Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:07:09.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Input sources of third person singular -s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

LAURENCE B. LEONARD ,
MARC E. FEY ,
PATRICIA DEEVY  and
SHELLEY L. BREDIN-OJA
LAURENCE B. LEONARD*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
MARC E. FEY
Affiliation:
University of Kansas Medical Center
PATRICIA DEEVY
Affiliation:
Purdue University
SHELLEY L. BREDIN-OJA
Affiliation:
University of Kansas Medical Center
*
Address for correspondence: Laurence B. Leonard, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Lyles-Porter Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. e-mail: xdxl@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We tested four predictions based on the assumption that optional infinitives can be attributed to properties of the input whereby children inappropriately extract non-finite subject–verb sequences (e.g. the girl run) from larger input utterances (e.g. Does the girl run? Let's watch the girl run). Thirty children with specific language impairment (SLI) and thirty typically developing children heard novel and familiar verbs that appeared exclusively either in utterances containing non-finite subject–verb sequences or in simple sentences with the verb inflected for third person singular -s. Subsequent testing showed strong input effects, especially for the SLI group. The results provide support for input-based factors as significant contributors not only to the optional infinitive period in typical development, but also to the especially protracted optional infinitive period seen in SLI.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 786 - 820
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by research grant R01 DC009574 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to thank the children and their families for their participation.

References

Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2001). What preschool children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development 16, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, D. V. M. (1979). Comprehension in developmental language disorders. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 21, 225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2013). Uncommon understanding: development and disorders of language comprehension in children (Classic Edition) . Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Burgemeister, B., Blum, L. & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science 27, 843–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croker, S., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2000). Modelling optional infinitive phenomena. In Taatgen, N. & Aasman, J. (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 78–85. Veenendaal: Universal Press.Google Scholar
Croker, S., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2001). Modelling children's case-marking errors with MOSAIC. In Altmann, E., Cleeremans, A., Schunn, C. & Gray, W. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 55–60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dawson, J., Eyer, J. & Fonkalsrud, J. (2005). Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test – Preschool: Second Edition. DeKalb, IL: Janelle Publications.Google Scholar
Eyer, J. & Leonard, L. (1995). Functional categories and specific language impairment: a case study. Language Acquisition 4, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finneran, D. & Leonard, L. (2010). The role of linguistic input in third person singular -s use in the speech of young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 1065–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., Aguado-Orea, J. & Gobet, F. (2007). Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish. Cognitive Science 31, 311–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2006). Modeling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 30, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2009). Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German, and English root infinitives in MOSAIC. Language Learning and Development 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 37, 643–69.Google Scholar
Greenslade, K., Plante, E. & Vance, R. (2009). The diagnostic accuracy and construct validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test – Preschool: Second Edition. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40, 150–60.Google Scholar
Hadley, P., Rispoli, M., Fitzgerald, C. & Bahnsen, A. (2011). Predictors of morphosyntactic growth in typically developing toddlers: contribution of parent input and child sex. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54, 549–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, K., Nettelbladt, U. & Leonard, L. (2000). Specific language impairment in Swedish: the status of verb morphology and word order. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 848–64.Google Scholar
Hoover, J., Storkel, H. & Rice, M. (2012). The interface between neighborhood density and optional infinitives: normal development and specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language 39, 836–62.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P., Luce, P. & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 630–45.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36, 1091–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, L. (1974). Developmental Sentence Scoring. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, J. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–44.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38, 1270–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Camarata, S., Brown, B. & Camarata, M. (2004). Tense and agreement in the speech of children with specific language impairment: patterns of generalization through intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1363–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. & Deevy, P. (2011). Input distribution influences degree of auxiliary use by children with specific language impairment. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 247–73.Google Scholar
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, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 741–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchman, V., Wulfeck, B. & Ellis Weismer, S. (1999). Morphological productivity in children with normal language and SLI: a study of the English past tense. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 206–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norbury, C. F., Bishop, D. V. M. & Briscoe, J. (2001). Production of English finite verb morphology: a comparison of SLI and mild-moderate hearing impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 165–78.Google Scholar
Owen, A. & Leonard, L. (2006). The production of finite and nonfinite complement clauses by children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 548–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelham, S. (2011). The input ambiguity hypothesis and case blindness: an account of cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic differences in case errors. Journal of Child Language 38, 235–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purdy, J. D., Leonard, L., Weber-Fox, C. & Kaganovich, N. (in press). Decreased sensitivity to long-distance dependencies in children with a history of specific language impairment: electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.Google Scholar
Räsänen, S., Ambridge, B. & Pine, J. (2013). Infinitives or bare stems? Are English-speaking children defaulting to the highest-frequency form? Journal of Child Language. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000913000159.Google Scholar
Redmond, S. & Rice, M. (2001). Detection of irregular verb violations by children with and without SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 655–69.Google Scholar
Reynell, J. & Gruber, C. (1990). Reynell Developmental Language Scales – U.S. Edition. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
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. & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38, 850–63.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
Rispoli, M., Hadley, P. & Holt, J. (2012). Sequence and system in the acquisition of tense and agreement. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, 1007–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roid, G. & Miller, L. (1997). Leiter Internatiional Performance Scale – Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Schuele, C. M. & Dykes, J. (2005). Complex syntax acquisition: a longitudinal case study of a child with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19, 295–318.Google Scholar
Schuele, C. M. & Nicholls, L. (2000). Subject relative clauses: evidence of a continued linguistic vulnerability in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 14, 563–85.Google Scholar
Schuele, C. M. & Tolbert, L. (2001). Omissions of obligatory relative markers in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 15, 257–74.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. & Hoover, J. (2010). An on-line calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density based on child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods 42, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46, 863–77.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (2006). Young children's understanding of present and past tense. Language Learning and Development 2, 251–76.Google Scholar
van der Lely, H. (1997). Language and cognitive development in a grammatical SLI boy: modularity and innateness. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10, 75–107.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, Head movement and the economy of derivation. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (eds), Verb movement, 305–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar