Advertisement

Subject–Aux Inversion in Children with SLI

  • Kelly RomboughEmail author
  • Rosalind Thornton
Article

Abstract

An elicited production study investigated subject–aux inversion in 5-year-old children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 2 control groups, typically-developing 5-year-old children and 3-year-old children matched by mean length of utterance. The experimental findings showed that children with specific language impairment produced subject–aux inversion in yes/no questions significantly less often than either of the control groups. However, the fact that lack of inversion is reflected in the input led to the proposal that children with specific language impairment choose the most economical grammatical option. For main clause wh-questions, children with SLI carried out subject–aux inversion at a rate that was not significantly different from the control groups. This finding suggests that these children have access to hierarchical phrase structure representations for questions and the relevant movement operations. In embedded wh-questions, where subject–aux inversion is not permitted, children with SLI implemented SAI more frequently than the control groups. Our interpretation of this finding is that once children with SLI acquire the subject–aux inversion rule, that they are slower to learn that embedded clauses present an exception to the rule.

Keywords

Specific language impairment Subject–aux inversion Questions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (CE1101021), www.ccd.edu.au. Kelly Rombough was supported by a PhD fellowship funded by the CCD. We thank the Language Acquisition Group at Macquarie University for their feedback and suggestions. We would like to thank all the children and their families who participated in our study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’. Journal of Child Language, 33(03), 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arosio, F., & Guasti, M. T. (2018). The production of wh-questions in Italian-speaking children with SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2018.1517191.Google Scholar
  4. Bayley, N. (2003). Bayley scales of infant development. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  5. Bellugi, U. (1971). Simplification in child language. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 95–119). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, S. (2004). Newfoundland English: Phonology. A Handbook of Varieties of English, 1, 366–382.Google Scholar
  10. Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Culicover, P. (1999). Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. de Villiers, J. G. (1991). Why questions? In T. L. Maxfield & B. Plunkett (Eds.), UMOP special edition: Papers in the acquisition of wh (pp. 155–173). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  13. de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (1995). Barriers, binding, and acquisition of the DP–NP distinction. Language Acquisition, 4, 73–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.1995/9671660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deevy, P., & Leonard, L. (2004). The comprehension of wh-questions in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 802–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deevy, P., & Leonard, L. (2018). Sensitivity to morphosyntactic information in preschool children with and without developmental language disorder: A follow-up study. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 61, 3064–3074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ebbels, S., & van der Lely, H. (2001). Metasyntactic therapy using visual coding for children with severe persistent SLI. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36(Supplement), 345–350.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820109177909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erreich, A. (1984). Learning how to ask: Patterns of inversion in yes–no and wh-questions. Journal of Child Language, 11(03), 579–592.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald, C., Hadley, P., & Rispoli, M. (2013). Are some parents’ interaction styles associated with richer grammatical input? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22, 476–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2007). Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or thematic role transfer? Brain and Language, 101, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2011). Which questions are most difficult to understand? The comprehension of wh-questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua, 121, 367–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, L. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffiths, S. (1970). The abilities of young children. High Wycombe: Cournswood House.Google Scholar
  25. Hansson, K., & Nettelbladt, U. (2006). Wh-questions in Swedish children with SLI. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 8(4), 376–383.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040600880722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  27. Jakubowicz, C. (2011). Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically-developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua, 121(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language, 36(5), 1091–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons, & R. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic papers (pp. 180–203). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kuczaj, S. A., & Brannick, N. (1979). Children’s use of the wh-question modal auxiliary placement rule. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 43–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(79)90101-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, L. (1966). Developmental sentence types: A method for comparing normal and deviant syntactic development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 31, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leonard, L. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38(6), 1270–1283.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3806.1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leonard, L. (2014). Children with specific language impairment (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leonard, L., Fey, M., Deevy, P., & Bredin-Oja, S. (2015). Input sources of third person singular -s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language, 42, 786–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacWhinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  37. McCloskey, J. (1992). Adjunction, selection and embedded verb second. Linguistics Research Report, 92-07.Google Scholar
  38. Menyuk, P. (1964). Comparison of grammar of children with functionally deviant and normal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 7, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, J., Gillon, G., & Westerveld, M. (2012). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), New Zealand Clinical Version 2012 [Computer Software]. Middleton, WI: SALT Software LLC.Google Scholar
  40. Pozzan, L., & Valian, V. (2016). Asking questions in child English: Evidence for early abstract representations. Language Acquisition.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2016.1187615.Google Scholar
  41. Radford, A. (2004). English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rice, M. L., & Blossom, M. (2012). What do children with specific language impairment do with multiple forms of DO? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 222–235.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0107).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice, M. L., Hoffman, L., & Wexler, K. (2009). Judgements of omitted BE and DO in questions as extended finiteness clinical markers of specific language impairment (SLI) to 15 years: A study of growth and asymptote. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1417–1433.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0171).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rice, M. L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 333–349.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0183).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3906.1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3804.850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rice, M. L., 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, 1412–1431.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4106.1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roid, G. H., Miller, L. J., Pomplun, M., & Koch, C. (2013). Leiter international performance scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  49. Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’. Journal of child Language, 27(01), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S., & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29(04), 813–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarma, J. (1991). The acquisition of Wh-question in English. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schulz, P., & Roeper, T. (2011). Acquisition of exhaustivity in wh-questions: A semantic dimension of SLI? Lingua, 121, 383–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  56. Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals preschool. Sydney, NSW: Harcourt Assessment Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Stavrakaki, S. (2006). Developmental perspectives on specific language impairment: Evidence from the production of wh-questions by Greek SLI children over time. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 8(4), 384–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040600880714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stromswold, K. J. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  59. Thornton, R. (1995). Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile d-linkuency. Language Acquisition, 4, 139–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thornton, R. (2008). Why continuity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26, 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tyack, D., & Ingram, D. (1977). Children’s production and comprehension of questions. Journal of Child Language, 4, 211–224.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van der Lely, H. (1998). SLI in children: Movement, economy and deficits in the computational-syntactic system. Language Acquisition, 7, 161–192.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0702-4_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van der Lely, H., & Battell, J. (2003). Wh-movement in children with Grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 79, 153–181.  https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van der Lely, H., Jones, M., & Marshall, C. (2011). Who did Buzz see someone? Grammaticality judgement of wh-questions in typically developing children and children with Grammatical-SLI. Lingua, 121, 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In D. Lightfoot & N. Homstein (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wexler, Kenneth. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1976). Appalachian Speech. Arlington, VA: Centre for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  69. Wong, A. M., Leonard, L., Fletcher, P., & Stokes, S. (2004). Questions without movement: A study of Cantonese-speaking children with and without specific language impairmemt. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 1440–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang, C. (2016). The price of productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Sciences, ARC Centre for Cognition and Its DisordersMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, ARC Centre for Cognition and Its DisordersMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations