v—-—._ 4’ REFEREE“ RESYHTHESIS ABILIEIES 0? BLACK AND WHITE FIRST-AND THERE-GRADE CiiiLBREN Thanks For fin 0099“ of M. A. MICBEGAN STATE UNIVERSiTY Daun Christine Dickie i979 fl thih ABSTRACT Beyeral language researchers and theorists have suggested that Black inner city language is a substandard form of English, while others have said that it is simply a different language system or dialect--qualita- tively neither better nor worse than that of "standard“ English. As sup- port for the former position, some studies have noted that although Black first-grade children were equivalent to White first-graders in cognitive development, by the third-grade the Black children performed significantly poorer in this area than did their White counterparts. In addition, other studies have suggested that Black children are impaired in their abilities to decode as well as encode language. Those studies which have concluded that Black children have inferiorly deveIOped language processing skills have commonly ignored at least two important factors: 1) Matching socio- economic and/or educational levels of the experimental and control groups and 2) the use of White middle class-biased stimuli. In View of the above, this study investigated the perceptual resyn- thesis abilities of Black and White first- and third-grade children, using ten meaningful and ten non-meaningful consonant-vowel-consonant monosyllables which were systematically segmented with silent intervals of 100, 200, 300, and 400 msec. The subjects for this study consisted of 80 Black and 80 White normal hearing first- and third-grade children matched according to socioeconomic and educational criteria (all wére participants in Title 1 programs). The subjects were randomly assigned to 16 ten-member groups. each groups com- prised exclusively of either Black or White children who were first- or third-graders. The ten meaningful and ten non-meaningful CVC monosyllables were spo- ken by a phonetically-trained White female speaker through high quality recording apparatus. Sixteen randomised versions of this master tape were made. The twenty monosyllables of each experimental tape were segmented by splicing silent intervals of 100, 200, 300. or 400 msec between phonemes. Each group of ten subjects heard one of the 16 randomized versions. The 20 CVC monosyllables were presented individually to a listener via a high quality tape recorder. The subject's task was to resynthesize and repeat each segmented CVC monosyllabic unit. Subjects were not penalized for articulation disorders. The results revealed that both the Black and White children improved in performance on this task from first- to third-grade. Further, the re- sults suggested that the first-grade Black childrens‘ resynthesization of both the meaningful and non-meaningful CVC monosyllables was slightly in- ferior to the White first-graders. However, by the third-grade, the Black children were equal to, and in some instances, better than the White third- graders on this task. All groups performed better on the meaningful than the non-meaningful CVC monosyllables. In addition, except for the Black first-graders, the major breakdown in resynthesis abilities was at the 200 msec segmentation level. These findings suggest that there are no differences between the per~ ceptual abilities. and speculatively, the cognitive abilities, of Black and White children. when the children are matched according to a socio- economic and/or educational criteria. Further. since the eXperimenter was a White female. it may be argued that the Black first-graders would not perform as well as they would for a Black experimenter. The results are related to current theories of language processing. Implications for fu- ture research are suggested. AUDITORY RESYNTHESIS ABILITIES OF BLACK AND WHITE FIRST- AND THIRD-GRADE CHILDREN .3)! Daun Christine Dickie A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences 1970 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University. in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. Guidance Committee: i_ Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Daniel S. Beasley, and my committee members, Dr. William F. Rintelmann and Dr. Leo V. Deal, for their valuable time and thoughtful contributions. I also wish to thank Mr. Richard Letts and the members of the Human Relations Commission of Lansing, Michigan who have supported me financially and enthusiastically encouraged this research. I am also indebted to Dr. Edward Remick, Chairman of the Lansing School Board, Mr. Dennis Semrau, Principal of Michigan Avenue School, Mr. Ford Ceasar, Principal of High Street School, and the teachers of the first- and third- grades of these schools, all of whom generously cooperated in this study. Appreciation is further extended to Dr. Thomas Shriner of MIT and the University of Illinois for critically reviewing this study and the thoughts associated with it. Also, appreciation is extended to Dr. Orlando Taylor of the Center for Applied Linguistics for his considerate review and sug- gestions of the initial design. In addition, I wish to extend my appreciation to Mr. Ronald Cowan for his encouragement, and to my fellow students, Miss Susan Fleming and Miss Lisa Holstead, who provided me with many hours of challenging thoutht. Finally, I want to thank Dan, who was able, through encouragement and understanding, to create a student and study of which I am exceedingly proud. Supported in part by an All-University Research Grant from Michigan State University. TABEE OF CONTENTS ACKNOHLEDGEMEMSOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.3.0.0.0.0000...0.0... LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LIST OF FIGURESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTIONOOOCOOOOOO0.00.0.0...0.00.0000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Aaronson‘s “Odeleeeeo0.000000000000000000000000000.000000000000000 Perceptual Abilities Of BlaCk Children............................ Statement Of the Problem.......................................... EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES........................................... Subjects.......................................................... Stimulus Ceneration............................................... Presentation Procedures........................................... AnaIYSiSoeeooeoeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeoeoeeoeeoecooooo RESULTS........................................................... Main Effect of Race............................................... Effect of Inter-phonemic Interval................................. Effect of Grade Level............................................. EffeCt 0f Semantic Factor......................................... Summary........................................................... DISCUSSION...........................0......OOOCCC.‘.............. Auditory Perceptual Processing.................................... Perception and Black Language..................................... Implications for Future ROSCQTCheeeeeeeoeeeeoooeooeeooooeooeoeeeee iv iii vi vii 16 18 18 19 22 24 25 26 32 32 33 34 35 35 41 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY.0.0.0.000....000.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E. LIST OF MEANINGFUL AND NON-MEANINGFUL CONSONANT- VOHEL-CONSONANT MONOSYLLABIC STIMULUS ITEMS USED IN THIS STUDYOOOI0.00.00.00.00.COOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00..O. ANSWER SHEET AND SCORING FORM USED BY THE EXPERIMENTERoeoeoeeeeeeeeoeeeoeeeeeoeeeeeoeeoeeeeoeooeoeeeee TOTAL LIST OF MISARTICULATIONS AND THOSE WHICH WERE ACCOUNTED FOR DURING SCORING OF THE RESPONSESOOOIOO00.000.00.00...OOOOOOOQOCOOCI000.00.000.00... TABLES DEPICTING THE MEAN DATA FOR THE NON- SIGNIFICANT TRIPLE INTERACTIONS............................. TABLED VALUES OF THE PERCENTAGE CORRECT SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL LEVELS OF EACH FACTOR.............. 51 55 57 59' 61 63 Table l. 2. 3. 4. LIST OF TABLES Page Summary table of an analysis of variance performed ‘on the percentage correct scores at two levels of Race (Black - White) factor (A), four levels of ‘Inter-phonemic Interval (100, 200, 300, 400 msec) site factor (B), two levels of Grade (First - Third) factor (C), and two levels of Semantic (Meaningful - Nonvmeaningful) factor (D)...eeeeeoooeeeeoeeeeeoeoeeeoeeeoeeooee 27 Summary table of the mean percentage correct main effects of the four factors: Race (Black - White), Inter-phonemic Interval (100, 200, 300, 400 msec), Grade (First - Third), and Semantic (Meaningful - Non-meaningful). Also, this table reveals means for the subeffects Race x Inter-phonemic Interval, Grade x Inter-phonemic Interval, and the significant (p<.02) Semantic X Inter-phonemic Interval.............................. 23 Summary table of mean percentage correct scores of the Race x Grade and Race x Semantic subeffects................. 28 Summary table of mean percentage correct scores for the Grade X Semantic SUbEffECtSoeoeeeeeeeeeeoeoooeeoooooeooe 33 ~vi Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. List or FIGURES Schematic representation of the recording situation and apparatus........................................ Schematic representation of the listening situation and apparatus........................................ Mean percentage correct scores for both levels of Race and Grade at each Inter- phonemic Interval segmentation level. (Includes scores of both Meaningful and Non-meaningful SFLIDUIL CombiI'IEdeeeeeeoooeoeooeeoeeeeeoeoeeeeoee Mean percentage correct scores for both levels of Race and Grade. (Includes scores for both Meaningful and Non-meaningful stim- UIR combined.................................,.................. Mean percentage correct scores for both levels of the Semantic factor at each Inter-phonemic Interval level. (The results of the Shriner and Daniloff study are also depicted for comparative purposes..................... vii Page 21 23 29 30 31 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The research regarding the perceptual and language abilities of Black children from lower socioeconomic families has reached an apparent dichot- omy. Many investigators describe the Black child as possessing restricted or substandard language and cognitive abilities. Others, however, prefer to recognize these abilities as being a function and a result of a separ- ate and unique culture-specific language system or dialect. The implica- tions in the latter case do not place emphasis upon a deviation from any presupposed White norm. Rather, they reinforce the concept that inner city Black children function perceptually the same as any other child; their measured behavior is different, not deviant. A major problem with much of the research regarding these two so- called schools of thought is that too often investigators have compared the performance of the "low income" Black child with that of the "middle income" White child. This type of comparison does not provide a means for determining whether any revealed differences in performance between Black and White children is due to an actual difference in cognitive and perceptual abilities or is simply a result of improper matching of experi- mental and control groups. Problems such as these, combined with a con- ceptual model of deprivation by the researcher and educator, may possibly distort and even obscure the facts which the researcher and educator seek. The model of deprivation to which several educational schools of thought have adheared is symbolized in the use of such terms as culturally deprived, culturally disadvantaged, educationally disadvantaged, cogni- tively deprived and so on. Of particular concern is the fact that few, if any, of the schools that espouse such a model have clarified what it is the child is actually disadvantaged in. Sigel and Perry have criticized these erroneous ”lables” which serve only to categorize these children as a hemogeneous group which is essentially void of individual differences.1 Those who have been more explicit in their descriptions have been somewhat unclear in their statements and/or the data supporting their statements. For example, Engelmann has made the observation that Black children do not hear properly, that is, they “are unable to hear or re- peat certain words in a statement: do not realize that more than one word can describe a given object; do not recognize that there are polar or con- tradictory structures in language; do not understand that a word applies to many different instances and do not approach a new setting with the understanding that one‘s words should be consistent with his actions."2 This statement is not based upon any audiologically determined data. Rather, it is substantially a result of the intuitive knowledge of the author that a culture that is different from another culture in such as- pects as language and concept formation is also disadvantaged and deprived. Whether a model of cognitive perceptual abilities is needed is not the question raised in this paper. However, it would seem that rather than apply a model of auditory cognitive abilities and processing to Black children which a) places the predominant emphasis on the negative aspects 1I. Sigel and C. Perry, "Psycholinguistic Diversity Among So-called Culturally Disadvantaged Children“, (The Merrill Palmer Institute, 1910). 2S. Engelmann, "Cultural Deprivation-Description and Remedy", (Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1964). 2 (Bernstein,l Bereiter and Engelmann, and Cheyney3) and b) tends to confuse that which is more neurologically and innately determined with that which a and is more psychologically and experentially determined (Lenneberg, Chomskys), it would seem more appropriate that educators and researchers make use of a more general model of such processing. That is, it may be more useful to utilize a model that may have applications across various subcultures and, in fact, populations. It is the contention of this thesis that such a model has been re- viewed and discussed by Aaronson6 and that Aaronson's model can be applied to the development of auditory perceptual processing in all children. This thesis, then, will attempt to demonstrate that the inner city Black child not only has the potential to, but also functions perceptually in a manner similar to that of all children, according to a current model of auditory perceptual processing. However, before explicitly stating the problem to be studied, Aaronson's model and the research to date relative to the auditory perceptual abilities of Black children will be discussed. lB. Bernstein, "Social Structure, Language, and Learning", Educational Research, 3. (1961). ' 2C. Bereiter and S. Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966). 3A. Cheyney, Teaching Culturally Disadvantaged in the Elementary School, (Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1967). l‘E. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations 2: Language, (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967). SN. Chomsky, Language and Mind, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Werld, 1968). ' 6D. Aaronson, ”Temporal Factors in Perception and Short-Term Memory”, Psychological Bulletin, 67, (1967). Aaronson's Model Aaronson1 has suggested a model of short-term memory similar to an earlier model proposed by Broadbent2 which emphasizes the importance of time and order effects in perceptual processing of auditorially presented stimuli. The Aaronson model is divided into two stages: Stage 1, analo- gous to Broadbent‘s sensory or S-system, is an unstable, large capacity storage system having a fast decay time, where low level, direct repre- sentations of the physical stimulus are received in parallel and stored in patterns. Stage 2 of Aaronson's presentation, analogous to Broadbent's perceptual or P-system, is a limited capacity, slow decay system which re- ceives the stimulus patterns from Stage I in ordered series. If items arrive at too rapid a rate at Stage 2, or if several items arrive simul- taneously, perceptual analysis of the message may be impeded. If the items are left in Stage I too long, rapid decay will occur, again hindering perceptual analysis. Aaronson suggests and offers experimental support for three variables which may be manipulated to investigate her temporally-based model of short-term memory: 1) Presentation, rate, 2) Stimulus duration, which is analogous to physical on-time, and 3) Inter-item interval, which is analogous to physical off-time. Presentation rate, for example, can be held constant or varied by time-compressing or expanding the silent inter- val between each item. If the presentation rate is reduced beyond speci- fied optimal limits by reduction of the stimulus duration, more time would be allowed for each item to decay in Stage I. On the other hand, the _~ 1D. Aaronson, "Temporal Factors in Perception and Short-Term Memory", _E§ychological Bulletin, 67, (1967). ZD. Broadbent, "A Mechanical Model for Human Attention and Immediate Memory”, Psychological Review, 64, (1957). argument may be made that reducing only the item duration would allow more time for a decision to be made in the processing of each new dis- torted item. Thus, when the inter-item interval is long relative to item duration due to the temporal reduction of the item, one of the two above results is likely to occur. However, if the inter-item interval is short relative to the item duration due to reduction of the inter- item interval, would the same results be likely to occur? That is, which variable plays a more important role in the temporal characteristics of auditory perceptual processing? In her review, Aaronson has suggested that it is the inter-item interval that is predominant.1 However, the results of Beasley, using sentential approximations similar to those de- 2 3 veloped by Miller , and used by Speaks and Jerger , pointed to the item duration as the predominant factor in such an'analysis.A Beasley at- tempted to reconcile his findings with those of Aaronson5 by suggesting that the "predominant" factor may vary, depending upon the nature of the stimuli being presented. The inter-item interval may play a more predom- inant role than item duration in perceptual analysis for stimuli such as clicks, digits, and word lists, since these stimuli require minimal appli- cations of stored higher representational cues by the listener. However, ___ 1D. Aaronson, "Temporal Factors in Perception and Short-Term Memory", Psychological Bulletin, 67, (1967). 2G. Miller, Language and Communication, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963). . . I 3 . C. Speaks and J. Jerger, "Method for Measurement for Speech Identification", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 8, (1965). l: D. Beasley, "Auditory Analysis of Time-Varied Sentential Approximations", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, (1970). .SD. Aaronson, "Temporal Factors in Perception and Short-Term Memory", Psychological Bulletin, 67, (1967). as the stimulus becomes more complex, as in sentential approximations, the item duration begins to play a more significant role. This suggests that the item duration and inter-item interval are both important phe- nomena when discussing the applications of time in auditory perceptual pro- cessing. Further, it underlines the importance of being specific about the . stimulus used when discussing the applications of research results to models of perceptual analysis. If it is assumed that the above interpretations of the temporal char- acteristics of auditory perceptual processing are accurate, then it may also be possible to assume that there exists a hierarchy in the development of such temporal factors. That is, it may be assumed that the inter-item interval plays an important role in the early acquisition and development of language and perceptual abilities. Item duration takes on a signifi- cant role after the basic phonological and perhaps syntactic characteris- tics have been established. This suggests, then, that if a model such as Aaronson's is to be applied to the analysis of the perceptual abilities of children, it is necessary to investigate the aspects of that model which represent basic stages in the deveIOpmental hierarchy. One such aspect is the inter-item interval. If Black children for some reason do not 'hear' as well as White children or are auditorially perceptually handicapped in some way, a test of perceptual abilities should reveal that handicap. In addition, such a test should indicate the location (whether Stage 1 or Stage 2, according to the model described in this study) and the manner (if temporal, whether it is due to an inability to make ade- quate use of the inter-item interval and/or whether the item duration is distorted in short-term memory) of that handicap. If, however, the audi- tory perceptual mechanism of Black children is not malfunctioning, at least at the basic perceptual levels, the test should reveal that fact. Such a test may also provide answers to certain equivocal findings which have appeared in research relative to Black language and, more specifi- cally, the discrimination abilities of Black children. Perceptual Abilities of Black Children Recent research has attempted to investigate the language abilities of Black children. One factor indicative of language ability is auditory discrimination. Weiner, in a review of several studies, reported that auditory discrimination was related to articulation errors when the num- ber of misarticulations was four or more.t Related to auditory discrimin- ation is auditory resynthesis. Van Riper,2 Roswell and Chall,3 and Shriner and Daniloffh suggest that auditory discrimination in the form of phonemic resynthesization is an important predictor of the future develop- ment of articulation and language in children. Such a viewpoint suggests that auditory discrimination and auditory resynthesis would be related to the perceptual abilities of children. Bereiter and Engelmann compared the "culturally deprived“ child to the deaf child in terms of verbal and per- ceptual communication abilities. They concluded that, "with regard to the important cognitive uses of language...both kinds of children are ser- iously deprived-~the deaf child because he cannot understand what is said, 1P. Weiner, "Auditory Discrimination and Articulation", Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 32, (1967). 2C. Van Riper, Speech Correction, Principles and Methods, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, l9SA). 3F. Roswell and J. Chall, Roswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test, (New York: Essay Press, 1963). 4T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, "Resynthesis of Segmented CVC Syllables by Children", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, (In Press: 1970). the lower-class child because he is not sufficiently exposed to language in its cognitive uses."1 Reviews of the existing literature reveal further differences in the language abilities of children from various social classes (Shriner,2 5 and Baratz and Shuyé). The results Raph,3 Povich and Baratz,“ Deutsch, of some of these studies has been to view White language performance as being superior to Black language in several areas. Raph, in her review of the literature, indicated that the language model of the disadvantaged child was "meager, restricted in a variety of vocabulary, repetitive and routinized, incorrect grammatically, innaccurate in pronunciation and articulation with poor syntactical form."7, Such a model would be ex- pected to produce a meager and restricted form of language for the so- called “disadvantaged" child. Entwisle, using a word association paradigm, found first-grade Black slum children to be more advanced in linguistic development than 1C. Bereiter and S. Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in . the Preschool, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 31-32. 2?. Shriner, “Sociolinguistics and Language”, Handbook of Speech Pathology, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, In Press: 196§): 3J. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications:, Review of Educational Research, 35, (I965). "’ l‘E. Povich and J. Baratz, “A Discussion of the Language Studies of the Economically Disadvantaged Child", Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D. C. . SC. Deutsch, "Auditory Discrimination and Learning: Social Factors", Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 10, (1964). 6J. Baratz and R. Shuy, Teaching Black Children to Read, (Washington, D. 0., Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969). 71. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications", Review 2: Educational Research, 35 (1965). suburban children of the same intelligence.1 However, she reported that a reversal occurred at the levels of the third- and fifth-grades: at these stages the suburban children responded with more mature word assoc- iations than did the Black children. Entwisle suggests that a possible explanation for this reversal effect may be due to the fact that verbal models presented to lower-class children are uncomplicated, whereas those for suburban children are more varied. The more elaborate model for the suburban children, therefore, could serve as a temporary handicap. The results of a study measuring language development using the Illinois Test - of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) by Gerber and Hertel showed that the "culturally deprived" children were less adept at understanding the mean- ing of auditory and visual symbols than were the "culturally non- disadvantaged". They were described as being_"less able than the cultur- ally nonadisadvantaged preschool children to relate spoken words in a meaningful way. They put ideas into words or gestures more poorly than did the non-disadvantaged children. They were less able to handle the syntactical and inflectional aspects of language without conscious effort, and were less able to correctly reporduce a sequence of symbols."2 How- ever, Holland has criticized the conclusive statements of Gerber and Hertel, pointing out that a test designed to measure the language perfor- mance of a specific population cannot be adequately utilized to measure the performance of a group which is linguistically different.3 1D. Entwisle, (T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, Op. Cit.). ”Developmental Sociolinguistics: In Inner City Children", American Journal of Sociology. 74, (1968), 2S. Gerber and C. Hertel, "Language Deficiency of Disadvantaged Children", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, (1969) p. 278. -3A. Holland, ”Comment on 'Language Deficiency of Disadvantaged Children“ ", Journal 2£_Speech and Hearing Research, 13. (1970). 10 Howard, Hoops, and McKinnon administered the Vocal Encoding subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities to 480 children from both high and low socio-economic status.1 Their results showed that many of the responses given by the low socioeconomic group were not creditable, although, following a grammatical analyzation, it was found that these childrens' responses were an efficient form of expression. For example, on the Auditory-Vocal Automatic subtest, the picture of a ”wrecked" car was described as being “torn up" or "smashed up". Neither of these re- sponses, according to the instructions of the ITPA, could be scored as being correct: however, they do demonstrate an understanding of the meaning of the stimulus presented. Testing the effects of feedback and positive reinforcement on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test, Berlin and Dill found that the scores of the Black children improved with special instructions and verbal rein- forcement.2 The authors then relate their findings to the need for fur- ther research in the examination of test administration procedures with Black children. The recommendation for further research put forth by Berlin and Dill supports Povich and Baratz in their contention that many of these studies fail to take into consideration the effect which the experimental setting may have on lower class children. They suggest that this type of experience is not one with which the lower class child is familiar and that this unfamiliarity may inhibit the language performance SM. Howard, et a1, "Language Abilities of Children with Differing Socio-Economic Backgrounds“, (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1969). 2C. Berlin and A. Dill, ”The Effects of Feedback and Positive Reinforcement on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test Scores of Lower Class Negro and White Children", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10. (1967). 11 of these children.1 They stress the importance of realizing that these studies use ”standard" English as the criterion of adequate language and speech. Stewart points out that conversational omissions and substitu- tions can occur in a dialect pattern and that meaning can be lost if a listener, charged with the task of analyzing verbal responses, is not familiar with the speech of that particular community.2 Realizing the existing limitations of testing procedures, Baratz prefers to view the language of Black children not as "substandard" but rather as a "well-ordered, highly structured, highly developed language system which in many aspects is different from standard English."3 Thus, she views Black language in terms of "dialectology" which is defined as being "the study of language differences within a Speech community, with a dialect simply defined as a variety of a language, generally mutually 'intelligible with other varieties of that language, but set off from them by a unique complex of features of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. Dialect, thus used, is not a derogatory term but a descriptive one."4 While most studies have focused primarily on evaluating the verbal output of Black children, there exists a need for examining and correla- ting such findings with research dealing with auditory perceptual abili- ties. Deutsch, assuming Black children possessed perceptual problems, lE. Povich and J. Baratz, "A Discussion of the Language Studies of the Economically Disadvantaged Child", Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, (1965). 2W. Stewart, "Sociolinguistic Factors in the History of American Negro Dialects", The Florida FL Reporter, 5, (1967). 3J. Baratz, “Language and Cognitive Assessment of Negro Children: Assumptions and Research Needs", ASHA, (1969). “J. Baratz and R. Shuy, Teaching Black Children to Read, (Washington, DC Co: center for llpplled DIAI‘AJLOLLCLV' a: )1), p. .5. con-.‘- 4-.- ----.. 12 assessed the auditory discrimination abilities of disadvantaged Black children and found that they did not discriminate as well as did White children coming from middle class environments.1 However, Wiggins has pointed out that such auditory discrimination tests must, to be accurate, compare the performance of Black children with norms which have been es- tablished from other persons who speak this dialect.2 He states that the responses of Black children which are judged as incorrect by White norms -do not necessarily reflect underdeveloped auditory discrimination abili- ties, but rather are a product of the child's language system. Shriner and Miner compared 25 "culturally disadvantaged" and 25 "culturally ad- vantaged" children on the ability to apply morphological rules to un- familiar perceptual stimuli.3 A comparison of scores revealed no statis- tically significant differences on a semantically involved task of having the child_"auditorialy cloze a statement with certain contextual c1ues"a using 10 noun pluralizations, six verb forms and four possessives with non-meaningful words. Findings such as this tend to counteract the suggestion of Bereiter and EngelmannS and Raph6 that Black (that is, "disadvantaged") children 1C. Deutsch, "Auditory Discrimination and Learning: Social Factors", Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 10, (1964). 2M. Wiggins, "An Investigation of Auditory Discrimination Skills in Children Who Speak Nonstandard English", (Flint, Michigan, 1969). 3T. Shriner and L. Miner, "Morpohlogical Structures in the Language of Disadvantaged and Advantaged Children", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, (1968). “1616., p. 606. SC. Bereiter and S. Engelmann, Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966). 6J; Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications:, Review of Educational Research, 35, (1965). 13 cannot imitate or repeat sentence elements but rather tend to analyze whole sentences. Apparently the disadvantaged children of the Shriner and Miner study were able to differentiate word-like units. Raph also notes that the "culturally privileged child learns early that sentences are made up of words so that he imitates the noises that occur within words, but not the noises that occur between words. The culturally de- prived child, in contrast, tends to approximate the whole sequence of noises."1 (Unfortunately Raph never makes clear exactly what these mysterious ”noises" are.) This argument, then, leads one to the conclu- sion that Black children would probably exhibit difficulties in resyn- thesizing stimuli whose inter-phonemic interval had been experimentally manipulated. However, that children may exhibit such a difficulty is not surprising since Shriner and Daniloff showed that middle and upper-middle class children revealed such a breakdown in resynthesis abilities. They tested the perceptual resynthesis performance of 80 normal-speaking first- and third-grade children with four silent inter-phonemic interval levels of 50, 100, 200, and 400 msec, using both meaningful and non-meaningful consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllables. Their results showed that a) the non-meaningful monosyllables were more difficult to resynthesize than meaningful monosyllables, b) that the breakdown interval for meaning- ful words was 200 msec, and c) that there was no significant difference be- 2 tween the responses of the first-and third-grade children. This suggests that if children from lower income families, and especially Black children. 1J. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications", Review 2: Educational Research, 35, (1965), P0 2060 . 2T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, "Resynthesis of Segmented CVC Svliables by Children", Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, (In Press: 1970). 14 are handicapped relative to middle class White children in making use of the inter-phonemic interval in auditory analysis, this difficulty may be exhibited by comparing the data obtained by Shriner and Daniloff to data obtained on a similar group of Black and White "culturally deprived" children. In addition, such a study would reveal whether this handicap, if it exists, is limited to Black children or whether it is characteristic of all children from lower socioeconomic cultures. Raph also states that the ”culturally deprived" child lacks "experience with verbally mature adults...his first words are likely to be composed of meaningless syllables which only vaguely resemble words and inflections he has heard, but does not understand."1 However, Raph fails to realize that this conception of language development is a bona fide learning theory which has been put forth in various forms by Mowrer,2 Van Riper,3 and others. She attempts to support her argument by citing an example from Bereiter and Engelmann in which a child had to repeat a l3-word sentence which contained a conjunctional choice. ""The mother told the boy he could have a penny or a nickel.")4 The Black child could not do this repetition task, according to Raph, because he did not understand the concept of con- junctional choice and so would not repeat the last three words. The re- lationship of this "choice concept" to the development of semantics in language is vague, at best. However, it is assumed for the moment that 1J. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications", Review 2g Educational Research, 35 (1965). p. 206. 'V 20. Mowrer, "Hearing and Speaking: An Analysis of Language Learning", Journal 2E Speech and Hearing Disorders, 23, (1958).- 3C. Van Riper, Speech Correction, Principles and Methods, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1954). I “J. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvanteged Children: Review and Implications", Review 2f Educational Research, 35 (1965). p. 206. 15 the Black child is unable to apply semantics to word units, perhaps an in- dication of this handicap would also be revealed in a more basic type of task which incorporates stimuli similar to that of Shriner and Daniloff: that is, the Black child should reveal a marked inability to resynthesize meaningful consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) monosyllables when compared to the White child. In addition, if this handicap is characteristic of all lowbincome children, Black and White children of this socioeconomic' grouping should be markedly different from the children in the Shriner and Daniloff study.1 Finally, Raph has said that the "culturally deprived” child lacks . "the use or language as a means of getting and dealing with incoming ver- bal cues...(and)...that which is even more critical is the fairly conclu- sive evidence that the delay or deficit has a profound influence on later learning...this gap in ability to manipulate symbols is seldom narrowed sufficiently for the child to succeed in school."2 Thus, if Raph is cor- rect that Black children function at a level of development similar to that of younger middle class White children and that they never catch up, and if this is the result of a perceptual handicap, be it psychological I and/or neurological, then resynthesis abilities (an auditory perceptual task) of Black children whould show a steady decline from the first-to the third-grade. Such an expectation would appear warranted in view of 1T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, "Resynthesis of Segmented CVC Syllables by Children", Journal 2£_§peech and Hearing Research, (In Press: 1970). 2J. Raph, "Language Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Children: Review and Implications", Review 2: Educational Research, 35, (1965). p. 207. ' 16 the suggestions of Entwisle,1 Gerber and Hertel,2 and Deutsch3 that Black children are well behind their White middle class counterparts by the third-grade. However, the White children, especially the middle class, would reveal no such decline. This would be essentially true if the stimuli used approached a reasonable degree of being culture-free, that is, not culture-bound. ' In summary, a study should be carried out that would reveal in depth whether children of low income families suffer from perceptual deficits. Further, it should attempt to uncover information relative to the semantic and phonological factors of language processing and to reveal if such defi- citits, if they exist, are cummulative. Statement 2f the Problem In summary, several researchers have suggested that Black ghetto language or dialect is a substandard form of English and that the cogni- tive abilities of Black children are inferior to those of White children. Others, however, have suggested that Black ghetto language is simply a different form of language-~neither better nor worse than so-called "standard" English. They do not regard the Black child as innately ham- pered by any lack of cognitive perceptual abilities. It would appear necessary then to investigate the differences between "Black" and "White" . 1D. Bntwisle, (T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, Op. Cit.), "Developmental Sociolinguistics: In Inner City Children", American Journal 2: Sociology, 74, (1968). 2S. Gerber and C. Hertel, "Language Deficiency of Disadvantaged Children", Journal 25 Speech and Hearing Research, 12, (1969). 3C. Deutsch, "Auditory Discrimination and Learning: Social Factors" Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 10, (1964). 17 language performance as related'to specified language-determinant vari- ables, such as perceptual resynthesis abilities. in order to determine whether the suggestion of substandard versus standard differences in the language abilities of the two groups does indeed exist. Further, if these differences exist, they should be related to current theories and models of auditory perceptual processing. The purpose of this study, then, is to investigate the differences in auditory perceptual resynthesis abilities between lower socioeconomic Black and White first and third-grade children using meaningful and non- meaningful CVC monosyllables which have been systematically segmented with silent inter-phonemic intervals of 100, 200, 300, and 400 msec of time. CHAPTER II EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES This study consisted of 160 subjects which were randomly assigned to one of sixteen conditions. Each condition was a combination of one of four inter-phonemic interval levels by specific levels of grade and race. There were ten subjects per condition. Subjects The subjects used in this study were 80 first- and third-grade Black children whose performance on this task was compared to that of 80 White children of the same grade levels. All subjects were drawn from two Lansing, Michigan "inner city“ SChOOlS which were federally funded through Title 1 programs. Thus, the subjects were families of lower socioeconomic status as determined by Title I criteria. All subjects had normal hearing as ascertained by school records of audiological testing which had been performed during the semester prior to the carrying out of this study. The subjects were of normal intelligence as revealed by school records. The subjects of the predominantly Black and the predominantly White schools were independently and randomly placed into eight groups of ten each, resulting in a total of 160 subjects. 18 19 Each subject was adminiStered the Bryngelson and Glaspey1 picture cards in order that any deviant articulation patterns could be determined. In ad- dition, each child was asked to count to twelve and enter into conversational speech with the experimenter who was a trained speech pathologist. Any mis- articulations noted during these three situations were hand-recorded by the experimenter prior to each child's experimental session and were accounted for when scoring the total number of correct responses for that child. Thus, if it was observed that, prior to the experimental session, a subject sub- stituted one sound for another, it was not scored as being an incorrect re- sponse if this particular substitution occurred on one of the test items. This same procedure was employed for any omissions or distortions of sounds. Appendix C lists the subjects and their misarticulations which were scored as correct responses during the test. Stimulus Generation The stimulus material used were the same tapes used by Shriner and Daniloff2 for their resynthesis study with middle class White children. The stimuli consisted of a master recording of ten meaningful and ten non- meaningful CVC monosyllables. Each of ten different initial consonants, In, m, b, d, d3, g/,)f, s, 1, rl, were used in each set of monosyllables. each pair having the same initial consonant and differing only in the cen- tral vowel. The monosyllabic pairs are listed in Appendix A. Figure 1 depicts the recording session situation. Each phoneme of the twenty CVC monosyllables used in this study was read separately at nor- 1B. Bryngelson and E. Glaspey, Speech Improvement Cards, (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1941). 2T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, "Reassembly of Segmented CVC Syllables by Children", Journal 2E Speech and Hearing Research, (In Press: 1970). 20 mal conversational speech and effort level by a trained, White female pho- netician who spoke general American English. The speaker was seated in a sound-treated room with a Daven VU meter in front of her to monitor her vocal intensity level. The phonemes were recorded at 15 ips onto a Magnecord M-90 tape deck via an Altec M-ll condenser microphone. Four c0pies were made of this master recording.. Then, specified silent inter- vals of either 50, 100, 200, or 400 msec of magnetic tape were spliced be- tween each phoneme to construct each CVC unit, a single silent interval level being used for each of the four experimental tapes. This resulted in four experimental tapes, each tape corresponding to a single level of inter- phonemic interval (1P1) size. The 50 msec condition was eliminated from the present study and was re- placed by a 300 msec condition. In making this latter condition, a proce- dure similar to that described above was followed. A copy of the 400 msec inter-phonemic interval tape was recorded using a Sony ESP Auto Reverse Model 770 tape deck (frequency response of 40 - 18,000 Hz‘: 2 dB) at 7% ips and an Ampex Model 601 (frequency response of 80 - 14,000 Hz) tape deck. The 400 msec tape was copied directly from the Ampex 601 onto the Sony 770. This new tape was then spliced to insert 300 msec of silent magnetic tape between each phoneme. Three graduate students in Speech Pathology listened to this tape to ensure that all newly spliced CVC monosyllables were intel- ligible. .Each segmented word for all four experimental conditions was embedded in the carrier phrase, "Repeat please". Sixteen different rancomc nizations of these tapes were then made--four randomnizations for each of the four conditions. Each randomized version was initiated by the practice items IwIt/l and /wig// which contained the same inter-phonemic interval 21 xooa some can: uwooocwmz HOD YD: . ococaowoaz “~12 ooua< A uoxmoom .osuuwaoaa one couuasuao cadences» ecu mo couueucoaowoow oauaeosomul.~ shaman . 22 level as did the rest of the items of that condition.' Ten seconds of silent listener response time was allotted for each experimental item. Presentation Procedures Each subject was seated individually in a school office while directly facing the speaker of the playback apparatus which was placed approximately twelve inches in front of him. This placement enabled the speaker to pro- vide an average 70-74 dB SPL to the chair in the listening room. The SIN ratio at this point was better than 14 dB as measured on the linear scale . with the Bruel and Kjar Model 2203 Sound Level Meter with a Type 4131 con- densor microphone. A single experimental tape was played back free field to each listener individually via the Sony tape recorder used in making the experimental tapes. 4 Figure 2.depicts the listening session situation. In a given session the following set of instructions was given orally by the experimenter. "You are going to hear a lady on the tape recorder saying some words. I want you to listen to her and tell me exactly what the word is she said. Now, what word is it if she says 'lkénrtl'?" 'At this point the child was to resynthesize the three phonemes and say the word "cat." The experimenter then spoke several meaningful and non-meaningful CVC constructions using ob- jects in the room. In each instance, subjective silent delays were left be- tween the phonemes of each syllable which the child was to resynthesize. If the child was able to do this successfully, he was asked to listen to and repeat the two practice items on the tape. If the child was not able to resynthesize these two practice items, the tape was stopped and the experi- menter gave additional examples until the child was responding appropriately. If he was able to correctly resynthesize the practice items, the entire tape 23 pouncedwoaxm possum“; . . a:-xoaa ox“: xoon some . . uoxmoom xoon some obs mmm anon xomnamum moanom cacommcmm .aauuuaoou one acauasuan wcacouuu~.ocu no couuaucouowaou oauasozomon.~ shaman 24 of twenty items was played non-stop. The child's responses were recorded both on an answer sheet by the experimenter and on a Panasonic tape re- corder Model RQ706S. After each session, the child was given a bag of M&M's as a reward for participating in the experiment. Analysis The data was hand-scored by the experimenter. This method of judging correct responses was discovered to be more effective than relying upon the child's taped responses since misarticulations which the experimenter ob- served during the actual testing situation were not discernable when lis- ‘tening to the tape. For example, the experimenter observed that several children said the word "mom" for the test item lm—drnl. However, the taped version of this response was not precise enough to indicate this error. The number of items correctly resynthesized was the score for a single subject. This score was then converted into a percentage correct score. Three such percentage correct scores were obtained for each subject: a total of all monosyllables correct, the number correct for the ten meaning- ful items, and the number correct for the ten non-meaningful items. The data were placed into a Winer1 multi-factor (four-factor) analysis of variance with repeated measures design (Case 11), and suitable F-tests were performed (computerized). There were ten subjects per cell for a total of 160 subjects, 80 at each grade level (40 Black and 40 White), and 40 sub- jects for each of the four inter-phonemic interval levels (20 Black and 20 whitfi). _ .1____ 18. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, (New York: McGrawbHill, Inc., 1962). CHAPTER III RESULTS The results of this study support the thesis that Black first- and third-grade children are not impaired in their perceptual resynthesis abilities of monosyllabic units. ~The overeall‘results demonstrate that lthe inter-phonemic interval, grade level, and the semantic (meaningful and non-meaningful) factors all function as important elements in percep- tual resynthesis. Race is a significant factor in that the Black third- graders show greater improvement in resynthesis abilities from first- to third-grade than do White third-graders. The discussion of the results illustrates these facts more specifically. Table 1 depicts the results of a multifactor (four factor) analysis of variance with repeated measures (Case 11. Winer)1 which was performed on the data. The mean score for each factor under consideration by level in combination with all other factors by level are presented in Tables 2 through 4. Figures 3 through 6 illustrate the mean data in graphic form. Appendix D presents several subeffects tables depicting the data for sev- eral non-significant interactions. Appendix E lists the raw score data for each subject. The results of a similar study by Shriner and Daniloff2 18. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1962), p9 3370 2T. Shriner and R. Daniloff, "Reassembly of Segmented CVC Syllables by Children”, Journal EE'SDROCh and hoaxlrn Research, (In Press: 1970). 26 are also depicted in each graph'for comparative purposes. Main Effect 3f Race Table 1 reveals that the main effect of race (Black versus White) is not significant at p<.OS. Thus, the over-all means of 46 percent and 49 percent for the two groups, Black and White children respectively, when averaged over both grade levels, both semantic levels, and the four levels of inter-phonemic interval do not differ (See Table 2 and Figure 3). This suggests that when educational and economic factors are considered in matching, Black and White lower elementary school children would perform equally-well on a perceptual resynthesis task of this level of complexity. However, the significant (p(.05) Race x Grade interaction (See Table 1) reveals that grade level had a significant differential effect upon the re- sults of the two levels of race on this task. As illustrated in Table 3 and Figure 5, the Black third-graders demonstrate a larger degree of im- provement in resynthesis ability from first- to third-grade than do the White children. Specifically, the mean pertent of responses correct for Black first-graders are slightly poorer than the means for the White first- graders (though not significantly so), but by the third-grade a reversal occurs and the Black children do slightly better than the White children (though, again, not significantly so). In addition, this trend toward a greater degree of improvement for the Black children is independent of both the semantic (meaningful and non-meaningful) factor and inter-phonemic interval level. This is supported by the non-significant interactions of Race x Inter-phonemic Interval, Race x Semantic, and Race x Grade x Inter- phonemic Interval x Semantic (See Table l and Appendix D). 27 Table l.--Summary table of an analysis of variance performed on the per- centage correct scores at two levels of Race (Black - White) factor (A), four levels of Inter-phonemic Interval (100, 200, 300, 400 msec) size factor, (8), two levels of Grade (First - Third) factor (C), and two levels of Semantic (Meaningful - Nonsmeaningful) factor (D). Source ss df as F A 0.050. 1 0.0500 1.04 3 1.690 3 - 0.5634 11.71*** c 0.861 1 0.8611 17.89*** AxB 0.097 3 . 0.0325 0.67 AxC 0.364 1 0.3645 7.57** BxC 0.123 3 0.0411 0.85 1.3.6 0.015 3 0.0050 0.10 0 8.128 1 8.1281 402.93*** AxD 0.002 ‘ ‘1 0.0020 0.10 BxD 0.201 3 0.0671 3.33* CxD 0.001 1 0.0011 0.05 AxBxD 0.001 3 0.0005 0.02 AxCxD 0.024 1 0.0245 1.21 BxCxD . 0.124 3 0.0414 2.05 AxBxCxD 0.015 3 0.0050 * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<. 0005 28 Table 2.--Summary table of the mean percentage correct main effects of the four factors: Race (Black - White), Inter-phonemic Inter- val (100, 200, 300, 400 msec), Grade (First - Third), and Semantic (Meaningful - Non—meaningful). Also, this table re- veals means for the sub-effects Race x Inter-phonemic Interval, Grade x Inter-phonemic Interval, and the significant (p<.02) Semantic x Inter-phonemic Interval. (See Appendix D for tabled mean percentage correct scores of the non-significant triple interactions.) Interéphonemic Interval in msec 100 200 300 400 Joint Black $8.00 44.00 42.25 42.50 46.68 White 62.75 41.75_ 49.00 42.25 49.18 First Grade 53.00 40.50 41.25 36.25——— 47.75 Third Grade 67.75 45.25 50.00 49.50 53.12 Meaningful 80.50 ’57.00 59.50 58.50 63.87 Non-Meaningful 40.25 28.74 31.75 27.25 32.00 JOINT 60.37 28.75 45.62 42.87 Tablé(§§4-Summary table of mean percentage correct scores of the Race x Grade and Race x Semantic sub-effects. (See Appendix D for the mean percentage correct scores for the non-significant inter- action effects). ‘ ‘ Black White Joint Meaningful 62.37 65.37 63.87 Non~Meaningful 31.00 33.00 32.00 First Grade 38.12 - 47.37 47.75 Third Grade 55025 51000 53012 JOINT ‘ 46.68 ' 49.18 29 come cu Hm>woucH oueococanuoucH coo can ooN OOH _ _ a _ cum 03:3 0. IO 60m guess and 322 I and zoo; I 1‘ a. A.cocdpeoo «assign azuwcacmoeucoz one asmwcacmoz soon we nowoom moosflocuv .~o>o~ noduaucwewwm ~m>uoucn oweoconouuoucm some as ooawo one was: we u~o>o~ soon you newoom uoowwoo owaucoowoa ceoznnnwvouswum l OH ON on ca 0m 00 oh ow co cod $81035 aoanog afieauaaaaa uean 30 meauo stage 66806 amuse . fl _ muocoumaq umosacen one uocawsm Olu.nlo 39333 03:: ouullo newsman“; xoeam XIIIIIX .uomoauso v>mumueaeoo you vououaoc omam one meson muoadcen one wocawzm on» no uuuanow use A.voCuneoo «fission Hawmcacaoeucoz can aamwcacaoz noon mo mowoom mouauocnv .oouwu can scam mo o~o>oa soon you mowoom uoowwoo omuucoouoa ceoz::.e owswum Ow ON on Ca om . o6 oh 0m 0m 00H 531035 3331103 afieauaoaaa uean 31 come ca ~m>woucH eweocozguuoucn ooq can ooH — _ . 0, I ' IIIIII III-II Illlf OI. o I [OI—II .III: 0 / 0 It... ‘III 0 IR! 0 1 x 1*11 011‘ Amuouucan one uocauzmv asuw:«:a02rcoz olu.Jo Auuoaucaa use nonuwnmv Hawwcacmez tlllb nae—sum 35.5 Hammcuneoewcoz 011.6 :33 3.5 3.35:3: I . . A.momoau=n o>auauaaeoo you educanov omfia one avauo muouucan use wocdusm on» no muasmow envy .~o>o~ Ha>uouca cweocozanwoucu none as wouoeu caucaeom on» no u~o>o~ neon wow nouoon uoowwoo owmucoowoa amazouamwowawwm OH om om cc on Ca om OOH saaoos 3531163 aaenuaaaaa ueau 32 Effect 2f Inter—phonemic Interval Table 1 reveals that the main effect of inter-phonemic interval level is highly significant (ps/' Ideal ld3ae/ _ ldgie/ [t]: n/ ‘ It/A n/ I/uz/ // e :2/ Is A n/ , ‘ ls'en/ ll E. g/ ll'U'g/ Ired/ er d/ APPENDIX B ANSWER SHEET AND SCORING FORM USED BY THE EXPERIMENI'ER. S7 Condition Misarticulations l. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. '12. 13. I“. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Comments: NAME AGE GRADE DATE 58 APPENDIX C TOTAL LIST OF MISARTICULATIONS AND THOSE WHICH WERE ACCOUNTED FOR DURING SCORING OF THE RESPONSES. 59 60 m was. First Grade First Grade Subject Sublect (£22225 Misarticulations ‘Numbgg Misarticulations 2 f/O 82 wlr* 11 Omits 1,* 9/6/* 84 sir/3* 34/* 13 Is] Distortion 86 0/s,* 3/2* 17 0/s,*'5/z* 89 w/r* 21 f/e 90 9/3,* 372* 22 ' f/e ‘ 98 6/s* 572* e;/s 23 kr/tr, gr/dr 103 wlr* 26 6/s,* 572* 107 w/r* 37 /05/* 112 ‘/7g/% (Initial) 39 {/9 113 0/s,* 272* 40 .- f/e 117 lr/ Distortion Third Grade . Third Grade Subject 3 Subject (£22225 Misarticulations ‘Numbgg Misarticulations 43 f/O 122 Is/ Distortion 52 f/e 126 3*Ig/k 54 0/2 (Medial) 131 t/O, sfi/,* s/g/* 67 e/s,*-/09/* 132 Omits If] [r] Distortion 73 £19 152 9/s,* 372* 75 A f/O I ‘ 155 w/r,* s6/,* s/g/* so e/s.* 572* *Misarticulation of sound used in this SCUdYe A. .3... APPENDIX D TABLES DEPICTING THE MEAN DATA FOR THE NON-SIGNIFICANT TRIPLE INTERACTIONS. 62 Table D.l--The mean percentage correct scores for the nonrsignificant triple interaction of Race x Inter-Phonemic Interval x Semantic. Inter-Phonemic Interval in msec 100 200 300 400 M NH M NH M NH M NH BlaCR 78.00 38.00 57.75 30.50 56.00 28.50 58.00 27.00 White 83.00 42.50 56.50 27.00 63.00 35.00 59.00 27.50 Table D.2--The mean percentage correct scores for the non-significant tri- ple interaction of Inter-Phonemic Interval x Grade x Semantic. Inter-Phonemic Interval in msec 100 200 300 400 M NH M NH M NH M NH First 73.00 33.00 56.50 24.50 56.00 26.50 48.50 24.00 Third 88.00 47.50 57.50 33.00 63.00 37.00 68.50 30.50 Table D.3--The mean percentage correct scores for the non-significant tri- ple interaction of Race x Grade x Semantic. First ‘ Third M NH M NH Black 52.75 23.50' 72.00 38.50 White 64.25 30.50 ' 66.50 35.50 APPENDIX E TABLED VALUES OF THE PERCENTAGE CORRECT SCORES FOR EACH SUBJECT FOR ALL LEVELS OF EACH FACTOR. OJ First Grade Set Black-100 Subject Number pd >flc>u>a3~ro~uas-usnapo ‘First Grade Set Black-200 Subject Number 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.9. X First Grade Set Black-300 Sublect Number 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 32 X 64 Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 80.0 40.0 60.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 90.0 30.0 60.0 70.0 00.0 35.0 80.0 50.0 65.0 80.0 70.0 75.0 90.0 20.0 55.0 20.0 00.0 10.0 68.0 28.0 48.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 70.0 40.0 55.0 70.0 40.0 55.0 50.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 35.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 52.0 24.0 38.0 30.0 00.0 15.0 30.0 00.0 15.0 40.0 10.0 25.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 90.0 50.0 70.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 48.0 22.0 35.0 First Grade Set Black-400 Subject Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 X Third Grade Set Black-100 Subject Number 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 59. X Third Grade Set Black-200 Subject Number 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 62 X Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 40.0 10.0 25.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 30.0 20.0 25.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 35.0 40.0 10.0 25.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 90.0 20.0 55.0 50.0 .EQLQ 40.0 43.0 20.0 31.5 90.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 20.0 55.0 90.0 60.0 75.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 90.0 $0.0 70-0 90.0 50.0 70.0 100.0 60.0 80.0 90.0 50.0 70.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 80.0 50.0 65.0 88.0 _ 48.0 68.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 10.0 25.0 70.0 50.0 60.0 60.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 40.0 45.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 50.0 70.0 60.0 80.0 30.0 55.0 63.0 _37.0 50.0 Third Grade Set Black-300 Subject Number 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 72 X Third Grade Set Black-400 Subject Number 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 82 X First Grade Set White-100 Subject Number 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 92 X UU Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 60.0 50.0 55.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 70.0 20.0 45.0 50.0 20.0 35.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 60.0 40.0 50.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 35.0 64.0 35.0 49.5 90.0 40.0 65.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 00.0 10.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 40.0 30.0 35.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 100.0 50.0 75.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 100.0 40.0 70.0 90.0 50.0 70.0 73.0 34.0 53.5 90.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 50.0 65.0 80.0 60.0 70.0 90.0 10.0 50.0 50.0 10.0 30.0 80.0 30.0 55.0 70.0 00.0 35.0 80.0 40.0 60.0 90.0 80.0 85.0 70.0 50.0 60.0 78.0 '38.0 58.0 First Grade Set White-200 Subject Number 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 102 X First Grade Set White-300 Subject Number 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 103 109 119 x First Grade Set White-400 Subject Number 111 112 113 11:. 115 116 117 118 119 120 “i 67 Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 80.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 70.0 00.0 35.0 70.0 50.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 60.0 40.0 50.0 70.0 10.0 40.0 80.0 30.0 55.0 61.0 25.0 43.0 70.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 20.0 45.0 50.0 00.0 25.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 70.0 40.0 55.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 61.0 29.0 45.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 40.0 10.0 25.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 35.0 50.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 60.0 55.0 60.0 40.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 54.0 28.0 41.0 Third Grade Set White-100 ' Subject Number 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 139 X Third Grade Set White-200 Subject Number 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 149 x Third Grade Set White-300 Subject Number 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 159 x 68 Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 90.0 50.0 70.0 100.0 40.0 70.0 90-0 60.0 75.0 80.0 60.0 70.0 90.0 60.0 75.0 90.0 40.0 65.0 80.0 50.0 65.0 80.0 10.0 45.0 90.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 30.0 60.0 88.0 47.0 67.5 40.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 00.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 00.0 20.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 70.0 80.0 75.0 80.0 10.0 45.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 30.0 40.0 35.0 60.0 40.0 50.0 52 . 0 '2'9'.'0' 27675 70.0 50.0 60.0 90.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 70.0 75.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 60.0 00.0 30.0 70.0 40.0 55.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 80.0 50.0 65.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 62.0 35.0 48.5 Third Grade Set White-400 Subject Number 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 169 x Meaningful Non-Meaningful Total 60.0 30.0 45.0 90.0 30.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 45.0 70.0 20.0 45.0 60.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 00.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 60.0 10.0 35.0 80.0 20.0 50.0 64.0 27.0 45.5 MIC CIGH GAIN SITATE' UNIVERSITY LIB RIIES IIIII III” II II IIII