Object Clitic production in monolingual and bilingual children with Specific Language Impairment

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 394-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ianthi Maria Tsimpli ◽  
Eleni Peristeri ◽  
Maria Andreou
Keyword(s):  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Context Sensitive ◽  
Perspective Switching

Abstract Pronominal clitics are sensitive to both morphosyntax and discourse. Problems in clitic use could therefore stem from morphosyntactic or discourse management problems in children with SLI. Previous studies focused on 3rd person clitic use identifying morphosyntactic problems. We compare 1st with 3rd person clitic elicitation by monolingual and bilingual children with SLI to examine whether perspective-switching in the same task would affect performance. Elicited 3rd person clitics were further compared with clitic use in narratives to investigate the role of richer discourse context in clitic production. Perspective-taking was independently examined with first- and second-order Theory of Mind tasks. Bilingual were more accurate than monolingual children with SLI in 1st person clitics, in the use of unambiguous clitics in narratives and in second-order ToM reasoning. We conclude that bilingualism seems to enhance SLI children’s discourse use and perspective-taking strategies which, in turn, improve their use of clitics in context-sensitive conditions.

The potential of studying specific language impairment in bilinguals for linguistic research on specific language impairment in monolinguals

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Rothweiler
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Language Tests ◽  
Versus Domain ◽  
Canadian Studies ◽  
Practical Level

In her Keynote Article, Paradis discusses the role of the interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment (SLI) on two different levels. On the level of theoretical explanations of SLI, Paradis asks how domain general versus domain-specific perspectives on SLI can account for bilingual SLI, as well as what bilingual SLI may contribute to the discussion of these theories. Paradis argues in favor of domain-specific deficits (in addition to well-documented processing deficits in SLI), and especially for the maturational model (Rice, 2004). She argues against a mere processing deficit of input information and against deficits in working memory and processing speed as sole sources of SLI. On the practical level, Paradis focuses on the question of whether and how language tests that have been standardized for monolingual children are valid for the assessment of SLI in bilingual children. Both discussions, on theory and on practice, are based on empirical data from Canadian studies on bilingual children with and without SLI carried out by Johanne Paradis, Martha Crago, and Fred Genesee (e.g., Crago & Paradis, 2003; Paradis, 2007; Paradis, Crago, & Genesee, & Rice, 2003).

scholarly journals Connective processing by bilingual children and monolinguals with specific language impairment: distinct profiles

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLEM M. MAK ◽  
ELENA TRIBUSHININA ◽  
JULIA LOMAKO ◽  
NATALIA GAGARINA ◽  
EKATERINA ABROSOVA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Dominant Language ◽  
Production Studies ◽  
Two Populations

AbstractProduction studies show that both Russian-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) and bilingual children for whom Russian is a non-dominant language have difficulty distinguishing between the near-synonymous connectivesi‘and’ anda‘and/but’.Iis a preferred connective when reference is maintained, whereasais normally used for reference shift. We report an eye-tracking experiment comparing connective processing by Russian-speaking monolinguals with typical language development (TLD) with that of Russian–Dutch bilinguals and Russian-speaking monolinguals with SLI (age 5–6). The results demonstrate that the processing profiles of monolinguals with TLD and bilinguals are similar: both groups use connective semantics immediately for predicting further discourse. In contrast, children with SLI do not show sensitivity to these semantic differences. Despite similar production profiles, bilinguals and monolinguals with SLI are clearly different in connective processing. We discuss the implications of these results for the possible causes of the errors in the two populations.

The Role of Memory in Processing Relative Clauses in Children With Specific Language Impairment

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Paul Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Almost All

Purpose This study investigated the relationship between 2 components of memory—phonological short-term memory (pSTM) and working memory (WM)—and the control of relative clause constructions in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Method Children with SLI and 2 control groups—an age-matched and a younger group of children with typical development—repeated sentences, including relative clauses, representing 5 syntactic roles and 2 levels of matrix clause complexity. The Working Memory Test Battery for Children was administered. Results All 3 groups showed significant associations between pSTM and both types of matrix clause construction. For children with SLI, significant associations emerged between (a) WM and more complex matrix clause constructions, (b) WM and relative clauses including a range of syntactic roles, and (c) pSTM and the least difficult syntactic role. In contrast, the age-matched control group could repeat almost all syntactic roles without invoking the use of either memory component. Conclusions The role of pSTM and WM in the production of relative clauses by children with SLI is influenced by the degree of difficulty of the structure to be recalled. In therapy, the effect of WM limitations can be minimized by approaching each structure within the context of a simple matrix clause.

Grammatical Morphology and the Role of Weak Syllables in the Speech of Italian-Speaking Children With Specific Language Impairment

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1363-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard ◽  
Umberta Bortolini
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Auxiliary Verbs ◽  
Input Processing ◽  
Grammatical Morphology ◽  
Grammatical Morphemes ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
Verb Inflections

Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) were compared to a group of younger control children in their use of auxiliary verbs, pronominal clitics, infinitives, present tense verb inflections, and articles. Differences favoring the control children were found for those morphemes that required the production of nonfinal weak syllables. On other grammatical morphemes, the two groups did not differ. A relationship was seen between the use of morphemes requiring nonfinal weak syllables and the use of nonfinal weak syllables that had no morpheme status. The findings are considered from the perspective of both prosodic production limitations and limitations in input processing.

Bilingualism as a kind of therapy?

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aafke Hulk ◽  
Sharon Unsworth
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Child Language ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Bilingual Development ◽  
Challenging Question

In her very interesting Keynote Article, Johanne Paradis gives a clear overview of recent research at the interface of bilingual development and child language disorders, and highlights its theoretical and clinical implications. She raises the challenging question of “whether bilingualism can be viewed as a kind of ‘therapy’ for SLI.” At first sight, this is perhaps a surprising question, because one of the predominant views in the literature is that bilingual children with specific language impairment (SLI) will exhibit difficulties and perhaps a “double delay.” It is this challenging question that we consider in more detail here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document