The Legacy of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation(DELV©)

The Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) project comprises three tests—the DELV Screening Test (Seymour, Roeper, and de Villiers, 2003a, 2018), the DELV-Criterion Referenced (Seymour, Roeper, and de Villiers2003b), and the DELV-Norm Referenced (Seymour, Roeper, and de Villiers, 2005, 2018). They are the first, and so far, the most comprehensive linguistically sophisticated and culturally fair standardized language assessments on the market. They allow all speakers of English, including speakers of the AAE variety, to demonstrate competence in fundamental language elements and processes, and they provide linguistically-appropriate markers of impairment. Thanks to the unique team and the diverse expertise that contributed to their design and implementation, they stand out as ground-breaking both scientifically and socially. In this paper, I reflect on the confluence of ideas and circumstances that brought the DELV team together and created the tests. I then survey the continuing legacy of the tests in the first decade after they were published. Without sacrificing their very practical goals, the development and implementation of the DELV tests was first and foremost a research endeavor which addressed issues in theoretical and applied linguistics in the service of social justice. Indeed, the DELV’s creation allowed more comprehensive coverage of existing research topics and extensions to new questions about typical and disordered acquisition of different varieties of English. Once published, the DELV tests became both a tool and a focus for further research in the associated disciplines of linguistics, psychology, and communication disorders

Acquisition of a late-developing syntactic structure by African-American-English-speaking learners of the mainstream dialect.

Analyses for the current paper explored the emergence of alternative syntactic formulations for reporting a question, using indirect questions ([asking] if he can go outside, or [asking] can he go outside) as opposed to direct questions (Can I go outside?). First, we establish which children in our sample may be considered AAE-speakers. Then we present the analogous AAE and MAE forms used by African-American (AA) and European-American (EurA) children with differing diagnostic and language-variation status at different ages. We observed a transition around age 8 toward greater convergence in contrastive-morphosyntax which coincided with greater divergence in the syntax for question reports. The proportion of children of both language groups who opted for Indirect questions increased from 4 to 10-12yrs. Among EurA-participants, the if-complementizer without inversion predominated, whereas among AA-children, third-person subjects with auxiliary-inversion predominated. A few AA-children with various AAE-density levels used if; but there was a clear divide by language variety between the alternative formulations. There was no statistical difference in DELV-NR standardized scores for perspective-shifters, regardless of the form used. These findings attest to the pragmatic appropriateness of these AAE-forms in a formal environment

Developmental Trends for Features Contrastive between African American English and General American English

Purpose: In order to provide developmental guidelines for predicted dialect differences, trends in the use of features contrastive between General American English (GAE) and African- American English (AAE) were explored in a representative, national sample. Method: Participants were 1130 AAE- and 194 GAE-speaking typically-developing children, ages 4 to 12. A core set of distinguishing developmental features were identified and used in a focused elicitation of contrastive items in obligatory contexts. Responses were analyzed for age-related changes and demographic influences. Results: Major findings include pervasive use of zero-marked forms and predicted substitutions in young typically-developing AAE speakers through age 6. After age 6 the pattern was reversed: levels of zero-marking were lower than overt-marking, but remained distinct from GAE levels of similar forms. Moreover, total absence of overt-marking after age 7 was a-typical. Increased use of overt-marking and other GAE-like forms was observed earlier for constructions like multiple negation and regular past tense /–ed/ than invariant subject-verb agreement (e.g., she run). Parent education and region, but not gender, were significant, but small factors influencing contrastive feature use. Conclusion: Expected contrastive feature shifts were distinguished from general language development and possible clinical indicators

Variable use of features associated with African American English by typically developing children ages 4 to 12

Purpose: The well-known decline in the use of African American English (AAE) features by groups of school-aged AAE-speaking children was reexamined for patterns of overt-, zero-, and mixed-marking for individual features and individual speakers. Methods: Seven hundred twenty-nine typically developing children between the ages of 4 and 12—511 AAE-speakers learning General American English (GAE) as a second dialect, and 218 GAE-speaking controls—were administered the morphosyntax subtest of theDialect Sensitive Language Test (Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2000). Responses to 33 items probing 10 target features were coded for overt marking, zero marking, or neither. A feature-by-feature marking profile for each child allowed us to track how many children at each age were characterized by 100% overt, zero, or mixed marking for different combinations of features. Results/Conclusions: Findings suggest that no feature was overtly marked for all AAE-first children at any age, and the “mixed” pattern of usage was the most common trend across individual speakers even at age 12 years. Exclusive use of zero marking beyond age 8 years was rare and may serve as a diagnostic indicator

Removing Obstacles for African American English–Speaking Children Through Greater Understanding of Language Difference

Language difference among speakers of African American English (AAE) has often been considered language deficit, based on a lack of understanding about the AAE variety. Following Labov (1972), Wolfram (1969), Rickford (1999), Green (2002, 2011), and others, we define AAE as a complex rule-governed linguistic system and briefly discuss language structures that it shares with general American English (GAE) and others that are unique to AAE. We suggest ways in which mistaken ideas about the language variety add to children’s difficulties in learning the mainstream dialect and, in effect, deny them the benefits of their educational programs. We propose that a linguistically informed approach that highlights correspondences between AAE and the mainstream dialect and trains students and teachers to understand language varieties at a metalinguistic level creates environments that support the academic achievement of AAE-speaking students. Finally, we present 3 program types that are recommended for helping students achieve the skills they need to be successful in multiple linguistic environments

Seeking a valid gold standard for an innovative, dialect-neutral language test

Purpose: In this study, the authors explored alternative gold standards to validate an innovative, dialect-neutral language assessment. Method: Participants were 78 African American children, ages 5;0 (years;months) to 6;11. Twenty participants had previously been identified as having language impairment. The Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation—Norm Referenced (DELV–NR; Seymour, Roeper, & J. de Villiers, 2005) was administered, and concurrent language samples (LSs) were collected. Using LS profiles as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of diagnostic accuracy were compared for diagnoses made from the DELV–NR and participants’ clinical status prior to recruitment. In a second analysis, the authors used results from the first analysis to make evidence-based adjustments in the estimates of DELV–NR diagnostic accuracy. Results: Accuracy of the DELV–NR relative to LS profiles was greater than that of prior diagnoses, indicating that the DELV–NR was an improvement over preexisting diagnoses for this group. Specificity met conventional standards, but sensitivity was somewhat low. Reanalysis using the positive and negative predictive power of the preexisting diagnosis in a discrepant resolution procedure revealed that estimates for sensitivity and specificity for the DELV–NR were .85 and .93, respectively. Conclusion: The authors found that, even after making allowances for the imperfection of available gold standards, clinical decisions made with the DELV–NR achieved high values on conventional measures of diagnostic accuracy

Evaluating language variation: Distinguishing development and dialect from disorder. Special issue

CONTENTS 1 Preface Nan Bernstein Ratner, Ed.D. SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 The Challenge of Language Assessment for African American English-Speaking Children: A Historical Perspective Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D. 13 Theoretical and Empirical Bases for Dialect-Neutral Language Assessment: Contributions from Theoretical and Applied Linguistics to Communication Disorders Barbara Zurer Pearson, Ph.D. 27 Steps in Designing and Implementing an Innovative Assessment Instrument Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D., and Barbara Zurer Pearson, Ph.D. 33 Dialect Identification versus Evaluation of Risk in Language Screening Lois Ciolli, M.A., C.C.C.-S.L.P., and Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D. SECTION II: KEY CONCEPTS AND EXAMPLES FOR THE DOMAINS OF THE PROPOSED TESTS 41 Diagnosing Language Variations: Underlying Principles for Syntactic Assessment Thomas Roeper, Ph.D. 57 Assessing Pragmatic Skills in Elicited Production Peter de Villiers, Ph.D. 73 Cultural and Linguistic Fairness in the Assessment of Semantics Jill G. de Villiers, Ph.D. 91 A Noncontrastive Model for Assessment of Phonology Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D. SECTION III: PRACTICAL ISSUES AND GOALS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 101 Distinguishing Dialect and Development from Disorder: Case Studies Barbara Zurer Pearson, Ph.D., and Lois Ciolli, M.A., C.C.C.-S.L.P. 113 Conclusions, Future Directions, and Implications for Remediation Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D., Thomas Roeper, Ph.D., and Jill G. de Villiers, Ph.D. C-1 Continuing Education Self-Study Progra

Unbiased assessment of first language acquisition in English: Distinguishing development and dialect from disorder.

The project described in this article reflects the combined expertise of linguists studying the distinctive characteristics of AAE, developmental psycholinguists with extensive experience studying normal acquisition in several domains of language, and clinicians skilled in assessment of and intervention with language-impaired children. Another important feature of the project was that the research contract included an agreement between the principal investigators, the federal funding agency, and a major publishing company (The Psychological Corporation) for the publishers to carry out the field testing and standardization of the assessment instrument as soon as the researchers developed the materials. This considerably reduced the time from conception to publication of the tests