Linguistic Constraints on Children's Overt Marking of BE by Dialect and Age

Abstract

Purpose Overt marking of BE in nonmainstream adult dialects of English is influenced by a number of linguistic constraints, including the structure's person, number, tense, contractibility, and grammatical function. In the current study, we examined the effects of these constraints on overt marking of BE in children as a function of their nonmainstream English dialect and age. Methods The data were language samples from 62 children, aged four to six years; 24 spoke African American English (AAE) and 38 spoke Southern White English (SWE). Analyses included analysis of variance and logistic regression. Results Rates of overt marking varied by the children's dialect but not their age. Although the person, number, tense, and grammatical function of BE influenced the children's rates of marking, the nature and magnitude of the influence differed by the children's dialect. For AAE-speaking children, contractibility also influenced their marking of BE. Conclusions Consistent with the adult literature, the AAE- and SWE-speaking children marked BE in ways that differed from each other and from what has been documented for child speakers of Mainstream American English. These findings show stability in the use of BE in AAE and SWE that spans different generations and different dialect communities.

Rates of auxiliaryisandarein African American English speaking children with specific language impairment following language treatment

“…Given the larger number of productions for contractible contexts, it is interesting that all children showed variable marking of auxiliary is/are in contractible contexts in post-treatment samples, averaging 44% for all children. This is consistent with the variable marking in the study by Roy et al (2013) who found an average 57% marking rate of contractible contexts in typically developing AAE speaking children.…”

“…When coding for contractibility, coding was conducted in keeping with the work by Roy et al (2013). The context was coded as either contractible or uncontractible based on whether or not the form could be contracted, regardless of whether or not it was actually contracted in the utterance.…”

“…E-mail: ssmith11@lamar.edu Newkirk (2010) revealed the same trend with 3-year-old children acquiring AAE. Roy, Oetting and Moland (2013) examined linguistic influences on BE marking for 4-and 6-year old children speaking AAE and Southern White English speakers. Results indicated that is contexts were more likely to be marked than are contexts.…”

“…Fasold and Wolfram (1972) reported that zero marked forms often occur as the result of deletion of contracted is or are. As part of their larger study of linguistic influences, Roy et al (2013) examined the influence of contractibility on marking among typically developing children speaking AAE. Results revealed a higher likelihood of overt marking in uncontractible contexts relative to contractible contexts.…”

Sentence Recall by Children With SLI Across Two Nonmainstream Dialects of English

“…Using forms of be as an example, these marking options include mainstream overt expressions (i.e., I am, you are, she is, I was, they were), nonmainstream overt expressions (i.e., they is, we was), and nonmainstream zero expressions (e.g., he Ø, you Ø). In the AAE and SWE varieties studied here, and as shown by the examples, the nonmainstream overt expressions are limited to are and were contexts, and the nonmainstream zero marked expressions are limited to is and are contexts (Roy, Oetting, & Moland, 2013). 1 On the basis of these findings, AAE and SWE can be described as presenting structural overlap that makes it impossible to determine if utterances such as They was driving or You Ø coming with me were produced by an AAE or SWE speaker.…”