Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-03T07:06:20.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interface between neighborhood density and optional infinitives: normal development and Specific Language Impairment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

JILL R. HOOVER ,
HOLLY L. STORKEL  and
MABEL L. RICE
JILL R. HOOVER*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
HOLLY L. STORKEL
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
MABEL L. RICE
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Address for correspondence: Jill R. Hoover, Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, 200 S. Jordan Ave., Bloomington, Indiana47405-7002. e-mail: jillhoov@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of neighborhood density on optional infinitives was evaluated for typically developing (TD) children and children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Forty children, twenty in each group, completed two production tasks that assessed third person singular production. Half of the sentences in each task presented a dense verb, and half presented a sparse verb. Children's third person singular accuracy was compared across dense and sparse verbs. Results showed that the TD group was significantly less likely to use optional infinitives with dense, rather than sparse verbs. In contrast, the distribution of optional infinitives for the SLI group was independent of verb neighborhood density. Follow-up analyses showed that the lack of neighborhood density effect for the SLI group could not be attributed to heterogeneous neighborhood density effects or floor effects. Results were interpreted within the Optional Infinitive/Extended Optional Infinitive accounts for typical language development and SLI for English-speaking children.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , September 2012 , pp. 835 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

Jill R. Hoover, Child Language Doctoral Program, University of Kansas; Holly L. Storkel, Department of Speech, Language, Hearing: Sciences and Disorders, University of Kansas; Mabel L. Rice, Child Language Doctoral Program, University of Kansas. Jill R. Hoover is now at the Department of Speech & Hearing Sciences, Indiana University.

This research was supported by NIH grants awarded to The University of Kansas: F31 DC009135 (PI: Jill R. Hoover), R01 DC08095 (PI: Holly L. Storkel), P30 DC05803 (PI: Mabel L. Rice), R01 DC001803 (PI: Mabel L. Rice), R01DC005226 (PI: Mabel L. Rice), and T32DC000052 (PI: Mabel Rice); The University of Kansas Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center: P30HD02528 (PI: Mabel Rice). Additional NIH support for this research includes grants awarded to Indiana University, Bloomington: T32 DC000012 (PI: David Pisoni) and R01 DC001694 (PI: Judith Gierut).

This research was completed at the University of Kansas as part of Jill Hoover's doctoral dissertation requirements for the Child Language Doctoral Program. Mindy Bridges and Michaela Catlin (University of Kansas) contributed to reliability calculations. We gratefully acknowledge Judith Gierut, at Indiana University, for her valuable feedback and discussions throughout the preparation of this manuscript. We also acknowledge Stephanie Dickinson, from the Indiana Statistical Consulting Center, for her guidance on the statistical analysis of the data.

References

REFERENCES

ASHA (1997). Guidelines for screening for hearing impairment-preschool children, 3–5 years. ASHA, 4 (IV-74cc-IV-74ee).Google Scholar
De Cara, B. & Goswami, U. (2003). Phonological neighborhood density: Effects in a rhyme awareness task in five-year-old children. Journal of Child Language 30, 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Minneapolis: MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D. & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research 42, 237–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation, Second Edition. Minneapolis: MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hadley, P. A., Rispoli, M., Fitzgerald, C. & Bahnsen, S. (2011). Predictors of morphosyntactic growth in typically developing toddlers: Contributions of parent input and child sex. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54, 549–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, T. P. (2010). A short-report: Word-level phonological and lexical characteristics interact to influence phoneme awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities 43 346–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, J. R. (2009). The interface between the lexicon and finiteness marking in specific language impairment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Hoover, J. R., Storkel, H. L. & Hogan, T. P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language 63, 100–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ionin, T. & Wexler, K. (2002). Why is ‘is’ easier than ‘-s’?: Acquisition of tense/agreement morphology by child second language learners of English. Second Language Research 18, 95–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, B. (2006). Direct RT Research Software, Version 2006. New York, NY: Empirisoft.Google Scholar
Leadholm, B. J. & Miller, J. F. (1992). Language sample analysis: The Wisconsin guide. Milwaukee: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Davis, J. & Deevy, P. (2007a). Phonotactic probability and past tense use by children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 21, 747–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. B., Ellis Weismer, S., Miller, C. A., Francis, D. J., Tomblin, J. B. & Kail, R. V. (2007b). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 408–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing 19, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainela-Arnold, E., Evans, J. L. & Coady, J. A. (2008). Lexical representations in children with SLI: Evidence from a frequency-manipulated gating task. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 51, 381–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainela-Arnold, E., Evans, J. L. & Coady, J. A. (2010). Explaining lexical-semantic deficits in specific language impairment: The role of phonological similarity, phonological working memory, and lexical competition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 1742–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, C. R. & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: The impact of phonotactics. Cognition 100(2), 302–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradis, J., Rice, M. L., Crago, M. & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 29(4), 689–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, C. R. & Kamphaus, R. W. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In Rice, M. L. & Warren, S. F. (eds), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies, 207–240. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L. (2009a). How different is disordered language? In Colombo, J., McCardle, P. & Freund, L. (eds), Infant pathways to language: Models, methods, and research disorders, 65–82. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. (2009b). Language acquisition lessons from children with specific language impairment: Revisiting the discovery of latent structures. In Gathercole, V. C. M. (ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman, 287–313. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Oetting, J. B., Marquis, J., Bode, J. & Pae, S. (1994). Frequency of input effects on word comprehension of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37, 106–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., Redmond, S. M. & Hoffman, L. (2006). Mean length of utterance in children with specific language impairment and in younger control children shows concurrent validity and stable and parallel grown trajectories. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 793–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Smith, S. D. & Gayán, J. (2009). Convergent genetic linkage and associations to language, speech and reading measures in families of probands with specific language impairment. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders 1, 264–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39, 1239–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (2001). Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment. San Antonio: TX: The Psychological CorporationGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Cleave, P. L. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38, 850–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41(6), 1412–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2002). Restructuring of similarity neighbourhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language 29, 251–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2004a). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2004b). Methods for minimizing the confounding effects of word length in the analysis of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1454–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language 36, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L., Armbruster, J. & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, 1175–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L. & Hoover, J. R. (2010). An on-line calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density based on child corpora of spoken American English. Behavioral Research Methods 42, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B. & Auer, E. T. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language 68, 306–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L. & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 16, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivation. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds), Verb movement, 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106(1–4), 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (2003). Lenneberg's dream: Learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (eds), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment, 11–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar