The comprehension of sentences derived by syntactic movement in Palestinian Arabic speakers with hearing impairment

Applied Psycholinguistics

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 473-513

  Friedmann, Naama ^a   Haddad Hanna, Manar ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907520177     PISSN: 01427164     EISSN: 14691817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0142716412000483     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Agbayani, B. (2000).Wh-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 703-712.
2. Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-h. A. (2003). Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Avrutin, S. (2000). Comprehension of Wh-questions by children and Broca's aphasics. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. P. Shapiro, & D. A. Swinney (Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and processing (pp. 295-312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4. Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., Brunato, D., &Rizzi, L. (2012).Does gendermake a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children's comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua, 122, 1053-1069.
5. Benmamoun, E. (1997). Licensing of negative polarity items in Moroccan Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 263-287.
6. Berent, G. P. (1988). An assessment of syntactic capabilities. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp. 133-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Berent, G. P. (1996). Learnability constraints on deaf learners' acquisition of English wh-questions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 625-643.
8. Calderon, R., &Naidu, S. (2000). Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Review, 100, 53-84.
9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
10. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 506-569). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
13. Clements, C. N., McCloskey, J., Maling, J., & Zaenen, A. (1983). String-vacuous rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 1-18.
14. Correa, L. M. S. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 183-203.
15. Crawford, J. R., & Howell, D. C. (1998). Comparing an individual's test score against norms derived from small samples. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 482-486.
16. Dahlgren, S.-O. (2010).Word order. In E. Lutz & R. de Jong (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=eall-COM- 0380
17. de Villiers, P. A. (1988). Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Elicited production in pragmatically motivated situations. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 21(Suppl.), 41-71.
18. de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., & Hoban, E. (1994). The central problem of functional categories in English syntax of oral deaf children. In H. Tager-Flusberg (Ed.), Constraints on language acquisition: Studies of atypical children (pp. 9-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. deVincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: Theminimal chain principle.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. de Vincenzi, M., Arduino, L. S., Ciccarelli, L., & Job, R. (1999). Parsing strategies in children comprehension of interrogative sentences. In S. Bagnara (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 301-308). Rome: Istituto di Psicologia del CNR.
21. Delage, H., & Tuller, L. (2007). Language development and mild-to-moderate hearing loss: Does language normalize with age? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1300-1313.
22. Fassi-Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
23. Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 14, 47-56.
24. Friedmann, N. (2002). Question production in agrammatism: The tree pruning hypothesis. Brain and Language, 80, 160-187.
25. Friedmann, N., Aram, D., & Novogrodsky, R. (2011). Definitions as a window to the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 687-710.
26. Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67-88.
27. Friedmann, N., & Costa, J. (2011a). Acquisition of SV and VS order in Hebrew, European Portuguese, Palestinian Arabic, and Spanish. Language Acquisition, 18, 1-38.
28. Friedmann, N., & Costa, J. (2011b). Last resort and no resort: Resumptive pronouns in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic hearing impairment. In A. Rouveret (Ed.), Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces (Language Faculty and Beyond Series, pp. 223-239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2002). BAMBI: Battery for Assessment of Syntactic Abilities in Children [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
30. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2004). The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 661-681.
31. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2007). Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or to thematic role transfer? Brain and Language, 101, 50-63.
32. Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2011). Which questions are most difficult to understand? The comprehension of Wh questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua, 120, 367-382.
33. Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., Szterman, R., & Preminger, O. (2008). Resumptive pronouns as last resort whenmovement is impaired:Relative clauses in hearing impairment. In S.Armon-Lotem, G. Danon, & S. Rothstein (Eds.), Linguistics today series: Vol. 134. Generative approaches to Hebrew linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34. Friedmann, N., & Shapiro, L. P. (2003). Agrammatic comprehension of simple active sentences with moved constituents: Hebrew OSV and OVS structures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 288-297.
35. Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2006). Syntactic movement in orally-trained children with hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 56-75.
36. Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2011). The comprehension and production of wh questions in children with hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 212-235.
37. Geers, A. E., & Moog, J. S. (1978). Syntactic maturity of spontaneous speech and elicited imitation of hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 380-391.
38. Geis, J. E. (1973). Creative errors in the writing of deaf children. Ohio State UniversityWorking Papers in Linguistics, 15, 55-66.
39. Grodzinsky, Y. (2000). The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 1-71.
40. Günzberg-Kerbel, N., Shvimer, L., & Friedmann, N. (2008). "Take the hen that the cow kissed the hen": The acquisition of comprehension and production of various relative clauses in Hebrew [in Hebrew]. Language and Brain, 7, 23-43.
41. Haddad-Hanna, M. (2008). The comprehension and production of sentences with and without syntactic movement in Arabic speakers with hearing impairment. Unpublished master's thesis, Tel Aviv University.
42. Haddad-Hanna, M., & Friedmann, N. (in press). On the comprehension and production of sentences with syntactic movement [inHebrew]. In T.Most&D. Ringwald (Eds.), Topics in rehabilitation and education of children with hearing impairment. Tel Aviv: Mofet.
43. Hickok, G., & Avrutin, S. (1996). Comprehension of Wh-question in two Broca's aphasics. Brain and Language, 52, 314-327.
44. Hulsey, S., & Sauerland, U. (2006). Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 111-137.
45. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Kidd, E., & Bavin, E. L. (2002). English-speaking children's understanding of relative clauses: Evidence for universal-cognitive and language-specific constraints on development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 599-617.
47. Levy, H., & Friedmann, N. (2009). Treatment of syntactic movement in syntactic SLI: A case study. First Language, 29, 15-50.
48. Maamouri, M. (1998). Language education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arab region. Paper presented at theWorld Bank Mediterranean Development Forum.
49. Mayberry, R. I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369-384.
50. McKee, C., McDaniel, D., & Snedeker, J. (1998). Relative children say. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 573-596.
51. Mohammad, A. M. (2000).Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
52. Most, T. (2006). Assessment of school functioning among Israeli Arab children with hearing loss in the primary grades. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 327-335.
53. Nave, M., Szterman, R., & Friedmann, N. (2009). Comprehension and production of Wh questions by Hebrew-speaking children with hearing impairment: Another evidence for the difficulty in syntactic movement. Language and Brain, 9, 1-29.
54. Novogrodsky, R., & Friedmann, N. (2006). The production of relative clauses in SLI: A window to the nature of the impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 364-375.
55. Ouhalla, J. (1994). Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 41-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Power, D. J., & Quigley, S. P. (1973). Deaf children acquisition of the passive voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 16, 5-11.
57. Quigley, S. P., Smith, N. L., & Wilbur, R. B. (1974). Comprehension of relativized sentences by deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 325-341.
58. Quigley, S. P., Wilbur, R. B., & Montanelli, D. S. (1974). Question formation in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17, 699-713.
59. Roth, P. F. (1984). Accelerating language learning in young children. Journal of Child Language, 11, 89-107.
60. Rouveret, A. (2008). Phasal agreement and reconstruction. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 167-195). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 431-451.
62. Saiegh-Haddad, E., Levin, I., & Hende, N. (2011). The linguistic affiliation constraint and phoneme recognition in diglossic Arabic. Journal of Child Language, 38, 297-315.
63. Schmitt, P. J. (1968). Deaf children's comprehension and production of sentence transformations and verb tenses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
64. Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.
65. Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Szterman, R., & Friedmann, N. (2003). The deficit in comprehension of movement-derived sentences in children with hearing impairment [in Hebrew]. Lir'ot et Hakolot, 2, 20-29.
67. Szterman, R., & Friedmann, N. (2007). How do children with hearing impairment produce and understand relative clauses? [inHebrew]. Journal of Language, Speech, and HearingDisorders, 28, 58-71.
68. Szterman, R., & Friedmann, N. (2010, July). Relative clause reading in hearing impairment in a heterophonic homograph reading task: Evidence for different profiles of syntactic impairment. Paper presented at the 9th Language and Brain Conference, Tel Aviv University.
69. Tavakolian, S. L. (1981). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. In S. L. Tavakolian (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 167-187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French relative clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
71. Volpato, F. (2010). The acquisition of relative clauses and phi-features: Evidence from hearing and hearing-impaired populations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universit'a Ca' Foscari Venezia.
72. Volpato, F., & Adani, F. (2009). The subject/object relative clause asymmetry in Italian hearingimpaired children: Evidence from a comprehension task. Paper presented at the 35th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Siena.
73. Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). From screening to early identification and intervention: Discovering predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11-30.
74. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998a). Identification of hearing loss after age 18 months is not early enough. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 380-387.
75. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998b). The development of deaf and hard of hearing children identified early through the high-risk registry. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 416-424.