DOCUMENT RESUME

ID 104 127 170 006 366

AUTHOR. morehead Donald; Ingram, DekvidTITLE The Development of Base Syntax in Normal and

Linguistically Deviant Children. Papers and ,Reportsom Child Language Development, No. 2.

INSTITUTION Stanford Univ., Calif. Committee on'Linguistics.'PUB DATE Dec 70

,

-..

NOTE 23p. (:\

'VAILABLE FROM American Speech and Hearing Association, 9030 OldGeorgetown Road, Washington, D.C. 20014

JOURNAL CIT Journal of Speech end Hearing Research; v16 n3p330-351 Sep 1973

.

EDRS PRICE RF-S0.76 HC-$1.58 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Aphasia; *Child Language; Cognitive Development ;.

*Language Development;'*Language Handicapped;Language Learning Levels; Linguistic Therry;*Psycholinguistics; **Syntax; Transformations(Languitge) .

ABSTRACTLanguage samples of 15 young normal children actively

engaged in leartling base syntax were compared with samples of 15linguistically deviant children of a comparable 'linguistic level.Mean number. of nor hexes per utterance was used to determinelinguistic level. two groups were matched according to fivelinguistic levels previously established and grammars were writtenfor the language sample of each child. rive aspects of syntacticdevelopment were chosen as the basis of comparison between the twogroups: phrase structure rules, transformations, construction (orsentence) types, inflectional morphology, and minor lexicalcategories. While few significant differences were found for the moregeneral aspects of syntax, such as phrase structure rules, frequentlyoccurring transformations, inflectional, morphology, and thedevelopment of minor lexical categories, significant differences werefdaud for the less general aspects of Syntax. rot example,significant differeqces were found between the two groups forinfrequently occurring transformations and the number of majorsyntactic categories per construction type. In addition, the deviantgroup also showed a.marked delay in the onset and acquisition, timefor learning'base syntax. These results are discussed according totranslational and cognitive developmental theory. (Author /JSHR)

. A1.

.e

wI

A

PILE DIALOPMENT or BASESYNTAX IN.

RMAL ANI LINGUISTICALLY DEVIANT CHILDREN

tt

:1(1 M. Moro

0

d and D'a'vid Ingram

a

1

3

Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 2December 1970

of MART*, vs, of Fee ffOuCAT sed A 4211f &Of

%PP 10isOtt. ttslrivolre OROut AT .0As

va, ...A'. At t a 4

f a A f gig(At

a V. al s . A ?A 04 4 'P %%. w

% est t .Aw . e wt. Pi,*

f4 A. ''!A. %.A. % fa an.

wa

Irr

Pf topttasoote to of PeacriGE Tel co. v!VOWED AlAtERsAp. MIS IPOOP Cenettew It

1kt-ftgS 41.4

to E etc 4t2 00112e*1ietrokte.tMfDER AGRI PAW* wat tee NettO44 *4

stitutE OR ouc.Atiot P terttPER Mee°WOK:* OvTStt* tree ERIC Avelltf MeOUME5 PEPIMISS$OP OP THE ryRMQftt

0#11fgan

In the J,purpal sal Svejrch ant.Bearinst jaeastarch, v16, n3$ Sept. 1973

J t

a

a

TWTI N p1., .,id . ,.. Ipi,,, . 1 t tot ..i? L'' t.i.T(.1. iti 1 it' I 1,111.1./ A :

: .... . ': !' ili'.: .. :4' 1 1 t t../ i'VOC.14' 9 ...1V.' ... t.."1:. iv'' !17,l'iri dynt,In.;t for,..1. '.' ' ' 1'11 :.! .1111 (1},- I Unt't 1115 t h. i.tt1,1f1t),S1:. I Of' tit iiiiit'itlij 3 tsl .

I . : t ! ' '.. t `1! 1' .1Ialki :tat. ti..1 the platt,t. icity oi th dIvoloping bt,ti:. ;, 1+ ). .. .pit s, Wlir. apparent t rong Idolottical cinpont.t.t

' .: ;.: I; _ti..1-1,,,or..n , ::om. .h/dr.-11 -, ine2ludinia thole' without any. . '.. : ti'. tf ' 1,t ion - 0..pecienc:, .,trem.. ait,t ieulty in ti, luir.,t_rem.

r :..a t . ';:i'.dr.e..,...ith 1,;;Inkige leJrn g defi, it:. are (jot-- r.tl!.i ",..):,: 1 : 11 T. : 1411 ill i I 4 . :..V:.. t 4 -I!. :chi h i-., in certain

; . t, t .-',It , 71110:' d411.r.lit trom that ul the normal child... . ..

,...i.i'..t iver (.1 i s. t ..r.`qt. - ha .... me t he ...entra 1 I 0, .1. , .

. ,o, : ; 1 i7 1 1 1 i : h' CkVi.st.t hi id:. ti (Menyuk, l'it,ft VI, ,, N... i.

; .1) t: Iv work reprelent:: h.' tit t#11)t t

t wit-ritj cif.t.riptivo tohniqur, d. :!.;;, l.ttrm,rtioria ramfriatk. Stu. ttloi t hed both aro..1p.; t rit '!-1.3 ot agt, ILZ, and .7.ocio-ekonomic level andd ut t -..op1.(1 f r(Tit lin,nli::;tically deviant (.11i1c.%(.;.,.,:; clit v,ott Iron thore of f;ormall children.

1 I! I .(f r tratrfor:I,otiorr: and produced more rentri. ted. !..rm than did ,t h.' nor.nal group. More form: w' re

."Ad v f d-viont group in cow:trut.tiont. reprenting thet,:.c,.:ormational and morphological le vet.. of tht,.i t t a I ly leant dif It rent.. ,were f °and,

10,4! jot ted to indicate pot.sibit.. &ends of diff.r.er:A-d t.hildron. Menyuk (19(.4) did imludo a

a normal two-year-Ad and a deviant thilee-year-old:

,, dl o Again f,.und to be more predominantl t: it;:. Unfortunately, only .two subjects were comparA

f .,.. t :;it,ifed on any ,:pec if lc critoria..

pod tour of developmental r.entence types,t! 1.4 v: t,,,,-;dovelopmectt in normal and deviant childrc.r.

: :..t enc.,. types whi,11 postulate .dif freht. linguLt. i.1 o.....ed° the revirw of early Work in .ynta. tic

:. :v (.19(,t,). As a pilot. test of the utility of t'rJ7.d t:41.3 10Velt-1 a language sample of a:'normal

-.1.1d. wa c omp tr,d with h that, of a deviant four-and-one-flail. :d. r!.1- (hi utteran, ulosuly approximated

II tour level:: Ain did tilts,. utterances k,f thef; !;.- deviant fhild alts omitted construction:: that

!v ;:ormol child.. From these findings, Lee con,lad,dw-r- .13 1itative differencPs l'etWen the two

tiulthas,d hrhavior indicates that all 1vel

. 3 Z. Li; Ji;:;.:'ar 4.0 be qualitative (Piaget, 19/0; Kohlberg,.

. ::..r. anleL.:, :3ubject..D are -:,atched According to Ltdteril: -p- if is level or s tact+. of development, qualitat

d : , 17. ; redieted on the has is that each level or Fltaged. : !Jdi:ally ditfer.'nt f rvm thV preCeOing or followirg

Moreov,r, reont work in lanuuaae r

ei

;;--t.. that tindieg q Luise/ ditteren!,ee mate n,t be unique toled neeeel ,_lejtet . eet Act,,' reflect liegnietio level difterentt!

+tine iedivideal difterence in cognitive functiltn and linguieti...!ieeee Oleo, 11:q; cadn, aed Bellug.b1, i9t

(nee reeeitlY, Carrow.(190) and Lei (194) ve reported peeltminary

,. .

.d,./..101..,.1 r, of !yrit-cif't i to ing protidur irg the experimeetal .

10 ,tied. orrrazer,eBrown -and Bellugi (190)," Carrow's testing.thilt.- tie cent hied to comprehension tasks while bee has included

t 'h ., eeveheneion and product ion tasks. Both teste were developed t,i tin ,teiAte it eyntactie development between three and eighte. e et al. . Application of diagnoetic tests based on higher age level-.!i"-a:,,, pre:,,eet:.41orious problems ;:ince aside from Carol Chomsky'e

4NO. I) e.-,ent re':earth, little work has been done with normal children., : e

1;)

r yea!: .. Age.

I:; the eearch that has been carried out with children younger thanveare:et age, eyntax' has received by tar the greatest attention.

qialt the most active period for learniN base syntax isHeeee eig4teen months and four years. Thus, it is of considerableveTeirL;tie.value tie compare linguisfleally deviant children with normalbildren sa,tively engaged in acquiring syntax.' In addition, recent

"etlhods for writing children's .grammar: vary coniderably from the earlyeetien- ofLpivet" grammars which do not include toe important

titetion between deep (semantic) and surface (phonetic) structure.(eleee, lee); Brown,. 1470). Moreover, if deep and surface structure

areto the adequately described; it is necessary to dollectintermation-for each utterance in a language sample. For

cloun..,- noun constructions, such as paddy bike, may require twoor 'tork, di, 4r st'/antic interpretations to separa75Ble possessiveform trom.euch forms as the subject - object. kGrammar writing for young.HI*1:d ee now in, lades analysis of both aspects of grammatical relations

'erowe, 1970).

ee!po7.f 5f rHe present study was" tot compare language sample., whichinklede ,.ontextaal irOormation of young normal children (1F3' to 36Tonthi, of age) actively engaged in learning syntax with those ofdeviant children of a comparable linguistic level.. Linguistic levelea, determined by a meatrnumber of morphemes per utterance, which

t- b a eeliable measure for normal children up to three years(Menyek., `19e9;, Bloom, 1970; Brown, 1970). An attempt was also

Tee- .0 eetablish mean morpheme per utterance count as a reliablemeaL-ure for establishing linguistic level in deviant children, since,it t ev, 06:.ily used by linguistically 4nsophigtigatelYpersons. Anadei.tation of Chumeky's (1965) transformational grAmmar byRosenbaum(19-1 was medilied (Ingram, 1970) for writing grammars for each child.Te, tw. Treepe ioepresentIng five linguistic levels were compared1,cerdini to 1) phrase structure rules; 2) transformations; 3) con-ettule.tiot; types or surface realization of major syntactic categories

' and thil relations; 4).inflectional morphology; and 5) select lexicalireen repreenting minor syntactic categories.

1

-56-)

!:' rie city bocaute thx reflet.t brAd, i t I.L. t 1 d. ve . Phr..1: st Ilt'f And r r :3! -it imp..tant aHt,. t.

...,mpeteto a1.out orlanization Andot L-uorn the aaracterization of 'the

t. ptitm.1!.., certain criterion mea:-...urt.t. were developed tortv; ind of phrqse Itructuren and tramformatior.,.

Iftrut.tion typesotintleti,nal morphology, and minor11 to represent important,aspects of the

4:, 0! .hild's knowl-dg of 1,.enterices; i:c., pertorm,111-,.

, wh-n ;.aird witN0 lin4u.tic level, provido!;. (tit* 1.1! d 1. pito languaqv pogram:. for the 9ingoitis-ally

ilo. .

ML I-it 11).

. t j- . riiteyn youtoinormal subjec.ts representing tntd ! ren acqPire a hart syntactic system we!.

1 d tit. tanfo Lommunitly and Bing nursery school at!,.d iv-r. ity. The cIrma ' children were matched, usintimean

mo,ph-mer.. pc:. utterance 4s the criterion, with fifteen lir-ti t117. Aiildren currehtly seen at the Institute fur ,

1(1..1 A;,IA ia, aanford Univerity School of ,Medicine. The two(Hvid,d into five lift4uistjc levels of development witht At The age range for the normal group was

I - .'v« rs months-three years, one month) with a meanJr t, v sir'- , tour months. The deviant.grovp had an age range of

-, 4 silLmonths-4nine years, six months) with a mean.yven mi.)tiths (Table 1). The normal group was

!o!* and hearing Pathologies. The linguisticallyroup wa restricted to children who lack sufficient Intel-

: .e! ;-1,v, i. 1. ti, al impairment r,. aci-ount for their diffiultic.lei: .l ...it*

1.J:.1.1,1Tt Sa,!TO% The languagesami31.es were collectedd Irditions: 1) free play with. the experimenter or par-r,-1i i,.'-it;on while playing with toys, and 3) elicitation while view-

1-u tiAJA hildron!!-, book. It was generally possible to collt.

.. all ti.rt condition, except for the youa4er normal:1d. J c1 th., lower level ideviant children. In cases where it was

; !- (2Alect sample6 under all three conditions, s4mple'It t ,nl under the first two conditions.

A 1, !.d. lity tape z" order was used to record the linguis.tic,inlc--,1 ti-h .-twe-!, the adult and the child. In addition, an observer

td,J initial adult utterance, if any, the child's utter r...;e,aro id .1t .t;-ar, -ion of that utterance. In this w4y, the h ld's

cl-d 4i,a7-.-Tatial relations were more closely approtimated t, Ian by

! or :)y observations. alone. The utterances wers!:hc-r.rf!-d f r4 the tapes and'comparA with the observer's re.fbrop;

:or 1 :iral

I

ittehaw:e! It ,s t,r iroup lh.

,T!tT u!telan,:, t,x th, deviant Trou; +af 14H./ (TX,ic. I).,c4.

.ittrn Ar included in the of either group in'rd.! LAt ea. It utt.rAnco would involie pelatiom. In

linjuintic structure had to occur tour times or morn and'.Hre_ert At all nucessive linguistic le.els to be cunsiddred a part

produ, tive nystem (Bloom, 1971). Grammars were writtenh language L-()kilo,, using a modified ver:don'of RoseAbaum's (190)

WJL, s4cted :/ccause it,ineorporates rtlarty.(1./..w., on Ch,,mhy's (19t.,) tranAormational grammar.

'RtsuLTs

.,) mt. :tructure c.rratimars nt!ietiary to account for theA the normal and deviant groups wer,o nearly identical fLn.i

-I:! live linguiLti levc1s. Minor differences did appear in- :r.x:Imtr :or tte two groUK at the five levels but these differences! h that: the difterencs between stlhjects within the same

7! R-4. .it 4iV4.11 it'Vti

n.oulz) it did no. . differ significantly intthe proportion ,1

r,tle(!ting only phrase structure relatigns across the fiveI is 7Ji ' IEVel: =. ikever, the proportion of phrase structure or

lormdti,11 utterance:: decreased with linguistic level f(x thetrd the deviant group. Nearly half the utterances at level II

witod* transformations while less than ten percent of the;Yer.tn e: were without, transformations at lovel III. This 'rather

hawo in phrase-structure-transformations ratio betweeri levelII :II held f,x both. groups. despite these similarities when

0:::'10Ti, al age rather than linguistic level was considered, the.croup showed a marked delay as compared to normals in both

o!. .c:4,1ition time. The delay for the beginning of level I'..as thre and one -half .year: while the acquisition period

tc! !J .Ling level' V was delayed two years, five months. This ,delay in0: ind a.quiSiti..11 time also held for transformations, construction

ir,t1,:Ltions and minor lexical categories. It appears that:Thildren talc() on the average three times as long to initiate

a:.d acquire base 'syntax.de,

F rtv different transformations'were identified in the language,a;-1L, of both groups'. The transformations of each group were assigned

0Iute ranks based -on their frequency of occurrence. A Spearman rankord.r correlation was significant (r = .960 t = 21.30, p.4.01)

ating a high degree of similarity between the two:groups. (Figure I).Inpaddition, the forty transformations were compared individually forrhe t7w. .groups using the Mann-Whitney. U Test (Siegel; 1.956). Four oftht : rty transf_rmations showed significantly greater occurrence forthe n!rmal group (question "do" segment, locative, demonstrative, nound-lkitin) while two sLowed.significantly greater occurrence for thed.ivian; group (progressive affix, plural affix).

To &te!.mire any differences between the two groups on infrequentlyaf.Luzring transformations, the forty transformations were divided into1rr.tv fr.qu :.tly occurring transformations and twenty infrequently

t) b

a

: 1"7,r. ! io*1: t rev,a111 cant-: .*. 11. ! t. t t oreva t (;! .4.; 1 ) 1 t hi i fit cri t

t! . r 21,,d* d iat t.+TIT f .: (i.4.06), i ,

:-`. i di! : -.I i,f :;t that whI 14 no evta 1 1 igif i.t!AO r: O1 lvt..qu-iicy ot. of tram-tormation

t -o tit f rairlormations, and presume, iy more di' f is Li I',r loan( ly 1A, the peviartt ,foup (Figure

A' id,!1!.0: dttermine i i more :,--Tecitic ditte.rertN1 !

. ! Az, r..et i,n. .:.uld !,k f-.-ti,..-een the two groups. Tr.... oiit 1, divide d int+) four quneral

t 1,!-!!at , ) noun t rand ormations /,) vertu trarr) 4., tranz.liormations. Significant

r f e trait` f.:-ermations (F A . 70,(1: , .,11), ilsun transformations (F 4te .62 , di - 4/:, 0.,( ) , d i t raft-, ot2ena t 1.0ns (F df 4/20, p. .0 )

: ! , T: J::t . olp were only found for ques...tt (I' 10.',0, di 4/20, p.4.05). In addition, a

i:*-ract ion wa: tweet) linguistic level and the twoT: . di p.C .0'0 as a result of the deviant group

: T7- I qu t ion t ran:. f ormat at level I; namely, signalingi!.t nation. The normal group had significantly more

: at the tour rertzining linguistic levels

AS

re.

t' 1; .t ill).e:lv, th. -tea: ct transformations used per utterance was com-

e d A' :o : tt%0 Linguistic levels for the two'groups. No signi-: t! tr. ..t: dit1-ren. ef, were found. However, a significant level

t t,und e'ib.32, di 4[20, p. (.001) and the differenCes-:1,-art- for .1,..-)th groups across all five levels (Figure IV).

-- ei ;.1-:.!..r of transformation-. per utterance were coricelatAt: 'group h,:.d a high positive correlation (r = .90r.,. . the deviant erc.)up did not (r = .161). cAgain, a major

z 1-. delay in omt time and acquisition perqod for; ..! ...; J:

:r depict major lexi,cal categories (i.e., nout-:,. ir syntactic frames or possible relations. Two

,Te derived from the construction types and compared for ty,--. The T-an number of major lexical categories pertv;0 d used to determine the occurrence offmajor

1 d variety of contexts for language* sathples of both:!, :cant differences were 'obtained between t' two groupt,.ti A: 1/A. p.4.111-0 and across linguis le els (F i.d: . eC.r11), (figure V). In-addition,, ch sy actin

traction type wan compared f* he two groups on thf.(-1 tr-que%cy of occurrencev, A low posi cor lation was

d :,;,truction types were compar-,N

ro the two grov:,it ) . Wh.n age was c:orrelated with mcea Ie b r of lexie

14r 3.ytrwtion type, the noralstshow a igh correlation.,it re . , <.01) whi,le the deviarit group shotli a low ,

.

i it i Ix It !", r . ). 'MP, 'up ago f t ed

..1 li i! t ittti t Atli. it t .

"f KO i.t iii VI in t 1 Ut Of ittf 1( ti01' ,t , t,k.C: the Ivo

t , d-mot ph. me rill t.i.0 w.tv comppt..d for the two. :t ttberaik.: eithttr had one tWO throe

two intlectkom. (i.e., fiir words, seven morphemes).I!:dit;.r were not nt,Thilicant fcr the two Iroupr., although a

.1t,t 1.0v ette,.t- wk.1!: OUnd di p.4.01). .

did, however, have .!or.., iralections. !th f ir: t. tnr,

'. . s 1 .1 t.::..111 did tit Ioup (Ciuure VI).

t thJt Tdri0V lexic41 Categories were alio! ;

.d i r tit.. two moups. The 1J-tiCal items used for ...omparisonwh forms, prepositions, and modals.

.,cty cop. -rn in chi: omparison Neeetermine at what levelrd ordet the variow. ittrs appeared for the two.groups. Witt,

1-!. .,,optior. of i,r..,nouns, only miler variance wa: found in the level,q 0t appe,Irawe of the'lexi:ai itevi. The deviant group by

1 III hliri :,..i.teen pronouns while the normal group had nine pronounsle II ).

1)ISCUL121ON

01.o4rly, the major ditference., between .n.rmal and lInguisti-AlIv ,hildrt.n of compiral!lo linguistic level were riot in the

:1,7.1!1.-.1ti,,n or .,curronce of specific subcomponents. of their baeRathtT, thti significant differences were found in

aquinition time 'necessary for learning base syntax and1. of al. a:pet. Of that system, once acquired, for pro-

.

1. OI it t,Tn: ir: variety of utterances.

trutu .. development Owwed similar rule systmEasiwell asof zero-Yittinsformati:In (phrase structure) utter-

:o! .0th pour., acr0cs five distinct levels of linguisticdt:vjlopme.nt. No overall-differences were found in the frequency ortfp: transtcrmational rules produced in the language samples 'cif the

. .f.the forty transformations compared, only six trans -tionl: re significantly different in their frequency of

i".Ln. occurred mor frequently in the normal group while.xred more frequently in the deviant group. Moreover, the mean

r ranA mations used by the two groups across the fivele : ,.re n.t AInifieantl! different indicating no severe limita-lot. tt;e, dt-viar;t group in the number of transformations used in a

;,irt'i Aar utterar.ce. ,

6.A0 Irup Aere al:,o compared on frequently occurring and infre-4; o ,urrin: trattsformatiom.,a"nd fcur generallcategor's ofrJ:.!,formations. Significant differenct< were found betwe.3 the two

jr. T7 .ti:; irTfr:squently ocrur-ing transformations and the generalo. :0,v cpio.tion.7.. The f indirw for differencer. in infrequently

_1! I. :atvt,rmations at t those of Menyuk (19PA). t.f

f

: S t .N! otty .:tf h.. !1...,:k.1 t.11 1t i .1 n:1 vrr Ar.1*.* one of th.- i t

d lttt.i I i ant t. he dividiit4u.. t ion Ir. t h. : 1.- 01 t d.

'I' ..1`7!;i I 11:4 t.2rod I iabi lit it : or a .Tt tieral t i.

,ifit.it t I int:It-nal ion try .70d. .

1.1 .itt t ha ti cuf t tran:.1 kmcnai; i ditt i. tilt t11,-ir Tary t he trait! f ormat

' I: i.ir!t'

.t S i* I, :IL. Jral 1 it (prunotur, t it ..,nd mociat ) wit s ou,pa: d

.1: t 1. .*:inor le- I. 411 Item:. only minor* .: d t-1. level or the order of appr.arance.1.._::, « Th. deviant ,rroup at levt.1 III had.siktect, pro-

. , d .t' :;in or tle n,irmal group at the Latriol: level. Th.-' d t group ',,etwt en levels II and III .! m,

t ion:. Ietwe..n :;elf and others and f or1. ' t. 1 t I, ally marked.

w . i it'ajJ di:I ren. es in t h developmnt of inn. d-m,rpheme rat- io. Thy deviant Iroup, however, did

t I. J t f thrp,-. levels of linguistic devoid,-410 rid I ;coup. Thi di.f f erence was also ref lc...:.ted ire

; 1. t .1 rarr rI onat i on t-ypc.!f-: when!, both the progressive' ard.2: t 1." '!'t u .d signit icantly more of ten by the deviant grotlp.

r.'1'1.ict both the increased time the deviantI: ..i.d linguistic level and the fact that since

1:.*!-.11,:.-d y r tranr,f-ormat ions, they are' easily detect cd. Where cognitiye distinctionS such as' *.Ild 1,',71.ly as in the paf.'e of plar31 forr'...)mwhat dc.layed in acciuiring thec..

l d r.. t oui:d in phra! e structure or t rans f c.)rmat i. r.e. Id lo. 71 .11*. , ini.requently occurring transformations and CtUG; ion:1. namt,or transformation: used' per utterance,../..

. i ound in the number of major lexical ..-at:, r -0: n type. r}ince the two groups were matched

i .1 l *.in (! of ma j..r lexit al t-atElories per uttcranoe, the: 7- t: r. trict ion in tile variety of construction

. .d *: d. rour. indinq is further supported Ly thr.:!., f .,und viler types of constructions were compar d

..., t *.-, Jr. uisr.. Transformations also affect the variety of:t t :rodut...'d and a signiticarft difference war found on

: tran:.f ormat ions .

.4 t that d-viant ..-hildren when r.tucii.-A at. their ;a rtio-

.:e- .0. 1 it..121.:.tic developtr.ent, are not seriously ,defi:-ient in tht1 :..y. ,_-..tructur 'rules types of transformation,

or' 4 : :"' : t an : ormations it a given utteraf.;,ce. flow-vr.!: .

d . : : n a.,;,,a to jrit a:,t ly restricted in their X': iity

.1

d. 1,Y t Jr td ,-af Lit i,.!A a 1

4. trd it. .. j .! v 1 I at .. .1'4'

i,rried ,11.t !

I 51, it .".,4.1 t rbv

choT k/' (14, ) v t e'n, th, ros,7. co!:ponnt t trant,f4)rmationali:!!Trir 1/4 0'111)0,', 'd Of 3 a tt:',70riCti l oriporwnt JItd d The: cat- .

i.ori al :,"1T Font qeneral qope:tiw.; of the cli-ep 3tructure7., :A4%11

d, detintna 4ra,t!matical relations and determdining basr. syntactic ordr.vneral propet.tie::, including 1)-properties

t the fAnvtion Srantormati.lnal , 2) informdtiori:f?(11:,J tto-7,a:1-d pla,emvnt of le al item:, in a :lentence, and

rel.,.yant to ,.,,-mantic interprvtaticili. Thus, grammatical,

al.(1 wd.. at, determined th, component, ..1.6i lei

re-tr.Ltion:. are determined !y the leAicon.

d.viAto rrou: 9tanifeted grammat cal el ions and base syntactic.!tf.r not unlik- thatA tHe normal group. e findingof

cructure rule indi,ates that the two 'groups were not differentttH.r orlanization of th

JiLdi!.4 of difference on maj4rt; 1.d 1,w carrel:ition on ty

rou e::.tricti-d inMed try the lexl

to- tan,-tion of transtorMatiopal

categorpical compoent. However, thexica] categories per constructiones constructions indicates that' the"he: it ability to handle less generalon. ,Specifically, this would involVerules as indicated by the difference

tol t. r infrequ,ntly occurring transformatigns and informationtArdin; trriod placement of lexical iteps in a sentence, the latter

1..q10Aed in their restricted use of major lex4a1con.truA.ion type and the low correlatiod on types vf

4P:j tiOn. The delay in both onset and acquisition time for baredoubt, closely related to the deviant group's ability.

I I to 3n adilouate 7eTantic interpretation tr an utterance in cc,m-a! well j7 pr, du(tion. The properties cf tbe lexicon arc

related to the well-tormednoss of an u _cance. Our-of the language samples and those of M( IyUk (1069)

tLat the' utterances produced by deviant children are on thewnolo well-formed than those of normal children. Finally, since

i::terprvtarion is closely related to cognitive functioning,the questionNaf wrIethelW the problem is purely lingutAic.

:.,search ha_ ind4ated that the langhage learning difficulties,hildren may not be entiroil4P the result of a linguistic .

0.11,At. ,tr Inhelder -(1960 .and Ajuriaguerra (19b6) have1,uTcle,!zinj Piagtian-type tasks, that children with severe languaged...111y.:how a l'peci.fic deficit in symbolic imagery. In Piaget's,04:.i!iv,!-developmental theory, the child develops a general capacity

r-:.r...;ertati.on and language represents only one manifestation ofri!pr7-ntation £19/0). It is interesting to note in this regard

tL3t Huy 1, and Siddal (196ti) found that children with languagedelay are al50 delayed in s9mbolit. play as Lompared.to normals. It:;eam: rcascnable to 'conclude, then, that linguistically deviant

protatNly reflect a spec*(i cognitive dySfunction, particular-l a dy fan.tion in. all phases :)f symbolic representation. Moreover,

.;tJal d-ffci-ncie!. have al,t7.o be .1: found in children with language

. N

it

4

' 'at! !\' t4 1. :,'1141; ( 4'111- I I tin3

a, ; -;t . ,'cr..: ). 'Hit;

7 Aj 4 1 t A A.** ;' Itta t% 1 t

. t '4" i it it: -I's t I 1. t

. in.t t h, t doqui!- I t%iA .

.

, t ti..t. 1.,!!yr iik t i, ;I:. :.. hi. ;.t,,tqat:,... Lit.h.ic. it it., :. I

.: t .: . ..i ! d. ..i.tt.t rh i 1.dr4-1, .1- i t.... t r; ...1 o.,..,,..**f , ..nd in thli-, ! t.,4!%.,

I .... : '.....`: y ii. o. 4) mid IA. ,. 1 l , 't ii 1. ( 1.4' ) in t.,:,.it ill; ..31...

. :. ; .. 1:i r itil ha... t un.-4.4 that. r111 itivfn With 1.1n; 1,i l.. I. : .1 : .... - :a !",1. t :. f lit. 't:C41 ' l' :I !' t t:.11: 11R L.,1. 01 110f 10 1

! !. il. / . _ ' A' ./. / ' i I ';clat IP ,-1 ..It lt=.11 i t ..d i.n.i 1 at i. :, t.i;.i....i ,... ,;.. -..t. :. ! :-... 1,1 1 i ( I 1.*1) f. and that.. 1,, It..;,a.1, hi ldr n t.-pi, ,..I I !V

;. .,if :"' c . ' - ! . !.. t het.' ati 7 Pr .41Vrid 1.- ;Iroduc. t hf,:t., :.. :. : ' , . d I ( 1 'it is ) ha',/t i . UFA] that children v.ith hll...at._ .

.1. : i. , . 1,... d :. t,...r. 1=4,1, rt. they ilt.i tat . c.,1 pt'oduc Et thorn.. : :: d., t : t : . i mit i. JI,.. di f ff..fr..nt: c ,)r, t he r,,,,i1prehf-41.5i, t; t,...-),

ihst t{.i: :, !/.11 and dt.....tiatit groir,..s c..7.-rv at a similar. c ; .. . .o.: . t 1. Jt lot/tt'lit Jild that the dvidnt .3.roui) ,,,-,hot.... (.1 a

t. : ..0 : : ... ri'i .ic.:41.1:(",,' i.cli. lar t.., th.. deficient y toond t or our Tr. u;..,.* . ; . :*: i .43! , 1..1! tiltif; i k..11t f.-#(7,ires- indic at(' that the under ly.fhg

" 4 V f. k .: V6' " ! " ON ' 41 T. tr ' 1 ' . I k..r t he t 'A.., yrourir, although th.: ir..: ,' . .. .: d .....q : i ,..., cap... I t I .,.- ,..re 1,,,t 0.

A: '! at ...': . t a iii't i r` i.'nr'Y in pruductiv- o:.apaTNi lit ies' is the 0

: ' o' i ... I. . :.. . . : ;11.!-.4 ion. trantlrmatiuns. Since, it is unlikely . ...

t : 1 . r'i. ti ......Liti:. t , c..c:a LA-0 ar. .df:ycliologica Ily more di f Pic tilt t hi..r.

:: '.:.-ii...! ,..;:o.,at .1.,n!. ciii Uirell by th- deviant .jrciop, their relativ.-:. .av !...dvicdt. atyr, iral kor do: laYed -socio-linguistic' development.

...,: ( : 0 ''.) ha. u1;;......t.ti f or young nortia 1 children, at last, thot -

1 . c- i! ., 1. .it.' .. " h....i rf "tool..lrai.11ic A.,,'1,-." ...ay be duc' to rt.- .

: ,...! .:i .. 1.-, : .r-.1 1 laniviaj w...a;..., or. di.scour.c.. rult.i.... Linjuicti- .

* .2. :v ... i.1:,t . hi ldr..11 t c.tquent ly mann ..st atypia I social devf,lop-:. ,1: d :o:... , ..:.I.to.. +rt,unt if t.heir ,reductive (1.1 i. i...no.i..! !NJ:, t

.(i : t. ! .. ;).:.-nt 1 c f di: c. urs.e r...1.1..f- .

I

4

11

I

IP

I

:0-40

7

go.

010

^"I'

.1"L

T.

9* V O

ttr c

0. VC

Z

,i.. S t.

'`'` 0::' 23 .c.4.-:

L9` t'L: Z

rZ.

I

, ,"

.I:

.*".3

S.....

i.1IL

,,?,1... (7,

1. 001'

L' 9L.

'

-

.1;.;.';

i.

C.

(.

LticPE

Ai

0* U.

III

1,?,Z

I

Os

eEt,

47 Ts sidles

at vjar.,sT

nf uyiet.L

.1.-);

4A;

;-L

i t-

yi;-f

.1.-).13

1f,)" 1 t.

4..4...11V

1t:

Wei

fle

I31

tire't

a n

Lin4uptic levet and order of appearance of minor lexicalcategories for the normal group.

.te4or Level I IINormal

III IV V

Lus

11my youit yourit . she-me them

we- herhe itsthey herus ouryouhimhis

Irstratives that this these .those

t.--rms where what why then

f rfTos i r ions in to up- downon with at of

for offlike

4 throughoverbyundernear

4

want

a

gonna can won'thafta will don't

could -can'tshall gotta

woulds may

mightshouldbetter

l'Af411: ii. Linguistic level and order of appearance of mftor lexicalcacegories for the deviant-group. .

- ..*,itiguistio -

. Deviant'ate-ortov!........______Ii...........____W1,, V

11,1wuns it him you her itsit . their our

my ta0 herme them

theysheweyouusyourhis

:Pmonsrratives that these this those

',..11 it rms what where howwhy . when

who

-.!a 1 s

1

in

- 66

1.4

on with upat like ofto offdown Out of

foroverbyafterinto

Nb,.. aboutexcept

gonna can't don'tcan won'twant gotta

wouldhaddawillcoulddidn'thafta

1 .

LEGENDS FOR FIGURNS 1 .

-1\

Flyure I - The dye-rage tank of the forty wnsformations and theirfrequeticy of ocNrrence foi the normal and deviant groups.

Filure The average rank of the infrequently 'occurring trans-formations and their frequency of'occairence for thenormal and deviant groups.'

1 I 1..f f - ill,: mean number of question transformations per corpusplotted acrosn iive.linguistic levels for the normol anddf-viant groups. -

Figur.2 4 - The mean number of transformations per utterance plotteda..ross-five linguistic-levels.for the normal and deviantgroups.

I.

- The mean number of lexical categories per constructiontypo plotted across five linguistic levels for thencrmal and deviant groups.

ur - The mean number of inflections plotted across five.Iinguistitc levels fof normal and deviant groups.

5

V

I

earn

*

CD

.

C

Nor

mal

c

1-4

"70.

11-1

213

-16

17-2

0 21

-24

25-2

8 29

-32

33-3

6 37

-40

.

Ave

rage

Ran

kFi

gure

3.

a

19-2

0 21

-122

23-

24 2

5-26

27-

28 2

9-30

31-

32 3

3-34

35-

36

Ave

rage

Ran

kFigure 2

36 3

9-40

e

Mean Number of Question Transformations per Corpus

.5 C_

---- ' 0 t3

.1 i ,

IP

sg

1=1

hr

Mean Number of. Transformations per Utterance

IMMO MOM/ 100,1it

11/1.0

I

501

-0 4 0 Cen

( t I

OE

u

Mean- u 1

mber of. Lax[c131

Categories per Constfuthion Type

. i

11.

6 Cy"

I

TO

w

0

NIT

omp

0

I I

I

EZ

Lin

guis

ticL

evel

Figu

re 6

0

4'REFERENCES

Ai%Iviagoerra de, JuliJn. Speech disorders in childhcaod. In Edward

AC. Core.ervue (Ed.), Brain fum etion: Spech, Ian ua e andommunication. Vol. ITT14n77.0777alif. Press, s.

Calif., 1966. 4

Lois. Lan ua e deel ment: Form and fura-tioq in emerging,

r`.d am ridgc, ss: .I77Press, 1970. a a

andellugi. Ursula. 'the chilies.P. Hill (Ed.), The 1967psyrhology..MinEZWITE: Univ.

11. '.11, Nolut, and Cazden, i:ourtneyqrvionar erom-I t. III. In Sinnesot symposium on childnn. 196R.

Br, wry, Roger. 'S__tal_e I: Semantic and grammatical relations.fished paper, 1407eVard Univel7rty, 19767

ik

Carr**. Marv. The development of auditory comprehension oftructure- in children, Journal of Speech, and Hearing

Disorders, 1968, 33, 99=7--

Unpub -

language

SI%

Chom:ky. Carol. The ak2quisition of syntax in childgep. from 5.to 10.Gailbridle, R57 sss: M.T.T. Pre, 19 .

1. 4,

chom*kyli..A. As ects ot the theory of syntax. Cambridgeii,iMass:M. ess,i 6-7

. . Lis,Fraser, C., Bellugi, Ursula, and Brown, R. Control of grammar in

'imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 1963,.2, .121:1337

Injral., David. IBM Grammar II: An adaptation for child. Language. InD.M. Morehead. (Ed.,), Papers and Reports on Child Language1)evela.:pment. December, 144)0. Stanford Univ7ealy: committee.1 Linguistics.

Inhelder, Barbel. Cognitive development and its contribution to thediagnosis of some phenomena of meni:al deficiency. Merrill,.ral= Quarterly; 1966, 12, 299-319:

Kool:,er4, Lawrence. Early education: a cognitive developmentalview. Child Development, Dec. 1968, 39, 1013-1062..

Lee, Lauro. Developmental sentence types: A method for comparingnormal and deviant syntaCtic development. Journal of'Speedhand Hearing Disorders, May, 1970, 35, No. 27771

40" Lenneber;, E.H., Biological foundations of language, New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

,

$

1

nt.)

11, K. , Hoylkt, Siddall, M. A study of some aspects of theH.ay 40 language of young children with delayed speech." Journal

Child Psycholoqy and Elychiatt4, 196H, 9, 41 -W.-0

M.KW rth, Norman, .Grandstaff, 'Netta, and Pribram, Karl. Prolongedori,ntation to pictorial novelty in seirrely spevch7disorderedhildren. EalL2Eashaalt, in press4V

lhiv01;tmental pYcholtinguistics. In F. Smith and G.A.(Cc: :.), The genesis if lanaLumt: psycholinguistich. Cam!)Tge, llass:".1Thss, 1)66.

YcN,411 V.

MilIcr

Mt t IV t lk #

4.

ula. Comparison of grammar ofpant. and normal speech. tJodrnae.arch 14t 7 109-121

111teeralloptizgzallyt t

M.-:yulk, Paula. Sontences children use. Cambridge, Mass: MI.T.,Presr.,I

Piajvt, Piaget' theory. In Paul Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael'sManaal of Child Psycholow. New York: John Wiley and Sonsvol. 1,797=

P,tev. IBM Grammar II. IBM Research Report, detober 1967.

ene.hal,.:William, and Elsenson, Jon. Auditory tiEpontl. orderchildren as a function of selected

Stanford UniveriTETTEEO5=red771777T970.

Non;parametic statistics, New York: McGraw -Hjll and

r.75,4