Brèves DP4 - Demonext-step Boris & Joël : une évaluation critériée statique des compétences en morphologie dérivationnelle

Ce rapport "Brèves DP4" a pour objectif principal d’accompagner l’orthophoniste ou le pédagogue dans son souhait de développer une évaluation critériée statique en morphologie dérivationnelle auprès d’un jeune adulte atteint de troubles des apprentissages et qui envisage un parcours académique. Il s’agit d’une approche méthodologique raisonnée et qui est étayée à la fois sur le plan clinique et scientifique. Des illustrations concrètes du raisonnement clinique propre à l’évaluation sont proposées à travers une situation clinique vécue par les auteurs ou des collaborateurs cliniciens/pédagogues. Ce travail est orienté en sciences de la réadaptation est intégré au projet de recherche DEMONEXT ANR-17-CE23-0005. (site : https://www.demonext.xyz/en/home/) Recommandations complémentaires : Ce document a pour objectif principal d’accompagner l’orthophoniste dans son souhait de développer une évaluation individualisée en morphologie dérivationnelle dans une approche raisonnée et étayée à la fois sur le plan clinique et scientifique. Il ne peut se substituer à une expertise clinique et à la vigilance d’un professionnel de santé quant à la plainte et aux besoins du patient accueilli. Les appréciations et expertises qui en découlent dépendent de l’interprétation des auteurs et sont dépendantes de la situation clinique scénarisée. Nous encourageons nos lecteurs à consulter nos fiches de synthèse cliniques associées sur le site Demonext. Le correspondant scientifique du projet est disponible en vue en cas de question éventuelle.This report, "Brief DP4," aims to support the speech and language therapist or teacher in developing a static criterion-referenced assessment in derivational morphology with a young adult with learning disabilities who is planning an academic degree. This report is both clinically and scientifically supported. We propose concrete illustrations of the clinical thinking proper to evaluation through a clinical situation experienced by the authors or by clinical/pedagogical collaborators. This work is oriented in the field of rehabilitation sciences and is included in the DEMONEXT research project ANR-17-CE23-0005. (Website : https://www.demonext.xyz/en/home/). Recommendations: This document is not a substitute for clinical expertise and the vigilance of a health professional concerning the patient's complaints and needs. Appreciation and expert appraisals depend on the authors' interpretation and the clinical situation. We encourage our readers to consult our associated clinical summary sheets on the Demonext website. In case of any questions, please contact the scientific correspondent

Improving lexical skills in developmental language disorders using the French Démonette-2 database

peer reviewedLe raisonnement clinique permettant de mettre en place une remédiation orthophonique auprès d’un patient est un processus complexe, qui se confronte à de nombreuses limitations. Le manque d’expertise et de méthodes pour développer un protocole d’intervention en parallèle de contraintes environnementales comme le manque d’outils valides en vue de modéliser des activités suffisamment sensibles et opérationnelles pour la pratique professionnelle font partie de ces limites relevées dans la littérature. À travers une situation clinique scénarisée, cet article a pour objectif d’accompagner l’orthophoniste dans son souhait de développer une intervention en morphologie dérivationnelle visant à améliorer les compétences lexicales d’un patient de 9 ans présentant un Trouble Développemental du Langage. L’intervention a été conçue pour accroître les compétences en matière de conscience morphologique du français, d’un double point de vue formel et sémantique. La base de données morphologiques Démonette version 2, par la stabilité de son typage morphosémantique et sa validité théorique, a été utilisée afin de sélectionner les cibles pertinentes pour l’intervention. Par ailleurs, des outils d’accompagnement complémentaire à l’usage de la base de données morphologiques et à la méthodologie de sélection et de contrôle des listes d’occurrences dérivées sont intégrés à cet article.Clinical reasoning for implementing speech and language therapy remediation with a patient is a complex process with many limitations. The lack of expertise and methods to develop an intervention protocol and environmental constraints, such as the need for valid tools to model activities that are sufficiently sensitive and operational for professional practice, are some of the limitations identified in the literature. Through a clinical scenario, this article aims to support the speech and language therapist in their wish to develop a derivational morphology intervention to improve the lexical skills of a 9-year-old patient with a Developmental Language Impairment. The intervention was designed to increase the morphological awareness of French from both a formal and a semantic perspective. We used the Démonette 2 morphological database to select the relevant targets for the intervention because of its stable morpho-semantic typing and theoretical validity. In addition, tools to support the use of the morphological database and the methodology for selecting and checking lists of derived occurrences are included in this article.DEMONEX

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology