Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T07:26:41.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Susan Kemper
Susan Kemper*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Susan Kemper, Department of Psychology, 426 Fraser Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Elderly adults (70 to 89 years) and young adults (30 to 49 years) were asked to imitate complex sentences involving embedded gerunds, wh-clauses, that-clauses, and relative clauses. The young adults were able to imitate accurately or correctly paraphrase the sentences regardless of the length, position, or type of embedded clause. The elderly adults could accurately imitate or paraphrase short constructions. The elderly adults were unable to imitate or paraphrase correctly long constructions, especially those in which the embedded clause was sentence-initial. The pattern of results demonstrates an age-related decline in syntactic processing abilities due, perhaps, to the increased processing demands of the long or sentence-initial constructions.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 277 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Belmore, S. M. (1981). Age-related changes in processing explicit and implicit language. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 316–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borod, J. C., Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1980). Normative data on the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, Parietal Lobe Battery, and the Boston Naming Test. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botwinick, J. (1977). Intellectual abilities. In Birren, J. E. & Schaie, K. W. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Botwinick, J., & Storandt, M. (1974). Vocabulary ability in later life. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 125, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. (1981). Language comprehension in old age. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 412–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1981). Memory for discourse in old age. Discourse Processes, 4, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Age differences in human memory. In Birren, J. E. & Schaie, K. W. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Davis, G. A. (1984). Effects of aging on normal language. In Holland, A. (Ed.), Language disorders in adults. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
DeRenzi, E., & Vignolo, L. A. (1962). The Token Test: A sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain. 85, 665–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J. R., Keith, R. L., Shane, H., & Podraza, B. L. (1967). Performance of normal (non-brain-injured) adults on the Porch Index of Communicative Ability. In Brookshire, R. H. (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis: BRK.Google Scholar
Feier, C. D., & Gerstman, L. J. (1980). Sentence comprehension abilities throughout the adult life span. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 722–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kausler, D. H. (1982). Experimental psychology and human aging. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kynette, D., & Kemper, S. (1986). Aging and the loss of grammatical forms: A cross-sectional study of language performance. Language and Communication, 6, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebes, R. D., & Andrews-Kulis, M. S. (1976). The effect of age on the speed of sentence formation and incidental learning. Experimental Aging Research, 2, 315–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noll, J. D., & Randolph, S. R. (1978). Auditory, semantic, syntactic, and retention errors made by aphasic subjects on the Token Test. Journal of Communication Disorders, 11, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuell, H. M. (1973). Differential diagnosis of aphasia with the Minnesota Test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schuell, H. M., Jenkins, J. J., & Jimenez-Pabon, E. (1964). Aphasia in adults. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D. (1980). Age difference in encoding, storage, and retrieval. In Poon, L. W., Fozard, J. L., Cermak, L. S., Arenberg, D., & Thompson, L. W. (Eds.), New directions in memory and aging. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taub, H. (1979). Comprehension and memory of prose material by young and old adults. Experimental Aging Research, 5, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, V. G., Hardiman, C. J., Hedrick, D. L., & Holbrook, A. (1981). Speech and language characteristics of an aging population. In Lass, N. J. (Ed.), Advances in basic research and practice. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. A., & Baldwin, D. (1977). Age differences in integrated semantic memory. Developmental Psychology, 13, 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1980). An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasic and normal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed