the comprehension of single-member set and multiple...
TRANSCRIPT
www.glad-study.de
The comprehension of single-member set and multiple-member set questions in 5-year-old children German learning
children at risk for SLI at the age of 30 months.Results from an interdisciplinary longitudinal study.
Jürgen Weissenborn, Humboldt University, Berlin Barbara Höhle, University of Potsdam
Zvi Penner, University of Bern
COST Action A33 meetingLisboa, July 6-8, 2006
www.glad-study.de
German Language Development Study
Subjects:150 pre - and
perinatally normal children (apgar 9-10), out of which 50 from
risk families(SLI, Dyslexia)
Period of study:from birth to age 5-6 -
-
:
.
Additionalgenetic and hormonal
investigations withsubgroups
Place of study :Family and hospital
Cognitive and social development:
Sabina Pauen, Heidelberg&
Helgard Rauh Potsdam
Development of language perception:
Phonology, lexicon, syntax, Data collection: ERPs
Angela Friederici, Leipzig&
Manfred Gross, Berlin
Development of language production:
Phonology, lexicon,syntax. Data collection: spontaneous data,experiments, audio / video taping
Zvi Penner, Bern & Petra Schulz, Karlsruhe
Development of language production:
First vocalisations/phonation (cries) Data collection: spontaneous data
Audio/ video taping
Kathleen Wermke, Würzburg
Development of language perception:
Phonology, lexicon, syntax, information processing
Data collection : behavioral methods (Head turn preference, preferential
looking)Jürgen Weissenborn, Berlin
&Barbara Höhle, Potsdam
Somatic and motor development:Volker Hesse, Berlin
Development of auditory pathway:Manfred Gross, Berlin
www.glad-study.de
Aim of the Study
Identification of precursors of ‚SLI‘
Method
Retrospective, comparative analysis of the linguistic, cognitive and neurobiological development of children which at age 5-6 have beendiagnosed as linguistically unimpaired or impaired.
Possible outcome
Performance very early in life in a specific cluster of developmentaldomains A,B,C, allows to predict later performance in specific(clusters of) linguistic domains (phonology, syntax,...).
Ideally, such a result could help to conceive methods of earlyintervention in order to prevent the development of later linguisticimpairments.
www.glad-study.de
Potential precursors of SLINeurophysiological developmentLanguage perception
Neurocognitivedevelopment-MMN (Prosody) (5 months)
A. Friederici
Maturation of the hearingnerve (BERA) (5 months)
M. Gross Griffith-Scales (3 and 6 months)
V. Hesse
Behavioral aspects:
Distinction of/preference pour the trochaic prosodic pattern of the target language (4 months)B. Höhle / J. Weissenborn /
Correlations between linguistic and non-linguistic development in the first year
and vocabulary size at 18 and 24 months of ageCognition
Crying:
- Developmental course and complexity of crying (0-3 months))
K. Wermke
Language production:
-minimal word formation- relational lexicon
(14 months)Z. Penner/ P. Schulz
Category formation:Global categories (12 months )
S. Pauen
Prelinguistic concept formation
Language production
www.glad-study.de
Development of matrix wh-questions in German1. Was liest Peter? / What does Peter read?Production:TD children around age 2;6 -3;00 > e.g. Clahsen, Kursawe & Penke 1995,Weissenborn 1990,1994, Weissenborn, Roeper & De Villiers 1995. Negative wh-questions at age 4 not yet adultlike > Hermann & Höhle 2006.
> Development related to the acquisition of Verb Second (V2)
SLI children: Hamann, Penner & Lindner 1998 , Penner & Kölliker Funk 1998 Age range: 3;00 – 10;00
Characteristics – also initially to be found in TD children (but see d.)a. (-wh) das is? e. warum hier kein wasser (- COPULA: ist )?
(what) that is why here no water (is)b. das (= placeholder: was) is dadin? f. wie geht (- subject: das)
‚what’ is inside das) how works (that)c. wo das brennt?
where that burnsd. wo das denn wohl hingehen?
where that then go to?
www.glad-study.de
Development of matrix wh-questions in GermanComprehension:SLI children: - wh-question answered with yes/no
- difficulty to distinguish between different wh-forms (case) - difficulty to interpret adjunct questions
2 a. Für wen arbeitet Peter?For whom does Peter work?
b. * Wen arbeitet Peter für? Whom does Peter work for?
> German: obligatory pied-piping, i.e. no preposition stranding
Production? Comprehension?
www.glad-study.de
Development of matrix wh-questions in German
4a. Wer liest ein Buch? Peter, Maria, und Alex. Who reads a book? Peter, Maria, and Alex. Anna reads a newspaper.
b. Wer (alles) liest alles ein Buch? Peter, Maria, und Alex. Who all reads a book? Peter, Maria, and Alex. Anna reads a newspaper.
c. Welcher Junge liest ein Buch? Peter und Alex.Which boy reads a book? Peter and Alex
Production: ?Comprehension: a. TD children around age 5-6 > Penner (2003); see also Schulz & Reckling (2005);
SLI children > highly variable > Schulz & Reckling (2005); b. TD et SLI children around age 5 > Schulz & Reckling (2005)c . ?
5. Wer liest was? Peter und Maria lesen ein Buch. Anna liest Zeitung.Who reads what? Peter, and Maria read a book. Anna reads a newspaper.
Production:?Comprehension: TD children around age 5-6 > Penner (2003)
SLI children at 5: at chance Schulz & Reckling (2005); Penner (2003)
www.glad-study.de
Language Tests
SETK 2 at 30 months(Grimm, Aktas und Frevert, 2000)• 4 subtests: word comprehension, sentence comprehension,
word production, word comprehension
SETK 3-5 at 5 years(Grimm, Aktas und Frevert, 2001)• 5 subtests: sentence comprehension, sentence repetition,
nonword repetition, plural formation, repetition of wordsequences
www.glad-study.de
The Subsamples
• Question tasks were conducted with 32 children (16 boys) within the firstmonth after the 5th birthday
• For 30 of them SETK2 data at 30 months data were available– TD children: 17 average performers (7 boys)– at-risk children: 13 low performers (8 boys)
• For all 32 children SEKT 3-5 data at 5 years were available (obtained in the same tests session as the question tasks)– TD children: 19 average performers (9 boys)– at-risk children: 13 low performers (7 boys)
> No difference in performance in the Kaufman ABC and theSniders- Oomen at age 5 between the TD and at-risk children
www.glad-study.de
The wh-question tasks• Multiple-member set questions
N = 8, all subject wh-questions: wer/ who
• Single-member set questionsN = 10, 2 argument questions : was/ was – 28 adjunct questions: wo/where, wann/when,
wem/whom - 2x; with preposition: für was/ for what, auf was/ on what, mit was/ with what, mit wem/ with whom
Prediction: children at risk for SLI, different from TD children, would show persistent difficulties with adjunctquestions
www.glad-study.de
Multiple-set member questions
Wer hat einen Hut auf?
Who wears a hat?
www.glad-study.de
Single-member set questions
Argument questions• Was kocht Herr Müller für den Gast?• What does Mister Miller cook for the guest?
Adjunct questions
• Wann backt der Bäcker das Brot?• When does the baker bake the bread?
• Mit was will Mutter alle Sachen nach Hause tragen?• With what does the mother want to carry things home?
www.glad-study.de
Single-member set questions
Es ist Mittag. Im Restaurant kocht Herr Müller Nudeln für den Gast. Die Nudeln kocht Herr Müller in einer großen Pfanne. Was kocht Herr Müller für den Gast?
It‘s noon. In the restaurant Mister Miller cooks noodles for the guest. Mister Miler cooks thenoodles in a big pan.What does Mister Miller cook for the guest?
www.glad-study.de
Results: Multiple-Member Set Questions
Types of Responses to Multiple Set Questions: Whole Group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
all more than one one
%
• The majority of answers werecorrect (64%)
• Cases in which the childrenpointed only to one memberof the set were significantlymore frequent than pointing to more than one set member
www.glad-study.de
Results: Multiple-Member Set Questions
• This pattern was shownby low and high SETK 2 performers
• There was no statisticallysignificant difference in the responses of the twogroups
Types of Responses to Multiple Set Questions: Low and Average Performers acc. to SETK2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
all more than one one
%
Average performance Low performance
www.glad-study.de
Results: Multiple-Member Set Questions
• The grouping accordingto the SETK3-5 resultsagain did not show anysignificant differencesbetween the two groups
Types of Responses to Multiple Set Questions: Low and Average Performers acc. to SEKT 3-5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
all more than one one
%
Average performance Low performance
www.glad-study.de
Results: Single-Member Set Questions• The low language
performers gave in all categories a significantlower percentage of correctanswers than the averagelanguage performers
• There is a tendency that thedifference between averageand low performers is moreenhanced in questions withprepositions compared to questions withoutprepositions and in argument questionscompared to adjunctquestions
Correct Responses to Single Set Questions: Low and Average performers acc. to SETK 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Total Pure Wh-Questions
Wh-Questionswith
Prepositions
Argument Adjunct
%
Average performance Low performance
www.glad-study.de
Results: Single-Member Set Questions• The low language
performers gave in all categories a significantlower percentage of correctanswers than the averagelanguage performers
• There is a tendency that thedifference between averageand low performers is moreenhanced in questions withprepositions compared to questions withoutprepositions and in argument questionscompared to adjunctquestions
Correct Responses to Single Set Questions: Low and Average Performers acc. to SETK 3-5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Total Pure Wh-Questions
Wh-Questionswith
Preposition
Argument Adjunct
%
Average performance Low performance
www.glad-study.de
Summary, conclusions, outlook
Multiple-member set questions:- no significant difference between TD children (65,3% correct) and childrenat risk for SLI (64,5% correct) at age 5;00: Findings between those of Penner (2003) (41% correct) and Schulz & Reckling (2005) (75% correct)
> the exhaustive quantificational reading of wh-operator not yet recognized
Single-member set questions:- significant difference between TD children (89,4% correct) and children at risk for SLI (71,5% correct ) at age 5;00, specifically with respect to theinterpretation of adjunct questions, especially of prepositional ones.Problems with the determination (focus identification) of the ‚unconstrained‘ reference of adjuncts as opposed to the constrained reference of arguments(discourse – syntax interface)Cue for the dependency relation between verb and arguments: case
Evidence: interpretation of the question as argument question, ignoring thepreposition.
www.glad-study.de
Summary, conclusions, outlook
Outlook:Relation between linguistic and mathematical performance
Highly significant correlation (r= ,446, P= ,003) between theperformance in a developmental test of the concept of number (Osnabrücker Test zur Zahlenbegriffsentwicklung –OTZ) and the performance in the single-member setquestion test (Penner 2006)
> Similarities between linguistic and mathematical structures
www.glad-study.de
AcknowledgmentsThe research reported here has been supported by the GermanNational Science Foundation (DFG) and the Max-Planck-Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, LeipzigWe would like to thank all the participants in our study for their co-operation
www.glad-study.de
References
Clahsen, H., Kursawe, C. & Penke, M. (1995). Introducing CP: Wh-questions and subordinateclauses in German child language. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 7, 1-28. Essex, England: University of Essex, Department of Linguistics.
Felix, S. (1980) Cognition and language development: a German child‘s acquisition of questionwords. In D. Nehls (ed.) Studies in language acquisition. Gross: Heidelberg, 91-109.
Guasti, M.T. (1996). The acquisition of Italian interrogatives. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), GeneraticePerspectives on Language Acquisition. Empirical Findings, Theoretical Consicderations, Cross-Linguistic Comparisons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guasti, M.T. (2002). Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Hamann, C. (2002) From syntax to Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Hamann, C. , Penner, Z, & Lindner, K (1997) German impaired grammar: The clause structurerevisited. Language Acquisition 7, 193-246.
Herrmann, H. & Höhle, B. (2005) The production of positive and negative wh-questions in 3-and 4-year-old typically developing German children. Paper presented at LATSIS, Geneva.
Hohenberger, A. (1996) Functional categories in language acquisition: Self-organization of a dynamic system. PhD Dissertation, University of Frankfurt
www.glad-study.de
Penner, Z. (2003) Neue Wege der frühen Sprachförderung von Migrantenkindern. Kon-Lab: Frauenfeld.
Penner, Z. (2006) Seminar hold at the Conference on ‚Vor- und frühschulische Maßnahmen zur Förderung der mathematischen Fähigkeiten bei sprachlich benachteiligten Kindern‘, Köln, May 2006.
Penner, Z. & Kölliker Funk, M. (1998). Therapie und Diagnose von Grammatikerwerbsstörungen. Luzern: Edition SZH
Penner, Z., Schulz, P. & Müller, A. (200.) Bound variable knowledge in preschool children. New evidence from German. Paper given at...
Radford, A. (1994). The syntax of questions in child English. Journal of Child Language, 21, 211-236.
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads. Essays in Comparative Syntax. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roeper, T. (1996) The role of merger theory and formal features in acquisition. In H.Clahsen (ed.) Generative perspectives on acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 415-450.
Santelmann, L. (1998). The acquisition of verb movement and spec-head in child Swedish. In D. Adger, S. Pintzuk, B. Plunkett, and G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
www.glad-study.de
Schulz, P & Reckling, I. (2005) Deficits in the semantics of single and paired wh-questions as a linguistic marker of SLI? Evidence from German. Paper presented at EUCILDES, Royaumont
Siegmüller, J. & Weissenborn, J. (2004) The comprehension of long-distance questions in German children with Williams Syndrome: A multiple case study. In: S. Bartke & J. Siegmüller (eds.) Williams Syndrome- A Linguistic Profile across Languages, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tracy, R. (1991). Sprachliche Strukturentwicklung. Linguistische und kognitionspsychologische Aspekte einer Theorie des Erstspracherwerbs. Narr: Tübingen.
Weissenborn, J. (1990b). Functional categories and verb movement in early German.The acquisition of German syntax reconsidered. In M. Rothweiler (Hg.), Spracherwerb und Grammatik. Linguistische Untersuchungen zum Erwerb von Syntax und Morphologie. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 3/1990, 190-224.
Weissenborn, J. (1994). Constraining the child's grammar: Local wellformedness in the development of verb movement in German andFrench. In B. Lust, M. Suñer, & J.Whitman (eds.) Syntactic Theory and Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives. Vol. : Phrase Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 273-287.
www.glad-study.de
Weissenborn, J., Roeper, T. & De Villiers, J. 1990. The acquisition of WH-movement in German and French. In: Maxfield, T.L. & Plunkett, B., Eds. Papers in the acquisition of WH. Proceedings of the University of Massachusetts Roundtable. Amherst, UMOP Special Edition: 43-73.
Weissenborn, J., Roeper, T. & De Villiers, J. 1995. Wh-acquisition in French and German: connections between case, WH-features, and unique triggers. Recherches Linguistiques24: 125-155.