Search

Objectives: Neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with preterm birth are of major health and educational concern. This study examined the neuromotor, cognitive, language and emotional/behavioural outcomes of a regional cohort of 4-year-old children born extremely preterm (EPT: 23-27 weeks' gestation), very preterm (VPT: 28-33 weeks) and full term (FT: 38-41 weeks). Of particular interest were children's risks of impairment across multiple neurodevelopmental domains. Methods: Data were gathered as part of a prospective longitudinal study of 105 very preterm (≤33 weeks gestation) and 107 FT children born during 1998-2000. At 4 years corrected age, children underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment that included a paediatric neurological examination, cognitive and language testing, and an assessment of child emotional and behavioural adjustment. Results: At age 4 years, compared to FT children, EPT and VPT children had increased risks of cerebral palsy (EPT 18%, VPT 15%, FT 1%), cognitive delay (EPT 33%, VPT 36%, FT 13%), language delay (EPT 29%, VPT 29%, FT 10%) and emotional/behavioural adjustment problems (EPT 37%, VPT 13%, FT 11%). EPT and VPT children were three times more likely to have multiple domain impairments than FT children (EPT 30%, VPT 29%, FT 10%). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of preschool children born very preterm show clinically significant problems in at least one neurodevelopmental domain, with impairment in multiple domains being common. There is a need to monitor preschool development across a range of functional domains and to consider the likely cascading effects of multiple impairments on later development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the effects of being born very preterm on children's early language development using prospective longitudinal data from a representative regional cohort of 90 children born very preterm (gestational age <33 weeks and/or birth weight <1,500 grams) and a comparison sample of 102 children born full term (gestational age 38-41 weeks). The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences (CDI-WS) was used to assess children's language development at age 2;0 (corrected for gestational age at birth). Clear linear relationships were found between gestational age at birth and later language outcomes, with decreasing gestational age being associated with poorer parent-reported language skills. Specifically, children born extremely preterm (<28 weeks' gestation) tended to perform less well than those born very preterm (28-32 weeks' gestation), who in turn performed worse than children born full term (38-41 weeks' gestation). This pattern of findings was evident across a range of outcomes spanning vocabulary size and quality of word use, as well as morphological and syntactic complexity. Importantly, associations between gestational age at birth and language outcomes persisted after statistical control for child and family factors correlated with both preterm birth and language development. These findings demonstrate the presence of pervasive delays in the early language development of children born very preterm. They also highlight the importance of gestational age in predicting later language risk in this population of infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Second language (L2) research appeals to first language acquisition research frequently and standardly. It is important, however, to take stock from time to time of the uses that second language acquisition (SLA) makes of its sister field. Whether we use first language (L1) research to generate or bolster the importance of a particular research question, to argue for a fundamental similarity or a fundamental difference between the two sorts of acquisition, or to offer guidance in the formulation of research paradigms, it is important that we do so with our critical eyes open. This article examines the possible and specific relationships between L1 acquisition and SLA, with the aim of showing that a number of assumptions warrant closer inspection. It begins by examining the expressions ‘first language acquisition’ and ‘second language acquisition’, suggesting that the syntactic and lexical parallelism between the two masks important issues internal to the fields involved. It then explores problems in distinguishing L1 from L2 acquisition from three different perspectives: individual language learner histories, the data, and the mechanisms proposed to account for the two types of acquisition. Finally, it takes a brief look at the sociology of L1 and L2 studies, and suggests that second language study has yet to assume fully its rightful place in the academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]