英语论文网

ernatives when interpreting the focusparticle,and they also neglected that background information does not apply to anymember of the alternative sets.Besides,they also had a poor grasp of the distinctionbetween IMN and OMN.There exists a close link between IMN and OMN’s semanticdifferences and their syntactic structures.And the modifier in OMN is derived fromthe lower position to a higher position.Thus,movement can be quite problematic forthe language-impaired children according to derivational complexity.In addition,thelate acquisition of the distinction between IMN and OMN may also be a reason thataccounts for their poor performance.

Although there is no significant group effect between the two impaired groups,we try to delve into the way from the perspective of accuracy and error patterns todistinguish between the two populations.In terms of accuracy,the SLI groupperformed more poorly than the HFA-LI group in the comprehension of the focus structure in the first experiment.We consider that the SLI children have more deficitsthan the HFA-LI group in alternative computation due to weaker semantic networkeffects.We also speculate that they are presumably slower in language processing anddisplay limited working memory capacity.Regarding the error patterns in IMN types,choosing wrong number of the referent was the most common for children withHFA-LI.Except for processing deficits,inattention,to some extent,accounts for mostof their non-target choices,which can be attributed to attentional dysfunction.Children with SLI made a relatively large number of nonspecific reading errors inOMN type.We suggest that the SLI group is more sensitive to the derivational andcomputational complexity of the generation.Overall,children with SLI arecharacterized by a deficit that is partially attributable to processing limitations.Andattentional abnormalities are believed to be associated with the disorder in HFA-LI.

reference(omitted)

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。