Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T22:25:39.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Karen Emmorey ,
Ursula Bellugi ,
Angela Friederici  and
Petra Horn
Karen Emmorey*
Affiliation:
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Ursula Bellugi
Affiliation:
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Angela Friederici
Affiliation:
Institute for Psychology, Free Institute Berlin
Petra Horn
Affiliation:
Utah State University
*
Karen Emmorey, Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92073 e-mail: emmorey@sc2.sa1k.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

American Sign Language (ASL) provides a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of late exposure to a primary language on adult linguistic processing. In Experiment 1, a video sign-monitoring task was used to investigate the grammatical sensitivity of 11 native signers (exposed to ASL from birth) and 10 late signers (exposed to ASL at a mean age of 12 years) to errors in ASL verb agreement. The results indicated that native signers, but not late signers, were sensitive to errors in verb agreement. Experiment 2 utilized both sign monitoring and off-line grammaticality judgments. Sentences which contained errors in either verb agreement or temporal aspect were presented to 10 native signers, 10 early signers (exposed to ASL between the ages of 2 and 7), and 10 late signers (exposed to ASL between the ages of 10 and 20). The results indicated that native signers were sensitive to errors in both verb agreement and aspect, and that early and late signers were only sensitive to errors in aspect morphology. In the off-line grammaticality test, all three groups were equally able consciously to detect the grammatical errors. These findings suggest that late exposure to a primary language affects the on-line integration of verb agreement information within a sentence, but does not affect sensitivity to semantic distinctions encoded by aspect morphology.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bellugi, U. (1988). The acquisition of a spatial language. In Kessel, F. (Ed.), The development of language and language researchers: Essays in honor of Roger Brown (pp. 153–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, S., (1986). Etiological trends, characteristics, and distributions. In Schildroth, A. & Karchmer, M. (Eds.), Deaf children in America. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language Statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corina, D., & Sagey, E. (1990). Are phonological hierarchies universal? Evidence from American Sign Language. In de Jong, K. & No, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings from Escol 6, 1989 (pp. 73–83). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day “wild child.” New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1988). The case of Chelsea: A new test case of the critical period for language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Linguistics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. (1991). Repetition priming with aspect and agreement morphology in American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(5), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. (1993). Processing a dynamic visual-spatial language: Psycholinguistic studies of American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 153–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 1227–1252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1992, 01). Differential sensitivity to classifier morphology in ASL signers. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Norman, F., & O'Grady, L. (1991). The activation of spatial antecedents from overt pronouns in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(3), 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A., Wessels, J., Emmorey, K., & Bellugi, U. (1992). Sensitivity to inflectional morphology in aphasia: A real-time processing perspective. Brain and Language, 43(4), 747–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvan, D. (1989). A sensitive period for the acquisition of complex morphology: Evidence from American Sign Language. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development No. 28. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1981). Sign and word recognition: A first comparison. Sign Language Studies, 32, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Gallaudet Research Institute Working Paper No. 89–3. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1969). On explaining language. Science, 164, 635–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucas, C. (1990). The sociolinguistics of the deaf community. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Brown, C., & Tyler, L. K. (1988). Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition. 8, 1–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1981). Central processes in speech understanding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London [B], 295, 317–332.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. (1995). Mental phonology and language comprehension or, What does that sign mistake mean? In Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J. (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 355–370). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R.& 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, 486–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, R., & Fischer, S. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to sentence meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory and Cognition, 17, 740–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. (1991). Whence the specialization of the language hemisphere? In Mattingly, I. G. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception (pp. 269–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Dell, G. (1978). The phonological nature of phoneme monitoring: A critique of some ambiguity studies. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. (1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E., 1991). Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays in biology and cognition (pp. 111–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newport, E., & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 881–938). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newport, E., & Supalla, T. (1990). A possible critical period effect in the acquisition of a first language. Unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Padden, C. ([1983]1989). Interaction of morphology and syntax in ASL. Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Series 4. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Padden, C. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Lucas, C. (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp. 118–132). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 407–442.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, J., & Delk, M. (1974). The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Siple, P. (1978). Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic.Google Scholar