PosterPDF Available

Testing two different models of verb-marking error in children with Developmental Language Disorder and language-matched controls

Authors:
Charleen List
Charleen List
Ben Ambridge at University of Liverpool
Ben Ambridge
Elena Lieven at The University of Manchester
Elena Lieven
Julian Mark Pine at University of Liverpool
Julian Mark Pine
Download file PDF
Read file
Download citation

Abstract

This Poster was presented at the Many Paths to Language (MPaL) workshop at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen in October 2017.
Content uploaded by Charleen List
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charleen List on Feb 06, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
!"#$%&'()*( +, - ) $ . " # " #
/01(+,-)$."#%#(2345#" 67458349$):(;)<"5(2!:7 "
Ø="#75$#(9)7&$(4'4%&#$(/01(+,-)$."#%#>(#%&9"($.",(*4%5($)(#.)?(.%'.":(:4$"#()*(01("::):#(%&(6@6(9.%5<:"&($.4&(%&(54&'74'"8A4$9."< 9)&$:)5#
Ø!.",(4:"(B:)4<5,(9)&#%#$"&$(?%$.($."(67458349$):(;)<"5>(#%&9"($.",(#.)?(.%'.":(:4$"#()*(01#(%&($."(9)A-)7&<8*%&%$"($.4&(#%A-5"8*%&%$"(C)&<%$%)&
ØD&45,#%#(%&(=(7#%&'(A%E"<("**"9$(A)<"5#(#.)?#(#%'&%*%94&$("**"9$F(9.%5<:"&($"&<($)(-:)<79"(01("::):#()&(4(G":B8B,8G":B(B4#%#(%&($":A#()*($."(
:"54$%G"(*:"H7"&9,(?%$.(?.%9.(G":B#()997:(%&(%&*%&%$%G"(4&<(*%&%$"(*):A(%&(I":A4&(9.%5<8<%:"9$"<(#-""9.J(
ØC)A-4:%#)&()*($?)(<%**":"&$(A)<"5#(?.)(<"#9:%B"($."(-4$$":&()*(G":B8A4:K%&'("::):(%&(I":A4&8#-"4K%&'(9.%5<:"&(?%$.(6"G"5)-A"&$45(@4&'74'"(
6%#):<":(L6@6M 4&<(54&'74'"8A4$9."<(9)&$:)5#
+,-)$."#"#
C.%5<:"&(?%$.(6@6(?)75<(A4K"(A):"(01("::):#($.4&(54&'74'"8A4$9."<(9)&$:)5#>(-4:$%9754:5,(%&(#%A-5"8*%&%$"(9)&$"E$#(L/01(+,-)$."#%#M
N)$.(':)7-#(?)75<(A4K"(A):"(01("::):#(%&(9)A-)7&<8*%&%$"($.4&(%&(#%A-5"8*%&%$"(9)&$"E$#(L67458349$):(;)<"5M
!"# $% &' ( $? )( <% ** ": "& $( A) <" 5 #( ) *( G" :B 8A4:K%&'("::):(%&(9.%5<:"&(?%$.(6"G"5)-A"&$45(
@4&'74'"(6%#):<":(4&<(54&'74'"8A4$9."<(9)&$:)5#
C.4:5""&(@%#$>(N"&(DAB:%<'">(/5"&4(@%"G"&(O(P75%4&(Q%&"
Q#,9.)5)'%945(R9%"&9"#>(S&%G":#%$,()*(@%G":-))5
1&$:)<79$%)&
;"$.)<#
R4A-5"
ØTUU(I":A4&(#-"4K%&'(9.%5<:"&F(VU(9.%5<:"&(?%$.(6@6(LWXU($)(VXVM
VU(54&'74'"8A4$9."<(9)&$:)5#(LYXY($)(YXTTM
!/R!#
ØZ8DNC(Y(LYUTVM(O(N4$$":,()*(I":A4&(54&'74'"(!"#$(LQ6RR(LYUU[M>(R/!Z8Y>(R/!Z(W8V(LYUTVMM
/E-":%A"&$
ØR$4&<4:<(G":B8"5%9%$4$%)&(-4:4<%'A
ØS#"<($)(9)55"9$(:"#-)&#"#(*):(4(:4&'"()*(G":B#($.4$(G4:%"<(%&($."(:"54$%G"(*:"H7"&9,(?%$.
?.%9.($.",()997:(%&(&)&8*%&%$"(4&<(*%&%$"(*):A(%&(I":A4&(9.%5<8<%:"9$"<(#-""9.
Ø!?)( 9)&<% $%)&# F(C)&<% $%)&(TF (R%A- 5" 8*%&%$"(L"J'J(Lisa%builds%a%tower.%Peter \M
C)&<%$%)&(YF(C)A-)7&<8*%&%$"(L"J'.%Peter%can%a%house%build-INF.%Lisa%\M
="#75$#
6%#97##%)&
="*":"&9"#
3:"7<"&$.45>(6J>(Q%&">(PJ(;J>(D'74<)80:"4>(PJ(O(I)B"$>(3J(LYUU]MJ(;)<"55%&'($."(<"G"5)-A"&$45(-4$$":&%&'()*(*%&%$"&"##(A4:K%&'(%&(/&'5%#.>(67$9.>(I":A4&(4&<(R-4&%#.(7#%&'(;0RD1CJ Cognitive%Science>(31>(WTT8W^TJ
3:"7<"&$.45>(6J>(Q%&">(PJ(;J>(P)&"#>(IJ(O(I)B"$>(3J(LYUTVMJ(6"*475$%&'("**"9$#(9)&$:%B7$"($)($."(#%A754$%)&()*(9:)##85%&'7%#$%9( <%**":"&9"#(%&(0-$%)&45(1&*%&%$%G"("::):#J(1&(6J(CJ(_)"55"> =J(645">(DJ(RJ(`4:547A )&$>(PJ(a)#.%A%>(!J(;4$5)9K>(CJ(6J(
P"&&%&'#(O(QJ(QJ(;4'5%)(L/<#JM>(Proceedings%of%the%37th Annual%Meeting%of%the%Cognitive%Science%SocietyL--J(]^b8]VTMJ(D7#$%&>(!cF(C)'&%$%G"(R9%"&9"(R)9%"$,J
=%9">(;J(@J>(`"E5":>(ZJ(O(C5"4G">(QJ(@J(LT[[VMJ(R-"9%*%9(54&'74'"(%A-4%:A"&$(4#(4(-":%)<()*("E$"&<"<()-$%)&45(%&*%&%$%G"J(Journal%of%Speech%and%Hearing%Research,%38>(dVU8dbWJ
`"E5" :>(ZJ( LT[[ ^MJ( 0-$ %)&4 5(%& *%&% $%G" #>( ."4< (A)G "A"& $(4& <($ ."(" 9)&) A,()* (<" :%G4$ %)& #J(1 &(6J( @%' .$*)) $(4& <(_J (+):&#$"%& L/<#JM>(Verb% Moveme nt L--J(WUV8WVUMJ(C4AB:%<'"F(CSQJ
Ø=4$"#(4$(?.%9.($."(9.%5<:"&(-:)<79"<(9)::"9$(:"#-)&#"#(L4#()--)#"<($)(01
"::):#M(?":"("&$":"<(%&$)(4(YEY(;%E"<(D_0eD
Ø="#75$#(#.)?(4(#%'&%*%94&$(A4%&("**"9$()*(9)&<%$%)&>(?%$.(.%'.":(:4$"#()*
9)::"9$(:"#-)&#"#(%&(#%A-5"8*%&%$"(9)&$"E$#(4&<(&)(#%'&%*%94&$(A4%&("**"9$()*(
':)7-
!"#$%&'%'()*+$,-&./)0&1,&,$,2%)!!"(*0()34+-$5%6,6
L`"E5":>(T[[^X(=%9"("$(45J>(T[[VM
9.%5<:"&f#(G":B8A4:K%&'("::):#(:"*5"9$(4(#$4'"(%&(
?.%9.($."%:(':4AA4:#(455)?(&)&8*%&%$"(*):A#(L"J'J(
buildM(%&(9)&$"E$#(%&(?.%9.(*%&%$"(*):A#(L"J'J(buildsM(
4:"(:"H7%:"<
78./9:.;$-<)=-'%/
L3:"7<"&$.45>("$(45J>(YUU]>(YUTVM
9.%5<:"&f#(G":B8A4:K%&'("::):#(:"*5"9$($."(5"4:&%&'()*(
&)&8*%&%$"(*):A#(*:)A(9)A-)7&<8*%&%$"(9)&#$:79$%)&#(
LHe%can a%house%build81_3M>(4&<($)(<"*475$($)(.%'.8
*:"H7"&9,(&)&8*%&%$"(*):A#(%&(#%A-5"8*%&%$"(9)&$"E$#
U
TU
YU
WU
^U
VU
bU
]U
dU
[U
R%A-5"83%&%$"
C)A-)7&<83%&%$"
6@6 !6
1&&4$"(A"9.4&%#A#F(01# 1&-7$(B4#"<(5"4:&%&'F(01#
3%'7:"(TF(/E4A-5"(9)&$"E$(*):(B7%5<($4K"&(*:)A($."("E-":%A"&$
ØD&45,#%#(%&(=(#.)?#(%&-7$("**"9$>(?."&(*)97#"<()&(#%A-5"8
*%&%$"(9)&<%$%)&
-g(JUYW(h
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Defaulting effects contribute to the simulation of cross-linguistic differences in Optional Infinitive errors
Conference Paper
Full-text available
  • Aug 2015
This paper describes an extension to the MOSAIC model which aims to increase MOSAIC's fit to the cross-linguistic occurrence of Optional Infinitive (OI) errors. While previous versions of MOSAIC have successfully simulated these errors as truncated compound finites with missing modals or auxiliaries, they have tended to underestimate the rate of OI errors in (some) obligatory subject languages. Here, we explore defaulting effects, where the most frequent form of a given verb is substituted for less frequent forms, as an additional source of OI errors. It is shown that defaulting in English tends to result in the production of bare forms that are indistinguishable from the infinitive, while defaulting in Spanish is less pronounced, and tends to result in the production of 3 rd person singular forms. Dutch verb forms are dominated by the stem in corpus-wide statistics, and the infinitive in utterance-final position, suggesting defaulting in Dutch may change qualitatively across development. Defaulting is shown to increase MOSAIC's fit to English and Dutch without affecting its already good fit to Spanish, and provides a potential way of simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of verb-marking errors in children with SLI.
View
Modeling the Developmental Patterning of Finiteness Marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish Using MOSAIC
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2007
In this study, we apply MOSAIC (model of syntax acquisition in children) to the simulation of the developmental patterning of children's optional infinitive (OI) errors in 4 languages: English, Dutch, German, and Spanish. MOSAIC, which has already simulated this phenomenon in Dutch and English, now implements a learning mechanism that better reflects the theoretical assumptions underlying it, as well as a chunking mechanism that results in frequent phrases being treated as 1 unit. Using 1, identical model that learns from child-directed speech, we obtain a close quantitative fit to the data from all 4 languages despite there being considerable cross-linguistic and developmental variation in the OI phenomenon. MOSAIC successfully simulates the difference between Spanish (a pro-drop language in which OI errors are virtually absent) and obligatory subject languages that do display the OI phenomenon. It also highlights differences in the OI phenomenon across German and Dutch, 2 closely related languages whose grammar is virtually identical with respect to the relation between finiteness and verb placement. Taken together, these results suggest that (a) cross-linguistic differences in the rates at which children produce OIs are graded, quantitative differences that closely reflect the statistical properties of the input they are exposed to and (b) theories of syntax acquisition need to consider more closely the role of input characteristics as determinants of quantitative differences in the cross-linguistic patterning of phenomena in language acquisition.
View
Specific Language Impairment as a Period of Extended Optional Infinitive
Article
Full-text available
English-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI) are known to have particular difficulty with the acquisition of grammatical morphemes that carry tense and agreement features, such as the past tense -ed and third-person singular present -s. In this study, an Extended Optional Infinitive (EOI) account of SLI is evaluated. In this account, -ed, -s, BE, and DO are regarded as finiteness markers. This model predicts that finiteness markers are omitted for an extended period of time for nonimpaired children, and that this period will be extended for a longer time in children with SLI. At the same time, it predicts that if finiteness markers are present, they will be used correctly. These predictions are tested in this study. Subjects were 18 5-year-old children with SLI with expressive and receptive language deficits and two comparison groups of children developing language normally: 22 CA-equivalent (5N) and 20 younger, MLU-equivalent children (3N). It was found that the children with SLI used nonfinite forms of lexical verbs, or omitted BE and DO, more frequently than children in the 5N and 3N groups. At the same time, like the normally developing children, when the children with SLI marked finiteness, they did so appropriately. Most strikingly, the SLI group was highly accurate in marking agreement on BE and DO forms. The findings are discussed in terms of the predictions of the EOI model, in comparison to other models of the grammatical limitations of children with SLI.
View
View