The Association of Phonological
Disorders and Syntactic Disorders
-
A Study of Mandarin-speaking Children
音韻障礙與句法障礙的關連性研究
指導老師：張顯達 研 究 生：許馨仁 台灣大學語言學研究所
Developmental Phonological Disorders
Definition
-those who have phonological problems but without evident causal origins such as speech
problems secondary to mental retardation or cleft palate, yet their speech is often hard to understand (Grunwell 1991).
Phonological Disorders
“Specific phonological disorders” (Grunwell
1991)
Coexistence of impairments in phonology and
other aspects of language such as syntax and morphosyntax (e.g. Faircloth & Faircloth 1970; Leonard 2000)
Association
-1 Faircloth & Faircloth (1970); Panagos &
Prelock (1982)
Spontaneous speech
Production errors: sentences > isolated words control complexity in phonology and syntax
Association
-2
Merino (1983)
Morphosyntactic deficits often co-occur with
impaired phonology
Leonard (1989)
phonetic feature: short duration & unstressed
Association
-3
Bishop (1997)
causal relationship
source: receptive side of phonological
Research Questions
Q1:
Do children with phonological disorders
differ from those with phonologic-syntactic
disorders in their phonology?
Q2:
What dimension of phonological capacity
or tests could best distinguish the two groups?
Q3:
What syntactic problems are prone to
Phonological Disordered Subjects
Children with phonological disorders 34 children from three hospitals Age range: 5; 0~6;11
With developmental phonological disorders
Language ability
Preschool Language Disorders Test (Lin & Lin 1993)
& Language Disorder Test for School Ages
Normally Developing Controls
Normally developing controls 31 children from four kindergartens age-matched group
younger group
Language ability
Preschool Language Disorders Test (Lin & Lin 1993)
& Language Disorder Test for School Ages
PPVT-R & MLU
PPVT-R
LZY (5
th)and GWZ (9
th)
Subjects
Table 1 Subjects in Each Group
Groups Mean Age
Age Range
MLUw Girl Boy Total
Phonological Disorders (PD) 69.70 5;1-6;9 2.72 14 6 20 Phonologic-Syntactic Disorders *(PSD) 71.64 5;0-6;11 2.47 9 5 14 Age 6 (NL6) 71.94 5;11-6;1 3.28 7 9 16 Age 5 (NL5) 59.87 4;11-5;1 3.09 9 8 15
Tasks: Set I
-Phonological capacity
Set 1 Language ability
1. Picture Naming Task Phonemic inventory
2. New Word Imitation Task & New Word Discrimination
Imitation and discrimination of minimal word pairs
Tasks: Set II
Set 2 Language Ability
1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without
-Memory capacity
Tasks: Set III
-Morphosyntactic & Syntactic capacity
Language Ability 1. Classifier Elicitation Task & Classifier Learning Task 2. Sentence Comprehension Task Morphosyntactic capacity receptive language ability 3. Sentence Construction Syntactic segmentation Set 3
Tasks on Phonological capacity
-1Set 1 Language ability
1. Picture Naming Task Phonemic inventory 2. New Word Imitation Task & New Word Discrimination Task Imitation and discrimination of minimal word pairs
Picture Naming Task
Show
Ask
Picture Naming Task: Scoring
33 pictures for 42 target phonemes
8 tokens (4 in initial and 4 in
word-medial position) for each target sound were
collected
One point was given for each target sound
when 6 correct production out of eight were
found
Picture Naming Task: Results
NL6=NL5 > PD=PSD Group N Mean Scores (total=42) NL6 NL5 PD PSD 16 41.00 (1.21) 15 38.86 (2.09) 20 32.85 (5.09) 14 29.64 (5.31)Variability
-1 Multiple mismatches
e.g. /d/ (incorrect realization) /t/ /k/ (incorrect realization) /f/ (incorrect realization)Variability
-2
Alternation between a correct target and an
error production was not included
e.g.
/t/ (correct realization)
/t/
Word-based Variability
Word-based variability
(Zhu & Dodd
2000)
e.g: /pingguo//bingguo/, /bingduo/ Total=33
One point was given for each word when more
than two types of error production of a word was found
Phoneme-based Variability
Phoneme-based variability
e.g: /t//d/, /k/ Total=42
One point was given for each phoneme when
more than two types of error production of a phoneme was found
Variability Rating:Results
Word-based variability
No significant difference was found between
the PD group and the PSD group
Phoneme-based variability
PD < PSD
Tasks on Phonological capacity
-2Set 1 Language ability
1. Picture Naming Task Phonemic inventory 2. New Word Imitation & New Word Discrimination Task Imitation and discrimination of minimal word pairs
New Word Imitation & Discrimination
Show
Imitation: 4 tokens for each word
Discrimination: 4 times for each pair bingbing dingding
New Word Imitation & Discrimination:Scoring
Total= 8 sets of minimal word pairs
One point was given when 75% of
correctness was reached
Maximal=8
Only syllable initial consonants were taken
New word Imitation: Results
NL6=NL5> PD=PSD
Group Number of Subjects Mean Scores in Set
(total=8) NL6 16 7.06 (1.38) NL5 15 5.80 (1.52) PD 20 4.05 (1.35) PSD 14 3.86 (2.17) Table 3 Mean Scores in the New Word Imitation Task
New Word Discrimination: Results
Group Number of Subjects Mean Scores in Set
(total=8) NL6 16 6.62 (1.86) NL5 15 5.00 (1.36) PD 20 5.05 (1.87) PSD 14 3.50 (1.60) Table 4 Mean Scores in the New Word Discrimination Task
A Difference in Profile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100New Word Production New Word Discrimination
(% ) Nl6 NL5 PD PSD
Summary
Picture Naming Task
NL6=NL5 > PD=PSD
New word Imitation & Discrimination
Imitation: NL6=NL5 > PD=PSD
Discrimination: NL6>NL5= PD=PSD
Higher variability
PSD: general phonological system
Difference profile
Tasks on Memory Capacity
-1Set 2 Language Ability
1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without lexical supports)
Word Span Task
Recalling of spoken word lists ranged from
two to seven words
e.g.
獅子、青蛙、斑馬、小熊
Six items were prepared for each length level
When three correct repetitions out of six
Word Span Task: Results
3.93 3.73 3.95 3.21 0 1 2 3 4 5 NL6 NL5 PD PSD Word (s) PSD PD NL5 NL6 (.89) (.51) (.59) (.77)Tasks on Memory Capacity
-2Set 2 Language Ability
1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without lexical supports)
Nonword Repetition Task
Thirty-six nonwords, six in a set, were
repeated.
e.g.
Examiner:
bai
3-sha
4kang
1-gu
4zhan
4-dao
1
One point was given for each correct
syllable
Nonword Repetition Task: Results
Group N Mean Scores (total=36) Correctness (%) NL6 16 18.56 (5.50) 51.55% NL5 15 14.26 (4.62) 39.61% PD 20 12.45 (5.09) 34.58% PSD 14 8.78 (4.26) 24.38%Comparison of the Two Tasks
Better lexical supports in the PD group
PD=PSD in nonword repetition task PD>PSD in the word span task
Two possibilities
smaller lexical pool
Lexical factors
Table 6 Vocabulary size and Word span of the PSD group
Subject PPVR-R (percentile)
Word Span Subject PPVR-R (percentile) Word Span LZY *5 5 GAO 97 3 CAI 53 4 GWZ *9 3 SHU 87 4 LRW 29 3 LJR 27 4 ZHJ 16 3 WBK 55 4 LTQ 68 2 SON 23 3 CHY 18 2 LYZ 50 3 HYF 32 2
Tasks on Morphosyntactic& Syntactic Capacity-1 Language Ability 1. Classifier Elicitation Task & Classifier Learning Task 2. Sentence Comprehension Task Morphosyntactic capacity receptive language ability 3. Sentence Construction Task Syntactic segmentation ability Set 3
Chinese Classifiers
Distribution
-(Demonstrative)(numeral)CL (Noun)
-full form: with a head noun
-reduced form: without a head noun
Morphological properties
-some classifiers never occur independently as a
Classifier Elicitation Task
Show
Twelve classifier, one general classifier and eleven specific classifier, were
included.
One point was given for each target response
Ask:
這裡有多少公車 ? ( ) 四 輛 / 台 / 部公車 (X) 四隻公車 (X ) 四公車Classifier Elicitation Task: Results
Table 7 Results in the Classifier Elicitation Task
Group Target Responses (SD) Mean Score in Percentage NL6 6.44 (2.63) 53.65 % NL5 4.33 (2.82) 36.11 % PD 3.30 (2.70) 27.5 % PSD 2.00 (1.36) 16.67 %
Classifier Learning Task
Step I Step II Step III
Five specific classifiers with low frequency of use in
Classifier Learning Task:Results
Table 8 Results in the Classifier Elicitation Task Group Target Responses
(SD) Mean Score in Percentage NL6 4.94 ( .25) 98.80 % NL5 4.27 ( .96) 85.40 % PD 3.55 (1.54) 71 % PSD 2.71 (1.77) 54.2 %
Response Pattern: Categorizations
Types Example 1. use of specific classifier
2. use of the general classifier
3. use of inappropriate classifier 兩隻警察 ; 三個鞋子 ;
Response Pattern: Classifier Elicitation Task
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Construction Errors 0 0 0.42 4.76 Inappropriate classifier 4.17 10 5.42 12.5 NL6 NL5 PD PSDResponse Pattern: Classifier Learning Task
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Construction Errors 0 4 4 12.86 Inappropriate classifier 1.25 8 3 5.71 General Classifier 0 2.67 22 27.14 Target Response 98.75 85.33 71 54.29 NL6 NL5 PD PSDSummary
Classifier Elicitation Task
NL6 > PD=PSD
Classifier Learning Task
NL6>NL5= PD>PSD
Tasks on Morphosyntactic& Syntactic Capacity-2 Language Ability 1. Classifier Elicitation Task & Classifier Learning Task 2. Sentence Comprehension Task Morphosyntactic capacity receptive language ability 3. Sentence Construction Task Syntactic segmentation ability Set 3
Sentence Comprehension Task
19 test items (adopted from Chang 1991)
One point was given for each correct
response
Sentence Comprehension Task: Results
NL6=PD >NL5 > PSD Group Group Mean (total=19) S.D NL6 18.25 1.00 NL5 15.60 2.26 PD 16.50 1.93 PSD 12.36 2.56Tasks on Morphosyntactic& Syntactic Capacity-3 Language Ability 1. Classifier Elicitation Task & Classifier Learning Task 2. Sentence Comprehension Task Morphosyntactic capacity receptive language ability 3. Sentence Construction Syntactic segmentation Set 3
Sentence Construction Task
Show
Expected Response:
“ 爸爸開汽車” “ 黑色的”
Sentence Construction Task: Design
Table 10 Levels of Construction in the Sentence Construction Task
Structure Example Ⅰ. Basic (NP+VP) Construction 看電視 / 爸爸 Ⅱ. NP Level ADJP +NP 爸爸開汽車 / 黑色的 Classifier+ NP 弟弟買皮球 / 三顆 Classifier +ADJP +NP 黃色的 / 妹妹畫一隻小貓 Ⅲ. Clausal Level Serial Verb Construction 爸爸梳頭髮 / 用梳子
Sentence Construction Task: Results
-1
Table 11 Results in the Sentence Construction Task
NL6=PD > NL5> PSD
Group Group Mean (total=12) NL6 10.25 (1.18) NL5 7.60 (2.47) PD 8.35 (1.98) PSD 4.29 (2.64)
Sentence construction Task: Results
-2 0 20 40 60 80 100Basic Noun+ VP NP Level CL Level
NL6 NL5 PD PSD
The Factor of Position
Basic (NP+VP) Construction 看電視 / 爸爸 爸爸看電視 NP Level 爸爸開汽車 / 黑色的爸爸開黑色的汽車 妹妹畫一隻小貓 / 黃色的妹妹畫一隻黃色的小貓 Ⅲ. Clausal Level 弟弟要去上學 / 今天今天弟弟 ( 今天 ) 要去上學Summary
Sentence Comprehension Task
NL6=PD >NL5 > PSD
Sentence Construction Task
Different components of disorders in phonology
Phonological differences
the PSD group
Higher variability rating in phoneme
production
Deficits in the general phonological system
the PD group
a different profile
Memory capacity
the PSD group
Word span task & Nonword repetition task
PSD < NL6
Less efficient storage and access the PD group
Word span task (PD=NL6)
Target 企鵝 qi4-er2 海豚 hai3-tun4 公雞 gong1-ji1 大象 da4-xiang4
Response ki4-er2 hai3-kun4 gong1-gi1 ga4-xiang4
Scoring correct correct correct correct
Scoring: Word Span Task
e.g.
Scoring : Nonword Repetition Task
Target ba3-gan1 chao1-dai3 ku4-shang4
Response ba3-gan1 chao1-gai3 ku4-kang4
Scoring correct-correct correct-incorrect correct-incorrect
e.g.
Morphosyntactic Capacity
Classifier Learning Task
NL5= PD > PSD
CL Elicitation Task & CL Learning Task
NL6> PD, PSD
Two Possibilities
Avoidance
Conclusion
Receptive side of phonological disorders
would bring about difficulties to other
aspects of language development
