Children's comprehension of distributive universal quantification

Our study explores why children are prone to assign a wider range of interpretations to sentences with distributive universal quantifiers each and everythan adults. Musolino (2009) proposed that children are more permissive than adults because they are prone to assign quantifier spreading interpretations to universally quantified sentences. Our results support the alternative hypothesis that children are more permissive because they are prone to assign cumulative interpretations to universally quantified sentences in a wider range of contexts than adults. Our results reveal that both children and adults assign cumulative interpretations to sentences with universally quantified objects (Three cowboys are pulling every horse), but children also tend to assign cumulative interpretations to sentences with universally quantified subjects (Every cowboy is pulling two horses). We show that children perform similarly with sentences with universally quantified NPs and sentences with numerical NPs (Three cowboys are pulling two horses). We argue that children are more permissive than adults because they are less likely than adults to perceive singular subject-verb agreement as a cue to distributive interpretation. We present a formal semantic model to explain our findings and discuss the implications of our model for recent acquisition research. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clauses in children with (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment*

This study investigates whether number dissimilarities on subject and object DPs facilitate the comprehension of subject- and object-extracted centre-embedded relative clauses in children with Grammatical Specific Language Impairment (G-SLI). We compared the performance of a group of English-speaking children with G-SLI (mean age: 12;11) with that of two groups of younger typically developing (TD) children, matched on grammar and receptive vocabulary, respectively. All groups were more accurate on subject-extracted relative clauses than object-extracted ones and, crucially, they all showed greater accuracy for sentences with dissimilar number features (i.e., one singular, one plural) on the head noun and the embedded DP. These findings are interpreted in the light of current psycholinguistic models of sentence comprehension in TD children and provide further insight into the linguistic nature of G-SLI

An Investigation to Validate the Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) Test to Identify Children with Specific Language Impairment

The extraordinarily high incidence of grammatical language impairments in developmental disorders suggests that this uniquely human cognitive function is "fragile". Yet our understanding of the neurobiology of grammatical impairments is limited. Furthermore, there is no "gold-standard" to identify grammatical impairments and routine screening is not undertaken. An accurate screening test to identify grammatical abilities would serve the research, health and education communities, further our understanding of developmental disorders, and identify children who need remediation, many of whom are currently un-diagnosed. A potential realistic screening tool that could be widely administered is the Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test--a 10 minute test that can be administered by professionals and non-professionals alike. Here we provide a further step in evaluating the validity and accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the GAPS test in identifying children who have Specific Language Impairment (SLI)

Electrical Brain Responses in Language-Impaired Children Reveal Grammar-Specific Deficits

Background: Scientific and public fascination with human language have included intensive scrutiny of language disorders as a new window onto the biological foundations of language and its evolutionary origins. Specific language impairment (SLI), which affects over 7% of children, is one such disorder. SLI has received robust scientific attention, in part because of its recent linkage to a specific gene and loci on chromosomes and in part because of the prevailing question regarding the scope of its language impairment: Does the disorder impact the general ability to segment and process language or a specific ability to compute grammar? Here we provide novel electrophysiological data showing a domain-specific deficit within the grammar of language that has been hitherto undetectable through behavioural data alone. Methods and Findings: We presented participants with Grammatical(G)-SLI, age-matched controls, and younger child and adult controls, with questions containing syntactic violations and sentences containing semantic violations. Electrophysiological brain responses revealed a selective impairment to only neural circuitry that is specific to grammatical processing in G-SLI. Furthermore, the participants with G-SLI appeared to be partially compensating for their syntactic deficit by using neural circuitry associated with semantic processing and all non-grammar-specific and low-level auditory neural responses were normal. Conclusions: The findings indicate that grammatical neural circuitry underlying language is a developmentally unique system in the functional architecture of the brain, and this complex higher cognitive system can be selectively impaired. The findings advance fundamental understanding about how cognitive systems develop and all human language is represented and processed in the brain

Parsing the passive: comparing children with Specific Language Impairment to sequential bilingual children

25 monolingual (L1) children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), 32 sequential bilingual (L2) children, and 29 L1 controls completed the Test of Active & Passive Sentences-Revised (van der Lely, 1996) and the self-paced listening task with picture verification for actives and passives (Marinis, 2007). These revealed important between-group differences in both tasks. The children with SLI showed difficulties in both actives and passives when they had to reanalyse thematic roles on-line. Their error pattern provided evidence for working memory limitations. The L2 children showed difficulties only in passives both on-line and off-line. We suggest that these relate to the complex syntactic algorithm in passives and reflect an earlier developmental stage due to reduced exposure to the L2. The results are discussed in relation to theories of SLI and can be best accommodated within accounts proposing that difficulties in the comprehension of passives stem from processing limitations

JSL52215 396..411

Purpose: We investigated claims that specific language impairment (SLI) typically arises from nonspeech auditory deficits by measuring tone-in-noise thresholds in a relatively homogeneous SLI subgroup exhibiting a primary deficit restricted to grammar (Grammatical[G]-SLI). Method: Fourteen children (mostly teenagers) with G-SLI were compared to age-, vocabulary-, and grammar-matched control children on their abilities to detect a brief tone in quiet and in the presence of a masking noise. The tone occurred either simultaneously with the noise or just preceding it (backward masking). Maskers with and without a spectral notch allowed estimates of frequency selectivity. Results: Group thresholds for the G-SLI children were never worse than those obtained for younger controls but were higher in both backward and simultaneous masking than in age-matched controls. However, more than half of the G-SLI group (8/14) were within age-appropriate limits for all thresholds. Frequency selectivity in the G-SLI group was normal. Within control and G-SLI groups, no threshold correlated with measures of vocabulary, grammar, or phonology. Nor did the language deficit in the G-SLI children vary with the presence or absence of auditory deficits. Conclusion: The auditory processing deficits sometimes found in children with SLI appear unlikely to cause or maintain the language impairment

A challenge to current models of past tense inflection : the impact of phonotactics

Is past tense production better modelled by a Single Mechanism or a Words and Rules model? We present data concerning a phenomenon that has not been considered by either model-regular past tense verbs with contrasting phonotactics. One set of verbs contains clusters at the inflected verb end that also occur in monomorphemic words ('monomorphemically legal clusters', MLC) whereas the other has clusters that can only occur in inflected forms ('monomorphemically illegal clusters', MIC). We argue that if children apply a morphological rule, phonotactics will not affect performance. Conversely, if children store past tense forms, they will perform better on verbs with MLCs because these clusters are more frequent. We investigated three populations--typically developing children, Grammatical-SLI (G-SLI) and Williams Syndrome (WS)--using past tense elicitation tasks. In Experiment 1 we reanalyse data from van der Lely and Ullman [van der Lely, H. K. J. & Ullman, M. (2001). Past tense morphology in specifically language impaired and normally developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16: 177-217] and show that G-SLI children perform better on MLC verbs, whereas for typically developing children phonotactics do not affect performance. In Experiment 2 we replicate these findings in new groups of G-SLI and typically developing children. In Experiment 3 we reanalyse data from Thomas et al. [Thomas, M. S. C., Grant, J., Barham, Z., Gsodl, M., Laing, E., Lakusta, L., Tyler, L.K., Grice, S., Paterson, S. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001) Past tense formation in Williams Syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16: 143-176] and show that phonotactics do not affect performance in individuals with WS. We argue that the results elucidate the underlying nature of morphology in these populations, and are better accommodated within a Words and Rules model of past tense acquisition