Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T10:43:02.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors accounting for the ability of children with SLI to learn agreement morphemes in intervention*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2008

MONIKA PAWŁOWSKA ,
LAURENCE B. LEONARD ,
STEPHEN M. CAMARATA ,
BARBARA BROWN  and
MARY N. CAMARATA
MONIKA PAWŁOWSKA*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
LAURENCE B. LEONARD
Affiliation:
Purdue University
STEPHEN M. CAMARATA
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
BARBARA BROWN
Affiliation:
Purdue University
MARY N. CAMARATA
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
*
Address for correspondence: Monika Pawłowska, Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2038, USA. Email: pawlowsm@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to uncover factors accounting for the ability of children with specific language impairment (SLI) to learn agreement morphemes in intervention. Twenty-five children with SLI who participated in a six-month intervention program focused on teaching third person singular -s or auxiliary is/are/was showed a wide range of use of the target morpheme after intervention. Regression analyses showed that age and two factors expected to be related to agreement – the use of noun plural -s and subject/verb constructions prior to intervention – significantly predicted progress in the acquisition of agreement morphemes. In contrast, the pretreatment use of morphemes hypothesized to be unrelated to agreement was not a significant predictor of progress. The results indicate that the ability of children with SLI to learn agreement morphemes relies on their prior ability to use noun plural and subject/verb constructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 25 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bock, K., Nicol, J. & Cutting, J. C. (1999). The ties that bind: creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 330–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1989). The grammatical characterization of developmental dysphasia. Linguistics 27, 897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deVilliers, J. & deVilliers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 267–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottsleben, R., Tyack, D. & Buschini, G. (1974). Three case studies in language training: applied linguistics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 39, 213–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grela, B. (2003 a). The omission of subject arguments in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 17, 153–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grela, B. (2003 b). Production-based theories may account for subject omission in both normal children and children with SLI: a case study. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology/Revue d'orthophonie et d'audiologie 27, 221–8.Google Scholar
Grela, B. & Leonard, L. (1997). The use of subject arguments by children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 11, 443–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T., Hyams, N. & Becker, M. (1997). The underspecification of number and the licensing of root infinitives. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M. & Greenhill, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 293–306. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, L., Leonard, L. & Swanson, L. (1999). Some differences between English plural noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: the contributions of frequency, sentence position, and duration. Journal of Child Language 26, 531–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (1992). The optional subject phenomenon in young children's English: a case study. Journal of Child Language 19, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, V. E., deVilliers, J. G. & Seymour, H. N. (2005). Agreement without understanding? The case of third person singular /s/. First Language 25, 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, T. & Wolfe, J. (1972). The acquisition of agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11, 698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahey, M., Liebergott, J., Chesnick, M., Menyuk, P. & Adams, J. (1992). Variability in children's use of grammatical morphemes. Applied Psycholinguistics 13, 373–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children. Applied Psycholinguistics 10, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38, 1270–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M., McGregor, K. & Sabbadini, L. (1992). Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: the status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition 2, 151–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Camarata, S., Brown, B. & Camarata, M. (2004). Tense and agreement in the speech of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1363–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Camarata, S., Pawłowska, M., Brown, B. & Camarata, M. (2006). Tense and agreement morphemes in the speech of children with specific language impairment during intervention: Phase II. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 749–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Deevy, P., Miller, C., Charest, M., Kurtz, R. & Rauf, L. (2003). The use of grammatical morphemes reflecting aspect and modality by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language 30, 769–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Eyer, J., Bedore, L. & Grela, B. (1997). Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme difficulties of English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 40, 741–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Miller, C. & Owen, A. (2000). The comprehension of verb agreement morphology by English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 14, 465–81.Google Scholar
McShane, J. & Whitaker, S. (1988). The encoding of tense and aspect by three- to five-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 45, 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. (1986–2000). SALT: A computer program for the systematic analysis of language transcripts. Language Analysis Laboratory, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Oetting, J. & Rice, M. (1993). Plural acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 1236–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Grady, W., Peters, A. M. & Masterson, D. (1989). The transition from optional to required subjects. Journal of Child Language 16, 513–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. & Oetting, J. (1993). Morphological deficits of children with SLI: evaluation of number marking and agreement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36, 1249–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39, 1239–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M., Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 1412–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roid, G. & Miller, L. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale – Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 293–306. Sommerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. & Wexler, K. (2000). An elicitation study of young children's knowledge of tense. In Howell, S., Fish, S., & Keith-Lucas, T. (eds) Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Volume 2, 670–81. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, E. & Kresheck, J. (1983). Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test – Preschool. DeKalb, IL: Janelle Publications.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language 30, 75–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed