scholarly journals Case marking in Hungarian children with specific language impairment

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágnes Lukács ◽  
Bence Kas ◽  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Case Marking

Grammatical errors in specific language impairment: Competence or performance limitations?

1994 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. V. M. Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Limited Capacity ◽  
Morphological Markers ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Grammatical Morphemes ◽  
Grammatical Errors ◽  
Almost All

ABSTRACTSpeech samples from twelve 8- to 12-year-old children with specific language impairment (SLI) were analyzed. The feature deficit hypothesis maintains that SLI children may produce morphological markers (e.g., plural -s) correctly, but they do not appreciate their role in marking grammatical features. Rather, they treat them as meaningless phonological variants. Findings from the present study were incompatible with this hypothesis: (a) production of morphological markers was not random; errors were unidirectional, in almost all cases involving omission of an inflection in an obligatory context; (b) overregularization errors were sometimes observed; (c) grammatical features differed in difficulty; (d) substitution of stems for inflected forms occurred with irregular as well as regular verbs; and (e) errors of pronoun case marking were common and always involved producing an accusative form in a context demanding the nominative. Children who used a specific inflectional form correctly in some utterances omitted it in others, suggesting a limitation of performance rather than competence. There were few obvious differences between utterances that did and did not include correctly inflected forms, though there was a trend for grammatical errors to occur on words that occurred later in an utterance. It is suggested that slowed processing in a limited capacity system that is handling several operations in parallel may lead to the omission of grammatical morphemes.

scholarly journals Noun case suffix use by children with specific language impairment: An examination of Finnish

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 833-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURENCE B. LEONARD ◽  
SARI KUNNARI ◽  
TUULA SAVINAINEN-MAKKONEN ◽  
ANNA-KAISA TOLONEN ◽  
LEENA MÄKINEN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Genitive Case

ABSTRACTA group of Finnish-speaking children with specific language impairment (N = 15, M age = 5 years, 2 months [5;2]), a group of same-age typically developing peers (N = 15, M age = 5;2), and a group of younger typically developing children (N = 15, M age = 3;8) were compared in their use of accusative, partitive, and genitive case noun suffixes. The children with specific language impairment were less accurate than both groups of typically developing children in case marking, suggesting that their difficulties with agreement extend to grammatical case. However, these children were also less accurate in making the phonological changes in the stem needed for suffixation. This second type of error suggests that problems in morphophonology may constitute a separate problem in Finnish specific language impairment.

Do Data From Children With Specific Language Impairment Support the Agreement/Tense Omission Model?

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian M. Pine ◽  
Kate L. Joseph ◽  
Gina Conti-Ramsden
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Verb Forms ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Children's Speech ◽  
Model Atom

One of the most influential recent accounts of pronoun case-marking errors in children’s speech is C. T. Schütze and K. Wexler’s (1996) agreement/tense omission model (ATOM). This model predicts that non-nominative subjects with agreeing verbs will be so rare that they can be reasonably disregarded as noise in the data. The present study tested this prediction on data from 4 children with specific language impairment (SLI) by comparing the frequency with which each child produced non-nominative subjects with agreeing verbs and the frequency with which they would be expected to produce such errors by chance given the number of nominative and non-nominative subjects and the number of agreeing and nonagreeing verb forms in the data. The results show (a) that although 3 of the 4 children used non-nominative subjects in their speech, only 2 of them (Nathan and Dan) produced non-nominative subjects with agreeing verbs significantly less often than one would expect by chance; (b) that to the extent that there was an asymmetry in Nathan’s and Dan’s use of nominative and nonnominative subjects with agreeing verbs, this asymmetry could be explained in terms of developmental changes in their ability to mark case and agreement correctly and the use of potentially unanalyzed contractions; and (c) that Nathan and Dan produced non-nominative subjects with noncontracted agreeing forms about as often as one would expect by chance. These findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications for the ATOM and their methodological implications for future work on patterns of pronoun case marking error in the speech of typically developing children and children with SLI.

Eliciting Verbs From Children With Specific Language Impairment

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Frome Loeb ◽  
Clifton Pye ◽  
Sean Redmond ◽  
Lori Zobel Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Syntactic Complexity ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Lexical Skills

The focus of assessment and intervention is often aimed at increasing the lexical skills of young children with language impairment. Frequently, the use of nouns is the center of the lexical assessment. As a result, the production of verbs is not fully evaluated or integrated into treatment in a way that accounts for their semantic and syntactic complexity. This paper presents a probe for eliciting verbs from children, describes its effectiveness, and discusses the utility of and problems associated with developing such a probe.

Deficits in Explicit Language Problem Solving Rather Than in Implicit Learning in Specific Language Impairment: Evidence From Learning an Artificial Morphological Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 3790-3807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Ferman ◽  
Liat Kishon-Rabin ◽  
Hila Ganot-Budaga ◽  
Avi Karni
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Procedural Memory ◽  
Procedural Learning ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
Morphological Rule ◽  
Semantic Distinction

Purpose The purpose of this study was to delineate differences between children with specific language impairment (SLI), typical age–matched (TAM) children, and typical younger (TY) children in learning and mastering an undisclosed artificial morphological rule (AMR) through exposure and usage. Method Twenty-six participants (eight 10-year-old children with SLI, 8 TAM children, and ten 8-year-old TY children) were trained to master an AMR across multiple training sessions. The AMR required a phonological transformation of verbs depending on a semantic distinction: whether the preceding noun was animate or inanimate. All participants practiced the application of the AMR to repeated and new (generalization) items, via judgment and production tasks. Results The children with SLI derived significantly less benefit from practice than their peers in learning most aspects of the AMR, even exhibiting smaller gains compared to the TY group in some aspects. Children with SLI benefited less than TAM and even TY children from training to judge and produce repeated items of the AMR. Nevertheless, despite a significant disadvantage in baseline performance, the rate at which they mastered the task-specific phonological regularities was as robust as that of their peers. On the other hand, like 8-year-olds, only half of the SLI group succeeded in uncovering the nature of the AMR and, consequently, in generalizing it to new items. Conclusions Children with SLI were able to learn language aspects that rely on implicit, procedural learning, but experienced difficulties in learning aspects that relied on the explicit uncovering of the semantic principle of the AMR. The results suggest that some of the difficulties experienced by children with SLI when learning a complex language regularity cannot be accounted for by a broad, language-related, procedural memory disability. Rather, a deficit—perhaps a developmental delay in the ability to recruit and solve language problems and establish explicit knowledge regarding a language task—can better explain their difficulties in language learning.

A View of the Lexical–Grammatical Link in Young Latinos With Specific Language Impairment Using Language-Specific and Conceptual Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1775-1786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucía I. Méndez ◽  
Gabriela Simon-Cereijido
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Vocabulary Skills ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
L1 And L2

Purpose This study investigated the nature of the association of lexical–grammatical abilities within and across languages in Latino dual language learners (DLLs) with specific language impairment (SLI) using language-specific and bilingual measures. Method Seventy-four Spanish/English–speaking preschoolers with SLI from preschools serving low-income households participated in the study. Participants had stronger skills in Spanish (first language [L1]) and were in the initial stages of learning English (second language [L2]). The children's lexical, semantic, and grammar abilities were assessed using normative and researcher-developed tools in English and Spanish. Hierarchical linear regressions of cross-sectional data were conducted using measures of sentence repetition tasks, language-specific vocabulary, and conceptual bilingual lexical and semantic abilities in Spanish and English. Results Results indicate that language-specific vocabulary abilities support the development of grammar in L1 and L2 in this population. L1 vocabulary also contributes to L2 grammar above and beyond the contribution of L2 vocabulary skills. However, the cross-linguistic association between vocabulary in L2 and grammar skills in the stronger or more proficient language (L1) is not observed. In addition, conceptual vocabulary significantly supported grammar in L2, whereas bilingual semantic skills supported L1 grammar. Conclusions Our findings reveal that the same language-specific vocabulary abilities drive grammar development in L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI. In the early stages of L2 acquisition, vocabulary skills in L1 also seem to contribute to grammar skills in L2 in this population. Thus, it is critical to support vocabulary development in both L1 and L2 in DLLs with SLI, particularly in the beginning stages of L2 acquisition. Clinical and educational implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document