No abstract

No abstract

Native Spanish early and late acquirers of English as well as native Vietnamese early and child acquirers of English made grammaticality judgments of sentences in their second language. Native Spanish early acquirers were not distinguishable from native English speakers, whereas native Spanish late acquirers had difficulty with all aspects of the grammar tested except word order. Native Vietnamese early acquirers had difficulty with those aspects of English that differ markedly from Vietnamese. Native Vietnamese child acquirers had more generalized problems, similar to those of native Spanish late acquirers. Thus, native language appeared to make a difference for early acquirers, whereas a later age of acquisition caused a more general problem. A processing-based model focusing on the difficulty non-native language learners have in rapidly decoding surface form is offered as a possible explanation for both effects.

No abstract

Most work looking at specific language impairment (SLI) has been done in the context of mainstream dialects. This paper extends the study of SLI to two nonmainstream dialects: a rural version of Southern African American English (SAAE) and a rural version of Southern White English (SWE). Data were language samples from 93 4-to 6-year-olds who lived in southeastern Louisiana Forty were classified as speakers of SAAE, and 53 were classified as speakers of SWE. A third were previously diagnosed σs SLI; the others served as either age-matched (6N) or language-matched (4N) controls.The two dialects differed in frequency of usage on 14 of the 35 coded morphosyntactic surface patterns; speakers of these dialects could be successfully discriminated (94%) from each other in a discriminant analysis using just four of these patterns. Across dialects, four patterns resulted in main effects that were related to diagnostic condition (SLI vs. 6N), and a slightly different set of four patterns showed effects that were related to developmental processes (4N vs. 6N). More interestingly, the surface characteristics of SLI were found to manifest in the two dialects in different ways. A discriminant function based solely on SAAE speakers tended to misclassify SWE children with SLI as having normal language, and a discriminant function based on SWE speakers tended to misclassify SAAE unaffected children as SLI. Patterns within the SLI profile that cut across the two dialects included difficulties with tense marking and question formation. The results provide important direction for future studies and argue for the inclusion of contrastive as well as noncontrastive features of dialects within SLI research. Keywords dialect; specific language impairment; morphosyntaxIn a recent publication, Tager-Flusberg and Cooper (1999) summarize the comments of participants from an NIH-sponsored workshop that focused on the study of specific language impairment (SLI). The participants included experts in the fields of SLI and other developmental disorders such as autism, learning disabilities, and dyslexia. As part of the report, the authors highlight important study topics to help guide future research. One of the recommendations listed in the report is the development of constructs that are important for defining SLI in individuals who come from many language, cultural, and dialect backgrounds.The goal of the current work is to begin, at an exploratory level, to extend the study of SLI to two nonmainstream dialects of English. Although the grammatical profile of SLI has been explored in a wide range of languages, including Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, Swedish, and even Inukitut (an Eskimo- NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAleut language) (Leonard, 1998), the study of SLI within nonmainstream varieties of these languages has been nonexistent. A primary reason for this has been limited knowledge on the part of researchers about the developmenta...