Syntax and Sentence Structure Flashcards

A CALT conducts a language sample analysis and finds that a student produces 24 clauses across 12 T-units. The subordination index is 2.0. Which interpretation is MOST accurate?

Answer: The student uses an average of 2.0 clauses per T-unit, indicating frequent embedded and conjoined clause use

The subordination index is calculated as total clauses ÷ total T-units. A value of 2.0 means the student averages 2 clauses per main clause unit, indicating regular use of subordination or coordination. It is not a measure of word count, percentage of utterances, or deviation from a normative mean — it quantifies clause density as an index of syntactic complexity.

Research consistently shows that object-relative clauses are harder to process than subject-relative clauses for students with DLD. The PRIMARY linguistic explanation for this processing asymmetry is:

Answer: Object-relative clauses violate canonical Subject-Verb-Object word order within the embedded clause, forcing abandonment of the canonical word order strategy

Children — particularly those with DLD — rely heavily on a canonical SVO heuristic to assign thematic roles (who did what to whom). In an object-relative clause such as 'The dog that the cat chased was big,' the embedded clause presents a non-canonical NP-gap-V-NP pattern. This directly violates the SVO strategy, causing role-assignment errors. Morphological load and phonological length are secondary factors, not the primary structural explanation.

According to Rice and Wexler's Extended Optional Infinitive (EOI) account, which error pattern is MOST diagnostic of an underlying grammatical deficit in tense/agreement morphology, as opposed to dialectal variation or phonological reduction?

Answer: Inconsistent marking of BE and DO auxiliaries in finite obligatory contexts while correctly producing non-finite verb forms

The EOI account holds that children with SLI/DLD treat finiteness morphemes (tense and agreement markers on BE and DO) as optional for a prolonged period. The diagnostic signature is inconsistency in finite contexts — omitting or incorrectly supplying BE and DO where tense is obligatory — while handling non-finite forms (e.g., infinitivals) correctly. This optionality pattern is distinct from dialectal systems, which show systematic (rule-governed) variation, and from phonological reduction, which would affect morphemes regardless of their grammatical function.

A CALT is targeting passive sentence comprehension with a student who has DLD. Which sentence type represents the MOST syntactically demanding condition, requiring the student to rely entirely on syntactic structure without any semantic support?

Answer: Reversible animate passive: 'The girl was pushed by the boy'

Reversible passives with animate agents and patients are most demanding because semantic plausibility cannot rescue comprehension — either NP could logically be the agent ('the boy pushed the girl' is equally plausible). The student must rely purely on syntactic parsing to assign thematic roles. Non-reversible passives (cakes can't eat boys) and stative passives allow semantic strategies to compensate for syntactic processing difficulty, making them easier even when syntactic parsing fails.

A CALT implements Sentence Combining intervention with a student whose narratives consist almost entirely of simple sentences. Based on developmental sequence, which progression of targets reflects optimal scaffolding?

Answer: Coordination with conjunctions → noun phrase elaboration → adverbial subordination → relative clause embedding

The developmental trajectory for syntactic complexity is well-established: coordination emerges before subordination, and among subordinate clause types, adverbial clauses (temporal, causal) typically precede relative clauses. Noun phrase elaboration (adjectives, prepositional phrases) also precedes complex clausal embedding. Effective scaffolding mirrors this sequence — beginning with structures the student is closest to mastering and building toward more complex forms. Passives and question inversions are transformational, not strictly a complexity-building sequence.

A student consistently interprets 'Visiting relatives can be boring' as describing relatives who are boring visitors, never as describing the act of visiting relatives. This comprehension pattern MOST directly reflects difficulty with:

Answer: Syntactic ambiguity arising from dual constituent analysis of the gerund phrase versus a participial noun phrase

"Visiting relatives" is a classic case of structural (syntactic) ambiguity: 'visiting' can be parsed either as a present participle modifying the noun 'relatives' (NP reading: relatives who are visiting) or as a gerund heading a gerund phrase that functions as the sentence subject (VP reading: the act of visiting relatives). The student's consistent one-sided interpretation — always choosing the NP reading — indicates an inability to consider and evaluate competing syntactic parses for the same surface string. This is a purely syntactic ambiguity, unrelated to pronoun resolution, canonical order violations, or filler-gap dependencies.