Search for: All records

We compared everyday language input to young congenitally-blind children with no addi- tional disabilities (N=15, 6–30 mo., M:16 mo.) and demographically-matched sighted peers (N=15, 6–31 mo., M:16 mo.). By studying whether the language input of blind children differs from their sighted peers, we aimed to determine whether, in principle, the language acquisition patterns observed in blind and sighted children could be explained by aspects of the speech they hear. Children wore LENA recorders to capture the auditory language environment in their homes. Speech in these recordings was then analyzed with a mix of automated and manually-transcribed measures across various subsets and dimensions of language input. These included measures of quantity (adult words), interaction (conversational turns and child-directed speech), linguistic properties (lexical diversity and mean length of utterance), and conceptual features (talk centered around the here-and-now; talk focused on visual referents that would be inaccessible to the blind but not sighted children). Overall, we found broad similarity across groups in speech quantitative, interactive, and linguistic properties. The only exception was that blind children’s language environments contained slightly but significantly more talk about past/future/hypothetical events than sighted children’s input; both groups received equiva- lent quantities of “visual” speech input. The findings challenge the notion that blind children’s lan- guage input diverges substantially from sighted children’s; while the input is highly variable across children, it is not systematically so across groups, across nearly all measures. The findings suggest instead that blind children and sighted children alike receive input that readily supports their language development, with open questions remaining regarding how this input may be differentially leveraged by language learners in early childhood. 

Abstract The present study considers the role of adjectives and adverbs in stylometric analysis and authorship attribution. Adjectives and adverbs allow both for variations in placement and order (adverbs) and variations in type (adjectives). This preliminary study examines a collection of 25 English-language blogs taken from the Schler Blog corpus, and the Project Gutenberg corpus with specific emphasis on 3 works. Within the blog corpora, the first and last 100 lines were extracted for the purpose of analysis. Project Gutenberg corpora were used in full. All texts were processed and part-of-speech tagged using the Python NLTK package. All adverbs were classified as sentence-initial, preverbal, interverbal, postverbal, sentence-final, or none-of-the-above. The adjectives were classified into types according to the universal English type hierarchy (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2021; Annear, 1964) manually by one of the authors. Ambiguous adjectives were classified according to their context. For the adverbs, the initial samples were paired and used as training data to attribute the final samples. This resulted in 600 trials under each of five experimental conditions. We were able to attribute authorship with an average accuracy of 9.7% greater than chance across all five conditions. Confirmatory experiments are ongoing with a larger sample of English-language blogs. This strongly suggests that adverbial placement is a useful and novel idiolectal variable for authorship attribution (Juola et al., 2021). For the adjective, differences were found in the type of adjective used by each author. Percent use of each type varied based upon individual preference and subject-matter (e.g. Moby Dick had a large number of adjectives related to size and color). While adverbial order and placement are highly variable, adjectives are subject to rigid restrictions that are not violated across texts and authors. Stylometric differences in adjective use generally involve the type and category of adjectives preferred by the author. Future investigation will focus, likewise, on whether adverbial variation is similarly analyzable by type and category of adverb.