Verb agreement in TurkishDutch bilingual children with SLI

1
Verb agreement in Turkish-Dutch bilingual
children with SLI

• Jan de Jong, Antje Orgassa, Nazife Çavus, Anne
  Baker, Fred Weerman

2
Research issue

• Verb morphology is vulnerable in SLI.
• Explanations locus of the problem either in
  representation or processing
• Explanations are based on crosslinguistic
  differences or commonalities in symptoms
• Are crosslinguistic differences found when the
  subjects are the same (bilingual) children?
• Which theory explains the symptoms best?

3
Outline of the talk

• Two theories of SLI
• Characteristics of Dutch and Turkish
• Predictions for SLI in two languages Dutch and
  Turkish
• The Dutch study
• The Turkish study
• Comparing the results from both studies
• Conclusions

4
SLI in Turkish and Dutch two theories on SLI
will be tested

• SLI is a representational deficit
• Agreement Deficit hypothesis (Clahsen)
• SLI is a processing deficit
• Sparse morphology hypothesis (Leonard)

5
Characteristics of Dutch and Turkish
6
SLI in Turkish and Dutch what do theories on SLI
predict?

• Agreement Deficit hypothesis
• Agreement problems will be found in both
  languages
• Sparse morphology hypothesis
• Morphological problems will be more serious in
  Dutch than in Turkish

7
Possible outcomes and their interpretation
8
Possible outcomes and their interpretation
9
Possible outcomes and their interpretation
10
Possible outcomes and their interpretation
11
Possible outcomes and their interpretation
12
Subjects
13
The Dutch study Inflectional paradigm

14
The Dutch study Task ilustration
Antje leest een boek en Jan leest een krant
Antje reads-3sg a book and Jan reads-3sg a
newspaper
15
The Dutch study Results - correctness
Dutch
16
The Dutch experiment conclusions
Dutch

• Children with SLI produce more incorrect forms
  than children without SLI in their L2

17
The Turkish study inflectional paradigm

18
The Turkish study task illustration

• Anne ben portakal-i _____ (sik-ti-m).
• Mummy I orange-ACC ____
  (press-PST.DI-1SG)
• Mummy, I have squeezed an orange.

19
The Turkish study Results - correctness
Turkish
20
The Turkish study
Turkish

• Children with SLI produce more incorrect forms
  than children without SLI in their L1

21
Turkish versus Dutch correctness ()
22
Turkish versus Dutch conclusion for the group

• More errors in Dutch than in Turkish
• Crosslinguistic difference
• The Sparse Morphology hypothesis is confirmed
• The Agreement Deficit hypothesis is disconfirmed

23
Comparing the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
24
Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
25
Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
26
Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
27
Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
28
Explaining the individual patterns within the SLI
group ( gt90 correct)
29
Conclusions

• The crosslinguistic differences in the group
  comparison support processing-based explanations
  like the Sparse morphology hypothesis and do not
  support the Agreement Deficit hypothesis
• The individual patterns support processing-based
  explanations like the Sparse morphology
  hypothesis and do not support the Agreement
  Deficit hypothesis
• The individual differences also highlight the
  importance of considering L2 factors (like
  language input, language dominance) in
  understanding bilingual SLI

30
What about the typical bilingual group? ( gt90
correct)