Transcript of Verb inflections as indicators of Bilingual SLI Sharon Armon-Lotem, The Bilingual SLI project* Bar...
- Slide 1
- Verb inflections as indicators of Bilingual SLI Sharon
Armon-Lotem, The Bilingual SLI project* Bar Ilan University *This
project is funded by ISF grant no. 938 BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY RAMAT
GAN ISRAEL CLS, July17-19, Reading
- Slide 2
- Acknowledgement This work has been done in collaboration with:
Anat Blass, Jonathan Fine, Efrat Harel, Elinor Saiegh-Haddad, and
Joel Walters, Bar-Ilan University Galit Adam, The Open University
With the help of: Dori Braude, Michal Giladi, Ruti Litt, Lyle
Lustinger, and Efrat Shimon
- Slide 3
- The bilingual SLI Project - Aim Examining the linguistic
production of bilingual children, ages 4-7, who were diagnosed for
SLI in order to assess the relative contribution of each to the
childs linguistic representations and underlying processes. In the
overall effort, we look at the interface of SLI and bilingualism,
exploring primarily the use of morpho-syntax, pragmatics, and
discourse, as well as lexical, phonological, and sub-lexical
processing. The present paper focuses on the use of the
inflectional verbal system by English-Hebrew bilingual
children
- Slide 4
- Definitions Specific Language Impairment (SLI) Specific
Language Impairment (SLI) Children with normal performance IQ, who
score 12 months/1 SD below chronological age on standardized
language tests, and have no: hearing disabilities, emotional or
behavior problems, observed neurological deficit, or severe
articulation/phonological deficit. Bilingual children Bilingual
children Children with bilingual background who are able to
function in two languages (carry a conversation and understand) at
a near native level (typical or impaired). This includes both
simultaneous bilinguals and sequential bilinguals.
- Slide 5
- Subject selection Preschool children from bilingual or
monolingual English- speaking homes, who attend regular preschools
and special language preschools, and have been exposed to Hebrew
for at least two years. Preschool children from bilingual or
monolingual English- speaking homes, who attend regular preschools
and special language preschools, and have been exposed to Hebrew
for at least two years. All children come from the same
neighbourhood and same (middle-high) SES All children come from the
same neighbourhood and same (middle-high) SES Children are screened
for both languages and are categorized in accordance with their
linguistic abilities as diagnosed by standardized tests (e.g., CELF
Preschool for English, Goralnik for Hebrew), where TD is measured
by less than 1.5 SD below norm. Children are screened for both
languages and are categorized in accordance with their linguistic
abilities as diagnosed by standardized tests (e.g., CELF Preschool
for English, Goralnik for Hebrew), where TD is measured by less
than 1.5 SD below norm. This yields a division into children with
typical development in both languages (TD), children with English
typical development (E-TD), and children with English atypical
development (E- ATD). This later group comprises of children with
Hebrew typical development (H-TD), and children with atypical
development in both languages (A-TD) all are considered at-risk for
SLI. This yields a division into children with typical development
in both languages (TD), children with English typical development
(E-TD), and children with English atypical development (E- ATD).
This later group comprises of children with Hebrew typical
development (H-TD), and children with atypical development in both
languages (A-TD) all are considered at-risk for SLI.
- Slide 6
- TD-children: 6 case studies 6 case studies, 3 simultaneous, 3
sequential 3 boys, 3 girls Age range 5;5-6;5
- Slide 7
- E-TD children 5 case studies 5 case studies 5 case studies 3
boys, 2 girls 3 boys, 2 girls Age range 4;1-6;6 Age range
4;1-6;6
- Slide 8
- At risk children: 6 case studies 6 case studies, 3 from each
sub-group 6 case studies, 3 from each sub-group 3 boys, 3 girls 3
boys, 3 girls Age range 5;5-6;9 Age range 5;5-6;9 H-TD A-TD
- Slide 9
- Linguistic Measures: Inflections English: English: past tense
past tense 3 rd person in the present 3 rd person in the present
Hebrew: Hebrew: gender and number in present tense gender and
number in present tense gender, number and person in past and
future gender, number and person in past and future
- Slide 10
- Inflections in Monolingual SLI and TD Bilinguals English: Both
SLI and bilinguals use root infinitives (RIs), e.g., David play
ball. English: Both SLI and bilinguals use root infinitives (RIs),
e.g., David play ball. Hebrew: SLI children find past tense 2 nd
person inflection more difficult. Hebrew: SLI children find past
tense 2 nd person inflection more difficult.
- Slide 11
- Tasks Naturalistic samples (interview, story telling, free play
Naturalistic samples (interview, story telling, free play Sentence
completion (Based on Dromi et al 1999) Sentence completion (Based
on Dromi et al 1999) Enactment (Based on Dromi et al 1999)
Enactment (Based on Dromi et al 1999) Elicited imitation Elicited
imitation
- Slide 12
- TD verb inflections No errors in Hebrew enactment In other
tasks, error rate is very low, mostly less than 10% and never more
then 20% (on the sentence completion task).
- Slide 13
- At Risk Verb Inflections
- Slide 14
- Types of errors - English V-ing: The cat hops and the dog
hopping Wrong tense: Here the boy jumps and the girl jumped Wrong
3rd person: The cat hops and the dogs hops Root infinitives: The
cat hops and the dog hop
- Slide 15
- Types of Errors - Hebrew Root infinitives Root infinitives
Wrong tense past for present or vice versa Wrong tense past for
present or vice versa Wrong gender masculine for feminine Wrong
gender masculine for feminine Wrong number singular for plural
Wrong number singular for plural Wrong person 1 st person for 2 nd
person and or versa Wrong person 1 st person for 2 nd person and or
versa
- Slide 16
- TD - Sentence Completion Task: Frequency of Error Types 5/96
wrong tense, 12/96 person and tense omission (Root Infinitives),
(13%) wrong 3rd person with plural subject 2/252 infinitive, 4/252
wrong tense, 9/256 wrong gender (all present, feminine, plural
[N=24])
- Slide 17
- TD -Imitation Task: Frequency of Errors in Different Linguistic
Contexts 5/72 in 3rd person, 4/72 in past tense. All errors
reflected use of root infinitives 1/48 in 1st person, 6/48 in 2nd
masculine, 5/48 in 2nd feminine and 12/48 in 2nd plural. All errors
reflected use of 1st for 2nd and vice versa
- Slide 18
- TD - Summary No errors on Hebrew enactment, up to 20% errors on
the sentence completion task, and up to 10% on other tasks No
errors on Hebrew enactment, up to 20% errors on the sentence
completion task, and up to 10% on other tasks English errors are
mostly Root Infinitives (13% of relevant contexts) and wrong 3rd
person with plural subjects (13% of plural subjects) Hebrew errors
are mostly wrong gender in [present, feminine, plural] forms (9 of
24 37%) and in [past second person] forms (23 of 144 15%). Hebrew
errors are mostly wrong gender in [present, feminine, plural] forms
(9 of 24 37%) and in [past second person] forms (23 of 144
15%).
- Slide 19
- E-TD and TD - Sentence Completion Task: Frequency of Error
Types
- Slide 20
- TD and E-TD -Imitation Task: Frequency of Errors in Different
Linguistic Contexts
- Slide 21
- E-TD Enactment - Hebrew E-TD have many errors in person
inflection, using 3 rd person
- Slide 22
- E-TD - Summary English English Sentence completion All but one
child show TD error frequency Sentence completion All but one child
show TD error frequency Imitation TD error frequency with RIs among
the younger children Imitation TD error frequency with RIs among
the younger children Hebrew Hebrew Sentence completion the 3 older
children show TD error frequency, the 2 younger ones are a little
worse than the TD child with shorter exposure, reflection usage of
3 rd person bare forms Sentence completion the 3 older children
show TD error frequency, the 2 younger ones are a little worse than
the TD child with shorter exposure, reflection usage of 3 rd person
bare forms Imitation TD error frequency, with a lot of 3 rd person
bare forms rather than 1 st /2 nd person alternations Imitation TD
error frequency, with a lot of 3 rd person bare forms rather than 1
st /2 nd person alternations Enactment A very high rate of errors
using 3 rd person bare forms rather than 1 st /2 nd person
alternations Enactment A very high rate of errors using 3 rd person
bare forms rather than 1 st /2 nd person alternations
- Slide 23
- At Risk - Sentence completion H-TD 60% RIs A-TD 50% RIs, 30%
wrong 3rd person TD error frequency
- Slide 24
- At Risk - Imitation H-TD 60% RIs A-TD 60% RIs 2 nd to 1 st
person errors 2 nd to 1 st person errors A few Sg > Pl and Pl
> Sg) A few Sg > Pl and Pl > Sg) H-TD show 40% error rate,
A-TD show up to 100% error rate H-TD show 40% error rate, A-TD show
up to 100% error rate
- Slide 25
- E-TD and At Risk - Enactment (Hebrew) [N=8] H-TD and A-TD show
near TD profile E-TD have many errors in person inflection, using 3
rd person
- Slide 26
- At Risk, E-TD and TD Errors - English Root infinitives: Root
infinitives: TD & E-TD: Up to 20% of 3 rd person and past
contexts. The younger E-TD have a higher ratio of RIs. H-TD &
A-TD: Root Infinitives in 50-60% of 3 rd person and past contexts
Erroneous tense and erroneous 3 rd person mostly with plural
subjects in all groups Erroneous tense and erroneous 3 rd person
mostly with plural subjects in all groups
- Slide 27
- At Risk, E-TD and TD errors - Hebrew Sentence completion At
risk, older E-TD and TD have around 10% errors, showing the same
variety of errors. The increase ratio of errors among the young
E-TD reflects their use of 3 rd person bare forms. Sentence
completion At risk, older E-TD and TD have around 10% errors,
showing the same variety of errors. The increase ratio of errors
among the young E-TD reflects their use of 3 rd person bare forms.
Second person triggers substitution Second person triggers
substitution E-TD opt for 3rd person bare forms E-TD opt for 3rd
person bare forms H-TD and A-TD opt for 1 st person H-TD and A-TD
opt for 1 st person Higher error rate in enactment for E-TD group
(60%) Higher error rate in enactment for E-TD group (60%) Higher
error rate in imitation for At-Risk Groups (up to 70%) Higher error
rate in imitation for At-Risk Groups (up to 70%)
- Slide 28
- Conclusions Studying the inflectional system of 17 English-
Hebrew bilinguals, ages 4-7, we found that: Studying the
inflectional system of 17 English- Hebrew bilinguals, ages 4-7, we
found that: In English, TD and E-TD bilinguals tend to use root
infinitive in up to 20% of the relevant contexts. In English, TD
and E-TD bilinguals tend to use root infinitive in up to 20% of the
relevant contexts. By contrast, At-risk, (like young E-TD) children
showed the same kind of errors in 50-60% of the relevant context.
By contrast, At-risk, (like young E-TD) children showed the same
kind of errors in 50-60% of the relevant context. In Hebrew, the TD
bilinguals used the wrong person inflection in 15.5% of the
contexts which triggered verbs inflected for 1st and 2nd person. In
Hebrew, the TD bilinguals used the wrong person inflection in 15.5%
of the contexts which triggered verbs inflected for 1st and 2nd
person. By contrast, E-TD children opt for the bare form. By
contrast, E-TD children opt for the bare form. At-risk children
showed the same kind of error in 50-60% of the relevant context.
At-risk children showed the same kind of error in 50-60% of the
relevant context.
- Slide 29
- Inflections as indicators for SLI in Bilingual population The
same kind of error was found in both TD and at-risk children, but
the quantity was different. The same kind of error was found in
both TD and at-risk children, but the quantity was different. Is
the high ratio of root infinitives indicative of SLI in the H-TD
and A-TD groups? Is the high ratio of root infinitives indicative
of SLI in the H-TD and A-TD groups? Does it mean that the E-TD
group is not SLI? Does it mean that the E-TD group is not SLI? Are
difficulties with 2 nd person indicative of SLI in the E- TD group?
Are difficulties with 2 nd person indicative of SLI in the E- TD
group?
- Slide 30
- E-TD children are not SLI, but rather slow second language
learners, who have not mastered the inflectional system of their L2
E-TD children are not SLI, but rather slow second language
learners, who have not mastered the inflectional system of their L2
For the At-Risk children, though tense-marking may not be a
qualitative clinical indicator of SLI in bilingual populations, the
quantity of errors, when manifested in both languages, might be a
potential indicator. For the At-Risk children, though tense-marking
may not be a qualitative clinical indicator of SLI in bilingual
populations, the quantity of errors, when manifested in both
languages, might be a potential indicator.
- Slide 31
- Thank you