11

Substitution and Substitution and omission of prepositions omission of prepositions

as indicators of SLI in as indicators of SLI in bilingual childrenbilingual children

Sharon Armon-LotemSharon Armon-Lotem

The Bilingual SLI ProjectThe Bilingual SLI Project

Bar-Ilan University, IsraelBar-Ilan University, Israel

22

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

This work has been done in This work has been done in collaboration with:collaboration with:

Gabi Danon, Jonathan Fine, Elinor Gabi Danon, Jonathan Fine, Elinor Saiegh-Haddad, Joel Walters, Bar-Ilan Saiegh-Haddad, Joel Walters, Bar-Ilan University University

Galit Adam, The Open UniversityGalit Adam, The Open University

With the help ofWith the help of::

Anat Blass, Anat Blass, Michal Giladi, Michal Giladi, Efrat Harel, Efrat Harel, Audrey Levant, Audrey Levant, Ruti Litt, Lyle Lustinger, Ruti Litt, Lyle Lustinger, Sharon Porat, Efrat ShimonSharon Porat, Efrat Shimon

33

Why Prepositions?Why Prepositions?

Prepositions are a locus for code Prepositions are a locus for code interference in bilingual populations, but interference in bilingual populations, but are not necessarily considered an indicator are not necessarily considered an indicator of SLI of SLI

Some SLI children show omissions of prepositions (Roeper, Ramos, Seymour, Roeper, Ramos, Seymour, and Abdul-Karim 2001and Abdul-Karim 2001)

While some prepositions have mainly a While some prepositions have mainly a grammatical function, other have a grammatical function, other have a semantic function, contributing to the semantic function, contributing to the meaning of the sentence.meaning of the sentence.

44

Two Types of PrepositionsTwo Types of Prepositions

Obligatory prepositions (O-prep): Obligatory prepositions (O-prep): – governed by the verb, e.g., governed by the verb, e.g., laugh at, dream laugh at, dream

about, look at, look forabout, look at, look for– Form a meaning unit with the verb, e.g., Form a meaning unit with the verb, e.g., take take

out, turn offout, turn off

Free prepositions Free prepositions (F-prep) (F-prep) which introduce which introduce an adverbial PP (locatives, temporals), an adverbial PP (locatives, temporals), e.g., e.g., at at school, near the tree, in the school, near the tree, in the morning, after lunch morning, after lunch

55

Obligatory PrepositionsObligatory Prepositions

An obligatory (subcategorized) PP, though a An obligatory (subcategorized) PP, though a complement of the verb, is not its complement of the verb, is not its argument, i.e. the theta-role of the verb is argument, i.e. the theta-role of the verb is assigned to the nominal complement of P assigned to the nominal complement of P (cf. Neeleman 1997, Botwinik-Rotem 2004). (cf. Neeleman 1997, Botwinik-Rotem 2004).

In phrasal verbs the In phrasal verbs the theta-role of the verb is theta-role of the verb is also assigned to the nominal complementalso assigned to the nominal complement

Obligatory prepositions are lexically Obligatory prepositions are lexically selected by the verb and only serve a selected by the verb and only serve a grammatical function, making them more grammatical function, making them more prone to omission by SLI children. prone to omission by SLI children.

66

A Typological NoteA Typological Note

In English, a satellite-framed In English, a satellite-framed language, some O-preps (in phrasal language, some O-preps (in phrasal or particle verbs) often contributes to or particle verbs) often contributes to the meaning of the verb (the meaning of the verb (look for, look for, turn offturn off), adding an expression of ), adding an expression of path (Talmy 2000). path (Talmy 2000).

In Hebrew, a verb-framed language, In Hebrew, a verb-framed language, this meaning is mostly encoded this meaning is mostly encoded within the verb (within the verb (xipes, kibaxipes, kiba), and no ), and no preposition is used.preposition is used.

77

Free PrepositionsFree Prepositions

Free prepositions introduce adverbial Free prepositions introduce adverbial (non-subcategorized) PPs. The PP can (non-subcategorized) PPs. The PP can be considered an argument, receiving be considered an argument, receiving a theta-role from the verb, or an a theta-role from the verb, or an adjunct, and the free preposition adjunct, and the free preposition contributes to determining the contributes to determining the meaning of the sentence. meaning of the sentence.

Free prepositions are not selected by Free prepositions are not selected by the verb, and their choice is often the verb, and their choice is often influenced by the following NP (influenced by the following NP (at at lunchtime, in the morninglunchtime, in the morning))

88

PredictionsPredictions Better performance with F-preps since they

contribute to the meaning of the sentence, are more frequent in spontaneous speech, and are typologically similar.

Weaker performance on O-prep in both languages since they mostly serve a grammatical function.

Weaker performance on O-prep in Hebrew where they never contribute to the meaning of the verb.

TD bilingual children are expected to show code interference (CI) in contrasting environment.

SLI children may show omissions (Roeper 2000)

99

Subjects SelectionSubjects Selection 5-7 years old sequential bilinguals from 5-7 years old sequential bilinguals from

English-speaking homes who had been English-speaking homes who had been exposed to L2 Hebrew in Hebrew-speaking exposed to L2 Hebrew in Hebrew-speaking pre-school programs for more than two years. pre-school programs for more than two years.

Some of the children attended “language Some of the children attended “language preschools” due to earlier diagnostics, while preschools” due to earlier diagnostics, while others attended regular preschools. others attended regular preschools.

All children came from the same All children came from the same neighbourhood and the same (middle-high) neighbourhood and the same (middle-high) SES.SES.

Children were tested in both languages using Children were tested in both languages using standardized tests (CELF Preschool for standardized tests (CELF Preschool for English, Goralnik for Hebrew). English, Goralnik for Hebrew).

1010

SubjectsSubjects

8 atypically developing (ATD) bilingual 8 atypically developing (ATD) bilingual children (7 girls, 1 boy) – all had a score children (7 girls, 1 boy) – all had a score which was lower than -1 SD below the which was lower than -1 SD below the norm on the CELF preschool for English norm on the CELF preschool for English and lower than -1.5 SD below the norm on and lower than -1.5 SD below the norm on the Goralnik for Hebrew. All these children the Goralnik for Hebrew. All these children matched the exclusionary criteria for SLI.matched the exclusionary criteria for SLI.

11 typically developing (TD) bilingual 11 typically developing (TD) bilingual children (8 girls, 3 boys) - all scored within children (8 girls, 3 boys) - all scored within the norm in both languagesthe norm in both languages

1111

The Elicited Imitation TaskThe Elicited Imitation Task

24 simple sentences, in each 24 simple sentences, in each language, 10 containing free language, 10 containing free prepositions, and 14 containing prepositions, and 14 containing obligatory prepositions.obligatory prepositions.

Sentence lengthSentence length– In Hebrew: 4-7 words (mean 5.6), 5-10 In Hebrew: 4-7 words (mean 5.6), 5-10

morphemes (mean 7.5), and morphemes (mean 7.5), and word/morpheme average is 6.5word/morpheme average is 6.5

– In English: 5-8 words/morphemes (mean In English: 5-8 words/morphemes (mean 6.5). 6.5).

1212

FindingsFindings

58%

74%

63%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hebrew English

Percentage of full target responses [N=24]

ATD TD

Significantly more full target responses among TD than ATD (p<0.05 for both languages)

No significant difference between English and Hebrew (even though Hebrew is the school language)

Quantitative difference between TD and ATD children in the number of errors

1313

Preposition Errors out of all Preposition Errors out of all ErrorsErrors

Prepositions errors are the source of 10-15% of all errors in Prepositions errors are the source of 10-15% of all errors in Hebrew, but third of all errors in English.Hebrew, but third of all errors in English.

Though ATD children make more errors, there is no significant Though ATD children make more errors, there is no significant difference in the ratio of preposition errors between TD and ATD, difference in the ratio of preposition errors between TD and ATD, but there is a significant difference between Hebrew and English but there is a significant difference between Hebrew and English for both groups.for both groups.

No quantitative difference in the number of prepositions errors No quantitative difference in the number of prepositions errors between TD and ATDbetween TD and ATD

23%

3%

36%

6%

14%

7%

26%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TD ATD TD ATD

Hebrew English

Ratio of preposition errors and other errors

Other Prepositions

1414

Errors by Preposition Errors by Preposition TypeType

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Hebrew English Hebrew English

TD ATD

Ratio of errors by preposition type

O-prep F-prep

For TDs there is no significant difference between O-preps and F-For TDs there is no significant difference between O-preps and F-preps in English or Hebrew.preps in English or Hebrew.

For ATDs there is a significant difference in English between O-For ATDs there is a significant difference in English between O-preps and F-preps as well as between English and Hebrew in O-preps and F-preps as well as between English and Hebrew in O-preps (both due to the relatively large number of errors on O-preps (both due to the relatively large number of errors on O-preps in English) preps in English)

A significant difference was found between TD and ATD in O-preps A significant difference was found between TD and ATD in O-preps errors.errors.

5 4 10 10 6 7 19 6

1515

Summary - Ratio of ErrorsSummary - Ratio of Errors

Quantitative difference is found between TD and ATD children in the number of errors

No quantitative difference was found in No quantitative difference was found in the number of prepositions errors between the number of prepositions errors between TD and ATDTD and ATD

A qualitative significant difference was A qualitative significant difference was found between TD and ATD in O-prep found between TD and ATD in O-prep errors, showing that verb governed errors, showing that verb governed preposition are a locus of unique difficulty preposition are a locus of unique difficulty in the English of the ATD children.in the English of the ATD children.

1616

Type of ErrorsType of Errors

Substitution with Code Interference (ci-sub): The baby laughed on the clown.

Substitution no Code Interference (sub): The baby laughed to the clown.

Omission with Code Interference (ci-om): The elephant pulled *(down) the zebra's pants.

Omission no Code Interference (om): The baby laughed *(at) the clown

Code Switching (cs): The baby laughed al ha-clown

1717

Type of Errors – by GroupsType of Errors – by Groups

0

5

10

15

20

CI-om om CI-sub sub

Frequency of errors by type of error

ATD TD

A significant difference was found between TD and ATD A significant difference was found between TD and ATD in errors which are not due to code interference. This is in errors which are not due to code interference. This is true both for non-CI omissions and non-CI substitutions.true both for non-CI omissions and non-CI substitutions.

*

*

1818

Type of Errors by Preposition Type of Errors by Preposition TypeType

0

5

10

15

20

O-prep F-prep O-prep F-prep O-prep F-prep O-prep F-prep

Hebrew English Hebrew English

TD ATD

Frequency of errors by type

ci-sub sub ci-om om

**

1919

Summary - Type of ErrorsSummary - Type of Errors In Hebrew, no significant difference was In Hebrew, no significant difference was

found in the total number of errors, number found in the total number of errors, number of substitutions or number of omissions. of substitutions or number of omissions. Nonetheless, Nonetheless, a significant difference was a significant difference was found between TD and ATD in non-CI found between TD and ATD in non-CI omissions of obligatory prepositions.omissions of obligatory prepositions.

In English, no significant difference was In English, no significant difference was found in the total number of errors, number found in the total number of errors, number of substitutions or number of omissions. of substitutions or number of omissions. Nonetheless, a significant difference was Nonetheless, a significant difference was found in the use of obligatory prepositions found in the use of obligatory prepositions in the total number of errors, due to a in the total number of errors, due to a significant difference in the use of non-CI significant difference in the use of non-CI substitutionssubstitutions

2020

Major Finding 1Major Finding 1

Substitutions and omissions due to Substitutions and omissions due to code interference are not a unique code interference are not a unique feature of the language of ATD feature of the language of ATD children, and neither are children, and neither are unsystematic substitution errors, unsystematic substitution errors, while unsystematic omission errors while unsystematic omission errors are unique to ATD children. are unique to ATD children.

2121

Discussion - OmissionsDiscussion - Omissions Though some omission errors can be Though some omission errors can be

explained by code interference, we would explained by code interference, we would argue that the restriction of omission errors argue that the restriction of omission errors which cannot be explained by code which cannot be explained by code interference to the ATD population resembles interference to the ATD population resembles those errors reported by Roeper et al (2001) those errors reported by Roeper et al (2001) and might indicate optionallity in the and might indicate optionallity in the linguistic representation.linguistic representation.

The restriction of omission errors to O-preps The restriction of omission errors to O-preps is explained by their limited contribution to is explained by their limited contribution to the semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, the semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke and Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001). Bartke and Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001).

2222

Major Finding 2Major Finding 2

Unsystematic errors (mostly Unsystematic errors (mostly substitutions) are significantly more substitutions) are significantly more prevalent among ATD children, and prevalent among ATD children, and are due to significant difference in are due to significant difference in their performance with O-preps.their performance with O-preps.

2323

Discussion – Unsystematic Discussion – Unsystematic SubstitutionsSubstitutions

Non CI substitution errors by TD children Non CI substitution errors by TD children mostly reflect the use of a synonym, and mostly reflect the use of a synonym, and are therefore not really unsystematic, but are therefore not really unsystematic, but rather semantically based. rather semantically based.

Unsystematic substitutions of free Unsystematic substitutions of free prepositions by ATD children show that prepositions by ATD children show that they know that a preposition is needed. they know that a preposition is needed. The semantics of the adverbial helps the The semantics of the adverbial helps the child choose the correct preposition, and child choose the correct preposition, and thus there are fewer errors. thus there are fewer errors.

2424

Discussion – Obligatory Discussion – Obligatory PrepositionsPrepositions

Unsystematic substitutions of obligatory Unsystematic substitutions of obligatory prepositions by ATD children can suggest that prepositions by ATD children can suggest that they know the theta-grid for each verb and they know the theta-grid for each verb and therefore know that a preposition is needed therefore know that a preposition is needed (Botwinik-Rotem 2004), but do not know which (Botwinik-Rotem 2004), but do not know which preposition it is. In the absence of semantic basis preposition it is. In the absence of semantic basis for the choice, they pick up any preposition, with for the choice, they pick up any preposition, with preference for preference for inin and and onon, the semantics of which , the semantics of which is less restricted.is less restricted.

The significant difference in unsystematic The significant difference in unsystematic

substitutions for obligatory prepositions can be substitutions for obligatory prepositions can be explained by their limited contribution to the explained by their limited contribution to the semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke and semantics of the sentence (Clahsen, Bartke and Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001). Göllner 1997, Tsimpli 2001).

2525

ConclusionConclusion Unsystematic omission errors are unique Unsystematic omission errors are unique

to ATD children and can be indicative of to ATD children and can be indicative of SLI. These errors might stem from SLI. These errors might stem from optionallity in the linguistic representation.optionallity in the linguistic representation.

Unsystematic errors (mostly substitutions) Unsystematic errors (mostly substitutions)

in the use of obligatory prepositions are in the use of obligatory prepositions are significantly more prevalent among ATD significantly more prevalent among ATD children, and can serve as a secondary children, and can serve as a secondary indication for SLI. These errors can be indication for SLI. These errors can be attributed to attributed to the limited contribution of the limited contribution of these prepositions to the semantics of the these prepositions to the semantics of the sentence, but also to processing sentence, but also to processing limitations. limitations.

2626

Partial ReferencePartial ReferenceBotwinik-Rotem, I. 2004. Botwinik-Rotem, I. 2004. The category P: Features, The category P: Features,

projections, interpretation, projections, interpretation, Ph.D. thesis, TAU. Ph.D. thesis, TAU. Clahsen H, Bartke S and Göllner S. 1997. Formal features in Clahsen H, Bartke S and Göllner S. 1997. Formal features in

impaired grammars: a comparison of English and German impaired grammars: a comparison of English and German SLI children. SLI children. Journal of NeurolinguisticsJournal of Neurolinguistics 10: 151-171 10: 151-171

Neeleman, A. 1997. "PP-Complements", Neeleman, A. 1997. "PP-Complements", NLLT, NLLT, 15:89-137. 15:89-137. Talmi, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Talmi, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT

PressPressTsimpli I (2001) ‘Interpretability and language development: A Tsimpli I (2001) ‘Interpretability and language development: A

study of verbal and nominal features in normally study of verbal and nominal features in normally developing and SLI Greek children’, developing and SLI Greek children’, Brain and LanguageBrain and Language 77: 77: 432-52. 432-52.

Ullman, M.T. & Pierpont, E.I. 2005. Ullman, M.T. & Pierpont, E.I. 2005. Specific Language Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: The Procedural Impairment is not Specific to Language: The Procedural Deficit Hypothesis. Deficit Hypothesis. Cortex 41Cortex 41, 399-433. , 399-433.

2727

Thank youThank you

תודהתודה