Tense And Agreement Inflections
In summary, Finnish offers an important means of assessing both the EUCC and the proposals on morphological richness. The EUCC account provides for higher levels of accuracy in first- and second-person contexts than in contexts with third parties. In the first and second person contexts, children with LIS should be as specific as young people, typically evolving, but less accurate than their younger ones in third-person contexts. The EUCC account provides no basis for waiting for a certain type of error in the contexts of the first and second person. In the contexts of a third person, however, the most common error should be a verb folded for tension or concordance, but not both, because verification prevents the realization of only one of the two morphemes clumping. Table 1 shows the tension/agreement curves applied to the verb istua «sit» both in the present and in the past. Personal pronouns that are optional are in parentheses. The basic dictionary is the first infinitive (z.B. istu-a `(to) sit`). (Finnish has several infinitive forms called the first infinitive, the second infinitive, etc. The first infinitive corresponds to the infinitive in English, while the other infinitives are used in Finnish when English uses gerés or a current participation.) Before the tension/chord verb can be selected, the first infinitive suffix must be removed from the strain.
The tension/agreement formulas are then added to the strain. The remaining 25 children have generally evolved. These children scored above -1SD on each of the four language tests given to children with IL. These children were coordinated with the LI group on the basis of their raw values at the APPT. Because children with LI on PPVT scored points below age, generally developing children, who were adapted to this measure, were younger. A typical developing child was considered a match if his PPVT score was within 3 points of a child`s PPVT score in the LI group. Below, this group is referred to as the VC group (voice control element). The use of younger, typically evolving children, adapted to a non-grammatical linguistic measure, was developed to determine whether the difficulties faced by children with LI in terms of tightening morphology and agreement exceeded their more general linguistic limitations.
If this is the intervention of the trap, the group differences should be perceived in favour of the VC group. Of course, differences in the pattern of use of the two groups in the different morphemes of tension and concordance were also interesting. Age credits (in years; Table 3 shows the gross values and raw values for each test with both groups.