Adjective production in referential communication (Bahtiyar & Küntay)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Focus on Instructional Support
Advertisements

Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context Snedeker and Trueswell (2003) Psych 526 Eun-Kyung Lee.
Development of Relative Clauses in African American English Gwynne Morrissey, Jill de Villiers, & Peter de Villiers Smith College, Northampton, MA Introduction.
Montse Flores Adeva & Ana Hernández Bartolomé
PHRASE RULES: GERUNDS VS. PARTICIPLES ( ) Fill in the parentheses with a part of speech.
LIN1180/LIN5082 Semantics Lecture 3
MECHANICS OF WRITING C.RAGHAVA RAO.
Paraphrasing and Plagiarism. PLAGIARISM Plagiarism is using data, ideas, or words that originated in work by another person without appropriately acknowledging.
Psych 156A/ Ling 150: Acquisition of Language II Lecture 16 Language Structure II.
PRAGMATICS A: I have a fourteen year old son B: Well that's all right
Adele E. Goldberg. How argument structure constructions are learned.
Reported Speech There are two ways of relating what a person has said: direct and indirect. In direct speech we repeat the original speaker’s exact words.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Testing and Documentation Part II.
Verbals. Definition A verbal is not a verb; it is a former verb doing a different job. Gerunds, participles, and infinitives are the three kinds of verbals.
GoBack definitions Level 1 Parts of Speech GoBack is a memorization game; the teacher asks students definitions, and when someone misses one, you go back.
 The scholarly context : communities of professional practice  English as a First Language  English as a Second Language MAINSTREAM ENGLISH TESOL (College)
Mealtime Observational Methods
Grammar Chapter 10. What is Grammar? Basic Points description of patterns speakers use to construct sentences stronger patterns - most nouns form plurals.
Objectives of session By the end of today’s session you should be able to: Define and explain pragmatics and prosody Draw links between teaching strategies.
MHS AP U. S. History1 Lesson 1 Understanding the Essay Prompt.
Parts of speech English Grade 9 Kaleena Ortiz PARTS OF SPEECH Noun Pronoun Adjective AdverbVerbPreposition Conjunction Interjection Click here for this.
Why do we mark children’s work? More to the point why do they think we mark their work?
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 King Faisal University.
Voice Lecture 9. Forms and Meanings Voice is a grammatical category of the verb, which reflects the semantic role of the verbal subject. This category.
+ Jackie Kay Nat 5. ‘Keeping Orchids’. + Learning Intentions Work as a group in order to understand the main ideas of the poem. Analyse the important.
Language Communication Intervention
Child Syntax and Morphology
Vocabulary development
Alison Burros, Kallie MacKay, Jennifer Hwee, & Dr. Mei-Ching Lien
Lexical and Semantic Development: Part 1
Shared Intentionality
“I think when you become a parent you go from being a star in the movie of your own life to the supporting player in the movie of someone else's.” ― Craig.
Development of communicative and pragmatic abilities
PSYC 206 Lifespan Development Bilge Yagmurlu.
Unit OP 1 Support children with additional needs
King’s College London Pre-Sessional Programme
Parts of Speech Review.
Chapter 12 Leisure and Recreation Across the Life Span.
PSYC 206 Lifespan Development Bilge Yagmurlu.
Selin Gulgoz Susan A. Gelman University of Michigan Introduction
Sensitivity to knowledge states
Words, Phrases, Clauses, & Sentences
Aylin Küntay PSYC 453 Meeting 19
Using Age-Appropriate Comprehensible Input to Engage ELLs in the Home and Classroom Kathy Hart Smith, PhD.
Speech Acts: some notes useful for the assignment
TEACHING LANGUAGE SKILLS: TEACHING SPEAKING
Catch ‘em Up on Grammar - Quick!
Assessing all children
Aim To investigate how children of different age groups respond to tutoring when they had a problem to solve. Participants 30 middle class children from.
Investigating Multiple Roles of Vocal Confidence in Attitude Change
Language Functions.
Oliver Sawi1,2, Hunter Johnson1, Kenneth Paap1;
Verbal phrases A moment of grammar 6.
Series of Paragraphs Expressing an Opinion
AP World History Riverside High School Mr. Sakole
Writing the Document Based Question (DBQ) Essay
Learning objectives To explore how a writer chooses words to effect the reader To explore how a writer arranges a sentences to affect the reader. To.
Year 7 – Being the same and being different
Last Week’s Review What did you learn?.
Ensuring Success through Assessment – Connect Assessment to Objectives
Gallery Walk.
Interpreting Tables and Graphs
Understanding the Essay Prompt
Understanding the Essay Prompt
More on Interviewing…..
Child Outcome Summary Form
Learning objectives To explore how a writer chooses words to effect the reader To explore how a writer arranges a sentences to affect the reader. To.
Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases
Syntax and Its Analysis
Modelling the correct formation of letter and numbers:
Presentation transcript:

Adjective production in referential communication (Bahtiyar & Küntay) 5-year-olds 9-year-olds College age adults Task (art-craft activity): to give verbal instructions to the adult confederate to pick up particular objects from a display 3 conditions manipulated (4 trials in each) Adapted from Nadig & Sedivy (2002)

Common ground condition Addressee when two objects of the same kind, but different sizes were available to both clarification needed (i.e., large scissors) Participant

Privileged ground condition when only one of two similar objects was available to both no clarification needed Addressee Participant

Baseline condition control condition, where there is only one of each kind of object on the table no clarification needed. Addressee Participant

Results 5-year-olds used more adjectives in the common ground condition (than the privileged ground and the baseline conditions) the tendency to do so was weaker than the older children and the adults Differences between 9-year-olds and adults

5-year-olds: individual differences 1/3 used more adjectival modifiers in the common ground condition than the other two conditions 2/3 did not use any adjectives Bare nouns such as makas ‘scissors’, uhu ‘glue’ in more 50% of the trials

Fuller constructions Accusative case marking on the noun (1) makas-ı scissors-ACC Placing the NP in a verbal construction (2) makas-ı al-ırmısın? scissors-ACC take-would.you ‘Would you take the scissors?’ Some language-specific properties of Turkish need to be introduced here. In order to produce a fully specified request-making construction in Turkish one needs to provide an ACCUSATIVE case on the noun, and place this noun phrase in a verbal construction, makası verirmisin, would you pass me the scissors? Some of our participants just produced the noun with ACC marking, indicating an action is requested from the addressee to be carried out on the referent specified by the noun.

Labeling, not requesting Providing casemarking on a noun and/or embedding it in a verbal construction reveals a pragmatic intent of requesting an object Whereas a bare noun might just reflect an intent of labeling Is there a link between overt requests and unique identification? We speculated that some speakers especially the youngest ones were labeling objects rather than requesting them. Providing casemarking on a noun and/or placing it in verbal construction reveals a pragmatic intent of requesting an object. Whereas a bare noun might just reflect an intent of labeling. This speculation made us wonder about whether there is a link between overt requests and unique identification

Follow-up study: Study 2 Ran another group of 5-year-olds (mean age = 5;3) Prompting them for requestive language The confederate “likes really nice, polite language” so make sure you are “really nice and polite” when you are asking her to pick up objects Increase the likelihood of fuller constructions and discriminating adjectives

Results: full constructions vs. bare Ns Only 13% of trials were produced just in bare nouns, compared to 56% in Study 1 Only 2 children provided noun-only constructions; both did not provide any discriminating adjectives in any of the trials Across conditions, 87% of the trials were rendered with a full construction including the verb al ‘take’ and/or accusative case marking on the noun First let’s look at the use of full constructions in this new group of preschoolers, which was prompted for requests.

Study 1 vs. 2 When prompted for requests, Study 2 5-year-olds become more inclined to use more discriminating adjectives in comparison to 5-year-olds in Study 1 But also more redundant Use more adjectives in the privileged ground condition as well

What does “requesting” do? When led to produce requestive forms, children became more likely to produce informative referring expressions in the common ground condition As opposed to a labeling game, requests call for action from the addressee One needs to specify enough information for the addressee to figure out what exact action is desired (Ervin-Tripp, Guo & Lambert) And now some of our thoughts about the results. Why would children become more likely to produce more informative referring expressions when led to produce requestive speech acts?

What does “requesting” do? Asking for requestive speech might have led to two different effects Led the children to be sensitive to the functions of their speech acts and increase forms that request a specific object rather than simply name an object category Encouraged them to use more elaborate language, which included more adjectives as well

More elaborate AND more informative Requests led to more elaborate language in all three conditions But there is still a significant difference in adjective usage between common ground condition and the other two conditions So the relatively more production of adjectives in the common ground condition cannot be solely explained by generally longer sentences

Matthews et al. Training effects in referential communication Which condition works the best? Why? 2-year-olds benefit from training But only 4-year-olds transfer the skill to a new task Why do we worry about referential communication as cognitive developmentalists?