differentiating between sli and child sla: focus on ...jparadis/paradis_gasla06.pdf · 14 errors:...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Differentiating between SLI andchild SLA: Focus on functional
categories
Johanne Paradis
University of Alberta
GASLA, Banff, April 2006
Child SLA and SLI
• What is SLI?
• Similarities in French and Swedish between child L2 andSLI morphosyntax (Crago & Paradis, 2003, Grüter, 2005; Paradis & Crago, 2000, 2004;Paradis, 2004; Håkansson, 2001)
– Similarities problematic clinically for differential diagnosis
– L2-SLI similarities inconsistent with some theories of SLI and SLA
• Purpose of this programme of research:– L2 and SLI in English
– Inform assessment practices with L2 children
– Inform theoretical accounts of SLA and SLI
![Page 2: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Are English Child L2 and SLI Similar?
Dulay & Burt, 1973; 1974; Haznedar, 2001; Ionin &Wexler, 2002; Lakshmanan, 1994
Bedore & Leonard, 1998; Leonard, Eyer, Bedore &Grela, 1997; Oetting & Rice, 1993; Rice, 2003a-b; Rice& Wexler, 1996, 2001; Rice, Wexler & Cleave, 1995;Rice, Wexler & Hershberger, 1998; Rice, Wexler &Redmond, 1999
•Some tense morphemes acquired later thannon-tense
•Errors with tense and non-tensemorphology mainly omission (notcommission)
•Tense morphemes less accurate than non-tense morphemes in production (veryprotracted development of tense)
•Errors with tense and non-tensemorphology overwhelmingly omission (notcommission)
L2SLI
Are English L2 and SLI Different?
Lardiere, 1998, 2000; Haznedar, 2001; Haznedar &Schwartz, 1997; Ionin & Wexler, 2002; White, 2003
Rice, 2003; Rice & Wexler, 1996; Rice, Wexler &Cleave, 1995; Rice, Wexler & Hershberger, 1998;Rice, Wexler & Redmond, 1999; Wexler, 1994,1998,2003
•Variable use of inflection = accessproblem; representational functionalstructure intact
•Variable use of inflection not restricted totense morphemes
•No random or faulty use of morphology(systematic commission errors?)
•Selective deficit on feature tense optional omission of tense morphemes
•Deficit in representation and production
•(E)UCC = omission errors only; immatureand impaired grammars only
L2: Missing SurfaceInflection (MSI)
SLI: Extended OptionalInfinitive (EOI)
![Page 3: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Research Questions
• Are child ESL grammars EOI or MSI?– Study 1: Direct ESL-SLI comparisons– Study 2: ESL over time
• If MSI, then what explains variable use of inflection?– Study 3: Input type and token frequency and the
emergent lexicon (Bybee, 2001, 2002)
Participants, Procedures, andTarget Morphemes
Common ground for all three studies
![Page 4: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
ESL Children
7;36;106;46;05;6Age
R5
34MOE
R4
29MOE
R3
21MOE
R2
15MOE
R1
9MOE
24 English L2 children from new Canadian families
L1s: Farsi, Spanish, Romanian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean,Ukrainian, Arabic, Japanese, Dari
Procedures
• Spontaneous speech samples• Elicitation probes (TEGI: Rice & Wexler, 2001)
– Picture description (3SG & Past tense)– Question elicitation with stuffed animals and a
puppet (BE and DO)
• Grammaticality judgment task (TEGI: Rice & Wexler, 2001)
– Children asked to judge if speech of “moon guys” is“good” or “not so good”
![Page 5: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Morphemes from Spontaneous Samples and Probes
She is in the house
She is in a house
non-tensearticlesDET
She is walkingnon-tenseprogressiveING
She is in the housenon-tenseprepositions in/onPREP
Two dogsnon-tenseplural [-s]PLU-s
Does he want some juice?tensedo-support “do”DO
She is walking
He is tired
tenseauxiliary and copula “to be”BE
She walkedtenseregular past tensePASTR
He walkstensethird person singular [-s|3 S-s
ExampleTypeDescriptionCode
Morphemes in Grammaticality Judgment Tasks
He is jump-Ønon-tense
ungrammatical omissionof [-ing]
Drop-ing
He am way up herenon-tense
ungrammatical subject-verb agreement
Bad AGR
OI-BE: He Ø running away; HeØ behind the box
OI-Lex: He want-Ø a drink
tenseungrammatical omissionof a tense morpheme
OI/DropTNS
ExampleTypeDescriptionCode
NB: Grammatical targets also included in task
![Page 6: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Study 1: Comparison of SLI andESL (Round 1)
Are child ESL grammars EOI or MSI?
Paradis, Rice, Crago & Richman (2004)
Predictions of EOI and MSI
MaybeNot necessarilyNo - production mainlyMSI
RareYesYesEOI
Commissionerrors?
Tense-markingselectivelyaffected?
Both production andrepresentational knowledgeimplicated?
