1 / 27

Substitution and omission of prepositions as indicators of SLI in bilingual children

Substitution and omission of prepositions as indicators of SLI in bilingual children. Sharon Armon-Lotem The Bilingual SLI Project Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Acknowledgements. This work has been done in collaboration with:

elina
Download Presentation

Substitution and omission of prepositions as indicators of SLI in bilingual children

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Substitution and omission of prepositions as indicators of SLI in bilingual children Sharon Armon-Lotem The Bilingual SLI Project Bar-Ilan University, Israel

  2. Acknowledgements This work has been done in collaboration with: Gabi Danon, Jonathan Fine, Elinor Saiegh-Haddad, Joel Walters, Bar-Ilan University Galit Adam, The Open University With the help of: Anat Blass, Michal Giladi, Efrat Harel, Audrey Levant, Ruti Litt, Lyle Lustinger, Sharon Porat, Efrat Shimon

  3. Why Prepositions? • Prepositions are a locus for code interference in bilingual populations, but are not necessarily considered an indicator of SLI • Some SLI children show omissions of prepositions (Roeper, Ramos, Seymour, and Abdul-Karim 2001) • While some prepositions have mainly a grammatical function, other have a semantic function, contributing to the meaning of the sentence.

  4. Two Types of Prepositions • Obligatory prepositions (O-prep): • governed by the verb, e.g., laugh at, dream about, look at, look for • Form a meaning unit with the verb, e.g., take out, turn off • Free prepositions (F-prep) which introduce an adverbial PP (locatives, temporals), e.g., at school, near the tree, in the morning, after lunch

  5. Obligatory Prepositions • An obligatory (subcategorized) PP, though a complement of the verb, is not its argument, i.e. the theta-role of the verb is assigned to the nominal complement of P (cf. Neeleman 1997, Botwinik-Rotem 2004). • In phrasal verbs the theta-role of the verb is also assigned to the nominal complement • Obligatory prepositions are lexically selected by the verb and only serve a grammatical function, making them more prone to omission by SLI children.

  6. A Typological Note • In English, a satellite-framed language, some O-preps (in phrasal or particle verbs) often contributes to the meaning of the verb (look for, turn off), adding an expression of path (Talmy 2000). • In Hebrew, a verb-framed language, this meaning is mostly encoded within the verb (xipes, kiba), and no preposition is used.

  7. Free Prepositions • Free prepositions introduce adverbial (non-subcategorized) PPs. The PP can be considered an argument, receiving a theta-role from the verb, or an adjunct, and the free preposition contributes to determining the meaning of the sentence. • Free prepositions are not selected by the verb, and their choice is often influenced by the following NP (at lunchtime, in the morning)

  8. Predictions • Better performance with F-preps since they contributeto the meaning of the sentence, are more frequent in spontaneous speech, and are typologically similar. • Weaker performance on O-prep in both languages since they mostly serve a grammatical function. • Weaker performance on O-prep in Hebrew where they never contribute to the meaning of the verb. • TD bilingual children are expected to show code interference (CI) in contrasting environment. • SLI children may show omissions (Roeper 2000)

  9. Subjects Selection • 5-7 years old sequential bilinguals from English-speaking homes who had been exposed to L2 Hebrew in Hebrew-speaking pre-school programs for more than two years. • Some of the children attended “language preschools” due to earlier diagnostics, while others attended regular preschools. • All children came from the same neighbourhood and the same (middle-high) SES. • Children were tested in both languages using standardized tests (CELF Preschool for English, Goralnik for Hebrew).

  10. Subjects • 8 atypically developing (ATD) bilingual children (7 girls, 1 boy) – all had a score which was lower than -1 SD below the norm on the CELF preschool for English and lower than -1.5 SD below the norm on the Goralnik for Hebrew. All these children matched the exclusionary criteria for SLI. • 11 typically developing (TD) bilingual children (8 girls, 3 boys) - all scored within the norm in both languages

  11. The Elicited Imitation Task • 24 simple sentences, in each language, 10 containing free prepositions, and 14 containing obligatory prepositions. • Sentence length • In Hebrew: 4-7 words (mean 5.6), 5-10 morphemes (mean 7.5), and word/morpheme average is 6.5 • In English: 5-8 words/morphemes (mean 6.5).

  12. Findings • Significantly more full target responses among TD than ATD (p<0.05 for both languages) • No significant difference between English and Hebrew (even though Hebrew is the school language) • Quantitative difference between TD and ATD children in the number of errors

  13. Preposition Errors out of all Errors • Prepositions errors are the source of 10-15% of all errors in Hebrew, but third of all errors in English. • Though ATD children make more errors, there is no significant difference in the ratio of preposition errors between TD and ATD, but there is a significant difference between Hebrew and English for both groups. • No quantitative difference in the number of prepositions errors between TD and ATD

  14. Errors by Preposition Type 5 4 10 10 6 7 19 6 • For TDs there is no significant difference between O-preps and F-preps in English or Hebrew. • For ATDs there is a significant difference in English between O-preps and F-preps as well as between English and Hebrew in O-preps (both due to the relatively large number of errors on O-preps in English) • A significant difference was found between TD and ATD in O-preps errors.

  15. Summary - Ratio of Errors • Quantitative difference is found between TD and ATD children in the number of errors • No quantitative difference was found in the number of prepositions errors between TD and ATD • A qualitative significant difference was found between TD and ATD in O-prep errors, showing that verb governed preposition are a locus of unique difficulty in the English of the ATD children.

  16. Type of Errors • Substitution with Code Interference (ci-sub):The baby laughed on the clown. • Substitution no Code Interference (sub):The baby laughed to the clown. • Omission with Code Interference (ci-om):The elephant pulled *(down) the zebra's pants. • Omission no Code Interference (om):The baby laughed *(at) the clown • Code Switching (cs):The baby laughed alha-clown

  17. Type of Errors – by Groups * * A significant difference was found between TD and ATD in errors which are not due to code interference. This is true both for non-CI omissions and non-CI substitutions.

  18. Type of Errors by Preposition Type * *

  19. Summary - Type of Errors • In Hebrew, no significant difference was found in the total number of errors, number of substitutions or number of omissions. Nonetheless, a significant difference was found between TD and ATD in non-CI omissions of obligatory prepositions. • In English, no significant difference was found in the total number of errors, number of substitutions or number of omissions. Nonetheless, a significant difference was found in the use of obligatory prepositions in the total number of errors, due to a significant difference in the use of non-CI substitutions

  20. Major Finding 1 Substitutions and omissions due to code interference are not a unique feature of the language of ATD children, and neither are unsystematic substitution errors, while unsystematic omission errors are unique to ATD children.

  21. Discussion - Omissions • Though some omission errors can be explained by code interference, we would argue that the restriction of omission errors which cannot be explained by code interference to the ATD population resembles those errors reported by Roeper et al (2001) and might indicate optionallity in the linguistic representation. • The restriction of omission errors to O-preps is explained by their limited contribution to the semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke and Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001).

  22. Major Finding 2 Unsystematic errors (mostly substitutions) are significantly more prevalent among ATD children, and are due to significant difference in their performance with O-preps.

  23. Discussion – Unsystematic Substitutions • Non CI substitution errors by TD children mostly reflect the use of a synonym, and are therefore not really unsystematic, but rather semantically based. • Unsystematic substitutions of free prepositions by ATD children show that they know that a preposition is needed. The semantics of the adverbial helps the child choose the correct preposition, and thus there are fewer errors.

  24. Discussion – Obligatory Prepositions • Unsystematic substitutions of obligatory prepositions by ATD children can suggest that they know the theta-grid for each verb and therefore know that a preposition is needed (Botwinik-Rotem 2004), but do not know which preposition it is. In the absence of semantic basis for the choice, they pick up any preposition, with preference for in and on, the semantics of which is less restricted. • The significant difference in unsystematic substitutions for obligatory prepositions can be explained by their limited contribution to the semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke and Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001).

  25. Conclusion • Unsystematic omission errors are unique to ATD children and can be indicative of SLI. These errors might stem from optionallity in the linguistic representation. • Unsystematic errors (mostly substitutions) in the use of obligatory prepositions are significantly more prevalent among ATD children, and can serve as a secondary indication for SLI. These errors can be attributed to the limited contribution of these prepositions to the semantics of the sentence, but also to processing limitations.

  26. Partial Reference Botwinik-Rotem, I. 2004. The category P: Features, projections, interpretation, Ph.D. thesis, TAU. Clahsen H, Bartke S and Göllner S. 1997. Formal features in impaired grammars: a comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10: 151-171 Neeleman, A. 1997. "PP-Complements", NLLT, 15:89-137. Talmi, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press Tsimpli I (2001) ‘Interpretability and language development: A study of verbal and nominal features in normally developing and SLI Greek children’, Brain and Language 77: 432-52. Ullman, M.T. & Pierpont, E.I. 2005. Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: The Procedural Deficit Hypothesis. Cortex 41, 399-433.

  27. Thank you תודה

More Related