Skip to main content
PMC home page
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2011 Feb;121(3):408–422. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.007

Who did Buzz see someone? Grammaticality judgement of wh-questions in typically developing children and children with Grammatical-SLI

Heather KJ van der Lely 1,⁎, Melanie Jones 1, Chloë R Marshall 1,1
PMCID: PMC3030106  PMID: 21318176

Abstract

This paper tests claims that children with Grammatical(G)-SLI are impaired in hierarchical structural dependencies at the clause level and in whatever underlies such dependencies with respect to movement, chain formation and feature checking; that is, their impairment lies in the syntactic computational system itself (the Computational Grammatical Complexity hypothesis proposed by van der Lely in previous work). We use a grammaticality judgement task to test whether G-SLI children's errors in wh-questions are due to the hypothesised impairment in syntactic dependencies at the clause level or lie in more general processes outside the syntactic system, such as working memory capacity. We compare the performance of 14 G-SLI children (aged 10–17 years) with that of 36 younger language-matched controls (aged 5–8 years). We presented matrix wh-subject and object questions balanced for wh-words (who/what/which) that were grammatical, ungrammatical, or semantically inappropriate. Ungrammatical questions contained wh-trace or T-to-C dependency violations that G-SLI children had previously produced in elicitation tasks. G-SLI children, like their language controls, correctly accepted grammatical questions, but rejected semantically inappropriate ones. However, they were significantly impaired in rejecting wh-trace and T-to-C dependency violations. The findings provide further support for the CGC hypothesis that G-SLI children have a core deficit in the computational system itself that affects syntactic dependencies at the clause level.

