and its close relation to non-adjacent grammatical operations. The findings were discussed using procedural deficits, declarative compensatory mechanism, and statistical learning deficits.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.036