This study examines whether children with specific language impairment (SLI) acquiring a language with a rich case marking system (Hungarian) have difficulty with case, and, if so, whether the difficulty is comparable for spatial and nonspatial meanings. Data were drawn from narrative samples and from a sentence repetition task. Suffixes were tested both in their spatial and nonspatial meanings. Participants with SLI were compared to same-age peers and younger typically developing children matched on receptive vocabulary scores (VC children). Results show that although case marking errors are very rare in spontaneous speech in Hungarian children with SLI, the number of case-marked nouns and of different case markers is significantly lower in children with SLI. In the elicited production task, overall performance of the children with SLI was significantly below that of VC children, but children with SLI and VC children scored higher with spatial than with nonspatial meanings. The results are in line with expectations based on processing accounts which posit greater difficulties with less transparent details of grammar.
BartosH. (2000). Az inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere. In KieferF. (Ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. – Morfológia (pp. 653–762). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai.
2.
BedoreL.LeonardL. (1998). Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: A discriminant function analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1185–1192.
3.
BedoreL.LeonardL. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 905–924.
4.
BishopD. V. M. (1983). Test for the reception of grammar. Manchester, UK: Medical Research Council.
5.
BishopD. V. M. (2012). TROG - Test for Reception of Grammar. Handbook. OS Hungary Tesztfejlesztő Kft. 47–86.
6.
BortoliniU.CaselliM. C.LeonardL. (1997). Grammatical deficits in Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 809–882.
7.
ÇavuşN. (2009). In search of clinical markers in Turkish SLI; an analysis of the nominal morphology in Turkish bilingual children (Master’s thesis). General Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
8.
ChomskyN. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Holland, the Netherlands: Foris Publications.
9.
ClahsenH. (1991). Child language and developmental dysphasia. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
ClahsenH.BartkeS.GöllnerS. (1997). Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 151–171.
11.
ClahsenH.EisenbeissS.VainikkaA. (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In HoekstraT.SchwartzB. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 85–118). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
12.
CsányiF. I. (1974). Peabody szókincs-teszt. Budapest, Hungary: Bárczi Gusztáv Gyógypedagógiai Főiskola.
13.
DankovicsN.PléhC. (2001). Hangrestaurációs jelenségek és alaktani feldolgozás a magyarban: Azt halljuk-e, amit várunk? In PléhC.LukácsÁ. (Eds.), A magyar morfológia pszicholingvisztikája (pp. 55–83). Budapest, Hungary: Osiris.
14.
de JongJ.ÇavuşN.BakerA. (2010). Language impairment in Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In TopbaşS.YavaşM. (Eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish in monolingual and multilingual settings (pp. 290–303). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
15.
DromiE.LeonardL.AdamG.Zadunaisky-EhrlichS. (1999). Verb agreement morphology in Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 1414–1431.
16.
DunnL.DunnL. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test – Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17.
EisenbeissS.BartkeS.ClahsenH. (2005). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically-developing children. Language Acquisition, 13(1), 3–32.
18.
FletcherP.LeonardL.StokesS.WongA. M.-Y. (2005). The expression of aspect in Cantonese-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 621–634.
19.
FriedericiA. D. (1982). Syntactic and semantic processes in aphasic deficits: The availability of prepositions. Brain and Language, 15, 249–258.
20.
GáborB.LukácsÁ. (2012). Early morphological productivity in Hungarian: Evidence from sentence repetition and elicited production. Journal of Child Language, 39, 411–442.
21.
KasB.LukácsÁ. (in press). Magyar Mondatutánmondási Teszt.
22.
KieferF. (2000). A ragozás [Inflectional morphology]. In FerencK. (Ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan. 3. Alaktan (pp. 569–618). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
23.
LeonardL. (1982). The nature of specific language impairment in children. In RosenbergS. (Ed.), Handbook of applied psycholinguistics (pp. 295–327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
LeonardL. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1270–1283.
25.
LeonardL. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
LeonardL.CaselliM. C.DevescoviA. (2002). Italian children’s use of verb and noun morphology during the preschool years. First Language, 22, 287–304.
27.
LeonardL.DromiE. (1994). The use of Hebrew verb morphology by children with specific language impairment and children developing language normally. First Language, 14, 283–304.
28.
LeonardL.SabbadiniL.LeonardJ.VolterraV. (1987). Specific language impairment in children: A crosslinguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 233–252.
29.
LoebD.LeonardL. (1991). Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally-developing and specifically-language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 340–346.
30.
LoebD.LeonardL. B. (1988). Specific language impairment and parameter theory. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 2, 317–327.
31.
LukácsÁ.LeonardL.KasB.PléhC. (2009). The use of tense and agreement by Hungarian-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 98–117.
32.
LukácsÁ.LeonardL. B.KasB. (2010). The use of noun morphology by children with language impairment: The case of Hungarian. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 145–161.
33.
LukácsÁ.PléhC.RacsmányM. (2007). Spatial language in Williams syndrome: Evidence for a special interaction?Journal of Child Language, 34, 311–343.
34.
LukácsÁ.GyőriM.RózsaS. (2012). A TROG pszichometriai jellemzőinek magyar vizsgálata, a normák kialakítása [Psychometric characteristics of TROG in Hungarian, norms]. In.: BishopD.V.M. (2012). TROG - Test for Reception of Grammar. Handbook. OS Hungary Tesztfejlesztő Kft. 47–86.
35.
MarshallC. R.van der LelyH. K. J. (2007). The impact of phonological complexity on past tense inflection in children with grammatical-SLI. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9, 191–203.
36.
MayerM. (1969). Frog, where are you?New York, NY: Dial Book for Young Readers.
37.
RacsmányM.LukácsÁ.NémethD.PléhC. (2005). A verbális munkamemória magyar nyelvű vizsgálóeljárásai. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, 4, 479–505.
38.
RadfordA.RamosE. (2001). Case, agreement and EPP: Evidence from an English-speaking child with SLI. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 36, 42–81.
RiceM.WexlerK. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.
41.
RiceM.WexlerK. (2001). Rice/Wexler test of early grammatical impairment. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
42.
RobertsS.LeonardL. (1997). Grammatical deficits in German and English: A crosslinguistic study of children with specific language impairment. First Language, 17, 131–150.
43.
RothweilerM.ChillaS.BaburE. (2010). Specific language impairment in Turkish: Evidence from case morphology in Turkish-German successive bilinguals. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24, 540–555.
44.
RothweilerM.ClahsenH. (1994). Dissociations in SLI children’s inflectional systems: A study of participle inflection and subject-verb-agreement. Journal of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 18, 169–179.
45.
SchützeC. (1997). INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing (PhD dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT (Distributed by MITWPL).
46.
SiptárP.TörkenczyM. (2000). The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
StavrakakiS.van der LelyH. (2010). Production and comprehension of pronouns by Greek children with specific language impairment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 189–216.
48.
van der LelyH. K. J. (1994). Canonical linking rules: Forward versus reverse linking in normally developing and specifically language impaired children. Cognition, 51, 29–72.
49.
van der LelyH.StollwerckL. (1997). Binding theory and specifically language impaired children. Cognition, 62, 245–290.
50.
VinklerZ.PléhC. (1995). A case of a specific language impaired child in Hungarian. In KovačevićM. (Ed.), Language and language communication barriers (pp. 131–158). Zagreb, Republic of Croatia: Hrvatska Sveucilisna Naklada.
51.
WarrenR. M. (1970). Perceptual restorations of missing speech sounds. Science, 167, 392–393.
52.
WexlerK.SchützeC.RiceM. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns omission model. Language Acquisition, 7, 317–344.
53.
WoolfordE. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Theory, 37, 111–113.
