Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Bilingual deaf readers’ use of semantic and syntactic cues in the processing of English relative clauses*

  • PILAR PIÑAR (a1), MATTHEW T. CARLSON (a2), JILL P. MORFORD (a3) and PAOLA E. DUSSIAS (a2)

Abstract

Eye fixation measures were used to examine English relative clause processing by adult ASL–English bilingual deaf readers. Participants processed subject relative clauses faster than object relative clauses, but expected animacy cues eliminated processing difficulty in object relative clauses. This brings into question previous claims that deaf readers’ sentence processing strategies are qualitatively different from those of hearing English native speakers. Measures of English comprehension predicted reading speed, but not differences in syntactic processing. However, a trend for ASL self-ratings to predict the ability to handle syntactic complexity approached significance. Results suggest a need to explore how objective ASL proficiency measures might provide insights into deaf readers’ ability to exploit syntactic cues in English.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Pilar Piñar, Department of World Languages and Cultures, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington DC, 20002 pilar.pinar@gallaudet.edu

Footnotes

Hide All
*

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Science of Learning Center Program, under cooperative agreement numbers SBE-0541953 and SBE-1041725. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank the NSF Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning at Gallaudet University for providing access to the eye-tracking equipment. Partial support was also provided by a Priority Research Grant from the Gallaudet Research Institute at Gallaudet University to Pilar Piñar, and by NSF Grant OISE-0968369 and NIH Grant 5R21HD071758 to Paola E. Dussias.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Allen, T. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1973. In Schildroth, A. N. and Karchmer, M. A. (Eds.), Deaf children in America (pp. 161206). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191238.
Anible, B., Twitchell, P., Waters, G. S., Dussias, P. E., Piñar, P., & Morford, J. P. (2015). Sensitivity to verb bias in American Sign Language–English bilinguals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, doi:10.1093/deafed/env007. Published on-line by Oxford University Press.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255278.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 148. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalists Approaches to Grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bélanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2013). Frequency and predictability effects in eye fixations for skilled and less skilled readers. Visual Cognition, 21, 477497.
Bélanger, N. N., Slattery, T. J., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2012). Skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychological science, 23, 816823.
Boudreault, P., & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and cognitive processes, 21 (5), 608635.
Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2008). ASL syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled adults readers: Bilingual-bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537549.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 342.
Coulter, L., & Goodluck, H. (2015). The processing of simple structures and temporarily ambiguous syntax by deaf readers. The Volta Review, 115, 6796.
Cummins, J. (1978). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 131149.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Dalby, K., & Letourneau, C. (1991). Survey of communication history of deaf adults. In Biennial Meeting of the Association of Canadian Educators of the Hearing Impaired, Calgary, AB.
De Villiers, P., & Pomerantz, S. (1992). Hearing impaired students learning new words from written context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 409–31.
Dominguez, A. B., & Alegria, J. (2010). Reading mechanism in orally educated deaf adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 136–48.
Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529–57.
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443472.
Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English L2 speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–16.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. Jr (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of memory and language, 25, 348368.
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). An on-line look at sentence processing in the second language. In Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (eds.), Bilingual sentence processing (pp. 217236). New York: Elsevier.
Frenck-Mestre, C., & Pynte, J. (1997). Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 119148.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2005). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2003-2004 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Washington, DC: GRI.
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 5160.
Gass, S. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329350.
Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 123.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 14111423.
Gormley, K. A., & Franzen, A. M. (1978). Why can't the deaf read? Comments on asking the wrong question. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 542–7.
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261290.
Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2000). Locality effects on sentence processing. Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference.
Harrington, M. (1987). Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 351377.
Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). The relationship between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 518530.
Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000). A piece of the puzzle: ASL and reading comprehension in deaf children. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J. P. & Mayberry, R. I. (eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 221–59). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Holt, J. A. (1994). Classroom attributes and achievement test scores for deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 430–7.
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22, 369397.
Hoshino, N., Dussias, P. E., & Kroll, J. K. (2010). Processing subject-verb agreement in a second language depends on proficiency. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 8798.
Kampfe, C. M., & Turecheck, A. G. (1987). Reading achievement of prelingually deaf students and its relationship to parental method of communication: A review of the literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 132, 1115.
Karchmer, M. A., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 2137). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, L. P. (2003). The Importance of Processing Automaticity and Temporary Storage Capacity to the Differences in Comprehension Between Skilled and Less Skilled College-Age Deaf Readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 230249.
Kilborn, K. (1992). On-line integration of grammatical information in a second language. Advances in psychology, 83, 337350.
King, J. W., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic parsing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580602.
Kohnert, K. J., Hernandez, A. E., & Bates, E. (1998). Bilingual performance on the Boston Naming Test: Preliminary norms in Spanish and English. Brain and Language, 65, 422440.
Kubuş, O., Villwock, A., Morford, J. P., & Rathmann, C. (2014). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (04), 831854.
Kuntze, M. (2004). Literacy acquisition and deaf children: A study of the interaction between ASL and written English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UMI.
MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 3554.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 5698.
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 5068.
Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody individual achievement test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Mayberry, R. I. (1989). Deaf children's reading comprehension in relation to sign language structure and input. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City.
Mayberry, R. I. (1993). First-language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1258–70.
Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–49.
Mayberry, R. I., & Eichen, E. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486512.
Mayberry, R. I., & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesist. Brain and Language, 87, 369383.
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381401.
McQuarrie, L., & Parrila, R. (2009). Phonological representations in deaf children: rethinking the ‘‘functional equivalence’’ hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 137–54.
Miller, P. F. (2000). Syntactic and semantic processing in Hebrew readers with prelingual deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 436–48.
Miller, P. F. (2005). Reading comprehension and its relation to the quality of functional hearing: evidence from readers with different functional hearing abilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 150, 305–22.
Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Piñar, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286–92.
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Cross-language effects in visual word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 288303.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J. P. & Mayberry, R. I. (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501528.
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348379.
Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 7186.
Stowe, L. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Carlson, G. N. (1991). Filling gaps on-line: Use of lexical and semantic information in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 34, 319340.
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (2000). Is American Sign Language skill related to English literacy? In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J. P. & Mayberry, R. I. (eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Supalla, S. J., Wix, T. R., & McKee, C. (2001). Print as a primary source of English for deaf learners. In Nicol, J. & Langendoen, T. (eds.), One mind, two languages: Studies in bilingual language processing (pp. 177190). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Boland, J., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 3750.
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: national norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–48.
Traxler, M. J., Corina, D. P., Morford, J. P., Hafer, S., & Hoversten, L. J. (2014). Deaf readers’ response to syntactic complexity: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 42, 97111.
Traxler, M. J., Long, D. L., Johns, C. L., Tooley, K. M., Zirnstein, M., & Jonathan, E. (2012). Individual differences in eye-movements during reading: Working memory and speed-of-processing effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5, 116.
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object-relative clauses: Evidence from eye-movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 6990.
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454475.
Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working Memory, Animacy, and Verb Class in the Processing of Relative Clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 204224.
Twitchell, P., Morford, J. P., & Hauser, P. C. (2015). Effects of SES on literacy development of deaf signing bilinguals. American Annals of the Deaf, 159, 433446.
Wauters, L. N., van Bon, W. H., & Tellings, A. E. (2006). Reading comprehension of Dutch deaf children. Reading and Writing, 19 (1), 4976.
Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object-relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559570.
Wilbur, R. (1997). A prosodic/pragmatic explanation for word order variation in ASL with typological implications. In Lee, K., Sweetser, E. & Verspoor, M. (eds.), Lexical and syntactic constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 89104). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh-questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509540.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed