UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of syntactic errors in the language of hearing impaired students 1980

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1981_A8 P94.pdf
UBC_1981_A8 P94.pdf [ 5.94MB ]
UBC_1981_A8 P94.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054428.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054428+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054428.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054428+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054428+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054428+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0054428.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF SYNTACTIC ERRORS IN THE LANGUAGE OF HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS by KENNETH ARTHUR PUDLAS B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1975 Dip. Ed. Deaf, University of British Columbia, 197 6 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS ^ in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH. COLUMBIA October 198 0 (c^ Kenneth Arthur Pudlas, 1980 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements fo an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Special Education The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date /QfrV- If- f i - ABSTRACT This study examined student responses to thos items from the Test of Syntactic Abilities- (TSA) which assess, complementation. The students who formed the sample had hearing threshold levels (HTLl of 90 dB or greater in the better ear. They ranged in age from 8 to 19 years. Students ' responses were analyzed in terms of syntactic errors rather than correct responses The primary pur pose of this study w~as to determine if the students' responses indicated any consistent syntactic deviancles. The results proved inconclusive. Limitations and implications of this research are discussed. - i i i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa ge Abstract i i List of Tables iv List of Figures v Acknowledgements , vi CHAPTER ONE - Introduction. , I The Problem 8 Definition of Terms 9 CHAPTER TWO - Review of Literature , 14 Early Language Teaching 14 Current Language Teaching , 19 Early Language Research 20 Contemporary Linguistic Theory and Research.... 23 CHAPTER THREE - The Test Instrument 31 Development of the T.S.A..,, 31 Syntactic Errors 33 Complementation . 36 Data Preparation , . . , 39 Assignment of Error Types , 39. Data Collection 46 Test Format , 49 CHAPTER FOUR - Method. 5 2 Subjects..,.,,.,,, , .• 5 2 Instrument , 55 Data Analysis 57 CHAPTER FIVE ^Results 61 Summary 68 CHAPTER S~IX - Summary and Conclusions , . 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 78 APPENDIX A , 83 APPENDIX £...., , , . 87 APPENDIX C - -TSA Revised Screens 90 - iv - LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Syntactic Structures Assessed by the Test of Syntactic Ability (TSA) 7 2 Examples of Distinct Syntactic Structures Observed in the Language of Deaf Students . 12 3 Revised Version Screen Distractors and Parallel TSA Distractors 40 4 Error Types Identified for Analysis...... . 47 5 Frequency Distribution of Screen Items by Error type 58 6 Percentage Scores and Chi-Squares for Triads in Error Class 1 64 7 Percentage Scores and Chi-Squares for Triads in Error Class II 66 8 Percentage Scores and Chi-Squares for Triads in Error Class III 68 9 Preliminary Error Analysis Summary Table for Error Classes I, II, III 86 ^ V -5- LIST OF FIGURES Figure. Page 1 A Model of the Levels of a Trans-* formational Grammar , 5 - vi - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS' Throughout this project I was able to call on the advise and support of my advisor, Dr. Perry Leslie. His~ willingness to s-hare of his expertise and time is gratefully acknowledged, Special thanks also to Dr, Gary Nix and Dr. Todd Rogers for their advise and help throughout. A note of thanks is also due to Dr, Bryan Clarke for his- constant efforts to cultivate cognitive growth in his- students . The final thanks is due my wifef Mary"Lynn, who typed the many drafts of this thesis. For your constant support and encouragement - thank, you. - I - CHAPTER ONE Introduction Background of the Problem While there is apparent disagreement in many areas concerning the deaf, ranging from disagreement concerning terminology (Harris, 19.71, p. ix) to disagree- ment regarding the efficacy of various communication methods CMoores, 1978), there can be no disagreement regarding the importance of language as a fundamental tool to facilitate learning. S.R. Silverman (1971) makes reference to the various controversies surround- ing the education of deaf students and states, "But one point on which we have reached almost universal agreement is that language is the keystone upon which successful education of the deaf ultimately rests." (P. vli)~ . Harris (1971)_ concurs, stating that, "The language element must be given priority over any other in the training of the deaf child, especially the young deaf child." (p. 17), Strang, Kretschmer, and Kretschmer (197 8) acknowledge that the education of the hearing impaired child involves considerably more than language instruction, but they perceive, "...the central mission of any educational program for children who cannot hear to be the establishment of language and communication." (p . vii) . " Early Language: Teaching The language of deaf children has long been a concern of educators. Schmitt (1966) gives an histor- ical perspective of language instruction for the deaf from before the 16th century to the mid 19 60's. The history reviews several major changes in instruction - 2 - of and in attitudes toward the deaf, beginning with Jerome Cardin, a sixteenth century Italian mathemati- cian and physician who theorized that the deaf could be taught to hear by reading, to speak by writing, and to understand abstract ideas through signs. Schmltt succlntly summarizes his historical overview with the conclusion that, "The history of language instruction for the deaf proves to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature." (p, 94). Early Language Research This evolution has also manifested itself in research into language development in and language acquisition by the deaf.. Much of the early language research is summarized by Cooper and Rosenstein (1966). These authors propose that language studies may be tentatively placed within a two dimensional framework consisting of four cells: data collection by either CI) free sample or (2) controlled method, and subj ected to either (a) linguistic or Cb) non—linguistic analyses (p. 60}. They further suggest that, in terms of the above proposed framework, nearly all the studies of deaf children's language published to date [1966] have been essentially non-linguistic. That is, that studies have reported such detaiIs as the average sentence length or the number of certain types of words used but have failed to describe the grammar of the language studied. They further note that, "Another difference Jfrom studies of hearing children's language] appears to be the greater attention placed upon conventional achievement tests as indicators of language development. The bulk of the studies of deaf children's language which have relied upon other sources than free language samples, have been based on achievement test scores," (~p, 61)1. - 3 - Studies summarized by Cooper and Rosenstein (1966) have reported deaf children to be retarded in their development (Goetzlnger and Rousey, 1959; Myklebust, 1960; Pintner and Paterson, 1916; Pugh, 1946). In addition to these achievement test analyses, written language sample analyses have shown deaf children to use shorter and simpler sentences, to display a somewhat different distribution of the parts of speech, to write more rigidly and in a stereotyped fashion, and to exhibit numerous errors or departures from standard English usage (Heider and Heider, 1940; Myklebust, 1960; Simmons, 1962; Templin, 1952). These.results reported in early investigations are of limited usefulness, however, because as with non- linguistic studies in general, the data have not been related in any useful or meaningful way to what deaf children know about language (Cooper and Rosenstein, 1966, p. 66). The last two decades have seen a change in perspective, largely because of the work of Chomsky (1957, 1965) who made an important distinction between a child's linguistic performance and his/her linguistic competence. Contemporary Language Research According to McNeill (1966), evidence is accumulating that children have a general capacity to acquire syntax; that is, an inborn ability to develop a complex and rich grammar exists in deaf and hearing children alike. The changed perspective offered by Chomsky (1957, 1965) was in the distinction between the child's implicit knowledge of syntactic rules, his linguistic competence, and the child's productions of language, his linguistic performance. The difficulty - 4 - for deaf children lies in the fact that although they have a general capacity to acquire syntax (McNeill, 1966), they must attempt to test and retest their gram- matical hypotheses to develop these grammatical rules based on limited input information, due to their aud- itory deficiency. Limitations of previous studies The previously mentioned achievement tests did not assess the linguistic competence of the deaf children studied. The observed deviations on these tests were not necessarily related to the underlying rules of English or to a grammar of the deaf children's language. Methods used in more recent language studies based on transformational generative grammar (Chomsky, 1957, 1965) have begun to yield more relevant information. Transformational generative grammar In his theory of generative grammar, Chomsky (1957, 1965) proposed that an infinite number of sentences of varying degrees of complexity can be generated once a child has derived the structural regularities of his native language. Figure 1, adapted from Russel , Quigley, and Power (1976) presents a model of the levels of a transformational grammar. It is suggested (Menyuk, 1969) that "normal- speaking" children expand the rules of their grammar, observe more contextual constraints and, in some instances, reorganize rules to achieve greater defin- ition and economy as their memory capacity and their linguistic experiences increase (p. 142). The deaf child, however, by virtue of his/her hearing deficit, is limited in obtaining, through normal auditory reception sufficient linguistic experiences on which to base his/her hypothesis regarding grammatical rule generation. - 5 - Phrase Structure Rules Lexicon Semantic [Deep/. Structure^- ^| Meaning Rules Transformationa1 Rules i Morphological and \Surface Structure] >{Production] Phonological Rules Figure 1. A model of the levels of a transformational grammar (Adapted from Russel , Quigley, and Pov/er, 1976 , p . 22) . - 6 - As a result, this internalized set of grammatical rules or transforms is thought to Be less well developed in deaf students . This deficiency in language competence is postulated to be the root of their poor linguistic performance (Quigley, Smith, and Wilbur, 1974) . Recent Linguistic Research with the Deaf The work of lingulsts in the last two decades have included some impressive descriptions of the consti- tuents of language (Streng, Kretschmer, and Kretschmer, 19^78). From these contemporary descriptions linguists have Identified four components of language: (1) the morphophonemic or sound component? L2) the syntactic or grammatical component; (3) the semantic or meaning component; and (4) the pragmatic or communicative com- ponent (Dale, 19.76). The syntactic component of deaf children's language has been the primary focus of recent linguistic research, Much of this research was conducted through the Institute for Child Behavior and Development at the University of Illinois by Quigley and his associates (Power and Quigley, 197 3; Quigley, Smith, and Wilbur, 1974; Quigley, Wilbur, and Montanelli, 19.76; Russel , Quigley, and Power, 19.7 6; Wilbur, Montanelli , and Quigley, 1976; Quigley, Power, and Steinkamp, 19.77; Steinkamp and Quigley, 1977; Quigley, Steinkamp, Power, and Jones, 19.7 8. As a result of this research, Quigley et al. C19178) developed the Test of Syntactic Abilities (TSA)_ . The TSA is made up of twenty subtests each containing seventy multiple choice items designed to assess the competence of subjects on various syntactic structures, Table 1 gives an outline, of the syntactic structures which are tested by the TSA. - 7 - Table 1 Syntactic Structures Assessed by the Test of Syntactic Abilities (TSA) (Quigley et al. , 1978) 1. Negation Conjunction 2. Conjunction 3. Dis junction and Alternation 4. Determiners Question Formation 5. wh. - words 6. Answer Environments 7. Yes/No Questions Verb Processes 8. Verb Sequences in Conjoined Structures 9. Main Verbs, Linking Verbs, and Auxiliaries 10. Passive Voice Pronominalization 11. Possessive Adjectives 12. Reflectives 13. Possessive Pronouns 14. Forward and Backward Pronominalization Re lativization 15. Comprehension 16. Relative Pronouns and Adverbs 17. Embedding Complement ation 18. That—Complements 19. Infinitives and Gerunds 20 . Nominalization - 8 - The TSA, while providing valuable information, takes up to ten hours to administer, Thus the authors decided to produce two parallel screening tests, known as T.S.A. Screens One and Two, each containing 120 of the psychometrically best items from the TSA. Use of the TSA in British Columbia Screens One and Two and the TSA Diagnostic Battery have been used to gather data on the syntax of students in British Columbia who have varying degrees of hearing loss. These data have then been analyzed in terms of a number of demographic characteristics common- ly held to be related to linguistic development (Anderson, 1979.; Clarke, Leslie, Rogers, Booth, and Horvath, 1977; Clarke and Rogers, 1980; Clarke, Rogers, and Booth, 1979; Rogers, Leslie, Clarke, Booth, and Horvath, 19.79.)_. Thus there is a growing body of knowledge regarding the syntax of deaf students as measured by their responses to items' on the TSA and TSA Screens. As yet, however, l i t t l e has been reported regarding the nature of syntactic errors and possible consistency of error patterns of deaf students as revealed by the TSA or TSA Screen. The: Problem The purpose of this research was to examine the nature and possible consis tency of syntactic errors in the language: of deaf students , It was decided, for reasons which will be detailed in Chapter 3, to use only the items assessing the syntactic structure of comple- mentation from Screens One and Two. Thus the. study was at the. same time a feasibility studg, testing the efficacy of the Screen as a research, instrument for error - 9 - diagnoses in a relatively large sample. Initially it was considered that the data base would allow analysis of students' Incorrect responses to TSA Screen items across age groups. As outlined in Appendix A, however, a preliminary analysis of the data revealed several procedural difficulties. Thus the main research guestion became: do students respond to distractors in TSA Screen com- plementation items according to any discernable pattern or are their responses randomly distributed between the three distractors on each test item? Definition of Terms The subjects and test instrument are described in subsequent chapters. For the sake of clarity the following definitions are provided: Complements ~* are embedded sentences which function as noun phrases. deaf - when referring specifically to students in this study the term describes students wii^h hearing threshold levels (HID) of 9..Q. decibels CdB) obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean of the pure tone thres- holds in the better ear at frequencies of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hertz (H } using Amer- lean National Standards Institute CANS!) crl teria — when used in the literature, the term usually refers to students who are unable to understand speech through the ear alone. dlstractor those items included in the multi- ple choice test which are alternatives to the correct choice in each item, hearing impaired — a generic term encompassing all degrees of hearing loss, including the conditions known as hard of hearing and deaf. - 10 - syntax - the study of rules which determine order and grouping of words into sentences. syntactic deviancies - the literature purports that deaf children make syntactic errors which are unique to deaf students. Hy potheses From the review of the literature and previous research and from the preliminary analyses, the following hy potheses were developed: H : Deaf students who make errors will not o select distractors exhibiting a parti- cular syntactic deviancy more frequently than distractors exhibiting other syntac- tic deviancies on TSA Screen comple- mentation items. (H :X . = 3 3.3%) o x H ̂ : Deaf students who make errors will choose distractors exhibiting certain syntactic deviancies more frequently than others. (H : ~X± T7 33.3%) Rationale The literature reports the existence of deviant syntactic patterns or deviant rules of grammar that is, rules which differ from standard English, in the language of hearing and deaf children (Menyuk, 1969; Myklebust, 1964; Quigley, Steinkamp, Power, and Jones, 1978; Russel, Quigley, and Power, 1976; Taylor, 1969) . Menyuk (_19L69.)_ points out that descriptions of the language of children whose language does not conform to standard English can define in a detailed manner the ways in which their linguistic behavior deviates from the norm. ^ 11 - Myklebust (1964) emphas izes that we. need to know not only that the deaf may he Inferior in language, but whether- their errors show characteristic patterns, in order to develop the most effective remedial procedures. The TSA provides information beyond simply which aspects of syntax a child finds most difficult CQuigley et al., 1978) it yields information on specific deviances appearing in his language (p. 15). Table 2, taken from CQuigley et al,, 1978) shows some of the distinct deviant syntactic structures which were found to occur frequently in deaf students' responses to the TSA and in their written language CQuigley et al., 1976), Given the importance of knowing specific deviances in order to develop effective remediation procedures and given the relative ease of administration of the TSA Screens, it was decided to examine the efficacy of using the TSA Screens as an instrument to examine syntactic deviances in the language of deaf students. Complementation was chosen as the syntactic structure for study for several reasons: (.11 Previous studies CQuigley, Power, and Steinkamp, 1917 7; Rogers and Clarke, in press), had shown complementation items on the TSA to be sufficiently difficult so as to be maximally discriminating, thus providing sufficient errors for analysis; (2) complementation items occur- ed frequently (_36 items) so as to provide enough, items for analysis; (3) complementation was one of the more difficult syntactic structures which, appeared frequent- ly in students'" reading material. - 12 - Tattle 2 Examples- of Distinct Syntactic Structures Observed in the Language of Deaf Students ('Quigley et al,, 1978, p. 16) Structural env ironment Description of Structure Example sentences Verb system -Verb deletion -Be or have dele~^ tion -Bejhave confusion -Incorrect pairing of auxiliary with verb markers -By deletion (passive voice) The cat under the table. John sick. The girl a ball Jim have sick. Tom has pushing the wagon. The boy was pushed the girl Negation Conjunction -Negative outside the sentence -Marking only first verb -Conjunction dele- tion Beth threw the ball and Jean catch it. Joe bought ate the apple. Complementa- tion —Extra for -Extra to in POSS- ing complement —Incorrectly inflect- ed infinitive —Unmarked infini- tive without to For to play baseball is fun. John goes to fishing. Bill liked to played baseball. Jim wanted go. Relativlzation —NP's where whose is reguired —Copying of referent I helped the boy's mother was sick. John saw the boy who the boy kicked the ball. Question formation -Copy ing -Fai lure to apply s u bj ect-nauxil ia r y invers ion -Incorrect inversion Who a boy gave you a ball? Who the baby did love? Who TV watched? - 13 - Table 2 (continued) Structural environment Description of Structure Example sentences Question formation, Negation Relativization Conjunction -Overgeneralization of contraction rule •Object-object deletion I amn't tired willn ' t go. Bill John chased the girl and he scared. (John chased the girl. He scared the girl.) All types of sentences -Object-subject deletion -Forced subject- verb—object pattern The dog chased the girl had on a red dress. (The dog chased the girl. The girl had on a red dress.) The boy pushed the girl. (The boy was pushed by the girl .) — 14 - CHAPTER TWO Review of Literature The purpose of the literature review is to help further define the problem and to provide an empir- ical basis for the development of the hypotheses (Tuckman, 1972, p. 313). This chapter will attempt to f u l f i l l this purpose by first providing some historical background and then tracing recent linguistic research up to the development, by Quigley and his associates (1978), of the Test of Syntactic Abilities CT.S.A.) which is the instrument which was used to gather the data for this study. This study is primarily concerned with syntac- tic errors as one aspect of research into deaf children ' s language. Thus an historical review of language teach- ing for the deaf and of research into the language of the deaf will serve to illustrate the evolution of these two areas to their present state. Early Language Teaching Language Teaching in Europe Education of the deaf in North America has naturally been strongly influenced by the much older European traditions. In Europe, an important advance in attitude toward the deaf occurred in the sixteenth century in Italy when Jerome Cardin CI501—1576) theorized that the deaf could be taught to hear by reading, to speak by writing and to understand abstract ideas through signs (Moores, 1978), This was a radical change from the. attitude exemplified by the early Greeks who 15 - considered language as intuitive rather than learned and thus- thought the deaf Incapable of speech, language or reason ([Schmitt, 19.66), The theories of Cardin were first put into practice by Ponce de Leon ([Spain, 1520- 1584) who began by associating objects with, written words and later taught speech thxough articulation of written words and ultimately advanced to teaching aca- demic subjects ('Schmitt, 1966) , A major advancement in the seventeenth century was the interest of a number of educated professional people in teaching language to the deaf. These included Juan Pablo Bonet ([Spain; 1579-1620) , John Wallls ([England; 1616-1703), and George Dalgarno (England; 1626-1687). Bonet began by teaching finger spelling and moved to articulation of sounds, syllables, and words to reading and writing. He emphasized logical and sequential development of grammar but also stressed connected or more natural language activities (Schmitt, 19.66). Both Wallls and Dalgarno used fingerspelling or manual alphabet and writing in their Instruction, but Wallls' method was more, grammatical and structured where- as Dalgarno favored a more natural approach. Accord- ing to Dalgarno, the deaf child's mother was to build a receptive vocabulary through constant use of finger- spelling , and formal grammar was deferred until connect- ed language was well established (Schmitt, 19.66). Language instruction in the eighteenth century was- dominated by the grammatical approach, Among the more proninent figures of the time were John Amman ([Holland; 1669—17 24), Amman began by teaching l i s t s of nouns and other parts of speech. Keinicke, one of the chief proponents of the German "oral" method, advocated speech and speech reading for expressive and receptive language but s t i l l retained a formal analytical 16 - approach, to language development. The two Englishmen, Braidwood and Baker also reportedly used more formal grammatical techniques, although they tried to keep their methods secret (Schmitt, 19661, According to Bender (1960} the most prominent figure of the eighteenth century was the Abbe de l"Epee who lived in France from 1712 to 1789. L'Epee's contri- bution to language Instruction was the development of a system of signs, including signs for all grammatical components of the French language. These signs, complete with inflections, articles and tenses were signed in proper word order so as to approximate proper French syntax. The recognition of syntax as a essential aspect in language instruction was clearly an important step. The work, of the Abbe de 1'Epee was expanded upon by Abbe Sicard (1742—1822) who developed a theory of ciphers, a language teaching device consisting of five numbered columns: 1. Nominative 2. Verb 3. Objective 4. Prep. 5. Object of Case Case Pr epos it ion Sicard's students constructed sentences by f i l l i n g in the appropriate parts of the framework CSchmitt, 19.66) . While the grammatical approach was the most common in the eighteenth, century, there were a few educators experimenting with a more natural approach (_Moores, 19.78); (Schmitt, 19.66). Some of these educators included: Arnoldl, who, in Germany began with students aged four or five and used pictures to Instill and e l i c i t language, and; Pereire in France who used oral and natural manual communi- cation to develop useful connected language In his pupils, and took. care, to express thoughts in a variety of ways including the use of Idioms or natural expressions. The nineteenth century saw the continuation of a controversy between the French "manuallsts" and the German "oralists", with the oral approach, becoming the - 17 - predominant method in Europe in the latter half of the century. This century also saw education extended to deaf children of all social and economic levels. Increasingly during the nineteenth century, supporters of a more natural language teaching method voiced their disagreement with the formal grammatical approach to instruction. Among the dissenters were Joseph Watson ('England; 1765—1829.) an ora.li.st, and Guilio Tarra (Italy; 1832-1889) who stated in his writings that a teacher should be acutely aware of grammar but should not " i n f l i c t it on the feeble understanding" of the pupils (Schmitt, 19.66, p. 29.1. Tn the latter half of the century, Friedrlch Moritz Hill ([Germany; 18 0 5-187 4) became the most influential advocate of the natural approach and his "mother's method" attempted to parallel the manner in which, hearing children learn speech and language. Hill suggested that children must be motiva- ted to learn language by seeing its usefulness. Education of the deaf in Europe in the early twentieth century was influenced to a large extent by the recommendations of the International Congress at Milan in 1880. At the Congress, delegates strongly endorsed oral communication and a natural approach to language development and Instruction, Language Teaching in America The education of the deaf in America during the nineteenth century was influenced primarily by Thomas Hopkins- Gallaudet. He was Instrumental in founding the first permanent school for the deaf in the United States in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817, The American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, known today as the American School for the Deaf. Gallaudet i n i t i a l l y went to study teaching methods used by Braidwood in England. Braidwood was unwilling to share his techniques , - 18 - so Gallaudet went to France. He subsequently decided to adopt the French method of signs as developed by the Abbee de l'Epee and Abbe Sicard. Schmitt (1966) reports that because of the paucity of written reports it is difficult to determine the language instruction methods used during the early nineteenth century in America. However, since the communication methods had been influenced by the French, it is likely that language instruction too was so influenced and was thus grammatical and analytic in nature. The development and popular ity of various symbol systems was characteristic of the era. The first such symbol system, developed by Barnard in 1836, consisted of six straight-line and curved-line symbols which were intended to represent word relation- ships that were "substantive, attributive, connective, or showed assertion, influence, or time." (Nelson, 1949) in Schmitt (1966, p. 90). During the mid—nineteenth century in America the grammatical approach dominated language instruction. There were, however, at the same time arguments being presented in favour of a more natural approach. Green— berger (1879) was among the first American educators to adopt a completely natural approach. He advocated that students practise language in realistic situations'. Alexander Graham Bell also adopted a natural approach, using his student*s play activities as a basis for language instruction. Toward the end of the nineteenth century several more symbol systems were developed. Some of these Included, "Storrs' symbols" devised by Richard Storrs of the Hartford School, and the Wing Symbols devised by George Wing of the Minnesota School for the Deaf. - 19 - The beginning of the twentieth century in America saw an emphasis on the development and use of language teaching devices such as the Five Slate System published by Katherine Barry (1899) which gave a visible sentence outline or "skeleton" to which sample language was f i t . Barry ' s system was not too dissimilar from that introduced by Sicard a century earlier. In the 1920's, Croker, Jones and Pratt (1920-1928) introduced their widely used series of language practice books. In 1926, Edith Fitzgerald wrote her book entitled Straight Language for the Deaf which introduced and described yet another sentence pattern guide or "key". Also during the early nineteen hundreds, various schools and programs developed language curriculums and guides for teaching language, Buell (1934, 1954) published her own Outline of Language for Deaf Children, Books I and II, containing language teaching techniques and suggestions. In the mid nine- teen hundreds language books were published by Pugh (1955), Lassman-Rarris (1951, 1963), Streng (1955), and Groht (19.58) who makes a strong case for natural teaching order and method and points out that language is a means to an end and should not be taught in isolation. Current Language: Teaching Current language instruction methods and techniques vary widely, Some methods emphasize a more structured formal approach while others place emphasis on more natural approaches, (Schmitt, 1966). Certainly no method has been totally successful as is evidenced by the. generally poor language performance of deaf - 20 - students on a variety of test instruments, Clearly, however, Schmitt (1966) is accurate in suggesting that, "The history of language instruction for the deaf proves to he evolutionary rather than revolutionary." (p. 94). Early Language Research This evolutionary process is also evident in the research into the language of the deaf. The first half of this century saw very l i t t l e research on lang- uage published in the professional literature. In the past several decades, however, there has been a resur- gence of interest in studies of language in general and especially into deaf children's' language. The evolution which occurred saw a change from essentially non—linguist- tic studies to the present linguistic focus on syntax and even more recent research into the semantic and pragmatic components. Cooper and Rosenstein (19.66)_ summarized, up to the mid '60's, studies of deaf children's language. Much of the early research was, as pointed out in Chapter One, non—linguistic in nature. That is, the data gathered were not related to an underlying sysrtem. Not surprisingly, the studies found that language achieve- ment of deaf students was retarded in relation to the language a,chievement of hearing students. Pintner and Pater son C1916) in one of the earlier studies reported that the average scores of 18 year old deaf subjects on a test of reading comprehension were lower than the score of the average, eight year old hearing subject. Pugh (19A6), Goetzinger and Rousey (1959) , and Mykle^- bust (1960) report low scores on standardized reading, paragraph meaning, and vocabulary tests. 21 ~ In addition to these reported results, Cooper and Rosenstein (1966) outline some of the studies reporting data obtained from language samples which examined aspects of productivity, complexity, flexi- bility, distribution of the parts of speech, and correctness. Studies by Heider and Heider (1940), Templin (1950) , Myklebust (I960) , and Simmons (1962) all found that average sentence length in compositions written by deaf subjects was less than hearing subjects of the same chronological age, but the total number of words written did not distinguish: between deaf and hearing groups. Studies of complexity, primarily by Heider and Heider (1940) found deaf subjects used a larger proportion of simple sentences, as opposed to complex and compound sentences, than did hearing subjects. On measures of complexity, the scores of deaf seventeen year old subjects were equated with scores of ten year old hear ing subjects. • These same researchers CHeider and Heider, 19401 as well as Myklebust (1960) and Simmons (1962) reported that the written language of the deaf showed a relatively rigid style. Language samples contained stereotyped or fixed phrases which could be learned and repeated as units, and Simmons found l i t t l e varia- tion in syntactic patterning. Studies reporting the distribution of the parts of speech in compositions hy deaf and hearing subjects reported that the deaf subjects used more nouns, determiners, or articles, and simpler verbs than did hearing subjects. The hearing subjects also used more adverbs. Early Reports of Deviant Language In analyses of correctness, several early - 22 - investigators reported deviations from standard English in written compositions by deaf students. Fusfeld (1955) noted misuse of the definite article, incorrect use of verb forms, substitution of incorrect words, lack of subject-verb agreement, and improper sequences of words. One of the most characteristic errors observed by Simmons (1962) was the use of extrinsic words in the written compositions of the deaf. One of the earliest reported studies of errors found in deaf children's written compositions was by Thompson (1936). Thompson counted the number of errors per 1000 words in the four categories of: (1) syntax and case, (2) clauses, (3) words and vocab- ulary, and (4) punctuation. Thompson reported that almost half the errors fell into category (3) and within that category most errors were either of ommission of necessary words, the use of wrong words or the addition of unnecessary words. The largest group of errors he reported involved omissions. His results, although interesting, must be interpreted with caution, however, since Thompson failed to adequately describe the basis on which errors were assigned to each classification. Myklebust (i960) used similar categories to those of Thompson in computing the percentage of deaf and hearing subjects who made errors involving: addition, omission of essential words, substitution, and word order. The error found to be committed with, the greatest frequency across all ages was the error of omission. Like Thompson's study, Myklebust's is flawed by the lack of operational definition of category parameters. He does, however, give examples of each error type. An example of an [is] omission error would be, "A boy playing." ([Myklebust, 1964, p. 2916). 23 - Limitations of Previous Research Cooper and Rosenstein (_1966) in their summary of research into language of deaf children and adults point to several limitations of that research. They point out that these early studies have not been directed to the issue of what language rules are known implicitly by the child, but have merely described deaf children's productions and comprehension of written language. These language rules are important in that it is to the extent that the deaf child's language rules deviate from standard English that his/her productions will also deviate from standard or acceptable English. These language rules may not be consciously applied, but the ability to implicitly apply them to produce and understand sentences is what determines a person's linguistic competence. Contemporary Linguistic Theory and Research Chomsky (1957, 1965) is credited with delineat- ing the important difference between linguistic competence and linguistic performance, His work is primarily responsible for the renewed interest in the field of linguistics in the past several decades. It has been stated, in fact, that his enunciation of a theory of language description known as transformational gener- ative, grammar revolutionized the study of the relation- ship between Man and his language ('Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1978, p. 9). It is perhaps more apt to state that Chomsky's contribution has proven to be a revolutionary step in the long evolution of language research, since Chomsky's theories were based in part - 24 - on the work of earlier philosophers, psychologists, and linguists (Lyons, 1970). In light of Chomsky's theory of generative transformational grammar and his distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic performance, the deficiencies of earlier non—linguistic language studies become apparent. Reports of deaf children's poor performance as measured on certain atomistic features have done l i t t l e to improve the efficacy of language Instruction techniques as evidenced by the fact that these poor performance scores have not improved appreciably over time. As further background to the present study, an outline of recent linguistic theory is in order. As was suggested in Chapter One, language can be described as consisting of four dimensions, including: pragmatics, semantics, syntax, and phonology (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1978; Streng, Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1978) . Pragmatics concerns the role of context or communicative intent in the production and comprehension of sentences. That is, language is used to communicate a message, and the communicative Intent will shape syntax, semantics, and phonology. Five major concepts are con- sidered In discuss ing pragmatics: speech acts, sentence utilization, presupposition, informational organization , and conversational constraints (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1917 8) . Semantics or meaning is said to exist on at least two levels in language: sentences are meaningful, and; words are meaningful (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1978). Semantic intent determines which language forms or syntactic structures are sleeted for a sentence. That is, the choice of which syntactic arrangement to use is governed by the intended meaning the speaker - 2 5 wishes to convey (Streng, Kretschmer, and Kretschmer, 19.78The meaning of each word within the sentence must also be consistent with the intended meaning or message to be conveyed. Phonology, another of the four aspects of language, refers to the actual speech sounds which are produced. Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) indicate that phonology should be considered in light of several Important concepts: phonetic distinctions, phonological distinctions refer to the raw speech sounds and how they are produced; phonological distinctions refer to speech sounds as they are part of the system of language, and; suprasegmental distinctions refer to the rhythm and stress patterns of speech. Knowledge of syntax enables the speaker to arrange sounds and words- Into meaningful strings or sentences (Streng, Kretschmer, and Kretschmer, 1978). Chomsky (19.57 , 19.65) defined syntax as the study of the principles and processes by which, sentences are constructed in particular languages and postulated that there are syntactic rules at the base structure level and at the transformational level. Syntactic theory has changed in recent years, and thus following the example of Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) a distinction will be made here between early syntactic theory and current syntactic theory. Early Syntactic Theory Chomsky (1957) originally postulated a distinction between deep structure and surface structure in language. Phrase structure rules, those rules which, allowed for the generation of basic sentence patterns or kernel sentences, were said to be present in deep structure, Through - 2 6 - application of these phrase structure of rewrite rules, kernel sentences would be produced, Streng (1972) post- ulated the existence of five basic sentence types or kernel sentences. Transformations were considered by Chomsky to be grammatical operations which were used to produce or generate more complex syntactic patterns from the basic kernel sentences. These early assump- tions have been challenged by linguists including Chomsky himself (Francis, 1973). Current Syntactic Theory Current syntactic theory has added a feature — the lexicon insertion rule - to explain the transformation in a sentence from deep structure to surface structure (Chomsky, 1965; Langacker, 1973). The three constructs now postulated by linguistic theory to explain deep structure to surface structure transformation are: base structure, lexicon insertion rule, and transform- ational rule. The base structure of a sentence Is now said to represent the underlying constituents and their ordering for that sentence (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 19.78)_. The entire sentence frame is thought to be encoded at one time within the deep structure. This differs somewhat from earlier theory which proposed that all sentences were derived from kernel sentences. The branching modes (or tree diagrams) and the appli- cation of rewrite rules in current syntactic theory have been altered to allow, for example, a noun phrase (_NP) to be written as a NP + sentence, These changes allow for more complete grammars to be written. Lexical insertion rules are thought to be applied to determine which lexical items are included in a sentence. Once the speaker has decided upon the 27 message he wishes to convey and the appropriate sentence frame or syntax, the range of appropriate words he may use is restricted. Lexical items, or words, have constraints imposed upon them which dictate their use. These constraints as described by Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) include: contextual features, inherent features, strict subcategor- ization features, selectional features, and transformation- al restriction features. The deep structures into which lexical items may be correctly inserted are determined by the above mentioned restrictions. Three primary types of lexical selection errors are mentioned by Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) . These errors are: violations of subcategorization restrictions; violations of selectional restrictions; and violations such as application of a past tense marker to the gramma- tical subject of a sentence. Transformational generative theory as origin- ally proposed by Chomsky (1957) held that complex sentences were generated through transformational oper- ations on kernel sentences. Transformations are s t i l l defined as those steps that the speaker goes through to bring deep structure to the surface, Contemporary syntactic theory, however, confines transformational operations to addition, omission, substitution, and word-border change. These transformations are carried out within three categories: generalized transformations, local transformations, and lexically based transformations (_N. Chomsky, 19.65) . Transformational operations are another potential source of error in sentence production or reception. Reasons for the Study of Syntax Of the four dimensions of language described ^ 2 8 - earlier (pragmatics, semantics, phonology, and syntax) the latter, syntax, is the subject of this study. In investigations of the language of deaf students, many, if not most recent linguistic studies (as opposed to earlier non-linguistic investigations) have been investigations of students' syntactic abilities. Several reasons for the emphasis on the study of syntax may be proposed. The nature of language is such that the basic linguistic unit for receiving and expressing information is the sentence. And, as Chomsky (1957) has stated, syntax is the study of principles and processes by which sentences are constructed in parti- cular languages (p. 11) . Thus by study ing the syntax of deaf students, that is, the manner in which they construct and interpret sentences, it is hoped that current linguistic research will lead to more effective language teaching and consequently more efficient language learning by deaf students. Further reasons for studying deaf children's language in terms of syntax are delineated by Russell, Quigley, and Power (1976) who restricted their research to syntax because, "...research has demonstrated that syntactic structure is an area of great difficulty for deaf students (see, for example, Quigley, Smith and Wilbur, 1974), and the major part of innovative work in transformational grammar has taken place in the area of syntax, and therein lies its major promise for teachers." (p. x i i ) . As Streng, Kretschmer, and Kretschmer (1978) have stated, unless the teachers of deaf children are as well grounded in the fine points of English syntax as delineated by modern transforma- tional and case grammarians, they will be handicapped in - 29 - guiding the establishment of language in their pupils (p. 30) . Types: of Language Samples Much of the language research involving deaf students has been done using written language samples. Written language is chosen for study because it provides a static, relatively unambiguous sample for the researcher (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1978). These written language samples have involved either a specific pencil and paper task or they may have gathered from subj ect—genera ted written samples. Early studies of the written language of deaf children used data which were gathered primarily from freely produced samples of writing. The research and analyses of these data reflected the more classical and structural teaching models which were prevalent at the time, as described earlier. Recently, invest- igators using transformational generative grammar theories (Chomsky, 1957, 1965) , have found that, although freely produced data are useful for descriptive studies, careful manipulation of stimulus and responses can give a clearer insight into the dynamics of language acquisition (Steinkamp and Quigley, 1977) . Focusing on written language samples has an advantage over studying oral language of deaf students. By focusing on written language, researchers preclude the necessity of establishing techniques for differentia- tion between problems of language form or function and those problems related to poor phonology. Summary Thus review of the literature indicates that - 3 0 - research into language of the deaf has evolved from primarlly non-linguistic quantitative studies of atomistic features of deaf children ' s language to current linguistically based grammatical studies using a transformational generative framework to describe the syntax of deaf children as revealed, primarily, in their written language. Due to the evolutionary nature of linguistic theory and language research, it may be wise to heed the caution of Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) who write that, "Syntactic theory should be viewed as an adjunct to semantic and pragmatic descriptions of language." (p, 39). An attempt has been made in the chapter to expand upon the context and background of the present study by providing an historical perspective of language teaching and language research involving deaf students, showing how linguistic research has evolved to its present state. Reasons for the study of syntax and syntactic errors were presented within the framework of current linguistic theory. The next chapter contains a description of the development of the test instrument and a rationale for analyzing syntactic error patterns and for concentrating on complementation Items on the TSA Screen. - 31 - CHAPTER THREE The Test Tnstrument The purpose of this chapter is to describe the development of the test instrument and its contents. In addition a description of complementation errors is provided, Finally, the data gathering procedures and preparations for analysis are described. Development of the Test of Syntactic Abilities (~TSA) Of the recent linguistic studies, the most comprehensive exploration of specific transformational rules: to date has been conducted by Quigley and his associates CKretschmer,and Kretschmer, 1978), Between 1968 and 197 6, Quigley and a number of his associates conducted a program of research on the syntactic structure of the language of deaf children and youth. This research, was influenced mainly by the theory of transformational- generative grammar (Chomsky, 19.57, 19.651 as detailed in the previous chapter. The theoretical formulations, pro- cedures, major findings and conclusions of the research are presented in a final report entitled Syntactic Structures in the Language of Deaf Children CQuigley, Wilbur, Montanellli, Power, and Steinkamp, 1976), In conducting the original research, Quigley and his associates constructed a number of tasks which, were used to e l i c i t spec if ic syntactic structures in a controlled manner. This series of tasks became collectively known as the research version of the Test of Syntactic Abilities (_TSA) . Two basic types of test format were used: sentence—completion tasks and sentence—correction tasks (Steinkamp and Quigley, 197 71. - 3 2 - The research version of the TSA was revised and pilot tested. It was determined statistically that 70 items per subtest would be reguired to obtain r e l i a b i l i t i e s of between .94 and .96. The results of the pilot testing and data analysis produced 19 tests of 70 Items each, with each item containing one correct choice and three distractors. A twentieth test, nominal- ization, was later Included. The TSA is both a domain referenced and a normative test. The domain assessed by the TSA is the syntax of standard English. The 20 individual tests of the diagnostic battery cover nine of the major syn- tactic structures of English: negation, conjunction, determiners, guestion formation, verb processes, pronom- inalization, relativizatlon, complementation, and nomin- alization. Thus the TSA includes most of the structures which occur frequently in standard English and are of importance for its comprehension and production (Quigley et al., 1978, p. 2). The TSA is also normative in that it was standardized under control led conditions with a random stratified sample of the target population which resulted in norms being established on the sample and selected sub—samples for its individual tests. Development of the TSA Screen The TSA - Diagnostic Battery contains 1400 multiple choice items assessing recognition and com- prehension of the nine syntactic structures mentioned above. The total test administration time is about 10 hours. Thus, to provide a relatively quick assess- ment of a student's general knowledge of syntax and provide a profile of his strengths and weaknesses on 3 3 individual structures: the TSA - Screening Test was constructed CQuigley et al., 197 8, p, 5). The Screening Test has two forms which are parallel with respect to content, difficulty, and discriminating power. Each form contains 120 of the psychometrically best items from the Diagnostic Battery, and assesses the same syntactic structures as the Diagnostic Battery. Syntactic Errors As stated earlierf the subject of this study was the syntax of deaf students, More specifically, this study examined the nature and type of syntactic errors made by deaf students as revealed by their choice of distractors in complementation items on the Test of Syntactic Abilities Screen. An attempt will be made here to provide an empirical basis for studying syntactic errors and reasons for choosing complementation as the structure to be studied, C. Chomsky (19 69) points out that ",,.differ- ences in the command of syntactic structures can be revealed most readily by comprehension tests involving selected constructions of a relatively complex nature." Cp. 2) She further states that ".,.the nature of the children '• s mistakes in interpreting these constructions is important in bringing out various aspects of the implicit linguistic knowledge which they do possess." Cp. 21 She points out that children do not fail to under stand them wrongly, Earlier studies of deaf children's written language errors have been reported by various researchers (Jusfeld, 19.55; Myklebust, 19.60; Simmons, 19:62; Thompson, 19.361. As outlined in Chapter Two, however, -~ 34 - these early studies did not relate the errors and deviations to the subjects' linguistic competence . More recent studies have described lexical selection errors and transformational errors, but the bulk of recent linguistic research into syntax of the deaf was done by Quigley and his associates (Kretschmer and Kretschmer, 1378), The research summarized by Quigley, Power, and Steinkamp (1977) had five main questions in regard to syntactic structures In the language of deaf children. These questions concerned: (1) order of difficulty, (2) how well established syntactic rules were, (3). possible developmental stages for syntactic rules, (4) acquisition of possibly distinct syntactic rules, and (5) comparison of understanding of syntactic structure to their rate of occurrance in reading material. The researchers ('Quigley, Power, and Stein- kamp, 1977) found the order of difficulty of the various structures for deaf and hearing was similar but not identical. They report that syntactic structures become better established as age increases, but even the oldest deaf subjects did not have mastery of most of the rules whereas hearing students were reported to have mastered all but the most difficult structures. Another conclu- sion drawn was that syntactic structures develop similar- ly in deaf and hearing children. The research showed that deaf subject's language often had a number of rule- generated structures not found in English. Finally, the authors showed that there was a large gap between the subjects knowledge of specif ic syntactic structures and the appearance of those structures in a widely used reading series. The results of immediate concern to this - 35 - study are those which point to the existence of certain distinct syntactic structures-, the fourth research question addressed by Quigley and his associates. To quote from Quigley, Power and Steinkamp (1977, p. 78), the value in the data, " . . . l i e not in showing there is a large gap between deaf and hearing children, but in showing precisely where the problems are for the deaf children as evidenced by their performances on the specific tests and by the particular deviant (from standard English) structures they use...". The authors had found that, "...the similarities in development within structures and in order of difficulty of structures for deaf and hearing children seem to be greater than the differences, except for the rate of development. An Important except ion to this general rule was the presence in many deaf subjects' language (both in comprehension and production) of certain distinct syntactic structures that rarely or never appeared in the language of the hearing subjects." Cp. 7 9). As outlined in Chapter Two, previous studies of deaf childrens' problems with English have generally described the errors by categorizing them and counting their frequency. These studies, though interesting, provided l i t t l e useful Information as to why the students made these errors. The investigations of deaf students' difficulties with English syntax carried out by Quigley and his associates provide evidence which is more useful in that it provides evidence that deaf students approach language learning in the same manner that hearing students do, that is, by searching for generalizations (Wilbur, 1977). By examining students' syntactic deviances, teachers can perhaps develop teaching strategies which will enable the student to generalize the correct rule - 36 - rather than the deviant one (Russell, Quigley, and Power, 1976) . The present study focused on complementation items on the TSA Screen to examine the poss i b l i t y of consistent syntactic deviancies. A rationale for choosing complementation is presented below. Complementation Complementation is one of the three recursive processes in English, the others being pronominallzation and relativization. Recursiveness is a major feature of all grammars, and it refers to the generation of complex sentences consisting of two or more simple sentences joined into one (Quigley, Wilbur and Montanelli, 19.76) . Complementation processes may be either gerundive, infinitival or clausal. Gerundive complements. Gerundive complements are referred to as POSS—ing complements because they Involve the possessive form such as, "Bryan's smoking irritates me.", which is the complex form of the two simple sentences: "Bryan smokes." and "It irritates me," Thus, because it contains the possessive morpheme C's) and an "ing" ending, this type of complement is referred to as a POSS—ing complement. Infinitival complements. Infinitives are often referred to as "for—to" complements because the complement in its complete form contains these morphemes. For example: My wife wants for me to take out the garbage. The sentence would more usually be written with the "for" deleted. That—compiements. Transformational grammarians refer to clausal complements as "that—complements". This - 37 - is due to the use of the complementizer "that" to join two simple sentences such as "She knows it." and "I love my wife." to form the complex sentence, "She knows that I love my wife." In some instances it is grammati- cally acceptable to delete the "that" from the complex sentence. Complementation transformations according to transformational generative theory are relatively complex. Thus it is likely that deaf students would find this particular syntactic structure relatively difficult to master. Results of various studies have proven this to be the case (Anderson, 1979; Clarke et al., 1979; Quigley et al., 1978). Since this study examines errors in the syntax of deaf children, complementation, which has been shown to be a difficult structure and thus likely to contain sufficient errors to analyse was chosen for study. Other syntactic structures have been shown to be complex and difficult as well. In a summary of their research, Quigley, Power and Steinkamp (1977) report that of the syntactic structures assessed, the more difficult structures were pronominalization (60% correct), the verb system (58% correct), complementa- tion (55% correct), and relativization (54% correct). The authors stated that, "Transformational generative grammar would predict that the recursive processes of relativization and complementation would be difficult for deaf children, partly because of the number of transformations involved and partly because of departure from the subject-verb-object surface order which deaf students tend to impose on sentences." (Quigley, Power and Steinkamp, 19.7 7, p. 77). Complementation was chosen for study over some of the aforementioned structures, which also prove - 38 - difficult for deaf students, because it reportedly appeared more frequently in the reading material. Smith, Dudas and Quigley (reported in Quigley, Wilbur and Montanelli, 1976) analyzed a reading series (McKee et al., 1966) used by deaf and hearing students. The series consisted of eleven texts (including three primers) for grades up to sixth. Complement structures (for-to and POSS-ing) appeared at the rate of four per one hundred sentences in the sixth grade reader. Noun complements or that complements did not appear until the fourth grade reader, but in the fourth through sixth grade reader appeared at least twenty-one times per one hundred sentences. Complementation Errors The existence of some error patterns in complementation has been reported in various studies. Quigley, Wilbur and Montanelli (1976) analyzed data gathered using a research version of the TSA. They examined errors including: for-to complement sentences with an extra "for"; POSS-ing complements with an extra "to"; infinitival complements used in place of gerunds, and; incorrectly inflected infinitives. They found that these error types interracted significantly with age, with students ' scores improving with age. Quigley, Power, and Steinkamp (1977) report a strong tendency for deaf subjects to impose a subject— verb-object pattern on sentences, and a related tend- ency to connect the nearest noun phrase (NP) and verb phrase tVP). Other complement errors, some of which have already been mentioned, include: extra for, extra "to" in POSS-ing complement, infinitive in place of gerund, incorrectly inflected infinitive, unmarked - 3 9 - infinitive without "to" (Quigley et al., 1976b) . Data Preparation Assignment of Error Types As a result of previous research, Quigley et al., (1978) used as distractors in the TSA examples of syntactic deviancies produced by deaf students and deviancies which in previous research deaf students had accepted as being correct. The test authors (Quigley et al., 1978) state that besides revealing which aspects of syntax a child finds most difficult, the TSA yields information on specific deviancies appearing in his language (p. 15). In the TSA Guide to Administration and Interpretation, Quigley et al. (1978) provide diagnostic information concerning the possible types of errors assessed by the various items of the TSA. Since the Screen test items are taken directly from the TSA Diagnostic Battery, the first step in assigning distractors into a syntactic error type was to match the items from the Screen with the corresponding Diagnostic Battery items for which information is provided in the Guide. Table 3 gives a summary of the complementation items on the Screen forms One and Two, the corresponding items from the TSA Diagnostic Battery, and the description of the types of errors as given in the TSA Guide (Quigley et al . , 197 8) . The TSA (commercial version, Quigley et al., 1978) has two subtests assessing complementation. The first tests infinitives and gerunds, the second tests that-complements in both recognition and comprehension questions. Thus each of the 108 (36 items x 3 distractors) - 40 - Table 3 Revised Screen Distractors and Parallel TSA Distractors Class I Errors - Infinitives and Gerunds Screen One Form TSA Diagnostic Battery Item Distractor Item 1 Distractor Error 21 C 38 C -incorrectly inflected infinitive 46 C 55 C -incorrectly inflected infinitive 48 D 23 D -"to" in POSS-ing complement 4 9. C 9 C -incorrectly inflected infinitive 50 A 8 C -"to" in POSS-ing complement 52 A 5 B —incorrectly inflected infinitive 53 D 43 D -"to" in POSS-ing complement 54 B 21 B —incorrectly inflected infinitive Screen Two Form TSA Diagnostic Battery 21 D 66 D -incorrectly inflected infinitive 48 B 2 B -"to" in POSS-ing complement 4 9 A 52 A -incorrectly inflected infinitive 50 D 70 D -"to" in POSS-ing complement 52 D 16 D -incorrectly inflected infinitive 54 D 32 D -incorrectly inflected infinitive - 41 - Table 3 (continuedI Cla,ss II: That Complement Errors ~~ Recognition Screen Form One TSA Diagnostic Battery Ttem Distractor Item Distract or Error 35 38 43 45 51 Screen Form Two :3 5 38 43 45 51 A 35 13 4 14 6 A TSA Diagnostic Battery 2 5 1 7 33 A ^That-deleted subject —That^deleted subject complement Class III That Complement — Comprehension Screen Form TSA Diagnostic One Battery 9 5 50 96 57 98 C 68 C -Surface -reading -order 100 67 105 D 55 D -Surface -reading -order Screen Form TSA Diagnostic Two Battery 95 44 96 41 98 B 43 B -Surface —reading —order 1 00 54 108 D 48 D —Surface —reading -order - 42 - complementation distractors was assigned to an error type In one of three classes corresponding to the type of complementation item being assessed: I infinitives and gerunds II that complements — recognition ITT That complements — comprehension Thus the three groups within which distractors were classified for error analysis in this study are in keeping with the grouping of items on the TSA, As can be seen in Table 3, it was not possible to assign all of the complementation distractors to an error type based on the information provided by Quigley et al . C19.78) in the TSA Guide, The second step in classifying errors, therefore, involved a grammatical analysis of each of the unclassified distractors. Infinitives and gerunds. Within this group of distractors two types of errors were purportedly tested by the TSA (incorrectly Inflected infinitive and "to" + POSS-ing verb), The remainder of distractors in this error class were grouped according to the specific nature of the error. For example, some distrac- tors involved an "ing" deletion (The boys are good at read.) and they were classified together as type five while others involved a "for" Insertion (I ran to the park for to play,I and they were classified to- gether as type six. Thus all errors in error class T were, assigned to a type based on similar ity of surface structure. That complement—recognition. Within this error class all distractors were once again assigned to a type based on similar surface structure. Errors in this- class involved verb agreement, incorrect insertions, deletions, and substitutions. Errors of "that" deletion, type ten, are purportedly assessed by - 43 - the TSA (Quigley et al. , 1978), That complement-comprehension. The error purportedly assessed by the TSA within this class was an imposed surface-reading-order strategy (S-R-O) CQuigley et al., 1978). In making this type of an error, labeled type 13 in the present research, deaf students impose a subject-verb-object CS-V-O) order. That is, in gathering information from a complementized sentence, students tend to connect two noun phrases CNP) with a verb phrase (VP) and assume that they contain the required information. For example in response to "Billy knew the truck smashed the car.", a student might respond with, "Billy knew the truck.". In essence, all errors in class III were of this type or variations of this type. In addition, two dis- tractors did not f i t in any of the six types in class III and were labelled as an "other" category. Surface—reading-order refers to the strategy of l i f t i n g information from the surface structure of a sentence. That is, the student does not transform the surface structure of a complementized sentence back to its base structure component features, but rather relies solely, on the surface structure to derive the meaning of the sentence. Within the Screen items assessing compre- hension of that complements, the S—R—O strategy is assessed by distractors in which the syntactic pattern is subject—verb-object (S-V-O). Thus S-R-O refers to the apparent strategy whereas S—V—O refers to the gramma- tical features of the distractor. Within class III, it is possible to classify distractors into two main groups because of the basic similarity of error types 13, 15 and 16 and of types 14, 17 and 18. The two main groups correspond to type 13 - 44 - (S-R-O) with types 15 and 16 as derivations, and type 14 (order reversal) with types 17 and 18 added as deriva- tions . These two main groups are renamed A (13, 15, 16) and B (14, 17, 18) respectively for the purpose of discussion here. Research has shown that deaf children appear to impose a subject-verb-object CS—V-O) order on sent- ences (Quigley et al., 1976, 1978; Wolff, 1973). Both groups A and B have a S-V—O pattern, the major difference being that group A responses begin with the i n i t i a l noun phrase (NP) from the complement!zed sentence as the subject (S) whereas group B responses begin with the final NP, which is in fact the object CO), resulting in an O—V—S order or, a mirror image of the group A errors. Thus, in the broadest sense all the distractors in the comprehension test items could be considered as assessing a surface-reading-order strategy in that stu- dents respond to one rearranged form of the surface structure of the stimulus sentence. Certainly the high score of type 13 distractors, those measuring S-R-O as specified by Quigley et al. (1978) would seem to support the existence of such a deviant rule in the lang- uage of deaf students. Also, items in which an S-R-O strategy produced a correct answer had a dispropor- tionately high number of correct responses, Several, examples may serve to clarify. The S-R-O items cited by Quigley et al. (1978) in the TSA Guide correspond to Screen One items 98 C and 105 B and Screen Two items 98 B and 105 D. An example from the group would be: Screen One 9.8, The man learned a box fell on the girl. A. The man learned the girl. B. The girl fell on a box. C. The man learned a box, D. A box fell on the girl. - 4 5 - Distractor C in this case was the di s tract or which tested for a S—R—O strategy (Type 13 error) and dis- tractors of this type were chosen more frequently than any other. Several other distractors , however, employ a similar strategy. To make the example more explicit, the surface structure will be reduced to its component deep structure parts. The stimulus sentence Is actually made up, accord- ing to transformational grammar, of: The man learned something. + A box fell on the girl. NP VP NP „ NP NP „. NP . I 1 2 3 2 4 Sl Vl °1 S2 V2 °2 The correct surface structure is made up of: NP + VP 1 + NP.3 + VP 2 + NP 4 or S + V + S + V + O 1 1 2 2 2 In this example distractor A is made up of: The man learned the girl. NP , VP NP I I 4 Sl Vl °2 Thus this distractor does conform to a S-V-0 pattern, albeit the incorrect object. Also it does conform to a type of S-R-O strategy which in this case connects the i n i t i a l NP + VP of the stimulus sentence with the final NP of the stimulus sentence, Distractor A in this item is an example of error type 16. In this particular example, distractor B is classified as a reversal or mirror S—R-0 error (type 14) wherein the final, NP of the complementized sentence, which Is actually the object, becomes the subject of the response. This type of error is similar to the given—new contract CClark and Clark, 1977) as described by Kretschmer and - 4 6" - Kretschmer (1978). In employing such a strategy, the student appears to connect or match the last information in the response choice. That is, in the example above, "the girl" is the final phrase of the stimulus sentence and first phrase in distractor B. Thus, the dis- tractor begins with the "given" information from the stimulus sentence. Table 4 gives a l i s t of the error types within the three classes as they were assigned for the study. It should be noted that the study was primarily concerned with the existence of identifiable patterns of syntactic deviancies. Thus distractors were assigned to an error type based on the similarities of their surface structures. In some distractors the error was a simple omission or substitution while in other distractors the error may have been caused by a more complex transformational error. The groupings by type, however, were based on surface structure similarity, regardless of the complexity of the possible cause of the error. Data Collection The syntactic Abilities S c r e e n i n g Tests were administered by school personnel, most often a trained teacher of the deaf. The administrators were instructed to use the same means of communication in giving in- structions and examples to each student as were normally used in classroom instruction with the student. Thus instructions and examples were variously given using speech, sign language, finger spelling, graphics and gesture in order to ensure that subjects understood what was reguired on the tests. Once the actual testing was begun, however, no assistance was to be provided ('Rogers and Clarke, in press) . - 47 - Table 4 Error Types Identified for Analysis Class I - Infinitives and Gerunds Type *1 . *2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . Description •incorrectly inflected infinitive •"to" + ing verb (sub- stitution) -"to" deletion -infinitive/gerund substitution -"ing" - deletion -"for" - insertion Examples David watched the elephant ate, Tom watched the men worked. David watched the elephant to eating. Tom watched the elephant to eating. The children ran home eat. The teacher told me where sit. Tom watched the men to work. I showed the l i t t l e boy how jumping. The boys are good at read. The man was good at spell. I ran to the park for to play. The girls went for to fish. Class II - That Complement - Recognition Type 7 . 8 . 9 . *10 . 11 , 12 . Description -verb + ing (verb agreement) •for/that sub (for insertion) -to/that substitution (to insertion) •"that" deletion -that/it substitution -so/that substitution Examples John knowing that the lady loved ice-cream. Susan hearing that Jim helped the lady. John knew for the lady. The man said for David won the game. The man said to David won the game John knew to the lady loved ice-cream. The baby was asleep surprised father. That was sad the cows were hungry. So the girl dropped the ball surprised the boy. So the baby was asleep surprised father. - 48 - Table 4 (continued) Class III - That complement - Comprehension Type Description *13. Surface Reading Order 14. Order Reversal (Mirror) 15. NP + (final VP = NP) 16. (NP + VP) - final NP 17. final NP + i n i t i a l 18. (final NP + VP) + i n i t i a l NP 19. Other Examples S. John knew the car hit the policeman. R. John knew the car. S. The teacher learned that Tom chased Sally. R. Sally chased Tom. S. The teacher learned that Tom chased Sally. R. The teacher chased Sally. S. The boy knows that the woman loves children. R. The boy knows children. S. It scared Linda that the dogs hurt the boy. R. The boy scared Linda. S. That Billy was chasing birds surprised Billy. R. Mary surprised Billy. S. It scared Linda that the dogs hurt the boy. R. Linda scared the dogs. [May be: "Linda (is) scared (of) the dogs."] *Indicates error type specified by the T.S.A. (Quigley et al., 197 8) . - 49 - The subjects were tested in March 1978 with eight calendar days between the two testing dates. Test order was counterbalanced within each school district and students were randomly assigned in order to avoid possible order effects. Test Format Since data collection was completed prior to the availability of the commercial edition of the TSA (Quigley et al., 1978), permission was sought from and granted by the test authors to print the test booklets used in the study. The test booklets. Certain changes in the format of the test instrument were made. The booklets were designed in such a manner as to allow answers to be marked in the booklet. Each booklet contained 120 items, each presented in a multiple choice format. Complementation items (n=18 on each Form) were presented as either recognition or comprehension items. Recognition items have three distractors and one correct choice: Example: A David watched the elephant eat. B David watched the elephant to eat. C David watched the elephant ate. D David watched the elephant to eating. 0 S 13 Q Comprehension items also have three distractors and one correct choice, but these are preceded by a stimulus sentence. Example: That the elephant ate the flower surprised Father. A The elephant ate the flower. B The elephant ate father. C Father surprised the elephant. D The flowers surprised Father. A - 5 0 - Recognition items were presented separately from comprehension items. Both, kinds of guestions were preceded by one or more examples and a set of Instruc- tions specific to those kinds of guestions. Example instructions for recognition: You will read groups of sentences. Only one of the sentences Is right. You choose the right sentence. Example 3, You choose one: A Tom finished to eating. B Tom finished eating, C Tom finished to ate. D Tom finished eat. B, is the right sentence: Tom finished eating. In this book are more sentences. Read the sentences carefully. Choose the right sentence. Mark the right answer with an X in your booklet, If you do not know, guess. Example for comprehension; Be careful. These are different kinds of sentences. You decide what the sentences tell us. Example; The boy who talked to Dad rode the black, horse. What does the sentence tell us? You choose one: A Dad rode the black horse. B The boy talked to Dad, C The boy talked to the black horse. D Dad talked to the black horse. Q s m H You mark B with an X B, is the. right sentence: The boy talked to Dad. - 51 - B is marked with, an X like this. 0 Q 0 Summary The linguistic research, carried out by Quigley and his associates led to the development of the TSA. The research, version and subsequent revised versions of the TSA have yielded Information on the syntactic abilities and syntactic deviancies of deaf students. The present study used data gathered using a revised version of the TSA Screen, A description of the syntactic structure which was analyzed in the. present study and a description of the final test instrument as it was used were presented. The sub- sequent chapters will deal with the data analyses and the results of the analyses. - 5 2 - CHAPTER FOUR Me thod The purpose of this chapter is to describe the method followed to examine the research guestion: do deaf students have deviant syntactic rules as evidenced by their consistent choice of certain types of distractors on the TSA Screen? The data used to examine this guestion were part of a previous larger study as reported by Clarke and Rogers (in press) and by Rogers and Clarke (in press) thus, frequent reference will be made to that research. This chapter contains descriptions of the subjects of the study, the test instrument, the data collection, and data preparation procedures. Finally an outline of the data analysis procedures is presented. The results of these analyses are presented in Chapter Five . Subjects The subjects of this study were a subsample of a larger sample which had been identified in the earlier demographic survey of hearing impaired students in British Columbia (Clarke, Leslie, Rogers, Booth, and Horvath, 1977). In March, 197 8, those students who had scored above guess ing level on the 1973 Stanford Achievement Test, Special Edition for hearing Impaired Students (SAT-HI) (reported by Rogers et al., 1978), were tested on the Test of Syntactic Abilities (TSA) Screening Forms One and Two (Rogers and Clarke, in press). - 53 - Students selected for the studies related to syntactic structure were selected according to the following criteria: 1. Average or better academic achievement as indicated by their ability to score above chance level on the age-appro— priate level of the SAT-HI; 2. Age, rounded to the nearest whole number (as of December 31, 191771 between 7 and 19; 3. A hearing loss~ known to have a sensori-neural component; 4. Known to have been fitted with a personal hearing aid, and/or; 5, In need of special educational treat- ment because of hearing impairment. Altogether, 505 students were tested with both forms of the TSA Screening Test (Rogers and Clarke, in press). Of this number, 129 had the following audiometric characteristic: 6. Hearing threshold level (HTL) of 90 decibels (dB) obtained by calcula- ting the arithmetic mean of the pure tone air conduction thresholds in the better ear at frequencies of 5001, 1000, and 2000 Hertz (Hz), using American National Standards Institute (ANSI) cri teria , This group of 129 profoundly deaf s±udents served as the sample for the present study , Students with these characteristics were chosen for study for the following reasons: (1)1 The TSA (Quigley et al., 1978) was i n i t i a l l y standard- ized with a large population of hearing impaired students with the following characteristics: - 54 - 1. Sensori~neural hearing impairment of not less than an average of 90 dB (ISO) in the better ear at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.; 2. Hearing impairment present before the age of two years; 3. I.Q. of at least 80 on the performance scale of the WISC or WAIS, or some comparable test; 4. No apparent disabilities in addition to hearing impairment other than corrected visual defects. Thus students were selected for this study who had characteristics similar to those of the normative sample used by Quigley et al.; (2) A second rationale for choosing the 129 subjects of this study was that previous research ([Clarke and Rogers, in press; Quigley et al., 1978) had shown that syntactic performance decreased as severity of hearing loss increased, and since the purpose of this study was to examine syntactic errors, the students most likely to make errors were chosen for study) (3) Finally, much of the literature regarding syntactic errors made by children with Impaired hearing uses the term deaf (Jones and Quigley, 1979; Quigley, Power, and Steinkamp, 1977; Russel , Quigley, and Power, 19.7 6; Steinkamp and Quigley, 1977; Wilbur, 1977). The term deaf is used to refer to "those whose hearing loss has precluded normal acquisition of language." (Myklebust, 1964, p. 4), Moores (1978) defines a deaf person as "one whose hearing is disabled to an extent (usually 70 dB ISO or greater) that precludes the understanding of speech through the ear alone, without or with the use of a hearing aid." (p. 5), - 5 5 - and he defines the highest level of deafness, level IV, as 90 dB and beyondt Wolff (1973) suggests that in examining the effects of hearing loss on language acquisition, "the best strategy is to consider the extreme or 'pure' case of complete deafness; if we can find a satisfactory solution to this problem this is bound to help us solve the less severe problems." (p. 154) . The students chosen for the study, therefore, were those whose hearing loss was profound, who were most likely to make syntactic errors, and who were similar to the TSA normative sample. The distribution of students by age was: 8-10 (n = 12); 11 - 13 (n = 56); 14 -16 (n = 35); 17+ (n = 26). Instrument The test instrument used in the study was a revised version of the Test of Syntactic Ability (TSA) (Quigley et al., 1978) Screen Forms One and Two. The development of the TSA was described in Chapter Three. The syntactic structures assessed by the Screen include: Negation Conjunction Determiners Question Formation Verb Processes Pronominalization Relativization Compiementation Nominalization The items chosen for the Screen are the most discriminating items from the larger TSA Diagnostic Battery. The Screen items chosen for the present study were those which assess complementation. A rationale for choosing complementation was presented in Chapter Three. It should be noted - 56 - here that the students in the British Columbia sample obtained scores similar to those reported in the earlier study. The scores averaged across both Screen Forms for the B.C. sample as reported by Rogers and Clarke (in press) were: pronominalization 55% correct, the verb system 53% correct, complementation 47.8% correct, and relativization 42.9% correct. Thus complementation items were sufficiently difficult so as to be maximally discriminating. Complementation was chosen over some of the other difficult structures because it appeared more frequently in the common reading materials used with deaf children. An addition- al reason for choosing complementation was the fact that it was one of the structures which appeared with sufficient frequency on the Screens (18 times on each Screen Form) so as to allow analysis. Preparation for Analysis The data from the earlier studies (Clarke and Rogers, in press; Rogers and Clarke, in press) were stored on computer f i l e at the University of British Columbia. The item responses had been coded and key punched and merged with the demographic data (Clarke et al. , 1977). The resulting f i l e for each subject was independently verified by two research assistants. Dis- crepancies were resolved and an error count of less than one percent was obtained. For this study a new f i l e was created containing the data for the 129 students who met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Since the intent of the present research was to examine possible error patterns it was necessary to re—score the items so that percentage scores for error type rather than for the correct option were - 57 - obtained. This re-scoring was accomplished by assigning a score value of one (1) to a distractor if it was of the type being analyzed. All other distractors on that particular analysis were assigned a score value of zero (0). This procedure was repeated for each of the 19 error types for all of the 36 complementation items. The scoring key is presented in Appendix B. The next preparatory step for data analysis involved merging the scores from Screen Form One and Two. This had the effect of doubling the number of items analyzed. That is, on each Form there were 18 complementation items, and by merging each student 's score there were a total of 108 distractors (36 items x 3 distractors - 108) to be analyzed. Each of the 108 distractors was assigned to an error type as des- cribed in Chapter Three. Table 5 gives the frequency dlstribution of the complementation distractors re- presenting each error type. Data Analysis The procedures used in the i n i t i a l analysis of the data are described In Appendix A. The results described in Chapter Five were obtained using the procedures described below. The first step in the data analyses procedure was- an item analysis of each of the 18 complementation items on both Screen Form One and Two to obtain percentage scores for each distractor. The item analysis was carried out using the Laboratory of Education Research Test Analysis Package (LERTAP) (Nelson, 1974). This program is especially subtest oriented and yields percentage scores for subtest items, and so it was chosen for use in the study. - 58 - Table 5 Frequency Distribution of Screen Items by Error Type. Type Screen One Screen Two Total of Type Infinitives and Gerunds n= n= N= 1 6 5 11 2 8 7 15 3 3 3 6 4 5 5 10 5 2 2 4 6 0 0 2 That Complement Recognition 7 3 3 6 8 4 4 8 9 3 3 6 10 3 3 6 11 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 That Complement Comprehension 13 3 2 5 14 2 3 5 15 3 4 7 16 3 2 5 17 1 2 3 18 1 2 3 19 2 0 2 Totals 54 54 108 - 59 - The second step involved regrouping the per- centage scores for each distractor into error types, using the percentage scores obtained in step one. In effect, 19 separate LERTAP analyses were carried out, with the response key changing each time to assign a score of one only to those distractors of the type being measured. For example, to obtain the percentage score for type 1 errors (those assessing an incorrectly in- flected infinitive) all distractors containing this type of error were scored one (n = 11) and the remaining 97 distractors were scored zero. The third step involved calculating the mean percentage score for each error type. These were obtain- ed by subtracting the number of subjects who chose the correct answer on each test item from the total number of subjects. The resulting difference was then used as the new sample size for that item on which percentage scores for each error type were calculated. The procedure was: N - k = ft and i/n x 100 = X% where N = all subjects (129) k = subjects who correctly answered the i tern n = number of subjects who made an error i = number of subjects who chose a parti- cular distractor X = percentage of those individuals who: CI) made an error and, (2) chose a particular distractor. Thus for each item the percentage score for error types was calculated on a different n. This procedure, how- ever, gave a more accurate indication of which errors were most frequently chosen by those students who made an error on that test Item. j - 60 - The fourth-step involved calculating the overall mean percentage, score for each error type. This- was- done, hy summing the percentage score obtained in step three of all the distractors within each type and dividing the total by the number of distractors of that type. The procedure was: n X~, . = I x . ,/n where 3 i«» iJ X = the percentage score for each dlstractor j = the error type CI - 19) or groups 1 ' the individual items within each group N = the number of distractors representing each error type The data were then examined in terms of the overall mean percentage scores obtained by each, error type. The next analysis was item by item for triads occuring two or more times in any error class. The results' of these analyses are presented in Chapter Five. - 61 - CHAPTER FIVE Results This chapter contains the results of the analysis procedures described in the preceding chapter. A decision regarding the null hypothesis (H' ) is report- ed, and a discussion of the various error types within the three classes is presented, I n addition, the efficacy of the TSA Screen as a research instrument, one of the secondary guestions, is discussed in light of the results of this study.. The subsequent chapter contains- further discussion of the results, Implications for teaching and for future study, and the limitations of the present study. Item Analysis In each of the complementation items, students who did not choose the correct answer had a choice of three distractors. Thus if the distractors were chosen randomly, the mean percentage score for each distractor should equal 3 3.3% Cone third of the number of subjects making an error on any one item). Any percentages which were reliably greater or less than 33.3% would indicate that an error type was chosen more frequently or less frequently than might be expected if they were chosen randomly. One factor which made error pattern identi- fication difficult on the Screen was the fact that items were juxtaposed with unequal frequency. For example, type 1 distractors were competing in various items with types 2 and 4; in other instances, type 1 distractors were juxtaposed with types 2 and 3, and; in s t i l l another - 62 - instance, types 1, 2, and 6 error types were juxtaposed. Thus- it was not possible to reliably Interpret deviations of the overall mean scores of the error types from that expected by chance. Thus the scores which are presented are the percentage scores for each distractor item by item. To test for significant differences from the expected percentage scores a chi—square analysis was performed. These chi—squares were performed only when triads of distractors occurred in more than one item. For example, if distractors of error type 1, 2, and 3 occurred to- gether in two or more items, a chi—square was calculated for each of those items to test if any differences from the expected value of 33.3 were significant. It may be noted that the total across some rows does not equal 100%, This occurred because in several instances subjects neither made an error nor chose the correct answer, that is, the student may have omitted the item and thus was excluded from the cal- culations . Infinitive and Gerund Errors (Class I, types 1-6) Infinitive and gerund items had distractors which were identified as: type 1 — incorrectly Inflected infinitive type 2 — "to" + "ing" verb (substitution) type 3 - "to" deletion type 4 — infinitive/gerund substitution type 5 — "ing" deletion type 6 — "for" substitution (see Chapter Three). Within this class of errors, three groups of triads occurred within more than a single item. These triad groupings are identified for discussion as Group A (types 1, 2, and 3) , Group B (types 1, 2, and 4)_, and Group C (types 2, 4, and 5)i. - 63 - Group A. Type 1 distractors, those assessing incorrectly inflected infinitives (eg., He liked to played baseball.), type 2, those with a "to" plus an "ing" verb (eg., The children ran home to eating.), and type 3, those with a "to" deletion (eg.. It is fun help.) were juxtaposed in five items. These triads are pre- sented on Table 6 as Group A, As shown in Table 6, when types 1, 2, and 3 were juxtaposed, type 3 errors were made more frequently In four of the five items. One of the differences was significant at p < .05 and another at p <. .10. However, in one of the Group A items, type 3 was the least frequently chosen dis- tractor (p< .05), Thus the means across the three types were not tested for significance since the individual items showed significant differences which were not consistently in favor of the same error type. Group B. When the triad of distractors consisted of error types 1, 2, and 4, those with an infinitive/gerund substitution (eg., David watched the elephant to eat.), the type 4 errors were chosen most frequently in four of five items. Table 6 shows that the scores were significant (p < .05) in two of these items in Group B. Group C. A third triad which occurred three times was the juxtaposition of types 2, 4, and 5 errors. In two df the three cases the differences from the expected mean were significant at the ,05 level. However, the difference was significant in favor of type 2 in one instance and in favor of type 5 in the other. That Complement-Recognition Errors (Class II, types 7-12) The types of syntactic deviancies found in - 64 - Tahle 6 Percentage Scores and Chi—Squares for Triads in Error Class I (Types 1—6) Group A ; Type 1 2 3 N 2 Item 21 (Screen One) 22.8 3 0,4 46. 7 92 6. 98* 4 8 (Screen One) 30.2 23 .4 44 . 4 63 4 . 21 4 8 (Screen One) 3 9.6 43 . 7 16 ,7 48 6, 10* 21 (Screen Two) 31 . a 25.3 43 . 7 87 4 . 64** 4 8 (Screen Two) 27 ,1 32 , 9 - 40 , 0 7 0 1 . 15 Group B ; Type 1 2 4 N X 2 Item 4 6 (Screen One) 37 . 7 44 ,3 18 .0 61 6. 86* 5 2 (Screen One) 12,3 57 . 9 28,1 57 18 . 40* 54 (Screen One) 25 . 8 4 0.3 32.3 62 1 . 98 52 (Screen Two) 27 .4 45,2 27 . 4 62 3 , 93 54 (Screen Two) 3 4 . 8 34. 8 30 . 3 6 6 0 , 27 Group C : Type 2 4 5 N 2 Item 50 :(Screen One) 30.0 3 6.7 33 . 3 60 40 53 (Screen One) 46,8 37 .9 13,9 79 13 . 80* 50 (Screen Two) 29 . 2 18 . 8 50 . 0 48 7 . 29* N = number of subjects who incorrectly answered each item * = p < .05 ** = p < ,10 ^ 65 - the distractors for that complement recognition test items were identified in Chapter Three as: type 7 - verb + ing (verb agreement) type 8 — for/that substitution type 9 — to/that substitution type 10 - "that" deletion type 11 - that/it substitution type 12 — so/that substitution Within this class of errors, the type which is purport- edly assessed by the TSA and which is said to occur in the language of deaf students is error type 10, "that" deletion (eg., That baby was asleep surprised father.). Group A. The triad which occurred most fre- quently in this class of errors was the type 7, 8, 9 triad. This grouping occurred a total of six times. As can be seen in Table 7, two of the chi—squares were significant at ,05 and two at .10. On Screen One items, type 7 was chosen more frequently than the others two of three times, whereas type 7 errors were chosen least frequently in two of three items on Screen Two. Thus while some of the chi—squares were significant, they were not always significant in favor of the same error type. Group B. Type 8 errors appeared juxtaposed with types 10 C"that" deletion) and 12 (so for that substitution) in two items. In both cases, the high scores of the type 10 errors resulted In very low scores for type 8 and type 12. On both items the chi—square was significant at the ,0.5 level. Thus for this grouping of error types the null hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that the deaf students who made errors on that complement recog- nition items, made "that" deletion errors more fre- quently than was expected by chance. This- result - 66 - Table 7 Percentage Scores and Chi-Squares for Triads in Error Class II [Types 7-12) Group A : Type 7 8 9 N X 2 Item 3 5 (Screen One) 45.0 10 .0 42.5 40 9 . 18* 38 (Screen One) 31 . 8 30. 0 38 . 6 44 . 545 43 (Screen One) 46. 2 19.2 32.7 52 5 . 71** 3 5 (Screen Two) 19.2 34 . 6 46.2 52 5 . 7 3** 38 (Screen Two ) 18 .5 29.6 49 .1 54 7 . 82* 4 3 (Screen Two) 43 . 9 21 .1 35.1 57 4 . 53 Group B : Type 8 10 12 N X 2 Item 51 (Screen One) 4.2 79.2 14 , 6 96 95, 2* 51 (Screen Two) 11 . 2 7 3.9 14 .6 96 58 . 6* N = number of subjects who incorrectly answered each i tern * = p < . 0 5 ** = p < .10 - 67 - supports the literature which reports incorrect "that" deletion to be a syntactic deviancy specific to, and common in, the language of deaf students (Quigley et al., 1978). That Complement Comprehension Errors (Class III, types 13-19) In the review of literature it was noted that diagnostic information could best be obtained from an analysis of student's comprehension of certain syntactic structure (Menyuk, 1969). The Screen items which assess comprehension of complementation had distractors which contained the following errors as described in Chapter Three: type 13 - surface reading order (SRO) type 14 - order reversal (mirror) type 15 — NP + (final VP + NP) type 16 - (NP + VP) + final NP type 17 — final NP + i n i t i a l clause type 18 - (final NP + VP) + Initial NP type 19 - other Within the class of errors, the type which is purportedly assessed by the TSA and which reportedly occurs frequently In the language of deaf students (Quigley et al., 1978), is type 13, an Imposed surface-reading—order strategy. Type 19. was a category created to contain two items which could not be otherwise classified, and as such it was not analyzed. In this error class only one triad occurred more than once. The errors which were juxtaposed in that triad were types 14, 15, and 16. The percentage scores and chi-squares for these triads are presented in Table 8. - 68 - Table 8 Percentage Scores and Chi-Squares for Triads in Error Class III 2 Type 14 15 16 N Item 95 (Screen Two) 33.3 28.2 35.9 38 .13 100 (Screen Two) 4.4 26.7 64.4 43 23.80* N = number of subjects who incorrectly answered each i tern * = p < .05 Within this triad, type 16 errors were committed with significantly greater frequency on one of the two items, as can be seen in Table 8. On this particular item, number 100 on Screen Two, the high score obtained by the type 16 distractor was at the expense of the type 14 error. Again in this group of errors as was the case with the previous error types because of the unequal juxtaposition of error types, It cannot be determined it the observed sig- nificant difference from the expected score is due to a deviant syntactic rule which students may employ or due merely to context effect. Thus for this pair of triads the null hypothesis was not rejected. Summary The primary purpose of this study was to determine if profoundly deaf students selected dis- tractors of various syntactic error types with greater than expected frequency. The results presented above - 69 - reveal an uneven pattern. There appears to be some Indication that, given a sufficient number of items and students, and controlling for frequency of occurrance, students may select some error type distractors more frequently than others. These results suggest that the profoundly deaf students in the sample in this study are capable of linguistic rule generation. That results suggest that the profoundly deaf students in the sample in this study are capable of linguistic rule generation. That is, as was reliably revealed on at least one group of items, students made a particular type of error more frequently than was expected by chance alone, and thus appeared to be operating according to some rule, at least on those items. Another of the purposes of this study was to test the efficacy of using the TSA Screen to provide information on syntactic deviancies in the language of deaf students. Quigley et al., (197 8) refer to several specific deviancies purportedly measured by the TSA. These deviancies in the tests of complementation Included: for—to complements with Incorrect tense marki.ng; the presence of "to" in POSS-ing complements; that—deleted complements, and; surface—reading—order strategyt In this study, those errors referred to by Quigley et al. (1978) correspond to types 1, 2, 10 and 13 respectively. These errors were specific to certain kinds of comple- mentation items. Types 1 and 2 were found in infin- itive and gerund items, type 10 was found in that complement recognition items and type 13 was found - 70 - in that complement comprehension items. Results showed that within those triads which were analyzed, none of the scores for error type 1 distractors were significantly larger than the expected score, whereas type 2 distractors were chosen significantly more frequently in four of the items. Individual item analysis and chi- squares, however, revealed mixed results, so caution must be exercised in interpreting these scores. Distractors labelled error type 10, another of the errors Identified by Quigley et al. (1978) were selected more frequently than any other in the items testing recognition of that complements. The chi- squares for triads containing type 10 errors were significant ('p < .05). And, type 13 errors, although accepted as correct more frequently overall than all other types in test items assessing comprehension of that complements did not appear regularly in any triads, and tests of significance were therefore not performed. The results would seem to support the results of previous studies (Quigley et al. , 1978; Russell , Quigley, and Power, 1976) which reported the existence of specific syntactic deviancies in the. language of deaf students, by virtue of the fact that these reported deviancies were chosen with some degree of frequency by subjects of this study. These same results would also seem to support the ability of the Screen to identify these deviancies in the language of individual deaf students. That is, the Screen may be able to provide Information for an individual student's syntactic error profile, since those errors purportedly assessed by the TSA - 71 - (Quigley et al., 1978) were made with significant frequency in some items. An adjunct to the question of the ability of the Screen to assess specific deviancies in the language of deaf students was the question of the feasability of using the TSA Screen as a research instrument to analyze syntactic errors in a large sample of profoundly deaf students. It would appear, from the results of this study, that the TSA Screen can not be effectively used as a research instrument for that purpose because of the infrequency of occur ranee of some of the error types and the unequal juxtapositioning of the various types. These limit- ations will be discussed further in Chapter Six. - 72 - CHAPTER SIX Summary and Conclusions The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the methods used and results obtained in the present study. In addition, some of the possibilities for future research are presented in light of the limita- tions of the present study. The implications for education are also discussed, Summary In this research, the responses to comple- mentation test items of the TSA Screen by severely + hearing impaired (90 dB HTL) students were examined. The students ranged in age from 8 to 19. years. Student responses were analyzed in terms of errors rather than correct responses. One of the purposes of this research was to determine if students made syntactic errors according to a consistent pattern. It was theorized that deaf students did in fact have a set of syntactic rules, albeit rules which did not conform to standard English usage, and the consistent choice of distractors of a certain error type would be an indication of the existence of these deviant rules of syntax. Distractors (incorrect choices I of all complementation Items on both Form One and Two of the Screen were classified into an error category based on the surface—structure syntactic similarity of the distractors. Error types were grouped within - 73 - three classes, corresponding to the three types of complementation guestions on the Screen (Infini- tives and gerunds, that complement-recognition, and that complement-comprehension). The examin- ation of student responses to the distractors revealed that certain error types occurred more frequently than others. However, a clear test of the null hypothesis of equal frequency of occurrence could not be performed because of the unequal juxtaposition of the various error types. Item level analysis of the triads of error types which occurred two or more times did reveal that within certain triads some errors were made sig- nificantly more frequently than others . No clear pattern could be established however, since the significant differences observed in the various triads were not consistently in favor of the same error type, but rather seemed to be affected by the types of errors which made up the triad. Thus for the students samp led in the study it was concluded that some form of syntactic rule generation may have influenced students ' responses to indi- vidual test items, but this conclusion could not be generalized across all types. Limitations of the Present Study This study was limited in several areas. A secondary purpose of this research was to determine the feasability of using the TSA Screen as a research instrument to study syntactic errors in a large sample of deaf students . Difficulties encountered in the research cast doubt on the efficacy of using the - 7 4 - Screen for such, a purpose. One of the instrument- related limitations was the small number of test Items- representative of each error type. This problem might have been remedied by including TSA Screen items which test different syntactic struc- tures. The errors found in the complementation distractors, however, are not all consistent across these other syntactic environments and it would have been necessary, therefore, to classify most of the distractors of the other TSA items into new error types. In so doing, the total number of items would again be subdivided into smaller groups, thereby recreating the original problem of too few examples of each error type. A second major limitation was the fact that the various types of errors did not occur with equal frequency and they were not evenly jux- taposed. This fact prohibited statistical compari- son of mean scores across error types. For example, when an error type occurred only in two items, it was not possible to report with any r e l i a b i l i t y that the average score for the error type in those two items was indicative of, or generalizeable, to, the larger population of items-, A question asked at the outset of this research was whether student age was a factor influ-h encl.ng the type of syntactic errors made by students. It was reasoned that If certain errors- were character- i s t i c of particular ages, than ins truetion of the correct syntactic rules could be. Initiated immediate- ly prior to the age at which, the Incorrect rule was ohserved, thereby possibly Improving the students' - 7 5 - syntactic competence. The nature of the test instru- ment, the type of data, and the complexity of the analytical statistical procedures required (see Appendix Al were such that the analyses could not proceed as i n i t i a l l y envisioned. Thus no statis- tically reliable conelusion regarding age as a factor could be drawn. Implications for Future Study The TSA Screen, in its present form, could not be efficiently used as a research instrument to test syntactic deviancies of a large sample. Thus, one of the implications or suggestions for future study would be to use the domains of the TSA Diag- nostic Battery. The complementation portion of the larger TSA contains two subtests each made up of 70 Items. Thus, rather than having 108 distrac- tors as was the case with the Screen, the TSA would allow analysis of student responses on 42Q (140 items x 3 distractors = -420) distractors. This procedure was not undertaken in the present study because the data base available for the Screen contained responses for 129 subjects who met the + criteria for inclusion in the study Lie. 90 dB HTLl, whereas the number of elligible subjects who were tested on the TSA domains was less than 1/3 of those tested on the Screen. Another area for future research would Involve reconstructing the TSA Screen so as to control for the number of examples of each error type. If all of the errors Included in the test occurred with equal frequency, and if they were - 76 - juxtaposed an equal number of times-, the Screen could be efficiently used as a research instrument. If these factors- were controlled, simple comparison of the mean scores of the error types (using Scheffe's S procedure I would provide an indication of which types of errors (if any)_ are made consistently, Such a revision would also Increase the efficiency of the Screen in f u l f i l l i n g its original purpose which was to provide a relatively quick assessment of a studentl's general knowledge of syntax and provide a profile of his strengths and weaknesses on individ- ual structures CQuigley et al , , 1978, p. 5)_ . Such a task, however, would be prohibitive and the large number of items required would require as much or more time be spent in administration of such a revised Screen as would be spent in administer- ing several subtests of the TSA domains. Another area for future study might be the examination of possible deviancies in syntactic structures other than complementation. Although some of these structures may not be as difficult for deaf students, the students may s t i l l make sy stematic syntactic errors in them. In the preliminary study outlined in Appendix A, age was considered as a variable with hearing threshold levels considered as a control variable with hearing threshold levels considered + as- a control variable and set at 90 dB as a criteria for inclusion In the study. Some significant insights might be obtained by examining HTL as an independent variable to determine if students with different HTL'-s consistently make the same kind or - 77 - nu.mh.er of syntactic errors. Analysis of variance in future studies- might include: error x age? error x H~TL; and, error x age x H.TL. Communication method (oral, ASL, or Signed English) should also be considered as variables in future analysis of syntactic errors. Some researchers, including Ivimey (19.76) consider that communication method- ology might be a factor Influencing syntactic development, Implications for Education One educational implication of this study concerns' the .fact that deaf students did appear to be responding to certain error types more frequently, that is, according to some rule, rather than randomly. Results- of the previous research in this area (Russell, Quigley, and Power, 19.76) are more reliable. It would appear, therefore, that deaf students1 poor syntactic performance can be Improved, since if they are capable of learning an Incorrect or deviant rule they must also be capable of learning the correct rules of syntax. Educators of the hearing impaired therefore, would be well advised to examine their students' language in terms of syntactic patterns rather than individual errors. - 7 3 - BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J.L, Syntactic abilities: The use of the TSA screening test with selected sub-populations of hearing impaired students. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1979. Barry, K. The Five—Slate System: A system of objective language teaching. Philadelphia: Sherman and Co. , 1899. Blackwell, P., Engen, E,, Fischgrund, J,, and Zarcadoolas, C. Sentences and other systems: A language and learning curriculum for hearIng—impaired children. Washington, D.C.: The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc., 1978 , Buell, E. Outline of language for deaf children, Book I, Revised; Book II. Washington, D.C.: The volta Bureau, 1934, 1954. Charrow, V,R. Deaf English: An investigation of the written English competence of deaf adolescents. Psychology and Education Series. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences. Stanford University. Technical report No. 236, September 30, 1974. Chomsky, C. The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1969. Chomsky, N. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton, 19 57, 197 5. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1965. Clarke, B.R., Leslie, P.T., Rogers, W.T., Booth, J.A., and Horvath, A. Selected characteristics of hear ing impaired school age students; British Columbia 1976-1977 . Vancouver, B.C.: The University of British Columbia, 1977. Clarke, B.R. and Rogers, W.T. Correlates of syntactic abilities in hearing Impaired students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, (in press). Clarke, B.R., Rogers, W.T., and Booth, J.A. Use of the screening forms of the test of syntactic abilities with hearing impaired students in British Columbia: A progress report. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 1979, 3, 1, 3-26. Conrad, R. The deaf school child: Language and cognitive function. London: Harper & Row Ltd., 1979. Cooper, R.L. and Rosenstein, J. Language acquisition of deaf children. The Volta Review, 1966, 68, 45-56. Croker, G., Jones, M., and Pratt, M. Language stories and d r i l l s . Books I, II, III, IV. Brattleboro Bermont: The Bermont Printing Company, 1920, 1922, 1928. Dale, D.M.C. Language development in deaf and partially hearing children. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1974. Dale, P.S. Language development: Structure and function New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Fitzerald, E. Straight language for the deaf. Staunton, Va.: The McClure Company, Inc., 1929. Francis, W. Approaches to grammar. In T. Sebeok (ed.) , Current Trends in Linguistics, 1973, 10, 122-144. Mouton, The Hague. Fusfeld, I. The academic program of schools for the deaf. Volta Review, 1955, 57, 63-70. Goetzinger, C. and Rousey, C. Educational achievement of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 1959, 104, 221-231. Groht, M. Natural language for deaf children , Washing- ton, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, 19.58. Harris, G. Language for the preschool deaf child. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1951 , 1963, 19.71. Heider, F.K, and Heider, G.M. A comparison of sentence structure of deaf and hearing children. Psy- chological Monograph, 1940, 1, 4 2-103. - 8Q _ Hirsh, I, Teaching the deaf child to speak. In F. Smith and G.A, Miller (Eds.I, The genesis of language. Cambridge, Ma.: The MIT Press, 1966. Ivlmey, G. The written syntax of an English deaf child: An exploration in method. - British Journal of Disorders in Communication, 19:7 6, II, 103-120. Jones, B, and Quigley, S. A study of complementation in the language of deaf and hearing students. American Annals- of the Deaf, 1979 , 1 , 23-24. Kirk, R. Experimental design procedures for the social sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968. Kretschmer, R. Language acquisition. The Volta Review, 1976, 78, 4, 60-67. Kretschmer, R. and Kretschmer, L. Language development and intervention with the hearing Impaired. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978. Langacker , R, Language and its structure. New York: Earcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973. Lenneberg, E, Biological foundations of language. New York; John Wiley S Sons-, Inc., 19.67. Lyons, J. Chomsky. Glasgow: William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd., 1977. McNeill, D, The capacity for language acquisition. The Volta Review, 1966, 68, 1, 17-3 3. Menyuk, P, Sentences children use. Cambridge, Ma: The MIT Press, 19691. Moores , D, Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978. Myklebust, H. The psychology of deafness: Sensory deprivation, learning, and adjustment. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1964. Nelson, L.R. Guide to LERTAP use and interpretation. Dunedin, New Zealand.- University of Otago, 19.7 4 . -81- Plntner, R., and Paterson, D, A measurement of the language ability of deaf children. Psycholo- gical Review, 1916, 23, 413-436. Power, D. and Quigley, S. Deaf childrens acquisition of passive voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1973, 16, 5-11. Pugh, G. Summaries from appraisal of the silent reading abilities of acoustically handicapped children, Amer ican Annals of the Deaf, 1946, 91 , 3 31- 349 . Quigley, S., Power, D., and Steinkamp, M. The language structure of deaf children. The Volta Review, 1977, 79, 73-84. Quigley, S., Smith, N., and Wilbur, R. Comprehension of relativized sentences of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 197 4, 17, 325-341. Quigley, S., Steinkamp, M,, Power, D,, and Jones, B. Test of syntactic abilities: A guide to administration and interpretation. Beaverton, Oregon: Dormac, Inc., 1978, Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., and Montanelli D. Complement structures in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19.76, 19, 3, 448-4 57 , Ca)Z Quigley, S., Wilbur, R., Montanelli, D., Power, D., and Steinkamp, M. Syntactic structures in the language of deaf children. Urbana, Illinois: Institute for Child Behavior and Development, 197 6, Chi. Rogers, W.T., and Clarke, B.R. Psychometric character- istics of the Test of Syntactic Abilities Screening Test. Educational and Psychological Measur ement, (In press). Russel, W,, Quigley, S., and Power, D. Linguistics and deaf children: Transformational syntax and its applications. Washington, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf,,Inc., 1976. 8 2 Schmitt, P. Language instruction for the deaf. The Volta Review, 1966, 68, 7 3-94. Simmons, A. A comparison of the type—token ratio of spoken and written language of deaf and hearing children. The Volta Review, 1962, 64, 417-4 21. Stark, R., Ed. Sensory capabilities of hearing — impaired children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974. Steinkamp, M. and Quigley, S. Assessing deaf children's written language. The Volta Review, 1976, 78, 10-18. Streng, A. Syntax, speech and hearing. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1972. Streng, A,, Kretschmer, R., and Kretschmer, L. Language learning and deafness: Theory, application and classroom management. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1978. Stuckless, E. Evaluation of written language of deaf students. The Volta Review, 1966, 68, 679-685 and 775-776. Taylor, L. A language analysis of the writing of deaf children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , State University of Florida, 1969. Templin, M, A comparison of the spelling achievement of normal and defective hearing subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1948, 39, 337-346. Thompson, W. An analysis of errors in written composi- tion by deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 1936, 81, 95-99. Wilbur, R. An explanation of deaf children's difficulty with certain syntactic structures of English. The Volta Review, 1977, 79, 85-92. Wilbur, R., Montanelli, D., and Quigley, S. Pronomin— allzation in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1976, 19, 120-140. Wolff, J, Language, Brain and hearing. London? Methuen & Co, Ltd., 1973. ~ 8-3- Appendix A Preliminary Data Analysis As was mentioned In both Chapter Two and Chapter Five, It was i n i t i a l l y considered that the data base would allow for analysis of variance by age. Thus one of the earlier guestions had been: do deaf students of different age groups (8-10, 11-13, 14-16, and 17+) choose different types of distractors, and thereby indicate that they have a set of deviant syntactic rules specific to their age group? The preliminary analyses followed the first and second steps outlined in Chapter Five. After obtain- ing the raw data (percentage scores), however, the follow- ing procedure was followed: 3. An arcsin transformation of the raw data to enable comparisons between error types to be carried out. 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Ca) by age of subjects (b) by error type Cc) age x type 5. Contrasts between error types: usring Scheffe1s S. procedure, to determine significant differences between error type frequency rank order CKirk, 19.68, p. 90) Examination of the data produced by these procedures, however, reveal ed several Inconsistencies and the results- are, therefore, not reported. Examination of the rank—order scores before and after the arcsin transformation revealed a difference in the rank order. That is, the rank order of the mean percent- age scores for each of the error types within the three classes was different than the order after the Scheffe ^ 8,4 ^ procedure on the arcslned raw data. For example In the first class of errors the. rank order for the error types using mean percentage scores was 4, 2, 6, 1, 3, 5. How- ever, results after arcsln transformation and S—Method comparison were; 2/4, 1, 3, 5, 6, That is, types 2 and 4 had Identical scores and occured most frequently, but, whereas the i n i t i a l rank order for the remaining 4 error types had been 6, 1, 3, 5 using the mean percentage scoref the order had now changed to 1, 3, 5, 6. Changes in the rank, order of types 7—12 and 13 — 19 were also observed, Check of the data failed to reveal any errors in transcribing or interpreting the data output. It was: concluded, therefore, that the source of the problem lay in the type of procedures which were used and the manner in which the raw data were arranged. That is, the keying of a distractor with, a score of zero CO I could be interpreted as: meaning either that it was the correct choice for that particular test item or that the item did not contain the error type being tabulated on that particular analysis. For example, in the Key in Appendix B, column 1, row 1 contains a zero which indicated that for item 21, choice A or 1 was the correct choice. However, rows 2 and 4 in that same column were also read by the com- puter as having a score of 0. . Thus- when analytical procedures were applied it was impossible to discriminate between students who did not choose the error type because they chose the correct answer. In order to overcome this problem, additional analyses were added to the study. The first additional analysis involved excluding from the total number of subjects all those who scored one hundred percent correct - 8S - for that particular error type. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 9. Examination of Table 9 shows that the number of subjects (n) who made at least one error varied from one error type to the next. Therefore, the samples were no longer homogeneous across error types. No further analyses were undertaken, therefore, on the subject variable of age x type. Subsequent analyses were carried out on items only, and should only be considered applicable to the particular sample used in this study. _ 8,6 _ Table 9 Error Analyses Summary Table Error Class I (Types 1—6) C_N ltems-16) 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 'k1 11 15 6 10 4 2 48 *k 13 13 26 14 27 50 143 *n 116 116 103 115 102 7 9 631 ~X 16 .46 20 . 63 16, 83 21 .13 1 6 . 9,1 25. 31 S X 16,19 17 ,30 18 . 7 6 11 ,9.3 15 .57 26 . 64 Error Class II (Types 7 -12) (n items = 10) 7 8 9 10 11 12 N 'k1 6 8 6 + 4 2 2 + 28 *k 37 6 37 7 48 14 149 *n 92 123 92 122 81 115 625 ~X 18.29 8.84 22 . 28 44 .46 27 . 77 12 . 17 S 15.89 12 .80 17 . 7 6 24 . 41 27 .58 24 . 71 X Error Class III (Types 12-19) (n items=10) *k *k *n ~X S 13 5 2 5 104 21.92 14 .7 4 14 5 33 96 12 .71 12.22 15 7 37 96 12 .11 12.05 16 5 31 98 15.31 16 .83 17 3 39 90 12.96 17 .90 18 3 46 83 24. 09 16 .77 19 2 71 58 31 . 03 19 .43 N 30 *k - number of distractors *k - number of subjects not making any errors of this type *n - number of subjects making at least one error of this type (129-k=n) + - two distractors of same type occured together in one item and scores were combined. 87 Appendix B Assignment of Scores for Item Analysis for Error Types 1—6 infinitives' and Gerunds Screen One Screen Two Screen Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 it em 21 A 0 0 0 0 Q Q 1 B 1 0 Q 0 0 0 0 C I 1 ^ D 1 1 46 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 1 1 C I 1 D I 1 48 A 1 1 B 1 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 B 1 1 C I 0 0 0 0 0 0 D I 1 50 A 1 1 B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D 1 1 52 A 1 1 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D I 1_ 53 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 B 1 1 C I 1 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 A 1 1 B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D 1 1 J 8 8 Appendix B (continuedI Assignment of Scores for Tern Analysis for Error Types 7—12 Infinitives and Gerunds Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen Type 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 Item 35 A 1 1 B 1 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 1 38 A 1 1 B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D 1 1 43 A 1 1 B 1 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 1 45 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 1 1 C 1 :.i D 1 1 51 A 1 1 B 1 1 C 1 1 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Append!x B (continued )_ Error Types 13—19. That Complement Comprehension Screen One Screen Two Screen Type 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Item 9.5 A 1 1 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C I 1 D 1 1 96 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 B 1 1 C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 1 98 A 1 1 B 1 1 C I 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 C I 1 D 1 ~ - - ~ - " " 1 ' 7 0 5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0 B 1 1 C 1 1 D 1 1 w - APPENDIX C TSA SCREENING TEST FORM 1 FORM 2 - 91 - DO NOT COPY LEAVES 91-167 TEST OF SYNTACTIC ABILITIES SCREENING TEST DO NOT COPY FORM 1 1 — University of I l l i n o i s at Urbana-Champaign Experimental E d i t i o n NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM Special permission granted by Dr. Stephen Quigley for exclusive use i n the Demographic Study of Hearing Impaired Students i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. © 1971 BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TEST OF SYNTACTIC ABILITIES SCREENING TEST FORM 1 Name: Date of B i r t h : School: School D i s t r i c t : Date of Test: - 93 - You w i l l read groups of sentences. Only one of the sentences i s r i g h t . You choose the r i g h t sentence. Example 1. You choose one: A. The flower i s not yellow. B. The flower i s no yellow. C. The flower not i s yellow. D. The flower i s yellow no. A. i s the r i g h t sentence: The flower i s not yellow. [AI i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : - 94 - Example 2. You choose one: A. The g i r l help the teacher tomorrow. B. The g i r l w i l l helping the teacher tomorrow. C. The g i r l w i l l help the teacher tomorrow. D. The g i r l helped the teacher tomorrow. C. i s the r i g h t sentence: The g i r l w i l l help the teacher tomorrow You mark ["cl with an X - 9 5 - Example 3 . You choose one: A. Tom fi n i s h e d to eating. B. Tom f i n i s h e d eating. C. Tom fi n i s h e d to ate. D. Tom fi n i s h e d eat. B. i s the right sentence: Tom f i n i s h e d eating. You mar In t h i s book are more sentences. Read the sentences c a r e f u l l y . Choose the right sentence. Mark the right answer with an X i n your booklet. If you do not know, guess. S T O P - 9JS - A. The puppies aren't in the box. B. Not the puppies are in the box. C. The puppies are no in the box. D. The puppies no aren't in the box. A] [B] [ c ] [ | j A. We stopped boat. B. We stopped an boat. C. We stopped the boat, D. We stopped a the boat. LD 3. A. Who gave you a ball? B. Gave you a ball who? C. Who Jim gave you a ball? D. Who you gave a ball? H 4. A. The laughter of the gir l surprise the man. B. The laughter the girl surprised the man. C. The laughter to the girl surprised the man. D. The laughter of the gi r l surprised the man. E G O [c] [D] [A] GO [C] [D] A. Not Mother was at home, B. Mother was at home no. C. Mother wasn't at home. D. Mother was no at home. 0 S 0 0 - 97 - A. The boys not are feeding the animals. B. The boys aren't feeding the animals. C. The boys are feeding the animals not. D. The boys no are feeding the animals. A. B. C. D. I didn't go. Not I did go. I not did go. I not go. 8. A. B i l l y colored a picture. An picture was red. B. B i l l y colored a picture. A picture was red. C. B i l l y colored a picture. The picture was red. D. B i l l y colored a picture. Picture was red. A. Baby ki t t e n s can't see. B. Baby ki t t e n s not see. C. Baby ki t t e n s not can see. D. Baby ki t t e n s can no see. L H 10. A. We fed an cows. B. We fed the cows. C. We fed a cows. D. We fed the a cows. H L H H ] - 98 - 11. A. The k i t e was i n sky. B. The k i t e was i n the sky. C. The k i t e was i n a the sky. D. The k i t e was in a sky. fA 12. A. I w i l l f i n i s h e d the work a f t e r lunch. B. I f i n i s h e s the work a f t e r lunch. C. I w i l l f i n i s h i n g the work a f t e r lunch. D. I w i l l f i n i s h the work a f t e r lunch. A 13. A. The g i r l s not walk in the r a i n . B. The g i r l s would walk i n the r a i n no. C. The g i r l s wouldn't walk i n the r a i n . D. The g i r l s not would walk i n the r a i n . 14. A. Tom saw a big black dog. B. Tom saw an big black dog. C. Tom saw big a black dog. D. Tom saw a big black dogs. 15. A. Not the dog has seen the food. B. The dog not has seen the food. C. The dog hasn't seen the food. D. The dog did has not seen the food. A A A - 99 - 16. A. A big car went up the h i l l . B. Big a car went up the h i l l . C. An big car went up the h i l l . D. A big cars went up the h i l l . LU 17. A. The grass does look no green. B. The grass does not look green. C. Not the grass does look green. D. The grass not look green. 18. A. The dog has a black t a i l . B. The dog has black a t a i l . C. The dog has a black t a i l s . D. The dog has an black t a i l . 19. A. Father was going a home. B. Father was going an home. C. Father was going home. D. Father was going the home. 20. A. The boys ate a the meat. B. The boys ate the meat. C. The boys ate the an meat, D. The boys ate a meat. [Dl - 100 - 21. A. David watched the elephant eat. B. David watched the elephant to eat. C. David watched the elephant ate. D. David watched the elephant to eating. 22. A. Did Mother make a cake? B. Do Mother make a cake? C. Mother make a cake? D. Did Mother can make a cake? L H 23. A. The boy to school l a s t Monday. B. The boy walks to school l a s t Monday. C. The boy i s walked to school l a s t Monday. D. The boy walked to school l a s t Monday. lA H 3 24. A. Mary heard to the roar of the l i o n . B. Mary hearing the roar of the l i o n . C. Mary heard the roar of the l i o n . D. Mary heard the roar the l i o n . L A L H 25. A. I ate orange. B. I ate a orange. C. I ate an orange. D. I ate an the orange. - 101 - 6. 26. A. The crash of the t r a i n scare the people. B. The crash to the t r a i n scared the people. C. The crash the t r a i n scared the people. D. The crash of the t r a i n scared the people. A 27. A. The g i r l s some of brought flowers. B. Some of the g i r l s brought flowers. C. Some the g i r l s brought flowers. D. Some of the g i r l brought flowers. 28. A. When you plant the flowers? B. Did you plant the flowers when? C. When you planted the flowers? D. When did you plant the flowers? D 29. A. The ch i l d r e n have some of money. B. The chil d r e n have an money. C. The ch i l d r e n have some money. D. The ch i l d r e n have a money. 30. A. What did John see? B. What did John saw? C. What John see? D. What John did see? L U 102 - 31. A. Cathy wanted some of help. B. Cathy wanted some a help. C. Cathy wanted an help. D. Cathy wanted some help. 32. A. Anne knew the driver the car. B. Anne knew the dr i v e r of the car. C. Anne knew to the dr i v e r of the car. D. Anne knowing the driver of the car. LU 33. A. The g i r l s c o l o r i n g pictures. B. The g i r l s are color pictures. C. The g i r l s are colored pictures. D. The g i r l s are c o l o r i n g pictures. A 34. A. The growth to the g i r l surprised her mother. B. The growth of the g i r l surprised her mother. C. The growth of the g i r l surprise her mother. D. The growth the g i r l surprised her mother. H GO QE 35. A. John knew for the lady loved ice cream. B. John knew to the lady loved ice cream. C. John knew that the lady loved ice cream. D. John knowing that the lady loved ice cream. A] LH GD - 103 - 8. 36. A. The crying of the k i t t e n was sad, B. The crying the k i t t e n was sad. C. The crying to the k i t t e n was sad. D. The crying of the k i t t e n sad. A] [|] [c] [F 37. A. B i l l heard to the screaming of the g i r l . B. B i l l hearing the screaming of the g i r l . C. B i l l beard the screaming the g i r l . D. B i l l heard the screaming of the g i r l . lA 38. A. Mother knows for Anne opened the window. B. Mother knows to Anne opened the window. C. Mother knows that Anne opened the window. D. Mother knowing that Anne opened the window. 39. A. The bu i l d i n g of the house slow. B. The bu i l d i n g of the house was slow. C. The b u i l d i n g to the house was slow. D. The building the house was slow. U HD LI] 40. A. Could Anne ride the horse? B. Could Anne rode the horse? C. Did Anne could r i d e the horse? D. Am Anne could r i d e the horse? S E E - 104 - 41. A. John watched the f i x i n g of the car. B. John watched the f i x i n g the car. C. John watching the f i x i n g of the car. D. John watched to the f i x i n g of the car. 0 L H 42. A. Five the c h i l d r e n went home. B. The c h i l d r e n f i v e of went home. C. Five of c h i l d r e n went home. D. Five of the chi l d r e n went home. D 43. A. Father knew for Bob caught a f i s h . B. Father knew to Bob caught a f i s h . C. Father knew Bob caught a f i s h . D. Father knowing that Bob caught a f i s h . 44. A. The s e l l i n g the car was d i f f i c u l t . B. The s e l l i n g to the car was d i f f i c u l t , C. The s e l l i n g of the car d i f f i c u l t . D. The s e l l i n g of the car was d i f f i c u l t . LH 45. A. It was sad that the cows were hungry. B. The cows were hungry was sad. C. That was sad the cows were hungry. D. The cows were hungry was sad. - 105 - 46. A. The ch i l d r e n ran home to eat. B. The c h i l d r e n ran home eat. C. The ch i l d r e n ran home to ate. D. The ch i l d r e n ran home to eating. 10. 47. A. Can you can run? B. Can you run? C. Do you can run? D. Are you can run? LU 48. A. The man saw Tom to walked. B. The man saw Tom to walk. C. The man saw Tom walking. D. The man saw Tom to walking. 49. A. I showed the l i t t l e boy how to jump. B. I showed the l i t t l e boy how jumping. C. I showed the l i t t l e boy how to jumped. D. I showed the l i t t l e boy how to jumping. U LU 50. A. The boys are good at to reading. B. The boys are good at to read. C. The boys are good at reading.' D. The boys are good at read. 11. - 106 - 51. A. The g i r l dropped the b a l l surprised the boy. B. So the g i r l dropped the b a l l surprised the boy. C. For the g i r l dropped the b a l l surprised the boy. D. That the g i r l dropped the b a l l surprised the boy. 52. A. It i s fun to helped. B. It i s fun to help. C. It i s fun help. D. I t i s fun to helping. A l 00 E LU 53. A. Dad went shopping. B. Dad went to shopped. C. Dad went shop. D. Dad went to shopping. 54. A. Dad forgot make the f i r e . B. Dad forgot to made the f i r e . C. Dad forgot to make the f i r e . D. Dad forgot to making the f i r e . - 107 - Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose che r i g h t word to make a good sentence. Example: Tom brought the flowers to Anne. They are You choose one: A. B. C. D. t h e i r our hers mine JG 0 QL C. i s the r i g h t word: Tom brought the flowers to Anne. They are hers. |~C~1 i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : - 108 - 13. 55. Because wanted to help, the c h i l d r e n washed the windows. A. they B. the c h i l d r e n C. t h e i r D. them L H L H I I 56. B i l l said, "She made the cake by A. himself B. sheself C. her D. h e r s e l f L H L H 57. The k i t t e n i s playing and the mother cat A. sleep B. i s sleeping C. sleeping D. was sleep 58. Father bought the puppies for me. A. t h e i r s B. yours C. hers D. mine The animals are 14. - 1 Q9 - 59. Mother made the dresses for us. They are A . ours B . their .j. C . your D. mine H ] LD 60. Next Saturday you A . w i l l made B . w i l l make C . w i l l making D . make the f i r e and the boys w i l l cook dinner, 61. We cooked lunch and Susan A . washing B . are wash C . wash D . washed the dishes, A B C D l 62. We fed the baby A . but B . with C . either D . or she cried, - 110 - 63. Bob said, "I w i l l cut the meat by A. myself B. himself C. yourself D. meself 0 64. Father made a f i r e , A. i t B. i t s e l f C. themselves D. him The dog burned 65. We knew the chi l d r e n A. when B. wher e C. whose D. who bought the flowers. 0 66. The g i r l s pushed B i l l . A. him B. his C. her D. the i r They hurt arm. We moved to a farm. The c h i l d r e n l i k e d A. t h e i r B. i t C. t h e i r s D. yours Since the boys were sick, Susan took food A. her B. the boys C. themselves D. them You found Dad wanted. A. what B. where C. when D. which I w i l l walk or r i d e the b i c y c l e . A. both B. neither C. but D. either - 112 - 17. 71. I wanted the puppy A. whose B. where C. that D. when had a white t a i l . A] LU no LU 72. When A. him B. his C. Joe's D. he mother brought the eggs, Joe made lunch. E L I 73. David nor Susan ate supper. A. B. C. D. Either But Both Neither 74, Tom knew _ A. what B. whose C. where D. which the boy l i v e d , Susan rode the horse A. whose B. when C. where D. which jumped the Dad came home Mary took the car A. When B. Who se C. Who D. Where You saw a bunny t a i l was black. A. where B. that C. who D. whose 114 Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose another r i g h t way of saying the sentences. Example: The g i r l s made lunch. The boys washed the dishes. You choose one: A. The g i r l s made lunch and the boys washed the dishes. B. The girls.made lunch the boys washed the dishes. C. The g i r l s and boys made lunch. D. The g i r l s made lunch and washed the dishes. A. i s the right sentence: The g i r l s made lunch and the boys washed the dishes, A~| i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : - 115 - 20. 78. Tom opened the window. Mother c a l l e d the boys. A. Tom opened the window Mother c a l l e d the boys. B. Tom opened the window and the boys. C. Tom opened the window and Mother c a l l e d the boys. D. Tom and Mother c a l l e d the boys. 0 E d 79. Mother went to the farm. Dad went to the farm. A. Mother went to the farm and Dad. B. Mother and Dad went to the farm. C. Mother went to the farm Dad went to the farm. D. Mother Dad went to the farm. f A l f ¥ 80. Tom bought a hat. Tom bought a coat. A. Tom bought a hat bought a coat. B. Tom bought a hat Tom bought a coat. C. Tom bought a hat a coat. D. Tom bought a hat and a coat. 81. We worked i n school. We played i n school. A. We worked i n school we played i n school. B. We worked and played i n school. C. We worked we played in school. D. We worked in school played i n school. 21, - 116 - 82. The g i r l s bought an old car. The boys washed the car. A. The g i r l s bought an old car the boys washed the car. B. The g i r l s bought an old car and the boys washed the car. C. The g i r l s bought washed the car. D. The g i r l s bought an old car and the boys washed. H LU LU LU 83. Dad kissed the baby. The baby laughed. A. Dad kissed the baby the baby laughed. B . Dad kissed the baby and the baby laughed C. Dad kissed the baby laughed. D. Dad kissed the baby and laughed. FA LU 84. The b a l l h i t Mary. A. Mary h i t by the b a l l . B. Mary h i t the b a l l . C. Mary was h i t by the b a l l , D. Mary was h i t the b a l l . 85. The horses got fed by the g i r l s . A. The horses fed the g i r l s . B. The g i r l s fed the horses. C. The horses fed by the g i r l s . D. The g i r l s got fed by the horses, 22. - 117 - 86. The man was watched by a policeman. A. The man was watch by a policeman. B. A policeman was watched by the man. C. The man watched a policeman. D. A policeman watched the man. A] QF] jcj nr 87. Bob talked with the g i r l . The g i r l ' s horse jumped the fence. A. Bob talked with the g i r l horse jumped the fence. B. Bob talked with the g i r l ' s horse jumped the fence. C. Bob talked with the g i r l whose horse jumped the fence. D. Bob talked with the g i r l who her horse jumped the fence. S LU LU LU 88. Mary saw the boys. The boys made a b i r d house. A. Mary saw who made a b i r d house the boys. B. Mary saw the boys made a b i r d house. C. Mary saw who the boys made a b i r d house. D. Mary saw the boys who made a bi r d house. LU LI 89. The truck was pulled by a car. A. The truck pulled a car. B. A car pulled the truck. C. The truck was pulled a car. D. A car was pulled by the truck. - 118 - Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose the right answer. Example: What did the boys play? You choose one: A. yesterday B. f o o t b a l l C. played D. a b a l l B. i s the r i g h t word: f o o t b a l l . fB~| i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : A 2 4 . - 119 90. Do birds make nests? A. eggs B. i n trees C. Birds make nests, D. Yes, they do. 91. Is the elephant a big animal? A. in the zoo B. big animal C. The elephant i s big, D. yes 92. How far can B i l l h i t the ball? A. not very far B. He h i t the b a l l . C. a baseball D. Yes, he can h i t i t . 93. What does the word " l i t t l e " mean? A. l i t t l e c h i l d B. not big C. The baby i s . D. small dog - 120 Anne l i k e s i c e cream, doesn't she? A. doesn't l i k e B. pink i c e cream C. Yes, she does. D. doesn't Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You decide what the sentences t e l l us. Example: The boy who talked to Dad rode the black hor What does the sentence t e l l us? You choose one: A. Dad rode the black horse. B. The boy talked to Dad. C. The boy talked to the black horse. D. Dad talked to the black horse. m n B. i s the r i g h t sentence: The boy talked to Dad. B i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : A - 122 - 27, 95. The boy knows that the woman loves ch i l d r e n . A. The boy loves the woman. B. The woman loves c h i l d r e n . C. The boy knows c h i l d r e n . D. The boy loves c h i l d r e n . 96. It scared Linda that the dogs hurt the boy. A. The dogs hurt the boy. B. Linda scared the dogs. C. The boy scared Linda. D. Linda hurt the boy. LU 97. Father planted the flowers. His hands were not clean. A. Father did not plant the flowers. B. His hands were d i r t y . C. His hands were not d i r t y . D. His hands were clean. T I [B] fc 98. The man learned a box f e l l on the g i r l , A. The man learned the g i r l . B. The g i r l f e l l on a box. C. The man learned a box. D. A box f e l l on the g i r l . 28. - 123 - 99. John l i s t e n e d to the teacher and fin i s h e d the work A. John fi n i s h e d the work. B. John and the teacher finished the work. C. The teacher l i s t e n e d to John. D. The teacher f i n i s h e d the work. U l IB 100. The teacher learned that Tom chased S a l l y . A. The teacher chased S a l l y . B. Tom chased S a l l y . C. The teacher learned Tom. D. S a l l y chased Tom. 101. We watched the g i r l s who played baseball. A. We played baseball. B. The g i r l s watched baseball. C. We played with the g i r l s . D. The g i r l s played baseball. 102. You c a l l e d the women who Mother knew. A. You knew the women. B. Mother c a l l e d the women. C. The women c a l l e d Mother. D. Mother knew the women. - 124 29, 103. Jim lost the book or Tom took i t . A. Either Jim lo s t the book or Tom took i t . B. Jim did not lose the book but Tom took i t , C. Tom took the book and Jim did not lose i t , D. Jim l o s t the book and Tom did not take i t , 104, I found the boy Dad gave the money to A. I found the money. B . The boy gave the money. C . Dad gave the money. D. I found Dad. 105. That the elephant ate the flowers surprised Father A. The elephant ate the flowers. B. The elephant ate Father. C. Father surprised the elephant. D. The flowers surprised Father. T I IT 106. The boys who worked with Dad li k e d airplanes A. Dad worked with airplanes. B. The boys l i k e d Dad. C. Dad li k e d airplanes. D. The boys worked with Dad. [A 30. - 125 - 107. The crying of the g i r l surprised the teacher A. The teacher c r i e d . B. The teacher surprised the g i r l . C. The crying surprised the teacher. D. The g i r l surprised the teacher. [A 108. Bob watched the running of the boy, A. Bob watched the boy's running. B. The boy watched Bob. C. The running watched Bob. D. The running watched the boy.- 109. The scream of the cat scared the dog, A. The cat scared the dog. B. The scream scared the dog. C. The dog screamed. D. The dog scared the cat. 110. The men who the policeman chased had a blue car, A. The men chased the policeman. B. The men had a blue car. C. The policeman had a blue car. D. The men chased a blue car. ITl IB - 126 - 31. 111. The g i r l s , who were bea u t i f u l , bought new dresses. A. The beautiful g i r l s bought new dresses. B. The beautiful g i r l s were bought new dresses. C. The g i r l s were beautiful bought new dresses. D. The g i r l s who the g i r l s were beautiful bought new dresses. ] [ 1 G O D O 112. The g i r l heard the ringing of the b e l l . A. The ringing heard the b e l l . B. The ringing heard the g i r l . C. The g i r l heard the b e l l ' s ringing. D. The b e l l heard the g i r l . D 113. The growth of the plant excited the children A. The children grew. B. The plant excited the children. C. The children excited the plant. D. The growth excited the children. 114. The teacher heard the laughter of the student, A. The teacher laughed. B. The laughter heard the teacher. C. The teacher heard the student's laughter. D. The student heard the teacher. 1] LU L U 32, - 127 - 115. I watched the chi l d r e n who were s i c k . A. I watched the ch i l d r e n s i c k . B. I watched the chi l d r e n were s i c k . C. I watched the chi l d r e n who the chi l d r e n were s i c k . D. I watched the sic k c h i l d r e n . D O 116. The l i t t l e g i r l s who ate with Cathy loved i c e cream. A. Cathy ate i c e cream. B. The l i t t l e g i r l s loved Cathy. C. Cathy loved i c e cream. D. The l i t t l e g i r l s ate with Cathy. 117. Anne waited for the g i r l . B i l l gave the b i c y c l e to the g i r l . A. Anne waited f o r the g i r l who B i l l gave the b i c y c l e to the g i r l . B. Anne waited f o r who B i l l gave the b i c y c l e to the g i r l . C. Anne waited for the g i r l who B i l l gave the b i c y c l e to. D. Anne waited for the g i r l who B i l l gave the b i c y c l e to her. L H 1 1 118. The crash of the car scared B i l l . A. B i l l scared the car. B. The crash scared B i l l . C. B i l l crashed the car. D. The car scared B i l l . (T) [T - 128 - 33. 119. Bob knew the driver of the car. A. The driver knew Bob. B. Bob drove the car. C. Bob knew the car's d r i v e r . D. The car knew Bob. 120. You waited for the boys. You sent a l e t t e r to the boys. A. You waited for the boys to whom you sent a l e t t e r to them. B. You waited for the boys to whom you sent a l e t t e r . C. You waited for whom you sent a l e t t e r to the boys. D. You waited for the boys to whom you sent a l e t t e r to the boys. - 129 - - 130 - TEST OF SYNTACTIC ABILITIES SCREENING TEST FORM 2 DO NOT COPY University of I l l i n o i s at Urbana-Champaign Experimental E d i t i o n NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM Special permission granted by Dr. Stephen Quigley for exclusive use i n the Demographic Study of Hearing Impaired Students i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. © 1971 BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - 131 - TEST OF SYNTACTIC ABILITIES SCREENING TEST FORM 2 Name: Date of B i r t h : School: School D i s t r i c t : Date of Test: \ You w i l l read groups of sentences. Only one of the sentences r i g h t . You choose the r i g h t sentence. Example 1. You choose one: A. One the g i r l s found a baby b i r d . B. One of the g i r l s found a baby b i r d C. The g i r l s one of found a baby b i r d D. One of g i r l s found a baby b i r d . |A B. i s the r i g h t sentence: One of the g i r l s found a baby bird. BI i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : - 133 - Example 2. You choose one: A. B. C. D. Mary l i k e s for to read, Mary l i k e s to reading. Mary l i k e s read. Mary l i k e s to read. A ] DO HE D. i s the r i g h t sentence: Mary l i k e s to read. You mark [Dl with an X : - 13 4 - Example 3. You choose one: A. Jim have a new car. B. Jim has a new car. C. Jim a new car. D. Jim i s a new car. B. i s the r i g h t sentence: Jim has a new car. You mark [~B] with an X : In t h i s book are more sentences. Read the sentences c a r e f u l l y . Choose the r i g h t sentence. Mark the r i g h t answer with an X i n your booklet. If you do not know, guess. S T O P - 135 - 1. 1. A. The k i t t e n s weren't i n the box. B. The k i t t e n s not were i n the box. C. The k i t t e n s weren't not i n the box. D. Not the k i t t e n s were i n the box. E S S D A. The cat had an k i t t e n s . B. The cat had a k i t t e n s . C. The cat had some k i t t e n s . D. The cat had the a k i t t e n s . S GE! HD H] A. Who the boy found the kite? B. Who found the kite? C. Who he found the kite? D. Found who the kite? A. The scream of the l i o n scared the c h i l d r e n . B. The scream the l i o n scared the c h i l d r e n . C. The scream to the l i o n scared the c h i l d r e n . D. The scream of the l i o n scare the c h i l d r e n . L U A. Not the elephant i s a small animal. B. The elephant i s not a small animal. C. The elephant i s a small animal no. D. The elephant hot i s a small animal. - 136 - 2. A. Mary was making not the dress. B. Mary not was making the dress. C. Mary wasn't making the dress. D. Mary did was not making the dress. T) [B] [C] [D A. We don't walk to school. B. We not walk to school. C. We not do walk to school, D. We do no walk to school. [Tj fiT) [c] [D] A. Mother made a cake. B. Mother made a cake. C. Mother made a cake. D. Mother made a cake. An the cake was white. A cake was white. A the cake was white. The cake was white. A] tU LU LU A. The l i t t l e boy no can not write. B. Not the l i t t l e boy can write. C. The l i t t l e boy not can write. D. The l i t t l e boy can not write. LU 10. A. The l i t t l e g i r l s played. B. L i t t l e the g i r l s played. C. A l i t t l e g i r l s played. D. The some l i t t l e g i r l s played, U LU LU 137 11. A. Mother looked at a the moon. B. Mother looked at moon. C. Mother looked at a moon. D. Mother looked at the moon. H GO HE! H 12. A. The baby w i l l s i t at the table next Sunday. B. The baby at the table next Sunday. C. The baby s i t at the table next Sunday. D. The baby w i l l sat at the table next Sunday. [XI IB 13. A. The boy would not read the story. B. The boy not read the story. C. The boy no would read the story. D. The boy would no read the story. 14. A. John has an new blue car. B. John has car a new blue. C. John has a new blue car. D. John has new a blue car. 15. A. The g i r l s did had not found the puppy. B. Not the g i r l s had found the puppy. C. The g i r l s not had found the puppy. D. The g i r l s hadn't found the puppy. rxi - 13 8 16. A. Mother has a big black pans. B. Mother has an big black pan. C. Mother has big a black pan. D. Mother has a big black pan. LU 17. A. You seem t i r e d not. B. You not seem t i r e d . C. You do not seem t i r e d , D. You seem no t i r e d . A3 LU LU LU 18. A. The man has an brown coat, B. The man has a brown coat. C. The man has a brown coats, D. The man has brown a coat. U LU LU LU 19. A. Mother walked a home. B. Mother walked home. C. Mother walked the home. D. Mother walked an home. LU LU 20. A. The dog has some of food, B. The dog has an food. C. The dog has a food. D. The dog has some food. LU LU LU - 139 - 21. A. Tom watched the men to work. B. Tom watched the men work. C. Tom watched the men to working. D. Tom watched the men worked. S (H LH LH 22. A. You do the problems? B. Did you do the problems? C. You done the problems? D. Did do you the problems? H LH LH LH 23. A. I i n the park l a s t Sunday. B. I s i t i n the park l a s t Sunday. C. I am sat i n the park l a s t Sunday. D. I sat i n the park l a s t Sunday. [AI [H LH LH 24. A. The boy heard to the laughter of the g i r l , B. The boy hearing the laughter of the g i r l . C. The boy heard the laughter of the g i r l . D. The boy heard the laughter the g i r l . LH LH LH LH 25. A. John found the k i t t e n s . B. John found a k i t t e n s . C. John found a the kittens, D. John found an k i t t e n s . H LH LH LH - 140 - 26. A. The work of the men surprise the woman. B. The work to the men surprised the woman. C. The work the men surprised the woman. D. The work of the men surprised the woman. 0 0 0 ^ 27. A. Some of the cats were black. B. Some of the cat were black. C. Cats the some of were black. D. Some the cats were black. [|] RO [D] 28. A. When did Susan walk to the farm? B. Susan walk to the farm when? C. When to the farm did Susan walk? D. When Susan walked to the farm? LU LU 29. A. Bob found a water. B. Bob found some water. C. Bob found some of water. D. Bob found some a water. LU ID 30. A. What w i l l I feed the kitten? B. What w i l l I feed the k i t t e n milk? C. What w i l l I fed the kitten? D. What the k i t t e n w i l l I feed? ID LU LU -141 - 31. A. Mother made some a bread, B. Mother made a bread. C. Mother made some bread. D. Mother made an bread. 0 @ @ 32. A. John saw the s t a r t the race. B. John saw the s t a r t of the race. C. John saw to the s t a r t of the race. D. John seeing the s t a r t of the race. LH 33. A. The woman i s cooking dinner. B. The woman cook dinner. C. The woman i s cooked dinner. D. The woman has cooking dinner. LH L H 34. A. The growth to the tomatoes surprised the farmer. B. The growth of the tomatoes surprised the farmer. C\ The growth of the tomatoes surprise the farmer. D. The growth the tomatoes surprised the farmer. B D 35. A. Susan heard to Jim helped the lady. B. Susan hearing that Jim helped the lady. C. Susan heard that Jim helped the lady. D. Susan heard f o r Jim helped the lady. LH D - 142 - 36. A. The chasing of the dog was funny. B. The chasing the dog was funny. C. The chasing to the dog was funny. D. The chasing of the dog funny. U LU L U 37. A. Mary enjoyed to the swimming of the g i r l s , B. Mary enjoying the swimming of the g i r l s . C. Mary enjoyed the swimming the g i r l s . D. Mary enjoyed the swimming of the g i r l s . D 38. A. The man said to David won the game. B. The man said that David won the game. C. The man saying that David won the game. D. The man said for David won the game. 39. A. The beginning of the race e x c i t i n g . B. The beginning of the race was ex c i t i n g . C. The beginning to the race was ex c i t i n g . D. The beginning the race was e x c i t i n g . U LU LU 40. A. Should you should go to bed? B. Did you should go to bed? C. Should you went to bed? D. Should you go to bed? LU LU - 143 - 41. A. B i l l enjoyed the showing of the animals. B. B i l l enjoyed the showing the animals. C. B i l l enjoying the showing of the animals. D. B i l l enjoyed to the showing of the animals. [A] IB [D| 42. A. The cows some of were s i c k . B. Some of the cows were sic k . C. Some the cows were s i c k . D. Some of the cow- were sick. 43. A. The boys knew for the dog was l o s t . B. The boys knew to the dog was l o s t . C. The boys knew the dog was l o s t . D. The boys knowing that the dog was l o s t , A] [B] [C] [D] 44. A. The f i n i s h i n g the work was easy. B. The f i n i s h i n g to the work was easy. C. The f i n i s h i n g of the work easy. D. The f i n i s h i n g of the work was easy. 45. A. I t was sad that the animals were l o s t . B. The animals was sad were l o s t . C. That was sad the animals were l o s t . D. The animals were l o s t was sad. 144 10. 46. A. The teacher t o l d me where to s i t . B. The teacher t o l d me where s i t t i n g . C. The teacher t o l d me where s i t . D. The teacher t o l d me where to s i t t i n g . 47. A. W i l l Mary go? B. Is Mary w i l l go? C. W i l l Mary went? D. W i l l Mary w i l l go? a a 48. A. I saw Dad to came. B. I saw Dad to coming. C. I saw Dad to come. v D. I saw Dad coming. 49. A. I ran to the park to played. B. I ran to the park for to play, C. I ran to the park to play. D. I ran to the park to playing. 50. A. The man was good at to s p e l l . B. The man was good at s p e l l i n g . C. The man was good at s p e l l . C. The man was good at to s p e l l i n g . a a LU - 145 - 51. A. The baby was asleep surprised Father. B. For the baby was asleep surprised Father. C. So the baby was asleep surprised Father. D. That the baby was asleep surprised Father. 52. A. Mary loves f l y to the a i r p l a n e . B. Mary loves to f l y i n g the airplane. C. Mary loves to f l y the a i r p l a n e . D. Mary loves to flew the ai r p l a n e . 53. A. The g i r l s went to f i s h e d . B. The g i r l s went f i s h . C. The g i r l s went for to f i s h . D. The g i r l s went f i s h i n g . 54. A. Mother wanted Anne to picking the flowers. B. Mother wanted Anne to pick the flowers. C. Mother wanted Anne pick the flowers. D. Mother wanted Anne to picked the flowers. Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose the r i g h t word to make a good sentence. Example: Dad's s h i r t i s red. i s blue. You choose one: A. Yours B. Your C. Our D. Ours m A. i s the r i g h t word: Yours [A~] i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : 55. While - 147 - waited, the boys t o l d s t o r i e s . A. t h e i r B. them C. they D. the boys 13. 56. Dad said, "She made the b i r d house by A. himself B. sheself C. her D. h e r s e l f U 57. Bob i s f l y i n g a k i t e and Anne A. f l y B. was f l y C. i s f l y i n g D. f l i e s a toy airplane, L U 58. Mother cooked the eggs for me. They are . A. mine B. her C. t h e i r s D. ours LU LU 14. - 148 - 59. Dad planted the seeds for us. The flowers are . A. him B. her C. ours D. us LH 60. Dad the cake and B i l l w i l l buy the i c e cream. A. buy B. w i l l buying C. w i l l buy D. w i l l buys 61. Jim worked and B i l l A. play B. playing C. played D. are play A B C D| 62. Cathy c a l l e d the horses A. with B. but C. e i t h e r D. or they ran away. A B C D - 149 - 15. 63. The glasses were broken. A. i t B. themselves C. myself D. me I cut I ] [B] [c] E 64. The g i r l s went to school, A. i t B. yourself C. themselves D. i t s e l f The puppy played by LU L U 65. You thanked the teachers A. who B. when C. what D. where helped Tom. D 66. The l i t t l e boy was l o s t . The g i r l s t o l d mother. A. him B. her C. h i s D. them LU 16. - 150 67. Susan and Tom made the ic e cream. friends made the cake. A. Theirs B. Her C. Him D. Their A) LU LU LU 68. When the g i r l s came home, B i l l came to see A. themselves B. the g i r l s C. him D. them LAJ rm m LU 69, I l i k e d _ A. which B. what C. who D. whose Mother cooked, LU 70. Mother or Anne made the dress. A. Both B. With C. Neither D. Either LU LU LU LU - 151 - 17. 71. You kept the ki t t e n s A. that B. whose C. when D. where had black feet, ~U LU EU LP_ 72. After A. she B. Anne's C. her D. hers mother cooked lunch, Anne washed the pans. 73. A. B. C. D. John nor Mary came to the party. Neither Either Both But T] H ] LU LU 74, We saw A. that B. where C. which D. what Cathy put the k i t e . U LU LU 152 - 18. 75. The c h i l d r e n found the b a l l A. which B. when C. what D. whose went into the lake. S E E 76. The g i r l s made dinner A. which B. when C. that D. whose Dad came home. A B C D 77. We helped the g i r l A. that B. who C. whose D. what leg was broken. U LU LU LU -153 - 19. Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose another r i g h t way of saying the sentences. Example: The bus stopped. B i l l went to school. You choose one: A. The bus stopped B i l l went to school. B. The bus stopped and B i l l went to school. C. The bus and B i l l went to school. D. The bus stopped and went to school. LU B. i s the r i g h t sentence: The bus stopped and B i l l went to school. B | i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : C D - 154 - Dad opened the door. Mother saw a man. A. Dad opened the door Mother saw a man. B. Dad opened the door saw a man. C. Dad opened the door and Mother saw a man. D. Dad opened the door and man. T) LU IT] The man walked into the house. The woman walked into the house. A. The man and woman walked into the house. B. The man walked into the house and the woman walked. C. The man walked into the house the woman walked into the hous D. The man woman walked into the house. i n i B i in po The boys made a table. The boys made ch a i r s . A. The boys made a table made chairs. B. The boys made a table c h a i r s . C. The boys made a table the boys made ch a i r s . D. The boys made a table and chairs. ID Bob opened the door. Bob closed the door. A. Bob opened closed the door. B. Bob opened the door Bob closed the door. C. Bob opened and closed the door. D. Bob opened Bob closed the door. m LU 21. - 155 - 82. The g i r l s fed the pets. The boys washed the pets. A. The g i r l s fed the pets and the boys washed them. B. The g i r l s fed and washed the pets. C. The g i r l s fed the boys washed the pets. D. The g i r l s fed the pets the boys washed them. U S B LU 83. I h i t the boy. The boy c r i e d . A. I h i t the boy the boy c r i e d . B. I h i t the boy c r i e d . C. I h i t the boy and the boy c r i e d . D. I h i t the boy and c r i e d . 84. A horse kicked Anne. A. Anne got kicked a horse. B. Anne kicked by a horse. C. Anne got kick by a horse. D. Anne got kicked by a horse. 85. Susan was thrown by a horse. A. A horse threw Susan. B. Susan was throw by a horse. C. A horse was thrown by Susan. D. Susan thrown by a horse. LU LU L U LU 22. - 156 86. The cows were chased by a dog. A. The cows chased a dog. B. A dog was chased by the cows. C. The cows were chased a dog. D. A dog chased the cows. E S d ] [D 87. We talked with the g i r l . The g i r l ' s dog chased cars. A. We talked with the g i r l ' s dog chased cars. B. We talked with the g i r l who her dog chased cars. C. We talked with the g i r l whose dog chased cars. D. We talked with the g i r l dog chased cars. LU LU LU 88. The puppies played with the g i r l . The g i r l wore a red dress. A. The puppies played with the g i r l who wore a red dress. B. The puppies played with who wore a red dress the g i r l . C. The puppies played with who the g i r l wore a red dress. D. The puppies played with the g i r l who the g i r l wore a red dress. LU LU LU LU 89. The t r a i n was h i t by a car. A. A car was h i t by the t r a i n . B. The t r a i n was h i t a car. C. A car h i t the t r a i n . D. The t r a i n h i t a car. LU LU LU LU Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences. You choose the r i g h t answer. Example: What color i s the grass? You choose one: A. green B. color C. trees D. grass ra A. i s the r i g h t word: green 1X1 i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : - 158 - 24. 90. Should she go with Mother? A. Yes, she should. B. Mother should go. C. i f she i s good D. Yes, she d i d . E s HD 91. Could B i l l keep the pet? A. Yes, he d i d . B. Yes, he could. C. He w i l l buy the pet. D. B i l l keep the pet. 92. How long did the boys play b a l l ? A. The boys played f o o t b a l l . B. a l l day C. f o o t b a l l D. with a bat A] ® H ] L ! 93. Which are bigger, cats or kittens? A. cats B. baby C. Cats are small. D. They are bigger. Bob can't f i x the toy, can he A. can't f ix B. can C. No, he can't. D . a toy truck - 160 - Be c a r e f u l . These are d i f f e r e n t kinds of sentences You decide what the sentences t e l l us. Example: Dad l i k e d the g i r l who thanked Joe. What does the sentence t e l l us? You choose one: A. Joe thanked the g i r l . B. Dad thanked Joe. C. The g i r l thanked Joe. D. Dad l i k e d Joe. [ A l C. i s the r i g h t sentence: The g i r l thanked Joe. C i s marked with an X l i k e t h i s : j~A~j 27. - 161 - 95. B i l l knew that the chi l d r e n l i k e d cats. A. The cats l i k e d c h i l d r e n . B. B i l l l i k e d cats. C. The c h i l d r e n l i k e d cats. D. B i l l knew the cats. 96. I t surprised the g i r l s that the cats were chasing the dogs. A. The g i r l s were chasing the dogs. B. The dogs surprised the g i r l s . C. The cats were chasing the dogs. D. The dogs were chasing the cats. [H d] [H H 97. Cathy loves the d o l l . It i s not new. A. The d o l l i s not old. B. The d o l l i s o l d . C. The d o l l i s new. D. Cathy does not love the d o l l . a i i 98. John knew the car h i t the policeman. A. The policeman h i t John. B. John knew the car. C. The car h i t the policeman. D. John h i t the policeman. 28. - 162 99. B i l l thanked the teacher and went home. A. B i l l went home. B. The teacher went home. C. The teacher thanked B i l l . D. B i l l and the teacher went home. T j \c\ fiTi 100. The girl knew that the boy burned the cake, A. The boy burned the cake. B. The gi r l knew the cake. C. The boy knew the g i r l . D. The gir l burned the cake. L U l c 101. Tom liked the man who started the boat, A. Tom started the boat. B. Tom liked the boat. C. The man liked the boat. D. The man started the boat. •LU LU 102. You saw the girls who Jim liked, A. Jim saw the girls. B. You saw Jim. C. Jim liked the girls. D. You liked the girls. 29. - 163 - 103. Anne or Mother made the dress. A. Anne and Mother made the dress. B. E i t h e r Anne or Mother made the dress. C. Both Anne and Mother made the dress. D. Neither Anne nor Mother made the dress, ru 104. B i l l held the baby who Cathy gave the toy to A. B i l l held Cathy. B. B i l l held the toy. C. The baby gave the toy. D. Cathy gave the toy to the baby. [A i 3 0 1 105. That B i l l y was chasing birds surprised Mary. A. B i l l y was chasing b i r d s . B. Mary was chasing b i r d s . C. Mary surprised B i l l y . D. The birds surprised Mary. IT LU LU 106. The boys who made the f i r e for Mother brought the lunch. A. The boys made the lunch. B. Mother made the lunch. C. Mother brought the lunch. D. The boys made the f i r e . LU L U LU LU 107. The s e l l i n g of the dog disappointed David. A. David sold the dog. B. David disappointed the dog. C. The s e l l i n g disapppointed David. D. The dog disappointed David. 108. Susan enjoyed the running of the animal. A. Susan enjoyed the animal's running. B. The animal enjoyed Susan. C. The running enjoyed Susan. D. The running enjoyed the animal. 109. The crash of the boats scared the chil d r e n . A. The boats scared the c h i l d r e n . B. The crash scared the c h i l d r e n . C. The children crashed. D. The chi l d r e n scared the boat. 110. The boy who Mary watched' threw the b a l l . A. Mary watched the b a l l . B. The boy threw the b a l l . C. Mary threw the b a l l . D. The boy watched Mary. T] jj] [c] [F 111. The babies, who were t i r e d , slept on the bed. A. The t i r e d babies were sle p t on the bed. B. The t i r e d babies slept on the bed. C. The babies were t i r e d slept on the bed. D. The babies who the babies were t i r e d slept on the bed. 112. The boy heard the screaming of the woman, A. The boy heard the woman's screaming. B. The woman heard the boy. C. The screaming heard the woman. D. The screaming heard the boy. LU 113. The work of the g i r l surprised Father, A. Father worked. B. The g i r l surprised Father. C. Father surprised the g i r l . D. The work surprised Father. U 114. Anne watched the marriage of her f r i e n d . A. Anne married. B. The marriage watched Anne. C. Anne watched her friend's marriage. D. Her fr i e n d watched Anne. LU LU LU d] - 166 - 32. 115. We picked the boys who were l i t t l e . A. We picked the boys l i t t l e . B. We picked the boys were l i t t l e . C. We picked the boys who the boys were l i t t l e . D. We picked the l i t t l e boys. LU LU LH 116. The man who bought the cow from Father wore a brown coat A. Father wore a brown coat. B. The man bought a brown coat. C. Father bought a brown coat. D. The man bought the cow. LH LH LU 117. The boys knew the man The teacher gave the money to the man. A. The boys knew the man who the teacher gave the money to • B. The boys knew the man who the teacher gave the money to the man C. The boys knew the man who the teacher gave the money to him. D. The boys knew who the teacher gave the money to the man • A B L H L H 118. The discussion of the party disappointed Susan. A. Susan disappointed the party. B. The discussion disappointed Susan. C. Susan discussed the party. D. The party disappointed Susan. I l l [¥ LH D - 167 33. 119. John watched the growth of the plant, A. The growth knew John. B. John grew the plant. C. John watched the plant's growth. D. The plant watched John. G O 120. I saw the ch i l d r e n . The man talked to the child r e n . A. I saw the c h i l d r e n to whom the man talked. B. I saw the children to whom the man talked to them. C. I saw whom the man talked to the c h i l d r e n . D. I saw the c h i l d r e n to whom the man talked to the c h i l d r e n . - 16 8

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Philippines 10 0
Japan 4 0
United States 2 1
China 1 15
Uruguay 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 10 1
Tokyo 4 0
Montevideo 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items