VL2 3/25/10 Kuntze Tracking the Development of Language and Discourse Skills in ASL-Competent Children
Dr. Kuntze will share the findings of his five-year longitudinal study on language and the discourse skills of ASL-competent children. This study is driven by the hypothesis that future success with reading is based on children’s experience with a language that replicates some of the demands of literacy, even though they may be two different languages. March 25
00:00:40 -- Good afternoon.
00:00:43 -- Again, I'd like to thank you all for coming
00:00:50 -- to our VL2 lecture series.
00:00:56 -- This afternoon, we have a special guest
00:01:00 -- with us Dr. Lon Kuntze.
00:01:03 -- Dr. Kuntze is a professor at Boston University
00:01:10 -- in the Department of Linguistic, is that right?
00:01:20 -- Or education?
00:01:21 -- Department of Linguistics and Literacy.
00:01:27 -- He has also been a member of VL2
00:01:29 -- since its inception He has been working
00:01:35 -- on a very ambitious project
00:01:38 -- that includes a longitudinal video study
00:01:42 -- of young deaf children.
00:01:44 -- The children range in age from 3 and they will range
00:01:49 -- until the age of 8, because the study will run
00:01:55 -- for five years The study includes the collection of data
00:02:00 -- as well as the analysis of the video data and today,
00:02:04 -- Lon will present some of their preliminary findings.
00:02:08 -- He's been watching how reading is introduced to young children
00:02:13 -- but he's also looking how young children develop their
00:02:16 -- ASL skills.
00:02:18 -- He looks at how their knowledge of language changes
00:02:22 -- and how they begin to develop literacy on the basis
00:02:29 -- of their interactions with adults Needless to say,
00:02:36 -- we are very much looking forward to seeing what Lon has to say
00:02:44 -- With that, I will turn the floor over to you, Dr. Kuntze.
00:02:49 -- Lon: My apologies.
00:02:50 -- I should start with a formal introduction to acknowledge
00:02:54 -- and appreciate my wonderful RAs who made this possible,
00:02:57 -- Sarah Fish, Naomi Birdlove.
00:03:01 -- Cynthia goodman and Kelly Kim.
00:03:07 -- They're key people that work in my lab and as well
00:03:12 -- as having additional help from graduate students,
00:03:15 -- undergraduate students in Deaf Studies or deaf Ed looking
00:03:20 -- for a little extra money.
00:03:25 -- So I thank them for their time My lab and my research,
00:03:29 -- my interests lie within what's listed here Wanting
00:03:35 -- to understand how it is
00:03:38 -- that deaf children develop literacy skills.
00:03:41 -- We know that how deaf children read
00:03:45 -- and write is not the same process
00:03:49 -- as it is for hearing children.
00:03:51 -- There's a reason why many deaf children do not do well
00:03:56 -- in literacy and understanding.
00:03:59 -- We're trying to understand and my hypothesis
00:04:03 -- and belief is young deaf children can become very
00:04:09 -- skilled readers.
00:04:10 -- We're taking this opportunity to do this study
00:04:14 -- with very young deaf children
00:04:15 -- to see how it is they develop literacy skills That's the
00:04:20 -- illusive question.
00:04:22 -- We have never really found this answer.
00:04:23 -- We make a lot of assumptions.
00:04:28 -- But I know this group of deaf kids will be good readers,
00:04:32 -- and we are tracking them before they become readers,
00:04:38 -- to see what the process is like, to see how it comes to be.
00:04:44 -- My hypothesis and belief is that they will become good readers,
00:04:49 -- and when they do, then I will have the data
00:04:54 -- to show how they got to where they were.
00:04:57 -- What is it that defines a good a deaf reader?
00:05:02 -- All the information that we need oftentimes is missing.
00:05:07 -- So the information that we want to know is not published
00:05:11 -- So we're trying to do this research to find these answers.
00:05:15 -- If we look at adults, we don't know what made them good
00:05:21 -- readers, so that's why we're going back to look at children.
00:05:26 -- We hypothesize and we make assumptions
00:05:27 -- about literacy skills and how they develop.
00:05:30 -- So we're looking at young children,
00:05:33 -- in terms of how they engage in discussions with each other
00:05:38 -- and with adults, and try to get a window
00:05:42 -- or insight into their thinking.
00:05:47 -- Their cognitive development
00:05:49 -- around language is what makes it possible for them,
00:05:53 -- through sign language, to develop these ideas
00:05:57 -- and cognition, complex thinking skills.
00:06:00 -- They learn English through reading.
00:06:04 -- The argument, and my belief, is that for deaf children
00:06:09 -- to learn how to read and learn English is really the same
00:06:15 -- process It's a little unusual.
00:06:19 -- What we see normally is that you have
00:06:22 -- to know English first before you know how to read.
00:06:24 -- Once you have a foundation,
00:06:26 -- you use that as a basis to learn reading.
00:06:30 -- That model has been applied to deaf children
00:06:32 -- and it has not worked.
00:06:36 -- I think the reason deaf children fail at this model,
00:06:41 -- it doesn't make sense for deaf kids.
00:06:45 -- So we're taking a look
00:06:46 -- at the foundational critical thinking skills,
00:06:52 -- knowledge of the world through dialogue and discussion,
00:06:57 -- in their native language.
00:07:00 -- And learning, you know, a second language
00:07:04 -- as part of that process.
00:07:06 -- In our lab, our focus and analysis is pictured here.
00:07:14 -- We have, what I call three front,
00:07:20 -- in which we are approaching this Looking
00:07:25 -- at the complex interaction of students, looking at vocabulary,
00:07:33 -- language structure and that dialogue and interaction,
00:07:37 -- if it's complex interactions, their unique vocabulary
00:07:40 -- that then present themselves
00:07:43 -- in complex interactions and what are they?
00:07:46 -- Looking at language structure.
00:07:49 -- Present in those interactions.
00:07:51 -- In study three, we're looking at fingerspelling, which is sort
00:07:57 -- of an afterthought But we're looking at complex interactions
00:08:01 -- and vocabulary primarily, and we're tracking it when children
00:08:09 -- and by the time they get to kindergarten,
00:08:13 -- they're fingerspelling and they're using language,
00:08:15 -- you know, in a very rich environment
00:08:18 -- So I have two graduate fellows doing the analysis,
00:08:21 -- which is the third study on fingerspelling.
00:08:25 -- So my study focuses on these three areas.
00:08:31 -- There's also additional benefits.
00:08:34 -- We have a pre doctoral student dissertation, who's looking
00:08:41 -- at vocabulary development that happens in everyday episodes
00:08:44 -- in the classroom In analyzing what those interactions entail.
00:08:50 -- Also looking at vocabulary development at a specific age,
00:08:59 -- what vocabulary should they have at different stages
00:09:03 -- in their life at ages 3, 4 and 5?
00:09:06 -- There's acquisition of a depiction study,
00:09:09 -- Paul Dudas' work, the use of classifiers,
00:09:15 -- when does that complex depiction start?
00:09:20 -- At what age?
00:09:21 -- And how does it develop?
00:09:22 -- And the Berkeley transition system development we are using
00:09:28 -- for research to document and we're also developing more
00:09:31 -- as we move along through this research, and we're hoping
00:09:34 -- to share that as a tool.
00:09:35 -- And I'll talk a little bit more about that later.
00:09:45 -- In terms of data collection, I'm interest ed in what happens
00:09:50 -- in daily interactions, just what happens in the classroom
00:09:55 -- in a natural environment.
00:09:57 -- We have set up four cameras in the room and we let them run.
00:10:02 -- I'm a fly on the wall.
00:10:05 --
00:10:06 -- And the kids see me like, you know, there's another decoration
00:10:11 -- or something, fly on the wall.
00:10:14 -- I try to blend in as much as I can.
00:10:18 -- We looked at four different particular activities
00:10:22 -- in the classroom, book sharing, circle time, snack time,
00:10:25 -- and ASL time Where they're playing games
00:10:30 -- and interacting with each other.
00:10:31 -- All of these activities obviously are different context
00:10:37 -- for language use.
00:10:38 -- So what happens in this particular context?
00:10:41 -- Are language and vocabulary different in these situations?
00:10:45 -- That's the question we're trying to address.
00:10:49 -- We've tracked the same group of students
00:10:53 -- through this five year study We have finished collecting three
00:10:57 -- years of data.
00:10:57 -- We're in our fourth year of data collection.
00:11:01 -- We started with five kids As time went on,
00:11:04 -- we increased that number.
00:11:07 -- In the second year, to 12.
00:11:13 -- In year three, we had 14 The original five kids are still
00:11:20 -- in this research group So we added more members
00:11:26 -- but the same members continue.
00:11:28 -- In our study, the students that we're looking at, most of them,
00:11:35 -- their parents are deaf.
00:11:37 -- These are deaf kids with deaf parents.
00:11:40 -- They had language foundation before they went to school,
00:11:45 -- go to school in a bilingual cultural classroom their teacher
00:11:52 -- signed very well.
00:11:55 -- They have 24/7 exposure to American Sign Language.
00:12:04 -- What is the future of these children?
00:12:10 -- That's the question we're looking to answer.
00:12:15 -- Our methods include the Berkeley transcription system,
00:12:21 -- I helped to develop when I was in graduate school
00:12:28 -- So we're trying to take the system and expand on it.
00:12:32 -- You may be familiar with, an annotation, software system.
00:12:38 -- Looking at taking descriptive analytical notes
00:12:44 -- from the classroom and what we see.
00:12:46 -- With interactions, we're trying to code the ideas
00:12:53 -- and try quantify the Alacutionary goals and trying
00:12:56 -- to see what goals they're trying to accomplish
00:13:02 -- in a conversation Also looking at vocabulary,
00:13:05 -- looking at quantifying it and looking
00:13:11 -- at the morph logical complexity of these.
00:13:14 -- When we're looking at ASL vocabulary, we also have to look
00:13:21 -- at it as a whole and breaking down the parts and looking
00:13:26 -- at the meaning behind these parts.
00:13:33 -- What the literature currently says
00:13:36 -- and what we have seen it say is when they talk about the success
00:13:43 -- of children, is really about hearing children In terms
00:13:48 -- of having, deaf children having had opportunities
00:13:51 -- to have complex dialogue with adults promotes sort
00:13:57 -- of this cognitive engagement.
00:13:59 -- If children have these opportunities frequently,
00:14:02 -- it does predict literacy development.
00:14:05 -- If that is true, it must be true for deaf children,
00:14:09 -- not just hearing children.
00:14:12 -- But how does that happen?
00:14:14 -- We're trying to find situation an
00:14:17 -- in which hearing children have the same type of environment,
00:14:21 -- where they have adult interactions,
00:14:25 -- complex interactions!
00:14:30 -- What we have seen and what we know
00:14:36 -- about reading development is children who read well,
00:14:45 -- do more than just know the meaning of words.
00:14:52 -- That's really not important.
00:14:55 -- The important thing about being a very skilled reader is being
00:14:58 -- able to reflect and think about what it is that they're reading.
00:15:02 -- We want to see if there are patterns that are similar
00:15:11 -- to what we see with skilled readers,
00:15:12 -- higher order level thinking.
00:15:15 -- That's what we're trying to look at with deaf children
00:15:21 -- that use American Sign Language in the classroom,
00:15:25 -- how they become critical thinkers,
00:15:27 -- we're looking at their cognition.
00:15:29 -- If they have these similar patterns,
00:15:32 -- that means they're well on their way to becoming skilled readers.
00:15:39 -- So we're collecting information to identify those markers
00:15:44 -- with deaf children to see what we can predict
00:15:47 -- about their reading and literacy skills.
00:15:51 -- What are the traits or skills or abilities, what vocabulary,
00:15:56 -- linguistic structure, what kind of conversations happen?
00:16:00 -- If we see those interactions with young deaf children,
00:16:06 -- we know they're in good shape.
00:16:07 -- If not, we know we have to do something now and not wait
00:16:11 -- until we realize they can't read.
00:16:12 -- It's too late then In the interactions and activities
00:16:21 -- and everyday classroom, some
00:16:24 -- of the activities have a direct impact
00:16:27 -- on cognitive development and some don't.
00:16:30 -- We don't know which ones have an impact and which ones don't.
00:16:35 -- That's why we're looking at this very carefully,
00:16:40 -- to see what the impacts are,
00:16:42 -- so that we can replicate this information
00:16:47 -- in classrooms across the country.
00:16:50 -- We're trying to make the most of what we can find
00:16:54 -- from this limited time we're looking
00:16:57 -- at in the classroom This information help teachers make
00:17:00 -- the most of time they have with students in the classroom.
00:17:06 -- Understanding cause and effect, looking at again,
00:17:11 -- looking at all the cognitive skills children have before they
00:17:17 -- start to read.
00:17:22 -- So looking at complex interactions of questions
00:17:26 -- to see what that interaction looks like,
00:17:29 -- because through language, we get a window
00:17:32 -- into how children think.
00:17:35 -- A window into their mind.
00:17:38 -- So when you have skilled signers working with deaf children,
00:17:44 -- and through that complex rich language conversation,
00:17:50 -- we can get some ideas about what they're thinking.
00:18:00 --
00:18:03 -- Specifically, to the interactions, when we're talking
00:18:07 -- about turn taking, I'm not really interested
00:18:11 -- in counting how many turns there are.
00:18:14 --
00:18:16 -- But what we did was we quantified it by saying,
00:18:23 -- if there's three or more turns,
00:18:29 -- the three turns is what we call a complex interaction.
00:18:35 -- That's what we're looking at.
00:18:38 -- We have American Sign Language, but how do we code that,
00:18:47 -- to try and write ASL becomes a barrier.
00:18:51 -- When children are signing, if we translate it,
00:18:55 -- we're looking at the content.
00:18:58 -- What types of things are they talking about?
00:19:02 -- What are they thinking about?
00:19:05 -- Once we translate it into English,
00:19:09 -- we develop codes to analyze it.
00:19:13 -- The coding system, the data drives the coding system
00:19:20 -- And we develop the coding as we go along.
00:19:22 -- It's an evolving process.
00:19:24 -- We're hoping to develop it in such way
00:19:31 -- that it becomes refined, and then again,
00:19:36 -- the goal is to share this information
00:19:39 -- so that we're looking at these interactions in a new way,
00:19:44 -- that hopefully will provide new information for us.
00:19:50 -- This is a dialogue in a classroom.
00:19:55 -- There's two different crackers, a cheese cracker and pretzel.
00:20:01 -- The teacher says, what kind of cracker is this?
00:20:03 -- The student says, brown.
00:20:05 -- It's not a wrong answer.
00:20:07 -- He's identified it.
00:20:09 -- The brown one, not the orange one.
00:20:13 -- So the teacher want a little bit more.
00:20:17 -- They're trying to get a specific sign for the word "pretzel."
00:20:22 --
00:20:23 -- So that happens through engagement, through dialogue,
00:20:27 -- through these interaction, interactions
00:20:30 -- until the student produces the answer the teacher is
00:20:33 -- looking for.
00:20:34 -- So the student says "brown" and the teacher
00:20:37 -- and student's initials So, again,
00:20:40 -- the initial answer is brown.
00:20:45 -- And the right answer really is pretzel But what she says is,
00:20:53 -- well, what kind of cracker is it?
00:20:55 -- Is it a cheese one?
00:20:57 -- So she's drawing an analogy,
00:20:59 -- hoping that that will prompt them to come
00:21:03 -- with the right answer without giving them the answer.
00:21:06 -- Because they want the student to think about it.
00:21:10 -- They want the student they want to engage the student
00:21:12 -- in this dialogue, to help them think
00:21:14 -- through the problem She keeps saying, we're talking
00:21:21 -- about brown and orange cracker.
00:21:25 --
00:21:26 -- The student is confused, keeps saying brown.
00:21:31 -- That's right But what are they?
00:21:35 -- What are they?
00:21:36 -- Finally, they get to the point,
00:21:39 -- where the student makes a connection and says, "pretzel."
00:21:43 -- Know teacher's watching some
00:21:45 -- of the interaction with the students.
00:21:49 -- The teacher is having the interaction with one student
00:21:53 -- and another student is watching, but the third student has access
00:21:59 -- to the dialogue between the teacher and the one student.
00:22:05 -- So their mind is actively engaged in the conversation,
00:22:12 -- even though they're not saying anything.
00:22:13 -- That's what happens in a classroom.
00:22:18 -- When we have language that's open and accessible!
00:22:22 -- In a different context,
00:22:26 -- it's easy to imagine how children miss this information
00:22:30 -- in today's world.
00:22:31 -- We see students that are missing out on this type of dialogue
00:22:37 -- and engagement with students.
00:22:39 -- For deaf children in a classroom,
00:22:42 -- where all the information is accessible,
00:22:44 -- you could say these students are lucky but it does not have to be
00:22:48 -- that way, it could happen in every classroom In this story,
00:22:50 -- the hungry caterpillar, talking about a caterpillar from an egg
00:22:55 -- and grows into a cocoon
00:22:58 -- from that process and then a butterfly.
00:23:03 -- So they tell the story, and the next day, they're talking
00:23:07 -- about the story again.
00:23:08 -- She says, what happened in the story?
00:23:09 -- So she makes them go back and think about writes
00:23:13 -- about a caterpillar, turns into a butterfly.
00:23:16 -- Which one came first?
00:23:18 -- What part came first?
00:23:20 -- There was a lot of discourse around this.
00:23:25 -- And then eventually comes out the answer step by step.
00:23:31 -- And there are other students who chime in.
00:23:36 -- And students are getting better over time All
00:23:42 -- of them engaging in this conversation.
00:23:44 -- . So they kind of jump in with the butterfly.
00:23:52 -- She says, yes, what else happens?
00:23:54 -- These two steps happen and then it's a butterfly.
00:23:57 -- What else happens in between that time?
00:24:05 -- So the pattern, talking about how the details
00:24:09 -- of each step happens happens through discourse
00:24:12 -- with the teacher, happens through dialogue
00:24:16 -- If there is no dialogue, it all just becomes a blur
00:24:21 -- and can happen and it's true for many deaf children,
00:24:24 -- no one is saying to them, pay attention to the details.
00:24:30 -- Which order came first, to make them more perceptive
00:24:34 -- of the world?
00:24:35 -- So this is same conversation between the teacher
00:24:40 -- and the students This is another short example,
00:24:45 -- as was discussed before, there are situations
00:24:53 -- where the teacher has the storybook, they'd be looking
00:25:00 -- at the front cover, there's a picture
00:25:06 -- of pants with eight legs.
00:25:08 -- Wow, do people have eight legs?
00:25:12 -- I just have two So there's this discussion about, well,
00:25:17 -- who in the world could wear a pair of pants with eight legs.
00:25:20 -- One girl says, I know, but she doesn't know the sign
00:25:24 -- for octopus.
00:25:26 -- So she's trying to do something.
00:25:29 -- But another kid, deaf parent said octopus, signed octopus.
00:25:36 -- The girl looked over and said, oh.
00:25:39 -- So now she knows the sign.
00:25:42 -- She doesn't get full credit, she knew the answer,
00:25:48 -- she just doesn't know sign.
00:25:49 -- Another kid says to her, no, that's not how you do it.
00:25:54 -- Do it like this and helped her refine the sign.
00:25:58 -- They start playing with it.
00:26:00 -- Both of them, they're starting to play with the sign octopus,
00:26:07 -- a noun but becomes a verb as they're playing with the sign.
00:26:11 -- So they're experimenting with language.
00:26:15 -- The next day, they're talking about jellyfish.
00:26:19 -- This is the sign The teacher says, oh, that's not an octopus.
00:26:24 -- The little girl says, overtime that's not an octopus.
00:26:29 -- That's right.
00:26:30 -- It's jellyfish.
00:26:32 -- She knew the sign.
00:26:35 -- The day before she learned octopus
00:26:39 -- and she knew this sign was not the same, looked the same
00:26:48 -- but not quite the same as what she learned yesterday.
00:26:53 -- That all happens through interactions.
00:26:58 -- I will skip this last one The examples I have given you are
00:27:02 -- from preschool.
00:27:04 -- So just trying to limit it to a few examples,
00:27:08 -- this is a kindergarten class one year later, different situation,
00:27:12 -- snack time, kids are talking, no adults involved
00:27:16 -- in this conversation Now,
00:27:18 -- the children are becoming sophisticated in terms
00:27:21 -- of discussions with each other.
00:27:23 -- They're talking about honey.
00:27:24 -- Another kid doesn't know what honey is.
00:27:28 -- You know that sticky stuff and one kid is trying
00:27:32 -- to explain honey, it comes from bees, using world knowledge
00:27:36 -- and sharing that knowledge about honey.
00:27:39 -- One child doesn't know that, you know,
00:27:43 -- doesn't make the relationship between bees and honey.
00:27:47 -- They say, you have to be careful, you know,
00:27:49 -- it stings you, you know, you will get a bump on your hand.
00:27:53 -- So they're using world knowledge.
00:27:55 -- All this is happening while they're everything, you know,
00:27:58 -- snack time Of course, there interruptions
00:28:02 -- and one student gets cut off.
00:28:05 -- She says, they're not ignoring me, they're just being stubborn.
00:28:14 -- It show asthma torture she didn't get mad I was talking
00:28:17 -- and you attention.
00:28:18 -- These are 5 year olds.
00:28:20 -- It shows a maturity.
00:28:21 -- She didn't get mad.
00:28:23 -- These are 5 year olds,
00:28:25 -- and they're already showing interactions and maturity.
00:28:30 --
00:28:34 -- After collecting the video footage
00:28:37 -- and translating the children's interaction into English,
00:28:41 -- we then need to start identifying what characteristics
00:28:45 -- are important of those interactions.
00:28:49 -- We looked at turn taking but not just at counting turn taking
00:28:54 -- but the functions of it, how turn taking happens and whether
00:28:57 -- or not turn taking fosters more complex thinking, what happens
00:29:02 -- after someone takes a turn, does someone anticipate conversation?
00:29:07 -- So we have to code for more information interactions
00:29:12 -- and turn taking.
00:29:14 -- We code for their understanding.
00:29:17 -- Excuse me, we are trying to code for their understanding of time,
00:29:21 -- how they manage those conversations.
00:29:23 -- A lot of this has implications for what we know about theory
00:29:27 -- of mind Kids' performance on theory of mind testing
00:29:31 -- and how well they do could be an artifact of the test design,
00:29:36 -- or it could be an actual reflection
00:29:38 -- of their cognitive development.
00:29:40 -- But we don't know which one is the case.
00:29:44 -- We need to understand their everyday discourse
00:29:47 -- to understand their cognitive development.
00:29:50 -- We do have some insights to their development
00:29:53 -- but we don't have a complete picture.
00:29:55 -- Once we fully understand the power of the quality
00:29:58 -- of these interactions, then we can further understand how it is
00:30:02 -- children's thinking develops I mentioned earlier, that one part
00:30:15 -- of our method is to translate children's interaction
00:30:18 -- into English in order to code and analyze their discussions.
00:30:23 -- But that doesn't mean that we're neglecting what it is
00:30:26 -- that they're dining ASL or their language development.
00:30:29 -- We use the English translations for coding purposes
00:30:32 -- because it's easier to analyze for some aspects
00:30:34 -- of those interactions.
00:30:35 -- But the vocabulary study has solely do
00:30:40 -- with their development of ASL vocabulary.
00:30:42 -- We've looked at the quality of excuse me, we looked at whether
00:30:54 -- or not their vocabulary used in spontaneous conversation
00:30:59 -- versus academic conversation varies, whether
00:31:02 -- or not their vocabulary varies, depending who they're talking to
00:31:05 -- or what the context is As we understand some
00:31:09 -- of these characteristics, we can further refine our tools
00:31:11 -- and we can understand what's suspects
00:31:13 -- of language are characteristic of different settings,
00:31:17 -- and what all of this tells us
00:31:19 -- about children's natural language development.
00:31:26 -- Thus far, tests of vocabulary
00:31:29 -- for deaf children have been based on another language.
00:31:33 -- And the question that comes up from translating
00:31:37 -- such tests is these tests might not be valid
00:31:43 -- for a deaf population.
00:31:46 --
00:31:47 -- Children's development
00:31:49 -- of English vocabulary is an artifact
00:31:52 -- of the English language system.
00:31:54 -- And the intention behind studying their English
00:32:02 -- vocabulary is to understand their ability to communicate
00:32:05 -- but it only measures their ability to communicate
00:32:07 -- in English We have not looked at their ability to communicate
00:32:10 -- in ASL and how their ASL development contributes
00:32:15 -- to their cognitive development.
00:32:17 -- So what we've been looking at so far
00:32:19 -- with vocabulary studies has essentially been looking
00:32:22 -- at the wrong thing.
00:32:23 -- You could say we've been like dogs barking up the wrong tree.
00:32:27 -- We're trying to find the right tree to start barking up.
00:32:30 -- Another issue with vocabulary studies is that often studies
00:32:41 -- about languages are done by linguists or researchers
00:32:47 -- that are not speakers of those languages.
00:32:50 -- So you have researchers or linguists
00:32:54 -- from the western hemisphere that study exotic languages, however,
00:32:59 -- when they study these languages, they're doing it
00:33:02 -- through a biased lens of their western language.
00:33:08 -- If you can detach from your expectations or your assumptions
00:33:13 -- from your native language and study a language in
00:33:16 -- and of itself, then you can come
00:33:17 -- to a truer understanding of that language.
00:33:21 --
00:33:25 -- Dan Slogan's study of multiple languages
00:33:29 -- and their structures led
00:33:33 -- to an understanding there are some structures that are common
00:33:36 -- to several languages, and those languages can be classified
00:33:42 -- as type A. Excuse me, those features can be classified
00:33:46 -- as type A and they appear in certain languages.
00:33:49 -- Other structures can be categorized as type B
00:33:52 -- and they exist in other languages.
00:33:55 -- So you could have two separate languages
00:33:59 -- that might share commonalities and might share type A features
00:34:04 -- but don't share type B features.
00:34:07 -- There are a multitude of types
00:34:10 -- of structures different languages have.
00:34:13 -- Each language has a combination of types of structures.
00:34:17 -- You can sometimes using this information to study ASL
00:34:23 -- or study any new language.
00:34:25 -- Unfortunately, we haven't really, in the study of ASL,
00:34:33 -- gone beyond English to look at what structures ASL has.
00:34:45 -- To give you another example, an indigenous language
00:34:48 -- in Mexico has different words for different manners
00:34:53 -- of holding things For example, pet is holding only
00:34:57 -- when you are using both hands to hold.
00:35:01 -- So this one word, specifically means holding something
00:35:06 -- in both arms.
00:35:09 -- Pooch means holding something on your head, to way on your head
00:35:13 -- or back, so you could put a basket on your head.
00:35:22 -- Catch is carrying a weight across your shoulders.
00:35:27 -- Each one of these words carries a very specific meaning
00:35:30 -- that relates to how you hold something.
00:35:34 -- English on the other hand, does not have this level of detail
00:35:37 -- in single words for the world "hold."
00:35:41 -- ASL is much more similar to it
00:35:45 -- in this way There are different signs
00:35:46 -- for different manners of holding.
00:35:49 -- You show how you hold a box with two hands Wayne
00:35:53 -- that looks different
00:35:54 -- than holding a bushel on top of your head.
00:35:59 -- If you were to translate this into English, you would find
00:36:03 -- that the word "hold" might come up for all of these
00:36:05 -- but the handshape would look different
00:36:08 -- in ASL in every instance.
00:36:11 -- So this is a good example of parallels that can be drawn
00:36:16 -- between ASL and languages other than English
00:36:20 -- that can give us further insight into ASL, the point being
00:36:23 -- that we need to let go of this traditional lens of looking
00:36:28 -- at ASL through English.
00:36:30 -- We instead need to look at ASL through ASL.
00:36:34 -- Going back then to the vocabulary study of ASL,
00:36:45 -- if we toss out what we know and what we have thought
00:36:54 -- about English and studying ASL vocabulary in the same way
00:37:04 -- that we study English vocabulary,
00:37:07 -- the picture becomes quite different.
00:37:11 -- If we want to study ASL in its own right,
00:37:14 -- by its own properties, we need
00:37:18 -- to understand what the best way is to code ASL,
00:37:24 -- that can give us the best, most accurate picture
00:37:27 -- of the characteristics of ASL.
00:37:31 --
00:37:32 -- Notation systems or transcription systems
00:37:35 -- that have been developed thus far have primarily depended
00:37:38 -- on gloss forms, which is not rigorous enough for the level
00:37:43 -- of research or analysis that we would like to do.
00:37:48 -- The system developed by Stokey does not follow appropriate
00:37:53 -- phonological rules, so that has its limitations.
00:37:59 -- Which brings me then to the Berkeley transcription system.
00:38:03 -- I was fortunate enough to start working with Dan
00:38:07 -- when I was a graduate student.
00:38:09 -- And that work led to the development
00:38:12 -- of a transcription system that is now called
00:38:15 -- "the Berkeley transcription system."
00:38:18 -- I will refer to this
00:38:19 -- as BTS throughout the remainder of the presentation.
00:38:21 -- The goal of BTS is to look at the complexity of ASL.
00:38:31 -- I just mentioned the differences that can be present
00:38:35 -- in one vocabulary item in ASL when I gave the example
00:38:39 -- of the octopus So how do you code for all
00:38:42 -- of that information that's present?
00:38:44 -- In ASL, systems have been developed to notate information
00:38:51 -- such as aspect, path of movement,
00:38:54 -- figure of ground, locative patterns.
00:38:57 -- But when all of this is present in one sign,
00:39:03 -- there has to be a way of also identifying these bits
00:39:11 -- of morph logical information.
00:39:12 -- And beyond transcribing, if I were to transcribe, for example,
00:39:19 -- 10, 15,000 items in ASL, where do you go beyond that?
00:39:23 -- You have to have a system that can analyze all of that coding.
00:39:29 -- BTS has this capability of not only allowing you
00:39:31 -- to code what is present in ASL but also analyze that data.
00:39:42 -- The goals of developing BTS is partly to also capitalize
00:39:49 -- on what we know from large corpus
00:39:52 -- of child language called childs, C h i l d e s.
00:39:57 -- To analyze the information that we create from BTS,
00:40:05 -- we have developed a software called Clan.
00:40:11 -- Once someone transcribes video footage through BTS,
00:40:17 -- you feed that information into Clan that will analyze the data.
00:40:22 -- The Clan software program was written
00:40:27 -- to accommodate the rules of BTS.
00:40:31 -- So BTS and Clan were designed together.
00:40:36 -- And we call that Chat.
00:40:43 -- The software can analyze the number of meaningful components
00:40:48 -- and signs, can analyze for frequency.
00:40:51 -- It can understand different patterns in what you've coded.
00:40:59 -- However, getting there still entails a great deal
00:41:03 -- of more work.
00:41:05 -- But nevertheless, these are some of your goals
00:41:08 -- for how we will use BTS.
00:41:13 -- A further challenge in analyzing ASL is understanding what the
00:41:18 -- boundaries are between ASL and gesture.
00:41:22 -- That line is not necessarily clear cut.
00:41:25 -- Some of what we have known or have thought about ASL
00:41:30 -- and gesture is changing,
00:41:31 -- which is then changing how we understand those boundaries
00:41:35 -- between ASL and gesture.
00:41:37 -- This issue has presented itself in trying to analyze our data.
00:41:42 -- As we code, we have to question whether or not an item is ASL
00:41:46 -- or if it's gesture And we have these sorts of discussions
00:41:49 -- in the lab when you have multiple people watching the
00:41:54 -- same video footage.
00:41:58 -- Some people say that what is language is what you can write.
00:42:04 -- If, for example, there's something that you say
00:42:06 -- in English you can write down,
00:42:08 -- then that's the part that's language The remaining part,
00:42:12 -- the inflection, the prosity is not language.
00:42:16 -- People are now paying more attention
00:42:19 -- to these non linguistics aspects of language,
00:42:23 -- but the issue becomes much more complex in ASL
00:42:26 -- because the modality of ASL and gesture are the same.
00:42:34 -- Ladell says ASL is composed of incremental gradient components.
00:42:44 -- So it's hard to create a clear line
00:42:49 -- between where one sign begins or ends or where ASL
00:42:53 -- and gesture begin or end.
00:42:56 -- This also is related to Paul Dutas' work on depiction
00:43:02 -- and understanding how classifiers are used
00:43:05 -- in ASL This is an essential part of ASL but because for so long,
00:43:09 -- people didn't know how to address depiction,
00:43:12 -- it was disregarded for a long time.
00:43:15 -- We are now at the point we're ready to wrestle with this
00:43:23 -- as suspect of ASL I suspect that the suspense
00:43:28 -- about BTS may have been sufficiently developed
00:43:31 -- because I have mentioned it a number of times
00:43:37 -- so far in the presentation.
00:43:40 -- I think I can go ahead and show you how this transcription
00:43:42 -- system works.
00:43:44 -- What you just saw was a basic instance of classifier usage.
00:43:48 -- It shows the location of a vehicle.
00:43:53 -- The key part of this transcription is the hyphen.
00:44:00 -- The hyphen indicates the number of morphemes.
00:44:03 -- If you see three hyphens, that means there are four morphemes.
00:44:07 -- The hyphen essentially separates the number
00:44:13 -- of morphemes in a sign.
00:44:15 -- You could have one handshape and one movement,
00:44:21 -- as you just saw but two morphemes.
00:44:22 -- Now, we'll increase the complexity just a little bit.
00:44:32 -- You see the handshape this is same
00:44:37 -- but the movement is different.
00:44:40 -- If you look at the transcription above, you see two hyphens,
00:44:48 -- which means that this clip was composed of three morphemes.
00:44:53 -- I'll break that recent clip First, we have the handshape.
00:44:57 -- Then you have the movement from location A
00:45:01 -- to location B. Location A is referred
00:45:04 -- to as the source of the movement.
00:45:09 -- Location B is the goal of the movement A
00:45:14 -- and B can represent specific places.
00:45:17 -- A could be Washington D.C. and location B could be Baltimore.
00:45:25 -- The source then would be Washington D.C.
00:45:29 -- and the goal would be Baltimore.
00:45:33 -- So somebody would, if they were making a sentence,
00:45:36 -- say Washington, Baltimore, and then show a classifier
00:45:39 -- of a car moving from Washington to Baltimore.
00:45:42 -- Now, this video clip will be the same.
00:45:49 -- There's an additional morpheme,
00:45:51 -- which is the aspect of the movement.
00:45:53 -- So the aspect might convey
00:45:57 -- if an object stopped and how it stopped.
00:46:00 -- There seems to be a technical glitch here
00:46:07 -- because there was another component 0 this I wanted you
00:46:15 -- to see.
00:46:17 -- . This instance just had four morphemes.
00:46:20 -- The handshape, location A, location B and the aspect
00:46:28 -- of how the car stopped.
00:46:29 -- The way this was signed indicated the car
00:46:32 -- stopped suddenly.
00:46:35 -- In this video clip, you have two classifiers.
00:46:40 -- But do you have one sign or two?
00:46:44 -- This could be debated, but we have decided
00:46:48 -- that this constituted one sign,
00:46:53 -- despite the fact it included two classifiers.
00:47:01 -- We view this as one unit.
00:47:04 -- The non dominant handshape is one morpheme, the handshape
00:47:11 -- of the dominant hand is a second.
00:47:17 -- Location A on the non dominant hand is morpheme three
00:47:25 -- and morpheme four is the goal, location B,
00:47:33 -- on the non dominant hand The non dominant hand
00:47:49 -- in this example represents a surface.
00:47:59 -- So one morpheme is the movement of the vehicle to the edge.
00:48:04 -- And the other is the movement then downward
00:48:08 -- and beyond the edge.
00:48:09 -- Here's another example, with the sign "work."
00:48:13 -- When work is signed with a circular handshape,
00:48:18 -- a circular movement, it shows duration
00:48:25 -- that somebody was working or is working.
00:48:30 -- These short rapid movements show the intensity of working.
00:48:37 -- This instance combines the two, that somebody was working
00:48:43 -- in an intense manner for a long duration of time.
00:48:48 -- Hopefully, these somewhat oversimplified examples have
00:48:57 -- given you a sense of the complexity of BTS.
00:49:05 -- Each of the abbreviations you saw, for example, aspect,
00:49:12 -- intensity, duration, are just one of many codes
00:49:17 -- or labels we use in BTS.
00:49:20 -- This also can give you a sense
00:49:25 -- of the complexity of transcription.
00:49:30 -- Here's an English sentence.
00:49:33 -- That has 14 words.
00:49:36 -- The same sentence, when produced in ASL, needs three signs.
00:49:45 -- When you look simply at numbers,
00:49:50 -- 14 and three might make it seem ASL is not as complex as English
00:49:58 -- but that is in fact not the case.
00:50:03 -- Surgery is one sign and it is placed
00:50:08 -- on the chest, has one morpheme.
00:50:10 -- The verb of the sign, surgery, moving downward on the chest,
00:50:15 -- includes three morphemes,
00:50:16 -- and then the ribs opening is again one sign
00:50:20 -- but has two morphemes.
00:50:22 -- So you end up with a sentence in ASL
00:50:25 -- that includes three signs and six morphemes.
00:50:28 -- I have addressed some
00:50:29 -- of the purposes behind this vocabulary study.
00:50:36 -- I'll skip this slide and I'll discuss the study of some
00:50:43 -- of the five participants involved
00:50:46 -- in our first year of study.
00:50:48 -- As you might guess, using this transcription system,
00:50:51 -- which is a new system for the first time,
00:50:54 -- has been fairly labor intensive.
00:50:57 -- When a researcher starts coding the video,
00:51:02 -- you have to make several passes.
00:51:08 -- It takes time to develop intra and radar reliability.
00:51:16 -- So far, with two passes, we have coded 128 minutes
00:51:25 -- of classroom data.
00:51:27 -- In this 128 minutes, you have to remember
00:51:31 -- that children do not all sign simultaneously.
00:51:36 -- This can help us to understand what we should expect
00:51:42 -- over the course of a typical two hours in a typical classroom.
00:51:50 -- In two hours time, with five children,
00:51:54 -- we counted over 4,000 tokens.
00:51:57 -- And this is from three days of video footage.
00:52:03 -- Mind you, we have three days
00:52:04 -- of video footage This is only from two hours.
00:52:09 -- Of the 4,000 tokens, 1,006 were the signs not repeated
00:52:16 -- and the morphemes represented in these signs were over 5,000.
00:52:21 -- This can also give us information
00:52:24 -- about what we should expect, in terms of vocabulary and signing
00:52:31 -- for children at different ages.
00:52:34 -- This graph represents the number
00:52:38 -- of tokens produced per child each day according
00:52:44 -- to the different activities Sharing and snack time.
00:52:49 -- You will see the average of tokens per child varied
00:52:54 -- by activity And this would make sense, that for example,
00:53:00 -- in book sharing time, there was a significant number of tokens,
00:53:08 -- because encouragement was being excuse me,
00:53:13 -- interaction was being encouraged.
00:53:14 -- So the number here is 56,
00:53:16 -- meaning that during book sharing time,
00:53:18 -- each child produced about 5.6 signs.
00:53:23 -- Meaning that interaction was intermittent but frequent.
00:53:28 -- Circle time included several more tokens on day one.
00:53:34 -- On day two, we have book sharing, circle time
00:53:38 -- and snack time information.
00:53:39 -- The most tokens were produced there, during snack time.
00:53:45 -- This gives us an understanding of what to expect
00:53:51 -- in different contexts.
00:53:52 -- As I start to analyze what is happening
00:53:56 -- in these different contexts, we may start
00:53:58 -- to see vocabulary looks different,
00:54:00 -- interaction looks different but we're not quite there yet.
00:54:04 -- This graph represents different types of tokens
00:54:07 -- that were produced per child, per activity on each day.
00:54:14 -- On day one, we see two different types
00:54:18 -- of tokens during book sharing time
00:54:21 -- versus 4 1/2 per child on the first day.
00:54:24 -- Again, this can contribute to our understanding
00:54:28 -- of a typical classroom so we understand what sorts
00:54:33 -- of interaction or beneficial for children so we can understand
00:54:39 -- if the action is efficient or if it's not.
00:54:43 -- This is still really early in our research
00:54:46 -- but this gives you a sense
00:54:48 -- of the implications for this research.
00:54:51 -- The more information we gather, the more we understand,
00:54:55 -- the better we'll be able to assess the strength
00:54:59 -- or healthiness of a classroom, if you will.
00:55:02 -- We'll be able to understand whether
00:55:06 -- or not these classrooms are functioning on target.
00:55:10 -- As of right now, we don't have a standard way of measuring
00:55:14 -- or comparing activity or interaction across classrooms.
00:55:20 --
00:55:21 -- So assessing one classroom in depth helps us
00:55:25 -- to understand the quality and quantity
00:55:31 -- of language use in a classroom.
00:55:33 -- Can I have a time check?
00:55:36 -- There's no clock in the room, that I can see.
00:55:40 -- It's 5:00 now.
00:55:43 -- Thank you.
00:55:44 -- This third graph looks
00:55:44 -- at the morphemes produced per child activity on each day.
00:55:49 -- And this is another representation
00:55:50 -- of the same information, just presented numerically,
00:55:53 -- so that you see the total number of tokens, tokens per minute
00:55:59 -- and total morphemes in the different types of activities.
00:56:06 -- And the number of tokens per minute, of course,
00:56:09 -- makes sense during the different types
00:56:11 -- of activities during book sharing time.
00:56:12 -- The teacher is talking more and the children are attending.
00:56:16 -- Again, the further the more that we understand
00:56:19 -- about these classrooms, the greater insight we can gain
00:56:23 -- into what should be occurring in a typical classroom Going back
00:56:31 -- to those 4,000 tokens that we found on average,
00:56:41 -- the 4,000 tokens we found in the 128 minutes of video,
00:56:48 -- we looked then at how many signs were produced
00:56:50 -- that had one morpheme, two, three and so
00:56:53 -- on 3700 had one morpheme, 600 had two You see
00:57:00 -- that the number goes down,
00:57:02 -- according as the number of morphemes go up.
00:57:05 -- We would expect this would change over time.
00:57:08 -- Because this is what we're seeing in 3 year olds.
00:57:10 -- But the picture of 4 year olds
00:57:12 -- and 5 year olds might look very different.
00:57:15 -- If this study were replicated in different places
00:57:21 -- with different children who have different characteristics
00:57:24 -- including different levels of proficiency in ASL
00:57:27 -- and different sorts of backgrounds, that contributes
00:57:30 -- to a greater understanding of what the norm is
00:57:33 -- and understanding a typical classroom,
00:57:36 -- which will then allow us
00:57:38 -- to evaluate classrooms being conducted
00:57:47 -- in ASL on their own terms.
00:57:53 -- From our initial analysis using the Clan software,
00:58:01 -- we have come up with efficiency counts using the morphemes.
00:58:07 -- From those morphemes in the 128 minutes of video, the morpheme
00:58:11 -- of location was used 50 times.
00:58:16 -- Morphemes related to path information were used 23 times.
00:58:22 -- Morphemes relating to posture were used 43 times, and so on.
00:58:27 -- This is another level of analysis, when you're looking
00:58:32 -- at children's language
00:58:33 -- that could inform how we develop test instruments
00:58:36 -- or understanding children's language This information gives
00:58:40 -- us a basis for how to design these tests.
00:58:42 -- Of course, we're not at the place
00:58:44 -- where we can develop tests based on this, but this is a step
00:58:47 -- in the right direction that can lead us
00:58:50 -- to developing instruments based on valid information,
00:58:54 -- meaning we could then use these tests or this information
00:59:00 -- to predict how children would perform.
00:59:05 -- So this is some of these are some of the first steps
00:59:10 -- in collecting a good sample
00:59:11 -- of child language children's language use
00:59:15 -- and how we can expect that they would develop.
00:59:20 -- Now, in doing this work, issues have come up that we have tabled
00:59:24 -- for the moment, because we haven't known we don't know what
00:59:28 -- to do with them.
00:59:30 -- One example I can give you is of an instance where a child took
00:59:35 -- on a surrogate role of being a ladybug,
00:59:39 -- which could be counted as one morpheme.
00:59:41 -- They then put up their hands to indicate the ladybug's wings
00:59:45 -- and they flapped them in an angry manner.
00:59:48 -- If this were coded in BTS and analyzed in Clan,
00:59:54 -- it would read as one morpheme.
00:59:57 -- Which we know would be a gross mischaracterization
01:00:01 -- in this instance of language use So in developing Clan and BTS,
01:00:09 -- we have found some holes and weaknesses
01:00:13 -- which are then opportunities to refine BTS
01:00:17 -- and make it more robust.
01:00:19 -- Another example when a child was imitating a child walking
01:00:25 -- to bed sleepily.
01:00:26 -- We had a great discussion whether
01:00:28 -- or not this was ASL or if it was gesture.
01:00:32 -- As I said, for the moment, we've tabled it.
01:00:35 -- It's an important discussion to be had.
01:00:39 -- This has to do with the boundary between gesture and ASL.
01:00:42 -- I think that historically we have disregarded many essential
01:00:46 -- components of ASL because we haven't known what to do with it
01:00:50 -- and all that's remained is what we could compare to English
01:00:55 -- but that did not give us the full picture of ASL.
01:01:01 -- A third example is of language play.
01:01:04 -- A child in one of the segments of video showed what it looked
01:01:10 -- like when someone had their glasses on backwards.
01:01:14 -- It was an interesting challenge to try to code in BTS.
01:01:19 -- There were a number of options
01:01:21 -- and ways we could have coded for it.
01:01:23 -- We tabled this but it still remains as a challenge
01:01:29 --
01:01:31 -- and something interesting to discuss.
01:01:37 -- Going back to the literature,
01:01:44 -- the literature overwhelmingly states the first vocabulary
01:01:50 -- items to be developed in children are primarily announce.
01:01:58 -- When you look at the McArthur inventory of vocabulary
01:02:03 -- in English, and then translate it to ASL,
01:02:05 -- it incorrectly assumes there are signs in ASL
01:02:09 -- that have singular English equivalents.
01:02:13 -- It also misrepresent the characteristics
01:02:16 -- between ASL and English.
01:02:18 -- So English may have a lot of nouns,
01:02:21 -- while ASL may have a lot of verbs.
01:02:23 -- When you're only looking for announce
01:02:27 -- by using this McArthur checklist,
01:02:29 -- you have a great blind spot because you're not looking
01:02:35 -- at the verbs that are present in a child's early ASL use.
01:02:39 -- We know that when you look at the percentage of announce
01:02:42 -- to verbs in English, versus the percentage of announce and verbs
01:02:48 -- in ASL, the number of nouns in English outweigh excuse me,
01:02:53 -- the number of announce in English are greater
01:02:56 -- than the number of announce in ASL and vice versa.
01:02:59 -- ASL has more verbs than English has.
01:03:02 -- So these are important characteristics
01:03:06 -- to pay attention to.
01:03:08 -- Another issue to trying to measure vocabulary has to do
01:03:12 -- with how to count the distinction
01:03:15 -- between a noun and a verb in ASL.
01:03:17 -- So, for example, in English, what is when car is
01:03:21 -- on an inventory list, how do you score if a child signs "drive,"
01:03:26 -- but drive isn't on that list of vocabulary?
01:03:32 -- Could I have another time check?
01:03:35 -- Another example of the inadequacy of using English
01:03:38 -- to understand children's ASL development is
01:03:41 -- by using the fry word list.
01:03:44 -- Fry came up with a list
01:03:46 -- of the most commonly used words in English.
01:03:50 -- These are the first 25.
01:03:53 -- You see in this list of 25, you have articles present
01:03:59 -- in English, we don't have in ASL.
01:04:01 -- You have conjunctions that are used differently
01:04:05 -- in English and ASL.
01:04:06 -- So it becomes difficult
01:04:09 -- to translate this word list into ASL.
01:04:13 -- And, of course, the items
01:04:15 -- that are the most challenging are simply disregarded.
01:04:21 -- The 300 first to 325th most frequent English words have more
01:04:29 -- words that can be said to have direct ASL equivalents,
01:04:33 -- but the issue still is not resolved.
01:04:36 -- I won't go into this fingerspelling sample
01:04:43 -- in too much depth but I think it's important
01:04:53 -- to mention Let's say that somebody were
01:04:56 -- to fingerspell the month, June.
01:04:59 -- In a way that is linear and looks very different
01:05:08 -- from how someone might sign March,
01:05:11 -- that has a forward movement.
01:05:13 -- Is the way that I just signed march lexicalized or was
01:05:22 -- that just a variation I chose to put on as a person?
01:05:28 -- Other words can be finger spelled in such a way
01:05:33 -- that it's not clear if it's lexicalized
01:05:35 -- or if a movement was added to show emphasis.
01:05:42 -- So when you look at adult fingerspelling,
01:05:47 -- a number of questions come
01:05:49 -- up about how fingerspelling is produced,
01:05:52 -- whether they're lexicalized item, if they're items
01:05:56 -- that are used with special emphasis.
01:05:58 -- We can look at how children then produce fingerspelling.
01:06:02 -- If they're producing fingerspelling very adult
01:06:06 -- like with lexicalized items with adult emphasis
01:06:10 -- and there are similarities, what does that mean?
01:06:13 -- Does that mean they are developing knowledge
01:06:16 -- about their language?
01:06:20 -- We can draw tentative hypotheses about these and try
01:06:23 -- to create explanations,
01:06:25 -- but there's a lot more to be looked at here.
01:06:32 -- For example, if I were to sign no in a citation form,
01:06:38 -- that can be considered lexicalized.
01:06:41 -- If I sign it in a way where there's movement,
01:06:44 -- then it also indicates that a person is telling someone else,
01:06:49 -- no The distinction between nouns and verbs can overlap.
01:06:54 -- In my point of view,
01:06:56 -- fingerspelling usually falls more into the category
01:06:59 -- of announce, but there are variations within fingerspelling
01:07:04 -- that need to be analyzed and then we can compare the ratio
01:07:09 -- of nouns and verbs within fingerspelling.
01:07:13 -- There's a number of questions that have come
01:07:17 -- up from this pattern that we've noticed.
01:07:19 -- Again, as I said, we noticed
01:07:21 -- by the time children reach kindergarten,
01:07:23 -- they're are fingerspelling a great deal.
01:07:28 -- Hopefully, this has given you a general sense of work we do
01:07:32 -- in my lab in analyzing child language, their discourse,
01:07:36 -- their vocabulary and their interactions with print.
01:07:41 -- We have book sharing episodes between teachers and children
01:07:44 -- and hopefully understanding their language development
01:07:48 -- and the quality of these interactions,
01:07:50 -- we will later begin
01:07:53 -- to understand how those things relate
01:07:56 -- to their literacy development.
01:08:01 -- Hopefully, in the years to come,
01:08:04 -- I will have something more definitive
01:08:06 -- that can explain the trajectory
01:08:09 -- of children's development toward their literacy skills,
01:08:16 -- and we can understand how different variables account
01:08:22 -- for their development.
01:08:25 -- Thank you.
01:08:25 -- Wonderful presentation.
01:08:28 -- We really need to look at BTS as a standard to use
01:08:31 -- across the country for all deaf children.
01:08:34 -- Do you have a Frye list for ASL,
01:08:37 -- like a common listing of English words?
01:08:42 -- The second question is, you're collecting the number of signs
01:08:49 -- and then morphemes and tokens, so is there any indication
01:08:59 -- that if you have more morphemes to assign,
01:09:09 -- that that has more meaning or complexity?
01:09:16 -- To answer your first question about the Frye list,
01:09:20 -- my point in showing this was that we don't know.
01:09:23 -- We don't have a list.
01:09:26 -- This Frye list was based on years of research of children
01:09:30 -- and the English language There is an immense corpus
01:09:33 -- of children's language that led to the development
01:09:40 -- of the Frye word list.
01:09:43 -- But in ASL, we don't have a similar corpus.
01:09:47 -- So we're beginning, truly, from scratch here.
01:09:52 -- We don't know who else might be out there
01:09:56 -- that has documented children's language use in ASL.
01:10:01 -- We have collected some video footage that we can enter
01:10:06 -- into the Clan software, and hopefully, this might lead
01:10:12 -- to a similar sort of frequency list, like the Frye word list.
01:10:17 -- Again, questions come up related to how to count vocabulary items
01:10:23 -- So if I were to use the same classifier for a car
01:10:26 -- and show different manners of movement, does that count
01:10:30 -- as one word or several?
01:10:32 -- So there are some practical issues that come up when trying
01:10:37 -- to when thinking about how to develop a list,
01:10:40 -- like the Frye list for ASL.
01:10:43 --
01:10:49 -- The Frye list also lets us know what benchmarks are for children
01:10:55 -- at certain ages We don't 0 yet have a way
01:10:59 -- of knowing what typical development is for deaf children
01:11:04 -- that have access to signing 24 7 This goal of trying to quantify
01:11:10 -- that might be a little overambitious We need
01:11:13 -- to have some sort of way to benchmark language development
01:11:18 -- in young deaf children, because it has implications
01:11:22 -- for their cognitive development as they grow older.
01:11:28 -- Then the second question about the morphemes.
01:11:30 -- That question is still up for discussion.
01:11:32 -- What we're doing now is selecting just basic
01:11:35 -- information, and we have to move slowly
01:11:38 -- through what we have before we can start asking more complex
01:11:43 -- questions like what you're asking We've collected
01:11:47 -- naturalistic data from real world environments
01:11:51 -- with real kids having real interactions.
01:11:54 -- This for will drive further questions.
01:11:57 -- So right now, we don't have a way
01:11:59 -- of interpreting what the meaning is, of children using signs
01:12:03 -- that have several morphemes So we can make educated decisions
01:12:08 -- or guesses about what we are seeing in these video,
01:12:13 -- based on what we already know
01:12:15 -- but we're letting the data drive our direction Some
01:12:21 -- of this may help other researchers in terms
01:12:25 -- of developing new research questions Any other questions?
01:12:30 -- My question relates to the BTS transcription system.
01:12:36 -- It seems that there is why is it the video didn't show the face?
01:12:40 -- Just interested in that?
01:12:42 -- Is it because you're just looking at the sign?
01:12:47 -- That's one question.
01:12:49 -- Like the one signed vehicle with two locations, if they move it
01:12:53 -- in a different place, if the location moves differently,
01:12:58 -- is it transcribed differently or is it transcribed the same way?
01:13:05 -- Lon: Regarding your first question
01:13:08 -- about why the video only showed torso,
01:13:12 -- it was just to reduce the amount of detail that I was giving you.
01:13:20 -- I was just to give you brief indication how to use BTS,
01:13:25 -- so when we actually use BTS, what's happening
01:13:29 -- on people's faces is very important.
01:13:34 -- If there's a facial expression
01:13:36 -- that shows they are the operator,
01:13:38 -- then they can that's one type of facial expression.
01:13:41 -- You can also have another code for if it's affective.
01:13:46 -- There's different types of affects.
01:13:48 -- Someone can be angry, have different types of emotions.
01:13:52 -- We do have a way to code for information present
01:13:58 -- in signer's faces, it just wasn't given
01:14:00 -- in the example here.
01:14:04 -- As for your second question, if location A
01:14:06 -- and location B move outward from the body,
01:14:10 -- it's still coded similarly, as if the path were horizontal,
01:14:15 -- because there's still two different locations That's just
01:14:18 -- a phonological difference
01:14:19 -- if it's moving outward or across the body.
01:14:22 -- The important thing is if it's going from location A
01:14:27 -- to location B. Sometimes we get distracted by trying
01:14:32 -- to analyze phonological information
01:14:35 -- but that's a different focus than here.
01:14:37 -- We're looking at just meaning.
01:14:39 -- We're looking at units of meaning within signs
01:14:42 -- without looking
01:14:44 -- at the phonological features We're looking
01:14:47 -- at what's communicated in meaning
01:14:49 -- and that's why we're looking at units of meaning.
01:14:53 -- That even brings me back
01:14:56 -- to understanding the terminology we're using.
01:15:00 -- When we use words like "morpheme,"
01:15:02 -- that in itself implies a certain theory how we
01:15:06 -- understand language.
01:15:07 -- That comes from analysis of spoken language.
01:15:12 -- Perhaps by working on ASL,
01:15:14 -- we can expand what we understand morphemes to mean,
01:15:18 -- we can understand our understandings of phonology
01:15:22 --
01:15:23 -- So it could be change to be the term could be
01:15:29 -- meaningful component.
01:15:32 -- People did at one time debate whether we should call these
01:15:38 -- units of ASL morpheme.
01:15:40 -- People talked about them as meaningful units of signs,
01:15:49 -- MESs but we decided to use the same terminology
01:15:55 -- and call them morphemes.
01:15:57 -- Great question Seems like one person asked three questions
01:16:05 -- but everybody else asked two questions so I will ask two.
01:16:10 -- Complex interactions, I have a hard time defining that I wonder
01:16:15 -- if you have criteria determining what is complex or not?
01:16:21 -- You want to answer that before I ask the second question?
01:16:27 -- The second question is you filmed video in the classroom,
01:16:35 -- like the book sharing time.
01:16:38 -- Did you also film the transition times?
01:16:44 -- That can give us information, too,
01:16:46 -- a lot of conversation that happens.
01:16:49 -- Did you look at that as well?
01:16:51 -- Lon: First, about your question regarding extended
01:16:57 -- discourse and complex interactions.
01:17:02 -- I did start by looking at what the literature tells us
01:17:08 -- and didn't come out with any clear answer.
01:17:12 -- One criterion was that there needed to be
01:17:20 -- at least three exchanges.
01:17:22 -- So that was one way of reducing the amount we looked
01:17:28 -- at That was the first step, start with a number of exchanges
01:17:32 -- that were present in an interaction.
01:17:34 -- Then beyond that, we looked
01:17:36 -- at making sure there was something substantive going
01:17:40 -- on in that discourse.
01:17:44 -- Then we had to operationalize these intuitions we were having
01:17:49 -- about what was significant about these interactions That's part
01:18:03 -- of our goal with coding these interactions.
01:18:08 -- As we begin to develop a coding system
01:18:15 -- that can accurately reflect the nature of these interaction,
01:18:20 -- we can revisit some of the earlier things we coded and see
01:18:25 -- if we can further understand the meaningful parts
01:18:28 -- of those interactions.
01:18:30 -- There's no end to how many times we can revisit the same data
01:18:34 -- as BTS is further refined As we develop competence is
01:18:36 -- in using this transcription system, we can then begin
01:18:42 -- to develop confidence how to operationalize what we mean
01:18:50 -- by extended discourse or complex interactions
01:18:57 -- And developing a coding system is one way to arrive
01:19:03 -- at a definition of what leads people
01:19:08 -- to select certain items in an interaction.
01:19:13 -- The way we've approached this is essentially
01:19:18 -- like not seeing the forest for the trees.
01:19:24 -- We're starting step by step then and just picking interactions
01:19:28 -- that have at least three exchanges.
01:19:32 -- We're looking for tokens.
01:19:35 -- We're selecting items that seem to have the most intrigue.
01:19:40 -- The more we gather and the more we is in,
01:19:45 -- the further we'll be able to refine our work
01:19:50 -- and hopefully be able to spin our wheels a little bit less
01:19:56 -- because as we begin, we'll be spending some time on discourse
01:20:02 -- that doesn't really or spend time analyzing discourse
01:20:09 -- that doesn't really lead anywhere.
01:20:13 -- Hopefully as we uncover items of discourse
01:20:18 -- that do lead us somewhere, we'll be able
01:20:20 -- to get better at our analysis.
01:20:23 -- Your second question about transitions between types
01:20:30 -- of activities, we do have footage
01:20:34 -- of these transition times but we didn't code for them.
01:20:44 -- So we only coded for what was happening say once book sharing
01:20:52 -- officially began and when it officially ended.
01:20:55 -- I do understand during transition time,
01:21:01 -- they still might carry over what happened during book time,
01:21:06 -- if they're moving from book sharing time to snack time
01:21:10 -- and conversations might relate to what was just happening
01:21:20 -- but conversations could come up about different topics.
01:21:26 -- So we only coded, again,
01:21:29 -- according to when activities officially began
01:21:34 -- and ended We didn't include transition time for right now.
01:21:45 -- Part of that is because trying
01:21:49 -- to analyze transition time outside of the context
01:21:55 -- of the activities that it was happening
01:21:57 -- in between becomes difficult
01:22:00 -- Does anyone have three questions?
01:22:04 -- I just have one quick question.
01:22:07 -- I'm trying to imagine videotaping
01:22:11 -- in the classroom Is this a bilingual bi cultural classroom
01:22:16 -- with a teacher deaf and uses ASL?
01:22:19 -- What was the situation?
01:22:20 -- The school that I collected data from has is widely known
01:22:29 -- as having adopted a bilingual bi cultural approach.
01:22:34 -- This teacher is a very competent qualified teacher.
01:22:38 -- There are a variety of teachers.
01:22:39 -- In the first year, there was one hearing teacher, second year,
01:22:41 -- two hearing teachers, one deaf teacher, third year,
01:22:44 -- more deaf teachers, so it's varied
01:22:46 -- Most of your students were white students.
01:22:52 -- There were just a few students of color.
01:22:56 -- Most were female.
01:22:57 -- Did you notice a difference between race and gender?
01:23:02 -- Lon: I should start by saying did not select
01:23:05 -- or have any wife controlling the students
01:23:09 -- who were in the classroom.
01:23:14 -- The population of the school that I collected footage
01:23:18 -- at is predominantly white.
01:23:22 -- The second largest population is Latino, third is Asian
01:23:28 -- and the fourth largest racial group is African American.
01:23:33 -- In the early childhood program serves children 3 and 4,
01:23:39 -- only serves children from the immediate residential area.
01:23:46 -- Children that transfer in at later ages transfer in usually
01:23:55 -- from areas that don't serve deaf children.
01:24:00 -- So children that live in larger areas that have larger schools
01:24:09 -- that have services generally stay where they are.
01:24:13 -- So there aren't a number of African American children
01:24:27 -- in this school, in general.
01:24:30 -- Regarding your question about gender, as you saw,
01:24:34 -- there were a vast majority of girls in the first year
01:24:37 -- but it balanced out in subsequent years.
01:24:40 -- But there still were more girls than boys,
01:24:43 -- which I guess offers proof that girls rule the world, huh?
01:24:46 -- In the second and third year, you said you had more
01:24:50 -- of a balanced mix, gender.
01:24:52 -- Did that make a difference?
01:24:53 -- Did you see a difference?
01:24:54 -- Lon: My answer to that would be based on loose observations.
01:24:58 -- I haven't done an analysis of it beyond the first year.
01:25:01 -- I've only looked at those five children.
01:25:06 -- So I'm not ready to say whether
01:25:08 -- or not there's differences based on analysis.
01:25:10 -- We have to analyze the first year
01:25:13 -- to then inform how we will analyze the second
01:25:17 -- or third year.
01:25:17 -- I will say, though, the girls so far,
01:25:19 -- this course has been a bit more complex.
01:25:21 -- They've also used English, they have included writing.
01:25:22 -- I can't quantify that until we do more analysis.
01:25:24 -- So this is my third question, okay,
01:25:25 -- coming back the second time.
01:25:25 -- This is a five year longitudinal study.
01:25:26 -- Will you continue after that and what do you expect to see?
01:25:28 -- Lon: I'm not sure if we'll continue
01:25:29 -- to gather data from the classroom.
01:25:30 -- My one of my research assistants is collecting footage
01:25:31 -- from a third grade classroom because she's looking
01:25:32 -- at vocabulary and how children what vocabulary they use
01:25:34 -- in complex discussions.
01:25:35 -- So between her data and mine,
01:25:35 -- we might put things together I'm not sure if I should continue
01:25:37 -- by following more children as they grow older
01:25:38 -- or if I should repeat the study and gather footage
01:25:39 -- on more children in the same age range.
01:25:40 -- There's pros and cons to each of those decisions,
01:25:42 -- because if I were to continue the longitudinal study,
01:25:43 -- I would continue with the small end, versus if I were
01:25:44 -- to repeat the study and look at young children from 3
01:25:46 -- to 6, I could grow the end.
01:25:47 -- Thank you, Dr. Kuntze.
01:25:47 -- We have a reception that's right out here in the hallway.
01:25:49 -- So please stay and enjoy the refreshments.
01:25:50 -- Again, please fill out your evaluations before you leave.
01:25:51 -- It's very helpful for us.
01:25:52 -- Thank you, Lon.
01:25:52 -- Thank you, everyone.
01:25:53 --
