Magento CommerceMagento Commerce

computerized language sample analysis


Omission vs Word-level Error in Spanish for del & al

"Fueron el parque."
I'm not sure whether to code this as an omission "fueron *a el parque", although a +el should be combined to form "al" or as a word level error "fueron el[EW:al] parque"

I have across this issue for the word "del" too. "La rana es de niño"
Should it be: 
"La rana es de[EW:del] niño"
or 
"La rana es de *el niño"
Other example in which extra errors have to be coded: 

miró) miró|mirar atrás (de) de[EW:del] los[EW] tronco||/s[EW:tronco].
or
miró) miró|mirar atrás (de) de los[EW:el] tronco||/s[EW:tronco].

Also in Spanish since gender and number noun/adjective agreement is important, it seems like I am coding for errors that the child did not necessarily make.

For instance:  El niño vio la gallina 
gender/number agreement is correct but if I were to change "gallina" to "búho" I would be coding two errors

El niño vio la[EW:el] gallina[EW:búho]

3 thoughts on “Omission vs Word-level Error in Spanish for del & al”

  • SALT Support
    SALT Support 09/23/2015 at 3:45 pm

    There are often multiple ways to code the same problem. Just be consistent within and across transcripts. Recommended transcription follows:


    #1 "Fueron el parque".

    Mark this as an omission "Fueron *a el parque" because the preposition has, in fact, been omitted by the speaker. Coding this as an omission is more specific than using the more general [EW] code.


    #2 "La rana es de niño".

    Mark this as an omission as well, "La rana es de *el niño".


    #3: "Miró atrás (de) de los tronco/s".

    This is a grammatical utterance with no grammatical errors. The suggested word-level error codes are actually decisions based on semantic content (one log vs. logs). You can always create your own codes if you wish to mark semantic errors.


    #4: "El niño vio la gallina".

    This is an arguably grammatical utterance. If the decision is made to mark *a as an omitted preposition, then it must be marked in all occasions where it introduces a direct object. The other two word-level error codes again mark semantic content (chicken vs. owl), so these should not count towards a total of word-level grammatical errors that yield an ungrammatical utterance.

    Reply
  • Salt Support
    Salt Support 09/28/2015 at 7:31 am

    What is recommended when the child says "a el" or "de el" instead of "al" or "del"?

    Reply
  • Salt Support
    Salt Support 09/28/2015 at 7:31 am

    I would not code this as an error. It is not as efficient as using the contraction, but it is certainly not ungrammatical. Of greater importance is that the speaker is clearly aware and can produce the individual units of the contraction. However, if someone was interested in tracking when kids use the contraction, versus when they don’t, they could code for it. If so, I would recommend linking the two units of the contraction:

    C de_el|del[Ct].

    Actually, now that I think about it more, I would recommend linking the two units (even if one is not coding for it) and marking the contraction as the word root, in order to minimize MLUw or NDW inflation.

    C de_el|del.

    Raúl Rojas, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
    Assistant Professor

    Director, Bilingual Language Lab

    University of Texas at Dallas
    Callier Center for Communication Disorders

    Reply
Leave a Reply
© Salt Software LLC. All Rights Reserved.