UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The use of cohesive devices by school-age language impaired children Ruthven, Lucille Katherine 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A6_7 R87.pdf [ 10.74MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097565.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097565-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097565-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097565-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097565-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097565-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097565-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097565-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097565.ris

Full Text

THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES BY SCHOOL-AGE LANGUAGE IMPAIRED CHILDREN  By LUCILLE KATHERINE RUTHVEN B.A.(Hons.), The U n i v e r s i t y of Winnipeg, 1983  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE THE SCHOOL OF AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH SCIENCES  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 ( c ) L u c i l l e Katherine Ruthven, 1989  In  presenting  degree freely  at  of  department publication  partial  fulfilment  University of  British  Columbia, I agree  for  and study.  the  available  copying  this  this or of  thesis  reference  thesis by  in  for  his  this thesis  scholarly  or for  her  of  the  purposes  representatives.  financial gain  o f A u d i o i o g y and  The University of British C o l u m b i a Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  that  I further agree may  be  It  is  shall not  permission.  School  requirements  Speech  Sciences  that  the  an  advanced  Library shall make  permission for  granted  be  for  by  the  understood  that  allowed  without  head  it  extensive of  my  copying  or  my written  Abstract  F r e q u e n c y and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f discourse t o 11;8  of  were  discourse  six  language  investigated  difficulties  ( M a r t i n 1977, position three  analysis.  stories  2)  same s t o r y w i t h o u t  utterance  attempts  a greater  (a t o t a l o f 1)  by n o r m a l language the  of  language links  a n d 3)  sentence  consisted  of  which  were  r e t e l l of  cohesive appeared  (versus  devices t o be  impaired c h i l d r e n ,  the  related fewer  Retrieval analysis  revealed  (forward reference  indicated that  indefinite)  forms  within  impaired the to  language  introduce  a n d more n o m i n a l s  children.  c h i l d r e n v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n o f  per  ones),  c h i l d r e n t h a n by l a n g u a g e  than the normal language  using  (particularly lexical  reference  form/function analysis  ii  Reference,  recall.  more p r o n o m i n a l s t o s w i t c h r e f e r e n c e ,  maintain reference  the  analysis  thirty-six stories),  f a i l e d cohesion attempts.  a n a p h o r i c and e s p h o r i c  R e s u l t s of  both groups  report  c h i l d r e n , a f i n d i n g that  i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n u s e d more d e f i n i t e  of  retrieval  p i c t u r e b o o k n a r r a t i o n , 2)  of  9;1  cohesion i n E n g l i s h .  (Bamberg 1987)  the present  to provide cohesive  number o f  use of  participants,  for  l e n g t h on t h e p a r t  on t h e i r p a r t  the n o m i n a l group) children.  u s i n g 1)  i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n used s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer  utterance  and a g r e a t e r  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  d e s c r i p t i o n of  a n d 3) v i d e o  than normal language  to shorter  (1976)  The d a t a a n a l y z e d  pictures,  c h i l d r e n aged  impaired c h i l d r e n .  form/function analysis  t o l d by each c h i l d  narrative  and l e x i c a l c o h e s i o n were a n a l y z e d  investigated  o b t a i n e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s :  Language  by l a n g u a g e  conjunction,  was f u r t h e r  1983),  used i n the  i n order to gain a greater  H a l l i d a y & Hasan's  Discourse reference  devices  i m p a i r e d and s i x n o r m a l l a n g u a g e  experienced  substitution/ellipsis, an a d a p t a t i o n of  cohesive  The r e f e r e n t i a l  the p r o t a g o n i s t ;  to devices  both  groups showed evidence of a thematic subject strategy.  Task differences  tended to hold for one group or the other, suggesting that the two groups were responding differently to changes in contextual configuration.  The findings  suggest that the difficulty faced by language impaired children in the realm of discourse may not only be the general one of discovering a systematic relationship between discourse-sensitive forms and their functions, but also that of discovering appropriate form-function context.  pairings specific to a given  The results underline the importance of discourse analysis to  clinical assessment and intervention.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  LIST OF TABLES  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  viii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  ix  Chapter 1.  THE DISCOURSE DISORDERS OF LANGUAGE IMPAIRED CHILDREN  2.  METHOD AND PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA  1 10  Method Subjects Data Collection Statistical Procedures Preliminary Description Results Discussion 3.  COHESION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  28  Theoretical Framework Systemic Grammar The Nature of Text Cohesion Related Studies The Development of Cohesion Cohesion and Language Impaired Populations Purpose of the Present Study 4.  COHESION: ANALYSIS  74  Method of Analysis Results Amount of Cohesion Distribution Discussion  iv  5.  REFERENCE: RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS  109  Introduction Reference Network Previous Findings Purpose of the Present Analysis Results Discussion 6.  REFERENCE: FORM/FUNCTION ANALYSIS  128  Discourse Reference Theoretical Background The Development of Referential Devices Reference and Language Impaired Populations Results Discussion 7.  CONCLUSIONS  179  BIBLIOGRAPHY  192  Appendix 1.  SUMMARY OF STORY CONTENT  198  2.  SAMPLE NARRATIVES  199  3.  MEAN PROPORTIONS OF COHESION CATEGORIES  206  4.  CONJUNCTIVE ITEMS USED BY LI AND NL CHILDREN  207  5.  PHORIC NOMINAL GROUPS INVOLVING BRIDGING  208  6.  CHECKLIST OF COHESIVE DEVICES  209  v  LIST OF TABLES  Table I. II.  III.  Page Summary of Subject Characteristics  12  Mean Frequency of Words, Independent Clauses, and Words per Independent Clause across Tasks (T1,T2,T3) and Language Groups (LI and NL)  19  Summary of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) Inventory of Cohesive Devices  IV. V. VI.  VII. VIII. IX.  XI.  XII.  XIII.  39  Examples of Cohesion Categories from the Data Frequency of Cohesive Ties Used by LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 Proportions of Referential Ties falling into the Subcategories of Personals, Demonstratives, and Comparatives for LI and NL children on TI, T2, and T3  76 78 81  Proportions of Additive versus Nonadditive Conjunctive Ties for LI and NL children on TI, T2, and T3  85  Frequency (and Proportion) of Conjunctive Ties by Individual Subjects on T2  86  Mean Proportions of Lexical Cohesion Subtypes (out of Total Lexical Ties) for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3  88  Frequency (per Independent Clause) of Lexical Ties and of Two Lexical Subtypes (Repetition with Identity and Verbal) for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3  89  Subtypes of Incomplete Devices used by LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3: Frequency, Percentage of Utterances containing each Subtype, and Ratio of these Percentages (LI/NL)  91  Mean Percentages of Cohesion Categories in Narratives: Results of the Present Study Compared to the Adults of Rochester & Martin's Study (1979)  95  Frequency of Phoric Nominal Groups per Independent Clause for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 vi  117  XIV.  Mean Proportions of Retrieval Categories for LI and NL Children on Tl, T2, and T3  118  XV. Number of Each Type of Introductory Device (First Mention) Used by LI and NL Children on Tl, T2, and T3  153  XVI.  XVII.  XVIII.  XIX.  Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal and Pronominal Devices used by LI and NL Children to Switch versus Maintain Reference to the Passengers and to the Ape: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2  155  Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal versus Pronominal Devices used by LI and NL Children to Svitch Reference to the Passengers and to the Ape: (a) on T l and (b) on T2  158  Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal versus Pronominal Devices used by LI and NL Children to Maintain Reference to the Passengers and to the Ape: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2  158  Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal and Pronominal Devices in Subject versus Nonsubject Position as used by LI and NL Children to Refer to the Passengers, Ape, and Minor Characters: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2  160  XX. Distribution of Focus in Subject Position: Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Referential Devices in Subject Position that Refer to the Passengers, Ape, or Minor Characters as Used by LI and NL Children: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2 XXI.  Distribution of Focus in Nonsubject Position: Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Referential Devices in Nonsubject Position that refer to the Passengers, Ape, or Minor Characters as Used by LI and NL Children: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2  vii  162  163  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. 2. 3.  4.  Place of Cohesion w i t h i n the Semantic Stratum of Systemic Grammar  30  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Cohesion Categories f o r LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3  80  Frequency of Conjunctive Ties per Independent Clause by LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3: a) a l l Conjunctions (Intra-utterance and Inter-utterance), b) Intra-utterance Conjunctions ; c) Inter-utterance Conjunctions  83  Reference Network i n English  viii  110  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  Grateful acknowledgment is extended to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Carolyn Johnson, for her valuable comments at each stage of the research, for the many hours she spent examining the text and providing constructive feedback, and for being a constant source of encouragement. Thanks are also extended to Dr. John Gilbert for his helpful suggestions and for reviewing the text. I also wish to express thanks to the many members of the Richmond School District who made collection of the data possible: the administration for granting me permission to obtain subjects from their schools, the speech/ language pathologists for recommending children for the study, the principals for providing quiet rooms and video equipment, and the teachers for recommending control subjects and for allowing me to collect data during school time. Special thanks are also due to the parents who kindly consented to the inclusion of their child in the study, and to the children themselves for their enthusiastic participation and delightful stories. I am also grateful to Lisa Kam from the Department of Statistics for her suggestions, and to Margaret Lahey for her permission to reproduce a cohesion  checklist which appeared in Language Disorders  and Language Development  (MacMillan Publishing Co.,1988). Finally, sincere thanks are extended to friends and family members for their encouragement. In particular, I would like to thank my husband, Lloyd, for the many hours he spent instructing me in computerized word processing, for his patience with my ignorance of such matters, and for the financial and moral support which enabled me to concentrate on this research.  ix  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION THE DISCOURSE DISORDERS OF LANGUAGE IMPAIRED CHILDREN  The recent application of functional grammars to the study of language acquisition and language impairment has resulted in a shift in method from the analysis of single sentences (and of their constituents) to examinations of continuous stretches of language and contextual variables.  This development  is particularly significant in the domain of education where considerable value i s attached to the production of coherent discourse, and conversely, where the production of incoherent discourse is stigmatized.  Teachers are not  alone in their demand for coherence; a child's classmates may be just as exacting:  "those who interrupt, who f a i l to give feedback, or whose remarks  are ambiguous or non sequiturs are not likely to be sought-after conversational partners" (Donahue 1985: 97). Unfortunately, there i s no concensus among either educators or linguists on what makes for coherence.  According to Brown & Yule, "human beings do not  require formal textual markers before they are prepared to interpret a text. They naturally assume coherence, and interpret the text in the light of that assumption" (1983: 66).  For these authors, accounting for coherence means  describing those things in the listener  (or reader) which enable him or her to  arrive at the speaker (or writer's) intended meaning, things such as the listener's ability to compute communicative function (speech act), to use general socio-cultural knowledge, and to make inferences. Although insight1  2  ful, Brown & Yule's interpretation leaves two questions unanswered: why do human beings "naturally assume coherence" and why must this strong assumption sometimes be abandoned?  The authors support their conclusions with examples  of coherent discourse in which there are no formal connections between utterances. markers.  However, the majority of texts contain an abundance of these  Within a functionalist perspective, the purpose served by such  markers requires explanation: The assumption of coherence can be sustained so well because human language has the resource for indicating coherence, while the nature of language as a resource has developed in a particular way because i t has had to serve the needs of the community. Our task is to understand the specific nature of these resources - not simply to hide behind the mind and the intention of particular speakers and listeners. (Halliday & Hasan 1985: 96) Accounting for coherence with reference solely to listener processes i s possible only when the normal expectation holds true, i.e. when the producer is speaking  coherently.  Incoherent discourse that leads to the abandonment of  this assumption may be due to the speaker's inability to organise relevant meanings in logical relation to each other and/or to linguistically mark this organization formally. The onus for coherence in such cases does not uniquely rest on the listener.  Educators and language clinicians must have some means  of evaluating those speakers whose discourse is consistently perceived as "incoherent".  The purpose of the present study i s to examine some of the  linguistic devices available to a speaker that contribute to the production of coherent discourse. Accurate evaluation requires that the formal properties of successful discourse be known and specified. that "talk" is complex.  What is increasingly apparent, however, is  Part of the "complexity" is due to the current state  of research on discourse disorders.  As McTear (1985) noted, confusion over  3  terminology, for example, reflects a general lack of a coherent theoretical framework. Much of the complexity is due to the nature of talk i t s e l f . Johnston described the act of conversation, for example, as "the most complex of human constructions": Participants assess, secure, and maintain each other's attention; they take and signal turns; they collaborate in establishing mutual reference and in spinning the topical thread; and they monitor the health of the conversation, asking for clarification or offering confirmation as needed. (1985: 83) As research reveals the variety of s k i l l s required in the normal speaker, the existence of a number of different discourse symptoms and underlying disorders also becomes plausible. According to Fey & Leonard, "the population of SLI [specific language impairment] children is no more homogeneous with respect to pragmatic s k i l l s than i t is with respect to semantic, syntactic, or phonological a b i l i t i e s "  (1983: 77).  A number of explanations have been proposed to account for discourse problems in children (see Johnston 1985).  A socio-affective  disturbance  appears to underlie restricted use of illocutionary force (communicative function served by an utterance).  Coherence in discourse requires that one  speech act logically follow upon another.  In the normal child, basic communi-  cative functions (e.g. establishing mutual attention and directing action) emerge early and are rapidly expanded upon. This richness of illocutionary force is in striking contrast to the discourse of some children with affective disturbances.  Illocutionary force in autism, for example, has been found to  be restricted primarily to directing listener actions; many autistic children f a i l to use language to inform or comment. Discourse symptoms have also been attributed to a general lack of  social  knowledge as a result of limited conversational experience. In the studies of  4 Donahue, Pearl & Bryan (1980) and Donahue (1981), learning disabled children were less likely to request clarification of ambiguous utterances than agematched normal language peers.  The requests of the learning disabled subjects  indicated that the linguistic skills required to request clarification were within their production ability.  The investigators concluded that the  learning disabled children demonstrated "social naivete" in that they were reluctant to question the adequacy of information provided by an experimenter whom they believed to be trustworthy.  The authors suggested that the social  rejection experienced by such children results in fewer opportunities in which they might practice conversational s k i l l s .  The finding that the learning  disabled subjects used their most polite language with their "best friends" (Donahue, 1981)  led the investigator to conclude that such children show  deficits in their understanding of social relationships. However, several investigators have questioned the notion that discourse disorders arise from a lack of social knowledge.  Johnston, for example,  interpreted the politeness of the learning disabled subjects of Donahue's study (1981) as indicating that they understood their social world a l l too well (Johnston 1985: 89).  Gallagher & Darnton (1978) found that language  disabled children were sensitive to communication breakdown and that, like children with normal language, they responded by revising their utterances. An analysis of their revisions, however, indicated that language impaired children were less likely to paraphrase or use synonyms than MLU-matched younger children. These findings suggest that there may be a formal tic  basis  for discourse problems.  linguis-  Gale, Liebergott, & Griffin (1981)  1  examined requests for clarification and found that not only did language *As reported by Friel-Patti & Conti-Ramsden (1984: 171).  5  impaired children use more nonverbal requests than language-matched normals, but their verbal requests demonstrated the use of a restricted number of linguistic forms.  Donahue, Pearl & Bryan (1982) examined the syntactic  ability of language impaired children during a task in which the subjects were required to convey information to a listener.  The results led the investiga-  tors—the same researchers who had previously proposed a social deficit explanation—to conclude that productive language deficits may significantly interfere with even informal conversation.  J  In the above studies, a linguistic hypothesis was favored over a social one since the language disabled children in each case appeared to be socially on par with younger MLU-matched children.  One may question, however, whether  language disabled children who only demonstrate the conversational s k i l l s of younger children are, in fact, socially "normal".  In a study by Fey & Leonard  (1982), the conversations of language disabled 6-year-olds were evaluated for adjustments to the needs of various partners (age peer, adult, toddler) and the results compared to adjustments made by both MLU- and age-matched controls.  The language disabled children performed like their age peers in  discourse adjustments involving illocutionary force and requests for repair but unlike their age peers in that they did not adjust the linguistic complexity of their utterances when speaking to toddlers.  These results conflict  with those of Donahue et a l . (1980) and favor a linguistic (as opposed to social) explanation for discourse disorders in language disabled children. Results supporting a similar conclusion were obtained in a study by Leonard (1986) which investigated the conversational replies of children with specific language impairment (aged 2;10-3;6) and of those developing language normally (aged 1;5-1;11).  Language impaired children replied more often to  6 adult initiations and used a greater variety of conversational replies.  They  were more likely to answer questions and less likely to imitate when asked a question than the normal language children. They showed a greater percentage of nonobligatory conversational replies, such as affirming and expanding, and were more likely to deny or to provide alternatives to information contained in adult utterances than the controls. Leonard concluded that "language impaired children can serve as responsive conversationalists when the conversational behaviors under investigation do not require considerable syntactic s k i l l " (1986: 117).  He attributed the superior performance of the language  impaired group to greater world knowledge and conversational experience, and to better comprehension a b i l i t i e s .  His study highlights the importance of the  method used to select controls to the conclusions that are drawn. The nature of the formal deficit implied in many of the above studies is unclear.  Does i t consist uniquely of a difficulty with syntax, i.e. with  sentence-level constraints?  Johnston (1985) suggested that there may be  children who have special difficulty with rules incorporating discourse categories, a difficulty which she refers to as a true  pragmatic  disorder.  Such children err in their use of certain linguistic forms that are more highly context-sensitive than others (e.g.topicalization and reference). Since the functions of certain forms at the sentence level are not identical to the functions served by those forms at discourse level, the problem space of discourse may indeed be qualitatively different from that of the sentence. A number of explanations have been proposed to account for discourse problems in children: an affective disturbance, lack of social knowledge, a formal linguistic deficit, and what Johnston calls a true pragmatic disorder. It is evident that in any of these cases, assessments restricted to units  7 expressed in terms of individual sounds, words or intrasentential relations are insufficient to identify and describe the nature of the "talk" of language impaired children.  They may, in fact, be misleading; the selection of a  particular form in any given sentence may have been governed by choices made in previous sentences.  The general purpose of the present study is to examine  these kinds of forms, i.e. those that appear to be dependent on lexicogrammatical selections made in previous utterances. According to past reports, the language impaired children included in the present study a l l had problems with form at the sentence level sometime in the past.  The questions that were  asked were whether these children, whose individual sentences appeared grammatically correct , would demonstrate difficulties at the discourse level, 2  and i f so, what the nature of these d i f f i c u l t i e s would be. Although both narrative and conversational samples were collected, only the results from the narrative data will be reported here.  Narratives, in  fact, appear to be the preferred genre of investigations into the discourse of school-age children (see Johnston 1982, Westby 1984, Scott 1988, and Lahey 1988 for reviews), with the majority of investigators adopting a story grammar approach (Hansen 1978, Weaver & Dickenson 1979, Graybeal 1981, Feagans & Short 1984, Sleight & Prinz 1985, Roth & Spekman 1986, Merritt & Liles 1987, and Ripich & Griffith 1988). The results of these studies suggest that the narratives of school-age language impaired children are structurally very similar to those of normal language children (from a story grammar standpoint) with the only agreed upon difference being that they are shorter in length. Despite their failure to shed light on differences between the two A detailed examination of sentential construction was not done and this is recognized as a limitation. There were few agrammatical sentences in the narrative data. 2  8 populations, story grammar analyses continue to dominate research in this area.  Their continued use has been criticized on other grounds.  According to  Brown & Yule (1983), decisions regarding the content of the texts that story grammarians analyze are arbitrary and subjective: decisions are non-subjective the texts investigated.  "The illusion that the  is mainly fostered by the extreme simplicity of  The texts are so constructed so as to be context-  neutral, free of potential ambiguity and composed of mainly non-complex sentences" (pp.120-21). studies.  The same simple stories are used repeatedly in these  If an attempt is made to use more elaborate or spontaneously-  generated stories, numerous problems arise in assigning propositions to categories.  There is perhaps no reason to expect a child's anecdotes to  conform to traditional story grammars of folk-tales.  Pappas (1985) criticized  story grammar approaches for overemphasizing form isolated from content, and for attending mainly to events and not to participant development. The use of alternative methods of analysis is overdue. needed that will take account of the actual  A procedure is  nature of stories as produced by  children, that can be used for many different kinds of discourse samples, that will go beyond form to permit an evaluation of a child's ability to organize relevant meanings in relation to each other, and that will assess participant development.  Text  cohesion  analysis as proposed by Halliday & Hasan (1976)  appears to be more appropriate to the above aims.  It is particularly suitable  for the purpose of the present study, that of examining discourse-sensitive forms.  Theoretical background and the empirical findings of previous studies  on cohesion will be presented in chapter three followed by results of the present study in chapter four.  In addition to an evaluation of amount and  distribution of various cohesive devices, one device, namely reference, has  9 been selected f o r more d e t a i l e d examination. the following reasons:  Reference has been chosen f o r  l ) i t i s perhaps the most d i s c o u r s e - s e n s i t i v e of the  devices analyzed; 2) i t i s frequently noted by educators and c l i n i c i a n s as an area of concern i n reports on older language impaired c h i l d r e n ; 3) some t h e o r e t i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l issues have already been addressed (though not resolved) by l i n g u i s t s and c h i l d language researchers. A reference r e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s , as developed by Martin (1977, 1983), w i l l be presented i n chapter f i v e ; an analysis of devices used to create, maintain, and switch reference (based p r i m a r i l y on Bamberg 1987) w i l l be presented i n chapter s i x . Method and a p r e l i m i n a r y d e s c r i p t i o n of the data w i l l be provided i n the next chapter.  CHAPTER TWO METHOD AND PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA  Method  Subjects  Twelve  Caucasian  boys between the ages of 9;1 and 11;8 participated: six  of the boys had been diagnosed as language impaired by speech/language pathologists; the remaining six were recommended by classroom teachers as having normal language s k i l l s . The language impaired children were recruited with the assistance of speech/language pathologists solicited through an urban school board.  The  clinicians were asked to nominate children who satisfied the following criteria: - early documented history of specific language impairment as manifested by (oral) language production d i f f i c u l t i e s ; - language comprehension within (or near) normal limits; - scores within the normal range on nonverbal tests of intelligence (for example, as measured by performance scores on the WISC-R); - monolingual speakers of English; - normal vision and hearing; - between the ages of 9 and 11 years. They were asked to exclude children whose language disorder was known or suspected to be secondary to disabilities such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, autism, or acquired aphasia due to head injury. From those nominated, seven children were selected who best met the above 10  11 criteria.  A partental consent form was not returned for one of the children,  the only g i r l nominated by clinicians, leaving six boys to be included in the study.  Individual subject descriptions are summarized in table I. A l l six  had been referred for speech/language assessment sometimes in the past and had been subsequently diagnosed as language impaired based on results from standardized tests and spontaneous language sample analysis.  Reports indica-  ted a mild to moderate language production delay or disorder in each case; the specific nature of the language production impairment varied.  An early  documented history was not available for a l l of the children; two of the children had apparently not been referred for speech/language assessment until grade four (see table I ) . Psychological test results, though not recent in some cases, showed performance scores within or near the normal range on the WISC-R. The size of the discrepancy between verbal and performance scores varied.  Verbal scores were approximately equal to performance scores in four  cases and significantly reduced in two cases (S3,S4). All of the children were receiving speech/language therapy at the time of testing.  In general, therapy appeared to be directed at the formulation of  complex sentences and at discourse s k i l l s .  Length of time in therapy varied  considerably; some had been seen since preschool (S1,S2) while others were just beginning a therapy program (S3,S6). The latter children had, however, received extra help from learning assistance teachers in previous grades. Four of the boys had repeated grade one.  At the time of testing, two were  attending a class for learning disabled children.  The remaining children were  enrolled in regular classes; one (S2) had attended a learning disabilities class during the previous year.  12 Table I.—Summary of Subject Characteristics Language Impaired Children  Subject  Age  Current grade  Class type  Grades Repeated  First Ref'd to SLP  Therapy  SI  11;4.1  5  ID reg.ld/wk  gr.l  preschool  regular basis since preschool  S2  9;8.1  3  regular (LD:gr.2)  gr.l  preschool  regular basis since preschool  S3  10;4.16  5  regular  gr.4  just beginning (LA : gr.4)  8  —  b  S4  11;8.12  5  LD  gr.l  gr.2  regular basis since gr.2  S5  9;1.2  3  regular  gr.l  gr.l  regular basis since gr.l  S6  10;0.4  5  regular  gr.4  just beginning (LA: gr.2,3)  M= 10;4 Normal Language  Children  Subject  Age  SCI  9;3.1  4  SC2  10;1.12  5  SC3  10;4.16  5  SC4  11;2.11  6  SC5  11;3.11  6  SC6  9;2.20  4  Grade  M= 10;3  LD: Learning disabled class LA: Learning assistance  a b  The language impaired children were readily intelligible and, except for occasional problems with irregular verb inflection, the majority of utterances were grammatically acceptable at the sentence level (each utterance  considered  on i t s own). Six age and gender matched controls were drawn from the same four local schools as the language impaired children. They were chosen by classroom  13 teachers according to the following criteria: - matched in gender and six-month age interval to one of the language impaired subjects; - monolingual speakers of English; - normal vision and hearing - intelligence deemed to be within normal range - academic performance in median range. None of the control subjects had repeated a grade or been referred for learning assistance or speech/language therapy.  Since psychological testing  had not been done on any of these students, judgments of normal intelligence were made by their teachers.  Teachers were asked to nominate students  performing at average level academically and to avoid recommending students performing at either the low or high extremes of whatever academic scale was being used. A l l children, both language impaired and those with normal language s k i l l s , were cooperative and enthusiastic on a l l tasks. Data  Collection  The data were collected over a three-week period. Children were seen during regular school hours in the school they attended.  Specific location  within the school varied (speech/language therapy room, learning assistance center, nurse's room, office, or empty classroom).  Each subject participated  in tasks designed to obtain narrative and conversation samples. Narrative tasks were administered f i r s t and consisted of the following: personal experience, picture narration, and recall of an action story (video). Order of these tasks was counterbalanced across subjects. Data from a single subject, both narratives and conversation, were collected on the same day.  14 Sessions usually lasted 75 to 90 minutes excluding recess or lunch breaks i f they occurred.  None of the children seemed bothered by the presence of the  recorder and microphone; on the contrary, they appeared to enjoy using the microphone. listener  The experimenter was present for a l l tasks.  In addition, a  was present for certain tasks, or portions thereof.  The listener was  a classmate and friend of the subject being tested and was nominated by the teacher or subject himself.  He or she not only f u l f i l l e d the role of unin-  formed listener but his or her presence also helped to relax the subject. The personal experience narratives and conversation data will not be reported here.  The speech contexts of the remaining narratives (picture-based  and video recall) are described below.  The narratives were chosen as a  starting point for analysis primarily because the boundaries of the text are easily defined.  A narrative stands as a complete text.  Second, the burden of  producing a cohesive text lies entirely with the child, who must exploit his or her own grammatical sytem in order to ensure that what i s expressed in one portion of the text relates to what i s expressed in another.  From amoung the  narratives, the picture-based and video recall tasks were chosen because the structure provided by such tasks made the data more comparable across subjects; the stories based on personal experience varied greatly both in length and content.  In addition, the cohesion and reference analyses used in this  research were judged to be more easily applied to contexts expressing primarily third person reference (i.e. he, she, Picture  narration:  it,  they).  A picture-based task was used to make the data more  comparable, and to encourage children to produce relatively long texts by minimizing memory constraints. There were two reasons for seeking to obtain stories that were longer than those typically studied by researchers.  First,  15 a sufficiently long text permits an examination not only of local intersentent i a l relations but also of any larger thematic organization that may be present.  Second, i t seemed more appropriate to use stories somewhat more  comparable to those these children come in contact with every day in school. Two stories were used in the following order: Arthur's  Adventure  in  the Abandoned  House  The Great  (Krahn 1981).  Ape (Krahn 1978) and  Only the first was  used in the analyses reported in the present study. The pictures comprising The  Great  Ape were mounted on thirty-six 8.5 x 11 inch cards.  A summary of  the story can be found in appendix 1. Experimenter, subject, and listener were present.  To familiarize the  subject with the task, another wordless picture book was shown to the child. The experimenter demonstrated how the pictures could be used to t e l l a story and then had the child continue the story using two or three more pictures. A l l the children caught on immediately. comprising The Great  The subject was then given the cards  Ape and told that the cards made up a story.  He was told  that in a few minutes he would be a radio broadcaster for a children's show and that he could use the pictures to help him t e l l the story.  He was then  told to look over a l l the pictures on his own in order to familiarize himself with the story. see the pictures.  The listener was seated so that at no time could he or she When the subject was ready to t e l l the story, he was told  that his classmate would pretend to be a child listening at home on his or her walkman. The classmate listened over headphones while the subject told the story.  Before each subject began, he was reminded that the people listening  to the show over the radio could not see the pictures. When the subject had completed his story, he was asked to retell i t without using the pictures.  The subject was told to pretend that he was in a  16 different city recording another radio show and that he no longer needed the pictures because he had told that story many times before.  He was asked to  pretend that his classmate was a child living in that city who had never heard the story before and who had just turned on his or her Walkman to listen. Video  beginning.  recall:  Only the subject and experimenter were present at the  The subject was told that he would be shown a video and that after  i t was over, he would t e l l the story to his listener. scared  The video I  wasn't  (National Film Board of Canada 1977) was shown to the subject with the  experimenter in attendance.  The main protagonists of the twenty minute video  are a boy and g i r l approximately the same age as the subjects themselves.  The  video i s action-packed and suspenseful; there was never question of a child's attention wandering.  The story i s summarized in appendix 1. None of the  subjects had previously seen the video.  Once the video was over, the experi-  menter told the subject to think about how he would t e l l the story while she, the experimenter, went to get the child's listener from his of her classroom. Each subject told the story to his listener, who did not verbally interject; changes in facial expression indicated attentiveness on the listener's part. None of the subjects appeared to have any difficulty understanding the content of the picture story or the video.  The data was audio tape recorded  and later transcribed. For purposes of data presentation, the f i r s t telling of the picture story will be referred to as Task 1 (TI), the second telling (without pictures) as Task 2 (T2), and the video recall as Task 3 (T3). For examples of narratives produced by a language impaired child and a normal language child, see appendix 2.  17 Statistical  Procedures  Two assumptions of the parametric statistical model did not appear tenable, namely normality and equal variance.  Given the small sample size and  nonrandom method of selection, there was no way of guaranteeing that the observations were drawn from normally distributed populations.  Preliminary  analyses indicated that equal variance between the two groups could not be assumed with respect to a l l variables examined.  Nonparametric statistical  tests, therefore, were judged to be more appropriate than parametric ones. The Mann-Whitney  U test , a nonparametric alternative to the t-test, was used 1  to compare the language impaired and normal language groups. ferences across the three tasks, the Friedman ranks  was used.  2  two-tray  analysis  To test difof  variance  by  If a significant difference was indicated by the latter,  multiple comparisons between conditions were performed to assess specifically which tasks differed from each other. For the sake of consistency, two-tailed tests were used in a l l cases-, even when the possibility of predicting would have permitted a one-tailed test.  A consequence of this decision is that  stricter criteria had to be met before observed differences were considered significant.  A .05 level of significance was used; i f results were s i g n i f i -  cant at a .01 level, a note was made of this in the presentation of results.  Preliminary  Description  of  the  Data  Before more specific analyses could be performed on the data, i t seemed imperative to compare the samples with respect to story and utterance length. *For procedure and tables, see Roscoe (1975). For procedure and tables, see Siegel (1988).  2  18 The following null hypotheses were tested: (1)  Given the same task conditions, language impaired children do not differ from normal language children in narrative length as measured by a) the number of words per story and b) the number of utterances per story;  (2)  Given the same task conditions, language impaired children do not differ from normal language children in utterance length.  (3)  Mean utterance length for either group does not vary as a function of context.  The above hypotheses were investigated by determing for each of the three contexts (picture narration, retell without pictures, and video recall), the number of words, independent clauses, and words per independent clause.  Results  Means, standard deviations, and ranges for a l l three measures as well as Mann-Whitney U results are presented in table II.  Results of the Friedman  two-way analysis of variance by ranks will be noted in the text. Words  On the picture narration task, normal language (NL) speakers used approximately 523 words to t e l l the story whereas language impaired (LI) speakers used 400.  On retell of the same story without the pictures (T2), the  difference between groups was nearly significant {U=6, p<.10) ; the mean 3  number of words used by NL speakers dropped to 418 words and that by LI speakers to 282 words. A significant difference was found between the two groups on the video recall task {U=3, p<.05); NL speakers told the story using For a difference to be considered significant at the .05 level, the value of U had to be equal to or less than 5. The smaller {/was, the more significant the difference. 3  19 Table II.—Mean Frequency of Words, Independent Clauses, and Words per Independent Clause across Tasks (T1,T2,T3) and Language Groups (LI,NL) TI (picture-based)  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall)  LP  NL  LI  M  400  523  282  418  291  558  SD  109  113  124  108  113  136  279-535  335-642  166-474  286-537  191-482  333-678  NL  LI  NL  Words  range  Independent clauses M  51.3  59.0  34.2  44.7  40.7  72.0  SD  11.8  15.8  15.2  12.1  15.6  16.0  range  38-71  41-84  17-60  28-60  26-69  46-87  7.74  9.05  8.33  9.45  7.16  7.68  .87  1.56  .93  1.11  .68  .27  Words/independent clause M SD  range  6.9-9.2  7.6-9.8  7.6-10.0  N= 6 for each group  7.6-10.5  7.6-10.5  7.2-8.0  a  Mann-Whitney lvalues TI  T2  T3  9.0  6.0  3.0*  Independent clauses  13.0  8.5  2.0**  Words/indep. clause  7.0  9.0  7.0  Words  *p(.05 **;X.01  almost twice as many words as LI speakers (mean of 558 compared to 291). Hypothesis (1), as tested by the number of words per story, was, therefore, rejected for T3.  Independent  clauses  Because length of the stories differed across contexts and across groups,  20 i t seemed imperative to identify some unit that would permit frequency comparisons relative to story length.  Since the cohesion analysis used in the  present study had been developed within a systemic grammar framework (Halliday & Hasan 1976), i t seemed appropriate to adopt a unit of analysis consistent with this framework, namely the independent  clause.  As defined by systemic  grammarians, an independent clause is a unit which selects independently for mood, i.e. i t can stand by itself as a declarative, imperative, interrogative or exclamatory structure." The procedures of Martin (1977), Rochester & Martin (1979), and Pappas (1981) were used to segment the data. As a unit of text segmentation, an independent clause consists not only of a single independent clause in the traditional sense, but also of any subordinate clauses grammatically related to i t .  These subordinated clauses  may be relative, complement (nominal or verbal), or adverbial clauses. Each of the following examples from the data was considered an independent clause (containing a relative, complement, and adverbial clause respectively): 2.1  a. she told the cops everything that had happened b. and she told them that he took off the propeller c. he stood there for awhile while his sister was getting the policeman  In addition to while, before,  the subordinating conjunctions of if,  and when also introduced adverbial clauses.  because,  after,  In the case of dialogue,  a clause that identified the character who was talking was not considered a separate unit; 2.2, for example, was considered one independent clause: 2.2  and then the boy says, "I wasn't scared"  Conjoined structures with subject ellipsis as in 2.3 were considered one unit The system of mood, in systemic grammar, expresses the speech function of the clause (see Halliday 1985a,b). 4  21 since, when a subject is missing, mood is frozen: 2.3  and then the brother turned around and went back to the bomb  A l l other conjoined (or coordinated) units. 2.4  structures were considered distinct  Two units are present in each of the following examples: a. they were riding their bike down a road / and then they came to big fence b. his sister was gonna hit him / so he started running c. and his sister told him to stop / but he wouldn't  Each independent clause was numbered to facilitate analysis.  Repetitions,  false starts, and "asides" were bracketed and not included in frequency counts. In terms of the number of independent clauses per story, the LI children once again tended to be less productive on a l l tasks than the NL children (see table II), although the difference between the two groups varied depending on the task.  considerably  NL children used an average of eight and eleven more  clauses on Tl and T2 respectively than the LI children to t e l l the same story. On T3, however, the difference jumped to over thirty clauses. was highly significant (U=2,  Words  per  independent  This difference  p<.01). Hypothesis (1) was rejected for T3.  clause  NL speakers tended to produce longer clauses than LI children on a l l tasks.  The difference between groups is nearly significant on Tl and T3  (U=l,  p<.10). The longest independent clauses tended to occur on T2 and the shortest on T3.  Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks indicated that  the difference between T2 and T3 reached significance for the LI children  22 (fr=7.0, p<.05, T2>T3) . 5  Hypothesis (3) was rejected, therefore, in the case  of the language impaired children.  Smaller standard deviations for both  groups on T3 suggested less individual variation on this particular task.  Discussion  The tendency for the language impaired subjects to use fewer words and fewer independent clauses than the normal language subjects on a l l three tasks support the results of an increasingly large number of studies suggesting reduced productivity on the part of language disabled children.  Various  factors have been cited in an attempt to explain this tendency for language disabled children to produce shorter stories.  Graybeal (1981) found that  language impaired and normal language children (aged 7 to 9) differed primari l y in the amount of information recalled when asked to retell stories read to them. The groups did not differ on the types of story nodes recalled, on ordering of information, on amount of plausible information added, or on number of errors in recall.  Graybeal concluded that the reduced productivity  of the language impaired subjects was due to inadequate memory for content, i.e. to a gist recall deficit.  Differences in memory capabilities between the  two groups may have contributed to shaping the results of the present study: The  Great  Ape  consisted of 36 pictures; the video was 20 minutes in length and  included several embedded episodes. retelling The Great  Ape  SI, in particular, had difficulty  without the pictures; he began at what corresponded to  the twelfth picture. For the difference to be considered significant at the .05 level, the value of Fr had to equal or exceed 7.0. The greater Fr, the more significant the difference. s  23 A memory deficit, however, cannot sufficiently account for a l l of the data.  Even when memory demands were minimal, i.e. on the picture narration  task (TI), the normal language subjects s t i l l used an average of 123 more words per story than the language impaired subjects.  On retell of the same  story without pictures, both groups reduced story length by similar amounts: the language impaired subjects by 118 words or 17 clauses, and the normal language by 105 words or 14 clauses).  If memory were the sole factor accoun-  ting for story length differences, then the recall stories of the language impaired children should have been reduced by a considerably greater amount than those of the normal language children.  Finally, a memory deficit does  not account for the fact that both groups used longer utterances on T2 than on TI, i.e. on the recall task as opposed to the picture-supported  task.  A second factor that has been proposed to account for differences in story length is knowledge of story grammar. Weaver & Dickenson (1979), for example, cited inadequate story schemata as an important source of poorer recall (less information) by reading disabled children with low verbal ability.  Merritt & Liles (1987), using story generation and retell tasks,  found that language impaired children used fewer complete story episodes, lower frequency of story grammar components, and fewer number of clauses overall than normal children aged 9 to 11.  Unlike Graybeal, these authors  concluded that their language impaired subjects had adequate storage and recall capability but weak command of overriding story structure. Roth & Spekman (1986), on the other hand, reported relatively intact story structure on the part of their learning disabled subjects aged 8 to 13 on a spontaneous story generation task:  the learning disabled subjects used  a l l category types in approximately the same order of saliency as their normal  24 peers.  Learning disabled subjects, however, used fewer propositions per  story.  Because the information omitted tended to relate to character back-  ground and story setting, the authors attributed shorter story length to impaired role-taking s k i l l s , i.e. to a lesser ability to make appropriate inferences regarding shared knowledge.  Sleight & Prinz (1985) also attributed  less detailed story recall descriptions on the part of language disordered subjects (aged 11 and 12) to a problem in evaluating listener need. Since knowledge of story schemata and awareness of listener need were not specifically targeted for analysis by the present research, neither can be ruled out as potential contributing factors to variations found in story length.  However, as Roth & Spekman noted, the similarities in story structure  between language disordered and normal children outshadow the dissimilarities. With respect to role-taking s k i l l s , the results of Liles (1985) conflict with the conclusions of Roth & Spekman and Sleight & Prinz.  Liles found that  language disabled and normal subjects made similar changes when describing a film to listeners in shared versus unshared conditions (uninformed versus naive listeners), one of these changes being the use of significantly more sentences for the uninformed listener.  Liles concluded that the language  disabled children were able to take on the role of listener and adjust their narratives accordingly. Memory, knowledge of story grammar, and role-taking skills have a l l been suggested as factors contributing to variations in story length as measured in terms of absolute frequencies, i.e. total number of words or propositions. Variation in utterance length, however, is not readily explained by these factors. skills.  Recourse, in the latter case, is usually made to syntactic language In a study comparing comprehension and recall s k i l l s , Feagans & Short  25 (1984) found that reading disabled children (aged 6 and 7) appeared to comprehend the narratives as well as normally achieving children but produced fewer action units, complex sentences, and words than normal subjects. The authors attributed these results to less sophisticated syntactic s k i l l s . Klecan-Aker & Hedrick (1985) began with a similar hypothesis in their developmental study of the syntactic s k i l l s of normal grade six and grade 9 students as demonstrated in spontaneous story generation.  Their unit of  analysis, the T-unit (minimal terminal syntactic unit) appears to be a similar measure to the independent clause unit as defined by the present report.  6  The  authors reported significant differences between the grade six and grade nine students in T-unit length and in clause length.  7  Based on their findings and  those of previous researchers, the authors concluded that T-unit analysis was a reliable tool for the measurement of syntactic development in middle schoolage children. A cautionary note by Scott (1988) i s in order here.  After  reviewing the literature on average utterance length, Scott concluded that the developmental increases that occur are relatively small (from 7.5 to 10.0 words over a 9-year period), too small perhaps to be c l i n i c a l l y useful. Research on the relationship between mean length of utterance (MLU) and chronological age underlines the need to exercise caution when attempting to use utterance length as an index of language delay, particularly when MLU exceeds 4.5 (see Miller 1981 for a review). The present results suggest that normal language and language impaired children differ in narrative utterance length.  The results also provide at  They defined T-unit as one main clause plus any subordinate clause or non-clausal structure that is attached or embedded in i t . Clause here refers either to dependent or simple independent units, i.e. to minimal clause units. 6  7  26  least a preliminary answer to another question raised by Klecan-Aker & Hedrick, namely whether T-unit length would change as a function of the task. As noted earlier, independent clause unit lenth varied with the task for both groups of subjects, significant differences being found between Tl and T3 for the language impaired subjects.  The results indicate that not only i s  utterance length sensitive to contextual factors, but also that normal and language impaired may show differential responses to changes in context.  The  language impaired subjects, for example, appeared to be more affected by the difficulty of the video recall task than the normal language subjects. For utterance length to be useful as a c l i n i c a l measure, the following factors would have to be taken into account:  small size of developmental changes with  time; effect of task conditions and story content; possibility of differential responses elicited by changes in task conditions; and specific unit of analysis adopted. Having found a difference between the grade six and grade nine students in T-unit and clause length, Klecan-Aker & Hedrick sought the means by which the older subjects were extending their utterances.  To test the hypothesis  that the difference was due to the use of syntactically more complex forms by the older subjects, the investigators examined clause usage (number of clauses per utterance) and verb extensions  (structures occurring after the main verb  were categorized as simple, complex or infinitive, and as adverbial, object or complement).  Failing to find differences on these measures, they looked at  one more factor: the use of personal pronouns.  They found that sixth graders  showed a higher incidence of inappropriate personal pronoun usage, and suggested that the inclusion of an explicit referent for a pronoun may partially explain the longer utterance length of older subjects.  A finding by  27 Weaver & Dickenson (1979) i s relevant here.  Their normal readers added  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more words that e x p l i c a t e d temporal and causal r e l a t i o n s to t h e i r r e t e l l i n g s than d i d reading disabled subjects with low verbal a b i l i t y . The l a t t e r omitted twice as many e x i s t i n g markers as good readers.  These  speculations r e l a t i n g utterance length to the use of personal pronouns and of markers of temporal and causal r e l a t i o n s r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y that utterance length may be influenced by l i n g u i s t i c phenomena that go beyond sentence boundaries.  In the next s e c t i o n , discourse l e v e l r e l a t i o n s alluded to by  Klecan-Aker & Hedrick and by Weaver & Dickenson w i l l be explored more f u l l y .  CHAPTER THREE COHESION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Theoretical  Systemic  Framework  Grammar  Systemic grammar is a theory of meaning as choice.  Language, within this  view, consists of networks of interlocking options; a choice in one system leads to a set of options in another. It i s a functional respects (see Halliday 1985a):  grammar in three  1. its aim is to account for how language is  used, not only as i t unfolds in a particular time and place, but also how i t has evolved to satisfy human need; 2. its major components  (metafunctions)  correspond to the general purposes underlying a l l uses of language (to understand the environment and to act on others in i t ) ; 3. each element is explained by its function in the linguistic system. Halliday's work is not a rejection of "formal" grammar; his rather long Short tional  Grammar  Introduction  to  Func-  (1985a), for example, i s a l l about form. However, language is  interpreted, not as a system of forms to which meanings get attached—as in traditional syntactic approaches—but as a system of meanings accompanied by forms to express them. The forms of language are viewed not as the end in themselves but as means to an end, as realizations of certain choices made in order "to mean." Halliday's approach, then, appears particularly suitable to the task at hand:  to examine the discourse of children whose "special point  of vulnerability would l i e exactly at the intersection of form and function" (Johnston 1985: 91). 28  29 Within the framework of systemic grammar, language is a seaiotic i.e. a resource which enables humans to exchange meanings.  system  Other semiotic  systems include art form, modes of dress, family structures, etc. A l l these systems of meaning interact and constitute human culture.  The "social"  component of Halliday's approach lies in the fact that his main concern is with relationships between language and social structure.  1  The linguist's  task becomes that of describing the relationships between the organization of language and the social environment or context  of  situation.  For Halliday,  the appropriate model for the latter will explain the success with which people communicate.  As listeners, we make predictions about what meanings are  being exchanged and those likely to be exchanged, predictions which result in large part from information gleaned from the context of situation.  The kinds  of contextual information used by speakers and listeners relate to field is happening), tenor  (what  (who is taking part), and mode (what part the language is  playing and medium of communication). Characterizing how language is organized means describing the purposes for which people use language, i.e. the types of meanings expressed. Halliday distinguishes three of these, which he calls metafunctions.  2  The  ideational  metafunction i s the use of language to understand the environment. It consists of experiential meaning (representation of reality) and logical Halliday does not claim to be describing, by his grammar and analytical procedures, processes of the human mind; his is not a psychological model in this sense. Brown & Yule's criticism (1983,ch.6) must be seen in this light; Halliday's "substitution view" was not proposed as a processing model but as an analytical procedure specifically for examining anaphoric reference. Halliday adopts a traditional stratificational view of the linguistic system in which there are three levels or strata (semantic, lexicogrammatical and phonological). The metafunctions described here comprise the semantic level. Each stratum and each component within i t i s described as a network of options, of interrelated choices. l  2  components (expression of logical relations).  The interpersonal  metafunction  is the use of language to act on others in the environment; i t encompasses those meanings that arise from interaction between speaker and listener. The third organizational component, textual  meaning, "breathes relevance into the  other two" (Halliday 1985a: x i i i ) ; i t comprises the resources language has for cohering within itself and with the context of situation, i.e. for relating any given item to both the verbal and nonverbal context.  These functions are  schematically presented in figure 1.  semantic stratum  ideational experiential logical  Fig.l. Place of Cohesion within the Semantic Stratum of Systemic Grammar. Based on Halliday & Hasan (1976) and Halliday (1979).  Learning "to mean" in a language involves learning the linguistic system but also learning how to use i t appropriately from one context to another. The task of the linguist, and that of the child, i s to learn how features of the context of situation (field, tenor, mode) relate to the functional  31 components of the semantic system (experiential, interpersonal, and textual respectively), and in turn how these functional meanings receive lexicogrammatical and phonological expression.  The term register  is used to refer to  variation in language that goes with variation in context of situation.  The  Nature  of  Text  It is Halliday's third metafunction, the textual relevant to the present study.  component, that is  The textual component consists of those  semantic systems which create text.  Any passage, spoken or written, that  forms a "unified whole" is known as a text.  Though not easily defined  operationally, the notion of text is crucial to functional grammar, where i t has become the most important unit of analysis.  In broad terms, a text is  "any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation" (Halliday & Hasan 1985: 10). single utterance, text is not  Although typically longer than a  defined by i t s length.  A No Smoking  sign and a  long novel, for example, are both texts; they are communicative events, not supersentences. In more specific terms, texture  requires three ingredients:  structure , textual structure and cohesion. 3  structure,  The f i r s t of these,  generic generic  refers to the global structure of a communicative event.  The  macrostructure of nearly every communicative event could be described very generally as consisting of a beginning, middle, and end. Halliday & Hasan (1985), is short for generic  semantic  Genre,  potential,  according to the set of  According to Halliday (1977), generic structure, while important to texture, actually lies outside the linguistic system, belonging to a higher level semiotic system. The text-forming resources of the linguistic system, in his view, are textual structure and cohesion. 3  meanings usually associated with a particular contextual configuration.  The  generic structure of a shopping situation, for example, might consist of the following (from Halliday & Hasan 1985: 59):  sale request, sale compliance,  Terms other than genre  sale, purchase, purchase closure.  that have been used frames,  in similar attempts at representing socio-cultural knowledge include scripts,  scenarios,  and schemata  (see Brown & Yule 1983, ch.7 for a review).  There have been relatively few attempts at describing the structure of conversations  (e.g. Martin 1985, McTear 1984). Narrative structure has been  studied in more detail using one of various story have attempted to describe "general"  4  grammar  models, a l l of which  generic structure for narratives.  The  latter research has revealed the importance of story grammar to both comprehension and recall of stories, but has not succeeded in distinguishing language impaired from normal populations on story grammar usage. The second ingredient required for texture within the framework of systemic grammar is textual  structure  (also called structural  cohesion).  Unlike generic structure, and, as we shall see, unlike cohesion, textual structure contributes to the derivation of sentential structure. of both thematic and informational components.  The thematic  It consists  system refers to  the speaker's organization of the clause as a message. The basic structure is that of theme/rheme  as expressed through the order of the elements.  theme  The  is speaker oriented; i t is the f i r s t element in the clause, the speaker's chosen point of departure for his or her utterance.  Rheme simply refers to  the rest of the utterance, to whatever is not part of the theme. The tional  informa-  component of textual structure organizes the discourse into message  general, because each narrative establishes i t s own contextual configuration and, therefore, the actual meanings expressed will vary with story content 4  blocks called information units.  The internal structure of each unit is based  on a distinction between given and new information. tion unit is encoded as a tone group.  In English, each informa-  The new element is marked by the use of  tonic prominence and usually coincides with the final lexical element in the tone group, the element the speaker wants the listener to attend to. given  3  The  element is that which is treated by the speaker as recoverable to the  hearer from the context. Although related, the thematic and informational systems are independent of each other; the thematic system is speaker-oriented, and the informational system is listener-oriented. theme  from within what is given  In the unmarked case, a speaker selects the and locates the new within the rheme.  Marked  6  patterns, however, allow the two to combine in a vast number of different ways. For example, by stressing oldest new within the  3.1  in 3.1, the speaker has located the  theme:  The oldest  horse won the race.  Parallelism, the recurrence of a grammatical structure throughout one or more successive clauses of a text may also be considered a type of textual structure in that i t contributes to the derivation of grammatical structure and at the same time serves to link utterances, i.e. has a textual effect. Bennett-Kastor  (1986) identified three types of parallelism in the oral  narratives of children aged 2 to 5:  structural  parallelism referred to the  repetition of a verb phrase structure with different lexical content;  lexical  As Brown 4 Yule (1983, ch.5) have pointed out, i t is frequently d i f f i cult, i f not impossible, to identify tone groups and tonic prominence reliably in spontaneous speech. As defined by Radford, "an unmarked phenomenon is one which accords with general tendencies in language; a marked phenomenon is one which goes against these general tendencies, and is hence 'exceptional' in some way" (1981: 29). 9  6  34 p a r a l l e l i s m o c c u r r e d when b o t h l e x i c a l c o n t e n t s t r u c t u r e were r e p e a t e d ;  global  ture  of  and l e x i c a l c o n t e n t  developmental small  rise  "the  the verb phrase  parallelism described  the e n t i r e  clause  f i n d i n g s were r e p o r t e d :  With age,  tremendously  at  age  5"  and  its  where  The  struc-  following  a decrease i n global p a r a l l e l i s m , a  c h i l d r e n a l s o v a r i e d the  potentialities  instances  were r e p e a t e d .  i n l e x i c a l p a r a l l e l i s m , and a s h a r p r i s e  parallelism. that  of  for providing cohesion  i n the use of  type of  grammatical  structural linkage  through p a r a l l e l i s m  so  increase  (p.366).  Cohesion The p r e c e d i n g s y s t e m as figure is  just  remarks were i n t e n d e d t o s i t u a t e  conceived within systemic  1 illustrates, one s e t  her utterance  of  texture  resources  relates,  grammar.  As d i s c u s s e d  i s not a c h i e v e d at  a speaker's  of  "the  properties;  i n a l i n g u i s t i c way,  set  of  48).  her d i s p o s a l f o r in  the  text  describing  independent  for  linking  A speaker  has  the purpose of  the nature of  it  every of  tools, text,  it  t e x t u a l meanings  sentential  evident  these devices,  by c o h e s i o n a l o n e .  to the surrounding  of  one p a r t  creating  cohesion to everyday  a 5-year-old  that  several  a s he o r s h e p e r c e i v e s  importance of involving  is  l i n g u i s t i c resources  t e x t u a l metafunction) Hasan 1985:  it  and  as  The  latter  a text  It  (as p a r t  consists of  the  (Halliday &  devices,  at h i s  to h i s or her l i s t e n e r .  277):  or  non-  f o r making the u n i t y of  may be u s e f u l  1985a:  by i t s  to another"  or cohesive  his  co-text.  structure.  language has  conversation.  (from H a l l i d a y  above,  linguistic  disposal for ensuring that  C o h e s i o n c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m o t h e r structural  cohesion i n the  to highlight  The f o l l o w i n g i s  a  or  meaning Before the  text  35 3.2  Child:  Shall I t e l l you why the North Star stays s t i l l ?  Parent:  Yes, do.  Child:  Because that's where the magnet i s , and i t gets attracted by the earth. But the other stars don't. So they move around.  If cohesion is removed and unmarked options in the textual systems selected, the following "deconstructed" text results (p.315): 3.3 The magnet i s at the North Star. The earth attracts the North Star. The earth does not attract the stars which are not the North Star. The stars which are not the North Star move around. If cohesion were removed and the options of other textual components (thematic and informationsal systems) were chosen at random (instead of unmarked options), the text in (a) below would end up something like (b): 3.4  a.  On this job, Anne, we're working with silver. Now silver needs to have love, [yea.] You know - the people that buy silver love it. [Yea - guess they would.] Yes, mm - well naturally, I mean to say that i t ' s got a lovely gleam about i t , you know; and i f they come in, they're usually people who love beautiful things.  b.  With silver, we, Anne, are dealing in this job. What needs to have love is silver. Silver is loved by the people that buy silver. It i s silver that silver has a lovely gleam about. The people who love beautiful things are usually people i f people come in. (Halliday 1985a: 315)  Halliday's deconstructed texts are revealing in two respects:  1) they  illustrate the importance of the textual component to coherent discourse and 2) they model how a selective language disturbance, one restricted to a single metafunction (in this case, the textual component) might manifest i t s e l f . Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of one element (the requires recourse to another (the presupposed).  presupposing)  A single occurrence of  cohesion consists of both elements and is known as a cohesive t i e . The following example, while intelligible and even semantically decodable, i s uninterpretable because the presupposed elements are missing:  3.5 Because he said so. If, instead, a listener overhears the following exchange, because,  be, and so  are readily interpretable: 3.6 X: How do you know Grant Fuhr is tired of playing for the Oilers? Y: Because he said so. This form of linking, where the presupposed elements are be found in the accompanying verbal context, or co-text,  is known as endophora.  In other  cases, the presupposed element may not l i e in the text but in the nonverbal context, a link known as exophora.  If, for example, a child reaches for a  broken piece of glass, an adult standing by might say the following: 3.7 Don't touch i t ! In this case, it has no verbal presupposed element; i t s source of interpretation is an element in the environment. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), only endophoric linking is an instance of cohesion, i.e. where both elements of the tie can be found in the verbal context. This follows from the goal of their particular analysis: to examine those formal elements in the speaker's contribute to coherence.  or writer's  discourse  that  However, a point raised by Brown & Yule (1983) i s  relevant here. Having defined cohesion as the set of semantic  relations  between elements in a text, Halliday & Hasan (1976) then proceed to call "cohesive" only those links that are verbally expressed. Brown & Yule's point is well made, and in adopting Halliday & Hasan's cohesive analysis, one must keep in mind that what i s being analyzed i s only a subset of underlying semantic links in the text, namely those that appear in the verbal record. There are times, perhaps many, when the speech/language clinician's task is precisely this, to determine what he or she can know about a referred indivi-  dual based on the evidence of verbal productions.  A single analysis cannot  cover a l l bases simultaneously; this need not be a reason for abandoning i t . A second and more serious error would be to infer from this analysis that systemic grammar i s not concerned with nonverbal elements.  The grammar  predicts, in fact, that genres and populations may differ with respect to their dependence on exophoric versus endophoric reference (Martin 1977,1983). Halliday & Hasan's cohesive analysis, then, applies only to ties whose elements are realized verbally. occur in different sentences.  A second restriction i s that the elements This decision is based on the assumption that  cohesive ties have greater force when they occur between utterances because of the absence of structural (syntactic) links there.  This restriction was  modified slightly in the present study to include ties across subordinated clauses and across adjoined clauses with subject ellipsis (see chapter four.) Cohesive devices can be distinguished according to the specific type of semantic relation involved. Three relations have been proposed (Halliday & Hasan 1985).  In a co-referential  identical in reference: 3.8  relation, the two elements of a tie are  7  once upon a time there was a l i t t l e g i r l and she went out for a walk  In 3.8, the presupposing item she and the presupposed item girl the same individual.  In co-classification,  both refer to  the two elements belong to the  same class but each refers to a distinct member of this class: 3.9  X: Look at my picture. Y: I'm making a bigger one.  In 3.9, the substitute one forms a cohesive tie with picture.  The two  I n the examples below, the presupposing element i s italicized and the presupposed item (antecedent) i s underlined. 7  38 elements, though both members of the class of pictures, refer to distinct entities.  A third semantic relation is that of co-extension  in which both  elements of a cohesive tie refer to the same general field of meaning: 3.10 X: Y:  I ' l l wash i t ,  Mom.  No amount of scrubbing  will f i x that.  The semantic field of wash and scrubbing use of scrubbing  are sufficiently close so that the  has a strong cohesive effect.  In a l l of the above cases, the  elements of the cohesive tie are components of or part of a message. addition to these componential  In  meaning, the semantic relations underlying the  use of certain cohesive devices, for example conjunction, involve  organic  relations, those in which the elements of the tie are whole messages.  8  These semantic relations are realized by lexicogrammatical means. Although there is not a neat one-to-one mapping between the semantic relation and i t s realization, there is a tendency for co-reference to be realized by pronouns, the definite article, and demonstratives; and co-classification by substitution or e l l i p s i s .  Relations of co-reference, co-classification or co-  extension may be realized by purely lexical devices.  The categories of  cohesion as presented in Halliday & Hasan (1976) and as adopted by most cohesion researchers are based primarily on linguistic form, i.e. on the lexicogrammatical resources that realize the semantic relations described above.  This classification comprises the following: reference, substitution,  e l l i p s i s , conjunction, and lexical cohesion.  Unfortunately, there is some  confusion over the nature of these categories in some studies; they are often presented as a classification based on semantic relations.  This may partly be  due to the ambiguity of their status as presented by Halliday & Hasan (1976). 8  For an account of the clause as a phoric unit, see Martin (1977).  An attempt to distinguish between underlying semantic relation and lexicogrammatical realization is presented in table III (adapted from Halliday & Hasan 1985).  Description of the cohesive devices as used in the present study  follows.  Table III.—Summary of Halliday 4 Hasan's Inventory of Cohesive Devices NONSTRUCTURAL COHESION CCMPCNENTIAL RELATIONS GRAMMATICAL COHESIVE DEVICES Device  Typical tie relation  A: Reference 1. Prcoccdnals 2. Demonstratives 3. Definite article 4. Comparatives  >co-reference  B: Substitution & Ellipsis 1. Nominal 2. Verbal 3. Clausal  >co-classification  ORGANIC RELATIONS A: Conjunctive ties Adjacency pairs e.g. question/answer offer/acceptance order/compliance  LEXICAL COHESIVE DEVICES Repetition Synonymy Antonymy Meronymy Collocation  co-reference, co-classification, or co-extension  Continuatives {e.g. still,  already)  STRUCTURAL COHESION Parallelism Theme-Rheme Development Given-New Organization Note: Adapted from Halliday & Hasan (1985: 82).  Reference:  six.  Reference will be discussed more fully in chapters five and  A summary of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) treatment of reference as a  cohesive device is presented here.  40 The lexicogrammatical forms comprising this category (personals, stratives,  and comparatives)  demon-  have been grouped together because in each case  what i s presumed i s a semantic representation, a participant or a semantic construct as opposed to a particular piece of wording (see substitution/ellipsis).  A consequence of this is that such items are relatively unconstrained  formally; elements of a tie can occur at varying distances and in various grammatical roles (see 3.11 below). personals  and demonstratives,  Two of the subcategories of reference,  realize co-referential relations.  gory of personals (or pronominals)  The subcate-  consists of personal pronouns, possessive  determiners, and possessive pronouns: 3.11 Your instructor's name is Joan. That medal on the wall is hers. Personals are highly presuming; she, preted by reference to Joan. must  hers,  She teaches the advanced level. You'll like her. and her  in 3.11 can only be inter-  They have a strong cohesive effect; the listener  retrieve something that has preceded. Demonstratives locate a referent on a scale of proximity: this,  used to refer to an entity that is in some sense "near" and that,  these  those  are  to  entities somewhat removed. The former often occur cataphorically, i.e. when the source of interpretation is found following 3.12 You're not going to believe this.  the presupposing item: I won a thousand dollars. A  distinction in proximity i s also made between adverbial demonstratives: now  ("near") versus there,  then  but to a process in space (here,  ("far"). there)  3.13 Someone's on the verandah.  here,  The latter refer, not to an entity, or time (now,  Go and see who's  then): there.  The definite article i s also included in demonstrative reference. Unlike personals and the other demonstratives, the definite article has no content of its own.  It signals only that the noun i t modifies has a specific referent  41 and that the information needed to identify i t is recoverable.  Given the  restrictions that the elements of a tie must be expressed verbally and occur intersententially, many cases of the are not considered cohesive.  In the  following examples, the is cohesive only in 3.14d:  9  3.14 a.  Look at the snow!  b.  The sun provided light by day and the moon by night.  c.  I finally found the house that I've been dreaming of.  d.  A boy and his sister went fishing. longer.  There is a third type of reference, comparative,  The boy wanted to stay whose underlying  relation is that of co-classification (indicating another member of the same class).  Like personals and demonstratives, comparatives refer back to a  semantic representation, but in this case elements of the tie do not refer to the same individual: 3.15 One man came over to help.  Another  man phoned the police.  The presupposed element one man provides a basis for comparison for Ellipsis/Substitution:  another.  Ellipsis and substitution may be collapsed into  one category and viewed as manifestations of the same phenomenon. In both cases, cohesion is achieved by means of positive omission, i.e. by what is left out.  In order to make up the sense, the listener must retrieve a piece  of wording from a preceding utterance.  The speaker may leave the structure  unfilled (ellipsis) or insert a "place-holding" element (substitution).  Some  grammatical environments allow for either: 3.16 X: So, you'll buy the red dress? Y: Actually, I prefer the green  {one).  The types of reference involved in 3.14 a,b,and c are exophoric, homophoric, and esphoric respectively. These will be discussed in chapter five. 9  42  Dress  must be retrieved by X given either of Y's responses.  The substitute  one in Y's response is a placeholder. In  e l l i p s i s and substitution, what is presumed is a lexicogrammatical  representation.  This contrasts with those devices grouped under reference  where the presumed element is a semantic representation.  The relationship  between elements of a cohesive tie belonging to reference is a semantic one. According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), the relationship between the elements of a cohesive tie belonging to ellipsis or substitution is lexicogrammatical. While this captures certain regularities, there remains some ambiguity. relationship between dress  The  and 0 or one can also be described by a semantic  relation: that of co-classification.  The relation between the elements of a  cohesive tie may perhaps be described in semantic terms in both categories, i.e. in both reference and ellipsis/substitution.  It remains the case,  however, that the elements involved in the latter are more constrained formally.  In reference, as noted, the elements can be separated by several  intervening sentences, and readily take on various grammatical functions. Ellipsis or substitution may be clausal, verbal, or nominal depending on what has been omitted.  So, do, and one are the substitutes for clausal,  verbal, and nominal substitution respectively.  Examples of a l l three types  for both e l l i p s i s (E) and substitution (S) follow: 3.17  (clausal) Is he coming? (verbal)  I ' l l c a l l tomorrow.  (nominal) Have a piece of cake.  (E) (S) (E) (S) (E) (S)  Yes. [he is coming] I believe so. Will you? [call tomorrow] How will you do that? There isn't any. [cake] I ' l l have a small one.  Verbal and clausal e l l i p s i s overlap; clausal e l l i p s i s often entails verbal ellipsis.  A modified classification can be found in Bernstein (1981). Conjunction:  In conjunction, the terms of the cohesive tie are  43 whole messages. The role of the conjunctive is simply to make explicit, or "stamp" the logical relationship which holds between the two messages. A conjunctive may not even be present: 3.18 I'm going to bed. Such implicit  I!m totally exhausted.  conjunction obviously contributes to texture and several studies  on conjunction have included i t (e.g. Clancy et a l . 1976, Martin 1983). Unfortunately, in the absence of an explicit conjunctive, i t is not at a l l clear what criteria might be used to decide whether a conjunctive relation is present in certain cases and not in others, and i f so, which kind of conjunctive relationship is present.  Only instances of explicit conjunction were  analyzed in the present study. A second distinction that has been made is between external  internal  conjunctive relations.  versus  External relations are connections between  external phenomena, i.e. phenomena about the "real world".  Internal relations  are those that link internal phenomena. Examples follow: 3.19 a. (external)  First of a l l Freddie grew pale. shake. Finally he passed out.  Next he started to  b. (internal) First of a l l I'm not a nurse. Next I'm not paid to care for sick children. Finally I need to be home by four o'clock. The conjunctive relations expressed in both (a) and (b) above are temporal ones.  However, in (a) the conjunctions connect events whereas in (b) they  connect steps in an argument.  Distinguishing between external and internal  conjunction is not usually as clearcut as these examples might suggest. For this reason, and since internal conjunction was so rare in the data reported here, external and internal conjunction were collapsed in the present study. Various classifications of the logical relations of conjunction have been proposed.  The present study adopted that of Halliday & Hasan's (1976), which  44 divides conjunction into the following form-based categories: adversative, causal, temporal, and continuatives.  additive,  Examples from the data  follow: 3.20 a. (additive)  the ship went back to New York/ and the ape went back to the island  b. (adversative)  the ape wanted the banana/ but he couldn't reach i t  c. (causal)  the ape wanted the banana/ so he tried to grab i t  d. (temporal)  the g i r l waved goodbye to the ape/ then she started to cry  e. (continuative)  the g i r l was running after the boy/ and he ran into this big open area/ and the g i r l was still looking where the trees were  The category of continuatives  consists of a closed set of items in English  which are not governed by the same syntactic constraints as conjunctions; they of  course,  too,  even.  can occur, for example, in various sentence positions: anyway,  now,  surely,  after  all,  again,  already,  still,  veil,  Such items  nevertheless relate clauses to each other, thereby performing a cohesive function in a text.  A more detailed table of the above relations and their  conjunctive markers can be found in Halliday & Hasan (1976: 242-3). modifications of this system, see Martin (1977, 1983)  For  and Halliday (,1985a).  As in other cohesive categories, Halliday & Hasan (1976) distinguish between intrasentential and intersentential conjunction.  Their decision to  consider only intersentential conjunctive relations has not been followed here.  As in Martin's study (1977,1983), subordinating conjunctions and those  occurring in conjoined structures with subject e l l i p s i s were also included. There were two reasons for this decision.  First, as Halliday & Hasan them-  selves point out, the sentence is a very indeterminate  category (1976: 232).  45 Cues provided by intonation and pausing do not always satisfactorily support one segmentation over another.  A second and related reason was the fact that  a considerable amount of information on conjunction would otherwise have been lost.  A child who uses conjunction to combine individual propositions into  clause complexes may be demonstrating more advanced cohesive s k i l l s than a child who speaks in simpler sentences that a l l begin with the same conjunction (e.g. and).  By Halliday's decision, the discourse of the advanced child would  appear to contain fewer  conjunctive links than that of the second child.  Because of the tendency for many children to begin each utterance with the same conjunction, i t may be that intrasentential conjunctions are more revealing as far as conjunctive complexity is concerned.  The use of inter-  versus intra-sentential conjunctions may itself be an important variable.  In  the present study, instances of each were tabulated separately in order to examine whether this was a variable across groups and contexts. Lexical  cohesion:  Another resource used by speakers to create cohesive  discourse is vocabulary selection.  Reference, ellipsis/substitution, and  conjunction have often been described as grammatical sources of cohesion in that they involve closed systems.  In lexical cohesion, items of the cohesive  tie are content words and, therefore, there is a far greater number of options available to a speaker.  There are different ways of grouping subtypes of  lexical cohesion, a l l of which describe the same kinds of phenomena. The most common subtype i s repetition  of a lexical item.  The repeated item may or may  not show identity of reference with the previous occurrence: 3.21 a. (co-reference) b. (co-classification)  X: We finally bought a new car. Y: Yeah, I saw the car in your driveway. X: We finally bought a new car. Y: Ooh, cars are expensive these days.  46 An item showing identity of reference with the preceding occurrence is often accompanied by the demonstrative  the which signals to the listener that he or  she knows which referent is intended (see 3.21a).  In such cases, there are  two cohesive ties, referential {the) and lexical (car).  The cohesive items  need not be morphologically identical: 3.22 The winner of tonight's game will play against Boston. that match will proceed to the finals. The elements of a lexical tie may also be related by synonymy  Whoever  wins  or i t s variants  (antonymy, meronymy , and use of a superordinate or general word). 10  As in the  case of repetition, the tie may or may not involve identity of reference. Examples with identity of reference are the following: 3.23 a. (synonym) b. (superordinate)  She did nothing to stop the thief. Later she described the robber to the police. Your dog's made a mess on the carpet again. Get that stupid animal trained!  Examples without identity of reference are the following: 3.24 a. (meronym)  b. (antonym)  I'd like to go by climbing on birch tree, And climb black branches up a snow-white trunk, Toward heaven. (Robert Frost, Birches) Inch by inch, l i f e ' s a cinch. Yard by yard, i t ' s hard.  In the above examples, the two elements occurred in adjacent clauses for brevity's sake.  Like reference, however, lexical cohesion i s highly uncon-  strained and a lexical tie may span long passages of intervening discourse. In addition to repetition and synonymy, there is a third lexical type known as collocation  in which the elements of the tie are related by a "co-  occurrence tendency." Collocation is cohesive in that the occurrence of one element sets up a strong expectation of the occurrence of an associated iopart-whole relationship (e.g. door/house,  top/mountain).  47 element. lightening,  Examples of pairs which often co-occur are: pipe/smoke, nightmare/scared.  thunder/  Though an important cohesive device, colloca-  tion has not been analyzed in cohesion studies due to the difficulty of ensuring coding r e l i a b i l i t y .  It has not been included in the present study.  Related  Studies  I am suggesting that irrespective of whether i t is a dialogue or a monologue, as soon as you have said one word, you have created an environment. The more that i s said, the greater the limitations on what can be said relevantly and sensically. (Halliday & Hasan 1985: 115) Learning to follow upon a previous utterance "relevantly and sensically" apparently requires a long period of time, possibly an entire lifetime. Literacy likely has an important role to play in sharpening these s k i l l s . Tying individual messages or their components utilizes what is called  phoric  means. Phoric structures are those which presume information which the speaker assumes his listener knows. The acquisition of phoricity involves both knowing what information can and cannot be presumed, and using linguistic resources appropriately to mark this distinction.  While i t i s difficult to  examine directly a child's knowledge of what can or cannot be presumed, one can, nevertheless, examine his or her productions for the use of the linguistic resources of phoricity.  Describing the linguistic devices that are used  to t e l l listeners what they do not know and at the same time to remind them of the things they do know involves the textual metafunction.  A subset of the  resources used to realize textual meaning, namely cohesive devices, have been described in the previous section. The next section will present a summary of what i s know about cohesion from the developmental literature and from investigations on language disordered subjects.  48 The Development  of  Cohesion  There i s some confusion i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to when texture  develops.  This confusion appears, i n part, to be a r e s u l t of an imprecise d e f i n i t i o n of text.  As discussed e a r l i e r , a text i s not defined by i t s length but as a  u n i t y of meaning i n some context.  Lahey (1988) suggested that j u s t as  c h i l d r e n move from communicating i n s i n g l e words to clauses and sentences, so do they eventually move from sentences to sequences of sentences:  "Eventually  (Post Phase 8 ) , these sequences form a connected u n i t , and thus they can be 1 1  considered a form of discourse, or text ( i . e . a u n i t of connected language that i s l a r g e r than a sentence)"  (p.266).  While i t i s true that development  of texture extends w e l l i n t o the school years, i t begins  much e a r l i e r , namely  as soon as c h i l d r e n begin to make any kind of l i n g u i s t i c connection between t h e i r utterances and preceding ones (either t h e i r own or t h e i r conversational partner's). H a l l i d a y (1979) found evidence of texture i n h i s son Nigel's protolanguage as e a r l y as age f i f t e e n months.  In a picture-naming  game, for example,  N i g e l would use a s p e c i a l i n t o n a t i o n pattern to i n d i c a t e a second  move; a  change i n the i n t o n a t i o n a l pattern of a single-word utterance i n d i c a t e d to h i s l i s t e n e r that h i s current utterance was a follow-up to the f i r s t exchange.  A  second e a r l y i n t e r a c t i o n that had texture also involved i n t o n a t i o n : i n reparatory acts, N i g e l adopted the strategy of repeating, slowly and c l e a r l y , an item misunderstood by h i s l i s t e n e r .  The t r a n s i t i o n from Nigel's protolan-  guage to h i s mother tongue (approximately  the second h a l f of h i s second year)  proved to be a c r i t i c a l period f o r development of text-forming During that time, the demonstratives that 11  and it  resources.  emerged i n an exophoric  Lahey's Post Phase 8 appears to correspond to the school years.  49 context and gradually became the f i r s t r e f e r e n t i a l items to be used ically.  anaphor-  The s u b s t i t u t e one and the conjunction but also emerged as cohesive  items at t h i s time.  In a d d i t i o n to developing i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s of  cohesion, N i g e l was also l e a r n i n g to c o n t r o l t e x t u a l s t r u c t u r e . He learned very e a r l y , f o r example, to use t o n i c accent to d i s t i n g u i s h between given and new information i n order to r e l a t e a current utterance to a previous one. H a l l i d a y provides a d d i t i o n a l examples to i l l u s t r a t e Nigel's a c q u i s i t i o n of a t h i r d component of texture, namely generic s t r u c t u r e . The f i r s t generic types to emerge were dialogue and n a r r a t i v e : dialogue out of pragmatic acts (those r e q u i r i n g a response), and n a r r a t i v e s out of mathetic ( " r e a l i t y - c r e a t i n g " ) acts of meaning. According to H a l l i d a y , the a b i l i t y to construct text begins e a r l y and develops alongside the a c q u i s i t i o n of i d e a t i o n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l meanings. Based on data c o l l e c t e d from young P o l i s h c h i l d r e n aged 1;7 to 2;0, Shugar (1978) came to a s i m i l a r conclusion.  The author found evidence of j o i n t text  construction ( a d u l t - c h i l d ) at the stage i n l i n g u i s t i c development when the c h i l d r e n could only produce one or two words at a time. "dialogues", Shugar noted:  Of these e a r l y  "The c h i l d engages i n these enterprises e a r l y i n  the game, at the one-word stage, and, i f we examine the process, we f i n d that he places h i s utterance i n systematic and meaningful r e l a t i o n s to the adult utterances" (p.229).  Keenan & S c h i e f f e l i n (1976) reported evidence of topic  c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n the conversations of an English-speaking mother and her daughter aged 16 to 34 months.  While i n the one- and two-word stages, the  c h i l d demonstrated an a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h discourse t o p i c by securing the a t t e n t i o n of the l i s t e n e r , a r t i c u l a t i n g the utterance c l e a r l y , and providing enough information f o r the l i s t e n e r to i d e n t i f y references i n the discourse  50 topic.  Both verbal and nonverbal means were used.  In a l o n g i t u d i n a l study of  young E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n , Bloom, Rocissano and Hood (1976) examined a d u l t - c h i l d discourse i n order to determine how c h i l d r e n use information from adults' input sentences to form contingent responses. L i n g u i s t i c a l l y - c o n t i n g e n t speech was present i n the data of even the youngest c h i l d r e n and developed s i g n i f i c a n t l y over the time period studied (21 to 36 months of age). Keenan 4 K l e i n (1975) also reported evidence of  "text construction" i n  t h e i r observations of c h i l d - c h i l d discourse (twins boys., aged 33 months). Not only were the c h i l d r e n able to attend to and understand one another's u t t e r ances but they also demonstrated an a b i l i t y to provide relevant responses by means of formal modifications of a previous utterance. were f a i r l y p r i m i t i v e , c o n s i s t i n g mainly of sound  play  E a r l y modifications i n which the c h i l d r e n  a l t e r e d the phonological shape of each other's utterances.  According to the  authors, sound play may be a way of developing the f o l l o w i n g a b i l i t i e s :  to  attend to and acknowledge a partner's utterances, and to i s o l a t e and manipul a t e formal elements of a previous utterance.  In r e f e r e n t i a l discourse, the  s t r a t e g i e s of r e p e t i t i o n and formal m o d i f i c a t i o n were once again used to respond r e l e v a n t l y . The l a t t e r involved incorporating a l e x i c a l element of a previous utterance i n t o a current one, and s u b s t i t u t i n g an element with a constituent of the same grammatical s t a t u s .  The authors also provide examples  of pronouns used anaphorically by the c h i l d r e n . The development of texture, then, begins at a very young age, by at least sometime i n the second year.  At t h i s time c h i l d r e n begin to demonstrate an  a b i l i t y to l i n g u i s t i c a l l y r e l a t e t h e i r utterances to previous ones, e i t h e r t h e i r own (Halliday 1979) or those of others, whether adults (Shugar 1978, Keenan 4 S c h i e f f e l i n 1976, Bloom et a l . 1976) or peers (Keenan 4 K l e i n 1975).  51 The development of texture i s not somehow cued by the development of complex sentences, as Lahey (1988) appears to suggest; i t begins at the one-word stage.  Children, therefore, take part i n conversations and express themselves  i n coherent monologue long before the school years. discourse or  These, too, are forms of  text.  Although i t begins e a r l y , development of texture occurs over a long period of time.  In Bloom et a l . ' s study (1976), f o r example, l i n g u i s t i c con-  tingency, although present i n the data of a l l the c h i l d r e n , s t i l l accounted for l e s s than half of the adjacent speech the c h i l d r e n produced at three years of age. stood.  12  The course of development of text construction i s not w e l l under-  Host information comes from studies that have examined a s i n g l e device  and the majority of these involve young c h i l d r e n . Findings on reference w i l l be presented i n chapters f i v e and s i x ; studies on conjunction and s u b s t i t u t i o n / e l l i p s i s are summarized below. Conjunction:  13  Studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g conjunction i n young c h i l d r e n have  looked at s p e c i f i c conjunctions used, l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s encoded, and the discourse environment they occur i n . Based on f i n d i n g s from t h e i r crossBloom et a l . (1976) used a rather involved and questionable d e f i n i t i o n of contingency. I t consisted of three main types: expansions (the c h i l d added information about the t o p i c of a p r i o r utterance), alternatives (the c h i l d added information by opposing an aspect of the t o p i c i n the p r i o r utterance), and expatiations (the c h i l d added information to the p r i o r utterance and introduced another r e l a t e d t o p i c ) . A d i s t i n c t i o n was also made between semantic contingency based on s i t u a t i o n a l context only {contextual contingency) and that based on formal c r i t e r i a as w e l l as p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n a l context ( l i n g u i s t i c contingency). The l a t t e r was f u r t h e r subdivided i n t o intraclausal r e l a t i o n s (information was added by the c h i l d w i t h i n the same clause s t r u c t u r e and with the same verb r e l a t i o n as i n the adult utterance) and interclausal r e l a t i o n s (information was added with another clause that was grammatically subordinate to the clause of the adult utterance). T o my knowledge, there have not yet been any developmental studies reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e that have examined l e x i c a l cohesive devices. 12  13  l i n g u i s t i c study, Clancy, Jacobsen, & S i l v a (1976) suggested that c h i l d r e n f i r s t r e l a t e t h e i r utterances to the immediate n o n l i n g u i s t i c context, and then to previous utterances by simple j u x t a p o s i t i o n .  Additive and  temporal  r e l a t i o n s appear to be encoded before causal or adversative (Clancy et a l . 1976, Ervin-Tripp 1978, Bloom, Lahey, Hood, L i f t e r & Fiess 1980). e a r l i e s t conjunction to appear i s and,  which i s used to encode various  semantic r e l a t i o n s (Bloom et a l . 1980). meanings encoded increases with time.  The  Both the v a r i e t y of forms used and There are c o n f l i c t i n g views as to  whether a c h i l d f i r s t uses conjunctions to r e l a t e h i s or her utterances to an immediately preceding adult utterance (Clancy et a l . 1976) or whether conjunct i o n s f i r s t appear w i t h i n the c h i l d ' s own utterances (Ervin-Tripp 1978, Bloom et a l . 1980; Eisenberg 1980).  The answer i s no doubt to some degree dependent  on the s p e c i f i c conjunction (Eisenberg 1980). for  the use of conjunction both  In any case, there i s evidence  w i t h i n and across speaker turns i n c h i l d r e n as  young as 2-years-old. Young c h i l d r e n ' s use of e x p l i c i t connectives i n n a r r a t i v e s was by Bennett-Kastor  (1986) .  5) was the f o l l o w i n g : and,  14  analyzed  Rank order f o r a l l age groups combined (ages 2 to then,  so,  but,  first,  and when.  The  2-year-olds  used the smallest number and v a r i e t y of e x p l i c i t connectives; and  and  were used most frequently and approximately equally.  4-year-olds  The 3- and  then  showed considerable experimentation, each group using seven types of connectives.  The use of i n t e r c l a u s a l connectives decreased, however, between the  ages of 3 and 5, a decrease which the author a t t r i b u t e d to a greater a b i l i t y of older c h i l d r e n to ensure cohesion i n a v a r i e t y of ways other than by Bennett-Kastor's f i n d i n g s on p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e based on the same data were reported e a r l i e r . 14  conjunction alone.  The most common connective used by the 4- and 5-year-olds  was and. The few studies that e x i s t on the use of conjunction i n older c h i l d r e n suggest that the a c q u i s i t i o n process i s long and involved.  McClure & Geva  (1983) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a b i l i t y of students of grades four, s i x , and eight to choose between the adversatives but and although. supported  Findings from adult data  the authors' proposal that the choice would be r e l a t e d to focus, but  being used to introduce foreground information and although background information.  to introduce  Although a l l c h i l d r e n demonstrated an awareness of  the s y n t a c t i c c o n t r a i n t s governing the use of these conjunctions and an a b i l i t y to use them to mark an adversative r e l a t i o n s h i p , most ( i n c l u d i n g the grade eight students) d i d not demonstrate knowledge of the r o l e of these conjunctions i n marking focus.  As the authors noted, such a r u l e of focus  would be p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n w r i t t e n text where p a r a l i n g u i s t i c and nonverbal contextual cues are absent.  Their conclusion depends c r u c i a l l y on  the v a l i d i t y of the d i s t i n c t i o n they draw between but and although  based on  t h e i r notion of focus. Another e f f o r t to c l a r i f y the continuing development of " c o n n e c t i v i t y " i n older c h i l d r e n i s that of Scott (1984).  She examined play and interview  samples of 114 c h i l d r e n (aged 6 to 12) f o r instances of adverbial conjuncts and d i s j u n c t s . According to the grammatical system she used {Grammar Contemporary  English  of  by Quirk,Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1972), conjuncts and  d i s j u n c t s operate on the periphery of clause s t r u c t u r e and can be d i s t i n guished from adjuncts which are integrated w i t h i n clause s t r u c t u r e . Based on t h i s same system, Scott defined conjuncts r e l a t i o n between sentences (e.g.in addition,  as items which s i g n a l a l o g i c a l so,  then,  otherwise,  anyway.  54 therefore,  however)  ,  1 9  and disjuncts  as items which convey a speaker's  a t t i t u d e toward the form or content of a sentence (frankly,  unfortunately).  16  wisely,  really,  Scott found that conjunct use was just emerging at the age  of s i x , at which time i t was l i m i t e d to a few l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s expressed by only one l e x i c a l item per r e l a t i o n : i n f e r e n t i a l then, though  and t r a n s i t i o n a l now.  r e s u l t so,  concessive  With development, there was an increase i n the  frequency of these conjuncts, i n the number of d i f f e r e n t l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s , and i n the number of l e x i c a l items used per r e l a t i o n . at a l l ages, l i m i t e d f o r the most part to really  Disjunct use was rare  and probably.  Scott also  examined the frequency of the s e n t e n t i a l coordinating conjunctions and and but and found that c o n n e c t i v i t y v i a such elements was more prominent at a l l ages than c o n n e c t i v i t y v i a conjuncts. Although the increase i n the number of l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s and l e x i c a l items to express them no doubt does increase with age, a few cautionary notes are i n order.  F i r s t , the data are presented i n frequency of occurrence with  no c o n t r o l f o r length. This i s problematic because the samples of the 10- and 12-year-olds were longer than those of the 6- and 8-year-olds and because, f o r each age group, the range  i n number of utterances was s u b s t a n t i a l .  With such  widely d i f f e r i n g sample lengths, s t a t i s t i c a l analysis would be next to impossible.  Second, the greater v a r i e t y of l e x i c a l items supposedly used by older  c h i l d r e n was not, i n f a c t , t y p i c a l of the majority of the older c h i l d r e n : f o r any one of these " s o p h i s t i c a t e d " l e x i c a l items, a maximum of only four S c o t t ' s conjunct category d i d not include s e n t e n t i a l coordinating conjunctions such as and and but; she examined these separately i n a subsequent analysis reported i n the same study. D i s j u n c t s are not u s u a l l y considered to be cohesive devices by most researchers. 1 3  1 6  55 c h i l d r e n , out of the t h i r t y 12-year-olds,  a c t u a l l y used i t .  Third, conjunct  use was rare, occurring only twice i n 100 utterances for the 6-year-olds and four times i n 100 utterances for the 12-year-olds.  If average length of the  samples i s taken i n t o consideration, i t becomes evident that the conclusions Scott drew were based on very few exemplars per subject (between two and seven for the interview and play data combined).  Fourth, i n her comparison with  adult data, Scott used a rather crude method to make the samples comparable: from the number of conjuncts adults used i n a 40-minute sample, Scott computed the number predicted to occur i n 45 minutes (recording time f o r the children's data).  She found that the 10- and 12-year-olds would need to produce a three-  f o l d increase over t h e i r observed frequency and the 6-year-olds eight times t h e i r observed frequency to equal the adult r a t e .  There was  considerable  overlap i n the v a r i e t y of l e x i c a l items and l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s encoded between the adult and older c h i l d r e n ' s data.  Because of the crudeness of method used  to equate the samples (recording time), the r e s u l t s are d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r pret.  F i n a l l y , the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of Scott's d i s t i n c t i o n between  conjuncts and s e n t e n t i a l coordinating conjunctions i s questionable;  she  h e r s e l f admits to considerable d i f f i c u l t y i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the two uses, e s p e c i a l l y when the same l e x i c a l item i s used f o r both. The above f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that conjunction continues to develop during the school years and probably i n t o adulthood.  One aspect of t h i s development,  according to McClure & Geva (1983), involves increasing knowledge of an i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l r u l e of focus.  Scott (1984) described the continuing develop-  ment of " c o n n e c t i v i t y " as one of increased frequency of conjuncts, i n c l u d i n g increased number of l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s and l e x i c a l items to express them. Martin (1977,1983), l i n g u i s t i c development i n the school years can best be  For  56 described as the development of r e g i s t e r , i . e . learning to say the " r i g h t " thing i n the " r i g h t " place at the " r i g h t " time rather than with l e a r n i n g ways of saying things. tions:  As Martin explains, people have d i f f e r e n t coding  orienta-  "given the same lexicogrammatical resources and placed i n the same  s i t u a t i o n type, speakers may produce texts that vary s y s t e m a t i c a l l y according to who the speaker i s " (1983: 4). He invokes t h i s notion of code to account for the d i f f e r e n t kinds of texts produced i n the same s i t u a t i o n by c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages, who appear to be drawing on the same text-forming (as f a r as the v a r i a b l e under consideration i s concerned).  resources  Systemic grammar,  because i t describes language as a system of options, appears to be the most appropriate model to use when studying t h i s v a r i a t i o n .  Within t h i s grammar,  p r o b a b i l i t i e s are assigned to choices on the bases of 1) inherent p r o b a b i l i t i e s (e.g. a c t i v e voice i s more usual than the passive i n E n g l i s h regardless of context); 2) r e g i s t e r reweightings  (passive i s more l i k e l y to be used i n  s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g than i n other contexts) and 3) code reweightings (influence of age on the use of the passive voice i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g ) . Martin examined both reference and conjunction i n the spoken n a r r a t i v e s of 90 c h i l d r e n aged 6 to 11 years. analyzed:  Data from three s t o r y - t e l l i n g tasks were  p i c t u r e book n a r r a t i o n (task 1), r e t e l l of the same s t o r y without  p i c t u r e s (task 2), and r e t e l l of a f a b l e read to the c h i l d r e n (task 3). Martin's f i n d i n g s on reference w i l l be discussed i n chapter f i v e .  With  respect to conjunction, s t o r i e s by the younger c h i l d r e n (6- and 7-year-olds) d i f f e r e d from those of the older c h i l d r e n i n two respects.  F i r s t , the younger  c h i l d r e n treated task 1 more as a p i c t u r e - d e s c r i b i n g task than the older children:  they used fewer e x p l i c i t conjunctions to mark r e l a t i o n s between  clauses i n that task.  Second, the younger c h i l d r e n r e l i e d more on temporal  57 r e l a t i o n s than on consequential and comparative r e l a t i o n s i n task 3; they made fewer adjustments that would i n d i c a t e s e n s i t i v i t y to the fable genre than the older groups.  From t h i s (together with his findings on reference),  Martin  concluded that the younger c h i l d r e n were using a d i f f e r e n t coding o r i e n t a t i o n than the older c h i l d r e n i n the contexts examined.  Although a l l c h i l d r e n had  been using a d d i t i v e , temporal, and consequential r e l a t i o n s for years, the younger c h i l d r e n appeared to use t h i s resource d i f f e r e n t l y given a s p e c i f i c context:  "the coding o r i e n t a t i o n of the youngest group i s more context  dependent and l e s s adapted to fable genre than i s that of the older groups" (1983: 34). C l e a r l y , what a c h i l d says depends not only i n a general way "on the context" but on a c h i l d ' s p a r t i c u l a r coding o r i e n t a t i o n with respect to the context he or she finds him/herself i n .  An o r i e n t a t i o n that remains context  dependent and i n s e n s i t i v e to c e r t a i n genres would have c e r t a i n drawbacks i n the educational  system, where nonverbal and verbal contexts are i n c r e a s i n g l y  distanced and where students are expected to be i n c r e a s i n g l y s e n s i t i v e to generic s t r u c t u r e . Ellipsis/Substitution:  The category of e l l i p s i s / s u b s t i t u t i o n remains  l a r g e l y unexplored; three studies, a l l i n v o l v i n g young c h i l d r e n , w i l l be summarized here.  Ervin-Tripp  (1978) examined changes that occurred over time  i n both c h i l d and adult speech i n e a r l y c h i l d - a d u l t (experimenter) conversations.  She found that by Brown's Stage IV, there was a s h i f t i n the conversa-  t i o n a l cohesive s k i l l s of the c h i l d r e n from "speech that i s merely  associated  to the partner's speech to speech that requires l i n g u i s t i c processing and presupposes p a r t i c u l a r features of the partner's speech s y s t e m a t i c a l l y " (p.361).  Amoung the features comprising t h i s change was the appearance of  58 reply e l l i p s i s i n which the subject (often pronominalized) and the a u x i l i a r y remained, and the rest of the predicate was absent (adult: "Who came?" "Ellen did.").  child:  This occurred i n the conversations of c h i l d r e n i n Brown's  Stage IV or V (children aged 2;6 to 3;6 i n Ervin-Tripp's study). In a study of e l l i p s i s i n mother-child dialogues, Bernstein (1981) found that the categories of e l l i p s i s developed i n step with Mean Length of Utterance.  Question responses and polar e l l i p s i s (yes/no  r e p l i e s ) appeared f i r s t  followed by c l a u s a l ( p r o p o s i t i o n a l and modal) and f i n a l l y nominal e l l i p s i s . Changes that occurred i n the mothers' speech over time were observed i n mother-child (as opposed to mother-mother) sequences, the most important change being an increase i n the v a r i e t y of e l l i p t i c a l types used.  The  c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n e l l i p t i c a l r e l a t i o n s even before they acquired syntax, i . e . at the one-word stage.  The adult's embellishment of these texts  appeared to lead the c h i l d i n t o a f u l l e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  As Bernstein noted,  "the c h i l d i s lured further i n t o language by v i r t u e of using language" (p.139). sequences.  Bernstein also found that use of e l l i p s i s emerged i n between-speaker Dialogue seemed to a s s i s t the c h i l d i n producing l i n g u i s t i c  r e l a t i o n s that would i n t i t i a l l y be beyond h i s spontaneous a b i l i t y . The f i n d i n g that e l l i p s i s emerged i n between-speaker utterances supported Clancy et a l . ' s f i n d i n g s on conjunction (1976) and Eisenberg's f i n d i n g on the conjunction but (1980).  I t c o n f l i c t e d , however, with those of Ervin-Tripp  (1978) and of Bloom et a l . (1980), and with Eisenberg's findings on conjunctions other than but.  In view of t h i s unsettled issue, Roberts (1987)  examined the development of the verbal s u b s t i t u t e , do, i n a d u l t - c h i l d dyads. The f i r s t uses of do were imitated or exophoric (the deleted information was a v a i l a b l e from nonverbal context). Cohesive do then appeared, functioning i n  59 a v a r i e t y of ways for each of the c h i l d r e n .  This v a r i e t y increased with MLU.  Like Bernstein, Roberts found that e a r l y instances of cohesive do referred back to a previous adult utterance.  Within-utterance verbal cohesion occurred  l a t e , appearing f i r s t i n tag questions, then as a device to refer to a preceding utterance of the same turn or a previous turn of t h e i r own, and f i n a l l y integrated i n a s i n g l e , u s u a l l y complex sentence.  An example of a  c h i l d ' s use of do to r e f e r to a previous turn of her own i s the following (p.4): 3.25 Sarah (37 months) Sarah: You l i k e f i s h ? Adult: No. Sarah: I don't e i t h e r . S i m i l a r examples were provided by H a l l i d a y (1979).  Such examples suggest that  discourse l e v e l r e l a t i o n s by the young c h i l d are not e n t i r e l y dependent on an immediately preceding adult utterance, i . e . the young c h i l d i s capable of providing both elements of the cohesive t i e . Cohesive  Harmony:  analysis of cohesive  A recent development i n the study of cohesion i s the harmony,  which involves i d e n t i f y i n g not only cohesive  devices but also the chains they may or may not enter i n t o , and determining the extent of i n t e r a c t i o n between these chains.  Advocates of cohesive harmony  a n a l y s i s (Pappas 1981,1985, Hasan 1984) suggest that cohesive harmony i s a r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t o r of coherent t e x t .  The f i r s t stage i n the a n a l y s i s involves  i d e n t i f y i n g the cohesive devices used (reference, s u b s t i t u t i o n / e l l i p s i s , and l e x i c a l ) and then " l e x i c a l l y rendering" the t e x t , i . e . r e p l a c i n g each cohesive device with i t s f u l l or presupposed form (e.g. a pronoun would be replaced by i t s nominal antecedent).  Those items r e f e r r i n g to the same e n t i t y (co-  reference} are grouped to form identity  chains  (IC); those r e l a t e d by co-  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n or co-extension comprise similarity  chains  entering i n t o e i t h e r of these chains are c a l l e d relevant  (SC). tokens  of relevant to t o t a l tokens i s computed to y i e l d a cohesive  Items and the r a t i o  density  index.  In the t h i r d stage, the i n t e r a c t i o n between these types of chains (IC and SC) are ascertained.  For two chains to i n t e r a c t , at least two members of one  chain must stand i n the same r e l a t i o n (e.g. a c t o r - a c t i o n , a c t i o n - l o c a t i o n , etc.) to two members of the other chain.  The f o l l o w i n g has been taken from an  a n a l y s i s of a n a r r a t i v e text (Pappas 1985: 178):  utt.#  Chain X  Chain Y  4 5 16 37 37 39  girl girl girl woman daughter girl  go-out go-out run run go run-out  Chain  place house  The i n t e r a c t i o n of chains X,Y, and Z are s a i d to express an a c t o r - a c t i o n location relation.  Tokens which enter i n t o chain i n t e r a c t i o n s ( a l l of the  tokens l i s t e d i n 3.26) are c a l l e d central  tokens.  The r a t i o of the number of  c e n t r a l tokens to the number of relevant tokens yelds a cohesive index.  harmony  According to H a l l i d a y & Hasan (1985), a text has a greater chance of  being judged coherent i f : 1) i t contains a low proportion of p e r i p h e r a l tokens (those not entering chains) to relevent ones; 2) i t contains a high proportion of c e n t r a l (tokens entering i n t o chain i n t e r a c t i o n s ) to non-central tokens and 3) there are few breaks i n the i n t e r a c t i o n network. Pappas (1981, 1985) analyzed o r a l and w r i t t e n s t o r i e s by grade one c h i l d r e n and found that c h i l d r e n ' s n a r r a t i v e c a p a b i l i t i e s , as measured by cohesive density and harmony i n d i c e s , v a r i e d depending on the context. The cohesive harmony index, for example, was highest i n the o r a l r e t e l l i n g context  and lowest i n a task r e q u i r i n g a c h i l d to w r i t e an o r i g i n a l story.  Hasan  (1984) found the cohesive harmony index to s u c c e s s f u l l y c o r r e l a t e with informal judgments of coherence by readers of s t o r i e s produced by 6- and 7year-olds.  Cohesive harmony may prove to be a more revealing measure than an  a n a l y s i s of cohesive devices alone. I t requires that the " b i t s " of language that enter i n t o cohesive t i e s "march i n step" (Pappas 1985: 184).  This  a n a l y s i s , however, i s only beginning to be developed and several important a n a l y t i c a l problems remain.  Decisions as to which items may be grouped i n a  s i m i l a r i t y chain i s one; handling ambiguous or i n c o r r e c t references ( i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the data from the present study) i s another.  For these  reasons, cohesive harmony analysis was not attempted i n the present study.  Cohesion  and  Language  Impaired  Populations  Adults The f i r s t comprehensive cohesion a n a l y s i s was that of Rochester & Martin (1979), who examined the discourse (interviews and n a r r a t i v e s ) of normal and schizophrenic (thought-disordered and non thought-disordered) a d u l t s .  The  i n v e s t i g a t o r s found that, f o r schizophrenic speakers, the two measures of cohesion used (amount and d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t o cohesive type) were h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e t o context d i f f e r e n c e s but only modestly s e n s i t i v e to d i f f e r e n c e s among the three groups.  With respect to contextual d i f f e r e n c e s , a l l speakers  depended more on cohesion i n n a r r a t i v e s than i n i n t e r v i e w s . R e f e r e n t i a l t i e s were most s e n s i t i v e to context d i f f e r e n c e s followed by l e x i c a l and e l l i p t i c a l ties:  a l l groups used smaller proportions of r e f e r e n t i a l t i e s and greater  proportions of l e x i c a l and e l l i p t i c a l t i e s i n interviews than i n n a r r a t i v e s .  Conjunction d i d not d i f f e r across contexts. the schizophrenic  Group differences indicated that  subjects used fewer cohesive t i e s per clause than normals  particularly i n narratives.  In a d d i t i o n , the thought-disordered group r e l i e d  more on l e x i c a l cohesion than d i d the non thought-disordered group i n i n t e r views, although neither group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from normals.  The  discourse of f i v e of the s i x thought-disordered patients showing high l e x i c a l cohesion i n interviews also f i t the d e s c r i p t i o n of "semantic glossomania": the choice of words based on conceptual associations apparently the conversational t o p i c .  unrelated to  In n a r r a t i v e s , l e x i c a l cohesion was used to a  greater extent by normal subjects than by schizophrenics. Cohesion analysis has also been applied to the discourse of i n d i v i d u a l s with s e n i l e dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT).  Ripich & T e r r e l l (1988)  compared the t o p i c - d i r e c t e d interviews of SDAT patients (aged 68 to 85) with those of normal e l d e r l y a d u l t s .  The SDAT patients demonstrated increased  verbosity, using more t o t a l words and conversational turns.  Between group  comparisons of cohesion (frequency and d i s t r i b u t i o n ) d i d not reveal s i g n i f i cant d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups, although types of errors d i f f e r e d . Absence of a c l e a r referent occurred four times as often i n the speech of SDAT subjects.  Judgments of coherence by four l i s t e n e r s showed s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups.  Instances of l i s t e n e r incoherence were  r e l a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o one subtype of cohesion d i s r u p t i o n :  missing element  (absent piece of discourse that should provide the r e l a t i o n s h i p between preceding text and that which f o l l o w s , e.g. "My husband, he had a [missing element]. We were there.") There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n Ripich & T e r r e l l ' s study of how the texts were demarcated.  A second problem with the a n a l y s i s concerns the measure used f o r  63  frequency of cohesion:  t o t a l words spoken by each group divided by t o t a l  occurrences of a l l cohesive devices, both appropriate and disrupted. measure obviously obscures d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n d i v i d u a l performances. the word as a unit of a n a l y s i s i s i t s e l f questionable.  Such a The use of  I f i t were true that  an attempt to be cohesive required more words, however s l i g h t the increase required, such an attempt would be masked by R i p i c h & T e r r e l l ' s measure.  A  f i n a l problem concerns the i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' conclusion that "SDAT r e s u l t s not only i n the impairment of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s but also i n the impairment of discourse a b i l i t i e s that contribute to Alzheimer p a t i e n t s ' incoherent speech" (p.8).  The separation of discourse a b i l i t i e s from " l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s " i s  t h e o r e t i c a l l y questionable.  No attempt was made to r e l a t e the impairment  revealed by t h e i r study to other features of language d i s s o l u t i o n i n A l z h e i mer's disease.  Their suggestion that incoherence  r e s u l t s from a l o s s of  a b i l i t i e s to take the l i s t e n e r ' s perspective i s purely c o n j e c t u r a l . ence was r e l a t e d to one feature only, namely missing element.  Incoher-  I t i s possible  that t h i s type of error may also be due to word r e t r i e v a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . Cohesion cannot be separated from other " l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s " .  Accor-  ding to Mentis & P r u t t i n g , "cohesion i s a prime example of how competence i s achieved through the integrated c o n t r i b u t i o n s of pragmatics, semantics, syntax" (1987: 95).  and  The authors examined cohesion i n the conversation and  " n a r r a t i v e s " ( d e s c r i p t i o n and procedural) of three normal adults and three adults with closed head i n j u r y (CHI) and compared these r e s u l t s to pragmatic and s y n t a c t i c a b i l i t i e s .  Each of the CHI subjects had communicative d i s a b i l i -  t i e s as measured by a protocol examining a number of pragmatic behaviors. Syntax was judged to be " r e l a t i v e l y w e l l preserved"; a l l showed evidence of possessing the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s required to formulate a cohesive t i e .  64 CHI subjects used fewer cohesive t i e s than the normals i n the " n a r r a t i v e " conditions but not i n conversation.  The groups d i f f e r e d with respect to  e l l i p s i s , l e x i c a l cohesion, and incomplete t i e s . percentage of l e x i c a l t i e s than CHI p a t i e n t s .  1 7  Normal adults used a higher Mentis & P r u t t i n g suggested  that lower l e x i c a l cohesion may be r e l a t e d to word r e t r i e v a l problems.  CHI  patients also used a higher percentage of e l l i p t i c a l t i e s than two of the three normals.  Since more of these occurred across communication partners f o r  the CHI p a t i e n t s , the authors speculated that the CHI subjects may have been using t h e i r partners' discourse as a s c a f f o l d i n order to r e l i e v e the stress placed on t h e i r impaired l i n g u i s t i c systems.  The CHI subjects also used  previous l e x i c a l items supplied by a conversational partner to a greater extent than normals. CHI subjects used a r e l a t i v e l y high percentage of incomplete t i e s whereas no incomplete t i e s were observed i n samples from normal a d u l t s . plete t i e s were reference e r r o r s .  Most incom-  The authors r e l a t e d reference problems to  poor scores on t o p i c maintenance and turn-taking contingency on the pragmatic protocol.  They also implicated word r e t r i e v a l problems:  unspecified pronouns  may have been used i n place of a s p e c i f i c l e x i c a l item as a strategy to prevent complete breakdown i n communication.  Use of cohesion was r e l a t e d to  s y n t a c t i c a b i l i t i e s i n the case of one of the CHI subjects who showed a more r e s t r i c t e d s y n t a c t i c p r o f i l e and who also was more r e s t r i c t e d i n the range of t i e s used i n the categories of conjunction and l e x i c a l  cohesion.  In summary, the authors concluded that the cohesive patterns of the CHI subjects were r e l a t e d to reduced l i n g u i s t i c processing a b i l i t i e s , l i m i t e d  T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n agreement with Rochester & Martin's (1979) r e s u l t s for n a r r a t i v e s but not f o r conversation. 1 7  pragmatic a b i l i t i e s , and compensatory s t r a t e g i e s (e.g. use of partner's speech as s c a f f o l d for one's own). discourse type.  Cohesive patterns also d i f f e r e d according to  While both groups showed s e n s i t i v i t y to d i f f e r i n g discourse  conditions (both showed higher percentages  of e l l i p t i c a l and r e f e r e n t i a l t i e s  i n conversation and higher percentage of l e x i c a l and conjunction t i e s i n n a r r a t i v e s ) , the normals showed one important d i f f e r e n c e : they used more cohesive t i e s i n n a r r a t i v e s compared to conversation; the CHI d i d not d i f f e r i n amount of cohesive t i e s across contexts. Two cautionary notes are i n order.  F i r s t , Mentis & P r u t t i n g d i d not use  s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s , no doubt because of the small number of subjects. must be kept i n mind when i n t e r p r e t i n g comparative lower,  higher,  clearly  differentiated,  etc.  This  terms such as more,  less,  A few of t h e i r f i n d i n g s f o r a  given group applied to only two out of the three members.  Second, s p e c i f i c  ways i n which r e s u l t s on the pragmatic and s y n t a c t i c measures r e l a t e d to cohesion r e s u l t s were not c l a r i f i e d . range of behaviors:  The pragmatic protocol examined a wide  speech acts, t o p i c maintenance, turn t a k i n g , l e x i c a l  s e l e c t i o n , p a r a l i n g u i s t i c aspects, nonverbal aspects, e t c .  The i n t e n t of the  authors i n r e l a t i n g the cohesion patterns of the CHI subjects to reduced pragmatic a b i l t i e s i s unclear. i f so, which causes which?  Is one a source of problems f o r the other, and  Or are the two evaluating the same phenomena?  School-age c h i l d r e n An extensive cohesion a n a l y s i s was done by L i l e s (1985,1987) on the story r e c a l l s of 20 normal and 20 language-disordered  c h i l d r e n (aged 7 to 10).  Following the viewing of a f i l m with the examiner present, the c h i l d was asked to t e l l the story to the examiner (shared c o n d i t i o n ) . The c h i l d then r e t o l d  the story to an adult l i s t e n e r who had not seen the f i l m (unshared c o n d i t i o n ) . A f t e r the r e t e l l i n g s , the examiner asked the c h i l d two sets of questions: set I was intended to evaluate f a c t u a l information and set I I questions were designed to tap the subject's knowledge of story grammar (how,  why questions).  When the data were compared across l i s t e n e r conditions, d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the number of sentences used, use of cohesive categories, and adequacy of cohesion.  Both groups produced more sentences, more personal reference and  conjunctive t i e s , and a greater proportion of complete t i e s with the uninformed l i s t e n e r .  A l l c h i l d r e n , then, viewed the task as a communicative one  and were s e n s i t i v e to l i s t e n e r needs. With respect to group d i f f e r e n c e s , the normal c h i l d r e n used a greater number of sentences and a greater percentage of personal reference t i e s than the language disordered subjects, while the l a t t e r used a greater percentage of demonstrative  reference and l e x i c a l t i e s .  As L i l e s noted, proper use of  personal reference requires i d e n t i f y i n g the referent i n varying contexts and r e s u l t s i n a complex i n t e g r a t i o n of ideas.  The language disordered c h i l d , she  suggested, was perhaps l e s s able to "chain", to i d e n t i f y the same referent across several events.  An a l t e r n a t i v e she proposed was that the disordered  c h i l d r e n were constrained at the sentence l e v e l i n the grammatical use of pronouns.  A l l of her disordered subjects had a h i s t o r y of l a t e a c q u i s i t i o n of  pronominal use; they may have developed at an e a r l y age a compensatory strategy of r e p l a c i n g pronouns with demonstratives l e v e l of discourse.  or l e x i c a l items at the  Adequacy of cohesion also d i s t i n g u i s h e d the two groups;  the language disordered subjects used a greater percentage of both and erroneous t i e s .  incomplete  Regarding comprehension, both groups d i d w e l l on set I  questions but the disordered subjects d i d more poorly than the normals on set  67 I I questions.  L i l e s concluded from t h i s that the disordered c h i l d r e n did not  have as great a knowledge about story grammar. Age d i d not c o r r e l a t e with any of the v a r i a b l e s measured and L i l e s concluded that s t a b i l i t y of use of cohesion i s attained by age 6.  In the absence of adult data, however, t h i s  conclusion i s not w e l l supported by her study. L i l e s has obtained i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s , perhaps the most revealing being that both groups of subjects a l t e r e d t h e i r use of cohesion as a function of l i s t e n e r c o n d i t i o n i n the same ways. t i o n require further s c r u t i n y .  Other r e s u l t s and/or t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a -  L i l e s ' f i n d i n g of greater use of l e x i c a l  cohesion on the part of language disordered subjects versus normal speakers c o n f l i c t s with the r e s u l t s of Rochester & Martin (1979) and Mentis & P r u t t i n g (1987).  Both of the l a t t e r studies found a lower  proportion of l e x i c a l  cohesion by t h e i r language disordered subjects than normal speakers i n n a r r a t i v e contexts.  What makes L i l e s ' f i n d i n g s p a r t i c u l a r l y open to question  i s her d e s c r i p t i o n of how l e x i c a l cohesion was analyzed (see her appendix B, p.133).  As described i n the previous s e c t i o n , l e x i c a l cohesion i s achieved  through vocabulary s e l e c t i o n .  According to H a l l i d a y & Hasan (1976), r e p e t i -  t i o n represents the most important subcategory of l e x i c a l cohesion since i t t y p i c a l l y occurs f a r more frequently than other l e x i c a l devices. f o l l o w i n g p a i r of utterances, balloons  In the  i n (a) and (b) would be considered to  comprise the elements of a cohesive t i e : 3.27 a. The c h i l d r e n bought balloons, b.  Then the balloons  popped.  Such an example, i n f a c t , would represent the " p r o t o t y p i c a l " form l e x i c a l cohesion would take. ces that were excluded.  L i l e s , however, used t h i s example to i l l u s t r a t e instanHer r a t i o n a l e was that the use of balloons  i n 3.27  68 "does not n e c e s s a r i l y require the reader to look outside the sentence f o r a d d i t i o n a l information" (p.133).  L i l e s ' d e c i s i o n ignores the c r u c i a l d i s t i n c -  t i o n between the rather closed set of "grammatical" one hand (reference, e l l i p s i s / s u b s t i t u t i o n ) cohesive devices on the other.  cohesive devices on the  and the more open c l a s s of l e x i c a l  While "grammatical"  devices require  a listener  to seek information elsewhere, l e x i c a l devices are semantically s e l f - s u f f i cient.  They nevertheless play a cohesive r o l e .  The d e c i s i o n to exclude  items  which d i d not require the l i s t e n e r to look outside the sentence l e d to poor r e l i a b i l i t y , as L i l e s h e r s e l f noted.  I t also l e d to a lower frequency of  cohesive t i e s o v e r a l l , a smaller proportion of l e x i c a l cohesion and i n turn higher proportions of other cohesive categories than might have been expected. A second c r i t i c i s m concerns L i l e s ' conclusion that the poorer scores by language disordered subjects on set I I of the comprehension questions ted poor grammar knowledge.  reflec-  Set I I questions were no doubt more d i f f i c u l t and  required longer answers, but i t i s questionable whether any kind of questionanswer task can d i r e c t l y tap s t o r y grammar knowledge.  The examiner, with h i s  or her question, provides the subject with that p a r t i c u l a r story's grammar.  category of the  Not a l l of the language disordered group d i d poorly on set  I I questions; f i v e obtained a perfect score.  The cohesive adequacy of these  f i v e was s t i l l poorer than the normals; one, i n fact had the highest tage of erroneous and incomplete t y i n g .  percen-  L i l e s concludes that although poor  story grammar (as supposedly shown by the lower mean on set I I questions of the disordered group) i s a p r e d i c t o r of poor cohesion, good s t o r y grammar knowledge i s not s u f f i c i e n t f o r good cohesion.  Unfortunately, neither of  these statements i s supported by her experiment since story grammar knowledge was not adequately  assessed.  69 Ripich & G r i f f i t h (1988, see also G r i f f i t h , Ripich & D a s t o l i 1986) analyzed story s t r u c t u r e , propositions, and cohesion i n the discourse of normal and learning disabled c h i l d r e n aged 7 to 12. According to standardized test r e s u l t s , the learning disabled appeared to be l i n g u i s t i c a l l y competent at the sentence l e v e l . Data were obtained  Three subgroups were formed based on vocabulary age. from three story r e t e l l tasks (which d i f f e r e d according to  r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y based on number of events), and from a fourth task i n v o l v i n g p i c t u r e book n a r r a t i o n .  Nondisabled subjects used more cohesive  devices than disabled subjects, i n c l u d i n g more reference items and conjunctions.  These differences were also found between older and younger c h i l d r e n .  Nondisabled subjects d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from disabled with to cohesion e r r o r s .  respect  Disrupted cohesion varied across contexts, however, with  the story of medium d i f f i c u l t y showing the most reference d i s r u p t i o n s .  The  authors a t t r i b u t e d t h i s f i n d i n g to the f a c t that t h i s story contained two female protagonists who were sometimes confused. Results and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are once again compromised by questionable analytical decisions.  R i p i c h & G r i f f i t h omitted the category of l e x i c a l  cohesion altogether; no reference i s made to i t so i t i s impossible to know why the researchers  chose to exclude i t .  Their conclusions  that e l l i p s i s was  used i n the same way by both groups of c h i l d r e n i s not w e l l supported. f i g u r e s were provided  for e l l i p s i s i n their tables.  No  Since very short s t o r i e s  were used as s t i m u l i , i t i s l i k e l y that t h e i r conclusions were based on a small number of tokens of e l l i p s i s , perhaps one or fewer per s t o r y . serious problem concerns a lack of c o n t r o l f o r story length.  A more  Although they  claim to determine "frequency and percentage of cohesion devices" at the outset of t h e i r a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n , no attempt was made to a c t u a l l y do t h i s .  In  70 s p i t e of the fact that the l e a r n i n g disabled c h i l d r e n used fewer propositions i n t h e i r s t o r y than the normal c h i l d r e n , use of cohesion by the two groups was compared i n absolute terms only. A t h i r d study of discourse cohesion i n school-age c h i l d r e n was c a r r i e d out by H a r r i s , Schaeffer, 4 Lougeay-Mottinger  (1987).  They examined conversa-  t i o n and monologues ( r e t e l l and procedural) of language impaired c h i l d r e n aged 7 to 9, age and gender matched normals (CA), and younger c o n t r o l s matched on expressive language a b i l i t i e s (LA).  Use of cohesive devices d i f f e r e d more  across contexts than across groups.  A l l c h i l d r e n used a greater proportion of  contextually-based devices, i . e . exophoric as opposed to endophoric, i n the play task (conversation). The CA c h i l d r e n were most s e n s i t i v e to context; they used more demonstratives and e l l i p t i c a l devices i n play to r e f e r to shared p h y s i c a l c o n t e x t  18  and more conjunctive devices i n monologues.  According to the authors, although the language impaired and language matched c h i l d r e n had the devices i n t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c r e p e r t o i r e , they apparently possessed l e s s knowledge as to how to vary the use of devices across contexts. The language impaired c h i l d r e n , u n l i k e the other groups, d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r use of e l l i p s i s across contexts; t h e i r continued high use i n non contextually-supported tasks suggested problems i n a l t e r i n g use of cohesive devices according to l i s t e n e r perspective.  Complete devices were infrequent;  a l l c h i l d r e n used more incomplete t i e s on the s t o r y r e c a l l task, a f i n d i n g which suggested that the c h i l d r e n had more d i f f i c u l t y when no p h y s i c a l context was shared.  Language impaired c h i l d r e n used a greater proportion of incom-  plete devices on the s t o r y task than the CA c h i l d r e n .  Unfortunately, Harris  N o t e that such devices, being exophoric, would not be considered cohesive by H a l l i d a y 4 Hasan (1976) and by those who have adopted t h e i r analysis. 18  71 et a l . , l i k e Ripich & G r i f f i t h (1988), d i d not examine l e x i c a l cohesion nor provide a reason f o r t h i s omission.  I t i s also d i f f i c u l t to know how they  would have d i s t i n g u i s h e d between devices used l i n g u i s t i c a l l y and those used contextually during the play task since the referents (a v a r i e t y of toys) were p h y s i c a l l y present.  Purpose  of  the  Present  Study  Many of the older c h i l d r e n i n the above studies appeared to perform "adequately"  on standardized  t e s t s tapping sentence-level phenomena.  Teachers continue to r e f e r such c h i l d r e n to language c l i n i c i a n s , who, unfortunately, lack adequate diagnostic t o o l s .  The problem, i f there i s one, i s  u s u a l l y f e l t to l i e somewhere beyond s e n t e n t i a l borders, and the s o l u t i o n i s often to describe, i n rather anecdotal fashion, a sequence of "pragmatic behaviors".  Pragmatic inventories have not proved h e l p f u l i n t h i s respect.  They have lumped together a wide v a r i e t y of behaviors using categories are r a r e l y r e l i a b l y coded. remains unanalyzed.  that  In s p i t e of the length of some, much of the text  A more p r i n c i p l e d account of discourse l e v e l r e l a t i o n s i s  required, one that looks more c l o s e l y at language,  i . e . at the l i n g u i s t i c  resources operating at the l e v e l of discourse. The aim of cohesion a n a l y s i s as developed w i t h i n the framework of systemic grammar i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s .  Unfortunately,  attempts to analyze  cohesion i n the texts of language impaired school-age c h i l d r e n have been, f o r the most part, u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .  Findings of c e r t a i n studies remain inconclu-  sive due to a lack of consideration of story length (e.g. R i p i c h & G r i f f i t h 1988), m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c e r t a i n cohesive categories omission of important cohesive categories  (e.g. L i l e s 1985),  (e.g. R i p i c h & G r i f f i t h 1988, Harris  72 et a l . 1987), and unsupported t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions (Ripich & T e r r e l l 1988). In view of these d e f i c i e n c i e s and of the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s i n the few studies that have been undertaken to date, a d d i t i o n a l research on cohesion i n the discourse of language impaired i n d i v i d u a l s i s required.  The o v e r a l l  purpose of t h i s study w i l l be to characterize some of the ways i n which language impaired c h i l d r e n create, or f a i l to create, cohesive discourse.  The  questions addressed are the f o l l o w i n g : 1.  Does the use of cohesion by language impaired school-age c h i l d r e n d i f f e r q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y from i t s use by age-matched normal language children?  2.  Does the use of cohesion d i f f e r depending on context? Are some categories more s e n s i t i v e to contextual e f f e c t s than others? Do the groups d i f f e r with respect to the pattern of cohesion used across contexts?  The f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypotheses were tested: Amount  of  cohesion  (4)  Given the same task conditions, language impaired c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal language c h i l d r e n i n the frequency of cohesive t i e s as measured by a) the number of t i e s per story and b) the number of t i e s per independent clause.  (5)  The frequency of cohesive t i e s (per independent clause) f o r either group does not vary as a funcion of context.  Distribution  of  cohesive  ties  (6)  Given the same task conditions, language impaired c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal language c h i l d r e n i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of cohesive types. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the two groups do not d i f f e r i n the proportion of t i e s belonging t o the f o l l o w i n g categories or t h e i r subtypes: a) reference, b) e l l i p s i s / s u b s t i t u t i o n , c) conjunction and d) l e x i c a l cohesion.  (7)  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of cohesive types f o r e i t h e r group does not vary as a function of context. S p e c i f i c a l l y , each of the f o l l o w i n g categor i e s and t h e i r subtypes occur i n the same proportions across contexts: a) reference, b) e l l i p s i s / s u b s t i t u t i o n , c) conjunction and d) l e x i c a l cohesion.  73 Cohesive  adequacy  (8)  Given the same task conditions, language impaired c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal language c h i l d r e n i n the proportion of incomplete t i e s as a function of t o t a l cohesive t i e s .  (9)  Cohesive adequacy f o r e i t h e r group does not vary as a function of context.  CHAPTER FOUR COHESION: ANALYSIS  Method  of  Analysis  Cohesion was analyzed using an adaptation of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) method. Three narratives from each child, obtained from TI, T2, and T3, were analyzed, yielding a data base of 662 independent clause units for TI, 473 for T2, and 676 for T3, for a total of 1811 independent clause units.  Each  independent clause was examined for links to previous utterances. items were noted.  For example, they,  element and father  and daughter  4.1  1  Presumed  in 4.1 was counted as a single cohesive  were noted as the presumed items:  one day there was a father and a daughter that was going on a trip/ and they went to an island  The scanning of previous independent clauses was in keeping with Halliday & Hasan's decision to study cohesive ties between sentences only.  However, i t  immediately became clear that a considerable amount of information relevant to cohesion was being excluded (see discussion under conjunction three).  in chapter  Therefore, a referring item was counted as a cohesive device not only  if i t s linguistic referent could be found in a previous independent clause, but also i f i t could be found in a subordinate clause or conjoined clause with subject e l l i p s i s (see Martin 1977, and Pappas 1981, for similar departures from Halliday & Hasan's analysis). 4.2  For example:  and a l l the people gathered in and rowed down to the island  The term utterance, when used, refers to an independent clause as defined within sytemic grammar (see chapter three). 1  74  75 According to the procedure adopted here, i t a l i c i z e d and and the zero anaphor that immediately follows i t were included i n the a n a l y s i s , i . e . counted as cohesive devices.  A note was made of such instances when they occurred.  Each l i n k was coded f o r type of cohesive device used: s u b s t i t u t i o n / e l l i p s i s , conjunction, l e x i c a l , and incomplete.  reference, D e f i n i t i o n s and  examples of the f i r s t four types were provided i n chapter three (see table IV for examples from the data).  A f i f t h category, incomplete,  was added to allow  coding of instances where a r e f e r r i n g item was used i n the absence of a p r i o r referent.  Erroneous and ambiguous uses were a l s o placed i n t h i s category.  Devices were considered ambiguous i n the f o l l o w i n g cases: 1) i f i t was impossible f o r the experimenter  (who knew the s t o r y well) to determine which  referent was intended or 2) i f there was a f i f t y percent chance or greater that the l i s t e n e r would m i s i n t e r p r e t the device.  The l a t t e r involved cases  judged to be ambiguous from a l i s t e n e r ' s standpoint.  I f there was any way a  device was more l i k e l y to be i n t e r p r e t e d c o r r e c t l y than i n c o r r e c t l y  (based,  for example, on a l i s t e n e r ' s use of world knowledge or of what had been predicated so f a r ) ,  the speaker was c r e d i t e d with a complete device.  Group and task e f f e c t s were tested using the Mann-Whitney U and Friedman two-way a n a l y s i s of variance by ranks r e s p e c t i v e l y . used throughout.  Two-tailed t e s t s were  Mann-Whitney U r e s u l t s have been included i n i n the tables.  For a d i f f e r e n c e to be considered s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , the value of U had to be equal to or l e s s than 5.  The smaller U was, the more s i g n i f i c a n t  the d i f f e r e n c e between the sum of the ranks f o r each group.  Results of the  Friedman two-way a n a l y s i s of variance by ranks have been noted i n the text. To be considered s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l , the value of Fr had to equal or exceed 7.0.  The greater Fr, the more s i g n i f i c a n t the d i f f e r e n c e .  76  Table IV.—Examples of Cohesion Categories from the Data Category  Subcategory  Examples  Reference  Pronominal  the story was about two kids/ and they were riding down  Demonstrative  and then they came to a big suspension bridge/ they went down that they come to an island / and they send a motor boat out to get to the island quicker  Ellipsis/ Substitution  Comparative  and one of the bomb people took the g i r l / .../ and the other guy asked Todd i f he could get the backpack off  Nominal  one of them wasn't really sure about i t / but the other one really wanted to go (S)  Verbal/clausal  and he wanted to go to get his backpack again /  but they didn't  (S)  the boy Todd said that he wasn't scared / but a l l the rest were (S) Conjunction  Lexical  Incomplete  Additive  they get the ape to follow them / and they run off  Temporal  they went down that / then they went through a big tunnel  Adversative  and then the g i r l showed them where the time bomb was / but i t was gone  Causal  she didn't want him to do i t / so they started riding their bikes back home  Continuative  they saw an ape swinging on a swing hanging on the log /.../ then he started swinging again  Repetition (with identity)  and then they see a village / and in the village they see a l l these indians  Synonymy  and they found this big t r a i l on a mountain /.../ and the people followed the big path  Repetition (without ident.)  and he found a bomb just sitting on the ground /.../ and he called into this bomb service or something like this  Verbal  he opened i t /.../ then he opened i t more and more  Additive  and the g i r l f e l l off a c l i f f (no previous mention of a girl)  Erroneous  once upon a time there were some people, well, three boys and a l i t t l e g i r l / but they were trying to find the legend of the Great Ape (conj. error)  Ambiguous  so the man helped him [the boy] take off his knapsack / and then he put i t down gently  Note: See chapter three for definitions.  77 Results  Amount  of  Cohesion  Amount of cohesion was evaluated i n terms of t o t a l number of t i e s used and number of t i e s per independent clause.  Means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , and  ranges f o r each group are provided i n table V along with Mann-Whitney U results.  Normal language (NL) speakers used s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t o t a l cohesive  t i e s on T l and T3 than language impaired (LI) speakers. Given task and group d i f f e r e n c e s i n story length (see chapter two), the t o t a l number of t i e s per speaker was divided by the number of independent clauses each speaker produced (see  table V).  Frequency of cohesion i n terms of t i e s per independent clause  d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y across groups on T l (U=A, p<.05) c a n t l y on T3 {U=2, p<.10).  pi.Ol).  and h i g h l y s i g n i f i (U=6,  The d i f f e r e n c e on T2 was nearly s i g n i f i c a n t  Hyothesis (4), therefore, was r e j e c t e d .  Although the s i z e of the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups varied depending on the task, each group considered on i t s own performed i n a s i m i l a r way across tasks with respect to number of t i e s per independent clause:  LI  subjects used an average of 3.39, 3.59 and 3.18 t i e s per independent clause on T l , T2, and T3 r e s p e c t i v e l y while NL subjects used an average of 4.36, and 3.90 t i e s on the same tasks.  4.44,  Hypothesis (5), therefore, could not be  rejected based on the data obtained. In order to determine the e f f e c t of the decision to include instances of cohesion where one element of the t i e occurred i n a main clause and the other i n a subordinate clause or conjoined clause with subject e l l i p s i s , these instances were excluded and the data reanalyzed.  Total t i e s and t i e s per  independent clause were, as expected, reduced f o r a l l subjects on a l l tasks.  78 Table V.—Frequency of Cohesive Ties used by NL and LI Children on Tl, T2, and T3 Tl (picture-based)  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall)  LP  NL  LI  NL  LI  NL  M  173.2  256.3  125.0  200.3  131.5  283.0  SD  37.3  72.8  63.5  64.7  58.6  74.6  range  132-217  146-348  64-224  101-274  82-230  162-356  Cohesive ties Ties/story  Ties/independent clause M  3.39  4.36  3.59  4.44  3.18  3.90  SD  .29  .72  .41  .62  .39  .26  range  3.00-3.69  3.55-5.30  3.11-4.19  3.61-5.27  2.65-3.79  3.50-4.12  N= 6 for each group  a  Mann-Whitney U values Tl  T2  T3  Ties/story  4.0*  6.0  1.0**  Ties/independent clause  4.0*  6.0  2.0**  *p(.05 **p<.01 However, the s i z e of the d i f f e r e n c e s between groups was comparable to the f i n d i n g s of the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . previously found.  Sums of ranks were almost i d e n t i c a l t o those  For these reasons, i t appeared b e n e f i c i a l t o include such  instances i n order t o take i n t o account as much of the data judged relevant to cohesion as p o s s i b l e .  In the f o l l o w i n g analyses, the data include these  instances of cohesion unless otherwise stated.  Distribution  of  Cohesion  Categories  For each subject, the proportion of t i e s used i n each cohesion category was computed f o r each context.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of t i e s i n the categories of  79 reference (R), conjunction (C), l e x i c a l cohesion  (L), and incomplete  (I) are  depicted i n f i g u r e 2. The category of s u b s t i t u t i o n / e l l i p s i s was not included since i t represented one percent or l e s s of t o t a l cohesive t i e s for both groups on a l l tasks.  Means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , and ranges are presented i n  tabular form i n appendix 3. There i s only one category, that of incomplete, i n which the groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on a l l tasks. each task (U=0, pi.01)  The d i f f e r e n c e was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t on  with NL c h i l d r e n showing a much smaller proportion of  incomplete t i e s than L I c h i l d r e n . Hypothesis  (8) was, therefore, r e j e c t e d . A  h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was also found between the two groups i n the category of l e x i c a l cohesion on T2  (U=l,  pi.01);  NL c h i l d r e n depended more on  l e x i c a l cohesion i n t h i s task than L I c h i l d r e n . Hypothesis  (6d) was r e j e c t e d ,  therefore, f o r T2. S i m i l a r tendencies were evident on T l and T3; the d i f f e r ence on T3 was nearly s i g n i f i c a n t (U=l, p<.10). The o v e r a l l order of category use (excluding incomplete)  f o r NL speakers  on a l l n a r r a t i v e tasks was the f o l l o w i n g : R > L > C > S/E. For L I speakers, the order was the same as NL c h i l d r e n on T l but d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y on T2 and T3 where l e x i c a l and conjunction categories were used i n approximately  the same  proportions, i . e . R > L = C > S/E. The only s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h i n group context e f f e c t was the use of l e x i c a l cohesion by NL subjects  (Fr=l,  pi.05),  who used a greater proportion of  l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 than on T3. Hypothesis  (7d) was, therefore, r e j e c t e d  for NL c h i l d r e n . There were other tendencies which nearly reached s i g n i f i cance:  1) proportion of conjunction by L I c h i l d r e n was greater on T2 than on  T l ; 2) proportion of conjunction by NL c h i l d r e n was greater on T3 than on T2; 3) proportion of incomplete t i e s by NL c h i l d r e n was greater on T3 than on T l .  80  * * * * * « * « * * « * * * * * * * - * ; * « « « « * «  * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  x x: 4) O  * * * * « * « « * * * * * « * « « « * « * « * * *  <  N  l  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * * « * « « * * « « * * « * * « * * * « * * * *  • 11 <U • WHO  Mean Proportion of Total Cohesive Ties  81 The cohesion categories of reference, conjunction, lexical, and incomplete were further subdivided in order to investigate more fully the nature of the cohesive ties used. Reference:  These results are presented below.  As figure 2 shows, the proportion of total referential ties  did not differ across groups or contexts.  Referential ties were further  subdivided into the following categories: personals, demonstratives, and comparatives (see chapter three for definitions and examples and table IV of this chapter).  Results are shown in table VI.  Comparative reference was not  compared statistically since i t was occurred too infrequently. The most striking result i s the evident similarities between the two groups in their use of personals and demonstratives.  There i s a slight tendency for NL  subjects to use a greater proportion of demonstratives and a correspondingly smaller proportion of personals than LI subjects on T2.  Table VI.—Proportions of Referential Ties falling into the Subcategories of Personals, Demonstratives, and Comparatives for LI and NL children on TI, T2, and T3 • • • • • • I I I . • II I •  •». ... ..—•..••H...P  Ill llll.  TI (picture-based) LP  —  I— »  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall)  NL  LI  NL  LI  NL  Referential ties Personals M  .599  .616  .628  .568  .701  .676  SD  .119  .068  .113  .046  .073  .060  .492-.667  .423-.737  .512-.645  .569-.780  range  .418-.746  .596-.752  Demonstratives M  .389  .376  .368  .409  .288  .307  SD  .122  .068  .113  .044  . .074  .070  .321-.500  .263-.5T7  .336-.463  .195-.415  .231-.394  .008  .003  .022  .011  .017  range  .254-.582  Comparatives M a  .012  N= 6 for each group  82 With respect to context e f f e c t s , the NL c h i l d r e n used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of demonstratives than on T3 (Fr=8.33, p<.05).  and lower proportion of personals on T2  Hypothesis  subcategories of demonstratives  (7a) was, therefore, rejected f o r the  and personals f o r NL c h i l d r e n .  Since there  were r e l a t i v e l y few demonstratives of proximity used, t h i s r e s u l t amounted to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e plus noun constructions. Conjunction:  Only e x p l i c i t conjunctions were included i n the a n a l y s i s .  The two groups used almost i d e n t i c a l proportions of conjunction on T l and T3, whereas on T2, the NL c h i l d r e n used a s l i g h t l y smaller proportion although the d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t .  The data were converted from p r o p o r t i o n a l to  frequency data i n order to determine whether the groups d i f f e r e d with respect to the number of conjunctions used per independent clause.  The r e s u l t s are  displayed i n f i g u r e 3a. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the groups was found on T3 {U=i, j?<.05).  Thus, although the proportions of conjunctive use on t h i s  task are almost i d e n t i c a l f o r NL and L I subjects (.254 and .250 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , the NL c h i l d r e n are a c t u a l l y using more conjunctions per independent clause than the L I subjects on T3. It was noted e a r l i e r that a l l conjunctions were analyzed, i n c l u d i n g those introducing subordinate clauses and conjoined clauses with subject e l l i p s i s . The data were reanalyzed to determine whether the groups d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r use of these " i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e " conjunctions (those introducing subordinate clauses and conjoined clauses with subject e l l i p s i s ) .  The frequency of i n t r a - u t t e r -  ance conjunctions per independent clause i s shown i n f i g u r e 3b; that of i n t e r utterance conjunctions (those l i n k i n g independent clauses) i s shown i n f i g u r e 3c.  Although the d i f f e r e n c e s i n use of i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions by the  two groups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , there was a tendency f o r NL c h i l d r e n  1.2 1 .028 .992 1.0  .969  .990 .818  .8  / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  / /  .2  / / / / / TI  T2 LI  / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  .885 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T3  TI  T2 NL  a) T o t a l C o n j u n c t i o n s  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T3  . 901 .857  / / / / / / / / / / /  734  .211 . 134 .121 .085  TI  / / / T2 LI b)  * *  •  T3  TI  / / / / / / / / / / /  .208 126 / / / / / T2 NL  Intra-utterance Con j u n c t i o n s  T3  T2 LI c)  . 784 .764  .758  / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T3  /  / / / TI  T2 NL  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T3  Inter-utterance Con j u n c t i o n s  Pig.3. Frequency of C o n j u n c t i v e T i e s per Independent Clause by LI and NL C h i l d r e n on T l , T 2 , a n d T3 : (a) a l l C o n j u n c t i o n s ( I n t r a - u t t e r a n c e and I n t e r - u t t e r a n c e ) ; (b) I n t r a - u t t e r a n c e C o n j u n c t i o n s ( t h o s e i n t r o d u c i n g s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s or c o n j o i n e d c l a u s e s w i t h s u b j e c t e l l i p s i s ) ; (c) I n t e r - u t t e r a n c e C o n j u n c t i o n s ( t h o s e , l i n k i n g independent c l a u s e u n i t s ) .  CO CO  84 to use more of them than the LI subjects on T l :  the three highest ranks were  assigned to NL c h i l d r e n and the three lowest to L I c h i l d r e n . When the frequency of i n t e r - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions only was compared, the groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on T3 (U=4, p<.05) with NL c h i l d r e n using a greater frequency than LI c h i l d r e n . The higher frequency of conjunctions by NL c h i l d r e n than by L I subjects on T3, therefore, does not appear to have been due to a greater use of i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e conjunctives (as on Tl) but to an increased number of i n t e r - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions. Conjunctive t i e s were further c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the subcategories of a d d i t i v e and nonadditive, based on the conjunction used {and versus a l l others); the r e s u l t s are presented i n table V I I .  NL c h i l d r e n used a s i g n i f i -  c a n t l y greater proportion of a d d i t i v e conjunctions than L I c h i l d r e n on T l (tf=5, p<.05).  When i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions were excluded, the d i f f e r e n c e  between the two groups on T l was no longer s i g n i f i c a n t (although the tendency was s t i l l present), i n d i c a t i n g that at l e a s t part of the greater a d d i t i v e proportion used by NL subjects was due to i n t e r n a l conjoining of clauses with subject e l l i p s i s . The nonadditive category consisted of temporals, adversatives, causals, and c o n t i n u a t i v e s .  2  In cases of compound conjunction (e.g and then,  L i l e s ' (1985) procedure was followed:  and  so),  the most "complex" conjunction was  selected f o r coding according to the f o l l o w i n g hierarchy (most to l e a s t complex):  causal, adversative, temporal, a d d i t i v e . The s p e c i f i c conjunctive  t i e s used by the two groups and t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are presented i n appendix 4. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the two groups with respect to proportions of each subcategory 2  as a function of t o t a l conjunctive t i e s  See chapter three f o r d e f i n i t i o n s .  85 Table VTJ. —Proportions of Additive versus Nonadditive Conjunctive Ties for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 TI (picture-based) LP  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall)  NL  LI  NL  LI  NL  Conjunctive ties Additive M  .429  .630  .407  .564  .462  .500  SD  .155  .129  .179  .217  .178  .097  .250-.676  .472-.773  .143-.647  .282-.844  .197-.692  .348-.643  range  Nonadditive M  .571  .370  .593  .436  .538  .500  SD  .155  .129  .179  .217  .178  .097  .324-.750  .227-.528  .353-.857  .156-.718  .308-.803  .357-.652  range  N-  a  6 for each group Mann-Whitney U values TI  T2  T3  Additive  5.0*  10.0  14.0  Nonadditive  5.0*  10.0  14.0  *p<.05  used, nor were significant contextual effects found. Statistical testing was d i f f i c u l t , however, due to the few observations per subject for several of the nonadditive subtypes.  This was particularly  true of the LI children, many of whom made no use of certain subtypes in any of their stories.  The adversative category, for example, was used by only two  LI speakers in any given story; each of the NL speakers, on the other hand, used i t in a l l three stories except for one speaker, who used i t in two out of three of his stories.  A second tendency that prevented reliable use of  summary measures was individual predilection for a certain conjunction. Individual subject results on T2 are presented in table VIII by way of  86 illustration.  As the data show, there are more unrepresented  the part of LI subjects than NL subjects.  categories on  In addition, the maximum proportion  of conjunctive ties in any given nonadditive subtype for any NL child is .38 (SC3, temporal) whereas for LI subjects, several exceed the halfway mark. One is as high as .86 (S2, continuatives), a result of a predilection on the part of this child to begin his utterances with now or and now (which accounted for 21 out of his total of 28 conjunctives used on T2).  Then and and then were  the favorite conjunctions of S3, S4, and S5.  Table VIII.—Frequency (and Proportion) of Conjunctive Ties by Individual Subjects on T2 Conjunctive ties Total Conj.  ADDrnvE  SI  17  11 (.65)  S2  28  4 (.14)  S3  48  18 (.38)  27 (.56)  -  S4  32  14 (.44)  16 (.50)  -  S5  52  15 (.29)  28 (.53)  3 (.06)  6 (.12)  S6  24  13 (.54)  7 (.29)  1 (.04)  3 (.12)  SCI  26  19 (.73)  4 (.15)  SC2  36  15 (.42)  12 (.33)  2 (.06)  5 (.14)  2 (.06)  SC3  39  11 (.28)  15 (.38)  6 (.15)  4 (.10)  3 (.08)  SC4  41  18 (.44)  14 (.34)  3 (.07)  2 (.05)  4 (.10)  SC5  64  54 (.84)  3 (.05)  1 (.02)  2 (.03)  4 (.06)  SC6  61  41 (.67)  18 (.30)  1 (.02)  1 (.02)  Lexical  Cohesion:  Subject  NONADDITIVE Temp. 5 (.29)  -  Advers.  Causal  -  -  -  -  2 (.06)  3 (.12)  Contin. 1 (.06) 24 (.86) 3 (.06)  -  -  It was noted earlier that NL children tended to use a  greater proportion of lexical ties than LI subjects on a l l tasks, the difference being highly significant on T2. These ties were subdivided to determine whether a particular type of lexical t i e was responsible for the difference  87 observed between the two groups.  The f o l l o w i n g subcategories were used:  1) r e p e t i t i o n with i d e n t i t y of reference; 2) synonymy with i d e n t i t y of reference ( i n c l u d i n g meronyms and use of subordinate or general term); 3) r e p e t i t i o n without i d e n t i t y of reference; 4) Verbal ( i n c l u d i n g r e p e t i t i o n and synonymy).  The f i r s t three categories consisted of nouns and modifiers; verbs  were kept separate and not f u r t h e r subdivided.  For examples, see table IV.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of l e x i c a l t i e s i n these subcategories i s summarized i n table IX.  On T l , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the ranks of the  two groups on two subcategories: Hypothesis  (6d) was,  r e p e t i t i o n with i d e n t i t y , and v e r b a l .  therefore, also r e j e c t e d f o r these two subtypes of  l e x i c a l cohesion on T l .  LI subjects showed a greater r e l i a n c e on r e p e t i t i o n  with i d e n t i t y than did the NL speakers; the d i f f e r e n c e i n sum of ranks was highly significant  {U=0,  p<.01).  NL speakers, on the other hand, used a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater proportion of verbal l e x i c a l t i e s than the LI subjects (#=5,  p<.05).  NL speakers a l s o tended to use a greater proportion of synonymy  than LI subjects; the d i f f e r e n c e was nearly s i g n i f i c a n t (tf=6, p<.10).  Similar  tendencies were present i n the data of T2 although the d i f f e r e n c e s do not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . The above data were presented i n terms of proportion of l e x i c a l t i e s used.  When the number of t i e s per clause was examined, there was an over-  whelming tendency f o r NL speakers to use a higher frequency of a l l types of lexical ties.  Even where LI subjects used a greater proportion of a given  type of l e x i c a l cohesion than NL subjects, the NL c h i l d r e n s t i l l showed a greater frequency of use of that subtype per independent clause.  Frequency  data are given i n table X f o r t o t a l l e x i c a l t i e s and f o r the two major subtypes:  r e p e t i t i o n with i d e n t i t y , and v e r b a l .  S i g n i f i c a n t or near s i g n i f i -  88 Table IX.—Mean Proportions of Lexical Cohesion Subtypes (out of Total Lexical Ties) for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 TI (picture-based) LP  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall)  NL  LI  NL  LI  NL  Lexical cohesion subtypes Repetition with identity M  .728  .587  .708  .634  .541  .531  SD  .047  .051  .095  .095  .111  .090  range  .667-.785  .530-.645  .541-.812  .528-.739  .450-.759  .404-.685  Synonyms (and meronyms) M  .051  .095  .047  .070  .063  .058  SD  .039  .031  .040  .038  .053  .023  .022-.127  .050-.139  0 -.105  .023-.118  0 -.158  range  .022-. 077  Repetition without identity M  .039  .063  .078  .072  .050  .026  SD  .034  .036  .056  .050  .042  .021  .027-.128  0 -.164  •016-.142  0 -.100  0 -.054  range  0 -.087  Verbal lexical cohesion  a  M  .182  .255  .167  .224  .346  .385  SD  .052  .051  .061  .032  .072  .083  range  .109-.250  .206-.345  .095-.250  .182-.264  .222-.409  .233-.471  N=  6 for each group Mann-Whitney (/Values TI  15.0  6.0  11.0  18.0  11.0  17.0  11.0  8.0  10.0  0.0**  Synonyms (and meronyms) Repetition without ident.  *p<.05 **JX.01  T3  8.0  Repetition with identity  Verbal lexical cohesion  T2  5.5*  89 cant differences were found in the ranks of the LI and NL children, with LI subjects showing lower frequency of use in each case.  Table X.—Frequency (per Independent Clause) of Lexical Ties and of Two Lexical Subtypes (Repetition with Identity and Verbal) for LI and NL Children on Tl, T2, and T3 T2 (retell,no pictures)  Tl (picture-based) LP  NL  LI  NL  T3 (video recall) LI  NL  Lexical ties Lexical devices/independent clause M  1.03  1.47  1.02  1.55  .86  1.13  SD  .14  .42  .31  .32  .24  .08  range  .90-1.26  .88-1.86  .59-1.42  .64-1.29  .99-1.22  1.21-2.04  Lexical subtypes Repetition with identity (devices/independent clause) M  .75  .87  .71  .98  .48  .60  SD  .10  .27  .18  .22  .25  .07  range  .65-.91  .49-1.16  •48-.94  .64-1.30  .29-.98  .48-.68  Verbal lexical devices/independent clause M  .19  .37  .18  .35  .29  .44  SD  .06  .12  .10  .10  .06  .12  range  .11-.28  .22-.51  .08-.30  .29-.54  .23-.39  *N= 6 for each group Mann-Whitney Uvalues  Lexical devices Repetition with identity Verbal lexical devices *|X.05 **p<.01  Tl  T2  T3  7.0  3.0*  6.0  12.0  5.0*  6.0  2.0**  5.0*  3.0*  .23-.56  90 Only one significant context effect was found:  LI subjects used a  greater proportion of verbal lexical ties on T3 than on T2 (fV=9.33, p<.05). Hypothesis (7d) was, therefore, rejected for one subtype of lexical cohesion (verbal) for LI children.  A similar difference between T3 and TI was nearly  significant so that T3 > T2 = TI.  A similar tendency was evident, though not  significant, in the data of the NL children.  NL speakers also tended to use a  higher frequency of repetition with identity on T2 than on T3. Incomplete:  As noted, LI children showed a significantly higher propor-  tion of incomplete ties than NL children on a l l three tasks:  8 to 11 percent  of cohesive attempts on the part of LI children were incomplete whereas only 2 to 4 percent of NL children's attempts f e l l into this category.  Incomplete  ties were subcategorized into the major cohesion categories: reference, substitution/ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical.  Incomplete referential ties  represented the largest proportion of incomplete devices for both groups: .684, .714, and .702 for LI subjects on TI, T2, and T3 respectively, and .830, and .718 for NL subjects on the same tasks. differ significantly across groups or contexts.  .837,  These proportions did not  Referential errors were  further subdivided into the subcategories of addition (lacking an antecedent), ambiguous, and erroneous.  These will be discussed in chapter five.  Summary measures and statistical testing were d i f f i c u l t to perform on the remaining subcategories of incomplete cohesion due to the small number of observations, particularly for the NL subjects. The number of occurrences for each group on each task as well as total occurrences summed across tasks are given in table XI.  To account for differences in length, the data have been  converted to percentages of total independent clauses containing a given error type; the ratio of these percentages, LI versus NL, i s also given for each  91 Table XI.—Subtypes of Incomplete Devices used by LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3: Number of Errors, Percentage of Utterances Containing each Subtype, and Ratio of these Percentages (LI:NL) NUMBER OF ERRORS LP  TI  NL  LI  T2  NL  LI  T3  NL  Subtypes of incomplete devices Referential  66  28  44  26  59  41  Conjunctive  22  -  14  2  15  11  Ellipsis/substit.  11  3  3  3  9  11  5  2  0  1  5  0  Lexical  Percentage of independent clauses attaining error (all tasks) and ratio of these percentages: LI  NL  LI:NL  Referential  22.3%  9.0%  2.5:1  Conjunctive  6.7  1.2  5.6:1  Ellipsis/substit.  3.0  1.6  1.9:1  Lexical  1.3  0.3  4.3:1  N=  a  6 for each group  subtype.  Conjunctive errors were the second most frequent error type for the  LI children; they made over five times as many conjunctive errors as NL children.  However, many of these errors (30 out of the 51) were made by one  LI subject in particular:  16 of his 30 errors were made on TI due to a  predilection for beginning his utterances with but.  Of the few substitution/  e l l i p s i s errors that were made, the majority occurred in portions of the narrative delivered at a fast rate; many involved inappropriate subject ellipsis.  Lexical errors (e.g. the girl  for either group.  when the ape was intended) were rare  92 Discussion  Group  Differences  in  the  Use  of  Cohesion  The f i r s t question addressed by the present study concerned whether or not the cohesive s k i l l s of language impaired children differed from those of normal language peers.  The results support an affirmative response for  narratives; both quantitative and qualitative differences were found. With respect to quantitative differences, language impaired children used fewer cohesive ties per independent clause than normal language children on a l l tasks; the difference was significant for the picture narration task (Tl), nearly significant for recall without pictures (T2), and highly significant for the video recall task (T3).  Rochester & Martin (1979) and Mentis &  Prutting (1987) also found that their normal language subjects used a greater frequency of ties per sentence than language disordered subjects in narrative conditions.  The results are not as easily compared to studies targeting  school-age language impaired populations.  Neither Liles (1985) nor Ripich &  Griffith (1988) presented their results in terms of frequency of ties per utterance.  Harris et a l . (1987) failed to find significant group differences  in frequency of cohesive devices, but, like Ripich & Griffith's study, their analysis did not include lexical cohesion.  Had they included i t , their  conclusion may have been different, in light of the differences in use of lexical cohesion by the two groups in the present study. Several factors may have contributed to the lower frequency of cohesive ties found for language impaired subjects. to utterance and story length:  Two of these possibilities relate  a reduced amount of cohesion may be a result  of lower productivity on the part of language impaired subjects.  With respect  93  to utterance length, t h i s argument would hold that a tendency on the part of language impaired subjects to express themselves i n fewer words would r e s u l t i n fewer opportunities f o r scoring cohesive l i n k s . with t h i s proposal, however.  There are several problems  I f a tendency to use shorter utterances were the  sole cause of a reduced frequency of cohesive t i e s , one might have expected a c l o s e r c o r r e l a t i o n between amount of cohesion and words per independent clause.  However, as seen i n chapter two, although there was a tendency f o r  normal language subjects to use longer utterances than language impaired, the d i f f e r e n c e d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e on any of the tasks.  Given the s i g n i f i -  cant differences between the groups regarding amount of cohesion, one would have expected utterance length of the two groups to have d i f f e r e d to a greater extent.  A second problem f o r the proposal i s i t s f a i l u r e to achieve explana-  tory adequacy.  The question remains as to why language impaired subjects tend  to express themselves i n fewer words. to speak at the time of t e s t i n g . to begin t h e i r s t o r i e s .  None of the subjects appeared r e t i c e n t  On the contrary, they were relaxed and eager  The lower p r o d u c t i v i t y of language impaired subjects  may, i n f a c t , p a r t l y r e s u l t from a l e s s e r concern f o r cohesive text or from a reduced a b i l i t y to construct i t . A second p r o d u c t i v i t y - r e l a t e d f a c t o r i s story length.  As a story gets  longer, one might expect that i n c r e a s i n g l y more of what i s s a i d w i l l r e l a t e to something i n the preceding t e x t .  I t was noted i n chapter two, f o r example,  that the s t o r y length of the two groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the video r e c a l l task, a task i n which the amount of cohesion between the two groups a l s o d i f f e r e d the most.  However, story length does not account f o r the  s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n cohesion observed between the groups on the p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n task where story length was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .  One would  94  also have expected a greater difference in amount of cohesion on the retell task without pictures since a greater difference in story length was present. The reverse, however, was true:  the speakers were less different with respect  to amount of cohesion on the retell task, yet more different with respect to story length. Story and utterance length may contribute to differences in amount of cohesion but they do not appear to suffice as sources for these differences. Two additional possibilities may be entertained:  language impaired children  may not be attempting cohesion as frequently as normal language children and/or they may be failing in some of their attempts.  These will be discussed  further below. The quantitative difference in amount of cohesion indicates that the discourse of the language impaired subjects was not as cohesive as that of the normal language children. Cohesion encompasses several phenomena, however, and i t is necessary to specify which are responsible for the observed difference between the groups.  Distribution of cohesion into the subtypes of  reference, substitution/ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion provided additional, more qualitative information which revealed both similarities and differences in the cohesive patterns of normal language and language impaired children.  Both groups used a higher proportion of referential ties than any  other cohesive type. tion:  Substitution/ellipsis represented the smallest propor-  1 percent or less.  It occurred on the video recall task more than on  the other tasks due to a higher use of reported speech on this task.  It  appears to be a feature of conversational discourse and will not be discussed further here due to the few instances of use.  Proportion of conjunction and  lexical cohesion types f e l l between these two extremes with normal language  95 children using a greater proportion of lexical cohesion than conjunction, and language impaired children using similar proportions of each.  The individual  proportions of the normal language children are very similar to those of the normal adults of Rochester & Martin's study (1979) on a narrative task (see table XII).  Table XII.—Mean Percentages of Cohesion Categories in Narratives: Results of the Present Study Compared to the Adults of Rochester & Martin's Study (1979) Rochester & Martin (normal adults)  Present Study (ages 8 to 11) NL LI  Cohesion categories Reference  46.5%  42.0%  40.4%  Lexical  30.3  31.4  25.7  Conjunction  21.1  23.2  24.2  Ellipsis/Subst.  2.0  0.6  0.5  Incomplete  ?»  2.8  9.2  Proportion of total incomplete devices was not provided. Percentage of definite nominal groups involving addition (lacking antecedent) was 2.0% in the narrative condition.  a  The reference analysis employed here failed to reliably differentiate the two groups:  both used similar proportions of appropriate referential ties on  a l l tasks and similar proportions of the major subcategories, namely personal and demonstrative reference.  These findings conflict with those of Liles  (1985), who found a greater percentage of personal reference ties and a correspondingly lower percentage of demonstrative reference by normal children than by language disordered children.  The opposite tendency, in fact,  occurred on T2 of the present study, where normal language children tended to use a greater proportion of demonstrative reference and smaller proportion of personals than the language impaired children.  A third category of referen-  96 t i a l ties, comparative reference, was used relatively infrequently by normal language children and rarely by language impaired children.  Although too few  instances occurred to permit statistical analysis, the difference in absolute occurrences suggests that comparative reference may be a more complex device. In personal and demonstrative reference, the same entity is referred to directly, whereas in comparative reference, the antecedent serves as a frame of reference for a new participant.  This relation of contrast may represent a  more complex form of reference in that i t requires simultaneous consideration of two referents and specification of the relation between them. As reported earlier, language impaired and normal language children used almost identical proportions of conjunctive ties, proportions that are highly comparable to Rochester & Martin's findings for normal adults (see table XII). Frequency analyses, however, revealed differences between the two groups on individual tasks.  On the picture narration task (Tl), the tendency for normal  language children to use a greater frequency of conjunctions, specifically intra-utterance conjunctions, suggests that the normal language children, more so than the language impaired children, were treating the task as a storytelling task rather than as an individual picture describing task.  They  immediately connected events depicted by the individual pictures, incorporating them into complex units and making these connections explicit for their listeners.  Martin (1977,1983) reported a similar result on his picture  narration task: the younger children (aged 6 and 7) used fewer explicit conjunctions to mark relations between clauses than the older children.  On  retell of the story in the present study (T2), the language impaired were able to add these connectives so that the frequency of conjunctions between the two groups was almost identical on this task.  On the video recall task (T3), the  97 normal language c h i l d r e n once again were able to make connections between events and to do so e x p l i c i t l y on a f i r s t t e l l i n g , r e s u l t i n g i n a greater frequency of conjunction than that demonstrated by the language impaired children.  However, the normal language c h i l d r e n tended to use fewer i n t r a -  utterance conjunctions on t h i s task than on other tasks, i . e . they were l e s s able and/or w i l l i n g to conjoin events i n t o complex utterances on t h i s task. Their utterances also tended to be shorter on T3.  The r e l a t i v e lack of  s t r u c t u r e provided on t h i s task may be an important f a c t o r .  On T l , the  i n d i v i d u a l p i c t u r e s made i t r e l a t i v e l y easy for the c h i l d to i d e n t i f y story components, whereas on T3, the c h i l d had to himself deduce the n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e and reproduce i t i n an organized manner.  Therefore, although the  normal language c h i l d r e n made more o v e r a l l e x p l i c i t connections than the language impaired on the video r e c a l l task, they d i d not show a greater frequency of i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions than the language impaired c h i l d r e n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n the tendency f o r the normal language c h i l d r e n to use a greater proportion of a d d i t i v e versus nonadditive conjunctions on T l . I t may be p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d to the greater o v e r a l l frequency of conjunctions by normal language c h i l d r e n on t h i s task, and p a r t l y , as noted e a r l i e r , to the greater frequency of i n t r a - u t t e r a n c e conjunctions by normal language c h i l d r e n than by language impaired c h i l d r e n on t h i s task. found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s .  Bennett-Kastor  Developmental studies have  (1986), f o r example, found that the  proportion of a d d i t i v e conjunctives increased developmentally the n a r r a t i v e s of normal c h i l d r e n aged 2 to 5. to use and  and  then  equally as often, her  preference f o r the connective and.  4-  i n her study of  Whereas her 2-year-olds  and 5-year-olds  tended  showed a strong  There was a tendency f o r the language  impaired c h i l d r e n of the present study to use a greater proportion of temporal  98 conjunctions than normal language c h i l d r e n . Martin (1977,1983) also found a greater r e l i a n c e on temporal conjunction on the part of h i s younger subjects compared to older c h i l d r e n on a story r e t e l l task.  I t may be the case that  normal language c h i l d r e n have more s o p h i s t i c a t e d l i n g u i s t i c means at t h e i r disposal to e s t a b l i s h and s h i f t temporal reference (e.g. through the use of more s o p h i s t i c a t e d markers of tense and aspect) and are not as dependent on conjunction to f u l f i l l these functions as language impaired c h i l d r e n may be.  1  The use of nonadditive categories by language impaired speakers appeared restricted:  c e r t a i n categories were overrepresented  due to a p r e d i l e c t i o n for  a s p e c i f i c conjunction while other categories, adversatives f o r example, were completely neglected.  By comparison, normal language c h i l d r e n showed a more  evenly d i s t r i b u t e d p r o f i l e . conjunctions.  They also appeared to use a greater v a r i e t y of  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t , however, whether language impaired  subjects would have used as many d i f f e r e n t conjunctions as normal language c h i l d r e n given i d e n t i c a l s t o r y lengths. The r e l a t i v e l y small number of conjunctions i n c e r t a i n subcategories made appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s impossible. conjunction i n s i t u a t i o n s approximating  While i t i s e s s e n t i a l to examine  n a t u r a l conditions, i t may also be  u s e f u l to devise more contrived tasks such as those used by McClure & Geva (1983; see chapter three of the present study) which could be used together with language sampling.  Such a measure might prove to be a more s e n s i t i v e  guage of s u b t l e r knowledge and use of conjunction by language impaired and normal language c h i l d r e n . The decisions made i n favor of r e s t r i c t i n g the a n a l y s i s to an examination  of e x p l i c i t connectives and to t h e i r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  •See Bamberg (1987) f o r a developmental study of "temporal reference" i n narratives.  99 based on form imposed a d d i t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s on the present study.  The  r a t i o n a l e behind these decisions was to avoid undue speculation on the part of the analyzer as to whether or not a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n was intended by the speake, and, i f so, which type of r e l a t i o n was intended.  I t i s evident,  however, that information i s l o s t as a r e s u l t of these r e s t r i c t i o n s .  The mere  j u x t a p o s i t i o n of utterances, f o r example, may be cohesive, and a given conjunction may encode a v a r i e t y of l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s .  The high use of and by  normal language speakers on the p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n task ( T l ) , for example, surely encoded more than a simple a d d i t i v e r e l a t i o n i n many cases. As table XII shows, language impaired c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d most from normal c h i l d r e n and adults i n t h e i r use of l e x i c a l and incomplete t i e s .  With respect  to l e x i c a l cohesion, previous studies on language disordered adult populations have reported s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s : Rochester & Martin (1979) and Mentis & P r u t t i n g (1987) found a greater proportion of l e x i c a l cohesion by normal adults i n n a r r a t i v e conditions than by schizophrenic and head i n j u r e d adults respectively.  There are no cohesion studies with school-age c h i l d r e n with  which the r e s u l t s found here might be compared.  R i p i c h & G r i f f i t h (1988) and  Harris et a l . (1987) d i d not include l e x i c a l cohesion i n t h e i r analyses. L i l e s ' (1985) r a d i c a l departure from H a l l i d a y & Hasan's (1976) a n a l y s i s of l e x i c a l cohesion makes i t impossible to compare the two sets of r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s on l e x i c a l cohesion support one of the f a c t o r s proposed e a r l i e r to account f o r the reduced frequency of cohesive t i e s on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n . I f shorter utterance and/or s t o r y length were the only two f a c t o r s responsible f o r the l a t t e r f i n d i n g , one would have expected a l l types of cohesion to have been reduced by a s i m i l a r amount.  This was  the case, since l e x i c a l cohesion was more g r e a t l y reduced than other  not  cohesive  100 categories.  Since lexical errors were so rare, the reduced proportion and  frequency was not due to failed attempts at lexical cohesion. Rather, the language impaired subjects did not appear to be attempting lexical cohesive ties as frequently as normal language children. Subsequent analysis of proportions of lexical subtypes revealed that on the picture narration task (TI), normal language children showed a significantly greater reliance on verbal lexical cohesion than language impaired children.  Similar tendencies were present on T2.  Although the use of verbs  as a lexical cohesive device remains unexplored, i t s role in story coherence has already been alluded to: Bennett-Kastor, for example, described an incoherent story in the following way: Noun phrases are introduced, only to be dropped with the next clause and never appear again; or verb phrases are constantly altered, and show neither l i t e r a l nor structural repetition, so that there i s no continuity from one clause to the next. (1983: 138) In addition to structural VP coherence or parallelism  (see chapter three),  Bennett-Kastor (1986) examined percentages of predicate types (actives, passives, statives, copulatives), verb structure in terms of number of arguments accepted (valency), and semantic classes of verbs.  Although her results  are not directly relevant to the general analysis adopted here, her study provides a direction for further investigations into the use of verbs in discourse and how this use reflects sensitivity to contextual demands. Cohesive harmony analysis (see chapter three) represents another promising approach in that i t tracks both participants (reference) and events (verbal cohesion), and examines the interaction between the two. In addition to lexical cohesion, the groups differed reliably in the proportion of incomplete ties, with language impaired children showing a higher proportion than normal language children on a l l three tasks. This  101 supports the fourth factor proposed earlier in an attempt to account for the reduced amount of cohesion shown by language impaired children:  not only are  they not attempting as many cohesive ties, but they are often failing in the attempts they do make (8 to 11 percent of their attempts were incomplete). Similar findings in othe language disordered populations were reported in the previous chapter (Rochester & Martin 1979, Mentis & Prutting 1987, Ripich & Terrell 1988, Liles 1985, Ripich & Griffith 1988, Harris et a l . 1987).  By far  the majority of incomplete ties in a l l these studies involved reference. Similar findings have been reported in developmental studies: Klecan-Aker & Hedrick (1985), for example, found a higher incidence of inappropriate personal pronoun usage on the part of grade six students when compared to grade nine students on a spontaneous story generation task.  Their findings  suggest that the development of appropriate cohesive tying had likely not yet plateaued even in the oldest normal language children of the present study. Further reduction in the number of incomplete ties may be expected with time. The finding that language impaired children show a higher proportion of incomplete ties than normal language children—incomplete ties involving reference in p a r t i c u l a r — i s not a surprising one; speech/language clinicians have been reporting similar problems for years.  Further study i s obviously  needed to pinpoint the source of these d i f f i c u l t i e s .  The results of the  present study point to at least one contributor. A consequence of a greater use of lexical cohesion by normal language children is that greater lexical support is available to the listener for interpreting referential devices. Lexical items are high in semantic content and carry most of the communicative weight.  Lexical support is provided not only by explicit nominals but, as  discussed, i t also entails a greater use of verbal cohesion.  The referent of  102 a p o t e n t i a l l y amibiguous r e f e r e n t i a l device was often e a s i l y i n f e r r e d from what was predicated of t h i s r e f e r e n t .  2  Normal language c h i l d r e n appear to be  better able to support t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l devices with l e x i c a l information, p a r t i c u l a r l y l e x i c a l information c a r r i e d by the verb.  Differences  in  the  Use  of  Cohesion  due  to  Context  The second question addressed by t h i s study was whether or not the use of cohesion by e i t h e r group would be s e n s i t i v e to contextual changes.  This  question was formulated when the o r i g i n a l intent was to examine both n a r r a t i v e and conversational data.  Since only n a r r a t i v e data was analyzed, t h i s  question became a secondary one; task e f f e c t s were expected t o be minimal. The lack of such e f f e c t s was i t s e l f r e v e a l i n g . Amount of cohesion i n terms of frequency per utterance, f o r example, showed no s i g n i f i c a n t changes across tasks.  I f frequency of cohesive devices were h i g h l y dependent on s t o r y length  or memory f a c t o r s , one would have expected task e f f e c t s to have surfaced.  A  memory f a c t o r , f o r example, would have d i s t i n g u i s h e d the p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n task (TI) from the r e c a l l tasks (T2, T3). Task comparisons of the cohesion categories revealed that normal language c h i l d r e n used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 than on T3. Because of the l e s s e r amount of s t r u c t u r e provided, the video r e c a l l task (T3) was probably the most demanding i n terms of degree of self-generat i o n required.  L e x i c a l cohesion appears t o have been the cohesive device that  was most s e n s i t i v e t o increased task complexity.  On T2, the normal language  c h i l d r e n no doubt benefited from t e l l i n g the story twice; they tended to The importance of p r e d i c a t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g speaker reference w i l l be discussed f u r t h e r i n chapter s i x . 2  103 r e f i n e i t by i n c r e a s i n g the proportion of l e x i c a l t i e s . a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater proportion of demonstrative  A r e l a t e d f i n d i n g was  reference (versus pronomi-  nal) by normal language c h i l d r e n on T2 than on T3. As noted, the category of demonstratives  consisted p r i m a r i l y of the use of d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e plus noun  constructions.  The higher proportion of l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 appears to  have been a r e s u l t of the increase i n use of these repeated noun phrases. support of t h i s was the higher frequency of the l e x i c a l subcategory t i o n with i d e n t i t y (nouns/modifiers)  In  of r e p e t i -  on T2 than on T3; the d i f f e r e n c e was  almost s i g n i f i c a n t . The reduced proportion of the l e x i c a l subtype of r e p e t i t i o n with i d e n t i t y on the video r e c a l l task r e s u l t e d i n a correspondingly higher proportion of verbal l e x i c a l t i e s on T3 compared to T2; the d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the language impaired c h i l d r e n and also present, though not s i g n i f i c a n t , i n the data of the normal language c h i l d r e n . The a c t u a l frequency of verbal cohesion i n t i e s per utterance d i d not r i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the video r e c a l l task f o r e i t h e r group.  This suggests that the c h i l d r e n may not be using  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more verbal l e x i c a l t i e s on t h i s task but that t h e i r reduced frequency of e x p l i c i t noun phrases (on the part of both groups) i n favor of pronouns means that the l i s t e n e r l i k e l y had to depend more on l e x i c a l cues provided by the verbs.  This may be t y p i c a l of a c t i o n s t o r i e s i n general,  p a r t i c u l a r l y of those i n v o l v i n g s t r i c t l y human protagonists. No s i g n i f i c a n t task e f f e c t s were found with respect to conjunction. Rochester & Martin (1979) and L i l e s (1987) also f a i l e d to f i n d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the proportion or accuracy of conjunction across tasks. evident i n the present study, however.  Two tendencies were  F i r s t , language impaired c h i l d r e n  tended to use a greater proportion of conjunction on T2 than on T l .  Frequency  104 analyses r e f l e c t e d an increase i n the number of conjunctions per clause, p a r t i c u l a r l y " i n t e r - u t t e r a n c e " conjunctions.  I t may be that the actual  turning over of p i c t u r e s on TI functioned as a marker of an a d d i t i v e r e l a t i o n for the language impaired c h i l d r e n i n place of e x p l i c i t l i n g u i s t i c marking. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the language impaired c h i l d r e n may simply have been better able to be e x p l i c i t about r e l a t i o n s encoded on a second t e l l i n g . The second tendency that was observed i n the use of conjunction across tasks occurred i n the data of the normal language c h i l d r e n . They tended to use a higher proportion of conjunctions on T3 than on T2.  Since the actual  frequency d i d not r i s e i n t h i s case, the higher proportion may simply have been a r e s u l t of using a p r o p o r t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . As noted, the normal language c h i l d r e n used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 than on T3.  Frequency analyses supported  this finding.  The reduced proportion and  frequency of l e x i c a l cohesion on T3 would have caused other categories, l i k e conjunction, to be represented i n higher proportions.  This underlines the  need f o r and r a t i o n a l e behind using frequency comparisons i n a d d i t i o n to proportional ones. In t h e i r examination  of reference, conjunction, and e l l i p s i s i n s t o r i e s  and converstion during play, H a r r i s et a l . (1987) found that age-matched normal c h i l d r e n were more s e n s i t i v e to contextual changes than language disordered c h i l d r e n . L i l e s (1985), however, found that language disordered subjects a l t e r e d t h e i r use of cohesive types i n ways s i m i l a r to normal c h i l d r e n across l i s t e n e r conditions (uninformed  versus informed).  Some  evidence was found i n the present study to suggest that both groups were making changes i n the cohesive devices they used as the task changed, i . e . both showed s e n s i t i v i t y to a change i n contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . These  105 changes were not always i n the same d i r e c t i o n , however.  Whereas normal  language c h i l d r e n used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher proportion of  demonstrative  reference and l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 than on T3, the language impaired c h i l d r e n did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r t h e i r use of these devices across tasks. The language impaired c h i l d r e n , for t h e i r part, increased t h e i r use of conjunction on T2 compared to T l whereas normal language c h i l d r e n showed s i m i l a r frequencies of conjunctions across tasks.  The data suggest that the  language impaired and normal language c h i l d r e n may be responding somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y to changes i n contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Task d i f f i c u l t y may be a f a c t o r leading to these d i f f e r e n t i a l  responses.  The r e s u l t s underline the need to examine more c o n t r a s t i n g conditions i n order to determine the extent of these d i f f e r e n t i a l responses.  Rochester &  Martin (1979) found that the frequency of cohesive t i e s d i s t i n g u i s h e d schizophrenic from normal language speakers i n n a r r a t i v e s but not i n conversation. Mentis & P r u t t i n g (1987) reported a s i m i l a r f i n d i n g with head i n j u r e d patients.  The l a t t e r study also reported a greater proportion of l e x i c a l  cohesion than reference by a l l subjects, a f i n d i n g that i s l i k e l y r e l a t e d to the fact that the " n a r r a t i v e s " used d i d not involve s t o r y t e l l i n g but rather procedural discourse.  Statements about general a b i l i t i e s c l e a r l y cannot be  based on f i n d i n g s from any one s p e c i f i c context when d e s c r i b i n g discourserelated s k i l l s . In view of the above comments, the f i n d i n g s reported here may generalize only to s i m i l a r task c o n d i t i o n s .  On p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n , r e c a l l without  p i c t u r e s , and video r e c a l l one might expect to f i n d language impaired c h i l d r e n using a lower frequency of cohesion than age- and gender-matched normal language subjects.  Four f a c t o r s were c i t e d i n accounting f o r t h i s observa-  106 tion.  The f i r s t two were r e l a t e d to length; a tendency to use shorter  utterances and to t e l l shorter s t o r i e s , a r i s i n g perhaps from a general tendency away from verbal encoding, may influence frequency of cohesive t i e s per  utterance.  Both, however, were shown to be inadequate on t h e i r own to  account f o r the reduced instances of cohesive t i e s on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n .  A t h i r d f a c t o r made the simple claim that language  impaired c h i l d r e n were not attempting cohesive devices as frequently as normal language c h i l d r e n .  Support f o r t h i s was found i n the greater proportion and  greater frequency of l e x i c a l t i e s on a l l tasks and greater frequency of conjunctions on T3 by normal language c h i l d r e n than by language impaired children.  Support was a l s o found f o r a fourth f a c t o r , namely that language  impaired c h i l d r e n more often f a i l e d i n t h e i r attempts at cohesion than normal language peers d i d . The proportion of incomplete cohesive t i e s (missing antecedent, amibiguous or erroneous device) used by language impaired c h i l d r e n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than that of normal language c h i l d r e n on a l l tasks. The lower r e l i a n c e on l e x i c a l cohesion and higher incidence of incomplete t i e s on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n would p a r t i a l l y account f o r pragmatic d i f f i c u l t i e s often described anecdotally, f o r example, topic maintenance problems.  But what accounts f o r the lower frequency of l e x i c a l  cohesion and the higher incidence of incomplete t i e s ?  I t was suggested  e a r l i e r that the two may be r e l a t e d , s p e c i f i c a l l y that the higher incidence of incomplete t i e s , at l e a s t the ambiguous ones, might be due to reduced l e x i c a l support f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e f e r e n t i a l devices.  A reduced amount of  l e x i c a l cohesion has also been r e l a t e d , i n the case of head i n j u r e d subjects, to word r e t r i e v a l problems (Mentis & Prutting,1987).  A review of the vocabu-  l a r y s k i l l s of the language impaired c h i l d r e n used i n the present study as  107 reported i n case h i s t o r i e s i n d i c a t e d that three were functioning i n the average range and three i n low average range (based on PPVT, EOWPVT, TOLD-P results).  None of the c h i l d r e n were described as having s i g n i f i c a n t word  r e t r i e v a l problems. possibility. accessing.  Further assessment would be required to i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s  The problem, i n any case, i s not l i k e l y to be s o l e l y one of A l l c h i l d r e n included verbs of some kind i n t h e i r utterances.  The  normal language c h i l d r e n , however, more frequently chose verbs that had a cohesive f u n c t i o n .  Although the language impaired c h i l d r e n had h i s t o r i e s of  l i n g u i s t i c processing d i f f i c u l t i e s at the word or clause l e v e l , they a l l formulated grammatically appropriate sentences with r e l a t i v e ease.  This i s  not to suggest that sentence-level d i f f i c u l t i e s had e n t i r e l y disappeared; more d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n would probably show t h i s to be an i n c o r r e c t assumption. However, the main problem appeared to l i e i n using t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c  resources  for d i s c o u r s e - l e v e l f u n c t i o n s .  therapy  The i m p l i c a t i o n s for assessment and  w i l l be discussed i n chapter seven. None of the cohesive studies c a r r i e d out to date has managed to come up with a convincing explanation for language impaired c h i l d r e n ' s cohesive difficulties.  The present study, too, was not designed to determine cause but  to c l a r i f y whether or not the use of cohesive devices by language impaired c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d from those of normal language c h i l d r e n and, i f so, i n what s p e c i f i c ways they d i f f e r e d . involve more than one source.  The explanation f o r the problem i s l i k e l y to Nor i s a s i n g l e explanation l i k e l y to hold for  d i f f e r e n t language disordered populations.  The language impaired c h i l d r e n of  t h i s study, f o r example, d i d not show p r o f i l e s that were i d e n t i c a l with those of the alzeimer p a t i e n t s of R i p i c h & T e r r e l l ' s study (1988), the schizophrenic subjects of Rochester & Martin's study (1979) or the head i n j u r e d of Mentis &  108 P r u t t i n g ' s study (1987).  F i n a l l y , given the breadth of the a n a l y s i s , i t i s  not l i k e l y that a s i n g l e explanation could account f o r problems i n a l l areas of cohesion; use of reference no doubt requires d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s than the use of conjunction or l e x i c a l cohesion.  One of these phenomena,  namely reference, w i l l be examined i n more d e t a i l i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters.  CHAPTER FIVE REFERENCE:  RETRIEVAL ANALYSIS  Introduction  As Brown & Yule (1983) noted, a sentence grammarian describes r e g u l a r i t i e s i n h i s or her data i n s t a t i c terms, i . e . independently of speaker and receiver behavior.  Those researchers turning to the study of texts are  immediately faced with the inadequacy of t o o l s they have brought with them from "synoptic generative models" (Martin 1985: 272).  Moving from the  a n a l y s i s of sentences and/or t h e i r constituents to the a n a l y s i s of discourse i s not easy.  Brown & Yule's s o l u t i o n i s to adopt an e x c l u s i v e l y "discourse-  as-process" view, an approach that may not be p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l f o r c l i n i c i a n s seeking a means of c a r e f u l l y assessing recorded "outputs" or the products  of c h i l d r e n or adults referred to them.  A more useful approach would  examine a text both as product (as an output that can be recorded and studied) and as process (as an i n t e r a c t i v e event). E x i s t i n g analyses vary i n how " s t a t i c " versus "dynamic" an approach i s taken.  While both perspectives must be kept i n mind i n any a n a l y s i s , some  l i n g u i s t i c phenomena may be more s u i t a b l y assessed by one approach as opposed to another.  Martin (1985) suggests, f o r example, that conversational s t r u c -  ture may be a more prominently synoptic system than reference, and conversely, reference a more dynamic system. study.  Both approaches were used i n the present  Cohesion was analyzed using what Brown & Yule (1983) described as a  "text-as-product" approach.  In the next two chapters, reference w i l l be 109  110 analyzed from a "discourse-as-process" perspective. remains the basis of a n a l y s i s .  The recorded sample  However, the observed l i n g u i s t i c phenomena are  approached as r e a l i z a t i o n s of dynamic processes taking place i n time.  Reference  Network  An example of a "dynamic" approach to reference i s an account of the retrieval  processes speakers and l i s t e n e r s make use of when i d e n t i f y i n g  participants.  A schematic representation of the reference network (adapted  from Martin 1983,1985) i s given i n f i g u r e 4.  1  inadequacies:  Martin himself i s aware of i t s  " i t describes i n what w i l l probably turn out to be only a crude  and p a r t i a l way the operations a l i s t e n e r might perform i n l o c a t i n g the referent of a phoric nominal group" (1985: 271).  Reference, as defined by  t h i s approach, i s the semantic system which enables p a r t i c i p a n t s to be i d e n t i f i e d i n discourse; i t i s that part of the semantics of English concerned with how nominal groups are structured to create t e x t .  JoUowing (cataphora)  •Presenting •Context of culture (homophora)  Reference— Presuming  ^Context of situation  [-Verbal (endophora) ^Nonverbal (exophora)  •Preceding (anaphora)  (bridging)  Fig.4. Reference Network in English. Adapted from Martin (1983,1985). ^ o r a more detailed representation, see Martin (1977).  within nom.groups (esphora) -between nom.groups  Ill The reference network d i s t i n g u i s h e s between p a r t i c i p a n t s introduced to the text (presenting knows (presuming  items) and those the speaker assumes h i s or her l i s t e n e r items).  Presenting items u s u a l l y take the form of i n d e f i n i t e  nominal groups whereas presuming (or phoric)  items are t y p i c a l l y demonstra-  t i v e s , the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , and pronouns.  Phoric items i n s t r u c t a l i s t e n e r  to "search elsewhere" f o r t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . may be the context of c u l t u r e (homophora)  The l o c a t i o n of "elsewhere"  or the context of s i t u a t i o n .  Homophora involves reference t o an e n t i t y which i s known t o members of a community (e.g. the sun). 5.1  A family may i t s e l f comprise a "community":  (one spouse to another)  In 5.1, the brat  Where's the brat  now?  i s r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d by the l i s t e n i n g spouse to r e f e r t o  t h e i r rambunctious son. Information may a l s o be presumed from the immediate context i n which the utterance occurs. A speaker uses exophoric  reference to r e f e r to a p a r t i c i -  pant who i s present i n the nonverbal context and endophoric to information supplied by the verbal context.  reference to r e f e r  In the l a t t e r case, the  presumed information u s u a l l y precedes the phoric item (anaphora), also f o l l o w (cataphora). p r e c i s e l y as esphora, 5.2  but i t may  Cataphora w i t h i n a nominal group i s known more f o r example, the attainment  and the group  i n 5.2:  Tile attainment of t h e i r goal suddenly seemed impossible to the of t i r e d climbers.  group  A second d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h i n endophora i s made between reference i n which the i d e n t i t y of a p a r t i c i p a n t i s r e t r i e v a b l e from the e x p l i c i t verbal context (direct)  and that which requires the l i s t e n e r to i n f e r from the i m p l i c i t  verbal context 5.3  (bridging):  I hurt myself playing tennis. managed to t w i s t my ankle.  I f e l l against the net and somehow  112 The i d e n t i t y of the net  i s i n f e r r a b l e from tennis.  I t would, i n f a c t , be odd  to use an i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e here; the l i s t e n e r would be i n c l i n e d to wonder what kind of net was being r e f e r r e d t o .  A bridged item may be a necessary  component of i t s antecedent as the net i s of tennis p l a u s i b l e , as the 5.4  Previous  trail  i n 5.3 or i t may be h i g h l y  i n the f o l l o w i n g example from the data:  and the people with the b i g banana ran down the mountain/. . ./ and the l i t t l e people are s t i l l running down the trail  Findings  Martin included r e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the discourse of normal c h i l d r e n (1977,1983) and of schizophrenic adults (Rochester & Martin 1979).  His f i n d i n g s on conjunction i n c h i l d r e n and on cohesion  i n schizophrenic and normal adults were reported i n chapter three. His f i n d i n g s on reference, p a r t i c u l a r l y as used by normal school-age c h i l d r e n , w i l l be reported here. To review, Martin (1977,1983) examined the spoken n a r r a t i v e s of 90 c h i l d r e n aged 6 to 11 years.  His r e s u l t s on conjunction l e d him to conclude  that the youngest c h i l d r e n (6- and 7-year-olds)  were using a d i f f e r e n t coding  o r i e n t a t i o n than the two older groups (8- and 9-year-olds; 10- and 11-yearolds) i n a p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n task (Task 1) and i n r e c a l l of the same s t o r y without p i c t u r e s (Task 2). His f i n d i n g s on reference supported sion.  The 6- and 7-year-olds  t h i s conclu-  showed greater dependence on presenting  groups  on Task 1 than the older c h i l d r e n : 1) they introduced a number of p a r t i c i pants that were not c e n t r a l t o the s t o r y and which were not l a t e r presumed by phoric nominal groups and 2) they f a i l e d t o c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f y a p a r t i c i pant i n one p i c t u r e with the same p a r t i c i p a n t i n another ( i . e . use of i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s on subsequent mentions of a p r o t a g o n i s t ) . The youngest c h i l d r e n  113 were more dependent on exophora i n a l l contexts than the two older groups (18 percent of nominal groups versus 5 percent i n older c h i l d r e n ) .  2  Although a l l  c h i l d r e n tended to use more exophora on Task 2, the youngest c h i l d r e n i n p a r t i c u l a r were l e s s w i l l i n g to t r e a t t h i s task as a d i s t i n c t context (27 percent of t h e i r nominal groups were exophoric on Task 2 compared to 9 percent on Task 1).  Older c h i l d r e n used a greater percentage of anaphora  than young  c h i l d r e n ; a l l c h i l d r e n used more anaphora on Task 1 than on Task 2.  As the  use of anaphora increased, dependence on presenting or exophoric groups decreased and v i c e versa.  Age and task e f f e c t s were also found f o r  bridging:  the youngest group depended l e s s on bridging than the older groups d i d . Martin concluded  that older c h i l d r e n adjust the use of t h e i r lexicogram-  matical resources i n response to changes i n context i n ways that d i f f e r from those of younger c h i l d r e n . Coding o r i e n t a t i o n s i n the use of reference have also been d i s t i n g u i s h e d on the basis of s o c i a l c l a s s .  Hawkins (1973) examined  the use of a r t i c l e s and pronouns i n the n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e discourse of two groups of B r i t i s h c h i l d r e n (aged 5):  124 were c h i l d r e n of middle-class  parents and 139 were c h i l d r e n of working-class parents. picture-based.  Both tasks used were  He found that middle-class c h i l d r e n used more nouns and  associated modifiers than working-class c h i l d r e n whereas the l a t t e r r e l i e d more h e a v i l y on pronouns, p a r t i c u l a r l y exophoric ones.  Hawkins concluded  that  the discourse of working-class c h i l d r e n was more c l o s e l y t i e d to the context i n which i t occurred. Francis (1974), however, i n a study comparing 96 B r i t i s h c h i l d r e n of P h o r i c nominal groups i n Task 2 ( r e c a l l of the same s t o r y without p i c t u r e s ) were considered exophoric when p a r t i c i p a n t s were introduced by means of d e f i n i t e forms since t h i s forced l i s t e n e r s to r e t r i e v e information from Task 1. This procedure was also followed i n the present study. 2  114 middle-class parents versus 96 of working-class parents, found no differences i n the use of nominal groups or exophoric reference on a s t o r y reproduction task which did not involve p i c t u r e s . concluded  3  In l i g h t of Hawkins' r e s u l t s , Francis  that c h i l d r e n from the two s o c i a l classes were responding  differen-  t l y to contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . On tasks i n v o l v i n g p i c t o r i a l support, the two groups d i f f e r e d i n the s e l e c t i o n of language forms f o r reference (Hawkins' results):  working-class c h i l d r e n tended t o make use of the nonverbal  context  provided whereas middle-class c h i l d r e n abstracted the task from the immediate context.  On a task l a c k i n g p i c t o r i a l support, the groups performed s i m i l a r l y  (Francis' r e s u l t s ) .  However, since the same c h i l d r e n were not used i n both  s t u d i e s , F r a n c i s ' conclusion remains s p e c u l a t i v e . In a d d i t i o n to examining cohesion i n the discourse of normal and schizophrenic a d u l t s , Rochester & Martin (1979) c a r r i e d out several analyses on reference using the reference network described above. thought-disordered  To summarize, the  schizophrenics, l i k e the younger c h i l d r e n i n Martin's study  (1977,1983), and perhaps l i k e the working-class c h i l d r e n of Hawkins' study, did not produce s e l f - c o n t e x u a l i z i n g discourse to the same extent as other subjects.  In task-based contexts, thought-disordered  speakers used a greater  proportion of exophoric reference, e i t h e r t o p i c t u r e s or to a previous t e l l i n g of the n a r r a t i v e . They also used f i v e times the normal proportion of personal references t o themselves or to the l i s t e n e r ( i . e . I or you references) i n the n a r r a t i v e and twice the normal proportion i n a cartoon task.  These f i n d i n g s  supported a strong dependence on the part of thought-disordered  subjects on  the surrounding contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Rochester & Martin suggested that 0 t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n v o l v i n g c e r t a i n a r t i c u l a t i o n patterns, marking and use of tenses, use of were/was, and s t r u c t u r a l complexity. 3  115 the common element i n such speakers (thought-disordered and younger children) may be a "lack of elaborate encoding i n the verbal context" (1979: 184). According to Martin (1983), t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n o r i e n t a t i o n may not make a text more or l e s s communicative; s e l f - c o n t e x t u a l i z i n g texts j u s t happen to correspond  t o c u l t u r a l and educational i d e a l s .  However, i n the case of  language disorder associated with schizophrenia, for example, a high proport i o n of unclear reference (see also B a r t o l u c c i & Fine 1987) suggested a lack of c o n t r o l of the presumptional  system.  Instances of missing or ambiguous  referents no doubt contributed to some extent to judgments of "thought d i s o r d e r " i n the f i r s t place.  How a speaker handles reference p h o r i c i t y i n  English may have important i m p l i c a t i o n s i n the educational context and f o r successful communication i n general.  Purpose  of  the  Present  Analysis  R e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s may prove to be a f r u i t f u l way of examining reference i n language impaired c h i l d r e n . Since i t can be used f o r any type of t e x t , i t may be p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l i n examining adjustments made with changes i n context.  I t should also provide general information on speaker c o n t r o l , or  lack thereof, of the presumptional  system i n E n g l i s h .  Researchers have  apparently not used r e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s on the discourse of language disordered c h i l d r e n so f a r . For these reasons, i t seemed appropriate to attempt such a n a l y s i s on the data of the present study.  The general goals proposed i n  chapter three with respect t o cohesion are relevant here, namely the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any group and/or context e f f e c t s .  The purpose of the r e t r i e v a l  a n a l y s i s i s to obtain more information on the q u a l i t a t i v e nature of the d i f f e r e n c e s revealed by the cohesion a n a l y s i s . Based on f i n d i n g s from  116 Martin's s t u d i e s , one might expect to f i n d the f o l l o w i n g : 1.  a higher proportion of exophoric reference on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n and a correspondingly lower proportion of anaphor i c reference;  2.  a lower proportion of bridging by language impaired c h i l d r e n ;  3.  a higher proportion of unclear (ambiguous and erroneous) reference by language impaired c h i l d r e n .  The f o l l o w i n g n u l l hypotheses were tested: (10) Given the same task conditions, language impaired c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal language c h i l d r e n i n the frequency of phoric nominal groups per independent clause. (11) The frequency of phoric nominal groups f o r e i t h e r group does not vary as a f u n c t i o n of context. (12) Given the same task conditions, language impaired c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal language c h i l d r e n i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of phoric nominal groups i n t o the f o l l o w i n g r e t r i e v a l categories: a) endophora (anaphora, cataphora), b) homophora, c) b r i d g i n g , and d) incomplete (exophora, ambiguous, erroneous). (13) Proportions of r e t r i e v a l categories f o r e i t h e r group do not d i f f e r as a function of context.  Results  The r e t r i e v a l categories depicted i n f i g u r e 4 served as the basis for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme.  Each presuming (phoric)  nominal group was assigned to  one of the f o l l o w i n g categories depending on the source of the presumed information: t e x t ) , cataphora  homophora  (subsequent verbal c o - t e x t ) , bridging  text) , and incomplete. addition  ( c u l t u r a l context), anaphora  (exophora),  (preceding verbal co( i m p l i c i t verbal co-  The l a t t e r was subdivided i n t o the categories of ambiguous,  and erroneous.  Since the l i s t e n e r did not  know the story and could not see the p i c t u r e s on TI, any exophoric  reference  (to the pictures) was considered incomplete and categorized as a form of  117 addition.  T l and T2 were analyzed as independent contextual configurations  and, therefore, nominal groups on T2 that presumed information only a v a i l a b l e from T l were coded as r e q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n . The data base consisted of 1437 phoric nominal groups f o r the language impaired c h i l d r e n and 2288 f o r the normal language c h i l d r e n f o r a t o t a l of 3725 phoric nominal groups.  Statisti-  c a l comparisons (Mann-Whitney U and the Friedman two-way a n a l y s i s of variance by ranks) were made when p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y any group and/or task e f f e c t s . Means f o r the frequency of phoric nominal groups per independent clause are presented i n table X I I I .  These f i g u r e s include phoric nominal groups of  a l l categories, i n c l u d i n g incomplete items.  There i s a tendency f o r NL  c h i l d r e n to use a greater number of phoric nominal groups per utterance than LI c h i l d r e n on a l l tasks, although the d i f f e r e n c e s do not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i g n i f i c a n t contextual e f f e c t s were not found, although the NL c h i l d r e n tended to use fewer phoric items per clause on T3 than on T l or T2.  Hypotheses  (10)  and (11) could not, therefore, be r e j e c t e d based on the data obtained.  Table XIII.—Frequency of Phoric Nominal Groups per Independent Clause for LI and NL Children on Tl, T2, and T3 Tl (picture-based) LP  T2 (retell,no pictures)  NL  T3 (video recall)  LI  NL  LI  NL  Phoric nominal groups/independent clause M SD  range  N=  a  1.88  2.30  1.98  2.31  1.86  1.98  .18  .49  .22  .30  .16  .12  1.68-2.12  1.78-3.05  1.63-2.24  1.96-2.74  1.70-2.12 1.80-2.12  6 for each group Mann-Whitney Uvalues  Phoric NGs/independent clause  Tl  T2  T3  8.0  6.5  9.5  118 Table XIV presents mean proportions of phoric items assigned to each retrieval category.  These results are described below.  Table XIV.—Mean Proportions of Retrieval Categories for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 Retrieval Categories Grp. Task  Hcmoph. Endophora anaphora cataph.  LP  1  .009  .848  2  .029  3 NL  a  Total endoph.  Bridging Incomplete Total Phoric addition ambig/err. incompl. NGs  .016  .864  .007  .066  .054  .120  581  .826  .011  .837  .021  .076  .037  .113  407  .035  .793  .010  .803  .016  .049  .097  .146  449  1  .024  .880  .031  .912  .026  .013  .025  .038  803  2  .018  .860  .050  .910  .024  .020  .028  .048  624  3  .017  .8%  .028  .924  .008  .022  .029  .051  .861  N= 6 for each group Mann-Whitney Homoph. Endophora Anaphora Cataph. Total b  b  TI  11.0  T2  18.0  T3  12.0  5.5* 11.0 1.0**  10.0  5.5*  3.0*  9.0  7.0  0.0**  values Bridging* Incomplete addition ambig/err total 5.0* 14.0 4.0*  0.0** 4.0* 13.0  3.0* 14.5 0.0**  0.5** 6.5 2.0**  Caution must be exercised in interpreting these U values due to the small proportions obtained in these categories in the data of either group (5% or less).  b  *p<.05 **j*.01  Endophora (anaphora and cataphora):  As table XIV shows, the presumed  information can be located in the explict verbal co-text in an overwhelming majority of instances.  NL children demonstrated a greater reliance on  endophoric reference than LI children on a l l tasks.  The difference was  significant on TI (tf=5, p<.05) and highly significant on T3 (lf=0, /><.01); the tendency was also present on T2. No significant context effects were found.  119 Most instances of endophoric reference were also anaphoric. follow the same pattern as endophoric reference:  Group differences  the NL children showed  greater reliance on preceding verbal co-text than LI children, the difference being significant on TI (U=5, p<.05), highly significant on T3 {U=l, p<.01), and present, though not significant, on T2.  Hypothesis (12a) was, therefore,  rejected for TI and T3 with respect to anaphora.  Once again, no significant  task effects were found. NL children also tended to use a greater proportion of cataphora than LI children:  the difference was significant on T2 (#=3, p<.05) and nearly  significant on T3 (U=l, p<.10). Caution must be exercised here given the relatively small proportions of cataphoric reference by either group. Most instances involved esphora,  i.e. forward reference within the nominal group.  The following are examples from the data: 5.5  a.  the  cliff  b.  rAe mountain  c.  the dad of this g i r l  that the g i r l is sitting on where the great ape was  The information needed to identify which cliff,  hole,  and dad were intended  are available from what follows within the nominal group. esphoric structures served to introduce a new entity.  In 5.5, the  A second function is to  ensure that the referent of a phoric item is not confused with another.  In  the latter cases, i t usually occurs in conjunction with anaphoric reference: 5.6  a.  the  people  watching the turtles race  b.  the  people  holding the banana  c.  the  people  who were on the boat  Esphoric reference was rare in the stories of the LI children; two of them never used i t , and only one LI child used i t on T3.  120 Homophora:  References to the cultural context were infrequent for both  groups of children, accounting for 1 to 3 percent of phoric NGs. The following were considered instances of homophora on Tl and T2: building, the  the United  Atlantic  Ocean,  instances occurred:  States,  Nev York,  the Pacific, die police,  the Big  the air, the cops,  Apple,  the ground. the army,  the Empire  the Statue  of  State Liberty,  On T3, the following  the ground,  the  time.  Proper names invented by a child for a character in the story were not coded as instances of homophora but as anaphoric nominal groups once a referential chain was created.  Very few children actually made use of proper nouns to  refer to a protagonist.  The small number of homophoric nominal groups made  statistical testing d i f f i c u l t .  The proportion of homophora by LI children on  T3 appeared to exceed that of the NL children. This may stem from the use of proportional analysis: NL children used a greater proportion of endophoric reference on T3 than LI children, the difference being highly significant. This would have resulted in lower proportions in other categories. Bridging:  Phoric items presuming information inferable from the verbal  co-text were also used infrequently by a l l children (1 to 3 percent), too infrequently for reliable statistical comparison.  The groups appeared to  differ most on T l : only five instances of bridging occurred in the data of LI children compared to twenty by NL children. Story length alone would not account for the size of this difference since story length was most similar on this task.  The five instances of bridging by the LI children occurred in the  data of only two children, whereas each of the NL subjects made use of bridging in two or more of their phoric nominal groups.  On T2 and T3, the  groups performed more like each other with respect to proportional data. Bridged items are listed in appendix 5. A greater variety of bridged items  121 occurred i n the data of the NL c h i l d r e n on a l l tasks. Incomplete:  These r e s u l t s p a r a l l e l e d those found f o r incomplete cohesive  devices when a l l cohesive subtypes were considered (see chapter f o u r ) . L I c h i l d r e n used a greater proportion  than NL c h i l d r e n on a l l tasks: the  d i f f e r e n c e was highly s i g n i f i c a n t on TI (tf=0, p<.01) and T3 (U=2, p<.01) and nearly s i g n i f i c a n t on T2 (U=6, p<.10). rejected.  Hypothesis (12d) was, therefore,  As i n the case of anaphora, homophora, and bridging, the difference  between the groups i s smallest on T2. When the performances of a given group across tasks were compared, no s i g n i f i c a n t context differences  surfaced.  LI c h i l d r e n showed a greater r e l i a n c e on addition on TI and T2 than the NL c h i l d r e n ; the d i f f e r e n c e was highly s i g n i f i c a n t on TI (#=0, p<.01) and s i g n i f i c a n t on T2 (U=A, p<.01).  On these tasks, the L I c h i l d r e n  involved  a d d i t i o n i n 7 to 8 percent of t h e i r phoric nominal groups compared to 1 to 2 percent on the part of NL c h i l d r e n .  Although the means on T3 as presented i n  table XIV appear to d i f f e r , ranks according to the Mann-Whitney U test d i d not significantly differ. group.  S i g n i f i c a n t task e f f e c t s were not present f o r e i t h e r  Ambiguous and erroneous instances were collapsed i n t o a s i n g l e  category due to the small number of erroneous items.  A highly significant  group d i f f e r e n c e was found on T3 (tf=0, p<.01), where L I c h i l d r e n used an ambiguous or erroneous referent i n approximately 10 percent of t h e i r phoric groups compared t o only 3 percent on the part of NL c h i l d r e n . d i f f e r e n c e was also found on TI UMi, p<.05). use s i m i l a r proportions. for e i t h e r group. retrieval  A significant  On T2, the groups appeared t o  Once again, no s i g n i f i c a n t task e f f e c t s were found  Hypothesis (13), therefore, was not rejected f o r any of the  categories.  122 Discussion  Phoricity is concerned with what a speaker assumes his listener knows. It is structured into English in several ways: through reference, conjunction, substitution/ellipsis, clefting, and tonicity (for further discussion see Martin 1977).  Reference, conjunction, and substitution/ellipsis were analyzed  in chapter four.  The retrieval analysis of the present chapter permitted a  more dynamic and comprehensive investigation of reference:  dynamic in i t s  attempt to identify where a listener might retrieve the presumed information, and comprehensive in that all  phoric nominals were examined regardless of the  location of the presumed information.  In the cohesive analysis, only those  referential devices were included whose antecedent was verbally explicit and located in a clause other than that of the phoric item i t s e l f . Group and task comparisons revealed 1) a tendency for the utterances of normal language children to contain more phoric nominal groups than those of language impaired children on a l l tasks and 2) a tendency for normal language children to use fewer phoric items per utterance on the video recall task than on other tasks.  These group and task tendencies did not reach significance  and they are no doubt related to the greater utterance length of normal language speakers than language impaired speakers across tasks, and to the tendency for normal speakers to use shorter utterances on the video recall task than on other tasks.  Normal language speakers tended to use fewer intra-  utterance conjunctions on T3, i.e. they did not conjoin propositions into complex utterances to the same degree on this task as on other tasks.  As  discussed in chapter four, i t is difficult to know whether the reduced utterance length resulted in fewer opportunities to code referential items or  123 whether the use of fewer phoric items r e s u l t e d i n shorter utterances. A d i s t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s based on r e t r i e v a l categories revealed, not s u r p r i s i n g l y , that, i n n a r r a t i v e contexts, over 90 percent of phoric nominal groups f o r normal language c h i l d r e n presumed information that could be r e t r i e v e d from preceding verbal t e x t . important:  The r e s t r i c t i o n to n a r r a t i v e s i s  the normal adults of Rochester & Martin's study (1979), f o r  example, r e l i e d on d i r e c t verbal context 86 percent of the time i n n a r r a t i v e s but only 46 percent of the time i n i n t e r v i e w s .  There are two possible  explanations f o r the greater use of anaphoric reference by normal language c h i l d r e n (on TI and T3):  the language impaired c h i l d r e n may be r e l y i n g l e s s  on preceding verbal co-text than the normal language c h i l d r e n and/or the language impaired c h i l d r e n may be attempting as many anaphoric references as the language impaired c h i l d r e n but f a i l i n g i n t h e i r attempts.  In e i t h e r case,  the l i s t e n e r ' s task becomes more d i f f i c u l t ; he or she cannot see the p i c t u r e s and i s , therefore, h i g h l y dependent on information presented v e r b a l l y . Cataphoric reference was infrequent i n a l l s t o r i e s but p a r t i c u l a r l y i n those of the language impaired c h i l d r e n . Esphora (forward reference w i t h i n the nominal group) accounted f o r the majority of cataphoric references and was used both to introduce new p a r t i c i p a n t s to the discourse or to c l a r i f y o l d ones.  Both are discourse f u n c t i o n s ; both contribute to cohesive t e x t .  As  Martin (1977) notes, by r e s t r i c t i n g the a n a l y s i s of cohesion to i n t e r - c l a u s a l r e l a t i o n s only, H a l l i d a y & Hasan's (1976) a n a l y s i s leaves c e r t a i n texturec r e a t i n g devices unanalyzed.  The use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r device appeared to  d i s t i n g u i s h the two groups but the l i m i t e d number of observations render t h i s conclusion t e n t a t i v e at best.  I t was suggested i n chapter four that greater  l e x i c a l support on the part of normal language c h i l d r e n may r e s u l t i n fewer  124 ambiguous referents on their part.  A greater use of esphora may be another.  A more obvious factor responsible for the higher proportion of incomplete reference by languge impaired children was their greater reliance on addition (exophora) in the picture narration task and on retell of the same story without pictures. On both tasks, addition involved introducing new participants using a phoric item, usually a definite article plus noun construction. The use of a pronoun to introduce participants occurred only three times, each time by a language impaired child.  The greater use of exophora by language  impaired children than by normal speakers on the picture narration task indicated a greater reliance on the nonverbal context, i.e. on the pictures that were provided.  The normal language children were better able to take  into account the fact that the listener could not see the pictures and/or to reflect this knowledge in the use of indefinite versus definite forms. Although the listener was the same for the two tasks, each subject was instructed on T2 to pretend he was in another city speaking to a new audience who had never heard the story before.  The normal language children seemed  more able to treat the second telling as a distinct contextual configuration requiring that participants be introduced in nonpresuming ways. On both tasks, then, normal language children self-contextualized  their stories to a  greater degree than language impaired children, showing less dependence on the situational context, whether i t be that of pictures or of a prior telling of the story.  In the video recall task, there was s t i l l a tendency for language  impaired children to use definite forms to introduce, reflecting perhaps dependence on a previous context (their viewing of the film), but this tendency was reduced. These differences parallel those found between younger and older children  125 in developmental studies.  As reported earlier, Martin (1977,1983) found both  a greater percentage of anaphora and a smaller percentage of exophora in the data of his older children in similar tasks as to those used in the present study.  Similar findings were reported in comparisons between socially  advantaged and disadvantaged  children (Hawkins 1973, Francis 1974) and between  normal and schizophrenic adults (Rochester & Martin 1979, Bartolucci & Fine 1987).  These investigators explained their results with reference to the  notion of code,  the predilection to select certain options and not others  given a particular contextual configuration. The ability to choose the "acceptable" forms for a given context develops over time and, based on the findings of this study, i t develops to a different extent in language impaired and normal language children. The normal language children, like the older children of Martin's study (1977, 1983) were better able to produce the selfcontextualizing stories valued in western culture, particularly in the school setting. The different pattern of results found when the two groups were compared on addition and on ambiguous/erroneous instances underlines the importance of subdividing inappropriate use of reference:  addition does not involve the  same kind of "inappropriateness" as the ambiguous/erroneous category.  The  high proportion of ambiguous items by language impaired children on the video recall task may have resulted from the greater use of pronouns on this task, many of which referred to protagonists of the same grammatical number and gender.  There were four males in the story, each with a different role to  play in advancing thematic progress.  Language impaired children had more  difficulty providing sufficient clues to enable the listener to identify the appropriate referent.  126 It was also predicted that normal language children would use bridging to a greater extent than language impaired children.  This seems to have been the  case on the picture narration task, where only five instances of bridging occurred in the data of language impaired subjects compared to twenty in the normal children's data.  A greater variety of bridged items was demonstratd by  normal language children on a l l three tasks.  The normal language children  used a smaller proportion of bridging (2 percent) than children of approximately the same age in Martin's study (6 to 7 percent).  4  The discrepancy may  be due to differences in story content or to criteria used for coding bridged items.  The proportions of bridging in both sets of data (those of the present  study and Martin's) were less than that of normal adults in Rochester & Martin's study (1979).  The discrepancy may once again be due to differences  in story content or analytical procedure. developmental differences.  Alternatively, i t may be due to  Increasing world knowledge may permit a speaker to  more easily discern what can or cannot be inferred by the listener. Given the small proportion of bridging found in the present study, a similar problem arises as in the analysis of cataphora and homophora: there are too few observations available upon which to base one's conclusions.  Low  proportions, in particular, are highly vulnerable to a change in a single observation.  The problem stems from a general one associated with natural  language sampling:  the few instances that occur naturally make meaningful  comparisons d i f f i c u l t .  The analysis of cataphora, homophora, and bridging may  require data obtained from more contrived experimental conditions. "Martin's figures are presented as proportions of total nominal groups. For comparison with the results of the present study, these figures were calculated as proportions of phoric nominal groups only. The values of 6 to 7 percent derive from this conversion.  127 Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks f a i l e d to reveal s i g n i f i cant context e f f e c t s .  There was a tendency f o r language impaired c h i l d r e n to  use a smaller proportion of addition on the video r e c a l l task than on the other tasks, due l a r g e l y to the higher proportion of exophoric reference on TI and T2 as noted e a r l i e r .  With respect to group and task i n t e r a c t i o n , the  language impaired c h i l d r e n tended to perform more l i k e the normal language c h i l d r e n on T2 than on other tasks (except i n the case of a d d i t i o n f o r reasons discussed above).  This suggests that language impaired c h i l d r e n may derive  considerable benefit from a second t e l l i n g , a f i n d i n g that may have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r assessment and therapy. I f a c h i l d ' s best performance i s sought, a second t e l l i n g of a story may prove more r e v e a l i n g .  The l a t t e r may also prove  b e n e f i c i a l f o r a s s i m i l a t i o n of a new l i n g u i s t i c behavior. To summarize, r e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s revealed that normal language c h i l d r e n used a greater proportion of anaphoric and exphoric reference and a smaller proportion of incomplete (exophoric, ambiguous, and erroneous) reference than language impaired c h i l d r e n .  I n s u f f i c i e n t data made conclusions concerning the  use of cataphora, b r i d g i n g , and homophora d i f f i c u l t ; the normal language speakers appeared to make greater use of esphora and bridging than language impaired speakers. The most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g was the higher proportion of exophora and corresponding lower r e l i a n c e on verbal encoding (endophora) by language impaired c h i l d r e n than normal language speakers. This appears to r e f l e c t a greater r e l i a n c e on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n on the s i t u a t i o n a l context (pictures or a p r i o r t e l l i n g ) when i t was a v a i l a b l e .  They  appeared to resemble younger normal speakers i n t h i s respect. Phoric items w i l l once again be targeted i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter, where the functions served by anaphoric expressions w i l l be explored i n more d e t a i l .  CHAPTER SIX REFERENCE:  FORM/FUNCTION ANALYSIS  Discourse  Theoretical  Reference  Background  The analysis presented in chapter four examined a number of different cohesive devices used in discourse.  Use of one of these devices, reference,  was further explored using retrieval analysis in chapter five.  The purpose of  the present chapter i s to narrow the field of investigation s t i l l further by focusing on one type of reference, namely anaphora.  As in the case of  retrieval analysis, the approach i s a "dynamic" one: the focus i s not on the presence or absence of certain forms but on the function such forms appear to be f u l f i l l i n g for the child, i.e. on discourse-as-process unravelling in time. Recent investigations into anaphoric reference have tended to side with one of two theoretical positions. According to the "structural" approach, anaphoric elements—pronouns in this case—have no inherent meaning.  In order  to be interpreted, they must be "substituted" with a preceding nominal expression.  Early forms of transformational grammar described pronouns as  surface structure substitutes derived from an underlying ("deep") structure which was structurally and lexically identical to the underlying form of the pronoun's antecedent.  This transformation required two conditions:  1) the  existence of an explicit linguistic antecedent showing agreement with respect to number and gender and 2) an antecedent in the same sentence as the pronoun. Coreference within this syntactic view was a matter of indexing coreferential 128  129 items in deep structure with the same subscript. The technical device of indexing has no intrinsic value of i t s own, and the methodological flaws associated with i t s use have led to theoretical revisions.  In recent Chomskyan theory, indexing has been removed; pronouns  are no longer syntactically derived but are generated directly.  The problem  of explaining how pronouns refer, however, remains unresolved and has been superceded by a different issue:  the specification of anaphoric constraints.  Unfortunately, even the best of these constraints, namely constituent command  (c-command),  f a i l s to account for many anaphor-antecedent  relations even at  the sentential level (for examples, see Bosch 1983, and Wiese 1983). As Bosch (1983) points out, the substitute/transformational view is limited both theoretically and empirically.  It is limited theoretically by i  its avoidance of discussion on how pronouns refer, and empirically by the small number of pronoun occurrences i t can account for syntactically.  It  excludes intersentential anaphoric relations, those with no explicit linguistic antecedent, those with antecedents which do not agree in number and gender (e.g.  split antecedents ), and any other intrasentential relations that 1  violate the constraints formulated so far. In other words, this view may not account for the majority of pronoun occurrences in English. These inadequacies have led to the adoption, by some linguists, of a nonstructural approach.  According to this view, a l l grammatical constraints on  According to the transformational approach, a pronoun must be lexically and syntactically identical to i t s antecedent. The split antecedent Bill and his brother for they in the simple example below clearly does not meet this identity condition: B i l l told his brother that they had to be home by noon. 1  130 pronoun-antecedent pairs will f a i l , given certain discourse conditions. "Nonstructuralists" have largely abandoned syntactic sentence-level analyses in favor of a more psychological or processing orientation.  Anaphoric  expressions are understood to be performing the pragmatic function of transforming isolated sentences into text. A processing explanation as to how anaphors are able to achieve this requires recourse to the notion of  speaker  reference.  A speaker reference account of anaphora holds that the referent of an anaphoric expression (pronoun or definite nominal group) i s not the linguistic antecedent per se, but the speaker's intended referent. Successful reference depends, not f i r s t and foremost on the satisfaction of grammatical constraints, but on the listener being able to identify a speaker's intended referent.  The selection of a referring expression will depend on a speaker's  expectations about and intentions towards the listener.  According to Donellan  (1978), for example, speakers who expect and intend that their listeners recognize who they have in mind, will start with a definite description: 6.1  (to a colleague) The new guy keeps pestering me with questions.  If, on the other hand, a speaker does not expect or intend that the listener recognize the person he or she has in mind, the speaker will introduce the referent using an indefinite form: 6.2  (to a spouse) A new guy at work keeps pestering me with questions.  In nonstructural terms, anaphora  "covers any expression which the speaker  uses in referring on the basis of which the hearer will be able to pick out the intended referent given certain contextual and co-textual conditions" (Brown & Yule 1983: 215). Pragmatically-controlled anaphora does not require a linguistic antecedent and i s , therefore, not concerned with the grammatical  131 conditions that hold between pronoun-antecedent  pairs.  The main goal of the  nonstructural approach has been to determine how a listener is able to identify speaker reference (Marslen-Wilson et a l . 1982, Wiese 1983, Brown & Yule 1983).  In chapter five, pronouns and definite nominals were classified  according to the "location" of the referent, whether in shared culture, nonverbal context, or verbal co-text (explicit or implicit).  Referring  expressions were categorized as anaphoric i f a linguistic antecedent was present.  In light of the above comments, the reference network was somewhat  simplistic and the notion of "retrieval categories" perhaps misleading. An analyst cannot know for sure what information the listener i s using to interpret the speaker's intended referent.  The linguistic antecedent is  certainly one source of information; gender and number of the pronoun used represent another.  However, the many cases of missing antecedents or of  grammatical mismatch between an antecedent and pronoun suggest that such clues are not the only ones a listener i s using. As noted in chapter four, information gleaned from previous or subsequent predicates, for example, may be particularly  important in choosing between antecedent nominals as illustrated  in 6.3 and 6.4 below (from Brown & Yule 1983: 219): 6.3  One of our main jobs in the Botanies i s writing on the flora of Turkey + they . . .  One cannot be sure about the interpretation of they,  i.e. of the  given  element, until the subsequent predicate, the new information, i s provided: 6.4  One of our main jobs in the Botanies i s writing on the flora of Turkey + they don't have the scientists to do i t .  The listener, then, i s using a l l sorts of information, explicit and implicit, from both the verbal and nonverbal contexts, to compute speaker reference.  And the speaker i s guided in decisions as to what kind of  132 information i s required based on expectations about and intentions towards the listener.  The inadequacy of the "structuralist" view of reference to account  for such facts underlines the necessity of moving the study of reference phenomena away from decontextualized, contrived sentences to naturallyoccurring discourse. If the choice of a referring expression i s to a great extent pragmatically controlled, then the functions served by referring expressions may be expected to vary depending on the particular discourse genre examined. As noted above, a speaker chooses a form according to expectations about and intentions toward the listener in view of enabling the listener to identify the referent. Beyond this general purpose, there i s perhaps more to be discovered with respect to a speaker's purpose in selecting one referring expression over another in a given descourse genre.  In the present study,  this means exploring how function governs the choice of form during the course of a narrative. The selection of referential devices by a narrator may be influenced not only by the local context in which the device occurs but also by properties of the narrative i t s e l f :  i t s episodic organization and protago-  nist development (whether, for example, there i s a main protagonist and, i f so, his or her relationship to other participants).  The choice of referring  expressions in narratives may be expected to play a role in the organization of a narrative, specifically as they f u l f i l l the cohesive text-forming functions of creating, maintaining, and switching reference.  The  Development  of Referential  Devices  In narrative contexts, the information provided by a speaker to enable the listener to identify participants i s linguistic in nature.  A narrator  133 does not u s u a l l y d i r e c t the l i s t e n e r to the nonverbal context of utterance (unless props are provided), but to other l i n g u i s t i c information, whether i n the form of antecedent noun phrases and/or antecedent or subsequent p r e d i cates.  This intralinguistic  use of signs has been contrasted with deictic  use  (signs r e l a t e d to some object i n the n o n l i n g u i s t i c context) i n developmental studies.  The e n t i t y u l t i m a t e l y referred to i n both cases i s a n o n l i n g u i s t i c  one; d e i x i s points to i t d i r e c t l y whereas i n t r a l i n g u i s t i c use {anaphora) so i n d i r e c t l y through s i g n - t o - s i g n r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  does  Research f i n d i n g s suggest  that c h i l d r e n f i r s t use pronouns and d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s d e i c t i c a l l y , i . e . t o "point" with t h e i r words to nonverbal e n t i t i e s present i n the environment. 4  There i s considerable debate as to when e x a c t l y c h i l d r e n are able to create and maintain discourse through l i n g u i s t i c means alone.  