Language Games for Children
Sonja Eisenbeiss
seisen@essex.ac.uk
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/
http://languagegamesforall.wordpress.com/
22 October 2014
Copyright: Sonja Eisenbeiss
Overview
We will
• discuss why linguists develop language games
• look at different types of games that encourage
children to talk
• see how these games have been used to obtain
language production data for studies on children’s
language development
• discuss which properties of child-directed speech have
been shown to support language learning and how
they can be incorporated into language games
• explore how you can develop your own games and
where you can find the materials you need for that
Why do linguists develop language games?
 We want to study how children acquire language.
 We need rich data that are as naturalistic as possible.
 We do not want to underestimate what children can do
by looking at the same situation over and over again –
for instance by always recording children during meal
or play time with the same food or toys.
 We do not want to overestimate what children can do –
for instance by recording them in situations where they
can use fixed phrases and sentences that they have
heard many times before.
 We want to make our projects fun for children.
How do Linguists Study Children’s Language?
 Naturalistic data / spontaneous speech samples:
 recordings in everyday situations
 naturalistic input or child data, but often lacking
relevant utterances
 Experiments:
 controlled variables, fixed stimuli and procedures
 good control of variables, but often “unnatural” or not
appropriate for younger children
 Elicitation games
 games that encourage language use
 some control over the words and structures children
use, but still quite natural and fun
An Example: Possessives
 Children over- or under-use possessive s:
 * This is John (=John’s) house.
 * This is mine’s.
 We want to determine the reasons for such problems.
 We want to support acquisition, especially in
populations with language impairments.
 Even long naturalistic recordings may not contain any
examples of possessives – in particular if the child is
not fighting about possessions with other children.
 Typically developing children are too young for
production experiments when they produce these errors
(around 2 years).
Some Elicitation Games for Possessives
 Children have to find matching cards with possessors
and their possession (e.g. queen – crown) in a Memorystyle game.
 Children are given toy characters and their possessions
and are asked to find out what belongs to whom. A silly
puppet will challenge them and encourage discussion.
 Children have to tell another person whose balloon is
red in a picture with lots of people and their balloons.
The listener then has to colour in the balloons in their
own black-and-white copy (see e.g. Koch 2010, Bevan
2010).
Possessives: Naturalistic Data vs. Games
Eisenbeiss (2003): a comparison of 44 naturalistic
recordings and 20 possessive game recordings with
German children (age: 1;11-3;6).
 70% of the naturalistic recordings did not contain a
single possessive.
 10.969 naturalistic utterances only contained 29
possessives.
 In contrast, the game recordings provided sufficient
examples for quantitative analyses.
 We also found more variety of possessors (not just
mommy’s, daddy’s).
Game-Type I: Director/Matcher Games
 A “director” describes a scene/object etc. and a
“matcher” who is not able to see this scene/object,
has to recreate it.
 E.g.: The matcher has to build a toy house identical to
the one created by the director who is hidden behind
a screen.
 Bevan (2010): Whose Ballon is red? Two sets of
pictures, both with animals that have balloons, one
with coloured and one with blank balloons.
Whose Balloon is red? (Bevan 2010)
Whose Balloon is red? (Bevan 2010)
Game-Type II: Speaker/Listener Games
 A speaker provides information for someone who does
not have access to the information.
 Variant 1: speakers retell a story they have heard
while the listeners were out of the room.
 Variant 2: speaker tells a puppet that cannot see what
is going on.
Game-Type III: Co-Player Games
 All Participants are involved in a game and provide
each other with information to co-ordinate their
actions.
 For instance, players can be involved in a construction
or puzzle game.
The Puzzle Task (Eisenbeiss 2009, 2011)
 a task with co-players:
child describes contrasting
pictures on a puzzle board,
adult finds the matching
pieces, child puts them
into the correct cut-out
 exchangable pictures and
puzzle pieces
 can be used to elictit
particular forms or to elicit
the linguistic encoding of
particular meanings
Contrasting Puzzle Pictures (Eisenbeiss 2011)
Broad-Spectrum Tasks
 general encouragement to speak
 Frog Story: a picture book w/o words used to elicit
narratives (Berman/Slobin 1994)
 Bag Task: a bag with bag for blocks and animals of
different sizes and colours. The bag has pockets that
match the animals in colour an have coloured buttons,
ties, etc.; and children frequently refer to colours,
sizes and locations when they ask other players to
help them hide or find animals in the pockets
(Eisenbeiss 2009, 2010)
 contrasts between colours, sizes, locations, etc.
Focused Tasks
 form-focused: the elicitation of particular forms or
constructions, for instance, picture-matching game for
the elicitation of noun-adjective constructions (little
cow -- big cow)
 meaning-focused: the linguistic encoding of a
particular meaning that can be encoded in different
ways, e.g. my car / Sonja’s car / ? the car of Sonja?
In a game about people and their possessions
Stimuli
 static (pictures, photos) for object/person properties
 dynamic (video, cartoon) for events
 realistic displays (photos) for easy recognition,
independent of children’s knowledge of artistic
conventions (3D, shadows, etc.)
 drawings, cartoons for easy systematic variation
Trying Things out
Contrasted elements are more likely to be encoded:
 Contrasting possessors (e.g. the panda) in Bevan’s
whose-balloon-is-red-task are mentioned.
 However, the balloons do not contrast with other
toys and are often not mentioned.
You can avoid pointing instead of talking:
 Use a puppet that cannot see so that the child has
to speak to the puppet (e.g. a fish above water, a
mole with broken glasses, a turtle in its shell, etc.).
 Make sure that the child’s hands are occupied (e.g.
by holding a puppet, fishing rod, etc.).
Input Properties that Support Learning

short, but mostly correct and complete utterances

slow, with longer pauses than adult-directed speech
high, varied pitch, exaggerated intonation and stress
identification of word and phrase boundaries
restricted vocabulary
reference mostly restricted to here and now
word learning
high proportion of imperative and questions
more repetitions than in adult-adult speech
sentence structure and grammar








Supporting Language Learning in Games
 Feedback:
 positive re-inforcement
 explicit corrections, but this can be demotivating
and does not involve presentation of correct forms
 expansions, rephrasing:
daddy car -> Yes, that is daddy‘s car
 Modeling:
 frequent repetion of words/phrases in isolation
 repetition and variation: variation sets
Feedback: Reformulations instead of Corrections
In their analysis of English and French child-directed
speech, Chouinard & Clark (2003) showed that:

Adults often reformulate children's non-target-like
utterances; e.g. Child: I want more car! Parent:
Do you really need more cars?.

Adults produce this type of feedback significantly
more often than they repeat target-like utterances
such as I want more cars! .
Feedback: Effects of Reformulations

Reformulations contrast children’s non-target-like
forms with the target form for the intended meaning
and thus suggest that the child’s form is
inappropriate.

Experimental studies have demonstrated that
learners can benefit from such input (Saxton 1997,
Saxton et al. 1998, 2005, Valian and Casey 2003).

However, it is unclear how universal reformulations
are across cultures and languages.
Models: Variation Sets

Variation sets are series of adult utterances with
a common theme and a constant intention,
but variation in form:
 adding or deleting a word or phrase,
 replacing one word with another,
 changing the word order, etc.
(Eisenbeiss 2003, Küntay/Slobin 1996, Slobin et al. 2011)
English Variation Set (Slobin et al. 2011)
VERB OBJECT
1 let’s
put J’s bottles
2 want to put them
3 let’s
put J’s bottles
4 we’ll
put it
5 let’s
put it
6 we’ll
put it
7 you can put it
8 I’ll let you put it
9 you
put it
10 you
put it
11
put it
GOAL
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator with me
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in
in
yourself
right in
in there
right in the refrigerator
How could Variation Sets support Learning?

Variation sets provide clues about the target language:
 adding or deleting a word or phrase
 => which elements can be omitted?
 replacing one word with another
 => which types of elements fulfill similar functions?
 changing the word order, etc.
 => which word order variations are possible?
The Frequency of Variation Sets

In the Turkish data analysed by Küntay & Slobin
(1996), about 25-30% of child-directed utterances
occurred in variation sets. On average, variation
sets were 3 sentences long (range 2-25).

Slobin et al. (2011) documented variation sets for 8
further languages from around the world (Latin
America, Europe, Asia), suggesting that they might
be a universal feature of children’s input:
Effects of Variation Sets

Children produce words that they have heard in
variation sets more often than words they have heard
in other utterances – even when frequency is
controlled for (ongoing research by H. Waterfall).

Adult learners learn artificial languages more easily
when their training involves variation sets (Onnis et al.
2008).
A Pilot Study with Variation Set Training (Horgan 2012)


Pre-Test with the Koch (2010) version of the Balloon
task: comprehension and production of complex
possessive constructions
The boy’s mother’s father’s balloon.
Puzzle task training with variation sets:
 Group I: complex possessives
the lady’s son’s girl’s balloon
 Group II: complex coordination
the woman and the daughter and the son and the
girl

Re-Test with variant of the Koch (2010) tasks
Whose Balloon is red? (Koch 2010)
Puzzle Task Pictures for Training (Horgan 2012)
Training with Variation Sets

Complex Possessive Group:

Coordination Group:
This is the lady’s son; and this is the son’s girl; and
this is the girl’s balloon. So, this is the lady’s son’s girl
and her balloon. So, this is the lady’s son’s girl’s
balloon.
This is the lady and the son; and this is the son and
the girl; and this is the girl and the balloon. So, this is
the lady and the son’s girl and her balloon.
Training Effects

Both Groups improved equally in their use of nouns.

The complex possession group improved more in
their production of s-markers.

The tests and training sessions were challenging but
motivating for the children.
Future Plans
 Testing of Games in different cultural and social
environments.
 Games for different group sizes (1 – 4 children)
 Training studies with different strategies:
 Feedback: explicit corrections vs. reformulations
 Modelling: repetition in isolation vs. variation sets
References
Bevan, W. (2010). Semi-structured elicitation of possessive constructions in
children of pre-school age. Undergraduate dissertation, University of
Essex.
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulation of child errors
as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30:637–69.
Eisenbeiss, S. (2003). Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Düsseldorf, Germany. http://docserv.uniduesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-3185/1185.pdf )
Eisenbeiss, S. (2009). Contrast is the Name of the Game: Contrast-Based
Semi-Structured Elicitation Techniques for Studies on Children’s
Language Acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 57.7.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl57-7.pdf
References
Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Production Methods. In E. Blom, & S. Unsworth
(Eds.), Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research (pp.
11-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (pre-print downloadable:
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/Papers/109274/Production
-Methods )
Eisenbeiss, S. (2011) CEGS: An elicitation took kit for studies
on case marking and its acquisition. Essex Research Reports in
Linguistics, 60,1.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl60-1.pdf
Koch, N. (2010). Possessive Constructions in English Child Language: SGenitive and Of-Genitive. MA dissertation, University of Stuttgart,
Germany.
References
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: Some
puzzles for acquisition. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo
(Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor
of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 265-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Onnis, L., Waterfall, H.R., & Edelman, S. (2008). Learn locally, act globally:
Learning language from variation set cues. Cognition 109, 423-430.
Saxton, M., Kulscar, B. Marshall, & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of
corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language
5: 701-21.
Saxton, M., Backley, P., & Gallaway, C, (2005). Negative input for
grammatical errors: effects after a lag of 12 weeks. Journal of Child
Language 32, 643–672.
References
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child
Language 24, 139-161.
Slobin, Dan I., Bowerman, Melissa, Brown, Penelope, Eisenbeiss, Sonja &
Narasimhan, Bhuvana (2011) Putting Things in Places: Developmental
Consequences of Linguistic Typology. In J. Bohnemeyer, & E. Pederson
(Eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. downloadable:
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/Papers/110813/Putting_th
ings_in_places_Developmental_consequences_of_linguistic_typology
(section about child-directed speech: 6.2)
Valian, V. and Casey, L. (2003). Young children's acquisition of whquestions: the role of structured input. Journal of Child Language, 30,
117-143
Our New “Language Games For All” Website
http://languagegamesforall.wordpress.com/
 for researchers, teachers, therapists and families
 links, readings, examples of games,
 downloadable materials (pictures, descriptions, etc.)
 blog about language games
 dissemination of staff and student language games
 associated with a Twitter account: @LanguageGames4a
 under construction: INPUT GREATLY APPRECIATED!!!
Our Language Games Club
http://languagegamesforall.wordpress.com/
Thursdays 12-1pm in the Autumn Term in the Social Space
of the Department of Language and Linguistics
(4.305A, next to the Dept. Office), join us to:
DISCUSS: discussion of ongoing and planned staff and
student projects or research articles
MAKE:
creation of games (e.g. felt toys, card games)
SHARE:
working on the website
GIVE:
charity events (e.g. for Colchester Toy Library)
PLAY:
playing old and new language games