Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) have well-known difficulties with the obligatory use of verbal tense-marking morphology which they use optionally for a longer period of time than typically developing children. Copula BE and auxiliary BE are two tense markers that have been shown to be problematic for children with SLI, but their status as independent allomorphs is somewhat controversial in the literature. In the present study we argue for copula BE and auxiliary BE as two separate tense markers showing different developmental curves both for children with SLI and for younger unaffected controls. It is suggested that copular versus auxiliary status, morphological form, and the frequency of the lexical construction containing BE all affect children's provision of copular and auxiliary forms. Implications for identifying variables constraining optionality are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerM. (2000). The acquisition of the English copula. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press), 104–15.
2.
BerumentS. K.RutterM.LordC.PicklesA.BaileyA. (1999). Autistic screening questionnaire: diagnostic validity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 444–51.
3.
BrownR. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
4.
BybeeJ. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–55.
5.
CleaveP. L.RiceM. (1997). An examination of the morpheme BE in children with specific language impairment: the role of contractibility and grammatical form class. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 40, 480–92.
6.
Conti-RamsdenG. (1989). Proper name usage: mother-child interactions with language-impaired and non-language-impaired children. First Language, 9, 271–84.
7.
Conti-RamsdenG.JonesM. (1997). Verb use in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40, 1298–313.
8.
EdwardsS.FletcherP.GarmanMHughesA.LettsC.SinkaI. (1997). The Reynell Developmental Language Scales III: The University of Reading Edition (Windsor: NFER-Nelson).
9.
GathercoleS.BaddeleyA. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language-disordered children: is there a causal connection?. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336–60.
10.
GrelaB. G.LeonardL. B. (2000). The influence of argument structure complexity on the use of auxiliary verbs by children with SLI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 43, 1115–25.
11.
HadleyP.RiceM. (1996). Emergent uses of BE and DO: evidence from children with specific language impairment. Language Acquisition, 5, 209–43.
12.
Hoff-GinsbergE. (1992). How should frequency in input be used?. First Language, 12, 233–44.
13.
KuczajS. (1985/6). General developmental patterns and individual differences in the acquisition of copula and auxiliary be forms. First Language, 6, 111–17.
14.
LebeauxD. (2000). Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
15.
Leiter International Performance Scale (Chicago: Stoelting, 1979).
16.
LeonardL. B. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1270–83.
17.
LeonardL.EyerJ.BedoreL.GrelaB. (1997). Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme: difficulties of English-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 741–53.
18.
LyonsJ. (1977). Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
19.
MacWhinneyB. (1995). The Child Language Data Exchange System (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
20.
MarchmanV.WulfeckB.Ellis WeismerS. (1999). Morphological productivity in children with normal language and SLI: a study of the English past tense. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 206–19.
21.
OettingJ.HorohovJ. (1997). Past tense marking by children with and without Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 40, 62–74.
22.
Oshima-TakaneY.DeratL. (1996). Nominal and pronominal reference in maternal speech during the later stages of language acquisition: a longitudinal study. First Language, 16, 319–38.
23.
PineJ. M.LievenE. V. M.RowlandC. F. (1998). Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category. Linguistics, 36, 807–30.
24.
PizzutoE.CaselliM. C. (1992). The acquisition of Italian morphology: implications for models of language development. Journal of Child Language, 19, 491–557.
25.
RiceM. L.WexlerK. (1996). A phenotype of Specific Language Impairment: Extended Optional Infinitives. in RiceM. L. (ed.), Towards a Genetics of Language (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 215–37.
26.
RiceM. L.WexlerK.CleaveP. L. (1995). Specific Language Impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850–63.
27.
RiceM. L.WexlerK.HershbergerS. (1998). Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–31.
28.
RowlandC.PineJ. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what children do know?’. Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–81.
29.
TheakstonA.LievenE.PineJ.RowlandC. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 28, 127–52.
