A series of studies utilizing the Double Object Comprehension Test is reviewed. This test, designed to distinguish between classes of lexical and syntactic comprehension errors, was administered to normal children, good and poor readers, hearing-impaired populations, mentally retarded populations, aphasics and non-native speakers of English. The results strongly indicated that linguistically "immature" individuals often can correctly comprehend only "base" double-object constructions, while linguistically "mature" individuals can readily comprehend both the "base" and the "derived" double-object forms. These trends are shown to be much like comprehension differences displayed between active and passive sentence constructions. Furthermore, it is argued that such "base" forms serve as comprehensional prerequisites for the more linguistically complex "derived" forms. Implications are discussed in terms of a psycho- and neuro-linguistic framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, N.W. ( 1974). Psycholinguistic abilities and academic achievement of hard-of-hearing adolescents. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
2.
Baker, C.L. ( 1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533-581.
3.
Bever, T.G. ( 1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures . In J.R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (New York).
4.
Cook, V.J. ( 1976). A note on indirect objects. Journal of Child Language, 3, 435-437.
5.
Cromer, R.F. ( 1975). An experimental investigation of a putative linguistic universal: Marking and the indirect object. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 73-80.
6.
Fletcher, J.M. ( 1978). Developmental changes in the linguistic performance correlates of reading disability. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
7.
Fletcher, J.M.Satz, P. and Scholes, R.J. ( 1981). Developmental changes in the linguistic performance correlates of reading disability. Brain and Language, 13, 78-90.
Heilman, K.M. and Scholes, R.J. ( 1976). The nature of comprehension errors in Broca's, conduction and Wernicke's aphasia. Cortex, 12, 258-265.
10.
Krashen, S.D. ( 1975). The critical period for language acquisition and its possible bases. In D. Aaronson and R.W. Reiber (eds.), Developmental Psycholinguistics and Communication Disorders, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 263 (New York).
11.
Mehler, J., Bever, T.G. and Carey, P. ( 1967). What we look at when we read. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 213-218.
12.
Oehrle, R.T. ( 1975). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MassaschusettsInstitute of Technology .
13.
Roeper, T., Lapointe, S., Bing, J. and Tavakolian, S. ( 1981). A lexical approach to language acquisition. In S. Tavakolian (ed.), Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory (Cambridge, Massachusetts).
14.
Rothi, L.J. and Heilman, K.M. ( 1980). Syntactic comprehension in transcortical motor aphasia. Paper presented at the American Academy of Aphasia, October 6, 1980 .
15.
Rothi, L.J., Mcfarling, D. and Heilman, K.M. ( 1981). Conduction aphasia and syntactic alexia. Unpublished ms.
16.
Scholes, R.J. ( 1978). Syntactic and lexical components of sentence comprehension . In A. Caramazza and E.B. Zurif (eds.), The Acquisition and Breakdown of Language: Parallels and Divergences (Baltimore ).
17.
Scholes, R.J. (in preparation). Pre-school factors in the variability in the acquisition of English by deaf students.
18.
Scholes, R.J., Cohen, M. and Brumfield, S. ( 1978). Some possible causes of syntactic deficits in the congenitally deaf English user. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 528-535.
19.
Scholes, R.J. and Fischler, I. ( 1979). Hemispheric function and linguistic skill in the deaf . Brain and Language, 7, 336-350.
20.
Scholes, R.J., Tanis, D.C. and Anderson, M.W. ( 1976). Comprehension of double object constructions by hard-of-hearing subjects. Lektos, 11, 1-12.
21.
Scholes, R.J., Tanis, D.C. and Turner, A. ( 1976). Syntactic and strategic aspects of the comprehension of indirect and direct object constructions by children. Language and Speech, 19, 212-223.
22.
Slayton, B. ( 1972). The acquisition of direct and indirect objects in English. Unpublished ms., University of Kansas.
23.
Suarez, L. ( 1981). Developmental parameters of functional asymmetries and cerebral dominance in children. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
24.
Turner, A. ( 1977). Syntactic aspects of the language of the mentally retarded. M.A. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
25.
Wanner, E. ( 1977a). Review of Cognition and the Symbolic Processes by W.B . Weimer. and D.S. Palermo, General Lingiistics, 17, 40-45.
26.
Wanner, E. ( 1977b). Review of The Psychology of Language by J.A. Fodor, T.G. Bever and M.F. Garrett, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 6, 261-270.
27.
Waryas, C.L. and Ruder, K. ( 1974). Children's sentence processing strategies: The double-object construction. Working Paper #296, Parsons Research Center, University of Kansas.
28.
Waryas, C.L. and Stremel, K. ( 1973). On the preferred form of the double-object construction . Working Paper #287, Parsons Research Center , University of Kansas.
