Morphological Deficits in Children With Specific Language Impairment: The Status of Features in the Underlying Grammar

Leonard, Laurence B.; Caselli, María Cristina; Bortolini, Umberta; McGregor, Karla K.; Sabbadini, Letizia

doi:10.1207/s15327817la0202_2

Cited by 269 publications

(235 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For us, the extended RI stage is not the result of underlying grammatical deficits. Rather, as has been well documented in the acquisition of past tense (Leonard et al (1992), Rice, Wexler, Marquis, and Hershberger (2000), and the references cited therein), SLI children may simply be slow morphological learners, which in turns slows down the emergence of the [CTense] grammar under the current proposal that the frequency-sensitive mastery of language-specific morphology plays a crucial role in the course of grammar elimination. Also of relevance is a group of SLI learners who exercise nontarget but UG-compatible options of grammar (van der Lely and Battell (2003)), precisely replicating the pattern of acquisition in normal developing children (McDaniel (1989), Thornton (1990)).…”

Section: Learning and Universal Grammarmentioning

confidence: 87%

Morphosyntactic Learning and the Development of Tense

Legate

Yang

2007

Language Acquisition

142

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Learning and Universal Grammarmentioning

confidence: 87%

Morphosyntactic Learning and the Development of Tense

Legate

Yang

2007

Language Acquisition

142

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to their difficulties producing inflected forms, people with SLI deviate from controls in compounding (van der Lely and Christian, 2000) and derivational morphology (Gopnik and Crago, 1991). Although most of this research has focused on English, morphological deficits have also been found in German (Clahsen, 1995;Rothweiler and Clahsen, 1993), Italian (Bortolini et al, 2002;Leonard et al, 1992a), Hebrew (Dromi et al, 1993), Japanese (Fukuda and Gopnik, 1994;Fukuda and Fukuda, 1999;Fukuda and Fukuda, 2001), Inuktitut (Crago andAllen, 1994;Crago and Allen, 1996), Swedish (Hansson and Nettelbladt, 1995), Finnish (Niemi, 1999), Dutch (Wexler et al, 1998a) and Greek (Dalalakis, 1994). These data clearly show that SLI is strongly associated with impairments of morphology, independent of whether the deficits are of morpho-syntax and/or morpho-phonology.…”

Section: The Grammatical Profile Of Slimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SLI is strongly associated with impairments of morphology: both of morphosyntax and of regular morpho-phonology. Children and adults with SLI have been shown to be abnormal in their production of complex words in both verbal and nominal inflectional morphology, including past tense formation (Leonard et al, 1992a;Norbury et al, 2001;Oetting and Horohov, 1997;Ullman and Gopnik, 1994;Ullman and Gopnik, 1999; van der Lely and Ullman, 2001), agreement (Bortolini et al, 2002;Gopnik and Crago, 1991;Rice and Oetting, 1993;Rothweiler and Clahsen, 1993), pluralization (Clahsen, 1995;Goad and Rebellati, 1995;Gopnik and Crago, 1991), and morphological case (Wexler et al, 1998b). In addition to their difficulties producing inflected forms, people with SLI deviate from controls in compounding (van der Lely and Christian, 2000) and derivational morphology (Gopnik and Crago, 1991).…”

Section: Studies Of Language In Slimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These two strategies, particularly in combination (Ullman and Gopnik, 1999), may explain findings that children with SLI can perform relatively normally at the production of some complex forms (Dromi et al, 1993;Leonard et al, 1992a;Oetting and Rice, 1993). Similarly, observations that SLI subjects produce overregularizations, both in the past tense (Eyer and Leonard, 1995;Leonard et al, 1992a;Oetting and Horohov, 1997;van der Lely and Christian, 2000) and in pluralization , could be explained not only by the use of explicit rules, but also by the associative-memory based generalization of patterns across stored regulars (Hartshorne and Ullman, submitted;Pinker, 1999;Ullman, 2001a). Importantly, the use of explicit rules and the memorization of complex forms can be empirically distinguished from each other and from grammatical/procedural rule-computation (see PDH section).…”

Section: Phonology Children and Adults With Sli Also Exhibit Impairmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Ullman

Pierpont

2005

Cortex

702

751

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) has been explained by two broad classes of hypotheses, which posit either a deficit specific to grammar, or a non-linguistic processing impairment. Here we advance an alternative perspective. According to the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH), SLI can be largely explained by the abnormal development of brain structures that constitute the procedural memory system. This system, which is composed of a network of inter-connected structures rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits, subserves the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills.Crucially, recent evidence also implicates this system in important aspects of grammar. The PDH posits that a significant proportion of individuals with SLI suffer from abnormalities of this brain network, leading to impairments of the linguistic and non-linguistic functions that depend on it. In contrast, functions such as lexical and declarative memory, which depend on other brain structures, are expected to remain largely spared. Evidence from an in-depth retrospective examination of the literature is presented. It is argued that the data support the predictions of the PDH, and particularly implicate Broca's area within frontal cortex, and the caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia. Finally, broader implications are discussed, and predictions for future research are presented. It is argued that the PDH forms the basis of a novel and potentially productive perspective on SLI. INTRODUCTIONSpecific Language Impairment (SLI) is generally defined as a developmental disorder of language in the absence of frank neurological damage, hearing deficits, severe environmental deprivation, or mental retardation (for diagnostic definitions and prevalence of SLI, see Bishop, 1992;Leonard, 1998;Tomblin et al., 1997). Other terms have also been used to label such children, including developmental dysphasia, language impairment, language learning disability, developmental language disorder, delayed speech and deviant language (Leonard, 1998;Ahmed et al., 2001). Several factors have complicated attempts to provide a unified theory of SLI, or even of subgroups of SLI. First, despite the standard use of exclusionary criteria to diagnose SLI, the disorder is clearly not limited to language.Rather the linguistic impairments co-occur with a number of non-linguistic deficits, including impairments of motor skills and working memory, and with other disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Hill, 2001;Leonard, 1998;Tirosh and Cohen, 1998). Second, even though SLI must be a consequence of some sort of neural dysfunction, the neural correlates of the disorder have been largely ignored. This potentially valuable information could provide important constraints on explanatory accounts of the disorder. Third, SLI is a classification that is quite heterogeneous (Leonard, 1998;Stromswold, 2000). Surveys document variation within and across subgroups in the particular aspects of language that are affected and in the types of co-occurring no...

show abstract

“…It appears that DNS suffer from a selective impairment in one or more aspects of auditory processing, a deficit that is superimposed upon their more general cognitive delay. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising the DNS are selectively impaired in the ability to detect, store and/or retrieve those aspects of their linguistic input that are lowest in what Leonard et al refer to as "phonological substance", or salience (Leonard, Bortolini, Caselli, McGregor, & Sabbadini, 1992) and lowest in visual imagery (Goodglass & Menn, 1985). This argument (which Leonard et al apply to young children with SLI) is similar to one that Tallal and her colleagues have used to explain the selective grammatical deficits displayed by older children with SLI (Tallal, Stark, & Mellits, 1985).…”

Section: Grammatical Development and The Lexicon In Atypical Popumentioning

confidence: 99%