Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:27:08.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early instruction of object complements to hearing-impaired college students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John A. Albertini  and
Vincent J. Samar
John A. Albertini*
Affiliation:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
Vincent J. Samar
Affiliation:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
*
John A. Albertini, Department of Communication Research, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Child language acquisition studies have suggested that some object complement constructions are acquired relatively early compared to other complex constructions. Traditionally, instruction of hearing-impaired students in object complement structures is reserved for intermediate and advanced levels due to their relative syntactic complexity. However, data from 82 basic-level, hearing-impaired college students indicated marked learning of these structures after 10 hours of instruction. Upon investigation of the relative difficulty of four grammatical components of object complements (complement markers, personal pronouns, tense inflection, and word order), tense marking in the complement was found to be the most difficult. We suggest that, in addition to traditional transformational descriptions of syntactic complexity, data on first and second language acquisition be considered when deciding on a sequence of instruction for hearing-impaired students.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 345 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Albertini, J. The grammatical morphemes first to appear in the speech of normal and language deficient children. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, 1976. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1977, 37, 5789–A. (Order No. 77–6184)Google Scholar
American National Standards Institute. American National Standard Specifications for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6–1969). New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1969.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M., Kilby, D., & Roca, I.Foundations of general linguistics. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1982.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 1974, 24, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G.Different Aptitude Tests. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1966.Google Scholar
Berko-Gleason, J.The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 1958, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K.Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language, 1980, 7, 235–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bochner, J.Assessing the language proficiency of young deaf adults. Teaching English to the Deaf, 1977, 4, 26–29.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Santos, T.On the interlanguage of a native user of American Sign Language. Work papers in Teaching English as a Second Language (UCLA), 1979, 13, 15–25.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Clark, E.Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.Google Scholar
Costa, R. Sequence of tenses in thai-clauses. In Peranteau, P., Levi, J., & Phares, G. (Eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1972.Google Scholar
Crandall, K. E. NTID Written Language Test: Procedures and reliability. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Houston, 11 1976.Google Scholar
Crymes, R. The developing art of TESOL: Theory and practice. In Blatchford, C. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL '78: EFL policies, programs, practices. Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1978.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J., & Boardman, M.English language instruction for the hearing impaired: An adaptation of ESL methodology. TESOL Quarterly, 1974, 8, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D. Report on an experimental group-administered memory span test. In Palmer, L. & Spolsky, B. (Eds.), Papers on language testing, 1967–1974. Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1975.Google Scholar
Hecht, B., & Mulford, R.The acquisition of a second language phonology: Interaction of transfer and development factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1982, 3, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, V. M., & Forster, K. I.Perceptual complexity and underlying sentence structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, M. P. Error analysis: Source, cause and significance. In Richards, J. (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman, 1974.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. D.Communication characteristics of a young deaf adult population: Techniques for evaluating their communication skills. American Annals of the Deaf, 1976, 121, 409–424.Google Scholar
Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L.Language development and intervention with the hearing-impaired. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Krohn, R.English sentence structure. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Limber, J. The genesis of complex sentences. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P.The acquisition and development of language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971.Google Scholar
Munby, J.Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Quigley, S.The influence of finger-spelling on the development of language, communication and educational achievement in deaf children. Urbana: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, 1969.Google Scholar
Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M.Reading Milestones. Beaverton, Ore.: Dormac, Inc., 1980.Google Scholar
Quigley, S., Montanelli, D., & Wilbur, R.Some aspects of the verb system in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 536–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quigley, S. P., Wilbur, R. B., & Montanelli, S.Complement structures in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 448–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, J., & Sampson, G. The study of learner English. In Richards, J. (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman, 1974.Google Scholar
Ross, J. Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. Interlanguage. In Richards, J. (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman, 1974.Google Scholar
Smoczynska, M.The acquisition of Polish. Unpublished manuscript, 1980. (Available from Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.)Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. H.The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
Tiegs, E. W., & Clark, W. W.California Achievement Tests – Junior High Level, Forms W, X, Y, Z. Monterey, Calif.: California Test Bureau, 1957.Google Scholar
van Ek, J.The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. London: Longman, 1976.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A.Notional syllabuses. London: Oxford University Press, 1976.Google Scholar