LSHSS

A Comparison of Oral and Written

English Styles in African American
Students at Different Stages
of Writing Development
Lennette J. Ivy
University of Mississippi, Oxford
Julie J. Masterson
Missouri State University, Springfield

W riting, a component of the human productive

language system, is essential to literacy devel-
opment (Glassner, 1981; Kroll, 1981; Scott &
Rogers, 1996) and successful academic achievement (Stewart,
1985). In years past, literacy has been equated more with reading, a
receptive process, than with writing, an expressive process (Hendrix,
1981). As a result, national concerns regarding literacy problems
have focused mostly on reading, excluding writing in many instances
(Whiteman & Hall, 1981). In recent years, more efforts have been
made to address writing as an important aspect of literacy develop-
ment (Apel & Thomas-Tate, 2009; American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association [ASHA], 2000; Berninger, Abbott, & Swanson,
2010; Bloome, Champion, Katz, Morton, & Muldrow, 2001; Craig
& Washington, 2004b; Craig, Zhang, Hensel, & Quinn, 2009;
Greenwald, Persky, Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999; Thomas-Tate,
Apel, & Miskowski, 2006; Thompson, Craig, & Washington,
2004). Research investigating the writing skills of African American
(AA) school-age students is emerging (Craig et al., 2009; Scott &
Rogers, 1996; Thomas-Tate et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2004;
Wolfram & Whiteman, 1971). National assessments of writing skills
in students report a divergence in the skills of AA students compared
to those of Caucasian students (Greenwald et al., 1999; Horkay,
2000; Jerry & Ballator, 1999; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003).
Differences in writing levels between AA and Caucasian stu-
dents across the United States show trends similar to documented
differences in reading levels between AA and Caucasian students.
Reports from the 2002 National Assessment of Educational Pro-
gress (NAEP) in Writing indicate that approximately 75% of AA
fourth and eighth graders reached at or above the basic level of
achievement, whereas 90% of Caucasian (same-grade) students at-
tained the same levels of performance (Persky et al., 2003). The
2007 NAEP writing assessment was administered to eighth graders,

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to
compare the rates of using African American English (AAE)
grammatical features in spoken and written language at different
points in literacy development. Based on Kroll’s model (1981),
a high degree of similarity in use between the modalities was
expected at Grade 3, and lower similarity was expected at Grade 8.
Method: Spoken and written language samples were analyzed for
the occurrence of 6 AAE morphosyntactic features. Fifteen third
graders and 15 eighth graders were asked to respond to interview
questions and to retell stories in both modalities. Percentage use of
the AAE grammatical features and a dialectal density measure
were used to measure rates of AAE occurrence.
Results: Findings indicated comparable use of dialect in spoken
and written modalities for 3rd graders, but a difference in use
between the modalities for 8th graders. The 8th graders used more
dialectal features in speaking than writing.
Conclusion: These results suggest that there is likely a period
in writing development when speakers of AAE learn to dialect
switch in their writing.
KEY WORDS: African American English, spoken language,
written language, development, dialect density

LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 31
and those results revealed that approximately 81% of AA eighth
graders performed at or above the basic level of achievement com-
pared to 93% of Caucasian eighth graders (Salahu-Din, Persky,
& Miller, 2008). Although the 2007 NAEP results indicate a decrease
in the gap compared to the 2002 findings, the results continue to
show evidence of an achievement gap between majority and non-
majority schoolchildren.
The results from NAEP suggest that our educational system con-
tinues to lag in its ability to help AA students close this academic
gap. One contributing factor is that some teachers and AA students
come from different cultural backgrounds, so they bring to the
educational setting different expectations about language use
(Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). The speech of AA children
differs from the English used in schools in systematic ways, and
AA speech patterns should be considered by teachers when develop-
ing lessons that are used for literacy instruction. In order to do
this effectively, it is important for educators and policy makers to
understand how African American English (AAE) differs linguis-
tically and systematically from classroom English (Green, 2002).
AAE is a variety of English that is spoken by some, but not all,
AAs. The amount of AAE used by AA children who are speakers
of the dialect is dependent on various factors such as age, socio-
economic status (SES), situational contexts, and overall linguistic
complexity (Battle, 1996; Craig & Washington, 1994, 2000; Isaac,
1996; Washington & Craig, 1994, 1998; Washington, Craig, &
Kushmaul, 1998). Researchers agree that AAE is not random, care-
less, or deviant in nature; rather, it is a structured linguistic system
(Craig et al., 2009; Green, 2002; Rickford, 1999). AAE is char-
acterized by unique phonological, morphological, syntactic, and
semantic features (Green, 2002; Mufwene, 1998; Rickford, 1999).
Although AAE is a variety of English, there are distinct system-
atic contrasts in the linguistic features between this variety and
Mainstream American English (MAE), particularly in the phono-
logical and morphosyntactic systems (Apel & Thomas-Tate, 2009;
Bailey & Thomas, 1998; Craig et al., 2009; Green, 2002; Rickford,
1999; Stockman, 1996). Some common phonological examples
of AAE use include consonant cluster reduction when the cluster is
followed by an obstruent with the same place of articulation (e.g.,
firs time for first time), unstressed syllable deletion (e.g., fore for
before), and the substitution of t/d and f/v in words in which MAE
requires th. It is important to note that occurrences of these features
are based on positional constraints. Morphosyntactic examples of
AAE use include use of the indefinite article a regardless of the
vowel context (e.g., I have a orange); omission of inflectional mark-
ers such as past tense –ed (e.g., the door is clos__), plural –s (e.g.,
I have two shoe_), and possessive –s (e.g., the boy_ grandmotherI);
and the third person singular present tense –s marking (e.g., he
walk for he walks) (Apel & Thomas-Tate, 2009; Bailey & Thomas,
1998; Craig & Washington, 2004a, 2004b; Green, 2002; Rickford,
1999; Stockman, 1996).
Communication and culture are inseparable phenomena, and
children express their culture through their communication styles
(van Keulen, Weddington, & DeBose, 1998). Children whose
speech consists of a high frequency of AAE use may find school
challenging, particularly if there is a teacher–child mismatch in
cultural backgrounds. Because most schools are aligned with middle-
class cultural traditions, teachers may perceive the speech of chil-
dren who speak AAE as deviant. Such attitudes toward AAE can
result in negative expectations that might affect the teacher’s behav-
ior toward children who speak this variety of English (Conner &
32 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011
Craig, 2006; Green, 2002; van Keulen et al., 1998; Wolfram et al.,
1999).
Earlier research has shown that features of AAE do occur in the
writing of AA children who are speakers of the dialect (Cronnell,
1981; Smitherman, 1993; Terrebonne & Terrebonne, 1976;
Whiteman, 1981; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998; Wolfram &
Whiteman, 1971). The features frequently found in the writing
of AAE speakers include (a) verbal –s absence (e.g., She go__),
(b) plural –s absence (e.g., four mile_), (c) possessive –s absence
(e.g., John hat), (d) –ed absence resulting from consonant cluster
reduction (e.g., Yesterday they miss), and (e) copula is and are
absence (e.g., We going to the game.). AAE features that have
appeared relatively infrequently in writing when compared with
their incidence in spoken language include (a) multiple negation,
(b) the use of ain’t, and (c) the use of habitual be. Social evalua-
tion may explain why some AAE features are more susceptible to
reflection in writing than others. Items that are highly stigmatized
(e.g., ain’t) are probably the first to be changed during the course
of a child’s education (Whiteman, 1981; Wolfram & Schilling-
Estes, 1998). Although AAE is commonly reflected by the omis-
sion of inflectional suffixes (Terrebonne & Terrebonne, 1976;
Whiteman, 1981; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998; Wolfram &
Whiteman, 1971), dialect influence is not solely responsible for
such omission in writing. The developmental process of acquiring
inflectional suffixes in writing also could be a contributing factor.
Support for this is found in Whiteman’s (1981) study comparing
eighth-grade AA and Caucasian students, which revealed some
verbal –s absence and plural –s absence in the writing of both
groups of children.
The ability to code switch or dialect shift from AAE to MAE is a
skill that is acquired gradually by AA school-aged children. Craig
and Washington (2004a) reported dialect shifting at first grade
for spoken language in their investigation of students in preschool
through fifth grade. From data elicited through picture descriptions,
Craig and Washington observed a decrease in the use of zero past
tense, zero plural, and zero –ing between kindergarten and first
through fifth grades. Their results suggest that developmental fac-
tors could contribute to the differences in the features used.
Similarly, Craig, Thompson, Washington, and Potter (2003)
observed a decrease in the usage rate of phonological features of
AAE during oral reading at third grade. Students in the higher grades
(i.e., third through fifth grade) read more passages and longer
passages, yielding more words and more opportunities for AAE
productions. The dialect density measure (DDM) was used to
control for differences in the number of words produced by the
participants. Craig et al. observed grade-level differences in the use
of AAE phonological and morphophonological features between
second-grade DDMs and third-grade DDMs. The DDMs were two
to three times greater for the second grade when compared to the
other grade levels. DDMs based on morphological features were
not significantly different among the grade levels.
Of the nine phonological features examined in Craig et al.
(2003), all were produced at least once during the oral reading,
except for the feature devoicing of final consonants (e.g., /hIs/ for
/hIz/), which was not produced even though there were multiple
opportunities. Monophthongization of diphthongs (e.g., /Ar/ for
/AOr/), substitutions for dental fricatives, and consonant cluster
reduction were used widely across the participants. Of the morpho-
syntactic features produced, zero past tense, zero article, and
indefinite article were observed across the participants. These
findings indicate that dialect shifting when speaking appears at two minimal. However, students in middle school who are at Phase 4
periods during early elementary grades—at first grade for spoken and typically use unique styles for writing versus speaking might be
discourse, and at third grade for oral reading. expected to manifest maximum dialect shifting.
A more recent investigation by Craig et al. (2009) demonstrated The purpose of the current study was to investigate the occur-
the ability of AA students to dialect shift in their writing. This study rence of a developmental shift in writing development among
examined the relationship between reading achievement scores AA school-aged children. We addressed the following research
and dialect shifting ability from oral to written language in first questions:
through fifth grade. The investigators used a picture description task & Do oral and written language samples elicited from AA third
to elicit oral samples and an untimed story generation task to elicit graders differ in their rate of use of AAE grammatical features?
written samples. The AAE features coded included 23 morpho-
& Do oral and written language samples elicited from AA eighth
syntactic features, nine phonological features, and nine morpho-
graders differ in their rate of use of AAE grammatical features?
phonological features. DDMs based on use of all AAE features
were calculated for the oral and written narratives. Whereas the & Does grade level affect the rate of use of AAE grammatical
overall mean for DDM in the oral narrative task was 0.103, the features in spoken versus written language?
mean DDM in the writing task was 0.04. The differences between
the two modalities were significant and were associated with a large
effect size (d = 0.85).
In order to investigate the relationship between reading perfor- METHOD
mance and dialect shifting from oral to written language, Craig
et al. (2009) standardized the DDMs for each grade. Consequently, Participants
grade was not used as an independent variable when exploring
Thirty AA students attending elementary and middle schools
the association between dialect shifting and reading skills. Craig
in two school districts in north Mississippi participated in this
et al. found that the rate of AAE used in the writing task predicted
study—15 third graders (9 males, 6 females) ranging in age from
reading achievement; however, use of AAE in speaking did not.
8;0 (years;months) to 9;11 (Mage = 8;4), and 15 eighth graders
These findings indicate that the ability to dialect shift from AAE
(5 males, 10 females) ranging in age from 13;8 to 14;9 (Mage = 13;6).
to MAE in writing has a positive impact on reading outcomes
Approval to conduct research with these participants was obtained
beyond the influences that represent good writing skills. Craig et al.
from the Internal Review Board at The University of Memphis.
cautioned that although their findings documented a relationship
Grades 3 and 8 were selected based on Kroll’s (1981) model of
between dialect shifting and reading achievement, the direction
writing development and implications from previous investigations
of this relationship is not known.
(Carlisle, 1996; Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Kroll, 1981; Kroll &
The studies previously reviewed indicate that dialect shifting
Lemper, 1981; Rubin, Patterson, & Kantor; 1991; Windsor, Scott,
begins in the early grades, manifested first through contextual
& Street, 2000). Third graders were selected for this study because
differences in oral language and later through differences between
they represent a developmental level before the differentiation
oral and written language. However, to date, there has not been
between spoken and written language, and eighth graders were
an investigation regarding developmental influences on dialect
selected because they represent a level well beyond when the
shifting from oral to written language.
differentiation is expected to occur. We expected the similarities be-
Kroll (1981) proposed a model of writing development that high-
tween spoken and written language used by the third graders to
lights the difference between speaking and writing, which varies at
include comparable occurrences of dialect use in both modalities.
different points in development. The first phase, preparation (i.e.,
The shift to modality differentiation by eighth grade should involve
emergent), is the period when children learn the technical skills to
greater formality in writing, and consequently, less dialect use.
represent the written symbols they produce in speech. This phase
Information regarding SES was available for 8 third graders and
characterizes the skills of children who are in their late preschool and
10 eighth graders. All but one student in each grade level qualified
kindergarten years. Phase 2, consolidation of oral and written lan-
for the school’s free lunch program. The school district in which
guage, is the period when children’s writing resembles their speech.
the remaining participants were enrolled would not release informa-
This phase characterizes the skills of children in the primary ele-
tion regarding eligibility or ineligibility to participate in the fed-
mentary grades. Phase 3, differentiation of oral and written language,
erally funded free or reduced-price lunch program.
is the period when children learn the differences in writing and
All potential participants were passing at grade level in reading
speaking with regard to style and structure. This phase characterizes
and language arts in the classroom and on the Mississippi Cur-
the skills that can be found in children in fourth and fifth grades
riculum Test (Mississippi Department of Education, 2007). The
(Kroll, 1981; Singer, 1995). Phase 4, systematic integration of speak-
Mississippi Curriculum Test measures students’ academic achieve-
ing and writing, is the period when children are learning to apply the
ment in reading, language, and mathematics in Grades 2 through 8.
rules and styles from either mode (i.e., speaking or writing). This
None of the participants had ever been enrolled in special education
phase characterizes the skills of mature or conventionally literate
services as reported by their teachers and the school counselors. All
individuals (Kroll, 1981; Singer, 1995; Sulzby, 1996). The model
participants were speakers of AAE.
proposed by Kroll suggests a relationship between speaking and
writing that changes across the course of writing development.
Kroll’s model might be used to make predictions regarding dialectal Procedure
shifts between oral and written language. During the primary ele-
mentary grades, when children are at Phase 2 and their writing Each participant was seen individually for three sessions in the
resembles their speech, expectations for dialect shifting would be school setting. The length of each session was 40–50 min. During

Ivy & Masterson: A Comparison of Oral and Written English 33

the first session, the students were (a) engaged in an informal con-
versation to determine if they were AAE speakers, (b) given a
hearing screening, and (c) administered the Peabody Picture Vocab-
ulary Test—III (PPVT–III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997). During the
second session, the participants performed two of the four experi-
mental tasks. During the third session, the participants performed
the two remaining experimental tasks.
Receptive language abilities were documented with the
PPVT–III, which was reported to be a relatively culturally fair
assessment of at-risk AA preschool children (Washington & Craig,
1999). Norm-referenced, expressive spoken and written language
measures were not used for inclusion in this investigation. At the
time of data collection, there was no culturally valid spoken lan-
guage measure available to assess the skills of AA children (Craig
& Washington, 2002; Craig, Washington, & Thompson-Porter, 1998;
Washington, 1996; Washington & Craig, 1994, 1998; Washington
et al., 1998). All students had normal hearing sensitivity at the
frequencies of 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz at 25 db.
The participants performed four experimental tasks: (a) spoken
video narration, (b) written video narration, (c) spoken interview,
and (d) written interview. The task order was counterbalanced
across participants.
Video narration task. Video narration tasks provide the advan-
tages of content stability, a high interest level, and high processing
demands as a language sampling context (Dollaghan, Campbell,
& Tomlin, 1990). The video narration tasks were expected to pro-
vide opportunities for use of the past tense, possessive, and plural
morphological structures. Video segments of two Little Rascals
episodes (i.e., “The Pooch” [Roach & McGowan, 1932] and “The
First Roundup” [Roach & Meins, 1934]) were used. The length of the
video segments was 10 min, to increase the chances of obtaining
samples of adequate length (Scott & Windsor, 2000; Windsor et al.,
2000). The informality of the content provided opportunities for par-
ticipants to use more instances of AAE in their spoken and written
language samples (Newkirk, 2001; Washington & Craig, 1994, 1998;
Washington et al., 1998). The video presentations were counter-
balanced to optimally minimize an order of video interference effect.
After the video was completed, participants were instructed to
tell or write about the content. They were allotted 3 min to complete
spoken narratives and 10 min to complete written narratives. Par-
ticipants were instructed not to worry about spelling, but to write
words the way they thought they should be spelled.
Interview task. The use of an interview context for eliciting a
spontaneous language sample has been demonstrated as effective
and reliable (Evans & Craig, 1992; Washington et al., 1998). The
first author provided the participants with facts from general themes
as conversational starters. After each fact was presented, the par-
ticipants were asked two to four open-ended questions to which
there were no right or wrong answers, and no special knowledge
was required. There were 16 facts presented, with a total of 44
conversational questions. Half of the questions were presented in
each modality.
Written samples were reviewed with each participant by having
them read what they had written immediately upon completion
of the task to resolve instances of illegible handwriting and mis-
spellings. Spoken samples were recorded using a Panasonic Video
Cassette Recorder Model PV-L352. An Emerson color TV-VCR
Model EWC1301 was used to play back participants’ spoken nar-
ratives, and responses were transcribed verbatim from the video-
tapes into a word processor. Reliability of the transcriptions was
34 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011
determined for all spoken samples. A graduate student viewed the
videotapes and transcribed approximately one third of each spoken
sample into a word processor. Percentage of agreement was de-
termined by dividing the total number of agreements by the total
number of agreements plus the number of disagreements between
the first author and the second viewer and multiplying the total by
100. The percentage of agreement for the transcriptions was 90%.
Measures of AAE Use
Percentage occurrence of AAE features. Six AAE grammatical
features were included in this investigation: (a) absence of verbal –s,
(b) absence of plural –s, (c) absence of possessive –s, (d) absence
of regular past tense –ed, (e) absence of regular be copula, and
(f ) absence of be auxiliary in spoken and written narrative sam-
ples. These specific AAE features were chosen because previous
research indicated that they occur frequently within the writing of
AA students (Cronnell, 1981, 1984; Smitherman, 1993; Terrebonne
& Terrebonne, 1976; Whiteman, 1981; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes,
1998; Wolfram & Whiteman, 1971). Opportunities (i.e., obligatory
context for use of the feature in MAE) to use each feature were
identified, and actual occurrences of each feature were noted. The
total number of opportunities for the six features was divided by the
number of occurrences of the six features to determine the overall
percentage occurrence. A sample of the descriptions used to identify
the opportunities and occurrences of the AAE features are shown in
the Appendix.
Coding reliability for opportunities and occurrences of AAE
features was determined by selecting one fourth of each spoken
and written sample for reliability calculations. The samples were
recoded for the opportunities and occurrences of AAE features by
three AA graduate students who were speakers of AAE. Two of the
students were in their third semester of graduate study, and one
was in the fourth semester. First, the students were trained on the
coding procedures. Each student was given spoken and written
samples for 10 participants (i.e., five from both grade levels), and
they met with the first author for a group training session. Training
included (a) viewing the videos to provide a perspective for the
related samples, (b) examining the definitions for coding AAE
features, (c) coding the samples of two participants for a total of
eight samples, and (d) discussing agreements and disagreements as
related to the definitions for coding. Percentage of reliability was
calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by the total
number of agreements plus the number of disagreements between
the first author and the three students, and multiplying the total by
100. The reliability for opportunities for the use of AAE features
yielded a percentage of agreement of 91%. The reliability for the
actual occurrence of AAE feature use yielded a percentage of agree-
ment of 80%. Despite the training provided to the student coders,
the low agreement regarding occurrences was due to errors made
by the student coders, who worked independently.
DDM. The amount of AAE that occurs in a spontaneous lan-
guage sample varies among children, and the contexts of some AAE
features are not easily detectable until the feature has been produced
(i.e., nonspecific linguistic contexts that depend on the speaker’s
intent). Consequently, a DDM was calculated for the samples in
both spoken and written conditions. The DDM is not affected by
opportunities for AAE use, but rather reflects the proportion of
dialectal use in overall linguistic production (Craig & Washington,
2000, 2002; Craig et al., 1998). In the current study, the DDM was
calculated by summing the number of times the six AAE gram-
matical features were used and dividing this number by the number
of words within the first 50 complete communication units (CCUs)
in each sample. A CCU is a type of C-unit, which is an indepen-
dent clause and its modifiers. The C-unit reflects less cultural–
linguistic bias because it is based on words rather than morphemes,
which are affected by dialectal variation (Nelson, 2010). Four
spoken samples from third graders contained <50 CCUs (i.e., 15,
29, 47, 48), and two spoken samples from eighth graders contained
<50 CCUs (i.e., 42, 46). All CCUs contained in the six samples
were included for analysis. The written samples were expected to
have fewer CCUs because of differences in the method of produc-
tion and the time required to make the product. Consequently, all
CCUs produced in the written samples of the third graders were
included in the calculation of the DDM. The number of CCUs in
the third graders’ written samples ranged from 20 to 42. There were
two eighth-grade written samples that contained 50 CCUs. The re-
maining 13 samples ranged in length from 25 to 49 CCUs.
RESULTS
This study employed a mixed design, with modality (spoken,
written) as the within-subjects variable and grade (third, eighth) as
the between-subjects variable. The dependent variables were the
overall percentage occurrence of six AAE features and dialectal
density (proportion of AAE features to words). SPSS (1989–2007)
software was used to run two 2 (grade) × 2 (modality) analyses
of variance (ANOVAs) for repeated measures in order to analyze
the data. Standard effect sizes (Cohen’s d) also were calculated on
each comparison to determine the importance, or meaningfulness,
of the modality differences for each grade. According to Cohen
(1977), a d of .25 is a small effect, .50 is a medium effect, and ≥.80
is a large effect.
Percentage Occurrence of AAE Features
The overall percentage occurrence of AAE features was calcu-
lated by dividing the total number of opportunities for all six fea-
tures to occur by the number of times the AAE features actually
occurred. These results are given in Table 1. On the percentage
occurrence of AAE features, the ANOVA revealed no statistically
significant main effect for modality, F(1, 28) = 3.674, p = .066,
or grade, F(1, 28) = 2.550, p = .122. However, there was a sig-
nificant interaction between grade and modality, F(1, 28) = 9.546,
p = .004. To follow up the significant interaction, grade was held
constant and t tests on modality were performed. For the third graders,
the difference was not statistically significant, t(1,14) = .625,
Table 1. Percentage occurrence of African American English (AAE) in grammatical structures providing
opportunities by grade and modality.
Spoken
Grade M SD Range M SD
Third 10.1 7.6 0–25.6 12.3
Eighth 12.4 6.1 3.7–26.5 3.3
p = .542. They used AAE features similarly in both modalities
(Mspeaking = 10.1, SD = 7.6; Mwriting = 12.3, SD = 11.2). The effect
size estimate (Cohen’s d) was .33, indicating a small difference
between AAE use in each modality by the third graders. However,
there was a statistically significant difference for the eighth graders,
t(1, 28) = 7.215, p < .0001. These results indicate that the eighth
graders used AAE features significantly more when speaking
(M = 12.4, SD = 6.1) than when writing (M = 3.3, SD = 3.3). There
was a large effect size (1.08) associated with the difference between
AAE use in each modality by the eighth graders.
DDM
DDMs were based on the proportion of AAE features used to the
number of words in the first 50 CCUs. These results are shown in
Table 2. With the DDM as the dependent measure, the ANOVA
yielded a statistically significant main effect for modality, F(1, 28) =
6.3, p = .018, a significant grade effect, F(1, 28) = 4.89, p = .035,
and a significant interaction between modality and grade, F(1, 28) =
14.198, p = .001. To follow up the significant interaction, grade was
held constant and t tests on modality were performed. There was
no difference in DDM between spoken and written language sam-
ples produced by the third graders, t(1, 14) = .734, p = .475.
Similarly, the estimated effect size (d = .10) indicated very small
modality differences in the DDMs of the third graders. In the eighth
graders, the spoken samples were characterized by significantly
higher dialectal density than the written samples, t(1, 14) = .6.09,
p < .0001. The effect size associated with this difference also was
large (d = 1.08).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the occurrence
of AAE in spoken and written language to determine if the per-
centage occurrence of dialectal use was affected by developmental
influences on modality differences. The specific questions were
whether the use of AAE differed in spoken versus written language
and if grade level influenced the relative use of dialect in each
modality. The percentage occurrence for six AAE features and a
measure of dialectal density were used to measure dialect use in
these modalities at the two grade levels.
The third graders used AAE features with relatively equal fre-
quencies in their speech and writing, whereas the eighth graders
decreased their use of AAE during writing. There were differences
in the use of AAE features in written language between the two
grade levels but not in spoken language. The lack of difference in
the spoken modality between the two grades could be attributed to
Written
Range t p d
11.2 2.0–38.5 .625 .542 0.33
3.3 0–12.5 7.215 < .0001 1.08
Ivy & Masterson: A Comparison of Oral and Written English 35
 Table 2. Dialectal density measures by grade and modality.
Spoken
Grade M SD Range M SD
Third 0.011 0.007 .000–.023 0.012
Eighth 0.013 0.008 .002–.022 0.004
several factors: (a) the tasks the students were asked to complete
were intended to elicit AAE, (b) the interactions between the stu-
dents and the conversational partner were relatively informal, and
(c) the conversational partner was AA. The use of spoken AAE
within this context was appropriate for both grade levels.
It should be noted that the elicitation conditions (narrative, inter-
view) were identical for both modalities. Nevertheless, the eighth
graders used fewer AAE features in the formal register, writing.
These findings suggest that the older AA children possessed morpho-
syntactic awareness skills that enabled them to dialect shift between
spoken and written modalities. Further, the data support the oc-
currence of a developmental shift in the older students’ use of AAE
features during the acquisition of writing skills. The findings of this
investigation are discussed in terms of (a) supporting evidence
for there being a sociocultural relationship in the development of
speaking and writing that changes during the span of development
and (b) the potential implications for pedagogical styles, clinical
strategies, and future research.
Kroll’s (1981) model of writing development proposed that the
differences and similarities between the oral and written discourse
of typically developing children may be the result of develop-
mental trends in acquiring these language skills. The similar use
of AAE in oral and written conditions by the third graders in the
current study are in line with Kroll’s writing development model,
indicating that young writers have an immature ability to reflect
on the differences between speech and writing. In other words,
the youngest writers in this study had not yet developed a meta-
awareness of dialect shifting (Collins, 1981; Kroll, 1978; Vygotsky,
1934/1962) in their speech or writing. On the other hand, the
eighth graders (13- and 14-year-olds) demonstrated skills of meta-
awareness of dialect shifting between speaking and writing. These
data corroborate research (Kroll, 1981; Singer, 1995; Sulzby,
1996) that proposes a decrease in the interrelatedness of speech
and writing in the course of writing development, with the writing
register becoming relatively more formal.
The results also suggest that as typically developing children
matriculate through grade school, they should acquire the ability
to apply the rules of writing that will allow them to differentiate their
writing style from their speaking style, no matter what dialect
they speak. This investigation revealed that a transition does occur
as children get older, but it also suggests that dialect speakers
may require some scaffolding to heighten their awareness of the
reality that the rules of academic writing may contrast with the rules
and use of their spoken dialect. The results of the current study
support the conclusions reported by Craig et al. (2009) and Thompson
et al. (2004). Like Craig et al., this investigation confirms that
many AAE-speaking students are able to dialect shift. Whereas 85%
of the participants in the Craig et al. study demonstrated this ability,
only 67% of the participants in the current study demonstrated
36 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011
Written
Range t p d
0.006 .003–.030 .734 .475 0.10
0.004 .000–.013 6.09 < .0001 1.44
this ability. Because Craig et al. standardized DDMs for each
grade, their findings do not address whether there were differences
in dialect shifting across grades. The current investigation suggests
that dialect shifting in writing is likely to begin occurring devel-
opmentally among AA students after third grade.
In the current investigation, the DDM for the third graders was
0.011 and 0.013 for spoken and written, respectively, and .012
and .004, respectively, for the eighth graders. These results were
considerably lower when compared to those reported by Craig et al.
(2009), who found DDMs of 0.103 and 0.040 for speech and writ-
ing, respectively. The differences in density for both modalities
between the two studies are likely due to differences in sampling
conditions. In the current investigation, samples were collected by
asking the participants to narrate a video and respond to interview
questions. Craig et al. used a picture description task to elicit
oral language samples and untimed story generations about topics
of choice to elicit written language samples. Perhaps the video
and interview tasks were perceived as somewhat academic by our
participants, and consequently resulted in less overall use of AAE.
The current study has several potential implications for prac-
tice. First, educators should encourage the development of meta-
awareness of dialect shifting by making the need for this skill as
transparent and explicit as possible to their students. This can be
achieved by having students practice dialect shifting between their
home language and school language while they are engaged in
classroom writing activities. For example, the AAE feature, plural
–s absence, could be targeted during a language activity unit on
plurals. First, the clinician or teacher could begin the session with an
introduction to the concept of plurals, and by pronouncing all words
to be used in the unit, drawing attention to the various sounds of
plural –s. Next, the teacher could read sentences to the students
containing words with the plural –s and point out the salient clues
(e.g., number words two and above; and demonstrative pronouns
these and those) in the sentences that indicate the need for plural –s.
Afterward, the students could engage in activities to identify the
context clues in sentences. Next, various writing activities could
be assigned to the students to complete in class and for homework
(Seals, Pollard-Durodola, Foorman, & Bradley, 2007). In-class
review of the written activities would strengthen the students’ meta-
awareness of the morphosyntactic feature of plural –s. If clinicians
and teachers began this type of practice (i.e., scaffolding) at early
levels of development, students may be more likely to make the
developmental transition to dialect shifting in formal writing tasks.
In addition, children with weaker language skills will get the scaf-
folding they need to make the transition between their home
language and school language.
The development of meta-awareness skills related to dialect
shifting can positively impact the academic achievement of AAE
dialect speakers. As predicted by the dialect shifting–reading
achievement hypothesis (Craig et al., 2009) and noted by Thompson
et al. (2004), children with dialect shifting ability have better
academic performance than children without this meta-awareness
skill. Therefore, it stands to reason that purposeful guidance by
clinicians or teachers in the skill of shifting from the home language
to the school language could positively affect the persistent achieve-
ment gap that our educational system continues to experience.
Whether this skill is termed code-switching, dialect shifting, or
meta-awareness, the end result is children who are bi-dialectal, with
the ability to manage the linguistic demands (i.e., both spoken and
written) of their classes and the sociocultural language demands
of their families, friends, and communities.
This comparison of oral and written English in typically devel-
oping AA third and eighth graders adds to our knowledge base
and to the developmental profile regarding the acquisition of lan-
guage skills in this population. The results indicate that typically
developing AA children should be expected to acquire language
skills in the same developmental time frame as other English-
speaking children; however, the sociolinguistic differences of these
children must be an aspect of consideration in helping them reach
their full academic potential.
One of the challenges in studies that compare spoken and written
language use is to determine an appropriate system for coding in
each. In this investigation, we used a single coding system to iden-
tify the AAE forms in both the oral and written samples. Although
language produced in oral and written forms is similar, speech
and writing are not completely parallel to one another. For example,
some irregular forms of past tense words were included in this study
as opportunities for regular past tense –ed absence (e.g., kept and
left) based on the fact that the irregular past tense is marked after
a consonant without the addition of a syllable. However, considera-
tion was not given to the sound changes that occur when the ir-
regular past tense forms are spoken. For example, there is vowel
alternation when the past tense of keep (i.e., kept) is spoken (e.g.,
/i/ changes to /e/). Likewise, the production of left as the irregular
past tense of leave results in a consonant change (e.g., /v/ changes
to /f/). In their written forms, the past tense of keep and leave are un-
questionably irregular past tense absence, not regular past tense –ed
absence (e.g., kept not keeped, and left not leaved ). Implications
of coding decisions such as these should be considered in future
studies.
It should be noted that we were given information regarding the
SES of our participants from only some of the schools. Conse-
quently, we can document that 57% of the participants came from
households with low incomes. Future research is necessary to de-
termine whether our findings are specific to AAE speakers from
low-SES environments or can be expected from most AAE users.
The current findings present several areas for additional
research. A comparison of the writing of AA children taught to use a
contrastive analysis approach between their speech and their writing
and a control group of AA students without such training strate-
gies could increase our knowledge of effective and efficient scaf-
folding techniques. Investigations of this type could examine the
effects of various factors on scaffolding techniques such as SES,
gender differences, the onset of the training, and genre differences.
Such investigations could potentially impact the achievement gap
in a positive manner. Educators would have evidence that peda-
gogical scaffolding provided to AA children could increase aca-
demic achievement and decrease the achievement gap in writing.
Also, the findings from this investigation have implications for
Ivy & Masterson: A Comparison of Oral and Written English
writing at the college and university level. If university writing
centers and teachers are going to help AA students with their writing
difficulties due to dialect interference, more research is needed to
determine if contrastive analysis is beneficial at this point in writing
development. Finally, the results of the typically developing AA
students in this investigation may have implications for best prac-
tices when providing language intervention to children with lan-
guage disorders who speak AAE. Dialect shifting in children with
language disorder is an area of research to be investigated.
REFERENCES
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Roles and
responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading
and writing in children and adolescents. Rockville, MD: Author.
Apel, K., & Thomas-Tate, S. (2009). Morphological awareness skills of
fourth-grade African American students. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 312–324.
Bailey, G., & Thomas, E. (1998). Some aspects of African-American
Vernacular English. In S. S. Mufwene, J. R. Rickford, G. Bailey, &
J. Baugh (Eds.), African-American English: Structure, history and use
(pp. 85–109). New York, NY: Routledge.
Battle, D. E. (1996). Language learning and use by African American
children. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(4), 22–37.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., & Swanson, H. (2010). Relationship of word-
and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing in second,
fourth, and sixth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 179–193.
Bloome, D., Champion, T., Katz, L., Morton, M. B., & Muldrow, R.
(2001). Spoken and written narrative development: African American
preschoolers as storytellers and storymakers. In J. L. Harris, A. G. Kamhi,
& K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Literacy in African American communities
(pp. 45–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlisle, J. F. (1996). An exploratory study of morphological errors in
children’s written stories. Reading and Writing, 8, 61–72.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Collins, J. L. (1981). Spoken language and the development of writing
abilities (Report No. CS 206 187). Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED199187)
Conner, C. M., & Craig, H. K. (2006). African American preschoolers’
language, emergent literacy skills, and use of African American English:
A complex relation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 49, 771–792.
Craig, H. K., Thompson, C. A., Washington, J. A., & Potter, S. L.
(2003). Phonological features of child African American English. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 623–635.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (1994). The complex syntax skills
of poor, urban, African-American preschoolers at school entry. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 181–190.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2000). An assessment battery for
identifying language impairments in African American children. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 366–379.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2002). Oral language expectations
for African-American preschoolers and kindergartners. American Journal
of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 59–70.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004a). Grade-related changes in the
production of African American English. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 47, 450–463.
37
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004b). Language variation and
literacy learning. In K. Apel, B. Ehren, E. Silliman, & C. A. Stone (Eds.),
Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders
(pp. 228–247). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Craig, H. K., Washington, J. A., & Thompson-Porter, C. (1998).
Average C-unit lengths in the discourse of African American children
from low-income, urban homes. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 41, 433–444.
Craig, H. K., Zhang, L., Hensel, S. L., & Quinn, E. J. (2009). African
American English-speaking students: An examination of the relationship
between dialect shifting and reading outcomes. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 839–855.
Cronnell, B. (1981). Dialect and writing: A review. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED 211997)
Cronnell, B. (1984). Black-English influences in the writing of third- and
sixth-grade Black students. Journal of Educational Research, 77(4),
233–236.
Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., & Tomlin, R. (1990). Video narration
as a language sampling context. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
55, 582–590.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—III.
Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Evans, J. L., & Craig, H. K. (1992). Language sample collection and
analysis: Interview compared to freeplay assessment contexts. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 343–353.
Gillam, R. B., & Johnston, J. R. (1992). Spoken and written language
relationships in language/learning-impaired and normally achieving
school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35,
1303–1315.
Glassner, B. M. (1981). Writing as an integrator of hemispheric function.
In B. Kroll & P. Vann (Eds.), Exploring speaking–writing relationships:
Connections and contrasts (pp. 142–153). Urbana, IL: The National
Council of Teachers of English.
Green, L. J. (2002). African American English. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999).
The NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states (NCES
1999-462). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
Hendrix, R. (1981). The status and politics of writing instruction. In M. F.
Whiteman (Ed.), Writing: Variation in writing: Functional and linguistic–
cultural differences (pp. 53–70). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Horkay, N. (2000). The NAEP guide (NCES 2000-456). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research.
Isaac, G. J. (1996). Persistence of non-standard dialect in school-age
children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 434–441.
Jerry, L. J., & Ballator, N. L. (1999). The NAEP 1998 writing state report
for Mississippi (NCES 1999-463 MS). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Kroll, B. M. (1978). Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience
awareness in written discourse. Research in the Teaching of English,
12(3), 269–281.
Kroll, B. M. (1981). Developmental relationships between speaking and
writing. In B. M. Kroll & R. J. Vann (Eds.), Exploring speaking–writing
relationships: Connections and contrasts (pp. 32–54). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Kroll, B. M., & Lemper, J. D. (1981). Effect of mode of communication
on the informational adequacy of children’s explanations. The Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 138, 27–35.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2007). Mississippi Curriculum
Test. Jackson, MS: Author.
38 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011
Mufwene, S. S. (1998). The structure of the noun phrase in African-
American vernacular English. In S. S. Mufwene, J. R. Rickford, G. Bailey,
& J. Baugh (Eds.), African-American English: Structure, history and use
(pp. 69–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nelson, N. W. (2010). Language and literacy disorders: Infancy through
adolescence. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Newkirk, B. L. (2001, April). Regional differences and selected forms of
African American English in 3 year old African American Head Start
students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Black
Association of Speech, Language and Hearing, Milwaukee, WI.
Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The Nation’s report card:
Writing 2002 (NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American Vernacular English. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Roach, H., & McGowan, R. (1932). The pooch. The Little Rascals col-
lector’s edition, Vol. 2 [VHS]. Greenwich, CT: Cabin Fever Entertainment.
Roach, H., & Meins, G. (1934). The first roundup. The Little Rascals col-
lector’s edition, Vol. 2 [VHS]. Greenwich, CT: Cabin Fever Entertainment.
Rubin, H., Patterson, P. A., & Kantor, M. (1991). Morphological devel-
opment and writing ability in children and adults. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 228–235.
Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The Nation’s report
card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
Scott, C. M., & Rogers, L. M. (1996). Written language abilities of African-
American children and youth. In A. G. Kamhi, K. E. Pollock, & J. L.
Harris (Eds.), Communication development & disorders in African
American children: Research, assessment, and intervention (pp. 307–332).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance mea-
sures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-
age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.
Seals, L. M., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Foorman, B. R., & Bradley, A. M.
(2007). Vocabulary power: Lessons for students who use African
American Vernacular English. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Singer, B. D. (1995). Written language development and disorders: Selected
principles, patterns, and intervention possibilities. Topics in Language
Disorders, 16(1), 83–98.
Smitherman, G. (1993). “The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice”:
African American student writers and the national assessment of
educational progress (Report No. CS 214 189). Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED 366944)
SPSS. (1989–2007). SPSS for Windows (Version 16.0.1) [Computer
software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
Stewart, S. R. (1985). Development of written language proficiency:
Methods for teaching text structure. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication
skills and classroom success (pp. 341–361). San Diego, CA: College
Hill Press.
Stockman, I. J. (1996). Phonological development and disorders in African
American children. In A. G. Kamhi, K. E. Pollock, & J. L. Harris (Eds.),
Communication development and disorders in African American children:
Research, assessment, and intervention (pp. 117–153). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Sulzby, E. (1996). Roles of oral and written language as children approach
conventional literacy. In C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge, & L. B.
Resnick (Eds.), Children’s early text construction (pp. 25–46). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Terrebonne, N. G., & Terrebonne, R. A. (1976). The patterning of
language variation in writing (Report No. CS 204 457). Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED 162312)
Thomas-Tate, S., Apel, K., & Miskowski, M. (2006, November).
African-American students’ use of morphology in spoken and written
narratives. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Miami, FL.
Thompson, C. A., Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2004). Variable
production of African American English across oracy and literacy con-
texts. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 269–282.
van Keulen, J. E., Weddington, G. T., & DeBose, C. E. (1998). Speech,
language, learning and the African American child. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar,
Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published
1934).
Washington, J. A. (1996). Issues in assessing the language abilities of
African American children. In A. G. Kamhi, K. E. Pollock, & J. L. Harris
(Eds.), Communication development and disorders in African American
children: Research, assessment, and intervention (pp. 35–54). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (1994). Dialectal forms during dis-
course of poor, urban, African American preschoolers. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 37, 816–823.
Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (1998). Socioeconomic status and
gender influences on children’s dialectal variations. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 618–626.
Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (1999). Performances of at-risk,
African-American preschoolers on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test—III. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30,
75–82.
Washington, J. A., Craig, H. K., & Kushmaul, A. J. (1998). Variable
use of African American English across two language sampling contexts.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1115–1124.
Ivy & Masterson: A Comparison of Oral and Written English
Whiteman, M. F. (1981). Dialect influence in writing. In M. F. Whiteman
(Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written com-
munication (Vol. 1, pp. 153–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Whiteman, M. F., & Hall, W. S. (1981). Introduction. In M. F. Whiteman
(Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written com-
munication (Vol. 1, pp. 1–10). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and noun mor-
phology in the spoken and written language of children with language
learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 43, 1322–1336.
Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T., & Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in schools
and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Wolfram, W., & Whiteman, M. F. (1971). The role of dialect interference
in composition (Report No. AL 002-696). Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED 045971)
Received September 23, 2009
Revision received May 13, 2010
Accepted July 10, 2010
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0069)
Contact author: Lennette J. Ivy, The University of Mississippi,
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 302 George Hall,
University, MS 38677. E-mail: livy@olemiss.edu.
39
 APPENDIX. DESCRIPTIONS OF OPPORTUNITIES AND OCCURRENCES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ENGLISH FEATURES

Feature Description

Verbal –s absence (VS)
Plural –s absence (PL)
Possessive –s absence (POSS)
Regular past tense –ed absence
Regular verb with a pronunciation that
ends with a consonant (PT-C)
Regular verb with a pronunciation that
ends with a vowel (PT-V)
Regular verb with a pronunciation that
ends with a /t / or /d/ (PT-T/D)
Copula absence (COPAb)
be-Auxiliary absence (beAUXAb)
Opportunity – Any present tense verb ending in –s, used in 3rd person (e.g., She goes,
he does, she thinks, he works)
Occurrence – Absence of the –s from present tense verbs used in 3rd person (e.g., She go,
he do, she think, he work)
Opportunity – Any regular lexical noun with the plural –s (e.g., toys, cars); irregular
plurals were not included (e.g., children, men)
Occurrence – The plural –s omitted from regular lexical nouns (e.g., four mile, two dog)
Opportunity – Any regular lexical noun with the ’s (e.g., the dog’s collar, Spanky’s dog);
simple possessive pronouns were not included (e.g., my, their, your, hers)
Occurrence – Any regular noun in the possessive case without the ’s (e.g., Pete collar,
Spanky dog)
Opportunity – Examples: walked, roped, cooked
Note. The past tense verbs kept and left should be included as opportunities. The past tense
is marked after a consonant without the addition of a syllable.
Occurrence – Examples: walk yesterday, rope cattle this morning, cook dinner yesterday
Opportunity – Examples: skied, tried
Note. The past tense verbs said, paid, laid should be included as opportunities. The rationale
is that these are (i.e., say, pay, lay) regular verbs ending with a vowel.
Occurrence – Examples: I ski last winter, I try yesterday, I say go to bed
Opportunity – Examples: skated, ended
Occurrence – Examples: ice skate last winter, it end at midnight (The focus is on the phonemic
makeup of the words – pronunciation.)
Copulas are be verbs (i.e., is, am, are, was, were) functioning as the main verb in a sentence.
Opportunity – Examples: He is a doctor, I am happy, we are the winners, she was there
yesterday, Spanky and Stymie were hungry this morning
Occurrence – Examples: He a doctor, I happy, we the winners, she there yesterday, they
hungry this morning
be-Auxiliaries (be-A) are be verbs (i.e., is, am, are, was, were) functioning as a helping verb
when a lexical verb is also present. (This is limited to be verbs and we’re looking for
ABSENCE.)
Opportunity – Examples: She is helping, they are singing, she was jumping this morning
Occurrence – Examples: She helping, they singing, she jumping this morning

40 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 42 • 31–40 • January 2011
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.