associated with poor reading comprehension (Nation,
Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004). Both receptive and expressive
vocabulary are related to reading performance (Ouellette, 2006;
Tannenbaum, Torgesen, & Wagner, 2006; Wise, Sevcik, Morris, Lovett,
& Wolf, 2007).
Specific relationships between oral language competence and the
production of written text have been reported both for children with
continuing and those with resolved language problems, leading to the
hypothesis that written language can be conceptualized as a window into
residual language problems (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Fey, Carts,
Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004). Phonological processes
directly impact children's spelling, a prerequisite to extended
text generation (Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester, & Nolen,
1995). Wider oral language comprehension skills have been implicated as
important factors in the children's text production (Bishop &
Clarkson; Cragg & Nation, 2006; Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, &
Mackie, 2007). Vocabulary appears to provide a building block for
written language (see Green et al., 2003). A range of lexical items
provides children with the ability to build a text and provide the basic
infrastructure of text meaning (see Berninger et al., 1997).
A recent comparative study of adolescents with dyslexia, those with
language impairment, and typically developing matched adolescents
demonstrated the ways in which different profiles of language skills can
impact writing performance (Puranik, Lombardino, &Altman, 2007).
Participants with SLI (but not dyslexia) produced fewer words and
numbers of ideas than typically developing peers. In contrast, both
students with dyslexia and students with language impairment produced
more spelling and grammatical errors than their matched peers. Puranik
and colleagues argued that the difference between the performance of
these two groups was due to the difficulties experienced by the students
with language impairment in the nonphonological dimensions of text
Difficulties with literacy compromise the developmental
trajectories of children with SLI. The combined effect of language and
literacy difficulties typically results in reduced educational
attainments (Dockrell, Lindsay, Palikara, & Cullen, 2007). However,
the ways in which language and literacy interact to support writing
require further clarification if theoretical models are to address the
nature and extent of the children's difficulties and appropriately
targeted interventions are to be developed.
Compared to studies examining the reading profiles of children with
SLI (Kelso, Fletcher, Lee, & Kelso, 2007; McArthur, Hogben, Edwards,
Heath, & Mengler, 2000), investigations into their difficulties with
writing are relatively recent. The few published studies that have
examined the written texts of children with SLI provide a mixed picture
of the factors that limit the production of written text. Between the
ages of 7 and 11, children with SLI produce a high number of spelling
errors (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003)--particularly phonological errors
(Mackie & Dockrell, 2004)--and error patterns deviate from those of
chronological age but not language-age-matched peers (Mackie &
Dockrell). Children with SLI also show an increased level of grammatical
errors in the written form (Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Scott &
Windsor, 2000; Windsor, Scott, & Street, 2000). However, the most
common associated problems are not grammatical difficulties but problems
with spelling and punctuation, as well as poorer semantic content
(Bishop & Clarkson).
To date, studies of individuals with language impairment point to a
delay in patterns of writing development, where the factors that
constrain text production are similar to those experienced by younger
typically developing children. Over time, for typically developing
children, idea generation and the translation of those ideas into
written text production become more automatic, allowing time for the
cognitively demanding processes of planning and revision. In addition,
the relationships between reading and writing cha