5/23/11
1
Language impairment, brain injury, and comparisons across groups
Brain lesions
• Studies of children who had prenatal or perinatal brain injury – Before language produc@on started – Not necessarily before geBng language input
• Range of lesion loca*ons and sizes • Big ques@ons: does L or R hemisphere damage maFer for language ability?
• Is impairment related to lesion size?
5/23/11
2
Brain lesions
• Methodological problems: – Small N – Huge variability in
• Timing of lesion • Underlying cause (Stroke? Seizures?)
– Sensi@vity of tests • Extreme views of language specializa@on: – Equipoten@ality – Determinism – Compromise: emergen@sm
Brain lesions
• Early work: Bates and colleagues • Large set of kids with similar e@ology • By about age 6, most had recovered to low-‐normal levels
• No rela,onship to hemisphere damaged • Lesion size x performance: – U-‐func@on: @ny and large did beFer, medium did worse (consistent with animal lit-‐-‐”fresh start” H)
– Later, U-‐func@on did not hold
5/23/11
3
Brain lesions long-‐term
• The happy story: • Temporary impairment • Then recover to normal by about 6 • BUT • Studies aYer this age show overall below-‐normal IQ (verbal and performance)
• Ar@fact of more impaired kids con@nuing to see doctors?
Brain lesions long-‐term
• AYer ini@al recovery of func@on, is there a decline in IQ later in development for kids with unilateral focal lesions?
• Levine et al. examined 15 kids who were IQ-‐tested pre-‐ age 7 and post-‐ age 7 – Unusual-‐-‐a longitudinal study
• 12 of 15 showed an IQ decline • Equivalent declines in verbal and performance
5/23/11
4
Brain lesions long-‐term
• *Side note: what does a decline in IQ mean?
• IQ tests have age-‐based norms – A 2-‐y-‐o who performs like a UCSD undergrad has a higher IQ than that undergrad*
• Not gaining skills as rapidly • (S@ll improving, but not as fast as normal)
Brain lesions long-‐term
• Rela@onship to lesion size? – Smaller is worse
• Rela@onship to earlier IQ? – Higher IQ early on meant bigger decline
• Why does this happen? – Not enough processing power to keep up – Ar@fact-‐-‐IQ tests start demanding abstract reasoning (maybe a deficit all along)
5/23/11
5
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Reilly et al. used narra,ves – Look at this picture book and explain story – Tests both formal language (e.g., syntax) and cogni@ve abili@es (understanding the story)
• Do SLI kids look like – FL (“focal lesion”) kids? – WS (Williams syndrome) kids?
5/23/11
6
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 1: SLI vs. early lesions • Measures: – Story length – Complexity of sentences – Rate of morphological errors
• Assessment – Count total # of proposi@ons – Count errors, divide by prop. count – Assess diversity of syntac@c construc@ons
SLI vs FL vs WS
• SLI, FL below typical at age 4-‐6
• Lesion group approached normal at 10-‐12
5/23/11
7
SLI vs FL vs WS
• SLI, FL below typical at age 4-‐6
• Lesion group approached normal at 10-‐12
SLI vs FL vs WS
• SLI, FL below typical at age 4-‐6
• Lesion group approached normal at 10-‐12
5/23/11
8
SLI vs FL vs WS
• SLI, FL below typical at age 4-‐6
• Lesion group approached normal at 10-‐12
• Implica@on: SLI worse than missing part of brain!!
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 2: SLI vs. Williams (WS)
5/23/11
9
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 2: SLI vs. Williams (WS) • Measures: – Story length – Morphological errors – Narra@ve coherence (major points, theme)
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 2: SLI vs. Williams (WS) • SLI: more errors at 4-‐6 than WS
• Comparable on complex syntax
5/23/11
10
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 2: SLI vs. Williams (WS) • But WS has harder @me maintaining structure of narra@ve (boy looks for frog)
TD: They looked in the beehive and in the hole but could not find the frog.
SLI: The dog is trying for the bees and the boy’s looking for the frog.
WS: And then all of a sudden the dog finds some bees flying.
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Study 2: SLI vs. Williams (WS) • WS use more social evalua@on devices
• Voices, sfx, exclama@ons-‐-‐audience aFen@on
TD: They looked in the beehive and in the hole but could not find the frog.
SLI: The dog is trying for the bees and the boy’s looking for the frog.
WS: And then all of a sudden the dog finds some bees flying.
5/23/11
11
SLI vs FL vs WS
• Overall picture for SLI • Gramma@cal competence really poor – Worse than focal brain injury
• Narra@ve skills not so bad
5/23/11
12
Language development in later childhood
Things that happen
• Last few sounds in produc@on • Long @me before some syntac@c construc@ons understood
• Peer interac@ons • Developing narra@ve skills • Developing literacy
5/23/11
13
Peer interac@ons
• Trial-‐by-‐fire of communica@ve competence
• In-‐group language-‐-‐ adolescent register – “like”, “y’know” Various
‘slang’ terms – Either get abandoned or
absorbed into general use
• Playing with language (humor, sound play)
www.xkcd.com
Fun with language
• Ely & McCabe (1994): about 25% of kindergartners’ speech involved language play
• Playing with sound • Riddles: – Word games capitalizing on ambiguity (phonological, morphological, seman@c, lexical)
– Knock knock. Who’s there? LeFuce. LeFuce who? LeFuce in!
– Solving riddles correlates with reading ability
5/23/11
14
Fun with language
• Verbal humor • Part of socializa@on into community • Develops with age – Young: scatalogical – Mid-‐childhood: more complex, e.g. puns/jokes – Adolescence: as sarcas@c and ironic as adults
• Varies from culture to culture – Teasing – AA: ‘your mama’ statements (ritualized verbal game)
Gendered speech
• Starts differen@a@ng around age 2, 3 • The only biological components: – Voice deepening* – Higher incidence of dyslexia
• Everything else socially condi@oned
5/23/11
15
Gendered speech
• Adults: – Males have larger vocal cords=low PITCH • US: males: 120 Hz; females: 200 Hz • This discrepancy differs by culture
– Males have longer vocal tracts=low FORMANTS (resonances that make vowels)
Gendered speech
• Children: – Un@l ~13 years, no difference in PITCH – As early as 4, differences in FORMANTS
– Adult listeners can ID child gender above chance at 4 years • Appear to be using formants
• Why are formants different? – Differences in vocal tract size? – Selec@ve imita@on of gendered speech paFerns?
See Perry, Ohde, & Ashmead 2001
5/23/11
16
Gendered speech/language
• UnwiBngly enforced by teachers, parents – Behavior X okay for boy, not girl (or vice versa)
• Iden@fy with same-‐gender peers – Girls seek affilia@on, boys seek power and autonomy – [In suburbia] – AA city girls show more balanced paFern-‐-‐compete (allegedly ‘male’)
as well as cooperate
• In narra@ves, girls more likely to quote others – A lot of aFen@on to language; more literacy later – Gender variability in aBtudes toward literacy (reading is ‘girly’)
Extended discourse
• Early on, lots of language is about immediate context
• In school years, more need to have decontextualized language (the “tell” part of “show and tell”)
• Key development in literacy skills (wriFen lg is decontextualized)
5/23/11
17
Extended discourse
• Two modes of thought: • Paradigma@c – Logical – Classroom wri@ng
• Narra@ve – Storytelling – Focus on human inten@ons
Narra@ves
• Story (usually about past events) • At least two clauses about single event • Changes with age – Narra@ve length – Changes in structure
• Age 4: “leapfrog” narra@ves (no train of thought) • Between 4 and 8: chronological narra@ves
– And then…and then… • Age 8+: more classic narra,ve (“high point analysis”)
– Build up to high point/climax – Also, lots of evalua@on (how narrator feels about events)
5/23/11
18
Narra@ves across cultures
• Amount of evalua@on in AA communi@es – Increases 3x from childhood to adulthood – EA adolescents did what young AA kids did
• Japanese children may employ haiku-‐like structures • Other variables: – Focus of story: self, others – PaFern of communica@on: direct, subtle
Narra@ves across cultures
• Topic-‐focused narra,ves: EA kids use – Single person/event – Beginning, middle, end
• Topic-‐associa,ng narra,ves: one form AA kids use – Kids who use this in classroom are discouraged by teachers (“S@ck with the topic!”)
– Feel angry, that teacher wasn’t interested
5/23/11
19
Extended discourse
• Explana@ons – Parents can convey info about how the world works
• Descrip@ons • In the classroom: teachers try to elicit extended discourse – Must be clear about reference (he, she, it) – Take into account listeners’ knowledge
Extended discourse
• Do kids take listeners’ knowledge into account? • Cameron & Wang, 1999: • “Referen@al communica@on” experiment • 4-‐ and 8-‐year-‐olds • Tell adult a story from picture book
– In person or on phone • On phone, kids told longer stories, more correc,ons (for
listener comprehension) than in person • Increase in ability across school age
5/23/11
20
Metalinguis@c awareness
• Conscious awareness of language structure • Influenced by – Cogni@ve development – Exposure to literacy
• Types (metametameta) – Phonological awareness – Metaseman@c awareness – Metasyntac@c awareness – Metapragma@c awareness
Metalinguis@c awareness
• Phonological awareness – Understand that words are made up of smaller units
• Syllables • Phonemes
– Ages 3-‐8 • Age 5: cat and hat rhyme; age 8: giant and jail are spelled differently
– Seen in verbal play (pig La@n, rhyming) – Achievements
• Separate out first sound • Compare word sounds • Segment out word elements
5/23/11
21
Metalinguis@c awareness
• Phonological awareness • Achievements vary with language being learned, literacy, wri@ng system
big doll -‐-‐> dog bill
bed farm
lone fish
“I’d like to spank the theakers…”
Phonological awareness (cont’d)
• Dog-‐bed >> bog-‐ded easier than dog-‐bed >> beg-‐dod • Figuring out d|og in English (onset-‐rime structure) is an achievement
• Figuring out d|o|g (3 phonemes) is an even tougher achievement – May be less linguis@cally “natural” for English speakers than onset-‐rime
“I’d like to spank the theakers…”
5/23/11
22
Metaseman@c awareness
• Develops by about age 10 • Know what “word” means
• Can provide defini@ons – Part of SOP in classrooms
Metasyntac@c awareness
• Know correct syntax • Know subj/obj/verb categories • Does anyone really have it? • Kids can correct errors, but usually focus on seman@cs over
syntax – “The baby eated the typewriter” (Bialystok 86)
• At age 5, can oYen name subject – But subj & verb are really rare outside schooling
• May require explicit instruc@on • Adults: “The answer is obvious to you and I”
5/23/11
23
Metapragma@c awareness
• Knowledge about language and social context – Referen,al inadequacy*
• Was that sufficient to pick out which referent? • 5 and under: blame listener • By age 8: assign fault (correctly) to speaker
– Was that understandable? (comprehensibility) – What (explicitly) are social/politeness rules for given situa@on? • Get it by late childhood/early adolescence • Adolescents some@mes violate deliberately
Literacy
(mainly in North America)
5/23/11
24
Importance of literacy
• Print is everywhere • Much of vocab comes from reading – misled, awry, infrared
• New knowledge (esp. in school) comes more and more from reading
Literacy achievements
• Emergent literacy: can’t yet read but recognize form and func@on of text
• Can ‘read’ logos, brands (Coke, Carl’s Jr.) • L-‐R reading, spaces separate words • What family members use reading for – Fun! :-‐) – Bills. :-‐| – = different aKtudes toward literacy
5/23/11
25
Preparing for literacy
• At home: engage in reading ac@vi@es – Alphabet games
– Reading books together – *Implies (to kid) that there is value in being literate, talking about the not-‐here-‐and-‐now • Do beFer in school
– *Reading also affords opportunity to talk about things that aren’t in here-‐and-‐now
Preparing for literacy
• Different ways of reading books • Reese & Cox (1999) – Describers (describe, encourage labeling) – Comprehenders (emph. meaning, inference)
– Performers (read straight through)
• Biggest gains in reading: describer style • But for kids with big vocabs already: performer style
5/23/11
26
Preparing for literacy
• Reading books across cultures • Melzi & Caspe (2005) – Read wordless picture book to kid – Peru: storytelling style
• Mom as narrator, kid doesn’t par@cipate
– USA: storybuilding style • Interact, create story with kid
• Caspe (2007) – Among immigrant moms in NYC, most did storytelling-‐-‐which produced beFer outcomes
Preparing for literacy
• SES variability – Lower-‐income kids get less book-‐reading @me
– Also don’t do as well in literacy at school – Not true across the board
5/23/11
27
Preparing for literacy
• SES variability vs. posi,ve influences • Wri*ng beFer if good rela@ons w/parents • Reading beFer if school provides structured prac@ce (e.g.
workbooks) – Reading not affected by home variables in this study – More recent work: parents should support literacy ac@vi@es, use
advanced words, engage in extended discourse
• Really cool result (Tabors, Dickinson, Snow): – Above average home literacy, bad preschool: :-‐( – Below average home literacy, good preschool: :-‐) – (So get your kid into a good preschool!)
(And finally,) literacy
Necessary skills to read: • Detect visual features of leFers • Know grapheme-‐phoneme correspondence rules
• Recognize words • Know seman,cs
• Comprehension, interpreta,on
5/23/11
28
Literacy
• Recognizing leLers • Very different versions of same leFer – e e e e e – Q q
• Very similar versions of different leFers – E F – Q O
Graphemes to phonemes
• Okay, you’ve recognized the leFers. Now let’s convert them to sounds!
• Tough though thought • Defiance fiance • Garage outrage • Now know • Get gel • (You get the point.)
5/23/11
29
Graphemes to phonemes
• Why is English so hard? • A couple of possibili@es: • Orthographic depth – Shallow orthography (see “o”, say “oh”) – Deep orthography (see “o”, say…? Context, random)
• Syllable structure – Simple (CV’s, mainly; diego, balalaika) – Complex (CCCVCCC’s possible: brisk, schloss)
• (Note: not value judgments!)
Graphemes to phonemes
• Seymour, Aro, & Erskine (2003)
• Mul@-‐country study of reading development in Europe
• 12 languages + English • Roughly evenly divided by – Syllabic complexity
– Orthographic depth • One sound w/mul@ple spellings: English, French
• One spelling, mul@ple sounds: English, Danish
5/23/11
30
Graphemes to phonemes
From Seymour et al. 2003
Graphemes to phonemes
From Seymour et al. 2003
5/23/11
31
Noah Webster: A genius before his @me
• Argued for spelling reforms • First (and authorita@ve) American dic@onary • Some good ideas…
hFp://www.merriam-‐webster.com/info/spelling-‐reform.htm