Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:34:38.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Noun case suffix use by children with specific language impairment: An examination of Finnish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2012

LAURENCE B. LEONARD ,
SARI KUNNARI ,
TUULA SAVINAINEN-MAKKONEN ,
ANNA-KAISA TOLONEN ,
LEENA MÄKINEN ,
MIRJA LUOTONEN  and
EEVA LEINONEN
LAURENCE B. LEONARD*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
SARI KUNNARI
Affiliation:
University of Oulu
TUULA SAVINAINEN-MAKKONEN
Affiliation:
University of Oulu
ANNA-KAISA TOLONEN
Affiliation:
University of Oulu
LEENA MÄKINEN
Affiliation:
University of Oulu
MIRJA LUOTONEN
Affiliation:
Oulu University Hospital
EEVA LEINONEN
Affiliation:
King's College
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Laurence B. Leonard, Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, 500 Oval Drive, Heavilon Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A group of Finnish-speaking children with specific language impairment (N = 15, M age = 5 years, 2 months [5;2]), a group of same-age typically developing peers (N = 15, M age = 5;2), and a group of younger typically developing children (N = 15, M age = 3;8) were compared in their use of accusative, partitive, and genitive case noun suffixes. The children with specific language impairment were less accurate than both groups of typically developing children in case marking, suggesting that their difficulties with agreement extend to grammatical case. However, these children were also less accurate in making the phonological changes in the stem needed for suffixation. This second type of error suggests that problems in morphophonology may constitute a separate problem in Finnish specific language impairment.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 833 - 854
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bishop, D. V. M., Adams, C., & Norbury, C. F. (2006). Distinct genetic influences on grammar and phonological short-term memory deficits: Evidence from 6-year-old twins. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 5, 158–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H. (1989). The grammatical characterization of developmental dysphasia. Linguistics, 27, 897–920.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1991). Child language and developmental dysphasia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1999). Linguistic perspectives on specific language impairment. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 675–704). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Bartke, S., & Göllner, S. (1997). Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Dalalakis, J. (1999). Tense and agreement in Greek SLI: A case study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 24, 1–25.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hansen, D. (1993). The missing agreement account of specific language impairment: Evidence from therapy experiments. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 2, 1–37.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dromi, E., Leonard, L., Adam, G., & Zadunaisky-Erlich, S. (1999). Verb agreement morphology in Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1414–1431.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Edwards, S., Fletcher, P., Garman, M., Hughes, A., Letts, C., & Sinka, I. (1997). Reynell Developmental Language Scales III. Windsor: NFER Nelson.Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S., Bartke, S., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Language Acquisition, 13, 3–32.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2001). Syntax in making: The emergence of syntactic units in Finnish. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, M.-L. (2008). Aspects of the structure of Finnish. In Klippi, A. & Launonen, K. (Eds.), Research in logopedics: Speech and language therapy in Finland. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (1999). Finnish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kunnari, S. (2000). Characteristics of early lexical and phonological development in children acquiring Finnish [Doctoral dissertation]. Acta Universitatis Oulunsis B, 34.Google Scholar
Kunnari, S., Savinainen-Makkonen, T., Leonard, L., Mäkinen, L., Tolonen, A.-K., Luotonen, M., et al. (2011). Children with specific language impairment in Finnish: The use of tense and agreement inflections. Journal of Child Language, 38, 999–1027.Google Scholar
Laalo, L. (1997). Alkukatsaus lapsenkielen esi- ja varhaismorfologiaan [Introduction to pre- and protomorphology in Finnish child language]. Virittäjä, 2, 186–207.Google Scholar
Laalo, L. (1999). Ensisanoista ja esimorfologiasta varhaismorfologiaan [From first words and premorphology to protomorphology]. Virittäjä, 3, 354–375.Google Scholar
Laalo, L. (2009). Acquisition of case and plural in Finnish. In Stephany, U. & Voeikova, M. D. (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 87–182). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1995). Functional categories in the grammars of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1270–1283.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (2000). Specific language impairment across languages. In Bishop, D. V. M. & Leonard, L. (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children (pp. 115–129). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (2009). Cross-linguistic studies of child language disorders. In Schwartz, R. (Ed.), Handbook of child language disorders (pp. 308–324). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Eyer, J., Bedore, L., & Grela, B. (1997). Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme difficulties of English-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 741–753.Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Salameh, E., & Hansson, K. (2001). Noun phrase morphology in Swedish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 619–639.Google Scholar
Lukács, Á., Leonard, L., & Kas, B. (2010). Use of noun morphology by children with language impairment: The case of Hungarian. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 45, 145–161.Google Scholar
Lukács, Á., Leonard, L., Kas, B., & Pléh, C. (2009). The use of tense and agreement by Hungarian-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 98–117.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, P. (1978). The acquisition of Finnish morphology in early childhood. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, P. (1999). Varhaisen kommunikaation ja kielen kehityksen arviointimenetelmä [Finnish manual for the communication development inventories]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Maling, J. (1993). Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Holmberg, A & Nikanne, U. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar: Vol. 39. Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marshall, C., & van der Lely, H. (2006). A challenge to current models of past tense inflection: The impact of phonotactics. Cognition, 100, 302–320.Google Scholar
Mayer–Johnson/Comp-Aid. (2006). PCS animations. Pittsburgh. PA: Author.Google Scholar
Mervis, C., & Robinson, B. (1999). Methodological issues in cross-syndrome comparisons: Matching procedures, sensitivity (Se), and specificity (Sp). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64, 115–130.Google Scholar
Niemi, J. (1999). Production of grammatical number in specific language impairment: An elicitation experiment on Finnish. Brain and Language, 68, 262–267.Google Scholar
Niemi, J., & Niemi, S. (1985). Suomenkielisen lapsen morfosyntaksin ja sanaston kehityksestä: Tapaustutkimus [Acquisition of Finnish morphosyntax and lexicon: A case study]. Virittäjä, 89, 152–171.Google Scholar
Räisänen, A. (1975). Havaintoja lapsenkielestä [Observation on child language]. Virittäjä, 79, 251–266.Google Scholar
Reime, H. (1993). Accusative marking in Finnish. In Holmberg, A & Nikanne, U. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar: Vol. 39. Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (pp. 89–109). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rice, M. (2003). A unified model of specific and general language delay: Grammatical tense as a clinical marker of unexpected variation. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of SLI (pp. 63–94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rice, M., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.Google Scholar
Stolt, S. (2009). Language in acquisition: Early lexical development and associations between lexicon and grammar—Finding from full-term and very-low-birth-weight Finnish children. Doctoral dissertation, Publications of the Department of Speech Sciences 55, University of Helsinki, Department of Speech Sciences.Google Scholar
Sulkala, H., & Karjalainen, M. (1992). Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toivainen, J. (1980). Inflectional affixes used by Finnish-speaking children aged 1–3 years. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Toivainen, J. (1993). The nature of the accusative in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar: Vol. 39. Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax (pp. 111–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Toivainen, J. (1997). The acquisition of Finnish. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 4, pp. 87–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1995). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised. New York: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (2003). Lenneberg's dream: Learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Language competence across populations (pp. 11–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar