Microstructure is language-experience dependent while macrostructure is a relatively language-general, transferable narrative framework¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q3 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article organizes narrative skill into two levels: microstructure, covering "language-specific features such as syntactic complexity and lexical diversity," and macrostructure (story grammar), the higher-order organization of discourse. The authors' findings support the view that microstructure depends on language-specific experience and input amount, whereas "story structure is relatively language-general: SS knowledge does not appear affected by reduced input and may transfer across languages." The study uses this framework to interpret bilingual–monolingual differences on the MAIN.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Narrative samples elicited and scored at both microstructure (MLUm, NDW, SI, fragments) and macrostructure (SS, SC, IST, comprehension) levels

Constraints¶

• Cultural storytelling conventions can still influence stylistic features of macrostructure, as the article notes citing prior work

Target Learners¶

• typically developing children ages 3–8, monolingual and bilingual

Target Learning Objectives¶

• narrative production and comprehension skills in English

Claims¶

• Macrostructure Stable Across Language Groups [+M]
• Ndw Only Language Group Difference Narrative Microstructure [+M]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Hayes, R. L., and Kan, P. F. (2026). Shared and divergent patterns in narrative skills: comparing English monolingual and Japanese–English bilingual children. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1747702