The Challenge of Language Assessment for African American English ...

The Challenge of Language Assessment for
African American English-Speaking Children:
A Historical Perspective
Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D.1
ABSTRACT
The diagnostic problem of how validly to assess the language of
children who speak dialects different from Mainstream American English
(MAE) has challenged the field of communication disorders for several
decades. The key to its solution is to recognize differences due to dialect or
development and remove them from the initial diagnosis of a disorder. A
new approach to the puzzle, implemented jointly by University of Massa-
chusetts scholars and the Psychological Corporation (TPC), takes two
directions: (1) it provides new normative data on African American English
(AAE) development, and (2) it proposes a level of analysis deeper than
dialect for the discovery of alternate markers of a disorder. We present three
objectives for a language assessment instrument designed to solve this
longstanding problem: (1) to answer the problem/no problem question
for a given child; (2) to provide explanatory data about the nature of the
problem; and (3) to achieve objectives 1 and 2 in a way that is culturally and
linguistically fair to both speakers of MAE and speakers of other dialects of
English such as AAE.
KEYWORDS: Sources of language variation, Mainstream American
English (MAE), African American English (AAE), cultural and linguistic
bias, contrastive and noncontrastive language features, ASHA’s position
paper on social dialects
Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to describe (1) the three aspects of
language that must be addressed when attempting to validly assess the language of a child who is speaking
African American English (AAE), and (2) the clinical problems presented when attempting to validly assess the
language of a child who is speaking AAE.
Evaluating Language Variation: Distinguishing Dialect and Development from Disorder; Editors in Chief, Nancy Helm-
Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Nan Bernstein Ratner, Ed.D.; Guest Editors, Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D., and Barbara Zurer Pearson,
Ph.D. Seminars in Speech and Language, volume 25, number 1, 2004. Address for correspondence and reprint requests:
Harry N. Seymour, Ph.D., Department of Communication Disorders, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA
01003. E-mail: hseymour@comdis.umass.edu. 1Professor Emeritus, Department of Communication Disorders, University of
Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts. Copyright # 2004 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel: +1(212) 584-4662. 0734-0478,p;2004,25,01,003,012,ftx,en;ssl00178x.
3

---

4
SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1
2004
DEVELOPMENT, DIALECT, OR
Making the distinctions among develop-
DISORDER?
ment, dialect, and disorder for the above narra-
Story A: The big brother has the train. And he
tives can represent a difficult diagnostic puzzle.
held it up high so he couldn’t get it and then he
This puzzle is relatively simple when only
hide. . . put it under the bed. And then his little
mainstream American English (MAE) is in-
brother, he looked under the bed when his brother
volved. There is an extensive literature describ-
was eating his sandwich. And then he put it in his
ing the milestones of development and how
toy box. Then the big brother was thinking about
children learn to use language in appropriately
the train, and he looked under the bed, but it
formed narratives as they grow and mature, so
wasn’t there. (Ages 6;1)
the developmental distinction between Story A
and Story B is clear. Story A is produced by a 6-
Story B: He’s not giving the train back to him. He
year-old child and Story B by a 4-year-old
put it under his bed. He eats a sandwich. He gets
child. If a 6-year-old child produced the story
his train under his bed. He comes in there. He puts
in B, it might be cause for concern, but B is
it in his toy box. Then he comes lookin’ for it. Then
perfectly normal for a 4-year-old child.
he looks under the bed. (Ages 4;8)
On the other hand, Story D is produced by
an MAE-speaking 6-year-old child. The syn-
Story C: Once upon a time a little boy wanted to
tactic forms are inconsistent and unpredictable;
play with the train. And he tryna get the train, but
the narrative focuses only on the actions in the
his mean brother holdin’ it up high. So the big boy
pictures and lacks the cohesive devices expected
put it under his bed. When the big brother in the
of a child of that age. Again, the diagnostic
kitchen eatin’ his sandwich, the little boy take
puzzle is not too difficult to resolve for an
he train and he put it in his toy box. Then the big
MAE-speaking child with a language disorder
boy came back and he thinkin’ of the train. And
given the indicators of delay in Story D.
he look under the bed but he don’t find nothin’.
However, in the case of Story C the situa-
(Ages 6;3)
tion becomes more complicated in that the
narrator is not a speaker of MAE and uses
Story D: The big guy. . . the wittle brother wants
stigmatized language forms, which may distract
to play with the choo-choo train. The big guy
the listener from recognizing the basic quality
hiding it under his bed. The wittle guy. . . the
of the story; and because of various omissions of
wittle brother gotten it and the wittle brother
morphological inflections, this child could be
putting it in his toy box. Then the brother came in
confused with a child who has a language
the door. Then he came look for the toy. Then look
disorder. In fact, Story C is told by an African
under his bed. (Ages 6;7)
American English (AAE) speaker who, like the
speaker in Story A, exhibits above average use of
The narratives presented above show four
narrative markers, such as time clauses (e.g.,
very different children. Three of them differ in
‘‘when’’) and sophisticated knowledge of the lan-
expected ways. One differs in ways character-
guage of thought (e.g., ‘‘he think about. . .’’). To
istic of a child with a language disorder.
diagnose the speaker of Story C as having a
To identify which narrator shows evidence
disorder would be a serious but not an uncom-
of a language disorder, three aspects of child
mon mistake if AAE status were not factored
language variation must be addressed. The
into the diagnosis.
evaluation of a disorder must first take into
account the child’s dialect status and develop-
mental status. In determining which of these
THE DIAGNOSTIC CHALLENGE
narrators has a disorder and is in need of
The diagnostic problem associated with the
language services, the speech-language pathol-
above narratives captures the essence of a clin-
ogist (SLP) must distinguish which elements
ical conundrum that has challenged commu-
derive from the child’s stage of development,
nication disorders for several decades. This
which elements reveal the child’s dialect, and
challenge is how validly to assess children who
which elements indicate disorder.
speak dialects so different from MAE that it is

---

INTRODUCTION/SEYMOUR
5
difficult to separate them from children with a
a specific language entity, it is nevertheless per-
language disorder. In this issue, solutions to
ceived to be the variety of English most used in
this clinical problem are presented so that the
the conduct of commerce and is fostered in the
AAE status of Case C is recognized for what it
schools as most acceptable. Moreover, the notion
is, a dialectal variation, and not confused for the
of a single MAE is a misnomer in that MAE can
disordered status of Case D.
vary from one region of the country to another.
Making this distinction, that is, distin-
For example, the MAE spoken in Boston
guishing the difference between typically devel-
sounds different from the MAE in Georgia.
oping MAE- and AAE-speaking children from
Indeed, President John F. Kennedy, who
their language-impaired peers, is the objective of
dropped his /r/, as in ‘‘pak the ka’’, sounded
this issue. The objective is achieved through an
very different from President Jimmy Carter,
in-depth discussion of the development, design,
whose accent was distinctly southern. Of course
and research findings of a project to develop an
these differences are superficial variations of
innovative assessment test for a non-MAE po-
English, and are considered to be MAE even
pulation. This research and the resulting test
though they represent two very distant com-
construction were focused on how best to isolate
munities, a northern city and the rural south.
dialect factors and remove them from the initial
Despite such variations in English speech pat-
diagnosis of risk. The proposed battery exem-
terns across the country, there exists a common
plifies the separation of two functions: dialect
core of language features that defines who is
identification and diagnosis of a disorder. These
and is not a speaker of MAE. Hence, differ-
tests and the process they derive from are used
ences among MAE speakers are relatively
here to demonstrate how children, including
minor and a standard archetype is generally
AAE speakers, can be evaluated fairly and with-
applied by SLPs despite regional variations.
out linguistic or cultural bias.
Most variations among dialects of English
The dialect-neutral language test described
are relatively superficial, representing simple
in this issue was developed by Harry Seymour,
contrasts from the archetype standard, and
Tom Roeper, and Jill and Peter de Villiers at
thus, present little difficulty to SLPs in accom-
the University of Massachusetts Amherst in
modating those variations in the assessment
conjunction with The Psychological Corpora-
process. However, there are a few dialects
tion. The extensive research foundation of the
such as AAE in which there are more profound
test was sponsored by a grant and then a
contrasts from MAE and the assessment pro-
contract from the National Institutes of
cess becomes more complicated.
Health-National Institute on Deafness and
AAE has been described by sociolinguists
Other Communication Disorders to develop a
over the last several decades as a dialect pri-
language assessment instrument that would be
marily spoken by African Americans. It is
appropriate and unbiased for African American
variously referred to as Black English, Ebonics,
children who speak AAE. It has taken more
African American English Vernacular, among
than 10 years and the work is not yet finished.
other names. (The preferred term in this article
Preliminary versions of a screener and a com-
is AAE, which is commonly used in academic
prehensive language test were published in
circles.) AAE, like MAE, is but one of many
2003. A norm-referenced version with a signi-
varieties of English. However, unlike MAE,
ficant sampling of African American children is
which cuts across geographic, racial, and ethnic
being developed now for publication in 2005.
boundaries, AAE is characterized by a com-
monality of speech spoken primarily by African
Americans, but not by all of them. AAE is less
Clinical Implications of Dialect
geographically defined than other dialects of
Differences
English, though there are some differences by
In general, SLPs rely heavily on a single dialect
geographic region; rather it has emerged as a
standard (i.e., MAE) as the referent of accept-
commonality of speech and grammar of a
ability when assessing the language of children.
culturally defined group. In addition, children
Although MAE is an abstract notion and is not
or adults of other races who have strong cultural

