Download W What`s in a a suffix? The past t tense in problem n Dutch ch ms

271
W
What’sina
asuffix?Thepastttensein
nDutchch
hildrenw
withread
ding
problem
ms
JudithRisspensa,EliseedeBreea,&Annemarie
&
eKerkhoffb
a
UniversityofAm
msterdam,bb UtrechtUn
niversity
Abstract: children with devvelopmental dyslexia deemonstrate profound p
problems w
with the
P
l difficulties have been hypothesized to underliie those
acquisition of liteeracy skills. Phonological
morphosyntacctic weaknessses have aalso been deemonstrated
d. In this study we
problems, but m
orphophonolo
ogicalprocesssofinflectingregularveerbsforthe pasttenseinwhich
examinedthemo
nal sound off the verb sttem) and morphology (tthe selection
n of the
both phonologicaal factors (fin
hatchildrenw
weresensitivetothe
withreadinggproblemsw
suffix)areinvolveed.Theresulttsshowedth
ment of a past tense (i.e., morphology), but that theyy showed d
different
conteext requirem
morphophonologicalerrorpattternsrelativvetotheirno
ormallyreadiingpeers.
ntroduction
n
1. In
blem with developingg fluent
Deveelopmental dyslexia is characterized by a ssevere prob
readiingdespite normal coggnitive and emotional developmeent (Snowlin
ng,2000).TThere is
generalconsenssusinthelitteraturethaatchildren withdevelo
opmentald
dyslexiashowpoor
phon
nologicalpro
ocessing(Veellutinoetaal.,2004).In
nadditionto
ophonologiicaldeficits,,recent
invesstigations h
have indicatted subtle problems with inflecctional morrphology, ssuch as
subjeectͲverb agrreement (R
Rispens, Roeeleven, & Koster,
K
200
04; Rispens,, Been, & Zwarts,
2006)andthep
pasttense(JJoanisseet al.,2000;R
Robertson,JJoanisse,Desroches,&
&Terry,
2012).Research onthecom
mbinationoffthesetwoelements,morphoͲphonology,islimited
hildren with
h dyslexia (ssee Marshaall, Ramus, & van der Lely, 2010;; Robertson
n et al.,
in ch
2012),althoughitcanbeasssumedthattdifficultiesswillariseinthisarea.Thepresen
ntstudy
ologyin chilldrenwithrreading
focussesontheiinteraction betweenphonology andmorpho
probllemsbystudyingtheproductiono
oftheregulaarpasttense.
TTheDutchrregularpastttenseisa morphopho
onologicalp
phenomeno
onastheseelection
oftheesuffix‘Ͳte’’or‘Ͳde’isguidedby aninteractiionbetweenmorpholo
ogyandpho
onology
(see Rispens&d
deBree,20
014).Verbsstemsendin
nginanund
derlyinglyvoicelessobstruent
nestus & Baaayen, 2001
1). For exam
mple, the in
nfinitive
take Ͳte, all other verbs take Ͳde (Ern
bakkeen (to bakee), with thee stem endiing in a voiiceless obsttruent (bak), becomes bakͲte
272
(baked)inthepasttense,whereasnoemen(toname)withastemͲfinalsonorantbecomes
noemͲde (named). For the acquisition of the Dutch regular past tense, sensitivity to the
interactionbetweenmorphologyandphonologyisthusnecessary.
Previousexperimentalevidencehasshownthatlexicalfrequencyinfluenceschildren’s
past tense marking of regular verbs (e.g. Oetting & Horohov, 1997; Matthews &
Theakston,2006). In other words,ahigherfrequencyoftheinflectedformfacilitatesits
retrieval.ThisfindinghasalsobeenattestedforDutch:ErnestusandBaayen(2001)found
evidence for lexical frequency effects in the productions of past tense forms of Dutch
adults.Similarly,RispensanddeBree(2014)foundthatlexicalfrequencyinfluencedpast
tenseproductionin7ͲyearͲolds.
Inadditiontolexicalfrequency,typefrequencyhasalsobeenshowntoplayarolein
development of the production of past tense. Type frequency refers to the number of
instancesthatlexicalitemsoccurinacertainpattern(Bybee,2007).Forregularpasttense
production, this refers to the frequency of past tenses expressed by the allomorph –te
versus –de. Type frequency is assumed to affect morphological productivity, as highly
frequent suffixes tend to be applied to newly learned items rather than low frequent
suffixes(Bybee,2008).Highlyfrequentpasttensemarkers(types)arethusexpectedtobe
most productive. In Dutch, the combination of voiceless consonants + Ͳte is
phonotactically more frequent than voiced consonants + Ͳde (Rispens & de Bree, 2014).
Rispens and de Bree (2014) found that past tense production was influenced by type
frequency based on the frequency of the verb stem + allomorph (Ͳte > Ͳde). Both
monolingual TD Dutch 5Ͳ and 7ͲyearͲolds showed an effect of allomorph type on past
tense production. The 5ͲyearͲolds showed an effect of type frequency (Ͳte > Ͳde) when
theyinflectedlexicalandnovelverbsforthepasttense;the7ͲyearͲoldsonlyshowedthis
effect of type frequency for the inflections of novel verbs. Furthermore, for the 7ͲyearͲ
olds, but not the 5ͲyearͲolds, the past tense production of lexical regular verbs was
influenced by lexical frequency, with verbs high in frequency being inflected more
accurately. The absence ofalexicalfrequencyeffectintheyoungergroup suggeststhat
vocabularysizeinfluencestheoccurrenceoflexicalfrequencyeffectsinverbproductions.
Nexttofrequencyeffects,phonologicalpreferencescanalsoimpactoninflection(see
Song, Sundara, & Demuth, 2009; Marshall & van der Lely, 2007). In Dutch, there is
evidencethatearlydevelopmentofvoicedsegments/phonemesisdifferentfromthatof
voicelessones.Dutchchildrenaroundtheageofthreehavebeenfoundtoshowaclear
preferenceforvoicelessovervoicedsegments(Kager,vanderFeest,Fikkert,Kerkhoff&
Zamuner, 2007) and acquire voiceless phonemes before voiced ones (e.g. Beers, 1995).
Dutch shows final devoicing, and has the tendency of voiceless wordͲinternal clusters
273
(Zonn
neveld,1983).TheadvantageandpreferenceeforͲteallo
omorphsin Dutchinthestudy
byRispensandd
deBree(201
14)canalso
obeaccounttedforbythisphonolo
ogicalpreferrence.
hypothesizeed that the phonologiccal deficits that occur in develop
pmental
It can be h
opment of
f past tensse morphology, due to the strructural
dysleexia affect the develo
relatiionship bettween the final
f
phoneeme of the verb stem and the allomorph itt takes.
Robeertson et al. (2012) examined thee productio
on of the paast tense in
n English sp
peaking
childrrenwithdeevelopmentaldyslexiaw
milartothe Dutchpastttense,
whospeak English.Sim
theEEnglishpasttenseismo
orphophono
ologicalinnature,asth
heselectionofallomorp
phs/t/;
/d/; and
a /Id/ deepends on tthe phonolo
ogical propeerties of th
he final pho
oneme of th
he verb
stem (compare baked; kissed, and waited).
w
Thee children with develo
opmental dyslexia
d
inflecctedregularrverbscorrrectlysignifficantlyless oftenfortthepastten
nsecomparedtoa
chron
nologically ageͲmatche
a
edcontrolggroup.Productionofth
hepastten
nse ofnovellwords
wasn
notsignificaantlydiffereent.Furthermore,perfo
ormanceon
nbothregularandnoveelverbs
wasssimilarforthechildrenwithdevelo
opmentaldyslexiaandreadingͲageͲmatchedcontrol
childrren. These findings su
uggest a d
developmen
ntal lag compared to the ageͲm
matched
childrren(Roberttsonetal.,2
2012).
TThe literatu
ure on morphophonolo
ogy and liteeracy in Du
utch does n
not pinpoin
nt clear
morp
phophonolo
ogical diffcu
ulties for p
poor readerrs. One stu
udy has been reporteed with
respeect to literaacy and past tense inflection in Dutch. Kerrkhoff, de B
Bree, Hoeben and
Vreuggdenhil(in press)asseessedallomo
orphselection(ͲteorͲͲde)fortheeDutchpassttense
specifically for vverbs that can
c differ in voicing value in thee infinitive aand stem, ssuch as
leven
nͲleefde ‘lived’, compaared with blaffenͲblaft
b
te ‘barked’. There weere no diffeerences
betw
ween normaal and poor readers o
on past tense producction in a spoken con
ndition.
Howeever,whereeascorrectp
pasttenseinflectionoffwordsand
dnovelword
dsincreased
dwhen
ortho
ographic support wasp
provided(ee.g.presentingbothau
uditoryand writtenlevven)for
theggroupofnorrmallyreadiingchildren
n,thisbeneffitwasnotaattestedforragroupoffpoorly
readiing children
n. These ffindings do
o not pointt towards severe mo
orphophono
ological
difficulties in poor readerrs. Note, ho
owever, that no read
dingͲageͲmaatched grou
up was
ded. Additionally, a sttudy by dee Bree and Kerkhoff ((2010) did not find m
morphoͲ
includ
phon
nological diffficulties in children w
with a famillial risk of d
dyslexia (i.ee., with a d
dyslexic
paren
nt).Themo
orphophono
ologicalareaaunderinveestigationw
wasvoicing alternation
nofthe
pluraal.Criticalitemsweren
nounsthatd
differedinu
underlyingvvoicingofthelastconssonant:
comp
pare handͲhanden ´haands´ and krantͲkranten ´newsp
papers´. Th
he compariison of
voicin
ngalternationintheplluraloffiveͲͲyearͲoldch
hildrenwith
handwithoutafamilialriskof
dysleexia showed
d that both
h groups sh
howed a prreference for
f nonͲalteernation (i.ee., Ͳten
pluraals rather th
han Ͳden plurals). Inteerestingly, the
t children
n at risk for dyslexia sshowed
274
more difficulty in inflecting novel words for the plural, indicative of phonological
processingdifficulties.
Returning to the current research, it is thus an open question whether or to what
extent past tense difficulties will be attested in children with reading difficulties. We
therefore examined past tense productions of Dutch speaking children with reading
problems1)togaininsightintomorphophonologicalprocessinginchildrenwithreading
problems,2)toinvestigatetheeffectsoflexicalfrequencyandtypefrequencyinchildren
withdevelopmentaldyslexiarelativetotypicallydevelopingchildrenand3)toaddcrossͲ
linguisticdataonmorphophonologicalabilitiesinchildrenwithreadingproblems.
2. Methods
Participants
Two groups of children participated in this study. ThirtyͲeight children with reading
problems (RP) (n=38; 16 girls) between 7;1–10;8 years of age participated. They all
attendedregularelementaryschools.Thechildrenwerereferredbyspeechandlanguage
therapistsorbyspecialeducationspecialistsworkingattheprimaryschools.Toascertain
thereadingproblems,tworeadingtestswereadministered:therealwordtask(RWT;Brus
&Voeten,1973)andapseudoͲwordtask(PWT;vandenBos,Spelberg,Scheepstra,&de
Vries,1994).IntheRWTthechildisrequiredtoreadoutalistofexistingwordsasquickly
and accurately as possible within one minute. The PWT follows the same principle, but
uses nonͲwords and takes two minutes. Timed reading tasks were chosen as in the
Netherlands speed is judged to be a better indicator of reading development than
accuracy alone due to the relative transparency of the orthography (De Jong & van der
Leij, 2003). Both tasks are commonly used as part of the diagnosis procedure of
developmentaldyslexia.ThechildrenwereclassifiedashavingRPwhentheyscoredmore
than1SDbelowthemeanofthecombinedscoresoftheRWTandthePWT(amaximum
score of 6). All children who participated in this study within the group of RP met this
criteria. Children who had a history of speech output problems, such as dyspraxia, or
showedevidenceofsuchproblemsatthemomentoftestingwereexcluded.Allchildren
hadnormalhearingandnormalorcorrectedͲtoͲnormal,vision.Notethattheparticipants
inthisgroupwerenotallofficiallydiagnosedwithdevelopmentaldyslexia;somechildren
werestillintheprocessofbeingofficiallydiagnosed.
The second group consist of control children without RP who were matched on
chronological age with the group of children withRP (n=41, 26 girls) between 7;8Ͳ11;6
participated.Thesameexclusionarycriteriawereappliedtothecontrolgroup.Allchildren
275
hadaameanscoreontheco
ombinedsccoreofthe PWTandRW
WTofatleaast7,indicaatingat
least averagereeadingabilitty.Anindep
pendentttestdemonsstratedthe twoexperiimental
psdidnotd
differwithreespecttoth
heirage,t(77)=.99,p==.32.
group
Taskss
Past tenseprodu
uctionwas investigatedthrougheelicitationo
ofpasttenseeformsofeexisting
Rispensand
ddeBree(2014).
verbssandnovelverbs,seeR
Task 1:Pasttensseproductio
onofexistin
ngverbs.Tw
welveregularverbsweereselected
dbased
wtokenfreq
quencycountsoftheC
CELEX(Baayyen,Piepen
nbrock,&vaanRijn,
onhiighandlow
1993) database. The verbss were furtthermore cclassified acccording to the type o
of past
morph with which thee verbs aree inflected. Half of th
he verb steems ended
d in an
allom
undeerlying voiceeless obstru
uent (four times
t
/k/ an
nd twice /s/), the otheer half in a voiced
conso
onant(twicee/l/,twice/r/andtwice/w/).Theesestemsw
werechosen
nastheyrendered
unam
mbiguous Ͳtte or Ͳde eexpectations. All verbs in the in
nfinitival fo
orm had a CVCVC
structure.
Task2:Pasttensseproductio
onofnovelverbs.Fifteeennovelveerbswereprresented.Seevenof
ndeight
thevverbsendedinanunderlyingvoiceelessobstrueent(4timess‘p’and3ttimes‘k’)an
in a voiced conssonant (4 times
t
‘m’, twice
t
‘n’ an
nd twice ‘r’). Only verb
b stems en
nding in
onantsthattdemandunambiguouslyaͲteor Ͳdesuffixw
werechosen.Theverb
bswere
conso
contrrolledforph
honotacticffrequencyb
byusingthedatabaseo
ofAdriaans((2006). Proceedure
Thecchildrenweereshownaapicturein aPowerPointpresentationona screenofalaptop
comp
puter that d
depicted an
n action (seee also Rispens & de B
Bree, 2014). Children h
heard a
prereecordedfem
malevoicep
pronouncetthetarget. Picturesweerepresenteedtothech
hildren,
one at a time, and they were
w
accom
mpanied by a little sto
ory during which the picture
n in the
remaained on the screen. TThis three liine story first describeed what waas going on
picture and then stated th
hat characteers perform
med this acttion often or every daay. The
henaskedto
ofinishthefinalsenten
nceinwhich
htheywereepromptedtogive
childrrenwereth
apassttenseform
m.
TThe responses of the children w
were record
ded and traanscribed o
onͲline and scored
afterw
wards.Anitemwould bescored ascorrectifthechoiceeofthepasstͲtensesufffixwas
correect. Violatio
ons of agreeement betw
ween the veerb and thee subject weere not taken into
accou
unt.Theord
derofthep
presentationofthetw
wotaskswaspseudoͲraandomized: halfof
276
the children were first presented with task 2 (novel verbs) followed by task 1 (lexical
verbs),theotherhalftheotherwayaround.
3. Results
Regularlexicalverbs
Table1showsthecorrectpasttenseproductionsofthetwogroups.Theresultsindicate
that the children with RP have an average accuracy performance of 90% of past tense
productionscorrect.Thecontrolchildrenproducedonaverage85%correctpasttenses.A
repeatedmeasuresANOVAwithlexicalfrequency(high/low)andtypefrequency(Ͳte/Ͳde)
as the withinͲsubjects variables and group (RPͲcontrol) as the betweenͲsubject variable
wascarriedout.Nosignificantmaineffectsorinteractionswerefound(lexicalfrequency:
p=.91;typefrequency:p=.1;group:p=.38;allinteractionsp>.33).
Table1:Meanproportionscorescorrect(standarddeviationbetweenparentheses)ofthe
pasttenseproductionsofthelexicalandnovelverbs
Lexicalverbs
Group
HF–te
LF–te
HF–de
LF–de
RP
.87(.30)
.89(.27)
.92(.20)
.93(.21)
Control
.84(.28)
.84(.27)
.89(.24)
.86(.29)
Novelverbs
Ͳte
Ͳde
RP
.75(.29)
.78(.27)
Control
.84(.29)
.69(.41)
Novelverbs
TheaccuracyscoresonthepasttenseproductionofthenovelverbsaredisplayedinTable
1. A repeated measures ANOVA with type frequency (Ͳte /Ͳde) as the withinͲsubjects
variable and group (RPͲcontrol) as the betweenͲsubject variable was carried out. The
resultsshowedthatthattherewasnomaineffectoftypefrequency(p=.14),noramain
effect of group (p = .93), but that there was a significant interaction between type
frequency×group,F(1,73)=4.36,p=.04.Toinvestigatetheinteractionoftypefrequency
× group, post hoc analyses were carried out. A paired samples tͲtest showed that the
childrenwithRPdidnotdiffersignificantlyinproducingthepasttenseofnovelverbswith
–te and –de, t(37) = .44, p =.66. The control children, in contrast, showed a significant
277
advantageforprroducingpaasttensesofnovelverb
bsdemandingthe–tessuffix,t(36) =2.45,
019.
p=.0
B
Bothgroupssproduced around25%
%errorson
nthenovel verbtask. Toinvestigatethe
errorr patternso
of thechildrren,weuseeda qualitativeerroraanalysis.Fivve categorieeswere
creatted based o
on the actual occurren
nce of errorrs (see Tablle 2, and Rispens & de Bree,
2014). For our research qu
uestion, wee were partticularly interested in the ‘wrongg suffix’
morphophon
nology. Responses that could
errorr category aas this relaates to senssitivity to m
notb
beclassified
dasoneof ourdefined
derrortypeeswereassiignedtotheecategory ‘other’.
This means thatt all respon
nses were aassigned to a categoryy as it neveer occurred that a
ondedwithsilence.RessultsarepreesentedinTTable2.
particcipantrespo
more suffixx errors
TThe error analysis show
ws that thee poor read
ders made somewhat
s
than thenormalreaders.C
Closerinspeectionindicaatesadifferrencebetw
weenthete andde
verbssforthecon
ntrolchildreenbutnotfforthechild
drenwithRP.ChildrenwithRPpro
oducea
wron
ngsuffix(e.gg.vupdeinssteadofvup
pte(11.65%
%)anddaantteinsteado
ofdaande(1
12.5%))
in thee novel verrbs, whereaas the contrrol children mostly pro
oduce a wro
ong suffix in
n verbs
demaanding Ͳde (daante insstead of da
aande 17,2%
% of errorss versus 2,5
5% errors ssuch as
vupdeinsteadoffvupte).
TThiserrorpatternthus matchesth
hesignifican
nteffectof typefrequeencyinthe control
childrren:novelvverbsdemandingaͲte suffixhaveanadvantaageoverveerbsdemand
dingaͲ
desu
uffix,andthispreferencceisalsoshowninthetypeoferro
orsproduceed(Ͳde>Ͳteeoccurs
moreefrequentlyythanͲte>Ͳde).TheRP
Pchildrend
didnotdemonstratethesamefaciilitation
forveerbstakingaͲtesuffix,andtheirerrorsdidno
otindicateaapreferenceeforeithersuffix.
a
their occurrences
o
in percenttages (all eerrors + acccurate
Tablee 2. Error patterns and
respo
onses=100%
%)intherea
alizationsoffthetwogrroups.Stand
darddeviatiionsinbracckets.
Errorrcategories
Exampleofnovelverb
Norm
malreaders
Poorreaders
Ͳen((infinitive)
vuppen
5%(16%)
4%(10%)
Zeromarking
vup
0,2%(0,1%)
0%(0%)
–tsu
uffix(presentttense)
vupt
2,4%(7,5%)
1,2%(3,4%)
Incorrrectsuffix
vupde(insteadoffvupte)
9,8%(15,5%)
12,1%(14,8%
%)
Otheer:
Vario
oustypesoferrors
Examples:
6,9%(18.25%)
a).vverb‘go’+verrb:(gingvuppen)
b). change within the verb stem
(e.gg.vumde)
c).infinitive+‘Ͳdee’(vuppende)
6,7%(14,3%
%)
278
4. Discussionandconclusions
ThepresentstudyaimedtoinvestigatethepasttenseinchildrenwithRPtogaininsight
into morphophonological processing, to investigate the effects of lexical frequency and
type frequency in children with RP, and to add crossͲlinguistic data to studies of
morphophonologicalabilitiesinchildrenwithRP.
Tostartwiththeoverallresearchaim–examiningthepasttenseinchildrenwithRPͲ,
theresultsofthepresentstudyindicatedthattheproductionofthepasttenseinchildren
withRPiscomparablewiththatofchildrenwithoutRPmatchedonthesameage.Inline
withpreviousfindings(e.g.deBree&Kerkhoff,2010;Joanisseetal.,2000;Kerkhoffetal.,
in press), this study does not show clear evidence of morphophonological difficulties in
poor readers. For real verbs, the group of normal and poor readers do not differ in
percentagescorrectinflectionandinfluenceoflexicalfrequencyandtypefrequency.For
novel verbs, an interaction between type frequency and group was attested. This
interactionreflectsthatfactthatonlythenormalreadersshowedapreferencefortheͲte
suffix.Incontrasttootherstudies,noeffectsoflexicalfrequencywereobservedineither
group.Apotentialexplanationcouldbethatthesechildrenwereolderthanchildrenthat
participatedinpreviousexperiments,andthatthelexicaleffectsarenolongervisibleat
thislaterage.
TheliteratureonDutchpasttenseinflectionreportsdifferentpatternsrelatedto–te
and–depreferences.WhereasRispensanddeBree (2014)founda–tepreferencefor5
and 7ͲyearͲold typically developing children, Kerkhoff et al. (in press) did not find a
preference in either direction for 9ͲyearͲold normal and poor readers. In the present
study, the group of poor reading children did not show a preference on novel verbs for
eithersuffix,andthenormalreadersa–tepreference,thusaddingtothemixedfindings.
Whereas the normal readers seem to adhere to phonological patterns of voicelessness
withinclusters(Kageretal.,2007;Zonneveld,1983)andahigherfrequencyofconsonant
+Ͳtecomparedtoconsonant+Ͳde(Rispens&deBree,2014),thegroupofpoorreaders
does not, at least for novel verbs. Also, when the children with RP produced the wrong
suffix,theydidnotshowapreferenceforthe–tesuffix,whereasthiswasthecaseforthe
controlchildren(presenceofdaanteerrors,butvirtuallyabsenceofvupdeerrors)
A highly tentative suggestion is that the –de realizations in contexts where a /t/ is
required,arecausedbyspellinginstruction.GiventhatdevoicingoccursinDutch,children
heara/t/butareofteninstructedtowritea‘d’,asinnounshand´hand´,mond´mouth´,
bed´bed´andpastparticiples,suchasgezegd´said´andgehoord´heard´.Fornovelverbs,
no representation is available. Through a strategy, based on orthography, the children
mightthusoptfora–deallomorph(seeKerkhoff,deBree&Buesseler,inpress,onvoicing
279
inspokenandw
writtenpluralnounpro
oduction).C
Childrenwitthreadingp
problemsm
mayuse
orethanchiildrenwitho
outreading problems, astheyofteenhavehadmore
thissstrategymo
andm
moreexplicitspellingsstrategiesto
ohelpthem
movercome theiroftenoccurringsspelling
probllems.ChildrrenwithouttRPwillthereforenotu
usethisstraategy(changgea/t/into
oa/d/),
butrratherwillu
useaphono
ologicalprin
nciplewhen
ntheyhave toinflectn
novelverbs forthe
pastttense:optfforthephon
nologicallylessmarkedͲteinDutch.
Ackno
owledgemeents:
Wew
wouldliketo
dgeFransZw
wartsforbeeingthepro
omotoroftthefirst
oofcourseeacknowled
autho
or (Judith R
Rispens), an
nd for bein
ng the direcctor of the ‘Dutch Dysslexia Progrram’ in
which
hthesecon
ndauthor(EElisedeBreee)wasalso
oinvolvedaasaPh.D.sttudent.Thaankyou
Franss!
5.Reeferences
Adriaaans,F.(200
06).PhonottacTools(Teestversion)).[Computeerprogram]].UtrechtIn
nstitute
o
ofLinguisticssOTS,UtrecchtUniversity,theNetherlands.
Baayeen,R.H.,Piiepenbrock,,R.&VanR
Rijn,H.(1993).TheCELEXlexicald
database.CD
DͲROM.
P
Philadelphiaa,PA.
Brus,B.Th.,&Voeten,M.J.M.(1973)..EenͲMinuu
utTest.Vorm
mAenB.Nijmegen:Beerkhout
TTestmateriaaal.
deBrree, E. &Keerkhoff,A. (2010).Bem
mpenor bemben:Diffeerences bettweenchild
drenatͲ
riskofdyslexxiaandchildrenwithSSLIonamorphoͲphono
ologicaltaskk.Scientific Studies
o
ofReading,1
14,85Ͳ109.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequenccy of use a
and the org
ganization o
of language. Oxford: Oxford
U
UniversityPress.
Bybee,J. (2008)).UsageͲbassedgrammar andseco
ondlanguaggeacquisitio
on.InP.Ro
obinson
aand N. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of Cognittive Linguisstics and SSecond Lan
nguage
A
Acquisition.NewYork:Routledge.216Ͳ236.
Ernesstus,M.,&Baayen,H.(2001).Cho
oosingbetweentheDuttchpastten
nsesuffixesͲteand
Ͳde.LinguistticsintheNeetherlands, 77Ͳ88.
R.,Keating, P.,&Seiden
nberg,M.SS.(2000).Laanguagedeficitsin
Joaniisse,M.F., Manis,F.R
d
dyslexic children: Speeech perceeption, pho
onology, and morpho
ology. Jourrnal of
eexperimenta
alchildpsycchology,77((1),30Ͳ60.
280
Jong,P.F.,de.,&vanderLeij,A.(2003).Developmentalchangesinthemanifestationofa
phonologicaldeficitindyslexicchildrenlearningtoreadaregularorthography.Journal
ofEducationalPsychology,95,22Ͳ40.
Kager,R.,vanderFeest,S.,Fikkert,P.,Kerkhoff,A.&Zamuner,T.(2007).Representations
of [voice]. Evidence from acquisition. In: J. van de Weijer, E. J., van der Torre (eds).
VoicinginDutch:(de)voicingphonology,phonetics,andpsycholinguistics.Amsterdam:
JohnBenjamins.
Kerkhoff, A., de Bree, E., Hoeben, I., and Vreugdenhil, A. (in press). De invloed van
orthografie op verleden tijdsvorming door zwakke lezers. Stem,ͲSpraak en
Taalpathologie.
Kerkhoff, A., de Bree, E., Buessler, H.A. (in press). Saying ‘t’ and writing ’d’: The case of
alternatingplurals.FestschriftforWimZonneveld.
Marshall, C., & van der Lely, H. (2007). The impact of phonological complexity on past
tense inflection in children with GrammaticalͲSLI. Advances in SpeechͲLanguage
Pathology,9,191Ͳ203.
Marshall,C.R.,Ramus,F.&vanderLely,H.K.J.(2011)'Dochildrenwithdyslexiaand/or
SLI compensate for place assimilation? Insight into phonological grammar and
representations.',CognitiveNeuropsychology27,563Ͳ586.
Matthews,D.E. & Theakston, A. (2006). Errors of omission in EnglishͲspeaking children’s
production of plurals and the past tense: The effects of frequency, phonology, and
competition.CognitiveScience,30,1027Ͳ1052.
Oetting,J.&Horohov,J.(1997).PastͲtensemarkingbychildrenwithandwithoutspecific
languageimpairment.JournalofSpeech,LanguageandHearingResearch,40,62Ͳ74.
Rispens, J., & Been, P. (2007). Subject–verb agreement and phonological processing in
developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI): a closer look.
InternationalJournalofLanguage&CommunicationDisorders,42,293Ͳ305.
Rispens, J.E., Roeleven, S., & Koster, C. (2004). Sensitivity to subjectͲverb agreement in
spokenlanguageinchildrenwithdevelopmentaldyslexia.JournalofNeurolinguistics,
17,333Ͳ347.
Rispens,J.E.,&deBree,E.(2014).PasttenseproductivityinDutchchildrenwithSLI:The
roleofphonologyandfrequency.JournalofChildLanguage,41,200Ͳ225.
Robertson, E. K., Joanisse, M. F., Desroches, A. S., & Terry, A. (2013). PastͲtense
morphology and phonological deficits in children with dyslexia and children with
languageimpairment.Journaloflearningdisabilities,46(3),230Ͳ240.
Snowling,M.J.(2000).Dyslexia.2ndedition.Oxford:Blackwell
281
Song,, J. Y., Sun
ndara, M., & Demuth
h, K. (2009
9). Effects of phonolo
ogy on children’s
rd
p
production of
o English 3 person singular
s
–s. Journal of Speech, Lan
nguage & Hearing
H
R
Research,52
2,623Ͳ642.
van d
den Bos, K.P., Spelbergg, H.C., Sch
heepstra, A.J.M., & De Vries, J.R. (1994). De Klepel.
N
Nijmegen:B
BerkhoutTestmateriaall.
Vellutino,F.R., Fletcher,J. M.,Snowliing,M.J.,&
&Scanlon,D
D.M.(2004
4).Specificrreading
d
disability(dyyslexia):Wh
hathaveweelearnedin
nthepastfo
ourdecadess?.Journal ofchild
p
psychologya
andpsychia
atry,45(1),2
2Ͳ40.