Stalls and revisions: A developmental perspective on sentence production

Matthew Rispoli, Pamela Hadley, Janet Holt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Purpose: The purpose of this research was to test the empirical validity of the stall-revision distinction and to provide a characterization of the development of sentence production using this distinction. Method: The stall-revision dichotomy for sentence disruptions was studied in 20 typically developing children. The children's production of short sentences was observed from 21 to 33 months of age. Developmental changes in stall and revision rates were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling, time centered at 27 months. Differences between stall and revision rates across 2 levels of sentence length were also explored with repeated-measures analysis of variance when the children were 33 months of age. Results: A clear development trend was observed for revision rate. At 27 months of age, revisions occurred in approximately 1 % of children's sentences and increased with age. No significant individual differences were apparent in the growth parameters for revision rate. In contrast, group developmental trends in stall rate were not discernable. However, stall rate increased significantly with sentence length, whereas revision rate remained constant. Conclusion: The contrasting pattern of findings provides support for the stall-revision dichotomy. The authors argue that the developmental changes in revision rate reflect changes in the children's ability to monitor their language production.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)953-966
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 1 2008


  • Language development
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Sentence production

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing


Dive into the research topics of 'Stalls and revisions: A developmental perspective on sentence production'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this