Language Games

Sonja Eisenbeiss
seisen@essex.ac.uk
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/
09 May 2012

Copyright: Sonja Eisenbeiss

Overview

Why do linguists develop language games

for children?

How do you create such games?

How can parents, teachers, and therapists use

games to support language learning?

Where can you find resources to create your

own games?

Why do linguists develop language games?

We want to study how children acquire language.

We need rich data that are as naturalistic as possible.

We do not want to underestimate what children can do
by looking at the same situation over and over again
for instance by always recording children during meal
or play time with the same food or toys.

We do not want to overestimate what children can do
for instance by recording them in situations where they
can use fixed phrases and sentences that they have
heard many times before.

We want to make our projects fun for children.

How do Linguists Study Childrens Language?

Naturalistic data / spontaneous speech samples:

recordings in everyday situations

naturalistic input or child data, but often lacking
relevant utterances

Experiments:

controlled variables, fixed stimuli and procedures

good control of variables, but often unnatural or not
appropriate for younger children

Elicitation games

games that encourage language use

some control over the words and structures children
use, but still quite natural and fun

An Example: Possessives

Children over- or under-use possessive s:

* This is John (=Johns) house.

* This is mines.

We want to determine the reasons for such problems.

We want to support acquisition, especially in
populations with language impairments.

Even long naturalistic recordings may not contain any
examples of possessives in particular if the child is
not fighting about possessions with other children.

Typically developing children are too young for
production experiments when they produce these errors
(around 2 years).

Some Elicitation Games for Possessives

Children have to find matching cards with possessors
and their possession (e.g. queen crown) in a Memorystyle game.

Children are given toy characters and their possessions
and are asked to find out what belongs to whom. A silly
puppet will challenge them and encourage discussion.

Children have to tell another person whose balloon is
red in a picture with lots of people and their balloons.
The listener then has to colour in the balloons in their
own black-and-white copy (see e.g. Koch 2010, Bevan
2010).

Possessives: Naturalistic Data vs. Games

Eisenbeiss (2003): a comparison of 44 naturalistic
recordings and 20 possessive game recordings with
German children (age: 1;11-3;6).

70% of the naturalistic recordings did not contain a
single possessive.

10.969 naturalistic utterances only contained 29
possessives.

In contrast, the game recordings provided sufficient
examples for quantitative analyses.

We also found more variety of possessors (not just
mommys, daddys).

Game-Type I: Director/Matcher Games

A director describes a scene/object etc. and a
matcher who is not able to see this scene/object,
has to recreate it.

E.g.: The matcher has to build a toy house identical to
the one created by the director who is hidden behind
a screen.

Bevan (2010): Whose Ballon is red? Two sets of
pictures, both with animals that have balloons, one
with coloured and one with blank balloons.

Whose Balloon is red? (Bevan 2010)

Whose Balloon is red? (Bevan 2010)

Game-Type II: Speaker/Listener Games

A speaker provides information for someone who
does not have access to the information.

Variant 1: speakers retell a story they have heard
while the listeners were out of the room.

Variant 2: speaker tells a puppet that cannot see what
is going on.

Game-Type III: Co-Player Games

All Participants are involved in a game and provide

each other with information to co-ordinate their
actions.

For instance, players can be involved in a construction
or puzzle game.

The Puzzle Task (Eisenbeiss 2009, 2011)

a task with co-players:
child describes contrasting
pictures on a puzzle board,
adult finds the matching
pieces, child puts them
into the correct cut-out

exchangable pictures and
puzzle pieces

can be used to elictit
particular forms or to elicit
the linguistic encoding of
particular meanings

Contrasting Puzzle Pictures (Eisenbeiss 2011)

Broad-Spectrum Tasks

general encouragement to speak

Frog Story: a picture book w/o words used to elicit
narratives (Berman/Slobin 1994)

Bag Task: a bag with bag for blocks and animals of
different sizes and colours. The bag has pockets that
match the animals in colour an have coloured
buttons, ties, etc.; and children frequently refer to
colours, sizes and locations when they ask other
players to help them hide or find animals in the
pockets (Eisenbeiss 2009, 2010)

contrasts between colours, sizes, locations, etc.

Focused Tasks

form-focused: the elicitation of particular forms or
constructions, for instance, picture-matching game for
the elicitation of noun-adjective constructions (little
cow -- big cow)

meaning-focused: the linguistic encoding of a
particular meaning that can be encoded in different
ways, e.g. my car / Sonjas car / ? the car of Sonja?
In a game about people and their possessions

Stimuli

static (pictures, photos) for object/person properties

dynamic (video, cartoon) for events

realistic displays (photos) for easy recognition,
independent of childrens knowledge of artistic
conventions (3D, shadows, etc.)

drawings, cartoons for easy systematic variation

Trying Things out

Contrasted elements are more likely to be encoded:

Contrasting possessors (e.g. the panda) in Bevans
whose-balloon-is-red-task are mentioned.

However, the balloons do not contrast with other
toys and are often not mentioned.

You can avoid pointing instead of talking:

Use a puppet that cannot see so that the child has
to speak to the puppet (e.g. a fish above water, a
mole with broken glasses, a turtle in its shell, etc.).

Make sure that the childs hands are occupied (e.g.
by holding a puppet, fishing rod, etc.).

Input Properties that Support Learning

short, but mostly correct and complete utterances

slow, with longer pauses than adult-directed speech

high, varied pitch, exaggerated intonation and stress
identification of word and phrase boundaries
restricted vocabulary
reference mostly restricted to here and now
word learning
high proportion of imperative and questions
more repetitions than in adult-adult speech
sentence structure and grammar

Supporting Language Learning in Games

Feedback:

positive re-inforcement

explicit corrections, but this can be demotivating
and does not involve presentation of correct forms

expansions, rephrasing:
daddy car -> Yes, that is daddys car

Modeling:

frequent repetion of words/phrases in isolation

repetition and variation: variation sets

Feedback: Reformulations instead of Corrections

In their analysis of English and French child-directed
speech, Chouinard & Clark (2003) showed that:

Adults often reformulate children's non-target-like

utterances; e.g. Child: I want more car! Parent:
Do you really need more cars?.

Adults produce this type of feedback significantly

more often than they repeat target-like utterances
such as I want more cars! .

Feedback: Effects of Reformulations

Reformulations contrast childrens non-target-like

forms with the target form for the intended meaning
and thus suggest that the childs form is
inappropriate.
Experimental studies have demonstrated that
learners can benefit from such input (Saxton 1997,
Saxton et al. 1998, 2005, Valian and Casey 2003).
However, it is unclear how universal reformulations
are across cultures and languages.

Models: Variation Sets

Variation sets are series of adult utterances with

a common theme and a constant intention,
but variation in form:

adding or deleting a word or phrase,

replacing one word with another,

changing the word order, etc.
(Eisenbeiss 2003, Kntay/Slobin 1996, Slobin et al. 2011)

English Variation Set (Slobin et al. 2011)

VERB OBJECT
1 lets
put Js bottles
2 want to put them
3 lets
put Js bottles
4 well
put it
5 lets
put it
6 well
put it
7 you can put it
8 Ill let you put it
9 you
put it
10 you
put it
11
put it

GOAL
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator with me
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in the refrigerator
in
in
yourself
right in
in there
right in the refrigerator

How could Variation Sets support Learning?

Variation sets provide clues about the target language:

adding or deleting a word or phrase

=> which elements can be omitted?

replacing one word with another

=> which types of elements fulfill similar functions?

changing the word order, etc.

=> which word order variations are possible?

The Frequency of Variation Sets

In the Turkish data analysed by Kntay & Slobin

(1996), about 25-30% of child-directed utterances
occurred in variation sets. On average, variation
sets were 3 sentences long (range 2-25).

Slobin et al. (2011) documented variation sets for 8

further languages from around the world (Latin
America, Europe, Asia), suggesting that they might
be a universal feature of childrens input:

Effects of Variation Sets

Children produce words that they have heard in

variation sets more often than words they have heard
in other utterances even when frequency is
controlled for (ongoing research by H. Waterfall).

Adult learners learn artificial languages more easily

when their training involves variation sets (Onnis et al.
2008).

A Pilot Study with Variation Set Training (Horgan 2012)

Pre-Test with the Koch (2010) version of the Balloon
task: comprehension and production of complex
possessive constructions
The boys mothers fathers balloon.

Puzzle task training with variation sets:

Group I: complex possessives
the ladys sons girls balloon

Group II: complex coordination

the woman and the daughter and the son and the
girl

Re-Test with variant of the Koch (2010) tasks

Whose Balloon is red? (Koch 2010)

Puzzle Task Pictures for Training (Horgan 2012)

Training with Variation Sets

Complex Possessive Group:

This is the ladys son; and this is the sons girl; and
this is the girls balloon. So, this is the ladys sons girl
and her balloon. So, this is the ladys sons girls
balloon.

Coordination Group:

This is the lady and the son; and this is the son and
the girl; and this is the girl and the balloon. So, this is
the lady and the sons girl and her balloon.

Training Effects

Both Groups improved equally in their use of nouns.

The complex possession group improved more in

their production of s-markers.

The tests and training sessions were challenging but

motivating for the children.

Future Plans

Testing of Games in different cultural and social
environments.

Games for different group sizes (1 4 children)

Training studies with different strategies:

Feedback: explicit corrections vs. reformulations

Modelling: repetition in isolation vs. variation sets

References
Bevan, W. (2010). Semi-structured elicitation of possessive constructions in
children of pre-school age. Undergraduate dissertation, University of
Essex.
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulation of child errors
as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30:63769.
Eisenbeiss, S. (2003). Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Dsseldorf, Germany. http://docserv.uniduesseldorf.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-3185/1185.pdf )
Eisenbeiss, S. (2009). Contrast is the Name of the Game: Contrast-Based
Semi-Structured Elicitation Techniques for Studies on Childrens
Language Acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 57.7.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl57-7.pdf

References
Eisenbeiss, S. (2010). Production Methods. In E. Blom, & S. Unsworth
(Eds.), Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research (pp.
11-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (pre-print downloadable:
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/Papers/109274/Production
-Methods )
Eisenbeiss, S. (2011) CEGS: An elicitation took kit for studies
on case marking and its acquisition. Essex Research Reports in
Linguistics, 60,1.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl60-1.pdf
Koch, N. (2010). Possessive Constructions in English Child Language: SGenitive and Of-Genitive. MA dissertation, University of Stuttgart,
Germany.

References
Kntay, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: Some
puzzles for acquisition. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo
(Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor
of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 265-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Onnis, L., Waterfall, H.R., & Edelman, S. (2008). Learn locally, act globally:
Learning language from variation set cues. Cognition 109, 423-430.
Saxton, M., Kulscar, B. Marshall, & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of
corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language
5: 701-21.
Saxton, M., Backley, P., & Gallaway, C, (2005). Negative input for
grammatical errors: effects after a lag of 12 weeks. Journal of Child
Language 32, 643672.

References
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child
Language 24, 139-161.
Slobin, Dan I., Bowerman, Melissa, Brown, Penelope, Eisenbeiss, Sonja &
Narasimhan, Bhuvana (2011) Putting Things in Places: Developmental
Consequences of Linguistic Typology. In J. Bohnemeyer, & E.
Pederson (Eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. downloadable:
http://essex.academia.edu/SonjaEisenbeiss/Papers/110813/Putting_th
ings_in_places_Developmental_consequences_of_linguistic_typology
Valian, V. and Casey, L. (2003). Young children's acquisition of whquestions: the role of structured input. Journal of Child Language, 30,
117-143

Webpages for Parents, Teachers, and Therapists

NOTE: I cannot take any responsibility for the content of websites.

http://letstalkds.org/
http://www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/
http://www.speechtx.com/language.htm
http://www.mes-english.com/
http://teachers.thelanguagemenu.com/games/
http://mommyspeechtherapy.com/
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/Home.html
http://www.health.sa.gov.au/Portals/0/Speech%20and%20language
%20therapy%20interventions%20for%20children%20with%20primar
y%20speech%20and%20language%20delay%20or%20disorder%20u
pdate.pdf

Resources for Creating your own Games

Pictures/Cliparts: Art Explosion CDs (or similar), or
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/the-best-websites-for-freeclipart-downloads/; http://crl.ucsd.edu/experiments/ipnp/ )

Software for creating online games: Hot Potatoes (freeware;
http://hotpot.uvic.ca/), Clicker
(http://www.cricksoft.com/uk/products/tools/clicker/home.aspx )

Creating your own puppets:
http://www.jimwestpuppets.com/activities/makepuppets/makep
uppets.html ; http://dolldance.com/create_puppets.htm ;
http://familycrafts.about.com/od/puppets/Puppet_Craft_Projects.
htm )

Books
Plummer, D. (2011) Helping Children to Improve Their

Communication Skills: Therapeutic Activities for Teachers,

Parents and Therapists. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers,.
Griffin, S. (2009). Motivate to Communicate!: 300 Games and
Activities for Your Child With Autism. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.