An analysis of the critical period effects on deaf individuals focusing on the acquisition of verb argument structure: a preliminary study
Background and Aims: Considering the fact that different components of linguistic knowledge are not equally vulnerable, this study investigated the knowledge of argument structure of verbs in a group of deaf Persian speakers, as people who have been deprived of linguistic data during the early years of their childhood that is the critical period of language acquisition.
Methods: In this study, the knowledge of verb arguments was examined through two tasks, one written (for 10 verbs) and one pictorial (for 10 verbs), in the two groups of deaf and normal hearing individuals, each of which consisting of 12 participants (6 girls and 6 boys).
Results: The analysis of verb argument structure showed that the number of errors in pictorial tests and recognized verb arguments was not significantly different between the groups. However, the main challenge of the deaf participants was attributed to mapping the arguments of the verb onto syntactic level.
Conclusion: The results showed that linguistic levels are not equally dependent on the successful experience of the critical period. The syntax level was highly affected by the critical period, while concepts like verb arguments had the least vulnerability.
2. Arshavsky YI. Two functions of early language experience. Brain Res Rev. 2009;60(2):327-40.
3. Grimshaw GM, Adelstein A, Bryden MP, MacKinnon GE. First-language acquisition in adolescence: evidence for a critical period for verbal language development. Brain Lang. 1998;63(2):237-55.
4. Schein JD, Delk MT. The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, Md: National Association of the Deaf; 1974.
5. Choubsaz Y, Gheitury A. Is Semantics Affected by Missing a Critical Period? Evidence from the Persian Deaf. J Psycholinguist Res. 2017;46(1):77-88.
6. Gheitury A, Ashraf V, Hashemi R. Investigating deaf students' knowledge of Persian syntax: further evidence for a critical period hypothesis. Neurocase. 2014;20(3):346-54.
7. Gheitury A, Sahraee AH, Hoseini M. Language acquisition in late critical period: A case report. Deafness Educ Int. 2012;14(3):122-35.
8. Mayberry RI. When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Appl Psycholinguist. 2007;28(3):537-49.
9. Jackendoff R. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2002.
10. Eubank L, Gregg KR. Critical periods and (second) language acquisition. In. Birdsong D,editor. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1999. p. 65-100.
11. Lee D, Schachter J. Sensitive period effects in binding theory. Lang Acquis. 1997;6(4):333-62.
12. Bowerman M, Brown P. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure. 1st ed. New York: Taylor and Francis Group; 2008.
13. Haegman L. Introduction to government and binding theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 1994.
14. Marschark M, Convertino C, McEvoy C, Masteller A. Organization and use of the mental lexicon by deaf and hearing individuals. Am Ann Deaf. 2004;149(1):51-61.
15. Ormel EA, Gijsel MA, Hermans D, Bosman AM, Knoors H, Verhoeven L. Semantic categorization: a comparison between deaf and hearing children. J Commun Disord. 2010;43(5):347-60.
16. Lowie W, Seton B. Essential statistics for applied linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
17. Albertini JA, Schley S. Writing: characteristics, instruction, and assessment. In: Marschark M, Spencer PE, editors. Deaf studies, language, and education. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2003. p. 125-35.
18. Paul PV. Literacy and deafness: the development of reading, writing, and literate thought. 1st ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1998.
19. GriesST. Statistics for linguistics with R: a practical introduction. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 2013.
20. Mayberry RI, Lock E. Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain Lang. 2003;87(3):369-84.
21. Birdsong D. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. 1st ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
22. Lenneberg EH. Biological foundations of language. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1967.
23. Singh JAL, Zingg RM. Wolf-children and feral man. Lincoln, United Kingdom: Shoe String Pr Inc; 1966.
24. Thordardottir ET, Ellis Weismer S. Verb argument structure weakness in specific language impairment in relation to age and utterance length. Clin Linguist Phon. 2002;16(4):233-50.
|Issue||Vol 26 No 1 (2017)|
|Argument structure critical period hypothesis deaf language acquisition|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|