1. A Longitudinal Study of Complex Syntax Production in Children with SLI There are relatively few studies of complex syntax (CS) in children with SLI (Schuele & Nicholls, 2000; Schuele & Tolbert, 2001; Eisenberg, 2003; 2004; Schuele & Dykes, 2005; Owen & Leonard, 2006). From these studies we know that children with SLI are less proficient than both their age- and language- matched peers, produce fewer instances of CS, and when CS is attempted, are more likely to omit grammatical elements of the CS (e.g., relative markers, or the nonfinite to marker). If grammatical impairment is a hallmark of children with SLI, then an understanding of the breadth and depth of the grammatical limitations associated with SLI is warranted. With the exception of the Schuele and Dykes (2005) longitudinal case study, all other CS studies have been cross-sectional. This study explores longitudinal CS production in nine children with SLI. PROCEDURES Archival database of language samples collected to study the production of CS in children with SLI Children were followed longitudinally for either two, three, or four visits at four month intervals Language samples coded for all instances of CS PARTICIPANTS VARIABLES Within Entire Transcript: Total Verbal Utterances proportion of fourteen CS types description of CS errors Within 100 Complete and Intelligible Utterances frequency of CS: number of utterances with CS CS tokens: total number of CS tokens embedded CS tokens: total number of embedded CS tokens CS density: number of tokens of CS/number of utterances with CS Time 1 Omitted obligatory relative pronoun - ACARR: [nrc] 1/7; SMYER: [nrc] 2/8 Omitted obligatory relative marker - ACARR: [src] 2/2; SMYER: [src] 1/1 but they got two of them *that are the same. Omitted obligatory to marker - LANDE: [si] 2/28; SCRIB: [si] 1/9; SMYER: [si] 1/25 then they’re get *to eat it all up. Substitution of a for obligatory to marker - JSTEV: [si] 1/6; SCRIB: [si] 1/9 her wants you a pet her. Overgeneralization of reduced infinitive - DDIGI: [cat] 1/9 her wanna go right under here. = g she wants to go right under here Omitted verb in relative clause - MTULX: [nrc] 1/1 because that *is how it play/*ed. Error in subordinate conjunction - substitution - SMYER: [sc] 2/18 but [err] I forgot. = g because I forgot Time 2 Omitted obligatory to marker - LANDE: [si] 3/25; SCRIB: [si] 1/5 Extraneous use of AND - SMYER: [sc] 2/18 every time she sticks her head in the shower and [err] she’s will say it’s nice and warm Reduced obligatory to marker - SMYER: [si] 3/11 he looks at it a see if it is a seven. Omitted obligatory relative marker - SMYER: [src] 1/1 see that thing *that goes around? Error in obligatory relative marker - substitution - SMYER: [rc] 2/4 then we gotta flip one where you can’t see it and one what [err] you can see it. = g what for where Time 3 Error in obligatory relative marker - substitution - LANDE: [rc] 1/6 he tells about the story what [err] he was singing about. Time 4 Omitted conjunction - LANDE: [sc] 1/38 but [err] mommy is not home, daddy will put in the garage. Extraneous use of AND - LANDE: [sc] 4/38 if it is way too hard and [err] then we do not do it. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Support for this project was provided by The Schubert Center for Child Development, CWRU; NIDCD R03 DC007329; a New Investigator Award from the ASHFoundation awarded to the second author; and an SRCLD travel award to the first author. Karen Barako Arndt and C. Melanie Schuele  Vanderbilt University The purpose of this study was to explore the production of complex syntax in children with specific language impairment (SLI) to describe the course of complex syntax development. The study of complex syntax development in children with SLI is in its infancy. For this investigation, the spontaneous language samples of nine children with SLI (5;2 - 7;3 at Time 1) were analyzed by spontaneous language samples coded and analyzed for complex syntax. Variables included proportion of fourteen complex syntax types, frequency of complex syntax and complex syntax density within 50 and 100 utterances. Also of interest were patterns of error in production of complex syntax types. Of particular interest was inclusion of obligatory relative markers and inclusion of obligatory infinitival to. The implications of this study are both theoretical and practical in nature, with a better understanding of complex syntax development leading to the formulation of hypotheses of language development in children with SLI and guidance in relevant areas of focus in clinical intervention. ABSTRACT METHODS INTRODUCTION RESULTSPATTERNS OF ERROR REFERENCES PROPORTION OF COMPLEX SYNTAX IN TOTAL VERBAL UTTERANCES CS PRODUCTIONS IN 100 COMPLETE & INTELLIGIBLE UTTERANCES This data suggest that complex syntax development continues in children with SLI between the ages of 5 and 9; however, their proficiency in complex syntax production is still limited. Children with SLI continue to struggle with grammatical elements of complex syntax, including the inclusion of obligatory markers. Elicited tasks targeting these types of complex syntax will be used in conjunction with this data to understand more fully the nature of CS production in children with SLI. Implications of this study are theoretical and practical, with a better understanding of complex syntax development leading to the refinement of hypotheses of language development in children with SLI, thus informing clinical practice. FUTURE DIRECTIONS COMPLEX SYNTAX TYPES WHAT TYPES OF COMPLEX SYNTAX WE ARE INTERESTED IN? DOES COMPLEX SYNTAX PRODUCTION CHANGE OVER TIME? IF SO, HOW DOES IT CHANGE? WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF COMPLEX SYNTAX WITHIN A 100 UTTERANCE CUT? YES. CS does change over time. Although some growth is seen over over time by all nine children in one or more of the complex syntax types, the change is very limited. If complex syntax is itself on a continuum from least complex to most complex, much of the change seen is on the less complex CS types. This data suggests that CS continues to be an areas of weakness for children with SLI over time. We are interested in 13 types of complex syntax. In particular, we are interested in complex syntax with embedded clauses. Also of interest are complex syntax types with obligatory grammatical markers, like the to marker in infinitival complements and markers such as that or who in relative clauses. Within a 100 utterance transcript cut, and for all nine children, the change is overall is limited. Recall that there is only a 4 month time difference in samples. For all children, growth is challenging to capture with the frequency of CS, frequency of CS tokens, and even CS density. Growth is more evident using the frequency of embedded CS tokens and # of types of CS. While use of cognitive state complement verbs in full propositional clauses, wh- finite clauses, and wh- nonfinite clauses was very limited for some children, growth is evident over time. For most children, limitations are both in amount of verbs and in variety of verbs used. Eisenberg, S. (2003). Production of infinitival complements in the conversational speech of 5-year-old children with language impairment. First Language, 23, 327-341. Eisenberg, S. (2004). Production of infinitives by 5-year-old language impaired children on an elicited production task. First Language, 24, 305-321. Owen, A. J. & Leonard, L. B. (2006). The production of finite and nonfinite complement clauses by children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 548-571. Schuele, C. M. (2006). Research Manual for Complex Syntax Coding. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. Schuele, C. M., & Dykes, J. (2005). Complex syntax: A longitudinal case study of a child with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 295-318. Schuele, C. M. & Nicholls, L. M. (2000). Relative clauses: Evidence of continued linguistic vulnerability in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 563-585. Schuele, C. M. & Tolbert, L. (2001). Omissions of obligatory relative markers in children with specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 257-274. 50 VERSUS 100 UTTERANCES: WHY USE 100? Frequency of CS, CS tokens, CS embedded tokens, CS density, complement verbs used with CS, and # of types of CS were all analyzed within both a 50 and 100 complete and intelligible transcript cut. Growth over time is more evident with a 100 utterance cut, in particular with the frequency of embedded CS tokens and # of types of CS variables. Much growth can also be seen by examining the complement verbs in [fpc], [wfc], and [wnfc], as seen below: DDIGI 1 50 Utt.: 1 [cat], 4 [cc], 5 [si] 100 Utt: 1 [cat], 6 [cc]. 1 [sc], 5 [si], 1 [uic], 1 [fpc], 1 [nrc], 1 [pc] including 2 embedded CS DDIGI 2 50 Utt.: 1 [rc], 1 [nrc], 1 [pc] 100 Utt: 1 [cat], 3 [rc], 1 [nrc], 1 [pc], 1 [other] including 3 embedded CS (versus 2 at 50 utterances)