Download Document

Raising the Standards
Presentation to the
American Speech Hearing Language Association
November 14, 2003
Jill de Villiers
Smith College, Northampton, MA
Thomas Roeper, Barbara Pearson &
Harry N. Seymour
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Research supported by NIH contract N01-DC-8-2104
Motivations For A New Standardized
Language Assessment
• How best to determine what a child knows
about language.
• How best to determine this knowledge
irrespective of the child’s dialect.
Traditional Language Assessment
• Standardized testing
• Non-standardized Approaches
– Language sampling
– Language probes
Limitations of Traditional
Assessment
• Standardized testing
–
–
–
–
Limited to problem/no problem question
Limited to gross measures of language
Limited in explanatory power
Limited to Standard English targets
• Non-standardized approaches
– Effective but Impractical for most clinicians
Raising The Standards Beyond
Traditional Testing
– Six standards for assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assess Language knowledge at a deeper level
Select dialect specific targets for identification
Avoid dialect specific targets for assessment
Assess morphology that is obligatory across dialects
Avoid focusing on acquired lexical vocabulary
Focus on pragmatic aspects of language essential for
schooling and literacy
Standard 1: Deeper Level of
Language Knowledge
• Universal grammar
• Deeper, more abstract language knowledge
– Hidden properties
– Variable properties
– Movement rules
• Disorder is most obvious
Standard 2: Select Dialect Specific
Targets For Identification
• Useful in identifying dialect status
– African American English (AAE) vs
Mainstream American English (MAE)
• No penalty for non-Mainstream English
patterns by African American English
speakers
Standard 3: Avoid Dialect Specific
Targets For Assessment
• Non-contrastive language patterns
• Less superficial
• No distinction expected between dialects
Standard 4: Obligatory
Morphology Across Dialects
• There are morphological inflections that do not
vary between dialects
• Past tense “was”, possessive pronouns,
presentational “it.”
• Their obligatory status applies to both AAEand
MAE.
Standard 5: Avoid Focusing On
Acquired Lexical Vocabulary
• Basic processes of word learning
• Lexical organization and retrieval
• Logical properties and scope of the word
“every”
Standard 6: Focus On Pragmatic Aspects of
Language Essential For Schooling and
Literacy
•
•
•
•
Question asking
Communicative role taking
Linking events into a cohesive narrative
Understanding mental states
The DELV Tests
• DELV-Screening Test
– Identifies language variation status
– Identifies students at risk for a disorder
• DELV-Criterion Referenced Test
– Diagnose speech and language disorders
• Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatic, Phonology
• DELV-Norm-referenced Version
– Exclusively on AA children
Jill de Villiers
Two illustrations:
Learning a new word from context
Understanding complex questions
How can we do better with
assessing semantics?
• We need to understand the process of how a child
learns words in context and from context.
• Research has shown that children learn words
quickly from spoken, and later written, context.
• Children rarely have meanings pointed out or
explained. Instead, from a young age they can “fastmap” the meaning of a word from its linguistic
context.
• A child may have an impoverished, or different,
vocabulary, but still be capable of quick learning of
a new word, when given the chance.
Fast Mapping of Word Meanings from
Context
• Verbs are dependent on using syntactic cues to
meaning type: i.e. argument structure.
• This should not differ across different varieties of
English. It is a fundamental process of learning.
• Previous work on young children distinguishing
intransitive from transitive verbs (Naigles, Fisher)
E.g. She is mooping (intransitive: self-action)
She is mooping her
(transitive: causal action)
Children choose different actions from a scene,
depending on the structure. They “fast-mapped” the
meaning from the sentence frame.
Syntactic Bootstrapping
• Johnson (1999) compared intransitive, transitive,
also dative and complement-taking verbs.
• Nonsense verbs were used in these frames to
describe strange actions in ambiguous contexts.
The child then answers questions about the verb
and its subjects and/or objects.
• This research showed that children acquire a verb’s
meaning in part through the argument frames in
which it appears. This phenomenon is often called
syntactic bootstrapping.
Extension of Johnson’s research
• Our testing was modeled closely on
Johnson’s design.
• Our subjects were the children tested in the
try-out phase of the DELV assessment test.
• They included AAE and MAE speakers,
typically developing and those receiving
speech-language services.
• In all, there were 1014 subjects aged 4 to 9
years.
Argument structures: real verbs
• Intransitive: one argument
E.g. the dog is barking
• Transitive: two arguments
E.g. The boy poured the drink
• Dative: three arguments
E.g. The mailman handed the letter to the boy
• Complement: three arguments
E.g. The policeman asked the woman to stop the car
Procedure
• The child saw a picture that contained at
least two events. S/he heard a sentence about
it containing either a REAL or a NOVEL
verb.
• The child had to answer a set of questions
about the picture that are designed to test
which action s/he has associated with the
verb.
Now for a novel verb: transitive
The woman is temming the boy.
• Which one was the
temmer?
• Which one was
temming?
• Which one was got
temmed?
• Which one was
temmable?
Intransitive/Transitive
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corporation
Now for novel verbs! Try a dative:
The boy is meeping the flowers to the girl.
Here are the things in the pictures. I want you to show me:
Which one was the meeper?
Which one was meepable?
Which one was wearing a green dress?
©. The Psychological Corporation
The boy is meeping the flowers to the girl.
Which one got meeped?
Which one was meeping?
©. The Psychological Corporation
Now try a complement form:
The lady is ganning the waiter to send the coffee.
©. The Psychological Corporation
Here are the things in the pictures. I want you to show me:
Which one was the ganner?
Which one did the lady gan the waiter to send?
Which one was wearing a dress?
©. The Psychological Corporation
The lady is ganning the waiter to send the coffee.
Which one did the lady gan to send the coffee?
Which one was ganning?
©. The Psychological Corporation
Question types
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ING e.g Which one is ganning? (agent)
ER e.g. Which one is the ganner? (agent)
Got-ED e.g. Which one got ganned? (patient)
ABLE e.g. Which one is gannable? (patient)
Subj-comp e.g.
Which one did the woman gan (e) to send the coffee?
Obj-comp e.g.
Which one did the woman gan the waiter to send (e)?
Overall pattern by age: MAE and AAE speaking children.
Syntactic Bootstrapping / Fast Mapping
Average Score /21
20
15
AAE
MAE
10
5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Overall Pattern by age on Fast-Mapping task: TRY versus
DIS subjects
Syntactic Bootstrapping / Fast Mapping
Average Score /21
20
15
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
10
5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Error patterns reveal where
problems are.
• The disordered children get only about half of the
questions correct that the normal AAE-speakers do.
• The patterns can be compared
– across real versus novel verbs,
– across different question-forms
– and across different structures,
to locate what the child might be having difficulty
with.
• Some errors are developmental: some items are
hard across the age range.
More work ahead...
• On the DELV, we assess
– fast mapping of verbs from context,
– the organization and retrieval of verb and
preposition vocabulary
– The understanding of the quantifier “every”.
This is a TINY part of what semantics means,
though at least it gets us beyond naming
objects. We need to expand our vision!
Example 2:
Understanding complex wh-questions
Why are wh-questions of
significance?
For the past thirty years in Linguistics, considerable
attention has been paid to
What? wh-questions.
By who? Chomsky, among others.
How? By examining data from many languages
Why? Because wh-questions reveal the deep processes
of grammar of which we as speakers are only dimly
aware.
We know that in languages like English, the wh-word
moves to the front of the sentence:
What did you eat? (you ate what?)
Long distance movement
• But the “site” from which it moves, the “gap”, can be
several clauses away:
• What did you say you ate (...) ?
• What did Jim say he saw you eat (…)?
We can “recover” the meaning across several
clauses.But there are some places the wh-word can’t
come from:
John said he saw a man who ate a snake
John said he saw a man who ate what? (no problem)
What did John say he saw a man who ate? (oops!)
What’s this about?
• There are significant limitations on how we can move
wh-questions, that do not have to do with limits on
what we seek answers to!
• That is, they are not semantic/pragmatic limits, but
SYNTACTIC. We don’t know that we know them, but
we act in accordance with these deep principles that
govern grammars of all languages.
• If we don’t even know these principles, how can we
teach our children?
• Fortunately, typically developing children know them
too.
Wh-Question Comprehension:
Testing Procedure
• If children don’t say the wrong things, how can we
test if they know the principles? These sentences are
fairly rare!So we use comprehension:
– The child is told a brief story about a pictured event.
– They are then asked the key test question about some aspect
of the event.
– The pictured events and stories support several possible
interpretations of the question.
First question:
• Can children get long distance movement of Whquestions?
• Can they retrieve the place where it came from, if it is
two clauses away?
• Children’s ability to give LD answers (without
embedded false clause) was tested in piloting and then
in the DELV Tryout testing.
• 90% of the children ages 4-6 and 95% of the children
7-10 gave at least one Long Distance answer, so
simple Long Distance items do not appear on the
DELV. But we did find one item discriminating.
This mother snuck out one night when her little girl was asleep and bought a surprise
birthday cake. The next day the little girl saw the bag from the store and asked, “What
did you buy?” The mom wanted to keep the surprise until later so she said, “ Just some
paper towels.”
-- What did the mom say she bought?
Copyrighted picture omitted.
Copyrighted picture omitted.
©. The Psychological Corporation
Typical Answers to “False Clause”
questions
• LONG DISTANCE (LD) TWO CLAUSE responses
– Ex. She said she bought paper towels.
• What can children get wrong? There isn’t really an
answer just to “what did she say (…)”
• What they do is fail to take both verbs into account:
•
ONE CLAUSE responses (Incorrect)
– Ex. (She bought) a birthday cake.
• OTHER
– “a surprise” “a bag” “I don’t know.”
LD False Clause Response Types by Age and Language
Status
Long Distance Movement
Complement with False Clause
Average Correct/ of 1
1
0.8
0.6
Impaired
Typical
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Do children know Barriers to Long
Distance Movement?
• Once we know children can do long distance
movement, we can ask: do they show the same
limits as adults as to where a wh-word can
come from inside a sentence?
• Remember that you cannot get a wh out from
inside a relative clause:
• Who did John say he saw a man who ate (..)?
• How can we ask if children allow that?
• Try this:
These two boys went to the circus. A clown tickled the little boy on the nose with a
feather. He sneezed so hard he blew the clown's wig off! After the circus, they were very
thirsty and went to buy some milk. The little boy drank his milk through a straw, but the
big boy drank his milk straight from the carton.
How did the boy who sneezed drink the milk?
Copyrighted picture omitted
©.The Psychological Corporation
WH Barrier Response Types by Age and
Language Status
Comprehension of WH Barriers
Average Correct/ of 5
5
4
3
Impaired
Typical
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
WH Barrier Responses by Age and Dialect
Comprehension of WH Barriers
Average correct/ of 5
5
4
3
AAE
MAE
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Raising the standard
• Children’s subtle knowledge of the conditions
on wh-movement has been explored in many
research studies, and we tap only a portion of
that research to use on the DELV.
• Questions prove to be a refined way to see
what the child’s grammar contains or lacks, and
children with disorders may reveal even more
possibilities. Inference and guessing can’t get
you far enough without grammar!
Raising the Standard (con’t)
Barbara Zurer Pearson
Example 3. Restrictions on Articles
Example 4. Understanding complex Passives
Credits
• Articles
– Maratsos (1976), Karmiloff-Smith (1979)
– Robin Schafer & de Villiers (BUCLD 24)
– Robin Schafer & Roeper (BUCLD 24)
• Passives
– Bever (1972), Maratsos (1975)
– Roeper (1987), Roeper & Pearson (2000, 2003)
•Seminars in Speech and Language 2/2004
(it’s all there)
ARTICLES:
“a” & “the”
• 2 of the smallest, most common words in
the language
And
The TRICKIEST
Basic Contrast
• “a”
• “the”
INDEFINITE
DEFINITE
Read: un-DEFINed and DEFINed
“a” = one of something, “a house”
“the” = a particular one, “the house”
( or a particular set of things)
“the houses”
Examples
“Polly want a cracker”
not
* “Polly want the cracker”
• Strict conditions on when you have the right to use
“THE.”
Parrots don’t usually know them, but children do.
Conditions for using “THE”
• Not just a specific “whatever”
• Must be one that the hearer knows about.
Speaker has to know what the hearer knows
(Can’t just use “the.”
Have to calculate the hearer’s knowledge)
How do you know that the hearer
knows what you think is known?
Can use “the” if:
1. It was mentioned in a previous sentence.
2. You define it in the present sentence.
3. It’s “common knowledge,” of the type your culture
allows you to assume.
4. It’s conventionalized in the language (eg. “The
Phillipines” “in the hospital” for any old hospital)
3 & 4 relevant for testing 2nd language learners. We’re
focused on 1st language (or 1st dialect) acquisition, so
we’ll look only at 1 and 2 (and 3 when it’s unavoidable).
Mentioned in a previous sentence:
Example:
S1: I saw a play last night.
S2: THE play was called “Annie.”
Mentioned (and identified) in the
same sentence:
Ex. Did I ever tell you about the boy in the picture…
(prepositional phrase)
Ex. Did I ever tell you about
--the boy who was just here?
(relative clause)
So, the basic division:
“a” = “any X”
“the” = “the specific thing”
really “the specific thing that you and I both
know about.”
Not quite.
We can use “A” for a specific thing:
Compare: “I’m looking for a house.”
(any house that fits my budget)
vs
“What are you doing here (in our gated community)?"
“I’m looking for a house” (It’s number 84. We have
friends on this street.)
. That is: It’s a specific house. I know which house,
but you don’t, so I can’t use “the.”
The DELV: How test previous
mention?
No pictures.
Give a little story. Ask a question. The
answer should include an article.
.
Ex. “A bird and a snake were sitting on
a rock. They were friends. One of
them flew away. Which one?”
The bird / Not a bird
Also, DELV tests previous mention
+ common knowledge.
If you mention an object, parts of the object
are counted as mentioned as well.
Ex. I have a cage. The door is broken.
You don’t have to know the relationship: the language helps
you.
“I have a cage. The brinch is broken.”
You know that the brinch, whatever it is, is part of the cage.
.
.
DELV Article Items:
2 each of 2 types of Indefinites
• “a” -- real indefinite: Polly wants a cracker.
• “a” -- child knows it, but you don’t.
Eg. What do you have hanging on the wall in your
room? (“a Rolling Stones poster”)
DELV Article Items (con’t):
2 each of 2 types of Definites
• “the” -- previous mention
– (the bird and snake story, above)
• “the” -- part of a previous mention
– Ex. Sally wanted to eat an ice cream cone. But something
fell out and went splash. What was it?
The ice cream
Item Goals
• Dialect Neutral
• Discriminating between Typically Developing
(TD) and Language Impaired (LI)
• All items dialect neutral
• Definite articles most discriminating
Dialect-neutral
Scores by Article Type (by dialect)
percent correct
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
age years
AAE "A" score
MAE "A" score
AAE "the" score
MAE "the" score
Diagnostic picture
"A" Article Score by
Clinical Status
Percent correct
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
Age Years
Impaired
Typical
Most diagnostic: “THE”
"The" Article Score by Clinical
Status
Percent correct
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
8
Age Years
Impaired
Typical
9
Example 4 (switching item types)
• Understanding Implicit (Unstated)
Information in Complex Passives
Passive Item Types
• Simple (The elephant was pushed.)
• Complex (The bear was being washed)
• “locative by-phrase” (non-passives)
(The ball was rolling by the boy.)
It’s not so much the sentence that differs in the items; it’s the
alternatives the child has to choose from.
Dialect Neutral
Passive Comprehension
12
10
8
AAE
MAE
6
4
2
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
Simple Passive -Child chooses between active and passive
The
elephant
was
pushed.
Copyrighted picture omitted
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corporation
Simple passives (con’t)
• Not the most revealing items, but give a
baseline for the child on this task.
Basic Passives
(Moderate Discrimination)
Basic Passive Scores by Clinical Status
Average Score / 5
5
4
3
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
Age
Impaired
Typical
9
• Basic Passive is ambiguous:
– Participle form could be like an adjective
– “The bear is washed”/ “The bear is ready.”
Show true understanding with a fuller form:
“The bear is being washed.”
Not a result, it is still ongoing
And without saying it, the sentence also tells us that
the bear is not the one doing the washing
Complex Passive
Child chooses between 2 passives
The
bear is
being
washed
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corporation
Complex Passives
(More Discrimination)
Complex Passive Scores by Clinical Status
Average Score / 5
5
4
3
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
Age
Impaired
Typical
9
Distinguishing unstated information
No new content words: it’s all in the grammatical bits.
• The player dropped.
– Who knows how? He could be doing it, someone else
could, it could be the hand of fate.
• The player was dropped.
– Someone did it. Who knows when?
• The player was being dropped.
– Someone else is doing something to him, and it’s
happening before our eyes.
Item type 3:
Distinguishing hidden agents
• The plant was dropping by the boy.
• Notice: this boy is NOT the dropper.
• How do you know?
– Was dropPING not was dropPED.
• Can only be an agent-by-phrase (a true argument of the verb)
when it is a passive construction with all the “machinery” of
the passive.
• Otherwise, the by-phrase is what is known as an adjunct.
Item Type 3:
Learning about By-phrases
• John must be taken by the lake by car by
someone by 5 pm.
4 “by’s”--3 of them “adverbs”
– John must be taken by car
• Is the car taking John?
– John must be taken by the lake.
• Is the lake taking John?
– John must be taken by 5 pm
(no)
Who is taking John???
• Here, “someone.”
• This is not that obvious.
Locative Non-Passives
Passive Morphology
(Locative by-phrases)
Average Correct/ of 2
2
1.6
1.2
dis
try
0.8
0.4
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
DELV tells you the child gets the
hidden information
• It’s a pretty impressive achievement.
DELV tells you the child doesn’t
get the hidden information
• What are you going to do about it?
Intervention Concepts
• Avoid the ambiguities that the test exploits,
and
• provide natural and conversational ways to
help the children
• fill the gaps in their skills.
PASSIVE Example
• Why do children interpret passives as active?
• Hypothesis: They don’t recognize hidden
agents.
• Goal: Help them recognize the agent.
Express it when it’s not expressed.
Lexical Support
• Instead of using the ambiguity of the test
question (which uses reversibles on purpose),
use “unreversible” verbs (with fixed object
relationships).
Ex.
• The baby ate the banana
• The banana was eaten.
• Can the banana eat the baby? (No)
Contextual Support
• Rephrase the sentence with an impossible agent.
“The plant was dropping by the wall.”
(Did the wall drop the plant???)
• Put back into the question form:
– Was the plant dropping by the wall or by the boy?
Conversational support
Make the implicit agent explicit and then
gradually make the connection to the
implicit version.
1. Somebody pushed the elephant. Who did it?
2. The plant was dropped by somebody.
Who did it?
3. The cat was being dressed (-). Who did it?
Intervention suggestion for Articles
-1
• Help child make the discourse connection in ellipsis.
Ex. Show three hats (all green) and a red shirt
Ask: See these hats? Is one red?
Child points to red shirt.
For this child, “one” is “one anything,” but it must be
“one (of them).” Must learn to tie “one” to the
preceding discourse.
Intervention suggestions for
Articles - 2
• Help child recognize the “specificity
requirement” for “THE”.
Ex. Use two hats and make the child
choose.
Johnny got a new hat.
Billy took the hat.
Freddy took another hat.
Show me the hat Billy took.
Conclusion
We have identified new areas
of exploration in language
disorders.
Now we are exploring
intervention concepts, so the
DELV can move seamlessly
from diagnosis to intervention.
Tom Roeper’s turn….
• The linguistic foundations of the DELV
• Quantifier and
• Double-wh items.
What is the impact of dialect
on complex syntax?
Approach:
• Avoid dialect-rich domains of grammar
• Focus on what is constant in UG across
dialects
Deep Principles of Grammar do not
vary across grammars or dialects
Therefore
1. Their acquisition path should be very close
2. Disorders are common across dialects
DELV research has proven this to be true
Variables and UG
Which of these are variables?
•
•
•
“All”
“Everybody”
“Who”
• all the children are here
all = plural
• every child is here
every = variable
• who is here
who = hidden variable (wh+every)
Variables and Quantification
Universal Grammar
• Pragmatic variables:
a. Put your finger here [on nose]
Child: puts finger on own nose
• Part-whole Variable
b. I have that book at my house
Variable Type
Grammatical Variables
1. Quantifiers:
Every boy has a hat
=>set of boys and hats
2. Adverbial variables:
John always eats ice cream
=>set of situations
Universal Grammar
• 1. All grammars can indicate
variability through terms called variables.
• 2. Slight variation in how much is linked to
adverbs and how much linked to nouns.
Test Question: Is every girl riding a bike?
(yes!)
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corp.
Errors occur for children in six languages
Ages: 3-12
• Is every girl riding a bike
• Typical mistake: “no not this bike”
Hypothesis: child moves every as if it were
Like all:
all the children sing => the children all sing
• Is every girl riding a bike ==>
• Is a girl riding every bike ==>
– no, there is an extra bike
Control No: Is every woman sailing a boat?
Copyrighted picture omitted
4 women, 3 on boats, 1 on the beach
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corp.
Deleted “Every”
• Is every woman sailing a boat =>
• Is woman sailing a boat => “yes”
Control Yes: Does every dog have a bone?
“Bunny Spreading”
Copyrighted picture omitted
3 dogs eating a bone,
1 rabbit eating a carrot
Copyright 2000 The Psychological Corp.
Event Every => “always”
• Does every dog have a bone =>
• Is it always the case that a dog has a bone?
• “No, a bunny has a carrot”
Non-spreaders
Non-spreaders by dialect (TD only)
1
Percent of children
0.8
0.6
AAE-TD
MAE-TD
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
8
Age
9
10
11
12
Classic spreaders
Classic Spreaders Only by Dialect
1
Percent of children
0.8
0.6
AAE-TD
MAE -TD
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7-8
9-10 11-12
Event Spreaders
Control-yes "spre ading" plus test-q
spreading by dialect
1
Percent of children
0.8
0.6
AAE-TD
MAE-TD
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
8
Age
9
10
11
12
Wh-singletons
• Who is wearing a sweater?
5/6 girls
Pearson, Penner, Roeper, Schulz (2002)
Singleton answers by age
Among the questions we elicited were double
wh-questions such as:
 “Who is eating what?”
Or
“Which person is eating which food?”
Decline in singletons,
subtest 2wh 1-6
Percentage singletons
30
25
disaae
20
dissae
15
tryaae
10
trysae
5
0
4
4.6
5
5.6
6
6.6 7-8
9- 1110 12
Ages
“try” = Typically developing; “dis” = Disordered
Wh +Control “no” Spreading
Wh-exhaustivity errors:
0
1
2+
11.2
23.3
22.4
3.9
12.9
17.6
Quantifier errors:
0
1
2
84.9
63.9
59.8
- 35% children who show one Q error, have 1 or 2 wherrors
- 40% children who show two Q, errors, have 1 or 2 wherrors
Theory:
• Children fail with both overt every
and
covert every
=wh [+every]
Deep Principles of Grammar
can be disordered and
lie beyond dialect
• Dialect variations still exist
and may
cause slight differences in the
learning path
Dialect affects all domains in small
ways
• you-system
=> specific/non-specific
• Ask 4yr old:
Can you drive from NY to Chicago?
“yes”
• Note: answering as non-specific
“Can yawl drive from NY to Chicago”
“no, I can’t drive” for 4yr old
Consequence: AAE and Southern make a
distinction not found in SAE
Consequence: AAE and Southern should
learn you-system more easily
UG Features
• Predict common acquisition
• DELV shows that children of both dialects
understand
“who bought what”
Conclusions
1. Dialect effect can be minimized if we
raise the standard
2. A new range of important deficits-which may affect school language--can
be addressed