Narrative Competence in Monolingual and Bilingual School Children Barbara Zurer Pearson University of Massachusetts University of Miami Bilingualism Study Group 1988-1998 With special thanks to RAs: Patti Ortega, Ana Ferrer, Yael Wiesner, Esperanza Rodriguez, and a host of UM students (all of whom spoke much better Spanish than I did--and without whom I could not have studied narrative). Questions: ML > BL Two-way > EI ? Linguality: ? IMS: ?for Hi-SES ?for Lo-SES ? Interdependence: L1 predict L2 The Core Design Replicated at Kindergarten, 2nd and 5th Grades Monolinguals Bilinguals Two-Way English Immersion ESH Hi Lo Hi Lo OSH Hi Lo SES ESH Hi Lo OSH Hi Lo Contribution of Narrative Analyses: 1. Can HEAR the children. (They’re not just “scores.”) 2. A SINGLE task combining both oral language and the demands of literate language. 3. Encourage longer responses: more revealing than single word or short phrases of the Woodcock-Johnson. Findings from Narrative Analyses: ML > BL (mostly) Two-way = EI (partly) in English Two-way = EI in Spanish Two-way > EI L1 predict L2 oral language No literacy Yes SAMPLE STORIES (4): Handout from page 144-145 of LLBC (and on CHILDES archive and in SALT, U WI) 400+ stories 10 each from all cells of 2nd and 5th graders 80 ML 160 BL in English 160 BL in Spanish + 24 “2nd stories” from MLs (to test the effect of telling the story twice). Frog, Where are You? By M. Mayer (Dial 1969) Story 1 1. 2. 3. 4. The dog – looked in – the bottle and looked at the frog. And the boy was sitting on a chair, and his – sock and his shirt was laying on the floor. And the light was on, and the window was opened…. When – {the} the boy and the dog were sleeping – the frog – stuck his head out with his head and his arm – out of the bottle. Story 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. One day a boy and his dog had found a frog. They kept him in the big jar. While the boy was asleep, the frog climbed out of the jar and ran away. When the boy woke up the next morning, he was very upset to see his frog missing. He searched everywhere. In boots … and he turned over tables. Story 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Once there was a little boy with his little dog. It was already night time. They were looking at the little frog. The little boy – and his dog went to sleep. The frog – wanted to go out to see {the w} the world. So he came out of the little – can. It was morning already. The puppy and the boy looked to the – can and saw {that their} that the frog was not there. Story 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. One day there was a boy ‘n a frog and a dog. And then while the boy sleeps, {he}… the frog came out. And then when he wake up, the dog and the boy, the frog was gone. He found everywhere and the dog – found – almost found in the bucket. And the boy was calling to the frog. So…..? Which one is a good story? Which one is not good? Which are from bilinguals? monolinguals? Motivation to split the task back up into ORAL LANGUAGE (“Language” Score) & LITERATE LANGUAGE (“Story” Score) Oral Language Element Examples 1 2 3 fluency -- … {} Pause for For vocab Bottle example Morpho- [they] syntactic was accuracy laying effect wordfinding vs Jar vs Can 4 -- {} vs Bucket Found xx looked Boy TO the sleeps, can he wake (boy with up his dog) Narrative Element Examples 1 orientation none 2 3 4 One day..had found Once One day there was Affective/ cognitive info none upset; saw frog missing; (stuck head out) searched wanted to none see the world; saw the frog not there Temporal links “when2” clause no clauses “already” “nightmorning” “while” “when1” “while” + wrong tense; “when1” What about “Complex Syntax”? Grammatical devices (language) to introduce complexity and point of view (story) In English Complement clauses: “he saw that the frog was not there.” Non-finite verbs: “was upset to see his frog missing.” Relative Clauses: “the boy who had the frog woke up” In Spanish Perfect tenses: “vio que habi’an salido otras ranitas” [he saw that HAD COME OUT other frogs] Subjunctive: “dijo que se callara” [he said that he was-to-be-quiet] “Complex Syntax” (cont’d) “Between Clauses” Causal conjunctions: “in order to”; “so that he could...” Adverbs of simultaneity: “while”; “when2” Retrospective reference: “still”; “already”; “todavia” “Language” or “Story” or both? Findings from Narrative Analyses: (review) ML > BL (mostly) Two-way = EI (partly) L1 predict L2 oral language No literacy Yes Question 1: ML outperform BLs (mostly) -- but not equally in all aspects of the task. Remake fig 7.1 (p. 154) to emphasize story score equivalence and language score discrepancies. First for 2nd grade. Next page for 5th grade . (heading: language gap narrows by 5th grade.) Next page (heading: Language gap closes at HiSES, ESH: table 7.10 p. 158.) Next page: most persistent ML BL difference is in MS accuracy fig 7.6 (p. 160) (“kids that don’t talk so good can’t think so good” (but we saw in the story exerpts that that is not true, at least not in a circumstance of on-going “2nd language learning” Question 1a: MLs outperform BLs (mostly). (ML red/ BL blue 2nd gr solid/ 5th grade bars 80 English Total (of 96) 70 60 Grade 2 Grade 5 50 40 30 MLHiSES BLHiSES MLLoSES BLLoSES Question 1b: MLs outperform BLs (mostly)– Not equally in all aspects of the task Story scores more equivalent; Most discrepancy in the Language Score . 2nd grade Story vs Language Language Scores (English)--Grade 2 BL (line) vs ML (bars: Hi & Lo SES) 40 35 30 Points (of 48) Points (of 48) Story Scores (English)--Grade 2 BL (line) vs ML (bars: Hi & Lo SES) 25 20 15 HI-OSH HI-ESH LOEng. OSH Imm. BL LO- HI-OSH HI-ESH LOESH TwoOSH Way BL LOESH 40 35 30 25 20 15 HI-OSH HI-ESH LOEng. OSH Imm. BL LO- HI-OSH HI-ESH LOESH TwoOSH Way BL LOESH Question 1c: MLs outperform BLs (mostly)– Less so in the long term . 5th grade: ML/BL gap narrows Story Language Score Language Scores (English)--Grade 5 BL (line) vs ML (bars: Hi & Lo SES) 40 35 30 25 20 15 Points (of 48) Points (of 48) Story Scores (English)--Grade 5 BL (line) vs ML (bars: Hi & Lo SES) HI-OSH HI-ESH LOEng. OSH Imm. BL LO- HI-OSH HI-ESH LOESH TwoOSH Way BL LOESH 40 35 30 25 20 15 HI-OSH HI-ESH Eng. Imm. BL LOOSH LO- HI-OSH HI-ESH ESH TwoWay BL LOOSH LOESH Q1d Most persistent ML/ BL gap in MS Accuracy Complex Syntax (English) 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 Frog Story Lexicon 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 Grade 2 Grade 5 MS-Accuracy 4 Grade 2 Grade 5 Grade 2 Grade 5 (Story Lexicon and Complex Syntax “catch-up”) Question 1e: ML outperform BLs – but Gap in Total Score closes at HiSES, ESH Simple Effect -- Linguality Frog Total ML n M BL n M F p All 2nd grade 40 63.0 79 51.3 35.6 .01* All 5th grade 40 67.3 81 64.4 3.29 .07 5th gr; HiSES 20 70.6 40 67.0 2.59 .11 5:HiSes;ESH 20 70.6 20 68.0 0.98 .33 Hypothesis 2: 2-Way = EI (partly) IN ENGLISH yes: Remake figure 7.4 p. 159 w/o MLs; make companion graph for Story Score Next page: look at MS Accuracy-Lex-and comp. syntax for 2way vs EI 2nd to 5th (from scratch??) Next page: the interaction with SES and Language at home (figure 7.8 p. 162) Next page: IN SPANISH no: 2-Way > EI: figure 7.9 (p. 165) bigger difference is in Home Language Question 2a: EI = 2-way (partly)– In ENGLISH: YES. (EI green, 2-way blue) Language 40 40 35 35 30 25 EI 20 2-way 15 10 Language Score (of 48) Story Score (of 48) Story 30 25 10 5 0 0 Grade 5 Two-way 15 5 Grade 2 EI 20 Grade 2 Grade 5 Question 2b: EI = 2-way (partly)– In SPANISH: NO. (EI green, 2-way blue) IMS (OSH orange, ESH brown) LSH 56 52 English Imm. 48 Two-way 44 40 Narrative Total (of 96) Narrative Total (of 96) 56 52 Sp Only 48 Sp & Eng 44 40 Grade 2 Grade 5 Grade 2 Grade 5 Q2 b (con’t) That is, For English IMS has little effect. SES the biggest factor. LLBC p. 156 In Spanish, IMS has largest effect. SES has little effect; LSH less potent than IMS. LLBC p. 164 Question 3a: L1 predicts L2 In Literacy Measures--YES Cross Language Correlations Pearson r 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 St or y La Sc or e ng u Co m ag e pl e Sc or e W -J x Sy # Pa s nt ax sa of ge Cl a M LU us e Co m p s Question 3b L1 predicts L2 In Oral Language-- NO Cross Language Correlations Pearson r 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 La Fr M W Co S -J # C o ng m -A g la Pi pl ua Le cc u c e t V ses ge xi ur x oc : Sc Syn con acy ab N ar or ta rT x e ot al Q3c A note about story length Despite .43 correlation to Narrative Score, length is NOT a clear measure of story quality. ie. Story quality is better at 5th grade for everyone, BLs’ stories are getting longer; MLs’ are getting shorter. MLs tell BETTER stories with fewer words (and presumably, eventually the bilinguals will too.) # of words per story 350 300 ML 250 BL 200 150 Grade 2 Grade 5 Summary of Narrative Analysis Results Mirror the results from the Standardized tests: EI = 2 way in English; 2-way > EI in Spanish • language of the home advantage for ESH (in English) disappears by 5th grade; language of the home advantage for OSH (in Spanish) persists for oral language, NOT narrative skills (where IMS and SES are more potent influences). Key Contribution of Narrative Analysis Results Despite language deficits in lexicon and MSaccuracy relative to ML peers, BLs demonstrated age-appropriate skill in these DIFFICULT narrative tasks: Creating a unified plot Motivating events through reference to internal states Providing narrator’s comments on the unfolding story Using compound time-referencing Using embedded structures which distinguished their own thoughts from those of the characters Limitations of Narrative Analysis Results Not standardized; hard to replicate our scoring system, which would need to be simplified to be practical. Our subjects not the best bilinguals, possibly not representative of most bilinguals. (Spanish surprisingly weak.) • All born in US (avoided Age-of-arrival variable), but children speak a “contact” variety: most BLs in Miami have non-native English-language models AND non-native Spanish-language models. Bp: check how lo-ses osh did wrt IMS. Final word (from p. 172) “By using the factorial design of the larger study, which balanced the effect of each factor, we have enhanced our ability to generalize findings from the children’s stories. By expanding the performance demand on the children through the story task, we have provided an ‘auditory snapshot’ of each individual, to add to the perspective provided by the standardized scores.” Final word (con’t) “This snapshot • enriches our ability to [appreciate] what the test scores are saying, and • to have greater confidence in the messages they convey.” --LLBC p. 172
© Copyright 2024