Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T11:28:34.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defense of the syntactic deficit hypothesis: A reply to Goodluck

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Cecile L. Stein ,
Edgar B. Zurif  and
Helen S. Cairns
Cecile L. Stein*
Affiliation:
Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York
Edgar B. Zurif
Affiliation:
Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York
Helen S. Cairns
Affiliation:
Queens College and Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York
*
Cecile L. Stein, 140 East Hartsdale Avenue, Hartsdale, New York 10530
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the outset we wish to thank the editors of Applied Psycholinguistics for inviting us to reply to Goodluck's criticisms of our paper, “Sentence Comprehension Limitations Related to Syntactic Deficits in Reading Disabled Children” (Vol. 5, No. 4). Our response can be summarized in two points: First, the theoretical questions raised by Goodluck are largely unresolved and premature. Second, and most important, is the point that however the theoretical issues are ultimately resolved, one of the basic conclusions of the Stein, Cairns, and Zurif article remains unassailed – viz., that the interpretation of temporal complement constructions in English reveals a deficit in the grammatical System of some reading disabled children. This note will bear an organization analogous to that of Goodluck.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 191 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Goodluck, H. Linguistic principles in children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, 1978. (Distributed by the Graduate Student Linguistics Association.)Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. Children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., & Tavakolian, S.Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition, 1982, 11(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodluck, H. Deficits in sentence comprehension: Are they syntactic? (preceding paper).Google Scholar
Hsu, J. The development of structural principles related to complement sentence interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, 1981.Google Scholar
Hsu, J., Cairns, H., & Fiengo, R. The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition, in press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R.On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 1983, 14, 421–46.Google Scholar
Solan, L. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Tavakolian, S. (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Stein, C., Cairns, H., & Zurif, E.Sentence comprehension limitations related to syntactic deficits in reading disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1984, 5(4), 305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar