2.  Disambiguation Effect: › Ambiguity task with a familiar object and an unfamiliar object › Children choose the unfamiliar object when presented with an unfamiliar name  Children as young as 15 months disambiguate (Markman, Wasow, & Hansen, 2003)  Phonetic similarity disrupts disambiguation (Merriman & Schuster, 1991)  Preschoolers disambiguate even when the adult gestures toward the familiar object (Jaswal & Hansen, 2006)

3. To investigate how children with SLI resolve ambiguity in a disambiguation task given three word conditions: › a phonetically distinct (PD) word, › a phonetically similar (PS) word, › and an oppositional gesture (OG) combined with a PD word

4.  36 object pairs : one familiar object and one unfamiliar object › 30 experimental trials (10 PD, 10 PS, 10 OG) › 6 real word foils  The OG trial: pointing to the familiar object (e.g., the bowl) while simultaneously asking for an object with a PD word (e.g., “Get the clird”)

6.  15 Children: 10 Boys and 5 Girls  3 Groups: SLI, TD Chronological Age (CA) peers, and TD Language Age (LA) peers GroupsAge Equivalent NDW SLI n = 5 5;0 to 6;11 M = 72 42-64 M = 51 62-95 M = 75 CA n = 5 5;0 to 6;11 M = 72 72-84 M = 81 89-108 M = 98 LA n = 5 3;5 to 5;0 M = 48 39-76 M = 61 69-95 M = 83

12.  5 and 6 year olds with SLI selected unfamiliar objects more than chance but significantly less often than same- age typically developing children  Could explain fast mapping deficits

13.  SLI: select familiar objects with PS words  TD: show varied responses  May be explained by › differences in lexical and phonological activation › limited processing capacity

14.  7/10 TD children selected unfamiliar objects, overriding the gesture to the familiar object  SLI made random selections  Multiple factors in the event may be processed more flexibly by TD children

15. Christina H. Fikes, M.S. challer15@yahoo.com Julie M. Estis, Ph.D., CCC-SLP jestis@usouthal.edu Brenda L. Beverly. Ph.D., CCC-SLP bbeverly@usouthal.edu