Presentation to the
American Speech Hearing Language Association
November 13, 2003
Preventing Overrepresentation of
Culturally/Linguistically Diverse Students
Harry N. Seymour & Thomas Roeper
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Jill & Peter de Villiers
Smith College, Northampton, MA
Research supported by NIH contract N01-DC-8-2104
*webpage:www.umass.edu/aae
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
• Prior to Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(1975)
– About half of children with disabilities (2 million) were not
receiving a public education
• With Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997)
– About 6 million children with disabilities are now in public
education
– Graduation rates have increased dramatically
– Students who go on to college has almost tripled since 1978.
All is not equal
• The benefits of IDEA have not been equitably
distributed
• Minority children with disabilities, particularly
African American, experience:
–
–
–
–
less adequate services
low-quality curriculum and instruction, and
segregation from non-disabled peers.
disproportional representation in Special Ed
African American
Disproportionality
• Over-representation
– 14.8 % of general population
– 20.2% of special education
– African American children are the most
overrepresented in every special ed category
and in nearly every state (Parish, 2002)
• Under-representation
– Obvious but numbers are unclear
The Educational Dilemma
• General education impacts special education
• Overrepresentation in special education often
mirrors overrepresentation in many undesirable
categories--- dropping out, low-track placements,
suspensions, and involvement with juvenile
justice.
• African American children are under-represented
in desirable categories---such as gifted and
talented.
(Office of Civil Rights 1998)
Consequences of Overrepresentation
•
•
•
•
Students are mislabeled
Students fail to receive services
Scarce resources are mis-directed
For some, receiving inappropriate services may be
more harmful than receiving none at all.
• For others, not receiving help early enough may
exacerbate learning and behavior problems.
• Students are prone to academic failure, behavioral
problems, high drop out rate
• Segregation from typical peers
Segregation of African American
Children in Special Ed.
– African American special ed students are far
more likely to be educated in separate settings
– They experience far less inclusion (Fierros &
Conroy, 2002)
– 14.6% graduate compared to 71.5% of white
special ed students
Factors Contributing to
Overrepresentation
• Lifestyle and health conditions
– Higher rates of poverty
• African Americans have the highest poverty rate at 22%(US
Census)
– Higher rates of disease and disability
• Diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, infant mortality, aids
• Flawed educational practices
Flawed educational practices
• Flawed referral and placement procedures
• Flawed testing practices
• Systems' inability to cope with children of diverse
backgrounds
• Flawed instruction in general education programs
• Poorly trained teachers
No Single Cause
• Poverty alone is an incomplete explanation
• Race appears to loom very large as a factor
– Large racial disparities in mental retardation compared
with learning disabilities
– Minimal racial disparities in medically diagnosed
disabilities compared with cognitive disabilities
– Great disparity from one state to the next
– Great disparity between Blacks and Hispanics and
between male and female in categories of MR and
emotional disturbance
The Language Factor
• Often children speak African American English (AAE)
• African American English (AAE) is one of many
varieties of English, whose status as a dialect is defined
by a commonality of speech spoken primarily by African
Americans, but not by all. AAE is less geographically
defined than other dialects of English , rather it has
emerged as a commonality of speech and grammar of a
culturally defined group, though there are differences by
geographic regions. Of course, children or adults of other
races who have strong cultural identification or
primary social interaction with African Americans may
speak AAE too. Thus, AAE may be defined in terms of
the features that distinguish a pattern of grammar
(morphology, semantics, syntax and phonology) in the
speech used by culturally identified African Americans.
Clinical Implications of AAE
• AAE is not a Disorder
• Most tests of language are normed for
Mainstream American English (MAE)
• Content bias
– MAE target forms are the standard despite dialect
differences
• Sampling bias
– Too few AAE speakers
• The language factor in Spec Ed categories
African American Children in
Special Education
%
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
y
di
sa
bi
lit
Le
ar
ni
ng
La
ng
ua
ge
an
d
is
D
en
ta
l
Au
t is
m
Sp
ee
ch
D
ev
el
op
m
et
ar
da
tio
n
R
en
ta
l
M
G
en
er
al
P
op
ul
at
io
n
%
From p. 6 of Addressing Over-representation of African American Students in Special Education (2002). The
Council for Exceptional Children and the National Alliance of Black School Educators, Washington , DC.
National Institutes of Health
(NICDD)-Contract1996
• Development and Validation of a Language
Test for Children Speaking Non-Standard
English: A Study of Children Who Speak
Black English
• Contract Award: Spring, 1998-2004
Research Focus
• Avoid somewhat superficial aspects of language
– Contrasts between dialects
• Focus on deep principles of language every child
should know
– Noncontrastive elements between dialects
– Universal grammar
• This is tantamount to making a test harder
and more challenging than existing tests
Research Goals
• To develop a comprehensive language assessment
of syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology
between ages 4 and 9.
• To be able to determine whether language
variation in children is due to Development,
Dialect, or Disorder.
• To create a test that is not biased against dialect
speakers, especially African-American English
speakers.
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
How well does DELV address the
problem?
• DELV is a linguistically and culturally fair test
• It works as well for African American children as
it does for White children.
– It distinguishes typically developing students from
disordered.
– This is achieved despite language variation differences
References
•
•
•
•
•
Oswald, D.P., Countinho, M.J., & Best, A.M. (2002) Community and School predictors
of Overrepresentation of Minority Children in Special Education, In Losen, D.J.
& Orfield, G. Racial Inequity in Special Education, Harvard Ed Press:Cambridge
Office for Civil Rights. U.S. Department of Education Elementary and Secondary
School Civil Rights Compliance Reports (2000), available at
www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/data.html.
Losen, D.J. & Orfield, G. (2002) Racial Inequity in Special Education, Cambridge:
Harvard Ed Press.
Parish, T., (2002)Racial Disparities in the Identification, Funding, and Provision of
Special Education. In Losen, D.J. & Orfield, G. Racial Inequity in Special
Education, Harvard Ed Press:Cambridge
Fierros, E.G., & Conroy, J.W. Double Jeopardy: An Exploration of Restrictiveness and
Race in Special Education, In Losen, D.J. & Orfield, G. Racial Inequity in
Special Education, Harvard Ed Press:Cambridge
The SYNTAX section of the
DELV
Theory and Examples
Complex WH-questions, Passives, & Articles
Tom Roeper, Dept. of Linguistics
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
The DELV SYNTAX Domain
•
•
•
Focuses on a few core concepts of modern
syntax
Introduces elements of complexity
to reveal hidden knowledge
Dialect neutral: draws from universal grammar
or structures which have been shown to be
constant across dialects
Testing Complex WH-Question
Comprehension
1) Can the child answer both parts of a double-WH?
2) Can the child answer questions whose site of origin is far
away (long distance)?
and
3) Can the child appropriately block meanings that the
grammar doesn’t allow, i.e.when there is a barrier?
Double-WH Questions
2 variables in the same sentence:
“Who bought what?”
•
Answer must refer to all the “whos”
and all the “whats” in a paired
relationship:
•
Person 1 bought Thing 1
•
Person 2 bought Thing 2
–
etc.
This girl played different things in different ways.
She played the drums with her feet and the piano
with her hands. How did the girl play what?
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Typical Answers to double WH
questions
• PAIRED, EXHAUSTIVE responses
– Ex. She played the piano with her hands and the drums with her
feet.
• SINGLETONS (Incorrect)
– One element: “piano” “with her feet”
– Both objects, no instruments: “piano and drums”
– One pair: “the piano with her hands.”
• OTHER
– “She played a lot.” “She was playing.”
Double-WH Example Responses from
field testing
CHILD A (12663)
CHILD B (18221)
Feet and her hands
She played the piano with
her hands and the drums
with her feet.
Instruments only
Paired and exhaustive
0 points
1 point
Double-WH Responses by Age and Language
Status
Double-WH Comprehension
3
Average Correct/ of 3
2.5
2
Impaired
1.5
Typical
1
0.5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Double-WH Responses by Age and Dialect
Double-WH Comprehension
3
Average correct/ of 3
2.5
2
AAE
1.5
MAE
1
0.5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Item Type 2 (Long Distance Movement)
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
c. The Psychological Corporation
Typical Answers to “False
Clause” questions
• LONG DISTANCE (LD) TWO CLAUSE responses
– Ex. She said she bought paper towels.
•
ONE CLAUSE responses (Incorrect)
– Ex. (She bought) a birthday cake.
• OTHER
– “a surprise” “a bag” “I don’t know.”
WH-False Clause Example Responses
from field testing
CHILD A (12663)
CHILD B (18221)
A cake
Paper towels
1 clause answer
0 points
2-clause answer (long
distance)
1 point
LD False Clause Response Types by Age and
Language Status
Long Distance Movement
Complement with False Clause
1
Average Correct/ of 1
0.8
0.6
Impaired
Typical
0.4
0.2
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Item Type 3 (Barriers to Movement)
This mom didn’t know how to bake a cake. She saw a TV program about
cooking, and she learned to make a lovely cake with pudding mix.
-- How did the mom learn what to bake?
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Typical Answers toWH-barriers
questions
• SHORT DISTANCE responses
– (How did she learn…?) By watching TV..
• MEDIAL ANSWERS (Incorrect)
– (…what to bake?) “a cake”
• LONG DISTANCE responses (Incorrect)
– (How…..bake?) “With a pudding mix,” “With a
spoon”
• OTHER
– Ex. “She didn’t know how.”
WH-barrier Example Responses
How did she learn what to bake?
CHILD A (12663)
CHILD B (18221)
A cake
The TV teached her.
Medial
Short Distance
0 points
1 point
WH Barrier Response Types by Age and
Language Status and Dialect
Comprehension of WH Barriers
5
5
4
4
3
Impaired
Typical
2
1
Average correct/ of 5
Average Correct/ of 5
Comprehension of WH Barriers
3
AAE
MAE
2
1
0
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Other WH Example Responses
CHILD A (12663)
2 correct barriers,
2 barrier violations
1 other
CHILD B (18221)
4 correct barriers
1 medial
2 points (of 5)
4 points (of 5)
Total:4 of 14
Total: 12 of 14
Who are these children?
CHILD A (12663)
5 years old
White Female
From South
Parents w/ HS education
Mainstream English
speaker
Not receiving speech or
language services
CHILD B (18221)
4 years old
African American boy
From “north Central” US
Parents w/ HS education
“Some difference” from
MAE”
Not receiving speech or
language services
Test 2: PASSIVES
3 Question Types
Simple passives
Testing movement
Complex passives Testing for hidden properties
(agents, time information)
“By-phrases”
Focus on “ed” versus “ing”
Simple PASSIVES
Does the child distinguish these two
sentences?
Ex.
Someone pushed the elephant.
The elephant was pushed.
Must choose PASSIVE over ACTIVE or NEUTRAL
foil.
Simple passives give baseline for child, but are
LESS DISCRIMINATING than Complex Passives.
COMPLEX Passives
Does the child distinguish these two
sentences?
Ex.
The boy’s face was painted.
The boy’s face was being painted.
Must distinguish BETWEEN TWO PASSIVES.
Complex Passive Example
“The boy’s face was being painted.”
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
© 2000 The Psychological Corporation.
BY-PHRASE (non)-Passives
Does the child distinguish these two
sentences?
Ex.
The plant was droppED by John.
The plant was droppING by John.
(The plant was dropping right by John.)
Must REJECT the passive when ED does not
accompany the “be” auxiliary. Only for
passive is the by-phrase licensed by the verb
and not an adverb, (or adjunct).
Non-passive “ing” example
“The plant was dropping by the boy.”
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
© 2000 The Psychological Corporation.
Passive Overall
Dialect Neutral
&
Discriminating
Comprehension of Passive
12
12
10
10
8
AAE
MAE
6
4
Average Correct/ of 12
Average correct/ of 10
Passive Comprehension
8
Impaired
Typical
6
4
2
2
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Sample children’s responses
•
•
•
•
CHILD A (12663)
Simple passives 2 of 4
Complex: 1 of 4
Locative by-phrases
– 1 of 2 (doesn’t show mastery)
•
4 of 10 (chose 5 active foils)
•
•
•
•
CHILD B (18221)
Simple passives 3 of 4
Complex: 2 of 4
Locative by-phrases
– 2 of 2
(lowest 30% of 5-year-olds)
• 7 of 10 (top 70% of 4’s)
ARTICLES on the DELV: Subtle demands
on child’s syntax and semantics
• Articles differ cross-linguistically, need
careful exposure
Cf. Spanish use “the hat” for specific and non-specific;
Chinese “hat” is specific and non-specific;
– English is a MIXED system -- “the hat” is specific and
known; “a hat” non-specific
• Essentially the same in AAE and MAE
– Engages context, presupposition and general
knowledge
Making DISCOURSE CONNECTIONS
•Need to test WITHOUT PICTURE STIMULI
•Which can change conditions on presuppositions,
known and new
Example of Article Prompt:
A bird and a cat were sitting up in a tree. They
were friends. One flew away. Which one?
THE bird (not A bird)
Has the child learned to interpret articles as reference
to context from a previous sentence? Is the child
sensitive to that relationship?
Use of Articles “a” and “the”
Types of a and the in the DELV
Condition LabelDescription
• Part-the:
part of a previously mentioned object
• Familiar-the:
previously mentioned object
• Specific-a:
referent known to speaker only
• Non-referential-a: non-referential, but assumed in situation
• Predicational-a:
nominal following have
Types of Article Errors
• Using “a” for “the” (8 times more common than “the” for
“a”)
• Bare Singular (“fly kite”)
• Irrelevant responses (“My sister has one.” “The man in the
moon.”)
• (when children say “my doll” or “some games,” they are
re-prompted with “anything else?”)
Development of correct article use in typically
developing and language impaired children
Article Production
8
7
Average Score /8
6
5
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Development of correct article use in MAE and AAE
speaking children.
Article Production
8
7
Average Score /8
6
5
AAE
MAE
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
After the dialect-neutral diagnosis,
then …..
Intervention
We are researching interconnections between different areas tested on the
DELV, and expect that interventions in one area may have effects in
related areas.
Ex. Double-wh (set properties, but not barriers) appears to be related to
knowledge of “Every” (in Quantifiers). Use of bare singulars in
Articles may also be related.
Intervention Concepts
• Every construction has a micro-structure
• We do not know the crucial triggers
• Therefore, try to expose children to all the
separate parts, especially:
– Three dimensions:
• Lexical
• Contextual
• Conversational
Intervention suggestions (wh)
1. Why do children fail the wh-question?
Hypothesis: They do not understand that wh-words
list.
Goal: Enlist
lexical,
contextual, and
conversational support
call for a
that reinforces the recognition of multiple subjects in wh contexts:
Lexical Support: (wh example)
1. Ask questions with verbs that imply multiple subjects:
Who was SHARING the pie? (more than one person)
Who was KISSING?
2.
Emphasize multiple subjects with adverb like TOGETHER:
3.
Who was talking together?
(on test, child and father): Who was eating together?
(birthday cake question): Who was talking together?
4.
5.
Contextual Support (wh)
Use situation where “singleton” answer is impossible:
What is holding up the table?
Can’t be just one leg.
“What” must refer to all the legs.
Conversational Support: (wh)
• If singleton answer is given, add “who
else?”
• (father and baby eating):
– if child says, “baby was eating”
– add “who else?” (child must silently add “who
ELSE…ate something?”
Conclusions
• We have shown that the assessment of complex aspects of children’s
syntactic development between the ages of 4 and 9 can be carried out
in a dialect neutral fashion.
• These materials and procedures capture the development of several
aspects of language that are vital for success in early schooling and the
transition to literacy.
• They provide the clinician with a substantial profile of the child
language strengths and weaknesses, not just a diagnostic
categorization.
• As such they provide a much richer evaluation of language variation
and its sources that has direct implications for areas and methods of
intervention.
Learning words
Why do standard tests fall short?
• Vocabulary is learned in a cultural context.
• Families vary in what they talk about to children.
• Children may not all have the same opportunities to learn a
rich vocabulary.
• Children may not all have the same opportunities to learn
the words that get onto tests.
• Picture-based tests tend to be biased to what can be
“pictured”!
• As a result, nouns are sampled more than verbs.
• Semantics is about more than learning names!
A new approach to assessment?
• Bias of acquired vocabulary tests: too
culturally dependent?
• Want to look at process: CAN the child
learn a new word easily?
• This should be a predictor of whether the
child can learn vocabulary in the school
context.
Syntactic Bootstrapping and Fast Mapping of
Word Meanings from Context
• Children acquire a verb’s meaning in part through the
argument frames in which it appears. This phenomenon of
fast mapping of meanings from context is often called
syntactic bootstrapping.
• We test how much children can learn from intransitives,
transitives, datives, and complement argument frames.
• Nonsense verbs were used in these frames to describe
strange actions in ambiguous contexts. The child then
answered questions about the verb and its subjects and/or
objects.
Argument structures
• 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
The girl is zanning the apple to the clown.
Which one was the zanner?
Which one got zanned?
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
©The Psychological Corporation
The girl is sugging the man to send the ball.
Which one sugged the man?
Which one did the girl sug to send the ball?
©The Psychological Corporation
Question types
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ING e.g Which one is zanning? (agent)
ER e.g. Which one is the zanner? (agent)
Got-ED e.g. Which one got zanned? (patient)
ABLE e.g. Which one is zannable? (patient)
Subj-comp e.g.
Which one did she sug (e) to send the ball?
Obj-comp e.g.
Which one did she sug the man to send (e)?
Development of fast mapping skills across all
syntactic contexts in 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
Development of fast mapping skills across all
syntactic contexts in typically developing versus
language impaired children.
Syntactic Bootstrapping / Fast Mapping
Average Score /21
20
15
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
10
5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
AAE
• African-Americans often speak a distinctive
variety called African-American English
(AAE).
• That variety has phonological,
morphological, lexical and syntactic
characteristics different from Mainstream
American English (MAE).
Some special properties of AAE
Characteristic features:
• Aspect has priority over tense; unique forms
– Harry be workin’ at U.Mass for ever.
– Mama done set the table
• Negative concord
– She don’t have no shoes
– Ain’t nobody mess with no meter maid.
(Green, 2001).
AAE morphosyntax and phonology is
different from MAE
• Tense/agreement is often not marked:
– Last week she flip out.
– My father walk to work.
• Copula is limited to contexts where it carries meaning:
– She real nice.
– I was tired after that.
• Phonology: consonant cluster reduction in final position only:
– Las’ week she had to take a tes’.
– Yesterday he straightened it out.
The problem
• The tests designed to establish whether a child has a
language disability or delay take Mainstream American
English as the norm.
• The tests are standardized on a sample that matches census
data, with typically 10% or fewer of African-American
children.
• This is claimed to be a representative sample for judging
African-American children.
Even worse problem
For efficiency the tests choose those parts of
Mainstream English most easily “measured”:
• A) Acquired Vocabulary
• B) Morphemes supplied in their obligatory
contexts, such as plural, past, possessive, 3rd
person, copula and auxiliary be.
But A) is subject to cultural as well as linguistic
variation, and
And B) happens to pick out those linguistic features of
MAE most likely to be absent in AAE speech.
Our solution, for now
• The DELV test has a screener version that takes 15 to 20
minutes to do.
• The screener contains morphosyntax and phonology
Identifier Items on which AAE-speaking children produce
systematically different responses from MAE. This is not
part of the diagnostic scoring.
• It also contains a set of Diagnostic Items designed to tell
the clinician whether further testing is needed because the
child is at risk for language delay or impairment.These are
dialect-neutral.
Screener Identifier Items
Morphosyntax
• Have/has
• 3rd person present tense ‘s
• Doesn’t/don’t
• Be copula forms
Phonology
• Distinctive AAE phonology (e.g., “baf” for
“bath”, “gif” for “gift”)
Performance of the different dialect and impairment
status groups on the Identifier Items on the DELVSC (Non-mainstream responses).
Screener Identifier Items
12
Average Score /16
10
8
IMPAIRED AAE
IMPAIRED MAE
6
TYPICAL AAE
TYPICAL MAE
4
2
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Screener Diagnostic Items
• Past tense was/were auxiliary and copula
forms (obligatory in both MAE and AAE).
• Elliptical Possessive pronouns (e.g. hers,
theirs: obligatory in both MAE and AAE).
• Non-word Repetition
• Wh-Question Comprehension
Performance of typically developing and language
impaired children on the Diagnostic Items on the
DELV-SCR (Errors)
Screener Diagnostic Items
14
Average Score
12
10
8
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
6
4
2
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Performance of MAE and AAE speaking children on
the Diagnostic Items on the DELV-SCR (Errors)
Screener Diagnostic Items
10
9
Average Score
8
7
6
AAE
MAE
5
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
How does this help?
• By avoiding areas that are different across dialects, we
attempt to reduce the problem of false representation of
children who speak dialects such as AAE.
• It is only a useful strategy if we still find some children
who fail our tasks, i.e. if genuine language disorders have
broader effects than on these elements of morpho-syntax.
• Fortunately, we find rich evidence that they do!
Pragmatics Domain
What did we test?
• All the pragmatics subtests assess the interaction of
syntactic and semantic forms with specific pragmatic
functions -- assessment of pragmatic skills cannot be
divorced from the forms that are needed for those
functions of language (Bloom & Lahey, 1978).
• They assess pragmatic skills that are important for early
school success and literacy development (e.g., question
asking, narrative cohesion, taking another speaker’s point
of view, theory of mind).
• They test language skills where there are no documented
pragmatic differences between MAE and AAE.
Pragmatics Domain
What did we not test?
• Interactive conversational skills such as turn taking, topic
initiation, etc. are best assessed in naturalistic conversation
or language sampling rather than in a more formal picturebased test.
• Language style or speech register adjustments for reasons
of status, formality, or age vary with cultural conventions
and probably vary with cultural groups that speak different
dialects of English.
• In the area of narrative we focused on linguistic cohesion
rather than more global story structure (e.g., story grammar
features), since there is evidence that young AAE-speaking
children may produce a wider range of story structures in
open-ended narration (e.g., Michaels, 1981; Champion,
2003)
Pragmatics Domain
Key Features of all the Elicitation Materials and
Procedures
• They provide specific referential support and pragmatic
motivation for the target language forms and content to be
produced by the child, so they increase the likelihood that
those forms and functions will be sampled.
• The pictured materials and elicitation prompts constrain
the range of appropriate utterances, so they are more easily
and quickly coded than an open-ended language sample.
• The procedures retain a considerable degree of natural
communication rather than resorting to direct imitation.
• All of the procedures are picture-based so they require
minimal technology and can be administered and scored
“on-line” by a single clinician interacting with the child.
Wh-Question Asking
• The child is shown a picture with something missing from
it and have to ask the right question to find out what the
event is about.
• The missing elements of the pictures include objects,
people, locations, tools, and causes of emotions -- so what,
who, where, how, and why questions are motivated.
• Different levels of prompting are given for each trial if the
child does not spontaneously ask an appropriate question -varying from the semantic domain of the question to ask,
to the specific wh-word to begin the question with.
• If the child asks an appropriate question they are shown the
complete picture.
• The children’s productions are scored correct on the basis
of semantic and pragmatic appropriateness, not
morphosyntax features that may vary with dialect.
The girl is painting something. Ask me the right question and
I’ll show you the answer.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
c. The Psychological Corporation
What?
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
c. The Psychological Corporation
The nurse is feeding somebody. Ask me the right question
and I’ll show you the answer.
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Who?
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
The girl is mad for a reason. Ask me the right question and
I’ll show you the answer.
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Why?
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
who
where
why
how
what
who
where
why
who eats what
5 year old TypicalAAE
WHAT IS THE NURSE FEEDING?
WHERE DID SHE GO SWIMMING?
WHAT IS THE GIRL MAD ABOUT?
HOW IS THE GIRL FIXIN' THAT?
WHAT IS THE WOMAN EATING?
WHO IS RIDING THE BIKE?
WHERE IS THAT BOY GOING?
WHAT HAPPENED?
WHAT IS THEY EATING?
5 year old DISAAE
NR
SHE MAKING A POOL.
WHAT THE GIRL
SHE'S FIXING HIS BIKE
WHAT SOME MEAT
WHAT A BOY
THE BOY IS RUNNING TO THE ICE CREAM
WHAT?
NR
who
where
why
how
what
who
where
why
who eats what
6 year old TypicalAAE
WHO IS THE NURSE FEEDING?
WHERE DID THE GIRL SWIM?
WHAT IS THE GIRL MAD FOR?
WHAT IS THE GIRL FIXING?
WHAT IS THE GIRL EATING?
WHO IS RIDING THE BIKE?
WHERE IS THE BOY RUNNING?
WHY IS THE BOY CRYING?
WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE EATING?
6 year old DISAAE
WHO IS THAT FEEDING HIM?
SHE JUMPED IN THE WATER.
SHE MAD AT THE TABLE.
SHE IS FIXIN THE TOY.
WHO'S EATIN?
A BOY RIDIN ON THE BIKE.
WHO'S RUNNING?
HE DROPPED HIS ICE CREAM.
WHO'S EATIN?
who
where
why
how
what
who
where
why
who eats what
8 year-old TypicalAAE
WHO IS THE NURSE FEEDING?
WHERE DID THE GIRL GO SWIMMING?
WHY IS THE GIRL MAD?
HOW IS THE GIRL FIXING THE TOY?
WHAT IS THE WOMAN EATING?
WHO IS RIDING THE BIKE?
WHAT IS THE BOY RUNNING TO?
WHY IS THE BOY CRYING?
WHO IS EATING WHAT FOOD?
8 year old DISAAE
WHO IS SHE FEEDING?
WHAT SOMETHING SHE SWIM IN?
WHO IS SHE MAD AT?
WHAT'S SHE HOLDING ON HER HAND?
WHAT HER MOM EATING FROM HER TWO FINGERS?
SOMETHING RIDING A BICYCLE.
WHERE IS HIS HOUSE?
WAS HE CRYING?
HOW WAS THEY WAS EATING?
Wh-Question production in MAE and AAE speaking
children following all prompts.
Wh-Question Production
9
8
Average Score /9
7
6
5
AAE
MAE
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Wh-Question production in typically developing and
language impaired children following all prompts.
Wh-Question Production
9
8
Average Score /9
7
6
5
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Wh-Question Error Patterns -Developmentally Ordered
• Failure to ask a question, just guessing.
To
• Asking the wrong Wh-question for the information needed
or asking an all-purpose question such as “what is
happening?”
To
• Fine on the single Wh, but unable to produce a double Wh
such as “who is eating which food?”
Short Narratives
Narratives have three important components:
• Coherence = use of required story plot structure
components
• Cohesion =
a. use of linguistic devices to establish, maintain, and
specify referents (e.g., articles and pronouns, or referent
characterizing expressions)
b. expression of causal and temporal links between events
in the story.
• Adopting different perspectives on the events -- “inside”
versus “outside” view -- “landscape of action” versus
“landscape of consciousness” (Bruner, 1986). This depends
on having a “theory of mind”.
A short, wordless picture-sequence narrative to elicit
reference specification, temporal cohesion, and mental state
references.
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Narrative Samples 1
• I want my train. I’m gonna hide the train from him. I’m
gonna play out of the toy box. I’m gonna find that train.
Bring that train. (C: 4;2)
• He was looking for the choo choo train because the other
boy was playin’. And then… and then he said, “I want that
choo choo train back”, and umm… he put it in his toy box.
And then he came back to find it and he looked under the
bed and it wasn’t there. (SC: 4;9)
Narrative Examples 2
• The big boy came into the little boy’s room and took away the little
boy’s train. Then he hid it under the boy’s bed where he couldn’t get it.
Then the little boy… when he left… he got out his train and put it in
the toy box while the big boy was eating. Then the big boy thought
about the train and he went under the bed to go see it but it wasn’t
there.
(A: 6;4)
• The little brother was trying to get his toy from the big brother. And the
big brother hiding his toy under the bed. When he is eating his
sandwich, the little boy go and get it and put it inside of his toy box.
When his big brother walk in, he think about the train and he look
under his bed for it. (J: 6;3)
Following their spontaneous narrative the children were asked two followup questions to probe for their theory of mind understanding:
-- Tell me again what is happening in this picture (picture 5)
--The big boy is looking for the train under the bed. Why is he looking
there?
•
Copyrighted picture omitted
c. The Psychological Corporation
Four-year-old AAE Children
TYPICAL AAE
REF
TIME
PICT5
ToM
YES
SEQUENCER
HE DREAMED THAT HIS TRAIN WAS UNDER THE BED
BECAUSE HE WANTED IT.
IMPAIRED AAE
REF
TIME
PICT5
ToM
NONE
NONE
THE BOY TAKE THAT FOR HIM.
CAUSE HE G OT FIND THE TRAIN
Six-year-old AAE Children
TYPICAL AAE
REF YES
TIME ADVERBIAL CLAUSE
PICT5 THE BIG BROTHER IS THINKING ABOUT THE TRAIN AND HE GOING BACK TO HIS ROOM
ToM HE THINK IT'S THERE
IMPAIRED AAE
REF NONE
TIME SEQUENCER
PICT5 THE BOY CAN'T FIND THE CHOO CHOO TRAIN
ToM BECAUSE HE CAN'T FIND IT
IMPAIRED AAE?
REF YES
TIME ADVERBIAL CLAUSE
PICT5 HE THINK THE TRAINS UNDER THE BED.
ToM HIS BIG BROTHER IS LOOKING FOR HIS TRAIN…
HE THINK IT'S UNDER THE BED, BUT ITS IN THE TOYB OX.
Narrative Features Reference Contrast and Time
Developmental Patterns
• No contrasting reference to the characters
To
Use of adjectives (“big”, “little”) and specific nouns (“boy” vs “his
brother”)
• No temporal links between events or “and”
To
Only sequencers (“then”)
To
Adverbial clauses of time (“when”, “after”)
Narrative Features Mental State References Developmental
Patterns
Picture 5 Description
• No reference to mental states
To
Reference to intention or desire
To
Reference to cognitions (“think”, “remember”, “dream”)
Explanation of why character looks under the bed:
• No explanation
To
• Intention or desire (“to get…”, “wants…”)
To
• False belief explanation
Development of combined narrative skills in MAE
and AAE speaking children aged 4 to 12.
Spoken Narrative Score
7
Average Score /7
6
5
4
AAE
MAE
3
2
1
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
8
Age
10
12
Overall narrative scores in typically developing and
language impaired children aged 4 though 12.
Spoken Narrative Score
7
Average Score /7
6
5
4
Impaired
Typical
3
2
1
0
4.5
5.5
6.5
8
Age
10
12
Development of MAE and AAE speaking children
on the Pragmatics Domain Score
DELV-CRT Pragmatics Subdomain
25
Average Score
20
15
AAE
MAE
10
5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Development of typically developing and language
impaired children on the Pragmatics Domain Score
DELV-CRT Pragmatics Subdomain
25
Average Score
20
15
IMPAIRED
TYPICAL
10
5
0
4
5
6
7
Age
8
9
Conclusion
• The pragmatics subtests enable an unbiased assessment of
important pragmatic skills without relying on linguistic
features that vary between AAE and MAE.
• They produce strong developmental data between the ages
of 4 and 9 with no dialect differences.
• But for both the MAE and AAE speaking groups they also
strongly discriminate between children who were a priori
characterized as typically developing and languageimpaired.