Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

“Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome Barbara Schmiedtová Peter Indefrey Monique Flecken, Neeltje Verstegen Peter.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "“Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome Barbara Schmiedtová Peter Indefrey Monique Flecken, Neeltje Verstegen Peter."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 “Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome Barbara Schmiedtová Peter Indefrey Monique Flecken, Neeltje Verstegen Peter Hagoort Dieke Lagers-vanHaselen & colleagues from Rotterdam Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Dept. of Neuroscience, July 14, 2005

3 2 Outline I.Recapitulation of project’s goals II.Populations - examples: chat format III.Coding procedures - examples of coding categories IV.Results - comparison to English results V.Discussion

4 3 General research question How general intellectual impairment with a specific genetic basis may affect the process of language acquisition and narrative development?

5 4 Focus on Narratives typical development –morphosyntactic structures acquired by age 5 (e.g. Gretsch 2001, Bowerman 1992, Slobin 1985) BUT –application of morphosyntactic forms in discourse, that is considering information & temporal structure, much later (Halm 2005, age 14)

6 5 Dissociation between language and cognition Williams syndrome –distinct behavioral phenotype (Bellugi et at. 2000, 1999) –mild to moderate retardation: IQ 55 (rarely reaching above 80) –productive language skills preserved (in contrast to other genetic syndromes with mental retardation, e.g. Down Syndrome) –extremely social and outgoing personality

7 6 Populations Patients Williams syndrome (N= 51) Pseudo-Williams(N=8) Control groups Typically developing children (N=49) - IQ matched sample: 5-6 year olds Adults (N=72) - Age matched sample: year olds

8 7 Transcription & Coding Patients: 2460 propositions Adults:4032 propositions Children:2254 propositions Total:8746 propositions

9 8 Coding procedures coding scheme (Reilly et al. 2004, 1998) –4 domains: 1.the overall story length 2.grammatical competence 3.narrative skills (episodic & thematic) 4.evaluation devices

10 9 1. Story Length In general, narratives vary in length => number of propositions a proposition = predicate and its arguments Coding criteria: 1. Same subject? 2. Two separate sentences? 3.Do two clauses realize one/two events?

11 10 Number of propositions - examples One proposition “De jongen kruipt in de boom om te zien …..” (prop1) Two propositions “ De volgende ochtend zien ze dus (prop1) dat de kikker weg is.” (prop 2)

12 11 2. Grammatical Competence A) Morphological Errors, e.g. (27 categories in total) Errors in pronouns (*hem heeft de kikker gevonden) Omissions of auxiliaries and/or verbs (*kikker weggelopen) Verb tense (*toen loopt…) Omission of determiners and gender errors (*het jongetje, die…) Noun plurals (*de bijs) Number marking (*de jongen en de hond loopt) Prepositional errors (*roepen achter) Omission of ‘er’ / ‘te’ Word order errors Omission of verbs/ non-existing words / too many words

13 12 2. Gram. Competence - cont’ B) Occurrences of complex syntax Coordinate sentences (maar, en, of) Adverbial sentences (toen, want) Verb complements (zien dat + X, proberen te + V, beginnen te + V) Relative clauses Passives

14 13 3. Narrative skills Thematic (0-4) –Maintenance of story theme Frog missing & boy looking for him (0-2) Theme reiterated throughout the story 0 - no additional mentions; 2 - multiple additional mentions

15 14 3. Narrative skills – cont’ Episodic (0-8) –Basic components of the story 1. Settings 2. Instantiation 3. – 7. The five main search episodes 8. The story’s resolution

16 15 4. Evaluation devices 1.Cognitive inferences (“De jongen denkt …”) 2.Social engagement (“Oooh, wat gebeurt er nou weer?”) 3.Affective states and/or behaviors (“De jongen mist zijn kikker, wat zielig!”) 4.Intensifiers + repetitions (“De jongen roept heel erg hard”) 5.Indication of certainty/uncertainty (“Misschien zit de kikker wel in die boom”)

17 16 Analyses Comparisons –Williams syndrome (WMS) vs. typically developing children (TD) vs. adults (AD) –In some cases Pseudo-WMS subjects included –Dutch (WMS vs. TD) & English (WMS vs. TD) Compensation for the length of the story –Number of countable categories divided by number of propositions

18 17 English Data Set Reilly et al., Brain and Language (88), 2004, –Main focus on development in children –3 different age groups –Comparisons SLI vs. TD WMS vs. TD SLI vs. TD FL (unilateral focal brain lesions) vs. TD SLI vs. FL

19 18 1. Length of Story: number of propositions * p <.05 English Data Set: no difference between TD vs. WMS ENG  NL

20 19 2. Grammatical skills: morphological errors p <.05 * English Data Set: strong difference between TD vs. WMS ENG  NL

21 20 2. Grammatical skills: complex syntax p <.05 * ENG  NL English Data Set: strong difference between TD vs. WMS

22 21 3. Narrative structure: Theme Maintenance p <.05 * English Data Set: strong difference between TD vs. WMS ENG  NL

23 22 3. Narrative structure: Story components p <.05 * * English Data Set: strong difference between TD vs. WMS ENG  NL

24 23 4. Evaluation devices p <.05 * * English Data Set: strong difference between TD vs. WMS ENG  NL

25 24 Summary: Dutch vs. English WMS No differences –Nr. of propositions –Grammatical competence Morphological errors Complex syntax –Narrative skills Story components Differences –Narrative skills Story maintenance WMS groups together with TD children Age related?

26 25 Dutch WMS: age groups

27 26 Dutch WMS: Age & Theme maintenance p <.05 * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older *

28 27 Dutch WMS: Age & Story components * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older * p <.05

29 28 Dutch WMS:Age & Number of propositions * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older * p <.05

30 29 Dutch WMS: Age & Evaluation Devices * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older * p <.05

31 30 Dutch WMS: No changes with Age WMS ”weak“ points –Grammatical competence In all age groups, a very high number of morphological errors Complex syntax: stable number of syntactic structures (=> no increase in complexity when the story length goes up with age!)

32 31 Summary: age in WMS Developmental changes in WMS: Critical period between the age of 12 and 19 Changes in Maintenance of Theme - better Story length – stories longer (BUT not more complex) Evaluation Devices – fewer

33 32 Dutch WMS: Age & Blokpatronen (BP) * young vs. older; n.s. young vs. middle & middle vs. older * p <.05

34 33 Dutch WMS : Age & Boston Naming Test (BNT) * p <.05 * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older

35 34 Dutch WMS:Age & Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) * p <.05 * young vs. middle, young vs. older; n.s. middle vs. older

36 35 Summary: development in Dutch WMS & other tests Development in all three investigated tests Blokpatronen Boston Naming Test Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

37 36 Future plans More correlations between the Frog- story-measurements & other tests Investigation diversity in each category (token/type ratio)

38 37 THANK YOU!


Download ppt "“Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome Barbara Schmiedtová Peter Indefrey Monique Flecken, Neeltje Verstegen Peter."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google