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

1. 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

2. 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).

3. 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)

4. Association-1 • Faircloth & Faircloth (1970); Panagos & Prelock (1982) • Spontaneous speech • Production errors: sentences > isolated words • control complexity in phonology and syntax • More errors when processing demands increased

5. Association-2 • Merino (1983) • Morphosyntactic deficits often co-occur with impaired phonology • Leonard (1989) • phonetic feature: short duration & unstressed syllable

6. Association-3 • Bishop (1997) • causal relationship • source: receptive side of phonological impairments

7. Figure1 Schematic Representation of the Processing Components (Levelt 1993)

8. 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 co-exist with phonological problems in Mandarin?

9. 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 • Cutting point: the 10th percentile

10. 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 • Cutting point: the 10th percentile

11. PPVT-R & MLU • PPVT-R • LZY (5th)and GWZ (9th) • MLU

12. 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 Subjects Table 1 Subjects in Each Group • * Specific language impairments

13. Set 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 Tasks: Set I -Phonological capacity

14. Set 2 Language Ability 1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without lexical supports) Tasks: Set II -Memory capacity

15. 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 Tasks: Set III -Morphosyntactic & Syntactic capacity

16. Set 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 Tasks on Phonological capacity-1

17. Picture Naming Task • Show • Ask 這是什麼?

18. Picture Naming Task: Scoring • 33 pictures for 42 target phonemes • 8 tokens (4 in word-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 • Maximal=42

19. 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) Picture Naming Task: Results Table 2 Mean scores in the Picture Naming Task • NL6=NL5 > PD=PSD

20. Variability-1 • Multiple mismatches • e.g. /d/ (incorrect realization) /t/ /k/ (incorrect realization) /f/ (incorrect realization) (Grunwell 1981; Zhu & Dodd 2000)

21. Variability-2 • Alternation between a correct target and an error production was not included • e.g. /t/ (correct realization) /t/ /k/ (incorrect realization)

22. 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

23. 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

24. Variability Rating:Results • Word-based variability • No significant difference was found between the PD group and the PSD group • Phoneme-based variability • PD < PSD • PSD group at a more holistic stage

25. Set 1 Language ability 1. Picture Naming Task Phonemic inventory 2. New Word Imitation & New Word Discrimination Task Imitation and discrimination of minimal word pairs Tasks on Phonological capacity-2

26. dingding New Word Imitation & Discrimination • Show • Imitation: 4 tokens for each word • Discrimination: 4 times for each pair bingbing

27. 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 into account in the Imitation task

28. 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) New word Imitation: Results • NL6=NL5> PD=PSD Table 3 Mean Scores in the New Word Imitation Task

29. 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) New Word Discrimination: Results • NL6>NL5= PD=PSD Table 4 Mean Scores in the New Word Discrimination Task

30. A Difference in Profile Figure 3 Proportion of Correctness in Imitation and Discrimination Task

31. 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 • PD: motor level of articulation

32. Set 2 Language Ability 1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without lexical supports) Tasks on Memory Capacity-1

33. 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 were reached, move to the next length level

34. Word Span Task: Results • NL6= PD = NL5 > PSD Figure 4 Results in the Word Span Task

35. Set 2 Language Ability 1. Word Span Task Memory capacity with lexical supports 2. Nonword Repetition Task Phonological memory capacity (without lexical supports) Tasks on Memory Capacity-2

36. Nonword Repetition Task • Thirty-six nonwords, six in a set, were repeated. • e.g. Examiner: bai3-sha 4 kang1-gu4 zhan4-dao1 • One point was given for each correct syllable • Maximal=36

37. 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% Nonword Repetition Task: Results Table 5 Mean Scores in the Nonword Repetition Task • NL6> PD=PSD

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 • less efficient lexical access

39. 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 Lexical factors Table 6 Vocabulary size and Word span of the PSD group Correlation: r = .27, p <.05

40. 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 Tasks on Morphosyntactic& Syntactic Capacity-1

41. 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 word

42. 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

43. 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 Elicitation Task: Results Table 7 Results in the Classifier Elicitation Task • NL6> PD= PSD

44. Step II Step III Step I 這裡有多少電話? 這也是電話。這裡的電話有“兩具”。 這裡有多少電話? Classifier Learning Task • Five specific classifiers with low frequency of use in Modern Chinese were taught

45. 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 % Classifier Learning Task:Results Table 8 Results in the Classifier Elicitation Task • NL6> NL5=PD >PSD

46. Response Pattern: Categorizations

47. Response Pattern: Classifier Elicitation Task Figure 5 Response Pattern in the Classifier Elicitation Task

48. Response Pattern: Classifier Learning Task Figure 6 Response Pattern in the Classifier Elicitation Task

49. Summary • Classifier Elicitation Task • NL6 > PD=PSD • Classifier Learning Task • NL6>NL5= PD>PSD • More construction errors in the PSD group

50. 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 Tasks on Morphosyntactic& Syntactic Capacity-2