Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

R. INGHAM using the Wilcoxon ranked sums test showed that the [+GD] group performed significantly worse on argument structure alternations than its LN matches, while the [-GD] group was statistically non-distinct from its LN matches. A-structure therefore seems to be a grammatical discriminator identifying SLIs with a grammatical deficit, but not those without a GD. This is interesting because a-structure is not encoded in English by grammatical morphology. So the grammatical deficit in the GD children is seen to go beyond morphological deficit, of the kind envisaged in e.g. Gopnik & Crago (1991). Let us now return to the issue posed by Locke of the relation between grammatical deficit and lexical deficit, which was not upheld here. The problem is that 4 of the 9 GD subjects show no lexical deficit. Therefore we have no reason to believe their utterance acquisition mechanism was defective. Yet they have a marked grammatical deficit. How can this be if a GD is consequent upon a deficient utterance acquisition mechanism? Conversely, five of the SLIs with NGD have a severe lexical deficit. How can this not have led to a grammatical deficit if GD is consequent upon an impaired utterance acquisition mechanism? If we insist on linking lexical deficit and GD we might have to say that the constant lag assumption made by Locke is simply too strong. The GD subjects with no LD at the point of testing could have had a lexical deficit years earlier, but accelerated their lexical acquisition at a faster rate than normal so that they arrive with LN a.e. scores by the time they reached the point of BPVS testing. Conversely the NGD subjects with a lexical deficit at the point of testing could have had an age appropriate receptive lexicon in time for Locke's structure analysis phase, phase 2, but thereafter their lexicon grew at a much slower rate than normal, so that they arrive at the point of BPVS testing with a major lexical deficit, which led to problems in Locke’s Phase 3. These explanations are logically possible. But if we adopt them we have to give up the constant lag claim made by Bishop, which appears to have been well-motivated, on the basis of a large sample (over 80) languagedelayed children. We might have to do that. But for now, while there are as yet no detailed longitudinal studies of SLI children that would resolve this issue as far as I am aware, I suggest that the cross-sectional data reported here indicate a somewhat modified version of the constant lag assumption. In some SLI children vocabulary development exhibits a persisting lag, while in others 58
LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL DEFICITS IN SLI grammatical development exhibits a persisting lag. The two kinds of deficit need not be associated. 5. Conclusion These findings suggest a double dissociation in language impairment between grammatical deficits and lexical deficits. Children with a grammatical deficit may lack a lexical deficit, and vice versa. These findings are consistent with Pinker's dual mechanism (Pinker 1991) approach to language acquisition. There is a mechanism which deals with rote learning such as irregular past and another mechanisms which extracts generalisations from input. Both, neither or either one may be impaired. This need not be incompatible with Locke's overall theory of language development. The rote learning mechanisms is similar to Locke's utterance acquisition device, while both Pinker and Locke postulate a computational mechanism dedicated to acquiring grammar by establishing abstract rules and representations. However, the relationship postulated by Locke between lexicon and grammar in SLI is not supported by these findings. Hence the computational system can be seen as fairly robust, able to operate adequately on a reduced amount of stored utterances in some of the [+LD] children. Likewise a normal amount of stored utterances may not ensure the successful operation of the computational system, as shown by some of the [-LD] children with delayed grammar. The findings are likewise inconsistent with the claims of Bates and others that a single acquisition mechanism drives the acquisition of lexis and grammar. Dissociations such as those indicated in the data I analysed, if upheld in further research, have no theoretical explanation within this approach, whereas they are predicted by a dual mechanism theory. Verb argument structure is undoubtedly a theoretically interesting area, as it seems to lie astride syntax and lexicon, thus posing an immediate problem for an acquisition theory with a dual mechanism approach. Which mechanism is to be used? On the one hand we might expect the mechanism driving utterance acquisition to be used since we are apparently dealing with the storage of verb-specific lexical information. On the other hand, there is clearly a syntactic dimension to argument structure too: elements of argument structure are linked to syntactic structure positions. As discussed by Pinker (1989) a-structure alternations are not purely a matter of idiosyncratic lexical 59
Page 1 and 2:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 3:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 6 and 7:
K ALJENAIE testing ground. To what
Page 8 and 9:
K ALJENAIE causative form is basica
Page 10 and 11:
K ALJENAIE person diagram, the two
Page 12 and 13: K ALJENAIE 3.2 Data Analysis The sa
Page 14 and 15: K ALJENAIE Table 4 Osama’s longit
Page 16 and 17: K ALJENAIE The asterisk indicates t
Page 18 and 19: K ALJENAIE which is the transitive
Page 20 and 21: K ALJENAIE confirming Hyams (1986)
Page 22 and 23: K ALJENAIE Table 12 Sara’s realiz
Page 24 and 25: K ALJENAIE Table 15 Number of Infle
Page 26 and 27: K ALJENAIE masculine forms are cons
Page 28 and 29: K ALJENAIE Motar, A. (1969). Khasai
Page 30 and 31: P. COUTSOUGERA Plural Plural Singul
Page 32 and 33: P. COUTSOUGERA e.g. [peδja'] *[pe
Page 34 and 35: P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 1: Opacity i
Page 36 and 37: P. COUTSOUGERA As can be seen, in r
Page 38 and 39: P. COUTSOUGERA 6.1 Selection of the
Page 40 and 41: P. COUTSOUGERA /alevr-I-a/ Tableau
Page 42 and 43: P. COUTSOUGERA different areas of t
Page 44 and 45: P. COUTSOUGERA ruled out as it viol
Page 46 and 47: P. COUTSOUGERA operation McCarthy p
Page 48 and 49: P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 6: Applicati
Page 50 and 51: P. COUTSOUGERA References Anderson,
Page 52 and 53: R. INGHAM cognitive deficits. They
Page 54 and 55: R. INGHAM 2. Subjects and hypothese
Page 56 and 57: R. INGHAM good as their CA matches
Page 58 and 59: R. INGHAM 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Page 60 and 61: R. INGHAM Did the [+LD] group perfo
Page 64 and 65: R. INGHAM representations but also
Page 66 and 67: R. INGHAM Van der Lely, H., & L. St
Page 68 and 69: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS some vene
Page 70 and 71: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS far soone
Page 72 and 73: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS outside l
Page 74 and 75: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS 3. Intern
Page 76 and 77: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS • Varia
Page 78 and 79: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Despite s
Page 80 and 81: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS naturalne
Page 82 and 83: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS apparent
Page 84 and 85: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Summary f
Page 86 and 87: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 2 T
Page 88 and 89: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS regard it
Page 90 and 91: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS The ‘gr
Page 92 and 93: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 4 (
Page 94 and 95: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS sociodemo
Page 96 and 97: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Bardovi-H
Page 98 and 99: P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS språkfö
Page 100 and 101: S. KULKARNI in the Indian caste hie
Page 102 and 103: S. KULKARNI ideologies, each emphas
Page 104 and 105: S. KULKARNI century. The Sabha was,
Page 106 and 107: S. KULKARNI The main study includes
Page 108 and 109: S. KULKARNI 4. Quantitative Analyse
Page 110 and 111: S. KULKARNI comparatively lower (in
Page 112 and 113:
S. KULKARNI Table 3: Percentage use
Page 114 and 115:
S. KULKARNI showing an almost compl
Page 116 and 117:
S. KULKARNI 50 mean % std. score 40
Page 118 and 119:
S. KULKARNI 100 mean % std. score 9
Page 120 and 121:
S. KULKARNI Marathi the kin term /m
Page 122 and 123:
S. KULKARNI not by the less-privile
Page 124 and 125:
S. KULKARNI Bapuji, B.R. (1994).
Page 126 and 127:
S. KULKARNI Sastry, J.V. (1993). Re
Page 128 and 129:
J. MARSHALL 2. Change versus Resist
Page 130 and 131:
J. MARSHALL have become more expose
Page 132 and 133:
J. MARSHALL anthropologists. As man
Page 134 and 135:
J. MARSHALL for data such as Milroy
Page 136 and 137:
J. MARSHALL To some extent, [networ
Page 138 and 139:
J. MARSHALL these close-knit ties a
Page 140 and 141:
J. MARSHALL Life mode 1. Life modes
Page 142 and 143:
J. MARSHALL There are, however, som
Page 144 and 145:
J. MARSHALL can choose a high level
Page 146 and 147:
J. MARSHALL Pedersen therefore, lik
Page 148 and 149:
J. MARSHALL case that these people
Page 150 and 151:
J. MARSHALL 6. Research Question an
Page 152 and 153:
J. MARSHALL ‘are high in frequenc
Page 154 and 155:
J. MARSHALL 6.5. Morphological Vari
Page 156 and 157:
J. MARSHALL 4 Do you work/go to sch
Page 158 and 159:
J. MARSHALL 8) I never eat brose or
Page 160 and 161:
J. MARSHALL mentioned, a ‘real ti
Page 162 and 163:
J. MARSHALL 3. LEXREC. This is an i
Page 164 and 165:
J. MARSHALL which comes nearest to
Page 166 and 167:
J. MARSHALL LIFMODLEXREC 60 50 40 L
Page 168 and 169:
J. MARSHALL the different tests wer
Page 170 and 171:
J. MARSHALL PHOVAR = 21.1 + 0.573 A
Page 172 and 173:
J. MARSHALL There is no significant
Page 174 and 175:
J. MARSHALL 7.6. SOCNET as a Predic
Page 176 and 177:
J. MARSHALL SOCNET is again not sig
Page 178 and 179:
J. MARSHALL integrated sociolinguis
Page 180 and 181:
I. SINKA, M. GARMAN AND C. SCHELLET
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
show all

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?