ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Apr 1991

Subject Case Marking and Verb Morphology in Normally Developing and Specifically Language-Impaired Children

    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3402.340

    Recent theories of language development propose a direct relationship between children’s use of verb morphology and their use of subject case pronouns. Such proposals might contribute to an understanding of specifically language-impaired (SLI) children’s difficulties. These children’s extraordinary problems with verb morphology are well documented, and preliminary evidence indicates frequent pronoun case errors (e.g., her for she) in their speech. Thus, it is possible that a collection of difficulties may be linked to a common source in these children. The objectives of this study were to determine: (a) whether subject case marking, as well as verb morphology was more limited in the speech of a group of SLI children than in the speech of a younger group of normally developing (ND) children matched for mean utterance length; (b) whether a relationship between the use of subject case marking and the use of verb morphology existed in the speech of the ND children; and, if so, (c) whether this relationship is evident in the SLI children as well, in spite of their more limited use of these features. The results revealed that the SLI children were more limited than the ND children in the use of both subject case marking and verb morphology. However, a relationship between the two types of usage was found in both groups of children.

    References

    • Albertini, J. (1980). The acquisition of five grammatical morphemes: Deviance or delay?.Proceedings from the Wisconsin Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders, 1, 94–111.
      Google Scholar
    • Arthur, G. (1952). The Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting.
      Google Scholar
    • Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1979). A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar.In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 167–211). New York: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar.In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning.In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1988). What is functionalism?.Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 27, 137–152.
      Google Scholar
    • Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
      Google Scholar
    • Connell, P. (1986). Teaching subjecthood to language-disordered children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 481–493.
      AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Billings & Sons.
      Google Scholar
    • Hresko, W., Reld, D., & Hammiii, D. (1981). The Test of Early Language Development. Austin: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Huxley, R. (1970). The development of the correct use of subject personal pronouns in two children.In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & W. J. M. Levelt, (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp. 141–165). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
      Google Scholar
    • Ingram, D. (1972). The acquisition of the English verbal auxiliary and copula in normal and linguistically deviant children.Papers and Reports in Child Language Development, 4, 79–91.
      Google Scholar
    • Johnston, J. (1988). Specific language disorders in the child.In N. Lass, L. McReynolds, J. Northern, & D. Yoder (Eds.), Handbook of speech-language pathology and audiology (pp. 685–715). Toronto: B. C. Decker.
      Google Scholar
    • Johnston, J., & Kamhi, A. (1984). Syntactic and semantic aspects of the utterances of language impaired children: The same can be less.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 65–65.
      Google Scholar
    • Johnston, J., & Schery, T. (1976). The use of grammatical morphemes by children with communicative disorders.In D. More-head & A. Morehead (Eds.), Normal and deficient child language (pp. 239–258). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Khan, L., & James, S. (1983). Grammatical morpheme development in three language disordered children.Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 6, 85–100.
      Google Scholar
    • Klee, T., Schaffer, M., May, S., Membrino, I., & Mougey, K. (1989). A comparison of the age-MLU relation in normal and specifically language-impaired preschool children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 226–232.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Lee, L. (1966). Developmental sentence types: A method for comparing normal and deviant syntactic development.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 31, 311–330.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Lee, L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Leonard, L. (1982). The nature of specific language impairment in children.In S. Rosenberg, (Ed.), Handbook of applied psycholinguistics (pp. 295–327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Leonard, L. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children.Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 179–202.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Loeb, D., & Leonard, L. (1988). Specific language impairment and parameter theory.Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 2, 317–327.
      Google Scholar
    • Menyuk, P. (1964). Comparison of grammar of children with functionally deviant and normal speech.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 7, 109–121.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (1983). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
      Google Scholar
    • Newcomer, P., & Hammiii, D. (1982). Test of Language Development-Primary. Austin: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Radford, A. (1988). Small children’s small clauses.Transactions of the Philological Society, 86,1–43.
      Google Scholar
    • St. Louis, K. O., & Ruscello, D. M. (1981). Oral Speech Mechanism Screening Examination-Revised. Austin: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Tallal, P., Curtiss, S., & Kaplan, R. (1980). Evaluation of the outcome of preschool impairments in language development. Progress Report for National Institutes of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke.
      Google Scholar
    • Tanz, C. (1974). Cognitive principles underlying children’s errors in pronominal case marking.Journal of Child Language, 1, 271–276.
      Google Scholar
    • Webster, B., & Ingram, D. (1972). The comprehension and production of the anaphoric pronouns “he, she, him, her” in normal and linguistically deviant children.Papers and Reports in Child Language Disorders, 4, 55–73.
      Google Scholar
    • Williams, E. (1987). Introduction.In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. vii–xix). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources