Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Volume 30, 539-552, December 1987

S T O R Y G R A M M A R A B I L I T Y IN C H I L D R E N W I T H A N D W I T H O U T
LANGUAGE DISORDER: STORY GENERATION, STORY
RETELLING, AND STORY COMPREHENSION
D O N N A D I S E G N A MERRITT BETTY Z. LILES
The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Twenty language-impaired and unimpaired children ages 9:0 to 11:4 participated in three story tasks. The children generated
three original stories, retold two adventure stories, and then answered two sets of comprehension questions after each retelling.
Stein and Glenn's (1979) story grammar rules were adapted and used to analyze the narratives. The generated and retold stories
produced by the language-disordered children contained fewer complete story episodes, a lower mean number of main and
subordinate clauses per complete episode, and a lower frequency of use of story grammar components than those of the control
group. The story hierarchies produced by both groups were highly similar, though, in both story generation and story retelling.
The groups also did not differ in their understanding of the factual details of the retold stories, but did differ significantly in their
comprehension of the relationships linking the critical parts of the stories together. The results are discussed relative to cognitive
organizational deficits of language-impaired children.

The communication problems of older language-disor-
dered children have begun to receive increased attention
in the literature (Ahram & Nation, 1980; Hall & Tomblin,
1978; King, Jones, & Lasky, 1982; Nippold & Fey, 1983;
Wallach & Lee, 1980). It has been established that chil-
dren identified as language impaired continue to function
with the long-term effects of the language disorder, even
with appropriate intervention and maturity. Specifically,
they have difficulty forming verbal abstractions and per-
forming the logical operations required to interpret the
complex relationships expressed in language. They also
have deficits in formulating and producing spoken lan-
guage, and these difficulties are reflected in poor aca-
demic progress and social failure (Bennett & Runyan,
1982; Maxwell & Wallach, 1984; Stark, 1975).
Concurrent with this awareness of the long-term effects
of language disorder has been a shift in emphasis from an
analysis of words and sentences to longer linguistic units,
including discourse. The intent of this investigation was
to examine one form of discourse, story narratives, in
older language-impaired children. Story narratives are
joined together in predictable rule-governed ways with
stable organizational patterns representing specific types
of temporally and causally related information. These
rules, referred to as a story grammar, form a cognitively
based framework, or "schema," that aids the speaker in
generating a story and guides the listener in the compre-
hension and retelling of stories (Mandler & Johnson,
1977; Rumelhart, 1975; Stein & Glenn, 1979).
Stein and Glenn (1979) have specified a set of story
grammar rules that include a network of story compo-
nents and the relations linking the components together.
A prototypical story usually involves an animate or inan-
imate protagonist in a particular time, location, or context
(setting information) who faces a physical obstacle, moral
dilemma, environmental occurrence or personal problem
(the initiating event). The character responds to the
situation and a p/an is devised (internal response). The
character then makes attempts at solving the problem
(attempt), meeting with success or failure (direct conse-
quence). Depending on the outcome, the protagonist may
try another strategy or enlist the aid of other characters,
and the story usually ends with the character's emotional
response to what has occurred (reaction).
A subset of these six story components comprise an
episode structure representing the most salient unit of
analysis in stories. Episodes are comprehended at an
intuitive level (van Dijk, 1981), are consistent across
various story grammars (Mandler & Johnson, 1977;
Rumelhart, 1975; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Thorndyke, 1977),
and have been found to have psychological reality
(Glenn, 1978; Haberlandt, Berian & Sandson, 1980; Yussen,
1982). A complete episode has been described by Stein
(1979) as a behavioral sequence containing:
1. some reference to the motivation or purpose of the
character's behavior (an initiating event or an inter-
nal response);
2. an overt goal-directed action (an attempt) and;
3. the attainment or nonattainment of the goal (a direct
consequence).
Setting information and reactions provide additional
information in stories but are not crucial to the complete
episode structure (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). If either a
motivating state, an attempt, or a consequence is missing
from an event sequence, then the episode is judged
incomplete.
The spontaneously-generated stories of children have
been analyzed using developmental models (Applebee,
1978; Botvin & Sutton-Smith, 1977), and a story grammar
approach. Stein and Glenn (1982) found that normally
achieving school-age children were able to produce goal-
based episode stories, but that even some sixth graders
generated nonepisodic sequences at times. Story gram-
mars have been used extensively to study story retelling
and story comprehension in normal children, with groups
ranging from preschoolers through college age students

© 1987, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 539 0022-4685/87/3004-0539501.00/0

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 540 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
(Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1975; Stein &
Glenn, 1979). In general, children by age 6 years have
been found to be able to retell and comprehend canonical
stories well; normally developing 9-year-olds have been
found to produce the primary components of a story
grammar. Even young children appear to rely on the
episode structure to guide them in story tasks.
Story generation ability of disordered groups has not
been investigated extensively, with the exception of Roth
and Spekman's (1986) finding that a story grammar anal-
ysis is sensitive to the kinds of organizational difficulties
noted in learning-disabled students. In contrast, story
retelling and comprehension ability of disordered popu-
lations has received more attention, including research
with the deaf (Gaines, Mandler, & Bryant, 1981), men-
tally retarded children (Bacon & Rubin, 1983; Luftwig &
Greeson, 1983), and learning-disabled students (Feagans
& Short, 1984; Weaver & Dickinson, 1979), with these
disordered populations routinely retelling less story in-
formation.
Investigations of narrative ability specific to language-
impaired children indicate that they are able to compre-
hend and produce logical relationships across events less
well than normal children (Graybeal, 1981; Johnston,
1982; Liles, 1985; Merritt & Liles, 1984) and that they
display poorer linguistic cohesion across sentences
(Liles, 1985). Although the previous investigations indi-
cate that language-impaired children do indeed present
deficits in narrative ability, there remain questions as to
whether these data fully account for the types of deficits
observed in this disordered population.
As previously noted, adequate production and compre-
hension of a story grammar depend on the logical se-
quence of cognitively based story structures or "sche-
mas" (Stein & Glenn, 1979). These structures guide the
individual's interpretations, expectations, and inferences
about the possible relationships expressed in a story.
Although the relationships are naturally realized through
information related to a particular story, the structures are
not considered to be completely dependent on specific
content. The purpose of this investigation was to examine
these cognitive structures in the narratives of 9- to 11-
year-old language-impaired children and compare them
with narratives of control subjects who were not language
impaired. If the use of story grammar organization distin-
guishes the groups, we may conclude that some aspects of
the language-impaired children's poorer narrative ability
can be attributed to less than adequate use of these
cognitively-based organizational structures. More specif-
ically, some language-disordered children's apparent lan-
guage impairment may be related to a cognitively-based
organizational deficit.
Previous investigations of narrative ability have fo-
cused on either story generation or story retelling. The
present investigation was intended to present a more
complete verification of children's use of a story grammar
by evaluating both story generation and story retelling. If
the logical structures in stories represent a cognitively
based schema, then the children's use of these structures
should reveal some similarities across tasks. In addition, a
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
30 539-552 December 1987
comparison of story retelling and story generation may
contribute to some conclusions regarding the relative
usefulness of one of the tasks.
In addition to comparing the control and language-
disordered children's use of a story grammar across story
generation and story retelling, the children were inter-
viewed using two sets of questions structured to assess
their understanding of the stories presented in the retell-
ing task. These questions were administered to deter-
mine whether the story content or vocabulary used in the
retelling task was beyond any subject's level of under-
standing or attention (Set I) and whether the children's
knowledge of questions structured to represent a story
grammar (Set II) would prove related to their production.
METHOD
DESIGN
Children's use of a story grammar was measured in
three tasks including story generation, story retelling, and
story comprehension. Two groups of 20 children first
generated three original stories and then retold two
narratives, with the order of presentation counterbal-
anced in both tasks. Story comprehension followed each
of the two retelling attempts and included sets of factual
information and story grammar questions. Stein and
Glenn's (1979) story grammar model was adapted and
expanded to analyze the children's stories and their
responses to the comprehension questions.
SUBJECTS
Given previous investigations indicating that normally
developing children by age 9 years are able to generate,
retell, and comprehend stories, 40 children between the
ages of 9:0 (years:months) and 11:4 were chosen as
subjects, including 22 boys and 18 girls. All of the
children were from white, middle class suburban families
and were attending one of eight public elementary
schools.
Language-disordered children
The 20 children composing the language-disordered
group had a documented history of language impairment.
They had been diagnosed as preschoolers or in the early
primary grades, and they continued to manifest persistent
communication problems that required the services of a
speech-language pathologist in ongoing management
programs. In most cases, the etiology of the language
disorder was unknown, but their deficits did not include
vision or hearing loss, seizure disorder, attention deficit
disorder requiring medication, known organic/neurologi-
cal problems, or primary psyehosocial problems. All of
the children had good speech intelligibility and normal
intelligence as measured by a Performance IQ on the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised
(Wechsler, 1974) within one standard deviation of the
mean. Although many of the children were considered
"at risk" academically by their respective classroom
teachers, none were receiving learning disability support.
The children were chosen from caseloads based on
diagnostic test results indicating a mild to moderate
language impairment. Tests that had been most com-
monly administered in earlier efforts to diagnose and
assess language were the following: Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981); Test
of Language Development-Intermediate (Hammill &
Newcomer, 1982); The Word Test (Jorgensen, Barrett,
Huisingh, & Zaehman, 1981); Detroit Tests of Learning
Aptitude-2 (Hammill, 1985); Developmental Sentence
Analysis (Lee, 1974); and Clinical Evaluation of Lan-
guage Functions (Semel & Wiig, 1980).
The mean age of the 20 language-disordered children
was 10:2. Age and gender were distributed as follows:
9:0-9:6 (4 girls, 3 boys); 9:7-10:0 (2 girls, 1 boy);
10:1-10:6 (2 girls, 2 boys); 10:7-11:0 (0 girls, 3 boys);
11:1-11:4 (1 girl, 2 boys).
Control Subjects
An additional 20 children composed the control group
and were drawn from the same eight public schools as the
language-disordered group. They were matched with the
language-disordered children for age and gender, with a
mean age of 10:2 and the same distribution of boys and
girls. The children also had normal visual acuity and
hearing sensitivity and average intelligence as measured
by group IQ tests administered within their respective
schools. According to their classroom teachers, all of the
children were average students who did not demonstrate
any particular academic difficulties or exceptional abili-
ties. None had received at any time either special educa-
tion or speech and language support services.
MATERIALS
Story Generation
Story stems (N. L. Stein, personal communication,
March 12, 1984; Stein & Glenn, 1982) were used as
stimuli in the story generation task. The stems were
derived from three stories selected from a collection of
multiple episode adventure tales written for elementary
school children and distributed by Xerox Education Pub-
lieations (Verdick, 1972, 1973, 1978). They consisted of a
protagonist and setting information designed to evoke a
potential conflict that would require a goal-based se-
quence of events. Story stems were chosen for use as
stimuli in the story generation task because pilot data had
indicated that language-disordered children in this age
range could not generate a story if either too little or too
much structure was imposed. A lack of structure
prompted lengthy stories in which the child's train of
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 541
thought was obviously lost. Too much structure (e.g.,
word lists) provided too many constraints and yielded
short story samples usually including a main character
and a few random events without a logical goal, plan, or
resolution.
The following three stems were used in the story
generation task:
1. "Once upon a time, two friends were in a deep and
dark c a v e . . . "
2. "One day, a pilot was flying a plane through the
towering m o u n t a i n s . . . "
3. "Once, there was a family who were in the hot
desert..."
Story Retelling
Two additional multiple episode adventure stories,
Buried Alive and Shipwrecked, were chosen from the
same Xerox Education series for the story retelling task.
The stories represented a text consistent with the internal
structure of story grammar and also had a high interest
value. Each story contained a protagonist facing an envi-
ronmental obstacle. It was necessary for the protagonist to
formulate a plan and make multiple attempts at resolving
the situation. Ultimately, the plan was successful in each
story with positive consequences in the end.
The stories (see Appendix A) were rewritten to shorten
the presentation time needed and to simplify the vocab-
ulary. Each consisted of four episodes, 45 clauses, and
bad an average of 28 sentences (with a range of 27 to 29).
The stories were analyzed using the Dale-Chall formula
(Dale & Chall, 1948), and had a readability level at or
below the fourth grade. A story grammar analysis was also
completed on each story using the method described by
Stein and Glenn (1979). This analysis yielded the number
of distinct story components in each story grammar cate-
gory (i.e., the number of setting statements, reaction
statements, etc.).
Story Comprehension
Story comprehension involved two sets of questions for
each of the adventure stories used in the story retelling
task. Eight questions were designed for each story to
evaluate comprehension of factual information about the
characters and events to measure the child's overall
attention to the specific details of the story. Eight addi-
tional questions were designed for each story to measure
story grammar knowledge. These questions were struc-
tured to evaluate the child's understanding of the causal
relations in the story in the event that these relationships
were not expressed in the retellings (see Appendix B).
PROCEDURE
Each child completed all three story tasks in one sitting
and was tested individually in an isolated room in school
 542 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
by a single examiner. The generated and retold stories
and the question/answer interviews were audio-tape re-
corded. Following a short period of conversation to gain
rapport, the first task was presented.
Task 1--Story Generation
The story generation task was presented first for all
subjects and was introduced by informally asking the
child for assistance in composing stories for younger
children. A demonstration story stem ("One day, a soldier
was in a thick jungle . . .") was presented as a training
procedure following these instructions:
"I'm going to tell you the first part of a story and I want you
to make up the rest of it. Take your time and think about
what might happen next. Then, tell me a good story."
The three story stems were presented one at a time in a
counterbalanced order. The children were allowed as
much time as necessary to formulate the stories, and short
breaks were given between the presentations.
Task 2--Story Retelling
The stories for the story retelling task were presented
by the examiner via a black and white video tape on a
portable 9-inch Sony T.V. The task was introduced by
saying to each child:
"I'm going to be on the T.V. telling you some stories.
Watch the screen and listen carefully to each one, because
when I'm finished, I want you to tell the story back to me.
I'll be asking some questions about the story too, so listen
carefully."
A demonstration story was presented first for practice.
When the video tape was completed, the examiner
paused for 5 s and then requested a retelling by saying to
the child:
"Now you tell me the story."
No verbal reinforcement was given during the retellings,
but encouragement and enthusiasm were expressed with
head nods, et cetera. A short break was provided, and
then the two test stories, Buried Alive and Shipwrecked,
were presented one at a time in a counterbalanced order
following the same procedure as the demonstration item.
Task 3--Story Comprehension
The sixteen comprehension questions designed for
each story in Task 2 followed each story retelling. The
task was introduced by telling the child:
"Now I want you to answer some questions about the
story. Listen carefully, and give me the best answer you
can.
No time limitations were imposed and the questions were
repeated once upon request. This procedure was com-
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
30 539--552 December1987
pleted after the retelling of the demonstration story and
following the two test stories.
SCORING METHOD
The generated and retold stories and the responses to
the comprehension questions were transcribed verbatim.
The generated and retold protocols were separated into
main and subordinate clauses and then categorized into
story components using adaptations of Stein and Glenn's
procedure (1979) described in Appendices C, D, and E.
The story grammar analysis of the three generated and
two retold stories yielded six raw scores for each story
including one score for each of the total number of
occurrences of the six story components (settings, initiat-
ing events, internal responses, attempts, direct conse-
quences, and reactions). An episode analysis was also
done on the generated and retold stories, yielding the
total number of complete and incomplete episodes for
each story. An episode sequence was judged complete if
it contained at least one initiating event or internal
response plus an attempt and a direct consequence.
Responses to both the factual information and story
grammar comprehension questions were scored as cor-
rect or incorrect. For each child, a total score of 16 correct
was possible for the factual information questions and 16
correct for the story grammar questions. Specific criteria
were established for each probe that included the most
salient information required to answer the question ade-
quately. Responses that circumvented the criteria were
scored as errors, as were answers contradicting the orig-
inal story.
Story comprehension was reported as two raw scores,
one representing the total number of correct responses to
the factual information questions averaged across the two
retold stories, and the second raw score reflecting the
total number of correct responses to the story grammar
questions, also averaged across the two stories.
Scoring Reliability
Twenty-five percent of each of the generated and retold
stories were independently analyzed by a second exam-
iner to determine an interjudge reliability of 85.9% for the
story generation procedure and 94.8% for the story retell-
ing procedure. Twenty-five percent of the comprehen-
sion questions were also rescored by a second examiner,
and a 94.3% reliability was established.
RESULTS
AGE
When the groups were both separated and combined,
the results of Pearson product moment correlation coef-
ficients indicated no significant correlations between age
 MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 543

TABLE 1. Use of story components in story generation by control and language-disordered

children.

Language-Disordered
Control Group (N=20) Group (N=20)
Story Grammar Components Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
Settings 3.5 1.7 1-8 2.7 2.3 0-10
Initiating Events 5.2 3.0 1-15 4.6 1.8 1-9
Internal Responses .8 .6 0-2 .5 .5 0-2
Attempts 4.0 2.5 1-10 2.6 1.3 1-5
Direct Consequences 5.1 2.7 2-11 3.4 1.5 1--6
Reactions .2 .3 0-1 .2 .4 0-1

and any of the dependent variables in question (p > .05)
for story generation, story retelling, or story comprehen-
sion. Regardless of group membership, the tasks de-
signed for this investigation were not developmental in
nature over the age range of the children.
STORY GENERATION
An analysis of the generated stories produced by the
control and language-disordered children yielded data
pertaining to the frequency of use of the six story gram-
mar components, the number of complete and incomplete
episodes produced, the number of main and subordinate
clauses, the length of story episodes, and story hierarchy;
that is, the relative frequency of use of the six story
grammar components. Descriptive statistics relative to
the frequency of use of the story components are pre-
sented in Table 1. Table 2 represents an episode analysis
of the story generation data.
To determine if the groups were significantly different
in the frequency of use of the six story grammar compo-
nents during story generation, a two-way (2 x 6) repeated
measures analysis of variance was executed. A significant
Between Subjects Main Effect for Group was found, F (1,
38) = 3.97, p = .05, indicating that the control children
generated significantly more of the six story grammar
components than the language-impaired children.
There was no interaction effect (Group X Category)
between group membership and the six story grammar
components, F (5, 34) = 1.72, p > .05, during story
generation. The cell means outlined in Table 1, however,
indicate that the unimpaired and language-disordered
children were different in their generation of the six story
grammar components. With the exception of reaction
information, each mean score for the control group was
higher than that of the language-impaired group.
An episode analysis of the generated stories (see Table
2) indicated that the groups were significantly different in
the number of complete episodes produced per story, t
(38) = 2.29, p < .05, with the control group scoring a
higher mean (2.1) than the language-disordered group
(1.4). The groups were also significantly different in the
number of incomplete episodes generated, t (38) = 3.19,
p < .01. The language-disordered children produced an
average of .8 incomplete episodes per story as compared
with .3 for the control group.
When asked to generate their own stories, the two
groups of children were not significantly different in the
total number of main and subordinate clauses produced, t
(38) = 1.11, p > .05. As displayed in Table 2, though the
control group produced more clauses in story generation
(M = 21.4) than the language-disordered children (M =
17.9), the differences were not statistically significant.
Episode length in story generation, defined as the
mean number of main and subordinate clauses per com-
plete and incomplete episode, was also investigated by
computing the number of clauses produced in episodes
divided by the number of episodes in each story and for
each child. The control children produced a mean of 10.0

TABLE 2. Story generation episode analysis for control and language-disordered groups.

Language-Disordered Group
Control Group (N=20) (N=20)
Episode Analysis Mean SD Range Mean SD Range t
Number of Clauses 21.4 11.4 9-57 17.9 8.1 7-38 1.11
Number of Complete 2.1 1.2 1-5 1.4 .7 0-3 2.29*
Episodes
Number of Incomplete .3 .4 0-1 .8 .7 0-3 3.19"*
Episodes
Mean Number of Clauses 10.0 2.5 9.6 3.6 .36
Per Complete Episode

df = 38
*p < .05
**p < .01

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 544 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
clauses per complete episode, as compared with 9.6 for
the language-disordered group, t (38) = .36, p = .72. A
comparison between the groups of the mean number of
main and subordinate clauses per incomplete episode
could not be computed; as only ten of the control subjects
produced incomplete episodes, as compared with 18
children in the language-impaired group.
The hierarchy of story components in story generation
was examined to determine the relative frequency of use
of the six story grammar components produced by the
unimpaired and language-disordered children (See Table
3). The control group used initiating events most fre-
quently, followed by direct consequences, attempts, set-
tings, internal responses, and reactions. The story hierar-
chy of the language-disordered children was slightly
different than that of the unimpaired children. The lan-
guage-impaired group also generated initiating events
most often, followed by direct consequences. Settings
followed by attempts were then produced, as compared
with attempts followed by settings for the control group.
Internal responses and reactions, in that order, completed
the story hierarchy for the language-disordered children
as it did for the control children. The differences between
the groups were minimal in their story hierarchies pro-
duced, as a Kendall's Tau coefficient of .99 indicated
strong positive agreement between the two groups.
STORY RETELLING
The data collected from the story retelling task were
analyzed in the same manner as that described for the
story generation task and yielded results pertaining to the
same variables (i.e., frequency of use of the story grammar
components, number of episodes, number of clauses,
length of story episodes, and story hierarchy). Table 4
lists the frequency of use of the six story grammar com-
ponents for both groups, and Table 5 presents an episode
analysis of the story retelling data.
Using a two-way (2 x 6) repeated measures analysis of
variance, a significant Between Subjeets Main Effect for
Group was found, F (1, 38) = 7.71, p < .05, indicating that
the control children were able to retell significantly more
story grammar components than the language-disordered
group. No significant interaction effect between group
and the six story grammar components (Group x Gate-
gory) was found, F (5, 34) = .61, p = .69, however, the cell
TABLE 3. Hierarchies of story components in story generation
representing mean frequency of use.
Control G r o u p Language-Disordered
Group
Initiating Events 5.2 Initiating Events
Direct 5.1 Direct
Consequences Consequences
Attempts 4.0 Settings
Settings 3.5 Attempts
Internal Responses .8 Internal Responses
Reactions .2 Reactions
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
30 539-552 D e c e m b e r 1987
means displayed in Table 4 indicate that for each of the
six story grammar components the mean score was higher
for the control group than for the language-disordered
group.
As Table 5 also illustrates, the groups were found to be
significantly different in the number of complete epi-
sodes produced during story retelling, t (38) = 2.02, p =
.05, with the control children scoring a higher mean
number of complete episodes (2.7) than the language-
disordered children (2.1). Number of incomplete epi-
sodes was not found to differentiate the groups, t (38) =
.88, p > .05. The control children averaged .9 incomplete
episodes per story as compared with 1.0 for the language-
disordered children.
T-test results comparing the number of clauses pro-
duced by the control and language-disordered groups of
children in story retelling indicated significant differ-
ences relative to the total number of main and subordi-
nate clauses produced, t (38) = 2.47, p < .02.
Analysis of the length of the episodes produced in story
retelling yielded significant differences between the two
groups in the mean number of main and subordinate
clauses per complete episode, t (38) = 2.27, p = .03, with
the control children producing a mean of 8.6 clauses per
complete episode as compared with 7.4 for the language-
disordered group. The groups were not found to differ
significantly in the mean number of main and subordinate
clauses per incomplete episode in stow retelling. The
language-disordered children averaged 6.8 clauses per
incomplete episode, only slightly higher than the control
group's average of 6.1, t (38) = 1.81, p = .08.
Story hierarchies of the two groups were examined in
stow retelling as in story generation to determine if the
groups were significantly different in the relative fre-
quency of use of the six story grammar categories. The
hierarchies were found to be identical as the frequency
data in Table 6 indicates. Attempts were retold most
often, followed by initiating events and direct conse-
quences. Settings, internal responses and reactions were
retold less frequently and in that order of occurrence for
both groups. A Kendall's Tau of 1.00 can be computed by
rank ordering the components, but the finding is obvious
that a perfect positive correlation exists between the two
groups in their hierarchy of use of the story categories.
STORY COMPREHENSION
No significant differences were found between the
groups in the number of correctly answered factual infor-
mation questions, t (38) = .78, p > .05, as Table 7
illustrates. The control children had only a slightly higher
4.6 mean number of correct responses (6.4) than the lan-
3.4 guage-disordered group (6.1).
In contrast to these findings, there were significant
2.7 differences between the groups in the number of cor-
"2.6 rectly answered story grammar questions, t (38) = 4.53, p
.5
.2 < .001. The control group scored significantly better on
the questions designed to measure comprehension of the
 MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 545

TABLE 4. Use of story components in story retelling by control and language-disordered

children.

Language-Disordered
Control Group (N=20) Group (N=20)
Story Grammar Components Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
Settings 3.5 1.1 2--6 2.3 1.3 0-5
Initiating Events 4.6 1.3 2-7 3.9 1.4 1-7
Internal Responses 3.1 1.3 0-5 2.0 1.5 0-5
Attempts 4.8 1.4 3-7 4.2 1.5 2-7
Direct Consequences 4.2 1.6 2-7 3.3 1.3 1-6
Reactions 1.9 1.4 0-6 1.1 .5 0-2

dr= 38
*p < .05
**p < .02

relationships expressed in the story (M = 6.1) than the the story components was identical in story retelling and
language-impaired group (M = 4.3). highly similar in story generation. The two groups of
children also did not differ in their ability to answer
factual information questions after story retelling, but the
SUMMARY ability to respond to story grammar comprehension ques-
tions correctly did distinguish the groups.

A general comparison between the groups' perfor-

mances in the three story tasks indicated both differences
and similarities. Regardless of whether the story task
involved generating a new story or retelling a story, the
control children produced more complete episodes and a
greater frequency of story grammar components than did
the language-disordered children. Total number of main
and subordinate clauses produced also distinguished the
groups in story retelling, but not in story generation. This
indicated that the language-disordered children talked
less than the unimpaired children when a story model
had been presented. Mean number of main and subordi-
nate clauses per complete episode followed the same
pattern as number of clauses produced; this variable
distinguished the control from the language-disordered
groups in story retelling, but again not in story genera-
tion.
The two groups could not be differentiated by the story
hierarchies that they produced in either story generation
or story retelling. The groups' relative frequency of use of
DISCUSSION
USE OF STORY GRAMMAR
The finding that language-impaired children used
fewer complete episodes and story grammar components
than the unimpaired children may be interpreted to mean
that the language-impaired children demonstrated a less
effective use of story grammar organization. While this
finding is significant, of equal interest is the manner in
which the children organized the story components into
episode units in the tasks.
Both groups of children produced complete and incom-
plete episodes in their generated and retold stories, but
the language-impaired children organized their episodes
into incomplete units more often than the control group.
An analysis of the groups' incomplete episodes may

TABLE 5. Story retelling episode analysis for control and language-disordered groups.

Control Group Language-Disordered Group

(N=20) (N=20)
Episode Analysis Mean SD Range Mean SD Range t
Number of Clauses 28.0 7.3 1742 22.7 6.5 973 2.47**
Number of Complete Episodes 2.7 .8 14 2.1 1.0 0-4 2.02*
Number of Incomplete Episodes .9 .6 0-2 1.0 .7 0-3 .88
Mean Number of Clauses Per 8.6 1.6 7.4 1.6 2.27*
Complete Episode
Mean Number of Clauses Per 6.1 1.7 6.8 4.6 1.80
Incomplete Episode

df = 38
*p < .05
**p < .02

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 546 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30 539--552 D e c e m b e r 1987

TABLE 6. Hierarchies of story components in story retelling the listener questions who did what to whom and with
representing mean frequency of use. what motivation.
In the majority of the language-disordered children's
Language- stories, incomplete episodes occurred at the beginning of
Control Disordered the story generation attempts as the children appeared to
Group Group
have difficulty getting going with the task. Once they
Attempts 4.8 Attempts 4.2 imposed a structure on the story they were more likely to
Initiating Events 4.6 Initiating Events 3.9 generate complete episodes with appropriate direct con-
Direct Consequences 4.2 Direct Consequences 3.3 sequences. It was apparent when this framework was not
Settings 3.5 Settings 2.3 created, for in those narratives the generated stories were
Internal Responses 3.1 Internal Responses 9~.0
Reactions 1.9 Reactions 1.1 short and the episode structure weak.
Similar to the deseription of incomplete episodes in the
story generation task, direct consequence statements
provide some insight into what aspects of the episode were again found to be one of the story grammar compo-
structure differ across the groups. nents most often omitted in story retelling, with the
During story generation, the incomplete episodes pro- language-disordered children having a tendency to aban-
duced by the language-disordered children usually con- don episodes without a logical consequence for the char-
tained a series of loosely joined initiating events com- acter's attempts. For example, in the third episode of
bined with irrelevant information. The initiating events Buried Alive the air inside the truck is running out
established the goal of the episode, and then attempt (initiating event), the main character remembers he has a
statements were interspersed and causally linked to the blowtorch at hand 0nternal response), he lights the torch
events. The episode was then most often abandoned and cuts a hole in the roof (attempts), and then breathes
without a logical ending and with direct consequence the fresh air that pours in (direct consequence). A lan-
guage-disordered child retold this episode, in a some-
information virtually nonexistent. For example, a lan-
what summarized form, up to the point where the char-
guage-disordered child generated a story with multiple
acter made a hole in the roof and melted the snow, but
initiating events in which children in a desert find a
then abruptly went on to retell episode four. The retold
camel. The camel becomes wild and steps on one Of the stories of individual control children did not follow this
ehiidren, and the goal of bringing the child to the hospital specific pattern. Their incomplete episodes usually intro-
is established. One attempt statement involves bringing duced one or more initiating events, but then rambled off,
the hurt child home to his family, but the episode ends at appearing as though the child could not remember what
that point. The listener may infer that the child's medical came next. This did not oceur primarily with only one
needs will be met, but a direct consequence statement story or with one particular episode, and in all eases the
reflecting this is not made, and thus the episode unit is control children regained their sense of the story and
incomplete. In another example, a language-impaired went on to correctly retell the remaining parts.
child generated a short story in which children in a cave It may be postulated that the language-impaired chil-
become cold at night (an initiating event). They cover dren included less direct consequence information in
themselves with blankets (attempt) that they had the their retold stories beeause they retailed or compre-
forethought to bring (setting), but that ended the episode hended this information less well, but this interpretation
sequence. The children observed a bat in the cave and is not supported by the children's responses to the inter=
were eventually rescued, but these events were stated as view questions. Both groups of children gave correct
factual occurrenees not causally linked to the attempts, answers to about six of the eight factual questions follow-
and subsequently not scored as direct consequenees. mg story retelling. This indicated that they attended to
Because few causal links were established in the story, and r e m e m b e r e d the stories equally well, including those
factual details found within direct consequence state-
ments. An analysis of the story grammar questions indi-
TABLE 7. T-test results comparing the control and language- cates a similar Outcome. Although the language-disor-
disordered groups' correct responses to comprehension ques- dered children comprehended fewer of the relationships
tions. expressed in the story grammar components (See Table
7), the specific questions represented by direct conse-
Control quence story grammar eomponents were answered with
Group Language-Disordered about the same degree of accuracy by both groups.
(N=20) Group (N=20)
Mean SD Mean SD t These descriptions of episode structures in the stories
of the language-impaired children indicate that this level
Factual Information 6.4 1.7 6.1 1.3 0.8 of narrative organization was weak. It should be noted
Questions however, that both groups used an overall story organi-
Story Grammar 6.1 1.1 4.3 1.3 4.5*
Questions zation based on the episode structure. As previously
reported, the two groups' story hierarchies, or relative
dr= 38 frequency of use of the story grammar components, were
*p < .001 highly correlated, with attempts, initiating events, and

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx

direct consequences appearing foremost; these hierar-
chies were identical or highly similar across groups and
across tasks.
This interpretation of the story hierarchies used by
both groups in both story tasks is compatible with Stein
and Glenn's (1979) results. Three of the critical compo-
nents of an episode, initiating events, attempts, and direct
consequences, composed the three most frequently used
story grammar components for both the unimpaired and
language-disordered children. These three eomponents
were also recalled by Stein and Glenn's (1979) subjects
most often, following the major setting. This finding
indicates that the episode, as defined in this investiga-
tion, appears to be a powerful unit that guides children in
generating and retelling stories. Additional story gram-
mar components used within the episode structure serve
to elaborate and develop these basic behavioral se-
quences, making the goals and outcomes more under-
standable or interesting.
STORY LENGTH
It is not an uncommon observation that language-
impaired children produce less quantity in their narra-
tives than unimpaired children (Liles, 1985). However,
the data in the present investigation represent some
refinement of this observation. Story length, as measured
by number of main and subordinate clauses, did discrim-
inate the language-impaired from the control children,
but only in the story retelling task. In story generation,
both groups produced approximately the same number of
main and subordinate clauses, even though the language-
disordered children produced fewer story components
and fewer complete story episodes. Analyses of individ-
ual narratives of the language-impaired children indi-
cated that clauses outside the story grammar structure
contained extraneous information often having no bear-
ing on the plot or goal. These results indicate that while
the language-impaired children generated as much quan-
tity as their normal peers, they said less qualitatively.
In contrast to these results from story generation, in
story retelling the language-disordered children were
found to talk less than the control children. They not only
produced fewer complete episodes and story grammar
components, but also produced fewer main and subordi-
nate clauses. The groups also differed in the mean num-
ber of main and subordinate clauses produced per com-
plete episode in story retelling, with the unimpaired
children producing more story grammar components
within complete episode units. Again, this result is con-
trasted by the performance in story generation; for in that
task, when the language-impaired children produced
complete episodes, they were similar in length to those
generated by the control children. This contrast in the
groups across tasks relative to the length of complete
episodes may be interpreted to mean that the control
children were able to use the structure provided them in
the story retelling task better than the language-impaired
children.
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 547
STORY THEMES
Although a comparison of themes used in the story
generation task was not a formal question of this investi-
gation, an interesting consistency between the groups
was noted. Both the language-disordered and the control
children primarily used traditional themes in their sto-
ries. The "Pilot" story most often involved running out of
fuel or turbulent weather, losing control of the plane,
stalling, a crash, and then a rescue attempt. The "Family"
story involved a basic survival theme most of the time, as
the characters ran out of food and water, built shelter from
the elements, lost their children, and saw mirages. The
"Cave" story brought out the most imaginative story
lines. The children met with animals and bizarre crea-
tures, but also found gold, overcame boulders that im-
peded their return home, and suffered numerous injuries,
and many of the stories ended with the ehildren's parents
admonishing them.
The stems were designed to activate an adventure
theme for the children and this was accomplished. Most
characters were rescued from their situations, although a
few died and one was elaborately buried. Miraculous
recoveries also took plaee, and "magic" accounted for
many of the events that occurred, for example, a tele-
phone appearing in the middle of the desert as the family
is about to perish. The impact of television shows and
movies was also apparent in both the language-impaired
and control children's generated stories. The Indiana
Jones theme was popular, as well as "shoot-outs" and
fantasy sequences.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this investigation indicate that while
both unimpaired and language-impaired children appear
to be guided in their overall story organization by the
logical structures defined in story grammar, language-
disordered children are less effective in their use of the
grammar. This conclusion is supported by the groups'
similar story hierarchies, but a lower frequency of use of
story grammar components and complete episode struc-
tures by the language-disordered children is a pattern
found to be consistent in both story generation and story
retelling. Additional support for this conclusion is evi-
denced in the results of the story comprehension task.
Although the older language-impaired children compre-
hended and reealled story details as well as the control
children, they had difficulty understanding questions
structured to assess relationships between the story parts.
Graybeal (1981) concludes that language-impaired chil-
dren retell less story information because they r e m e m b e r
less of the story. The data from this investigation indicate
that the language-disordered children attended to the
stories as well as the unimpaired children and generally
r e m e m b e r e d the details of events. The language-im-
paired children had a poorer use of their story knowledge,
though, as reflected in their less adequate comprehension
of the relationships between the story parts and the lower
 548 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research
frequency of complete episodes produced. This perform-
ance by the language-impaired group indicates that they
do not have a strong c o m m a n d of the overriding story
structure although they appear to have adequate storage
and recall capability.
Although a statistical verification needs to be pursued,
it appears that there is no substantial advantage to a story
generation task over story retelling. The availability of a
story model in story retelling contributes to stronger
interjudge reliability and also allows the use of compre-
hension questions, facilitating a more complete represen-
tation of a child's ability. This type of information may be
particularly useful in profiling language abilities across
individual children, particularly in a mild to moderately
impaired population.
The results of this investigation indicate that a story
grammar analysis does characterize some aspects of lan-
guage disorder. It may be most useful as a means of
assessing the degree to which language-impaired chil-
dren are able to integrate causal and temporal relations
within the context of stories. The possibility however,
that these cognitively based organizational deficits are
demonstrated in other verbal or nonverbal communica-
tive abilities should encourage researchers to pursue this
area of inquiry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was made possible by a grant from The
University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The authors
would like to thank the students and staff of the Andover,
Colchester, and East Hartford, Connecticut, school systems for
their cooperation and participation in this project. The contribu-
tions of Robert J. Duffy, Jacqueline Sachs, and Ross Buck are also
acknowledged, and appreciation is expressed to Nancy Stein for
methodological assistance and Jack Davis for direction in statis-
tical planning and interpretation.
REFERENCES
AHRAM, D.M., & NATION, J.E. (1980). Preschool language
disorders and subsequent language and academic difficulties.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 159-170.
APPLEBEE, A. N. (1978). The child's concept of story. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
BACON, E. H., & RUBIN, D. C. (1983). Story recall by mentally
retarded children. Psychological Reports, 53, 791-796.
BENNETT, C. W., & RUNYAN, C. M. (1982). Educator's percep-
tions of the effects of communication disorders upon educa-
tional performance. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 13, 260-263.
BOTVlN, G. J., & SUTTON-SMITH,B, (1977). The development of
structural complexity in children's narratives. Developmental
Psychology, 13, 377-388.
DALE, E., & CHALL, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readabil-
ity. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20, 28.
DUNN, L. M., & DUNN, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabu-
lary test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser-
vice.
FEAGANS,L., & SHORT, E. J. (1984). Developmental differences
in the comprehension and production of narratives by reading
disabled and normally achieving children. Child Develop-
ment, 55, 1727-1736.
GAINES, R., MANDLER,J. M., & BRYANT, P. (1981). Immediate
and delayed story recall by hearing and deaf children. Journal
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
30 539-552 D e c e m b e r 1987
of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 463-469.
GLENN, C. G. (1978). The role of episodic structure and story
length in children's recall of simple stories. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 229-247.
GKaYBEAL, C. M. (1981). Memory for stories in language-im-
paired children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 269-283.
HABE/~LANDT, K., BEPaAN, C., & SANDSON,J. (1980). The epi-
sode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 19, 635-650.
HALL, P.K., & TOMBLIN, J. B. (1978). A follow-up study of
children with articulation and language disorders. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 227-241.
HAMMILL, D. D. (1985). Detroit tests of learning aptitude-2.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
HAMMILL, D. D. & NEWCOMER, P. L. (1982). Test of language
development-Intermediate. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
JOHNSTON, J. R. (1982). Narratives: A new look at communica-
tion problems in older language-disordered children. Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 13, 144--155.
JORGENSEN, C., BARRETT, M., HUISINGH, R., & ZACHMAN, L.
(1981). The word test. Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
KING, R. R., JONES, C., & LASKY, E. (1982). In retrospect: A
fifteen-year follow-up report of speech-language disordered
children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
13, 24-32.
LEE, L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
LILES, B. Z. (1985). Cohesion in the narratives of normal and
language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 28, 123-133.
LUFTIG, R. L., & GREESON, L. E. (1983). Effects of structural
importance and idea saliency on discourse recall of mentally
retarded and nonretarded pupils. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 87, (4), 414-421.
MANDLER, J. M., & JOHNSON, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of
things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychol-
ogy, 9, 111-151.
MAXWELL, S.E., & WALLACH, G.P. (1984). The language-
learning disabilities connection. In G.P. Wallach & K.G.
Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age
children (pp. 15-34). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
MER~TT, D. D., & LILES, B. Z. (1984, November). Story recall
and comprehension in older language-disordered children.
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Los Angeles, CA.
NIPPOLD, M. A., & FEY, S. H. (1983). Metaphoric understanding
in preadolescents having a history of language acquisition
difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 14, 171-180.
PETERSON, C., & McCABE, A. (1983). Developmental
psyeholinguisties: Three ways of looking at a child's narra-
tive. New York: Plenum Press.
ROTH, F.P., & SPEKMAN, N.J. (1986). Narrative discourse:
Spontaneously generated stories of learning-disabled and nor-
mally achieving students. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 51, 8-23.
RUMELHART, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In
D.G. Bobrow & A.M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and
understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 265-303).
New York: Academic Press.
SEMEL, E.M., & WIIG, E.H. (1980). Clinical evaluation of
language functions. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub-
lishing Co.
STARK, J. (1975). Reading failure: A language-based problem.
Asha, 17, 83P.~-834.
STEIN, N. L. (1979). How children understand stories. In L. Katz
(Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 2, pp.
261-290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
STEIN, N.L., & GLENN, C.G. (1979). An analysis of story
comprehension in elementary school children. In R.O.
Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp.
53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
STEIN, N. L. & GLENN, C. G. (1982). Children's concept of time:
 MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 549

The development of a story schema. In W. Friedman (Ed.), 28. cut a hole in the roof, (Attempt)
The developmental psychology of time (pp. 255-282). New 29. and melted the snow above the hole. (Direct Consequence)
York: Academic Press. 30. Sunlight and fresh air poured in. (Direct Consequence)
THORNDYKE, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehen- 31. Jim was relieved, (Reaction)
sion and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 32. but he knew (Reaction)
9, 77-110. 33. it would take a 10ng time for all that snow to melt. (Reaction)
VAN DIJK, T. A. (1981). Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In 34. A whole week went by. (Setting)
D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 35. One day, two state police officers saw an exhaust pipe
177-195). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. sticking out of the snow. (Initiating Event)
VERDICK, M. (Ed.). (1972). Amazing adventures. Middletown, 36. They thought (Internal Response)
CT: Xerox Education Publications. 37. that the driver of the truck might be dead. (Internal Re-
VErtO~CK, M. (Ed.). (1973). Nine daring adventures. Middletown, sponse)
CT: Xerox Education Publications. 38. The officers took shovels out of their ear, (Attempt)
VERDICK, M. (Ed.). (1978). Buried alive. Middletown, CT: Xerox 39. and started digging the snow. (Attempt)
Education Publications. 40. About ten minutes later, they reached the door, (Direct
WALLACH, G. P., & LEE, A. D. (1980). So you want to know what Consequence)
to do with language disabled children above the age of six. 41. and pulled it open. (Direct Consequence)
Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 99-113. 42. Jim smiled at the officers. (Reaction)
WEAVER, P. A., & DICKINSON, D. K. (1979). Story comprehen- 43. He was tired, (Reaction)
sion and recall in dyslexic students. Bulletin of the Orton 44. and he was hungry. (Reaction)
Society, 29, 157-171. 45. But he was alive! (Direct Consequence)
WECHSLER, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for childrere--
Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation. STORY #2---8 HIPWRECKED
YUSSEN, S. R. (1982). Children's impressions of coherence in
narratives. Advances in Reading~Language Research, 1, 1. Once there were three brothers (Setting)
245-281. 2. who often fished together in the ocean. (Setting)
3. They were good sailors, (Setting)
Received June 18, 1986 4. and usually were gone from home for only a short time.
Accepted April 13, 1987 (Setting)
5. One day, they all fell asleep on their boat. (Initiating Event)
Requests for reprints should be sent to Donna DiSegna 6. While they slept, (Initiating Event)
Merritt, 21 Robin Rd, Willimantic, CT 06226. 7. the anchor broke loose, (Initiating Event)
8. and the boat drifted away in the dark night. (Initiating
Event)
9. It finally crashed against some rocks. (Initiating Event)
APPENDIX A 10. The boys woke up frightened, (Internal Response)
11. but then saw an island about a mile from the wrecked boat.
STORIES USED IN THE STORY RETELLINGTASK (Initiating Event)
STORY #1--BURIED ALIVE 12. They swam for their lives, (Attempt)
13. and finally all reached the island. (Direct Consequence)
1. Jim had been a truckdriver for twenty years. (Setting) 14. The boys were grateful to be alive, (Reaction)
2. He was a very careful driver, (Setting) 15. but they knew they were lost. (Reaction)
3. and he never took chances. (Setting) 16. In the beginning, life on the island was very hard, (Setting)
4. One day it had been snowing for several hours. (Initiating 17. The boys couldn't find fresh water or food. (Initiating Event)
Event) 18. But they knew (Internal Response)
5. The roads were getting bad, (Initiating Event) 19. they could survive (Internal Response)
6. and Jim could hardly see (Initiating Event) 20. if they worked together. (Internal Response)
7. where he was going. (Initiating Event) 21. First, they looked for coconuts. (Attempt)
8. He wanted to get home safely. (Internal Response) 22. Then they caught birds with their bare hands, (Attempt)
9. So, he looked for a wide place at the side of the road, 23. and cooked them over an open fire. (Attempt)
(Attempt) 24. They always had enough to eat and drink, (Direct Conse-
10. pulled over his eighteen-wheeler, (Attempt) quence)
11. and fell fast asleep. (Direct Consequence) 25. and never felt hungry again. (Reaction)
12. He was finally able to relax. (Reaction) 26. The blazing sun was always hot on the island. (Setting)
13. Jim woke up many hours later. (Setting) 27. But one day the rainy season began. (Initiating Event)
14. It was dark inside the truck, (Setting) 28. The brothers knew (Internal Response)
15. but his watch said it was morning. (Setting) 29. they had to build a shelter. (Internal Response)
16. The snow on the truck was keeping the sun out. (Initiating 30. They searched the island, (Attempt)
Event) 31. and found parts of their wrecked boat. (Direct Consequence)
17. Jim knew (Internal Response) 32. They tied the wood together, (Attempt)
18. he was trapped. (Internal Response) 33. and built a simple cabin. (Direct Consequence)
19. First, he turned on the windshield wipers. (Attempt) 34. They were happier inside the cabin. (Reaction)
20. Then he tried to push open the door. (Attempt) 35. and kept dry when the rain came. (Direct Consequence)
21. But the wipers and the door wouldn't budge. (Direct Con- 36. The boys still dreamed every night of returning home to
sequence) their family. (Setting)
22. Jim started to worry. (Reaction) 37. One day, they spotted a ship. (Initiating Event)
23. By noontime, it was getting harder and harder to breathe. 38. They became excited, (Internal Response)
(Initiating Event) 39. and set fire to some large bushes. (Attempt)
24. The air in the truck was running out. (Initiating Event) 40. The black smoke rose high in the sky, (Direct Consequence)
25. Jim remembered (Internal Response) 41. and the ship's captain spotted it. (Direct Consequence)
26. he had a blowtorch in the back of the truck. (Internal 42. He ordered his men to go ashore, (Direct Consequence)
Response) 43. where the sailors were welcomed by the three brothers.
27. He lit it, (Attempt) (Reaction)

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 550 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30 539-552 D e c e m b e r 1987

44. They shouted their thanks. (Reaction) 1. Read each story in its entirety and then separate it into
45. After fifteen long months on the island, they were finally statements, which are defined as either a main clause or a
going home. (Direct Consequence) subordinate clause.
2. Divide the story into episodes, with the goal or problem of
each episode being identified as a preliminary step.
APPENDIX B 3. Include a statement in the analysis if it meets the criteria
established for one of the six story components listed in
Appendix D.
4. Multiple statements can be scored in each category as tong
STORY COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS as they are connected logically by "AND," " T H E N , " or
STORY #1--BuBIED ALIVE " C A U S E " relations, as described by Stein and Glenn
(1979).
5. When a statement is expanded upon later in the generated
Factual Information Questions story, only the expanded version is scored unless additional
story information is expressed. When this occurs, both
1. What was Jim's job? statements are scored•
2. What was the weather like in this story? 6. Statements are scored even if they are a repetition of the
3. What did Jim do with his truck when the roads got bad? information conveyed in the stem. These statements are
4. What happened when Jim turned on the windshield wip- always scored as Settings.
ers? 7. If a statement meets the criteria for two story components
5. What did Jim do with the blowtorch? (e.g., a Setting and an Initiating Event) then the statement
6. How long was Jim in the truck? is scored as both categories.
7. Who found Jim? 8. A statement is not included in the analysis if any one of the
8. How did the police officers get Jim out of the truck? following conditions is noted:
a) a general comment unrelated to the story, e.g., "I got it,"
Story Grammar Questions "This is hard," "Ok," etc.,
b) repetition of a thought,
1. Why did Jim pull his truck over? c) an unfinished statement that conveys an incomplete
2. Why was Jim able to relax at the beginning of the story? thought, e.g., " H e wanted, so, he wanted, then he
3. Why was it so dark in the truck? wanted..."
4. Why did Jim worry when he discovered the door wouldn't d) false starts, e.g., "And they found parts of t h e i r . . . No, I
budge? mean...
5. Why did Jim get out the blowtorch? e) formal endings, e.g., "That's it," "The e n d , " etc.,
6. Why did Jim feel better after the hole was cut? f) statements in whieh the information is not specific
7. Why did the police officers think Jim might be dead? enough to determine an appropriate story category, ei-
8. Why did the police officers start digging? ther because the referrent is unclear, for example, "And
they took him to this place so they could look at it," or
STORY #So---SHIPWRECKED because the information cannot be interpreted, for exam-
ple, "And then, one day, this old lady was in a pilot."
g) extraneous information, usually descriptive, that does
Factual Information Questions not fit into the story grammar analysis.
h) statements that are contradictory, for example, "The
1. What were the brothers doing on the boat? family didn't have much water," "So then they went in
2. What happened when the boys fell asleep? the house to take a bath."
3. How did the boys get to the island?
4. What did the boys eat?
5. How long were the boys on the island?
6. What did the brothers see one day in the ocean? APPENDIX D
7. How did the boys signal the ship?
8. What did the ship's captain do?
STORY COMPONENT CRITERIA
Story Grammar Questions
1. In the beginning of the story, why were the boys fright- Setting Category
ened?
2. Why did the brothers start swimming? A statement is categorized as a S E T T I N G if:
3. Why were the boys grateful when they got to the island? 1. a major or minor character is introduced, (e.g., "Jim had
4. Why did the brothers work together? been a truckdriver for twenty years."), or
5. Why didn't the boys starve? 2. a location is described, or
6. Why did the boys need to build a cabin? 3. additional information is presented that conveys the habit-
7. Why did the ship's captain see the boys? ual social context (e.g., " T h e boys were usually gone from
8. Why did the captain order his men to go ashore? home for only a short time."), physical context (e,g, "'Life on
the island was hard."), or temporal context of the story, (e.g.,
"A week went by."), or
APPENDIX C 4. a character's habitual state is noted; the state may not have
been caused by any previous occurrence, and may not
cause a subsequent event to happen, (e.g., "'He was a very
careful driver.").
STORY GENERATION SCORING PROCEDURE
Initiating Event Category
The following procedural guidelines were adapted from Stein
and Glenn's (1979) story grammar to analyze the generated A statement is scored as an I N I T I A T I N G E V E N T if it begins
stories: a goal-based episode sequence in the story and causes the main

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx

character to respond. Initiating Events include three types of
information:
1. A character's action or an eyent (e.g., "The boys couldn't
find fresh water or food.").
2. Natural occurrences, which are changes in the physical
environment not caused by an animate being (e.g., "One
day it had been snowing for many hours.").
3. Internal events, including a character's internal perception
of an external event (e.g., "One day they spotted a ship."),
or, changes in the character's internal physiological state
(e.g., "'By noontime, it was getting harder and harder to
breatheY)~
Setting and Initiating Events are distinguished from each
other in that the Setting provides the context for the story and the
Initiating Event always evokes an immediate response from the
character.
Statements that are general events and do not lead to a goal are
not scored, for example, "And then they drank w a t e r . . , and then
they ate . . . . "
Internal Response Category
A statement is characterized as an INTERNAL RESPONSE if
it meets three criteria:
1. it describes the character's psychological state including
emotions, goals, desires, intentions, or thoughts, for exam-
ple, " H e wanted to get home safely," or, "But they knew
they could survive if they worked together," or, "They
thought that the driver of the truck might be dead," AND,
2. it is causally related to an Initiating Event in the story,
AND,
3. it leads to a plan sequence.
Attempt Category
A statement is categorized as an A T T E M P T if it represents a
character's overt action toward resolving the situation or achiev-
ing a goal. For example, in Buried Alive, the main character
attempts to get air into his truck by lighting a blowtorch and
cutting a h01e in the roof.
There needs to be a direct causal link or enablement relation
between the Attempt and either the Initiating Event or Internal
ReSponse that Usually preceeds it, or a direct causal link or
enablement relation between the Attempt and subsequent Di-
rect Consequence.
Direct Consequence Category
A statement is categorized as a D I R E C T C O N S E Q U E N C E if
it marks the direct attainment or nonattainment of the character's
goal and is the result of one or more Attempt statements. A Direct
Consequence usually leads to a character's reaction, but this may
be unstated in the story.
Direct COnsequences include three types of information:
1. natural occurrences that influence the resolution of the
story by facilitating or impeding attainment of the charac-
ter's goal, (e.g., "One day the rainy season began.").
2. a character's action that results in either the attainment of a
goal or a change in the sequence of events. For example, in
Shipwrecked, the children built a simple cabin to meet
their goal of being sheltered from the rain.
3. End Sta~es, (e.g., "They Were happy inside the cabin.").
Reaction Category
REACTIONS define how a character feels about the attain-
ment or nonattainment 0fa goal (e.g., "Jim was relieved."), what
the character thinks about it (e.g., "They knew they were lost."),
or an action that is emotional (e.g., "They shouted their
thanks.").
A Reaction statement is causally linked to a Direct COnse-
quence, which is usually the preeeeding statement. Occasion-
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
MERRITT & LILES: Story Grammar Ability 551
ally, a Reaction preceeds a Direct Consequence, but the causal
connection between the statements needs to be apparent.
Reactions usually occur at the end of an episode, but they can
also be inserted at other points, for example, if a character pauses
to reconsider a consequence and then proceeds.
APPENDIX E
STORY RETELLING SCORING PROCEDURE
Statements elicited during the story retelling task are included
in the analysis if they meet the criteria for a specific story
category presented in Appendix D and if the following two
conditions are met:
1. The statement has to have occurred in the original story. An
exact replica is not required, but the retold statement needs
to contain the same semantic content as the first version.
For example, " H e Was not dead," conveys the same mean-
ing as, "'He was alive." Also, if details are omitted, e.g.,
numbers, specific times, etc., but the same story informa-
tion is expressed, then the statement is scored.
2. The retold statement also needs to express the same story
information, i.e., the same story component (e.g., Initiating
Event), as the original version.
Five additional general scoring procedures are also routinely
followed:
1. Only one statement is scored when a child uses two or more
clauses to express information that had been presented in
only one statement in the original story.
2. If a child uses one clause to express information conveyed
in two separate statements from the original story, e.g., "'So
he pulled over and fell asleep," and two distinct story
categories are expressed, in this ease, an Attempt plus a
Direct Consequence, the statement is scored as both cate-
gories.
3. When a statement is expanded upon later in the retold
story, or self-corrected, only the expanded/corrected ver-
sion is scored.
4. Word f n d i n g errors are not penalized, e.g., "Bill" for "Jim,"
"bus" for "truck," "blowerthing" for "blowtorch," "hook"
for "anchor," etc. (Graybeal, 1981).
5. Syntax errors, e.g., "And they dig," for "They started
digging the snow," are also not penalized.
Statements are not included in the analysis if any one of the
following conditions is noted:
i. a general comment or question unrelated to the story,
2. repetition of a thought,
3. an unfinished statement that conveys an incomplete
thought,
4. false starts,
5. formal endings,
6. unclear statements in which the information is not specific
enough, irrelevant, or contradictory to the original story,
7. extraneous information not presented in the original story,
e.g., additional conflicts, plans, etc.,
8. statements that convey only part of the information in the
original story. For example, "And so they got up," is not
the same as, "The boys woke up frightened," as the
Internal Response of fear is not conveyed.
9. statements conveying information that was assumed or
implied in the original story, for example, " O n e days Jim
was riding along," is implied in the first story.
10. statements presented in the wrong sequence such that a
different intent and story category is expressed relative to
the original story. Occasionally, a child expresses the
sequence of events in an order different from the Original
story but consistent with the meaning of the story, for
example, expressing the Initiating E v e n t and then the
Setting, or a Reaction followed by a Direct Consequence
 552 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30 552-558 D e c e m b e r 1987

end state. These statements are scored as correct if the
causal link is established. On other occasions, the se-
quence of events is wrong, the correct story category is
expressed in the statements, but the story line is not
logical. For example, a child who says, "Then they went
on an island," (a Direct Consequence), and several state-
ments later says, "But then they saw the island (an Initi-
ating Event). The statements are not scored if this occurs
because the relationship between the story parts is not
appropriate.

© 1987, American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association 552 0022-4685/87/3004-0552501.00/0

Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a La Trobe Univ User on 05/28/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx