See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51769780

Narrative Writing in Children and Adolescents: Examining the Literate

Lexicon

Article  in  Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · November 2011

DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0099) · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

48 3,800

2 authors:

Lei Sun Marilyn A Nippold

California State University, Long Beach University of Oregon
10 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS    139 PUBLICATIONS   5,649 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of COVID 19 Pandemic on Adults who stutter View project

Syntactic Development in Adolescents With a History of Language Impairments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marilyn A Nippold on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LSHSS
Article
Narrative Writing in Children
and Adolescents: Examining
the Literate Lexicon
Lei Sun a and Marilyn A. Nippold b
Purpose: This study was designed primarily to examine the
use of abstract nouns and metacognitive verbs in the narrative
writing of school-age children and adolescents.
Method: Three groups of typically developing students ages 11,
14, and 17 years (n = 40 per group) were asked to write a story
about something funny, sad, or scary that had happened to
them and a friend. Each student’s narrative essay was examined
for the use of abstract nouns (e.g., accomplishment, loneliness,
mystery) and metacognitive verbs (e.g., assume, discover, re-
alize) and for the production of complex syntax as measured by
mean length of T-unit (MLTU) and clausal density (CD).
uring the years between late childhood and late
D adolescence, significant growth occurs in the do-
mains of cognitive, social, and linguistic develop-
ment (Nippold, 2007; Ravid, 2004)—growth that parallels
the neurological refinements that are taking place in the
frontal–temporal regions of the brain (Savage, 2009). For
example, during these years, advances occur in the ability
to think abstractly and flexibly, to organize and integrate
information, to view a complex issue from multiple perspec-
tives, and to understand the beliefs and feelings of others
(Santrock, 1996; Schickedanz, Schickedanz, Forsyth, &
Forsyth, 2001). Interest in socializing also expands as young
people establish close relationships with peers—a pattern
that contributes to their emotional well-being and personal
identity (Lerner, 2002). Regarding language, substantial gains
occur in the use of literate words and complex syntax in
spoken and written communication (Nippold, 2007).
a
California State University Long Beach
b
University of Oregon, Eugene
Correspondence to Marilyn Nippold: nippold@uoregon.edu
Editor: Janna Oetting
Associate Editor: Ruth Huntley Bahr
Received November 9, 2010
Accepted May 15, 2011
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0099)
2 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Results: Age-related growth in narrative writing was docu-
mented for both types of words. Additionally, the use of abstract
nouns and metacognitive verbs was associated with the produc-
tion of complex syntax, reflecting the lexicon–syntax interface.
Conclusion: The narrative writing task employed in this study
was effective in eliciting literate words and complex syntax
in school-age children and adolescents.
Key Words: narrative writing, abstract nouns,
metacognitive verbs, complex syntax
The present study examined the use of literate words
in school-age children and adolescents in the context of
narrative writing. Narrative writing was addressed because
today’s public school students often are required to generate
or retell stories in the classroom, and they are evaluated on
their ability to express themselves using precise vocabulary
and grammatically appropriate sentences in this genre (e.g.,
Oregon Department of Education, 2010). However, many
school-age children and adolescents with language disorders
struggle with the production of narrative discourse (e.g.,
Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004; Scott
& Windsor, 2000). Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who
work in the public schools often are called on to evaluate
these students’ written language skills, with the broader
goal of helping them to communicate more effectively. Thus,
by examining the use of literate words in narrative writ-
ing, the findings are relevant to contemporary classroom
expectations.
To date, most studies of narrative development have
focused on preschool and younger school-age children (e.g.,
Berman & Slobin, 1994; Botvin & Sutton-Smith, 1977;
Gillam & Pearson, 2004; Klecan-Aker & Caraway, 1997;
Liles, 1985, 1987; Preece, 1987; Stein & Glenn, 1979) rather
than older children and adolescents. Given that less is known
about narrative development in older students, the present
study attempted to address this limitation in the literature
on later language development.
 Specifically, the study focused on the use of two types of
words—abstract nouns (ABNs; e.g., anticipation, curiosity,
loneliness) and metacognitive verbs (MCVs; e.g., decide,
imagine, realize). ABNs refer to intangible entities, inner
states, and emotions (Nippold, Hegel, Sohlberg, & Schwarz,
1999); MCVs refer to mental events or activities of the mind
(Astington & Olson, 1987). ABNs and MCVs are consid-
ered to be part of the literate lexicon because they are later
developing words that occur in school-related contexts that
involve reading, writing, listening, and speaking about
complex topics (Nippold, 2007). For example, both types
of words are likely to occur in discussions about literature,
as illustrated by the following topic-driven sentence:
Henry David Thoreau explored (MCV) many ideas (ABN)
about human nature (ABN) before deciding (MCV) to write
his first book, a memorial (ABN) to his brother.
Previous research has shown that knowledge of ABNs
and MCVs develops gradually during late childhood and
adolescence and into early adulthood. For example, McGhee-
Bidlack (1991) conducted a study in which 120 students
ages 10, 14, and 18 years were asked to define 16 nouns
aloud. Half the words were concrete in that they referred to
tangible entities that could be seen or touched (e.g., book, car,
flower); the other half were abstract in that they referred to
intangible entities (e.g., courage, freedom, wisdom). It was
found that concrete nouns were well understood by the
students in all three age groups. Although the understanding
of ABNs increased during the targeted age range, these
words remained difficult even for the 18-year-olds.
It has been hypothesized that concrete nouns are easier
to understand than ABNs because the former are linked to
stronger mental images stored in memory (Sadoski, Kealy,
Goetz, & Paivio, 1997). For example, concrete nouns such as
fox, train, and strawberry can evoke vivid visual, auditory,
tactile, or olfactory images that can help to support their
meanings. In contrast, ABNs such as humility, misfortune,
and wisdom are difficult to visualize, hear, feel, or smell,
making it necessary to link their meanings to other stored
words and concepts rather than to rich mental images.
To further explore the understanding of ABNs, Nippold
et al. (1999) conducted a study that involved four groups of
students (n = 240) whose mean ages were 12, 15, 18, and
23 years. Each student was asked to define 16 low-frequency
ABNs (e.g., burden, cowardice, goodness) in writing. Study
results revealed age-related growth in students’ ability to
define the words with accuracy and depth. The oldest group,
the 23-year-olds, outperformed all of the younger groups
in defining the words; however, the task remained difficult
even for these adults.
In a subsequent study of 15-year-old adolescents who
had participated in the Nippold et al. (1999) investigation,
Nippold (1999) reported that the ability to define ABNs
in writing was positively associated with reading compre-
hension, as measured by performance on state-mandated
achievement tests. In this study, adolescents who were stron-
ger readers showed greater understanding of ABNs than
those who were weaker readers.
Similar findings have been made with respect to MCVs.
For example, Astington and Olson (1987) investigated the
understanding of MCVs (e.g., assume, conclude, hypothesize)
in 176 students who were enrolled in Grades 6, 8, 10, 12,
and college. Knowledge of each word was examined through
a written multiple-choice task in which a paragraph was pre-
sented. After each paragraph, four sentences were presented,
only one of which summarized the paragraph correctly by
using an appropriate MCV. Results indicated that comprehen-
sion of MCVs gradually increased in relation to grade level,
but that mastery was not reached until college, demonstrating
the demanding nature of these verbs. The study also reported
that knowledge of MCVs was closely associated with stu-
dents’ performance on tests of academic achievement in-
volving reading vocabulary and critical thinking skills.
A few studies have examined development of the use
of ABNs and MCVs in written language. For example,
Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, and Fanning (2005) presented a
persuasive writing task to groups of children, adolescents,
and adults; mean ages of the groups, respectively, were
11, 17, and 24 years (n = 60 per group). The participants
were asked to write an essay on the topic of training animals
to perform in circuses. They were encouraged to consider
different points of view on this controversy. Results indi-
cated that the use of ABNs (e.g., courage, freedom, kindness,
opinion) and MCVs (e.g., discover, experience, intend, reflect)
in the persuasive essays gradually increased during the tar-
geted age range. Age-related improvements also occurred
in language productivity, as measured by total number of
utterances produced, and in syntactic development, as mea-
sured by mean length of utterance (MLU), during the years
between late childhood and early adulthood.
In a study of Hebrew-speaking children (ages 9–10 years),
young adolescents (ages 12–13 years), older adolescents
(ages 16–17 years), and young adults (ages 25–35 years)
(n = 20 per group), Ravid (2006) examined the use of ABNs
in narrative and expository writing. Narrative essays were
elicited by asking participants to write a story about a situa-
tion they had experienced that involved a problem with
another person; expository essays were elicited by asking
participants to discuss the topic of conflicts between people.
Results indicated that the use of ABNs (e.g., authority, dig-
nity, negativity, tolerance) gradually increased in both types
of essays during the targeted age range, but that they occurred
more often in the expository than in the narrative essays.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The studies just described (Astington & Olson, 1987;
McGhee-Bidlack, 1991; Nippold, 1999; Nippold et al.,
Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 3
1999; Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005; Ravid,
2006) indicate that the use and understanding of ABNs and
MCVs develops gradually during the years between late
childhood and early adulthood, and that competence with
these words is linked to academic achievement (Astington
& Olson, 1987; Nippold, 1999). For example, Nippold (1999)
found that knowledge of ABNs was associated with read-
ing comprehension, and Astington and Olson (1987) found
that knowledge of MCVs was associated with reading vo-
cabulary and critical thinking.
However, little is known about the use of these words in
narrative writing and how this may change as students mature.
Given that research has shown that word learning continues
throughout the school-age and adolescent years (Nagy &
Herman, 1987; Nagy & Scott, 2000; White, Power, & White,
1989), it seems likely that both types of words would be used
with increasing frequency. Research also has shown that
the words students learn as they progress through school
are likely to be less common and to express subtler mean-
ings than the words they learned earlier (Nagy, Diakidoy,
& Anderson, 1993). Moreover, because ABNs and MCVs
refer to intangible entities, mental states, or mental events, it
seems likely that they would occur with increasing frequency
in narrative writing as students mature.
Narrative writing is of interest because research has
shown that, as children and adolescents mature, they focus
more attention on subtle aspects of human behavior such
as the thoughts, emotions, motivations, and inner reactions
of the characters in the stories they encounter (Bamberg &
Damrad-Frye, 1991; Botvin & Sutton-Smith, 1977; Stein
& Glenn, 1979). This condition might prompt them to em-
ploy ABNs and MCVs in their own stories as they write
about these phenomena.
Thus, in an effort to examine the use of ABNs and MCVs,
we asked students to write narrative essays that were coded
for the use of these words. It was predicted that older stu-
dents would use the words more frequently than would
younger students. It was also of interest to learn about the
diversity of words the students used. To study this infor-
mally, we noted and recorded every ABN and MCV that
occurred at least once in the essays of each age group.
Another question of interest concerned the so-called
lexicon–syntax interface (Ravid, 2004, p. 80). As Ravid ar-
gued, there is a rich interaction between lexical and syntactic
development—a pattern that increasingly reveals itself in
literate contexts as young people mature. This interface may
be observed in the following complex sentence, which
employs four ABNs, four MCVs, and five clauses:
Upon realizing (MCV) our navigational error (ABN), we
decided (MCV) to choose (MCV) another destination (ABN),
hoping (MCV) to avoid additional delays (ABN) and frustration
(ABN).
Thus, in the present study, it was predicted that the use of
ABNs and MCVs would be associated with the production
4 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012
of complex syntax. This prediction was based on studies
indicating that syntax continues to develop throughout child-
hood and adolescence and into adulthood (e.g., Berman &
Verhoeven, 2002; Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie, & Mansfield,
2005; Nippold, Mansfield, & Billow, 2007; Nippold, Ward-
Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005), that greater syntactic com-
plexity in spoken and written language is associated with the
expression of complex rather than simple thoughts (Nippold,
2009, 2010a), and that the lexicon and syntax are interrelated
in later language development (Berman, 2004; Berman &
Verhoeven, 2002; Ravid, 2004, 2006).
In sum, the present study was designed to address the
following questions:
& Does the use of ABNs and MCVs in narrative writing
increase during the years between late childhood and
late adolescence?
& Is the use of these words associated with the production
of complex syntax?
METHOD
Participants
Three groups of students (n = 40 per group) participated
in this study. Drawn from Grades 5, 8, and 11, respectively,
their mean ages were 11;1 (years;months; range = 10;5–
11;8), 14;1 (range = 13;4 –14;10), and 17;5 (range = 16;8–
17;10). All participants spoke American English as their
primary language, and based on teacher report, none were
on individualized education programs or were receiving
special education services. Thus, all participants were con-
sidered by their teachers to be free of any cognitive, socio-
emotional, language, or learning disorders. The participants
attended either an elementary school (Grade 5), middle school
(Grade 8), or high school (Grade 11) located in a rural com-
munity in western Oregon. According to the school district’s
website, 10% of the students were classified as “minorities”
and 54% were receiving a free or reduced priced lunch and
were therefore classified as “economically disadvantaged.”
No ethnic or economic data were available for individual
participants.
The study was approved by the University of Oregon
Office for the Protection of Human Subjects. Before any
testing took place, a passive parental consent procedure
was employed. All parents of students in the participating
classrooms were informed of the voluntary nature of the
study and were given the opportunity to have their child
opt out of the project. On the day of testing, students were
told that the research activities were not required, and they
were allowed to choose an alternative activity (e.g., go to
the library, read a book, work on homework). If they chose
to participate in the study, they were asked to sign an as-
sent form indicating their agreement to do so. At least 95%
of the students in each classroom agreed to take part in the
study.
Narrative Writing Task
Tasks that have been employed in previous research to
elicit narrative discourse in children may be inappropriate
for use with adolescents. For example, the wordless picture
book, Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969), which fo-
cuses on the adventures of a young boy, his pet dog, and a
rambunctious frog, is unlikely to be of interest to today’s
adolescents, although it has been used successfully in nu-
merous studies with children (e.g., Bamberg, 1994; Berman
& Slobin, 1994; Epstein & Phillips, 2009; McCabe, Bliss,
Barra, & Bennett, 2008). Hence, there is a need to design
narrative tasks that are both interesting to adolescents and
sensitive to age-related changes in language use that occur
during this developmental period. To address this limitation, a
new task to examine narrative writing was created, one that
was described previously by Nippold (2010b).
Used in the present study, the task requested each par-
ticipant to write a narrative essay at school. To assist the
participants in organizing their essays, the investigators
provided them with a set of instructions and a detailed out-
line, shown in Appendix A. The essay, entitled “What Hap-
pened One Day,” requested them to write a story—either
factual or imaginary—about something funny, sad, or scary
that had happened to them and a friend. The outline prompted
them to address a set of key story grammar elements (e.g.,
setting, characters, plot, problems, attempts). Given that
young people of the targeted age range evidence a growing
interest in interpersonal relationships, including peer friend-
ships (Lerner, 2002; Santrock, 1996; Schickedanz et al.,
2001), it was expected that the task would appeal to the
participants and encourage them to write an engaging story.
To assist them in getting started on the task, given the short
time frame that was available, the investigators told the
participants that their story did not have to be true and that
they could use their imaginations to make up something, if
they chose to do so. They were not required to indicate if
their story was factual or imaginary, and it is possible that
some stories contained a mix of truthful and creative writing.
Testing Procedure
Testing took place in the participants’ regular classrooms
during language arts or English class. The participants’
teacher remained in the classroom while the two investiga-
tors administered the task. All participants were given a
booklet of lined paper in which to write their essay. Next, one
of the investigators read the instructions aloud to the class
while the other investigator walked around the classroom to
ensure that the participants were following along and that
they understood the directions. Participants were encouraged
to ask any questions about the task. Once all questions were
answered, participants were allowed 20 min to complete their
work, after which time was called.
Analyses
Each participant’s handwritten essay was typed verbatim,
segmented into T-units, and entered into the computer pro-
gram, Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT;
Miller, 2009), by the first author (LS). A T-unit consists of
a main clause (MC) and any subordinate clauses (SCs) that
are attached to it (Hunt, 1970). After an essay had been en-
tered into SALT, a trained research assistant double-checked
the segmenting of all T-units, made any corrections, and
discussed those changes with LS so that 100% agreement
was reached. Then, LS coded the essay for all instances of
ABNs, MCVs, MCs, and SCs. An ABN was defined as
an intangible entity, inner state, or emotion (Nippold et al.,
1999) and included both derived (e.g., excitement) and non-
derived (e.g., nature) words. Nouns that referred to basic
temporal concepts (e.g., day, hour, night), although techni-
cally abstract, were ignored because of their frequent use in
conversation. An MCV was defined as a word that referred
to a mental event or an act of thinking (Astington & Olson,
1987; Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005).
Whenever a word was coded, context was scrutinized to
determine the writer’s intended meaning. For example, for
the word bond to be coded as an ABN, it had to be used
in the psychological sense (“The three brothers had a tight
bond”) rather than a physical sense (“The bond between
the floor boards had loosened”); similarly, for the word
digest to be coded as an MCV, it had to refer to a mental
event (“It took him a long time to digest the shocking news”)
rather than a physical event (“We watched the snake digest
its dinner”). When clauses were coded, both finite and
nonfinite verbs were included (for further information on
clause coding, see Nippold, 2010b). After an essay had
been coded in this way, the second author (MN) or the
research assistant double checked it for the coding of all
ABNs, MCVs, MCs, and SCs; any discrepancies in coding
were discussed and resolved so that 100% agreement was
reached.
Other variables that were recorded included total T-units
(TTU) produced, which is a measure of language produc-
tivity, and mean length of T-unit (MLTU), which is a mea-
sure of syntactic development. Both TTU and MLTU were
automatically calculated by SALT. Clausal density (CD),
also a measure of syntactic development, was determined
by summing the number of MCs and SCs contained in the
essay and dividing this sum by the TTU produced (Nippold,
2010b). The factors of MLTU and CD have been employed
in previous studies to document the development of com-
plex syntax in written language during late childhood, ado-
lescence, and early adulthood (e.g., Berman & Verhoeven,
2002; Hunt, 1970; Loban, 1976; Nippold, Hesketh,
et al., 2005; Verhoeven et al., 2002). Thus, in addition
Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 5
to measures of lexical development (ABN, MCV), mea- Table 1. Performance of the groups (n = 40 per group) on the
sures of syntactic development (MLTU, CD) and language narrative writing task variables.
productivity (TTU) were obtained. It was important to mea-
sure TTU in order to control for differences in essay length
Age 11 Age 14 Age 17
that might account for a greater number of ABNs and MCVs.
Hence, for purposes of analyzing the data, each participant’s
total number of ABNs (and total number of MCVs) was Abstract nounsa (age 17 > age 11)
divided by the TTU produced in the essay—a number that M 8.65 14.52 19.94
SD 13.67 19.42 12.26
was then multiplied by 100 to yield the percentage of T-units Range 0–84.62 0–100.00 0–46.67
that contained at least one ABN (or MCV). Metacognitive verbsa (age 17, age 14 > age 11)
To learn about the diversity of words that were used, M 8.29 16.42 18.99
for each age group, we constructed lists of all ABNs and SD 8.24 17.69 8.29
MCVs that occurred at least once in the essays. To obtain an Range 0–35.00 0–91.67 7.89–36.36
Total T-units (age 17 > age 14, age 11)
estimate of the frequency of occurrence of each noun and M 19.10 23.80 30.70
verb in printed American English, we recorded the standard SD 8.86 9.93 7.99
frequency index (SFI) of each word from The American Range 8–46 4–44 15–46
Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, Mean length of T-unit (age 17, age 14 > age 11)
1971). Based on a logarithmic transformation, the SFI indi- M 9.14 11.19 11.27
SD 2.22 3.93 2.07
cates how frequently a word occurred in a large body of Range 6.23–16.70 6.11–30.75 8.00–17.07
reading materials written for students in third through ninth Clausal density (age 14 > age 11)
grade. According to Carroll et al. (1971), a high-frequency M 1.50 1.71 1.63
word has an SFI ≥50 (it occurs at least once per 100,000 words SD 0.26 0.34 0.27
of text); a moderate-frequency word has an SFI between Range 1.00–2.26 1.17–2.75 1.20–2.73
38 and 49 (it occurs less than once per 100,000 but greater
a
than once per 1 million words of text), and a low-frequency Reported as the percentage of T-units containing at least one
occurrence.
word has an SFI ≤37 (it occurs less than once per 1 million
words of text). Then, across the three age groups, the lists
of ABNs and MCVs with their SFI ratings were compared TTU, the 17-year-olds outperformed the 11-year-olds on
informally. MLTU, and the 14-year-olds outperformed the 11-year-olds
on MLTU and CD. Appendix B contains narratives essays
written by two participants, ages 11 and 17 years, illustrating
age-related differences in performance.
RESULTS
To examine the individual words that were used in the
Performance of the groups on the narrative writing task essays written by each age group, we looked at the number
is reported in Table 1. To examine the effects of age group of words that fell into each of the three frequency categories
(11, 14, 17) and word type (ABN, MCV), we performed (see Table 2 for ABNs and Table 3 for MCVs). Examples
a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with of words used in each category by each age group are also
percentage of T-units that contained each type of word provided. For all three groups, most words fell into the
serving as the dependent variable. A statistically significant high-frequency category for ABNs (e.g., accident, balance,
main effect was obtained for age group, F(2, 117) = 8.87, curiosity) and for MCVs (e.g., believe, care, decide). For
p = .0003, h = .36, but not for word type, F(1, 117) = .02, ABNs, the number of moderate-frequency words (e.g., ad-
p = .8831, h = .01; the interaction between age group and mission, offense, trait) and low-frequency words (e.g., ac-
word type was not statistically significant, F(2, 117) = .42, knowledgement, antic, apathy) tended to increase in relation
p = .6608, h = .08. The effect size for age, computed using to age, but for MCVs, moderate- and low-frequency words
the eta coefficient (h; Meline & Schmitt, 1997), was medium (e.g., confuse, ignore, suppress) were rarely used by any
(Cohen, 1969). Tukey tests indicated that the 17-year-olds of the three groups of writers.
outperformed the 11-year-olds on ABNs and MCVs, and that Finally, to examine the associations between lexical (ABN,
the 14-year-olds outperformed the 11-year-olds on MCVs. MCV) and syntactic (MLTU, CD) variables, we calculated
Additionally, a series of one-way ANOVAs (adjusted partial correlation coefficients, controlling for the effects
a = .01) yielded statistically significant main effects for TTU, of age, between each pair of variables for all participants com-
F(2, 119) = 16.95, p < .0001, h = .47; MLTU, F(2, 119) = bined. Reported in Table 4, all coefficients were statistically
7.10, p = .0012, h = .33; and CD, F(2, 119) = 4.99, p = .0083, significant, demonstrating a link between literate word use
h = .28. The effect sizes were large for TTU and medium and the production of complex syntax, thereby supporting
for MLTU and CD (Cohen, 1969). Tukey tests indicated that the lexicon–syntax interface in narrative writing. It was also
the 17-year-olds outperformed the 14- and 11-year-olds on found that the two lexical variables (ABN and MCV) were

6 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012
 Table 2. Number of different abstract nouns (ABNs) and percentage of total ABNs used by each age group
(n = 40 per group) that fell into each word frequency category.

Age 11 Age 14 Age 17

Number % Number % Number %

High frequency 31 89 41 73 88 69
Examples: accident, attempt, balance, beauty, curiosity, distance,
dream, fun, life, characteristic, experience, fear,
mistake, plan, community, con- feeling, generation,
sense, setting, clusion, direction, goal, happiness,
thought distance, effort, hope, idea,
excitement imagination
Moderate frequency 3 9 14 25 29 23
Examples: admission, outcome abuse, bond, emer- accomplishment,
gency, inspection, anticipation, chaos,
offense, suspense, loneliness, mercy,
wit moral, motive,
neglect, revenge,
sadness, triumph
Low frequency 1 2 1 2 11 9
Examples: prank orientation acknowledgment,
antic, apathy
Total ABNs 35 56 128

associated with one another, as were the two syntactic var-
iables (MLTU and CD). In other words, as the number of
ABNs increased, so did the number of MCVs; and as sentence
length increased, so did the use of SCs.
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to examine the use of two types
of literate words, ABNs and MCVs, in the narrative writing
of children and adolescents. We also were interested in
examining the narrative essays for the production of complex
syntax and for the possibility of links between lexical and
syntactic development, the lexicon–syntax interface pro-
posed by Ravid (2004). It was predicted that both types of
words would occur with increasing frequency in narrative
writing during the years between late childhood and late
adolescence, and that the use of these words would be associ-
ated with the production of complex syntax in narrative
writing.

Table 3. Number of different metacognitive verbs (MCVs) and percentage of total MCVs used by each age
group (n = 40 per group) that fell into each word frequency category.

Age 11 Age 14 Age 17

Number % Number % Number %

High frequency 15 94 31 94 36 90
Examples: decide, doubt, guess, believe, care, assume, attempt,
know, learn, love, determine, guess, imagine,
understand discover, enjoy, notice, plan,
expect, feel, pretend, reflect,
forget, hope remember
Moderate frequency 1 6 2 6 3 8
Examples: ignore confuse, ignore digest, ignore, refuse
Low frequency 0 0 1 2
Examples: — — suppress
Total MCVs 16 33 40

Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 7

Table 4. Partial correlation coefficients (controlling for the
effects of age) between lexical (ABN, MCV) and syntactic
(MLTU, CD) variables for all participants combined (n = 120).
ABN MCV MLTU CD
ABN — .46** .50** .25*
MCV — .44** .39**
MLTU — .79**
Note. ABN = abstract noun; MCV = metacognitive verb; MLTU =
mean length of T-unit; CD = clausal density.
*p < .01, **p < .0001.
The results confirmed these predictions and also revealed
age-related increases in language productivity (TTU) and
syntactic complexity (MLTU, CD). In general, older students
produced longer essays marked by greater use of ABNs and
MCVs and greater syntactic complexity than did younger
students. The finding that older students wrote longer essays
than younger ones was consistent with past research in per-
suasive writing (Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005).
Older students, having had more life experience interacting
with peers in social situations, have probably acquired a
larger store of memories from which to draw on as they pro-
duce stories that are expected to be about something funny,
sad, or scary that happened to them and a friend. Older stu-
dents also have had more experience with the writing process
itself and therefore have had more opportunities to build
automaticity and fluency and to receive feedback from
teachers.
Informal analysis following examination of the words
in the essays indicated that the 17-year-olds used a greater
number of different ABNs and MCVs than did the 14-year-olds,
who used a greater number of different ABNs and MCVs
than did the 11-year-olds (see Tables 2 and 3). These patterns
may reflect age-related gains in word knowledge along with
the developing writer’s need to use a greater variety of
words to express a growing number of sophisticated thoughts
with clarity and precision, as in the sentence, “Meredith
assumed that her parents would notice her accomplishments.”
Analyses also indicated that the majority of ABNs and
MCVs used by all three groups had a high frequency of oc-
currence in the language. For ABNs, there was a tendency
for the proportion of moderate- and low-frequency words to
increase slightly during the targeted age range (see Table 2),
but for MCVs, no such trends were apparent (see Table 3).
It was also found that certain words were used by all three
groups (e.g., ABN: accident, end, fun, life, problem, shock;
MCV: decide, expect, feel, forget, guess, realize), whereas
other words were used only by the oldest group (e.g., ABN:
accomplishment, anticipation, apathy, boredom, competition,
destination; MCV: assume, attempt, digest, imagine, reflect,
suppress)—a pattern that may reflect both quantitative and
8 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012
qualitative changes in the lexicon. In other words, growth
seemed to occur not only in the use of these words with
increasing frequency, but also in the ability to gain access to
more diverse sets of words.
It is likely that growth in the use of ABNs and MCVs
in narrative writing reflects the increasing exposure that
students receive to these words during their formal educations
as they read or listen to narratives in the classroom, along
with multiple opportunities to use the words in academic
contexts. For example, during the upper elementary grades
and continuing through middle school and high school,
students often are exposed to narratives in the form of folk
tales such as “The Baker’s Neighbor” (Afflerbach, Beers,
Blachowicz, Boyd, & Diffily, 2000) and “The Value of
Knowledge” (McDougal Littell, 2006)—stories that deal
with topics such as personality traits, motivations, and human
values, thus requiring the use of ABNs (e.g., greed, revenge,
selfishness) and MCVs (e.g., decide, deign, enjoy; Nippold,
2010b). When students are asked to retell or discuss these
stories in class, they may be prompted to use the words more
frequently as they progress through school.
Regarding the relationship between lexical and syntactic
variables, all correlation coefficients were statistically sig-
nificant and of low–moderate to moderate strength (Schiavetti,
Metz, & Orlikoff, 2011), thus supporting the prediction that
the use of ABNs and MCVs is associated with the production
of complex syntax. This provides evidence of the lexicon–
syntax interface (Ravid, 2004)—the view that these linguistic
domains develop in tandem—a pattern that can be revealed
in literate contexts as when students are asked to engage in
narrative writing. Use of ABNs also was associated with the
use of MCVs—a pattern that is consistent with the nature
of these words in that both refer to intangible phenomena,
including thoughts, emotions, and mental activities. The study
also demonstrated that the two syntactic markers, MLTU and
CD, were associated with one another, confirming past re-
search showing that as sentences become longer, they also
contain greater amounts of subordination (Nippold, 2009).
It was interesting, however, that for both syntactic var-
iables, performance reached a plateau by age 14 (see Table 1).
This is not to suggest that syntactic development peaks dur-
ing early adolescence. Rather, it is possible that a different
narrative task would be required to reveal syntactic devel-
opment in older adolescents. A task that offers greater cog-
nitive stimulation, such as a request to create an exciting
mystery story, may be more successful in prompting older
writers to tap into their syntactic competencies more fully.
It also may be helpful to allow participants more time to write
their stories. In the present study, students were given only
20 min to complete the task because of classroom scheduling
restrictions. A time limit of 30 or 40 min would have been
preferable, given that some students were reluctant to stop
writing when time was called.
Nevertheless, the task was effective in eliciting the var-
iables of interest and in demonstrating developmental gains
in narrative writing. To illustrate these attainments, along
with the lexicon–syntax interface, Appendix B contains two
essays written by participants in the study, an 11-year-old
child (Writer #1) and a 17-year-old adolescent (Writer #2).
Each essay has been coded for ABNs, MCVs, MCs, and
SCs. The factors of TTU, MLTU, and CD also are reported.
Writer #1 demonstrated the ability to produce complex
sentences that contain ABNs ( plan, time) and MCVs (think-
ing, know, forgot). For example, T-unit #6, a 12-word sen-
tence, contains one ABN (time), one MCV (thinking), and
one SC (who that could have been). However, Writer #1’s
sentences are shorter and simpler, and contain fewer literate
words, than those of Writer #2. Demonstrating a more mature
level of performance, Writer #2 used a greater variety of
ABNs (idea, decision, destination) and MCVs (decided,
realized, discovered) in the production of longer sentences
that contain ample amounts of subordination (e.g., After
purchasing the popcorn, we headed to Jenny’s mom’s
house to get a few movies to pass the night away). Although
Writer #2 outperformed Writer #1, both participants were
able to express themselves efficiently, and neither was
restricted to the use of simple sentences and concrete words.
Clinical Implications
According to the recent Professional Issues Statement of
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA,
2010), the school-based SLP is responsible for assessing
the writing skills of students in elementary school, middle
school, and high school who struggle to succeed academi-
cally because of a language disorder or weak language skills.
Moreover, when language-based difficulties are identified,
the SLP is expected to work collaboratively with classroom
teachers to assist the students in meeting their educational
goals. This would include facilitating students’ use of ABNs,
MCVs, and complex syntax in narrative writing when they
experience difficulties in these areas. Although students
with language disorders were not the focus of the present
study, previous investigations have found that children and
adolescents with language disorders struggle to produce nar-
ratives that are comparable in quality to those of their peers
with typical language development, with deficits occurring
in many areas including lexical and syntactic development
and language productivity (e.g., Fey et al., 2004; Liles, 1985,
1987; Liles, Duffy, Merritt, & Purcell, 1995; Merritt & Liles,
1987, 1989; Scott & Windsor, 2000; Wetherell, Botting, &
Conti-Ramsden, 2007; Windsor, Scott, & Street, 2000). It
is therefore important that school-based SLPs examine the
development of narrative writing in children and adolescents
with language disorders.
Currently, there is a paucity of tasks available to examine
narrative writing, particularly in adolescents. However, the
task employed in the present study, a request to write a story
about something funny, sad, or scary, was successful in
eliciting narrative essays from school-age children and
adolescents. Indeed, many of the students were reluctant to
stop writing after 20 min when time was called, which suggests
that the task was engaging and enjoyable for them. Another
positive feature was that the task was easily administered
to the participants in their regular classrooms, avoiding the
need to single out any individuals. It was also quite straight-
forward to identify key features of lexical and syntactic
development, including ABNs, MCVs, and complex sen-
tences. By asking participants to write their narratives instead
of individually interviewing them and asking them to tell a
story, we were able to obtain a large amount of useful infor-
mation from each of them in a relatively short period of time.
Although narrative writing falls within the SLP’s scope
of practice (ASHA, 2010), a recent survey indicated that
many school-based SLPs feel unprepared to address written
language deficits in students on their caseloads (Fallon &
Katz, 2011). To better prepare these professionals, efforts
must be made at the preservice level and as part of con-
tinuing education coursework to enhance their knowledge
of later language development as a strong foundation for
clinical practice. Because information about later language
development is a rich source of data for working effectively
with children and adolescents in the schools (Nippold,
2010b; Paul, 2007), knowledge of specific lexical and syn-
tactic attainments that can be expected to occur in narrative
writing can heighten SLPs’ ability to identify linguistic
weaknesses in the students they serve. For example, the
SLP who works in a middle school or high school could
examine students’ narrative essays for use of a variety of
ABNs (e.g., attempt, community, imagination; see Table 2)
and MCVs (e.g., decide, determine, reflect; see Table 3),
words that frequently occur in the essays of students with
typical language development. For example, the present study
showed that by eighth grade, 14.5% of students’ T-units
contained at least one ABN, and 16.42% of their T-units
contained at least one MCV, on average. It also was found that
the use of these words was associated with the production
of complex syntax, and that students in eighth grade, on
average, produced an MLTU of 11.19 words and a CD score
of 1.71, indicating that most of their sentences contained at
least one SC. This information about later language devel-
opment and the lexicon–syntax interface can be helpful in
knowing what to reinforce in writers who struggle to express
themselves in the narrative genre. Moreover, given the con-
nection between knowledge of literate words and reading
comprehension (Astington & Olson, 1987; Nippold, 1999), it
makes sense that SLPs would address students’ competence
with these words in written language.
To learn more about the narrative writing skills of children
and adolescents with language disorders, studies should be
conducted to determine how these students would perform
in comparison to their peers with typical language develop-
ment. Factors to examine include the use of ABNs and MCVs,
MLTU, CD, and TTUs produced. Studies of narrative writ-
ing in students with language disorders will provide critical
Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 9
information on the problems they experience, offering fur-
ther guidance for addressing written language development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express sincere appreciation to the children and
adolescents who participated in the study; to their parents and
guardians who granted permission; to the teachers and adminis-
trators who allowed the study to take place and helped to schedule
the testing; and to Trace Mansfield, who assisted with data coding.
This report is based on the first author’s dissertation, which was
completed under the direction of the second author.
REFERENCES
Afflerbach, P., Beers, J. W., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C. D., &
Diffily, D. (2000). Scott Foresman reading: Fantastic voyage
(Vols. 1 & 2). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010).
Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists
in schools [Professional issues statement]. Available from
www.asha.org /policy.
Astington, J. W., & Olson, D. R. (1987, April). Literacy and
schooling: Learning to talk about thought. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, DC.
Bamberg, M. (1994). Development of linguistic forms: German.
In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in nar-
rative: A cross-linguistic developmental study (pp. 189–238).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to
provide evaluative comments: Further explorations of children’s
narrative competencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 689–710.
Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long
developmental route of language acquisition. In R. A. Berman
(Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence
(pp. 9–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.). (1994). Relating events
in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic
perspectives on the development of text-production abilities:
Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5(1), 1–43.
Botvin, G. J., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1977). The development
of structural complexity in children’s fantasy narratives.
Developmental Psychology, 13, 377–388.
Carroll, J., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American
heritage word frequency book. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Epstein, S., & Phillips, J. (2009). Storytelling skills of children
with specific language impairment. Child Language Teaching
and Therapy, 25(3), 285–300.
10 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012
Fallon, K. A., & Katz, L. A. (2011). Providing written language
services in the schools: The time is now. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 3–17.
Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. B.,
& Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills
of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1301–1318.
Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2004). Test of Narrative
Language. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children
and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 35(1, Serial No. 134).
Klecan-Aker, J. S., & Caraway, T. H. (1997). A study of the
relationship of storytelling ability and reading comprehension
in fourth and sixth grade African-American children. European
Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 109–125.
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Adolescence: Development, diversity,
context, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall/Pearson Education.
Liles, B. Z. (1985). Narrative ability in normal and language
disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
28, 123–133.
Liles, B. Z. (1987). Episode organization and cohesive conjunc-
tives in narratives of children with and without language dis-
orders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 185–196.
Liles, B. Z., Duffy, R. J., Merritt, D. D., & Purcell, S. L.
(1995). Measurement of narrative discourse ability in chil-
dren with language disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 38, 415–425.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through
grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.
McCabe, A., Bliss, L., Barra, G., & Bennett, M. (2008).
Comparison of personal versus fictional narratives of chil-
dren with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 17, 194–206.
McDougal Littell. (2006). The language of literature: British
literature (Teacher’s ed.). Evanston, IL: Author.
McGhee-Bidlack, B. (1991). The development of noun defini-
tions: A metalinguistic analysis. Journal of Child Language, 18,
417–434.
Meline, T., & Schmitt, J. F. (1997). Case studies for evaluating
statistical significance in group designs. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 33–41.
Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in
children with and without language disorders: Story generation,
story retelling, and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 30, 539–551.
Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1989). Narrative analysis: Clinical
applications of story generation and story retelling. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 438–447.
Miller, J. F. (2009). SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts [Computer software]. Madison, WI: University
 of Wisconsin–Madison, Waisman Center, Language Analysis
Laboratory.
Nagy, W., Diakidoy, I., & Anderson, R. (1993). The acquisi-
tion of morphology: Learning the contribution of suffixes to the
meanings of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2),
155–171.
Nagy, W., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocab-
ulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction.
In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of
vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nagy, W., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nippold, M. A. (1999). Word definition in adolescents as a
function of reading proficiency. Child Language Teaching
and Therapy, 15(2), 171–176.
Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: School-age
children, adolescents, and young adults (3rd ed.). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Nippold, M. A. (2009). School-age children talk about chess:
Does knowledge drive syntactic complexity? Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 856–871.
Nippold, M. A. (2010a). Explaining complex matters: How
knowledge of a domain drives language. In M. A. Nippold &
C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents,
and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 41–61). New York,
NY: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Nippold, M. A. (2010b). Language sampling with adolescents.
San Diego, CA: Plural.
Nippold, M. A., Hegel, S. L., Sohlberg, M. M., & Schwarz,
I. E. (1999). Defining abstract entities: Development in pre-
adolescents, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 41(2), 473–481.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield,
T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A
study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and
adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
1048–1064.
Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., & Billow, J. L. (2007).
Peer conflict explanations in children, adolescents, and adults:
Examining the development of complex syntax. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 179–188.
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J., & Fanning, J. L. (2005).
Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study
of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138.
Oregon Department of Education. (2010). English Language
Arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.ods.state.or.us.
Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through ado-
lescence: Assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). St. Louis,
MO: Mosby.
Preece, A. (1987). The range of narrative forms conversationally
produced by young children. Journal of Child Language, 14,
353–373.
Ravid, D. (2004). Derivational morphology revisited: Later lexical
development in Hebrew. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Language
development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 53–81).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during
the school years: Noun scale analyses. Journal of Child Lan-
guage, 33, 791–821.
Sadoski, M., Kealy, W. A., Goetz, E. T., & Paivio, A. (1997).
Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of
definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 518–526.
Santrock, J. W. (1996). Adolescence: An introduction (6th ed.).
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Savage, R. C. (2009). The developing brain after TBI: Predicting
long term deficits and services for children, adolescents, and
young adults. International Brain Injury Association, 4. Retrieved
from http://www.internationalbrain.org / ?q=node/112.
Schiavetti, N., Metz, D. E., & Orlikoff, R. F. (2011). Evaluating
research in communicative disorders (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Schickedanz, J. A., Schickedanz, D. I., Forsyth, P. D., &
Forsyth, G. A. (2001). Understanding children and adoles-
cents (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language perfor-
mance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository
discourse of school-age children with language learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
43, 324–339.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story com-
prehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.),
New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J.,
Kriz, S., & Viguie-Simon, A. (2002). Clause packaging in
writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis.
Written Language and Literacy, 5(2), 135–162.
Wetherell, D., Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2007).
Narrative in adolescent specific language impairment (SLI):
A comparison with peers across two different narrative genres.
International Journal of Language and Communication Dis-
orders, 42(5), 583–605.
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological
analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary
growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 283–304.
Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and
noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children
with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 43, 1322–1336.
Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 11
 APPENDIX A. NARRATIVE ESSAY TASK “WHAT HAPPENED ONE DAY”
(NIPPOLD, 2010b)

At this time, I would like you to write a story. Please write a story about something funny, sad, or
scary that happened to you and a friend. You get to decide what to write about. It can be anything that
was funny, sad, or scary. If you can’t think of something that really happened, you can make it up. It
doesn’t have to be a true story. You can use your imagination, if you want. It’s up to you.
The outline below will help you organize your thoughts and write a good story. In your story, be sure to
do the following:
1. Tell where the events took place (the setting).
2. Tell who the main people are (characters).
3. Tell everything that happened in the story (plot).
4. Tell about the problems that came up (problems).
5. Explain what the characters tried to do (attempts).
6. Explain how things turned out (outcome).
7. Tell how everyone felt during the events (thoughts).

Keep this list of points in front of you as you write your story. As you address each point, try to write a
full paragraph of your own ideas. You will have 20 minutes to complete your work. I have given you a
booklet of lined paper to use in writing your story. Please put your name, age, and grade level on the
booklet.
As you do this work, please use your best writing style with complete sentences, and correct grammar,
spelling, and punctuation. If you aren’t sure how to spell a word, make your best guess. Try to write
neatly, using a pen or pencil. If you make a mistake, just cross it out or use an eraser. Keep going until I ask
you to stop writing.
Do you have any questions?
The title of your story is: “What Happened One Day”
Note. From “Language Sampling Tasks” in Language Sampling With Adolescents (p. 38) by Marilyn A.
Nippold. Copyright © 2010 Plural Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

12 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 2–13 • January 2012
APPENDIX B. NARRATIVE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY TWO STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Writer #1, age 11;1 TTU = 12, MLTU = 10.33, CD = 2.08

1. One day, me and my friend were [MC] out on a walk when my friend yelled [SC], “What was
[SC] that”?
2. I looked [MC] to see [SC] a man in dark black clothes with mud on his face.
3. I said [MC], “Let’s get [SC] out of here”!
4. She said [MC], “Good plan [ABN]”.
5. We ran [MC] as fast as we could [SC].
6. And the whole time [ABN], I was thinking [MCV] [MC] who that could have been [SC].
7. I asked [MC] my friend.
8. She said [MC] she didn’t know [MCV] [SC] but the guy looked [SC] like someone she had seen
[SC] before.
9. My friend knew [MCV] [MC] that she had seen [SC] him on TV before.
10. But she didn’t know [MCV] [MC] what channel.
11. So later that night, my mom asked [MC] why we were [SC] home so early.
12. Well, I forgot [MCV] [MC] to tell [SC] my friend not to tell [SC] my mom.

Writer #2, age 17;8 TTU = 16, MLTU = 12.88, CD = 2.50

1. One day, Jenny, Tom, and I were all sitting [MC] around at Kim’s house playing [SC] some
board games.
2. As the hours passed [SC], we started [MC] getting [SC] tired.
3. Just then, we had [MC] a brilliant idea [ABN].
4. We all decided [MCV] [MC] to stay [SC] up all night.
5. It was [MC] only about 10:30 pm when we made [SC] this decision [ABN].
6. So we realized [MCV] [MC] that we needed [SC] something to keep [SC] us occupied if we were going
[SC] to stay [SC] up for the next nine or more hours.
7. Our first trip was [MC] at about 11:30 pm.
8. We had decided [MCV] [MC] to go [SC] to Safeway for popcorn.
9. After purchasing [SC] the popcorn, we headed [MC] to Jenny’s mom’s house to get [SC] a few movies
to pass [SC] the night away.
10. We decided [MCV] [MC] on the Austin Powers Trilogy.
11. When we arrived [SC] at our destination [ABN], we discovered [MCV] [MC] that there were [SC]
only two of the three movies there.
12. That is [MC] when we took [SC] our second trip.
13. When we arrived [SC] at Tom’s house for the third movie, it was [MC] well past midnight.
14. So Tom had [MC] to sneak [SC] in to get [SC] the movie.
15. He found [MC] it and came [MC] out a few minutes later, successful, waking [SC] no one.
16. When we arrived [SC] back at Kim’s, we all piled [MC] onto the floor with pillows and blankets
and settled [MC] in to watch [SC] the movies.
Note. Each essay has been coded for lexical and syntactic variables: ABN = abstract noun; MCV = metacognitive
verb; MC = main clause; SC = subordinate clause. The code has been placed after the literate word or after
the verb of the clause. Other factors are also reported: TTU = total T-units; MLTU = mean length of T-unit;
CD = clausal density.

Sun & Nippold: Narrative Writing 13

 Narrative Writing in Children and Adolescents: Examining the Literate Lexicon

Lei Sun, and Marilyn A. Nippold

Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2012;43;2-13; originally published online Nov 3, 2011;
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0099)

The references for this article include 13 HighWire-hosted articles which you can
access for free at: http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/2#BIBL

This information is current as of January 3, 2012

This article, along with updated information and services, is

located on the World Wide Web at:
http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/2

View publication stats