UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between specific language variables and mental ability in the treatment of information… Hampson, Eric 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A2 H35.pdf [ 8.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100548.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100548-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100548-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100548-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100548-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100548-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100548-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100548-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100548.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE VARIABLES AND MENTAL ABILITY IN THE TREATMENT OF INFORMATION BY ADULTS by ERIC HAMPSON M.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Au g u s t , 1990 © E r i c Hampson, 1990 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r referen c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permi s s i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: August, 1990 ABSTRACT The main f o c u s of t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o determine the f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t e x i s t s when mental a b i l i t y and language competence a r e s e p a r a t e l y and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y measured w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on the e f f e c t i v e t r e a t m e n t of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The s u b j e c t sample c o m p r i s e d 100 men and women, aged 20-60 y e a r s , who were chosen t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the employable p o p u l a t i o n of the G r e a t e r Vancouver a r e a . The assessment of language i n t h e s e s u b j e c t s i n c l u d e d s k i l l i n .syntax, e x e m p l i f i e d by v e r b - f o r m competence, the v a r i e t y of c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s employed, and the presence of o t h e r m o d i f y i n g d e v i c e s common t o a d u l t language. The pr o c e d u r e s f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e s e c o m p e t e n c i e s were o r i g i n a l l y d e v e l o p e d by the a u t h o r from raw d a t a s u p p l i e d by Koopman (1985). Comprehension was measured by means of a s t a n d a r d r e a d i n g comprehension t e s t , which c o m p r i s e d a s e r i e s of graded p a r a g r a p h s . M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s were posed on s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the c h a r a c t e r s and e v e n t s , i n f e r e n c e s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the c o n t e n t , and r e c a l l of the a c t i o n s and s e t t i n g s p r e s e n t e d i n the pa r a g r a p h s . I n t e l l i g e n c e was measured by a n o n - v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , which c a l l e d f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of g e o m e t r i c a l p a t t e r n s and l e a r n e d s k i l l s i n m a t c h i n g , a n a l o g i e s , i i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , i n t e r s e c t i o n s , and p r o g r e s s i o n s . S k i l l i n p r o c e s s i n g v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n was assessed from the s u b j e c t s ' w r i t t e n p r o d u c t i o n s . S i x c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o p i c s were presented to the s u b j e c t s by means of q u e s t i o n s and r e l a t e d c o l l a g e s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to p r e s e n t , i n w r i t i n g , a s o l u t i o n to one of the i s s u e s . The time suggested f o r t h i s task was approximately f i f t e e n minutes. The compositions were scored f o r q u a l i t y of argument and m a t u r i t y of judgment. A l l scores were analyzed by r e g r e s s i o n and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n procedures. Demographic data were i n v e s t i g a t e d by c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The main f i n d i n g of t h i s present r e s e a r c h was t h a t s k i l l i n syntax i s the major component i n E n g l i s h composition, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n e x e r c i s e s which c a l l f o r c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s and the making of sound judgments. T h i s f i n d i n g suggests that the assessment procedures used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h may be a f e a s i b l e means of judging the q u a l i t y of a d u l t s ' w r i t t e n language. The r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d that s k i l l i n the use of language i s of greater s i g n i f i c a n c e than i s mental a b i l i t y i n the treatment of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The demographic v a r i a b l e s of the s u b j e c t s do not serve to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between high and low performance i n language i n any r e l i a b l e way, although l e v e l of educ a t i o n has some b e a r i n g on a b i l i t y i n language and category of occupation among the middle and upper age-groups. F i n a l l y , p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of these assessment procedures i n educ a t i o n and suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h d i r e c t l y concerned with t h i s study and with i s s u e s i n r e l a t e d f i e l d s are d i s c u s s e d . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i Acknowledgments x i Chapter 1. Language, Mental A b i l i t y , and Information .... 1 The Nature of t h i s Study 1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Subject s 4 Research O b j e c t i v e s 4 Research Problems 5 The Case For W r i t t e n Language 6 The Major Concern . . . 6 Reactions of Sub j e c t s 6 Types of Language Samples 8 S e l e c t i o n and D e f i n i t i o n of V a r i a b l e s 10 Language Ability 10 Syntactic Performance 11 Comprehension 11 Me nt al Abi I i t y 11 I nf ormat ion 12 Elements of S y n t a c t i c Performance 12 Score for Verbs 12 Variety of Clauses 13 El abor at i on of the Subject and Predicate 17 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Demographic V a r i a b l e s 18 Research Questions 19 S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s Research 21 Chapter 2. Survey of the L i t e r a t u r e 24 The Development of Grammars 24 D e f i n i n g Grammar 24 Contending T h e o r i e s of Grammar 25 T r a d i t i o n a l Grammar 25 Departures from T r a d i t i o n 26 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e Grammar 28 Language as a Behaviour 30 Bases f o r Assessment 31 Assessment: Syntactic Performance 31 Assessment: Comprehension 35 Concerning Reading Comprehension 37 An A n a l y t i c a l Approach: Comprehension 39 Assessment: Mental Ability 41 S e l e c t e d T h e o r i e s of Mental A b i l i t y 41 F i r s t Developments i n T e s t i n g 46 La t e r Developments i n T e s t i n g 48 Assessment: Information 52 The Role of Memory 57 Summary 59 v Chapter 3. Methodology 61 V a r i a b l e s : C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Scores 61 The P o p u l a t i o n and Sample 62 E x c l u s i o n s 63 The T e s t i n g Session 64 The Subjects 64 The T e s t i n g Session 64 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 65 C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y 65 P o s t - t e s t V i s i t s 66 Instrumentation and Procedures 66 S e l e c t e d Procedure: Syntactic Performance 66 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Syntactic Performance 70 Score f o r Verbs 70 V a r i e t y of Clauses 71 E l a b o r a t i o n of the Subject and P r e d i c a t e 73 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : Syntactic Performance . 74 Procedure f o r S c o r i n g 77 Schedule of Scores: Syntactic Performance 78 Score for Verbs 78 Variety of Clauses 78 Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate 79 S e l e c t e d Procedure: Comprehension 80 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Comprehension 83 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : Comprehension 84 Schedule of Scores: Comprehension 86 Se l e c t e d Instrument: Mental Ability 86 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Mental Ability 87 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : Mental Ability 88 Schedule of Scores: Mental Ability 91 Se l e c t e d Procedure: Information 92 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Information 93 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : Information 95 Schedule of Scores: Information 96 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Demographic V a r i a b l e s 98 Schedule of Scores: Demographic V a r i a b l e s 99 Research Design 100 A Question of Logic 101 C o r r e l a t i o n s : Language Samples & Information . . . 106 L e v e l of S i g n i f i c a n c e 107 Methods of A n a l y s i s 107 Academic and Mental A b i l i t y V a r i a b l e s 108 The Demographic V a r i a b l e s 108 Model f o r Hypothesis 14 108 S t a t i s t i c a l Hypothesis 14 109 C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n Procedures 109 Chapter 4. R e s u l t s 111 Purpose and S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures 111 v i Hypotheses and R e s u l t s 113 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 1 114 I nf erence 1 114 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 2 115 I nf erence 2 116 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 3 117 I nf erence 3 118 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 4 119 Infe r e n c e 4 120 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 5 122 Infe r e n c e 5 122 General Comment: A l l M u l t i p l i c a t i v e V a r i a b l e s .. 122 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 6 124 Inf e r e n c e 6 124 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 7 126 Infe r e n c e 7 126 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 8 128 I nf erence 8 128 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 9 130 Infe r e n c e 9 130 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 10 132 Infe r e n c e 10 132 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 11 134 Infe r e n c e 11 . 134 General Comment: A l l M u l t i p l i c a t i v e V a r i a b l e s 134 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 12 136 Infe r e n c e 12 136 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 13 138 Infe r e n c e 13 138 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 14 140 Infe r e n c e 14 140 Demographic V a r i a b l e s : D i s t r i b u t i o n s 141 C r o s s - V a l i d a t i o n 144 Te s t s of S i g n i f i c a n c e : Main V a r i a b l e s 146 Chapter 5. D i s c u s s i o n 147 The V a r i a b l e s Re-examined 147 Main V a r i a b l e s 1 47 J o i n t E f f e c t s and Related Terminology 147 D i s c u s s i o n of the Analyses 150 Hypotheses 1 - 3 & 5 150 Hypotheses 1 - 3 150 Hypothesis 5 151 Hypotheses 8 - 11 152 Hypothesis 8 152 Hypotheses 9 - 11 153 Hypotheses 4 & 12; 6, 7 & 13 154 Hypotheses 4 & 12 154 Hypotheses 6, 7, & 13 155 Hypothesis 14 157 v i i Chapter 6. Summary and General D i s c u s s i o n 159 Summary 159 Background 159 The Present Study 159 Plan of A c t i o n 160 A n a l y s i s of Data 160 Achievement of O b j e c t i v e s 160 General D i s c u s s i o n 164 P r a c t i c a l A p p l i c a t i o n s 164 E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment and D i a g n o s i s 164 Language and the C u r r i c u l u m 166 Language and S p e c i a l Circumstances 168 D i a l e c t a l and other V a r i a t i o n s 170 Personnel S e l e c t i o n 171 L i m i t a t i o n s 172 A General L i m i t a t i o n 172 Sample S e l e c t i o n and G e o g r a p h i c a l L o c a t i o n .. 173 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research 174 Score f o r Verbs 174 Language and Mental A b i l i t y 175 Language and Pragmatics and Information 177 Conc l u s i o n 179 References 181 Appendix A 202 Language and Demographic V a r i a b l e s : Summary of Data ... 202 D i s t r i b u t i o n Data 203 C o r r e l a t i o n s 203 M u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y , E i g e n v a l u e s , & C a n o n i c a l C o r r e l a t i o n s 204 Stand a r d i z e d C o e f f i c i e n t s 205 Can o n i c a l V a r i a b l e Loadings 205 Average Squared C o r r e l a t i o n s 206 Appendix B 207 How We Understand Information and Make D e c i s i o n s .. 207 Appendix C 210 Personal Information 210 Appendix D 212 I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r O b t a i n i n g a Language Sample 212 Appendix E 214 Pr i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s 214 Appendix F 219 Copies of the C o l l a g e s {Information) 219 v i i i SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT 219 Appendix G 223 Davis reading Test: S u b s t r a c t i o n Table 223 Appendix H 224 Examples of a Language Sample 224 ix Li s t of Tables Table 1. Zero Order C o r r e l a t i o n s : Language and Demographic V a r i a b l e s 18 Table 2. C o r r e l a t i o n s : Wechsler's Scales and Raven's Mat r i ces 51 Table 3. Regression IN on LA 113 Table 4. Regression IN on SP 115 Table 5. Regression IN on CO 117 Table 6. Regression IN on MA 119 Table 7. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SP & CO 121 Table 8. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & SP 1 23 Table 9. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & CO 1 25 Table 10. M u l t i p l e R e gression IN on SV, VC, EL 127 Table 11. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SV & VC 129 Table 12. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SV & EL 131 Table 13. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t VC & EL 133 Table 14. Regression LA on MA 135 Table 15. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & LA 1 37 Table 16. R e s u l t s : C a n o n i c a l A n a l y s i s 139 Table 17. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Age 141 Table 18. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Socio-economic Status 142 Table 19. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Educa t i o n 143 Table 20. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Occupation ...144 x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The w r i t e r recognizes i n f u l l measure the guidance which he has r e c e i v e d from Dr. P.R.S. Koopman, (Research S u p e r v i s o r ) , Dr. Walter B o l d t , and Dr. Sydney B u t l e r i n the p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s study. T h e i r c r i t i c i s m s were always g e n t l e ; t h e i r arguments cogent and w e l l - p l a c e d . I t would be d i f f i c u l t to over-estimate the h e l p f u r n i s h e d by Dr. Robert Bruce and h i s s t a f f , i n E d u c a t i o n a l Research S e r v i c e s and Computing. They were very p a t i e n t i n t e a c h i n g one who was abyssmally ignorant of t h e i r s c i e n c e and of the i n t r i c a c i e s of computer t e r m i n a l s . A s p e c i a l mark of a p p r e c i a t i o n i s the due of Dr. Donna Haqq; Ms. Gladys Hindmarch, Dr. Susan M c C a s l i n , Mr.. L o u i s Montminy ( f o r h i s d r a f t i n g s k i l l s ) , Dr. Cathy Tolsma, Mrs. Kathy McGowan, Mr. Bob Caper and Ms. Libby Soper, and Dr. Inge W i l l i a m s (of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia); nor must one f o r g e t the men and women who responded to the t e s t s . F i n a l l y , I would be remiss not to acknowledge C h r i s t i a n a D.C. Hampson, whose h e l p , i n d i s p e n s a b l e as i t was and continues to be, may sometimes have appeared to go unrecognized. Such has never been the case. To her and to a l l those mentioned e a r l i e r , my thanks are due. x i CHAPTER 1. LANGUAGE, MENTAL ABILITY, AND INFORMATION THE NATURE OF THIS STUDY T h i s study i s concerned with examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s p e c i f i c language v a r i a b l e s , mental a b i l i t y , and the c a p a c i t y f o r developing v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n as the bases f o r problem s o l v i n g . An e s s e n t i a l f u n c t i o n of language i s communication, which i n c l u d e s understanding the opini o n s and i n t e n t i o n s of o t h e r s , and e x p r e s s i n g one's own ideas. Understanding i s dependent on the a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s of i n f o r m a t i o n . There i s the need to recognize and to i n t e g r a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among items of knowledge, and to use the complex p a t t e r n s thus formed as the b a s i s f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a p p r e c i a t i o n of problems that may a r i s e i n , say, complex s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Understanding, a c c o r d i n g to G u i l f o r d (1973), embraces "immediate d i s c o v e r y , awareness, r e - d i s c o v e r y , or r e c o g n i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n i n v a r i o u s forms [p.636]." Bruner (1973) suggested t h a t i t i s f r u i t f u l to d i s t i n g u i s h three systems f o r p r o c e s s i n g the info r m a t i o n "by which human beings c o n s t r u c t models of t h e i r world [p.161]." These are a c t i o n , imagery, and language, which Bruner l a t e r r e f e r s t o , r e s p e c t i v e l y , as e n a c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , i c o n i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The c r i t i c a l 1 2 and mature form of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n appears to be through language, the "medium f o r the t r a n s l a t i o n of experience [p.165]." The i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g , which i s i m p l i e d by the operations mentioned above, i s subsumed under the g e n e r a l category of mental a b i l i t y , a q u a l i t y c u s t o m a r i l y a s s e s s e d i n some of i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s by a standard i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . The innate q u a l i t y of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g i s l i k e l y not to be s u s c e p t i b l e of much improvement, alt h o u g h s k i l l i n responding to the t e s t s that are employed to determine i t may w e l l be. Consequently, i f the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s to i n t e r p r e t and convey v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s to be improved, one needs to focus the main e f f o r t s i n the area of language. The q u e s t i o n of the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of mental a b i l i t y and s p e c i f i c language v a r i a b l e s i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n has i n c r e a s i n g l y become an i s s u e as more people i n more areas are exposed to more news, commentaries, and a d v e r t i z i n g . The t e r s e s t y l e of much modern news r e p o r t i n g , the b i a s that can so c l e v e r l y be in t r o d u c e d , and c o r r u p t i o n of the language which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the most popular media are reason enough for b e l i e v i n g there may be a problem that o f f e r s ground f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The above problem a l s o became an i s s u e f o r t h i s 3 r e s e a r c h e r d u r i n g f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of data p r e v i o u s l y c o l l e c t e d by Koopman f o r her s t u d i e s f o r the Government of Canada (Koopman, 1985; 1988). These s t u d i e s concerned the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of v a r i o u s a t y p i c a l i n d i v i d u a l s . Among the t a s k s set f o r these i n d i v i d u a l s was the r e c o r d i n g of a sample of t h e i r o r a l language, l a t e r to be t r a n s c r i b e d and s c o r e d f o r (a) competence in syntax and (b) m a t u r i t y i n r e s o l v i n g problems. S u b j e c t s a l s o were asked to complete a non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . An examination of the t e s t scores i n d i c a t e d that there was a very low c o r r e l a t i o n between those for m a t u r i t y i n r e s o l v i n g c u r r e n t s o c i a l problems, as assessed by the s c a l e developed by Schroder, D r i v e r , and S t r e u f e r t (1967), and the s cores o b t a i n e d f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e . Between the language v a r i a b l e s and the r e s o l u t i o n of the type of problem r e f e r r e d to above, the c o r r e l a t i o n was s u b s t a n t i a l . A p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s anomaly co u l d be based on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v a r i o u s t e s t s that were employed, a s i t u a t i o n that i s r e f e r r e d to l a t e r , i n Chapter 5 {Hypotheses 4 & 12), i n connection with the present study. The i s s u e s p resented, in p a r t i c u l a r by the Koopman (1985, 1988) s t u d i e s , suggested the need for a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , u s i n g a r e v i s e d and more r e f i n e d v e r s i o n of the procedure a l r e a d y employed for measuring a d u l t syntax, and with s u b j e c t s drawn from the general p o p u l a t i o n of 4 employable men and women. In i n v e s t i g a t i o n s which c o n c e r n i n d i v i d u a l s , a r e s e a r c h e r i s u s u a l l y f a c e d w i t h the i n f l u e n c e s of demographic f a c t o r s and the p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s of those who take p a r t i n the s t u d y . T h i s r e s e a r c h e r has ad d r e s s e d t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e i n Chapter 6 (Limitations). PARTICIPATION OF SUBJECTS T h i s r e s e a r c h e r i n t e r v i e w e d and t e s t e d one hundred a d u l t s , aged 20-60 y e a r s , from v a r i o u s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c groups and l e v e l s of e d u c a t i o n , and t h u s more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n than were t h o s e who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the s t u d i e s mentioned above. The s u b j e c t s were asked t o complete a p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y form, t o e x p r e s s t h e i r o p i n i o n s i n w r i t i n g about a t o p i c of c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n t e r e s t , and t o ta k e s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s i n re a d i n g comprehension and i n i n t e l l i g e n c e . RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s r e s e a r c h study were: 1. To determine the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i c language v a r i a b l e s and mental a b i l i t y on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s k i l l i n d e v e l o p i n g v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n as the b a s i s f o r the s o l u t i o n of problems of s o c i a l c o n c e r n . 2. To de v e l o p a pro c e d u r e f o r measuring a d u l t s y n t a x . 5 3. To assess the influence of some common demographic variables on s p e c i f i c language variables. RESEARCH PROBLEMS The objectives l i s t e d above posed some problems of instrumentation and scoring in relation to two of the defined variables of th i s research: Syntactic Performance and Information. The f i r s t problem was to assess competence in selected aspects of syntax within the constraints imposed by time and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those tested, in a manner which would supply the d e t a i l asked for in the research questions. It was necessary to select a limited yet representative number of syntactic elements. The bases of th i s selection are examined later in th i s chapter and in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains data pertaining to the relevant r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . A second problem concerned the choice of written language as the medium for analysis. This j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the choice of t h i s medium in preference to spoken language i s discussed below in this chapter (THE CASE FOR WRITTEN LANGUAGE). The t h i r d problem was to show that a single language sample from each subject might be scored from two perspectives viz. (a) syntactical s k i l l s and (b) the qu a l i t y of thought represented in the solution of a problem, by 6 procedures which i n t h e i r e s s e n t i a l nature circumvent the p o s s i b i l i t y of each of the q u a l i t y of thought and the s y n t a c t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the w r i t t e n language mutually determining the o t h e r . T h i s i s s u e i s f u r t h e r examined in Chapter 3 (A Q u e s t i o n of L o g i c ) . THE CASE FOR WRITTEN LANGUAGE The Major Concern T h i s r e s e a r c h i s concerned with a d u l t w r i t t e n language, s p e c i f i c a l l y s k i l l r e l a t e d to s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s , i n a p a r t i c u l a r circumstance, viz. responding to p o t e n t i a l l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l q u e s t i o n s by s u g g e s t i n g p l a u s i b l e s o l u t i o n s and j u s t i f y i n g them. I t i s not concerned with spoken language i n the context of l i n g u i s t i c s . R e a c t i o n s of S u b j e c t s The d e c i s i o n to ask f o r only w r i t t e n language was d i c t a t e d by l o g i s t i c s and time c o n s t r a i n t s , which can be s i g n i f i c a n t when a d u l t s u b j e c t s are unpaid and have given up some f r e e time, or have agreed to accept the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r an i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r i o d f o r which they have been charged a f e e . Under these circumstances, a researcher must be prepared to a s s e s s s u b j e c t s i n groups, o b v i o u s l y with a t e s t t h at can l e g i t i m a t e l y be administered 7 in t h i s way. In a d d i t i o n to these o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems, there i s an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e l a t e d to performance. The comprehension of o r a l language makes heavier demands on the memory than does the understanding of w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . The s u b j e c t can always look back at what he has j u s t read, but he cannot "hear back." On the other hand, w r i t t e n language l a c k s the r i c h set of h i n t s to comprehension that speech c u s t o m a r i l y f u r n i s h e s : p i t c h , i n t o n a t i o n , s t r e s s , and t iming. In p a r t i c u l a r , there i s d i f f i c u l t y i n r e c o r d i n g scores when a s s e s s i n g the s y n t a c t i c component i n speech. As B o l i n g e r (1975) has s a i d , " I f a specimen [of v e r b a l language] i s to be s t u d i e d i t must hold s t i l l — s p e e c h i s too ephemeral [p.506]." Recording on tape i s the obvious s o l u t i o n , when t h i s can be done on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , which was not f e a s i b l e i n t h i s study. Another p o t e n t i a l disadvantage of recordings i s the f a c t that u n p r a c t i s e d speakers may f i n d the experience i n t i m i d a t i n g , and, as a r e s u l t , not produce n a t u r a l and a u t h e n t i c composition. For some i n d i v i d u a l s , the task of d i s c u s s i n g any t o p i c i n a c o n s i d e r e d way i s more e a s i l y achieved when there i s time to t h i n k c r i t i c a l l y and j o t down some main p o i n t s b e f o r e composing an answer that should s t r i k e a f a i r balance among v a r i o u s p o i n t s of view and r e v e a l evidence of a deeper 8 l e v e l of th inking than is usual ly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of ora l responses. However, one should perhaps accept with Tannen (1983) that: o r a l s trateg ies underl ie successful production of written discourse . . . d i f ferences between them may in fact grow out of other fac tors : s p e c i f i c a l l y , communicative goals and r e l a t i v e focus on interpersonal involvement (p .60) . Palmer (1988) observed that wri t ing is not supplementary to the the spoken word but a quite d i f ferent performance, which is a caution that should be heeded; but, according to C r y s t a l (1985), not to the exclusion of written language, for "both are E n g l i s h , and the above [the reversal of l i n g u i s t i c s p r i o r i t i e s ] must not be exaggerated [p.60]." Types of Language Samples The type of language sample i s a lso a s ign i f i cant fac tor . Language samples may be "free-writ ing" or "re -wr i t ing ." The f r e e - w r i t i n g format requires candidates to produce an o r i g i n a l composit ion. In r e - w r i t i n g , the candidates re-cast a paragraph or a ser ies of sentences. There may be c e r t a i n requirements, such as the production of p a r t i c u l a r forms of sentences, or the subst i tut ion of phrases for f i n i t e c lauses , or the candidates may be l e f t 9 f r e e to make t h e i r own m o d i f i c a t i o n s . Hunt (1977) r e f e r r e d to two of h i s unpublished s t u d i e s (1970, 1974) with these o b s e r v a t i o n s : (a) r e - w r i t i n g has the advantage of the candidates' re-working the same passage, and d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance w i l l be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to e x c l u s i v e l y l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s , (b) the examiner i s f r e e to present a p a r t i c u l a r task to the c a n d i d a t e s . T h i s freedom to focus on s e l e c t e d s t r u c t u r e s or processes makes f o r economy of time, and reduces the tedium of s c o r i n g . On the other hand, there i s the danger of re a c h i n g a f a u l t y c o n c l u s i o n on too l i m i t e d an example of a person's a b i l i t y i n composition; and, as Hunt (1977) remarked, "The r e s u l t s a t t a i n e d w i l l depend to some extent on the problems s e t . I n s o f a r as the i n v e s t i g a t o r s e t s an abnormal task he or she w i l l get an abnormal r e s u l t [p.92]." O b v i o u s l y , with r e - w r i t i n g , the treatment of any i n f o r m a t i o n to be conveyed has a l r e a d y been p a r t l y accomplished i n the p r o d u c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l p i e c e or stim u l u s , and, by d e f i n i t i o n , any statement that i s produced as a response cannot r e a l l y r e p r e s e n t the student's unencumbered i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the su b j e c t - m a t t e r . In developing i n f o r m a t i o n , one must be ab l e to judge l e v e l s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a t r u e r e f l e c t i o n of what has been comprehended or i n f e r r e d from the v e r b a l or p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l u s . T h i s comprehension and the i n f e r e n c e s therefrom are regarded as f u n c t i o n s of s y n t a c t i c and 10 semantic maturity and of mental a b i l i t y . It would seem that to test the r e l a t i v e importance of language and of i n t e l l i g e n c e in the treatment of information, f r e e - w r i t i n g must be the approach. SELECTION AND DEFINITION OF VARIABLES The var iab le s se lected for analys i s were Language Ability, which comprises Syntactic Performance and Comprehension; Mental Ability; and Information. The elements comprising Syntactic Performance are Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate. Below, each var iab le i s s t r i c t l y defined in the context of this study, and from the perspective of pract ices in adult education. Furthermore, in Chapter 2 (SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE), the author has l i m i t e d his discussion to those aspects of each topic that are immediately relevant to th i s context and perspect ive . Language Ability This var iab l e represents s k i l l in the use of spec i f i c syntact ic s tructures in free w r i t i n g , and the a b i l i t y to comprehend writ ten language, as assessed by a reading comprehension t e s t . 11 Syntactic Performance Competence in a r r a n g i n g words to form grammatical sentences i s the essence of t h i s v a r i a b l e . These sentences should c l e a r l y r e v e a l the mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these words i n acceptable d i s c o u r s e . Comprehensi on T h i s v a r i a b l e i s e s s e n t i a l l y the a b i l i t y to understand w r i t t e n language, and to show the l e v e l of t h i s understanding by answering q u e s t i o n s which advance from the r e c i t a l of f a c t s to the r e c o g n i t i o n of i n f e r e n c e s . Me nt al A b i I i t y As a term in general use, mental a b i l i t y can be d e f i n e d in so many ways that i n the end c o n f u s i o n r a t h e r than c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s the r e s u l t . Boring (1923) d e c l a r e d that i n t e l l i g e n c e must be recognized as the c a p a c i t y to do w e l l i n an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , which suggests that a r e s e a r c h e r can l e g i t i m a t e l y d e f i n e i n t e l l i g e n c e by adopting the t e s t most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n underway. On the assumption that Spearman (1927) c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d i n h i s n o e t i c p r i n c i p l e s two fundamental o p e r a t i o n s (a) the eduction of r e l a t i o n s and (b) the eduction of c o r r e l a t e s , as the essence of g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , t h i s researcher s e l e c t e d a t e s t i n which these 1 2 p r i n c i p l e s were amply i l l u s t r a t e d , and thus d e f i n e d the v a r i a b l e f o r the purposes of t h i s present r e s e a r c h . I nf ormat ion The v a r i a b l e , as d e f i n e d f o r t h i s study, encompasses the r e c o g n i t i o n , s e l e c t i o n , and subsequent o r g a n i z a t i o n of v a r i o u s kinds of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n from which the i n d i v i d u a l may develop o p i n i o n s that are expressed i n w r i t i n g and become the bases f o r r e s o l v i n g some problem. T h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of that for in f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g enunciated by Schroder et a l . (1967), but o b v i o u s l y does not i n c l u d e i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed i n the s p a t i a l , q u a n t i t a t i v e , and other dimensions. ELEMENTS OF SYNTACTIC PERFORMANCE Score for Verbs I t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t Jeremy Bentham d i s t r u s t e d the verb, e s p e c i a l l y i n l e g a l e x p r e s s i o n s . He thought of i t as " s l i p p e r y , " with a meaning that was always moving, always v a r i a b l e (Bowring, 1962). P a r t r i d g e (1949) d e c l a r e d that a c t i o n i s the c h i e f f e a t u r e of a verb: "A verb t e l l s what some person or t h i n g does or what s t a t e he or i t is i n or what i s becoming of some person or t h i n g [p.64]." P a r t r i d g e admitted to the clumsiness of t h i s 13 d e f i n i t i o n ; and i n i t there i s c e r t a i n l y no b a s i s f o r any assessment of complexity. The verb can be a most potent and f l e x i b l e element i n a sentence. However, i t i s a l s o the most d i f f i c u l t to use e f f e c t i v e l y . The concepts of s u b j e c t and o b j e c t and any reference to the r e l a t i o n s between them are i n d e f i n a b l e without t h i s c o n s t i t u e n t which, through mood, tense, and aspect, i s able to convey a wealth of nuances to any u t t e r a n c e . One f i n i t e verb may d e s c r i b e s e v e r a l a c t i o n s or s t a t e s , and a s i n g l e a c t i o n may be p o r t r a y e d by a number of verbs. A mental set i s thus e s t a b l i s h e d . Mood, tense, and aspect are i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d . In g e n e r a l , one may use such terms as "present tense" or "past tense," but always with an uneasy f e e l i n g t h a t "present" and "past" do not mean q u i t e what they seem to mean. When " f u t u r e " i s used i n c o n n e c t i o n with v e r b s , the anomaly i s even more obvious. Variety of Clauses Hunt (1965) examined the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of s e v e r a l u n i t s of s y n t a c t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e as measures of m a t u r i t y i n language. Although h i s main concern was grammatical s t r u c t u r e s , he f u r n i s h e d r e s e a r c h e r s with data and d i r e c t i o n s which can save hours of f r u i t l e s s e n q u i r y . As he s t a t e d as a general comment i n the Foreword of h i s study 1 4 (Hunt, 1965): Some of these d e t a i l s s u r v i v e as markers of dead ends. They say, i n e f f e c t , "The i n v e s t i g a t o r thought t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n might turn out to be worth p i c k i n g up. You need not waste your time g e t t i n g the same i n f o r m a t i o n a l l over again. Signs saying 'No Thoroughfare' should not a l l be torn down." In p a r t i c u l a r , Hunt found that i n c r e a s e s i n mean c l a u s e l e n g t h and the number of subordinate c l a u s e s were i n d i c a t i v e of d e v e l o p i n g m a t u r i t y , and can be measured by h i s new u n i t , the Minimal Terminable Unit or T - u n i t , which he d e f i n e d as a main c l a u s e p l u s subordinate c l a u s e s and n o n - c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s a t t a c h e d to or embedded i n i t . The T- u n i t r e p r e s e n t s the s h o r t e s t u n i t that may a l l o w a b l y be punctuated as a sentence. He d e f i n e d a c l a u s e as a s u b j e c t or c o - o r d i n a t e s u b j e c t with a f i n i t e p r e d i c a t e or f i n i t e c o - o r d i n a t e p r e d i c a t e s . The T-unit i s s a i d to preserve i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y more e f f e c t i v e l y than does a d i v i s i o n i n t o c l a u s e s d u r i n g segmentation of a passage. T h i s i s so, but Sims and Crump (1983) p o i n t e d out that a mere in c r e a s e i n the number of sub o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s may be an i n d i c a t o r of immaturity i n s y n t a c t i c development i n some i n s t a n c e s . The c r u c i a l f a c t o r i s whether or not the a d d i t i o n a l c l a u s e s c o n s t i t u t e segments i n one or more T - u n i t s . Andolina (1980) 1 5 s t a t e d as much when he confirmed that average T - u n i t l e n g t h appeared to be a v a l i d i n d i c a t o r of s y n t a c t i c development. F u r t h e r , i f grade-placement a l s o s i g n a l s l e v e l of l i n g u i s t i c m aturity, the best a s s o c i a t e d index i s the l e n g t h of the T- u n i t ; the second best i s mean c l a u s e l e n g t h , and the poorest i s sentence l e n g t h (Hunt, 1965). Hunt (1977) regarded the s u b s t i t u t i o n of pronouns, p a r t i c u l a r l y the r e l a t i v e pronoun, i n a sequence of sentences as a s i g n of m a t u r i t y i n language, and i n " E a r l y Blooming and and Late Blooming S t r u c t u r e s " ( c i t e d i n Cooper & O d e l l , 1977, pp.91-104), he d i s c u s s e d the p r o g r e s s i o n from a s i n g l e sentence to compound and complex sentences, and a l s o the con v e r s i o n of c l a u s e s to p h r a s a l s t r u c t u r e s , which he f e l t to be a s i g n i f i c a n t stage i n language development. The segmented T - u n i t i s the b a s i s of the a n a l y s i s of the v a r i a b l e S y n t a c t i c Performance. The fundamental r e l a t i o n s h i p i s that of a nominal s u b j e c t to a verb, and on t h i s are c o n s t r u c t e d complex sentences, with embedded and attached subordinate c l a u s e s , and v a r i o u s forms of e l a b o r a t i o n . The compound sentence, c o m p r i s i n g one subject or c o - o r d i n a t e s u b j e c t s with c o - o r d i n a t e p r e d i c a t e s , i s e s s e n t i a l l y two T - u n i t s j o i n e d by a c o - o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n , a s t r u c t u r e which Hunt (1977) s t a t e d "blooms e a r l y , immediately s t a r t s to d i e , but l i n g e r s on f o r y e a r s , being g r a d u a l l y smothered by r e l a t i v e s [p.97]." The T - u n i t i t s e l f 16 may be one of the sentences recognized i n t h i s present study (the simple, or complex sentence with subordinate c l a u s e s , phrases, and other forms of e l a b o r a t i o n ) ; but, as a l r e a d y mentioned, not the i n t a c t compound sentence, f o r the T - u n i t segments i t . Hunt (1977) does not supply a measure of c l a u s a l v a r i e t y , and t h i s researcher again r e f e r r e d to C r y s t a l , F l e t c h e r , and Garman (1976), Lee and Canter (1971), and the examples of a d u l t w r i t i n g s u p p l i e d by Koopman (1985). The scheme e v e n t u a l l y used in t h i s study i s a d i s t i l l a t i o n of these sources. U l t i m a t e l y , frequency of occurrence i n a d u l t language, and the support of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e quoted e a r l i e r , suggested an order of complexity which reco g n i z e d a p r o g r e s s i o n from simple to compound to complex sentences, and w i t h i n the complex category an order s p e c i f y i n g time, reason, c o n d i t i o n , r e s u l t and consequence, and p l a c e as f a c t o r s which modify the p r e d i c a t e of the main c l a u s e . The noun c l a u s e was t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y as (a) the d i r e c t o b j e c t and (b) the s u b j e c t of the main c l a u s e . The a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s and the noun cl a u s e as subject were c o n s i d e r e d to be p a r t of more complex s t r u c t u r e s than were the noun c l a u s e as o b j e c t and the a d j e c t i v a l c l a u s e . 1 7 Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate E l a b o r a t i o n of the s u b j e c t and the p r e d i c a t e i s e s s e n t i a l l y the a d d i t i o n of q u a l i f y i n g words and phrases to the noun or pronoun c o n s t i t u t i n g i t . These may be s i n g l e a d j e c t i v e s or a t t r i b u t i v e and a p p o s i t i v e phrases (Rosenbaum, 1967). E l a b o r a t i o n i n c l u d e s the c l a u s a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s mentioned by Hunt (1977) as being p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d i c a t i v e of mature a d u l t language: s p e c i f i c a l l y , the transforming s e v e r a l s u c c e s s i v e c l a u s e s i n t o phrases by r e p l a c i n g f i n i t e verbs with present p a r t i c i p l e s . T h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n was a r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to C h r i s t e n s e n (1967) i n h i s study of the s u b j e c t , and i s e x e m p l i f i e d i n t h i s sentence taken by Hunt (1977) from h i s study. We caught two bass, h a u l i n g them b r i s k l y as though they were mackerel, p u l l i n g them over the si d e of the boat i n a b u s i n e s s l i k e manner without any la n d i n g net, and stunning them with a blow on the back of the head (p.100). Hunt (1977) p o i n t e d out that of the 300 persons from grades 4, 6, 8, 10, & 12, and a group of a d u l t s , who wrote the e x e r c i s e s i n h i s study, not one produced t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n of the present p a r t i c i p l e . On a second o c c a s i o n , of the higher grades, only two out of ten grade 12 18 students produced the c o n s t r u c t i o n , but at a u n i v e r s i t y , nine out of ten students were able to do so.. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES There i s a common p e r c e p t i o n that an i n d i v i d u a l ' s language i s a f f e c t e d by v a r i o u s demographic v a r i a b l e s . Among them are sex, age, socio-economic s t a t u s , years of ed u c a t i o n , and present occupation. The d e c i s i o n to proceed with an a n a l y s i s of demographic data was based on the l i t e r a t u r e ( B e r n s t e i n , 1962, 1972), and a p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s of data s u p p l i e d by Koopman (1988). These l a t t e r data (N=89) y i e l d e d c o r r e l a t i o n s , which are c o n t a i n e d i n Table 1. The a b b r e v i a t i o n s are f o r Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate. Table 1. Zero Order C o r r e l a t i o n s : Language and Demographic V a r i a b l e s . V a r i a b l e s Sc. Verbs Var. CI . Elab. Sex 0.004 0.141 0.212 Age 0.180 0.053 0.145 Educ. 0.338 0.259 0.280 Occup. 0.231 0.004 0.111 19 There i s l i t t l e evidence i n the t a b l e of any strong and s t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the demographic and language v a r i a b l e s . However, because the sample, demographic v a r i a b l e s , instruments, and t e s t i n g procedures i n the p i l o t study were not i d e n t i c a l with those subsequently adopted i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r decided to analyze h i s l a t e r s y n t a c t i c and demographic data i n order to examine f u r t h e r the i m p l i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . RESEARCH QUESTIONS The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s arose d i r e c t l y from the re s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . In Chapter 4, each i s re-phrased as a n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . Together they embody the s p e c u l a t i o n s which t h i s r e s e a r c h e r wished to examine. These s p e c u l a t i o n s concern the r e l a t i o n s h i p s that e x i s t among the language v a r i a b l e s , mental a b i l i t y , and the manner i n which v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d and acted on by i n d i v i d u a l s . 1. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s c o n t r i b u t e d by Language AbiIi t y? 2. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s c o n t r i b u t e d by Syntactic Performance! 3. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n the Information i s c o n t r i b u t e d by Comprehension! 4. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s 20 c o n t r i b u t e d by Mental A b i l i t y , as asse s s e d by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t ? 5. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of S y n t a c t i c Performance and Comprehension? 6. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t r i b u t e d by' the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental A b i l i t y , as assessed by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t , and Syntactic Performance? 7. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental A b i l i t y , as assessed by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t , and Compr ehensi on? 8. What are the i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of the elements c o n s t i t u t i n g Syntactic Performance ( i . e . Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate) to the percentage of v a r i a n c e i n /nfor mati on? 9 . What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Score f o r Verbs and Variety of Clauses? 10. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Score f o r Verbs and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate? 11. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n i s 21 c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Variety of Clauses and El abor at i on of the Subject and Predicate? 12. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n Language Ability i s c o n t r i b u t e d by Mental Ability, as assessed by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t ? 13. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Language Ability? F i n a l l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among language and the s e v e r a l demographic v a r i a b l e s were examined i n t h i s q u e s t i o n : 14. What percentage of the v a r i a n c e i n the language v a r i a b l e s {Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate, and Comprehension i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the demographic v a r i a b l e s {Age, Socio-economic Status, Education, and Occupat i on). SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH On a s c a l e not known i n any previous age, the modern world i s f l o o d e d with i n f o r m a t i o n of a l l kinds. Much of i t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the l i v e s of i n d i v i d u a l s , but there i s s t i l l enough d i r e c t e d to a l l people to j u s t i f y an examination of the p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r understanding and a c t i n g on the items that are the b a s i s of normal l i v i n g i n a 22 l i t e r a t e s o c i e t y . For i n d i v i d u a l s u r v i v a l , a c i t i z e n should be able to a p p r e c i a t e and respond to p r i n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , and to that reported by r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the q u a l i t y of E n g l i s h employed by the more s e n s a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s and i n some t e l e v i s i o n programs seems to be l e a d i n g to a t a c i t acceptance of imprecise language. T h i s may be one of the consequences of a knowledge of the language t h a t i s not adequate to express the thoughts which are to be enunc i a t e d . Of equal importance i s the need f o r a l l c i t i z e n s to be able to p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l y i n a democratic s o c i e t y by understanding i s s u e s , and p l a y i n g a s u i t a b l e p a r t i n the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of the s t a t e . An i n a b i l i t y to f u l f i l these r o l e s because of a language d e f i c i e n c y , p a r t i c u l a r l y , may le a d to such i n d i v i d u a l s ' being regarded as i n f e r i o r . T h i s concern i s the more urgent i n Canada, where there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t and growing immigrant p o p u l a t i o n whose f i r s t language i s not E n g l i s h . Another issue i s the p o p u l a t i o n of f u n c t i o n a l l y - i l l i t e r a t e a d u l t s who are at a disadvantage when con f r o n t e d by o f f i c i a l n o t i c e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , u n f a m i l i a r requests, and demands f o r e x p l a n a t i o n by, say, the p o l i c e . A t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e which can be the consequence of being f l u e n t and l i t e r a t e i n one's own and, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , i n a second language, e s p e c i a l l y 23 when s e e k i n g employment. T h i s r e s e a r c h can a l s o be j u s t i f i e d when viewed from the p e r s p e c t i v e of th o s e who t e a c h i n p o s t - s e c o n d a r y c l a s s e s . T h i s i s s u e i s d e a l t w i t h more f u l l y i n Chapter 6 (Practical Applications), and i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o p o i n t out here the need f o r more r e s e a r c h i n t o the pur p o s e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and methods of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t he a r e a s i m p i n g i n g on modern communications. A s o b e r i n g thought i s t o r e a l i z e t h a t " l i t e r a c y r a t e s i n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y F r a n c e were much h i g h e r than i n the l a t e t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y U n i t e d S t a t e s [Schama, 1989: p.180]." CHAPTER 2. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE Philosophus grammaticam invent t THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAMMARS Defining Grammar The term "grammar" i s d e f i n e d i n s e v e r a l ways, but three meanings encompass most of them. Grammar f i r s t may be seen as the system of a language, as the means of l e n d i n g order and coherence to the words of the language, and the sounds a s s o c i a t e d with them. The second meaning concerns the most e f f e c t i v e way of d e s c r i b i n g the system of the language. The components cu s t o m a r i l y recognized as i n d i s p e n s a b l e are the s y n t a c t i c , semantic, pragmatic, and p h o n o l o g i c a l . In t h i s r e s e a r c h , the p h o n o l o g i c a l component was not a v a r i a b l e , and the pragmatic component was assessed d i r e c t l y by a reading comprehension t e s t , and expressed and measured i n c i d e n t a l l y i n the g r a d i n g of language samples f o r thought and m a t u r i t y . The t h i r d meaning s e t s out the conventions and r u l e s f o r the use of language that are c u r r e n t l y acceded to by a m a j o r i t y of those speaking the language. These conventions and r u l e s change over time, and may vary with s o c i a l c l a s s and g e o g r a p h i c a l d i a l e c t s . 24 25 CONTENDING THEORIES OF GRAMMAR Any d i s c u s s i o n of grammar must of n e c e s s i t y begin with the r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t there are contending t h e o r i e s which are h e l d to vehemently, and argued competently, by t h e i r p r o t a g o n i s t s . T h e i r treatment below i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n t r o d u c t o r y . Traditional Grammar The grammar of a n a t u r a l language i s the product of custom and of the consent of those f o r whom i t i s the accepted medium of communication. In 1972, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and S v a r t i k produced a standard t e x t , A Grammar of Contemporary English, ( r e v i s e d as A University Grammar of English, 1973, 1985), which c o n t i n u e d a t r a d i t i o n of superb grammars i n the t r a d i t i o n a l genre (Jespersen, 1933; K r u i s i n g a , 1931, 1932; Poutsma, 1914-1929). B u r c h f i e l d (1985) was prompted to remark: "Subject and p r e d i c a t e come s a i l i n g back i n t o view. SVO ( s u b j e c t / v e r b / o b j e c t ) and SOV (s u b j e c t / o b j e c t / v e r b ) stand as l i g h t h o u s e s to those a d r i f t i n the stormy seas of grammar [p.155]." There are other books f o r c o l l e g e s and schools ( A a r t s & A a r t s , 1981; S c h e f f e r , 1975), and for readers who may not wish to contend with the s u b t l e t i e s of B l o o m f i e l d (1935), Chomsky (1986), Leech and S v a r t i k (1975), and Quirk et a l . (1972). They are a l l witness to the a t t r a c t i o n that 26 e x p l i c i t guidance ( i f not imposed r u l e s ) has f o r some people i n the matter of language. It w i l l be obvious, from the d i s c u s s i o n s i n Chapter 1, that t h i s r e s e a r c h e r has not departed s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the t r a d i t i o n a l terminology and a n a l y s i s of syntax. His main o b j e c t i v e was to develop a measure of s y n t a c t i c a l competence; and f o r t h i s purpose, he s e l e c t e d what he b e l i e v e d to be the minimum number of v a r i a b l e s that would achieve t h i s end, and r e c o g n i z e d the simple sentence and ba s i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s as fundamental to any measurement of syntax. Departures from T r a d i t i o n The change from a t r a d i t i o n a l approach was most o b v i o u s l y recognized i n the work of the s t r u c t u r a l grammarians ( F r i e s , 1925, 1927, 1940, 1952, 1954, 1956; B l o o m f i e l d , 1935) and the subsequent developments represented by the L i n g u i s t i c C i r c l e of Prague, the f o l l o w e r s of F i r t h (1966), H a l l i d a y (1967), Lamb (1966), Pike (1954, 1955), and F i l l m o r e (1968). These authors proposed s t a t i c systems of grammar, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e i r obvious d i f f e r e n c e s , and the t r u l y r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e s from these systems and the views p e r t a i n i n g to the a c q u i s i t i o n of language as a unique human a t t r i b u t e were the work of Chomsky (1957a) and a theory of language a c q u i s i t i o n 27 favoured by the b e h a v i o u r i s t s (Skinner, 1957). The approaches r e f e r r e d to above exemplify d i f f e r e n t ways of i n t e r p r e t i n g grammar. In p a r t i c u l a r , H a l l i d a y (1967), i n systemic grammar, the genera t i v e s e m a n t i c i s t s , and most n o t a b l y F i l l m o r e (1968), c o n s i d e r e d the f u n c t i o n s of the v a r i o u s p a r t s of a sentence. F i l l m o r e s p e c i f i e d more e x a c t l y the r e l a t i o n s of noun phrases to ver b s . He found that the concept of " s u b j e c t " was too broad, f o r i n a grammatical sentence the su b j e c t can be the agent who c a r r i e s out an a c t i o n , or the instrument which e f f e c t s the a c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , the obje c t can be the person or t h i n g t h a t i s the d i r e c t r e s u l t of the a c t i o n named i n the sentence, or i t can be anything f o r which there i s a noun with a r o l e i n the sentence that depends on the way the verb i s used; that i s , the meaning of the verb determines the f u n c t i o n of the noun. Cases are semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p s and are d i s t i n c t from any p a r t i c u l a r s u f f i x e s or p o s i t i o n s in the sentence f o r expressing them. Dale (1976) has i l l u s t r a t e d the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s : Noun phrases s e r v i n g as su b j e c t s are not marked, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r cases. Noun phrases i n other p o s i t i o n s are o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d by p r e p o s i t i o n s . For example, the agent i s t y p i c a l l y marked with by (The door was opened by John), and the d a t i v e with to (He gave the present to Mary), the o b j e c t i v e with no 28 p r e p o s i t i o n , the i n s t r u m e n t a l with by or with (depending on whether or not there i s an agent s p e c i f i e d i n the sentence: John opened the door with a key or The car was hit by a stone), and the l o c a t i v e with a s p e c i a l set of p r e p o s i t i o n s that a l s o add meaning (in, on, under, and so on) (p.86). In a d d i t i o n to the cases mentioned i n the passage above, Dale (1976) d e s c r i b e d the f u n c t i o n of two other terms: (a) Expert encer, which r e f e r s to the person or animal undergoing a named ex p e r i e n c e ; (b) Factitive, which r e f e r s to the person, animal, or t h i n g e x i s t i n g as a r e s u l t of the a c t i o n s p e c i f i e d . A l l i n a l l , case grammar p o s t u l a t e d a s t r u c t u r a l l e v e l below deep s t r u c t u r e by i t s more e x a c t i n g d e f i n i t i o n of funct i o n . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e Grammar The theory of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e grammar (Chomsky, 1957a; H a r r i s , 1951, 1952, 1960; L i e b e r , 1975; Newmeyer, 1986), i n c o n t r a s t to most of the views expressed so f a r , d e s c r i b e d grammar i n dynamic terms. A sentence i s the r e s u l t of a process of b u i l d i n g , and can be analyzed by r e v e r s i n g the pro c e s s : (a) S—>NP + VP; (b) VP—>V + COMPL. e t c . The a l t e r n a t i v e approach merely s t a t e s that a sentence i s a 29 noun-phrase (NP) p l u s a verb-phrase (VP), without i m p l y i n g p r o c e s s . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e grammar more d i r e c t l y e x e m p l i f i e s the e s s e n t i a l aim of a l l grammatical r u l e s : to d e s c r i b e the mental mechanisms that enable human beings to generate a p o t e n t i a l l y i n f i n i t e number of grammatical sentences from a f i n i t e corpus of u t t e r a n c e s or observat i o n s . The theory has passed through three main stages. Syntax was the f i e l d of a c t i v i t y i n 1957-64, and t h i s phase was f o l l o w e d by a r e a l i z a t i o n that t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s c o u l d not be c a t e g o r i c a l l y d i v i d e d i n t o o b l i g a t o r y and o p t i o n a l c l a s s e s , and t h a t while a sentence may be represented by a s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , there i s a deep s t r u c t u r e to which meaning i s given by the semantic component ( P o s t a l , 1964). The most recent development has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the e l e v a t i o n , as i t . w e r e , of semantics, which was achieved by doing away with a s t a t i c l e x i c o n and regarding meanings as comparable with the phrase-markers in syntax. Transformations are s t i l l i n o r d e r , but they now embody the semantic component as w e l l as the s y n t a c t i c i n one continuous o p e r a t i o n and at one l e v e l . T h i s i s d e s c r i b e d as the remote s t r u c t u r e (Chafe, 1970; L a k o f f , 1970; Ross, 1963). 30 Language as a Behaviour Skinner's t h e o r i e s were r e p u d i a t e d by Chomsky (1957b), who has l i t t l e time f o r a non-mentalist approach to language. Skinner saw language as j u s t another form of behaviour i n which there i s a response and an e f f e c t i v e r e inforcement. I t i s reasonable to suppose that the language of any i n d i v i d u a l can be c o n t r o l l e d by such mechanisms, but i t d i f f i c u l t to accept that language i s a c q u i r e d in t h i s way. The optimum p e r i o d i n c h i l d h o o d f o r language a c q u i s i t i o n i s too s h o r t , and what has to be achieved i s too r e g u l a r and too e x t e n s i v e and i n v a r i a n t over the e n t i r e p a t t e r n of development f o r a c q u i s i t i o n to be a t t r i b u t e d to a c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o c e s s . One may f e e l t h a t Skinner's theory i s too c r u d e l y s i m p l i s t i c and mechanical to f u r n i s h an acc e p t a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of how to assess the language of a d u l t s (Chomsky, 1957b). There i s a l s o the q u e s t i o n of s t y l e , which cannot be e x p l a i n e d by a stimulus-response mechanism. If t h i s were the s i t u a t i o n , there would be l i t t l e c r e a t i v i t y . In language, there i s never a standard response to every stimulus of a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d . Any r e p l y i s a f u n c t i o n of personal and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . S kinner's views were a h i s t o r i c from the beginning. He d i d not admit of any i n f l u e n c e i n human and animal conduct other than the i n i t i a l s t i m u l u s and subsequent 31 r e i n f o r c e m e n t , both of which might be i n i t i a t e d by environmental c o n d i t i o n s or be c o n t r i v a n c e s of some t h i r d agent. As f a r as language was concerned, h i s theory gave no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the v a r i o u s degrees of complexity i n syntax and i n comprehension which are e x h i b i t e d by i n d i v i d u a l s . S k i n n e r's i s an extreme e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t p o s i t i o n . As Rose (1976) remarked, "In a sense i t i s because Skinner i s n e a r l y r i g h t i n some things that he i s so fundamentally i n e r r o r o v e r a l l [p.348]." Skinner d i d not o f f e r , e i t h e r on co n c e p t u a l or p r o c e d u r a l grounds, a means of a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y of syntax. BASES FOR ASSESSMENT Assessment: Syntactic Performance An attempt was made i n the p r e l i m i n a r y stages of t h i s r e s e a r c h to assess the complexity of Chomsky's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , and to a r r i v e at a s u i t a b l e m e t r i c . As mentioned above, t h i s researcher c o u l d f i n d no s o l i d evidence that such a measure, when a p p l i e d to a d u l t syntax, would h o l d i n a c o n s i s t e n t f a s h i o n . Frank and Osser (1970) had attempted a s i m i l a r task i n connection with the syntax of language i n ge n e r a l , but equating the number of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s with observable l e v e l s of s y n t a c t i c a l 32 complexity was found to be an u n r e l i a b l e index (Fodor & G a r r e t t , 1966). Depth of c l a u s e s u b o r d i n a t i o n i s another measure that was e x p l o r e d . I t i s p r e d i c a t e d on h y p o t h e t i c a l s t r a t a i n c o n s t r u c t i o n and meaning, though at the l e v e l of the subordinate c l a u s e . F i r s t order dependency i s the c l a u s e a t t a c h e d t o , or embodied i n , the main c l a u s e ; and any other c l a u s e s c o n t a i n e d i n the dependent c l a u s e s represent second and t h i r d l e v e l s of dependency. These l a t t e r i n d i c e s are u s u a l l y not encountered f r e q u e n t l y enough to make c l a u s e s u b o r d i n a t i o n a completely u s e f u l measure of language m a t u r i t y at the lower l e v e l s of competence. The d i f f i c u l t y seems to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the way i n which a d u l t s a c q u i r e and develop f a c i l i t y with new c o n s t r u c t i o n s . U n l i k e the developmental language of c h i l d r e n , a d u l t language does not e x h i b i t a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a t t e r n i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . For a d u l t s , the a c q u i s i t i o n of c e r t a i n forms may be d i c t a t e d , f o r i n s t a n c e , by the demands of a p a r t i c u l a r form of o c c u p a t i o n , and w i l l be m o d i f i e d as new t e c h n o l o g i e s are i n t r o d u c e d or when the i n d i v i d u a l changes occupation. M i l l e r and Coleman (1967) d e s c r i b e d procedures f o r c a l i b r a t i n g a passage of E n g l i s h f o r complexity. Newman and Gerstman (1952) c o n c e n t r a t e d on a n a l y z i n g p r i n t e d E n g l i s h through frequency and sequence of l e t t e r s . They c r e a t e d a 33 s t a t i s t i c , the coefficient of constraint, "which behaves roughly i n the same way as does the q o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n [p.115]." C h o t l o s (1944) used the type-token r a t i o (TTR), or the r a t i o of the number of d i f f e r e n t words (types) to the t o t a l number words (tokens) i n a g i v e n language sample. The a n a l y s i s can be a p p l i e d to the nouns, verbs, a d j e c t i v e s , adverbs and any other c o n s t i t u e n t s of the sentence. By t h i s means, one can o b t a i n a f a i r amount of i n f o r m a t i o n on the r e l a t i v e use of nouns, verbs, and other " p a r t s of speech", but these data do not appear to be a necessary part of any assessment of q u a l i t y . I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y q u a n t i t a t i v e . Consequently, f o r t h i s p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , i t was not an a p p r o p r i a t e measure. R e a l i z i n g that t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar and immediate c o n s t i t u e n t a n a l y s i s o f f e r e d l i t t l e i n the way of a s c a l e f o r a s s e s s i n g a d u l t language, t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r e x p l o r e d s e v e r a l avenues c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a mathematical approach, but with l i t t l e success. Although H a r r i s (1968) continued to pursue the p o s s i b i l i t y of a p p l y i n g mathematical models to language, d i f f i c u l t i e s and disappointments have, in g e n e r a l , beset other r e s e a r c h workers who have t r i e d to use t h i s type of system. Mathematical procedures have a s t r o n g a t t r a c t i o n f o r s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t s with b e h a v i o u r i s t l e a n i n g s , but not f o r t h i s group e x c l u s i v e l y . Osgood (1953) s t a t e d u n e q u i v o c a l l y : 34 A f i n a l impression one gets i s t h i s : language behavior i s c l e a r l y a l e a r n e d a c t i v i t y — a s a matter of f a c t i t i s by a l l odds the most complex product of l e a r n i n g mechanisms to be found. Language behavior i s a l s o composed of u n i t s whose q u a n t i t i e s and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s are r e a d i l y d e s c r i b e d i n mathematical terms (p.727). M i l l e r (1951), Herdan ( i 9 6 0 ) , and Hockett (1967) e x p l o r e d the p o s s i b i l i t y of d e r i v i n g a r e l i a b l e index of complexity from mathematical techniques a p p l i e d to a v a r i e t y of language forms ( s e n t e n c e - l e n g t h , s t y l e of punc t u a t i o n , v e r b - a d j e c t i v e r a t i o , f o r example), but none r e a l l y s u p p l i e d a comprehensive index of measurement f o r language, as i t i s used. These s t u d i e s , f o r a l l t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c and s t a t i s t i c a l r i g o u r and undoubted v a l u e to other researchers i n s i m i l a r f i e l d s , exemplify why such data do not f u r n i s h those i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s with a usable technique f o r a s s e s s i n g language. There i s a tedium and a narrowness of focus about these s t u d i e s that tend to be daunting and demanding of too much time i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r d i a g n o s t i c and p r o g n o s t i c v a l u e , when the s u b j e c t s f o r an enquiry are a d u l t s . Consequently, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r avoided any measure that was based on a s i n g l e index, supposedly r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of syntax, and i n s t e a d developed a form of assessment which 35 acknowledged the verb, c l a u s a l v a r i e t y , and e l a b o r a t i o n of the subject and the p r e d i c a t e as being e s s e n t i a l elements i n the s y n t a c t i c component. As w i l l be seen from the s c o r i n g p a t t e r n s c o ntained i n Chapter 3, the u n d e r l y i n g and v a r i a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n s c o r i n g these elements i s complexity, as r e f l e c t e d i n frequency of use. Assessment: Comprehension T h i s v a r i a b l e i s concerned with the meaning i n the context of r e c e p t i v e language, whether i t be a sentence or a s i n g l e word. The phrase and the c l a u s e , as c o n s t i t u e n t s of the sentence, are of the most concern, and s t u d i e s mainly d i r e c t e d to the meaning of words (Bolinger,1965, 1975; Katz & Fodor, 1963; Osgood, S u c i , & Tannenbaum, 1957; Rips, Shoben & Smith, 1973; and Rosch, 1973), when they were i n v e s t i g a t e d , d i d not f u r n i s h an a p p r o p r i a t e means of a s s e s s i n g comprehension. These authors d i s c u s s e d two approaches to meaning: the f i r s t d i r e c t e d to the a t t r i b u t e s of whatever i s named by the word, and the second to the n o t i o n of t y p i c a l n e s s or c e n t r a l i t y : that i s , one's concept of a n y t h i n g c e n t r e s on the one of the kind which r e p r e s e n t s f o r t h i s i n d i v i d u a l the c o n v e n t i o n a l example. A t h i r d approach was more r e l e v a n t to t h i s present study. Dale (1976) r e f e r r e d to i t as the r e l a t i o n a l approach, which, he p o i n t e d out, i n the case of the word " c a t , " would a l s o demand some r e l a t i o n s h i p to be s p e c i f i e d , such as, " c a t s chase mice, are chased by dogs, eat meat, and so on [p.174]." Sampson (1975) examined meaning from another per s p e c t i v e : Statements about the "meaning" of a sentence are statements, not about the p r o p e r t i e s of that statement i t s e l f , but about the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of inference which h o l d between that sentence and the other sentences of the language (p.140). And some years e a r l i e r , Deese (1958) wrote: S u f f i c e i t to say that the p r e v a i l i n g view i n p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s today i s that meaning has i t s r o o t s i n a s s o c i a t i o n . The meaning of a word, a phrase, or any kind of v e r b a l u n i t i s determined by the a s s o c i a t i o n s of that u n i t with other v e r b a l and nonverbal responses and with e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i g e n e r a l l y . Meanings, indeed, seem f r e q u e n t l y to be l i t t l e more than a bridge between one a s s o c i a t i v e c l u s t e r and another (pp.331-332). These statements s t r e s s the meanings att a c h e d to v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e s of language, as c r i t i c a l elements i n 37 comprehension; and Deese (1958) s p e c i f i c a l l y gave to meaning the task of r e c o n c i l i n g what may not always be convergent views. Meaning i s u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the semantic-pragmatic component of language, but Dik (1978, 1983) emphasized a view now c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with gen e r a t i v e semantics that i n a sentence the s y n t a c t i c component i s i n e v i t a b l y i n v e s t e d with meaning. In Advances in Functional Grammar (1983), he wrote: In the F u n c t i o n a l Paradigm, syntax cannot be regarded as autonomous with r e s p e c t to semantics. Rather, the very essence of syntax i s that i t p r o v i d e s the means of c r e a t i n g meaningful e x p r e s s i o n s (p.1) Concerning Reading Comprehension I t i s now p o s s i b l e to a p p r e c i a t e the p o i n t of view a t t r i b u t e d to Deese (1958). There i s no l i m i t to the r e l a t i o n s h i p s and l e v e l s of understanding t h a t may be s p e c i f i e d by anyone wishing t o t e s t the comprehension of some other person. One may ask f o r the r e s u l t s d e r i v i n g from a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n , or f o r the s i g n i f i c a n c e of p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r s i n a n a r r a t i v e , and to e x p l a i n the v a r i o u s i n f e r e n c e s that may p l a u s i b l y be drawn from a c t i o n s than have o c c u r r e d . At the h i g h e s t l e v e l , i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to 38 demand f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s to any problem that has been pr e s e n t e d . The above l e v e l s of understanding may be seen as the essence of a reading comprehension t e s t ; and Davis, i n 1941, i n an unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , gave the r e s u l t s of h i s survey of the o p e r a t i o n a l s k i l l s thought to be the e s s e n t i a l s of reading comprehension. They a r e : (a) Remembering word meanings; (b) S e l e c t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e word meanings i n the l i g h t of c o n t e x t ; (c) F o l l o w i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a passage, as i n i d e n t i f y i n g antecedents and r e f e r e n c e s ; (d) I d e n t i f y i n g the main thought of a passage; (e) Answering q u e s t i o n s f o r which e x p l i c i t answers are r e q u i r e d ; ( f ) Weaving together the ideas i n a passage; (g) Drawing i n f e r e n c e s about the content of a passage; (h) R e c o g n i z i n g l i t e r a r y d evices and i d e n t i f y i n g the author's tone and mood; ( i ) Drawing i n f e r e n c e s about the author's purpose and p o i n t of view. Davis a s c e r t a i n e d that of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the a b i l i t y to a s s o c i a t e word meanings i n a c o r r e c t f a s h i o n i s paramount, and a c a p a c i t y f o r l o g i c a l l y a s s o c i a t i n g ideas and from the p a t t e r n s making i n f e r e n c e s , or going, as Bruner 39 (1973) has suggested, "beyond the i n f o r m a t i o n given [pp.218-238]," i s next i n importance. An A n a l y t i c a l Approach: Comprehension The work of K i n t s c h ( c i t e d i n Crowder, 1982, pp.127-143) supplements t h i s b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of meaning and the approach which l e d to the adoption of the Davis Reading Test i n t h i s present r e s e a r c h study. K i n t s c h a s s e r t e d that a l l p e r s o n a l knowledge can be i d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r a b s t r a c t concepts, which have no p a r t i c u l a r correspondence to words, and consequently are not a prime concern of r e a d i n g comprehension i n the present context, and word-concepts, which o b v i o u s l y do. These l a t t e r d e f i n e the l e x i c o n used by the i n d i v i d u a l , and they may be combined to form " p r o p o s i t i o n s , " which are e s s e n t i a l l y the p r e d i c a t e s of sentences and one or more "arguments," or the s u b j e c t s of sentences and the phrases and so on that do not form p a r t of the p r e d i c a t e . A sentence may r e q u i r e s e v e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s i f i t s meaning i s to be f u l l y conveyed. the f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t : ( l o v e , the, Greeks, a r t ) & ( b e a u t i f u l , a r t ) & (when, (conquer, Romans, Greeks), (copy, Roman, Greeks)) These p r o p o s i t i o n s generate the f o l l o w i n g sentences: 40 (a) The Greeks loved b e a u t i f u l a r t . When the Romans conquered the Greeks, they copied them. (b) B e a u t i f u l a r t was loved by the Greeks. The Romans c o p i e d the Greeks when they conquered them. The order i n which the v a r i o u s p r o p o s i t i o n s are used i s h i e r a r c h i c a l . The p e r c e i v e d c e n t r a l p r o p o s i t i o n i s f i r s t , and the r e p e t i t i o n of any arguments from the f i r s t p r o p o s i t o n are accorded second rank. The t h i r d l e v e l i s a s s i g n e d to arguments repeated from the second l e v e l , but not to any from the f i r s t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d u l t reading and the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of m a t e r i a l i n t h i s way i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t t h at two reading t e x t s can be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the same p r o p o s i t i o n a l t e x t , as i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n (a) and (b) above, but the reading t e x t s may d i f f e r i n terms of grammatical c o m p l e x i t y . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n the Davis Reading Test, with i t s paragraphs, graded f o r s y n t a c t i c complexity as w e l l as f o r content. Research (Crowder, 1982; K i n t s c h & Keenan, 1973) has shown t h a t there i s a s t r o n g dependence of reading times on the number of p r o p o s i t i o n s , and the complexity of the t e x t a f f e c t s the 41 ease with which the reader t r a n s l a t e s the subject-matter i n t o the p r o p o s i t i o n a l format. However, once t h i s has been achieved, the o r i g i n a l l a y o u t does not i n f l u e n c e subsequent a n a l y s i s . In making i n f e r e n c e s , which i s a f e a t u r e of the Davis Reading Test, the t r a n f e r r i n g of the i n f o r m a t i o n from p r i n t to the reader's mind i s only the f i r s t o p e r a t i o n . The second e s s e n t i a l i s to r e l a t e what i s read to the reader's p r i o r e x perience. Moreover, i n d i v i d u a l s draw i n f e r e n c e s that are im p l i e d i n the t e x t , i r r e s p e c t i v e of how the p r o p o s i t i o n s are s t a t e d ( e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y ) . I t has a l s o been a s c e r t a i n e d t h at f o r a b r i e f time a f t e r a sentence has been read, there i s verbatim memory f o r that sentence, but without too much d e l a y , a more a b s t r a c t form of memory must be the source of any r e c a l l . Assessment: Mental Ability Selected Theories of Mental Ability T h e o r i e s of mental a b i l i t y f a l l i n t o three main groups, and t h e i r authors or d i s c i p l e s have demonstrated the t h e o r i e s i n t e s t s which are cl a i m e d to measure the c o n s t r u c t i n people of a l l ages, l e v e l s of edu c a t i o n , and c u l t u r e s . One should observe, however, t h a t Sternberg (1986) doubted that comparing l e v e l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e a c r o s s s o c i o - c u l t u r a l 42 groups was other than extremely d i f f i c u l t and may be i m p o s s i b l e , which seems to imply that the assessment of i n t e l l i g e n c e f o r s e l e c t i n g personnel i s not a v a l i d procedure unless the examiner has ensured the homogeneity of the sample. The e a r l i e s t t h e o r i s t s were p r a g m a t i s t s . B i n e t (1905) regarded i n t e l l i g e n c e as a group of f a c u l t i e s , such as judgment, p r a c t i c a l sense, i n i t i a t i v e , and the a b i l i t y to adapt to change. Wechsler (1939) s t a t e d that i n t e l l i g e n c e i s r e v e a l e d by what i t enables the i n d i v i d u a l to do, which i n c l u d e s not only the a b i l i t y to perform s i n g l e t a s k s , but a l s o t h at of combining s k i l l s i n v a r i o u s ways. He added t h a t , while one can measure aspects of mental a b i l i t y by means of t e s t s , care must be taken not to assume that the r e s u l t i n g scores are f u l l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of what i n t e l l i g e n c e r e a l l y i s . The second group of t h e o r i s t s set out to d i s c o v e r the nature of mental a b i l i t y through f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . There were those who p o s t u l a t e d a general f a c t o r which u n d e r l i e s a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l endeavour, and others who s u b s c r i b e d to a m u l t i p l e - f a c t o r approach of one kind or another. I n e v i t a b l y , both schools of thought have m o d i f i e d t h e i r approaches with the passage of time. Spearman (1927) Burt (1949), and Vernon (1950) favoured a powerful g e n e r a l f a c t o r , which Spearman a s s o c i a t e d with two c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s : the eduction of 43 relations (determining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two or more ideas) and the eduction of cor r el at es ( f i n d i n g a second idea that i s a s s o c i a t e d with one p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d ) . Spearman and those a s s o c i a t e d with h i s views recognized that group and i n d i v i d u a l s f a c t o r s c o u l d a l s o be e x t r a c t e d . Thorndike (1927) and Thurstone (1938) opposed the h i e r a r c h i c a l models of Spearman, Burt, and Vernon, p r e f e r r i n g i n s t e a d to re c o g n i z e many d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s , without a s s i g n i n g s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to any one of them. The most i n f l u e n t i a l proponent of the m u l t i p l e - f a c t o r theory was G u i l f o r d (1967, 1973), who developed a Structure of Intellect model, c o m p r i s i n g f i v e types of Operation ( c o g n i t i o n , memory, d i v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n , convergent p r o d u c t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n ) , four types of Content ( f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, and b e h a v i o u r a l ) , and s i x types of Product ( u n i t s , c l a s s e s , r e l a t i o n s , systems, t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , and i m p l i c a t i o n s ) , which together y i e l d 120 (5x4x6) a v a i l a b l e combinations with which to c h a r a c t e r i z e mental o p e r a t i o n s . G u i l f o r d has r e l a t e d h i s f a c t o r s to i n d i v i d u a l items i n two of the Wechsler b a t t e r i e s (WISC-R and WPPSI-R), and one may assume that t h i s d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s , as f a r as the f a c t o r s i n these two b a t t e r i e s are r e l a t e d to those of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, enhances the value of t h i s s c a l e by r e v e a l i n g what a c t u a l l y i s being 44 assessed by each s u b - t e s t . G u i l f o r d was not impressed by the i n n o v a t i v e theory of " f l u i d i n t e l l i g e n c e " and " c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e " proposed by Horn and C a t t e l l ( C a t t e l l , 1963; Horn & C a t t e l l , 1967; Horn, 1985). He s t r o n g l y c r i t i c i z e d the concept as being the outcome of f a u l t y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , s p e c i f i c a l l y the inadequate s e l e c t i o n of primary mental a b i l i t i e s and the unsystematic and b i a s e d sampling of these a b i l i t i e s and of the s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study. He a l s o q u e s t i o n e d the attempt to a l l o t a l a r g e number of primary a b i l i t i e s to only two higher-order f a c t o r s . Gustafsson (1984), more r e c e n t l y , saw f l u i d i n t e l l i g e n c e as a form of g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , and c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e as e s s e n t i a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g a narrow dimension of knowledge, and one much l e s s a p p l i c a b l e to problem-solving and l e a r n i n g than i s f l u i d i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s q u i t e severe c r i t i c i s m n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , the concepts of " f l u i d i n t e l l i g e n c e , " as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the a b i l i t y to adapt and to l e a r n new m a t e r i a l through the o p e r a t i o n of v a r i o u s mental a b i l i t i e s , and " c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e , " as s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n v o l v i n g w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s and c u l t u r a l f o r c e s , are v a l u a b l e s i g n - p o s t s , so to speak, i n the p u r s u i t of a t e n a b l e d e f i n i t i o n of mental a b i l i t y . The t h i r d group of t h e o r i s t s approached i n t e l l i g e n c e 45 through the study of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g models (Das, 1972; Das, K i r b y , & Jarman, 1975; Jarman & Das, 1977; Sternberg, 1986). These models recognized v a r i o u s p r o c e s s e s . Das and h i s co-authors, i n p a r t i c u l a r , proposed two proc e s s e s (simultaneous and s u c c e s s i v e ) . In the f i r s t mode, s t i m u l i are viewed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f o r the purpose of making a d e c i s i o n ; and i n the second mode, they are d e a l t with i n sequence. Past experience and the demands of the task to be accomplished w i l l determine f o r the i n d i v i d u a l which mode i s adopted. In e f f e c t , i n t e l l i g e n c e i s seen as the a b i l i t y to use i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d i n one or the other way as the b a s i s f o r p l a n n i n g behaviour which w i l l achieve the d e s i r e d o b j e c t i v e . Raven's Progressive Matrices (1977) and the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (1982) i l l u s t r a t e simultaneous p r o c e s s i n g , and t e s t s which c a l l f o r the e x e r c i s e of a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l s hort-term memory, sequence-dependent t a s k s , and the r e c o g n i t i o n of temporal arrangements are based on s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g . Current t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e tend to be c r i t i c a l of G u i l f o r d ' s model (Eysenck, 1967; Horn & Knapp, 1973; Vernon, 1965), c h i e f l y because i t does not acknowledge the h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of the data from modern i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . T h i s h i e r a r c h y appears to be a constant i n i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y , and i t suggests a common or c e n t r a l f a c t o r u n d e r l y i n g such endeavour. F u r t h e r , most ' of 46 G u i l f o r d ' s f a c t o r s can be accounted f o r by a g e n e r a l f a c t o r or s e v e r a l group f a c t o r s (Vernon, 1965), and a s i g n i f i c a n t number of f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s s i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of G u i l f o r d ' s model have not supported h i s views (Horn & Knapp, 1 973) . First Developments in Testing Success with the o r i g i n a l Alpha and Beta t e s t s (Yoakum & Yerkes, 1920) encouraged the development of other instruments f o r a d u l t s . In 1939, David Wechsler produced a ba t t e r y of t e s t s by which to assess the mental c a p a c i t y of a d u l t s committed to a mental h o s p i t a l . T h i s b a t t e r y was the Bellevue Intelligence Scale. Wechsler (1939, 1981) d e f i n e d i n t e l l i g e n c e as "the aggregate or g l o b a l c a p a c i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l to act p u r p o s e f u l l y , to thin k r a t i o n a l l y and to d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y with h i s environment [p . 3 ] . " T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was i n the t r a d i t i o n of Spearman (1927), as were the r a t i o n a l e s of other t h e o r i e s by Burt (1949) and Vernon (1950), who were the B r i t i s h i n v e s t i g a t o r s , and those of H o l z i n g e r and Swineford (1937) and Thurstone (1938), among many ot h e r s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Wechsler's t e s t s were b u i l t upon foundations s u p p l i e d by Binet (1905), Healy and F e r n a l d (1911), and Yoakum and Yerkes (1920), to name but a few. In s h o r t , 47 Wechsler d i d not i n v e n t a new way of t e s t i n g ; he a t t e m p t e d t o improve a s e r i e s t h a t had a l r e a d y done yeoman s e r v i c e . U n d o u b t e d l y , t h e r e a r e more improvements t o come. There i s no doubt t h a t Wechsler's t e s t s measure c o g n i t i v e - i n t e l l e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s . However, Frank (1983) s t a t e d t h a t , i n the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y of a p p r o p r i a t e r e s e a r c h , one may wonder which c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s , e x a c t l y , the s u b - t e s t s do measure. There i s r e s e a r c h t o suggest t h a t t hey a s s e s s t h r e e c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s o n l y : a v e r b a l f a c t o r , n u m e r i c a l a b i l i t y , and s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s . (Cohen, 1952; D a v i s , 1956; G u e r t i n , Ladd, Frank, R a b i n , & H e i s t e r , 1966; S i l v e r s t e i n , 1969). Frank, (1983) c o n s i d e r e d such s a m p l i n g v e r y poor i n r e l a t i o n t o the n i n e p r i m a r y mental a b i l i t i e s m entioned by T h u r s t o n e (1938). F u r t h e r , the s u b - t e s t s , a c c o r d i n g t o f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , are not s u b - t e s t s of unique f u n c t i o n s . Frank (1983) s t a t e d t h a t : [The] s u b t e s t s a r e f a c t o r i a l l y complex w i t h some c o g n i t i v e / i n t e l l e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s b e i n g measured by s e v e r a l s u b t e s t s and one s u b t e s t measuring s e v e r a l c o g n i t i v e / i n t e l l e c t i v e f u n c t i o n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ( p.119). Such c r i t i c i s m s have prompted many t r i a l s w i t h a b b r e v i a t e d forms of the Wechsler s c a l e s , and the most re m a r k a b l e f i n d i n g c o n c e r n s the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s t h a t have 48 been found between the Full Scale IQ and almost any combination of s u b - t e s t s (Frank, 1983; Wolf son & B a c h e l i s , 1960). These combinations i n v o l v e Wechsler's Vocabulary Subtest, p a r t i c u l a r l y , but they i n c l u d e a l s o a s e l e c t i o n of the non-verbal s u b - t e s t s (Satz & Mogel, 1962). A s i t u a t i o n of t h i s kind c e r t a i n l y prompts q u e s t i o n s about proxy v a r i a b l e s and redundancies (Wildman & Wildman, 1977). A t t r a c t i v e as a b b r e v i a t e d forms may be on the grounds of economy of time, one should r e a l i z e t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s are d e r i v e d from group data, and should be used i n the case of i n d i v i d u a l p r o t o c o l s only with great r e s e r v e . Later Developments in Test ing During the Second World War, an e a r l i e r v e r s i o n of Raven's Progressive Matrices (1977) was used s u c c e s s f u l l y fo r the s e l e c t i o n and placement of m i l i t a r y personnel i n Great B r i t a i n and overseas. The present v e r s i o n of the Matrices may be a d m i n i s t e r e d as a group t e s t or i n d i v i d u a l l y , and i t i s l a r g e l y independent of v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . Morrow and Morrow (1973) commented: The Raven Progressive Matrices was c o n s t r u c t e d around the concept that a b s t r a c t r e a s o n i n g was the best measure of g. . . . The important q u e s t i o n remains whether the best e v a l u a t i o n of i n t e l l e c t r e q u i r e s such r e f i n e d s p e c i f i c i t y , as advocated by 49 G u i l f o r d , o r whether i t can be b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d i n terms of a more s i m p l i s t i c , h o l i s t i c c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , as advocated by C a t t e l l , Vernon, and Wechsler (pp.667-668). A p a r t from t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i s s u e , a major o b j e c t i v e of t h i s i n s t r u m e n t was t o e l i m i n a t e the i n f l u e n c e t h a t s k i l l i n language might have on performance. T h i s becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t when v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of language a r e a l s o v a r i a b l e s i n an assessment of a b i l i t i e s , which i s the s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s p r e s e n t s t u d y . C l e a r l y of the genre of " c u l t u r a l l y - r e d u c e d " and, a p p a r e n t l y , " l a n g u a g e - f r e e " t e s t s , Raven's t e s t p r e s e n t s the s u b j e c t w i t h t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l f i g u r e s which undergo changes from l e f t t o r i g h t a c c o r d i n g t o r e c o g n i z e d p r i n c i p l e s . The f i n a l space i s l e f t b l a n k f o r the s u b j e c t t o i n s e r t h i s or her c h o i c e f o r the m o d i f i c a t i o n which w i l l complete the p r o g r e s s i o n . H a l l ( 1 9 5 7 ) , u s i n g as h i s sample p a t i e n t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s V e t e r a n s ' H o s p i t a l s , found t h a t s c o r e s on the Raven's Matrices c o r r e l a t e d 0.721 w i t h the Full Scale IQ of the WAIS, 0.584 w i t h the Verbal IQ, and 0.705 w i t h the Performance IQ. C o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n between the Progressive Matrices and the Wechsler s c a l e s were r e p o r t e d by B a r r a t t ( 1 9 5 6 ) , D e s a i (1955), L e v i n e and Isc o e (1954), and M a r t i n 50 and Wiechers (1954). These data, a l s o taken from Frank (1983), and r e f e r r i n g o n l y to the " v e r b a l - l o a d i n g " t e s t s of Wechsler, are given i n Table 2. The v e r b a l l o a d i n g which i s apparent i n the Matrices, a language-reduced t e s t , i s a a l s o a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (Brown, Sherbenou, & D o l l a r , 1982), which was the t e s t used i n the present r e s e a r c h , and embodies e s s e n t i a l l y the same p r i n c i p l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s v e r b a l l o a d i n g bears on Research Question 12 (See Chapter 1) and the r e l e v a n t comments i n Chapter 5. There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n among these c o r r e l a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y between the data s u p p l i e d by Desai (1955) and those by Levine and Iscoe (1954). With respect to the Comprehension s u b - t e s t , the range of c o r r e l a t i o n s i s too great f o r one to a r r i v e at any consensus about the v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s i p s t h at may e x i s t . 51 Table 2. C o r r e l a t i o n s : Wechsler's Scales and Raven's Matri ces Wechsler B a r r a t t Desai Levine & Ma r t i n & (1956) (1955) I scoe Wiechers (1954) (1954) F u l l Sc. 0.75 0.91 Inform. 0.59 0.37 0.47 Compre. 0.08 0.57 0.21 0.70 S i m i l a . 0.59 0.62 0.62 A r i t h . 0.54 0.65 0.66 Vocab. 0.56 0.38 0.48 0.73 These data suggest, though only i n gen e r a l terms, that " l a n g u a g e - f r e e " may not be an e n t i r e l y a c c u r a t e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f o r the Progressive Matrices and, perhaps, f o r any other t e s t c o n s t r u c t e d along s i m i l a r l i n e s . Table 2, then, should not be accepted as strong evidence of a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between v e r b a l and performance t e s t s . These l a t t e r t e s t s have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced language content, and there i s l i t t l e r i s k of m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y among the language and mental a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s . 52 Assessment: Information The main purpose here i s to co n s i d e r a method of grading the w r i t t e n responses of a d u l t s to is s u e s of general i n t e r e s t . T h i s g r a d i n g scheme should d i f f e r e n t i a t e between mature and immature o b s e r v a t i o n s and judgments, and y i e l d measures which are s u s c e p t i b l e of s t a t i s t i c a l treatment. A r e c o g n i z e d method of a c h i e v i n g t h i s end i s the scheme developed by Schroder, D r i v e r , & S t r e u f e r t (1967), f o r the assessment of i n d i v i d u a l and group behaviour i n d i f f e r i n g s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . These authors make a comprehensive examination of how people, i n both groups and as i n d i v i d u a l s , process i n f o r m a t i o n of a l l kinds. T h i s present r e s e a r c h i s r e s t r i c t e d to v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n obtained or produced as the r e a c t i o n to one of s e v e r a l v e r b a l s t i m u l i with accompanying c o l l a g e . There are two ways of c o n s i d e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , whatever i t s source or s t i m u l u s . Schroder et a l . (1967) r e f e r r e d to "content v a r i a b l e s , " which f u r n i s h i n f o r m a t i o n about "the a c q u i s i t i o n , d i r e c t i o n , and magnitude of responses, a t t i t u d e s , norms, and so on [ p . 4 ] . " The c h i e f concern i s what and how much a person l e a r n s , and how long i t i s remembered, what a t t i t u d e s or needs are e x h i b i t e d and to what l e v e l of i n t e n s i t y . Schroder et a l . (1967) spoke a l s o of " s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , " which determine how information i s combined f o r v a r i o u s purposes. 53 The content v a r i a b l e s suggest only a h i e r a r c h y . They are what are generated immediately by any. s t i m u l u s . The s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s are the modes of i n t e g r a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to form a coherent whole. These v a r i a b l e s cannot be c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , l e v e l of education, and environmental i n f l u e n c e s a f f e c t responses. Such i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the case when p i c t u r e s or words with p a r t i c u l a r l y strong emotional s i g n i f i c a n c e are used. S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s are the e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g v a r i a b l e s , and they c l e a r l y c o n t r i b u t e to an understanding of the dynamics that c h a r a c t e r i z e i n t e r - p e r s o n a l and i n t e r - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . In t h i s present research, i n t e r e s t i s d i r e c t e d not so much to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s acceptance or r e j e c t i o n i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p , as to h i s or her mode of t h i n k i n g and approaches to the s o l u t i o n of s p e c i f i c problems i n , f o r i n s t a n c e , the p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s , moral, and s o c i a l a r e a s . The main o p e r a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e i s to assess the i n t e r p r e t i v e complexity of t h i s s o l u t i o n , as i t i s presented i n a w r i t t e n passage, and to r e l a t e i t to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l of language a b i l i t y . Information i s s u p p l i e d i n response to a stim u l u s of some kin d . That which the i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s i n the presented information i s subsumed under the pro c e s s 54 Differentiation (Schroder et a l . , 1967). The response may comprise a s i n g l e c a t e g o r i c a l dimension or mode of t h i n k i n g , such as one of the dimensions tolerant - intolerant or concerned - indifferent, or a number of dimensions, l o g i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d . The number of dimensions alone i s not a s u f f i c i e n t index of i n t e g r a t e d thoughts. (Bower, 1969; Rokeach, 1960; Schroder et a l . , 1967). The s t i m u l u s may be any of the f o l l o w i n g : antonymous a d j e c t i v e s , incomplete sentence stems, p r o v o c a t i v e q u e s t i o n s , and c o n t e n t i o u s i l l u s t r a t i o n s . If they generate c o n f l i c t , d i s c o m f o r t i n the presence of ambiguity, and a d r i v e toward c o n t r o l l i n g o t h e r s , the responses are l i k e l y to be the more r e v e a l i n g of the l e v e l s at which the s u b j e c t d e a l s with i n f o r m a t i o n . The Schroder s c a l e , which i s the b a s i s of the s c o r i n g d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3 of t h i s study, can be a p p l i e d to responses generated by (a) incomplete sentence stems and (b) incongruent a d j e c t i v e s that are used to c h a r a c t e r i z e i n d i v i d u a l s , and to (c) answers to examination q u e s t i o n s that are o f f e r e d f o r assessment (Claunch, 1964; Schroder & Phares, 1965). In t h i s present research, the type of stim u l u s i s a v a r i a n t of (a) and ( c ) , and presents a s e l e c t i o n of c o n t r o v e r s i a l q u e s t i o n s , supported by a p p r o p r i a t e i l l u s t r a t i o n s . The Schroder process Discrimination embraces the a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h among 55 s t i m u l i . Of the three processes Differentiation, Discrimination, and Integration, i t i s the t h i r d term t h a t a p p l i e s most d i r e c t l y to the assessment of the v a r i a b l e Information, as i t i s d e f i n e d i n t h i s study. Schroder et a l . (1967) s u p p l i e d a scheme f o r s c o r i n g the s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of v e r b a l responses which i s based on l e v e l s of c o g n i t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n . These l e v e l s are d e s c r i b e d i n a s e r i e s of paragraphs. Bower (1969) c l a s s i f i e d the "Schroderian r u l e s t h a t determine i n t e g r a t i o n l e v e l as c a t e g o r i c a l , c o n d i t i o n a l , comparative, or r e l a t i o n a l [p.12]." The lowest l e v e l of i n t e g r a t i o n b e l i e s the term, f o r the r e s u l t i s only a h i e r a r c h y of dimensions. At the next l e v e l , comparisons are acknowledged and show up as a l t e r n a t i v e r e s o l u t i o n s , which at the t h i r d l e v e l are c o n s i d e r e d j o i n t l y i n a more complex r e l a t i o n s h i p . The f o u r t h l e v e l expresses a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d response. These four l e v e l s are expanded to seven i n the complete s c a l e . In connection with t h i s s c a l e , Bower (1969) has confirmed that " h i g h l y complex i n d i v i d u a l s " are a b l e to d e a l s u c c e s s f u l l y with a g r e a t e r i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d than are simpler i n d i v i d u a l s , and tend to delay a d e c i s i o n i f th e r e i s l i k e l y to be more i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . K a r l i n s (1967) and Sieber and Lanzetta (1964, 1966) a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t the 56 h i g h l y complex i n d i v i d u a l c o n s i d e r s more a l t e r n a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s as s o l u t i o n s to a problem than do those who have d i f f i c u l t y i n d e a l i n g with a b s t r a c t concepts. While these f i n d i n g s seem to be eminently s e n s i b l e , one may s t i l l c a u t i o n t h a t although c o g n i t i v e complexity appears to be measurable as an i n d i v i d u a l a t t r i b u t e , i t has not been shown to be as g e n e r a l a t r a i t as the l i t e r a t u r e has sometimes suggested i t i s . However, the d e f i c i e n c y here may be with the type of instrument a v a i l a b l e f o r measuring i t . S c o t t (1963) and Vannoy (1965) a n t i c i p a t e d Schroder et a l . (1967) i n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n and in r e c o g n i z i n g that t e s t s of c o g n i t i v e complexity may not c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y with each other because the c o n s t r u c t i s d o m a i n - s p e c i f i c r a t h e r than g e n e r a l . G a r d i n e r (1968) followed Vannoy in p r e p a r i n g a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of a number of complexity t e s t s , and found that the main f a c t o r e x t r a c t e d accounted fo r only 11.3 per cent of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e (cf Vannoy, 1965: 13.2 per c e n t ) . In u s i n g t e s t s c l a i m i n g to q u a n t i f y c o g n i t i v e complexity, one perhaps succeeds only i n c a s t i n g doubt on i t s e x i s t e n c e as a comprehensive f a c t o r . These c r i t i c i s m s , however, are l e v e l l e d i n connection with the use of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s of complexity c o n s t r u c t s , and they have been employed c h i e f l y to c o n f i r m the c o n c l u s i o n s apparent i n the r e s u l t s generated by the Paragraph Completion Test (Schroder et a l . , 1967). T h i s t e s t 57 r e q u i r e s the sub j e c t to make responses, three sentence i n lengt h , to each of s i x sentence stems. The task i s to be completed i n n i n e t y seconds. There i s always the r i s k of d i s t o r t i o n s when p r o j e c t i o n t e s t s r e q u i r i n g speed are employed. The t i m e - l i m i t f o r the Paragraph Completion Test p l a c e s a premium on quick r e s o l u t i o n and c l o s u r e , and these ends may be ac h i e v e d e i t h e r by means of responses that r e v e a l a s t r o n g p e r s o n a l bia s and l i t t l e o b j e c t i v i t y or by c o n d i t i o n a l statements which r e s o l v e nothing. Although c o g n i t i v e complexity i s an i s s u e i n the present study, i t s a l l - e m b r a c i n g nature as a r e c o g n i z a b l e c o n s t r u c t i s not. Here, the o p i n i o n and judgments expressed in paragraphs of " f r e e - w r i t i n g " are c r u c i a l . The Schroder s c a l e (Schroder et a l . , 1967) i s the product of c o n s i d e r a b l e research i n t o the r e a c t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s i n a s e r i e s of s o c i a l s e t t i n g s (Harvey, 1962, 1964; Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961) I t i s a v a l i d and comprehensive b a s i s f o r a metric with which to assess the l o g i c a l and i n t e g r a t i v e content of such paragraphs. The Role of Memory The r o l e of memory i n d e a l i n g with i n f o r m a t i o n i s fundamental. Short-term memory i s the immediate storehouse of new i n f o r m a t i o n ; but mere storage i s not development, and 58 the vast c o n t e n t s of long-term memory must be mined f o r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , i f new m a t e r i a l i s to be understood and used a p p r o p r i a t e l y . Here, one can a p p r e c i a t e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n , s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s i n g , and r e l a t i o n a l t h i n k i n g (Koopman, 1983, 1985). If any one of these c o g n i t i v e processes i s impaired, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the q u a l i t y of s h o r t - t e r m memory, problems can remain unres o l v e d . For example, the i n d i v i d u a l who attempts to respond to every c l u e , without regard to proper sequencing and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n cannot judge when the i n f o r m a t i o n at hand i s s u f f i c i e n t to r e s o l v e a q u e s t i o n . There i s a seeking f o r more, a w i l l i n g n e s s to embrace every source of data and i n the end to become t r u l y "the v i c t i m of s p e c t a c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n [anon. ] . " Schroder et a l . (1967) saw a unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mankind as b e i n g : . . . not so much in the a b i l i t y to use or to u t i l i z e the meanings of a l a r g e number of s t i m u l i , but r a t h e r i n the a b i l i t y to l e a r n and to u t i l i z e a l t e r n a t e meanings of the same stimulus and to b u i l d up and use d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the same set of meanings (p.5). T h i s b u i l d i n g cannot be achieved i f the m a t e r i a l s of 59 memory are available only as an unorganized stock, because the individual lacks the capacity to choose wisely and employ the constituents to some purpose. SUMMARY This review of the l i t e r a t u r e on grammar, syntax, reading comprehension, mental a b i l i t y , and verbal information i s c h i e f l y concerned with the main variables of the present investigation. It was necessary to develop an or i g i n a l procedure for assessing adult syntax, but appropriate tests were avail a b l e for assessing the other variables. So vast i s the l i t e r a t u r e on language, and so controversial that on mental a b i l i t y , that a survey, i f i t is to remain coherent, must touch on only major issues. The t e r r i t o r y on the treatment of information, as i t i s defined here, i s much less c l u t t e r e d . In t h i s study, the scores awarded for syntax (the variable Syntactic Performance) and a semantic-pragmatic element (Comprehension) were added to supply a score for the major language variable Language Ability; and in order to investigate r e a l i s t i c a l l y the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of sp e c i f i c language s k i l l s and mental a b i l i t y as essentials in the development of information, the scores from a non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e test was also made available for s t a t i s t i c a l 60 a n a l y s i s . The l i t e r a t u r e concerning the i n f l u e n c e of demographic v a r i a b l e s on v a r i o u s human c a p a c i t i e s i s e x t e n s i v e . For the purposes of t h i s present research i t was sampled q u i t e s e l e c t i v e l y , f o r t h i s type of v a r i a b l e was not a prime i s s u e . The c a n o n i c a l a n a l y t i c a l procedures were a means of judging the i n f l u e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r set of v a r i a b l e s on a second s e t . The i n t e n t i o n was to "screen" f o r a r e l a t e d e f f e c t , not to p r e d i c t an a n t i c i p a t e d outcome. Had there been a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t dependence of one set on the other, the l i t e r a t u r e would have been expl o r e d f u r t h e r , and such e x p l o r a t i o n would p o s s i b l y have l e d to a more exhaustive a n a l y s i s than i s f u r n i s h e d by c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n procedures. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Ad eas res conficiendas VARIABLES: CHARACTERISTICS AND SCORES The major v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were: 1. Language Ability ( r e p r e s e n t i n g the combined score for Syntactic Performance and Comprehension). 2. Syntactic Performance (comprising Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate). 3. Comprehension 4. Me nt al AbiIi ty 5. /nfor mat i on There were, i n a d d i t i o n , demographic v a r i a b l e s p e r t a i n i n g to the s u b j e c t s . These were Age, Socio-economic Status, Education, and Occupation, and t h e i r e f f e c t on the language v a r i a b l e s was examined by means of c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The c h o i c e of these v a r i a b l e s i s d i s c u s s e d and defended in Chapter 1, i n r e l a t i o n to the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s of Hunt (1977), Koopman (1983, 1985, 1988), and Schroder et a l . (1967). The a l l o c a t i o n of scores d e r i v e s from the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of Chomsky (1957a, 1965), C r y s t a l et a l . (1976), F i l l m o r e (1968), Hunt (1965, 1977), Lee and Canter (1971), Strang (1962), and Tyack and G o t t s l e b e n (1977). 61 62 THE POPULATION AND SAMPLE The target population in th i s research comprised men and women, aged 20 - 60 years, who were employable. A volunteer sample of 110 potent ia l candidates was approached, but s ix candidates did not wish to proceed beyond the i n i t i a l contact and explanation. Of the 104 who remained, four had s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t y in completing a l l the t e s t s , and t h e i r scores were incomplete. The f i n a l 100 subjects met the demographic requirements stated above. Approximately 10% were from immigrant fami l i e s , but the ir f i r s t language was E n g l i s h . They represented a f u l l range of the categories of employment ava i lab le in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . These categories are l i s t e d in th i s chapter (Schedule of Scores: Demographic V a r i a b l e s ) , as are the ages represented. This researcher encountered some d i f f i c u l t y in obtaining the des irable number of subjects in the middle-aged and older groups. S e n s i t i v i t y about being tested and ret icence in general were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these older subjects . The sample, then, is a group of volunteers drawn from an access ib le populat ion. As such sampling bias may a f fec t both the in terna l and external v a l i d i t y of the study, the re su l t s should be interpreted with th i s p o s s i b i l i t y in mind. 63 The 100 s u b j e c t s were drawn from the f o l l o w i n g sources: A P r o f e s s i o n a l men and women, managers and p r o p r i e t o r s , f i r e s e r v i c e p e r s o n n e l , bank and c l e r i c a l s t a f f ( t o t a l = 2 4 ) . B Students a t t e n d i n g community c o l l e g e s , but a l s o employed ( t o t a l = 6 5 ) . C Pre-employment Centre: Job p r e p a r a t i o n ( t o t a l = 1 1 ) . Information on the c u r r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l standard achieved by the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h was i n general supported by the s t a f f of a community c o l l e g e or c e n t r e and, i n the case of s u b j e c t s l i s t e d under Source A above, from p e r s o n a l records or the requirements of t h e i r employment. I n d i c e s f o r skewness and k u r t o s i s in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sample are r e p o r t e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e demographic t a b l e . E x c l u s i o n s The e x c l u s i o n s were: i n d i v i d u a l s who were so impaired mentally, i n s i g h t , h e a r i n g , or emotional h e a l t h as to be c o n s i d e r e d , by c o n v e n t i o n a l standards, u n s u i t a b l e f o r t e s t i n g , and immigrants whose f i r s t language i s not E n g l i s h . 64 THE TESTING SESSION The Subjects The s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n groups made up of t h r e e or fo u r s e c t i o n s of not more than s i x s u b j e c t s each. Where t h e r e were s e v e r a l groups i n the room (as i n a community c o l l e g e c l a s s ) , t he c l a s s i n s t r u c t o r remained i n the room, and a s s i s t e d w i t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n and c o l l e c t i o n of t e s t s . The Test ing Session The time a l l o c a t e d t o t e s t i n g was 60-70 m i n u t e s , but most s u b j e c t s were a b l e t o complete t h e i r work i n 60 min u t e s . The Davis Reading Test (1962) was the o n l y i n s t r u m e n t w i t h a s p e c i f i e d t i m e - l i m i t (20 minutes f o r the comprehension s e c t i o n ) . In the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (1982), a l l s u b j e c t s a t t a i n e d t h e i r " c e i l i n g " s c o r e w i t h i n 20 minutes. The ba l a n c e of the time was a l l o c a t e d t o f r e e - w r i t i n g , as a t e s t i n Syntactic Performance and as a means of a s s e s s i n g t he v a r i a b l e Information. The r e s e a r c h e r and, i n group s e t t i n g s , t he c l a s s i n s t r u c t o r a l s o , checked each group and the time b e i n g spent on each of the t a s k s . 65 Administration The r e s e a r c h e r i n t r o d u c e d each t e s t by e x p l a i n i n g the type of response r e q u i r e d ; but, i n ge n e r a l , the design of the t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h i s , and there was l i t t l e need f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n i t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n . The r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r o b t a i n i n g a language sample are c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix D. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were read out to the s u b j e c t s . Examples of t y p i c a l responses are s u p p l i e d i n Appendix H. Confidentiality During a p r e l i m i n a r y v i s i t , or immediately before the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n , s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d a numbered set of f i v e pages, co m p r i s i n g Form AEH How We Under st and I n f o r m a t i o n and Make Decisions (See Appendix B), Form BEH Personal I n f o r m a t i o n (See Appendix C), a blank sheet f o r f r e e - w r i t i n g , a response form f o r the Davis Reading Test, and one f o r responding to the Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e . A detachable p o r t i o n of Form AEH contained an Agreement, which the s u b j e c t signed to confirm h i s or her agreement to be t e s t e d , and an Acknowledgment, which the rese a r c h e r signed i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the s u b j e c t ' s agreement to take p a r t . Once these forms had been exchanged, they were separated from the numbered s e t . T h i s ensured that s i g n a t u r e s were not used f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t e s t 66 response-sheets. Post-test Visits Once the responses were scored, the re s e a r c h e r r e t u r n e d to the i n d i v i d u a l or group, and gave each s u b j e c t the oppo r t u n i t y to d i s c u s s h i s or her r e s u l t s . INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES Selected Procedure: Syntactic Performance T h i s researcher r e - a n a l y z e d the language samples of Koopman's s u b j e c t s (Koopman, 1988: N=89), and found that the order of frequency of use was comparable with that recognized i n the l i t e r a t u r e as the p a t t e r n f o r developmental language ( C r y s t a l et a l . , 1976; Lee & Canter, 1971; and Tyack & G o t t s l e b e n , 1977). J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r ac c e p t i n g frequency of use as a measure r e l a t e d to complexity i s to be found i n Zi p f (1949). The assessment procedure presented here i s based on the r e - a n a l y s i s mentioned above, but i n i t s present form i s o r i g i n a l . The v e r i f i c a t i o n of i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y i s d i s c u s s e d below, i n t h i s chapter. The scores i n each category c o n s t i t u t e an h i e r a r c h i c a l ( o r d i n a l ) s c a l e . The essence of the s c o r i n g i s a c c o r d i n g l y the p r e s e r v a t i o n of an order, p a r t i c u l a r l y between compound 67 and complex sentences. H i e r a r c h i e s based on o r d i n a l s c a l e s are a common f e a t u r e of s y n t a c t i c a l s c o r i n g schedules, although the c a t e g o r i e s of s t r u c t u r a l forms to which the h i e r a r c h i e s are a p p l i e d may vary with the o b j e c t i v e s that the i n v e s t i g a t o r has s e t . Lee (1974), Lee et a l . (1971), and Tyack et a l . (1977), a l l concerned with the development of language from i n f a n c y , and the i n d i c a t i o n s of l a t e r impairment i n the developmental p r o c e s s , apply rank to v a r i o u s types of pronouns, to main and secondary verbs, to negati v e s , and to q u e s t i o n s . By means of t h i s a n a l y s i s , they i n c i d e n t a l l y apply rank to the v a r i o u s c l a u s e s and phrases embodying these elements. Hunt (1977), being more concerned with language a f t e r the developmental p e r i o d i n c h i l d h o o d , moves d i r e c t l y to c l a u s e s and phrases. The a l l o c a t i o n of scores i n these h i e r a r c h i e s i m p l i e s r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n on a s c a l e designed to preserve t h i s p o s i t i o n or rank, and, as i n d i c a t e d above, the schedules f o r the v a r i a b l e Syntactic Performance i n the present r e s e a r c h are meant to serve the same purpose. T h i s having been s a i d , one s t i l l has to determine the c r i t e r i a f o r the award of a p a r t i c u l a r s c o r e . I t i s c l e a r t h a t systematic o b s e r v a t i o n and the r e c o r d i n g and a n a l y s i s of spoken language from s u b j e c t s at a l l ages has been the onl y source of data on which to b u i l d 68 developmental p a t t e r n s f o r language. From these p a t t e r n s , a consensus r e p r e s e n t i n g the norms at each .age l e v e l has emerged. These norms have enabled one to c l a i m that the developmental sequence f o r language a c q u i s i t i o n d u r i n g the f i r s t years of l i f e i s i n v a r i a n t , and can serve as the b a s i s for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of l i n g u i s t i c impairment. In the case of a d u l t s , a s i m i l a r process of r e c o r d i n g and a n a l y s i s enables one to i d e n t i f y the forms and usages that are the accepted norms f o r p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t i e s . The question then a r i s i n g concerns the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a p p l y i n g s c o r i n g schedules that were o r i g i n a l l y d esigned f o r the assessment of c h i l d h o o d language to a d u l t s . C r y s t a l et a l . (1976) s t a t e d t h a t c u r r e n t l i n g u i s t i c theory has no coherent theory f o r s y n t a c t i c c o mplexity, and that i n t u i t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n a b l e b a s i s f o r making any d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s regard. They then a s s e r t , on the evidence of c l i n i c a l e xperience, that i n a n a l y z i n g a d u l t language, i t i s acceptable "to order s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s i n terms of the normal developmental sequence of the c h i l d [p. 28]," but add that they have no t h e o r e t i c a l reasons f o r t h i s procedure, and take refuge i n pragmatism because "we have found no v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e , and by using i t s a t i s f a c t o r y p rogress progress . . . has been achieved [p.32]." S i m i l a r reasoning and the outcomes thereform guided t h i s researcher i n the development of h i s schedules, which 69 are set out i n the f o l l o w i n g pages. One i s i n e v i t a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by Chomsky (1957a: p.111) i n t h i s type of endeavour, although, as s t a t e d i n Chapter 2, attempts to apply h i s order of tr a n s f o r m a t i o n s d i r e c t l y as the means of judging language have proved d i s a p p o i n t i n g . N e v e r t h e l e s s , Lee (1974: p.143) s t a t e d that her scheme of verb e l a b o r a t i o n can best be understood by referenc e to Chomsky's a n a l y s i s , and the schedules, p a r t i c u l a r l y those f o r verbs and the e l a b o r a t i o n of the subject and p r e d i c a t e , r e f l e c t h i s o b l i g a t o r y and o p t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . C l i n i c a l experience and teaching and the gene r a l p r i n c i p l e of frequency of use ( c / . Z i p f , 1949) e x e r c i s e d s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e , but the schedule a p p l i e d to the s c o r i n g of verbs was d e r i v e d , i n the main, from Lee et a l . (1971), and those a p p l i c a b l e to the v a r i a b l e Variety of Clauses and El abor at i on of the Subject and Predicate are based on the work of Hunt (1977). The "once-only" award of eigh t marks for the f i r s t use of a complex sentences (a main cl a u s e with an attac h e d or embedded sub o r d i n a t e c l a u s e ) acknowledges the u s e f u l n e s s of such a d e v i c e as the "sentence-point" (Lee, 1974). T h i s "once-only" score ensures that the complex sentence w i l l always r e c e i v e more c r e d i t than the compound sentence (two c o - o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s p l u s a c o n j u n c t i o n ) , and r e f l e c t s Hunt's f i n d i n g that c o - o r d i n a t i o n precedes s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n developmental schemes (Hunt, 1977: pp.95-97). 70 A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Syntactic Performance Score for Verbs The present tense of any verb i s the s t u f f of everyday language, and few people encounter verbs so e x o t i c a s , t o be incomprehensible to a n a t i v e speaker of the language. Emphatic forms i n the present tense and q u e s t i o n s appear to have l i t t l e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g power, and consequently do not a t t r a c t a s c o r e . C r e d i t i s given f o r the past tense of most verbs (simple, p r o g r e s s i v e , present p e r f e c t and emphatic forms in the past t e n s e ) . The two e x c e p t i o n s are the past tense of the verbs to be and to have, which are not a l l o c a t e d a score. Here again, these forms have l i t t l e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g power. The more complex forms of these two verbs, however, are marked s i m i l a r l y to a l l other verbs ( S c h e f f e r . 1975). The p l u p e r f e c t tense (simple, p r o g r e s s i v e , and emphatic) i s awarded a score on the b a s i s of i t s g r e a t e r complexity, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a sequence of tenses, as compared with the simple past forms. Implying f u t u r e time appears to g i v e s i g n i f i c a n t t r o u b l e to s u b j e c t s who are asked to make changes from some other tense and use shall or w i l l . More o f t e n than not, 71 these forms g i v e way to such a l t e r n a t i v e s as the use of the present tense with m o d i f i e r s ("I am going to v i s i t him tomorrow," or even "I see him next Tuesday") i n which i n s t a n c e the phrase "next Tuesday" i s the s o l e i n d i c a t o r of fu t u r e i n t e n t . The form most o f t e n used to imply f u t u r e time i s the present p r o g r e s s i v e tense of to go and the i n f i n i t i v e of the a c t i o n - v e r b ("I am going to sing.") T h i s form and that which adopts the shall and will c o n s t r u c t i o n are scored lower than the forms with the present tense and a m o d i f i e r . ("I leave next week"). The f u t u r e p e r f e c t tense ("I s h a l l have proved" and "I s h a l l be proving") f a l l s w i t h i n the range of complexity e x h i b i t e d by the p l u p e r f e c t or the past p e r f e c t tense, and i s s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Verbs i n the c o n d i t i o n a l moods are scored s i m i l a r l y to shall and will as r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t a c o n d i t i o n a l element i s impli e d i n the context of time i n p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t s . Variety of Clauses Sentences are c l a s s i f i e d i n three c a t e g o r i e s : simple, compound, and complex. The simple sentence comprises a simple or compound subject and a f i n i t e verb. I t may c o n t a i n a complement, d i r e c t o b j e c t , or an i n d i r e c t o b j e c t , or a combination of any of these. The subject and the p r e d i c a t e 72 (the verb p l u s o b j e c t s , d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ) may be modified by phrases, which can be regarded as a form of e l a b o r a t i o n . The compound sentence i s a combination of two simple sentences, j o i n e d by a c o - o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n , with the subject common to both sentences suppressed i n the second sentence, as i n : NP-Verb+Options+Co-ord Conj +0-Verb+Options It i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t the second s u b j e c t s l o t remain empty. I t must not be f i l l e d by a pronoun. I f the subject s l o t i s f i l l e d , two simple sentences are c r e a t e d . The complex sentence comprises a main c l a u s e and a subordinate modifying c l a u s e embedded or a t t a c h e d to the main c l a u s e , as i n : adverb-np-verb+options-NP-VERB+OPTIONS where the lower-case l e t t e r s and upper-case l e t t e r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , represent the subordinate and main c l a u s e s . There may be r e v e r s a l of the order of the subordinate and main c l a u s e s ; or the embedding of subordinate c l a u s e s , as i n t h i s p a t t e r n : NP-pronoun-verb+options-VERB+OPTIONS The c a t e g o r i e s of subordinate c l a u s e represented are: (a) Noun c l a u s e s as o b j e c t (b) A d j e c t i v a l c l a u s e (c) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of time (d) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of reason 73 (e) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of c o n d i t i o n ( f ) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of place (g) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of manner (h) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of comparison ( i ) A d v e r b i a l c l a u s e of consequence ( j ) Other a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s (k) Noun c l a u s e as subject Whatever the category of subordinate c l a u s e used, a supplementary score i s awarded i n a d d i t i o n to the c a t e g o r i c a l s c o r e . T h i s supplementary score ensures that more c r e d i t i s always given f o r a complex sentence than f o r any compound sentence. No compound sentence r e c e i v e s t h i s c r e d i t . Any use of the pass i v e v o i c e r e c e i v e s c r e d i t on the b a s i s t h a t , i n a s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e , i t s i g n a l s g r e a t e r complexity than does the c o n v e n t i o n a l p a t t e r n of NP - V NP. Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate E l a b o r a t i o n or embellishment i s the t h i r d major d i v i s i o n i n Syntactic Performance, and has a l r e a d y been r e f e r r e d to i n connection with the study by Hunt (1977). T h i s f e a t u r e i s designed to give c r e d i t f o r the use of language which may not e x h i b i t a great v a r i e t y of 74 s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s , but i s s t i l l deemed t o be of s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y on account of i t s w e a l t h of p h r a s a l and o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s t h a t enhance the d e s c r i p t i v e power and impact of the s e n t e n c e . The items t h a t make up t h i s form of e l a b o r a t i o n a r e l i s t e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e s c h e d u l e below. No c r e d i t i s g i v e n f o r a d j e c t i v a l or a d v e r b i a l " s t r i n g s " such as " b i g , s t r o n g man" or " p e r s i s t e n t l y , i n e x c u s a b l y rude." The s e l e c t i o n of the n a t u r e of the v e r b , c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s , and m o d i f y i n g d e v i c e s as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s through which t o measure s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i s sup p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e l i s t e d above. Rel iab i l i ty and Val id i ty : Syntactic Performance The r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s assessment of Syntactic Performance was examined by means of a s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t i n a p i l o t s t u d y (N=89), u s i n g d a t a ( i n d i v i d u a l s e n t e n c e s and pa r a g r a p h s ) s u p p l i e d by Koopman (1988): Cronbach's alpha = 0.75. In t h i s i n s t a n c e , Cronbach's alpha i s a measure of the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the t e s t , and g i v e s the lower bound f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y of the whole t e s t . Thus, one r e c o g n i z e s t h a t the v a r i o u s " s p l i t s " were not n e c e s s a r i l y r - e q u i v a l e n t ( A l l e n & Yen, 1979). [ r - e q u i v a l e n t t e s t s a r e t e s t s which s a t i s f y the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : (a) an o b s e r v e d s c o r e c o m p r i s e s the t r u e s c o r e p l u s e r r o r s c o r e ; (b) the exp e c t e d 75 v a l u e (the p o p u l a t i o n mean) of the o b s e r v e d s c o r e i s the t r u e s c o r e ; (c) examinees w i t h h i g h t r u e s c o r e s do not have s y s t e m a t i c a l l y more p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e e r r o r s of measurement than do examinees w i t h low t r u e s c o r e s ; (d) the e r r o r s c o r e s on two d i f f e r e n t t e s t s a re u n c o r r e l a t e d , i.e. i f a c a n d i d a t e has a h i g h p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e on one t e s t , he or she i s not more l i k e l y t o have a h i g h p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e s c o r e on a second t e s t ; (e) the e r r o r s c o r e s on one t e s t a r e not c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the t r u e s c o r e s on another t e s t ]. I f , i n a d d i t i o n t o (a) t o (e) above, the t r u e s c o r e s of one t e s t a re e q u a l t o the t r u e s c o r e s on the second t e s t , and t h e i r v a r i a n c e s a r e e q u a l , the two t e s t s a r e then p a r a l l e l t e s t s , and one can be c o n f i d e n t l y s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the o t h e r w i t h o u t adjustment. The d a t a f o r a s s e s s i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the p i l o t study were d e r i v e d from w r i t t e n and o r a l ( l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d ) m a t e r i a l , and the " s p l i t s " were analog o u s t o th o s e o b t a i n e d i n the c o n s t i t u e n t q u e s t i o n s of the c o n v e n t i o n a l t e s t . In t h i s p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , t he m a t e r i a l was s c o r e d f o r o n l y the q u a l i t y of v e r b s , v a r i e t y of c l a u s e s , and p h r a s a l e m b e l l i s h m e n t . The format (a pa r a g r a p h or s e v e r a l paragraphs) cannot be adapted f o r a s p l i t - h a l f p r o c e d u r e . For t h i s r e a s o n , and because the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h were a d u l t s who were not a v a i l a b l e f o r r e - t e s t i n g , e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y of the method of a s s e s s i n g Syntactic Performance has depended on t h e r e l i a b i l i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each of the elements c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s v a r i a b l e ( v e r b s , c l a u s a l v a r i e t y , and p h r a s a l e m b e l l i s h m e n t ) 76 i n t he p i l o t s t u d y c o n d u c t e d w i t h Koopman's (1988) d a t a , and on the i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y a c h i e v e d i n t h i s p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n between the s c o r e s g i v e n by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r and those awarded by an independent examiner, who r e - a s s e s s e d o n e - t h i r d of the language samples, was 0.80 ( / x 0 . 0 5 ) . Content v a l i d i t y f o r the method of a s s e s s i n g the s y n t a c t i c a l q u a l i t y of a passage i n Koopman's (1988) study was e s t a b l i s h e d by the l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n of the domain which i t was d e s i r a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t , and the procedure f o r s c o r i n g Syntactic Performance was f u r t h e r r e f i n e d f o r t h i s c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n by the a d d i t i o n of p h r a s a l s t r u c t u r e s o m i t t e d i n 1988. I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t these a d d i t i o n s have h e l p e d t o ensure a j u s t and r e a l i s t i c assessment of t h i s component. A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the pr e s e n t s c o r e s f o r Syntactic Performance c o n f i r m e d the independence of t h r e e o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s and of t h r e e independent methods of s c o r i n g the elements of t h i s v a r i a b l e . A l l language samples were a l s o s c o r e d i n Minimal Terminable Units (Hunt, 1965). T h i s approach i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d as a means of j u d g i n g m a t u r i t y of language. I t f u r n i s h e s a q u a n t i t a t i v e measure which, prima f a c i e , s u g g e s t s a g e n e r a l l e v e l of competence i n language. The emphasis i n t h i s p r e s e n t s t u d y was much more on the q u a l i t y of c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( q u a l i t y of ve r b and 77 c l a u s a l and p h r a s a l v a r i e t y ) , which the T - u n i t does not s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f l e c t . Consequently, the T - u n i t was employed as a supplementary assessment and e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n , but the i n d i v i d u a l scores p e r t a i n i n g to the T - u n i t a n a l y s i s are not i n c l u d e d in Chapter 4. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the scores f o r Syntactic Performance and those f o r assessment i n T- u n i t s was r = 0.68 (^<0.05). Procedure for Scoring A systematic approach to the marking of the language samples i s set out below. Steps 1 - 7 should be completed i n sequence f o r each sample. 1. Count the t o t a l number of words i n the sample, i n c l u d i n g r e p e t i t i o n s . 2. Underline a l l f i n i t e verbs, and i d e n t i f y t e n s e s . 3. Bracket a l l simple sentences, not p a r t s of compound or complex sentences. 4. Bracket a l l compound sentences. 5. Bracket a l l complex sentences, and i d e n t i f y c a t e g o r y (see sch e d u l e ) . 6. I d e n t i f y a l l examples of e l a b o r a t i o n (see (Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate below). 7. A l l o c a t e the a p p r o p r i a t e scores and l i s t them at the end of each language sample under Score for Verbs, Variety 78 of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate . Schedule of S c o r e s : Syntactic Performance Score for Verbs Score 1. Future i m p l i e d by the p r o g r e s s i v e present tense of to go and the i n f i n i t i v e of the primary a c t i o n or s t a t e . Future i m p l i e d by shall and w i l l . C o n d i t i o n a l mood of a l l verbs. Score 2. Future i m p l i e d by present tense p l u s m o d i f i e r . Score 3. Past tense: r e g u l a r and i r r e g u l a r (simple, p r o g r e s s i v e , present p e r f e c t , and emphatic): a l l verbs except to be and to have. Score 5. (a) Subjunctive mood of a l l verbs; (b) p l u p e r f e c t tense (simple, p r o g r e s s i v e , and emphatic) of a l l v e r b s ; (c) fut u r e p e r f e c t tense (simple and p r o g r e s s i v e ) of a l l verbs; (d) a l l p a s s i v e v o i c e s of a l l v e r b s . Variety of Clauses Score 1. Simple sentence: simple or compound s u b j e c t with f i n i t e verb, with or without e l a b o r a t i o n . Score 5. Compound sentence: simple or c o - o r d i n a t e s u b j e c t , with a f i n i t e verb i n each c o - o r d i n a t e 79 sentence; the subject slot of the second sentence l e f t empty. Score 1. Subordinate noun clause as direc t object or complement. Score 2. Subordinate a d j e c t i v a l clause. Score 3. Subordinate adverbial clause of time. Score 4. Subordinate adverbial clause of reason. Score 5. Subordinate adverbial clause of condition. Score 6. Subordinate clause of (a) place, (b) manner, (c) comparison, (d) consequence, (e) other subordinate adverbial clause. Score 7. Subordinate noun clause as subject. Score 8. A supplementary score i s given once only at the f i r s t use of any subordinate clause, but not for any subsequent use of the i n i t i a t i n g category of clause or any subordinate clause in another category. This weight is NOT given for compound sentences. aboration of the Subject and Predicate Score 1. Direct object, or ind i r e c t object, or complement. Where a noun clause as object i s present, no additional weight i s given for any dir e c t object present as an integral part of thi s noun clause. Score 3. Two of dir e c t object, indirect object, complement. 80 Score 5. (a) Any i n v e r s i o n of the standard sentence f o r emphasis or s p e c i a l e f f e c t ; (b) e l a b o r a t i o n of the su b j e c t or p r e d i c a t e with a p p o s i t i o n a l , p r e p o s i t i o n a l , a d j e c t i v a l , a d v e r b i a l , and i n f i n i t i v a l phrases, other than those mentioned under scores 1 - 7 i n the s e c t i o n {Variety of Clauses) above. S e l e c t e d Procedure: Comprehension One may, with some j u s t i f i c a t i o n , suggest that the "context q u e s t i o n , " based on memory and a knowledge of the whole t e x t , c a l l e d for a response which would s p e c i f y the i n i t i a t o r of the a c t i o n or s t a t e , the i n t e n t i o n of the i n i t i a t o r , and i t s i n f l u e n c e on other c h a r a c t e r s and events. A t e s t i n reading comprehension seemed, to t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , to embrace s i m i l a r o b j e c t i v e s i n the area of r e c a l l as d i d the context q u e s t i o n , but i t should a l s o c a l l f o r an a p p r e c i a t i o n of i n f e r e n c e and of any consequences a r i s i n g from the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r s . Such a t e s t had to meet these c r i t e r i a in the context of the present r e s e a r c h . 1. Be a p p r o p r i a t e to use with a d u l t s u b j e c t s . 2. Be a v a i l a b l e as a group t e s t . 3. Be easy to a d m i n i s t e r . 4. Not r e q u i r e more than twenty minutes to y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t score. 81 5. Not be " r e s t r i c t e d " with regard to those who may admin i s t e r i t . 6. Y i e l d a score on an i n t e r v a l or a r a t i o s c a l e . These c r i t e r i a were imposed by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample, the l i m i t s of the time a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n g , and the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures adopted i n t h i s enquiry. The Davis Reading Test (1962) met the requirements set out above, but there are c r i t i c i s m s of reviewers which must be taken i n t o account. Between 1968 and 1973, four f a c t o r a nalyses were made of the r e s u l t s from v a r i o u s t e s t i n g s . Davis (1968) i d e n t i f i e d f i v e s k i l l s i n reading comprehension: 1. R e c a l l i n g word meaning. 2. F i n d i n g answers to q u e s t i o n s asked s p e c i f i c a l l y or i n paraphrase. 3. Drawing i n f e r e n c e s from c o n t e n t . 4. Recognizing a w r i t e r ' s purpose, a t t i t u d e , tone, and mood. 5. F o l l o w i n g the s t r u c t u r e of a passage. Four years l a t e r , Davis (1972) named four f a c t o r s i n reading comprehension: 1. R e c a l l i n g word meaning. 2. Determining meaning from c o n t e n t . 3. F i n d i n g answers to q u e s t i o n s asked s p e c i f i c a l l y or i n paraphrase, and weaving these ideas together. 82 4. Drawing i n f e r e n c e s from the content. S p e a r r i t t (1972) a p p l i e d "maximum l i k e l i h o o d " f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures (Joreskog & Lawley, 1968) to data from the Davis t e s t , and i d e n t i f i e d four unique f a c t o r s : 1. R e c a l l i n g word meanings. 2. Drawing i n f e r e n c e s from the content. 3. Recognizing a w r i t e r ' s purpose, a t t i t u d e , mood, and tone. 4. F o l l o w i n g the s t r u c t u r e of a passage. Thorndike (1973), i n h i s f i n d i n g s , was not as c a t e g o r i c a l as were Davis and S p e a r r i t t . In h i s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , he found that one f a c t o r , which he d i d not e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y as that mentioned by S p i r o , Bruce, and Brewer (1980) below, accounted f o r 93% of the v a r i a n c e i n the scores for comprehension. As v e r i f i c a t i o n , f u r t h e r s e t s of data were analyzed, and i n each case, a s i n g l e f a c t o r accounted f o r 80% - 90% of the v a r i a n c e , and the remaining v a r i a n c e was exhausted by two, or perhaps t h r e e , other f a c t o r s . On t h i s evidence, Thorndike (1973) dec i d e d that the s e v e r a l unique f a c t o r s claimed by Davis (1968, 1972) were not to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . In c o n c l u s i o n , S p i r o et a l . , (1980) s t a t e d that one "sees that d i f f e r e n t a n a l y s e s y i e l d e d d i f f e r e n t unique s k i l l s , and only one s k i l l was constant a c r o s s these a n a l y s e s : remembering word meanings [p.543]." I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c data i s governed 83 very c l e a r l y by the procedure which i s adopted. T h i s w r i t e r f e e l s t h at "remembering word meanings" i s too s i m p l i s t i c a d e s c r i p t i o n of the f a c t o r ( i f , indeed, there i s but one) i n readin g comprehension. To d e s c r i b e the f a c t o r thus i s to f i n d i n the Davis m a t e r i a l l i t t l e more than a c l a s s i f i e d v o c a b u l a r y . Even a curso r y examination r e v e a l s much more. The apparent s i n g l e f a c t o r or s k i l l i s t r u l y m u l t i f a c e t e d , and i n the manner portrayed i n the anal y s e s by Davis (1968, 1972) and by S p e a r r i t t (1972). On the balance of t h i s evidence, the Davis Reading Test (1962) was accepted as a s u i t a b l e instrument f o r a s s e s s i n g the v a r i a b l e Comprehension. A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Comprehension The authors of the Davis Reading Test, (1968, 1962) supply raw s c o r e s . These may be converted i n t o p e r c e n t i l e s by means of t a b l e s . Scores are a v a i l a b l e f o r level-of-comprehension and speed-of-comprehension . Level-of-comprehension i s based on the f i r s t 40 items. As the s u b j e c t goes on to r e p l y to the second set of 40, he or she i s g a i n i n g marks which go toward the assessment of a speed-of-comprehension s c o r e . The t e s t i s o f f e r e d i n two s e r i e s . The f i r s t s e r i e s (1A - 1D) i s s t a t e d to be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r f i r s t - y e a r c o l l e g e s tudents, grade 12 and s u p e r i o r grade 11 students. The 84 second s e r i e s (2A - 2D) i s s u i t a b l e f o r grades 8 - 11. Within these s e r i e s are a l t e r n a t e forms of each s e r i e s . [See A l l e n & Yen, 1979, on p a r a l l e l forms and e s s e n t i a l l y T - e q u i v a l e n t forms]. For t h i s r esearch, the primary i n t e r e s t was i n the second s e r i e s . A p r e - t e s t i n g survey of the g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l of p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t s suggested that Form C, S e r i e s 2 was an a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l . The content of the other forms, at one p o i n t or another, was too o b v i o u s l y j u v e n i l e f o r a d u l t s , but the s e r i e s , as a whole, made s i g n i f i c a n t demands on the a d u l t reader. Rel iabi l i ty and Val id i ty: Comprehension The r e l i a b i l i t y of the second s e r i e s was asses s e d f o r grades 8 - 11 by means of the c o r r e l a t i o n of p a i r s of forms of the t e s t . The sample was d i v i d e d i n t o four groups, and t e s t i n g followed t h i s p a t t e r n : Group 1: t e s t with Form A and then Form B. Group 2: t e s t with Form B and then Form A. Group 3: t e s t with Form C and then Form D. Group 4: t e s t with Form D and then Form C. As the scores i n t h i s present r e s e a r c h r e f e r r e d e x c l u s i v e l y to a d u l t s , and were not compared with those of other age-groups, the f o l l o w i n g r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were accepted as a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s c o n t e x t . 85 The i n t e r - t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were transformed by means of F i s h e r ' s z to supply one r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r each score ( l e v e l or speed) f o r each grade. The c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from 0.77 - 0.84. In r e s p e c t of content v a l i d i t y , the authors (Davis & Davi s , 1962) claime d that " F a c t o r i a l s t u d i e s have pr o v i d e d evidence that t e s t s of t h i s kind are e x c e l l e n t measures of v e r b a l a p t i t u d e [p.22]." Few would deny t h i s c l a i m on the b a s i s of the t e s t ' s p e r c e i v e d v e r b a l content, although the s t a t i s t i c a l data o f f e r e d i n support i s not impressive. Approximately, 250 students from each of grades 8 - 11 completed the t e s t , and the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t e s t r e s u l t s and the stu d e n t s ' mid-year grades i n E n g l i s h ranged from 0.39 - 0.54 f o r l e v e l of comprehension. The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Reading Test and v a r i o u s s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s i n E n g l i s h (Otis Beta, Otis Gamma, Minnesota School Aptitude Test, and the Co-op Reading Comprehension Test) range from 0.68 - 0.78 (Manual, Davis Readi ng Test , p.26) The g e n e r a l v a l i d i t y of the Davis Reading Test, need not be que s t i o n e d , but some researchers ( S p e a r r i t t , 1972; Thorndike, 1973) have not e n t i r e l y confirmed the f i n d i n g s and the c l a i m s made by Davis (1968, 1972). The raw scores f o r l e v e l of comprehension were analyzed i n t h i s present r e s e a r c h . The s c a l e d scores and p e r c e n t i l e s 86 s u p p l i e d i n the t e s t manual are f o r the purpose of comparing attainment as between the d i f f e r e n t s e r i e s . Schedule of Scores: Comprehension With regard to leve l - o f - c o m p r e h e n s i o n , a score of 1 i s awarded f o r each c o r r e c t response. The t o t a l i s c o r r e c t e d for guessing, and t h i s adjustment i s ach i e v e d by deducting marks as d i r e c t e d i n Appendix G of t h i s study. A simple t o t a l may then be converted i n t o a standard score (Mean=50; SD=10) . Selected Instrument: Mental Ability The t e s t with which to as s e s s Mental Ability i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was r e q u i r e d to meet the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1. Be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use with a d u l t s u b j e c t s . 2. Be a v a i l a b l e as a group t e s t , when small groups can be t e s t e d . 3. Be easy to a d m i n i s t e r . 4. Be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y completed with short responses. 5. Not be o b v i o u s l y confounded by a language v a r i a b l e . 6. Y i e l d a composite score on an i n t e r v a l or a r a t i o s c a l e . These c r i t e r i a were e n j o i n e d by the nature of the sample, c o n s t r a i n t s of time, the intended s t a t i s t i c a l procedures, and the requirement that the t e s t not have a 87 language component i n i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n . The Test of Nonverbal I n t e l l i g e n c e , (1982) met a l l the c r i t e r i a c i t e d above. I t was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a d u l t s of the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n ( a d u l t s aged 20-60 y e a r s ) ; i t c o u l d be used with s m a l l groups and with i n d i v i d u a l s , which was the mode of attendance envisaged f o r t h i s enquiry; i t was easy to a d m i n i s t e r , r e q u i r i n g no s p e c i a l l y - t r a i n e d examiners, and the responses were simple to make. The c h o i c e of response c a l l e d f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n of f i g u r a l i d e n t i t i e s , a n a l y s e s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , i n t e r s e c t i o n s , and p r o g r e s s i o n s i n sequences of i n c r e a s i n g d i f f i c u l t y . By d e f i n i t i o n , i t was a non-verbal t e s t ; and, f i n a l l y , a simple raw score was a v a i l a b l e . T h i s c o u l d be converted i n t o a p e r c e n t i l e or a standard TONI q u o t i e n t , A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Mental A b i l i t y The a l l o c a t i o n of scores i n t h i s t e s t , f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h , was e s s e n t i a l l y the task of choosing the mode i n which any sc o r e s were to be recorded and manipulated. Raw scores were co n v e r t e d to p e r c e n t i l e s which r e f l e c t e d a c o r r e c t i o n f o r age, and these were then converted to T-scores (Mean=50; SD=10). 88 Rel iabi l i ty and Val id i ty : Mental Ability The s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n group f o r the Test, of Nonverbal Intelligence was 1929 s u b j e c t s from 28 s t a t e s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h e i r ages ranged from 5-0 y e a r s t o 85-11 y e a r s , and normative d a t a were drawn from c u m u l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s of raw sc o r e s a t ev e r y i n t e r v a l of 6 months from 5 t o 18 y e a r s , every one-year i n t e r v a l from 19 t o 24 y e a r s , and every f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l from 25 t o 85 y e a r s . Mayo (1985) s t a t e d : Some of the subgroup Ns [numbers of s u b j e c t s ] a r e s h o c k i n g l y s m a l l , e.g. as s m a l l as 10, 11, 16, and 30 f o r f o u r d e v i a n t groups upon which KR21s [ K u d e r - R i c h a r d s o n f o r m u l a 21] and a l t e r n a t e form r e l i a b i l i t i e s were computed (p.1582). T h i s s t r i c t u r e does n o t , however, a p p l y t o the age-ranges of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s e n q u i r y . There a r e two forms of the TONI, which may be c o n s i d e r e d a l t e r n a t e forms. ( A l l e n & Yen, 1979). R e l i a b i l i t y was a s s e s s e d by c a l c u l a t i n g Cronbach's alpha and KR21 (Ku d e r - R i c h a r d s o n f o r m u l a 2 1 ) . The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s r e p o r t e d l i e i n the range 0.60 - 0.92, w i t h most above 0.80, f o r i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n r e s p e c t of b o t h forms; and a l t e r n a t e forms r e l i a b i l i t y p r o c e d u r e s y i e l d c o e f f i c i e n t s of comparable magnitude ( r a n g e : 0.78 - 0.95). [Cronbach's alpha i s sometimes l i s t e d as c o e f f i c i e n t 89 alpha, and as KR20 (Kuder-Richardson 20). KR21 i s a s p e c i a l case of KR20. If the items i n the t e s t do not have approximately the same degree of of d i f f i c u l t y , KR20 w i l l underestimate the t e s t ' s r e l i a b i l i t y . Otherwise, the two i n d i c e s y i e l d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s ] . Content v a l i d i t y i s claimed on the b a s i s of item s e l e c t i o n . Many of the items have been drawn from Raven's Progressive Matrices (1977), the Leiter International Scale (1948), and Wechsler's Performance Scales, (1939, 1967,1974). Cons t r u c t v a l i d i t y i s supported by data from a comparison of the performances of re t a r d e d and of "normal" s u b j e c t s . Both the retar d e d and the normal s u b j e c t s were c h i l d r e n , and there were 10 ret a r d e d c h i l d r e n . T h i s s i z e of comparison i s r e a l l y much too small f o r the rea c h i n g of d e f i n i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s . In respect of the TONI, Brown et a l . , (1982) s t a t e i n the Manual f o r the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: For the TONI, i t [concurrent v a l i d i t y ] was e s t a b l i s h e d through s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n which TONI sco r e s were c o r r e l a t e d with performance on a v a r i e t y of measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement; Raven's (1938) P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s , the L e i t e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Performance Scale (Wechsler, 1974), the Otis-Lennon Mental A b i l i t y Test ( O t i s & Lennon, 1970), the Iowa Te s t s of Basic S k i l l s (ITBS) ( L i n q u i s t & Hieronymous, 1956), the SRA Achievement 90 S e r i e s (Naslund, Thorpe, & L e f e v e r , 1978), and the St a n f o r d Achievement Test (SAT) (Madden & Gardner, 1972) (p.12). Despite the l i m i t a t i o n s of some of the v a l i d a t i o n data p e r t a i n i n g to i t , the Test of Non-verbal Intelligence f u r n i s h e s scores which are comparable with those from other i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , and the d e f e c t s i n the v a l i d a t i o n procedures w i l l undoubtedly be compensated f o r as the t e s t c ontinues to be used. The c o n c l u s i o n s of Mayo (1985) are s i g n i f i c a n t : In summary, the TONI appears to have been moderately w e l l developed p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y . I t has face v a l i d i t y f o r the non-verbal purpose which i s intended. The items are w e l l s c a l e d i n d i f f i c u l t y and p s y c h o l o g i c a l complexity. The main weaknesses found or suspected by the reviewer o c c u r r e d i n the incompleteness and ambiguity of d i r e c t i o n s , suspected p o s s i b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s c o r i n g f o r some examinees, too small sample s i z e s f o r subgroups ( e s p e c i a l l y at the younger ages) r e s u l t i n g i n higher standard e r r o r s of measurement, and s e r i o u s l a c k of s u f f i c i e n t evidence of v a l i d i t y (p.1583). 91 Schedule of Scores: Mental Ability As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , a s u b j e c t ' s age c u s t o m a r i l y determines at which poin t he or she begins answering the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, unless there are other circumstances which suggest the s t a r t i n g - p o i n t should be below the normal l e v e l . Items below t h i s s t a r t i n g l e v e l are c r e d i t e d to the s u b j e c t . Item 20 i s suggested as the l e v e l at which to begin t e s t i n g the 18-20 years group. I f , f o r any reason, t h i s s t a r t i n g p o i n t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e , a b a s a l item i s sought by dete r m i n i n g the l e v e l which re p r e s e n t s the f i r s t of f i v e c o r r e c t responses. T e s t i n g continues u n t i l the s u b j e c t f a i l s t h r ee out of f i v e items. Mayo (1985) drew a t t e n t i o n to a s i t u a t i o n which c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y a r i s e with the very b r i g h t s u b j e c t who can s u c c e s s f u l l y respond to a l l items. In t h i s c i r c umstance, there would be no c e i l i n g l e v e l , no t h i r d e r r o r . To t h i s w r i t e r , the matter i s not important: the TONI score c o u l d be read with the p r e f i x "not below. . . " One should note that a candidate who i s "very o l d , " (presumably t h i s means " s e n i l e " ) , s t a r t s with the p r a c t i c e - g r o u p items, and a bas a l item i s subsequently e s t a b l i s h e d . Item 10 was s e l e c t e d i n t h i s study as the b a s a l item and t h i s proved to be g e n e r a l l y s u i t a b l e . 92 S e l e c t e d Procedure: I n f o r m a t i o n The procedure which a f f o r d s the most e f f e c t i v e means of a s s e s s i n g the l e v e l at which i n d i v i d u a l s g e n e r a l l y process i n f o r m a t i o n i s one based on Schroder et a l . (1967). For t h i s present enquiry, the s t i m u l i f o r prompting responses at v a r i o u s l e v e l s were c o l l a g e s t h a t p r o j e c t e d i s s u e s (by h e a d l i n e s and i l l u s t r a t i o n s ) about which s u b j e c t s were l i k e l y to have d e f i n i t e views. I l l u s t r a t i o n s of these c o l l a g e s (cards) are s u p p l i e d i n Appendix F. The t o p i c s from which the s u b j e c t was asked to make a c h o i c e were: 1. Fetus's r i g h t s vs mother's r i g h t s : Is there a case fo r abort ion? 2. The U n i t e d S t a t e s and the S o v i e t Union agree to destroy medium and s h o r t e r range n u c l e a r weapons: Should we t r u s t e i t h e r s i d e ? 3. D e l i n q u e n t s i n s c h o o l : Is g e t t i n g tough the answer f o r d e l i n q u e n t s ? 4. P o l i t i c i a n s ' p r i v a t e l i v e s : F a i r game for the press? What should the press do? 5 . Arms a g a i n s t crime: A c i t i z e n ' s r i g h t ? Shooting i n s e l f - d e f e n c e ? 6. C h i l d r e n ' s t o y s : You c a l l these toys? Too expensive f o r c h i l d r e n ? It was a n t i c i p a t e d that the c h o i c e of one of these 93 t o p i c s would prompt a sample of w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n s u s c e p t i b l e t o a n a l y s i s and s c o r i n g based on the methods of S c h r o d e r et a l . , (1967). In t h i s c o n t e x t , Schroder e t a l . , (1967) commented t h a t t h e i r c o ncern was "how people use c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e s such as a t t i t u d e s f o r a d a p t i v e purposes [ p . v ] . " They were l e s s c o n c e r n e d w i t h what people t h i n k . T h e i r f o c u s was on " A t t i t u d e s , needs, s t r a t e g i e s , c o n c e p t s , and norms [ p . v ] . " They wanted t o know how t h e s e e n t i t i e s were viewed and s t u d i e d as s t r u c t u r e s f o r the p r o c e s s i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n . A l l o c a t i o n of Scores: Information A major problem was how t o measure the v a r i a b l e Information w i t h a d e s i r a b l e degree of s t a t i s t i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y . There a r e p a r a l l e l s between t h i s t a s k and the r a t i n g of any type of w r i t t e n or o r a l c o m p o s i t i o n . The assumption t h a t the marking of such m a t e r i a l i s n e c e s s a r i l y s u b j e c t i v e , and thus u n r e l i a b l e , i s now q u e s t i o n e d . The e x p e r i e n c e of r e p u t a b l e examining b o d i e s has shown t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y can be a c h i e v e d i n the performance of examiners, i f a s c o r i n g g u i d e and p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s a r e i n t r o d u c e d . The responses produced f o r the assessment of t h i s v a r i a b l e were s i m i l a r t o s h o r t p a r a g r a p h s , and they were s c o r e d o n l y f o r c o n t e n t a t t h i s s t age of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 94 In these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o n s i s t e n c y with r e f e r e n c e to one marker or s e v e r a l can be e f f e c t i v e l y a ided by the use of a s p e c i f i c a t i o n l i s t . The degree of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s l a r g e l y governed by the purpose to which the pie c e of w r i t i n g i s to be put, and the items t h a t q u a l i f y f o r any p a r t i c u l a r r a t i n g are t h e r e f o r e to be s t a t e d as unambiguously as p o s s i b l e . F i n a l l y , the l i s t i t s e l f should represent a l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s i o n from immature to mature t h i n k i n g . These are the p r i n c i p l e s on which the seven-point s c a l e by Schroder et a l . (1967) and i t s e l a b o r a t i o n i n the Pr i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s were c o n s t r u c t e d . The scheme e v e n t u a l l y adopted fo r t h i s present study i s an a d a p t a t i o n of these g u i d e l i n e s . Cooper and O d e l l (1977) s t a t e d : When r a t e r s are from s i m i l a r backgrounds and when they are t r a i n e d with a h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g g u i d e — e i t h e r one they borrow or devise f o r themselves on the s p o t — t h e y can achieve n e a r l y p e r f e c t agreement i n choosing the b e t t e r of a p a i r of essays; and they can achieve s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the hig h e i g h t i e s and low n i n e t i e s on t h e i r summed scores from m u l t i p l e p i e c e s of a student's w r i t i n g (p.19). 95 Rel iabi l i ty and Val id i ty: Information S t a l n a k e r (1934) demonstrated t h a t r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o u l d be improved i n the matter of j u d g i n g t he g e n e r a l q u a l i t y of the c o m p o s i t i o n , from a range of 0.30 - 0.75 be f o r e t r a i n i n g t o one of 0.73 - 0.98 a f t e r t r a i n i n g . Moslemi (1975), s t u d y i n g the marking of c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g , m a t e r i a l l y c o n f i r m e d t h i s f i n d i n g by showing t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e , w i t h t h r e e r a t e r s , t o a c h i e v e a r e l i a b i l i t y i n d e x of 0.95. The i n t e r e s t i n , and need f o r , h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n prompted F o l l m a n and Anderson (1967) t o i n v e s t i g a t e f i v e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of t h i s approach. They r e p o r t e d r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c e n t s of 0.80 - 0.95, and Schro d e r e t a l . (1967) r e p o r t e d i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of s i m i l a r magnitude (0.85 - 0.95) w i t h r e g a r d t o the mar k i n g of response m a t e r i a l g e n e r a t e d by v a r i o u s k i n d s of v e r b a l s t i m u l i . D i e d e r i c h (1974) complemented t h e s e s t u d i e s by s u g g e s t i n g , as an outcome of h i s own r e s e a r c h , t h a t a c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.80 i s adequate r e l i a b i l i t y f o r program e v a l u a t i o n , but a c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.90 i s r e q u i r e d f o r a s s e s s i n g changes i n the performance of i n d i v i d u a l s . Data of t h i s k i n d can be a c c e p t e d o n l y as p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t i o n s of what may be found i n o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r a t t e m p t e d t o v e r i f y t h a t h i s 96 m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the assessment schedule proposed by Schr o d e r e t a l . (1967) had not v i o l a t e d the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of t h e s e a u t h o r s . A l l responses were s c o r e d a second time a c c o r d i n g t o the P r i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s . The c o r r e l a t i o n between the methods was r = 0.87 (^<0.05 ). As a f u r t h e r v e r i f i c a t i o n , an independent examiner, u s i n g the P r i n c e t o n system, checked the s c o r e s of o n e - t h i r d of the s u b j e c t s , chosen randomly. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the s c o r e s awarded by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r and those awarded by the independent examiner was r = 0.77 (/?<0.05). M o d i f i c a t i o n of the P r i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s was a c h i e v e d by the s u b - d i v i d i n g of l e v e l s and the consequent c r e a t i o n of p a r t i a l s c o r e s , which o f f e r e d g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y i n assessment. The P r i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s a r e c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix E. Schedule of Scores: Information [The a s t e r i s k * i n d i c a t e s the f u l l s c o r e . P a r t i a l s c o r e s f o l l o w ] . * S core 1.0. P r e s e n t s o n l y one s i d e of the problem, i g n o r i n g any d i f f e r e n c e s , s i m i l a r i t i e s , and g r a d a t i o n s (0.5) . S i m p l i s t i c , a b s o l u t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; f a s t , unambiguous c l o s u r e ( 0 . 5 ) . * S c o r e 3.0. One s i d e of the problem s u p p o r t e d much more 97 than any o t h e r . Opposing views p e r c e i v e d as n e g a t i v e or c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d . No i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o n s i d e r e d (2.0) R e c o g n i t i o n of o p p o s i n g views tends t o be a r i t u a l response ( 1 . 0 ) . *Score 4.0. Two or more views c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . S i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i m p l i e d or p r e s e n t e d . One view can be opposed, but i s u n d e r s t o o d ( 3 . 0 ) . Opposing view i s r e c o g n i z e d as a p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e of t r o u b l e , but has no b e a r i n g on e v e n t u a l d e c i s i o n ( 1 . 0 ) . *Score 5.0. I n c l u d e s a l l i n v o l v e d under p r e v i o u s award. The s u b j e c t b e g i n s t o c o n s i d e r more d e e p l y the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s among v i e w s . The s i m u l t a n e o u s e f f e c t s of a l t e r n a t i v e v i e w s become apparent i n the re s p o n d e n t ' s t h i n k i n g ( 4 . 0 ) . I t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t one view cannot be adopted w i t h o u t the s a c r i f i c e , t o some degree, of o p p o s i n g o p i n i o n s ( 1 . 0 ) . *Score 6.0. C o n s i d e r s a l t e r n a t i v e and c o n f l i c t i n g reasons f o r p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s (5.0) . A l t e r n a t i v e v iews t h a t a r e v a r i o u s l y c o n g r u e n t w i t h the respondent's own views a r e r e c o g n i z e d as t h e ones l i k e l y t o be a t t e n d e d t o ( 1 . 0 ) . *Score 7.0. Begi n s t o c o n s i d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , not o n l y 98 among d i r e c t s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a s p e c t s of a p r o b l e m , but a l s o between a l t e r n a t i v e r e a s o n s f o r the o c c u r r e n c e of the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s (6.0) . There i s an awareness of the i n f l u e n c e t h a t the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s mentioned above can have on any d e c i s i o n ; t h i s i s e x p r e s s e d ( 1 . 0 ) . * S c o r e 9.0. B e g i n s t o c o n s i d e r the n o t i o n s which i n c l u d e r e l a t i o n a l l i n k a g e s among a l l a l t e r n a t i v e v i e w s . The n o t i o n s a r e r e c o g n i z e d as l i k e l y s o u r c e s of the m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m o t i v e s , and t h e r e i s o v e r t e x p r e s s i o n of a d e s i r e t o see a l l the c o n f l i c t s r e s o l v e d i n some measure ( 7 . 0 ) . P e r c e p t i o n of c o n f l i c t i s now seen t o be f a d i n g , and some form of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n p o s s i b l e ( 2 . 0 ) . Allocation of Scores: Demographic Variables The s c o r e s a l l o c a t e d t o Occupation, Socio-economic Status, and Education r e f l e c t the "economic v a l u e " of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s . In one sense, and t o a l i m i t e d degree o n l y , the s c o r e s a c c o r d e d .to age-groups suggest a h i e r a r c h y of economic r e t u r n t o the employee: s e n i o r i t y u s u a l l y means movement toward the t o p of the wage-scale. On the o t h e r hand, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t a l a b o u r e r , aged 50 - 60 y e a r s , would e a r n as much as a p r o f e s s i o n a l person aged 30 - 39 99 years. Hence, the age-groups may be seen as not a t t r a c t i n g scores i n such a d i r e c t way as do l e v e l s of education or, more so, oc c u p a t i o n s . Schedule of S c o r e s : Demographic V a r i a b l e s 1. Age: Score 1. 2 0 - 2 9 y e a r s . Score 2. 30 - 39 y e a r s . Score 3. 40 - 49 y e a r s . Score 4. 50 - 60 y e a r s . 2. S o c i o - e c o n o m i c S t a t u s ( r e f e r r i n g to the supporting p a r e n t ) : Score 1. U n s k i l l e d worker and l a b o u r e r . Score 2. S e r v i c e worker. Score 3. C l e r i c a l worker. Score 4. S e c r e t a r y ( s u p e r v i s o r y ) . Score 5. S k i l l e d a r t i s a n . Score 6. T e c h n o l o g i s t . Score 7. P r o p r i e t o r , Manager, A d m i n i s t r a t o r . Score 8. P r o f e s s i o n a l . 3. E d u c a t i o n : Scores 1 - 1 2 . Ac c o r d i n g to years of formal s c h o o l i n g . Scores 13, 14, & 15. Accor d i n g to f u l l years of attendance at a post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n . Score 16. As above, ( a l s o to i n c l u d e a bachelor's 1 00 degr e e ) . Score 18. As above, ( a l s o to i n c l u d e a master's d e g r e e ) . Score 21. As above, ( a l s o to i n c l u d e a d o c t o r a l d e g r e e ) . 4. Occupation ( r e f e r r i n g to the responding i n d i v i d u a l ) : Score 1. U n s k i l l e d worker and l a b o u r e r . Score 2. S e r v i c e worker. Score 3. C l e r i c a l worker. Score 4. S e c r e t a r y ( s u p e r v i s o r y ) . Score 5. S k i l l e d a r t i s a n . Score 6. T e c h n o l o g i s t . Score 7. P r o p r i e t o r , Manager, A d m i n i s t r a t o r . Score 8. P r o f e s s i o n a l . RESEARCH DESIGN The design presents a general m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n model with Information as the c r i t e r i o n (dependent v a r i a b l e ) and Language Ability, Syntactic Performance, Comprehension, and Mental Ability as the p r e d i c t o r s (independent v a r i a b l e s ) . Language Ability i s the c r i t e r i o n when i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to Mental Ability i s explored (Hypothesis 12), and i n the a n a l y s i s c o n c e r n i n g the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and and Language Ability i n Information (Hypothesis 13) . 101 A Question of L o g i c The r e s e a r c h design f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n employed a s i n g l e set of language samples f o r both s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s and the grading of o p i n i o n and argument in terms of t h e i r m a t u r i t y . T h i s s i t u a t i o n immediately suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of a b u i l t - i n s t a t i s t i c a l b i a s . I f one accepts the c o n t e n t i o n that there i s no e s s e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between thought and language, no problem of b i a s a r i s e s . I f , on the other hand, such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s b e l i e v e d to e x i s t , there may be some s t a t i s t i c a l c o ntamination, and the b i a s would have to be taken i n t o account i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of the data. The method of doing t h i s i n the present study i s presented below, in t h i s sect i o n . B o l i n g e r (1975) mentioned two metaphors which i l l u s t r a t e the very r e a l dilemma presented i n any d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and thought: " T a l k i n g about language i s b u i l d i n g a f i r e i n a wooden stove" and " t a l k i n g about language or s c i e n c e i s r e b u i l d i n g a boat plank by plank while s t a y i n g a f l o a t i n i t [p.236]." Metaphors are an e n t e r t a i n i n g way of p r e s e n t i n g problems, but i n them p r e c i s i o n sometimes y i e l d s to the p i c t u r e s q u e . Here n e i t h e r "language" nor "thought" i s d e f i n e d . Consequently, one must accept the loose concepts that these terms r e p r e s e n t , and c l a i m only that language i s 1 02 probably the most powerful medium, among o t h e r s , f o r e x p r e s s i n g what i s to be, and what has been l e a r n e d . B o l i n g e r (1975) added that "when we imagine we have ca p t u r e d a wordless thought we may be f o o l i n g o u r s e l v e s — t h e words, perhaps are hovering i n the background [p.237]." C o n f i r m a t i o n of t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s the essence of w r i t t e n language samples produced as the v a r i a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n . The words "hovering i n the background" and combined to give a s e r i e s of i n t e g r a t e d sentences are l a t e r viewed from two p e r s p e c t i v e s . In the present research, Language A b i l i t y i s narrowly d e f i n e d by the procedures adopted f o r assessment. The s y n t a c t i c component i s represented by complexity of verb, v a r i e t y of c l a u s a l elements, and forms of e l a b o r a t i o n of the s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e i n examples of e x p r e s s i v e language. The other component of t h i s v a r i a b l e i s re p r e s e n t e d by a standard reading comprehension t e s t which determines s k i l l s i n f i v e c a t e g o r i e s : (a) r e c o g n i t i o n of f a c t , (b) g r a s p i n g a c e n t r a l thought, (c) making i n f e r e n c e s , (d) r e c o g n i z i n g tone, mood, and l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s , and (e) a p p r e c i a t i n g the s t r u c t u r e of a passage. T h i s t e s t e x e m p l i f i e s an aspect of r e c e p t i v e language, and c a l l s f o r a b i l i t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the s y n t a c t i c and semantic-pragmatic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the m a t e r i a l presented f o r a n a l y s i s . The s o l u t i o n adopted by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , as the means 103 of a v o i d i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of contaminated f i n d i n g s , l a y i n an approach i n which the a s s e s s o r viewed the language samples s u c c e s s i v e l y from two d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , one i n r e l a t i o n to d i s c r e t e s y n t a c t i c forms (which i m p l i e s the s y m b o l i c ) , and the other e x c l u s i v e l y concerned with the evidence of l o g i c a l thought i n a w r i t t e n passage (which r e p r e s e n t s a semantic framework). In t h i s context, B o l i n g e r (1975) has remarked "Obviously i f language i s to serve l o g i c as w e l l as p o e t i c s and pragmatics, the devices used by the l o g i c i a n must a l r e a d y inhere i n i t [p.238]." These d e v i c e s , however, are not the nouns, adverbs, and so on seen as symbols, but the processes which they are employed to r e p r e s e n t : " a f f i r m a t i o n and negation, c o n j u n c t i o n and d i s j u n c t i o n , d e f i n i t e n e s s and i n d e f i n i t e n e s s , c o n d i t i o n and c o n c e s s i o n [p.238]." The case now being presented turned on t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . The v a r i a b l e S y n t a c t i c Performance comprised the three elements of Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate, each element viewed as an i s o l a t e d s t a t i c e n t i t y , although a v a r i a n t of the p a r t i c u l a r concept being examined, and u s u a l l y occupying one of s e v e r a l spaces o r d a i n e d by custom and accepted usage. A verb, f o r i n s t a n c e , was viewed as an example of a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of complexity i n the h i e r a r c h y of tenses, so to speak. I t was not s c o r e d f o r the appropriateness of 1 04 the meaning c u r r e n t l y bestowed on i t . Clauses and forms of e l a b o r a t i o n were s i m i l a r l y graded on the b a s i s of t h e i r frequency of occurrence i n a d u l t language, or on t h e i r r a t i n g as mature c o n s t r u c t i o n s . In s c o r i n g the same language sample f o r the v a r i a b l e Information, the p e r s p e c t i v e envisaged a more a b s t r a c t system, m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l , and e x h i b i t i n g some form of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n time and space as the means of c l a r i f y i n g e s s e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Young, Becker, & Pi k e , 1970). The analogy l i e s i n regarding the v a r i a b l e Syntactic Peformance as examined f o r i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a t o o l , and the v a r i a b l e Information f o r i t s content. T r a f f i c l i g h t s , f o r example, may be examined f o r t h e i r q u a l i t y as e l e c t r i c a l d e v i c e s , or f o r t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y as the means of e n s u r i n g the smooth flow of m o t o r - v e h i c l e s ; o r , to change the metaphor, the e f f i c i e n c y of a musical instrument does not add to or s u b s t r a c t from the i n t r i n s i c worth of the music, but i t does i n f l u e n c e performance. These examples are p a r a l l e l s which suggest that when a s u b j e c t ' s s y n t a c t i c s k i l l i s measured with r e f e r e n c e to the complexity of the s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i n a sample, and t h i s sample i s subsequently assessed on a s c a l e which i d e n t i f i e s v a r i o u s a b s t r a c t q u a l i t i e s p e r t a i n i n g only to m a t u r i t y of thought, there i s l i t t l e r i s k that the nature of the one grad i n g w i l l do anything to determine the l e v e l of the o t h e r . 105 One may be s t i r r e d by a mere flow of words, phrases, and sentences, which on a n a l y s i s f o r content convey l i t t l e or n o t h i n g . S i m i l a r l y , g r e a t thoughts and noble sentiments may never be amply expressed, because the t o o l s of language are b l u n t e d ; but apply the f u l l range of s y n t a c t i c d e v i c e s to the e x p r e s s i o n of the thoughts, and the performance i s superb. However, i t must now be assessed on s t i l l another s c a l e as r h e t o r i c . T h i s r e s e a r c h e r f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d h i s data in an ex post facto procedure which i n v o l v e d o b t a i n i n g a second language sample from approximately one t h i r d of h i s s u b j e c t s . These samples were not based on any of the m a t e r i a l presented to the c a n d i d a t e s d u r i n g the o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t i o n of data i n 1988. A n a l y s i s of these second language samples and comparison of the s c o r e s with those obtained for the f i r s t samples and f o r the v a r i a b l e Information lend support to t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n that the s c o r i n g of any language sample w i l l y i e l d a c o n s i s t e n t estimate of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s k i l l i n the use of s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s , and that these s c o r e s and those f o r the v a r i a b l e Information are d e r i v e d from the assessment of t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 1 06 Corre la t ions : Language Samples & Information LS1 LS2 IN LS1 1 .0 LS2 0.8 1 .0 IN 0.6 0.5 1 .0 LS1 = 1 s t . Language Sample LS2 = 2nd. Language Sample IN = Infor mat i on D i f f e r e n c e between 0.6 and 0.5 i s NOT s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . D i f f e r e n c e between 0.8 and 0.6 i s NOT s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . D i f f e r e n c e between 0.8 and 0.5 i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The above d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t (a) the s c o r i n g of the two language samples y i e l d s a f a i r l y s t a b l e e s t i m a t e of s y n t a c t i c a l s k i l l , and (b) s k i l l i n s y n t a x has a b e a r i n g on the q u a l i t y of the s o l u t i o n t o problems p r e s e n t e d i n the r e l e v a n t language sample, but t o no o t h e r , and (c) i t i s f e a s i b l e t o use the same language sample f o r a s s e s s i n g b o t h s y n t a c t i c a l s k i l l and the q u a l i t y of the s o l u t i o n t o a problem w i t h o u t the one c o n t a m i n a t i n g the o t h e r . 1 07 The main o b j e c t i v e of t h i s research was to e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t e x i s t e d among the s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s . To be more s p e c i f i c , i n the matter of any r e g r e s s i o n equations, one must r e a l i z e t h a t they r e f l e c t the average r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c r i t e r i o n and each of the s e v e r a l p r e d i c t o r s . Such an equation does not s i g n i f y a cause-and-effect a s s o c i a t i o n . L e v e l of S i g n i f i c a n c e The l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t e s t i n g a l l the hypotheses i n t h i s study i s alpha=Q.05. METHODS OF ANALYSIS Regular r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was used to i n v e s t i g a t e the data which are a p p l i c a b l e to the f i r s t t h i r t e e n q u e s t i o n s and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g hypotheses. In view of the c o n t r o v e r s y s u r r ounding the p a r t i t i o n i n g of v a r i a n c e i n non-experimental r e s e a r c h ( D a r l i n g t o n , 1968; Duncan, 1975; Pedhazur, 1982), a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d a n a l y s i s (ANOVA and MANOVA) was not d e s i r a b l e . Canonical a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d to data which are a p p l i c a b l e to the f o u r t e e n t h q u e s t i o n and c o r r e s p o n d i n g h y p o t h e s i s . 108 Academic and Mental Ability Variables Hypotheses 1 - 13 expressed the substance of the corresponding r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s which are set out above, i n t h i s present chapter. The p r e d i c t o r s (independent v a r i a b l e s ) were Language Ability, Syntactic Performance, Comprehension, and Mental Ability. The c r i t e r i o n (dependent v a r i a b l e ) was I nf ormat ion. The Demographic Variables The f o u r t e e n t h h y p o t h e s i s concerned the i n f l u e n c e of the demographic v a r i a b l e s (Age, Socio-economi c Status, Education, and Occupation on performance i n the language v a r i a b l e s (Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate, and Comprehension (semantic component). Model for Hypothesis 14 In the c a n o n i c a l a n a l y s i s a p p l i c a b l e here, the v a r i a b l e s i n the F i r s t Set were Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate, and Comprehension. The v a r i a b l e s i n the Second Set were Age, Soci o-economi c Status, Education, and Occupation. 109 S t a t i s t i c a l H y p o t h e s i s 14 The s t a t i s t i c a l hypothesis corresponding to Research Hypothesis 14 i s : •*c 0 pop c 1 pop c The above statement of the s t a t i s t i c a l h y p o t h e s i s i m p l i e s t h at the po p u l a t i o n c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t at the l e v e l s t a t e d and, consequently, p Q p R ^ i s n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . CROSS-VALIDATION PROCEDURES The procedure adopted f o r c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n generated a r e s i d u a l mean square f o r 50 cases randomly a l l o c a t e d to a sc r e e n i n g sample, and an average squared r e s i d u a l f o r the 50 cases d e s i g n a t e d as the c a l i b r a t i o n sample. These s t a t i s t i c s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r the best sub-set of v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d f o r the r e g r e s s i o n equations. They were compared. Reasonable s t a b i l i t y of the r e g r e s s i o n equation i s i n d i c a t e d when these two s t a t i s t i c s are s i m i l a r . The two samples were then combined, and a r e g r e s s i o n equation was ob t a i n e d f o r the f u l l sample of 100 s u b j e c t s . Normally, the equation f o r the f u l l sample w i l l be more s t a b l e than that from a sample of 50. The q u e s t i o n to be answered was: 110 How s t a b l e i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r e d i c t o r s (independent v a r i a b l e s ) and the c r i t e r i o n (dependent var i a b l e ) ? The data thus generated are r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4. CHAPTER 4. RESULTS Re s ipsa t e s t i s PURPOSE AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES The purpose of t h i s research study i s e s t a b l i s h e d i n Chapter 1 and emphasized i n the Research Questions i n that c h a p t e r . These que s t i o n s are now re-phrased as n u l l r e s e a r c h hypotheses, and each appears i n t h i s present chapter immediately above the s t a t i s t i c a l t a b l e that a p p l i e s . F o l l o w i n g each of the t a b l e s are the r e l e v a n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i n f e r e n c e of the data. For convenience, each hypothesis and co r r e s p o n d i n g t a b l e o c c u p i e s a f u l l page, and the r e l e v a n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i n f e r e n c e i s set out on the page that f o l l o w s . The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses that generated the data i n the t a b l e s which are contained i n t h i s chapter a l s o are l i s t e d i n Chapter 3. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d from Chapter 3 that the l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t e s t i n g a l l hypotheses i n t h i s study i s alpha=0.05. 1 1 1 1 1 2 The f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s are used: LA = Language A b i l i t y SV = Score for Verbs VC = Variety of Clauses EL = Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate SP = Syntactic Performance CO = Comprehension MA = Mental A b i l i t y IN = Infor mati on AG = Age SE = Socio-economic Status ED = Edue ati on OC = Occupation VO = Vocational Component Each of the t a b l e s below i s f o l l o w e d by a b r i e f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the content and the i n f e r e n c e to be drawn from the data generated. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of these data and t h e i r b e a r i n g on t h i s r e s e a r c h are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5. 1 1 3 HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS Each research hypothesis i s f o l l o w e d by the corr e s p o n d i n g t a b l e : 1. Language Ability (LA) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Inf ormati on. (IN) Table 3. Regression IN on LA V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information (IN), (b) Language Ability (LA) . PRED. LA COEFF, 0.025 S.E. 0.003 t-r at i o 9.54 P <0.001 R = 48.2% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=91.22 SUMS OF SQ 103.08 110.92 214.00 MEAN SQ. 103.08 1.13 1 1 4 Interpretation 1. Language Ability (LA) contributes a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage of variance in Information (IN). The variable Language Ability comprises the syntactic component and reading comprehension and, for the purposes of this research, the score awarded to any candidate, together with that for Information, i s an assessment most nearly representative of his or her competence in language. Inference 1. Reject Hp.t^^O, and accept H.tfl.^O. 1 15 Syntactic Performance (SP) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n the Information (IN). Table 4. Regression IN on SP V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Syntactic Performance PRED, SP COEFF. 0.026 S.E. 0.003 f - r a t i o p 8.96 <0.001 R 2 = 45.0% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=80.30 SUMS OF SQ, 96.36 1 17.64 214.00 MEAN SQ. 96.36 1 .20 1 16 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 2. Syntactic Performance (SP) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p e r c e n t a g e t o the v a r i a n c e i n Information ( I N ) . T h i s r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n e f f i c i e n t l y w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d by h i s or her s k i l l i n making use of s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s . Inference 2. R e j e c t H n:j3 9 = 0, and a c c e p t H.:/3,*0. 1 1 7 Comprehension (CO) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 5. Regression IN on CO V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Comprehension PRED. CO COEFF. 0.064 S.E. 0.013 «-ratio p 5.01 <0.001 R 2 = 20.4% Analysis of Variance SOURCE Regress, E r r o r TOTAL F=25.12 df 1 98 99 SUMS OF SQ. 43.65 170.35 214.00 MEAN SQ. 43.65 1 .74 118 Interpretation 3. Comprehension (CO) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but moderate percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). To the degree that i t represents an aspect of understanding, Comprehension r e f l e c t s a b i l i t y i n the semantic-pragmatic component. Inference 3. Reject Hn:/3-, = 0, and accept H 1 :/3^^0. 1 19 Mental Ability (MA), as ass e s s e d by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t , w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 6. Regression IN on MA V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Mental Ability PRED. MA R 2 = 7.1% Analysi s of SOURCE Regress. E r r o r TOTAL F=7.51 COEFF. 0.035 Var iance df 1 98 99 S.E. 0.013 t - r a t i o 2.74 P <0.01 SUMS OF SQ. MEAN SQ. 15.24 15.24 198.76 2.03 214.00 1 20 Interpretation 4 . Mental Ability (MA) c o n t r i b u t e s a s m a l l but s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p e rcentage t o the v a r i a n c e i n Information ( I N ) . In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h i s s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e of the v a r i a n c e was deemed t o have s u b s t a n t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e as w e l l , i n t h a t Mental Ability was e x p e c t e d t o be an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r , but o n l y m i n i m a l l y so, i n l i g h t of da t a from th e p i l o t study mentioned i n Chapter 1 ( d a t a from Koopman, 1985), which was concerned w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among a s y n t a c t i c component, i n t e l l i g e n c e and s k i l l i n d e a l i n g w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n . The dat a from t h i s study s u g g ested the need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h a l a r g e r sample and more r e f i n e d measures. Inference 4 . R e j e c t H n:j3 A=0, and acc e p t H :/3.*0. 121 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Syntactic Performance and Comprehension (SPCO) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 7. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SP & CO V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Syntactic Performance, (c) Comprehension PRED. SPCO COEFF 0.561 S.E. 1 .223 t-ratio 6.71 P <0.001 R 2 = 31.5% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=45.02 SUMS OF SQ. 67.37 146.63 214.00 MEAN SQ. 67.37 1 .50 1 22 Interpretat ion 5. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Syntactic Performance and Comprehension (SPCO) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the varia n c e i n Information (IN). T h i s f i n d i n g suggests that the new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . T h i s r e s u l t emphasizes the ambivalence a s s o c i a t e d with m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s . The v a r i a b l e Language Ability, c o m p r i s i n g the t o t a l score for Syntactical Performance and Comprehension, c o n t r i b u t e s 48.2% to the v a r i a n c e i n Information, but the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e , as opposed to the a d d i t i v e , e f f e c t c o n t r i b u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t l y s m a l l e r percentage, 31.5% (See Table 1 & Table 7). Inference 5. R e j e c t 'HQ:0g = O, and accept U^:P^*0. General Comment: A l l M u l t i p l i c a t i v e Var iables Since the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a l l hypotheses i n t h i s study i s 0.05, at t h i s l e v e l the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s must be acknowledged. 123 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Syntactic Performance (MASP) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n I nf ormat ion (IN) . Table 8. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & SP V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Syntactic Performance, (c) Ment al Abi I i t y PRED. MASP COEFF, 0.582 S.E. 1 .202 t - r a t i o 7.09 P <0.001 R = 33.9% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=50.19 SUMS OF SQ, 72.48 141.52 214.00 MEAN SQ, 72.48 1 .44 1 24 Interpretation 6. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental A b i l i t y and Syntactic Performance (MASP) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. The new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . The i n f l u e n c e of Mental A b i l i t y , as a component of a m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t , may be seen as "dampening" or reduc i n g the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the other component to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5 (Hypotheses 4 & 12; 6, 7, & 13). Inference 6. Reject H n:j3 f i =0, and accept H'.Pf-tO. 1 25 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Comprehension (MACO) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. Table 9. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & CO V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Comprehension, (c) Me nt al AbiI i ty PRED. MACO COEFF. 0.423 S.E. 1 .339 t-ratio 4.62 P <0.01 R z = 17.9% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=21.36 SUMS OF SQ. 38.30 175.70 214.000 MEAN SQ, 38.30 1 .80 1 26 Interpretation 7. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Comprehension (MACO) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. The new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . The "dampening" e f f e c t of Mental Ability i s again seen i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter 5 . Inference 7. Accept Hn:/37 = 0, and r e j e c t H1:|37?s0. 1 27 The v a r i a b l e s c o n s t i t u t i n g Syntactic Performance (Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate: SV, VC, & EL, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e i n d i v i d u a l l y a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 10. M u l t i p l e Regression IN on SV, VC, EL V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information (IN), (b) Score for Verbs (SV), (c) Variety of Clauses (VC), (d) Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (EL) PRED. COEFF. S .E. t-rat i o P SV -0.002 0 .008 -0.29 n/s VC 0.039 0 .008 4.76 <0.001 EL 0.035 0 .006 5.57 <0.001 R 2 = 48.3% Analys i s of Vari a nee SOURCE df SUMS OF SQ. MEAN SQ. Regress. 3 103.30 34.43 E r r o r 96 110.70 1.15 TOTAL 99 214.00 F=29.86 1 28 Interpretat ion 8. Two of the v a r i a b l e s c o n s t i t u t i n g Syntactic Performance (Variety of Clauses and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate) c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p e r c e n t a g e to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. The v a r i a b l e Score for Verbs i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . The d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter 5 (Hypothesis 8) o f f e r s f u r t h e r e x p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t . However, the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s r e j e c t e d i n o r d e r t o conform w i t h H y p o t h e s i s 8, which s t a t e s t h a t none of the v a r i a b l e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . In f a c t , VC and EL ar e s i g n i f i c a n t a t /?<0.05. Inference 8. R e j e c t H N : 0 Q = O , and ac c e p t H ^ / J Q ^ O . 129 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Score for Verbs and Variety of Clauses (SWC) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the varia n c e i n Information (IN). Table 1.1 . M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n : M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SV & VC V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Score for Verbs, (c) Variety of Clauses PRED. SWC COEFF, 0.338 S.E. 1 .391 t-ratio 3.56 P <0.001 R 2 =11.4% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=12.66 SUMS OF SQ. 24.48 189.52 214.00 MEAN SQ. 24.48 1 .93 1 30 Interpretat ion 9. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Score for Verbs and Variety of Clauses (SWC) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). The new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . However, the c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s mar g i n a l , and the a n a l y s i s was performed i n order to i n v e s t i g a t e f u r t h e r the i n f l u e n c e of the element Score for Verbs (See Hypothesis 8; Table 10). Inference 9. Reject H n:j3 q=0, and accept H.:PQ*0. 131 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of the Score for Verbs and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (SVEL) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 12. M u l t i p l e R e gression: M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t SV & EL V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Score for Verbs, (c) Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate PRED. SVEL COEFF. 0.335 S.E. 1 .392 t-rat i o 3.52 P <0.001 R z = 11.2% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=12.41 SUMS OF SQ. 24.06 189.94 214.00 MEAN SQ. 24.06 1 .94 1 32 Interpretation 10. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of the Score for Verbs and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (SVEL) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). The new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . In g e n e r a l , the comments made above, i n respect of Hypothesis 9, apply. Inference 10. Reject H n : j 3 i n = 0, and accept H' :j3 . n * 0 . 1 33 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Variety of Clauses and Elaboration of the Subject and Predi cat e (VCEL) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information (IN). Table 13. M u l t i p l e Regression: M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t VC & EL V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Score for Verbs, (c) Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate PRED. VCEL COEFF. 0.622 S.E. 1 . 1 57 t-rat i o 7.86 P <0.001 R = 38.7% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 TOTAL 99 F=61.79 SUMS OF SQ. 82.76 131.24 214.00 MEAN SQ. 82.76 1 .34 134 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 11. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Variety of Clauses and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (VCEL) c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the varian c e i n Information. The new v a r i a b l e formed i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and must be taken i n t o account i n any subsequent d i s c u s s i o n . The c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e i n Information i s s u b s t a n t i a l . The element Variety of Clauses, by d e f i n i t i o n , i m p l i e s the use of verbs, but the score i s given f o r the degree of complexity of the c l a u s e , and does not imply any p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of complexity f o r the verb (See Chapter 3, Schedule of Scores f o r Syntactic Performance). T h i s f a c t i s r e l e v a n t to the d i s c u s s i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with Hypotheses 9 - 11. Inference 11. Accept HQ:/311=0, and r e j e c t H^'/J^^O. General Comment: A l l M u l t i p l i c a t i v e V a r i a b l e s In keeping with the e a r l i e r comment on m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s , the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s m u l t i p l i c a t i v e v a r i a b l e i s acknowledged. 135 Mental Ability (MA)), as assessed by an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t , w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the va r i a n c e i n the Language AbiIi ty (LA). Table 14. Regression LA on MA V a r i a b l e s : (a) Language Ability (LA), (b) Mental Ability (MA) PRED. MA COEFF. 1 .585 S.E. 0.349 t-rat i o 4.54 P <0.001 R 2 = 17.4% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df Regress. 1 E r r o r 98 T o t a l 99 F=20.59 SUMS OF SQ. 32159.00 153089.00 185248.00 MEAN SQ. 32159.00 1562.00 1 36 Interpretation 12. Mental Ability c o n t r i b u t e s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Language Ability. T h i s f i n d i n g i m p l i e s that non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s load on a v e r b a l f a c t o r of some k i n d . Inference 12. Reject H n:|3 l 5 = 0 f and accept H.r/J.^O. 1 37 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Language Ability w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the v a r i a n c e i n Information. Table 15. M u l t i p l e Regression: M u l t i p l i c a t i v e E f f e c t MA & LA V a r i a b l e s : (a) Information, (b) Language Ability, (c) Me nt al Abi I i t y Pred. C o e f f . S.E. J - r a t i o p MALA 0.117 1.467 -1.68 n/s R 2 = 1.0% Analysis of Variance SOURCE df SUMS OF SQ. MEAN SQ. Regress. 1 2.94 2.94 E r r o r 98 211.06 2.15 TOTAL 99 214.00 F=1.365 (n/s) 1 38 Interpretation 13. The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t of Mental Ability and Language Ability (MALA) does not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the va r i a n c e i n Information. Inference 13. DO NOT REJECT H Q :0 6=O. 1 39 14. The demographic v a r i a b l e s (Age, Soci o - e c o n o m i c S t a t u s , E d u c a t i o n , and O c c u p a t i o n ) w i l l not c o n t r i b u t e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p e r c e n t a g e t o the v a r i a n c e i n the language v a r i a b l e s (SV, VC, & EL & CO). Only d a t a f o r the one s i g n i f i c a n t c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e p a i r are g i v e n . T a b l e 16. R e s u l t s : C a n o n i c a l A n a l y s i s 1 s t . Set Lang.Var. S t r u c t u r a l C o e f f . S t d . C o e f f SV 0.64 0.58 VC 0.29 -0.20 EL 0.55 0.02 CO 0.85 0.79 2nd. Set Demog. Var. AG 0.52 0.53 SE 0.35 0.21 ED 0.79 0.73 OC 0.62 0.12 R C ( 1 ) = 0.49; x2 = 34.73; p<0.Q] 1 40 Interpretation 14. Only the f i r s t p a i r of c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and only the data p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s p a i r are quoted. The language v a r i a b l e with the highest magnitude i s Comprehension (CO), and the demographic v a r i a b l e with the hi g h e s t magnitude i s Education (ED). Among the language v a r i a b l e s , however, Score for Verbs (SV) and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (EL) are important, and Occupation (OC) and Age (AG) are s i g n i f i c a n t l y represented among the demographic v a r i a b l e s . Consequently, the language v a r i a b l e s may reasonably be seen as r e p r e s e n t i n g Language Ability, f o r i t s s t r u c t u r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y that of the v a r i a b l e (LA) so named i n the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . S i m i l a r l y , the demographic v a r i a b l e s may be de s i g n a t e d Vocational Component (VO). In any f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n , these terms may be used. The p a t t e r n of the s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s supports t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Inference 14 H 0 ( 1 4 ) : R C = 0 , a n d a c c e P t H . i ( i 4 ) 8 R c ' f e 0 * [Reference: Tabachnick & F i d e l l (1983)]. 141 Demographic V a r i a b l e s : D i s t r i b u t i o n s Age: The d i s t r i b u t i o n among the s u b j e c t s was p o s i t i v e l y skewed ( g 1 = 1.50) and l e p t o k u r t i c ( g 2 = 1.15). An index of 0 in both i n s t a n c e s s i g n a l s a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The d e t a i l s are given below: [ F r . = Frequency] Table 17. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Age AG. Cat.1 Cat.2 Cat.3 Cat.4 TOTAL Range 20-9 30-9 40-9 50-9 F r . 68 18 11 3 100 Socio-economic Status, based on the occ u p a t i o n of the supporting parent d u r i n g the s u b j e c t ' s formative years, was e s t a b l i s h e d under e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s : 15. U n s k i l l e d worker 16. S e r v i c e worker 17. C l e r i c a l worker 18. Se c r e t a r y ( s u p e r v i s o r y ) 19. S k i l l e d a r t i s a n 20. T e c h n o l o g i s t 21. P r o p r i e t o r , Manager, A d m i n i s t r a t o r 22. P r o f e s s i o n a l 1 42 P r o f e s s i o n a l personnel are men and women who are l i c e n s e d to p r a c t i s e i n a s p e c i f i e d f i e l d a f t e r s p e c i a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and g e n e r a l l y some form of i n t e r n s h i p . A t e c h n o l o g i s t holds a q u a l i f i c a t i o n from an i n s t i t u t i o n of advanced education or from a p r o f e s s i o n a l body. T h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s of a standard immediately below that of the p r o f e s s i o n a l i n the same category of employment. P r o p r i e t o r s , Managers, and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s are those i n d i r e c t c o n t r o l of subordinates, or they may be owners of small and medium-sized businesses. The d i s t r i b u t i o n among the s u b j e c t s was n e g a t i v e l y skewed ( g 1 = -0.19) and p l a t y k u r t i c ( g 2 = -1.00). The d e t a i l s are given below: Table 18. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Socio-economic Status SE.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOT. F r . 0 11 12 5 33 7 20 12 100 143 The category Education was asse s s e d by adding to the number of years of p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n c r e d i t f o r a d u l t academic and t e c h i c a l c o u r s e s . Three courses of twelve weeks' d u r a t i o n were deemed the e q u i v a l e n t of one academic year. The scores awarded were the e q u i v a l e n t of the number of years assessed i n t h i s way. The d i s t r i b u t i o n among s u b j e c t s was p o s i t i v e l y , but only s l i g h t l y , skewed ( g 1 = 0.28) and m i l d l y l e p t o k u r t i c ( g 2 = 0.86). The d e t a i l s are given below. Table 19. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Educat i o n ED. 8&9 10&11 12 13 14 15 16 17&18 TOTAL F r . 2 14 24 31 16 4 7 2 100 1 44 Occupation, as a v a r i a b l e , i s c l a s s i f i e d s i m i l a r l y to Socio-economic Status. The d i s t r i b u t i o n was p o s i t i v e l y skewed ( g 1 = 1.02) and l e p t o k u r t i c ( g 2 = 0.86). The data thus i n d i c a t e that the m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s were c u r r e n t l y employed i n u n s k i l l e d or s e m i - s k i l l e d j o b s . The d e t a i l s are given below: Table 20. D i s t r i b u t i o n by Occupation O C . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL F r . 12 38 20 8 14 2 4 2 100 1 45 CROSS-VALIDATION The v a r i a b l e s of the r e g r e s s i o n equation i n the c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n procedure were Syntactic Performance (SP) , Comprehension (CO), Mental Ability (MA), and Information (IN). The r e s u l t s were: 1. Screening Sample: Mean Square R e s i d u a l = 1.3585 2. C a l i b r a t i o n Sample: Average Squared R e s i d u a l = 1.0622 The d i f f e r e n c e of 0.2959 between these r e s i d u a l s i n d i c a t e s a f a i r l y s t a b l e e q u a t i o n i n the context of e x p l a i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s . These r e s i d u a l s are based on the "best subset" of v a r i a b l e s f o r the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n . T h i s subset comprises Syntactic Performance (SP) and Comprehension (CO) as p r e d i c t o r s , and Information (IN) as the c r i t e r i o n . The c o n t r i b u t i o n of Mental Ability (MA) was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . 1 46 TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE: MAIN VARIABLES Syntax: Scoring. Two methods of s c o r i n g : D i f f e r e n c e between means ( f o r c o r r e l a t e d s a m p l e s ) : t=0.2'\ (/><0.05). C o r r e l a t i o n (two methods of s c o r i n g ) = 0 . 8 5 (p<0.05). These t e s t s were a p p l i e d t o the method of a s s e s s i n g Syntactical Performance e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter 3, and t o s c o r e s g e n e r a t e d by c a l c u l a t i n g the number of words per T - u n i t (Hunt, 1965). Information: Scoring. Two methods of s c o r i n g : D i f f e r e n c e between means ( f o r c o r r e l a t e d samples) was not s i g n i f i c a n t : £=0.56 (/x0.05). C o r r e l a t i o n (two methods of scor i n g ) = 0 . 7 7 (p<0.05). These t e s t s were a p p l i e d t o the method of a s s e s s i n g t he Information by t h i s w r i t e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n of the system by Schrod e r e t a l . , (1967) and t o s c o r e s g e n e r a t e d by the P r i n c e t o n Manual G u i d e l i n e s . CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION Deliberando discitur sapientia THE VARIABLES RE-EXAMINED Main Variables The focus of t h i s r e s e a r c h was to e x p l a i n , w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the s i z e and c o n s t i t u t i o n of the sample, the s e l e c t e d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , and time, the r e l a t i o n s h i p of language and mental a b i l i t y i n the treatment of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n by a d u l t s . Language was i n v e s t i g a t e d from two p e r s p e c t i v e s . One was concerned with s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s and with comprehension, which i s an aspect of r e c e p t i v e language; the other was d i r e c t e d to the content p e r c e i v e d in the language used as a form of s e l f - e x p r e s s i o n when faced with one of a set of c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s . Joint Effects and Related Terminology The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a mutual e f f e c t between independent v a r i a b l e s i s c o m p l i c a t e d and a source of d i s p u t e i n non-experimental r e s e a r c h . ( A l l i s o n , 1977; Cohen, 1978; D a r l i n g t o n , 1968; Duncan, 1975; Pedhazur, 1982). The v a r i a b l e s are u s u a l l y and i n e v i t a b l y beyond the complete c o n t r o l of the i n v e s t i g a t o r , and they are r a r e l y o r t h o g o n a l . 147 1 48 An immediate problem, then, i s to decide whether or not one i s j u s t i f i e d i n equating a j o i n t or m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t or product-term with an i n t e r a c t i o n , which i s p r o p e r l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two or more u n c o r r e l a t e d or o r t h o g o n a l v a r i a b l e s (Pedhazur, 1982). I n t e r a c t i o n i m p l i e s that a new v a r i a b l e has been c r e a t e d which r e t a i n s nothing of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the elements that have i n t e r a c t e d . For i n s t a n c e , i f one may employ an analogy: in the r e s u l t a n t oxygen, there i s no evidence of the manganese d i o x i d e and potassium c h l o r a t e which were used to "make" i t . Pedazur (1982) s t a t e d : ". . a d i s t i n c t i o n between i n t e r a c t i o n s and m u l t i p l i c a t i v e r e l a t i o n s was suggested as a safeguard a g a i n s t the r o u t i n e , f r e q u e n t l y mindless, use of product terms i n non-experimental rese a r c h [p.429]." There i s , too, a r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r i b u t i o n s by the p r e d i c t i n g v a r i a b l e s to the v a r i a n c e i n the c r i t e r i o n or dependent v a r i a b l e . D a r l i n g t o n (1968), Duncan (1975), and Pedhazur (1982) doubted the v a l i d i t y of stepwise r e g r e s s i o n , based on the theory of v a r i a n c e p a r t i t i o n i n g , as a means of d e t e r m i n i n g relative importance, e s p e c i a l l y when the p r e d i c t o r s are i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . D a r l i n g t o n (1968) went so f a r as to a s s e r t that " [ I t ] would be b e t t e r to simply concede that the n o t i o n of 'independent c o n t r i b u t i o n to v a r i a n c e ' has no meaning 1 49 when p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s are i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d [p.169]," and Duncan (1975) appeared to c l o s e the argument with: The s i m p l e s t recommendation—one which saves time and w o r r y — i s to eschew a l t o g e t h e r the task of d i v i d i n g up R 2 i n t o unique c a u s a l components. In a s t r i c t sense, i t j u s t cannot be done (p.65). T h i s r e s e a r c h e r decided to a v o i d the term " i n t e r a c t i o n , " and to use i n s t e a d the l e s s c o n t r o v e r s i a l term " m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t , " which leaves the t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n of shared v a r i a n c e unresolved, but continues to acknowledge that there may be present a new v a r i a b l e whenever two or more p r e d i c t o r s are employed. Pedhazur (1982) has s t a t e d q u i t e c a t e g o r i c a l l y that there i s no s u b s t i t u t e f o r sound t h i n k i n g based on acceptable theory, and that such an approach w i l l act as "the best safeguards a g a i n s t drawing unwarranted, i l l o g i c a l , or n o n s e n s i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s [p.175]." He added that while p r e d i c t i o n was s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and c o u l d be achieved without a thorough knowledge of theory, the e x p l a i n i n g of phenomena was i n c o n c e i v a b l e without e x t e n s i v e t h e o r e t i c a l underpinning. 1 50 DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSES The f i r s t set of ana l y s e s concerned the (a) main language v a r i a b l e s (Tables 3 - 5), (b) r e l e v a n t m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s (Table 7), (c) elements c o n s t i t u t i n g Syntactic Performance (Table 10), and (d) a l l m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s p e r t a i n i n g to them (Tables 11 - 13). The second set of ana l y s e s was d i r e c t e d to the in f l u e n c e of (a) Mental Ability as a s o l e p r e d i c t o r (Tables 6 & 14), and (b) a l l r e l e v a n t m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s (Tables 8, 9, & 15) . The t h i r d a n a l y s i s examined the i n f l u e n c e of s e l e c t e d demographic v a r i a b l e s on language (Tables 16 - 20). Hypotheses 1 - 3 & 5 Hypot heses 1 - 3 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the main language v a r i a b l e s Syntactic Performance and Comprehension, t r e a t e d as the composite Language Ability, and the v a r i a b l e Information was s u b s t a n t i a l . The percentage of shared v a r i a n c e was 48.2% (Table 3) Syntactic Performance alone c o n t r i b u t e d 45.0% (Table 4), and Comprehension alone accounted f o r 20.4% (Table 5). These data f u r n i s h s t a t i s t i c a l c o n f i r m a t i o n of the p e r c e i v e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two components of language, as they are d e f i n e d and asses s e d f o r t h i s study. 151 In the d i s c u s s i o n of Hypothesis 5 below, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s examined f u r t h e r . Hypot he s i s 5 There was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t i n v o l v i n g S y n t a c t i c Performance and Comprehension and the v a r i a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n (Table 7). T h i s e f f e c t , as the s o l e p r e d i c t o r , accounted f o r 31.5% of the v a r i a n c e i n I n f o r m a t i o n , and may be seen as a new v a r i a b l e , n e i t h e r wholly s t r u c t u r e , nor e x c l u s i v e l y content. C o n c e p t u a l l y , t h i s new v a r i a b l e makes sense as "language-in-use," f o r u n l i k e Language A b i l i t y , which s t a t i s t i c a l l y i s recorded as the a d d i t i v e score ( S y n t a c t i c Performance + Comprehension), i t i s represented by a score that may r e f l e c t more d i r e c t l y than does Language A b i l i t y , the mutual i n t e r p l a y of the c o n s t i t u e n t v a r i a b l e s . In l i g h t of the statements by D a r l i n g t o n (1968), c o n c e r n i n g the independent c o n t r i b u t i o n s to v a r i a n c e by p r e d i c t o r s that appear to be i n t e r - c o r r e l a t e d , one should perhaps not attempt, to reach a d e f i n i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n which w i l l i n e v i t a b l y r e s t on a p r o c e d u r e — t h e p a r t i t i o n i n g of v a r i a n c e i n non-experimental r e s e a r c h — t h a t nowadays i s the s u b j e c t of c o n t r o v e r s y ( D a r l i n g t o n , 1968; Duncan, 1975; Pedhazur, 1982). 1 52 Hypotheses 8 - 1 1 The s t a t i s t i c s (Tables 10 - 13) a p p l i c a b l e to the i n d i v i d u a l c o n s t i t u e n t s of Syntactic Performance (Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate) and the percentage that each c o n t r i b u t e s to the v a r i a n c e i n Information emphasize a s p e c t s of the s i t u a t i o n found i n the data c o n c e r n i n g Hypotheses 1 - 3 , and Hypothesis 5 (Tables 3 - 5 & 7). Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 i s based on the s p e c u l a t i v e q u e s t i o n of the r e l a t i v e importance of each of the elements set f o r t h as v a l i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of syntax. Entered as three separate scores, these elements accounted f o r 48.3% of the va r i a n c e in Information (Table 10), which i s almost i d e n t i c a l with the p r o p o r t i o n accounted f o r by Language Ability (Table 3: 48.2%). When the scores f o r these elements were entered as a s i n g l e a d d i t i v e score f o r Syntactic Performance, the percentage of v a r i a n c e a t t r i b u t a b l e to the v a r i a b l e was 45% (Table 4). These three percentages r e p r e s e n t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s of 0.67 - 0.69 between the language v a r i a b l e s in v a r i o u s combinations and the v a r i a b l e Information. 1 53 Hypothes es 9 - 11 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s generated by a l l p o s s i b l e p a i r s of the elements in Syntactic Performance (Tables 11 13) emphasize again the d i f f i c u l t y of t r y i n g to a p p o r t i o n v a r i a n c e when the p r e d i c t i n g v a r i a b l e s are i n t e r - c o r r e l a t e d , and perhaps, as Duncan (1975) a s s e r t e d , to attempt to do so i s a f u t i l e quest. However, one s t a t i s t i c c o n c e r n i n g the s y n t a c t i c elements c a l l s f o r an a d d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n . In Table 10, Score for Verbs i s shown as not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the r e g r e s s i o n equation. In a d d i t i o n , the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s that i n v o l v e d Score for Verbs (Tables 11 & 12) each c o n t r i b u t e d only a modest percentage to the va r i a n c e i n Information, as compared with the c o r r e s p o n d i n g e f f e c t c o n c e r n i n g Variety of Clauses and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate (Table 13: 38.7%). In order to c l a r i f y the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the verb, as assess e d by the procedures adopted i n the present study, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , i n an a posteriori a n a l y s i s , entered the v a r i a b l e Score for Verbs as the only p r e d i c t o r of v a r i a n c e i n Information. The percentage accounted f o r was 12.1%, and i t was s i g n i f i c a n t (/><0.05). The r e a l i s s u e i n respect of the verb, as one element to be taken i n t o account i n any assessment of s y n t a c t i c s k i l l , i s not the v a l i d i t y or the n e c e s s i t y of i n c l u d i n g i t . In the l i t e r a t u r e , there i s no case f o r dropping i t , and 154 every reason for i t s re t en t ion . The more rewarding course is to examine the behaviour, so to speak, of the var iable S c o r e for V e r b s in the data that were analyzed. Add i t i ona l issues concerning the Score f o r Verbs are examined in Chapter 6 (Implications for Further Research). Hypotheses 4 & 12; 6, 7 & 13 Hypothes es 4 & 12 The var iab le Mental A b i l i t y , as a sole pred ic tor , contributed a s t a t i s t i c a l l l y s i g n i f i c a n t percentage to the variance in Information (Table 6: 7.1%), but th i s amount indicates a minimal r e l a t i o n s h i p , when compared with the much stronger l i n k between Mental A b i l i t y and Language A b i l i t y (Table 14: 17.4%). The instrument used to measure Mental A b i l i t y is an important factor in expla in ing the small amount of variance that was shared with Information. If a non-verbal test can account for 17.4% of the variance in a language v a r i a b l e , v i z . Language A b i l i t y , implying a c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.42 between the v a r i a b l e s , one may reasonably expect to f ind a much higher c o r r e l a t i o n between verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e and language. One is then obl iged to ask what exact ly i s being measured in a verbal in t e l l i gence tes t : a purely i n t e l l e c t i v e factor which, 1 55 presumably, is common to a l l cognit ive/academic endeavours—the factor assumed to be measured by the Test of Nonverbal Int el Ii ge nee (1982), Raven's Matrices (1977), and comparable instruments which, by d e f i n i t i o n , do not contain any language sub-tests , and are acknowledged to be v a l i d and r e l i a b l e tests of general in te l l i gence (Brown, Sherbenou, & D o l l a r , 1982; L e i t e r , 1948; Raven, 1977; Tate , 1952)—or competence in the use of language. Frank (1983), in discuss ing abbreviated vers ions of Wechsler's tes t s , showed how two or three of the verbal sub-tests corre la ted very highly with the Full Scale i n t e l l i g e n c e quotient , and were s u f f i c i e n t l y accurate to be used as a screening device i f not for i n d i v i d u a l p r e d i c t i o n of i n t e l l i g e n c e . The reader's attent ion is also d irec ted to Chapter 4 (CROSS-VALIDATION), where the "best subset" of var iab le s for the regress ion equation comprises Syntactic Performance and Comprehension, the contr ibut ion of Mental Ability to the variance in Information not being s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Hypotheses 6, 7, & 13 The m u l t i p l i c a t i v e effects in which Mental Ability i s one of the var iables (Tables 8, 9 & 15) were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t as pred ic tors . In the f i r s t of these two instances (Tables 8 & 9), the c r i t e r i o n was the var iab le 156 Information, and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r c e n t a g e s of e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e were 33.9%, f o r the e f f e c t c o n c e r n i n g Mental Ability and Syntactic Performance ( T a b l e 8 ) , and 17.9% f o r the e f f e c t d e r i v i n g from Mental Ability and Comprehension ( T a b l e 9 ) . The t h i r d m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t concerned Mental Ability and Language Ability, and was not s i g n i f i c a n t (Table 15). T a k i n g note of the o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by A l l i s o n (1977), Cohen (1978), and Pedhazur (1982) s t i l l l e a v e s u n r e s o l v e d the q u e s t i o n of why, by i t s e l f , Language Ability c o n t r i b u t e d a major p r o p o r t i o n of the v a r i a n c e i n the v a r i a b l e Information ( T a b l e 3 ) , but j o i n t l y w i t h Mental Ability had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( T a b l e 15). There a r e two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s . One i s r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a s i m p l e l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n y i e l d s p r e d i c t e d s c o r e s w i t h e i t h e r a s m a l l or l a r g e e r r o r f a c t o r ; but a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y one w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y g e n e r a t e a s i m p l e e q u a t i o n . A p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e i s the o r d e r i n which the v a r i a b l e s a r e e n t e r e d f o r a n a l y s i s . The second e x p l a n a t i o n c o n c e r n s the a m b i v a l e n t and "dampening" e f f e c t of the v a r i a b l e Mental Ability, of whic h t h e r e a r e two o t h e r i n s t a n c e s i n t h e s e p r e s e n t a n a l y s e s ( T a b l e s 8 & 9 ) . For the p r e s e n t , one can o n l y suggest the need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s which a r e 1 57 emerging i n connection with language and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Hypothesis 14 Hypothesis 14 was d i r e c t e d toward examining the e f f e c t s of s e l e c t e d demographic v a r i a b l e s on performance i n language. The procedure adopted f o r t h i s purpose was c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , with Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate, and Comprehension as the F i r s t Set (now i d e n t i f i e d as Language Ability), and Age, Soci o-economi c Status, Education and Occupation as the Second Set (now de s i g n a t e d Vocational Component ) . A summary of data from the c a n o n i c a l a n a l y s i s i s presented i n Table 16. A f u r t h e r s e l e c t i o n of t a b l e s from the a n a l y s i s i s contained i n Appendix A. The a n a l y s i s e x t r a c t e d one p a i r of c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e s from the two sets of v a r i a b l e s (language v a r i a b l e s and demographic v a r i a b l e s ) . A c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e i s a l i n e a r combination of the v a r i a b l e s arranged i n order of magnitude, and the c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e of one set i s examined i n r e l a t i o n to the other. Table 16 shows s t r u c t u r a l c o e f f i c i e n t s or c a n o n i c a l v a r i a b l e l o a d i n g s , which may be i n t e r p r e t e d , i n each i n s t a n c e , as the c o r r e l a t i o n of a c a n o n i c a l v a r i a b l e w i t h the corresponding o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e . A l s o shown are 1 58 s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s or s t a n d a r d i z e d w e i g h t s (Mean=0; SD=1). In Language Ability, Comprehension i s shown t o be the dominant v a r i a b l e ( S t r u c t u r a l C o e f f i c i e n t = 0.85; S t a n d a r d i z e d C o e f f i c i e n t = 0.79); and i n the Vocational Component , Education i s dominant. ( S t r u c t u r a l C o e f f i c i e n t 0.79; S t a n d a r d i z e d C o e f f i c i e n t 0.73). The C a n o n i c a l C o r r e l a t i o n ( R ^ ) of 0.49, g i v e n a t the end of Tab l e 16, when s q u a r e d , g i v e s t he pe r c e n t a g e (24.5%) of sh a r e d v a r i a n c e between the Language Ability and the Vocational Component . Thus, the demographic v a r i a b l e s e x e r c i s e d a moderate i n f l u e n c e on the language v a r i a b l e s as a group or s e t . 0 CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND GENERAL DISCUSSION Cave quid di ci s, quando et cui SUMMARY Background T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was under t a k e n a f t e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of data c o l l e c t e d f o r Koopman's s t u d i e s f o r t he Government of Canada (Koopman, 1983, 1985, 1988) s u g g e s t e d f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e i mportance of language a b i l i t y and mental a b i l i t y as f a c t o r s i n i n f l u e n c i n g s k i l l i n d e a l i n g w i t h v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The s u c c e s s of t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n depended on the a d o p t i o n or development of more r e f i n e d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and the t e s t i n g of a sample drawn from a g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . Koopman's s t u d i e s , by t h e i r terms of r e f e r e n c e , were concerned w i t h s p e c i a l c l a s s e s of s u b j e c t s . The Present Study T h i s r e s e a r c h e r has att e m p t e d t o show, w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s imposed by the s i z e and c o n s t i t u t i o n of the sample, the s e l e c t e d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , and the time a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n g , t h a t the a b i l i t y t o use language e f f e c t i v e l y i s of major importance i n r e c e i v i n g , e x p r e s s i n g , and a c t i n g on v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n : t h a t a l t h o u g h i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a f a c t o r 1 59 160 which cannot be d i s c o u n t e d , i t does n o t , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , e x e r c i s e the i n f l u e n c e t h a t i t has o f t e n been assumed t o have. Plan of Act ion T h i s r e s e a r c h e r t e s t e d a group of employable men and women, aged 20-60 y e a r s , from the ar e a of the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . Each s u b j e c t was asked t o p r o v i d e a w r i t t e n o p i n i o n on a t o p i c t h a t he or she chose from a s e l e c t i o n of s i x , complete a t e s t i n r e a d i n g c omprehension, and a n o n - v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , and s u p p l y s p e c i f i c demographic i n f o r m a t i o n . Analys i s of Data S i m p l e r e g r e s s i o n and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were a p p l i e d t o the t e s t d a t a . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the language v a r i a b l e s and demographic v a r i a b l e s were a s s e s s e d by means of c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o dete r m i n e the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i c language v a r i a b l e s and mental a b i l i t y on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s k i l l i n d e v e l o p i n g v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n as the b a s i s f o r the s o l u t i o n of problems of s o c i a l c o n c e r n . 161 The f i r s t four r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g hypotheses concerned t h i s f i r s t o b j e c t i v e . The v a r i a b l e Language Ability was c l e a r l y of prime importance i n d e a l i n g with v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and of the two components i n t h i s v a r i a b l e , syntax {Syntactic Performance) was the more s i g n i f i c a n t . However, one must r e c o g n i z e , from the evidence presented in Chapter 4, that mental a b i l i t y , as d e f i n e d i n the corresponding v a r i a b l e , p l a y e d a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but minor r o l e i n t h i s p r o c e s s . T h i s f i n d i n g may be seen as adding a performance dimension to Chomsky's a s s e r t i o n (Chomsky, 1972) that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to develop s y n t a c t i c a l competence " i s e s s e n t i a l l y independent of i n t e l l i g e n c e [p.79]." The evidence a l s o suggested that the i n t r o d u c t i o n of an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n a procedure designed to ass e s s the r o l e of language in the development of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n had a "dampening" or "supp r e s s i n g " e f f e c t on the i n f l u e n c e of the language v a r i a b l e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the r e s u l t s r e f e r r i n g to the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e e f f e c t s of the v a r i a b l e Mental Ability and s p e c i f i c language v a r i a b l e s r a i s e d the q u e s t i o n of the usef u l n e s s of a t e s t of i n t e l l i g e n c e i n an assessment of the a b i l i t y to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with i n f o r m a t i o n . Schroder et a l . (1967) found that the c o r r e l a t i o n s between s u b j e c t s ' i n t e l l i g e n c e and t h e i r a b i l i t y to make use of v a r i o u s l e v e l s 1 62 of c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e to l i e i n the range 0.12 - 0.45. They p o i n t e d out that the range of i n t e l l i g e n c e q u o t i e n t s f o r the s u b j e c t s was 90 - 150; and that i f those s u b j e c t s of i n f e r i o r a b i l i t y were omitted, the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were lower. Schroder et a l . (1967) concluded: To the extent t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t items c a l l f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n of a l t e r n a t e and complex r u l e s f o r c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n s ( i n c o n t r a s t to simple r e t r i e v a l or c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e s ) , i n t e l l i g e n c e or conceptual s t r u c t u r e measures would be r e l a t e d . Indeed, i f i n t e l l i g e n c e were d e f i n e d i n t h i s way ( i n terms of the f l e x i b i l i t y of i n t e g r a t i v e conceptual processes) and i f we c o u l d assume that conceptual l e v e l was the same a c r o s s very d i f f e r e n t stimulus areas (such as i n t e l l i g e n c e - t y p e q u e s t i o n s and s o c i a l problems), which i t i s not, then the two would be i d e n t i c a l (p.198). The above summary suggests that the f i r s t o b j e c t i v e was a c h i e v e d : the a b i l i t y to use language with e f f e c t i s the major p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r the s u c c e s s f u l p r o c e s s i n g of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The second o b j e c t i v e was to examine the f e a s i b i l i t y of a s s e s s i n g a d u l t syntax i n terms of the q u a l i t y of the verb, the v a r i e t y of c l a u s e s , and the enrichment of the sentence 163 by p h r a s a l s t r u c t u r e s , i n v e r s i o n , and emphasis. Such an approach to the measurement of syntax was d i c t a t e d by the nature of the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s posed f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . The l i t e r a t u r e ( C r y s t a l et a l . , 1976; Lee, 1966, 1974; Lee and Canter, 1971, and Tyack & G o t t s l e b e n , 1977) f u r n i s h e d support f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the elements, and the v a l i d i t y of the method i n i t s e n t i r e t y i s confirmed by r e f e r e n c e to an e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n {Minimal Terminable Unit: Hunt, 1965), and the subsequent c o r r e l a t i o n generated by comparing the r e s u l t s of the two systems of s c o r i n g . I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the system of sc o r i n g f o r each element was supported by the c o r r e l a t i o n obtained from a comparison of the scores awarded by two d i f f e r e n t markers, as r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 3 ( R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y : Syntactic Performance). These data suggest that the second o b j e c t i v e was achieved. The t h i r d o b j e c t i v e concerned the e f f e c t on performance i n language of s p e c i f i c demographic v a r i a b l e s {Age, Socio-economic Status, Education, and Occupation). Demographic data were c l a s s i f i e d and scored a c c o r d i n g to the schedules set out i n Chapter 3. The source of these data was the form PERSONAL INFORMATION (Appendix C) which was completed by each s u b j e c t before the begin n i n g of the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . 1 64 The minor i n f l u e n c e of the demographic v a r i a b l e s on performance i n language was a t t e s t e d to by the r e s u l t s of the c a n o n i c a l a n a l y s i s . T h i s f i n d i n g does not e n t i r e l y agree with the g e n e r a l tenor of the views put forward by B e r n s t e i n (1962, 1972) that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l c l a s s and language codes. The d i s c r e p a n c y may be a t t r i b u t e d to the greater. range of a b i l i t y w i t h i n B e r n s t e i n ' s v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s . GENERAL DISCUSSION P r a c t i c a l App l i ca t ions Educational Assessment and Diagnosis The g e n e s i s of t h i s research i s to be found i n the o b j e c t i v e s that prompted Koopman's s t u d i e s (1983, 1985, & 1988). The f i r s t two of these s t u d i e s concerned the c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i e n c i e s of c e r t a i n inmates in f e d e r a l p e n i t e n t i a r i e s ; the t h i r d was d i r e c t e d to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a d u l t s who had been diagnosed as, or who b e l i e v e d themselves to be, l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d . In each of these s t u d i e s , a d e f i c i e n c y i n one or more of the competencies a s s o c i a t e d w i t h language appeared to be p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the o v e r a l l d i f f i c u l t i e s they were e x p e r i e n c i n g i n t h e i r work and i n personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 165 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these d i f f i c u l t i e s and a d i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s i n i n d i v i d u a l cases c o u l d not be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a c h i e v e d without f i r s t e s t a b l i s h i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n language, which competencies and which l e v e l s of performance r e p r e s e n t e d the norms to be found i n the general p o p u l a t i o n , and then d e v e l o p i n g a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e instrument f o r measuring achievement among those i n the a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n who appeared to l a c k the r e q u i r e d s k i l l s . A c a r e f u l study of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d with the d e v i a n t case sometimes f u r n i s h e s a c l u e to the methods of d i a g n o s i s and assessment that may u s e f u l l y be a p p l i e d g e n e r a l l y . An example of t h i s type of approach may be seen in the h i s t o r y of the development of Wechsler's t e s t s . The two tasks d e s c r i b e d above were undertaken by t h i s r esearcher when he r e c o g n i z e d that there was no systematic method of a n a l y z i n g a d u l t language, whether spoken or w r i t t e n , i n such d e t a i l as would f u r n i s h an assessment of s k i l l i n terms of the more important elements of syntax, and r e l a t e t h i s performance to the employment of language as e x e m p l i f i e d by the p r o c e s s i n g of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s study, then, looked beyond the e x c e p t i o n a l case and attempted to determine the c o n s t a n c i e s i n , or the expected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of,- a d u l t language i n the context of how s u c c e s s f u l l y t h i s language i s used i n d a i l y l i f e . The w r i t t e n sample of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s language, 166 prompted by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of some t o p i c of ge n e r a l i n t e r e s t , i s a proven method of e s t a b l i s h i n g how w e l l an a d u l t can use language, both as a sequence of s t r u c t u r e s and as the ex p r e s s i o n of thought. The assessment procedures used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h for a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y of language i n use embodied these two as p e c t s . The approach to the assessment of syntax, while based on sound theory and v a l i d a t e d as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3, was an o r i g i n a l approach which recognized verb-complexity, c l a u s a l v a r i e t y , and the embellishment of the subject and p r e d i c a t e as c r i t i c a l elements i n the s y n t a c t i c component. S t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s were used to measure semantic s k i l l and mental a b i l i t y . In c o nnection with the measurement of a d u l t language, a r e l i a b l e and w e l l - v a l i d a t e d approach i s the Minimal Terminable Unit, developed by Hunt (1965). However, the a p p l i c a t i o n of the Minimal Terminable Unit f u r n i s h e s a measure of s y n t a c t i c a l s k i l l o v e r a l l , but does not t r e a t s e p a r a t e l y the i n d i v i d u a l elements that d e f i n e syntax i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . Language and the Curriculum The approach to the assessment of a d u l t language adopted i n t h i s study may r e a l i s t i c a l l y be a p p l i e d at the post-secondary l e v e l of education. The o r i g i n a l products 167 generated by assignments i n E n g l i s h composition c l a s s e s can provide s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l f o r language a n a l y s i s , and combine the measurement of the s t r u c t u r e s of language with that of the content which the medium i s employed to convey. The approach, then, examines r e c e p t i v e language (by means of a reading comprehension t e s t ) and, i n one piece of w r i t t e n E n g l i s h , e x p r e s s i v e language and the q u a l i t y of thought as e x e m p l i f i e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o l u t i o n to the problems presented by the q u e s t i o n s posed as pa r t of the assessment. I n s t r u c t o r s i n a d u l t b a s i c e d u c a t i o n and i n j o b - t r a i n i n g c l a s s e s i n the c o l l e g e s v i s i t e d by t h i s researcher during the p e r i o d of data c o l l e c t i o n recognized these p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and were p l a n n i n g to compare assessments made by t h e i r own procedures with those obtained by the methods o u t l i n e d here. The measures developed f o r t h i s study may very w e l l provide a means of a n a l y z i n g other forms of a d u l t language, e s p e c i a l l y to determine i f there may be h i e r a r c h i e s of syntax and v e r b a l forms. In the context of o c c u p a t i o n s , f o r in s t a n c e , one may co n s i d e r E n g l i s h as the language of a s p e c i f i c technology or tr a d e , e x h i b i t i n g , i n a d d i t i o n to a p e c u l i a r vocabulary, an e f f i c i e n t syntax, developed by usage w i t h i n the o c c u p a t i o n a l group. There i s a l s o language as the medium f o r employees of a government—a language which undoubtedly has i t s own 168 j u s t i f i c a t i o n , but one not always obvious to the o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n . The procedures o u t l i n e d f o r a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y of a d u l t language may now s a f e l y be used i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h d i r e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y to the s y n t a c t i c component and i t s bear i n g on a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l of competence i n language performance as the means of developing and a c t i n g on v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Assessment of language competence i s e s s e n t i a l l y a f i r s t step, and may need to be f o l l o w e d by remedial measures. From the scores a l r e a d y obtained, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e l a t i v e strengths and weaknesses i n performance can be c o n s t r u c t e d to form the b a s i s of a d i a g n o s i s and a p p r o p r i a t e t e a c h i n g methods f o r a d u l t s whose language s k i l l s are impaired. Language and Special Circumstances In a d d i t i o n to f u r n i s h i n g the i n s t r u c t o r with a v a l i d method of a n a l y z i n g a d u l t syntax i n e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l , the approach now o f f e r e d may be used to h e l p i n c l a r i f y i n g a p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e i n developmental psychology (and e s s e n t i a l l y i n language), which Dale (1976) d e s c r i b e d as fundamental: whether i t i s c o g n i t i v e advance t h a t e x p l a i n s improvement in language, or an improvement i n language performance that ensures the achievement of a 169 higher l e v e l of t h i n k i n g and understanding. T h i s issue i s e x e m p l i f i e d i n circ u m s t a n c e s where the need to express o n e s e l f and to understand what others are saying or have w r i t t e n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y urgent. There appears to be l i t t l e doubt that i f the concepts r e p r e s e n t e d by the content are to be a c c u r a t e l y made known, the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s a v a i l a b l e to the speaker or w r i t e r must be equal to the task, and c o n v e r s e l y , i f the language i s d e f i c i e n t , the c a p a c i t y to e n t e r t a i n concepts of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t y i s impaired. In support of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , one may c o n s i d e r the conduct of a disadvantaged youth when q u e s t i o n e d as a suspected offender by the p o l i c e and p r o s e c u t o r . F r e q u e n t l y , t h i s suspect i s unable to a p p r e c i a t e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the ques t i o n s that he or she i s being asked, and i s e q u a l l y handicapped when a r e p l y i s expected. One may ask to what extent the q u a l i t y of language governs what the young person i s able to express and understand. The need to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i n k i n g and language i s again of importance i n p r i s o n education. I t would seem t o be reasonable t o c l a i m that r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and re - e d u c a t i o n i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r eventual r e l e a s e from j a i l cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as l i k e l y outcomes, i f the p a t t e r n s of thought of the inmates concerned have not been analyzed by these inmates and the i n s t r u c t o r s together, and the 1 70 weaknesses and misconceptions c o r r e c t e d . Dialectal and other Variations T h i s method of a s s e s s i n g s y n t a c t i c s k i l l i s a l s o u s e f u l as the means of i d e n t i f y i n g the sources of misunderstanding that can a r i s e when the language i s common, but the idiom i s p e c u l i a r to a regi o n , o c c u p a t i o n , or to the s i m p l i f i e d forms which may be adopted by those f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a second language. The method can a l s o be extended to the study of the v a r i a n t s of the language found i n c o u n t r i e s which have gained t h e i r independence and are E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g , or have r e t a i n e d E n g l i s h as an o f f i c i a l language. In both i n s t a n c e s , the method can be the means of i n i t i a t i n g an a p p r e c i a t i o n of e q u i v a l e n t c o n t e n t , that i s of expressions with s i m i l a r meanings, but d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s . The essence of t h i s type of comparative study i s the choice not only of the main v a r i a b l e s , but a l s o of the elements which d e f i n e the p a r t i c u l a r language components. D e t a i l of degree represented by verb-complexity, c l a u s a l v a r i e t y , and m o d i f i c a t i o n of the s u b j e c t and p r e d i c a t e i s s u f f i c i e n t to l a y bare the d i f f e r e n c e s and the s i m i l a r i t i e s of the v a r i o u s l i n g u i s t i c forms found among the v a r i a n t s of E n g l i s h . Among them, and perhaps the most common, i s the idiom. 171 Personnei Selection Today, a p a r t i c u l a r urgency attaches to a l l forms of assessment of p e r s o n n e l , and p a r t i c u l a r l y to those c a l l i n g f o r a r e a l i s t i c assessment of mental a t t r i b u t e s i n r e l a t i o n to understanding and making e f f e c t i v e use of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n an i n t e r n a t i o n a l m i l i e u , where the common language i s E n g l i s h . S e l e c t i o n processes f o r the more r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n s i n the higher p r o f e s s i o n s and i n busine s s sometimes depend on procedures that are "remote" ( i n the sense of t h e i r being conducted by agents on behalf of i n s t i t u t i o n s and f i r m s l o c a t e d overseas), and they o f t e n serve as the f i r s t s c r e e n i n g of a p p l i c a n t s , before there i s too heavy a f i n a n c i a l commitment. In any such s c r e e n i n g , whether for jobs overseas or i n Canada, the a b i l i t y to express oneself e f f e c t i v e l y and to understand what i s spoken or w r i t t e n by others i s paramount in s e l e c t i o n , and c r i t i c a l i n b u i l d i n g self-esteem and i n the achievement of subsequent o c c u p a t i o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l g o a l s . In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , one may wish to q u e s t i o n the u s e f u l n e s s of an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t i n a s i t u a t i o n where a comprehensive assessment of language performance as the common means of communication can be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to an academic course or g a i n f u l employment. Thus, apart from the d e s i r e to assess an a p p l i c a n t ' s present achievements, t h e r e may be an e q u a l l y urgent need to 1 72 undertake formative e v a l u a t i o n procedures. As f a r as language i s a c r i t i c a l component of such e v a l u a t i o n , i t may u s e f u l l y be measured by f o l l o w i n g the methods c o n t a i n e d i n Chapter 3. Th i s approach does not r e q u i r e a t e s t - r e t e s t procedure, f o r on the o c c a s i o n of each e v a l u a t i o n , the language sample i s unique and i s sc o r e d without r e f e r e n c e to model answers. Limitations A General Limitation The l i m i t a t i o n which i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p o s s i b l y a l l r esearch i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s i s the d i f f i c u l t y of c o n t r o l l i n g the v a r i a b l e s , s e l e c t e d and extraneous, and the c o n d i t i o n s impinging on the performance of the s u b j e c t s . The researcher i n education r a r e l y a c h i e v e s the degree of manipulation and c o n t r o l of the v a r i a b l e s t y p i c a l of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a r r i e d out i n the l a b o r a t o r y (Campbell and Stanley, 1966). Pedhazur (1982) a s s e r t e d t h a t i n non-experimental r e s e a r c h , "the re s e a r c h e r can n e i t h e r manipulate nor randomize [p.578]." Kahneman (1965) warned a l s o that a r e c u r r i n g problem was the presence of confounding and spurious c o r r e l a t i o n s . To these c r i t i c i s m s may be added the a s s e r t i o n s of Lord (1960) and Meehl (1970) that p r e - e x i s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among s u b j e c t s can never be 1 73 adequately c o n t r o l l e d , and one must accept that "the t i g e r i n the l a b o r a t o r y i s not the same beast as the t i g e r i n the j u n g l e . " In c o n n e c t i o n with the views expressed above, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r r e c o g n i z e s that s p e c u l a t i o n must play a part i n reac h i n g any c o n c l u s i o n s i n a study of t h i s present k i n d . One may hope, however, that i t i s s p e c u l a t i o n supported i n l a r g e p a r t by c l o s e o b s e r v a t i o n of phenomena, the c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of s t a t i s t i c a l data, and a very c o n s e r v a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of any r e s u l t s . Continued study of the qu e s t i o n s r a i s e d here, i n new l o c a t i o n s and with d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , w i l l alone c o n f i r m the s i g n i f i c a n c e of what i s rep o r t e d i n these pages. Sample Selection and Geographical Location The a v a i l a b l e sample of subj e c t s met the c r i t e r i a which the i n v e s t i g a t o r had e s t a b l i s h e d . It cannot be assumed that i n d i v i d u a l s i n r u r a l areas and i n other urban c e n t r e s i n Canada w i l l respond to the t e s t s and p a r t i c u l a r l y to the t o p i c s f o r the language sample i n ways that are i d e n t i c a l with those p r e s e n t e d here. Such groups may e x h i b i t views d i f f e r e n t from those of the subj e c t s t e s t e d i n Vancouver, and t h e i r s c o r e s may present d i f f e r e n t p r o f i l e s as among samples and t e s t s . Consequently, the c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s study must once again be accepted as only an i n d i c a t i o n — b u t 174 one based on s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a — o f what may be expected i n other areas of Canada. Implications for Further Research Score for Verbs A r e f e r e n c e to Appendix A (Distribution Data) i n d i c a t e s that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scor e s f o r the v a r i a b l e Score for Verbs d e v i a t e s from the normal, and t h i s d e v i a t i o n i s again r e f l e c t e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the v a r i a b l e Syntactic Performance, of which the Score for Verbs i s a c o n s t i t u e n t . Here, the d i s t r i b u t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e p t o k u r t i c , but i s not s e r i o u s l y skewed. Th i s method of s c o r i n g the verb may need f u r t h e r refinement. In the present s c o r i n g , c e r t a i n verbs and tenses do not r e c e i v e c r e d i t . They are deemed to be no n - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g as the means of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g l e v e l s of performance. There i s , i n other words, p o s s i b l y a "basement e f f e c t . " I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t at the more complex l e v e l s of v e r b - s t r u c t u r e , there may be a " c e i l i n g e f f e c t , " when the ve r b a l forms f a i l to d i f f e r e n t i a t e l e v e l s of performance i n r e l a t i v e l y i n f o r m a l composition, because they are not the currency of such language. T h i s suggestion o b v i o u s l y needs to be i n v e s t i g a t e d more thoro u g h l y . On the other hand, the i n s t a b i l i t y of the v a r i a b l e i n t h i s r e s e a r c h may not be the 175 consequence of any r e a l d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the a l l o c a t i o n of s c o r e s . I t c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o the n a t u r e of the sample, or to the n a t u r e of the d i s c o u r s e demanded by the e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e . As has been s t a t e d i n Chapter 5, d i s p e n s i n g w i t h any measurement of ve r b c o m p l e x i t y i n a s s e s s i n g s y n t a x i s not s u p p o r t e d by the l i t e r a t u r e . To c l a r i f y f u r t h e r the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the ve r b i n t h i s c o n t e x t , the f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n may be posed: (a) What f a c t o r s i n the s c o r i n g of the v a r i a b l e Score for Verbs a f f e c t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s c o r e s f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e ? Language and Mental A b i l i t y In t h i s s t u d y , the t e s t f o r mental a b i l i t y was n o n - v e r b a l . F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , employing (a) a n o t h e r n o n - v e r b a l t e s t (e.g. Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s ) and (b) a v e r b a l t e s t (e.g. Wechsler Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e Seal e-Revi sed) w i t h the same language v a r i a b l e s and c r i t e r i o n , c o u l d be ex p e c t e d t o produce u s e f u l d a t a f o r a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y . I f t h e r e were d i s c r e p a n c i e s among the s c o r e s , l a r g e enough t o c a s t doubt on the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s , t h e r e would be a c a l l t o c h a l l e n g e the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the i n s t r u m e n t s f o r t h i s t y pe of s t u d y . In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n Claunch (1964) found t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between s c o r e s f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e , as 176 measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and essays assessed f o r c a p a c i t i e s that are e s s e n t i a l f o r developing i n f o r m a t i o n . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Scholastic Aptitude Test and the more o b j e c t i v e , f a c t u a l t a s k s . No attempt was made i n t h i s present i n v e s t i g a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h a lower l i m i t f o r mental a b i l i t y . Conventional wisdom suggests that there must be a l e v e l at which mental a b i l i t y assumes a d e f i n i t e and d i s a b l i n g r o l e for the i n d i v i d u a l who must d e a l with i n f o r m a t i o n , and one may p r e d i c t that the l e v e l f o r conveying i n f o r m a t i o n o r a l l y w i l l not be the same as that which ensures s i m i l a r success with w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l . Two r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s may be examined i n the context of language and mental a b i l i t y : (b) What are the l i m i t s of v a r i a b i l i t y t h at may be expected in performance on ( i ) a v e r b a l i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t and a non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t , and ( i i ) two d i f f e r e n t non-verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s when each performance i s compared with the co r r e s p o n d i n g performance i n developing i n f o r m a t i o n ? (c) What l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e , as measured by an ap p r o p r i a t e non-verbal t e s t , s i g n a l s a d i s a b l i n g c o n d i t i o n f o r those charged with understanding and a c t i n g on v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n ? 1 77 Language and Pragmatics and Information O b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i m p l i e s l e a r n i n g , and there i s the need to study how i n d i v i d u a l s use new i n f o r m a t i o n i n the s o l u t i o n of o l d and of novel problems. T h i s i s one very s p e c i f i c form of information p r o c e s s i n g . The c o r r e l a t e of t h i s study i s to determine how and to what degree new in f o r m a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s : i n other words, are s o l u t i o n s to problems or e v a l u a t i o n s of any human c o n d i t i o n a f u n c t i o n of a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the in f o r m a t i o n i n d i v i d u a l s process concurrent with the emergence of the problem or e v a l u a t i o n , or do i n d i v i d u a l s tend to f a l l back on o l d , and perhaps more comfortable a t t i t u d e s and values? In e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n , q u a l i t y of language i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r . For some, a sound argument, pres e n t e d i n c l e a r , unambiguous language i s p e r s u a s i v e . For o t h e r s , r h e t o r i c i s s u f f i c i e n t to sway o p i n i o n s . In the exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n , the a b i l i t y to see the p o i n t s of view of others represents a s i g n i f i c a n t step i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s not l i k e l y to be found i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n which t h i n k i n g i s based on a s i n g l e r u l e , e. g. where the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s i n v e s t e d with one approach to a number of i s s u e s , or only one p e r s p e c t i v e i s e n t e r t a i n e d . If t here are m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c t i v e s , i n t e r r e l a t e d i n some way, t h i n k i n g i s much more complex, and a d e f i n i t i v e judgment on any issue i s d i f f i c u l t to a r r i v e a t , and may be 1 78 u n d e s i r a b l e (Schroder, 1971). To see another's p o i n t of view demands more than g o o d w i l l and s a t i s f a c t o r y i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There must be an e f f e c t i v e means of communication, the success of which i s governed by the a p p r e c i a t i o n which each party has of the o t h e r ' s a c t i o n s , and here pragmatics i s the k e y — " t h e study of the use of language i n c o n t e x t , by r e a l speakers and hearers i n r e a l s i t u a t i o n s [Bates, 1974: p.258]." The area of pragmatics i s r e l a t i v e l y unexplored. Consequently, r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s here c o u l d s p e c i f i c a l l y be d i r e c t e d to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the importance of the semantic-pragmatic component i n r e l a t i o n to syntax and, g e n e r a l l y , i n the p r o c e s s i n g of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . As Sue d f e l d (1971) has remarked: Given the u b i q u i t y of communicative and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t s i n d a i l y l i f e , any set of t h e o r i e s which has promise of accurate c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n of such behaviors i s bound to p l a y a l a r g e r o l e i n the personology of the f u t u r e (p.12). The a p p r o p r i a t e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s may take the form: (d) To what degree are a t t i t u d e s governed by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of language? (e) What are the s y n t a c t i c and other s t r u c t u r a l forms that 1 79 c h a r a c t e r i z e the e s o t e r i c languages of some p r o f e s s i o n s and occupations? CONCLUSION T h i r t y years ago, a r a p i d l y growing knowledge about the u n i v e r s e , t r a v e l i n space, and medical and s u r g i c a l achievements were p o p u l a r l y seen as the areas of r e v o l u t i o n ; but there were some men and women who c o u l d a n t i c i p a t e t hat the g r e a t e s t r e v o l u t i o n i n t h i s century would be i n communication. Few c o u l d doubt that these recent years have borne witness to the fundamental changes which they f o r e t o l d . T h i s chapter, while d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the present research, has been an excursus to the borders of the v a s t , unexplored t e r r i t o r y c omprising language, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and how i n d i v i d u a l s express and make use of i n f o r m a t i o n . The study i t s e l f was prompted by the o b s e r v a t i o n of trends i n scores analyzed s e v e r a l years ago. When data concerning language and mental a b i l i t y were c o l l e c t e d i n 1988, and analyzed, the trends and c o n c l u s i o n s were f u r t h e r confirmed, and have been pr e s e n t e d i n the fo r e g o i n g pages. Whatever the f i e l d of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , whether i t i s mathematical, s c i e n t i f i c , m e dical, or any oth e r , the imperative i s communication, and through communication, 180 s h a r i n g . Man has advanced t h r o u g h the ages because he wandered p h y s i c a l l y and m e n t a l l y , and found o t h e r s of h i s k i n d w i t h something t o s h a r e . In the words of Whitehead (1963): When man ce a s e s t o wander, he w i l l cease t o ascend i n t he s c a l e of b e i n g . P h y s i c a l wandering i s s t i l l i m p o r t a n t , but g r e a t e r s t i l l i s the power of man's s p i r i t u a l a d v e n t u r e s ( p . 8 ) . REFERENCES A a r t s , F., & A a r t s , J . (1981). English syntactic structures: Functions and categories in sentence analysis. Oxford & New York: Pergamon. A l l e n , M.J., & Yen, W.M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. A l l i s o n , P.D. (1977). T e s t i n g f o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n . American Journal of Sociology, 83, 144-153. Andolina, C. (1980). S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y and voc a b u l a r y r i c h n e s s of l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 13, 372-377. B a r r a t t , E.S. (1956). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (1938) and the Columbia Mental M a t u r i t y Test to the WISC. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 20, 294-296. Bates, E. (1974). A c q u i s i t i o n of pragmatic competence. Journal of Child Language, 1, 277-281. B e r n s t e i n , B. (1962). S o c i a l c l a s s , l i n g u i s t i c codes, and grammatical elements. Language and Speech, 5, 221-240. B e r n s t e i n , B. (1972). S o c i a l c l a s s , language, and s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In Language and education: A source book (pp.102-110). E d i t e d by the L e a r n i n g and Language Course Team. London: Open U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 181 182 Binet , A. (1905). Apropos l a mesure de 1 ' in te l l i gence [Regarding the measurement of i n t e l l i g e n c e ] . V ann'ee Psychologique, 11, 68-82. Bloomfie ld , L . (1935). Language. London: Al l en & Unwin. Bo l inger , D. (1975). Aspects of language (2nd. e d . ) . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bo l inger , D. (1965). The atomization of meaning. Language, 41, 555-573. Bor ing , E . G . (1923). Inte l l igence as tests test i t . New Republic, 34, 35~37. Bower, A . C . (1969). Cognit ive complexity and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n rule l e a r n i n g . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un ivers i ty of A l b e r t a . Bowring, J . ( E d . ) . (1962) The works of Jeremy Bentham, v o l . v i i i , (pp.297-338 & pp.341-357). New York: Russe l l & R u s s e l l . Brown, L . , Sherbenou, R . , & D o l l a r , S. (1982). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: A Ianguage-free measure of cognitive ability. A u s t i n , T X . : Pro-Ed. Bruner, J . S . (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: Norton. B u r c h f i e l d , R. (1985). The English language. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press . 183 Burt, C. (1949). The s t r u c t u r e of the mind: A review of the r e s u l t s of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 100-111; 176-199. Campbell, D.T., & St a n l e y , J.C. (1966). Experiment al and quasi-experimental designs in research. Chicago: Rand McNally. C a t t e l l , R.B. (1963). Theory of f l u i d and c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e : A c r i t i c a l experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22. Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Chomsky, N. (1957a). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1957b). Review of B.F. Skin n e r . Verbal Behavior, 35, 26-58 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. (2nd. e d . ) . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chomsky, N. (1986). origin, and use. Knowl edge of I anguage: New York: Praeger. Its nat ur e, 184 C h o t l o s , J.W. (1944). S t u d i e s i n language behavior IV. A s t a t i s t i c a l and comparative a n a l y s i s of i n d i v i d u a l w r i t t e n language samples. Psychological Monographs, 1944, 56. C h r i s t e n s e n , P. (1967). Notes toward a new rhetoric. New York: Harper & Row. Claunch, N.C. (1964). Cognitive and motivational characteristics associated with concrete and abstract levels of conceptual complexity. J o i n t ONR and NIMH Report. P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y . Cohen, E. (1952). A f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c a l l y based r a t i o n a l e f o r the W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 272-277. Cohen, J . (1978). P a r t i a l e d products are i n t e r a c t i o n s ; p a r t i a l e d v e c t o r s are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866. Cooper, C.R., & O d e l l , L. (1977). Evaluating writing. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Crowder, R.G. (1982). The psychology of reading: An introduction. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. C r y s t a l , D. (1985). Linguistics (2nd. ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. C r y s t a l , D., F l e t c h e r , P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of I anguage disability: A procedure for assessment and remediation. London: A r n o l d . 185 Dale, P.S. (1976). Language development: Structure and function. New York: Ri n e h a r t & Winston. D a r l i n g t o n , R.B. (1968). M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e . Psychological Bulletin, 69, 161-182. Das, J.P. (1972). P a t t e r n s of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y in non-retarded and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 6-12. Das, J.P., K i r b y , J . , & Jarman, R.F. (1975). Simultaneous and s u c c e s i v e s y n t h e s i s : An a l t e r n a t i v e model f o r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . Psychological Bulletin, 82, 87-103. Davis, P.C. (1956). A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the Wechsler-Bellevue S c a l e . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 127-146. Davis, F.B. (1968). Research i n comprehension i n reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 499-545. Davis, F.B. (1972). Psychometric r e s e a r c h on comprehension i n r e a d i n g . Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 628-678. Davis, F.B., & Davis, C.C. (1962). Davis Reading Test. New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Deese, J . (1958). The psychology of learning. (2nd. ed. ) . New York: McGraw-Hill. Desai, M.M. (1955). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the Wechsler-Bellevue V e r b a l S c a l e and the P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s T e s t . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19, 60. 186 D i e d e r i c h , P.B. (1974). Measuring growth in in English. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Dik, S.C. (1978). Functional grammar. New York: E l s e v i e r . Dik, S.C. (1983). Advances in functional grammar. Dordrecht, H o l l a n d : F o r i s . Duncan, O.D. (1975). Introduction to structural equation models. New York: Acadamic. Eysenck, H.J. (1967). I n t e l l i g e n c e assessment: A t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 81-98. F i l l m o r e , C.J. (1968). The case f o r case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms, Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston. F i r t h , (1966). The tongues of men and speech, 2 books in 1. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Fodor, J . , & G a r r e t t , M. (1966). Some r e f l e c t i o n s on competence and performance. In J . Lyons, & R.J. Wales ( E d s . ) , Psychol i ngui s t i c papers (pp.135-154). Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press. Follman, J.C., & Anderson, J.A. (1967). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l i a b i l i t y of f i v e procedures f o r grading E n g l i s h themes. Research in the Teaching of English I: 190-200. Frank, G. (1983). The Wechsler enterprize: An assessment of the development, structure, and use of the Wechsler tests of intelligence. Oxford: Pergamon. 187 Frank, S., & Osser, H.A. (1970). A p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c model of s y n t a c t i c c omplexity. Language and Speech, 3, 38-53. F r i e s , C.C. (1925). The p e r i p h r a s t i c f u t u r e with shall and will i n modern E n g l i s h . Publications of the Modern Languages Association of America, 40, 963-1024. F r i e s , C.C. (1927). The e x p r e s s i o n of the f u t u r e . Language 3, 87-95. F r i e s , C.C. (1940). American E n g l i s h Grammar. English Monograph No.10, N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s . F r i e s , C.C. (1952). The structure of English. An introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace. F r i e s , C.C. (1954). Meaning and l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s . Language, 30, 57-58. F r i e s , C.C. (1956) Toward an understanding of language. L e c t u r e d e l i v e r e d i n Lawrence, October 19,1956. In P.H. F r i e s (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, v o l . 40. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Amsterdam: Benjamin, 1985. (a l s o P h i l a d e l p h i a ) . [Summary of views i n pages 63-83]. Gardiner, G.S. (1968). Some correlates of cognitive complexity. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , Edmonton. 188 G u e r t i n , W.H., Ladd, C.E., Frank, G.H., Rabin, A . I ., & H e i s t e r , D.S. (1966). Research with the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r A d u l t s : 1960-65. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 385-409. G u i l f o r d , J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. G u i l f o r d , J.P. (1973). Theories of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of General Psychology (pp. 630-643). Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H i l l . G u s t a f s s o n , J.E. (1984). A u n i f y i n g model f o r the s t r u c t u r e of i n t e l l e c t a b i l i t i e s . Intelligence, 8, 179-203. H a l l , J . (1957). C o r r e l a t i o n of a mo d i f i e d form of Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (1938) with Wechsler A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 23-28. H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. (1967). Notes on t r a n s i t i v i t y and theme i n E n g l i s h . Journal of Linguistics, 3, 37-81. H a r r i s , Z.S. (1951, 1952, 1960). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . A l s o p u b l i s h e d (1952) at Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ; and as Structural linguistics (i960) at Chicago: Phoenix Books. H a r r i s , Z.S. (1968). Mathematical structure of language. New York: Wiley. 189 Harvey, O.J. (1964). Some c o g n i t i v e determinants of i n f l u e n c i b i l i t y . Sociometry, 27, 208-221. Harvey. O.J. (1962). P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n r e s o l u t i o n of conce p t u a l i n c o n g r u i t i e s . Sociology, 25, 336-352. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D.E., & Schroder, H.M. (1961) Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley. Healy, W., & F e r n a l d , G.M. (1911). Test f o r p r a c t i c a l mental c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Psychological Monographs, 13, No. 54. Herdan, G. ( i 9 6 0 ) . Type-token mathematics. s'Gravenhage: Mouton. Hockett, C.F. (1967). Language, mathematics, and linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. A l s o p u b l i s h e d (1969) i n T. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics III: Theoretical foundations (pp.155-304). The Hague: Mouton. H o l z i n g e r , K.J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The b i - f a c t o r method. Psychornetri ca, 2, 4-54. Horn, J.L. (1985). Remodelling o l d models of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp.267-300). New York: Wiley. Horn, J.L., & C a t t e l l , R.B. (1967). Age d i f f e r e n c e s i n f l u i d and c r y s t a l l i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e . Acta Psychol ogica, 26, 1 07-129. 190 Horn, J.L., & Knapp, J.R. (1973). On the s u b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r of the e m p i r i c a l base of G u i l f o r d ' s s t r u c t u r e - o f - i n t e l l e c t model. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 33-43. Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical s t r u c t u r e w r i t t e n at three grade l e v e l s . NCTE Research Report, No. 3. Champaign, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Hunt, K.W. (1977). E a r l y and l a t e blooming s t r u c t u r e s . In C.R. Cooper, & L. O d e l l (Eds.), Evaluating Writing (pp.91-104). B u f f a l o : S.U.N.Y. Press. Jarman. R.F., & Das. J.P. (1977). Simultaneous and s u c c e s s i v e s y n t h e s i s and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Intelligence, 1, 151-169. Jesperson, 0. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: A l l e n & Unwin. [Also p u b l i s h e d by U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama Press, 1964, i n Alabama Linguistic and Philological Series], Joreskog, K.G., & Lawley, D.N. (1968). New methods of al g o r i t h m s maximum l i k e l i h o o d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . British Journal of Mathematical and S t a t i s t i c a l Psychology, 21, 85-96. Kahneman, D. (1965). C o n t r o l of spurious a s s o c i a t i o n s of the r e l i a b i l i t y of c o n t r o l l e d v a r i a b l e s . Psychlogical Bulletin, 64, 326-329. 191 K a r l i n s , M., Coffman, T., Lamm, H., & Schroder, H.M. (1967). The e f f e c t of c o g n i t i v e complexity on infor m a t i o n search i n complex p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g t a s k s . Psychonomi c Science, 7, 137-138. Katz, J . J . , & Fodor, J.A. (1963). The s t r u c t u r e of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170-210. K i n t s c h , W., & Keenan, J . (1973). Reading rate and r e t e n t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of t h r number of p r o p o s i t i o n s i n the te x t base of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257-274. Koopman, P.R.S. (1983). Cognitive disorders and syntactical deficiencies in the inmate populations of federal penitentiaries in Canada. Ottawa: The S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. Koopman, P.R.S. (1985). The dangerous offenders of Canada. Ottawa: The S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. Koopman, P.R.S. ( i n p r e s s ) . Test for Identifying Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s in Adults (TILDA). (1988). K r u i s i n g a , E. (1931-1932). A handbook of present-day English: English accidence and syntax (5th. ed.). Groningen, The Net h e r l a n d s : Noordhoff. s s. La k o f f , G. (1970). G l o b a l r u l e s . Language, 46, 627-639. Lamb, S.M. (1966). Outline of stratifi cati onal grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1 92 Lee, L.L. (1966). Development sentence types: A method of comparing normal and dev i a n t s y n t a c t i c development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 31, 311-330. Lee, L.L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Lee, L.L., & Canter, S.M. (1971). Developmental sentence s c o r i n g : A c l i n i c a l procedure f o r e s t i m a t i n g s y n t a c t i c development i n c h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 315-338. Leech, G., & S v a r t i k , J . (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman. L e i t e r , R.R. (1948). International Performance Scale. Chicago: S t o e l t i n g . Levine, B., & Iscoe, I. (1954). A comparison of Raven's P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s (1938) with a short form of the Wechsler-Bellevue. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18, 10. 10. L i e b e r , J . (1975). Noam Chomsky: A philosophical overview. Boston: Twayne ( d i v i s i o n of G.K. H a l l & Co.). Lord, F.M. ( i 9 6 0 ) . Large sample c o v a r i a n c e a n a l y s i s when the c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e i s f a l l i b l e . Journal of American Statistical Association, 55, 307-321. 1 93 M a r t i n , A.W., & Wiechers, J.E. (1954). Raven's Coloured P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s and the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18, 143-144. Mayo, S.T. (1985). Review of Test of Non-verbal I n t e l l i g e n c e . In J.V. M i t c h e l l (Ed.), Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp.1581 -1583). Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon. Meehl, P.E. (1970). Nuisance v a r i a b l e s and the ex post f a c t o d e s i g n . In M. Radner, & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. H. F e i g l , & G Maxwell. (General E d i t o r s ) . , v o l . i v , Analysis of theories and methods of physics and psychology (55, 307-321). M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minneapolis P r e s s . M i l l e r , G.A. (1951). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. M i l l e r , G.A., & Coleman, E.B. (1967). A set of t h i r t y - s i x prose passages c a l i b r a t e d f o r complexity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 851-854. Morrow, R.S., & Morrow, S. (1973). The measurement of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of General Psychology (pp.656-670). Englewood C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Moslemi, M.H. (1975). The grading of c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g e s s a y s . Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 154-161. 1 94 Newman, E.B., & Gerstman, L . J . (1952). A new method of a n a l y z i n g p r i n t e d E n g l i s h . Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy , 44, 114-125. Newmeyer, F . J . (1986). Has there been a Chomskyan r e v o l u t i o n in l i n g u i s t i c s ? Language, 62, 1, 1-18. Osgood, C.E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Osgood, C.E., S u c i , G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r e s s . Palmer, J . (1988). L i n g u i s t s and l i t e r a c y : A new understanding. McGi I I Journal of Education, 23, 1, 27-49. P a r t r i d g e , E. (1949). English: A course for human beings. London: Winchester P u b l i c a t i o n s . Pedhazur, E . J . (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston. Pike, K.L. (1954, 1955). In relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. G l e n d a l e , CA: Summer I n s t i t u t e of L i n g u i s t i c s . P o s t a l , P.M. (1964). U n d e r l y i n g and s u p e r f i c i a l l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e . Harvard Educational Review, 34, 246-266. 195 Poutsma, H. (1914-1929). A grammar of late modern English, v o l s . 1-5, 2nd. ed. Groningen, The Netherlands: Noordhof f . Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & S v a r t i k , J . (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973, 1985). A university grammar of English. London: Longman. Raven, J . (1977). Standard Progressive Matrices. London: Lewi s. Revised Alpha Examination. (1933). Revised under s u p e r v i s i o n of C R . A t w e l l & F.L. Wel l s . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Revised Beta Examination: Beta II, Non-verbal. (1946). Revised under s u p e r v i s i o n of R.M. Lindner & M G u r v i t z . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . R i p s , L . J . , Shoben, E . J . , & Smith, E.E. (1973). Semantic d i s t a n c e and the v e r i f i c a t i o n of semantic r e l a t i o n s . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 1-20. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basi c Books. Rosch, E.H. (1973). On the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of p e r c e p t u a l and semantic c a t e g o r i e s . In T.E. Moore (Ed.), Cognition and the acquisition of language (pp.111 -114). New York: Academic P r e s s . 196 Rose, S. (1976). The conscious brain. New York: Vintage Books. Rosenbaum, P.S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate construction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press . Ross, J . (1963). The relationship between the Myers-briggs Type Indicator and abi I i t y , personal i t y, and information tests. RB-63-8, P r i n c e t o n , NJ: E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . Sampson, G. (1975). The form of language. London: Weidenfeld & N i c o l s o n . Satz, P., & Mogel, S. (1962). An a b b r e v i a t i o n of the WAIS f o r c l i n i c a l use. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 77-79. Schama, S (1989). Citizens: A chronicle of the French Revolution. New York: Knopf. S c h e f f e r , J . (1975). The progressive in English. Amsterdam/Oxford: N o r t h - H o l l a n d . Schroder, H.M. (1971). Conceptual complexity and p e r s o n a l i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n . In H.M. Schroder, & P. Su e d f e l d (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald, (240-273). Schroder, H.M., D r i v e r , M.J., & S t r e u f e r t , S. (1967). Human information processing: Individual and group functioning in complex social situations. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston.. 1 97 Schroder, H.M., & Phares, J.O. Unpublished manuscript. P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , (1965). S c o t t , W.A. (1963). C o n c e p t u a l i z i n g and measuring s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s of c o g n i t i o n . In O.J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. New York: Ronald. S i e b e r , J.E., & Lan z e t t a , J.T. (1964). Concept and co n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e as determinants of d e c i s i o n making be h a v i o r . Journal of Personality, 32, 622-641. S i e b e r , J.E., & La n z e t t a , J.T. (1966). Some determinants of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e d e c i s i o n i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 561-571. S i l v e r s t e i n , A.B. (1969). An a l t e r n a t i v e f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c s o l u t i o n f o r Wechsler's i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e s . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 763-767. Sims, R.B., & Crump, W.D. (1983). S y n t a c t i c development i n the o r a l language of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d and normal students at the intermediate and secondary l e v e l . Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Quarterly, 6, 155-165. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s . Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. 198 S p e a r r i t t , D. (1972). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s u b s k i l l s of r e a d i n g comprehension by maximum l i k e l i h o o d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 92-111. S p i r o , R.J., Br u c e , B.C., & Brewer, W.C. (1980). T h e o r e t i c a l issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, l i n g u i s t i c s , a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , and education. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: S t a l n a k e r , J.M. (1934). The c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e s u l t s of a tw e l v e - h o u r t e s t i n E n g l i s h c o m p o s i t i o n . School and S o c i e t y , 39, 218-224. S t e r n b e r g , R.J. (1986). I n t e l l i g e n c e applied: Understanding and increasing your i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s . San Diego: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h . S t r a n g , B.M.H. (1962). Modern E n g l i s h s t r u c t u r e . London: A r n o l d . S u e d f e l d , P. (1971). I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g as a p e r s o n a l i t y model. In H.M. S c h r o d e r , & P. S u e d f e l d ( E d s . ) , Personality theory and information processing (pp.10-14). New York: R o n a l d . T a b a c h n i c k , B.G., & F i d e l l , L.S. (1983). Using m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c s . New Yo r k : Harper & Row. Tannen, D. (1983). O r a l and l i t e r a t e s t r a t e g i e s i n spoken and w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . In R.W. B a i l e y & R.M. Fosheim ( E d s . ) , Literacy for l i f e : The demand for reading and w r i t i n f ( p . 8 0 ) . New York: Modern Language A s s o c i a t i o n of Amer i c a . 199 Tate, N.E. (1952). The i n f l u e n c e of c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s on the L e i t e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Performance S c a l e . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 497-501. Test of non-verbal intelligence (TONI), 1982. (see r e f e r e n c e to L. Brown, R. Sherbenou, & S. D o l l a r ) . Thorndike, E.L. (1927). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s , Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . Thorndike, R.L. (1973). Reading as reas o n i n g . Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 2, 135-147. . Chicago: R i v e r s i d e . Thurstone, L.L. (1938). The vectors of mind: Multiple factor analysis for the isolation of primary t r a i t s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Tyack, D., & Got t s l e b e n , R. (1977). Language sampling, analysis, and training: A handbook for teachers and clinicians. Palo A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Vannoy, J.S. (1965). c o m p l e x i t y - s i m p l i c i t y as Journal of Personality 385-396. G e n e r a l i t y of c o g n i t i v e a p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t . and Social Psychology, 2, Vernon, P.E. (1950). The structure of human a b i l i t i e s . New York: Wiley. Vernon, P.E. (1965). A b i l i t y f a c t o r s and environmental i n f l u e n c e s . American Psychologist 20, 723-733. 200 Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for for Children-Revised. New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. ( 1967). Wechsler Pr e-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. (1939). Measurement of adult intelligence. B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s & W i l k i n s . Whitehead, A.N. (1963). Science and the modern world. In J.L. McGregor & R.M. Cohen (E d s . ) , Exercises in English for senior students (pp.7-8). London: Macmillan. Wildman, R.W., & Wildman, R.W.H. (1977). V a l i d i t y of v e r b a l IQ as a short form of the Wechsler Adult I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 45, 171-172. Wolfson, W., & B a c h e l i s , L. ( i 9 6 0 ) . An abb r e v i a t e d form of the WAIS v e r b a l s c a l e . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 421. Yoakum, C.E., & Yerkes, R.M. (1920). Army mental tests. New York: H o l t . [See Revised Alpha Examination and Revised Beta Examination]. Young, R.E., Becker, A.L., & P i k e , K.C. (1970) Rhetoric: discovery and change. New York: Harcourt Brace. 201 Z i p f , G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An i nt roducti on to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. APPENDIX A LANGUAGE AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES: SUMMARY OF DATA LA comprises Syntactic Performance and Comprehension. SP comprises Score for Verbs, Variety of Clauses, and Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate], LA = Language Ability SV = Score for Verbs VC = Variety of Clauses EL = Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate SP = Syntactic Performance CO = Comprehension MA = Me nt al AbiIity IN = Processing of Information AG = Age SE = Socio-economic Status ED = Edue at ion OC = Occupation VO = Vocational Component 202 203 Distribution Data V a r b l . Mean S.Dev. Skew. . K u r t . SP 87.60 37.82 01 .52 05.84 SV 16.28 1 5.44 03.21 1 5.40 VC 37.30 15.21 01.04 01 .38 EL 34.88 19.12 00.54 00.20 CO 18.90 10.44 00.11 -00.90 AG 01 .51 00.85 01 .50 01.15 SE 05.21 01 .86 -00.19 -01.00 ED 1 2.87 01 .74 00.28 00.86 OC 03.07 01 .68 01 .02 00.43 Correlations Var SV VC EL CO AG SE SV 1 .00 VC 0.47 1 .00 EL 0.41 0.35 1 .00 CO 0.18 0.26 0.46 1 .00 AG 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.18 1 .00 SE 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.04 -0.02 1 .00 ED 0. 18 0.56 0.15 0.38 -0.05 0.17 OC 0.18 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.20 ED OC 1 .00 0.42 1.00 204 Mult ico l l inear i ty , Eigenvalues, & Canonical Correlations R 2 f o r each 2nd. Set V a r i a b l e with a l l other 2nd. Set V a r i a b l e s a r e : V a r i a b l e s R-squared AG 0.11 SE 0.05 ED 0.21 OC 0.28 R 2 f o r each 1st. Set V a r i a b l e with a l l other 1st. Set V a r i a b l e s a r e : V a r i a b l e s R-squared SV 0.29 VC 9.26 EL 0.33 CO 0.23 Ei g e n v a l u e s and C a n o n i c a l C o r r e l a t i o n s are: Eignv 0.2449 0.4381 0.0405 0.0004 0.495 0.209 0.201 0.020 34.73 8.18 3.95 0.04 df 16 9 4 1 Prob. 0.004 0.516 0.413 0.847 205 Standardized Coefficients Standardized C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the C a n o n i c a l V a r i a b l e s of the F i r s t Set and the Second Set. 1st. Set 2nd. Set (LA) (VO) SV 0.580 AG 0.525 VC -0.198 SE 0.205 EL 0.019 ED 0.733 CO 0.793 OC 0.123 Canonical Variable Loadings Canonical V a r i a b l e Loadings f o r the F i r s t Set and the Second Set ( c o r r e l a t i o n s of the c a n o n i c a l v a r i a b l e s with the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s ) 1st. Set 2nd. Set (LA) (VO) SV 0.63.7 AG 0.518 VC 0.286 SE 0.345 EL 0.549 ED 0.793 CO 0.853 OC 0.615 206 Average Squared Correlations The average squared l o a d i n g (ASL) m u l t i p l i e d by the squared c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n (SCC) i s the average squared c o r r e l a t i o n of a v a r i a b l e on the one set with the c a n o n i c a l v a r i a b l e (CANV) from the other s e t . NOTE: ASxSC i n the t a b l e s that f o l l o w are to be read , ASLxSCC. CANV ASL ASxSC ASL ASxSC SCC 1 s t . 1 St. 2nd. 2nd. 1 0.3794 0.0929 0.3488 0.0854 0.2449 2 0.1594 0.0070 0.1883 0.0083 0.0438 3 0.2705 0.0110 0.2292 0.0093 0.0405 4 0.1908 0.0001 0.2337 0.0001 0.0004 APPENDIX B Form AEH HOW WE UNDERSTAND INFORMATION AND MAKE DECISIONS My name i s E r i c HAMPSON, and I may be reached at 922-7696 I am a s k i n g you to take p a r t i n a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t which w i l l h e lp us to know more about the way i n which people understand w r i t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n , and express t h e i r own ideas. If you agree to take p a r t i n t h i s p r o j e c t , I s h a l l ask you t o : (a) Write f o r about 15 minutes on a t o p i c which you w i l l choose a f t e r l o o k i n g at s i x i l l u s t r a t i o n s , each of which poses a q u e s t i o n . (b) Complete a t e s t of mental a b i l i t y (matching p a t t e r n s ) . - (c) Read s i l e n t l y a mumber of short passages, and check the c o r r e c t answers to q u e s t i o n s on each of the passages. These three tasks t ogether w i l l take about 60 minutes. 207 208 I f you p r e f e r to d i v i d e these tasks between two s e s s i o n s , I can arrange f o r t h i s . You have the r i g h t to withdraw from any task, or from the p r o j e c t as a whole, at any time. If you f e e l t i r e d or too f r u s t r a t e d to continue with the ta s k s , or you are not f e e l i n g w e l l , you can l e t me know at once. Any i n f o r m a t i o n which you supply about y o u r s e l f , and a l l your answers, are c o n f i d e n t i a l , and w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d only by a number. T h i s number w i l l be given to you as soon as you f e e l comfortable about t a k i n g p a r t . I w i l l answer any questions which you may have about the p r o j e c t and, i f you wish, I w i l l e x p l a i n your r e s u l t s . 209 FORM OF AGREEMENT I agree to p a r t i c i p a t e as a su b j e c t i n the re s e a r c h p r o j e c t How We Understand Information and Make D e c i s i o n s . I understand a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n given to me by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Signature at Vancouver, B.C. Date 1988 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thank you f o r a g r e e i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research p r o j e c t How We Understand Information and Make D e c i s i o n s . I have r e c e i v e d your Form of Agreement Signature at Vancouver, B.C. Date 1988 APPENDIX C Form BEH CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL INFORMATION 1 . My number i s (Do NOT g i v e your name). 2. I am MALE FEMALE ( C i r c l e the term that a p p l i e s ) . 3. My age i s 20 - 29 . . 30 - 39 . . 40 - 49 . . 5 0 - 6 0 4. My father/mother/guardian worked as a 5. I work as a (Name the work you do) 6. I attended elementary school f o r years 210 7 . I attended secondary s c h o o l f o r 21 1 years 8. I attended other ( u n i v e r s i t y , community c o l l e g e , other c l a s s e s ) f o r years ( C i r c l e the high e s t one a t t e n d e d ) . I understand that i f I r e t u r n a COMPLETED form (PERSONAL INFORMATION) to the examiner, I am agreeing to take p a r t i n the p r o j e c t , s u b j e c t to my having the r i g h t to withdraw as s t a t e d i n Form AEH (HOW WE UNDERSTAND INFORMATION AND MAKE DECISIONS). APPENDIX D Form CEH INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING A LANGUAGE SAMPLE 1. The examiner makes sure that the s u b j e c t has a pen or p e n c i l , an era s e r , and three sheets of paper (quarto or l e t t e r s i z e ) . 2. The examiner says: HERE ARE SIX PANELS WHICH ILLUSTRATE SEVERAL ITEMS OF NEWS THAT YOU MAY HAVE DEFINITE OPINIONS ABOUT. CHOOSE THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IN WRITING. 3. The examiner d i s p l a y s the panels i n f r o n t of the sub j e c t and waits f o r the subj e c t to choose a t o p i c . In answering any questions from the s u b j e c t , the examiner should a v o i d making any remark which c o u l d i n f l u e n c e the su b j e c t ' s choice of t o p i c . 4. The examiner now says: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SPEND ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, JOTTING DOWN A FEW IDEAS; THEN, WHEN YOU ARE READY, TAKE ANOTHER 15 MINUTES TO WRITE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ABOUT THE TOPIC YOU HAVE CHOSEN. DON'T WORRY IF YOU RUN OUT OF IDEAS. JUST DO YOUR BEST. SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ARE NOT GOING TO COUNT IN ANY 212 213 SCORE; SO DON'T BE CONCERNED IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS HERE. YOU MAY BEGIN WRITING NOW. 5. Five minutes before the end of the session, the examiner says: YOU HAVE ABOUT FIVE MORE MINUTES IN WHICH TO COMPLETE YOUR WRITING. 6. After c o l l e c t i n g the paper from the subject , the examiner says: THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS PROJECT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPENDIX E PRINCETON MANUAL GUIDELINES Score 1. Response c o u l d be generated by s i n g l e f i x e d r u l e ; no a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d ; s u b t l e c o n d i t i o n a l changes would produce no changes i n the response. Responses which f i t the event i n t o a category ( i n c l u s i o n v e x c l u s i o n ) with a h i g h degree of c e r t a i n t y , which unambiguously reduce c o n f l i c t and a v o i d use of g r a d a t i o n s (shades of gray and c o n t i n u a ) are t y p i c a l l y generated by simple s t r u c t u r e . a. Viewing c o n f l i c t , u n c e r t a i n t y or ambiguity as unpleasant or as a flaw or weakness i n people or funct ion i n g . b. Seeking f a s t and unambiguous c l o s u r e or r e s o l u t i o n , and r e a c t i n g i n such a way as to engage i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t processes which reduce i n c o n g r u i t y or d i ssonance. c. O f f e r i n g a s p e c i f i c guide or r u l e f o r r e d u c i n g c o n f l i c t . d. Implying that an a b s o l u t e s o l u t i o n can be found. e. S t a t i n g that e f f e c t s are compartmentalized, are a l l one way or a l l another way. f. P r e s e n t i n g only one s i d e of a problem; i g n o r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s with other views. 214 215 Score 2. When response s i g n i f i e s a q u a l i f i c a t i o n of an a b s o l u t e r u l e but i s not c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d as an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Score 3. C l e a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e r u l e s t r u c t u r e s f o r p e r c e i v i n g the event, the response must i n d i c a t e the simultaneous g e n e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t e and d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s of the same i n f o r m a t i o n . I t a l s o i n c l u d e s a c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e f o r s p e c i f y i n g when each i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s used. a. L i s t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between views, without c o n s i d e r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . b. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s of at l e a s t two. d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the event in the stem [or s t i m u l u s ] . c. Presence of " e i t h e r - o r " type responses e x p r e s s i n g a p o s s i b l e c o n d i t i o n a l r u l e about two ways of c a t e g o r i z i n g . d. P r o b a b i l i t y statements about the occurrence of d i f f e r e n t views of outcomes. e. Reaction a g a i n s t a b s o l u t i s m i n general ( i m p l y i n g more than one view i s not n e c e s s a r i l y being " a n t i " p a r t i c u l a r view which c o u l d i n d i c a t e a low l e v e l f i x e d r u l e s t r u c t u r e ) . f . The avoidance of dependency on e x t e r n a l i m p o s i t i o n , i . e . , c l e a r l y implying a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s . 216 Score 4. When confident that the response implies alternate interpretations and also implies that both can interact, but the interaction i s expressed as q u a l i f i c a t i o n rather than the emergence of comparison rules. Score 5. Response must give evidence not only of alternative interpretations but of the use of comparison rules for considering the joint as opposed to the conditional outcome of these d i f f e r e n t perceptions. At this l e v e l differences can be held in focus simultaneously and viewed as having i n t e r a c t i v e effects . . . expresses the joint operation d i r e c t l y and the other processes must be inferr e d . a. The integration of two c o n f l i c t i n g or d i f f e r e n t interpretations so as to preserve and not "ward o f f " the c o n f l i c t . b. The generation of various meanings of alternate perceptions, e.g., various meanings of the perception of c o n f l i c t i n g views about a person. c. Evidence that the completion implies the a b i l i t y to take another person's intentions (or perceptions) into account and to relate d i f f e r e n t perceptions of diff e r e n t people. d. Implication that one's behaviour i s affected by the way another behaves as in a give-and-take strategy game. e. A view of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s anchored i n mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (as opposed t o f i x e d b e l i e f s or r u l e s ) i n which each person can " p l a c e h i m s e l f i n the o t h e r p e rson's shoes" ( r e l a t e a l t e r n a t e schema). f . The c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t e reasons f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s . Score 6. I n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the s i m u l t a n e o u s o p e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s and some evi d e n c e of the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between them. Score 7. Not o n l y s t a t e s or i m p l i e s t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s o c c u r r e d and were s i m u l t a n e o u s l y h e l d i n fo c u s and compared but a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t the outcomes of v a r i o u s c omparisons can be c o n s i d e r e d i n p r o d u c i n g c a u s a l s t a t e m e n t s about the f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between "ways of v i e w i n g the w o r l d . " . . . a. C o n f l i c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s which were viewed as l e a d i n g t o new o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n f o r m a t i o n . b. The u t i l i z a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s t h r o u g h e x p l o r a t o r y a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n new i n f o r m a t i o n . c. G e n e r a t i o n of f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s between a l t e r n a t i v e s . d. C o n s i d e r a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between the s i d e s of a problem or q u e s t i o n and the development of r e l a t i o n s h i p s 218 between a l t e r n a t e reasons as to why these d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s e x i s t , e. The p r o d u c t i o n of more "connectedness" between a l t e r n a t i v e s by t h e o r i z i n g as to why these reasons e x i s t . APPENDIX F COPIES OF THE COLLAGES (INFORMATION) The f o l l o w i n g three pages i l l u s t r a t e the c o l l a g e s which were used as the s t i m u l i f o r the language samples. These language samples were assessed f o r both s y n t a c t i c s k i l l (Syntactic Performance) and maturity of judgment i n d i s c u s s i n g one or other of the t o p i c s d i s p l a y e d (Inf or mat ion). SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to thank the P u b l i s h e r s and E d i t o r s of TIME The Weekly Newsmagazi ne and of CHATELAINE, who gave p e r m i s s i o n f o r the use of a cover and s e v e r a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n the panels contained i n the pages which f o l l o w . T h e i r h e l p was e s s e n t i a l to the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . 219 is JHUjLr.Acftsc FG&. ABORTION ? § 1 UNBORN HI ' ; "v2 9 CHUM EH FETUS'S I T i J l RIGHTS LM MOTHER'S SHOaiJ) WE T R U S T DntEJLSIJ>C ? 221 FOR DELINQUENTS? U^TICIANyPRIWELIW F A I R G A M E F O R T H E P R E S S ? [ , VW&T .SHOULD 222 ARMS AGAINST CRIME A CITIZEN'S RIGHT? APPENDIX G Davis reading Test: S u b s t r a c t i o n Table I n c o r r e c t Deduct 0-2 0 3-6 1 7-10 2 11-14 3 15-18 4 1 9-22 5 23-26 6 27-30 7 31-34 8 35-38 9 39-42 10 223 APPENDIX H Examples of a Language Sample I'm not sure i f tough i s the r i g h t word, but yes, I do b e l i e v e there should be stronger laws w i t h i n the school c u r r i c u l u m . I come from the era of the s t r a p we a l l s u r v i v e d i t , but halfway through school the s t r a p was bar r e d . I remember how slowly each student changed, and the main joke among us was "Well what are they going to do? send me to the corner make me pi c k up garbage, no b i g d e a l . As I reached my hig h school days, I found a l o t of the students to be mouthy, d i s r u p t i v e and downright rude to the teacher, t h i s made i t tough f o r those wanted to teach and those who wanted to l e a r n . I t was g e t t i n g so out of hand that we as students put out a p e t i t i o n to b r i n g the s t r a p back i n t o the s c h o o l s . I remember a high percentage of the k i d s s i g n e d . Our p r i n c i p a l was s u r p r i s e d but nothing was ever done. T h i s i s almost a prime example of when parents were t o l d not to s t r a p your k i d s , allow them to express themselves and now I see kids with no res p e c t and bad mouths who wont be t o l d what to do. These k i d s are the same kids that are e n t e r i n g i n t o our sc h o o l s and then i n t o s o c i e t y as p r o d u c t i v e persons. Yet how can she/he be t o l d what to do i f they c o u l d n ' t be t o l d at home or s c h o o l . Yes, I b e l i e v e they should get tougher but not to overdo i t : these k i d s are our fut u r e and t h e i r k i d s and so on. If you look at past h i s t o r y when laws and r u l e s began to slac k e n so d i d the respect of the people. Think about i t . 224 225 T h i s subject was awarded the f o l l o w i n g s c o r e s f o r the language sample (Syntactic Performance and Information) and in the two st a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s (Comprehension: Davis Reading Test and Mental Ability: Test of Non-verbal Intelligence). A l l scores have been converted to T-scores (Mean = 50; Standard D e v i a t i o n = 10) f o r easy comparison: Syntactic Performance = 67 Comprehension = 16 Mental Ability = 36 Information = 64 (Score 5.0 on Schedule) The scores f o r the i n d i v i d u a l elements of Syntactic Performance converted to T-scores : Score for Verbs = 82 Variety of Clauses = 62 Elaboration of the Subject and Predicate = 49.8 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100548/manifest

Comment

Related Items