Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:30:06.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deficits in sentence comprehension: Are they syntactic? Comments on Stein, Cairns, and Zurif1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Helen Goodluck
Helen Goodluck*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
*
Helen Goodluck, Department of Linguistics, Van Hise Hall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent paper in Applied Psycholinguistics, Stein, Cairns, and Zurif (1984) demonstrate that reading disabled children perform at a less advanced level relative to normals of the same age in comprehending a number of complex sentence types, including sentences with temporal adverbial clauses, such as (1): 1. The pig kissed the cow after jumping over the fence. (Please see erratum page at back of this issue for the corrected figures concerning this sentence from the Stein, Cairns, and Zurif article.)

While adults require the (missing) subject of jump in (1) to be interpreted as coreferential with the main clause subject (the pig in the example), normal children are frequently 6 or older before they develop this restriction, permitting a direct object NP (the cow in the example) to be made subject of (to control) the temporal clause. Stein et al. demonstrate that reading disabled children are slower than normals to develop the adult rule, a finding that generalized over both their comprehension of written and spoken language. In what follows, I point out some difficulties with the analysis of the adult grammar and normal development that Stein et al. adopt, and speculate on alternative ways of dealing with the facts of grammar and development for sentences of type (1). To the extent that these speculations are correct, our view of the nature of deficits may also be changed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 181 - 190
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.)

Footnotes

1

This commentry was written in response to an invitation from Applied Psycholinguistics

References

REFERENCES

Bresnan, J. (Ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982a.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. Control and complementation. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982b.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal System for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris, 1981.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. Linguistic principles in children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, 1978. (Distributed by the Graduate Student Linguistics Association.)Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. Children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. Children's interpretation of pronouns and null NPs. In Lust, B. (Ed.), Studies of the acquisition of anaphora: Definition of the constraints. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, in press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S.Competence and processing in Children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 1982, 11(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, J. The development of structural principles related to complement sentence interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, 1981.Google Scholar
Hsu, J., Cairns, H., & Fiengo, R.The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition, 1985, 20(1), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marantz, A.On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.Functional and anaphoric control. Linguistic Inquiry, 1983, 14(4), 651–74.Google Scholar
Solan, L. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Solan, L.Pronominal reference: Child language and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, C., Caims, H., & Zurif, E.Sentence comprehension limitations related to syntactic deficits in reading disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1984, 5, 305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar