Word Concept of Illiterates and Low-literates: Worlds Apart?

1. Word Concept of Illiterates and Low-literates: Worlds Apart? Liesbeth Onderdelinden epm.onderdelinden@inter.nl.net Radboud University Nijmegen The Netherlands Sponsored by SNUF (Nijmegen University Fund)

2. Word concept • Awareness of the word as a linguistic unit demonstrated by the ability to isolate words in a stream of spoken language Tests: - sentence segmentation e.g. Where is mother? - listen to a story and repeat the last word when the narrator pauses e.g. There is not enough food … anymore.

3. Results of previous research among children • Developmental progression (Karpova; Papandropoulou & Sinclair; Downing & Oliver; Fox & Routh; Edwards & Kirkpatrick) • Children under 7 generally no clear word concept (Karpova; Holden & MacGinitie; Downing & Oliver; Ehri; Edwards & Kirkpatrick) • Increase in metalinguistic knowledge around 7 or 8 years (Papandropoulou & Sinclair; Edwards & Kirkpatrick) • Open class words (e.g. nouns and verbs) were better recognized as individual words than closed class words (e.g. prepositions and articles) (Papandropoulou & Sinclair; Ehri; Holden & MacGinitie)

4. Karmiloff-Smith et al. (1996) introduced an on-line task Results: 4-year-olds scored 75.3 % correct 5-year-olds scored 96.2 % correct Conclusion: even young children of 4 and 5 years old are able to isolate words in a meaningful context This study was replicated by Kurvers & Uri (2006) Results: 4-year olds scored 26.6% correct 5-year-olds scored 26.6% correct Conclusion: literacy may play a role in the development of a child’s word concept Two studies among 4- and 5-year-old children compared

5. Hypotheses of the present study • Low-literates perform better than illiterates • Open class words (e.g. nouns and verbs) are better recognized than closed class words (e.g. articles and prepositions)

6. 15 illiterates: No education in native country Not able to read and write Speaking skills at least A1 (CEF) 15 low-literates: No education in native country Became literate in NL Speaking skills at least A1 (CEF) Approx. 2 years DL2 education in NL Participants: 30 adult L2 learners

7. Language background • L1: different languages, but mostly: • Moroccan Arabic (6) • Berber (7) • Somali (8) • L2: Dutch

8. Instruments • Reading task: • illiterates: a few easy words • low-literates: a small text about which two questions were asked • Word awareness task: listen to a story and repeat the last word when the narrator paused • 32 target words: • 16 open class words (e.g. verbs, nouns and adjectives) • 16 closed class words (e.g. articles and prepositions)

9. Procedure word awareness task A short practice story with 6 open class target words: • no explanation of what a word is • feedback on an incorrect answer • no explanatory details This task was administered to 14illiterates and 15low-literates

10. Berber folk story about a man and his seven daughters One day his new … wife said: ‘There is not enough food … any more.’ Then she told everything … to her son.

11. % correct by group and word class

12. Test difference between both groups

13. % correct by group and word type

14. Comparison of word types

15. Answer categories (1) : Correct answer: e.g. nieuwe (new) in the sentence: “Op een dag zei zijn nieuwe …” (One day his new …”) Incorrect: • Multiword answer: e.g. niet genoeg eten not enough food • Anticipation: e.g. vrouw instead of nieuwe wife instead of new in the sentence: “Op een dag zei zijn nieuwe …” “One day said his new …” • Single syllable: e.g. leen(instead of alleen) lone (instead of alone)

16. Answer categories (2): • Elision (resyllabification): adding the last consonant of the preceding word to the target word e.g. in the sentence: Hij nam ook… giving “mook” as target word instead of “ook” He took also… • Non-target single word: e.g.genoeginstead of hout enough instead of wood in the sentence: “Toen ze genoeg hout…” “When they enough wood...” • No response: I don’t know

17. Error types

19. Comparison Karmiloff-Smith et al. and Kurvers & Uri • The illiterates were not nearly as good as the English children • The illiterates performed better than the 4- and 5-year-old Dutch and Norwegian children

20. Possible reason for gap in performance between English children and adult L2 learners • (Lower) middle class background of the children and hence their familiarity with printed materials

21. Reasons for difference between the Dutch and Norwegian children and the illiterates • the illiterates are proficient L1 speakers • the illiterates had learnt an L2 • the illiterates participated in an L2 course and were therefore probably more focused on language • maybe the teacher had just discussed one or more of the target words (hence better recognized)

22. Comparison with Karmiloff et al. and Kurvers & Uri as to open and closed class words Present study shows significant difference in performance on open and closed class words (open class words were better isolated) Possible reasons: • L2 learners first focus on open class words • Ceiling effect among English children • Poor performance of Dutch and Norw. children

23. Conclusions • On all categories low-literates perform significantly better than illiterates • Two years of literacy education cause an increase in performance of 20% • Literacy is an important stimulating factor in the development of word awareness

24. References • Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M. & Cuckle, P. (1996). Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: representing and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word. Cognition, 58, 197-219. • Kurvers, J. & Uri, H. (2006) Metalexical Awareness: Development, Methodology or Written Language? A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 4, 353-367.