The Role of Developmental Levels in Examining the Effect of Subject Types on the Production of Auxiliary Is in Young English-Speaking Children

被引:6
作者
Guo, Ling-Yu [1 ]
Van Horne, Amanda J. Owen [2 ]
Tomblin, J. Bruce [2 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA
[2] Univ Iowa, Iowa City, IA USA
来源
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH | 2011年 / 54卷 / 06期
关键词
tense; gradual morphosyntactic learning hypothesis; auxiliary is; subject types; LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT; TENSE-MARKING; GRAMMATICAL MORPHOLOGY; PRESCHOOL-CHILDREN; GROWTH; ONSET; MLU;
D O I
10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0140)
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Purpose: Prior work (Guo, Owen, & Tomblin, 2010) has shown that at the group level, auxiliary is production by young English-speaking children was symmetrical across lexical noun and pronominal subjects. Individual data did not uniformly reflect these patterns. On the basis of the framework of the gradual morphosyntactic learning (GML) hypothesis, the authors tested whether the addition of a theoretically motivated developmental measure, tense productivity (TP), could assist in explaining these individual differences. Method: Using archival data from 20 children between age 2; 8 and 3; 4 (years; months), the authors tested the ability of 3 developmental measures (TP; finite verb morphology composite, FVMC; mean length of utterance, MLU) to predict use of auxiliary is with different subject types. Results: TP, but not MLU or FVMC, significantly improved model fit. Children with low TP scores produced auxiliary is more accurately with pronominal subjects than with lexical subjects. The facilitative effect of pronominal subjects on the production of auxiliary is, however, was not found in children with high TP scores. Conclusion: The finding that the effect of subject types on the production accuracy of auxiliary is changed with children's TP is consistent with the GML hypothesis.
引用
收藏
页码:1658 / 1666
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1973, 1 LANGUAGE EARLY STA
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Knowledge and learning in natural language
[3]  
Becker Misha., 2004, LANG ACQUIS, V12, P157, DOI DOI 10.1207/S15327817LA1202_2
[4]   Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: A discriminant function analysis [J].
Bedore, LM ;
Leonard, LB .
JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 1998, 41 (05) :1185-1192
[5]  
BLOOM P, 1990, LINGUIST INQ, V21, P491
[6]  
Bock J. K., 1994, Language production: Grammatical encoding in Handbook of Psycholinguistics, P945
[8]   A closer look at MLU: What does it really measure? [J].
Dethorne, LS ;
Johnson, BW ;
Loeb, JW .
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS, 2005, 19 (08) :635-648
[9]   The use of MLU for identifying language impairment in preschool children: A review [J].
Eisenberg, SL ;
Fersko, TM ;
Lundgren, C .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY, 2001, 10 (04) :323-342
[10]   INTERPLAY OF FUNCTION MORPHEMES AND PROSODY IN EARLY LANGUAGE [J].
GERKEN, L ;
MCINTOSH, BJ .
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1993, 29 (03) :448-457