TEMPLATES IN CRI DU CHAT SYNDROME
Kristian E. Kristoffersen1, Nina Gram Garmann2 and Hanne Gram Simonsen1 1Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo 2Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences NorPhLex Workshop, Stockholm, 15 November 2012
Sca
ndin
avia
n S
choo
l of B
russ
els
Overview
• Background – Cri du chat syndrome – Templates – Other measures (PPC, PWP, variegation)
• Method • Analysis • Discussion and conclusion
Background: Cri du chat syndrome (CdCS) • Genetic disorder
– Cause: partial deletion of material on the short arm of chromosome 5
– Incidence: between 1:15,000 and 1:50,000 births
• Some clinical features – High-pitched cry in infancy and childhood – Short attention span – Impaired fine and gross motor skills – Mild to profound intellectual disability – Delayed speech and language development
Background: language skills in CdCS
• Receptive language skills are better than productive language skills • Syntax: short MLU, omissions, deviant word order and prefabricated
units • Morphology: relatively well preserved inflectional morphology; some
overgeneralizations indicate internalized schemas • Speech sounds:
– Small consonant inventories and frequent misarticulations – Patterns of deviation:
• Few coronal consonants • Prenasalised consonants • No systematic distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants
Background: Templates
Ny Powerpoint mal 2011
Vihman & Velleman (2000): “Different children arrive at different solutions to (1) the conflict between their phonetic skills and the demands of the ambient language and (2) the representational problem posed by the learning of a large and arbitrary set of patterned sound-meaning pairs (words and/or phrases)”
Background: Templates
• Templates are generalizations over known words that are – closely related to the child’s babbling patterns – constrained by the child’s articulatory skills
• Templates are related to two types of words: – Selected words: target words that are close to the
template – Adapted words: target words that are NOT close
to the target, but are adapted to it
7
Templates: Example
• Harmony: ˈC1VC1V – Selected:
• pappa ’daddy’ [¹pæpæ] • kake ‘cake’ [ˈkakʰæʰ]
– Adapted: • lampa ’the lamp’ [ˈpəәpʰa ̀]
Templates: Example from a boy with cri du chat syndrome Target P3 (boy aged 9;2) mamma ‘mommy’ mʌmʌ nisse ‘gnome’ ɡiɡi Pippi ‘name’ pipi pippip ‘pippip’ pəәpəә Lisbeth ‘name’ ŋɡaŋɡa Oddbjørn ‘name’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ Ole Brum ‘Winnie the Pooh’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V • Selected form: mʌmʌ ‘mommy’, pipi ‘Pippi [name]’, pəәpəә ‘pippip [bird]’ • Adapted forms: gigi ‘gnome’, ŋɡaŋɡa ‘Lisbeth [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Oddbjørn [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Winnie the Pooh’
Templates: Example from a boy with cri du chat syndrome Target P3 (boy aged 9;2) mamma ‘mommy’ mʌmʌ nisse ‘gnome’ ɡiɡi Pippi ‘name’ pipi pippip ‘pippip’ pəәpəә Lisbeth ‘name’ ŋɡaŋɡa Oddbjørn ‘name’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ Ole Brum ‘Winnie the Pooh’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V • Selected form: mʌmʌ ‘mommy’, pipi ‘Pippi [name]’, pəәpəә ‘pippip [bird]’ • Adapted forms: gigi ‘gnome’, ŋɡaŋɡa ‘Lisbeth [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Oddbjørn [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Winnie the Pooh’
Templates: Example from a boy with cri du chat syndrome Target P3 (boy aged 9;2) mamma ‘mommy’ mʌmʌ nisse ‘gnome’ ɡiɡi Pippi ‘name’ pipi pippip ‘pippip’ pəәpəә Lisbeth ‘name’ ŋɡaŋɡa Oddbjørn ‘name’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ Ole Brum ‘Winnie the Pooh’ ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V • Selected form: mʌmʌ ‘mommy’, pipi ‘Pippi [name]’, pəәpəә ‘pippip [bird]’ • Adapted forms: gigi ‘gnome’, ŋɡaŋɡa ‘Lisbeth [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Oddbjørn [name]’, ʔɔ̃ʔɔ̃ ‘Winnie the Pooh’
Templates: Longitudinal example from a girl with cri du chat syndrome
Target 4;6 5;9
pappa ‘daddy’ ˈpæpəә ˈpæpæ
bade ‘take a bath’ ˈpæpəә ˈpatəә
gaffel ‘fork’ ˈcæcəә ˈæti
eple ‘apple’ ˈpæpæ ˈæpæ
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V (at 4;6) • Selected form: ˈpæpəә ‘daddy’ • Adapted forms: ˈpæpəә ‘take a bath’, ˈcæcəә ’gaffel’,
ˈpæpæ ‘apple’
Templates: Longitudinal example from a girl with cri du chat syndrome
Target 4;6 5;9
pappa ‘daddy’ ˈpæpəә ˈpæpæ
bade ‘take a bath’ ˈpæpəә ˈpatəә
gaffel ‘fork’ ˈcæcəә ˈæti
eple ‘apple’ ˈpæpæ ˈæpæ
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V (at 4;6) • Selected form: ˈpæpəә ‘daddy’ • Adapted forms: ˈpæpəә ‘take a bath’, ˈcæcəә ’gaffel’,
ˈpæpæ ‘apple’
Templates: Longitudinal example from a girl with cri du chat syndrome
Target 4;6 5;9
pappa ‘daddy’ ˈpæpəә ˈpæpæ
bade ‘take a bath’ ˈpæpəә ˈpatəә
gaffel ‘fork’ ˈcæcəә ˈæti
eple ‘apple’ ˈpæpæ ˈæpæ
• TEMPLATE: Harmony – C1VC1V (at 4;6) • Selected form: ˈpæpəә ‘daddy’ • Adapted forms: ˈpæpəә ‘take a bath’, ˈcæcəә ’gaffel’,
ˈpæpæ ‘apple’
Questions
1. Do older childen with cri du chat syndrome use templates that are normally associated with far younger typically developing children?
2. Does the template score correlate with other measures?
3. If there are such correlations, how can we interpret them, and what do they tell us about templates?
Method: Participants
ID Gender Age Utterances Intelligibility P1 M 10;0 One-word poor P2 F 10;8 Multi-word poor P3 M 9;2 One-word poor P4 F 12;3 One-word poor P5 F 5;4 Multi-word medium P6 F 6;4 Multi-word good P7 F 6;9 Multi-word medium P8 F 4;6 One-word poor
Example pronunciations
ID Pronunciation Target Gloss Intelligibility
P1 ˈʔa.ˈʔa.ˈpa ˈbaskətˌbaɭ ‘basket ball’ poor
P2 fəlacˡ fɭag ‘flag’ poor
P3 n ͡gu sku: ‘shoe’ poor
P4 pæˈpa eple ‘apple’ poor
P5 kˡol sko:l ‘saucer’ medium
P6 ˈtı:ge ˈsti:ge ‘ladder’ good
P7 ˈbləlɛ ˈbɾilɾ̩ ‘glasses’ medium
P8 ˈpæpæ ˈeple ‘apple’ poor
Method: Procedure and analysis
• Picture and object naming • Transcription:
– Narrow IPA – Transcription agreement: 71%.
Method: Measures
• Template score • Consonant inventory • Percent consonants correct (PCC-R) • Variegation • Proximity to target pronunciation (PWP)
RESULTS
Template scores
• Scale from 0–100 % • Minimum score:
all productions are target like • Maximum score:
all productions are adapted to specific and stable templates
Template scores
ID Age Template Score (%)
CI size non-deviant
P4 12;3 55 15
P5 5;4 51 17
P3 9;2 50 9
P8 4;6 33 9
P1 10;0 28 6
P2 10;8 17 13
P7 6;9 9 18
P6 6;4 6 18
Template scores
ID Age Template Score CI size non-deviant
P4 12;3 55 15
P5 5;4 51 17
P3 9;2 50 9
P8 4;6 33 9
P1 10;0 28 6
P2 10;8 17 13
P7 6;9 9 18
P6 6;4 6 18
Template scores
ID Age Template Score (%)
CI size non-deviant
P4 12;3 55 15
P5 5;4 51 17
P3 9;2 50 9
P8 4;6 33 9
P1 10;0 28 6
P2 10;8 17 13
P7 6;9 9 18
P6 6;4 6 18
PCC-R
• Percent Consonants Correct Revised (Shriberg et al 1997)
• Proportion of correctly produced consonants: – Deletions and substitutions are scored as
incorrect – Distorted consonants are scored as correct
Ny Powerpoint mal 2011
PCC-R
ID Age Template score (%)
PCC-R
P6 6;4 6 93
P7 6;9 9 83
P2 10;8 17 72
P5 5;4 51 52
P4 12;3 55 49
P3 9;2 50 35
P8 4;6 33 23
P1 10;0 28 2
PCC-R
ID Age Template score (%)
PCC-R
P6 6;4 6 93
P7 6;9 9 83
P2 10;8 17 72
P5 5;4 51 52
P4 12;3 55 49
P3 9;2 50 35
P8 4;6 33 23
P1 10;0 28 2
Variegation
• Scale from 1–3 • 1: the production consists of only vowels,
glides, or /h/, e.g. [a], [ja] or [ha] • 2: the production consists of only one
consonant, e.g. [ma] or [mama] • 3: the production consists of more than one
consonant, e.g. [kat], [site]
Ny Powerpoint mal 2011
Variegation
ID Age Template score Variegation score
P2 10;8 17 3.00
P6 6;4 6 2.76
P7 6;9 9 2.62
P4 12;3 55 2.35
P5 5;4 51 2.16
P3 9;2 50 1.84
P8 4;6 33 1.64
P1 10;0 28 1.14
Variegation
ID Age Template score Variegation score
P2 10;8 17 3.00
P6 6;4 6 2.76
P7 6;9 9 2.62
P4 12;3 55 2.35
P5 5;4 51 2.16
P3 9;2 50 1.84
P8 4;6 33 1.64
P1 10;0 28 1.14
Proportion of Whole-word Proximity (PWP) • Measures degree of similarity to target words • Based on Ingram’s (2002) Phonological
Mean Length of Utterance: – NUMBER OF CONSONANTS + NUMBER OF VOWELS +
NUMBER OF CORRECT CONSONANTS – ba for ball have a PMLU of 1+1+1=3 – Target PMLU: 2+1+2=5
Proportion of Whole-word Proximity (PWP) • Measures degree of similarity to target
words • PWP = CHILD PMLU / TARGET PMLU
– PWP for ba: 3 / 5 = 60%
Proximity to target words (PWP)
ID Age Template score PWP (%)
P6 6;4 6 93
P7 6;9 9 89
P2 10;8 17 74
P4 12;3 55 74
P5 5;4 51 66
P3 9;2 50 47
P8 4;6 33 45
P1 10;0 28 38
Proximity to target words (PWP)
ID Age Template score PWP (%)
P6 6;4 6 93
P7 6;9 9 89
P2 10;8 17 74
P4 12;3 55 74
P5 5;4 51 66
P3 9;2 50 47
P8 4;6 33 45
P1 10;0 28 38
Why are P1 and P8 different?
• Templates are – Early phonological representations – Expressions of articulatory skills
• P1 and P8 have poor articulatory skills • They responded to all the items in the
elicitation task => rich lexical representations • The relationship between templates and
articulatory skills in P1 and P8 is not as straightforward as with the other subjects
Correlations between the measures (for all subjects except P1 and P8)
r
Template score and PCC-‐R -‐0,94 *, p < 0.05
Template score and variega>on -‐0,90 *, p < 0.05
Template score and PWP -‐0,77 *, p < 0.1
Template score and number of consonants -‐0,46
Answers
1. Do older childen with cri du chat syndrome use templates that are normally associated with far younger typically developing children? • YES
2. Does the template score correlate with other measures? • YES; negative correlations with some
exceptions.
Answers (cont.)
• Do older children with cri du chat syndrome use templates that are normally associated with far younger typically developing children? • YES
• Does the template score correlate with other measures?
Answers (cont.)
3. If there are such correlations, how can we interpret them, and what do they tell us about templates?