1 / 37

“Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome

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

usoa
Download Presentation

“Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Kikker, waar ben je?” Narratives in Dutch speakers with Williams syndrome Barbara SchmiedtováPeter IndefreyMonique Flecken, Neeltje VerstegenPeter HagoortDieke Lagers-vanHaselen & colleagues from Rotterdam Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Dept. of Neuroscience, July 14, 2005

  2. Outline • Recapitulation of project’s goals • Populations - examples: chat format • Coding procedures- examples of coding categories • Results- comparison to English results • Discussion

  3. General research question How general intellectual impairment with a specific genetic basis may affect the process oflanguage acquisitionandnarrative development?

  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)

  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

  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: 15-18 year olds

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

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

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

  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)

  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

  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

  13. 3. Narrative skills • Thematic (0-4) • Maintenance of story theme • Frog missing & boy looking for him (0-2) • Theme reiterated throughout the story0 - no additional mentions;2 - multiple additional mentions

  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

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

  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

  17. English Data Set • Reilly et al., Brain and Language (88),2004, 229 - 247 • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  25. Dutch WMS: age groups

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

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

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

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

  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!)

  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

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

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

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

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

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

  37. THANK YOU!

More Related