Structural priming of adjective–noun structures in hearing and deaf children

Beijsterveldt, Liesbeth M. van; Hell, Janet G. van

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.05.002

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both experimental and naturalistic studies, dialogue partners have been found to repeat each other's words, syntactic structures, and even articulation in the production of utterances. Alignment effects have been found in different languages and speaker populations, including adults (e.g., Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland, 2000;Gries, 2005;Levelt & Kelter, 1982;Pardo, 2006), children (e.g., Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi, 2004), second language learners (Costa, Pickering, & Sorace, 2008;McDonough, 2006), and deaf children (Van Beijsterveldt & Van Hell, 2009). It has been also been found that alignment at one level, such as the lexical level, enhances alignment at other levels, such as the syntactic level (e.g., Branigan et al, 2000;Schoonbaert, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2007).…”

Section: The Interactive Alignment Model In a Nutshellmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue

Kootstra

Hell

Dijkstra

2010

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

147

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Interactive Alignment Model In a Nutshellmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue

Kootstra

Hell

Dijkstra

2010

Journal of Memory and Language

Self Cite

147

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous studies investigating writing of individuals who are deaf focused on either elementary school students (Quigley and King 1980;Singleton et al 2004;Taeschner, Devescovi, and Volterra 1988;Tur-Kaspa and Dromi 2001;Van Beijsterveldt and Van Hell 2009b) or adults (Fabbretti, Volterra, and Pontecorvo 1998). The present study aimed to explore the influence of sign language on writing in different age groups.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical noun phrases in texts written by deaf children and adults with different proficiency levels in sign language

Beijsterveldt

Hell

2010

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report an analysis of lexical noun phrases (NPs) in narrative and expository texts written by Dutch deaf individuals from a bimodal bilingual perspective. Texts written by Dutch deaf children and adults who are either proficient in Sign Language of the Netherlands (SLN) or low-proficient in SLN were compared on structures that either overlap in Dutch and SLN (presence of overt subject and object NPs, NP modifiers, and NP-internal agreement), or are absent in SLN (articles). We found that deaf participants experienced significant difficulty with lexical NPs. Further, deaf proficiently signing children (but not adults) more often omitted obligate articles than deaf low-proficiently signing children. Deaf proficiently signing children and adults did not differ from low-proficiently signing children and adults, however, in the use of NP modifiers, NP-agreement errors and omissions of obligatory NPs. We conclude that proficiency in sign language seems to affect particularly those aspects that differ substantially across sign language and oral language, in this case, articles. We argue that adopting a bimodal bilingual approach is important to understand the writing of deaf children.

show abstract

“…For example, Bock (1986) found that when speakers were presented with a passive construction such as The boy was kissed by the girl as a description of a picture, they were more likely to describe a new picture using a similar syntactic structure. Effects of priming have been detected with a range of syntactic constructions, including NP variants (Cleland and Pickering, 2003), the order of main and auxiliary verbs (Hartsuiker and Westenberg, 2000), and other structures, in a variety of languages (Pickering and Ferreira, 2008), and in children (Huttenlocher et al, 2004;Van Beijsterveldt and Van Hell, 2009), but also syntactic phrase-structure rules in general (Reitter et al, 2006;Reitter and Moore, 2014).…”

Section: Modeling Syntactic Priming In Language Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Cognitively Constrained Models of Language Processing: A Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language processing is not an isolated capacity, but is embedded in other aspects of our cognition. However, it is still largely unexplored to what extent and how language processing interacts with general cognitive resources. This question can be investigated with cognitively constrained computational models, which simulate the cognitive processes involved in language processing. The theoretical claims implemented in cognitive models interact with general architectural constraints such as memory limitations. This way, it generates new predictions that can be tested in experiments, thus generating new data that can give rise to new theoretical insights. This theory-model-experiment cycle is a promising method for investigating aspects of language processing that are difficult to investigate with more traditional experimental techniques. This review specifically examines the language processing models of Lewis and Vasishth (2005), Reitter et al. (2011), andVan Rij et al. (2010), all implemented in the cognitive architecture Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (Anderson et al., 2004). These models are all limited by the assumptions about cognitive capacities provided by the cognitive architecture, but use different linguistic approaches. Because of this, their comparison provides insight into the extent to which assumptions about general cognitive resources influence concretely implemented models of linguistic competence. For example, the sheer speed and accuracy of human language processing is a current challenge in the field of cognitive modeling, as it does not seem to adhere to the same memory and processing capacities that have been found in other cognitive processes. Architecturebased cognitive models of language processing may be able to make explicit which language-specific resources are needed to acquire and process natural language. The review sheds light on cognitively constrained models of language processing from two angles: we discuss (1) whether currently adopted cognitive assumptions meet the requirements for language processing, and (2) how validated cognitive architectures can constrain linguistically motivated models, which, all other things being equal, will increase the cognitive plausibility of these models. Overall, the evaluation of cognitively constrained models of language processing will allow for a better understanding of the relation between data, linguistic theory, cognitive assumptions, and explanation.

show abstract

Structural priming of adjective–noun structures in hearing and deaf children

Cited by 22 publications

References 32 publications

Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue

Syntactic alignment and shared word order in code-switched sentence production: Evidence from bilingual monologue and dialogue

Lexical noun phrases in texts written by deaf children and adults with different proficiency levels in sign language

Toward Cognitively Constrained Models of Language Processing: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About