The Evidential Value and Pitfalls of Extant Language Development Research Methods

Several research methods have been developed with an aim to uncover the underlying cognitive andneural mechanisms behind child language acquisition. While these methods continue to generatepromising empirical evidence, language researchers need to carefully examine the evidential valueand limitations of findings that were derived from these methods before building on them. Similarly,language practitioners (e.g., speech-language pathologists/therapists, teachers) need to be aware thatwhile these methods may form or resemble the foundations of language assessment and interventionpractices (Seiger-Gardner & Almodovar, 2017; Deevy, 2017), no single paradigm cancomprehensively account for the multifaceted nature of “typical” and “atypical” languagedevelopment that we see in real-world settings, especially in multilingual contexts. If such is the case,how can we utilise the evidence that these methods generate in practical and clinical settings? Toanswer this question, this paper reviews and evaluates select language acquisition research methodsbased on the following criteria: (1) ecological validity of stimuli, (2) sensitivity of cognitive-linguisticmeasure, (3) suitability of comparison groups, (4) procedural suitability, (5) precision of responseclassification, (6) communicative sense (Ambridge & Rowland, 2013), and (7) practical implications(e.g., evidential value for bi/multilingual populations and in practitioner settings).