CHILDES Spanish Hess Corpus

Karina Hess Zimmermann
Language Learning
El Colegio de México
khess@colmex.mx
website

Participants:	24 children -- ages 6;0, 9;0, and 12;0
Type of Study:	language development during the school years
Location:	Mexico
Media type:	no longer available
DOI:	doi:10.21415/T59C79

Citation information

Hess Zimmermann, K. (2003). El desarrollo lingüístico en los años escolares: análisis de narraciones infantiles. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). El Colegio de México.

In accordance with TalkBank rules, any use of data from this corpus must be accompanied by at least one of the above references.

Project Description

This corpus was collected as part of the doctoral dissertation "El desarrollo lingüístico en los años escolares: análisis de narraciones infantiles", directed by Rebeca Barriga Villanueva at El Colegio de México. There are no restrictions on the use of these data. Because subjects gave full permission for the use of the data, no pseudonyms are used. Errors in pronunciation were not transcribed. The goal of the investigation was to analyze language development during the school years and therefore it presents data of children aged 6, 9 and 12 from two different schools: public and private. There were 24 children in the study, 8 at each age. Within each age, four children are boys and four age girls. Within both sex, two children go to private schools and two go to public schools.

Based on the assumptions that language development during the school years includes development in both language and metalanguage and that narratives are excellent tools for studying this development, the project collected data on narratives in five different tasks or experiments. Tasks 1, 3 and 5 study the level of metalanguage, whereas tasks 2 and 4 analyze the level of language. Tasks 1, 2 and 3 were applied on a first session with the child; tasks 4 and 5 on a second session, three or four days later. The sessions occurred in a room specifically assigned by the schools for the investigation project. All tasks were video and audiotaped.

Task 1 (Reflection on narrative structure and subjectivity markers)
The goal of this task was to determine the child's concept of a narrative and his/her ability to reflect on its structure and the presence of subjectivity markers (verbs, adverbs and adjectives). The child watched a theater where two puppets appeared (female puppet for girls, male puppet for boys; the only difference between the puppets was the color of the clothes: yellow or red). The child was told that he/she was a jury during a contest, and that he/she should decide which puppet told the best story and why. The texts were the following:

Text 1. Narrative with subjectivity markers
Yo conozco a un/a niño/a que se llama Alejandro/a. Un día, cuando salió de la escuela, se dio cuenta de que no había ido su mamá a recogerlo/a. -¡Ay qué rabia!- pensó - ¡justo hoy que pasa mi programa favorito en la tele! Se enojó tanto que decidió darle una lección a su mamá. –Me voy a esconder- pensó y se metió muy calladito/a a la dirección. Cuando por fin llegó su mamá, se sorprendió de no verlo/a a la salida. Ya medio preocupada lo/a buscó hasta que lo/a encontró - ¿dónde crees?- ¡debajo del escritorio de la directora! La mamá lo/a quiso regañar, pero él/ella le dijo que todo había sido porque había llegado tarde por él/ella. Muy arrepentida, la mamá se lo/a llevó a su casa. Desde ese día la mamá aprendió a llegar a tiempo por él/ella.

Text 2. Script without subjectivity markers
Yo conozco a un/a niño/a que se llama Alejandro/a. Todos los días su mamá va a recogerlo/a de la escuela después de clases. Sometimes Alejandro/a se enoja y se esconde en diferentes lugares como, por ejemplo, debajo del escritorio de la directora. Su mamá se lo/a lleva a su casa.

The child had to listen to each story twice and then answered the following questions in an informal interview: "Who won? Why?, Were the stories different? Why? What did the winner say to win? Why did the loser lose? What was his/her problem? What did he/she say wrong?" The interview was completely transcribed.

Task 2 (Complete a story)
The goal of this task was to analyze the child's ability to structure a narrative and use subjectivity markers. The child was asked to tell a story for a story contest. The adult started a story and asked the child to continue it. The adult said: "Había una vez un/a niño/a que le tenía mucho miedo a la oscuridad...", and the child had to continue the narrative. After telling the story, the child listened to it on the audio and was asked if he/she wanted to change it. The child was allowed to change the story as many times as he/she wished, in order to obtain the most elaborated and complete narrative. Only the last version of the story was transcribed.

Task 3 (Reflection on narrative structure)
The goal of this task was to determine the child's ability to reflect on the structure of a narrative. As in task 1, the child had to compare two texts told by puppets (only this time the puppets were of the opposite gender) and answer the questions. The texts were:

Text 1: script
Una ardilla vivía en un bosque. Todos los días iba a buscar nueces para comer cuando tenía hambre. Se trepaba a los árboles y ahí se metía en los agujeros. Cerca del bosque, en el cielo, vivía un águila que comía ardillas. No podía trepar a los árboles ni cabía en los agujeros.

Text 2: narrative
Había una vez una ardilla que vivía en un bosque. Un día, cuando iba a buscar nueces porque tenía hambre, vio en el cielo a un águila que se la quería comer. La ardilla corrió, se trepó a un árbol y se metió en un agujero. Ahí encontró muchas nueces y se las comió. El águila tuvo que ir a buscar comida a otro lado.

The whole interview was transcribed.

Task 4 (Personal narratives)
This task had the objective to analyze the child's ability to structure personal narratives and to include subjectivity markers in his/her stories. Following the method proposed by Peterson and McCabe (1983) the adult set prompts to obtain personal narratives during conversation in a painting activity. The transcription of these narratives followed these rules:

Only the children’s narratives were transcribed.
A narrative was defined as an independently created text by the child (the adult's intervention was merely phatic) that presented a temporal sequence of at least two events or a rupture of canonicity (Ochs, 1997)
Any narrative in which the child or a close person to the child (parent, sibling, friend) was the protagonist was considered a personal narrative.
Some previous utterances to the story were transcribed in order to include the beginning of the narrative.
In cases where the conversational context was important to understand the narrative, it was transcribed completely (when short) or commented on the @Comment tier (when long).
Each narrative was transcribed until the child indicated its end (with a linguistic mark, a long pause or an abrupt topic change).
All personal narratives that appeared during the painting activity were transcribed.

Task 5 (Reflection on the presence/absence of subjectivity markers)
This last task studied the way in which children reflect on the presence/absence of subjectivity markers (verbs, adverbs and adjectives) in a narrative. As in task 1 and 3 the child had to judge two texts presented by puppets (the same gender as the child) in a theater. The compared texts were:

Text 1. Narrative with subjectivity markers
El otro día me pasó algo sorprendente. Caminaba lentamente por un bosque cuando de repente me encontré con una preciosa tortuga. Se veía muy triste y me dijo con voz muy preocupada que un oso malo malo le había destruido su casa. ¡Qué mala pata! Entonces pensé que sería bueno acompañarla y entre los dos rápidamente volvimos a construirla. Al final ella me agradeció y me dio un delicioso pastel para que me lo llevara directo a mi casa. ¡Qué bien me sentí de haberle ayudado a una amiga!

Text 2. Narrative without subjectivity markers
El otro día caminaba por un bosque cuando me encontré con una tortuga. Me dijo que un oso le había destruido su casa. Entonces la acompañé y entre los dos volvimos a construirla. Al final ella me dio un pastel para que me lo llevara a mi casa.

All transcriptions were made by Karina Hess Zimmermann. Speech was segmented in utterances, giving each speaker one line per utterance:

*KAR: híjola@i, yo sentí mucho miedo.
*ALE: a mi papá un día lo asaltaron en la casa.
*KAR: en la casa?

When an utterance contained more than one clause, each clause was transcribed on one transcription line. Following Berman and Slobin (1994), clause was defined as “any unit that contains a unified predicate. By unified, we mean a predicate that expresses a single situation (activity, event, state)” (p. 660).

Usually a clause contained one conjugated verb,

*EDG: como mi primo Osvaldo tiene cuatro perros.
*EDG: y tiene una perra.
*EDG: que este ya se murió.

or a conjugated verb with infinitive, participle or gerund that represents a single situation:

*MON: porque mi mamá quería regresar por ella.
*LEO: se lo pudieron haber robado.
*JUA: y el otro va recogiendo las cosas.

Utterances with a modal verb and a complement were transcribed as one clause:

*JUS: creo que me daba miedo la oscuridad.

On two particular cases clauses without a conjugated verb could be found:

1) in presence of an infinitive, participle or gerund that signal an independent situation

*HUG: o sea, tenía un espejo.
*HUG: para ver atrás.

2) in case of ellipsis:

*ANT: porque él estaba acostado.
*ANT: y su compañero también.

Sometimes, a clause was inserted into another. On these cases both clauses were separated and transcribed on different lines, as in the following example, with the utterance “a la señora que me levantó la llevaron a la delegación”:

*DIA: a la señora la llevaron a la delegación.
*DIA: que me levantó.

Finally, some verbs as ve, mira, fíjate, oye, llama, were not considered as independent clauses because they were used by the speakers as interjections or interaction markers:

*KAR: oye@i, y has tenido algún accidente tú?
*JUA: es que, ve@i, primero estábamos en cómosellama estábamos ahí.

Coding

Four project-specific codes were used (%cod, %co1, %co2 and %co3). Each one will be explained.

%cod (hpa)

The %cod line was used to make a High Point Analysis of the narratives (tasks 2 and 4), as proposed by Peterson and McCabe (1983). Codification included the following criteria:

Only intelligible material was coded.
Only clauses directly related to the content of the narrative were coded. Clauses used as conversational markers were excluded. Example: “¿y qué más pasó?”, “¿ves?”.
When a clause was repeated identically it was coded only one time. Example: “me fui a acostar, me fui a acostar, ¿no?” is coded once.

Each clause was coded at least with one of the following codes (for details on the meaning of the codes see Peterson and McCabe, 1983):

a) Orientation
$O:par – participantes (participants)
$O:tie – tiempo (time)
$O:lug – lugar (location)
$O:gra – condiciones generales (general conditions)
$O:cas – casos generales (general cases)
$O:obj – objetos o rasgos (objects or features of the environment)
$O: eve – eventos inminentes (imminent events)

b) Complicating action
$C – complicación (complicating action)

c) Resolution
$R – resolución (resolution)

d) Appendages
$A:res – resumen (abstract)
$A:ate – petición de atención (attention-getter)
$A:pro – prólogo (prologue)
$A:cod – coda (coda)

e) Evaluation
$E:ono – onomatopeya (onomatopoeia)
$E:exc – exclamación (exclamation)
$E:rep – repetición (repetition)
$E:obl – obligación (compulsion word)
$E:met – metáfora (simile or metaphor)
$E:iro – ironía (irony) (not in Peterson and McCabe)
$E:sup – intensificador (gratuitous term)
$E:pal – palabra evaluativa (word per se)
$E:exa – exageración (exaggeration and fantasy)
$E:neg – negación (negative)
$E:int – intención (intention, purpose, desire or hope)
$E:hip – hipótesis (hypothesis, guess, inference, prediction)
$E:res – resultado del climax (result of high point action)
$E:cau – explicación causal (causal explanation)
$E:juo – juicio objetivo (objective judgement)
$E:jus – juicio subjetivo (subjective judgement)
$E:hec – hecho (fact per se)
$E:emo – emoción (internal emotional state)
$E:tan – información tangencial (tangential information)
$E:dis – discurso referido (indirect speech) –not in Peterson and McCabe

f) Irrelevant material
$I – irrelevante (irrelevant to the topic of the narrative)

%xsub

The %xsub line was used to code subjectivity words (or evaluative words) in the narratives obtained in tasks 2 and 4. Subjective words were located according to the criteria described by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1986) and classified as:

$V – subjective verb
$A – subjective adjective
$AV – subjective adverb

%xtie

The %xtie or time line coded verb tenses in the narratives (tasks 2 and 4). Codes were selected according to the tense classification by Rojo and Veiga (1999) for indicative tenses in Spanish:

$pres – presente ‘canto’
$pret – pretérito ‘canté’
$fut – futuro ‘cantaré’
$cop – copretérito ‘cantaba’
$pos – pospretérito ‘cantaría’
$apres – antepresente ‘he cantado’
$apret – antepretérito ‘había cantado’
$afut – antefuturo ‘habré cantado’
$apos – antepospretérito ‘habría cantado’

%xjui

The %xjui line was used to code the children’s reflections on narratives (tasks 1, 3 and 5). Codification was made on two levels:

a) Selected text

The first level included codes on the child’s answer to the question of which was the best story. When the child changed his/her mind during the interview, only the last response was coded. The codes were the following:

For all tasks:
$EMP – empate (both texts selected)

For task 1:
$PS – prototípica con subjetividad (narrative with subjective markers)
$NS – no prototípica sin subjetividad (script without subjective markers)

For task 3:
$PR – prototípica (narrative)
$NP – no prototípica (script)

For task 5:
$CS – con subjetividad (narrative with subjective markers)
$SS – sin subjetividad (narrative without subjective markers)

b) Type of answers

Answers were classified under three non exclusive categories. Only answers which included new information (and were not a mere repetition or an abstract of the narrative) were coded. Repeated answers were coded only once. All answers, even if incorrect, were coded. The categories were the following:

Content
This category included all reflections that mentioned aspects related to the content of the narrative (topic, events, or narrative structures of content):
$C:obs – obstáculo (obstacle)
$C:cau – causa/efecto (cause/effect)
$C:exp – experiencia (child’s personal experience)
$C:ver – verdad (truth judgement)
$C:mor – moral (moral judgement)
$C:fal – elementos faltantes (missing elements)
$C:rup – ruptura (rupture of canonicity)
$C:rel – relevancia (relevance of certain information)
$C:con – contenido (content)
$C:tem – tema (topic)
$C:emo – emociones (emotions, feelings, thoughts of the puppet)
$C:res – resolución (resolution)

Form
This category included all anwers related to the text form:
$F:lon – longitud (text length)
$F:est – estructura (text structure)
$F:exp – expresividad (expressivity of the narrating puppet)
$F:ele – elemento lingüístico (linguistic element)
$F:gen – género (text genre)
$F:ver – verbo (quoted verb)
$F:adv – adverbio (quoted adverb)
$F:adj – adjetivo (quoted adjective)
$F:sus – sustantivo (quoted noun)

Expression
Answers that refer to the relationship between the narrating puppet and the listener were coded under this category:
$E:aud – auditorio (mentions the listener)
$E:com – comprensibilidad (text comprehensibility)

The Children

Children of two very different environments were selected. Children of School 1 (Escuela Dr. Francisco Vázquez Gómez, public school, Mexico City) had few or no exposition to written language at home; and school did not have an extensive curriculum with language (oral and written). On the other hand, children belonging to School 2 (Colegio Madrid, private school, Mexico City) had rich activities with oral and written language at school and came from homes where written language is highly valued. The following table lists the main differences between schools on the access to literacy experiences:

School 1 (public) School 2 (private)
Home Written language Family reads at home 6/12 a little 11/12 yes
5/12 yes 11/12 a little
1/12 no
Type of material read at home 4/12 magazines 11/12 novels
4/12 consulting material 3/12 magazines
3/12 comics 2/12 newspaper
1/12 newspaper 1/12 consulting material
0/12 novels 0/12 comics
Parents read to their children 6/12 yes 12/12 yes
6/12 no 0/12 no
Child reads for pleasure 6/12 sometimes 12/12 yes
5/12 yes
1/12 no
Type of material child reads for pleasure 8/12 storybooks 8/12 books for children
3/12 consulting material 6/12 storybooks
1/12 school books 1/12 consulting material
0/12 books for children 0/12 school books
Oral language Persons who tell stories at home 3/12 grandparents 4/12 parents
2/12 siblings 3/12 grandparents
2/12 uncles/aunts
2/12 siblings
Situations in which stories are told 4/12 family reunions 6/12 conversation in the family
1/12 every night 3/12 every night
2/12 family reunions
School Written language School work on written narratives 11/12 read stories¹ 11/12 read stories
4/12 copy stories 9/12 write stories⁴
3/12 write stories² 9/12 analyze stories⁵
2/12 analyze stories³ 1/12 copy stories
Oral language Work with oral narratives at school 7/12 yes 12/12 yes
5/12 no 0/12 no

¹Predominantly reading in choir in the classroom
²Only 12-year olds and exclusively in the classroom
³Only 12-year olds and in classroom activities
⁴All ages and in diverse school activities: library, school newspaper, contests on narrative creativity, etc.
⁵All ages and in different school activities: library, public discussions, etc.

Additionally, the two schools represent populations with very different social environments, based on the parents’ occupation and education. The following tables show these differences:

School 1

Age Subject Father's occupation Father's education Mother's occupation Mother's's education
6 Abril mechanic secondary home secondary
Xóchitl employee secondary home primary
Edgar employee secondary home secondary
J.Carlos solderer primary home primary
9 Dulce --- --- cook secondary
Paola employee technical school home primary
Antonio driver secondary home secondary
Hugo concierge primary home secondary
12 Diana mason secondary home secondary
Nayely carpenter secondary maid 5th primary
Edgar driver primary mail primary
Oscar employee 2nd secondary home primary

Age	Subject	Father's occupation	Father's education	Mother's occupation	Mother's's education
6	Abril	mechanic	secondary	home	secondary
	Xóchitl	employee	secondary	home	primary
	Edgar	employee	secondary	home	secondary
	J.Carlos	solderer	primary	home	primary
9	Dulce	---	---	cook	secondary
	Paola	employee	technical school	home	primary
	Antonio	driver	secondary	home	secondary
	Hugo	concierge	primary	home	secondary
12	Diana	mason	secondary	home	secondary
	Nayely	carpenter	secondary	maid	5th primary
	Edgar	driver	primary	mail	primary
	Oscar	employee	2nd secondary	home	primary

School 2

Age Subject Father's occupation Father's education Mother's occupation Mother's's education
6 Alexis architect bachelor's degree architect bachelor's degree
Claudia --- --- teacher bachelor's degree
Manuel researcher bachelor's degree researcher master's degree
Martín bank employee bachelor's degree neurolinguist bachelor's degree
9 Leonora consultant bachelor's degree consultant bachelor's degree
Mónica employee bachelor's degree own business bachelor's degree
Juan S. own business bachelor's degree accountant bachelor's degree
Luis P. dentist bachelor's degree home technical career
12 Jessica researcher bachelor's degree home bachelor's degree
María general director bachelor's degree department chief 5th bachelor's degree
Alejandro architect master's degree architect bachelor's degree
Juskani architect bachelor's degree therapist bachelor's degree

Age	Subject	Father's occupation	Father's education	Mother's occupation	Mother's's education
6	Alexis	architect	bachelor's degree	architect	bachelor's degree
	Claudia	---	---	teacher	bachelor's degree
	Manuel	researcher	bachelor's degree	researcher	master's degree
	Martín	bank employee	bachelor's degree	neurolinguist	bachelor's degree
9	Leonora	consultant	bachelor's degree	consultant	bachelor's degree
	Mónica	employee	bachelor's degree	own business	bachelor's degree
	Juan S.	own business	bachelor's degree	accountant	bachelor's degree
	Luis P.	dentist	bachelor's degree	home	technical career
12	Jessica	researcher	bachelor's degree	home	bachelor's degree
	María	general director	bachelor's degree	department chief	5th bachelor's degree
	Alejandro	architect	master's degree	architect	bachelor's degree
	Juskani	architect	bachelor's degree	therapist	bachelor's degree

File names are based on these abbreviations:
      d = Escuela Dr. Francisco Vázquez Gómez (School 1)
      m = Colegio Madrid (School 2)
      a = niña (female)
      o = niño (male)
      1= primero (first child)
      2 = segundo (second child)
      ex1= experimento 1 (task 1)
      ex2= experimento 2 (task 2)
      ex3= experimento 3 (task 3)
      ex4= experimento 4 (task 4)
      ex5= experimento 5 (task 5)

Thus, file m12a2ex3 corresponds to a subject of the Colegio Madrid, 12 years old, girl, second child, during task 3.

The following table lists the subjects' data and corresponding files:

School Name Gender Age Date Filenames
School 1 Abril female 6;9 May 99 d6a1ex1-5
(public) Xóchitl female 6;8 May 99 d6a2ex1-5
Dr Francisco Edgar male 6;8 May 99 d6o1ex1-5
Vázquez JuanCarlos male 6;9 May 99 d6o2ex1-5
Gómez Dulce female 9;7 May 99 d9a1ex1-5
Paola female 9;7 May 99 d9a2ex1-5
Antonio male 9;4 May 99 d9o1ex1-5
Hugo male 9;8 May 99 d9o2ex1-5
Diana female 12;2 May 99 d12a1ex1-5
Nayely female 12;1 May 99 d12a2ex1-5
Edgar male 12;3 May 99 d12o1ex1-5
Oscar male 12;6 May 99 d12o2ex1-5
School Alexis female 6;8 June/July 99 m6a1ex1-5
(private) Claudia female 6;10 June/July 99 m6a2ex1-5
Colegio Manuel male 6;10 June/July 99 m6o1ex1-5
Madrid Martín male 6;9 June/July 99 m6o2ex1-5
Leonora female 9;6 June/July 99 m9a1ex1-5
Mónica female 9;3 June/July 99 m9a2ex1-5
Luis Pedro male 9;8 June/July 99 m9o1ex1-5
Juan Salvador male 9;1 June/July 99 m9o2ex1-5
Jessica female 12;6 June/July 99 m12a2ex1-5
María female 12;4 June/July 99 m12a2ex1-5
Alejandro male 12;5 June/July 99 m12o1ex1-5
Juskani male 12;3 June/July 99 m12o2ex1-5

School	Name	Gender	Age	Date	Filenames
School 1	Abril	female	6;9	May 99	d6a1ex1-5
(public)	Xóchitl	female	6;8	May 99	d6a2ex1-5
Dr Francisco	Edgar	male	6;8	May 99	d6o1ex1-5
Vázquez	JuanCarlos	male	6;9	May 99	d6o2ex1-5
Gómez	Dulce	female	9;7	May 99	d9a1ex1-5
	Paola	female	9;7	May 99	d9a2ex1-5
	Antonio	male	9;4	May 99	d9o1ex1-5
	Hugo	male	9;8	May 99	d9o2ex1-5
	Diana	female	12;2	May 99	d12a1ex1-5
	Nayely	female	12;1	May 99	d12a2ex1-5
	Edgar	male	12;3	May 99	d12o1ex1-5
	Oscar	male	12;6	May 99	d12o2ex1-5
School	Alexis	female	6;8	June/July 99	m6a1ex1-5
(private)	Claudia	female	6;10	June/July 99	m6a2ex1-5
Colegio	Manuel	male	6;10	June/July 99	m6o1ex1-5
Madrid	Martín	male	6;9	June/July 99	m6o2ex1-5
	Leonora	female	9;6	June/July 99	m9a1ex1-5
	Mónica	female	9;3	June/July 99	m9a2ex1-5
	Luis Pedro	male	9;8	June/July 99	m9o1ex1-5
	Juan Salvador	male	9;1	June/July 99	m9o2ex1-5
	Jessica	female	12;6	June/July 99	m12a2ex1-5
	María	female	12;4	June/July 99	m12a2ex1-5
	Alejandro	male	12;5	June/July 99	m12o1ex1-5
	Juskani	male	12;3	June/July 99	m12o2ex1-5

References

Berman, Ruth y Dan Isaac Slobin (1994) Relating Events in Narrative, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1986) La enunciación: de la subjetividad en el lenguaje, Buenos Aires: Hachette.

Ochs, Elinor (1997) "Narrative" en van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, [vol. 1], Londres: SAGE, pp. 185-207.

Peterson, Carole y Allyssa McCabe (1983) Developmental Psycholinguistics: Three Ways of Looking at a Child’s Narrative, Nueva York - Londres: Plenum Press.

Rojo, Guillermo y Alexandre Veiga (1999) "El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples" in Bosque, Ignacio y Violeta Demonte (comps.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, [Vol. 2: Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales], Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 2867-2934.