Narrative Competence in Monolingual and Bilingual School Children

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: L 1 predict L 2

The Core Design Replicated at Kindergarten, 2 nd and 5 th Grades Monolinguals Bilinguals Two-Way English Immersion ESH 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 L 1 predict L 2 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 2 nd and 5 th graders 80 160 ML BL in English BL in Spanish + 24 “ 2 nd 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…. . ? n n n Which one is a good story? one is not good? 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 4 fluency -- … {} Pause for For word -- {} vocab example Bottle Morpho- [they] syntactic was accuracy laying effect -finding vs Jar vs Can 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 see the world; saw the frog not there none Temporal links “when 2” clause no clauses “already” “nightmorning” “while” + wrong tense; “while” “when 1”

What about “Complex Syntax”? Grammatical devices (language) to introduce complexity and point of view (story) n 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” n 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) n “Between Clauses” Causal conjunctions: “in order to”; “so that he could. . . ” Adverbs of simultaneity: “while”; “when 2” Retrospective reference: “still”; “already”; “todavia” “Language” or “Story” or both?

Findings from Narrative Analyses: (review) ML > BL (mostly) Two-way = EI (partly) L 1 predict L 2 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 2 nd grade. Next page for 5 th grade. (heading: language gap narrows by 5 th grade. ) Next page (heading: Language gap closes at Hi. SES, 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 is not true, at least not in a circumstance of on-going “ 2 nd language learning”

Question 1 a: MLs outperform BLs (mostly). (ML red/ BL blue 2 nd gr solid/ 5 th grade bars

Question 1 b: MLs outperform BLs (mostly)– Not equally in all aspects of the task Story scores more equivalent; Most discrepancy in the Language Score. 2 nd grade Story vs Language

Question 1 c: MLs outperform BLs (mostly)– Less so in the long term. 5 th grade: Story ML/BL gap narrows Language Score

Q 1 d Most persistent ML/ BL gap in MS Accuracy (Story Lexicon and Complex Syntax “catch-up”)

Question 1 e: ML outperform BLs – but Gap in Total Score closes at Hi. SES, ESH Simple Effect -- Linguality Frog Total ML n M BL n M F p All 2 nd grade 40 63. 0 79 51. 3 35. 6 . 01* All 5 th grade 40 67. 3 81 64. 4 3. 29 . 07 5 th gr; Hi. SES 20 70. 6 40 67. 0 2. 59 . 11 5: Hi. Ses; 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 2 way vs EI 2 nd to 5 th (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 2 a: EI = 2 -way (partly)– In ENGLISH: YES. (EI green, 2 -way blue) Story Language

Question 2 b: EI = 2 -way (partly)– In SPANISH: NO. (EI green, 2 -way blue) IMS (OSH orange, ESH brown) LSH

Q 2 b (con’t) That is, n 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 3 a: L 1 predicts L 2 In Literacy Measures--YES

Question 3 b L 1 predicts L 2 In Oral Language-- NO

Q 3 c 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 5 th 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. )

Summary of Narrative Analysis Results Mirror the results from the Standardized tests: n EI = 2 way in English; 2 -way > EI in Spanish • language of the home advantage for ESH (in English) disappears by 5 th 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: n Creating a unified plot n Motivating events through reference to internal states n Providing narrator’s comments on the unfolding story n Using compound time-referencing n Using embedded structures which distinguished their own thoughts from those of the characters

Limitations of Narrative Analysis Results n n 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) n n “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