Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 8:2 (2017) ► pp.234–272

Towards the use of phonological markedness and extraprosodicity in accounting for morphological errors in Specific Language Impairment

 | Indiana University
Certain grammatical morphemes are variably produced in the speech of children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Previous research tends to view this as a consequence of either a deficit in linguistic knowledge or a limitation in processing capacity; however, both approaches raise problems. For example, linguistic accounts are unable to explain why these children’s problems are mostly with production rather than comprehension. Processing accounts, on the other hand, have difficulty explaining why affected children have differing levels of problems with grammatical morphemes that are similar on the surface (e.g. English plural -s vs. third person singular -s). In this paper, a new, phonological account is proposed which avoids these problems, and better captures the wide array of data presented in the literature. It is proposed that children with SLI have problems with organizing segmental data into prosodic structures that are linguistically highly marked, in particular those that involve various forms of extraprosodicity.
Keywords: Specific Language Impairment, markedness, extraprosodicity, functional morphology, Prosodic Phonology, L1 acquisition of phonology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.SLI and theoretical issues
    • 2.1Previous accounts of SLI
      • 2.1.1Linguistic accounts
        • 2.1.1.1The Extended Optional Infinitives Account (EOIA) and its successors
        • 2.1.1.2The Agreement Deficit Model
        • 2.1.1.3The Deficit in Computational Grammatical Complexity Model (CGC)
      • 2.1.2Processing accounts
        • 2.1.2.1The Surface Account
        • 2.1.2.2The morphological richness account
        • 2.1.2.3The phonological memory deficits account
    • 2.2Problems with previous accounts
      • 2.2.1Linguistic accounts
      • 2.2.2Processing accounts
  • 3.Current account
    • 3.1Phonological markedness and extraprosodicity as a clinical marker of SLI
    • 3.2Prosodic Phonology, extraprosodicity and markedness of various prosodic structures
    • 3.3Prosodic status of morphemes problematic for SLI vs. other morphemes
    • 3.4Main argument
  • 4.Further discussion and cross-linguistic evidence
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 2 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.15029.ozc
References (139)
References
Alers-Valentín, H. (2000). The prosodic structure of the Spanish verb: Evolution and configuration. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. (1985). Icelandic word stress and metrical phonology. Studia Linguistica, 391, 93–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, O. (1993). Parasitic metrification in the modern Hebrew stress system. The Linguistic Review, 101, 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2003). Hebrew stress: Can’t you hear those trochees? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 91, 45–57.Google Scholar
Bedore, L., & Leonard, L. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 441, 905–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Verb inflections and noun phrase morphology in the spontaneous speech of Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 261, 195–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., & Leonard, L. (1997). Grammatical deficits in Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 401, 809–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolini, U., Leonard, L., & Caselli, M. C. (1998). Specific language impairment in Italian and English: Evaluating alternative accounts of grammatical deficits. Language and Cognitive Processes, 131, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V. (2002). The role of genes in the etiology of specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 351, 311–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., & Leonard, L. (1996). Phonology and grammatical morphology in specific language impairment: Accounting for individual variation in English and Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 171, 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., & Leonard, L. (1997). Grammatical deficits in Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 401, 809–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charette, M. (1991). Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, H. (2009). Grammatical characteristics of Mandarin-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. In S. Law, B. Weekes, & A. M-Y. Wong (Eds.), Language disorders in speakers of Chinese (pp. 19–32). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chiat, S. (2001). Mapping theories of developmental language impairment: Premises predictions and evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 161, 113–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1989). The grammatical characterization of developmental dysphasia. Linguistics, 271, 897–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Bartke, S., & Göllner, S. (1997). Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 101, 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Dalalakis, J. (1999). Tense and agreement in Greek SLI: A case study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 241, 1–25.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Rothweiler, M. (1993). Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: evidence from the development of participles in German. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 1–34.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (2001). Prosodic constraints on morphological development. In J. Weissenborn & B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, dyntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition (pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Crosslinguistic perspectives on the development of prosodic words. Special issue of Language and Speech, 49(2), 129–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Acquisition at the prosody-morphology interface. In A. Belikova et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALANA 2 (pp. 84–91). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Domahs, U., Lohmann, K., Moritz, N., & Kauschke, C. (2013). The acquisition of prosodic constraints on derivational morphology in typically developing children and children with SLI. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 271, 855–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, E., & Kaye, J. (1990). A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition, 341, 137–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E., Leonard, L., Adam, G., & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, S. (1999). Verb agreement morphology in Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 421, 1414–1431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E., Leonard, L., & Shteiman, M. (1993). The grammatical morphology of Hebrew speaking children with specific language impairment: Some competing hypothesis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 361, 760–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S., Bartke, S., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically-developing children. Language Acquisition, 131, 3–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, P., Leonard, L., Wong, A., & Stokes, S. (2005). The expression of aspect in Cantonese-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 481, 621–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frid, J. (2001). Swedish word stress in optimality theory. Lund University Department of Linguistics Working Papers 481, 1–16.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 271, 513–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 291, 336–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language 721, 683–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A., & McGregor, K. (1998). An overview of prosody and its role in normal and disordered child language. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 71, 38–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H. (1998). Plurals in SLI: Prosodic deficit or morphological deficit? Language Acquisition, 71, 247–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & Buckley, M. (2006). Prosodic structure in child French: Evidence for the foot. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 51, 109–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & Rebellati, C. (1994). Pluralization in familial language impairment. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 101, 24–40.Google Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2004). Ultimate attainment of L2 inflection: Effects of L1 prosodic structure. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 41; pp. 119–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goad, H. & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: A prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 221, 243–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., & White, L. (2008). Prosodic structure and the representation of L2 functional morphology: A nativist approach. Lingua, 1181, 577–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Prosodic transfer and the representation of determiners in Turkish- English interlanguage. In N. Snape, Y.-k. I. Leung & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in SLA: Studies in honor of Roger Hawkins (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Articles in Turkish/English interlanguage revisited: Implications of vowel harmony. In P. García-Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 201–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goad, H., White, L., & Steele, J. (2003). Missing inflection in L2 acquisition: Defective syntax or L1- constrained prosodic representations? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 481, 243–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, M. (1990). Genetic basis of grammar defect. Nature, 347, 26.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M., & Crago, M. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition 391, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grijzenhout, J., & Penke, M. (2005). On the interaction of phonology and morphology in language acquisition and German and Dutch Broca’s Aphasia: A case of inflected verbs. Yearbook of Morphology, 49–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinstead, J., Baron, A., Vega-Mendoza, M., De la Mora, J., Cantú-Sánchez, M., & Flores, B. (2013). Tense marking and spontaneous speech measures in Spanish SLI: A discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 561, 352–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., & Vergnaud, J. R. (1980). Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 11, 83–105.Google Scholar
Hamann, C. (2004). Comparing the development of the nominal and the verbal functional domain in French language impairment. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis, (eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 109–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansson, K., Nettelbladt, U., & Leonard, L. (2003). Indefinite articles and definite forms in Swedish children with specific language impairment. First Language, 231, 343–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 8). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1989). The stress erasure convention and cliticization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 339–363.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, L., Leonard, L. B., & Swanson, L. A. (1999). Some differences between English noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: The contribution of fluency, sentence position, and duration. Journal of Child Language, 261, 531–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. (2005). The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C. -T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic operations in (Ab)normal language acquisition. Brain and Language, 771, 321–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanisse, M., & Seidenberg, M. (1998). Specific language impairment: A deficit in grammar or processing? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 240–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kail, R. (1994). A method for studying the generalized slowing hypothesis in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 371, 418–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauschke, C., Kurth, A., & Domahs, U. (2011). Acquisition of German noun plurals in typically developing children and children with specific language impairment. Child Development Research 20111, 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauschke, C., Renner, L., & Domahs, U. (2013). Prosodic constraints on inflected words: An area of difficulty for German-speaking children with specific language impairment? Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 271, 574–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lahey, M., Liebergott, J., Chesnick, M., Menyuk, P., & Adams, J. (1992). Variability in children’s use of grammatical morphemes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 131, 373–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. S., Fisher, S. E., Hurst, J. A., Vargha-Khadem, F., & Monaco, A. P. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 4191, 519–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 101, 179–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 381, 1270–1283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000a/2014a). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b). Specific language impairment across languages. In D. Bishop & L. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 115–129). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2014b). Specific language impairment across languages. Child Development Perspectives, 81, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., & Bortolini, U. (1998). Grammatical morphology and the role of weak syllables in the speech of Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 411, 1363–1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., & McGregor, K. K. (1992). Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: The status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition, 21, 151–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Deevy, P., Fey, M., & Bredin-Oja, S. (2013). Sentence comprehension in specific language impairment: A task designed to distinguish between cognitive capacity and syntactic complexity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 561, 577–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., & Dromi, E. (1994). The use of Hebrew verb morphology by children with specific language impairment and children developing language normally. First Language, 141, 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., & Eyer, J. (1996). Deficits of grammatical morphology in children with specific language impairment and their implications for notions of bootstrapping. In J. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to Syntax (pp. 233–248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Eyer, J. M., Bedore, L. M., & Grela, B. G. (1997). Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme difficulties of English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 401, 741–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., McGregor, K., & Allen, G. (1992). Grammatical morphology and speech perception in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 351, 1076–1085. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. -H. A. (1985). Abstract case in Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Lukács, Á., Leonard, L., & Kas, B. (2010). The use of noun morphology by children with language impairment: The case of Hungarian. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 451, 145–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukács, Á., Leonard, L., Kas, B., & Pléh, C. (2009). The use of tense and agreement by Hungarian-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 521, 98–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillart, C., & Schelstraete, M. A. (2003). Sentence processing strategies in French-speaking children with SLI: A study of morphosyntactic cues. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 11, 201–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchman, V., Wulfeck, B., & Ellis Weismer, S. (1999). Productivity of past tense in children with normal language and specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 421, 206–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T., & van der Lely, H. (2007). Processing of wh-questions in children with G-SLI and typically developing children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 421, 557–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R., & van der Lely, H. K. J. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: The impact of phonotactics. Cognition, 1001, 302–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The impact of phonological complexity on past tense inflection in children with Grammatical-SLI. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 91, 191–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Irregular past tense forms in English: How data from children with specific language impairment contribute to models of morphology. Morphology, 221, 121–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic Morphology. Ms. University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
(1998). Prosodic morphology. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 283–305). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2001). Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms. [ROA #482], Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1964). Comparisons of grammar of children with functionally deviant and normally developing speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 71, 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morales, A. (2014). Production and comprehension of verb agreement morphology in Spanish and English child L2 learners: Evidence for the effects of morphological structure. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. (1993). Fonologia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Núñez Cedeño, R. A., & Morales-Front, A. (1999). Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Oetting, J. (1992). Language-impaired and normally developing children’s acquisition of English plurals. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Oetting, J., & Horohov, J. (1997). Past tense marking by children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 401, 62–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oetting, J., & Rice, M. (1993). Plural acquisition in children with specific language impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 361, 1236–1248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. (2014). Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: The case of Turkish stress. Phonology, 311, 229–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The foot is not an obligatory constituent of the prosodic hierarchy: “Stress” in Turkish, French and child English. The Linguistic Review, 341, 157–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee, F. (2003). Object clitics as a clinical marker of SLI in French: Evidence from French-English bilingual children. In B. Beachley et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 638–649). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Domain-specific versus domain-general theories of the deficit in SLI: Object pronoun acquisition by French–English bilingual children. Language Acquisition 131, 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peppé, S. (2009). Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 111, 258–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peppé, S., & McCann, J. (2003). Assessing intonation and prosody in children with atypical language development: The PEPS-C test and the revised version. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 171, 345–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piggott, G., & Kessler Robb, M. (1999). Prosodic features of familial language impairment: constraints on stress assignment. Folia Phoniatrica Logopaedica, 511: 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993 [2002/2004]). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, M., & Oetting, J. (1993). Morphological deficits on children with SLI: Evaluation of number marking and agreement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 361, 1249–1257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker for specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 391, 1239–1257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 381, 850–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Redmond, S. M. (1999). Grammaticality judgments of an extended optional infinitive grammar: Evidence from English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 421, 943–961. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C., & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, & A. Zukowski (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 670–681). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Scullen, M. E. (1997). French prosodic morphology: A unified account. Bloomington, IN: IULC.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 111, 563–605.Google Scholar
(1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology, 31, 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory (pp. 439–70). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Theoretical Issues (pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Setter, J. E., & Stojanovic, V. (2013). Prosody in typical and atypical populations. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 271, 853–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, V., & Setter, J. E. (2009). Conditions in which prosodic impairments occur. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 111, 293–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tallal, P., & Ross, R., & Curtiss, S. (1989). Familial aggregation in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 541, 167–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tallal, P., & Stark, R. (1981). Speech acoustic-cue discrimination abilities of normally developing and language-impaired children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 691, 568–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, C. -C. J. (1990). Chinese phrase structure and the extended X’-theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. (2008). Language specific effects of task demands on the manifestation of specific language impairment: A comparison of English and Icelandic. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 511, 922–937. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thordardottir, E., & Namazi, M. (2007). Specific language impairment in French-speaking children: Beyond grammatical morphology. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 501, 698–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Demuth, K. (2007). Prosodic licensing of determiners in children’s early French. In A. Belikova et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of GALANA 2 (pp. 426–436). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Van der Lely, H. (1994). Canonical linking rules: Forward vs. reverse linking in normally developing and specifically language impaired children. Cognition, 511, 29–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). SLI in children: Movement, economy, and deficits in the computational-syntactic system. Language Acquisition, 71, 161–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Domain-specific cognitive systems: Insight from Grammatical SLI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 91, 53–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Lely, H., & Battell, J. (2003). Wh-movement in children with Grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 791, 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Lely, H., & Stollwerck, L. (1997). Binding theory and grammatical specific language impairment in children. Cognition, 621, 245–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Lely, H., & Ullman, M. (2001). Past tense morphology in specifically language impaired children and normally developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 161, 177–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Meulen, S., Janssen, P., & Den Os, E. (1997). Prosodic abilities in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 301, 155–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yarbay Duman, T., & Topbaş, S. (2016). Epistemic uncertainty: Turkish children with specific language impairment and their comprehension of tense and aspect. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 511, 732–744. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations in child grammar. In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein (Eds.) Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 1061, 23–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The unique checking constraint as the explanation of clitic omission in SLI and normal development. Presented at a 2002 Conference on SLI organized by C. Jakubowicz. Ms., MIT. Presented with new comments as Wexler 2014.
(2014). The unique checking constraint as the explanation of clitic omission in SLI and normal development. In K. K. Grohmann & T. Neokleous (Eds.) Developments in the acquisition of clitics (pp. 292–344), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar