This meta-analysis revealed a positive association between parent training and child language and communication skills. These findings suggest that parent training should play a primary role in intervention and prevention programs to maximize language and communication outcomes for children with or at risk for language impairment.

Across all studies that reported parent outcomes, the effect size for the association of parent training with parent use of language support strategies was large (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.55 [0.11]; P < .001). This pattern of results was observed across each subgroup such that parents across all groups used more language support strategies than parents in the control group.

The findings suggest that training parents to implement language and communication intervention techniques is associated with improved outcomes for children and increased parent use of support strategies. These findings may have direct implications on intervention and prevention.

cross all studies, controlling for within-study effect size correlations, the mean effect size for the association of parent training with communication, engagement, and language outcomes was moderate (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.33 [0.06], P < .001) (Table 3). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated stable outcomes across ρ values (range, 0.3425-0.3427). The between-study heterogeneity was small (τ2 = 0.05), and 18% of the unexplained variability was attributable to true and explainable heterogeneity between studies. Children with ASD had consistent and moderate outcomes across all measures (range of mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.09-0.55 [0.06-0.24]). Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) had the largest social communication outcomes (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.37 [0.17]); large and significant associations were observed for receptive (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.92 [0.30]) and expressive language (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.83 [0.20]), whereas all other measure types were not reported for this population. Children at risk for language impairments had moderate effect sizes across receptive language (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.28 [0.15]) and engagement outcomes (mean [SE] Hedges g, 0.36 [0.17]). All the outcomes reported for each study are available in eTable 5 in the Supplement.

parent training and child communication, engagement, and language outcomes

Children with developmental language disorder had the largest social communication outcomes

63 studies was a naturalistic teaching approach, and 16 studies used a primarily dialogic reading approach.

The findings suggest that language interventions that include parent training are associated with communication-related outcomes in young children, which may have implications for prevention and intervention in various populations of parent-child dyads.

2 of 5 children

Training parents to implement strategies to support child language development is crucial to support long-term outcomes, given that as many as 2 of 5 children younger than 5 years have difficulty learning language.

Studies included in this review and meta-analysis were randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials that evaluated a language intervention that included parent training with children with a mean age of less than 6 years. Studies were excluded if the parent was not the primary implementer of the intervention, the study included fewer than 10 participants, or the study did not report outcomes related to language or communication.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 76 studies found that parent-implemented language interventions were associated with language development in children with or at risk of language impairment. Moderate positive associations were found for child outcomes, and strong associations were found for parent outcomes.

Searches of ERIC, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES were conducted on August 11, 2014; August 18, 2016; January 23, 2018; and October 30, 2018.

risk to language development

parental language input

This study addressed this possible confound by examining how parental language input is mediated by parental knowledge of child development.

parental knowledge of child development.

The overall figures for Townhead conceal the fact that two boys made verylarge contributions, one with 26 and the other with 18 non-standard lexical items.This reduces the mean to a figure very close to that for Townhead girls. The meanusage for groups other than this pair of boys is in the region of two non-standardlexical items for every 30 minutes of tape. If these boys are included, the numberincreases to a figure in the region of four. So, in general, few non-standard lexicalitems are used by the majority of the individuals in the sample; in the case ofGreenbelt boys, virtually none. But for a small minority, non-standard vocabu-lary continues to be used in informal talk situations at a much higher level.It is clear from Table 5 that the highest users of non-standard vocabulary arelow attaining boys. This group used a mean of 11 tokens per interview, which isnearly three times larger than the next nearest, or indeed the overall mean of 3.88.The figure for females is less than half of that for males.From Table 6 it seems that the social factor is quite

However, this difference is not the end of the story. These figures tell usthat in formal situations more privileged individuals use almost no non-stan-dard grammar. Nevertheless, the figure of 3.5 tokens per individual over 30minutes of talk recorded by Townhead pupils is still very small. Informalsampling of more informal talk (still in a school context) from Townheadshows much higher levels of usage: closer to 8 or 9 per individual. Thus,although the difference between the two schools is important, the overall lowfrequencies of non-standard grammar in this relatively formal context is alsoimportant. An interesting individual case concerns the figure for males atGreenbelt of 4 non-standard tokens. These all in fact came from one boy, whohad a Saturday job in the local market and who had had the opportunity toacquire the local vernacular. No other boy from Greenbelt used any non-stan-dard grammar at all. At the other end of the scale, 10 of the 27 tokens atTownhead came from one speaker. The figures for girls were less subject tovariation of this kin

by any speaker was 22 items in a 30-minute section of conversation. It was there-fore impossible to analyse these items in any other way than by employing asimple count technique. Although we have necessarily counted here items whichare highly disparate (e.g. non-standard prepositional use alongside non-standard past participles), the procedure is satisfactory in terms of the aim of thestudy, which is to establish the use of standard English, and has been adopted inother studies in this field (Hudson & Holmes, 1995; Williamson, 1990, 1995;

As confirmation that some of these forms will persevere in the pupils’ writing,come and went are among the features found in a study of non-standard dialectin writing by Williamson and Hardman (1997a). Divven’t does not feature inthat study, suggesting that it is more restricted than the others to the spokenform.

Various non-standard verb phrases appeared in the corpus:Divvent is the negative of the auxiliary verb ‘do’. Thus divvent knaa for ‘don’tknow’.There is also a more localised form deyn’(t) found in the Townhead area.Come appears as a simple past tense, as in ‘When I come home last night’.Went occurs as a past participle as in ‘I’d went to Moorhouse and I’ve wentout a couple of times’. There is also a complex verb phrase of the form had’vewent as in ‘If I had’ve went into the other class’

Data were collected through a series of interviews, lasting from about 45 to 60minutes and took place in a fairly relaxed library area in each school. Althoughthe interviews themselves were not overly formal, the situation was accepted bythe students as being of a formal nature. Efforts were made during the interviewsto ensure that the respondents were relaxed enough to provide satisfactory data,with the aim of obtaining reasonable sequences of uninterrupted speech whilestill obtaining speech that was as careful as the respondent chose to be in theinterview.

The main aim of the present study is to investigate children’s use of standardEnglish in formal situations, establishing what forms children actually usedwhen using careful speech to a stranger and whether there were any differencesbetween the forms used by boys as opposed to girls, pupils of lower as opposedto higher social class and lower attaining as opposed to higher attaining students.

that ‘Pupils should be taught to use the vocabulary, structures and grammar ofspoken standard English fluently and accurately in informal and formal situa-tions’

It is not within the remit of this paper to examine some of the assumptionsimplicit in the preceding quotation – does the use of standard English really helpdevelop thinking skills, can one only participate in the wider world beyondschool if one speaks in irreproachable standard English, and so on – but we areconcerned to question the validity of the programmes of study developed fromthe above statement of principle. At Key Stages 3 and 4, which cover the period ofschooling with which this paper is concerned, the Programmes of Study for ‘En1Speaking and Listening’ enjoin that in work on Speaking, pupils ‘should betaught to . . . use spoken standard English fluently in different contexts’ (DfEE,1999: 31); there is additionally a separate heading ‘Standard English’ which rules

English can play a part in promoting citizenship and thinking skillsthrough, for example . . . becoming [sic] competent users of spoken andwritten standard English to enable pupils to participate fully in the widerworld beyond school, in public life, and in decision making.

This paper reports a study of the use of non-standard English in the formal speech of 15-year-olds of both genders and of varying attainment levels. The pupils were drawnfrom two schools on Tyneside which take pupils from catchment areas of markedlydifferent socioeconomic status. Differences were found in the incidence ofnon-standard lexis and grammar in terms of the variables studied: girls used fewernon-standard forms than boys, lower attaining pupils used more than their higherattaining peers and pupils of lower socioeconomic status used more than those ofhigher socioeconomic status. However, some complex interactions between the vari-ables are reported

hildren will thus have considea-able freedom to selectvariants from different dialects and form them into new combinations, aswell as to develop new Intermediate and other interdialectal forms. Onlysubsequently, in the third generation, will the new dialect appear as a stable,crystallised variety as a result of focusing processes of reduction just described{see TnidgiU 1986: ch. 3).

In a dialect mixture situation, such as that present in a newly settled colony,large numbers of variants &om the different dialects involved in the mixturewill abound. As time passes and focusing begins to take place, particularly asthe colony begins to acquire an independent identity, the variants present inthe mixture will begin to be subject to reduction. This will take place as a resultof accommodation between speakers in face-to-face interaction, which mayalso lead to the development of new. intermediate or hyper-adaptive or otherinterdialect forms which were not actually present in any of the contributingdirects. This reduction will not take place in a haphazard maimer. Indetermining who accommodates to whom

EngUsh English. The ar%ument is essentially that /i/. /e/ and /ae/ have moved asa result of a chain shift, most likely a push chaM. The lowest vowel of the three,/ae/. moved upwards in the dkection of [e], forcing /e/ to move upwards in thedirection of [e] in order to maintain the disttaction. Subsequently /i/. ratherthan moving upwards in t ^ direction of [i]. as perhc^ happened in the case ofAustralian English, moved back and down, giving a central vowel quality whichonce again maintains the distinction:

(colonial situations, new towns, rapid urbanisation

KiT-centrdisation

New Zealand English is remarkable inhaving very close realisations of /ae/ = [e] and /e/=[e],

/u/ is currently once again undergoing imrounding simul-taneously in many parts of the world (North America, New Zealand, SouthernEngland) in the speech of young people.

/A/.

Apart from what any critic had to say about my writing, I knew I had succeeded where it counted when mymother finished reading my book and gave me her verdict: "So easy to read."

I was told by my former boss that writing was my worstskill and I should hone my talents toward account management.

I think my mother's English almost had an effect on limiting my possibilities in life as well.

When I was fifteen, she used to have mecall people on the phone to pretend I was she

I was ashamed of her English

It's my mother tongue. Her language, as I hear it, is vivid,direct, full of observation and imagery. That was the language that helped shape the way I saw things,expressed things, made sense of the world.

Yet some ofmy friends tell me they understand 50 percent of what my mother says. Some say they understand 80 to 90percent. Some say they understand none of it,

expressive command of English

I've often used that same kind of English with him,

I again found myself conscious of theEnglish I was using, the English I do use with her.

My mother was in the room