Were grammatical errors evident in complex syntax productions? INFINITIVES: Did children omit infinitival to? Mickey wants to stand up. *Mickey wants stand up. Of the 27 children who produced infinitives, five children omitted infinitival to. Omissions ranged from 8% to 25%. SUBJECT RELATIVE CLAUSES: Did children omit obligatory relatives markers? Point to the fish that swims in the bowl. *Point to the fish swims in the bowl. Of the 17 children who produced subject relatives, only one child omitted obligatory relative makers, with an omission rate of 25%. FULL PROPOSITION CLAUSES: Did children omit obligatory complementizers? He wondered if Tigger brought a present for her. *He wondered Tigger brought a present for her. Of the 17 children who used wonder, two children omitted the obligatory complementizer if and one substituted that for if. Elmo asked if Horsey wanted candy. *Elmo asked Horsey wanted candy. Of the 9 children who used ask, two children omitted the obligatory complementizer if and one child substituted that for if. C. MELANIE SCHUELE, KAREN BARAKO ARNDT, ELIZABETH J. SPENCER and KATHRYN M. GUILLOT VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION ABSTRACT There has been limited investigation of complex syntax development in typically developing children and children with SLI. The purpose of this study was to explore the production of complex syntax using elicited tasks with typical preschoolers (n = 30). Elicited complex syntax tasks targeted five structures: infinitives, full propositional complements, wh-complements, and subject and object relatives. In the analysis of responses, of interest was the number of children within each age group who produced each target structure and the extent to which individual children produced multiple complex types. Additionally, analysis focused on the grammatical accuracy of the various complex syntax types. Infinitives and full propositional complements were more easily produced than the other complex types. Few children had difficulty with the grammatical structure of the complex syntax structures. Four-year-olds were more successful at producing complex syntax than three-year-olds. ELICITED LANGUAGE TASKS Small toys and pictures were used to elicit target structures. For each target utterance, a scenario was presented and a scripted verbal prompt was provided to obligate or guide the child to produce the desired complex syntax structure. Prompts included the main clause verb. Infinitival Complements This task, adapted from Eisenberg (2005), elicited six single-noun infinitives (e.g., Mickey wants to stand up) and eight two-noun infinitives (e.g, Mickey wants Goofy to swim). Complement-taking verbs included those frequently used by typical preschool children (Barako & Schuele, 2006): want, like, try, get, need, have, and additional verbs to elicit two-noun infinitives (Eisenberg, 2005): tell, force, ask, beg. Target: Mickey wants to stand up. Mickey and Goofy are playing school. Goofy is the teacher. Mickey raises his hand. Can I stand up? Mickey wants ~ You finish the story, Mickey ~ Subject Relative Clauses Object Relative Clauses This task, adapted from Crain and Thornton (1991), elicited 10 subject relatives (e.g., Point to the pig that is walking) and 10 object relatives (e.g., Point to the horse (that) the boy rides). For each target clause, the examiner presented two identical toys and performed an action on one toy. The examiner then asked the child to tell a blindfolded listener to point to a particular toy. Target: Point to the pig that is walking. Look. We have two pigs. These pigs look exactly the same. This pig is quiet but this pig is walking. We want her (blindfolded adult) to point to this pig (i.e., walking pig). Tell her, point to the pig ~ Point ~ Wh-Complements Full Propositional Complements In this task, four stories were acted out and within each story four or five target utterances were elicited. Thirteen full propositional complements were targeted with 10 complement-taking verbs: ask, forgot, guess, know, remember, say, see, tell, think, and wonder. Seven wh-complements were targeted with seven complement-taking verbs: ask, forgot, guess, know, remember, see, and wonder. Target: Elmo knows where the candy is. Look. Some candy. Here comes Elmo. I see some candy. Hey! I can’t find my candy. You tell the girl, Elmo knows~ You finish the story, Elmo~ Target: See if Horsey wants some candy. Elmo is leaving. Bye Elmo! Does Horsey want a piece of candy? The girl can find out. You tell the girl. See~ You finish the story, See~ This study was funded by NIH/NIDCD DC007329. CONTACT AUTHOR: [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS RESULTS METHODS The production of complex syntax emerges between the ages of two and three in typically developing children (Limber, 1973; Bloom, 1991). The methods to study complex syntax in typically developing preschool children have included diary studies (Limber, 1973), analysis of spontaneous language (e.g., Bloom, 1981; Diessel, 2004) and to a limited extent elicited language tasks (e.g., Hamburger & Crain, 1982). Complex syntax development can be difficult to study in spontaneous language samples alone. Even in a lengthy sample a child may produce insufficient tokens and types. When a child does not produce a particular complex syntax type in a spontaneous language sample, it is impossible to discern whether the child can not or did not produce the structure. If elicited language tasks are successful in compelling children to produce various complex types, elicited data can complement spontaneous data to explore the development of complex syntax in young children. The first purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of elicited language tasks to elicit five complex syntax types in preschool children. The complex syntax types included: infinitival complements, full propositional complements, wh-complements, subject relatives, and object relatives. The second purpose of the study was to describe the elicited production of complex syntax in preschool children. PARTICIPANTS • 30 three- and four-year-old preschool children • 15 boys, 15 girls • Mean age: 48 months (SD = 7.4) All children were administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (M = 112.2, SD = 15.3) and the Preschool Language Scale-4 (M = 118.3; SD = 13.0). Demographic information was available for 24 children. All children were Caucasian and the maternal education level for 12 children was graduate or professional degree and for the remainder college degree. We divided the children into four six-month age groups: 3;0 – 3;6 (n = 7 ), 3;7 – 3;11 (n = 7), 4;0 – 4;6 (n = 6), 4;7 – 4;11 (n = 9). DISCUSSION How many children in each age group produced each complex syntax structure? Across all children, infinitives and full propositional clauses were more frequently produced than other complex structures. Although children were least productive with relative clauses, nearly all children who produced relatives formulated subject relatives as well as object relatives. Only 20% of three-year-olds produced all five complex syntax structures whereas 53% of four-year-olds produced all five structures. The tasks were successful in eliciting all five types of complex syntax from the preschool children. There was an age effect observed with four-year-olds producing more complex syntax than three-year-olds. Subject relatives did not appear to be more difficult to produce than object relatives. There were only a few children who produced grammatical errors in the production of complex syntax utterances, consistent with prior reports (Diessel, 2004; Eisenberg & Cairns, 1994). Elicited complex syntax data can complement the exploration of complex syntax in spontaneous language data. Because elicited data is more easily gathered, the inclusion of elicited complex syntax tasks will allow for the study of complex syntax development in large samples of children. RESULTS METHODS PERCENT OF CHILDREN WHO PRODUCED TARGET Complex Syntax Type Group n Infinitive Full Prop Compl Wh- Compl Subject Relative Object Relative 3;0 – 3;6 7 100% 100% 57% 43% 43% 3;7 – 3;11 8 63% 75% 63% 38% 38% 4;0 – 4;6 6 100% 100% 100% 67% 67% 4;7 – 4;11 9 100% 89% 89% 78% 56% PRODUCTION OF COMPLEX TYPES BY CHILD Age Infinitive Full Prop Compl Wh- Compl Subject Relative Object Relative 3.0 ! ! ! 3.1 ! ! 3.3 ! ! ! ! ! 3.3 ! ! 3.3 ! ! ! 3.5 ! ! ! ! 3.5 ! ! ! ! ! n = 7 100% 100% 57% 43% 43% 3.6 ! ! 3.6 ! ! 3.7 ! ! 3.8 ! ! ! 3.8 ! ! ! 3.8 ! ! ! ! 3.9 ! 3.10 ! ! ! ! ! n = 8 63% 75% 63% 38% 38% 4.1 ! ! ! ! ! 4.1 ! ! ! 4.3 ! ! ! 4.3 ! ! ! ! ! 4.4 ! ! ! ! ! 4.5 ! ! ! ! ! n = 6 100% 100% 100% 67% 67% 4.6 ! ! ! ! ! 4.6 ! ! ! 4.8 ! ! ! ! 4.9 ! ! ! ! ! 4.10 ! ! 4.10 ! ! ! ! 4.11 ! ! ! 4.11 ! ! ! ! ! 4.11 ! ! ! ! ! n = 9 100% 89% 78% 78% 56% Preschoolers Production of Complex Syntax in Elicited Tasks C. MELANIE SCHUELE, KAREN BARAKO ARNDT, ELIZABETH J. SPENCER and KATHRYN M. GUILLOT VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Were grammatical errors evident incomplex syntax productions?
INFINITIVES: Did children omit infinitival to?Mickey wants to stand up.*Mickey wants stand up.
Of the 27 children who produced infinitives, fivechildren omitted infinitival to. Omissions ranged from8% to 25%.
SUBJECT RELATIVE CLAUSES: Did children omitobligatory relatives markers?
Point to the fish that swims in the bowl.*Point to the fish swims in the bowl.
Of the 17 children who produced subject relatives, onlyone child omitted obligatory relative makers, with anomission rate of 25%.
FULL PROPOSITION CLAUSES: Did children omitobligatory complementizers?
He wondered if Tigger brought a present for her.*He wondered Tigger brought a present for her.
Of the 17 children who used wonder, two childrenomitted the obligatory complementizer if and onesubstituted that for if.
Elmo asked if Horsey wanted candy.*Elmo asked Horsey wanted candy.
Of the 9 children who used ask, two children omittedthe obligatory complementizer if and one childsubstituted that for if.
Preschool Children’s Production of Infinitives, Relative Clauses,and Clausal Complements in Elicited Language Tasks
C. MELANIE SCHUELE, KAREN BARAKO ARNDT, ELIZABETH J. SPENCER and KATHRYN M. GUILLOT VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT
There has been limited investigation of complex syntax development intypically developing children and children with SLI. The purpose of thisstudy was to explore the production of complex syntax using elicitedtasks with typical preschoolers (n = 30). Elicited complex syntax taskstargeted five structures: infinitives, full propositional complements,wh-complements, and subject and object relatives. In the analysis ofresponses, of interest was the number of children within each agegroup who produced each target structure and the extent to whichindividual children produced multiple complex types. Additionally,analysis focused on the grammatical accuracy of the various complexsyntax types. Infinitives and full propositional complements were moreeasily produced than the other complex types. Few children haddifficulty with the grammatical structure of the complex syntaxstructures. Four-year-olds were more successful at producing complexsyntax than three-year-olds.
ELICITED LANGUAGE TASKSSmall toys and pictures were used to elicit target structures. For eachtarget utterance, a scenario was presented and a scripted verbalprompt was provided to obligate or guide the child to produce thedesired complex syntax structure. Prompts included the main clauseverb.
Infinitival ComplementsThis task, adapted from Eisenberg (2005), elicited six single-nouninfinitives (e.g., Mickey wants to stand up) and eight two-nouninfinitives (e.g, Mickey wants Goofy to swim). Complement-taking verbsincluded those frequently used by typical preschool children (Barako &Schuele, 2006): want, like, try, get, need, have, and additional verbs toelicit two-noun infinitives (Eisenberg, 2005): tell, force, ask, beg.
Target: Mickey wants to stand up.Mickey and Goofy are playingschool. Goofy is the teacher. Mickeyraises his hand. Can I stand up?Mickey wants ~ You finish the story,Mickey ~
Subject Relative ClausesObject Relative Clauses
This task, adapted from Crain and Thornton (1991), elicited 10 subjectrelatives (e.g., Point to the pig that is walking) and 10 object relatives(e.g., Point to the horse (that) the boy rides). For each target clause,the examiner presented two identical toys and performed an action onone toy. The examiner then asked the child to tell a blindfolded listenerto point to a particular toy.
Target: Point to the pig that is walking.Look. We have two pigs. These pigslook exactly the same. This pig is quietbut this pig is walking. We want her(blindfolded adult) to point to this pig(i.e., walking pig). Tell her, point tothe pig ~ Point ~
Wh-ComplementsFull Propositional Complements
In this task, four stories were acted out and within each story four orfive target utterances were elicited. Thirteen full propositionalcomplements were targeted with 10 complement-taking verbs: ask,forgot, guess, know, remember, say, see, tell, think, and wonder.Seven wh-complements were targeted with seven complement-takingverbs: ask, forgot, guess, know, remember, see, and wonder.
Target: Elmo knows where the candy is.Look. Some candy. Here comes Elmo.I see some candy. Hey! I can’t find mycandy. You tell the girl, Elmo knows~You finish the story, Elmo~
Target: See if Horsey wants some candy.Elmo is leaving. Bye Elmo! Does Horseywant a piece of candy? The girl can findout. You tell the girl. See~ You finish thestory, See~
This study was funded by NIH/NIDCD DC007329.
CONTACT AUTHOR: [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
RESULTS
METHODS
The production of complex syntax emerges between theages of two and three in typically developing children(Limber, 1973; Bloom, 1991). The methods to studycomplex syntax in typically developing preschoolchildren have included diary studies (Limber, 1973),analysis of spontaneous language (e.g., Bloom, 1981;Diessel, 2004) and to a limited extent elicited languagetasks (e.g., Hamburger & Crain, 1982). Complex syntaxdevelopment can be difficult to study in spontaneouslanguage samples alone. Even in a lengthy sample achild may produce insufficient tokens and types. When achild does not produce a particular complex syntax typein a spontaneous language sample, it is impossible todiscern whether the child can not or did not produce thestructure. If elicited language tasks are successful incompelling children to produce various complex types,elicited data can complement spontaneous data toexplore the development of complex syntax in youngchildren.
The first purpose of this study was to evaluate thesuccess of elicited language tasks to elicit five complexsyntax types in preschool children. The complex syntaxtypes included: infinitival complements, fullpropositional complements, wh-complements, subjectrelatives, and object relatives. The second purpose of thestudy was to describe the elicited production of complexsyntax in preschool children.
PARTICIPANTS• 30 three- and four-year-old preschool children• 15 boys, 15 girls• Mean age: 48 months (SD = 7.4)
All children were administered the Peabody PictureVocabulary Test-III (M = 112.2, SD = 15.3) and the PreschoolLanguage Scale-4 (M = 118.3; SD = 13.0). Demographicinformation was available for 24 children. All children wereCaucasian and the maternal education level for 12 childrenwas graduate or professional degree and for the remaindercollege degree. We divided the children into four six-monthage groups: 3;0 – 3;6 (n = 7 ), 3;7 – 3;11 (n = 7), 4;0 – 4;6(n = 6), 4;7 – 4;11 (n = 9).
DISCUSSION
How many children in each age group producedeach complex syntax structure?
Across all children, infinitives and full propositional clauses weremore frequently produced than other complex structures.
Although children were least productive with relative clauses,nearly all children who produced relatives formulated subjectrelatives as well as object relatives.
Only 20% of three-year-olds produced all five complex syntaxstructures whereas 53% of four-year-olds produced all fivestructures.
The tasks were successful in eliciting all five types ofcomplex syntax from the preschool children. There wasan age effect observed with four-year-olds producingmore complex syntax than three-year-olds. Subjectrelatives did not appear to be more difficult to producethan object relatives. There were only a few children whoproduced grammatical errors in the production ofcomplex syntax utterances, consistent with prior reports(Diessel, 2004; Eisenberg & Cairns, 1994). Elicitedcomplex syntax data can complement the exploration ofcomplex syntax in spontaneous language data. Becauseelicited data is more easily gathered, the inclusion ofelicited complex syntax tasks will allow for the study ofcomplex syntax development in large samples ofchildren.
RESULTSMETHODS
PERCENT OF CHILDREN WHO PRODUCED TARGET
Complex Syntax Type
Group n Infinitive Full Prop
Compl
Wh-
Compl
Subject
Relative
Object
Relative
3;0 – 3;6 7 100% 100% 57% 43% 43%
3;7 – 3;11 8 63% 75% 63% 38% 38%
4;0 – 4;6 6 100% 100% 100% 67% 67%
4;7 – 4;11 9 100% 89% 89% 78% 56%
PRODUCTION OF COMPLEX TYPES BY CHILD
Age Infinitive Full Prop
Compl
Wh- Compl
Subject Relative
Object Relative
3.0 ! ! !
3.1 ! !
3.3 ! ! ! ! !
3.3 ! !
3.3 ! ! !
3.5 ! ! ! !
3.5 ! ! ! ! !
n = 7 100% 100% 57% 43% 43%
3.6 ! !
3.6 ! !
3.7 ! !
3.8 ! ! !
3.8 ! ! !
3.8 ! ! ! !
3.9 !
3.10 ! ! ! ! !
n = 8 63% 75% 63% 38% 38%
4.1 ! ! ! ! !
4.1 ! ! !
4.3 ! ! !
4.3 ! ! ! ! !
4.4 ! ! ! ! !
4.5 ! ! ! ! !
n = 6 100% 100% 100% 67% 67%
4.6 ! ! ! ! !
4.6 ! ! !
4.8 ! ! ! !
4.9 ! ! ! ! !
4.10 ! !
4.10 ! ! ! !
4.11 ! ! !
4.11 ! ! ! ! !
4.11 ! ! ! ! !
n = 9 100% 89% 78% 78% 56%
Preschoolers Production of Complex Syntax in Elicited Tasks
C. MELANIE SCHUELE, KAREN BARAKO ARNDT, ELIZABETH J. SPENCER and KATHRYN M. GUILLOT VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
Related Documents
