Story Language

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

STORY LANGUAGE: MACROSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

By

KELLY SMITH

A Thesis submitted to theSchool of Communication Science and Disorders

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded:Spring, 2017

1

Story Language 2

Story Language

Abstract

This project investigated how macrostructure story language use varies among 3-to-5-

year-old preschool children when told to retell the story “Billy Bear & the Balloon”. The goal

was to see what macrostructure elements children this age use in their story retellings, and

furthermore, at what frequency they use them. This was done by having the participants each

watch the short movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon”, then retell the story while the clinician

collected their language sample using a simple recording device. The language samples were

then transcribed and coded for each macrostructure element being investigated. Upon

examination of their coded language samples, it became clear that there is a potential relationship

between both story language use and age, and story language use and gender. This research

highlights the importance of awareness of story language use norms, particularly as dependent on

both age and gender, as deviation from the norm could indicate a potential language impairment

that needs to be addressed in clinical therapy.

Keywords: story language, macrostructure, preschool, story retelling, gender, early childhood,

language development

3

Story Language

STORY LANGUAGE: MACROSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

Introduction

Narratives, as defined by Boudreau and Chapman (2000), are written and/or oral accounts

of a series of events, presented through that of fictional stories, scripts, or personal events. All

children possess the ability to tell both fictional (Gerrig, Berman & Slobin, 1995) and personal

event narratives (Bliss & McCabe, 2008) to an audience. When children can tell stories with

control over macrostructural elements of language (the narrative structure of a story), they

demonstrate important language growth and development milestones. The use of spoken

narration is an important language development milestone for children, because it further shows

a child’s ability to comprehend, analyze, organize, and produce language appropriately for his or

her age (Champion, Seymour, & Camarata, 1995).

As past research has shown, both personal and fictional narratives comprise a large part

of the spontaneous discourse produced by typical-developing children (Westerveld, Gillon, &

Boyd, 2012). Narrative storytelling in general is a complex use of language, because it requires a

certain level of narrative competence from the speaker, along with the ability to mentally

organize the account or recount of the past experience before producing the narrative itself, all

while using appropriate macrostructure elements (Bliss & McCabe, 2012). While telling a story,

speakers are also tasked with the ability to stay on track with the organizational framework of a

narrative, and to also be mindful of the reaction of their audience in terms of whether their

attention is being kept or not (Hughes, 2001).

4

Story Language

What is the Macrostructure of Story Language?

Macrostructure story language can be defined as the language used to move the listener

through the events of the story from the beginning, when the characters and the setting of the

story are first introduced, through the plot of the story to the end where the resolution occurs

(Hughes, McGillivray & Schmidek, 2009). Components of story language macrostructure

include: the characters (C), the setting (S), episodes—initiating event (IE), plot (PL), attempt

(A), consequence (K), reaction (R)—and an ending (E). Macrostructure use develops with age,

becoming more and more complex over time. For example, at around 4-6 years of age, children

should be using IE, A, and C episodes, along with being able to provide a setting and an ending

to their story (Hoffman, 2009). With age, children learn to add and develop more episodes into

their stories to make them more complex and in depth (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).

Narrative Language Influencing Factors

Past research states that there are a variety of different factors that can influence a child’s

narrative language. Two factors that are particularly relevant to this research project are that of

age and gender. In a past study held by of Hudson and Shapiro (1991), it was found that, as

children develop and age, they start to include a greater number of macrostructural elements in

their narratives, making their stories increasingly complex. This study also found that children in

preschool through third grade knew to provide their listeners with necessary character and setting

information, so as to immediately orient their listeners to the story at hand. Similarly, other

studies have shown developmental differences in narratives by age. Pre-school-aged children

tend to combine events in their narrations more than younger children, but may narrate out of

sequence or without acknowledging characters’ goals (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).

5

Story Language

Gender can also have an influence on a child’s narrative language development. This

particular developmental factor has been researched extensively with the overall conclusion that

female children have an accelerated ability in terms of language acquisition and development.

Studies have found that infant girls, on average, produce their first pointing gestures (a precursor

to spoken language) earlier than boys (Butterworth & Morissette, 1996). Furthermore, girls not

only produce their first words (Maccoby, 1966) and first sentences (Ramer, 1976) at a younger

age than boys, but they also have larger vocabularies (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, &

Lyons, 1991) and use a greater amount of different sentence structure types than boys of the

same age (Ramer, 1976).

In a research study performed on five boys and five girls aged 4-5 years old, researchers

found 30% more of the gene FOX2P, one of the primary genes responsible for the production of

speech, in the female children than the male children (Bowers, Perez-Pouchoulen, Edwards, &

McCarthy, 2013). However, this study has not been without criticism, as other professionals

have claimed that a study of such a small sample size cannot be relied upon to generalize the

answer to gender differences in language. At this point in time, there is no single, clear indicator

as to why boys and girls differ in language development. It could be due to genetic differences

like that of FOX2P, hormone balance differences, socialization, or even a combination of many

different factors.

The Importance of Macrostructure Use, Both Developmentally and Academically

Developmentally speaking, use of proper macrostructural elements in story language

helps to distinguish children with language impairments from their typically developing peers

(Allen, Ukrainetz, Carswell, 2012). If a child is not using the proper amount of macrostructural

6

Story Language

elements while telling or retelling a story, when most of his or her peers are, it could be

indicative of a variety of developmental issues. For example, it could mean that the child is not

comprehending the original story, and so has trouble retelling the story to a listener. Poor

storytelling skills are also signs of a social pragmatic language impairment. According to the

2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition), one of the diagnostic

criteria for a social pragmatic communication disorder is that of difficulty in storytelling

(American Psychiatric Association). Narrative language, particularly narrative retelling, helps to

bridge oral and written language, and is important in overall reading and writing skill

development for young children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). If a child has poor discourse

and narrative language skills, he or she is at high risk for learning and literacy difficulties later on

in development if left without treatment or additional help (McCabe & Rollins, 1994).

In terms of academics, narration has practical significance for school-age children, due to

Common Core State Standards. These standards test children’s academic and mental

development in school on a yearly basis, requiring all children to meet benchmark milestones

depending on their age and grade. Florida is one of the states to have adopted this policy,

meaning all of the children observed during this research project are held to the same state-

mandated developmental standards. Narration is often included in these state benchmarks. For

example, by second grade, Common Core State Standards requires children to be able to tell or

retell a story with facts and relevant details using proper, coherent sentences (National

Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,

2010). Furthermore, it has been found in past research that narrative telling is one of the best

predictors of future academic success, due to the fact that storytelling requires a number of

higher-level language and cognitive skills (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987).

7

Story Language

Why Do We Use Language Samples?

In this research project, and in past research done by professionals in the field, language

samples have been used to better evaluate a client’s—no matter his age—speech abilities. This

type of evaluation usually occurs in informal research assessment environments, in which the

therapist or researcher records what the client says or how he behaves (Hodgson, 2011). The

researcher will often record and transcribe these language samples during activities like

interviews or play based-assessments, in which the client is meant to act as natural as possible.

Language samples can provide a great deal of very detailed information on a client’s language

abilities. For example, it can show the researcher specific language areas, like syntax,

morphology, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics, that the client is or is not using. These

samples can be coded to better see, and count, how many cases of each area of language the

client uses in his natural speech (Hodgson, 2011). In the case of this experiment, the language

samples will be collected, coded, and then counted to get a better visual representation of what

types of, and how many, macrostructures pre-k students are using in their narrative speech. This

will give us an idea of how well-developed the students’ narrative languages are for their age.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine and describe the use of macrostructure

language components in narrative story retelling by 3-to-5-year-old preschool children within the

southeast region of the United States. The primary goal of the study was to determine what

different types of macrostructural components 3-to-5-year-old children use, and to what degree

of frequency. It is hypothesized that macrostructure use variety and frequency will increase with

age.

8

Story Language

Aims of this Research Project

This research project aims to examine and describe the macrostructural elements used in

story retelling by preschool children in a number of schools throughout the southeast region of

the United States. Specific questions included:

1. What, and how many different, macrostructures are the preschool children using in their

story retellings?

2. If macrostructure use varies among the examined children, what could be the potential

reason(s) or factor(s)? Specifically, do narrative skills differ by gender and/or age?

Methods

The purpose of this study was to examine and describe the use of macrostructure

language components in narrative story retelling by preschool children within the southeast

region of the United States. Furthermore, the participant group containing children aged 3-to-5-

years-old were compared to one another as a whole, by gender, and by age. The participants of

this study were randomly sampled at a variety of preschools throughout the southeast region of

the country.

Participants

Thirty-seven children participated in this study, ranging in age from 3-to-5-years-old.

Some of the participants may have had language impairments and/or underdeveloped language

skills. These factors were not controlled for during the study due to their high occurrence in the

overall population (Quick Statistics, 2016). These conditions are likely to influence expressive

9

Story Language

language outcomes and present more generalizable productions of speech (General Information,

2017). The participants came from a variety of early learning environments in their communities.

Each of the participants was found through a larger grant funded project. Language samples were

taken from children of all genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses.

Assessment Instrument and Administration Videos

The participants of this research project were shown a short movie chosen to elicit a

narrative from the child. For this study, the short movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon” was shown

to each participating child. “Billy Bear & the Balloon” tells the story of Billy who, while walking

through the park with his friend Penguin, gets distracted by a hot air balloon, crashing into a

trashcan as a result. In doing so, Billy accidentally drops his ice cream cone on his friend,

upsetting him and causing him to lose his balloon. In order to rectify the situation, Billy tries

repeatedly to use balloons he bought in order to fly his makeshift hot air balloon made with a

trashcan into the sky in order to catch the lost balloon. Billy is unsuccessful, until he finally uses

a very big balloon to achieve lift off. This short movie was two minutes and thirty-five seconds

long.

Language Sampling

Language samples from each of the participants were taken using a digital recording

device. Participants were asked to watch the movie in its entirety, and then retell the story they

had just watched to the examiner. It was this retelling that was recorded for further

macrostructure usage analysis. Along with the language sample, the child’s birthday and gender

were also recorded. In order to maintain confidentiality, the child was also assigned a unique ID

10

Story Language

number.

After all samples were collected from the participants, each sample was transcribed by

the researcher. In order for the sample to be an accurate portrayal of the child’s language use, the

sample was transcribed as the child told the story, including grammar mistakes and improper

pronunciation of words. Worth noting is that, if a student unnecessarily repeated a portion of the

story that did not actually occur multiple times in the movie, the student was not given credit for

those repetitions in the language transcription.

Coding

The coding process of this research project involved inputting the transcribed samples into

the SALT (Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts) program for coding of the

macrostructure elements used in the participants’ utterances. This program utilized a previously

created code to label the transcriptions for further analysis by the researcher. The codes used for

this project comprised of:

1. Character (C) - Includes main character’s name or description of main character;

Introduces characters in the story by ANY proper name (may be a made-up name) or

generic label (e.g., he, she) in an attempt to identify character(s). 

2. Setting (S) - Tells where the story or events take place.  Introduces or sets the context 

3. Plot (PL) - A description of the activity that was occurring prior to character’s

recognition of the problem/goal. May also include any dialogue that occurs prior to the

initiating event. 

4. Initiating Event (IE) - Initiating events cause a response in the main character that sets the

story in motion. Tells about problems that came up. Statement of problem/goal.

11

Story Language

5. Reaction (R) - How everyone felt during the events. Thoughts/Dialogue in response to

problem. Affective responses related to the chain of events related to the initiating event 

6. Attempt (A) - Attempt of main character(s) to fix the problem (may include what one

character said to another character). Actions in pursuit of the goal/ an attempt to solve the

problem. 

7. Consequence (CO) - Explain what happened as a result of the Attempt. The result of the

attempt or action; an outcome; What the secondary character does to help/not help the

main character; Cannot be a general consequence – must be related to the attempt; (CO)

was used to denote consequence usage, so as not to confuse it with character usage, as

both labels begin with the letter “c”.

8. Ending (E) labels - Description of event that occurs after the problem is fixed; A

resolution of the problem/initiating event; A step beyond the consequence (can be a

summary statement).

Data Analysis

The analysis consisted of two components: Descriptive analysis and comparative

analysis.

Descriptive analysis

After coding the transcriptions using the SALT program, each macrostructure use event

in the language samples was counted and recorded on an Excel chart, used to accumulate all of

the collected data into one document. Each instance of character, setting, plot, initiating event,

reactions, attempt, consequence, and ending usage were tallied for every participant’s language

12

Story Language

sample. After each individual element was counted, the total number of macrostructural elements

used by each child was also recorded. Additionally, the number of different macrostructural

elements each child used was recorded. After each individual coded transcription was analyzed,

the total number of each element, the total number of macrostructural usage overall, and the total

number of different elements used by all of the participants was counted. For each

macrostructure component (including macrostructure total and macrostructure differences), the

mean and standard deviations were calculated.

Comparative analysis

For this study, we were primarily interested in how the group results compared to one

another when separated by age, and then when separated by gender. After compiling all of the

data into one table, the data was then resorted into additional tables depending on the

independent variable in question.

For age, all of the participants were separated into 3-year-old, 4-year-old, or 5-year-old

groups depending on their age at the time that their language sample was taken. For each

individual age group, the means and standard deviations were calculated for each macrostructure

component.

In order to compare the data in terms of gender, the participants were separated into a

female group and a male group. For each group, the means and standard deviations were

calculated for each macrostructure component.

From these comparative groups, further judgements on the similarities and differences

were made depending on the calculated data.

13

Story Language

Results

This particular study set out to look at the inclusion of eight macrostructure components

within the participants’ oral narrative retell tasks. The total number of macrostructure features

(MacroTotal) of all 37 participants ranged from a maximum of 19 components to a minimum of

one components with an average of 7.05 macrostructure elements (SD=4.59).

Descriptive Group Results

Character

The element of character was coded into the child’s narrative transcription if they

included the main character’s name or a description of the main character. The majority of

participants, 59%, included 1 to 3 character elements, while only 4% of participants completely

omitted the character element. On average 3.03 (SD=2.65) character components were included,

making it the most frequent occurring story element in comparison to the 7 others assessed in

this study. This higher frequency outcome may be a direct result of how character was defined

and coded in the macrostructure scoring. If the child introduced characters in the story by any

proper name, a made up name, or generic label, then character was coded into that utterance.

Some children were very specific in their character identification while some included a non-

specific pronoun, he or she, which accounts for the flexibility of this particular macrostructure

story element.

14

Story Language

Table 1. The Use of Character in NarrativesNumber of Characters Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 3 8.1

1 10 27.0

2 6 16.2

3 6 16.2

4

5

5

2

13.5

5.4

6

7

8

9

12

1

1

1

1

1

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

Setting

Along with reaction, setting was the least common macrostructure element included in

the narrative retell task with an average of 0 (SD=0) setting components. Setting was defined in

the coding schema as an introduction to the context. An example of setting in the movie “Billy

Bear & the Balloon” would be “park”.

Plot

15

Story Language

Roughly half the participants (48.6%) incorporated one or more elements of plot. Plot

was coded in an utterance if the child included a description of the activity that was occurring

prior to the character’s recognition of the problem. A total of 29.7% of participants included only

one plot element in their narrative retell, accurately representing the simplistic story structure for

that appropriate for a kindergarten child.

Table 2. The Use of Plot in NarrativesNumber of Plots Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 19 51.4

1 11 29.7

2

3

6

2

3

2

5.4

8.1

5.4

Initiating Event

An initiating event sets the story in motion by serving as a statement of the problem or

goal. For example, in the movie “Billy Bear & the Balloon”, if the child stated one of the

following in their oral narrative retell task, then initiating event was coded for that particular

utterance: “Penguin’s balloon floated away”, “The balloon floated away towards the hot air

balloon”, “Saw Lizzy selling balloons”, “BB got an idea”, “Trashcan too heavy”, “Trashcan was

full”. The average use of an initiating event was 0.49 (SD=1.10) with a range of 1 to 6. Over half

of the participants (54%) omitted elements of an initiating event in their stories, however, 44% of

participants included at least one.

16

Story Language

Table 3. The Use of Initiating Event in NarrativesNumber of Initiating Events Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 26 70.3

1 8 21.6

2 2 5.4

6 1 2.7

Reaction

Only two of the 37 participants included generated reactions in their story retellings. For

each movie, the scoring schema was the same in regards to coding for reaction. There were no

right or wrong emotions, but if the child included any related thought, dialogue, or emotion in a

response to the initiating event, it was coded as a reaction.

Table 4. The Use of Reaction in NarrativesNumber of Reactions Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 35 94.6

1 1 2.7

2 1 2.7

Attempt

An attempt can be described as actions in pursuit of a goal or an attempt to solve the

problem. On average, 1.22 (SD=1.29) elements of attempt were included in the narratives of all

17

Story Language

37 participants. The majority of children either did not include an attempt (35%) or included only

one element (32%). Participants in this study included between 0 to 5 elements of attempt.

Within the context of each story, examples of dialogue that could be scored as an attempt within

the narrative retell were provided. For example, in the story “Billy Bear and the Balloon”, if the

child included any of the following, that utterance was coded as an attempt: “bought balloons”,

“tied balloons to trash can”, “Billy Bear got stuck in the trash can”, “throw the items out of the

trash can”, etc.

Table 5. The Use of Attempt in NarrativesNumber of Attempts Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 13 35.1

1 12 32.4

2 7 19.0

3 2 5.4

4 2 5.4

5 1 2.7

Consequences

The majority of participants, 43.2%, failed to include any consequences in their narrative

retell task. However, a total of 35.1% of participants included one aspect of a consequence

element within their narrative retell task. Consequences were coded into the transcriptions if the

children explained what happened as a result of the attempt. However, consequence was not

coded if it was a general consequence that was stated because it had to be related to the attempt,

which possibly explains why such a large number of participants completely omitted the element

18

Story Language

of consequence. Furthermore, on average, there were only 0.89 (SD=0.99) consequences

included in all of the transcribed narratives.

Table 6. The Use of Consequence in NarrativesNumber of Consequences Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 16 43.2

1

2

13

4

35.1

10.8

3 4 10.8

Ending

Over half of the participants (59.5%) did not include any ending in their narrative retell

task. An ending could have been a summary statement, a resolution of the problem or initiating

event, a step beyond the consequence, or a description of the event that occurs after the problem

is fixed. While the majority of participants failed to include an ending piece, 40.5% of

participants included one element of ending. This slightly higher frequency around one ending

component could be because in a story, there is usually only one ending or one concluded phrase.

On average, 0.41 (SD=0.50) ending elements were used in the participants’ story retells.

Table 7. The Use of Ending in NarrativesNumber of Endings Number of Participants Percentage of Children

0 22 59.5

1 15 40.5

19

Story Language

Figure 1: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and

differences, in the participant pool of 3-5 year olds.

Comparative Group Results:

20

Story Language

To address the second research question, we examined differences among children by

gender and age, and reported descriptive statistics split by these factors of interest.

Gender:

Figure 2: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and

differences, in comparative groups of 3-to-5-year-old boy and girls.

Age:

21

Story Language

Figure 3: Depicts the average use of each macrostructure component, including total use and

differences, in comparative groups of 3-to5-year-olds.

Discussion

22

Story Language

The present study was designed to compare the components of functional pragmatic

communication among children with HL and those children with typical hearing.

Key Findings

One of the key findings was in relation to the frequency of use of macrostructure

narrative components as age increased. The results of the present study showed that 4-year-olds,

in comparison to 3-year-olds, used significantly more macrostructure components in their

retellings. These results coincide directly with that of Hudson and Shapiro’s research in which it

was found that, as children age and develop their language abilities, their stories become

increasingly more complex. As seen by Figure 2, the 3-year-old participants had the most

success in identifying and focusing on the characters of their story. All other forms of

macrostructure use were very low in comparison. While there’s no one definite reason as to why

this may be, it’s worth mentioning that, overall, the 3-year-olds were most successful in

identifying characters and attempts (story action). It could be argued that these two

macrostructure components are more apparent on the surface to listeners or viewers, whereas

components such as reaction and consequence require a deeper level of thinking, as they are

more implied, rather than stated outright. Interestingly enough, within our sample of preschool

children, the 5-year-old group of children were the most unsuccessful in using macrostructure

components in their stories, consistently scoring lower than both the 3-year-old group and the 4-

year-old group, except in a couple of instances in which they scored nearly exactly the same as

the 3-year-old group. This directly contradicts the findings of Hudson and Shapiro (1991). The

different findings from this study might be due to the sample size of 5-year-olds that participated

in this study. In Hudson and Shapiro’s study, a close to equal amount of children from different

23

Story Language

ages were studied at once. This controlled amount of participants for each comparison group

might have contributed to more accurate recorded results. For our project, there was a very

unbalanced amount of 5-year-olds in comparison to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds. The 4-year-old

group was the largest with 18 participants, the 3-year-old group was close behind with a total of

14 participants. The 5-year-old group, on the other hand, comprised of 5 participants. This

drastic discrepancy in amount of comparative participants in each group could be the reason

behind the extremely skewed results. If the 5-year-old group were to be increased to at least 14

participants, or if only five children were sampled from the 3-year-old and 4-year-old groups

each, it is possible that the results of this case would coincide with past research and knowledge

of language development. Also worth noting is that, in the groups of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,

there were a couple cases of extremely high outliers that were affecting the group averages. This

could be another explanation as to why the recorded averages were so much higher in the 3- and

4- year-old groups than the 5-year-old group.

Another interesting finding of this study was in relation to the frequency of use of

macrostructure narrative components in relation to gender. The results of the present study

showed that the females and male participants’ macrostructure use, when compared, did seem to

point toward an increased proficiency among the females relative to the males. These results

coincide with past research, like that of Hutternlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons’ (1991)

study and Ramer’s (1976) study on the differences in language development amongst male and

females, which found that females typically excel in language development and use over males.

As seen in Figure 3,we found that though the male participants excelled in some areas, like that

of character, reaction, and attempt use, the females used plot, initiating event, consequence, and

ending components more frequently. Furthermore, the female group had a higher average

24

Story Language

macrostructure use total than their male counterparts. However, the male group had a slightly

higher average of macrostructure differences total than the female. It’s important to note that, for

this particular study, the ratio of male to female participants was severely unbalanced. Though

our male pool comprised of only 13 males, the female pool was comprised of a total of 24

participants (a little over a third more than the male participant group). This discrepancy in

comparison group sizes could have easily skewed the group averages of the study, giving us

inaccurate comparison results.

An unexpected finding of the present study was the consistent lack of setting component

use in every participant’s retelling of “Billy Bear & the Balloon”. None of the participants of the

current study, despite their age or gender, succeeded in incorporating the setting of the park into

their retelling of the story. This is interesting, because setting is as much of a surface structure

component as characters, meaning the setting is explicitly stated and depicted in the film. While

there is no definite reason at this time for as to why all 37 of the participants of the study failed

to mention the setting in the story retellings, I think it’s important to consider the fact that in the

short movie clip, the setting was only very quickly mentioned once at the beginning of the story,

never to be mentioned again. It’s also important to note that the setting didn’t have a significant

impact on the events of the story itself, and that the plot and action could take place in any

setting at all without changing the events or the outcome of the story. For this reason, it could

potentially be theorized that the setting did not have enough of an impact on the participants

while viewing the film for them to remember to reiterate it in their retellings.

Limitations

25

Story Language

There are a number of limitations that were found in the present study that are important

to consider when interpreting the findings. First, the environments in which the samples were

taken were limited to preschools. A structured setting like that of a preschool can skew the

results of the study, because preschool is a preparatory environment for kindergarten and

beyond. Not all children attend preschool before kindergarten, which could mean that stay-at-

home children are not exposed to the same academic and social environments that preschool

children are by the time they reach kindergarten. For example, children who attend preschool

may have increased language development, and therefore increased macrostructure element use

in their story retellings, in comparison to children that do not attend preschool, which means

these results can’t necessarily be applied to the general population of 3-to-5-year-olds.

Another limitation of the present study was the geographic location in which the samples

of the study were taken. For this particular study, all of the preschoolers whose language was

recorded were located throughout the southeast region of the United States. Educational

standards, requirements, and teaching methods vary in different regions of the country. For

example, Common Core, which is a set of K-12 state standards for English and mathematic

abilities, while used throughout the southeast, has not yet been adopted by a handful of

Midwestern and southwestern states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Developmental

Process). This means that states in the Midwest are not necessarily teaching at the same level as

schools in the southeast, as they do not employ the same educational milestones as part of their

curriculum. Furthermore, Common Core can vary from one state to the next. This variation in

educational standards throughout the country means that samples taken strictly form the

southeast cannot be applied to 3-to-5-year-olds throughout the entire country.

26

Story Language

A final limitation of the study was the way in which each child’s language was sampled,

transcribed, and then coded. For the present study, each child was only recorded once. If that

child was particularly uncooperative that day, shy, or even just less talkative than usual, the

resulting calculations would be skewed, thus an inaccurate representation of that child’s true

language abilities. In terms of transcription, correctly transcribing a child’s utterances became

difficult at times when there was background noise, the child mumbled, or the recording device

was not able to pick up the child’s voice. A lot of times this resulted in the clinician being unable

to correctly transcribe what was being said during the recording, and this in turn affected the

coding and calculation steps of the study, potentially resulting in skewed data. Better equipment

or a quieter environment may be more appropriate in a future studying.

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings from this study showed that variations in frequency and types of

macrostructure use are potentially dependent on a child’s age and gender, which coincides with

previous studies and research done on language development in children. However, as the results

were skewed and weakened by a number of limitations, more studies should be done to improve

the accuracy and generalization of these results. Several changes could be made for future

studies.

First, researchers should repeat the study as is with not only an increased sample size of

children from different areas of the country, but with a better balanced sample of 3-to-5-year-

olds, as well. As there is a very good chance that the 5-year-old group’s results were an

inaccurate representation of story language use in comparison to that of 3-year-olds and 4-year-

olds, the study should be repeated with an increased number of 5-year-old participants in order to

27

Story Language

achieve better results and descriptions for comparative analysis. This way, results might better

align with past research and findings done on the relationship between age and language

development. Furthermore, a larger sample size that spans a greater geographical distance could

potentially decrease standard deviation among group members and increase population

generalizability.

Second, researchers could control for intelligent quotient (IQ) levels. Different IQ levels

could impact a child’s rate of language development, including that of story language use. In the

present study, there were a number of extreme outliers in the data between both the 3-year-old

and 4-year-old groups. Though most children were using 10 or fewer macrostructure components

in their story retellings, a few children were recorded having used closer to 20 story language

components. This is not to say that these outliers were caused by higher IQ levels, as this was not

a factor that was recorded during data collection, but it is an extraneous factor that should be

further investigated. If a high correlative relationship is found between IQ levels and story

language use, IQ should be controlled for in further studies in order to achieve more accurate

results.

Third, future researchers should consider expanding their participant pool to 3-to-5-year

olds both inside and outside of preschool settings. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that by

limiting the participant pool strictly to 3-to-5-year-olds that attend preschools within their

community, the results were skewed and biased towards children who may have different story

language use because of their early exposure to academic and social environments in comparison

to stay-at-home children of the same age. Expanding the participant pool to include those

outside of preschool settings could change the results of the study, also making them more

generalizable to the population.

28

Story Language

Fourth, future studies that build upon the present study should investigate what types of

story macrostructure elements, and at what frequency, a child uses when they create and tell their

own story, rather when they retell a given story. With the present study, the language samples

were collected by having the child watch a short video, only to have them summarize exactly

what they had seen only minutes later. There’s a chance that, because they were shown a specific

story and told to repeat it exactly as they saw it, the child could have used a greater number of, or

even more complex, macrostructure elements in their retellings than they would use naturally in

spontaneously created personal narratives. With the freedom to create and tell their own stories,

it would be interesting to see if average discrepancies between groups separated by age or gender

would increase. For example, in regards to gender, it could be studied if boys use different story

macrostructure elements in their narratives than girls when told to create their own unique story.

Do boys focus more on the characters and action of the story while the girls put more focus on

the reactions and consequences? If there are more obvious difference in story language use

between genders, what could be the cause? By allowing the participating child to tell their own

story, it may also be found that there are bigger discrepancies in macrostructure use between age

groups. When children are told to rely on their creativity, rather than their memory, there’s a

chance that their story language use changes, as well.

29

Story Language

References

Allen, M. M., Ukrainetz, T. A., & Carswell, A. L. (2012). The Narrative Language Performance of Three Types of At-Risk First-Grade Readers. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(2), 205. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/11-0024)

Bishop, D. V. M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language impaired 4-year-olds: Distinguishing transient from persistent impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 156–173. doi:10.1044/jshd.5202.156

Bliss, L. S., & McCabe, A. (2008). Personal narratives: Cultural differences and clinical implications. Topics in Language Disorders, 28(2), 162–177. doi:10.1097/01.tld.0000318936.31677.2d

Boudreau, D. M., & Chapman, R. S. (2000) Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 43.5. 1146-1159.

Bowers M. J., Perez-Pouchoulen M., Edwards S. N., & McCarthy M. M. (2013). Foxp2 Mediates Sex Differences in Ultrasonic Vocalization by Rat Pups and Directs Order of Maternal Retrieval. Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (8) 3276-3283; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0425-12.2013

Butterworth G., Morissette P. (1996) Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. J Reprod Infant Psychol 14:219–231.

Champion, T., Seymour, H., & Camarata, S. (1995). Narrative Discourse of African American Children. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5(4), 333-352. doi:10.1075/jnlh.5.4.03dis

Development Process. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-5. (2013). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

General Information About Speech and Language Disorders. (2017). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6336

Gerrig, R. J., Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1995). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Language, 71(4), 806. doi:10.2307/415747

Hoffman, L. M. (2009). Narrative Language Intervention Intensity and Dosage. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 329-343. doi:10.1097/tld.0b013e3181c29d5f

30

Story Language

Hodgson, A. (2011). Handouts. Giving a Lecture From Presenting to Teaching 106-16. Super Duper Inc. Super Duper Publications.

Hudson, J., & Shapiro, L. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children's scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hughes, D. L. (2001). Assessment of Narrative Abilities in Preschool and School-Age Children. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 8(2), 7. doi:10.1044/lle8.2.7

Hughes, D. L., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (2009). Guide to narrative language: procedures for assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Huttenlocher J., Haight W., Bryk A., Seltzer M., Lyons T. (1991) Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Dev Psychol 27:236–248.

Maccoby E. (1966) The development of sex differences (Stanford UP, Stanford, CA).

Mccabe, A., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Assessment of Preschool Narrative Skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3(1), 45. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0301.45

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards. (2010). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/News_and_Events/Press_Releases/NATIONAL_GOVERNORS_ASSOCIATION_AND_STATE_EDUCATION_CHIEFS_LAUNCH_COMMON_STATE_ACADEMIC_STANDARDS_.html

Quickfacts: Tallahassee city, Florida. United States Census Bureau. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00

Quick Statistics About Voice, Speech, Language. (2016). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-voice-speech-language

Ramer A. (1976) Syntactic styles in emerging language. J Child Lang 3:49–62.

Schachter, R. E., & Craig, H. K. (2013). Students' Production of Narrative and AAE Features During an Emergent Literacy Task. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(3), 227. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0034)

Snow, C., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P. (eds) (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., Boyd, L. (2012): National Library of Medicine. International journal of speech-language pathology. 14.2 130-140.

31

Story Language 32