![Page 7: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Participants
20
24
24
N
3.292;11MLU
3.805;8SLI
3.165;6ESL
MLUwAge
ESL: mean exposure to English = 9 months = Round 1
![Page 8: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
![Page 9: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Correlations between Probe and GJ Scores
.313.024.013.341GJ-OI-LEX
.284.075.040.366GJ-OI-BE
DOBEPASTR3S-s
ESL
.522**.424*.520**.419*GJ-OI-LEX
.529**.664**.388.572**GJ-OI-BE
DOBEPASTR3S-s
SLI
Errors with BE
• All groups: omission > commission, but…• ESL more commission errors with BE than SLI or MLU• ESL use of wrong BE forms not random - “is” ➞ “are”• Overgeneration of BE unique to ESL (cf. Ionin & Wexler, 2002)
1. Yes, but if I was hurt my teeth. (RMLM)2. And I’m sit down on my spot. (GSYN)3. But sometime we are try something (CNDX)4. I’m got sevens (playing cards) (SHHN)5. And playtime I’m play on the paint (GSYN)
![Page 10: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Study 1: Conclusion
• There are similarities between ESL, SLI andMLU, but the differences between ESL andSLI/MLU support MSI
Study 2: ESL tense and non-tenseover time
Are child ESL grammars EOI or MSI?
Paradis & Crago (2005)
![Page 11: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Motivation for Study 2
–Production ≠ r epresentation
– Errors with both tense and non-tense
–Higher proportion of commissionerrors in L2
–Variable tense marking
–Tense < non-tense
–Omission errors predominate
Differences between L2 and SLISimilarities between L2 andSLI
☞Are the differences due to L2 having just 9 months exposure, ordo they persist over time?
Participants & Procedures
• 24 ESL children, Rounds 1 to 5• Composite scores for production:
– Tense Composite (TC) - spontaneous– Non-tense Composite (NTC)- spontaneous
• PLU, PREP, ING, DET
– Elicited Grammatical Composite (EGC) - TEGIprobes
![Page 12: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Tense and Non-tense in Production:Compare to SLI
• Tense < non-tense, but gap smaller for L2 than SLI– SLI = non-tense at > 90% when tense 30-60%– L2 = when NTC > 90%, TC/EGC = 84% (34MOE)
• Protracted development of tense in SLI but not L2– SLI = 3 years between plural [-s] and tense composite reaching
between 80-90%– L2 = 8 months (plural = 79% at 21MOE; TC/EGC = 79% at
29MOE)(For SLI: Rice, 2003a, 2003b)
![Page 13: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Grammaticality Judgements:Compare to SLI
• For SLI, significant difference between OI/DropTNS and Bad AGR/Miss ING, but not for L2
• Correlations between BE probe from TEGI andA-primes for DropTNS(BE) and BadAgr:
(For SLI: Rice, Wexler & Redmond, 1999)
![Page 14: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Errors: Compare with SLI
• L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate• Commission errors negligible proportion for SLI,
but not negligible for L2, at 9MOE in particular• Substitution errors with BE and DO rare in SLI
but more common than omission for ARE andDOES in L2
(Rice, 2003a-b; Hadley & Rice, 1996)
![Page 15: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Study 2: Conclusion
• Differences between English L2 and SLIpersist over time
• More support for MSI account
Study 3: Acquisition of L2inflection: Input frequency and the
Network Model of the lexiconWhat explains variable use of inflection?
Paradis & Sorenson (in preparation)
![Page 16: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Motivation for Study 3• MSI is the preferable characterization of L2
acquisition of grammatical morphemes/functionalcategories
• Residual Questions:
– Why is there variable use of inflection at all?
– Why is there a sequence between tense and non-tense?
☞ Input factors?
Network Model• Multi-morphemic words stored fully inflected and inter-connected by
– Phonological form– Semantic features
• Token frequency in input and output = increases lexical strength ofstem and stem +morpheme constructions
• Type frequency (number of unique stem+morpheme constructions inlexicon) increases schema strength
– Schema = rules like [noun [-s]] = plural noun– Types frequency = critical mass for productive and accurate use of
inflectionBybee (2001; 2002)
![Page 17: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Participants & Procedures
• 15 ESL children• Data from Rounds 1(9 MOE), 3(21 MOE) and 5(34 MOE)• PL= Plural [-s] & 3SG = Third person singular [-s]• Spontaneous and Probe data from children
– Morpheme accuracy– Type and token frequencies of /stem+s/ in output
• British National Corpus– Type and token frequencies of /stem+s/ in input
![Page 18: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Predictions
• Given prior research, accuracy with PL > 3SG• Therefore:
– Stems with PL (types and tokens) > stems with 3SG ininput
– Stems with PL (types and tokens) > stems with 3SG inchildren’s lexicons
– Differential frequencies for allomorphs in the input ➞ inchildren’s lexicons and acquisition sequences
/s/ [z], [s], [\z]
![Page 19: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
![Page 20: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Study 3: Conclusion
• Type and token frequency in the input predicts ESLchildren’s lexical knowledge and acquisition ofinflection
![Page 21: Differentiating between SLI and child SLA: Focus on ...jparadis/Paradis_GASLA06.pdf · 14 Errors: Compare with SLI •L2 = SLI: omission errors predominate •Commission errors negligible](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052017/60302a5de06d3c260c611bfc/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
General Discussion• Child SLA of grammatical morphemes points to
access/production problem rather than deficit inrepresentation of functional categories: MSI
• Variable Inflection = Network Model Gradualness in accuracy over time Key determinant of acquisition sequences = type freq Error patterns: both omission and commission
• Could type and token frequency also explain tense>> non-tense in L1 (TD and SLI)?
Many thanks to co-authors Martha Crago, Mabel Rice, Tamara Sorenson,and Allen Richman, and to student assistants Lisa Brown, Julie Coutu,Heather Golberg, Lindsay Griener, Laura Marcon and Cinnamon Suyal
This research was funded by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for MedicalResearch and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada
http://www.ualberta.ca/~jparadis/