The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of discourse mode on the syntactic complexity of the written expression of learning disabled students at three grade levels. A film without narration was used to elicit written language samples in each of the two discourse modes, description and argumentation. Two measures of syntactic complexity — average length of T-unit and Syntactic Density Score — were employed to determine differences between the two modes. In addition, sentence types and syntactic patterns were examined as indices of syntactic complexity. Results of the investigation and implications of these results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlleyG.DeshlerD.. Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver: Love Publishing Co., 1979.
2.
CrowhurstM.. The effect of audience and mode of discourse on the syntactic complexity of the writing of sixth and tenth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1977.
3.
CrowhurstM.. Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 1980, 14 (3), 223–231.
4.
CrowhurstM.PicheG.L.Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13 (2), 101–109.
5.
DilworthC.B.ReisingR.W.WolfeD.T.Language structure and thought in written composition: Certain relationships. Research in the Teaching of English, 1978, 12, 97–106.
6.
GolubL.S.FrederickW.C.Linguistic structures in the discourse of fourth and sixth graders (Technical Report No. 166). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1971.
7.
GolubL.S.KidderC.. Syntactic density and the computer. Elementary English, 1974, 51 (8), 1128–1131.
8.
HuntK.W.Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.
9.
JohnsonD.. (Producer). A boy's journey through a day. Chicago: Coronet Films, 1970. (Film).
10.
KantorK.J.RubinD.L.Between speaking and writing: Processes of differentiation. In KrossB.M.VannR.J. (Eds.), Exploring speaking-writing relationships. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1981.
11.
KidderC.L.Using the computer to measure syntactic density and vocabulary intensity in the writing of elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1974.
12.
KirkR.E.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1968.
13.
LernerJ.. Children with learning disabilities. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
14.
MoranM.R.A comparison of formal features of written language of learning disabled, low-achieving and achieving secondary students (Research Report No. 34). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, April1981.
15.
MorrisN.T.CrumpW.D.Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1982, 5 (2), 163–172.
16.
MyersP.I.HammillD.. Methods for learning disorders (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
17.
MyklebustH.R.Development and disorders of written language, Vol. II. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1973.
18.
O'DonnellR.C.A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 1976, 10, 31–38.
19.
O'DonnellR.C.GriffinW.J.NorrisR.C.Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis (NCTE Research Report No. 8). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967.
20.
PerronJ.D.Written syntactic complexity and modes of discourse. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139 009).
21.
PerronJ.D.Composition and cognition. English Education, 1979, 10, 144–154.
22.
Phelps-GunnT.Phelps-TerasakiD.. Written language instruction: Theory and remediation. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1982.
23.
SanJose, C. P. M. Grammatical structures in four modes of writing at the fourth grade level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1972.
24.
SiegalS.. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
25.
SmithF.. Writing and the writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1982.
26.
VealL.R.Syntactic measures and rated quality in the writing of young children. Studies in Language Education, Report No. 8. Athens: University of Georgia, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 090 555).
27.
WiigE.H.SemelE.M.Language disabilities in children and adults. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1976.
28.
WiigE.H.SemelE.M.Language assessment and intervention for the learning disabled. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1980.
