Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:58:46.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension of indefinite pronouns and quantifiers by hearing-impaired students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ronnie B. Wilbur  and
Wendy C. Goodhart
Ronnie B. Wilbur*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Wendy C. Goodhart
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania School for the Deaf and Boston University
*
Ronnie Wilbur, Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Indiana47907.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deaf students' recognition of indefinite pronouns and quantifiers was tested using written materials in the form of comic strips that provided pragmatically appropriate context. One hundred and eighty-seven profoundly hearing-impaired students, aged 7–23 years, served as subjects. There were significant developmental trends for both the indefinite pronouns and the quantifiers, with the quantifiers significantly more difficult than the indefinite pronouns. A comparison of the results with predictions drawn from theoretical linguistics and with predictions drawn from Developmental Sentence Scoring (Lee, 1974) data for hearing children indicates that theoretical predictions are more accurate for hearing-impaired students. This may be due to differences in methodology (DSS reports spontaneous spoken language; the present study reports comprehension of written English) and to educational practices with hearing-impaired students.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 417 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Battison, R.Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, Md.: Linstok Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition. In Hayes, J. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.Google Scholar
Carden, G.English quantifiers: Logical structure and linguistic variation. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Givón, T.On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Klima, E. Negation in English. In Fodor, J. & Katz, J. (Eds.), Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964, pp. 246–323.Google Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U.The signs of language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L.Language development and intervention with the hearing impaired. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Lee, L.Developmental sentence analysis: A grammatical assessment procedure for speech and language clinicians. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
LeGrand, J.Or and Any: The semantics and syntax of two logical operators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1975.Google Scholar
McCawley, J.Lexicographic notes on English quantifiers. Chicago Linguistic Society, 1977, 13, 372–383.Google Scholar
McGill-Franzen, A., & Gormley, K.The influence of context in deaf readers' understanding of passive sentences. American Annals of the Deaf, 1980, 125, 937–942.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P.Syntactic structures in the language of children. Child Development, 1963, 34, 407–422.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P.Syntactic rules used by children from preschool through first grade. Child Development, 1964, 35, 533–546.Google Scholar
Nolen, S. B., & Wilbur, R. B.The effects of context on deaf students' comprehension of difficult sentences. American Annals of The Deaf, 1985, 130, 231–235.Google Scholar
Power, D. Deaf children's acquisition of passive voice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1971.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., & Kretschmer, R.The education of deaf children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Montanelli, D., & Wilbur, R.Auxiliary verbs in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1976, 19, 536–550.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Smith, N., & Wilbur, R.Comprehension of relativized structures by deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1974, 17, 325–341.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., & Montanelli, D.Question formation in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1974, 17, 699–713.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., & Montanelli, D.Complement structures in the written language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 448–457.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., Power, D., Montanelli, D., & Steinkamp, M.Syntactic structures in the language of deaf children. Urbana-Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Child Behavior and Development, University of Illinois, 1976.Google Scholar
Quine, W.Word and object. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Shulman, J. (Ed.). Captioning reference manual. Boston, Mass.: The Caption Center, WGBH-TV, 1979.Google Scholar
Shulman, J., & Decker, N. (Eds.). Readable English for hearing impaired students. Boston, Mass.: The Caption Center, WGBH-TV, 1980.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. Each and every, any and all. In Vendler, Z., Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R.An explanation of deaf students' difficulty with certain syntactic structures of English. The Volta Review. 1977, 79, 85–92.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R.American Sign Language and sign systems. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. Where do we go from here? Speculations on the future of language intervention research. In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention. Rockville, Md.: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1982.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R., & Goodhart, W. Development of English modals in hearing-impaired students. Presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, Cincinnati, November. 1983.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R., Goodhart, W., & Montandon, E.Comprehension of nine syntactic structures by hearing impaired students. The Volta Review, 1983, 85, 328–345.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R., Montanelli, D., & Quigley, S.Pronominalization in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 120–141.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R., Quigley, S., & Montanelli, D.Conjoined structures in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1975, 18, 319–335.Google Scholar