The relevance of H ungarian in studying language impairments

1. The relevance of Hungarian in studying language impairments Csaba Pléh1 and Ágnes Lukács2,3 pleh@cogsci.bme.hu and alukacs@cogsci.bme.hu Experience and data from developmental disorders 1 BME Department of Cognitive Science 2 HAS-BME Cognitive Science Research Group 3 Research Institute of Linguistics, HAS ICSH8, NYU, New York, May 24, 2007

2. Outline • Proposals about the organization of the human mind • The logic of studying genetic disorders of cognition • Williams syndrome and SLI as favorite dissociative disorders • Possible role of interlanguage comparisons • Studies on Hungarian in WS participants • Supporting spatial language problems, but rejecting a specific disorder, questioning the simple intact grammar versus impaired lexicon dissocation • Rules versus items in comparing WS and SLI • Processing factors: working memory • Agreement in SLI • Conclusions

3. Mind is built up of domain specific modules They are unfolding in a maturational manner For each cognitive component, there is a specific genetic background One can search for disorders where individual components would have a dissociative damage Mind is a general cognitive machine Specificity is the result of developmental changes Genetic background is more responsible for sensitivities than for specific solutions Even in genetic disorders there are changes that are similar to typical development The organisation of the mind: The classical modular and the more flexible learning image

4. Disordered populations and cross-linguistic comparisons • Genetic disorder manifested in the same way in all languages and cultures? • Crosslingustic comparisons are still relevant: • I. They allow to separate factors that are tied in one language. E.g. irregularity and frequency in English morphology. • II. They may help to support epigenetic theories that emphasize the complex pathways leading to disturbed cognition

5. The interest towards Williams syndrome • Promises to help understand the genes-brain-cognition chain • Clear dissociations proposed in cognition: • WS social - autistic asocial • WS localistic - Down syndrome holistic • WS good language – SLI weak language

6. Strengths Good social skills Relative good language Grammar good in language Musicality Weaknesses Low IQ 60-80 Weak spatial cognition Lexicon and knowledge weak Hyperacusia WS cognition: Strengths and weaknesses

7. The Hungarian WS project • Ilona Kovács, Ágnes Lukács, Mihály Racsmány, Csaba Pléh • Longitudinal study in several areas, mainly behavioral studies • Extremely rare disorder, 1:35.000 • Clear genetic disorder on chromosome 7, deletion of 7-14 genes • A population of 20 WS subjects, between 7 and 20 mean age around 14, mean IQ 55 • Normative typical data, age controls, vocabulary controls, spatial ability controls

8. Several methods on the same subject pool: possible patterns slower, large individual difference normal

9. Studies performed • Perception: orientation detection, contour integration, perceptual learning • Spatial and numerical cognition: spatial learning, may orientation, numerosity • Memory: verbal and visual working memory • Language: lexical learning, lexical organisation, morphology and overgeneralisations, language of space, social pragmatics of language use

10. Classification of our results

11. VISION AND SPATIAL COGNITION IN WS  impaired visual integration  impaired spatial construction  local bias in processing  deficits in visuospatial short-term memory  long term visuospatial memory is impaired ?? selective damage to dorsal stream

12. Difficulties in spatial cognition

13. Some clear dissociations: Spatial working memory and long term memory (Mihály Racsmány)

14. Spatial short term memory (Corsi tapping task)

15. LONG-TERM SPATIAL LEARNING: REY 5/25 SPATIAL LOCALIZATION TASK(Racsmány, 2004) • Rey 5/25 LocalizationTask: The examiner taps 5 locations on a 25-cell matrix and the subject must repeat this tapping pattern. There are maximum 10 trials with the same pattern (Rey, A., 1968)

16. Learning profile of the WS and control groups in a spatial learning task (Rey 5/25)

17. Language in Williams syndrome • There are some peculiarities of WS language • ? Frequency is not as strong in weighting connections • ? The mental lexicon is atypically organized • Grammatical rules seem to be intact (Pinker, Clahsen) • The language of space is especially sensitive

18. WS Language profile (Lukács and Pléh)

19. The issue of spatial language • Spatial cognition is the most impaired aspect of WS cognition • Is relatively good language going to compensate for this, or is it impaired? • Is impaired spatial language delayed, or is it specifically impaired? • What happens with the non-spatial meaning of spatial suffixes?

20. The language of space in Hungarian • Suffixes, postpositions and object part names in the NPs • Obligatory distinctions along the path • Three markers for STATIC, GOAL, SOURCE • John is in the house. STATIC • John went into the house. GOAL • John came out from the house SOURCE

21. Arrangement to elicit spatial suffixes • The reference objects are the two glasses • The target is the small token placed in different positions • Where did I put the token? • Put the token on the glass!

22. Scenes with more complex relations: postpositions

23. Spatial versus nonspatial morphology in WS

24. WS is weaker in postposition production. Source is most difficult

25. Less difference in comprehension than production, suffixes

26. Source difficulty • Our data support Landau and Zukowski’s hypothesis: the difficulty with retaining information in memory can account for special difficulty with SOURCE paths. • The pattern is similar to what we observe in typical development at earlier stages.

27. Comparing spatial and non-spatial uses in a repetition task SPATIAL Az oroszlán megszökött a ketrecből. The lion escaped the cage-ELA. The lion escaped from the cage. NON SPATIAL Pisti tanult a balesetből Pisti learnt the accident-ELA. Pisti learnt from the accident.

28. Possible outcomes • Spatial is relatively easier for WS subjects • Non-spatial is more difficult for both groups • Differences diminish since there is no need for referential coding of space

29. Non spatial is weaker for both groups

30. Containers are the easiest

31. Conclusions: No special impairment of spatial language in WS • Production of spatial language is impaired in WS, but the pattern is the same as in typical development • Comprehension is much easier • In a purely lingustic task no overall differences • Difficulties with spatial language in WS only reflect their problems in spatial cognition

32. Implications for genetic disorders • There are cliffs, but not all disorders are cliff like • Critical developmental periods may result in stabilized retardation • Large individual differences even in genetic disorders

33. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS • More varied performance • Individual differences in visual impairment • It has to be related to genetic differences and to brain differences • Spatial learning is damaged • Spatial language impaired, but not in a specific way • Lexical learning modulated by working memory across the board

34. WS and LI: evidence for double dissociations?

35. The Dual Route Model (Pinker 1991) Two distinct systems within language: • Grammar: classic symbol-manipulating rules • Lexicon: associative memory network, shows effects of similarity and frequency Typical test: regular (walk-walked) and irregular (sing-sang) forms • Regular: symbol manipulating rule that adds the affix to the variable representing the stem • Irregular forms are rote-learned pairs of words(connections stored in the network) • Psychological, linguistic and neural predicitions

36. Language development in Williams syndrome (WS) • Late and difficult start • Remarkably fluent and grammatical speech by school age • sophisticated and large vocabulary, constant urge to chat • Linguistic skills in sharp contrast with the general level of their cognitive abilities • Comprehension of some complicated structures is limited • Often irrelevant and inappropriate speech linguistic abilities are remarkable taken cognitive deficits, but are certainly not intact

37. Specific language impairment (SLI) • “Delay in language development without any apparent associated sensory or cognitive deficit” (DSM-MD IV) • IQ in the normal range, no neurological impairment • Normal hearing, no peripheral disorders (no severe articulatory/phonological deficits) • No apparent nonverbal cognitive deficit, no social-pragmatic disorders • No social problems

38. Double dissociations in Williams syndrome and Specific Language Impairment • Big modularity: language and cognitive abilities • WS: language +, cognition – • SLI: language -, cognition + • Little modularity: within-language subcomponents (The dual route model, Pinker 1991) • WS: mental grammar +, mental lexicon – • (Bellugi et al., 1988; Bromberg et al., 1994; Clahsen and Almazán, 1998; Zukowski, 2001)↔Thomas et al. 2001 • SLI: mental grammar -, mental lexicon +

39. Double dissociations in WS and SLI? • Grammar is an autonomous module (Pinker, 1994, 1999; Smith, 1999; Smith & Tsimpli, 1995), but based only on secondary evidence • Smith & Tsimpli, 1995 `It is no longer plausible to talk of ‘cognitive prerequisites’ to language. This has been apparent on the basis of many studies, especially of Williams Syndrome. (p. 190)` • Clahsen and Almazan (1998) it is the rule system and the associative memory network of the lexicon that shows double dissociation. • SLI impaired, WS intact on the following task: reversible passives, reflexive anaphores, regular inflection. Not in the same study. • Stojanovik et al. (2004) direct comparison: 5 WS and 5 SLI participants • No differences on standardized language tests and a narrative task, similar performance on morphosyntax • WS significantly weaker on standardized measures of nonverbal abilities • Both groups 1-2.5 SD below age norms, great within-group variability

40. Participants • 15WS participants (MA: 14.1;age range: 7.3–19) • 15 LI participants diagnosed with language impairment (MA: 8.2;age range: 4.9-11.1 years) • 15 TD participants, matched on receptive vocabulary raw score (PPVT) (MA: 6.7; age range: 6–8.5)

41. Selection criteria for LI • Inclusive 1.5 SD below age norm on at least 2 out of 4 language tests: • receptive vocabulary (PPVT, Csányi 1974) • sentence comprehension (TROG, Bishop 1983) • nonword repetition (Racsmány et al. 2005) • sentence repetition (Kas et al., in prep.) • Exclusive • Nonverbal IQ>85 (Raven PMT) • Intact hearing • No evidence for neurological, psychiatric impairment or social disabilities

42. Regular and Irregular morphology: method • Elicited production • 28 picture pairs, in 3 regular and 4 irregular stem classes, 2 frequent and to rare items in each • Pléh-Palotás-Lőrik NOUN ALLOMORPH subtest complemented by new picture pairs to adjust for frequency

43. Materials Mi ez? `What is this?’ Majom. `Monkey’ Mik ezek? `What are these?’ Majmok. `Monkeys’ Mi ez? `What is this?’ Kenyér. `Bread’ Mit eszik a fiú? `What is he eating?’ Kenyeret.‘bread Acc.’

44. Regular and irregular morphology: results GROUP, REGULARITY, FREQUENCY REGULARITY * FREQUENCY; REGULARITY * FREQUENCY*GROUP REGULARITY * GROUP; FREQUENCY*GROUP n.s.

45. Working memory in LI and WS Percentage of children in the impaired (1.5 SD below age norms) and non-inpaired ranges on three measures of spatial and verbal working memory

46. Results and conclusion • WS and LI (and TD) patterns are very similar • Slight differences in effects, but not in the direction predicted by the dual route model • Lexical deficit in both groups: PPVT • Irregulars do not show a selective deficit in WS • Regular forms do not show a selective deficit in LI • Results do not argue for the modularity of the lexicon and grammar within language. • They are compatible with a dual route model of language, if both in WS and LI, both the lexicon and the grammar are impaired, while in LI only the lexicon is impaired • More plausible dissociations at a lower level

47. Agreement in LI: grammatical and processing effects Lukács, Leonard, Kas & Pléh

48. Explanations Grammar-specific accounts: • Primary deficit in linguistic representations • impaired selectively from other cognitive structures • can be described in linguistic terms, e.g. agreement deficit (Clahsen) feature blindness (Gopnik and Crago), representational deficit of dependent relationships (van der Lely). Input-processing accounts: • Language disabilities are caused by other cognitive, physical or sensory deficit or their combination e.g. • auditive processing (Tallal and Piercy) • phonological STM (Gathercole and Baddeley) • word learning disabilities (Bates et al.) • Morphological richness: processing limitations; interaction between a more general limitation in language ability and the properties of the particular system of grammar that must be learned(Leonard)

49. Differences across languages • richer inflectional systembetter agreement performance in SLI Pres Sing Past English poor poor Spanish normalnormal • obligatory inflectionssubstitution with another suffixed form Italian: Diuccelli *dorme/OKdormono. ‘The birds are sleeping.’ • Bare stem permittedomission of suffixes (or substitution with infinitive) English: Pete *want/OKwants an apple pie. Swedish: Katten *springa/OKspringer. ‘The cat runs.’

50. Hungarian verb paradigms