The Production of Finite and Nonfinite Complement Clauses by Children with Specific Language Impairment and Their Typically Developing Peers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Production of Finite and Nonfinite Complement Clauses by Children With Specific Language Impairment and Their Typically Developing Peers Amanda J. Owen University of Iowa, Iowa City The purpose of this study was to explore whether 13 children with specific language Laurence B. Leonard impairment (SLI; ages 5;1–8;0 [years;months]) were as proficient as typically developing age- and vocabulary-matched children in the production of finite and Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN nonfinite complement clauses. Preschool children with SLI have marked difficulties with verb-related morphology. However, very little is known about these children’s language abilities beyond the preschool years. In Experiment 1, simple finite and nonfinite complement clauses (e.g., The count decided that Ernie should eat the cookies; Cookie Monster decided to eat the cookies) were elicited from the children through puppet show enactments. In Experiment 2, finite and nonfinite complement clauses that required an additional argument (e.g., Ernie told Elmo that Oscar picked up the box; Ernie told Elmo to pick up the box) were elicited from the children. All 3 groups of children were more accurate in their use of nonfinite complement clauses than finite complement clauses, but the children with SLI were less proficient than both comparison groups. The SLI group was more likely than the typically developing groups to omit finiteness markers, the nonfinite particle to, arguments in finite complement clauses, and the optional complementizer that. Utterance-length restrictions were ruled out as a factor in the observed differences. The authors conclude that current theories of SLI need to be extended or altered to account for these results. KEY WORDS: specific language impairment, complement clause, complex syntax, finiteness, language disorder or over 40 years (see Menyuk, 1964), grammatical deficits have been described as a major symptom of specific language impair- F ment (SLI) in children. However, over the course of that period, the great majority of research devoted to these deficits has been con- cerned with the grammatical details of simple sentences. There are good reasons for this emphasis. Grammatical deficits are conspicuous at this level, often involving omissions of function words and grammat- ical inflections. Furthermore, problems at this level are usually seen in younger children with SLI and, thus, represent a potential means of early identification of SLI. However, it is likely that, for many children with SLI, grammati- cal deficits persist and are still present when these children begin to produce complex sentences. In the present study, we examine later 548 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 49 548–571 June 2006 AAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1092-4388/06/4903-0548 syntactic abilities of children with SLI by focusing on be generally classified as mental state verbs, verbs of one general class of complex sentences, those that in- desire, and verbs of communication. The complement- volve complementation. taking verb occurs in the main clause and may also be called the matrix verb. The matrix verb must be marked for finiteness and places certain restrictions on the The Grammar of Complementation types of complement clauses that it takes. One major According to Limber’s (1973) definition, a complex restriction of the matrix verb has to do with the marking sentence is ‘‘any sentence with more than one verbI of finiteness (tense and agreement) within the comple- auxiliaries and possessives are perhaps arbitrarily ex- ment clause. A common example is to contrast the verbs cluded’’ (p. 171). Limber, then, was referring to sen- think, want, hope, and wonder. Some verbs, such as tences with two or more lexical (nonauxiliary) verbs, think, only allow complement clauses that are marked each of which usually resides in its own clause. These as finite (e.g., Ernie thought that Elmo ate a sandwich). include sentences that contain elements such as adjunct Other verbs, such as want, only allow nonfinite comple- clauses, relative clauses, and complement clauses. Com- ment clauses (e.g., Ernie wanted Ernie to eat the sand- plement clauses play a unique role in the sentence wich). A few verbs, such as hope, permit both types of because, unlike adjunct and relative clauses, the comple- clauses (e.g., Ernie hoped to eat a sandwich; Ernie hoped ment clause serves as an argument of the lexical verb in that Elmo ate the sandwich). Finally, some verbs, such the main clause. Because the complement clause serves as wonder, allow either finite or nonfinite complements as an argument of the main verb, its properties are but require that a conditional or question word be used chosen in part by the selection properties of that verb. to introduce the complement (e.g., Ernie wondered if he First, we review the role of argument structure, fol- should eat the sandwich; Ernie wondered what to eat). lowed by the properties that are unique to each comple- These forms that require a question word are often ment clause type. Only those elements most pertinent termed wh-complements and introduce an additional to this study are discussed here. set of variables related to the role and form of the wh- word. For this reason, wh- complement clauses were excluded from this study. Verb Argument Selection Another major selection property of complement- The role of argument structure and the selection taking verbs has to do with the total number of argu- properties of the main verb are more transparent in ments that they require. Verbs such as say only take two simple sentences. Individual lexical verbs select differ- obligatory arguments, the subject and the complement ent numbers of arguments and may require that those clause (Ernie said that the sandwich tasted good; *Ernie arguments have distinct properties (e.g., animacy). Some said Elmo that the sandwich tasted good), whereas verbs possess a range of argument structures, whereas verbs such as tell require three (Ernie told Elmo that the other verbs have a very restricted set of argument struc- sandwich tasted good; *Ernie told that the sandwich tures available to them. Although this is in part tied tasted good). In general, mental verbs and verbs of de- to the semantic properties of the action, it is also tied sire require two arguments and verbs of communication to the verb itself. For example, eat and devour are two require three, although these do not pattern together verbs with similar meanings. Eat canbeusedasanin- perfectly, as seen in the example above. transitive verb with one argument (Ernie ate)orasa transitive verb with two arguments (Ernie ate the sandwich). In contrast, devour is always transitive, re- Nonfinite Complement Clauses quiring both a subject and an object (*Ernie devoured; In nonfinite complement clauses, the lexical verb in Ernie devoured the sandwich). A few verbs are ditran- the complement clause is not marked for finiteness. Non- sitive and take three obligatory arguments, such as give finite complements may be marked for nonfiniteness or put (Ernie gave Elmo the sandwich; Ernie put the through the use of the nonfinite particle to (e.g., Ernie sandwich on the table). Information about how many and forgot to wear a hat), or the verb in the complement what type of arguments a verb takes is generally clause may appear in its bare or participial form, de- considered to be stored with the verb in the lexicon. Nev- pending on the main verb and the meaning being con- ertheless, this information works together with the syn- veyed (e.g., Ernie made Elmo wear a hat; Ernie saw Elmo tax. Argument structure dictates what syntactic frame wearing a hat, respectively). The nonfinite complements will be used and how the verb will interact with other in the present study were all introduced by the nonfinite elements in the sentence (Bock & Levelt, 1994). particle to. For certain verbs, complement clauses may serve The subject of a nonfinite complement clause is gen- as one of the required arguments. The verbs that com- erally unspoken and is frequently indicated in notation monly take complement clauses as an argument can by PRO. For example, in the sentence, Erniei tried PROi Owen & Leonard: Production of Complement Clauses 549 to eat an apple, Ernie is the one eating the apple. The nite complement clauses. When a pronoun is used for referent for PRO should be available within the sen- the subject of the complement clause, it may refer to the tence or the discourse environment. For the purposes of subject or object of the main clause or to something with- notation, coindexation (the subscript i on Ernie and PRO) in the discourse (e.g., Big Birdi remembered that heik identifies the referent of PRO. PRO can refer to the sub- brushed his teeth; Erniei told Elmoj that hei/j/k picked ject of the matrix clause, to the object of the matrix clause, up the box). Unlike PRO, the referent of a pronoun sub- or to something only available within the discourse (e.g., ject of the complement clause is not a property of the The waiteri promised the patron PROi to bring the food; main verb but is entirely determined by the discourse. The teacher told the classi PROi to start the test; The mother said PROi to play outside). The possible referents Summary of PRO are another aspect of the complement clause that The matrix verb is the heart of the sentence, and its is closely tied to the main verb. It is most common for lexical properties drive the selection of the other ele- PRO to refer to the subject of the main clause when the ments within the sentence, including whether a comple- verb takes two arguments (as with try) and to the object ment clause is present.