Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Verb agreement in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children with SLI

Published bySherilyn Butler Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Verb agreement in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children with SLI"— Presentation transcript:

1 Verb agreement in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children with SLI
Jan de Jong, Antje Orgassa, Nazife Çavuş, Anne Baker, Fred Weerman

2 Research issue Verb morphology is vulnerable in SLI.
Explanations: locus of the problem either in representation or processing Explanations are based on crosslinguistic differences or commonalities in symptoms Are crosslinguistic differences found when the subjects are the same (bilingual) children? Which theory explains the symptoms best? Mention that crosslinguistic evidence shows this clearly for some languages and not so clearly for others.

3 Outline of the talk Two theories of SLI
Characteristics of Dutch and Turkish Predictions for SLI in two languages: Dutch and Turkish The Dutch study The Turkish study Comparing the results from both studies Conclusions

4 SLI in Turkish and Dutch: two theories on SLI will be tested
SLI is a representational deficit Agreement Deficit hypothesis (Clahsen) SLI is a processing deficit Sparse morphology hypothesis (Leonard)

5 Characteristics of Dutch and Turkish
Agreement is marked Pro-drop Non-pro-drop Inflectional paradigm uniform Inflectional paradigm not uniform Rich morphology Sparse morphology

6 SLI in Turkish and Dutch: what do theories on SLI predict?
Agreement Deficit hypothesis Agreement problems will be found in both languages Sparse morphology hypothesis Morphological problems will be more serious in Dutch than in Turkish

7 Possible outcomes and their interpretation
Turkish – / Dutch – Agreement deficit hypothesis supported Turkish + / Dutch – Turkish – / Dutch + Turkish + / Dutch + Need to explain what the meaning of plus and minus is – here at this moment in the talk.

8 Possible outcomes and their interpretation
Turkish – / Dutch – Agreement deficit hypothesis supported Turkish + / Dutch – falsified Turkish – / Dutch + Turkish + / Dutch +

9 Possible outcomes and their interpretation
Turkish – / Dutch – Agreement deficit hypothesis supported Turkish + / Dutch – Sparse morphology hypothesis falsified Turkish – / Dutch + Turkish + / Dutch +

10 Possible outcomes and their interpretation
Turkish – / Dutch – Sparse morphology hypothesis falsified Agreement deficit hypothesis supported Turkish + / Dutch – Turkish – / Dutch + Turkish + / Dutch +

11 Possible outcomes and their interpretation
Turkish – / Dutch – Sparse morphology hypothesis falsified Agreement deficit hypothesis supported Turkish + / Dutch – Turkish – / Dutch + Turkish + / Dutch + neither falsified nor supported Need to explain what factors can influence both languages having high scores

12 Subjects Bilingual SLI 20 7;4 5;11 – 8;5 Turkish & Dutch
Group Number Average Age Age range Data from: Bilingual SLI 20 7;4 5;11 – 8;5 Turkish & Dutch Bilingual typical 7;1 5;9 – 8;4 Beperking/voorzicht in matching: not same children in bi-typical

13 The Dutch study: Inflectional paradigm
context suffix lezen ‘to read’ 1sg stem + ø ik lees ‘I read’ 2sg stem + t jij leest ‘you read’ 3sg hij/ zij leest ‘he/ she reads’ 1pl-3pl stem + en wij/ jullie/ zij lezen ‘we/ you/ they read’ Finite paradigm for regular verbs in present indicative Verb-subject agreement in Dutch declaratives (main & embedded clause)

14 The Dutch study: Task ilustration
Antje leest een boek en Jan leest een krant Antje reads-3sg a book and Jan reads-3sg a newspaper

15 The Dutch study: Results - correctness
Verb inflection (%) Bilingual Typical 88 (303) Bilingual SLI 77 (250)

16 The Dutch experiment: conclusions
Children with SLI produce more incorrect forms than children without SLI in their L2

17 The Turkish study: inflectional paradigm
context suffix okumak ‘to read’ -dI- (PAST evidenced) 1 sg stem + dI + m Oku-du-m ‘I read’ 2 sg stem + dI + n Oku-du-n ‘you read’ 3 sg stem + dI + Ø Oku-du- Ø ‘he/ she read’ 1 pl stem + dI + k Oku-du-k ‘we read’ 2pl stem + dI + nuz Oku-du-nuz ‘you read’ 3 pl stem + dI + lar Oku-du-lar ‘they read’

18 The Turkish study: task illustration
Anne ben portakal-ı _____ (sık-tı-m). Mummy I orange-ACC ____ (press-PST.DI-1SG) Mummy, I have squeezed an orange.

19 The Turkish study: Results - correctness
Verb inflection (%) Bilingual Typical 100 (251) Bilingual SLI 93 (295)

20 Turkish The Turkish study Children with SLI produce more incorrect forms than children without SLI in their L1

21 Turkish versus Dutch: correctness (%)
Bilingual typical 100 88 Bilingual SLI 93 77

22 Turkish versus Dutch: conclusion for the group
More errors in Dutch than in Turkish Crosslinguistic difference The Sparse Morphology hypothesis is confirmed The Agreement Deficit hypothesis is disconfirmed

23 Comparing the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ = >90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Turkish +/ Dutch +

24 Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ =>90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Supports Missing Agreement hypothesis Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Turkish +/ Dutch + But 17 that falsify MAH

25 Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ =>90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Supports Missing Agreement hypothesis Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Supports Sparse Morphology hypothesis Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Turkish +/ Dutch + BUT 5 that falsify SMH and 3 not clear

26 Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ =>90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Supports Missing Agreement hypothesis Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Supports Sparse Morphology hypothesis Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Differential input from two languages (D>T) Turkish +/ Dutch + 2 children falsify both hypothesis – alternative explnation

27 Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ =>90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Supports Missing Agreement hypothesis Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Supports Sparse Morphology hypothesis Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Differential input from two languages (D>T) Turkish +/ Dutch + 3 children do not falsify Sparse Morphology but alternative explnation

28 Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI group (+ =>90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 3 Supports Missing Agreement hypothesis Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 12 Supports Sparse Morphology hypothesis Turkish –/ Dutch + n = 2 Differential input from two languages (D>T) Turkish +/ Dutch + Misdiagnosis? 3 children do not falsify Sparse Morphology but alternative explnation

29 Conclusions The crosslinguistic differences in the group comparison support processing-based explanations like the Sparse morphology hypothesis and do not support the Agreement Deficit hypothesis The individual patterns support processing-based explanations like the Sparse morphology hypothesis and do not support the Agreement Deficit hypothesis The individual differences also highlight the importance of considering L2 factors (like language input, language dominance) in understanding bilingual SLI Only two children who perhaps have an agreement deficit – possible after all! Majoirty seem to have Processing problem. Answer does not have to be absolute

30 What about the typical bilingual group? (+ = >90% correct)
Turkish –/ Dutch – n = 0 Turkish +/ Dutch - n = 8 Supports Sparse Morphology hypothesis? Differential input from two languages (T>D)? Turkish –/ Dutch + Turkish +/ Dutch + n = 12

Download ppt "Verb agreement in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children with SLI"

Similar presentations

How valuable is Source A as evidence of How useful is Source A as evidence of Assess the value of Source A as evidence of How useful is Xs account (Source.

How valuable is Source A as evidence of How useful is Source A as evidence of Assess the value of Source A as evidence of How useful is Xs account (Source.
(or how to change verb forms to match each subject correctly!

(or how to change verb forms to match each subject correctly!
Sharon Armon LotemWh-Questions1 Questions in English Yes/no questions are marked only by subject-auxiliary inversion, i.e., an overt syntactic change in.

Sharon Armon LotemWh-Questions1 Questions in English Yes/no questions are marked only by subject-auxiliary inversion, i.e., an overt syntactic change in.
Using Hungarian language to clarify language-thought relations in impaired populations Csaba Pléh and Ágnes Lukács Department of Cognitive Science Budapest.

Using Hungarian language to clarify language-thought relations in impaired populations Csaba Pléh and Ágnes Lukács Department of Cognitive Science Budapest.
For more information, please write to: * This research was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 4806)

For more information, please write to: * This research was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 4806)
Pilar Muñoz, José-Antonio González, Erik Cobo, Lluis Jover JORNADES D’INNOVACIÓ DOCENT A LA UPC: Presentació de resultats dels projectes MQD ICE 28/06/07.

Pilar Muñoz, José-Antonio González, Erik Cobo, Lluis Jover JORNADES D’INNOVACIÓ DOCENT A LA UPC: Presentació de resultats dels projectes MQD ICE 28/06/07.
Chapter 6 Identifying Grammatical Morphemes Morphology Lane 333.

Chapter 6 Identifying Grammatical Morphemes Morphology Lane 333.
True/False. False True Subject May Go Here True / False ? Type correct answer here. Type incorrect answer here.

True/False. False True Subject May Go Here True / False ? Type correct answer here. Type incorrect answer here.
1 Indicators of SLI in bilingual children: inflections and prepositions Sharon Armon-Lotem & Joel Walters The Bilingual SLI Project Bar-Ilan University,

1 Indicators of SLI in bilingual children: inflections and prepositions Sharon Armon-Lotem & Joel Walters The Bilingual SLI Project Bar-Ilan University,
Verb inflections as indicators of Bilingual SLI Sharon Armon-Lotem, The Bilingual SLI project* Bar Ilan University *This project is funded by ISF grant.

Verb inflections as indicators of Bilingual SLI Sharon Armon-Lotem, The Bilingual SLI project* Bar Ilan University *This project is funded by ISF grant.
The Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method.
Verb inflectional morphology in L2. Ludovica Serratrice (2001) The emergence of verbal morphology and the lead-lag pattern issue in bilingual acquisition”

Verb inflectional morphology in L2. Ludovica Serratrice (2001) The emergence of verbal morphology and the lead-lag pattern issue in bilingual acquisition”
BHS 204-01 Methods in Behavioral Sciences I April 11, 2003 Chapter 2 (Stanovich) – Cont. from Wed. Chapter 3 (Ray) – Developing the Hypothesis.

BHS Methods in Behavioral Sciences I April 11, 2003 Chapter 2 (Stanovich) – Cont. from Wed. Chapter 3 (Ray) – Developing the Hypothesis.
Emergence of Syntax. Introduction  One of the most important concerns of theoretical linguistics today represents the study of the acquisition of language.

Emergence of Syntax. Introduction  One of the most important concerns of theoretical linguistics today represents the study of the acquisition of language.
Introduction Pinker and colleagues (Pinker & Ullman, 2002) have argued that morphologically irregular verbs must be stored as full forms in the mental.

Introduction Pinker and colleagues (Pinker & Ullman, 2002) have argued that morphologically irregular verbs must be stored as full forms in the mental.
What are little verbs made of? What are little verbs made of? Deriving the English verbal system from underlying elements Jim Baker Trinity Hall McMenemy.

What are little verbs made of? What are little verbs made of? Deriving the English verbal system from underlying elements Jim Baker Trinity Hall McMenemy.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. What is Scientific Inquiry? SCIENCE  Science assumes the natural world is  Consistent  Predictable  Goals of science are 

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. What is Scientific Inquiry? SCIENCE  Science assumes the natural world is  Consistent  Predictable  Goals of science are 
Introducing Essay 2: Illustration Writing Subject-Verb Agreement, More Verb Tenses.

Introducing Essay 2: Illustration Writing Subject-Verb Agreement, More Verb Tenses.
The Scientific Method. Steps of Scientific Method 1.Observation: notice and describe events or processes 2.Make a question 1.Relate to observation 2.Should.

The Scientific Method. Steps of Scientific Method 1.Observation: notice and describe events or processes 2.Make a question 1.Relate to observation 2.Should.
Theories of first language acquisition.  We are not born speaking!  Language must be acquired. ◦ Learning vs. acquisition  If we think of all that.

Theories of first language acquisition.  We are not born speaking!  Language must be acquired. ◦ Learning vs. acquisition  If we think of all that.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google