---

6
SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1
2004
identification or primary social interaction with
by speakers of English. The important question
African Americans may speak AAE too. Thus,
about AAE acquisition is when particular AAE
AAE may be defined in terms of the features
features are mastered. During the acquisitional
that distinguish a pattern of grammar (mor-
stage, an informed position is that both AAE
phology, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and
and MAE produce very common developmen-
phonology) in the speech used by culturally
tal patterns such as deletions of morphological
identified African Americans.
inflections.1–3 As both dialects mature in the
process of acquisition, they diverge such that
each adopts the adult patterns of its respective
The Challenge of AAE Diagnosis
system. This means that many of the develop-
The clinical problems presented by AAE are 2-
mental patterns shared between the dialects
fold: (1) AAE features appear similar to pat-
become extinct in MAE, but appear to be
terns of language disorders, and (2) there is a
retained in AAE. For example, at age 3 years,
paucity of developmental research on AAE.
both dialects may produce an absent third-
With respect to the first issue, AAE is heavily
person /-s/ agreement marker; at age 5 years
characterized by optional use of certain linguis-
this feature no longer exists for the MAE
tic structures, particularly morphological inflec-
speaking child, but remains in the AAE-learn-
tions. The term ‘‘optional’’ refers to a speaker’s
ing child’s speech at 5 years and older. Because
use of a particular linguistic structure at some
of the optionality of features such as the third-
times and not others. For example, AAE speak-
person /-s/ agreement marker, the point at
ers may or may not produce a present tense
which a child’s production shifts from imma-
sentence without a copula verb (i.e., ‘‘a zero-
ture status to adult status has not been deter-
copula,’’ He is tall ! He tall), zero third-person
mined.4,5 At the same time, uniquely AAE
present tense agreement (He walks ! He walk),
elements, such as the use of an invariant form
and zero past -ed (He played yesterday ! He play
of ‘‘to be’’ to indicate habitual actions, are
yesterday). Because, it is not uncommon for a
emerging in the AAE-learning child. Addi-
language-disordered child to delete copula ‘‘is,’’
tional complexities such as these intersect
third person /-s/, and past /-ed/, it may be
with the third-person /-s/ agreement system
difficult, in a diagnostic context, to differentiate
in ways that have not been investigated. Thus,
such disordered patterns from the typical pat-
this acquisition puzzle remains a source of
terns spoken in AAE.
difficulty when assessing child AAE speakers.
This differentiation problem is further ex-
acerbated by issue two, the limited information
about the course of development of such
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE IN
patterns as copula, third-person /-s/, and past
ADDRESSING THE CLINICAL
-ed. As AAE children’s language matures
PROBLEM
during the acquisition stage, it remains unclear
A debate between John Michels and Orlando
when these and other AAE patterns are
Taylor6,7 during the 1968 American Speech-
mastered and the forms they take. In MAE,
Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) an-
there are specific normative milestones that
nual convention brought forward these contro-
indicate when children of various ages acquire
versial issues about linguistic and cultural bias
mastery of morphological inflections. These
in the assessment and treatment of African
milestones constitute acquisitional benchmarks
American children. As a result of this debate
for SLPs to follow in identifying children
and the issues it raised, a small group of African
who fail to achieve them. A similar set of
American scholars formed the ASHA Black
benchmarks is lacking for AAE-speaking
Caucus. Through the efforts of this Caucus,
children.
ASHA was motivated to revise its curriculum
Despite the absence of a comparable data-
requirements for clinical certification by broad-
set for AAE acquisition, undoubtedly there are
ening the recommended coursework to include
strong similarities between the two dialects,
the study of sociolinguistics and the topic of
given that both MAE and AAE are spoken
AAE.

---

INTRODUCTION/SEYMOUR
7
Throughout the 1970s, the Black Caucus
such that reliance on standardized tests of
continued to push for fair and equitable testing
language almost ensures that children who
practices and a multicultural perspective in
speak AAE are likely to be penalized for doing
ASHA. By 1978, the Caucus had evolved into
so. One form this penalty takes is a dispropor-
the National Black Association for Speech-
tionate representation of African American
Language and Hearing, an organization that
children in language services and special educa-
has been very effective in nurturing and disse-
tion programs throughout the country. This
minating scholarship among African American
was so in 1970 and it prevails to this day.
students, SLPs, and university faculty regarding
Consider that across the United States,
the communicative styles of African Americans.
African American children are three times
In addition, the organization has played an
more likely to be diagnosed as mentally retarded
important role in the adoption of ASHA’s
than their white peers.10 This disproportionality
position paper on social dialects, which states
is also reflected in special education classifica-
‘‘. . . no dialectal variety of English is a disorder
tions.11 African American children comprise
or a pathological form of speech or language.’’8,9
 15% of the school-age population, yet their
ASHA’s position paper on social dialects
numbers in special education for disabilities
established that SLPs should not view AAE as
associated with language functioning constitute
a deficit. This position was helpful in providing
an over-representation in every category. All of
a challenge to the deficit position, which argued
these educational designations rely at least in part
that AAE was cognitively corrupt and deficient.
on testing done in the medium of MAE (Fig. 1).
ASHA’s position paper contradicted this argu-
One can reasonably argue that where there
ment and gave support for an opposing posi-
is over-representation, there are undoubtedly
tion, that AAE was simply different and was a
children who are in fact language disordered
rule-governed dialect of English. Although a
and who go undiagnosed. This would be under-
significant step forward in acknowledging the
representation, which, along with over-repre-
legitimacy of AAE, the position paper fell short
sentation, reflects misdiagnosis and can be
of telling SLPs what to do about AAE in terms
attributed in part to an assessment process
of assessment and treatment of communication
that is biased against African American and
disorders among AAE speakers.
other minority children. This bias can take
The testing practices in communication
several forms.12 According to Wyatt13 there
disorders during the last several decades are
can be situational bias, format bias, value bias,
Figure 1
Percent of African American children in special education classifications (Dis, disorder).

---

8
SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1
2004
and linguistic bias, all of which create a discon-
children. Some have suggested abandoning
nect between the client and the testing context.
standardized tests for African American chil-
Of these various kinds of bias, perhaps the
dren altogether in favor of ‘‘nonstandardized’’
most difficult to address in the clinical setting is
assessment
methods.23,28,29
Among
these
the linguistic and cultural bias. This difficulty
methods are language sampling analysis and
stems from the importance and reliance on
criterion-referenced language probes. As useful
standardized testing. Because standardized
approaches in general, both language sampling
tests typically are normed on racial and ethnic
and language probes can be recommended
groups in accordance to a demographic distri-
specifically for AAE children because their
bution that matches the U.S. general popula-
naturalistic and dynamic process can be free of
tion, there is a linguistic and cultural skewing
bias compared with the relatively restrictive and
toward the majority group; that is, middle-class
artificial testing contexts of standardized tests.
white Americans. As a consequence, linguistic
However, such approaches carry the disadvan-
and cultural differences associated with dialects
tages of being time intensive, possibly less
such as AAE are not adequately reflected in the
reliable, and having inadequate normative
normative distribution of the tests. Thus, AAE
data on AAE.
speaking children can be and are penalized for
Because of the limited normative data on
their dialect.
AAE and remaining questions about the sys-
tem of AAE, some scholars have directed their
attention at those linguistic structures that are
MULTICULTURAL MODELS
common to both AAE and MAE. This em-
Language is clearly a major factor in the kinds
phasis avoids AAE features and also avoids the
of special education disabilities for which Afri-
clinical problem regarding the status of optional
can American children are over-represented.
AAE structures. One such approach is the
This language factor is directly related to the
Minimal Competency Core (MCC) proposed
mismatch between the target MAE standard on
by Stockman.28 The MCC identifies a scale of
assessment tests and the AAE status of so many
obligatory language patterns expected of all
African American children. In recent years and
typically developing children regardless of their
due largely to a society now characterized by
dialect status. This scale constitutes a criterion-
diverse ethnic, racial, and language commu-
referenced measure representing the lowest end
nities, many if not most SLPs recognize that
of a competency scale against which acceptable
they can no longer apply a single linguistic and
language performance can be measured. In
cultural model in assessing and treating lan-
addition, Craig and Washington30 focus on
guage disorders in children. Serious considera-
complex sentence constructions common to
tion must be given to the language background
both AAE and MAE. This approach avoids
from which children come in determining the
zero morphosyntax patterns so typical of AAE.
kinds of assessment strategies and materials
There is also support for avoiding AAE features
that are most appropriate.
in the diagnostic process in the work of
With respect to AAE, these assessment
Seymour, Bland-Stewart, and Green,31 who
strategies and materials must draw upon exist-
showed that AAE features that contrast with
ing knowledge about AAE. Much of this
MAE were less effective in identifying lan-
knowledge derives from linguistic descriptions
guage disorders among African American chil-
about AAE from the early work of sociolin-
dren than features that were noncontrastive
guists during the 1960s and early 1970s.14–21
between AAE and MAE
This seminal work became foundational for
This contrastive/noncontrastive analysis,
later descriptive research and for those focusing
first proposed by Seymour and Seymour in
on the clinical issues concerned with distin-
1977,4 introduced a diagnostic procedure that
guishing language deficits from language dif-
focuses entirely on those language structures
ferences characterized by AAE.4,12,22–27
that AAE and MAE have in common; that is,
Research on AAE has led to the proposal
those that are noncontrastive. The underlying
of several models for assessing AAE-speaking
assumptions for this approach are (1) AAE and

---

INTRODUCTION/SEYMOUR
9
MAE are more similar than they are different;
achieve objectives 1 and 2 in a way that is
(2) specific AAE features should be avoided
culturally and linguistically fair to both speakers
because they represent patterns that appear
of MAE and speakers of other dialects of
similar to disordered features, and thus would
English such as AAE. Our proposed battery
be ambiguous in the diagnostic process; and (3)
(see Acknowledgments) meets these objectives
an impaired language system also will reflect
by splitting the process in two: Step 1 starts
itself in the similarities between AAE and
with dialect identification, elicited with con-
MAE. The intention was that this noncontras-
trastive structures; Step 2 follows with dialect-
tive emphasis would answer the problem/
neutral diagnosis of disorder. Once dialect
no problem question in diagnosis; that is, is
identification has been accomplished in the
there a problem or not? It was fully recognized
first step of the process, the second part of
that to determine the nature of the language
the screening can concentrate on the dia-
problem, a complete diagnosis should then
gnostic function. For this, diagnostic test items
involve the child’s full array of language
avoid superficial contrasts between dialects of
strengths and weaknesses, which would, by
English by focusing on structures that are
necessity, involve both contrastive and noncon-
noncontrastive and by drawing upon deep
trastive language structures. The problem in
principles of language considered universal
implementing such a scheme and in the absence
across dialects and even languages. Such items
of standardized tests was that a clinician
will be among the most difficult and challen-
would have to employ time-consuming and
ging for children—although they are also
technically challenging linguistic analysis asso-
among the most effective as language assess-
ciated with language sampling and language
ment tools.
probes. As a consequence, too often the clin-
Most tests of language address the pro-
ician has to rely on existing standardized
blem/no problem question only and offer little
tests as a default procedure to both answer
to no explanation about the nature of the child’s
the problem/no problem question and to
problem.32 The reason for this limited focus is
determine the nature of the problem. The
the fragmented and atheoretical properties of
consequence is a perpetuation of inappro-
the items composing the tests. Typically, lan-
priate and biased practices for AAE-speaking
guage test items are selected for their capacity
children.
to measure a discrete aspect of language and
provide a developmental differentiation across
ages. Consequently, the outcome measures are
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
gross indices of a child’s knowledge. Our pro-
At the heart of the clinical problem associated
posed assessment, on the other hand, will be a
with dialects such as AAE is the issue of
process-driven comprehensive test of language
variation. SLPs must examine and interpret at
composed of test items that are theoretically
least three important sources of variation when
coherent within language domains. Hence, the
diagnosing language disorders in children.
outcome measures for children will yield rich
These are variation due to speech and language
information about the child’s understanding of
development, variation due to speech and lan-
processes as opposed to discrete and unrelated
guage dialects, and variation due to speech and
bits of language.
language disorder. These sources of variation
If the proposed battery is an effective
account for how children’s language may differ
assessment regardless of the child’s dialect and
from the adult model, and adequate assessment
thus could be given to any child, one might
must first deal with the evaluation of that
question why it is necessary to evaluate Lan-
language variation.
guage Variation Status. However, in the case of
A test designed to determine sources of
AAE-speaking children, there are still compel-
linguistic variation must fulfill three objectives:
ling reasons to determine a child’s variation
(1) to answer the problem/no problem ques-
status. First, it helps document which indivi-
tion; (2) to provide explanatory and evidentiary
duals within the African American community
data about the nature of the problem; and (3) to
are mainstream speakers. Race alone is not

---

10
SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1
2004
a sufficient indication. Among the African
Editor’s Note
American subjects in our field-testing research,
The material in this issue pertains especially to
for example, 15% percent were identified as
AAE and its speakers. Preliminary research
MAE speakers by the screener (and fewer
indicates that certain other dialects of English,
than 20% of those children were recognized as
such as Cajun English and Appalachian Eng-
MAE speakers by their teachers). A teacher’s
lish, share many features with AAE, and in
knowledge that a child speaks MAE or not
pilot testing those children performed like
can be useful in general educational program-
AAE speakers on the proposed tests. However,
ming, such as in planning reading instruction.
the utility of such tests for speakers of Spanish-
Furthermore, the greatest value of document-
influenced English has not been established. In
ing a child’s dialect is to the nonimpaired AAE
principle, young Hispanics in the process of
speakers. They cannot be considered impaired
learning English are using an ‘‘interlanguage,’’
solely on the basis of the finding that they do
which is only partly English. Therefore, there is
not speak MAE. If their risk status is high, then
no reason to expect that the deep syntactic
those children need further evaluation to make
principles found in the tests described here
a diagnosis of impairment, and that evaluation
will be realized in the interlanguage(s) in the
should not be made with a test normed on
same way that they are in varieties of English.
MAE speakers.
On the other hand, if the Hispanic child has
mastered MAE sufficiently to score in the
MAE range in Language Variation Status,
CONCLUSION
there is no reason she or he cannot be evaluated
In brief, the authors represented in this issue
using the these instruments. However, the
have designed an assessment process that con-
wider range of Hispanic-background children
sists of three tests appropriate for both MAE
will be better served by a test designed for
and non-MAE speakers between the ages 4 and
children in their circumstance, like the one
9 years. This issue is designed to share our
currently under development by Iglesias et al.33
developmental process with researchers and
clinicians, and to further the development of
additional dialect-sensitive measures. The first
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
measure is a short screener with two parts: one
This work was funded in part by National
part is designed to identify Language Variation
Institutes of Health (NIDCD) under Contract
Status in terms of whether a child is an
# N01 DC8-2104 and Grant # R01 DC 02172-
MAE speaker or not, and the second part is
04 to Harry Seymour, Principal Investigator,
designed to identify children who may be at risk
at the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
for a disorder (Diagnostic Risk Status). The
with Thomas Roeper and Jill de Villiers at
follow-up test is longer and provides criterion-
the University of Massachusetts and Smith
referenced cut-off scores for a comprehensive
College, as co-investigators. It was accom-
assessment of syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
plished in conjunction with The Psychological
and phonology. (See Figure 1 in Seymour
Corporation of Harcourt Assessment, Inc., San
and Pearson, this issue.) A norm-referenced
Antonio, TX.
version, essentially identical in composition to
The tests that are the products of this
the criterion-referenced version, is projected for
research collaboration are the Diagnostic Eva-
2005. The norm-referenced sample for the
luation of Language Variation (DELV) assess-
test will incorporate a comparison to an over-
ments, the DELV Screening Test, DELV
sampling of African American children, and
Criterion-Referenced edition, and the DELV
thus will be the only test of language with a
Norm-Referenced edition. The phrase ‘‘evaluat-
significant African American representation.
ing language variation’’ refers generally to the
How such tests and future assessment measures
assessment processes discussed in this issue.
make possible a valid and unbiased assessment
The term DELV is the name trademarked by
of children’s language is fully described in the
The Psychological Corporation of Harcourt
articles to follow.
Assessment, Inc., and refers to the specific tests

---

INTRODUCTION/SEYMOUR
11
that are the outcome of the extensive research
Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard Educa-
described in this article. The specific tests are
tion Press; 2002
referred to as the DELV-ST, or ‘‘screener,’’ or
12. Taylor O, Payne K. Culturally valid testing: a pro-
the DELV-CR, DELV-NR, or the ‘‘full diag-
active approach. Topics Lang Disord 1983;3:8–20
13. Wyatt TA. Assessing the communicative abilities
nostic test,’’ as appropriate. Questions about the
of clients from diverse cultural and language
principles underlying the tests can be referred to
backgrounds. In: Battle DE, ed. Communication
the authors of this issue (Seymour, Roeper, de
Disorders in Multicultural Populations, 3rd ed.
Villiers, de Villiers, Pearson, and Ciolli). Ques-
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2002:415–459
tions about the tests themselves should be
14. Shuy R, ed. Social dialects and language learning:
addressed to the Project Leader at The Psy-
Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana Con-
chological Corporation of Harcourt Assess-
ference, August 1964. Champaign, IL: National
ment, Inc.; Lois Ciolli, Senior Research
Council of Teachers of English; 1965
15. Stewart W. Urban Negro speech: Sociolinguistic
Director.
factors affecting English teaching. In: Shuy R, ed.
Social Dialects and Language Learning: Proceed-
ings of the Bloomington, Indiana, Conference,
REFERENCES
1964. Champaign, IL: National Council of Tea-
chers of English; 1965:10–19
1. Cole L. A developmental analysis of social dialect
16. Baratz JC. Language and cognitive assessments of
features in the spontaneous language of preschool
Negro children: assumptions and research needs.
Black children. Dissertation, Northwestern Uni-
ASHA 1969;11:87–91
versity. Evanston, IL; 1980
17. Wolfram W. A Sociolinguistic Description of
2. Kovac C. Children’s acquisition of variable fea-
Detroit Negro Speech. Washington DC: Center
tures. Dissertation. Georgetown University, Wash.,
for Applied Linguistics; 1969
DC; 1980
18. Labov W. The logic of non-standard English. In:
3. Blake I. Language development in working-class
Williams F, ed. Language & Poverty. Chicago:
black children: An examination of form, content,
Markham; 1970:153–189
and use [dissertation]. 1984
19. Dillard JL. Black English: Its History and Usage in
4. Seymour HN, Seymour CM. A therapeutic model
the United States. New York: Random House; 1972
for communicative disorders among Black English
20. Kochman T, ed. Rappin and Stylin Out: Commu-
speaking children. J Speech Hear Dis 1977;42:247–
nication in Urban Black America. Chicago: Uni-
256
versity of Illinois Press; 1972
5. Seymour HN, Seymour CM. Black English
21. Smitherman G. Talkin and Testifyin: The Lan-
and standard American English contrasts in
guage of Black America. Boston: Houghton-
consonantal development for four and five-year-
Mifflin; 1977
olds. J Speech Lang Hear Dis 1981;46:274–280
22. Adler S. Dialectal differences: professional and
6. Michel J. The role of ASHA in social, political, and
clinical implications. J Speech Hear Disord
moral activities. ASHA 1969;11:219–220
1971;36:90–100
7. Taylor O. Social and political involvement of the
23. Seymour HN, Miller-Jones D. Language and
American Speech and Hearing Association. ASHA
cognitive assessment of Black children. In: Lass
1969;11:216–218
N, ed. Speech and Language Advances in Basic
8. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Research and Practice. New York: Academic Press;
Position paper: Social dialects and implications
1981:203–263
of the position on social dialects. ASHA 1983;
24. Terrell S, Terrell F. Distinguishing linguistic
25:23–27
difference from disorders. Topics Lang Disord
9. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
1983;3:1–7
Technical Report: American English Dialects.
25. Vaughn-Cooke F. Improving language assessment
ASHA 2003;(suppl 23): (In press)
in minority children. ASHA 1983;25:29–34
10. Parrish T. Racial disparities in the identification,
26. Stockman IJ, Vaughn-Cooke F. Implications of
funding, and provision of special education. In:
semantic category research for language assessment
Losen DJ, Orfield G, eds. Racial Inequity in
of nonstandard speakers. Top Lang Disord 1986;
Special Education, The Civil Rights Project at
6:15–25
Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard Educa-
27. Craig HK, Washington JA. An assessment battery
tion Press; 2002
for identifying language impairments in African
11. Losen DJ, Orfield G, eds. Racial Inequity in
American children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;
Special Education, The Civil Rights Project at
43:366–379

---

12
SEMINARS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE/VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1
2004
28. Stockman I. The promise and pitfalls of language
32. Muma JR. Language Handbook: Concepts,
sample analysis as an assessment tool for linguistic
Assessment, Intervention. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
minority children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
Prentice Hall; 1978
1996;27:355–366
33. Iglesias A, Pen˜a E, Gutierrez-Clellen V, Bedore L,
29. Leonard L, Weiss A. Application of nonstandar-
Goldstein B. Development of a language test for
dized assessment procedures to diverse linguistic
bilingual Spanish-English speaking children. (The
populations. Top Lang Disord 1983;3:35–45
Bilingual English/Spanish Assessment, BESA).
30. Craig HK, Washington JA. The complex syntax
Paper presented at: the American Speech-Lan-
skills of poor, urban, African American preschoo-
guage-Hearing Association Convention, San Fran-
lers at school entry. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
cisco, CA, Nov. 18–21, 1999
1994;25:181–190
34. The Council for Exceptional Children and the
31. Seymour HN, Bland-Stewart L, Green L. Differe-
National Alliance of Black School Educators Addr-
nce versus deficit in child African American
essing Over-Representation of African American
English. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1998;29:
Students in Special Education. Washington, DC;
96–108
2002:6

---