Keywords: Language acquisition, G-SLI, Grammaticality judgement, Wh-questions

References

  1. Adani, F., van der Lely, H., Forgiarini, M. & Guasti, M-T., in press. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: a comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Bishop D.V.M. University of Manchester, Age and Cognitive Performance Research Centre; 1989. Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG) [Google Scholar]
  3. Bishop D.V.M., Adams C.V., Norbury C.F. Distinct genetic influences on grammar and phonological short-term memory deficits: evidence from 6-year-old twins. Genes, Brain and Behaviour. 2006;5:158–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00148.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky N. MIT Press; Cambridge, Mass: 1999. Derivation by Phase. [Google Scholar]
  5. Clahsen H., Bartke S., Goellner S. Formal features in impaired grammars: a comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 1997;10:151–171. [Google Scholar]
  6. Clegg J. Developmental language disorders: a follow-up in later adult life. Cognitive, language and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005;46:128–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00342.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Conti-Ramsden G., Durkin K. Phonological short-term memory, language and literacy: developmental relationships in early adolescence in young people with SLI. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007;48:147–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01703.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Crain S., Thornton R. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. [Google Scholar]
  9. Davies L. Specific language impairment as principle conflict: evidence from negation. Lingua. 2002;112:281–300. [Google Scholar]
  10. de Villiers J.G. Why questions? In: Maxfield T.L., Plunkett B., editors. UMOP Special Edition: Papers in the Acquisition of Wh. GLSA Publications; Amherst, MA: 1991. pp. 155–173. [Google Scholar]
  11. de Villiers J.G., Roeper T. Barriers, binding, and acquisition of the DP–NP distinction. Language Acquisition. 1995;4:73–104. [Google Scholar]
  12. de Villiers J.G., de Villiers P., Roeper T. Wh-questions: moving beyond the first phase. Lingua. 2011;121:352–366. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Deevy P., Leonard L.B. The comprehension of wh-questions in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2004;47:802–815. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/060). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunn L.M. NFER-Nelson; Windsor: 1982. British Picture Vocabulary Scale. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fisher S.E., Lai C.S., Monaco A.P. Deciphering the genetic basis of speech and language disorders. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2003;8:8. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.26.041002.131144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fonteneau E., van der Lely H.K.J. Electrical brain responses in language-impaired children reveal grammar-specific deficits. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(3):e1832. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Friedmann N., Lavi H. On the order of acquisition of A-movement, Wh-movement and V–C movement. In: Belletti A., editor. Language Acquisition and Development. Cambridge Scholars Press; Newcastle: 2006. pp. 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  18. Friedmann N., Novogrodsky R. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: a study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language. 2004;31:661–681. doi: 10.1017/s0305000904006269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Friedmann N., Novogrodsky R. Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or to thematic role transfer? Brain and Language. 2007;101:50–63. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Friedmann N., Novogrodsky R. Which questions are most difficult to understand? The comprehension of Wh questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua. 2011;121:367–382. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gallon N., Harris J., van der Lely H.K.J. Non-word repetition: an investigation of phonological complexity in children with Grammatical SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. 2007;21:435–455. doi: 10.1080/02699200701299982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gathercole S. Complexities and constraints in nonword repetition and word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2006;27:599–613. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hamann C. Speculations about early syntax: the production of wh-questions by normally developing French children and French children with SLI. Catalan Journal of Linguistics. 2006;5:143–189. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamann C., Penner Z., Lindner K. German impaired grammar: the clause structure revisited. Language Acquisition. 1998;7:193–245. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hansson K., Nettelbladt U. Wh-questions in Swedish children with SLI. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2006;8:376–383. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jakubowicz C. Measuring derivational complexity: new evidence from typically-developing and SLI learners of L1 French. Lingua. 2011;121:339–351. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakubowicz C., Strik N. Scope-marking strategies in the acquisition of long-distance wh-questions in French and Dutch. Language and Speech. 2008;51:101–132. doi: 10.1177/00238309080510010701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jakubowicz C. Determiners and clitic pronouns in French-speaking children with SLI. Language Acquisition. 1998;7:113–160. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kirk S.A., McCarthy J.J., Kirk W.D. Illinois University Press; Urbana: 1968. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. [Google Scholar]
  30. Leonard L.B. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1998. Children with Specific Language Impairment. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leonard L.B. Tense and finiteness in the speech of children with specific language impairment acquiring Hebrew. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 2000;35:319–335. doi: 10.1080/136828200410609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Manzini M.R. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1992. Locality: A Theory and Some of Its Empirical Consequences (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 19) [Google Scholar]
  33. Manzini, M.R., 1995. From merge and move to form dependency. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 323–345.
  34. Marcus G.F., Fisher S.E. FOXP2 in focus: what can genes tell us about speech and language? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7:257–262. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00104-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Marinis T., van der Lely H.K.J. On-line processing of questions in children with G-SLI and typically developing children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 2007;42:557–582. doi: 10.1080/13682820601058190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Marshall C.R., van der Lely H.K.J. A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: the impact of phonotactics. Cognition. 2006;100:302–320. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marshall C.R., van der Lely H.K.J. The impact of phonological complexity on past tense inflection in Grammatical-SLI. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2007;9:191–203. [Google Scholar]
  38. Marshall C.R., Marinis T., van der Lely H.K.J. Passive verb morphology: the effect of phonotactics on passive comprehension in typically developing and Grammatical-SLI children. Lingua. 2007;117:1434–1447. [Google Scholar]
  39. Marshall C.R. The link between prosody and language skills in children with SLI and/or dyslexia. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 2009;44:466–488. doi: 10.1080/13682820802591643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Montgomery J. Sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment: effects of input rate and phonological working memory. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 2004;39:115–133. doi: 10.1080/13682820310001616985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pesetsky D. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In: Reuland E., ter Meulen A., editors. The Representation of (In)definiteness. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1987. pp. 98–129. [Google Scholar]
  42. Phillips C., Kazanina N., Abada S.H. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;22:407–428. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rice M., Wexler K. A phenotype of specific language impairment: extended optional infinitives. In: Rice M., editor. Towards a Genetics of Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 1996. pp. 215–237. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rice M., Wexler K. Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1996;39:1239–1257. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3906.1239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rizzi L. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1990. Relativized Minimality. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rizzi L. Remarks on early null subjects. In: Friedemann M.-A., Rizzi L., editors. The Acquisition of Syntax. Longman; London: 2000. pp. 269–292. [Google Scholar]
  47. Schulz P., Roeper T. Acquisition of exhaustivity in wh-questions: a semantic dimension of SLI? Lingua. 2011;121:383–407. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stavrakaki S. Comprehension of reversible relative clauses in specifically language impaired and normally developing Greek children. Brain and Language. 2001;77:419–431. doi: 10.1006/brln.2000.2412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stavrakaki S. Sentence comprehension in Greek SLI children. In: Windsor F., Kelly M.L., Hewlett N., editors. Investigations in Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 2002. pp. 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stavrakaki S. Developmental perspectives on specific language impairment: evidence from the production of wh-questions by Greek SLI children over time. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2006;8:384–396. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stromswold K. The acquisition of subject and object wh-questions. Language Acquisition. 1995;4:5–48. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thornton, R., 1990. Adventures in long-distance moving: the acquisition of complex wh-questions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  53. Thornton R. Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile D-linkuency. Language Acquisition. 1995;4:139–175. [Google Scholar]
  54. Tyler L.K. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1992. Spoken Language Comprehension: An Experimental Approach to Disordered and Normal Processing. [Google Scholar]
  55. van der Lely H.K.J. Specifically language impaired and normally developing children: verbal passive vs. adjectival passive sentence interpretation. Lingua. 1996;98:243–272. [Google Scholar]
  56. van der Lely H.K.J. Centre for Developmental Language Disorders and Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London; 1996. The Test of Active and Passive Sentences (TAPS) [Google Scholar]
  57. van der Lely H.K.J. SLI in children: movement, economy and deficits in the computational syntactic system. Language Acquisition. 1998;72:161–192. [Google Scholar]
  58. van der Lely H.K.J. Centre for Developmental Language Disorders and Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London; 1999. Verb Agreement and Tense Test (VATT) [Google Scholar]
  59. van der Lely H.K.J. Evidence for and implications of a domain-specific grammatical deficit. In: Jenkins L., editor. Variations and Universals in Biolinguistics. Elsevier; Oxford: 2004. pp. 117–144. [Google Scholar]
  60. van der Lely H.K.J. Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005;9:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. van der Lely H.K.J., Battell J. Wh-movement in children with grammatical SLI: a test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language. 2003;79:153–181. [Google Scholar]
  62. van der Lely H.K.J., Christian V. Lexical word formation in children with grammatical SLI: a grammar-specific versus an input-processing deficit? Cognition. 2000;75:33–63. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00079-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. van der Lely H.K.J., Marshall C.R. Grammatical-specific language impairment: a window onto domain-specificity. In: Guendouzi J., Locke F., Williams M.J., editors. The Handbook of Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Processes: Perspectives in Communication Disorders. Psychology Press; Hove: 2010. pp. 403–419. [Google Scholar]
  64. van der Lely H.K.J., Stollwerck L. A grammatical-specific language impairment in children: an autosomal dominant inheritance? Brain and Language. 1996;52:484–504. doi: 10.1006/brln.1996.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. van der Lely H.K.J., Stollwerck L. Binding theory and grammatical specific language impairment in children. Cognition. 1997;62:245–290. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00783-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. van der Lely H.K.J., Ullman M. Past tense morphology in specifically language impaired children and normally developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2001;16:113–336. [Google Scholar]
  67. van der Lely H.K.J., Rosen S., McClelland A. Evidence for a grammar-specific deficit in children. Current Biology. 1998;8:1253–1258. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(07)00534-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. van der Lely H.K.J., Rosen S., Adlard A. Grammatical language impairment and the specificity of cognitive domains: relations between auditory and language abilities. Cognition. 2004;94:167–183. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Vernes S.C. A functional genetic link between distinct developmental language disorders. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359:2337–2345. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Weissenborn J., Roeper T., de Villiers J.G. Wh-acquisition in French and German: connections between case, Q-features and unique triggers. Recherches Linguistiques. 1995;24:125–155. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wong A.M. Questions without movement: a study of Cantonese-speaking children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2004;47:1440–1453. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/107). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES