Syntactic Criteria for Language

0 downloads 0 Views 505KB Size Report
recently, however, language testers and others have turned to pragmatic criteria fo- cussing ... using traditional surface criteria for referrals, while Group P received similar in- .... or gender; (8) reflexive pronouns; and (9) syntactic transpositions. The ..... MUMA, J. R., Language Handbook: Concepts, Assessment, Intervention.
Pragmatic Versus Morphological/ Syntactic Criteria for Language Referrals J a c k Damico and J o h n W. Oller, Jr.

Two methods of identifying language disordered children are examined. Traditional approaches require attention to relatively superficial morphological and surface syntactic criteria, such as, noun-verb agreement, tense marking, pluralization. More recently, however, language testers and others have turned to pragmatic criteria focussing on deeper aspects of meaning and communicative effectiveness, such as, general fluency, topic maintenance, specificity of referring terms. In this study, 54 regular K-5 teachers in two Albuquerque schools serving 1212 children were assigned on a roughly matched basis to one of two groups. Group S received in-service training using traditional surface criteria for referrals, while Group P received similar inservice training with pragmatic criteria. All referrals from both groups were reevaluated by a panel of judges following the state determined procedures for assignment to remedial programs. Teachers who were taught to use pragmatic criteria in identifying language disordered children identified significantly more children and were more often correct in their identification than teachers taught to use syntactic criteria. Both groups identified significantly fewer children as the grade level increased. T e a c h e r participation in the referral process has been advocated for m o r e than 20 years (Power, 1956) a n d has been discussed frequently (Ainsworth, 1965; A S H A , 1974; a n d Deal, McClain a n d Sudderth, 1976). As recently as J a n u a r y 1978, N o d a r discussed in this j o u r n a l the use o f teacher j u d g e m e n t s as a basis for identifying children with h e a r i n g loss. Results show that teachers are capable o f making reliable j u d g e m e n t s (Clauson a n d Kopatic, 1975) a n d i m p r o v i n g the overall effectiveness o f certain referral p r o c e d u r e s (Pickering a n d Dopheide, 1976). Moreover, extensive research in language testing demonstrates the utility o f subjective j u d g e m e n t s o f communicative effectiveness (Oiler, 1973; 1979; Spolsky, 1978; and Muma, 1978b). In this study, we focus on the criteria used by teachers to aid the clinician in identifying language d i s o r d e r e d children. A l t h o u g h the use o f teacher referrals was r e c o m m e n d e d by the American S p e e c h - L a n g u a g e - H e a r i n g Association m o r e than five years ago ( A S H A Task Force, 1974), disappointingly little i n f o r m a t i o n is available on precisely what teachers m i g h t be e n c o u r a g e d to look for in terms o f specific referral characteristics. Clauson and Kopatic (1975) Jack Damico is presently affiliated with the Albuquerque Public School System. Requests for reprints may be addressed to him at Emt Area Office, Albuquerque Public Schools, 2611 Eubank N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87112. John W. Oller, Jr. is an associate professor at the University of New Mexico (Albuquerque).

85

reported that teachers were able to correctly identify "language delayed" children with a high rate of success, but specific language characteristics of such children were not made explicit. Similarly, Picketing and Dopheide (1976) proposed that aides could be trained to screen children for language difficulties, but no information on particular criteria was offered. Where diagnostic language tests in speech-language pathology are used, or where specific remediation procedures are recommended, the emphasis is frequently on relatively superficial aspects of utterance-forms which rarely have a profound effect on the child's abifity to communicate (Baratz, 1969; Politzer, Hoover, and Brown, 1974; Oller, 1979). In fact, it is deeply distressing from a linguistic perspective that such an emphasis is very likely to result in the referral of children from certain non-majority language backgrounds who are quite normal in terms of language development (Labov, 1976; Wolfram and Christian, in press; D. K. Oiler, in press). Their only deviancy may be speaking a variety of English that differs from that spoken by the majority. Not only is there good reason to believe that by such surface oriented methods there will be a higher number of false alarms (where normal children are identified as disordered, and a probable high proportion of these being minority children), but there will also be a higher number of misses (where truly disordered children are overlooked by the screening methods). Current literature in language testing, psycholinguistics, and applied linguistics suggest that a disproportionate amount of attention has been directed to surface form at the expense of meaning (Oller, 1973; Abkarian, 1977; Spolsky, 1978). Developmental psychologists have also tended to refocus their attention from surface elements to embrace the broader and deeper aspects of meaning and communication (Bloom, 1976). In a discussion of "the ontogenesis of speech acts," Brunet (1975) offers an insightful and persuasive rationale for his preference for "a pragmatically oriented approach." His thinking accords well with that of Bates (1976), Muma (1978a), Oller and Perkins (1978), Rees and Shulman (1978), and Prutting (1979). In all these approaches, the emphasis is away from surface form and is focused on the efficiency with which meaning is conveyed between sources and audiences. Would there be a significantly larger number of referrals overall with a shift in attention from the surface forms of speech to the deeper aspects of meaning? Would this shift result in greater accuracy of referrals? How will the change in focus affect accuracies across different grade levels, if at all? 1 lit would have b e e n desirable to assess the differential effect o f a c h a n g e in m e t h o d for referrals across m a i n s t r e a m c h i l d r e n a n d children f r o m ethnic b a c k g r o u n d s . However, this was not possible d u e to the fact that the children in t h e schools s t u d i e d are nearly all f r o m h o m e s w h e r e a majority variety o f English is used. It is to be h o p e d , however, that f u t u r e study will e x a m i n e t h e probable discriminatory effects on ethnic minority c h i l d r e n o f referral m e t h o d s that focus on s u r f a c e f o r m . 86

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchooL~

XI

85-94

April 1980

Method T h e subject p o p u l a t i o n for this study consisted of 1212 children in two middle class suburban schools in the A l b u q u e r q u e area. T h e ethnic composition o f the schools was p r e d o m i n a n t l y anglo and nearly all children were native speakers o f the majority variety o f English. F r o m the pool o f 54 teachers in the two schools, two g r o u p s were f o r m e d . T h e only a priori criterion for g r o u p matching was g r a d e taught. Otherwise the assignment to g r o u p s was r a n d o m . H o w e v e r , after the fact c o m p a r i s o n o f teachers o n criteria o f age, teaching experience, level o f e d u c a t i o n and n u m b e r o f child r e n taught, revealed a close match across groups. (See Table i.) TABLE 1. Means and ranges of the two experimental groups in age and years of experience, educational data, number of children in classes, and number of teachers assigned to each group.

Characteri~tk"

Age Mean Range Teaching Experience Mean Range Level of Education BA BA 15 hours BA 45 hours MA Number of Children Taught Total Mean Number of Teachers

Group P (Pragmatic Focus)

Group S (SurJace Focus)

45.57 71-25

44.00 60-22

15.17 40-02

13.56 38-01

5 7 5 10

8 5 4 10

604 22.37 27

608 22.51 27

G r o u p S received in-service training in the use o f traditional morphological and syntactic characteristics frequently used in c u r r e n t language testing p r o c e d u r e s (Kirk, McCarthy, a n d Kirk, 1968; Lee, 1969; Carrow, 1973; 1974) and remediation m e t h o d s ( C o u g h r a n and Liles, 1976; Fokes, 1976) in speech-language pathology. Referral criteria for G r o u p S included f r e q u e n t errors in any o f the following: (l) n o u n - v e r b agreement; (2) possessive inflections; (3) verb tenses; (4) auxiliary verbs; (5) irregular verbs; (6) irregular plurals; (7) p r o n o u n case o r g e n d e r ; (8) reflexive p r o n o u n s ; and (9) syntactic transpositions. T h e teachers were given examples f r o m the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d tests and explanaDAMICO AND OLLER, JR:

Language Referrals

87

tions were offered for each characteristic. Taped samples of child speech illustrating the errors in question were presented and discussed. Group P received in-service training that was similar in all respects except the criteria o f interest were pragmatic 2 in nature. Such characteristics are known to have greater impact on the total effectiveness of communication attempts (Evola, Mamer and Levty, in press; Bacheller, in press; and Hendricks, et al, in press). Further, they tend to be strongly interrelated with each other. Referral criteria for Group P included the following: (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(6) (7)

linguistic nonfluency--the

child's speech production is disrupted due to a disproportionately high number of repetitions, unusual pauses and excessive use of hesitation forms; revisions--speech production is broken-up by numerous ,false starts or self-interruptions. The child revises what he has already said as if he keeps coming to dead ends in a maze; delays before responding--attempts at communication initiated by others are followed by pauses of inordinate length; nonspec~ic vocabulary---in this instance we are concerned with the use of deictic expressions such as "this" or "that," "then," "he," "over there," and the like when no antecedents have been provided by the speaker and when the listener has no way of knowing what is being referenced. Also, children displaying this characteristic will tend to use generic terms such as "thing," "stuff," "these" and "those" when more specific referring expressions would seem to be required; inappropriate responses--these are easy to spot but difficult to explain. It is as though the child were operating on an independent discourse agenda--not attending to the prompts or probes of the adult or others; poor topic maintenance--the child makes rapid and inappropriate changes in the topic without providing transitional clues to the listener; needfor repetition--multiple repetitions are requested without any indication of improvement in comprehension.

Participating teachers were not informed of the experimental issues. They saw the division into groups as a practical necessity motivated by the number of teachers to receive the in-service training and the availability of staff and space. Four 45 minute sessions were conducted by the first author on four SOur definition of pragmatics is intentionally broad. For extensive discussion see Oiler, 1973; 1979; Bates, 1976; and Muma, 1978a. The latter defines pragmatics as "psychosocial dynamics of language use." We are particularly concerned with the pragmatic mapping of utterances onto experiential contexts. The temporal aspect of such mappings is stressed in criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. Criterion 4 is especially concerned with the connecting of specific utterance forms to known spatio-temporal coordinates in ongoing experience and the categorical specificity of referring terms. Criteria 5, 6 and 7 also encompass, somewhat loosely, strategies of interaction. 88 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

XI

85-94

April 1980

separate days. At School A, o n e session was held for G r o u p P a n d o n e for G r o u p S. This p r o c e d u r e was r e p e a t e d for School B. Exactly one week after each session a 35 m i n u t e follow-up was c o n d u c t e d . T h e r e were f o u r tbllowu p sessions on f o u r s e p a r a t e days. T h e s e were held to r e m i n d teachers o f the criteria for referrals a n d to answer any questions. Accuracy Criterion. As referrals were received (during the a c a d e m i c year 1977-78), an objective evaluation was c o n d u c t e d by a clinician holding the Certificate o f Clinical C o m p e t e n c e (the first author). T h e s e evaluations conf o r m e d to the s t a n d a r d testing p r o c e d u r e s specified in the Plan for the Delivery of Special Education Services in New Mexico: Regulations (1976). This plan describes a set o f objective tests that m u s t be a d m i n i s t e r e d a n d specific guidelines for the classification o f a child as " l a n g u a g e d i s o r d e r e d " by the Educational Appraisal a n d Review C o m m i t t e e (Appendix). C o m p l e t e d evaluations were discussed by the Educational Appraisal a n d Review C o m m i t t e e , consisting o f two s p e e c h - l a n g u a g e pathologists (the first a u t h o r a n d his supervisor), two special education teachers, a counselor, a nurse, a n d the school principal. T o insure objectivity c o n c e r n i n g the accuracy o f r e f e r r a l s d u r i n g this session, the first a u t h o r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n was strictly limited to r e p o r t i n g scores o n the objective tests r e q u i r e d by the state. (See the Appendix.) Only this i n f b r m a t i o n was used by the c o m m i t t e e to evaluate r e f e r r a l s both f r o m G r o u p P a n d G r o u p S (following the state guidelines) to d e t e r m i n e in each case w h e t h e r or not the r e f e r r e d students should be placed in a p r o g r a m tbr r e m e d i a t i o n .

Results T h e contrasts between g r o u p s a n d across g r a d e s were e x a m i n e d by a two-way analysis o f variance (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, S t e i n b r e n n e r , a n d Bent, 1975). As can be seen in T a b l e 2, the n u m b e r o f referrals fell o f f with inTABLE2. Number of"referrals, number correct, and percent of accuracy by grade between the two experimental groups.

Grade Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Total

Group P (Pragmaticallyoriented) Group S (Surface oriented) Number of Number Number of Number R@'rrals Correct Accuracy Relerrals Correct Accuracy 9 14 10 5 7 3 48

7 13 8 5 5 2 40

78% 93c~ 80% 100% 71% 67% 83~

12 8 8 2 0 1 31

DAMICO AND OLLER, JR:

7 6 4 1 0 1 19

58% 75% 50% 50% 100c~ 61%

Language Referrals

89

creasing grade level. Presumably this is due to a tendency to identify language disordered children relatively early in the school program. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that language disorders may be harder to spot at the higher grade levels. The data in Table 2 were subjected to a two-way analysis o f variance. The pragmatically oriented group referred significantly more children (p < 0.03) and the decrease in referrals with increase in grade level was also significant (p < 0.001). The interaction between group and grade was not significant (see Table 3). T h e number o f correct referrals was also subjected to a twoway analysis o f variance. Again Group P made more correct referrals (p < 0.001) and the referrals decreased with the increased grade level (p < 0.001). These analysis o f variance results are presented in Table 4. The interaction again was not significant. It is interesting to note that Group P TABLE 3. Two-way classical analysis of" variance with number of referrals by group and by

grade.

Source of Varkztion Main efi~ccts Group Grade 2-Way interactions Group Grade

Explained

Szgr@. ofF (p < value given)

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

51.70 5.35 46.35

6 1 5

8.62 5.35 9.27

8.80 5.47 9.47

0.03

6.61 6.61

5 5

1.32 1.32

1.35 1.35

0.26 0.26

58.31

11

5.30

5.42

Residual

41.12

42

0.98

Total

99.43

53

1.88

TABLE 4. Two-way (lassical analysis of variance with number of correct referrals by group and hy grade.

Source of Variation Main Effects Group

Grade 2-Way interactions

Group

Grade

d/

Mean Square

F

32.595 8.167 24.429

6 t 5

5.433 8.167 4.886

9.04 13.58 8.13

0.001

2.692 2.692

5 5

0.538 0.538

0.90 0.90

0.49 0.49

5.34

Explained

35.287

11

3.208

Residual

25.250

42

0.601

Total

60.537

53

1.142

90

Sign!/. o/'F (P < value given)

Sum of Squares

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

XI

85-94

April 1980

referred more children above the second grade level and were more accurate in their referrals. Group P referred 15 children (grades 3-5) with an accuracy o f 80% while Group S referred only 3 children from the same grades with an accuracy of only 67%. Overall, the accuracy of Group P was 83% as agamst 61% for Group S (Table 2). These figures may underestimate the contrast because Group S not only had a higher rate of false alarms (referrals of children who were in fact normal), but may have failed to identify children who were language disordered? Group P referred 48 children. Of these referrals, 40 were judged to be correct. Group S had the same number of children and the same nmnber of teachers but made only 31 referrals, with 19 judged to be correct. If we assume that there were approximately equal numbers of disordered children in the classes taught by Group S teachers (608 children) as in the classes taught by Group P teachers (604 children), it is reasonable to suppose that Group S teachers overlooked about 21 children who really had language difficulties. The pragmatic criteria for referrals seems to be superior for identifying language disordered children. Teachers were able to identify language disordered children more readily by using these pragmatic criteria than they can by using morphological/syntactic criteria. This difference is not because the teachers were untrained in linguistics. Results from many studies (see especially the 24 empirical studies reported in Oller and Perkins, in press; and tor earlier references, see Oller, 1976; and the bibliography to Spolsky, 1978) show that even persons who are untrained in linguistics make less reliable judgements about discrete points of surfhce form than they do about more global aspects o f communicative effect. Muma (1978b) has suggested that the best screening procedure is the informed judgement of classroom teachers. Assuming that he is correct, the results reported here would suggest that such judgements are more apt to be correct in cases where teachers are encouraged to look for pragmatic characteristics pertaining to communicative effects rather than morphological/ syntactic errors. This finding is not only consistent with the research on pragmatic language testing, but it is also supported by the intuitive reactions of teachers to the pragmatically oriented criteria. When these were being discussed during the in-service training sessions, teachers reacted both verbally and non-verbally indicating that they had already noticed some of the

aln general we ohject to the use of the terms "normal" a n d "disordered" in this and similar contexts. However, we are r e f e r r i n g h e r e to the widely institutionalized practice o f making this differentiation in a quite practical sense. We realize that many o f the children identified as "disordered" may be as n o r m a l as can be. It is, in fact, in the hope of appropriately limiting the use of these terms that this whole study is conducted.

DAMICO AND OLLER, JR:

Language Referrals

91

p r a g m a t i c d i f f i c u l t i e s in c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n . N o s u c h n a t u r a l i n s i g h t was i n d i c a t e d in r e s p o n s e to t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s u r f a c e l i n g u i s t i c c r i t e r i a .

References ABKARIAN,G. G., The changing face of a discipline: Isn't it "romantic"? J. Speech Hearing Dis., 42, 422-435 (1977). AINSWORTH, S., The speech clinician in public schools: "Participant" or "separatist"? Asha, 7, 495-503 (1965). AMERICAN SPEECH AND HEARING ASSOCIATION,Standards and Guidelines.fbr Comp*~hensive Language, Speech and Hearing Programs in the Schools. Washington, D.C.: American Speech and Hearing Association (1974). BACHELLER, F., Communicative ef'fectiveness as predicted by judgements of the severity of learner errors in dictations. In Oller and Perkins (in press). BARATZ, J., A bidialectal task for determining language proficiency in economically disadvantaged Negro children. Child Development, 40, 889-901 (1969). BATES, E., Language and Context: the cu:quisition q/pragrnatics. New York: Academic Press (1976). BLOOM, L., Language development. In R. Wardtlaugh and H. D. Brown (Eds.) A Survey of Applied Linguistics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (1976). BRUNER,J. S., The otogenesis of speech acts.J. Child Lang., 2, 1-19 (1975). CARROW, E., Test q/Auditory Comprehension of Language. Austin: Learning Concepts (1973). CARROW, E., Carrow Elicited Language Inventory. Austin: Learning Concepts (1974). CLAUSON, G. M. and KOPATIC, N. J., Teacher attitudes and knowledge of remedial speech programs. Lang. Speech Hearing Serv. Schools, 6, 206-211 (1975). COUC,HRAN, L. and LILES, B. Z., Developmental Syntax Program. Austin: Learning Concepts (1976). DEAL, R. E., MCCLAIN, B. and SUDDERTH,J. F., Identification, evaluation, therapy and follow-up for children with vocal nodules in a public school setting.J. Speech Hearing DIS., 41, 390-398 (1976). EVOLA,J., MAMER,E. and LENTZ, B., Discrete point versus global scoring for cohesive devices. In Oller and Perkins (in press). FOKES, J., Fokes Sentence Builder. Boston: Teaching Resources (1976). HENDRICKS, D., SCHOLZ, G., SPURLING,R., JOHNSON, M. and VANDENBURG,L., Oral proficiency testing in an intensive English language program. In Oller and Perkins (in press). KIRK, S., MCCARTHY,J. and KRIK, The Illinois Te~stqfPsycholinguistic Abilities (rev. ed.). Urbana: University of lllinos Press (1968). LAnov, W., Systematically misleading data from test questions. Urban Review, 9, 146-169 (1976). LEE, L., Northwestern Syntax Screening Tests. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press (1969). MUMA, J. R., Language Handbook: Concepts, Assessment, Intervention. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc. (1978a). MUMA, J. R., Language Assessment and Intervention: IEPing it. Workshop presented to the Oral Language, Speech and Hearing Specialists of Albuquerque Public Schools (1978t)). NEW MEXICO STATE DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION,A Plan for the Delivery of Special Education Serv iees in New Mexh'o: Regulatiom. Santa Fe: New Mexico State Department of Education (1976). NIL, N. H., HULL, C. H., JENKINS,J. G., STIENBRENNER,K. and BENT, D. H., Statistical Packagefor the Social Sciences. (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill (1975). NODAR, R. H., Teactler identification of elementary school children with hearing loss. Lang. Speech Hearing Serv. Schools, 9, 24-28 (1978). OLLER, D. K., Phonological theory and communication disorders: The role of non-standard language or dialect. Symposium paper for the American Association of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, California, November 1978, in press. Ot.LER, J. W., Pragmatic language testing. Language Sciences, 28, 7-12 (1973). OLLER, .J.W., Language Testing. In R. Wardhaugh and H. D. Brown (Eds.) Survey of Applied Linguisties. Ann Artxn': University of Michigan Press (1976). OLt.ER, J. w. arid PERKINS, K., Language in Education: re.sting the tests. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House (1978). 92 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchooL~

XI

85-94

April 1980

OLLER, J. w. and PERKINS,K., Research m Language Te.sting. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, in press. OLLER. J. W., Langnage Tests at School: A Pragmatic Approach. London: Longman (1979). PlCKERING, M. and DOPHEIDE, W., Training aides to screen children tot speech and language problems. Lang. Speech Hearing Serv. Schools, 7, 236-241 (1976). POLITZER, R. L., HOOVER, M. R. and BROWN, D., A test of proficiency in black standard and non-standard speech, TESOL Quarterly, 8, 27-35 (1974). POWER, M. H., What makes an effective public school speech therapist?J. Speech Hearing Di,~., 21,461-467 (1956). PRUTTIN(;,C. A., Process/pras/ses/n: the action of moving torward from one point to another on the way to completion..]. Speech Hearing Di,~., 44, 3-30 (1979). REES, N. S. and SHULMAN, M., I don't understand what you mean by comprehension.J. Speech Hearing Dis., 43, 208-219 (1978). SPOLSKY, B. Advances in Language Te.stiag: Series 2, Approache.s to Language Testing. Papers in applied linguistics, Center for Applied Lingnistics, Arlington, Virginia (1978). WOLFRAM, W. and CHRISTIAN, D., On the application of sociolinguistic information: test evaluation and dialect differences in Appalachia. In T. Shopen (Ed.) Variution in ttu~Structure and Use of English. New York: Winthrop, in press. Received January 31, 1979 Accepted September 27, 1979

Appendix State mandated procedure .for pl~u'ement of childre~ into language alL,ordered remediation program.~ as speckled t~, the Plan fi>r the Deliver), of Specml Education Services in New Mexico: Regulation.s (1976). 5.1

Definition

5.2

d. Language disurder--a disability in verbal learning resulting in markedly impaired ability to acquire, use. or comprehend spoken .and/or written language where no significant degree of sensory or motor incapacity, mental retardation ur emotional maladjustment is present as the primary disabling condition.

5.3

Required Evaluation Data

5.3.1

Screening a. Hearing b. Vision (near, far and color discrimination)

5.t4.2 Case History a. Educational b. Family (in(lusive of language dominance uf the home) c. Medical information 5.3.3

Educational Assessment by qualified persunnel d. Language disorder --individual intelligence test (one required) --appropriate Wechsler Intelligence Scale --Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale --Leiter International PertbJ'mance Scale --education achievement (une required) --Peabody Individual Achievement Test --Wide Range Achievement Test DAmCO AXD OLLER, JR: Language Rejerrats

93

5.4 5.4.3

--language assessment (receptive and expressive vocabulary, auditory discrimination, auditory memory, understanding and expression of syntax, and conversation speech) [Only one of the following is required by law, but two were administered to each child depending on age level. A spontaneous language sample was also obtained and analyzed by Developmental Sentence Scoring.] --Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities --Northwestern Syntax Screening Test --Utah Test of Language Development --Detroit Test of Learning Aptitude --Assessment of Children's Language Comprehension --Boehm Tests of Basic Concepts Analyzing the data for Education Needs A language disorder is considered significant only when the language process and academic test results are below the student's chronological and mental age expectancy.

94 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

XI

85-94

April 1980