Keenan & K l e i n (1975),  for example, concluded from t h e i r observations of informal dialogue between twin boys (aged 2;9 at the outset, observed over a one-year period) that the c h i l d r e n were able t o e s t a b l i s h a new t o p i c and then t o use pronouns anaphoric a l l y to maintain reference.  However, as Hickman (1980) pointed out, the  referents were present i n the s i t u a t i o n and, therefore, there was no way of knowing whether the c h i l d r e n of Keenan & K l e i n ' s study were using pronouns d e i c t i c a l l y or a n a p h o r i c a l l y . Developmental studies have a l s o explored i n d e f i n i t e versus d e f i n i t e noun phrases and the functions served by these forms.  Maratsos (1976) examined  both comprehension and production of i n d e f i n i t e and d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s i n experimental research i n v o l v i n g 3- and 4-year-olds.  He concluded that  c h i l d r e n both understood the d i f f e r e n c e between the two constructions and were capable of using these forms a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o d i s t i n g u i s h between s p e c i f i c and nonspecific reference.  His conclusions have been c r i t i c i z e d on a number of  134 counts (see Warden 1976, Karmiloff-Smith 1979, and Hickmann 1980):  1) the  experimenter and not the c h i l d provided the verbal context f o r the c h i l d ' s subsequent r e f e r r i n g expression; 2) the c h i l d ' s use of d e f i n i t e noun phrases may have r e s u l t e d from a general preference for d e f i n i t e forms regardless of whether the referent had been i d e n t i f i e d previously or not; 3) i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s may have been used merely to name objects as opposed to  identify  them; 4) only an advanced subgroup of 4-year-olds performed appropriately 2  when r e f e r e n t i a l knowledge of the l i s t e n e r was taken i n t o account. Warden (1976) studied the a r t i c l e s used to introduce a referent to a context of discourse by c h i l d r e n aged 3 to 9 and by a d u l t s .  Children appeared  to master the naming function of the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e before i t s i d e n t i f y i n g function.  Only the 9-year-olds  and adults c o n s i s t e n t l y introduced t h e i r  referents using i n d e f i n i t e expressions. under 5 were predominantly  The r e f e r r i n g expressions of c h i l d r e n  d e f i n i t e ; c h i l d r e n between 5 and 9 years of age  used both d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s to introduce r e f e r e n t s . Warden concluded  that young c h i l d r e n f a i l to take account of t h e i r audience's  knowledge of a r e f e r e n t ; the c h i l d f a i l s "to r e a l i z e that h i s audience w i l l only become f a m i l i a r with h i s referent a f t e r he has i d e n t i f i e d i t f o r them v e r b a l l y " (p.110).  However, as Warden himself pointed out, nearly every c h i l d  produced at l e a s t some i d e n t i f y i n g expressions, r e f l e c t i n g at l e a s t p a r t i a l awareness of the need to i d e n t i f y r e f e r e n t s . Young c h i l d r e n may have a According to Warden (1976) and Hickmann (1980), the main functions performed by i n d e f i n i t e forms are the f o l l o w i n g : 1) to mark indefiniteness ("I want a monkey"): reference i s made to any member of the c l a s s of monkeys; 2) to name ("That's a monkey"): a p a r t i c u l a r item i s s i n g l e d out as one member of the c l a s s of monkeys; 3) to identify ("There's a monkey i n the back yard"): a p a r t i c u l a r monkey i s introduced to the discourse. 2  135 greater awareness of listener need than Warden allows; their difficulty may l i e in using the indefinite/ definite article distinction to express this awareness.  Props were present in Warden's experiments (model animals or  pictures) and i t is d i f f i c u l t to determine the extent of their influence on the  forms that were elicited.  For many children, identifying such objects  with indefinite forms may have appeared redundant given the nonverbal context. In an attempt to have subjects rely s t r i c t l y on linguistic means to create reference, Hickmann (1980) had adults and children aged 7 and 10 narrate short films from memory, without the use of props or pictures, to listeners who had not seen the films.  A developmental progression was found:  only the adults and 10-year-olds used appropriate forms more often than inappropriate ones.  Animacy and degree of involvement in speech events had an  effect on appropriateness of f i r s t mentions:  7-year-olds had greater d i f f i -  culty introducing a l l animate referents with indefinite reference and both groups of children had more difficulty when both participants and "nonparticipants" (those introduced in reported speech) were animate.  Hickmann also  examined a few narratives by 4-year-olds for comparison and found a complete lack of indefinite forms to introduce even inanimate nonparticipants; on several occasions, highly presupposing forms (pronouns) were used on f i r s t mention. Hickmann concluded that the s k i l l s for textual cohesion emerge at approximately 7 years of age, and that children do not consistently create referents for later intralinguistic cohesive relations in discourse until relatively late (10 years of age). However, the assumptions she has made in arriving at her conclusions must be questioned.  Her f i r s t conclusion, for  example, incorrectly assumes that text cohesion i s entirely accomplished by  136 the use of indefinite articles for f i r s t mentions.  In reaching her second  conclusion, she has assumed that to create referents for later intralinguistic cohesive relations in discourse means to use an indefinite article for f i r s t mention.  It may be, however, that the young child is "creating a referent"  the f i r s t time he or she refers to i t regardless of the form of the accompanying article.  The most that can be concluded from either Hickman's or Warden's  results i s that one specific kind of textual device, namely the creation of referents in narratives using the conventional means of indefinite forms, may not be mastered before 9 or 10 years of age.  It would be incorrect to also  conclude, based on the findings reported so far, that up to that time a child is not making use of prior linguistic context or i s not able to take i t into account when evaluating listener need. Bennett-Kastor (1983) reached a different conclusion than Hickmann did based on an examination of noun phrases in the stories of children aged 2 to 5:  she reported evidence for the emergence of textual coherence in children  as young as 2 years of age.  The discrepancy between her results and those of  Warden or Hickmann arises from the type of evidence each investigator accepted as representing children's attempts to relate their utterances. According to Bennett-Kastor, the fact that a noun phrase i s repeated from clause to clause is a feature that makes a story coherent.  The children of her study reitera-  ted primarily animate entities, most of which were expressed as agents. Most noun phrases were reiterated in subject position; even the 2-year-olds were "sensitive to the function of grammatical subjects as elements of focus, and to the predominantly agent-oriented nature of narrative discourse" (BennettKastor 1983: 142).  With development, reiterated NPs increased in frequency,  variety, and distance between mentions.  With respect to grammatical form,  137 indefinite  a r t i c l e + noun c o n s t r u c t i o n s  introduce referents; noun p h r a s e s  decreased  (that  over  were  time,  proposed several  witch,  the  later  for  wolf).  for  world experience  entities  that  the o l d e r  characters  also  on t h e  refer  percentage  reference  with narratives  c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d  of  to  In nearly a l l  story v i l l a i n s  same way  their  Bennett-Kastor  definite  children.  to i n the  frequency  and g r a m m a t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , coherence  This  the 5 - y e a r - o l d s . use of  to  i n t r o d u c e d 54.5% of  may a l s o h a v e p e r m i t t e d t h e u s e o f  adults  From h e r r e s u l t s  textual  for  Older c h i l d r e n ' s experience of  a v e r y y o u n g age  i n t h i s way.  introduced archetypal  them t o d e c i d e w h i c h s o r t s Greater  used at  example,  the increased  on t h e p a r t of  references  for  reiterated)  f a l l i n g t o 19.4%  reasons  introduce referents these d e f i n i t e  the 2 - y e a r - o l d s ,  were  cases,  (e.g.  the  would  enable  archetypal. definite  the  (e.g.  reference  doctor).  r e i t e r a t e d NPs a n d o n t h e i r  Bennett-Kastor  c o u l d be f o u n d i n t h e s t o r i e s  concluded that of  semantic  features  of  a l l the c h i l d r e n :  P e r h a p s d u e t o t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h most c h i l d r e n a r e e x p o s e d t o a n a r r a t i v e , t h e y l e a r n a s e a r l y a s two y e a r s how t o i n t r o d u c e NPs i n t o a s t o r y , how t o r e i t e r a t e them i n s u c c e s s i v e s t o r y c l a u s e s t o r e f l e c t t h e i r g i v e n n e s s o r t h e i r f o c a l i n t e r e s t , how g e n e r a l l y t o convey t h a t the d i s c o u r s e they are speaking i s , s p e c i f i c a l l y , n a r r a t i v e . ( 1 9 8 3 : 148) According to Bennett-Kastor, mature,  t h e y were b e t t e r  to achieve  textual  of age  range  t o a c c e s s and e x p l o i t  findings,  + noun c o n s t r u c t i o n s  b o t h Hickmann of  (1980)  study,  definite  reference  p a r t i c u l a r l y those  were  l i n g u i s t i c a l l y more  t h e i r grammatical  used.  the 5 - y e a r - o l d s ,  i n v o l v i n g the use  to introduce protagonists,  a n d Warden ( 1 9 7 6 ) .  the subjects  Kastor 's  5-year-olds  system  coherence.  Bennett-Kastor's indefinite  able  because the  As n o t e d ,  The d i s c r e p a n c y  conflict  of with  those  may be d u e t o  the o l d e r subjects  in  Bennett-  used a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of  to introduce their referents  than the  2-year-olds.  The  the  138 4- and 7-year-olds of Warden's and Hickmann's studies r e s p e c t i v e l y also used a high proportion of d e f i n i t e reference, t h i s time i n comparison with older subjects and a d u l t s .  I f both sets of data are v a l i d , one might postulate that  the proportion of d e f i n i t e reference i n very young c h i l d r e n increases u n t i l approximately  4 or 5 years of age and decreases t h e r e a f t e r .  The  first  development would be due to the c h i l d ' s increasing use of archetypal, homophor i c , and bridged reference.  This tendency would l a t e r be overshadowed by a  greater pressure, one that pushes the c h i l d i n the d i r e c t i o n of the c u l t u r e s p e c i f i c i d e a l of s e l f - c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n i n n a r r a t i v e s .  The method used to  e l i c i t s t o r i e s may be another f a c t o r underlying the d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s obtained across s t u d i e s .  Both Warden and Hickmann provided some form of  s t i m u l i to e l i c i t s t o r i e s : p i c t u r e s and f i l m s r e s p e c t i v e l y .  experimental  Bennett-Kastor  used a more spontaneous method; she had her subjects t e l l any story they liked.  I t may be that i n the presence of experimental  s t i m u l i , c h i l d r e n show  a greater tendency to t r e a t that m a t e r i a l as given than when contextual support i s absent and narrators must come up with t h e i r own r e f e r e n t s .  In  other words, c h i l d r e n may perceive t h e i r own invented referents to be i n greater need of i n t r o d u c t i o n than those provided by the experimenter. Karmiloff-Smith*s research seeks to discover not the if c h i l d r e n use a p a r t i c u l a r category, but on the processes  and at  what  age  involved i n such use.  The f i n d i n g s of one of her n a r r a t i v e studies (1981) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e v e a l i n g with respect to the processes involved i n the use of pronominalization.  Each  c h i l d (170 English and French c h i l d r e n , aged 4 to 9) was presented with a book of s i x p i c t u r e s and asked to t e l l the experimenter what was happening as the experimenter turned the pages.  There were four kinds of books which d i f f e r e d  with respect to the number and c e n t r a l i t y of the main protagonists  and  139 tightness.of links between the pictures. the following:  One of these stories consisted of  a central character (a boy walking along a road [picture 1]),  introduction of another character (the boy sees a balloon man  [picture 2], who  gives the boy a balloon [picture 3]), and return to f i r s t character (the boy walks off with the balloon [picture 4 ] , the balloon flies into the sky [picture 5] and the boy starts to cry [picture 6]). The stories of the youngest children were held together by spatial devices (e.g. there)  and by paralinguistic gestures (pointing, eye gaze, head  movements) accompanying their pronouns.  Since the experimenter could see the  pictures, these deictic pronouns were unambiguous as long as each utterance was considered separately and no intralinguistic links were attempted.  The  narratives of slightly older children (approximately 6 years old) showed evidence of anaphoric pronominal use and of sensitivity to the cohesive function performed by such devices.  The main character (the boy) was intro-  duced and subsequently pronominalized and placed in i n i t i a l sentence position, i.e. children reserved the use of pronouns in utterance-initial position for the "thematic subject" (central protagonist) of the story.  Nominal forms were  used for other entities and these appeared almost exclusively in nonsubject position.  On those rare occasions when a pronoun was used for a nonthematic  subject in i n i t i a l position, a nominal was added in postposition of the utterance) for clarification (French data).  (at the end  In interpreting these  findings, Karmiloff-Smith suggested that the children at this stage were imposing a rigid macro-thematic structure onto their narratives.  In the  narratives of the oldest group of children, participants other than the main protagonists sometimes occurred in i n i t i a l position, reflecting a growing control over the interplay between discourse structure and local sentential  140 relations.  Pronominalization of nonthematic subjects was s t i l l rare and  usually reserved for use within complex sentences.  A pronoun in i n i t i a l  position was s t i l l most likely to refer to the thematic subject even when several utterances containing other referents had intervened.  A thematic  subject strategy, then, was evident even in the older children's narratives. In a subsequent experiment, Karmiloff-Smith (1981) took one of the pictures from the story described above (picture 3, in which the balloon man hands a balloon to the boy) and showed i t to 180 French and English children (who were not involved in the previous experiment). describe what was happening in the picture.  Each child was asked to  Over 80% of these children put  the balloon man in subject position and used the verb to give There were no repairs or noun phrase postpositioning.  (or to  sell).  As Karmiloff-Smith  noted, the same picture (picture 3) was described very differently in the context of a single utterance than when that utterance was part of a sequence of utterances that made up a story. Based on data obtained from both linguistic and nonlinguistic domains, Karmiloff-Smith has proposed a three-phase processing model of children's problem solving (1983,1984).  Phase one, the "procedural phase", i s character-  ized by data-driven processes.  The child uses environmental feedback to solve  a problem without making an attempt to organize isolated success and/or failure experiences.  In phase two, the "metaprocedural phase", behavior i s  generated predominantly by a top-down control mechanism. A rigid internal representation i s imposed on external stimuli to such an extent that environmental information i s often ignored. previously isolated procedures.  A simplifying procedure i s used to link  In the final phase, the "conceptual phase",  neither data-driven nor top-down processes predominate; a control mechanism  141 modulates interaction between the two.  The child is able to apply internal  representations and simultaneously take into account environmental feedback. Karmiloff-Smith has also applied this problem-solving model to the development of referential cohesion in narratives (1984).  At level l  3  (the  procedural phase), the child uses success-oriented procedures to describe each picture in isolation from the others.  Individual utterances are syntactically  and lexically correct, but appear merely to be juxtaposed, lacking any organizational property.  At level 2 (the metaprocedural phase), although the  story appears weaker in lexical variety and story details, there is evidence of an overall organization, i.e. of top-down processing. "thematic subject" strategy to simplify the data.  The child uses a  Level 3 (the conceptual  phase) is characterized by greater control over both global structure and local intersentential contraints. Lexical variety is again rich and more story details are included than at level 2, this time coordinated with the top-down control mechanism. Karmiloff-Smith's comprehensive research sheds considerable light on the acquisition of referential cohesion.  However, one of her conclusions—that  intralinguistic (anaphoric) reference does not appear until the age of five or six y e a r s — i s not well supported.  In an experiment with French children, she  found that when natural gender of a referent conflicted with grammatical gender (e.g. the nonce term le  bicron  in which the article and word ending  were grammatically masculine and the extralinguistic referent was feminine), more older children preserved the grammatical gender of the antecedent in their pronouns or made changes that would ensure grammatical continuity (e.g. Karmiloff-Smith uses the term level to refer to changes within a specific domain, in this case the development of narratives. 3  142 by changing le  bicroa  to Ja bicronne.  Younger children tended to use pronouns  which corresponded to the natural gender of the extralinguistic referent. Karmiloff-Smith concluded that the older children were using anaphoric and the younger children deictic expressions.  However, in conversational French, i t  is common, even among adults, to use pronouns that reflect the natural gender of an extralinguistic referent regardless of the grammatical gender of the nominal antecedent.  In written French, on the other hand, grammatical gender  is usually preserved even when i t conflicts with natural gender.  The atten-  tion to grammatical gender as demonstrated by the older children may reflect their approach to the task as a "test" situation; repairs made in the direction of "anaphoric" reference may have been partially motivated by recollections from grammar classes.  It may also reflect their greater experience with  the conventions of written language. A second and related interpretation that must be questioned concerns Karmiloff-Smith's  claim that the young children in the narrative described  earlier (boy and balloon story) were only capable of deictic reference.  In a  pilot study, she had children t e l l the story without pictures and concluded that the young children were s t i l l using their pronouns deictically.  Since  the possibility of paralinguistic behavior (e.g. pointing) was removed by taking away the pictures, i t is not clear what kind of evidence KarmiloffSmith used to conclude that the younger child's use of pronouns was deictic. The relevance of discourse factors to early form-function mappings in language acquisition has also been investigated by Bamberg (1987).  There are  three ways, according to Bamberg, of "moving" through a narration, depending on the anchorpoint one chooses:  character, time, or location. In most  stories, the three are interwoven.  Bamberg examined both character and time  143 in his study; only his results on the character-anchored perspective will be presented here.  Within this perspective, a l l clauses are related to a  character's inner and outer states.  In actual discourse this is done by  establishing a character's identity at the beginning of a story and subsequently referring to him or her by reference-maintaining and reference-switching devices.  He examined the narratives of 25 German children of three age  groups: 3- and 4-year-olds; 5- and 6-year-olds; 8- to 10-year-olds. data was also obtained.  Adult  The narratives were based on a wordless picture  book , which was f i r s t presented to the children in the form of a slide show 4  via question-answer  interaction between researcher and children.  of elicitation followed:  Four phases  1) the child told the story to the experimenter at  school; 2),3) a caregiver told the story to the child at home on two occasions; 4) the child retold the story to the experimenter at school.  The  results were based on the adult data from phase 3 and the child's data from phase 4.  In a l l cases, both child and adult viewed the pictures together.  In his analysis of forms used for f i r s t mentions of the main protagonists, Bamberg found that adults showed a f a i r l y even distribution for a l l characters between indefinite and definite expressions. higher percentage (75%) of f i r s t mentions were definite.  For children, an even The children also  used more pronouns to introduce than the adults did (16% versus 1%). The only developmental difference found in the children's data was the absence of indefinite expressions to introduce on the part of the youngest children (aged 3 and 4).  This supports the hypothesis that young children are more  "context-dependent" 4  Frog,  Where  in their selection of forms. are  You? by Mercer Mayer.  144 A second analysis involved coding the form (nominal versus pronominal) and function (maintain versus switch reference) of each subsequent mention of the two main characters (boy and dog).  Adults were highly consistent:  they  used nominal expressions to switch reference 95% of the time, and pronominal expressions to maintain reference 92% of the time. a pronoun was used to switch  The few instances in which  reference appeared to signal to the listener that  information that immediatly preceded was to be treated as background information only, and that the speaker was now continuing with foregrounded The second case, the use of a nominal to maintain  tion.  informa-  reference, usually  occurred at the beginning of a new episode and was normally preceded by a long pause and accompanied by new temporal markers.  Bamberg concluded:  1) that  the predominant tendency to match pronominal forms with maintaining reference and nominal forms with switching reference was due to a bottom-up strategy, i.e. the use of linguistic forms for local cohesion and 2) that the exceptions were due to a top-down strategy aimed at marking global thematic structure in view of lending greater coherence to the narrative. With respect to discourse development, Bamberg predicted an orientation f i r s t towards one or the other strategy before a child would be able to integrate both in constructing text. An analysis of the forms used to switch and to maintain reference by the children revealed a number of strategies which varied depending on the protagonist referred to (boy or dog) and on the age of the children. "anaphoric"  8  An  strategy was used to refer to the dog whereas four different  strategies were used to refer to the boy: contrasting and nominal.  thematic, "anaphoric", locally  The thematic strategy was marked by a preference for  Bamberg uses the term anaphoric to describe the strategy employed by the adults of his study, namely the use of nominal forms to switch and pronominal forms to maintain reference. 8  145 pronominal forms to both maintain and switch reference.  A locally-contrasting  strategy showed no clear separation of a form-function pairing (both pronominals and nominals were used to switch or maintain reference); decisions were made at a very local level.  Speakers using a nominal strategy appeared to  describe each picture in an isolated manner, reintroducing characters by nominal forms as each picture was turned over.  A l l children showed a  preference for using pronominal forms over nominal to refer to the boy and a preference for nominal over pronominal ones for the dog. The latter trend was also present to some extent in the adult data. With respect to age differences, a l l children differed from the adults in the proportion of noun phrases used to switch reference versus maintin reference:  the children switched reference twice as often as they maintained  i t whereas adults showed a f a i r l y even distribution between the two functions. Referential devices to maintain increased somewhat over time.  A second  developmental trend consisted of an increase in the use of nominals to switch reference to the boy (all children and adults preferred nominals to switch reference to the dog).  A thematic subject strategy was the predominant  strategy of the youngest and middle age groups but was used by only a few of the oldest children.  The "anaphoric" strategy used by adults was not found in  the youngest children but was present in a few stories of the middle group; i t dominated the stories of the 9- and 10-year-olds. Bamberg concluded that the developmental process of form-function pairings consists of moving from a global level of discourse organization to a local level, and from there to an integration of the two levels. two factors motivating these changes. experience with written material.  He proposed  The f i r s t influence i s the child's  A second appears to arise from within the  146 child in the form of a local subcomponent at work within the child's "global" system.  In addition to using pronouns to mark the thematic subject, young  children also used them to maintain reference to nonthematic actors (the dog). As Bamberg noted: This particular sub-strategy being situated right within the overall system created by the child could metaphorically be described as some kind of explosive, or a "time-bomb" ticking away and awaiting its detonation, (p.198) For a child to relate this local strategy to his global strategy, Bamberg argued, the child must f i r s t have recovered "the local viewpoint". Bamberg's study is commendable in i t s attempt to investigate the internal processes involved in language acquisition and the reorganization of these processes with development.  However, his ordering of these processes into  three distinct phases—global followed by local followed by an amalgamation of the two—is not well supported by his data.  As Bamberg himself points out, a  local substrategy appeared to be governing the choice of referential terms for the dog in the f i r s t phase, i.e. when a child was also demonstrating use of a global strategy in references to the boy.  Nor do his data support a temporary  disappearance of a global stategy in phase two and mysterious reappearance in phase three.  What his results do suggest is that there are two pressures—  global and local—acting on even a very young child's organization of discourse.  The route taken to greater control of these factors appears to be a  continuous one, and no doubt varies considerably with the individual.  A  second cautionary note concerns Bamberg's scope of analysis. Although he claims to have found support for Karmiloff-Smith's thematic subject strategy, he has, in fact, found evidence for only one aspect:  the use of pronouns to  refer to a thematic subject regardless of the function served (maintain or switch reference). He has not explored the use of sentence position as i t  147 relates to a story's thematic subject. With respect to methodology, Bamberg provided well-motivated reasons for the procedures he followed.  However, he neglected to discuss the f u l l impact  of contextual factors on his results.  Each child heard the story three times  (once by the experimenter and twice by a caregiver) and had previously told the story before the data used in the analysis was collected.  Shared story  knowledge, rehearsal, and the fact that both experimenter (or caregiver) and child viewed the pictures together are a few of the factors that certainly influenced the speaker's expressions.  (both child's and adult's) choice of referential  In less highly presuming situations, different results no doubt  would have been obtained and different conclusions drawn. A final criticism concerns Bamberg's failure to provide operational definitions of maintain switch  and  reference.  Reference  and  Language  Impaired  Populations  The use of referential devices by language impaired populations remains largely unexplored; developmental research appears rich by comparison.  The  results of three studies will be presented below. Fayne (1981) administered a reading task to learning disabled and two 6  groups of nonhandicapped adolescents (academic and nonacademic) from grades ten and eleven.  The group of nonacademic students had no specific learning  disabilities but required reading materials that were two to three years below their actual grade placement.  The task was designed to investigate compre-  Entrance requirements to the learning disabled program included the following: average intellectual functioning, two years' delay in a basic academic s k i l l area, and processing deficiencies (as measured by psychoeducational tests). 6  148 hension of pronoun-antecedent relationships; each test item consisted of a three-sentence paragraph followed by a multiple choice question which required students to choose the best antecedent for a pronoun underlined in the paragraph  (pronoun and antecedent occurred in different sentences);  Both  nonhandicapped groups performed significantly better than the learning disabled students.  Unlike the nonhandicapped adolescents, learning disabled  students performed as poorly on easy items as on d i f f i c u l t ones, suggesting that syntactic and semantic complexity of the antecedent were not major factors.  The learning disabled subjects appeared to demonstrate a deficiency  in their comprehension of discourse reference.  Since a l l learning disabled  students had histories of reading d i f f i c u l t i e s , Fayne proposed that earlier decoding difficulties may have led to a word-by-word reading style, a strategy that would prevent a reader from connecting elements of a cohesive tie that were separated by sentential boundaries.  One implication is obvious:  such  students will have trouble following a writer's train of thought in even simple paragraphs. The referential s k i l l s of learning disabled adolescents and normal 7  language adolescents aged 14 to 16 have also been compared on production tasks.  Caro & Schneider (1982) examined referent-creating devices in data  obtained from two tasks:  a problem-solving activity and recall of two  videotaped stories (one recalled orally and the other in writing).  Learning  disabled subjects used fewer appropriate devices (indefinite article + NP, [some]  + plural NP) for a l l f i r s t mentions regardless of the task.  On the  Teachers of learning disabled children referred students who had oral expressive language problems. Students described by their teachers as having comprehension problems or primary sensory and emotional problems were excluded. 7  149 narrative task, the learning disabled subjects used fewer appropriate devices (definite article + NP, and pronouns) for f i r s t mentions of human characters in both oral and written texts. reported in the developmental  Caro & Schneider's findings parallel those  literature (Warden 1976, Hickmann 1980, Bamberg  1987); adolescents with language production problems and young children both experience considerable difficulty when relying solely on linguistic means to introduce participants. Lovett, Dennis, and Newman (1986) examined the use of pronouns to achieve cohesion in the discourse (story r e t e l l )  8  of one right and two left hemidecor-  ticate adolescents aged 12 to 14.  Hemisphere-dependent differences as well as  individual strategies were found.  Both left hemidecorticate subjects had  considerable difficulty planning extended discourse units.  One avoided  pronominal use in favor of explicit, and often redundant, nominals.  He was  least willing to rely on exophoric reference or on implicit devices like pronoun deletion.  The other left hemidecorticate subject erred in the  opposite direction, producing an abundance of both appropriate and ambiguous pronouns.  A high proportion of nonpersonal pronouns (e.g. it)  narrative specificity.  reduced  In contrast, pronominal use by the right hemidecorti-  cate subject was both more economical and cohesive.  He relied more on  implicit cohesive elements and on intersentential cohesive relations than did the other subjects, and was able to maintain several intersecting referential chains simultaneously.  The authors concluded that these findings were  consistent with other descriptions of the subjects' language systems: although a l l three subjects performed similarly on tests examining lexicalEach child recalled each of the following fairytales after they were read by the examiner: L i t t l e Red Riding Hood, The Frog Prince, The Practical Princess, and Goldilocks. 8  150  semantic competence, the right hemidecorticate subject was significantly superior to the left hemidecorticate subjects on syntactic knowledge. Although the small number of subjects enabled Lovett at a l . to examine a large number of variables, i t also renders their conclusions regarding hemisphere-dependent differences somewhat premature, particularly in view of the many individual differences that were found.  A second reservation  concerns conclusions drawn without discussion of possible contextual or task effects.  Based on their retrieval analysis, for example, the authors conclu-  ded that a l l three subjects expressed primarily endophoric relations. However, since a l l subjects were free to use puppets in their retellings, i t seems probable that the pronouns classified as endophoric also contained an exophoric component - for both speaker and listener.  Another important  contextual factor was the informed status of the listener, i.e. the experimenter who had just read the story to the subject.  The fact that the stories  were well-known fairytales no doubt also contributed to the shape of the results. A l l three of the above investigations represent i n i t i a l attempts to discover something about the discourse reference s k i l l s of language impaired populations; the territory clearly remains uncharted.  The neglect of this  area i s surprising in view of the frequency of complaints by teachers and language clinicians concerning students whose difficulties appear to be connected to reference s k i l l s or lack thereof ( e.g. "unable to maintain topic," " d i f f i c u l t to follow," etc.).  Given the increasing demands placed  particularly on school-age children to understand and produce longer and more abstract texts as they progress through the school system, i t seems crucial to gain some understanding of what i t means to linguistically create and then to  151 follow up on one's referents. Some information is available from the developmental literature.  In the research presented below, function-oriented  analyses have been borrowed from developmental studies in an attempt to examine the nature of the difficulties language impaired children experience in their use of referential devices to create, maintain, and switch reference. More specifically, the alternation of nominal and pronominal devices will be analyzed to determine what i t reveals about the child's ability both to establish and maintain reference and to cohesively organize thematic progression in narratives. Since there is l i t t l e information available, l i t t l e can be confidently predicted beyond what was suggested by the results of the retrieval analysis presented in chapter five, namely a greater reliance on the part of language impaired children on definite expressions to introduce participants.  Based on the findings of Karmiloff-Smith and Bamberg regarding  the youngest children in their studies, one might also expect to find the use of a more rigid global or thematic subject strategy in the narratives of the language impaired children than in those of normal language children.  Results  Devices used by the children to create, maintain, and switch reference were analyzed according to a method devised by Bamberg (1987).  The narratives  obtained from TI (picture narration) and T2 (retell of the same story without pictures) provided the data.  Analysis of the forms used to create reference  (first mentions) was restricted to three protagonists:  the ship's crew and  passengers (hereafter referred to simply as passengers),  the ape, and the  little girl.  To investigate linguistic devices used to maintain and switch  152 reference, references to the two major protagonists, the passengers and the ape, were analyzed.  In addition to Bamberg's procedure, nominal versus  pronominal references were also compared as a function of sentence position (subject versus nonsubject position).  Analysis  of First  Mentions  Each linguistic device used to introduce the passengers, ape, and g i r l was assigned to one of two categories: appropriate versus inappropriate. Appropriate forms consisted of the following: indefinite article + noun (e.g. an  ape,  some people),  nonphoric  this  or these,  possessive pronoun + noun,  numerative + noun (e.g. three  men), and comparative + noun (e.g. "another  wierd person with a beard").  There were two types of inappropriate forms that  occurred:  definite article + noun, and pronouns.  terms for the passengers, including people,  The children used various  men, sailors,  and voyageur  team.  9  When a collective term was not used (e.g. "a dad and a few sailors"), the individual participants were coded separately. Absolute frequencies of occurrence are provided in table XV. The data for a l l three protagonists have been collapsed. Normal language children used a greater percentage of appropriate devices than language impaired children on both tasks:  95% and 89% of NL children's devices were appropriate on Tl and  T2 respectively, compared to 73% and 60% of LI children's devices on the same tasks.  The most common appropriate device used by both groups was indefinite  article + noun constructions. There were more instances of nonphoric these  this  and  for f i r s t mentions in the data of NL children than in the data of LI  children on both tasks; half of those used by NL children occurred in the 9  Only one child actually used the term passengers  in one of his stories.  153 Table XV.—Number of Each Type of Introductory Device (First Mention) used by LI and NL Children on TI and T2. TI (picture-based) LE  T2 (retell,no pictures)  NL  LI  NL  7  9  Introductory devices Appropriate devices: indefin.art.+ noun  10  nonphoric this, these  14  1  possess.pron.+ noun numerative + noun comparative + noun  2 2 1  total appropriate percent appropriate  4  3  1  6  1 -  2 -  1  16 73%  19 95%  12 60%  17 89%  definite art.+ noun pronoun  5 1  1 -  7 1  2 -  total inappropriate ( % inappropriate)  6 27%  1 5%  8 40%  2 11%  Inappropriate devices:  stories of one subject who introduced a l l three protagonists in both stories in this way. The majority of inappropriate devices involved the use of definite forms.  A single instance occurred in the data of NL children on TI  and two instances on T2; a l l three involved references to the g i r l .  LI  children, on the other hand, used definite forms in their introductions to a l l three protagonists.  Use of a pronoun occurred in the data of one LI child  only; on both tasks, he introduced the passengers by means of they.  Switching  and Maintaining  Reference  Each subsequent reference to the passengers and to the ape (in a l l sentence positions) was coded according to i t s form nal) and i t s function  (nominal versus pronomi-  (switch versus maintain reference).  Nominal expressions  included definite article + noun constructions and proper nouns. Pronominals  154 consisted of third person singular and plural pronouns (he, and zero form.  she,  it,  Possessives were excluded following Bamberg's procedure.  referential device was coded as maintaining  reference  they)  and 10  A  (MR) i f no other entity  capable of contributing to the thematic progression of the story intervened between the device and i t s immediately preceding 6.5  antecedent:  and the people followed the big path/ and then they came to a big suspension bridge  In 6.5,  they  was coded as a pronominal form serving to maintain reference,  since no animate entity intervened between i t and an immediately mention of the same entity (the  people).  11  preceding  If reference to'a different entity  intervened, the device was coded as switching 6.6 then the ape looked up/ and the g i r l was falling/ and tie ape grabbed the g i r l .  reference  (SR):  In 6.6, the second occurrence of the ape is coded as a nominal serving to switch reference since another entity ( the immediately preceding reference to the ape.  girl)  intervened between i t and the  Zero forms in coordinated clauses  with subject e l l i p s i s were coded as maintaining reference to the preceding subject whether or not an animate entity intervened: 6.7  then the monkey picked her up and [9] put her on his head  The zero form in the adjoined clause was coded as maintaining reference to the monkey in spite of the intervening reference to the g i r l  (her).  Table XVIa,b (Tl and T2 respectively) summarizes the distribution of According to Bamberg, whether an object belongs to one protagonist or to another is irrelevant to the thematic progress of the story. ^ E n t i t i e s capable of contributing to thematic progress were usually animate. There were two exceptions: ship and airplane. In some narratives, the ship carried the people back to their home in New York, and the airplane 10  dropped  a message  to the  ape.  155 Table XVI.—Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal and Pronominal Devices used by L I and NL Children t o Switch versus Maintain Reference t o the Passengers and t o the Ape: (a) on T l and (b) on T2 (a) Task 1 (Picture-based) LI Switch  NL  Maintain  Sum  Switch  Maintain  Sum  % t o PASSENGERS Nominal  6.2  (9)  -  6.2  (9)  N  8.6 (18)  -  8.6 (18)  P  27.4 (57)  63.9(133)  91.3(190)  Sum  36.1 (75)  63.9(133)  (208)  Prcncndnal  37.5 (54)  56.2 (81)  93.8(135)  Sum  43.8 (63)  56.2 (81)  (144)  Nominal  31.1  11.9  Pronominal Sum  % t o APE (42)  (16)  43.0 (58)  N  32.5 (51)  29.6 (40)  27.4 (37)  57.0 (77)  P  60.7 (82)  39.3 (53)  (135)  7.6  (12)  40.1 (63)  24.2 (38)  35.7 (56)  59.9 (94)  Sum  56.7 (89)  43.3 (68)  (157)  % t o PASSENGERS + APE Nominal  18.3  Prcoaninal Sum  (51)  5.7  (16)  24.0 (67)  N  18.9 (69)  3.3 (12)  22.2 (81)  33.7 (94)  42.3(118)  76.0(212)  P  26.0 (95)  51.8(189)  77.8(284)  52.0(145)  48.0(134)  (279)  Sum  44.9(164)  55.1(201)  (365)  (b) Task 2 ( R e t e l l . without Pictures) LI Switch  NL  Maintain  Sum  Switch  Maintain  Sum  % t o PASSENGERS Nominal  1.6  (2)  2.5  (3)  4.1  (5)  N  10.0 (16)  P  23.8 (38)  65.0(104)  88.8(142)  Sum  33.8 (54)  66.2(106)  (160)  Pronominal  32.2 (39)  63.6 (77)  95.9(116)  Sum  33.9 (41)  66.1 (80)  (121)  1.2  (2)  11.2  (18)  % t o APE Nominal  42.0 (34)  Prcncndnal  12.3  Sum  7.4  (6)  49.4 (40)  N  39.8 (47)  (10)  38.3 (31)  50.6 (41)  P  54.3 (44)  45.7 (37)  (81)  1.7  (2)  41.5 (49)  15.3 (18)  43.2 (51)  58.5 (69)  Sum  55.1 (65)  44.9 (53)  (118)  % t o PASSENGERS + APE Nominal  17.8 (36)  Pronominal Sum  4.4  (9)  22.3 (45)  N  22.7 (63)  24.3 (49)  53.5(108)  77.7(157)  P  42.1 (85)  57.9(117)  (202)  Sum  1.4  (4)  24.1 (67)  20.1 (56)  55.8(155)  75.9(211)  42.8(119)  57.2(159)  (278)  156 referential devices according to function. children have been collapsed.  The observations of individual  NL children referred slightly more often to the  passengers than to the ape on both tasks (57.0% of the referential devices involved the passengers on TI and 57.6% on T2).  LI children referred almost  as often to the ape (48.4%) as to the passengers (51.6%) on TI in spite of the fact that the ape did not appear until one-third of the way through the story. The passengers received greater focus by LI children on T2 (59.9%) than on TI. NL children and LI children, therefore, performed similarly on T2 with respect to distribution of focus between the two protagonists. When the functions of maintaining and switching reference were compared irrespective of the forms used, both groups maintained reference more often than they switched reference to the passengers on both tasks.  This was not an  unexpected finding, given the greater number of total references to the passengers as reported above.  NL children performed similarly on both tasks.  LI children used a smaller percentage of devices to maintain reference than NL children on TI (63.9% to maintain by NL children versus 56.2% by LI children), but increased this percentage on T2 so that the two groups performed identically on T2 (66.1 and 66.2% of devices to maintain reference to the passengers by LI and NL respectively).  With respect to the ape, both groups switched  reference more often than they maintained i t on both tasks. When nominal versus pronominal forms (to the passengers and the ape combined) were compared irrespective of function, the two groups shared almost identical distributions on both tasks:  both groups used a pronominal in three  out of four references to the two protagonists (combined).  References to the  passengers by both groups involved a pronominal form over 90% of the time with NL children tending to use a slightly smaller proportion of pronominals than  157 LI children, particularly on T2 (88.8% by NL compared to 95.6% by LI).  A  preference for pronominals was also evident, albeit to a lesser degree, in references to the ape by NL children on both tasks and by LI children on TI. On T2, LI children showed an even split between nominals and pronominals to refer to the ape. The distribution of nominal versus pronominal forms according to the function served i s summarized in tables XVIIa,b and XVIIIa,b.  As table XVIIa  indicates, both groups showed a preference for pronominal forms to  switch  reference to the passengers on both tasks; the preference of LI children was stronger than that of NL children on both tasks.  LI children increased their  percentage of pronominals to switch reference to the passengers (from 85.7% on TI to 95.1% on T2) whereas those of NL children decreased (76.0% on TI to 70.4% on T2). Group and task differences were also evident when devices used to switch reference to the ape were compared.  NL children used a greater percentage of  nominals than pronominals to switch reference to the ape on both tasks.  LI  children showed an even split between pronominals and nominals to switch reference to the ape on TI but used a greater proportion of nominals than pronominals on T2 (51.2% nominals on TI to 77.3% on T2). NL children also increased the percentage of nominals to switch reference to the ape on T2 (from 57.3% on TI to 72.3% on T2). The distribution of nominal versus pronominal forms used to reference i s shown in table XVIIIa,b.  maintain  Both groups used pronominals to  maintain reference to the passengers almost 100% of the time on both tasks. Both groups also preferred pronominals to nominals to maintain reference to the ape.  NL children used a greater percentage of pronominals to maintain  158 Table XVII.—Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal versus Pronominal Devices used by LI and NL Children to Switch Reference to the Passengers and to the Ape: (a) on TI and (b) on T2 (a) Task 1 (Picture-based) SWITCH REFERENCE % to PASSENGERS  % to APE  % to PASSENGERS + APE  LI  NL  LI  Nominal  14.3 (9)  24.0 (18  51.2 (42) 57.3 (51)  35.2 (51) 42.1 (69)  Pronominal  85.7 (54) 76.0 (57)  48.8 (40) 42.7 (38)  64.8 (94) 57.9 (95)  Sum  100% (63)  (75)  NL  (82)  LI  (89)  NL  (145)  (164)  (b) Task 2 (Retell, without Pictures) LI  NL  LI  NL  LI  4.9 (2)  29.6 (16)  77.3 (34)  72.3 (47)  42.4 (36) 52.9 (63)  Pronominal  95.1 (39)  70.4 (38)  22.7 (10) 27.7 (18)  Sum  100% (41)  Nominal  (54)  (44)  NL  57.6 (49)  (65)  47.1 (56)  (85)  (119)  Table XVIII.—Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal versus Pronominal Devices used by LI and NL Children to Maintain Reference to the Passengers and to the Ape: (a) on TI and (b) on T2 (a) Task 1 (Picture-based) MAINTAIN REFERENCE % to PASSENGERS LI  NL  -  Nominal  % to APE  Pronominal  100.0(81)  Sum  100% (81)  LI  100.0(133)  % to PASSENGERS + APE NL  LI  NL  30.2 (16) 17.6 (12)  11.9 (16)  69.8 (37) 82.4 (56)  88.1(118)  94.0(189)  (134)  (201)  (133)  (53)  (68)  6.0 (12)  (b) Task 2 (Retell, without Pictures) LI Nominal  3.8 (3)  LI  NL 1.9 (2)  Pronominal  96.2 (77) 98.1(104)  Sum  100% (80)  (106)  NL  16.2 (6)  3.8 (2)  83.8 (31) 96.2 (51) (37)  NL  LI  (53)  7.7 (9)  2.5 (4)  92.3(108)  97.5(155)  (117)  (159)  159 reference to the ape than LI children on both tasks (82.4% by NL children compared to 69.8% by LI children on TI, and 96.2% by NL children compared to 83.8% by LI children on T2).  The percentage of nominals decreased consider-  ably on T2 for both groups, to a negligible amount in the NL data (3.8%).  Sentence  Position  The narratives obtained on TI and T2 once again provided the data for the analysis.  The passengers, ape, and minor characters were coded as to whether  they occurred in subject or nonsubject position and whether a nominal or pronominal form was used.  Minor characters were treated as a group and  included any potential actor capable of advancing thematic progression of the story (e.g. the g i r l , her father, the captain of the ship, the natives on the island, and others).  Subjects of subordinate and adjoined clauses with  subject e l l i p s i s were included in the analysis. Distribution of devices according to sentence position (subject versus nonsubject) and protagonist is summarized in table XIXa,b.  Distribution of  focus between the passengers and the ape was reported in the previous section. The percentage of references to minor characters combined was highly similar across groups and tasks (27 to 30%).  Both groups showed a small preference  for nominal forms to refer to minor characters irrespective of sentence position; the preference was stronger for LI children than NL children on both tasks (63.2 and 61.9% on TI and T2 respectively for LI children compared to 54.5 and 55.3% for NL children).  No task differences were present.  A comparison of subject versus nonsubject positions, irrespective of form, showed that both groups preferred subject position to refer to a l l three "protagonists" (passengers, ape,and minor characters combined).  However, the  160 Table XIX. —Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Nominal and Pronominal Devices in Subject versus Nonsubject Position as used by LI and NL Children to refer to the Passengers, Ape, and Minor Characters: (a) on Tland (b) on T2 (a) Task 1 (picture-based) LI Subject  NL  Nonsubject Total  Subject  Nonsubject Total  % to PASSENGERS Naninal  9.5 (13)  Pronominal  90.5(124)  Total  91.3(137)  7.7 (1)  9.3 (14)  92.3 (12) 90.7(136) 8.7 (13)  (150)  N  10.1 (19) 25.0 (7)  P  89.9(170)  75.0 (21) 88.0(191)  Total  87.1(189)  12.9 (28)  12.0 (26) (217)  % to APE Nominal  39.8 (45) 62.1 (18) 44.4 (63)  N  38.8 (52) 65.5 (19) 43.6 (71)  Pronominal  60.2 (68) 37.9 (11) 55.6 (79)  P  61.2 (82) 34.5 (10) 56.4 (92)  Total  79.6(113)  20.4 (29)  (142)  Total  82.2(134)  17.8 (29)  (163)  % to MINOR CHARACTERS Naninal  70.3 (45) 52.4 (22) 63.2 (67)  N  58.5 (48) 49.2 (31) 54.5 (79)  Pronominal  29.7 (19) 47.6 (20) 36.8 (39)  P  41.5 (34) 50.8 (32) 45.5 (66)  Total  60.4 (64) 39.6 (42)  (106)  Total  56.6 (82) 43.4 (63)  (145)  (b) Task 2 (Retell, without Pictures) LI Subject  NL  Nonsubject Total  Subject  Nonsubject Total  % to PASSENGERS Naninal  6.7 (8)  25.0 (2)  7.9 (10)  Pronominal  93.2(111)  75.0 (6)  92.1(117)  Total  93.7(119)  6.3 (8)  (127)  N  14.4 (22) 15.4 (2)  P  85.6(131)  Total  92.2(153)  14.5 (24)  84.6 (11) 85.5(142) 7.8 (13)  (166)  % to APE Naninal  44.1 (30) 85.7 (18) 53.9 (48)  N  39.2 (40) 68.2 (15) 44.4 (55)  Pronominal  55.9 (38) 14.3 (3)  P  60.8 (62) 31.8 (7)  Total  76.4 (68) 23.6 (21)  46.1 (41) (89)  Total  82.3(102)  17.7 (22)  55.6 (69) (124)  % to MINOR CHARACTERS Naninal  60.5 (26) 63.4 (26) 61.9 (52)  N  58.2 (39) 51.8 (29) 55.3 (68)  Pronominal  39.5 (17) 36.6 (15) 38.1 (32)  P  41.8 (28) 48.2 (27) 44.7 (55)  Total  51.2 (43) 48.8 (41)  (84)  Total  54.5 (67) 45.5 (56)  (123)  161 strength of this preference varied depending on the protagonist.  References  to the passengers occurred in subject position approximately 90% of the time and in nonsubject position 10% of the time.  Those to the ape occurred in  subject position approximately 80% of the time. ters occurred in subject position approximately  References to minor charac60% of the time on T l . LI  children reduced the percentage of subject position references to minor characters from 60.4% on Tl to 51.2% on T2. Distribution of focus between the protagonists in terms of subject position alone is shown in table XXa,b. Both groups reserved subject position for the passengers more often than for the ape, and for the ape more often than for minor characters combined.  For LI children, the tendency to reserve  subject position for the passengers increased on T2, rising from 43.6% to 51.7% of references occurring in subject position. LI children showed a corresponding decrease in the percentage of subject position references to the ape on T2 compared to Tl (29.6% on T2 compared to 36.0% on T l ) .  The perfor-  mance of the normal language children was consistent across tasks:  approxi-  mately half of subject position references were made to the passengers, 30% to the ape and 20% to minor characters combined. Distribution of focus as a function of nonsubject position is displayed in table XXIa,b.  In general, nonsubject position references involved minor  characters more often than the ape, and the ape more often than the passengers.  The groups performed almost identically with respect to the percentage  of nonsubject position references involving minor characters; both groups increased these references from approximately 50% on Tl to 60% on T2.  The  groups differed, however, with respect to nonsubject references to the passengers and the ape.  On both tasks, particularly T l , nonsubject  references  162 Table XX.—Distribution of Focus in Subject Position: Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Referential Devices in Subject Position that Refer to the Passengers, Ape, or Minor Characters as Used by LI and NL Children: (a) on TL and (b) on T2 SUBJECT POSITION % to PASSENGERS  (a) Task 1 (Picture-^ased) % to APE  % to MINOR CH.  TOTAL  LI Nominal  12.6 (13)  43.7 (45)  43.7 (45)  32.8 (103)  Pronominal  58.8 (124)  32.2 (68)  9.0 (19)  67.2 (211)  Total  43.6 (137)  36.0 (113)  20.4 (64)  Nominal  16.0 (19)  43.7 (52)  40.3 (48)  29.4 (119)  Pronominal  59.4 (170)  28.7 (82)  11.9 (34)  70.6 (286)  Total  46.7 (189)  33.1 (134)  20.2 (82)  (314)  NL  (405)  (b) Task 2 (Retell, without Pictures) % to PASSENGERS  % to APE  % to MINOR CH.  TOTAL  LI Nominal  12.5 (8)  46.9 (30)  40.6 (26)  27.8 (64)  Pronominal  66.9 (111)  22.9 (38)  10.2 (17)  72.2 (166)  Total  51.7 (119)  29.6 (68)  18.7 (43)  Nominal  21.8 (22)  39.6 (40)  38.6 (39)  31.4 (101)  Pronominal  59.3 (131)  28.1 (62)  12.7 (28)  68.6 (221)  Total  47.5 (153)  31.7 (102)  20.8 (67)  (230)  NL  (322)  by NL children involved the passengers more often and the ape less often than nonsubject references by LI children. With respect to the type of referential device used, pronominals were used to refer to the passengers when they occurred in subject position an overwhelming majority of the time for both groups (see table XIXa,b). The groups performed almost identically on TI, pronominals being used approximately 90% of the time; on T2, NL children used a greater percentage of  163 Table XXI. —Distribution of Focus in Nonsubject Position: Percentage (and Absolute Number) of Referential Devices in Nonsubject Position that Refer to the Passengers, Ape, or Minor Characters as Used by LI and NL Children: (a) on Tl and (b) on T2 NONSUBJECT POSITION  (a) Task 1 (Picture-based)  % to PASSENGERS  % to APE  % to MINOR CH.  TOTAL  LI Naninal  2.4  (1)  43.9 (18)  53.7  (22)  48.8  (41)  51.2  (43)  Pronominal  27.9  (12)  25.6  (11)  46.5  (20)  Total  15.5  (13)  34.5  (29)  50.0  (42)  (84)  Nominal  12.3  (7)  33.3  (19)  54.4  (31)  47.5 (57)  Pronominal  33.3  (21)  15.9  (10)  50.8  (32)  52.5 (63)  Total  23.3  (28)  24.1  (29)  52.5 (63)  (120)  NL  (b) Task 2 (Retell, without Pictures) % to PASSENGERS  % to APE  % to MINOR CH.  TOTAL  LI Nominal  4.3  (2)  39.1 (18)  56.5  (26)  65.7  (46)  Pronominal  25.0  (6)  12.5  (3)  62.5  (15)  34.3  (24)  Total  11.4  (8)  30.0  (21)  58.6  (41)  4.3  (2)  32.6  (15)  63.0  (29)  50.5  (46)  Pronominal  24.4  (11)  15.6  (7)  60.0  (27)  49.5  (45)  Total  14.3  (13)  24.2  (22)  61.5  (56)  (70)  NL Nominal  nominals than LI children.  (91)  When referring to the ape in subject position, the  groups performed identically on T l , using pronominals approximately 60% of the time and nominals 40% of the time; on T2, LI children increased their percentage of nominals.  As noted above, minor characters occurred least frequently  in subject position; when they did, nominals tended to be the preferred form. This preference was stronger for LI children than for NL children on Tl, but both groups performed similarly on T2.  164 As noted above, nonsubject position was most frequently f i l l e d by minor characters.  Distribution of nominals versus pronominals in nonsubject  position for minor characters showed a f a i r l y even split except for LI children on T2; they increased the percentage of pronominals from 52% on TI to 63% on T2. nals.  Nonsubject references to the ape usually took the form of nomi-  On TI, the groups performed similarly, involving nominals in 60 to 65%  of their nonsubject references to the ape.  NL children performed consistently  across tasks; LI children increased their use of nominals from 62% on TI to 86% on T2, resulting in a considerably  greater use of nominals for the ape in  nonsubject position than LI children on T2.  There were too few nonsubject  references to the passengers to permit meaningful comparisons.  As in subject  position, pronominals were preferred in the majority of cases. Distribution of focus in terms of nominal versus pronominal forms i s shown in tables XXa,b, and XXIa,b. similarly on TI (table XXa):  In subject position, both groups performed  nominals in subject position usually referred  either to the ape (44% of the time) or to minor characters (40-44%).  Pronomi-  nals in subject position usually referred to the passengers (60% of the time) and somewhat less frequently to the ape (29-32% of the time).  Nominals were  rarely used to the passenger in subject position (13-16%), and pronominals were rarely used for minor characters in subject position (9-12%). Group and task differences were found on T2 (table XXb).  Nominals in subject position  s t i l l referred to the ape and to minor characters more often than to the pasengers, but more of the NL children's nominals in subject position referred to the passengers on T2 than on TI whereas more of the LI children's nominals in subject position referred to the ape.  With respect to pronominals in  subject position, LI children used a greater percentage than NL children to  165 refer to the passengers and a smaller percentage to refer to the ape. In nonsubject position (table XXIa,b), the percentage of nominals to refer to the passengers was very small on both tasks.  Just over half of  nonsubject nominals referred to minor characters on TI; this percentage rose somewhat on T2 for NL children.  On both tasks, a greater percentage of the  nonsubject nominals used by LI children referred to the ape than those used by NL children.  With respect to nonsubject pronominals, those of LI children  referred more often to the ape than those of NL children on TI. On T2, the groups perfomed identically with approximately 60% referring to minor characters, 25% to the passengers and 15% to the ape.  Discussion  Creating  Reference  An analysis of the devices used to create reference to the main protagonists of a narrative revealed the use of a greater percentage of inappropriate devices on the part of language impaired children than normal language children.  Nearly a l l devices judged inappropriate involved the use of  definite article + noun constructions.  This finding i s a subset of a more  general one reported in chapter five, namely that of a higher use by language impaired children of what was coded as exophora.  Those results were interpre-  ted as supporting a difference in coding orientation between the two groups: the language impaired children demonstrated a greater reliance on the nonverbal context and were less likely to selfcontextualize than the normal language children.  The results of chapter five and those reported in the present  chapter suggest that the code of language impaired children resembles in some  166 respects that of young children as described in developmental studies (Warden 1976, Karmiloff-Smith 1979, Hickmann 1980, Martin 1983, Bamberg 1987). results support the findings of Caro & Schneider  The  (1982), who found that  adolescents with production problems used fewer appropriate referent-creating devices for f i r s t mentions than normal subjects in discourse. The finding of a high use of indefinite constructions to introduce participants by the normal language children conflicts with the findings of Bamberg (1987).  His normal adults used definite constructions in approxi-  mately half of their introductions. The children used an even higher percentage; the youngest never used indefinite forms.  However, Bamberg's narratives  were gathered in conditions that would lend themselves to a higher use of definite reference:  both the child and caregiver could see the pictures, and  both were very familiar with the story before the data that was eventually analyzed was collected.  Bamberg's  results, together with those of the  current study, underline the importance of a major tenet of systemic functional grammar, namely that the selection of a particular form is highly dependent on contextual factors. Certain forms, such as referent-creating devices, appear to be more highly sensitive to contextual factors than others. The selection of these forms appears to vary according to the age of the child (as reported in developmental studies) and according to linguistic "intactness" as suggested by the results of the present study and by the findings of Caro & Schneider (1982). Further research is required which will examine the productions of language impaired versus normal language children in response to varying contextual configurations and which will investigate the nature of individual strategies.  One of the normal language children of the present study, for  167 example, introduced most of his referents with nonexophoric this 6.8  or  these:  there was these people that got on some kind of boat/ and they spot this island/ . . . I and they find this indian tribe/ and they have a l l these little huts sitting on sticks/ . . . / and they see this ape swinging on a swing with this big tree that crosses through this canyon (SC5, Tl)  According to Halliday & Hasan, the use of nonphoric this  or these,  as in 6.8,  is typical of "highly coded, in-group speech" used by a speaker to convey "a sense of immediacy and also of solidarity with the hearer" (1976: 61), i.e. one of the means narrators have at their disposal for emphasizing common experience with their listeners.  A second, related function may be to direct  the listener to what the speaker i s currently focusing on.  In addition to  f i r s t mentions, many subsequent references in the data of this particular child also contained this  or these.  These, too, may have been motivated by  the speaker's intent to convey shared interest and/or focus to the listener.  Switching  and Maintaining  Reference  With respect to distribution of focus among the story's protagonists, the passengers were referred to more often than the ape, which in turn was referred to more often than a l l minor characters combined.  The increased  number of references to the passengers was no doubt due to the fact that the ape did not appear in the pictures until one-third of the way through the story.  There was one exception to the above trend, however; on Tl, the  language impaired children referred just as often to the ape as to the passengers.  Since a l l speakers familiarized themselves with the story as told  by the pictures before  actually telling i t , this finding suggests a slightly  different planning strategy between the two groups, at least on T l .  On that  task, normal language children tended to organize their utterances more around  168 the passengers and to focus less on the ape than the language impaired children.  A similar finding was reported by Bamberg (1987) in his developmen-  tal study.  Despite the fact that the two main characters of his stimulus  story were depicted equally as often, both adults and older children tended to refer to the human protagonist (the boy) more frequently than to the nonhuman protagonist (the dog). younger subjects.  This difference was less pronounced, however, in his  In the present study, the difference in the number of  references to the passengers and to the ape may not solely be explained by the number of pictures involving each protagonist but also by the way each character i s perceived with respect to potential for advancing thematic progression.  The normal language children, like the adults and older children  of Bamberg's study and unlike the language impaired children, seemed to render this distinction in the number of references made to each protagonist.  On  r e t e l l , the language impaired children altered their distribution of focus in the direction of the normal language children's performance. The above findings on distribution of focus no doubt relate to the results obtained from a comparison of devices used to switch versus maintain reference irrespective of the forms used.  The increase in the percentage of  devices used to maintain reference by the language impaired children on T2 parallels their increase in the number of references made to the passengers on that task.  Once again the two groups performed almost identically on T2 due  to a change on the part of the language impaired children. The normal language children on both tasks and the language impaired children on T2 tended to organize their stories more around the passengers and to t e l l them in such a way that reference was maintained more often than switched. was not the case for references to the ape:  This  both groups switched reference  169 more often than they maintained i t .  The greater percentage of reference-  switching devices for the ape may be due both to the distribution of focus in favor of the passengers as suggested above and to story content.  In two  sections of the narrative—at the outset of the story and after the passengers leave the natives in search of the ape—there are several pictures in which no potential actors other than the passengers are depicted.  This results in at  least two sequences of several utterances in which reference to the pasengers is maintained due to the absence of other characters.  There are no such  sequences involving the ape alone. Story content may also account for the greater percentage of devices used to maintain reference by the children in the present study compared to the children of Bamberg's study.  The latter switched reference almost twice as  often as they maintained i t in their references to both the boy and the dog. The adults of his study maintained and switched reference in equal proportions.  Bamberg's finding of a greater use of reference maintaining devices by  the older children and adults compared to the younger children parallels the greater use of devices to maintain reference to the passengers by the normal language children compared to the language impaired children on TI of the present study. When nominal versus pronominal references to the two main protagonists combined were compared, the groups performed almost identically.  However,  this finding is misleading on i t s own. When references to the passengers and those to the ape were examined separately, i t immediately became evident that the two characters were being treated differently with respect to the form of the referential device.  The children used pronominals to refer to the  passengers 90% of the time or more compared to 60% of the time when referring  170 to the ape. factor.  Potential for advancing the story's plot may once again be a  Bamberg found a similar trend towards a greater use of pronouns for  animate characters (the boy) than inanimate particularly in his younger subjects.  He concluded that for the young child, pronominal forms were "the  prototypical candidates for thematic progression, while nominal forms are adding on information that does not directly contribute to thematic progression" (1987: 96).  This kind of explanation can only partially account for the  results of the present study since the ape, too, had a significant role to play in advancing thematic progression. The greater use of nominal forms for the ape than for the passengers may indeed be related to an animate/inanimate distinction, but this distinction may not neatly match up with direct/indirect contribution to thematic progression respectively. grammatical number:  Another possible factor i s  i t may have been relatively more d i f f i c u l t to come up  with a collective term for the passengers than to refer to a singular noun. In addition, each child was told the name of the story, i.e. The Great  Ape,  so  that this character was named for the child; the passengers, on the other hand, were not "named" in any way. The next step in the analysis was to examine the relation between the particular form used and the function i t served.  As noted, the adults of  Bamberg's study consistently used nominal expressions to switch reference and pronominal expressions to maintain reference. The young children of his study used this "anaphoric" strategy only when referring to the dog; only the oldest children showed evidence of a similar strategy when referring to the boy.  The  normal language children of the present study performed more like the adults and older children of Bamberg's study than did the language impaired children: they used more nominals to switch reference and more pronominals to maintain  171 reference than the language impaired children. This generalization held for references to either of the main protagonists (passengers or ape). effects were also apparent.  Task  The normal language group tended to move in the  direction of a more adultlike strategy in their retellings (T2).  The language switch  impaired children, however, increased their percentage of pronouns to reference to the passengers from 86% on Tl to 95% on T2, resulting in a  considerably higher percentage on T2 than that of normal language children on the same task (95% versus 70%). The forms used to either switch or maintain reference varied considerably depending on whether reference was made to the passenger or to the ape.  All  the children of the present study resembled the young children of Bamberg's study in their high use of pronouns to switch reference to the passengers and to a lesser degree to the ape.  Even the normal language children on T2, for  example, used a pronominal form 70% of the time when they switched reference to the passengers. There are a number of factors that may have contributed to the different results obtained on the two studies. One of these concerns the greater familiarity with the stimulus story on the part of Bamberg's subjects. Some support for this was found in the present study in the types of changes that were made on retell of the same story, changes which, for the normal language children, were often in the direction of a more adultlike strategy.  Story  content may be a second factor. The stimulus story used in the present study involved more participants and was much longer than Bamberg's story. Number and gender differences of the main protagonists, for example, certainly played a role.  In Bamberg's story, the two main protagonists, the boy and the dog,  could be referred to by means of the same pronoun {be).  In such a story, the  172 need f o r an increased number of nominals when reference i s switched from one protagonist to the other i s obviously greater than i n the present study i n which the main protagonists d i f f e r e d i n number (passengers [pi] versus  ape  [sg]) and i n gender ( i n sections of the n a r r a t i v e i n v o l v i n g the g i r l ) .  Number  and gender information c a r r i e d by a p a r t i c u l a r pronoun may have s u f f i c e d i n many cases to "switch reference."  The fact that the present study used a  longer s t o r y than that of Bamberg's may have r e s u l t e d i n a greater use of pronouns as the s t o r y progressed, i . e . as the l i s t e n e r ' s store of knowledge about story protagonists grew. This appeared to be the case i n a study by Marslen-Wilson,  Levy, & Tyler (1982):  t h e i r normal adult subject i n c r e a s i n g l y  r e f e r r e d to story protagonists i n l e s s s p e c i f i c ways as the s t o r y progressed. In the present study, even when speakers appeared to adhere to an " a d u l t l i k e " strategy, l i s t e n e r s were s t i l l i n some cases required to r e f e r to t h e i r growing representation of the story's characters and events i n order to i n t e r p r e t the r e f e r e n t i a l devices used.  In the f o l l o w i n g excerpt from a story  by a normal language c h i l d (T2), f o r example, the speaker used a nominal to switch reference and a pronominal to maintain reference, but the same nominal i s used to switch reference to two d i f f e r e n t groups of people: the passengers of the ship and the natives of the i s l a n d : 6.9  then the people came out and they ran o f f / they h i d / the t u r t l e s kept r a c i n g / then the people went on/ they found t h i s big t r a i l on then the people ran back out watching the t u r t l e race/ and the people followed the b i g and and and and and and and  scared the  voodoo  people  away/  a mountain/ of t h e i r h i d i n g places and kept path.  Bamberg's "anaphoric" strategy, the use of nominals to switch reference and pronominals to maintain reference, would not on i t s own provide enough  173 information to enable the l i s t e n e r to i d e n t i f y referents i n 6.9.  However, by  t h i s point i n the n a r r a t i v e the l i s t e n e r has already acquired knowledge about the story's characters.  This, i n a d d i t i o n to what i s predicated about the  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 6.9,  enables the l i s t e n e r to r e a d i l y i d e n t i f y the speaker's  intended r e f e r e n t s .  Since the voodoo people are the ones that were scared  away, they are the ones that "ran o f f , " " h i d , " and who l a t e r "ran back out of t h e i r h i d i n g place and kept watching the t u r t l e race."  The passengers from  the ship are the only p o s s i b l e referent f o r the people who scared the voodoo people away," and  who  "came out  and  "went on" and "found t h i s big t r a i l  on a mountain," since they were the ones who had been going from one place to another discovering things on the i s l a n d . plays a r o l e : reference.  The "anaphoric" strategy s t i l l  the use of a nominal appears to at l e a s t s i g n a l a change i n  Each time the  people  i s used, a change i n reference i s intended.  The above comments were intended to point out some l i m i t a t i o n s of the method of a n a l y s i s used by Bamberg and adopted i n the present study.  Bam-  berg's "anaphoric" strategy must not be generalized beyond the s p e c i f i c context i n which i t occurred. The d i f f e r e n c e s between h i s f i n d i n g s and those of the present study underline the degree to which r e f e r e n t i a l devices are d i s c o u r s e - s e n s i t i v e and the need f o r research to examine a greater number of contexts before more general conclusions can be drawn.  The a n a l y s i s w i l l  require r e f i n i n g i n order to take i n t o account such c r u c i a l f a c t o r s as number and gender of major p a r t i c i p a n t s . The e f f e c t of more " i n t a n g i b l e " f a c t o r s such as the degree to which l e x i c a l information provided by p r i o r or subsequent predicates influences the speaker's choice of r e f e r e n t i a l devices — w i l l be more d i f f i c u l t to assess. Despite i t s l i m i t a t i o n s , the a n a l y s i s revealed d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of  174 r e f e r e n t i a l devices by normal language and language impaired c h i l d r e n .  The  r e s u l t s provided some evidence suggesting that language impaired c h i l d r e n were more l i k e the younger c h i l d r e n of Bamberg's study and l e s s l i k e the adults of his study than were t h e i r normal language peers.  Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t  f i n d i n g was the tendency f o r language impaired c h i l d r e n to use more pronouns to switch reference and more nominals to maintain reference than the normal language c h i l d r e n on both tasks.  I t was suggested i n the previous section,  that language impaired c h i l d r e n were not using conventional l i n g u i s t i c  forms  to introduce p a r t i c i p a n t s as c o n s i s t e n t l y as normal language c h i l d r e n , r e s u l t i n g i n the use of many d e f i n i t e forms f o r both f i r s t and subsequent mentions. A f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of subsequent mentions indicated once again a problem i n mapping form i n a conventional way to functions served. There are l i n g u i s t i c means a v a i l a b l e to mark given/new information and to i n d i c a t e that reference i s being switched or maintained. The r e s u l t s suggest that language impaired c h i l d r e n are marking these d i s t i n c t i o n s l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y than normal language c h i l d r e n , that they are indeed experiencing d i f f i c u l t y using discourses e n s i t i v e forms to mark d i s c o u r s e - l e v e l functions. I t i s important to add that the language impaired c h i l d r e n of the present study were able to make these d i s t i n c t i o n s some of the time.  The oppportunity  to r e t e l l the s t o r y appeared b e n e f i c i a l i n some respects; the language impaired c h i l d r e n performed more l i k e the normal language c h i l d r e n on T2 than on TI with respect to d i s t r i b u t i o n of focus among the protagonists and percentage of devices used to maintain versus switch reference to each of the protagonists i r r e s p e c t i v e of form.  However, when form was examined i n  conjunction with the function served, the language impaired c h i l d r e n d i d not perform as w e l l as normal language c h i l d r e n on e i t h e r task.  In the case of  175 at l e a s t one v a r i a b l e , i n f a c t , they moved i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n :  whereas  normal language c h i l d r e n increased t h e i r use of nominals to switch reference to the passengers on T2, the language impaired c h i l d r e n decreased the number of nominals i n t h e i r references to the passengers i n t h e i r r e t e l l i n g s .  This  w i l l be discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .  Thematic  Strategy  As noted above, comparison of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of nominal versus pronominal forms i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment of the two protagonists.  Karmi-  l o f f - S m i t h (1981) and Bamberg reported s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n t h e i r developmental studies.  The young c h i l d r e n of both studies appeared to make use of what the  authors c a l l e d a "thematic subject strategy."  For Karmiloff-Smith, t h i s  involved reserving the use of pronouns i n u t t e r a n c e - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n exclus i v e l y f o r the story's main protagonist; references to minor characters occurred i n nonsubject  p o s i t i o n i n the form of nominals.  Bamberg i n t e r p r e t e d  the preference, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the part of h i s younger subjects, f o r pronominal forms to r e f e r to the boy f o r both maintaining and switching reference as a manifestation of a s i m i l a r thematic strategy.  His a n a l y s i s , however, did  not compare the use of r e f e r e n t i a l devices as a function of subject versus nonsubject  position.  The r e s u l t s of such an a n a l y s i s i n the present  study  provide a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o the notion of "thematic strategy" as i t might occur i n a much longer n a r r a t i v e . Both normal language and language impaired groups appeared to be making some use of a thematic subject strategy, a l b e i t i n a much l e s s r i g i d form than the younger c h i l d r e n of Karmiloff-Smith's study.  Such a strategy would  account f o r the v a r i a t i o n observed i n the use of r e f e r e n t i a l devices as a  176 function of protagonist and subject p o s i t i o n .  The c h i l d r e n referred d i f f e r e n -  t l y to major versus minor characters, and also distinguished between major protagonists.  Minor characters occupied u t t e r a n c e - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n only 20%  of the time whereas over h a l f of nonsubject references involved minor characters.  Nominals f o r minor characters were preferred over pronominals i n  subject p o s i t i o n and were used as frequently as pronominals i n nonsubject position.  The passengers, on the other hand, occupied almost half of u t t e r -  a n c e - i n i t i a l references and were involved i n only 10% of nonsubject r e f e r ences.  Subject p o s i t i o n was preferred over nonsubject p o s i t i o n 90% of the  time when references to the passengers alone were considered. Pronominals were overwhelmingly preferred over nominals i n both subject and nonsubject p o s i t i o n t o r e f e r to the passengers.  A pronominal i n subject p o s i t i o n  r e f e r r e d most often (60% of the time) to the passengers. l i k e the passengers with respect t o sentence p o s i t i o n : preferred 80% of the time.  The ape was treated subject p o s i t i o n was  Pronominals were preferred i n subject p o s i t i o n but  to a l e s s e r degree than i n the case of the passengers.  In other respects, the  c h i l d r e n c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the ape and the passengers i n how r e f e r e n t i a l devices were deployed.  Only h a l f as many u t t e r a n c e - i n i t i a l  p o s i t i o n s involved the ape as they d i d the passengers, and a f a r weaker preference f o r pronominals was evident i n t h i s p o s i t i o n (60% compared to 90% i n the case of the passengers). Whereas pronominals were preferred i n references t o the passengers i n both subject and nonsubject p o s i t i o n s , nominals were preferred i n references to the ape i n nonsubject p o s i t i o n 60% to 70% of the time. The c h i l d r e n of the present study, though adhering to an a d u l t l i k e ("anaphoric") strategy t o a c e r t a i n degree i n t h e i r references t o the ape,  177 showed form and sentence p o s i t i o n preferences  which varied with the protago-  n i s t , i n p a r t i c u l a r with how c e n t r a l a r o l e he or she was perceived to play i n the story and perhaps with h i s or her humanness.  The ape was seen as having a  more c e n t r a l r o l e than any of the minor characters but not as c e n t r a l a r o l e as the passengers. preference  The "humanness" of the passengers may  explain the greater  f o r pronominals i n t h e i r case and the higher percentage of nominals  used f o r the ape.  In an attempt to explain s i m i l a r findings i n h i s own  data,  Bamberg suggested that the young narrator "measures along a continuum the importance of the protagonists:  an abstract object i s l e s s important f o r the  n a r r a t i v e progress than a concrete object; an inanimate l e s s than an animate; a non-human l e s s than a human" (1987: 95).  According  to Bamberg, The young  c h i l d tends to r e l a t e the use of pronouns more to the function of advancing story p l o t than to the function of maintaining reference.  He c a l l e d t h i s  strategy a g l o b a l one since "the function of the r e f e r r i n g device i s establ i s h e d for the text as a whole" (p.97). With respect to group d i f f e r e n c e s , the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of used to switch/maintain  devices  reference suggested that the normal language c h i l d r e n  were making greater use of Bamberg's "anaphoric" strategy than the language impaired c h i l d r e n .  The r e s u l t s of the sentence p o s i t i o n a n a l y s i s indicated  that, although both groups showed evidence of a thematic subject strategy, the language impaired c h i l d r e n were more r e s t r i c t e d by such a strategy.  A  stronger thematic subject strategy on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n was p a r t i c u l a r l y evident on T2.  The lack of p i c t u r e s no doubt placed  greater  demands on the c h i l d to provide h i s own organization of the story and may have r e s u l t e d i n recourse to a more g l o b a l strategy. The strength of a thematic strategy on the part of a l l the c h i l d r e n of  178 the present study, i n c l u d i n g the oldest normal language c h i l d r e n , suggests that such a strategy may not disappear with adulthood as Bamberg seems to imply.  In t h e i r examination of the discourse  ( r e t e l l of a comic book story)  of t h e i r adult subject, Marslen-Wilson et a l . (1982) found sequences of several utterances i n which one of the characters was established by name, placed i n subject p o s i t i o n , and subsequently r e f e r r e d to by pronouns or zero anaphora.  Spontaneous r e p a i r s i n favor of reserving u t t e r a n c e - i n i t i a l  p o s i t i o n f o r the thematic subject and for pronominalizing found.  i t there were also  Brown & Yule (1983) argue f o r a s i m i l a r strategy on the part of the  adult l i s t e n e r , i . e . f o r a reference-resolution strategy whereby the l i s t e n e r i n t e r p r e t s pronouns as references to the main character.  The lack of evidence  of such a strategy i n Bamberg's adult data may be due to the s i m p l i c i t y of the story he chose and to the f a c t that the story had been rehearsed.  His  "anaphoric" strategy may be more t y p i c a l of rehearsed o r a l or w r i t t e n narrat i v e s than of informal spontaneous s t o r i e s . Bamberg a t t r i b u t e s to c h i l d r e n may  The "global strategy"  (thematic)  a l s o be t y p i c a l of adults i n some contexts.  CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS  The general purpose of the present research was to i n v e s t i g a t e the nature of the discourse d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by language impaired school-age children.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , the study examined some of the l i n g u i s t i c devices  a v a i l a b l e to a speaker that contribute to the production of coherent n a r r a t i v e discourse.  Both group and task d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the use of the  l i n g u i s t i c resources that l i n k one part of a text to another.  Language  impaired c h i l d r e n used fewer cohesive devices per utterance than normal language c h i l d r e n , a f i n d i n g that appeared to be r e l a t e d to the f o l l o w i n g : 1) shorter utterance length on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n , 2) fewer attempts on t h e i r part to provide cohesive l i n k s , p a r t i c u l a r l y l e x i c a l ones  and 3) a greater number of f a i l e d attempts on t h e i r p a r t . R e t r i e v a l  a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d a greater use of anaphoric and esphoric reference  (forward  reference w i t h i n the nominal group) by normal language c h i l d r e n than by language impaired c h i l d r e n . The l a t t e r f i n d i n g s , together with the r e s u l t s of an a n a l y s i s of r e f e r e n t - c r e a t i n g devices suggested a greater r e l i a n c e on nonverbal context on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n than normal language c h i l d r e n and a smaller tendency to s e l f - c o n t e x t u a l i z e .  An examina-  t i o n of the devices used to switch and to maintain reference revealed that the language impaired c h i l d r e n used more pronouns to switch reference and more nominals to maintain reference than the normal language c h i l d r e n . The r e f e r e n t i a l devices of both groups of c h i l d r e n v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of the protagonist.  Both groups showed evidence of a thematic subject strategy which  179  180 d i s t i n g u i s h e d between major and minor protagonists and between the two major protagonists. There were r e l a t i v e l y few s i g n i f i c a n t task e f f e c t s .  Those that occurred  tended to hold f o r one group or the other, a f i n d i n g which suggested that the two groups were responding d i f f e r e n t l y to changes i n contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Normal language c h i l d r e n , f o r example, used a higher proportion of demonstrat i v e reference and l e x i c a l cohesion on T2 (story r e t e l l without pictures) than on T3 (video r e c a l l ) , i . e . they tended to use a greater proportion of nominals on T2 and a higher proportion of pronominals on T3.  The fact that the video  involved human protagonists only or that i t was h i g h l y action-oriented may have accounted f o r the greater use of pronouns on t h i s task. Although the language impaired c h i l d r e n d i d not show these p a r t i c u l a r contextual e f f e c t s , other t a s k - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s were evident.  The language  impaired c h i l d r e n seemed to benefit more from the opportunity to r e t e l l the picture-based s t o r y ; they tended to perform more l i k e the normal language c h i l d r e n on T2.  On TI, the language impaired c h i l d r e n used fewer conjunctive  t i e s and incorporated events i n t o complex utterances l e s s often than normal language c h i l d r e n . On T2, however, the language impaired c h i l d r e n increased the frequency of conjunctions to equal those of the normal language c h i l d r e n . R e t r i e v a l a n a l y s i s a l s o showed a more s i m i l a r pattern of r e s u l t s between the two groups on T2 compared to TI.  The language impaired c h i l d r e n ' s d i s t r i b u -  t i o n of focus among s t o r y protagonists and proportion of devices used to maintain versus switch reference was also s i m i l a r to those of the normal language c h i l d r e n on T2.  There was an important exception, however:  whereas  normal language c h i l d r e n tended to employ a more "anaphoric" or a d u l t l i k e strategy on T2 compared to TI, the language impaired c h i l d r e n , l i k e younger  181 c h i l d r e n of developmental  s t u d i e s , showed a more r i g i d use of a thematic  subject strategy on T2.  This f i n d i n g may r e l a t e to the increased memory  demands of t h i s task.  Martin's notion of code was invoked i n view of the  d i f f e r e n c e s observed between the groups with changes i n context.  Like the  older versus younger c h i l d r e n of Martin's study, the normal language and language impaired c h i l d r e n of the present study appeared to "take d i f f e r e n t paths through t h e i r grammar, the same context drawing from each a d i f f e r e n t r e g i s t e r response"  (1983: 5).  The p a r t i c u l a r paths that have been explored by t h i s research can be characterized as i n v o l v i n g p h o r i c i t y .  Phoric s t r u c t u r e s are the l i n g u i s t i c  devices a v a i l a b l e to speakers to d i s t i n g u i s h , f o r the b e n e f i t of t h e i r l i s t e n e r s , between given and new information. The r e s u l t s of the present study suggest that language impaired c h i l d r e n do not e x h i b i t the same degree of c o n t r o l over phoric s t r u c t u r e s as normal language c h i l d r e n .  They tend to  resemble developmentally younger c h i l d r e n i n the options they s e l e c t , or f a i l to s e l e c t , i n view of making one utterance contingent on a p r i o r one. The language impaired c h i l d r e n of the present study d i d not lack the r e q u i s i t e l i n g u i s t i c forms; t h e i r range of l i n g u i s t i c options d i d not appear to be restricted.  There are at l e a s t two p o s s i b l e explanations, which are not  mutually e x c l u s i v e : 1) language impaired c h i l d r e n have more trouble d i s t i n guishing between given and new information, s p e c i f i c a l l y from the l i s t e n e r ' s perspective and/or 2) they do not mark t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n conventional ways as c o n s i s t e n t l y as age-matched normal language c h i l d r e n . L i l e s (1985) argued against a problem i n adopting l i s t e n e r perspective based on her f i n d i n g that language impaired c h i l d r e n a l t e r e d t h e i r use of cohesive devices i n ways s i m i l a r to normal language c h i l d r e n as the l i s t e n e r  182 c o n d i t i o n changed (naive versus informed).  Although not formally tested i n  the present study, there was evidence i n the data to support L i l e s ' conclusion.  Only one language impaired c h i l d used a h i g h l y presuming form (pronoun)  to introduce a referent and only when i t followed a l e x i c a l item which may i t s e l f have permitted the l i s t e n e r to i n f e r the required information (the use of ship  before the presuming item they).  A d d i t i o n a l evidence was supplied by  the changes made by the language impaired c h i l d r e n on T2 ( r e t e l l without p i c tures) : they increased the number of d e f i n i t e r e f e r e n t i a l devices t o i n t r o duce p a r t i c i p a n t s , i g n o r i n g at some l e v e l the experimenter's i n s t r u c t i o n to pretend that the l i s t e n e r for T2 was someone who had never heard the s t o r y . However, the data do not r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y of subtle d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s area.  As Maratsos suggested, even adult speakers sometimes use  d e f i n i t e reference f o r e n t i t i e s that are "given" f o r the speaker but not f o r the l i s t e n e r :  "The d e f i n i t e n e s s favored by the s p e c i f i c i t y of reference f o r  the s e l f sometimes takes precedence over the i n d e f i n i t e reference s p e c i f i e d by the c r i t e r i a of c a l c u l a t i n g the l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge even for adults at various times" (1976: 105).  Awareness of l i s t e n e r knowledge and of the  relevance of the l i s t e n e r ' s viewpoint no doubt continues to develop w e l l i n t o adulthood. What the r e s u l t s d i d support was a reduced a b i l i t y on the part of language impaired c h i l d r e n to l i n g u i s t i c a l l y demonstrate t h e i r awareness of t h e i r l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge using conventional means. This, too, i s a s k i l l that no doubt develops over a long period of time, even i n normal language individuals.  The given/new d i s t i n c t i o n was not marked as often or as well by  language impaired c h i l d r e n as i t was by normal language peers.  Language  impaired c h i l d r e n appear to have d i f f i c u l t y s e l e c t i n g the appropriate forms  183 according to what a l i s t e n e r can or cannot be assumed to know.  The domain of  phoric s t r u c t u r e s i s discourse; the appropriate s e l e c t i o n of such devices implies a knowledge of the functions they serve at the l e v e l of discourse. R e f e r e n t i a l devices do not merely " r e f e r , " but a l s o organize the t e x t .  A  p a r t i c u l a r device s i g n a l s to the l i s t e n e r whether reference i s being created, maintained, or switched.  Choice of a r e f e r r i n g expression may mark episodic  o r g a n i z a t i o n ; the use of a nominal f o r a referent j u s t mentioned, for example, may s i g n a l the beginning of a new episode. obviously c o n t e x t - s e n s i t i v e .  Such form-function p a i r i n g s are  The d i f f i c u l t y faced by the language impaired  c h i l d r e n i s not only the general one of d i s c o v e r i n g a systematic r e l a t i o n s h i p between these forms and t h e i r d i s c o u r s e - l e v e l f u n c t i o n s , but a l s o that of discovering appropriate form-function p a i r i n g s s p e c i f i c to a given context. In Johnston's terms (1985), the language impaired c h i l d r e n of t h i s study had d i f f i c u l t y with rules i n c o r p o r a t i n g discourse categories, a d e f i c i t r e f e r s to as a true pragmatic  disorder.  she  As noted i n chapter one, i t i s  d i f f i c u l t to neatly separate t h i s disorder from a formal one.  Lovett et a l .  (1986), f o r example, found that t h e i r r i g h t hemidecorticate subject performed better than t h e i r l e f t hemidecorticate subjects on measures of cohesion and a l s o demonstrated superior s y n t a c t i c s k i l l s .  pronominal  Right and l e f t  hemidecorticate subjects performed s i m i l a r l y on measures of l e x i c a l - s e m a n t i c competence.  Achievement of t e x t u a l coherence implies that the forms are  present i n the c h i l d ' s grammatical system and that they are a c c e s s i b l e . A l l of the language impaired c h i l d r e n of the present study had d i f f i c u l t i e s with form i n the past.  A general l a g i n l i n g u i s t i c  maturity may have resulted i n  reduced f l e x i b i l i t y with t h i s grammatical system and, therefore, i n a more l i m i t e d a b i l i t y to e x p l o i t i t to achieve t e x t u r e . A tendency away from verbal  184 encoding would be one r e s u l t :  as noted, the language impaired c h i l d r e n of  t h i s study used fewer cohesive devices per utterance and demonstrated a greater r e l i a n c e on s i t u a t i o n a l context, when i t was a v a i l a b l e , than the normal language c h i l d r e n .  A c h i l d with a h i s t o r y of d i f f i c u l t i e s with form  can also be expected to have pragmatic d i f f i c u l t i e s of the kind described i n t h i s study, and the pragmatic d i f f i c u l t i e s of the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study cannot be f u l l y understood outside of an examination of form. The most important i m p l i c a t i o n of these f i n d i n g s , and those of other studies reported i n t h i s paper, i s the importance of discourse analysis to c l i n i c a l assessment.  Phoric structures are h i g h l y c o n t e x t - s e n s i t i v e ; t h e i r  s e l e c t i o n depends on both verbal and nonverbal contextual f a c t o r s .  Pictures  or a previous t e l l i n g of the s t o r y , f o r example, w i l l influence the choice of cohesive devices. Referring expressions can be expected to vary depending on whether reference i s being created, maintained or switched.  Protagonists are  r e f e r r e d to i n d i f f e r e n t ways depending on such factors as the c e n t r a l i t y of t h e i r r o l e i n the story and on t h e i r "humanness', i . e . on t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r advancing thematic progress.  Number (singular or p l u r a l ) and gender of  protagonists w i l l influence the degree of l e x i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n , as w i l l the p a r t i c u l a r point i n the story's unfolding that the expression occurs (see Marslen-Wilson et a l . 1982). A speaker's s e l e c t i o n of phoric expressions i s part of the dynamic process of text c o n s t r u c t i o n ; i t i s dependent on what has preceded, on what the narrator wishes to focus on c u r r e n t l y , and on what w i l l f o l l o w .  The pro-  cesses involved i n t h i s s e l e c t i o n procedure can only be understood i f the unit of a n a l y s i s i s larger than the sentence.  As Karmiloff-Smith has noted, "some  aspects of language may be t o t a l l y misconceived i f an explanation i s sought at  185 the i s o l a t e d sentence l e v e l " (1981: 125).  Tests c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e to  c l i n i c i a n s for examining school-age populations are obviously inadequate; none assess t e x t u a l devices i n a systematic way. study—adapted  The analyses used i n the present  from the research of H a l l i d a y & Hasan (1976, 1985), Martin  (1977, 1983), and Bamberg (1987)—represent p o s s i b l e ways of i n v e s t i g a t i n g these devices i n any number of d i f f e r e n t contexts.  Because of the lack of  normative data, these analyses must be used i n conjunction with other forms of assessment.  The main goal i n t h e i r use would be to obtain q u a l i t a t i v e  information that could contribute to a p r o f i l e of a c h i l d ' s l i n g u i s t i c strengths and weaknesses. The above comments are a l s o a p p l i c a b l e to i n t e r v e n t i o n .  To target the  development of cohesive devices at the " i s o l a t e d sentence l e v e l " would be as "misconceived" as analyses based on t h i s u n i t .  Texture must be targeted using  t e x t s , p r e f e r a b l y those whose contextual configurations correspond to those the c h i l d t y p i c a l l y encounters i n home and school experiences.  The school  s e t t i n g , i n p a r t i c u l a r , requires that c h i l d r e n be exposed to a v a r i e t y of t e x t s , s i n c e , with each academic subject, content and associated lexicogrammat i c a l expression can be expected to vary.  Within the o v e r a l l goal of more  coherent text i s that of a greater c o n t r o l over the s t r u c t u r e s a v a i l a b l e i n E n g l i s h f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between what a l i s t e n e r can and cannot be assumed to know.  This goal does not c o n s i s t i n greater economy of expression.  According to the r e s u l t s of the present study and those of Bamberg's research, there are other more c r u c i a l f a c t o r s determining the form of a r e f e r e n t i a l device, f o r example, whether reference i s being created, maintained, or switched.  Given the f i n d i n g s of the present study, s p e c i f i c goals might be  the f o l l o w i n g :  to increase the number of cohesive devices used, p a r t i c u l a r l y  186 the number of l e x i c a l t i e s ; to decrease r e l i a n c e on perceptual  (nonverbal)  support and increase s e l f - c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n ; to increase use of esphora (forward reference w i t h i n the nominal group); to increase the use of i n d e f i n i t e expressions to introduce r e f e r e n t s ; and to increase the use of pronominals to maintain reference and nominals to switch reference. verbal anaphoric devices can be targeted.  Both nominal and  These goals are not a l l l i k e l y to  be relevant to every language impaired c h i l d .  To a s s i s t i n determining  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d goals f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n , Lahey (1988) has developed an informal method of a n a l y s i s i n the form of a c h e c k l i s t (reproduced  i n appendix 6 ) .  The s e n s i t i v i t y of cohesive devices to contextual f a c t o r s underlines the importance of using a v a r i e t y of contexts both i n assessment and i n t e r v e n t i o n . An a d d i t i o n a l goal of therapy suggested by the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study i s that of developing the a b i l i t y to make the appropriate adaptations with changes i n context.  As the abstractness and scope or v a r i e t y of topics increases with  grade l e v e l , so do the demands on a c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to make the appropriate adjustments.  Narratives may be p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l i n t h i s respect since  each one represents a d i f f e r e n t contextual c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Story content may be c o n t r o l l e d f o r number and gender of protagonists, t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance to thematic progress, and degree of humanness.  L i s t e n e r s could be varied  whenever p o s s i b l e and may include other c h i l d r e n being seen f o r therapy, classmates, family members, teacher, e t c .  The s t o r y t e l l i n g task could be  v a r i e d t o include p i c t u r e n a r r a t i o n tasks, r e t e l l of a s t o r y read to the c h i l d or of one he or she has previously t o l d , video r e c a l l , personal n a r r a t i v e s , f i c t i t i o u s story generation, and s t o r y completion.  experience The fact that  language impaired and normal language c h i l d r e n performed more s i m i l a r l y i n several respects on T2, i . e . on r e t e l l of the same story used i n the p i c t u r e  187 n a r r a t i o n task, suggests that language impaired c h i l d r e n may benefit c o n s i derably from r e h e a r s a l .  New  s k i l l s may be more e a s i l y acquired on such a  task, i . e . on a second t e l l i n g .  This recommendation may be applied not only  by speech/language c l i n i c i a n s but also by educators who work w i t h i n the classroom s e t t i n g on a regular b a s i s . Cohesion s k i l l s must also be targeted using genres other than the narrative.  This may  include other types of monologue, such as procedural  exposition t e x t , or conversation.  and  However, patterns of cohesion can be  expected to d i f f e r across genres and t h i s must be kept i n mind when comparing the p r o f i l e of strengths and weaknesses of a given c h i l d obtained i n d i f f e r e n t contexts.  Another p o t e n t i a l context f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n i s dramatic play.  P e l l e g r i n i (1984) compared the e f f e c t of dramatic play, d i s c u s s i o n , and drawing on the s t o r y r e c a l l s of c h i l d r e n i n kindergarten, grade one, and grade two  (aged 5 to 8).  Children of grades one and two who were exposed to the  dramatic play c o n d i t i o n used more endophora than those exposed to e i t h e r the discussion or drawing treatments; kindergarten c h i l d r e n i n the dramatic play group used l e s s exophoric e l l i p s i s than c h i l d r e n i n the d i s c u s s i o n group. P e l l e g r i n i suggested that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of dramatic play i n producing more cohesive n a r r a t i v e s arose from the greater opportunity i n that context to l e x i c a l i z e meaning.  The c h i l d r e n i n that c o n d i t i o n negotiated v e r b a l l y the  play's theme and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of characters even before the play  episodes  could be i n i t i a t e d , with the r e s u l t that players' assumptions were made explicit.  The players had to define e x p l i c i t l y any "pretend" objects that  were used, i . e . i d i o s y n c r a t i c symbolic transformations were v e r b a l l y defined. Children i n the drawing c o n d i t i o n d i d not i n t e r a c t with others; those i n the d i s c u s s i o n group merely responded to the experimenter's  questions, questions  188 which themselves supplied the relevant phoric s t r u c t u r e s . Research i n t o the use of cohesive devices i n E n g l i s h i s i n an exploratory phase.  E m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g the present study, have been  l i m i t e d by the small number of contexts analyzed.  A d d i t i o n a l contexts are  required i n which n a r r a t i v e task and content are v a r i e d .  Lexical specifica-  t i o n i n c r e a t i n g , maintaining and switching reference, f o r example, appears to be dependent on such f a c t o r s as story length, grammatical number and gender of protagonists, episodic s t r u c t u r e , nonverbal support, and l i s t e n e r status (naive or informed).  Further research i s required i n t o the e f f e c t of manipu-  l a t i o n of these parameters. modes can be tapped.  In school-age populations, both o r a l and w r i t t e n  Contexts other than the n a r r a t i v e (e.g. other forms of  monologue and conversation) w i l l provide information on the use of cohesion i n interactive situations.  I n i t i a l research attempts have revealed important  differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of cohesive devices between n a r r a t i v e and conversational contexts (Rochester & Martin 1979, Mentis & P r u t t i n g 1987, Harris et a l . 1987).  Although both conversational and n a r r a t i v e data were  c o l l e c t e d f o r the present study, only the n a r r a t i v e data were analyzed f o r t h i s r e p o r t . A comparison of the patterns of cohesion of the same i n d i v i d u a l s i n both n a r r a t i v e and conversational discourse may be expected to y i e l d a more complete p i c t u r e of the use of cohesion by these c h i l d r e n . Even the n a r r a t i v e s analyzed f o r the present report have not yet been f u l l y explored f o r the information on cohesion they contain. False s t a r t s , for example, were t r a n s c r i b e d , but not analyzed.  The f o l l o w i n g excerpt  i l l u s t r a t e s the kind of struggle that i s sometimes experienced by language impaired c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r attempts at r e f e r e n t i a l t y i n g : 7.1  and he caught i t with her, and she, and he caught i t with, and, and she caught, and he [both c h i l d r e n laugh], and he  189 caught i t , and he caught her with her, with h i s toe.(S2T2) A study of errors and s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n s may y i e l d important q u a l i t a t i v e information on the s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by i n d i v i d u a l language impaired c h i l d r e n . Generalizations from the present study are also l i m i t e d to a small sector of English speakers, namely male subjects i n the age range of 9 to 11 years. Martin's data (1977) suggest that there may be gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of phoric s t r u c t u r e s :  the g i r l s of h i s study appeared to be better at  introducing information that was l a t e r presumed, and at presuming information known to the l i s t e n e r instead of reintroducing i t . The age range must also be expanded.  Adult data would have been p a r t i c u l a r l y useful i n the present  study; the normal language c h i l d r e n showed evidence of a f a i r l y strong thematic subject strategy and the question remains as to whether such a strategy disappears or whether i t i s retained i n some form. Research i s a l s o required that w i l l involve d i f f e r e n t kinds of populations.  impaired  The problems of the language impaired c h i l d r e n of t h i s study did  not appear to stem p r i m a r i l y from a d i f f i c u l t y i n knowing what was given  and  new f o r the l i s t e n e r but from a reduced a b i l i t y to c o n s i s t e n t l y express t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n using conventional forms.  A d i f f i c u l t y i n taking l i s t e n e r  perspective, however, could not be immediately ruled out i n other language impaired i n d i v i d u a l s , f o r example i n the a u t i s t i c population. the r e f e r e n t i a l s k i l l s of language impaired c h i l d r e n i s scarce.  Information  on  The r e s u l t s  of the present study were compared p r i m a r i l y to developmental research due to the lack of relevant studies on impaired populations.  This i s recognized as a  l i m i t a t i o n since the d i f f i c u l t i e s of a language impaired c h i l d are not l i k e l y to be simply those of a younger normal language c h i l d .  The nature of compen-  190 satory s t r a t e g i e s , f o r example, can be expected to be r e l a t e d to the p a r t i c u l a r language problem. study:  This r a i s e s yet another l i m i t a t i o n of the present  the data were not examined for i n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g i e s .  Bamberg's  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (1987) of a number of i n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g i e s amoung h i s normal language subjects enables one to predict that the same may be true, possibly to a greater extent, among language impaired c h i l d r e n . The present study was also l i m i t e d by an examination of production data alone.  A c h i l d who has d i f f i c u l t y expressing the d i s t i n c t i o n between given  and new information may also f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t , as a l i s t e n e r , to comprehend the l i n g u i s t i c s i g n a l s that mark p h o r i c i t y , and to use such s i g n a l s to i d e n t i f y speaker reference. reading comprehension:  There i s some evidence for t h i s i n the area of  Fayne (1981), f o r example, found that learning  disabled adolescents had d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g pronoun antecedents i n simple paragraphs.  This type of enquiry needs to be extended to l i s t e n i n g comprehen-  sion as w e l l .  As i n the case of other l i n g u i s t i c phenomena, the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the comprehension and production of cohesive devices would shed considerable l i g h t on the nature of the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by language impaired c h i l d r e n . I t was noted e a r l i e r that the most important i m p l i c a t i o n of the findings of t h i s study i s the importance of discourse to c l i n i c a l assessment and intervention.  One q u a l i f y i n g remark must be added by way of conclusion.  Although t e x t u a l devices cannot be adequately analyzed at the sentence  level,  the d e f i c i t s of language impaired c h i l d r e n w i l l not be f u l l y described i f d i s course-level straints.  r e l a t i o n s are examined i n i s o l a t i o n of sentence l e v e l con-  L i n g u i s t s have long distinguished between reference i n which the  anaphoric expression i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to i t s antecedent and reference  191 i n which the r e l a t i o n between the anaphoric expression established pragmatically.  and i t s referent i s  I t was noted i n chapter s i x that e x i s t i n g theories  of reference have l a r g e l y been developed by l i n g u i s t s preoccupied with search f o r s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s .  the  I t would be equally misguided to err i n the  opposite d i r e c t i o n , i . e . to i n t e r p r e t a l l r e f e r e n t i a l devices as being constrained represents  s o l e l y by d i s c o u r s e - l e v e l considerations.  Bosch's work (1983)  a more balanced view; he provides formal c o n s t r a i n t s for the  mechanisms involved i n both s y n t a c t i c and pragmatic modes of pronominal reference.  The present study examined only the l a t t e r .  and s e n t e n t i a l phenomena— and their  interaction—must  gated.  i n p a r t i c u l a r , may  Cohesive devices, reference  However, both t e x t u a l  eventually be i n v e s t i be i d e a l phenomena for  studying the i n t e r a c t i o n between discourse and s e n t e n t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n the process of text c o n s t r u c t i o n .  Such knowledge would provide a p a r t i a l answer  to the more general question of how  the major semantic components  (experien-  t i a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l , and textual) are woven together i n a s i n g l e lexicogrammatical realization.  Only then w i l l texture be understood i n i t s proper l i g h t ,  i . e . as part of a much l a r g e r scheme.  BIBLIOGRAPHY Bamberg,M. (1987).  The Acquisition  of  Narratives.  B e r l i n : Mouton de Gruyter.  Bartolucci,G. & F i n e , J . (1987). The frequency of cohesion weakness i n p s y c h i a t r i c syndromes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 67-74. Bennett-Kastor,T. (1983). Noun phrases and coherence i n c h i l d n a r r a t i v e s . Journal of Child Language, 10, 135-149. . (1986). Cohesion and p r e d i c a t i o n i n c h i l d n a r r a t i v e . Journal Language, 13, 353-370.  of  Child  Bernstein,L.E. (1981). Language as a product of dialogue. Discourse 4, 117-147.  Processes,  Bloom,L., Lahey,M., Hood,L., L i f t e r , K . , & Fiess,K. (1980). Complex sentences: a c q u i s i t i o n of s y n t a c t i c connectives and the semantic r e l a t i o n s they encode. Journal of Child Language, 7, 235-261. Bloom,L., Rocissano,L., & Hood,L. (1976). A d u l t - c h i l d discourse: developmental i n t e r a c t i o n between information processing and l i n g u i s t i c knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 521-552. Bosch,P. (1983). Agreement Syntax  and Discourse.  and Anaphora:  A Study  of  the  Role  of  Pronouns  in  London: Academic Press.  Brown,G. & Yule,G. (1983). Discourse s i t y Press.  Analysis.  Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-  Caro,D. & Schneider,P. (1982). Creating referents i n t e x t : a comparison of l e a r n i n g disabled and normal adolescents' t e x t s . Proceedings from the Third  Wisconsin  Symposium  on Research  in  Child  Language  Disorders.  U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison. Clancy,P., Jacobsen,T.,& Silva,M. (1976). The a c q u i s i t i o n of conjunction: a c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c study. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,  12, 71-80.  Donahue,M. (1981). Requesting s t r a t e g i e s of l e a r n i n g disabled c h i l d r e n . Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 213-234. . (1985). Communicative s t y l e i n l e a r n i n g disabled c h i l d r e n : some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r classroom discourse. In D. R i p i c h & F. S p i n e l l i (Eds.), School Discourse Problems. San Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l Press. Donahue,M., Pearl,R., & Bryan,T. (1980). Learning disabled c h i l d r e n ' s convers a t i o n a l competence: responses to inadequate messages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 387-403. 192  193 Donahue,M., Pearl,R., & Bryan,T. (1982). Learning disabled children's syntact i c p r o f i c i e n c y on a communicative task. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47. 397-403. Donnellan,K. (1978). Speaker reference, d e s c r i p t i o n s and anaphora. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics, vol.9. New York: Academic Press. Eisenberg,A. (1980). A s y n t a c t i c , semantic, and pragmatic a n a l y s i s of conjunct i o n . Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 19, 70-78. Ervin-Tripp,S. (1978). Some features of e a r l y c h i l d - a d u l t dialogues. in Society, 7, 357-373.  Language  Fayne,H. (1981). A comparison of learning disabled adolescents with normal learners on an anaphoric pronominal reference task. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 597-599. Feagans,L. & Short,E. (1984). Developmental d i f f e r e n c e s i n the comprehension and production of n a r r a t i v e s by reading-disabled and normally achieving c h i l d r e n . Child  Development,  55, 1727-1736.  Fey,M. & Leonard,L. (1982). Code-switching i n c h i l d r e n with s p e c i f i c language impairment. Proceedings from the Third Wisconsin Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders. U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison. Fey,M. & Leonard,L. (1983). Pragmatic s k i l l s of c h i l d r e n with s p e c i f i c language impairment. In T. Gallagher & C. P r u t t i n g (Eds.), Pragmatic Assessment and Intervention Issues in Language. San Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l Press. Francis,H. (1974). S o c i a l c l a s s , reference and context. Language 17, 193-198.  and  speech,  F r i e l - P a t t i , S . & Conti-Ramsden,G. (1984). Discourse development i n a t y p i c a l language l e a r n e r s . In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Discourse Development. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gallagher,T. & Darnton,B. (1978). Conversational aspects of the speech of language disordered c h i l d r e n : r e v i s i o n behaviors. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 118-135. Graybeal,C. (1981). Memory f o r s t o r i e s i n language-impaired c h i l d r e n . Psycholinguistics, 2, 269-283.  Applied  G r i f f i t h , P . , Ripich,D., & D a s t o l i , S . (1986). Story s t r u c t u r e , cohesion, and propositions i n story r e c a l l s by learning-disabled and nondisabled c h i l d r e n . Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 539-555. Halliday,M.A.K. (1977). Text as semantic choice i n s o c i a l contexts. In T. van D i j k and J . P e t o f i (Eds.), Grammars and Descriptions. B e r l i n : Walter de Gruyter.  194 . (1979). Development of texture i n c h i l d language. In T. Myers (Ed.),  The Development  of Conversation  and Discourse.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh  U n i v e r s i t y Press. . (1985a). A Short Arnold.  Introduction  to Functional  Grammar.  London: Edward  . (1985b). Dimensions of discourse a n a l y s i s : grammar. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol.2. New York: Academic Press. Halliday,M.A.K. & Hasan,R. (1976). Cohesion Halliday,M.A.K. & Hasan,R. (1985). Language, Language  in a Social-Semiotic  in  English.  Context,  Perspective.  London: Longman. and  Text:  Aspects  of  V i c t o r i a : Deakin U n i v e r s i t y  Press. Harris,M., Schaeffer,L., & Lougeay-Mottinger,J. (1987). Use of  cohesive devices by language impaired and non language impaired children. Paper presented at the 1987 American Speech-Language and Hearing Association Convention, New Orleans.  Hasan,R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J . Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n . Hawkins,P.R. (1973). S o c i a l c l a s s , the nominal group and reference. In B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, Codes, and Control, v o l . 2 . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hickmann,M. (1980). Creating referents i n discourse: a developmental analysis of l i n g u i s t i c cohesion. In J . Kreiman and A. Ojeda (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. Johnston,J. (1982). N a r r a t i v e s : a new look at communication problems i n older language-disordered c h i l d r e n . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 13, 144-155. . (1985). The discourse symptoms of developmental disorders. In T. van D i j k (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, v o l . 3 . New York: Academic Press. Karmiloff-Smith,A. (1979). A Functional Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Approach  to Child  Language.  Cambridge:  . (1981). The grammatical marking of thematic s t r u c t u r e i n the development of language production. In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The Child's Construction of Language. London: Academic Press. . (1983). Language development as a problem-solving process.  and Reports  on Child  Language  Development,  22,  1-22.  Papers  195 . (1984). Children's problem s o l v i n g . Advances in Developmental v o l . 3 . Hillsdale,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Psychology,  Keenan,E. & Klein,E. (1975). Coherency i n children's discourse. Journal Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 365-380.  of  Keenan,E. & S c h i e f f e l i n , B . (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic i n the conversations of c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . In Charles N. L i (Ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, Inc. Klecan-Aker,J. & Hedrick,D. (1985). A study of the s y n t a c t i c language s k i l l s of normal school-age c h i l d r e n . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16, 187-198. Krahn,F. (1978). The Great _. (1981). Arthur's E.P.Dutton, Inc.  Ape.  New York: V i k i n g Press.  Adventure  Lahey,M. (1988). Language Disorders Macmillan Publishing Company.  in  the  Abandoned  and Language  House.  New York:  Development.  New York:  Leonard,L. (1986). Conversational r e p l i e s of c h i l d r e n with s p e c i f i c language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 114-119. L i l e s , B . (1985). Cohesion i n the n a r r a t i v e s of normal and language-disordered c h i l d r e n . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 123-133. . (1987). Episode o r g a n i z a t i o n and cohesive conjunctives i n n a r r a t i v e s of c h i l d r e n with and without language disorder. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 185-196. Lovett,M., Dennis,M., & Newman,J. (1986). Making reference: the cohesive use of pronouns i n the n a r r a t i v e discourse of hemidecorticate adolescents. Brain and Language, 29, 224-251. Maratsos,M. (1976). The Use of Definite and Indefinite Children. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Reference  in  Young  Marslen-Wilson,W., Levy,E., & Tyler,L. (1982). Producing i n t e r p r e t a b l e discourse: the establishment and maintenance of reference. In R.J. J a r v e l l a and W. K l e i n (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons L t d . M a r t i n , J . (1977). Learning children's  how  to  tell:  semantic  systems  and structures  in  narratives.  Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Essex. (University M i c r o f i l m s . No. 78-70,018).  . (1983). The development of r e g i s t e r . In J . Fine and R. Freedle (Eds.), Developmental Issues in Discourse. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex P u b l i s h i n g Corp.  196 . (1985). Process and t e x t : two aspects of human semiosis. In J . Benson and W. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, vol.1. Norwood,New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp. McClure,E. & Geva,E. (1983). The development of the cohesive use of advers a t i v e conjunctions i n discourse. Discourse Processes, 6, 411-432. McTear,M. (1984). Structure and process i n c h i l d r e n ' s conversational development. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Discourse Development. New York: SpringerVerlag. . (1985). Pragmatic disorders: a question of d i r e c t i o n . of Disorders of Communication, 20, 119-127.  British  Journal  Mentis,M. & Prutting,C. (1987). Cohesion i n the discourse of normal and headi n j u r e d a d u l t s . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 88-98. M e r r i t t , D . & L i l e s , B . (1987). Story grammar a b i l i t y i n c h i l d r e n with and without language disorder: story generation, story r e t e l l i n g , and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 539-552. M i l l e r , J . F . (1981). Assessing  Language  Production  National Film Board of Canada. (1977). J wasn't  in scared.  Children.  A u s t i n : Pro-Ed.  20 min.,  video.  Pappas,C. (1981). The development gistic, cohesive dictation  of narrative capabilities within a synervariable perspective of language development: an examination of harmony of stories produced in three contexts retelling, and writing. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y .  . (1985). The cohesive harmony and cohesive density of children's o r a l and w r i t t e n s t o r i e s . In J . Benson and W. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, vol.2. Norwood: Ablex P u b l i s h i n g Corp. P e l l e g r i n i , A . D . (1982). The construction of cohesive text by preschoolers i n two play contexts. Discourse Processes, 5, 101-108. . (1984). The e f f e c t of dramatic play on c h i l d r e n ' s generation of cohesive t e x t . Discourse Processes, 7, 57-67. Prutting,C. & Kirchner,D. (1983). Applied pragmatics. In T. Gallagher and C. P r u t t i n g (Eds.), Pragmatic Assessment and Intervention Issues in Language. San Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l Press. Radford,A. (1981). Transformational Press.  Syntax.  Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  Ripich,D. & G r i f f i t h , P . (1988). Narrative a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and nondisabled c h i l d r e n : story stucture, cohesion, and p r o p o s i t i o n s . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 165-173.  197 Ripich,D. & S p i n e l l i , F . (1985). School C o l l e g e - H i l l Press.  Discourse  Problems.  San Diego:  Ripich,D. & T e r r e l l , B . (1988). Patterns of discourse cohesion and coherence i n Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 8-15. Roberts,J. (1987). Cohesive DO in children's language. Paper presented at the 1987 American Speech-Language and Hearing Association Convention, New Orleans. Rochester,S. & Martin,J. (1979). Crazy Talk: a Study of Schizophrenic Speakers. New York: Plenum Press. Roscoe,J. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.  for  the  the  Discourse  of  Behavioral  Sciences.  Roth,F. & Spekman,N. (1986). N a r r a t i v e discourse: spontaneously generated s t o r i e s of learning-disabled and normally achieving students. Journal Speech  and Hearing  Disorders,  51,  of  8-23.  Scott,C. (1984). Adverbial c o n n e c t i v i t y i n conversations of c h i l d r e n 6 t o 12. Journal of Child Language, 11, 423-452. . (1988). A perspective on the evaluation of school c h i l d r e n ' s n a r r a t i v e s . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 67-82. Shugar,G. (1978). Text a n a l y s i s as an approach t o the study of e a r l y l i n g u i s t i c operations. In N. Waterson and C. Snow (Eds.), The Development of Communication. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Siegel,S. (1988). Nonparametric York: McGraw-Hill.  Statistics  for  the  Behavioral  Sciences.  New  Sleight,D. & Prinz,P. (1985). Use of a b s t r a c t s , o r i e n t a t i o n s , and codas i n n a r r a t i o n by language-disordered and non-disordered c h i l d r e n . Journal Speech and Bearing Disorders, 50, 361-371.  of  Warden,D. (1976). The influence of context on c h i l d r e n ' s use of i d e n t i f y i n g expressions and references. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 101-112. Weaver,P. & Dickenson,D. (1979). Story comprehension and r e c a l l i n d y s l e x i c students. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 29, 157-171. Westby,C. (1984). Development of n a r r a t i v e language a b i l i t i e s . and K. Butler (Eds.), Language Learning Disabilities in Children. Baltimore: Williams & W i l k i n s . Wiese,B. (1983). Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics,  21,  In G. Wallach  School-Age  373-417.  198 APPENDIX 1 SUMMARY OF STORY CONTENT The  Great  Ape (Krahn, 1978)  A young g i r l and her father are aboard a huge steamboat headed for an i s l a n d (Picture 1). As they get c l o s e r , the passengers and crew members get i n t o a small boat (P2) and come ashore (P3). They spot a v i l l a g e (P4) and f i n d natives watching a t u r t l e race (P5). The captain of the ship speaks to one of the natives (P6) who then leads the passengers to a mountain (P7). The people from the ship begin climbing the mountain (P8), cross a suspension bridge (P9), and continue t h e i r climb up a narrow path along the side of a steep c l i f f (P10). They f i n a l l y a r r i v e at the top ( P l l ) and begin taking p i c t u r e s of what they see below (P12): an enormous ape s i t t i n g on a swing suspended from a huge f a l l e n tree trunk that spans a steep canyon (P13). Suddenly, the l i t t l e g i r l f a l l s when the rock beneath her crumbles (P14). The ape catches her with h i s toes (P15), l i f t s her up (P16), places her on h i s head (P17) and begins swinging (P18). The people from the s h i p , looking rather concerned (P19), blow up a huge i n f l a t a b l e banana (P20). The ape t r i e s to reach i t (P21) and the passengers and crew s t a r t running down the mountain with the banana (P22). The ape chases them down the mountain (P23) and through the v i l l a g e (P24). The passengers board the small boat and head for the ship with the ape f o l l o w i n g them i n the water (P25). The ape f i n a l l y gets the banana (P26), and the l i t t l e g i r l f a l l s o f f h i s head (P27). The ship s a i l s away (P28), and the ape r e a l i z e s that the g i r l i s no longer on h i s head (P29). The g i r l s t a r t s t o c r y and waves goodbye to the ape (P30). The ship s a i l s back t o New York (P31) and the g i r l ' s father takes a p i c t u r e of her i n front of the Empire State b u i l d i n g (P32). The ape, meanwhile, i s looking extremely sad back on the i s l a n d (P33). A plane comes by, with the father and daughter i n i t , and drops an enormous "message" to the ape (P34). The ape u n r o l l s i t (P35) and hugs what he sees: a p i c t u r e of the l i t t l e g i r l i n front of the Empire State b u i l d i n g (P36).  I wasn't  scared  (National F i l m Board, 1978)  1  I wasn't scared i s a dramatic enactment of what happens when a brother and s i s t e r venture onto a m i l i t a r y base i n search of a better trout stream. Instead of f i s h they f i n d a bomb. Todd, i n d u l g i n g an i l l - a d v i s e d c u r i o s i t y , digs out the bomb and unscrews the arming device. A t h i n smoke escapes. Shocked and scared, the two c h i l d r e n run from the s i t e but Todd r e t u r n s . He hasn't f u l l y s a t i s f i e d that c u r i o s i t y of h i s . Tension b u i l d s as Debbie f l a g s down a car i n a desperate attempt to obtain help. Minutes l a t e r , an Explosives Disposal Team i s racing to the s i t e , but both Todd and the bomb have disappeared, the l a t t e r with a timedelay fuse burning i n s i d e i t . Working against an i r r e v e r s i b l e deadline, the Team f i n a l l y spot the boy c a r r y i n g the bomb i n h i s knapsack. A near d i s a s t e r i s averted - t h i s time. One of the team members helps Todd take h i s knapsack off and get to safety j u s t before the bomb explodes. 2  ••Adapted from a summary provided by NFB. The video was stopped at t h i s p o i n t . The story continues with a demonstration l e c t u r e on e x p l o s i v e s . 2  199 APPENDIX 2 SAMPLE NARRATIVES  Task 1, LI c h i l d (S4, aged l l , ^ ) The Great Ape /  2  1  one day the people were walking along / they were  s a i l i n g i n the ocean / then they saw some shore / they went and rowed a boat to shore / then they unloaded the boat and started to get t h e i r movie cameras out / then they started a f o r t / they were having races with t u r t l e s / they were t a l k i n g to the other people who were racing the t u r t l e s / they were walking up to the top of the mountain / they crossed a bridge / and they're crossing another bridge / they were walking up a b i g mountain / t h i s guy he spots a l o g i n the rock / and they want to f i n d out what the l o g i s doing there / so they're f i l m i n g i t / and the g o r i l l a i s swinging on the l o g back and f o r t h / and the g o r i l l a i s looking up at them by hanging on the rope / he was laughing and having a good time swinging / and the l i t t l e g i r l s l i p s and f a l l s / and the g o r i l l a saves the l i t t l e g i r l from f a l l i n g / and he has her i n hand / and then the g o r i l l a puts her on h i s head / then he s t a r t s swinging again / then they s t a r t to get a parachute out / and then they get a big  3  big  banana out / the g o r i l l a goes a f t e r the banana / the g o r i l l a s t a r t s to run a f t e r the banana / and then they s t a r t to run away with the banana / the g o r i l l a i s chasing them / the g o r i l l a goes through the f o r t / they take the [lemon?] away / then they row away and take the banana with them / the g o r i l l a s i t s on t h e i r b i g boat that they're r i d i n g away i n / the g i r l f a l l s o f f the g o r i l l a / and the two men on board of the boat catches her / the g o r i l l a i s t r y i n g to eat the banana / he scratches h i s head while he's s i n k i n g / the l i t t l e g i r l i s crying cuz she misses the g o r i l l a / then the boat i s going i n t o 1 2 3  False s t a r t s have not been included i n the following S l a s h e s separate independent clause u n i t s . S t r e s s e d words have been i t a l i c i z e d i n the t e x t .  texts.  200 the town / the man i s taking p i c t u r e s of the l i t t l e g i r l i n front of a b u i l d i n g on the ship / the g o r i l l a i s h i d i n g i n the mountains / an airplane comes by and drops a r o l l of paper with a bow on to the g o r i l l a / the g o r i l l a opens i t and sees part of a b u i l d i n g / the g o r i l l a sees the l i t t l e g i r l i n a b u i l d i n g i n a p i c t u r e / and that's the end  Task 1, NL c h i l d (SC6, aged 9;3) here i s our great story f o r a l l you kids out there l i s t e n i n g on your walkmans and radios / The Great Ape! / once there was a man and h i s l i t t l e daughter Sarah / and they went on a big ship / and they s a i l e d down to a big i s l a n d / and then they got onto a little  rowboat and rowed to that b i g i s l a n d  / they brought cameras and boxes and bags and a gun and a b i g camera box / and Sarah was very big  i n t e r e s t e d i n a l l the s t u f f around her / then they came to a  v i l l a g e where a l l these voodoo men were a l l dancing around watching  turtle  races / they were t u r t l e s with domino-like cubes with l i t t l e dots on them f o r t h e i r number / then they came over t o a l l those voodoo indian men and scared them h a l f to death / and they put t h e i r hands up i n the a i r / and they ran o f f / Sarah was very happy / then they saw a big t r a i l that l e d way up a big mountain / so they followed a l l the way up / and they came to a b i g suspension bridge / and i t l e d r i g h t i n t o a tunnel / they came through the tunnel and got to a l l these trees and more of the path / they kept on going tray tray up high i n t o the mountain ' t i l they came to a big tree where they looked down / they could see a l l the mountains below them with the b i g tree going out s t i l l / then r i g h t i n the middle of the tree, they saw a big,  big,  ape on a swing /  and he j u s t sat there and looked down / then he looked over / and he saw t h i s l i t t l e Sarah / she f e l l down o f f the c l i f f / and the monkey swang and swang / and then Sarah grabbed onto h i s toes, h i s very big toes / and then he grabbed her i n h i s hands, brought her up / and she sat on h i s f i n g e r / and they stared eye t o eye / and then he put Sarah up on top of h i s head and swang and swang  201 on the swing / then the people got a b i g i n f l a t a b l e banana / and they blew i t up and unpeeled i t / and the monkey reached  up f o r i t / but i t was too high  for him / they ran o f f with the banana / the monkey climbed up with Sarah on top of h i s head / he climbed and climbed the mountain / they went down the t r a i l as f a s t as they could with that b i g banana / they ran and ran and ran I and the monkey followed r i g h t behind them / they ran by the people watching the t u r t l e s race / they rowed back to the b i g boat / the monkey followed them a l l that way / then f i n a l l y got to the boat / the monkey got the banana / and  lifted  i t way up i n the a i r and sat on the boat / and the boat was halfway up  i n the a i r / i t p u l l e d the anchor r i g h t out of the ground / and that monkey, he loved  that banana / then the g i r l on h i s head, Sarah, she was holding on  very t i g h t / then she dropped down / and Mr. P i g and Mr. Wigwam captured her / and she was safe / and the monkey ran o f f with h i s b i g banana / then he looked back and scratched h i s head and wondered why he couldn't eat that banana / and the people looked back at her / and Sarah waved goodbye / and then they got back to t h e i r hometown i n the b i g apple New York and took a p i c t u r e of Sarah standing by the Empire States b u i l d i n g and flew over i n a big plane down to where the monkey was, the giant ape, and dropped him down a big p i c t u r e / and he opened i t up and saw the Empire States b u i l d i n g / and he opened i t up more and more / and Sarah was s i t t i n g i n the p i c t u r e by the Empire States b u i l d i n g / and that's the end of our story  Task 2, L I c h i l d (S4) f i r s t of a l l , i t was about t h i s g o r i l l a book / and these people wanna discover t h i s g o r i l l a / so they get i n a boat / and they s a i l away / then they stop the big boat and get i n t o a smaller boat and row i n t o shore / and then they take t h e i r s t u f f out of the rowboat / and they s t a r t walking / and then they meet t h i s f o r t / and then they are walking / and then they see these people who are racing t u r t l e s / and then they s t a r t t a l k i n g to them / then  202 they leave that / then they climb the mountain / and then they f i n d the g o r i l l a / then they f i n d a l o g / they found the g o r i l l a swinging on a log with some s t r i n g t i e d to another piece of l o g as a swing / then the l i t t l e  girl  s l i p p e d and f e l l / and then the g o r i l l a saved her / they wanted the l i t t l e g i r l back / so they pumped up a banana and showed the g o r i l l a i t / and the g o r i l l a went a f t e r them / and the g o r i l l a didn't get i n [ i t ? ] ' t i l he sat on the boat / and the l i t t l e g i r l slipped o f f the g o r i l l a ' s head / and then they went to the boat / and then these two men caught her / then they went back i n t o the c i t y / they s a i l e d i n t o the c i t y / then they took a p i c t u r e / then they flew an aiplane over the g o r i l l a and threw the p i c t u r e out of the airplane and gave i t t o the g o r i l l a / and the g o r i l l a opened i t / and there's a l i t t l e g i r l i n front of a b u i l d i n g / and the g o r i l l a ' s there  Task 2, NL c h i l d (SC6) The Great Ape! / once there was a l i t t l e g i r l , and her f a t h e r , named Sarah / they went on a big  ship and went down the r i v e r i n the ocean / they  went down the ocean / and then the captain caught sight of an i s l a n d way down south / and they stopped the boat where i t was nice and deep i n the water / and they got a rowboat / and a l l the people gathered i n and rowed down to the i s l a n d / and they got onto the i s l a n d and walked and walked a long  way ' t i l  they came to a l i t t l e voodoo mumbojumbo house where a l l these people were watching turtle  races / and they had l i t t l e dots l i k e on dominos or dice f o r  t h e i r numbers / i f there's a s i x , there'd be s i x dots on t h e i r b i g p l a t e / and then the people came out and scared the voodoo people away / and they ran o f f / and they h i d / and the t u r t l e s kept racing / and then the people went on / and they found t h i s biff  t r a i l on a mountain / then the people ran back out of  t h e i r h i d i n g places and kept watching the t u r t l e race / and the people followed the big path / and then they came t o a b i g suspension bridge / they went down that / then they went through a big tunnel / and they came to where  203 there was l o t s of trees around the mountain / and they kept following  the  t r a i l way down / then they came to a b i g c l i f f where there was a b i g tree s t i c k i n g out from one c l i f f to another / then they looked down / they saw a big  ape s i t t i n g on a swing / and Sarah  looked down / and she leaned too f a r /  and she f e l l / and the monkey swang and swang as he watched her f a l l / she grabbed hold of h i s toe and climbed up / then the monkey picked  then  her up and  put her on h i s head / and then the people they blew up a b i g banana from a b i g box that's b i g and i n f l a t a b l e / and they brought i t down the t r a i l past the voodoo people watching the race / the race still  wasn't over / they kept going  and going across the suspension bridge / they got to the rowboat / they rowed, rowed and rowed and rowed / and the monkey kept on f o l l o w i n g and f o l l o w i n g / then he came over and sat down on the boat and got the banana and wondered why he couldn't eat i t / and he scratched h i s head / and the people rowed away i n t h e i r big  ship / they s t a r t e d going o f f a l i t t l e ways then stopped / and Sarah  waved goodbye to the monkey / and then they got back to t h e i r hometown i n the big apple New York and took a p i c t u r e of Sarah i n the boat by the Empire States b u i l d i n g and went i n a b i g plane, flew over to where the monkey was i n the mountains and threw down a big,  big,  p i c t u r e of Sarah by the Empire States  b u i l d i n g / then the monkey caught i t and looked at i t / he opened i t / he could see the top of the Empire States b u i l d i n g / then he opened i t more and more / and i t was a giant p i c t u r e of Sarah and the Empire States b u i l d i n g / and that i s the end of our story  Task 3, LI c h i l d (S4) i t was about t h i s boy / these two kids they were going f i s h i n g / and they were playing tag / and t h i s boy he rode behind a tree / and h i s s i s t e r went past him / and then he took o f f and tripped over a bomb / and then h i s s i s t e r went to get help / h i s brother c a l l e d her / and then h i s s i s t e r s a i d : "leave i t , leave i t ! " / and then he took o f f the p r o p e l l e r / then she went to go get  204  the cops / and they were racing / l i k e they were racing the bikes / and then they went 7 and t h i s g i r l stopped and the man and the car / and then the car went to the p o l i c e / and the p o l i c e phoned the army / and the army went and got the bomb o f f t h i s kid's back cuz he put i t i n h i s knapsack / and then he put i t i n h i s knapsack / and the k i d couldn't get i t o f f him / and then the guy s a i d : "I'm coming to help you" / and then he went and helped him / and then he took the knapsack o f f / and then he put i t down on the ground / then he ran away / and then i t exploded  Task 3, NL c h i l d (Sc6) f i r s t there was a g i r l and a boy / they were r i d i n g t h e i r bikes down a road / and then they came to t h i s b i g fence / and they climbed over i t / a n d they went to a lake / and they weren't supposed to go there / and they went f i s h i n g / and then they were there f o r a long time / then they decided to leave / then they started to get i n a f i g h t / then the boy pushed the g i r l over and then ran o f f / and then the g i r l s t a r t e d chasing him / and then he ran behind a tree / and she didn't notice him / and she ran r i g h t by / and he got away from the tree and then went around to t h i s b i g f i e l d with no trees / but there were trees a l l around i t / and he was running down there / and then he tripped / then he came back t o i t / and then he started digging i t out with a s t i c k / and then h i s s i s t e r was c a l l i n g him again i n another part / and h i s s i s t e r found him / then he t o l d her to come over there / and he dug a bomb out of the ground / and he s t a r t e d unweeling t h i s cap o f f i t / and he took the p r o p e l l e r o f f / then smoke came out of i t / then they ran away from the bomb / and then the boy dropped h i s knapsack there / and he remembered i t when they were climbing over the fence / and then he s a i d they have to go back / then she says: "oh no!" / she didn't want him to do i t / so they s t a r t e d r i d i n g t h e i r bikes back home / and they were racing / then they went along / and then h i s s i s t e r was behind / and he was up here [uses hands on table to demon  205 strate] / then h i s s i s t e r got ahead / and then he stopped and then turned round and went back the other way to get h i s knapsack and the bomb / he wanted to show i t to h i s f r i e n d s / so he went back, climbed over the fence / and h i s s i s t e r kept going the other way and went to get the p o l i c e / and the boy climbed over the fence / he went down to where h i s knapsack was / he stood there f o r awhile while h i s s i s t e r was g e t t i n g the policeman / and she drove away i n somebody's car / and they found a policeman / then she went over and t o l d the policeman / and while she was doing that, the boy was s t i l l standing there / then he walked up c a r e f u l l y / and he got h i s knapsack / and he ran back to where he was standing / then he went back to the bomb and took a l l h i s s t u f f out of the knapsack and then put the bomb i n / and then he s t a r t e d walking away / and then that g i r l had the policeman phone these people / they were part of the army / and they drove t h i s truck down / and they picked up the g i r l / and she showed where he was / and they came to the place / and the boy started running o f f down i n t o the woods / and they  came / they found where  the bomb was / but then she didn't know which way he would have gone / but then the guy found h i s coat o f f over here [uses table] / and then they followed o f f that  way / and that's the way he went / and they kept on f o l l o w -  ing him / then they found  him / and they were back i n the f i e l d again / and  the boy couldn't take o f f h i s knapsack / and the bomb was there / and i t could have exploded / then the g i r l and a bomb squad guys ran way o f f i n t o the f i e l d and jumped down i n t o the grass / and that other guy kept standing there and t o l d him to take i t o f f / but he couldn't / but then he ran up to the boy and helped him get i t o f f / and then he got i t o f f / they both ran over to where the boy's s i s t e r and the other squad guy was / and they took a jump / then the bomb blew up / and that was the end of the movie  206 APPENDIX 3  Mean Proportions of Cohesion Categories for LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 TI (picture-based) LP  NL  M  .410  SD  T2 (retell,no pictures)  T3 (video recall) LI  NL  .413  .397  .417  .034  .032  .032  .025  .389-.479  .368-.449  .386-.472  .354-.435  .392-.461  LI  NL  .429  .406  .025  .032  .3T7-.446  Reference  range  Ellipsis/Substitution M  .004  .002  .002  .002  .008  .013  SD  .004  .002  .004  .003  .008  .006  0 -.008  0 -.005  0 -.011  0 -.006  0 -.020  .006-.019  M  .220  .224  .256  .219  .250  .254  SD  .039  .052  .032  .035  .023  .012  .167-.261  .154-.297  •218-.315  .157-.259  .219-.287  .237-.266  M  .276  .325  .258  .337  .237  .281  SD  .034  .047  .054  .028  .041  .019  .245-.322  .243-.371  .180-.316  .304-.383  .198-.303  .260-.308  M  .088  .020  .079  .029  .108  .036  SD  .031  .006  .019  .014  .034  .013  •038-.135  .013-.027  .056-.101  .011-.047  .073-.172  .020-.056  range Conjunction  range Lexical  range Incomplete  range  *N= 6 for each group Mann-Whitney U Values TI  T2  T3  Reference  11.5  16.0  13.0  Conjunction  17.0  8.0  14.0  Lexical  9.0  1.0**  7.0  Incomplete  0.0**  0.0**  0.0**  */X.05 **p(.01  207  APPENDIX 4 Conjunctive Items Used by LI and NL Children on Tl, T2, and T3 TASK 1 (Picture-based) Additive Nonadditive temporal  LI  NL  and (6)»  and (6)  tfien (5),and tfien (b),tthile  when (1),after  (2),  (1)  tfien (6),and then (6),wien (3),as (1) while (1), after that (1), ' t i l (1)  adversative  but (2), but then (1)  but (6),but then (1),instead of (1)  causal  so (4),so then (l),cuz (1)  so (5),2>ecause/cuz (4),and so (2), so that (l),as i f (1)  oontinuative  now (3), still (3) ,and now (1), even (1), too (1), finally (1)  still (4), asain (3), finally now (1), well (1), eventually  anymore (1)  (2), (1),  TASK 2 (Retell, no pictures) Additive Nonadditive Temporal  LI  NL  and (6)  and (6)  then (5),and then (A),while (1), when (1), after (1), 'til (1),  then (5),and then (5),when (3),as (1) after (1), 'til (1), this time (1)  soon (l),aoce (1) Adversative  but (2) ,but then (1)  Aut (4)  Causal  so (4), and so (1)  so (5),cuz (3),and so (l),so tfien (1), if (1)  Continuative  srilZ (3),again {2),now (1),  and near (1), and finally  anyway (1)  (1),  s t i l l (5), and finally (2), anymore (2), finally (1), again (1), everafter (1), yet (1)  TASK 3 (Video recall) LI  NL  Additive  and (6)  and (6)  Nonadditive Temporal  and then (6), then (5), when (2)  and tfien (6), tfien (4), when (4), while  (2), 'til  (1),after (1),first that time (1),  (1)  as soon as {l),by  meanwhile (1)  Adversative  but first  (2) ,but  then (1) ,but (1)  Causal  cuz (4),so {A),and so (2)  so (5),cuz (4),and so (3),so tfien (1) i f (1)  Continuative  again (2), and finally well (1)  still (3), well (3), ffrw77y (2), again (2),anymore (1),anyways (1),  (1), too (1)  fiut (6),2»t tfien (2),but  eventually (1), either  only (1)  (1)  The number of different speakers (for a given group) who used the preceding conjunctive item i s given i n parentheses. a  208 APPENDIX 5 Phoric Nominal Groups involving Bridging as Used by LI and NL Children on TI, T2, and T3 TASK 1 (Picture-based) LI:  the beach (from shore) , the rock (mountain),  NL:  the water (boat),  a  the beach (sea), side  the trail  (cruise  or sailors),  the race (turtles buildings  (mountain)  the water (ship),  (mountain or bridge),  the back end (boat),  the rocks  (mountain),  the anchor (boat),  the captain  (sailors),  the top (mountain),  the bow (ship), the jungle  with cards on them with numbers),  the ship  (voyageur),  the turtles  the other  (cruise),  the swing  the ocean (swinging),  (turtle race), riie rail  (New York)  TASK 2 (Retell, without pictures) LI:  the water (boat car ocean), beach (shore),  NL:  the captain  boat),  the top (mountain),  the men (ship),  the  (ship),  the top (mountain),  the ocean (ship or  the land (island)  the water (boat or ocean), the captain cruise  (ship),  the sea (ship),  back (boat), rite ship  the river  (sailing  (ship),  the people  along the ocean),  (ship),  the end (trail  the motor (boat),  the  or board)  TASK 3 (Video recall) LI:  the propeller  (bomb), the general  NL:  fiie propeller  (bomb), the trees  grass  (field),  the sign  (army men)  (fishing),  (a spot where it  the bushes (fishing),  the mods (trees),  said...)  The antecedent serving as the basis for the inference i s given in parentheses.  a  the  209 APPENDIX 6 :  CHECKLIST OF COHESIVE DEVICES  Part I V T a k i n g into Account Linguistic Context and Listener (Cohesion)— Form/Use A . D i d the child use reference? If so: 1. Was the original referent easily retrievable? 2. Was the referent usually retrieved: a. F r o m the context (exophoric)? b. F r o m prior text (anaphoric)? c. By shared culture? d. By bridging? B. D i d the child use ellipsis? If so: 1. Was appropriate information assumed and omitted? 2. C o u l d presupposed information be easily retrieved? C. D i d the child use conjunction? If so: 1. W e r e linked clauses semantically related? 2. Were appropriate conjunctions used to express the relations? 3. Were conjunctions other than and and and then used? D. If the child used lexical cohesion or reference, 1. Were many different referents tied or thematized with these devices? 2. Were they tied frequently throughout the narrative? 3. Was there ever more than a one- or two-clause distance between original mention and remention? 4. W e r e rementioned referents members of different grammatical categories than the original mention and from each other? F_ D i d the child use Parallel Structures? If so: 1. Was the lexical content and structure of the entire clause the same (global parallelism)? 2. Was the lexical content and structure the same for verb phrase only (lexical parallelism)? 3. Was verb phrase structure similar, but lexical content different (structural parallelism)? Comments on Use of Cohesive Ties: (Note that types of lexical cohesion are not included above because there is little information on developmental changes in its use. You may want to comment on whether cohesion was evident primarily in repetition of the same w o r d or in use of related words. Various types of reference were not included for the same reason, but you might want to describe whether most were pronouns, demonstratives, or comparatives.)  Additional Comments Not Directly Related to Coals—(Include frequency of subordinating clauses used throughout, problems with tense markings or shifts, etc.)  Note: R e p r i n t e r d , b y p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e a u t h o r , f r o m Language Disorders and Language Development b y M . L a h e y (New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 8 8 , f  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097565/manifest

Comment

Related Items