Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:10:18.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deaf readers' comprehension of relative clause structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Diane C. Lillo-Martin ,
Vicki L. Hanson  and
Suzanne T. Smith
Diane C. Lillo-Martin*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories
Vicki L. Hanson
Affiliation:
IBM Research Division, Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Suzanne T. Smith
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School
*
Diane Lillo-Martin, University of Connecticut, Department of Linguistics, U-145, 341 Mansfield Rd., Rm. 230, Storrs, CT 06269-1 145
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is commonly found that most deaf readers display an overall depressed level of reading performance in conjunction with specific difficulties in complex syntax. In this study, deaf good and poor readers' comprehension of relative clause structures was tested in written English, signed English, and American Sign Language. It was found that the behavior of deaf good and poor readers was parallel across relative clause sentence types, and that the deaf readers generally performed similarly to hearing readers tested in a different study. These results support the hypothesis that a specific syntactic disability does not differentiate deaf good and poor readers. Instead, it is suggested that a processing deficit may underlie the poor readers' comprehension difficulties.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 13 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Byrne, B. (1981). Deficient syntactic control in poor readers: Is a weak phonetic memory code responsible? Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coulter, G. (1979). American Sign Language typology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Shankweiler, D. (1987). Reading acquisition and language acquisition. In Davison, A., Green, G., & Herman, G. (Eds.), Critical approaches to readability: Theoretical bases of linguistic complexity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests. (1978). New York: Columbia Teachers' College Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S. L. (1982). Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 8, 389–416.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language development. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics (pp. 245–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hanson, V. L. (1982). Short-term recall by deaf signers of American Sign Language: Implications for order recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 572–583.Google ScholarPubMed
Hanson, V. L. (1989). Phonology and reading: Evidence from profoundly deaf readers. In Liberman, I. Y. & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.), Monograph of the International Academy of Research on Learning Disabilities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, V. L. (1991). Phonological processing without sound. In Brady, S. & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 153–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hanson, V. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 199–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Tongue-twister effects in the silent reading of hearing and deaf college students. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, V. L., Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1984). Linguistic coding by deaf children in relation to beginning reading success. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 378–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, V. L., & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1990). Short-term memory coding by deaf signers: The notion of primary language coding reconsidered. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karchmer, M. A., Milone, M. N. Jr, & Wolk, S. (1979). Educational significance of hearing loss at three levels of severity. American Annals of the Deaf, 124, 97–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Lichtenstein, E. H. (1985). Deaf working memory processes and English language skills. In Martin, D. (Ed.), Cognition, education, and deafness (pp. 111–114). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (1980). American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, V. A., Shankweiler, D., & Smith, S. T. (1984). The association between comprehension of spoken sentences and early reading ability: The role of phonetic representation. Journal of Child Language, 11, 627–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padden, C. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Smith, N., & Wilbur, R. (1974). Comprehension of relativized sentences by deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quigley, S., Steinkamp, M., Power, D. & Jones, B. (1978). Test of syntactic abilities. Beaverton, OR: Dormac.Google Scholar
Raven, J. (1965). Advanced progressive matrices. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, S. T. (1987). Syntactic comprehension in reading-disabled children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Smith, S. T., Macaruso, P., Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1989). Syntactic comprehension in young poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 429–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakolian, S. L. (1981). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 167–168). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Treiman, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). Silent reading: Insights from second-generation deaf readers. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed