Language Development in the Context of Social Disadvantage PDF

Language Development in the context of Social Disadvantage Dr Sarah Spencer This lecture invites us to think about child language interventions as a potentially problematic, racist, classist, ablest and sexist social practice. It’s understandable to feel troubled, uneasy or confused at p...

Language Development in the context of Social Disadvantage Dr Sarah Spencer This lecture invites us to think about child language interventions as a potentially problematic, racist, classist, ablest and sexist social practice. It’s understandable to feel troubled, uneasy or confused at points – take good care and pause if you need to. By the end of today, you should be able to: Discuss how social disadvantage is defined and measured Critically discuss the evidence supporting associations between children’s language development/language delay and social disadvantage. Consider research about mothers’ interactions with their children within a context of social disadvantage Discuss and evaluate the evidence base supporting an association between children’s language development/language delay and social disadvantage. Identify what this means to you as an evidence-based practitioner Language and Social Disadvantage “There are many barriers in place to providing a language enriching environment for families living with limiting or challenging socioeconomic circumstances”. McKean and Reilly 2023: 2244 Child Language Interventions and Social Disadvantage Many Universal and Targeted interventions have been designed, delivered and evaluated in low socioeconomic contexts. For example: Talking Time (Dockrell et al 2023). Talk Boost (Reeves et al 2018; Reeves et al 2019). Nuffield Early Language Intervention (e.g. West et al 2021) Mother-Child Interaction and Social Disadvantage Quantity of child directed speech from the primary care giver (Hart and Risley 1995; 1999). The mother’s sensitivity (Leigh, Nievar & Nathans, 2011; Tamis- LeMonda et al., 2009). Measurable quality of mother-child interactions (Greenwood et al 2020; Heidlage et al 2020; Landry et al., 2008; Leung, Hernandez & Suskind, 2020; Suskind et al., 2013).  What do we mean What is by ‘social language disadvantage?’ delay? How is social Why is this disadvantage important to measured? us? Terms of Reference Socioeconomic inequality Measures include: Socioeconomic Status Post code data (e.g. English indices of Maternal education deprivation data) Family income Means tested, low income indicators (e.g. Characteristics of area of residence free school meals in the UK, healthcare Parental occupation benefit card in Australia) Social class Mothers completed last year of school versus not Family literacy measures (e.g. reading test scores) Estimation of number of books in the home Poverty line (e.g. $24,300 in the USA for family of 4; £17,760 in UK for a family of 4). Poverty 1 in 5 people in the UK live in poverty, and 29% of children are in poverty An estimated 14.4 million people 4.2million children 24% for families where someone is disabled (compared to 15% without) Highest where ‘head of a household’ is from Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic groups, lowest for White ethnic groups. Almost a fifth of poor households and over a quarter of households in receipt of Universal Credit experienced food insecurity. Capital Financial capital Income Disposable income Wealth Security Cultural capital ‘Entwined with wider privilege’ Debated  Year 1 Acorns; Brer Rabbit tales; continents; jungles; Machu Picchu; Mexico; AA Milne; musical pitch; Henry Moore Capital Year 2 Tap dancing; Louis Pasteur; rabies; mosques; Hansel and Gretel; Atlantic Ocean; extinct animals and fish; Great Wall of China; dinosaur bones. Social capital Bonding social capital is derived from relationships between similar persons (for example, those alike with respect to sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics) Bridging social capital is derived from dissimilar persons at the same level of hierarchy. Linking social capital is conceptualised as relationships between persons across levels of hierarchy and power Habitus Bourdieu’s (1986) work centered on social and cultural reproduction, specifically, the power and structures that perpetuate inequality. SES and Education Pupils are now defined as disadvantaged if they are known to have been eligible for free school meals at any point (from Year 6 to Year 11), if they are recorded as having been looked after for at least one day or if they are recorded as having been adopted from care. Around ¼ of pupils at the end of key stage 4 in state-funded schools recorded as ‘disadvantaged’ (26.5% in 2018/19, 26.4% in 2021/22 and 26.3% in 2022/23). SES and Education 45% = grade C or higher in maths and English, 27% of those categorised as ‘disadvantaged’. Of boys eligible for free school meals, those from mixed white and black Caribbean backgrounds had the lowest results, along with children from Gypsy or Roma families. Of girls eligible, those from a white British background also ranked lowest for attainment in English and maths among the main ethnic groups. See: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key- stage-4-performance-revised#releaseHeadlines-summary SES and Language Development SES considered to be associated with language delay Language delay important to school readiness (Department for Education) Think back to week 2 and how we defined language delay and language disorder Implications of children not being school ready and the role of language in this These issues will be discussed as we go through today. A map of the Number 83 bus route through Sheffield and the indices of deprivation of the areas that it drives through. Statistics show the average life expectancy of each area. Although SES is hard to measure and define, it has stark and important consequences. Positionality The social and political context My positionality as an evidence- that creates your identity in based practitioner in this field terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status. How your identity influences and potentially biases your understanding of and outlook on the world Positionality The social and political context Reflect on your positionality as that creates your identity in we move through this lecture – terms of race, class, gender, how does your identity influence sexuality, and ability status. how you engage with this field? How your identity influences and potentially biases your understanding of and outlook on the world Stereotypes  It is important to be aware of stereotyping when considering the topic of social disadvantage  Watch the clip produced by Oxfam  Note down your reflections/reactions to the family Play symbol Examination of stereotypes If your name starts with A – K discusses the video from a non- sympathetic position L – Z takes a sympathetic view 20 Impact of prejudice Marshall, Goldbart and Philips (2007) Interviewed about language delay: 9 SLTs 15 parents ‘They have got language difficulties not because there is anything wrong with this pre-programming if you like but because they haven’t been spoken to because they haven’t had stories read to them because they haven’t been played with because the TV had been left on’ (Marshall, Goldbart and Phillips, 2007: 547). Why are these views problematic? Associations between children’s language skills / socioeconomic factors Young children have striking variation in language competence. This variation is [sometimes] linked to their socioeconomic status. Fernald, Marchman, and Weisleder 2013 “24 months there was a 6‐month gap between SES groups in processing skills critical to language development” (48 children, followed from 18months to 24 months, processing skill and vocabulary). Levine et al 2018 Effect of SES significant for vocabulary, syntax and language processing skills. 258 x 3 -5 5 year olds. Associations between children’s language skills / socioeconomic factors Maternal language input is differentiated across socioeconomic groups, with significant consequences for: Children’s vocabulary, syntax and language processing skills (Hoff, 2003; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Gilkerson et al., 2017; Rodriguez & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011; Rowe, 2012, 2018). Cognitive skills such as executive function (Sarsour et al. 2011). Mathematical skills (Levine et al., 2010). Social skills (Connel & Prinz, 2002). Associations between children’s language skills / socioeconomic factors It is claimed that this impacts on school readiness and the perpetuation of education inequalities (Hoff, 2013), ultimately facilitating the transmission of socioeconomic status (Farkas & Beron, 2004). Caution: population studies “Risk for late language emergence at 24 months was not associated with particular strata of parental educational levels, socioeconomic resources, parental mental health, parenting practices, or family functioning. Significant predictors included familial history of LLE, male gender, and early neurobiological growth.” Zubrick et al 2007 Victoria Language Study (n = 1910) – Reilly et al 2018 – risk factors at 2 years accounted for a small amount of variance in language outcomes. At 4 years, moderately able to predict low language ability with a range of risk factors. Explanations Environmental explanations for difference in language competence within social disadvantage: Maternal education (Hoff, 2003; Hoff et al., 2018; Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman & Levine, 2002; Levine et al., 2020; Rowe et al., 2009). Quantity of child directed speech from the primary care giver The mother’s sensitivity - ‘prompt and appropriate responses’, and how closely aligned the mother’s talk is to the child’s gaze (Leigh, Nievar & Nathans, 2011; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2009). Measurable quality of mother-child interactions (Greenwood et al 2020; Heidlage et al 2020; Landry et al., 2008; Leung, Hernandez & Suskind, 2020; Suskind et al., 2013). Gender There have been some attempts to investigate fathers’ language input (Johnson et al., 2014; Pancsofar, & Vernon-Feagans, 2006) and the influence of other family members (DeLeon, 2011), BUT: the overwhelming drive of this research is directed at mothers. Language socialization Infant-directed, contingent, reciprocal conversation between mothers and infants researched above, is anomalous in terms of global cultural practices Is socio-culturally defined. Children in societies where there is very little direct interaction with infants nevertheless reach linguistic milestones at a similar rate. Language socialization Maternal language input has been shown to vary widely in both quantity and quality across cultures Linguistic anthropologists: mothers in some cultures do not routinely direct speech to babies with no lasting consequences for children’s language skills. Do children in contexts of very little directly related language attend to others’ interactions in a way that is different from children who learn to see directed interactions as informative based on their social experiences (Sneidmann & Woodward, 2016). Intervention studies Interventions range from small intervention studies (eg Gibbard and Smith, 2016; Heymann et al., 2020; McGillian et al., 2017; Laundry et al., 2008; Hindman, Wasik, & Snell, 2016) to large scale application of policies (Lieberman, 2018) and programmes such as Sure Start (Potter & Hodgson, 2007) and Head Start (Lipsky, 2013). Vast majority of which have been in the USA and Europe (see review - Roberts et al. 2019) Intervention studies Often change the language environment, despite a lack of evidence for what constitutes an ‘appropriate environment’ and what aspects of poverty affect language. Critics have argued that such interventions might have the opposite effect; causing harm to those families they are designed to help (Adair, Colegrove, & McManus 2017; Baugh 2017). Hart and Risley (1995) Hart and Risley conducted a longitudinal study of the expressive language of 42 mother-child dyads from varying socioeconomic backgrounds in the USA (1995; 1999). Participants included 13 professional families, 23 working class families and 6 families in receipt of welfare benefits. A socioeconomic index of occupation was used to classify the families at the start of the study Every month for two and a half years, each family was observed and recorded for one hour in their home. Sessions were transcribed and analysed, totalling between 23 and 30 hours for each family. Hart and Risley (1995) Hart and Risley conducted a longitudinal study of the expressive language Whyofam42 mother-child I bothering with such dyads an from varying socioeconomic backgrounds old in the USA (1995; 1999). study? Still widely referenced in research and policy. Participants includedYou13willprofessional come across it afamilies, lot. 23 working class families and 6I families want you toin bereceipt of welfare benefits. able to discuss how flawed it is. A socioeconomic index of occupation was used to classify the families at the start of the study Every month for two and a half years, each family was observed and recorded for one hour in their home. Sessions were transcribed and analysed, totalling between 23 and 30 hours for each family. Hart and Risley (1995) Hart and Risley conducted a longitudinal study of the expressive language of 42 mother-child dyads from varying socioeconomic backgrounds in the USA (1995; 1999). Participants included 13 professional families, 23 working class families and 6 families in receipt of welfare benefits. A socioeconomic index of occupation was used to classify the families at the start of the study Every month for two and a half years, each family was observed and recorded for one hour in their home. Sessions were transcribed and analysed, totalling between 23 and 30 hours for each family. Hart and Risley Children from low SES families use a smaller number and range of words than children from mid and high SES groups Quantity rather than quality of language input that differs; positive correlations between SES and no. of utterances addressed to the child “What we found is that the more talkative parents, like the parents with college educations and the professionals like doctors and lawyers are hearing about 2,100 words an hour, hour after hour after hour. The children of welfare families were hearing about 600 words and hour, hour after hour after hour ” = 48 versus 13 million words by the time they were 4 Consider! What aspects of the design are [very] limited? Participants included 13 professional families, 23 working class families and 6 families in receipt of welfare benefits. A socioeconomic index of occupation was used to classify the families at the start of the study Every month for two and a half years, each family was observed and recorded for one hour in their home. Sessions were transcribed and analysed, totalling between 23 and 30 hours for each family. Hart and Risley (1995 p. 8) “when we listened to the children talk during free play, they seemed fully competent to us, well able to explain and elaborate…we became increasingly uncertain about which language skills we should be undertaking to improve. We decided we needed to know, not from our textbooks, but from our advantaged children, what skilled spontaneous speech at age 4 is in terms of grammar and content” Why is this quote notable? Evidence against Hart and Risley Sperry, Sperry and Miller 2019 Re-examined the ‘word gap’ by replicating the Hart and Risley study 42 families from 5 communities (USA) Evidence against Hart and Risley Ethnographically informed Concluded there is no ‘word gap’ when including multiple care givers and overheard talk Evidence against Hart and Risley When HR’s definition of the vocabulary environment (speech of the primary caregiver to the child) was adopted, evidence for a relationship between social class and the number of words addressed to young children was weak. When more expansive definitions of the verbal environment were employed, definitions that derive from the scholarship reviewed earlier, the evidence pointed in a different direction. Not only did the Word Gap disappear, but also some poor and working-class communities showed an advantage in the number of words children heard, compared with middle-class communities. (pp1313) Evidence against Hart and Risley Sperry, Sperry and Miller 2019 Outraged response from Golinkoff et al 2019 Highlighted the ‘poorer quality’ of bystander talk and the lack of a highly educated comparison group Evidence against Hart and Risley Via syntax, words combine to make sentences that describe events in the world, enabling us to distinguish between, “The baby is on the pillow” and “The pillow is on the baby”—the latter describing a dangerous state. Virtually all children around the world learn language and can effectively participate in everyday conversations. However, striking individual differences exist among children in their language skills…differences in verbal achievement are associated with income disparities, healthcare outcomes, high school graduation rates, job placement, and many more life milestones. (pp985) Association vs Causation ‘Roy and Chiat (2013: 131–132) noted that [language disorder] can be interpreted as ‘poor language performance that cannot be explained by limitations in a child's language experience’, but just how realistic is it to identify cases where language problems are due to such limitations? My view is that, if we set aside cases of extreme neglect, it is not. While it is well-established that there is a positive association between social disadvantage and children's language skills (Letts et al. 2013, Schoon et al. 2010), it is seldom possible to disentangle the causal paths behind this association. Bishop 2014: 386 Continuing language deficit debate Surfaced in 1960s and 70s (Bernstein 1971, Labov 1972, Trudgill 1975) Still being debated now (Snell, Grainger 2013, Jones 2013, Avineri et al 2015, Bennett 2012) Why are the different positions so entrenched? Linguistic difference/variation Sociolinguistic research and linguistic anthropology research have very different views on children’s language in relation to socioeconomic inequality. Lack of cross-disciplinary collaboration Linguistic difference/variation Detailed knowledge about how spoken language functions is rarely communicated effectively The social and cultural aspects of language are over-simplified Speakers themselves are rarely engaged in the research process, despite having rich understandings of the social functions their language performs in their own communities Linguistic difference/variation It just sounds proper common like don't say you're alright or right You reet, reet, you alreet or - It sounds normal to us obviously but everyone thinks we're - Not - Not - They don't speak properly 'cause they talk - But I do I think - I don't talk posh That's how I talk if you don't like it don't talk to me. Style and ability The discourse about the language abilities of working class kids implies that changing the way they speak is simply about replacing one form of language (a nonstandard variety) with another (the standard). Language is embedded in social practice Does that practice also interact with cognitive processing? We can’t change how speakers use language without addressing their wider social practice Do we want to change how speakers use language? Linguists need to be better at explaining how language works Summary Some children from areas of social disadvantage are at risk for early speech and language delay There are associations between features of maternal language, rates of child language development, and SES. The reason for this and the nature of associations is unclear There is evidence to suggest that social disadvantage impacts on language, literacy and educational outcomes Research in this area is complicated by limitations to research design Summary: CAUTION It might be tempting to think that as: Children in areas of social disadvantage have lower language assessment scores Parent-child interaction is correlated with: a) children’s language and b) socioeconomic background = parents in areas of social disadvantage are to blame for lower language assessment scores. THIS IS NOT THE CASE Summary There are associations between socioeconomic background and some measures of language skills The idea of ‘poor parenting’ causing language disorder fits with widespread societal prejudice (it’s tempting) It is never OK to blame parents for their child’s language difficulties Parents from all walks of life may benefit from strategies to support children’s language skills (which include changes to their interactions) This does not mean their interactions are at fault nor are they to blame for their child’s current language skills Outcomes from today By the end of today, you should be able to: Discuss how social disadvantage is defined and measured Discuss the evidence supporting associations between children’s language development/language delay and social disadvantage. Consider research about mothers’ interactions with their children within a context of social disadvantage Discuss and critique the evidence base supporting an association between children’s language development/language delay and social disadvantage. Identify what this means to you as an evidence based practitioner Core Reading: The paper: Sperry, D. E., Sperry, L. L., & Miller, P. J. (2019). Reexamining the verbal environments of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Child development, 90(4), 1303-1318. The outrage: Golinkoff, R. M., Hoff, E., Rowe, M. L., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Hirsh‐Pasek, K. (2019). Language matters: Denying the existence of the 30‐million‐word gap has serious consequences. Child development, 90(3), 985-992. The response: Sperry, D. E., Sperry, L. L., & Miller, P. J. (2019). Language does matter: But there is more to language than vocabulary and directed speech. Child development, 90(3), 993-997. Optional Reading: Hoff, E.et al. (2022) Chapter 2, Social contexts and language development. In Law et al., (2022). Language development: individual differences in a social context. Cambridge University Press. Levickis et al. (2022). Chapter 8, Parent-child interaction and its impact on language development. In Law et al., (2022). Language development: individual differences in a social context. Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Gaskins, S. (2014). Language acquisition and language socialization. In Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 187-226). Cambridge University Press. References Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental science, 16(2), 234-248. Nelson, K. E., Welsh, J. A., Trup, E. M. V., & Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Language delays of impoverished preschool children in relation to early academic and emotion recognition skills. First Language, 31(2), 164-194. Boyce, L. K., Gillam, S. L., Innocenti, M. S., Cook, G. A., & Ortiz, E. (2013). An examination of language input and vocabulary development of young Latino dual language learners living in poverty. First Language, 33(6), 572-593. Hammer, C. S., Morgan, P., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M., Bitetti, D., & Maczuga, S. (2017). Late talkers: A population-based study of risk factors and school readiness consequences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(3), 607- 626. References Paugh, A. L., & Riley, K. C. (2019). Poverty and children's language in anthropolitical perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48, 297-315. Moore, E., & Spencer, S. (2021). “It just sounds proper common”: Exploring the social meanings expressed by nonstandard grammar. Linguistics and Education, 63, 100933.