Grammaticality judgements in adolescents with and without language impairment.
Grammaticality judgements in adolescents with and without language impairment.
复制标题
有或没有语言障碍的青少年的语法判断。
DOI：
10.1080/13682820701546813
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Finneran,Denise
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miller,CarolA;Leonard,LaurenceB;Finneran,Denise
背景：现有的证据表明，有特殊语言障碍的幼儿在检测强制性时态标记词素的省略方面存在异常困难，但对青少年对这种违规行为的敏感性知之甚少。目的：本研究调查了16岁时是否存在接受性形态句法的限制（通过语法判断来衡量），如果存在，参与者的个人资料是否对时态和一致性词素的省略敏感性低于（1）这些相同词素的不适当使用（侵入），以及（2）不编码时态和一致性的词素的省略。该研究还比较了青少年与语言障碍和非语言智商超过1个标准差（SD）低于平均值（非特定语言障碍）的青少年与特定语言障碍的青少年。方法和程序：特定语言障碍的青少年（n = 48），非特定语言障碍的青少年（n= 25），和正常语言发育的青少年（n= 108）进行快速语法判断的句子通过耳机。一半的句子不合语法。它们包括非时态词素的省略（<$ingandpossessive-s），时态词素的省略（<$edandthird-person singularpresent-s），以及相同时态词素的侵入。结果与结果：总体而言，语言发育正常组对语法违规的敏感性高于特定语言障碍组和非特定语言障碍组，且组与项目类型之间没有显著的交互作用。事后分析显示，特定语言障碍组在每个项目类型上对违规的敏感性低于正常语言发育组，特定语言障碍组和非特定语言障碍组没有差异。在各组中，省略过去时态的表现是最低的，并探讨了可能导致这种差异的项目的属性。结论：在这项研究中，有语言障碍的青少年表现出对形态错误的敏感性降低的证据，包括时态标记和非时态标记语素，但没有证据表明在检测时态标记语素的省略方面有任何特别的困难，与其他对有特定语言障碍的年幼儿童的研究结果相反。非语言智商分数太低而不符合特定语言障碍标准的参与者与患有特定语言障碍的同龄人表现相似。这些青少年的语法能力受到损害，有特定的语言障碍和非特定的语言障碍。无论是研究人员还是临床医生都不能假设有语言障碍的青少年已经完全掌握了语法形态。
Background:Existing evidence suggests that young children with specific language impairment have unusual difficulty in detecting omissions of obligatory tense‐marking morphemes, but little is known about adolescents' sensitivity to such violations.Aims:The study investigated whether limitations in receptive morphosyntax (as measured by grammaticality judgements) were present at age 16 years, and, if so, whether participants' profiles showed less sensitivity to omissions of tense and agreement morphemes than to (1) inappropriate uses (intrusions) of these same morphemes, and (2) omissions of morphemes that do not encode tense and agreement. The study also compared adolescents with language impairment and non‐verbal IQ more than 1 standard deviation (SD) below the mean (non‐specific language impairment) to adolescents with specific language impairment.Methods & Procedures:Adolescents with specific language impairment (n = 48), adolescents with non‐specific language impairment (n= 25), and adolescents with normal language development (n= 108) performed speeded grammaticality judgements of sentences presented over headphones. Half the sentences were ungrammatical. They included omissions of non‐tense morphemes (‐ingand possessive‐s), omissions of tense morphemes (‐edand third‐person singular present‐s), and intrusions of the same tense morphemes. TheA'´ statistic was used as the dependent variable for comparisons across groups and item types.Outcomes & Results:Overall, the normal language development group was more sensitive to grammatical violations than the specific language impairment and non‐specific language impairment groups, and there was no significant interaction of group and item type. Post‐hoc analyses showed that the specific language impairment group was less sensitive to violations than the normal language development group on each item type, and the specific language impairment and non‐specific language impairment groups did not differ. Across groups, performance on omission of past tense‐edwas lowest, and properties of the items that may have contributed to this difference were explored.Conclusions:The adolescents with language impairment in this study showed evidence of reduced sensitivity to morphological errors, including both tense‐marking and non‐tense‐marking morphemes, but no evidence of any extraordinary difficulty in detecting the omission of tense‐marking morphemes, in contrast to results from other research on younger children with specific language impairment. Participants whose non‐verbal IQ score was too low to meet the criteria for specific language impairment performed similarly to their peers with specific language impairment. Grammatical competence is compromised in these adolescents with specific language impairment and non‐specific language impairment. Neither researchers nor clinicians can assume that adolescents with language impairment have fully mastered grammatical morphology.