Transcript SLI in monolingual children

Tense as a clinical
marker for SLI
37-975-01
Challenges to Language Acquisition:
Bilingualism and Language Impairment
Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem
Bar Ilan University
The phenomenon



Up to the age of three children use the infinitival
form of the verbs in indicative matrix clauses in
50% of their verbal utterances in English (Wexler
1994), and to a lesser extent in other languages
(Armon-Lotem 1996a, Hyams 1995, Rhee &
Wexler 1995, Rizzi 1994a).
Finite sentences are produced at the same time
Children seem to know the grammatical
properties of finiteness and non-finiteness (e.g.,
Deprez & Pierce 1994)
1)
a. It only write on the pad
b. He bite me
c. My finger hurts
2)
M: ma at osa?
what you do
'what are you doing ?
L: tapuax lishtot (Lior)08;1
apple to-drink
'I drink an apple'
Infinitival forms constitute only 5% of the Italian
data.
>>> Extensive use of root infinitives correlates with
non-null subject languages.
 “A language goes through an OI stage if and
only if the language is not an INFL-licensed nullsubject language.” (Wexler 1996(

Some of the possible accounts





Finite and non-finite forms are used randomly
Wexler (1994), Harris & Wexler (1996): Children
optionally omit tense. The use of root infinitives relates to
a defective Tense that has not matured yet.
Rizzi (1994a,b): the use of root infinitives relates to
children’s lack of knowledge of the functions of C )e.g.
C=ROOT). Truncated trees are not available once CP
becomes obligatory both in matrix and embedded
contexts
Schutze & Wexler (1996): AGR/TNS omission model
(ATOM) - children omit either TNS or AGR or neither
Wexler (1998): Children assume the unique checking
hypothesis – The features of a DP can only check
against one functional category.
Wexler (1994)

There is a correlation between the use of root infinitives
and the use of bare negation. “A child who is optionally
“dropping” 3rd [person] singular, will have medial
negative sentences [of type I] in which the s does not
appear on the verb“ )Wexler, 1994: 331(:

Type I: Mary not play baseball
Type II: * Mary not plays baseball.

>>> When negation precedes the verb, the verb should not
be inflected.
Harris & Wexler (1996)




Bare negation used at the optional infinitive-stage are
largely (over 90%) of type I. This proportion is larger than
the share of root infinitives. (Table 5)
Do is omitted optionally where required for the same
reason that -s is omitted optionally where required.
Nevertheless, do-support is used more than Tense in
general. (Table 11)
Tensed forms are used almost completely correctly.
(Tables 8 & 9)
The bare stem is used both in present (64%) and non
present (47%) contexts. (Table 12)
Schutze & Wexler (1996):
AGR/TNS omission model (ATOM)
Nominative Subject
Non-Nom Subject
Finite
+ (he goes)
- (him goes)
Non-finite
+ (he go)
+ (him go)
•Non-nominative case on subjects used at the optional
infinitive-stage will be largely with non-finite verbs
•Only 5% of finite verbs take a non-nominative subjects,
whereas 46% of non-finite verbs take a non-nominative
subject.
•Non-nominative is the default case. (Test: “Who wants icecream?”)
a) AGR or TNS or both may be deleted
b) AGR assigns NOM. If no AGR, subject gets default
case
c) Default case in English is ACC
d) AGR checks 3rd person singular morphology
Him goes is not attested because there is a
contradiction between the verb morphology and the
case on the subject.
+AGR
-AGR
+TNS
+ (he goes)
+ (him go)
-TNS
+ (he go)
+ (go)
Armon-Lotem (1996) for Hebrew



There’s a gradual increase in the use of inflected
verbs.
Past tense morphology is acquired prior to
person morphology, but this does not correlate
with a decrease in the use of root infinitives, but
rather with a decrease in the use of “stem-like
forms”.
The use of root infinitives reduces (from 5% to
less than 1%) only when questions (and
subordination) are mastered (last stage of Klima
& Bellugi 1966).
Extended optional infinitive in
English (Rice & Wexler 1995)
Morphemes checked: 3rd person –s, past
tense –ed, copula & auxiliary BE, and DO.
 Procedure: natural language samples +
probe procedure aimed at elicitation
(playing with toys).
 Subjects: SLI, N3 (language matched by
MLU), N5 (age matched)

Findings - Percentage correct
probes and spontaneous speech
-ed probe
-ed spontaneous
-s probe
-s spontaneous
BE probe
BE spontaneous
DO probe
plural
Prepositions
SLI
27
23
22
37
50
46
30
88
96
N3
45
46
44
60
64
71
47
96
97
N5
92
90
91
89
95
96
90
97
98
Children in the SLI group showed a lower level of use in
obligatory context than children in either control groups.
 N5 used the morphemes over 90% of the times, while
SLI used them in 25%-48% of the time.
 N3 where in between (45%-70%)
 Error of use are very rare (SLI accuracy of agreement for
probe data is like N3: 94% with BE, 82% with DO)
 Other morphemes, e.g., plural, are almost at normal
level
 Prepositions are intact
>> Tense marking is optional for a protracted period of time

Inflections in Hebrew speaking
children with SLI




Dromi, E. & S. Davidson. 2002. A Clinical Marker for HSLI: from
Empirical Findings to Theorizing. Paper presented at Brain and
Language: Language Acquisition in Special Populations, Bar Ilan
University, June.
Dromi, E., Leonard, L., Adam, G. & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, S. 1999.
Verb Agreement Morphology in Hebrew-Speaking Children with
Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 42, 1414-1431.
Dromi, E., Leonard, L.B., & Adam, G. 1997. Evaluating the
morphological abilities of Hebrew- speaking children with SLI.
Amsterdam Series in Child language Development, 6, 65-78,
Dromi, E., L. B. Leonard, and M. Shteiman (1993) The grammatical
morphology of Hebrew-speaking children with Specific Language
Impairment: some competing hypotheses. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research 36: 760-771
The morphological richness
hypothesis

SLI children have a limited processing capacity.
They focus on the most salient aspects of the
language they acquire. For example, in English
they focus on word-order and ignore the
morphology, while in German they focus on
morphology and ignore the word order.

Subjects: SLI, NDA, NDL (matched by MLU)
Dromi, E., L. B. Leonard, and M.
Shteiman (1993)


Findings: “Hebrew speaking children with SLI
resembled their MLU controls in their use of both
present and past tense inflections requiring
agreement with the subject”.
In the nominal system, plural formation,
adjectival agreement, and the use of the
accusative case marker are all delayed, but not
different from language matched controls.
>>> SLI is a delay
Dromi, E., Leonard, L., Adam, G. &
Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, S. (1999)
Method:
 Sentence completion for 3rd person.
Enactment tasks for 1st and 2nd person.
 4 conjugations: pa'al, piel, hitpael, hif'il.
The inflectional paradigm for past and
present.
Findings
In present tense, both SLI and NDL used past for preset
 In present tense, both SLI and NDL used masculine for feminine in singular
and plural.
 SLI found Hitpa'el more difficult – using p'iel instead. Simplifying consonants
cluster.
 SLI found Hif'il more difficult – using present for past and vice versa, using
infinitives.
 SLI found pi'el more difficult – they used also stripped forms
 In past tense, 3rd person singular replaced many of the inflected forms.
 SLI used it mostly instead of other singular forms (56/64) – mostly for 2nd
person
 NDL used it mostly instead of plural forms.
 Past tense does pose a problem for Hebrew speaking SLI children, whereas
difficulties with present tense are less pronounced.
 Most errors were mostly related to the use of tense (60/144)) or person
(67/144), but usually not both.
 Most errors were different by one feature from the target (77% in the past
tense)
>>> A limited processing capacity, since more complex structures, which place
more demands on the system, seem to be more impaired.

Blass A. 2000.
Method: Spontaneous speech samples of the same
children
Findings:
 No difference between SLI and NDL in the level of
inflections
 No difference between SLI and NDL in the mastery of
inflections
 Out of all forms in Pa’al (80% of verbs), 90% were
tensed.
 SLI used more bare (stripped) forms – significant, but the
numbers are small.
 SLI and NDL had similar errors, but SLI had more.
 In natural settings children do what they know and avoid
the difficult forms.
>>>Delay
Davidson, S. 2002. The Language Profile of
Hebrew Speaking Preschoolers with Specific
Language Impairement. M.A. Thesis, TAU.
Methodology: H-IPSyn
Findings: SLI are similar to NDL but for three criteria:



Lexicon - SLI use a smaller variety of verb types than
NDL
Mrpho-syntax - SLI make more errors than NDL but of
the same kind
Pragmatic (??)- SLI have difficulties with reference not
found in the NDL group
Passive Participle vs. Regular Past
Tense
Laurence B. Leonard, Patricia Deevy, Carol A. Miller, Leila
Rauf, Monique Charest, and Robert Kurtz. 2003.
Surface Forms and Grammatical Functions: Past Tense
and Passive Participle Use by Children with Specific
Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research Vol.46 43-55
The girl pushed the boy.
The boy got pushed by the girl.

EOI account: different

The surface account: same
Method
Subjects
12 of the children (aged from 4,6 to 6, 10) with
SLI
 12 ND-A
 12 ND-MLU

Sentence completion tasks:
 the use of past tense verb forms
 the use of passive participle verb forms
Summary


The inconsistency with which children with SLI
produce past –ed cannot be due to the surface
property of this inflection. Its grammatical function
probably plays the central role.
Children with SLI have special problems with verb
morphology, even when tense is not involved. The
passive participle –ed proved to be one such area
of weakness.