The iPad as a Research Tool for the Understanding of English Plurals by English, Chinese, and Other L1 Speaking 3- and 4-Year-Olds.

Nan Xu Rattanasone,Fabia Andronos,Tamara Schembri,Katherine Demuth,Benjamin Davies

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01773

Abstract

Learning about what young children with limited spoken language know about the grammar of their language is extremely challenging. Researchers have traditionally used looking behavior as a measure of language processing and to infer what overt choices children might make. However, these methods are expensive to setup, require specialized training, are time intensive for data analysis and can have considerable dropout rates. For these reasons, we have developed a forced choice task delivered on an iPad based on our eye-tracking studies with English monolinguals (Davies et al., 2016, under review). Using the iPad we investigated 3- and 4-year-olds’ understanding of the English plural in preschool centers. The primary aim of the study was to provide evidence for the usefulness of the iPad as a language research tool. We evaluated the usefulness of the iPad with second language (L2) learning children who have limited L2 language skills. Studies with school aged Chinese-speaking children show below native performance on English inflectional morphology despite 5–6 years of immersion (Jia, 2003; Jia and Fuse, 2007; Paradis et al., 2016). However, it is unclear whether this is specific only to children who speak Chinese as their first language (L1) or if younger preschoolers will also show similar challenges. We tested three groups of preschoolers with different L1s (English, Chinese, and other languages). L1 Chinese children’s performance was below both English monolinguals and children speaking Other L1 languages, providing evidence that English inflections are specifically challenging for Chinese-speaking children. The results provide further evidence to support previous eye-tracking findings with monolinguals and studies with older bilinguals. The study provides evidence for the usefulness of iPads as research tool for studying language acquisition. Implications for future application of the iPad as a teaching and intervention tool, and limitations for the method, are discussed.

Highlights

One of the challenges in language acquisition research with toddlers and preschool children is creating age-appropriate and engaging experiments
Children appear to be interested in engaging with the touch pad. This is especially important for young children with very limited attention spans; keeping them engaged is an important part of any experimental design. Given these obvious advantages in using the touch pad as a research tool, we developed a series of studies that aimed to replicate intermodal preferential looking (IPL) and eye-tracking studies on the Apple iPad to test children in preschool settings
The results suggest that a full understanding of nominal plural inflectional morphology is acquired late, but that there might be differences in children’s sensitivity to the different plural allomorphs, e.g., /s/, /z/, and /@z/

Summary

Introduction

One of the challenges in language acquisition research with toddlers and preschool children is creating age-appropriate and engaging experiments. Researchers working with very young children have traditionally relied on analyzing children’s looking behaviors as a proxy for assessing the acquisition of grammar. One such method used to examine early linguistic representations is the intermodal preferential looking (IPL) paradigm (see Golinkoff et al, 1987). Looking behavior is analyzed before and after hearing the auditory instruction, which reveals children’s comprehension of the linguistic structure being tested. If children understand plural morphology, they should increase looks to the plural picture after hearing auditory instructions such as ‘look at the teps.’. Even less is known about the performance of 3- and 4-year-olds on these measures, when the ability to understand and follow instructions is only beginning to emerge (see Trueswell et al, 1999; Sekerina et al, 2004, for studies with older children)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion