TY - JOUR
AU - Fine,, Jonathan
AB - Abstract The present study investigated oral personal narratives elicited from Arabic speaking adolescents with and without hearing loss. Analyses focused on macrostructure, microstructure, and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). For macrostructure, narratives were examined for structural components (abstract, orientation, complication, evaluation, resolution, and coda) and narrative patterns: classic (a high point followed by a resolution), high point ending, chronological, and leap frogging (jumps from one event to another). Microstructure included morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences. MSA features were lexis and syntax. The narratives of adolescents with hearing loss tended to lack an evaluation component (expressing the narrator’s perspective), contained more morpho-syntactic errors, fewer complex sentences, and fewer expressions of MSA than narratives of their hearing peers. Findings are discussed in terms of dissociation between macrostructure and microstructure in an attempt to shed light on those features of narrative which might benefit clinicians and educators working with Arabic speaking adolescents with hearing loss. Narrative production is a way to construct texts, ideas, and even lives; it involves coordination of cognitive, pragmatic, communicative and linguistic abilities (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Sartwell, 2006). It is a discourse genre based on organization of a series of events involving temporal sequences and causal connections (Nelson & Gruendel, 1986), where the events are motivated by agents (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991). Personal narratives can summarize a past experience by reconstructing a sequence of events with one or more characters. The events usually include a complication that needs to be resolved (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2008). Macro- and micro-levels of analysis are distinguished when investigating narrative production (e.g., Petersen, Gillam, & Gillam, 2008). Macro-level narrative structure assesses a story in terms of story grammar elements and includes the following elements: abstract (an introduction to the narrative which summarizes the point of the narrative), orientation (a description of place, time, characters, and their activity), complication (a dilemma or a change in the events), resolution (a description of the complication’s outcome) and a coda (a closing of the sequence of events) (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Johnstone, 2004; Peterson & McCabe, 1983; Stein & Glenn, 1979). In addition to these structural components, Labov (1997) stresses the importance of evaluation, which he describes as a “socio-emotional” construct and defines as “information on the consequences of the event for human needs and desires” (p. 6). The evaluation component of a narrative gives meaning to the events, underscores the point of the narrative, expresses the narrator’s perspective (Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983), and explains the sequence of the events and their causes (Norbury & Bishop, 2003). According to Labov and Waletzky (1967), a narrative that contains only an orientation, a complication and a resolution is not complete. It may carry out referential functions, but it will be difficult to understand. Such a narrative lacks significance: it has no point (1967). The evaluation section may be part of the narrative’s structural features, by suspending the complication section with several clauses located between the complicating action and the resolution; or it may be merged with the resolution in order to highlight the point of the narrative (Labov & Waletzky, 1967). In addition to the evaluation section, evaluation devices may be present as lexical or phrasal modification referring to attitudes, emotions and beliefs, scattered throughout the narrative (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1972). At the macro-level “High Point Analysis” has been used to study the overall structure of narratives (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). This approach relates to narrative as events structured around “high points” or “suspension points,” followed by resolution of a problem or conflict. High Point Analysis has been applied to children’s narratives and has shown development from a simple listing of events, to a chronological sequence, and eventually to a prototypical narrative structure, which has been labeled “the classic pattern” of narrative structure. The present study examined both the structural components of narratives as well as the overall structure via High Point Analysis. Microstructure elements of narrative cover a range of linguistic domains including features such as text length and complexity of utterances, measures of vocabulary, morphology, syntax and larger segments of discourse. Morpho-syntax (e.g., Reilly, Bates, & Marchman, 1998), complex syntax (e.g., subordinate and relative clauses) and story length (Strong & Shaver, 1991) have been shown to distinguish the narratives of children with and without atypical development. Narrative abilities change as a function of age as well as linguistic, cognitive, and social development. The development of narrative abilities has been shown to begin at about age two and continue through adolescence and even into adulthood. Eight and nine year old children showed the ability to use the “classic” narrative pattern including a complication and a resolution (Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; Berman & Slobin, 1994; Crosson & Geers, 2001; Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Around age 10–11 the organization of events follows canonical narrative form; stories become more complex, more detailed and structurally coherent (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). With development, children are better able to engage the listener’s attention and adapt to different audiences (Hudson & Shapiro, 1991). Nevertheless, various aspects of narrative ability continue to improve through adolescence, along with different cognitive and social domains. Language use also continues to develop. Semantically, adolescents show greater lexical diversity and express more specific concepts in their vocabulary (Nippold, 2002); morphologically, they use more accurate derivations (Carle, 2000); and syntactically, they use more marked, complex constructions such as embedded clauses, non-finite subordinate clauses and passives (Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2007; Ravid & Saban, 2008). Cognitive, social and linguistic factors influence the production of evaluation devices in narratives and enhance abilities to integrate and organize information, to understand the feelings of others, to use words acquired from reading, and to use metacognitive verbs that refer to mental events (e.g., Berman & Slobin, 1994; Nippold, 2007). These developmental trends have been documented across a variety of languages, including English, German, Hebrew, Spanish, and Turkish (Berman & Slobin, 1994). Cross-language differences have also been reported for both macrostructure and microstructure features of narrative. Linguistic/cultural variation has been shown for narrative content; for structural organization, including the construction, flow and macro-level patterns of stories; and for functions such as intentions, goals, and purposes (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Gorman, Fiestas, Pena, & Clark, 2011). In this light, research on narrative abilities in Arabic is essential for an understanding of language development in hearing individuals as well as those with hearing loss. Narrative Research in Arabic One of the special features of Arabic is diglossia, the use of two language varieties by the same community of speakers for different social functions (e.g., Ferguson, 1959; Holes, 1995; Lavin, 1994). The colloquial or spoken variety “Ammia” is the primary dialect used in everyday conversation at home and outside the classroom at school. It is acquired by native speakers as their mother tongue. The formal variety known as “Fusha” is Literary or Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and is acquired via formal education and used for “high” linguistic functions such as written language, formal speech, and religious sermons (Ferguson, 1959). Arabic speaking children grow up speaking colloquial Arabic but are exposed to MSA at home through documentary and educational television programs, in school through textbooks and in literary materials such as the Koran; it is considered by some a second language (Ayari, 1996; Ibrahim & Aharon-Peretz, 2005). These two varieties differ in all linguistic domains, the most salient of which are phonology and lexis (Holes, 1995; Kaye & Rosenhouse, 1997; Lavin, 1994). The present study was conducted in the context of colloquial Arabic but did attend to the use of lexical and syntactic features of MSA. Among the few published studies on narrative production among Arabic speakers, Henkin (1998) reported that when children are read stories in MSA in school, they usually choose to retell those stories in the colloquial dialect. Colloquial Arabic is also the language of the playground and school hallways, the standard variety being used primarily, if not solely, for instruction. Ravid, Naoum, and Nasser (2014) conducted a story retelling task where a fable-like story with picture support was told in MSA to 97 participants from seven age groups (nursery school to adulthood). The authors coded the data for a wide variety of narrative measures, including text size, content units, errors, referencing, and lexis (nouns, verbs, adjectives). Findings showed that stories included more instances of MSA lexicon and morpho-syntax and fewer errors as a function of age. Despite the fact that the story was presented in MSA, younger children retold the story primarily in the colloquial Palestinian dialect. Although diglossia was not the primary focus of this paper, exposure to the literary variety in school did influence story retelling even though participants were not given an explicit instruction to use a particular dialect. Leikin, Ibrahim, and Eghbaria (2014) also used a retelling task, asking 30 kindergarten children to retell two narratives, one presented in MSA and one in colloquial Arabic. Both narrative production and comprehension were examined. For production, a variety of micro-level (lexicon) and macro-level measures (story openings and endings; first recall of each character; referential ambiguity; content units) were examined by comparing the children’s narratives to the original stories. Findings showed better performance for narratives elicited via Spoken Arabic for fluency, clause length, and morpho-syntactic errors; greater use of nouns and verbs than in the stimulus stories; and higher quality of content units. However, for comprehension and most macro-level measures children’s stories in MSA elicitation condition were equivalent or better than in the colloquial condition. The authors note in particular that despite the lack of formal training in MSA, “pre-school children have already acquired literary Arabic to an extent that allows them to retell coherently the story read to them in LA [Literary Arabic]” (p. 744). They conclude that opportunities for mastering MSA are due to encouragement from parents and exposure to MSA in media. In general, these studies suggest that Arabic narratives are influenced by diglossia, since children often choose to tell stories which they read or were read to them at school in MSA. Nevertheless, the phonology, grammar, and lexicon of the narratives are influenced by diglossia as well (Henkin, 1998). From this brief review about narrative research in Arabic, the need for further studies focusing on Arabic is clear. Moreover, none of the previous research included participants with atypical language development or with hearing loss focusing on language performance, and global structure in oral personal experience narratives. For the present study, adolescents were expected to use the colloquial variety, both because it is the spoken variety and because of the informal nature of genre of a personal narratives. Nevertheless, the study also sought to investigate the special feature of diglossia, specifically to investigate whether participants would use MSA expressions when producing a narrative in colloquial Arabic. Narrative Research in Individuals with Hearing Loss Marschark and colleagues (Knoors & Marschark, 2014; Marschark, Spencer, Adams, & Sapere, 2011) identified and reviewed a broad spectrum of factors relevant to learning among children with hearing loss, including but not limited to cognitive, linguistic and social-emotional factors. Among the wide range of cognitive factors, they examined category and conceptual knowledge (e.g., “coherence and stability in the conceptual knowledge”), integration of information, executive function abilities (e.g., controlling attention, “mutual understanding and cognitive interaction”), metacognition (theory of mind abilities), working memory and memory for sequential information. All of these factors impact in different ways on narrative abilities, and all show reduced performance among children with hearing loss populations. In addition, the development of narrative skills is influenced by a variety of input factors including incidental learning from parent–child interactions and by repeated exposure to different types of story forms (Berman, 1995; Snow & Dickinson, 1990). Narrative skills are also acquired through reading (Snow, Tabors, Nicholson, & Kurland, 1995) and by intervention in clinics and special education settings (Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003). Thus, cognitive abilities, language difficulties (detailed in the next paragraph) and limited exposure all impact on narrative abilities. Research on narrative abilities of children with hearing loss shows that they tell shorter, less complete, and less organized stories and comprehend and remember fewer details (e.g., King & Quigley, 1985; Soares, Goulart, & Chiari, 2010; Yoshinaga-Itano, 1986). Difficulties have also been reported in morphology, syntax and reference (e.g., Crosson & Geers, 2001; Marschark, Mouradian, & Halas, 1994; Morgan, 2002; Morgan & Woll, 2003; Yoshinaga-Itano & Snyder, 1985). Most of these studies have focused on written or signed narratives by deaf children in English speaking communities. But studies investigating oral language among deaf participants have also reported deficits in morphological, phonological, and narrative structure and in the use of connectives (Soares et al. 2010; Worsfold, Mahon, Yuen, & Kennedy, 2010). The present study compared personal oral narratives of Arabic speaking hearing participants and those of participants with hearing loss. Specific objectives of the study addressed the following questions: (1) To what extent do the narratives of Arabic-speaking adolescents with and without hearing loss differ for macrostructure and microstructure features of their narratives? (2) To what extent do the narratives of Arabic-speaking adolescents with and without hearing loss differ for the use of MSA expressions? (3) To what extent are macrostructure patterns related to microstructure abilities? Hypotheses Macrostructure Components Narratives of adolescents with and without hearing loss are expected to contain orientations, complications, and resolutions, while fewer narratives elicited from participants with hearing loss are expected to contain an evaluation component than the narratives elicited from hearing participants. High Point Analysis Developmental research on oral personal narratives shows that mature narratives are structured around a “high point,” labeled the “classic pattern” (e.g., Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Since all participants were adolescents, they were expected to produce the classic narrative pattern, with no difference predicted between adolescents with and without hearing loss. Beyond developmental considerations, it is possible that cultural differences and/or lack of experience in telling stories may influence the type of narrative pattern. Microstructure Participants with hearing loss are predicted to produce narratives of similar length. In addition, the narratives of participants with hearing loss are predicted to contain more morpho-syntactic errors and fewer complex sentences than the narratives of their hearing peers. Modern Standard Arabic Since MSA is primarily used for written texts and formal discourse, and the task in the present study involved oral personal narratives, we predict that very little MSA will be used in the narratives of both groups. In addition, the hearing participants are expected to produce more expressions from MSA than the participants with hearing loss due to greater exposure to this variety. We also predict that the frequency of syntactic units with MSA expressions will correlate positively with the production of complex sentences and negatively with the number of syntactic units with morpho-syntactic errors. Macrostructure and Morpho-Syntactic Abilities Macrostructure abilities were not expected to correlate significantly with morpho-syntactic abilities. Method Participants A total of 124 adolescents, native speakers of Arabic from middle class, literate backgrounds, in grades 6–10 attending mainstream public schools in cities, towns and villages in Israel participated in the study. Approximately half the participants (n = 63, 36 males and 27 females), ages 12–16 (mean 13 years 7 months) with typical levels of hearing and typical language development and no significant developmental delay were recruited from high schools across the country. Another 61 participants (32 males and 29 females), ages 12–16 (mean 13 years, 8 months) had prelingual bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss. Inclusion criteria for the participants with hearing loss were: (1) age (12–16 years), (2) hearing level (moderate to profound hearing loss in the better ear – unaided, of more than 40 dB, measured as an average of 500, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz by an up-to-date audiogram), (3) use of an assistive listening device (from at least one year of age), (4) Arabic as the home language, and (5) no significant developmental delay. Information about the distribution of participants for degree of hearing loss, assistive listening device and exposure to Sign Language is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Number of participants with hearing loss as a function of severity, assistive listening device and sign language exposure Hearing level Sign language exposure Assistive listening device Cochlear Implant Hearing aid Total Moderate Sign language exposure Yes 2 2 No 13 13 Total 15 15 Severe Sign language exposure Yes 4 4 No 23 23 Total 27 27 Profound Sign language exposure Yes 7 7 No 12 12 Total 19 19 Total Sign language exposure Yes 7 6 13 No 12 36 48 Total 19 42 61 Hearing level Sign language exposure Assistive listening device Cochlear Implant Hearing aid Total Moderate Sign language exposure Yes 2 2 No 13 13 Total 15 15 Severe Sign language exposure Yes 4 4 No 23 23 Total 27 27 Profound Sign language exposure Yes 7 7 No 12 12 Total 19 19 Total Sign language exposure Yes 7 6 13 No 12 36 48 Total 19 42 61 Table 1 Number of participants with hearing loss as a function of severity, assistive listening device and sign language exposure Hearing level Sign language exposure Assistive listening device Cochlear Implant Hearing aid Total Moderate Sign language exposure Yes 2 2 No 13 13 Total 15 15 Severe Sign language exposure Yes 4 4 No 23 23 Total 27 27 Profound Sign language exposure Yes 7 7 No 12 12 Total 19 19 Total Sign language exposure Yes 7 6 13 No 12 36 48 Total 19 42 61 Hearing level Sign language exposure Assistive listening device Cochlear Implant Hearing aid Total Moderate Sign language exposure Yes 2 2 No 13 13 Total 15 15 Severe Sign language exposure Yes 4 4 No 23 23 Total 27 27 Profound Sign language exposure Yes 7 7 No 12 12 Total 19 19 Total Sign language exposure Yes 7 6 13 No 12 36 48 Total 19 42 61 All participants with hearing loss were recruited from deaf and hard of hearing treatment centers under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and responded to a background questionnaire developed for the present study based on the Deafness, Cognition and Language Research (DCAL) Participant Database (http://itservices.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/DCAL/) and adapted to Arabic and to the local culture. The questionnaire data showed that all participants with hearing loss used oral communication, different assistive listening devices and some were exposed to Israeli Sign Language (ISL) at different stages of life. ISL is the sign language conventionally used in both Arabic and Hebrew-speaking communities. Analogous to American Sign Language (ASL), it has its own morphology and syntax and is neither signed Hebrew nor signed Arabic. In terms of sign language exposure, participants with hearing loss replied to five questions in the background questionnaire data as follows: Do you use sign language? On a scale of 1 to 7, how good is your sign language? Where did you learn sign language? (at home from a family member, from a tutor, from teachers/peers at school, from family member outside home, in sign language classes)? How old were you when you started to sign? Which communication mode do your prefer (sign language/oral communication)? Of the 13 participants with hearing loss who were exposed to sign language, nine were exposed at school age from friends with hearing loss and hearing teachers; the other four had either deaf fathers or siblings and were exposed to sign language from a younger age at home. No participants were exposed to sign language as a mother tongue, none used sign language regularly, and all 13 preferred oral communication over sign language. The composition of the two groups (hearing and hearing loss) did not differ in age, t(122) = 0.224, p = .823, or gender, χ2 (1,N = 124) = 0.797, p = .372. All participants had typical academic performance, as documented by school reports. No diagnosed learning disabilities, behavioral issues or other difficulties were reported. All participants were given parental permission to participate in the study, and the study was approved by the university ethics committee and by the national Ministry of Education. Procedure For elicitation of narratives, each adolescent was interviewed individually in a quiet room at his/her school, in deaf and hard of hearing education and treatment centers, or in his/her home. All interviews were conducted in colloquial Arabic. Each participant was asked to tell a personal story about a time he or she was in a dangerous situation. The interviewer prompted the participant as follows: “/beddi teħkili ʔosa ʕan tajrebe sarat maʕak, fiha ħasset ʔinak be xatar/”, “I would like you to tell me a story about an experience where you felt in danger.” Narratives of personal experiences were chosen for elicitation, since they involve events that are part of the speaker’s biography, and such events lend themselves to evaluation, both socially and emotionally. In addition, elicitation of personal experience narratives allows investigation of macrostructure and morpho-syntactic linguistic abilities all in the same framework. All participants were videotaped while telling their stories. The interviewer (the first author), a native speaker of Arabic and a certified speech clinician, did not provide verbal feedback that might influence the content of the narrated stories, offering only neutral comments such as “uh huh” or a nod of the head. Narratives were transcribed in Arabic orthography and included repetitions and self-corrections. The transcribed narratives were segmented into syntactic units, defined as a single predicate expressing an activity, event or state based on Berman and Slobin (1994). Data Analyses Analyses focused on three aspects of narrative production as follows: macrostructure (Story Grammar components and High Point Analysis), microstructure features (productivity, morpho-syntax, and complexity), and the use of MSA. Macrostructure The Story Grammar analysis included the following six components: abstract (an introduction to the narrative which summarizes the point of the narrative), orientation (a description of place, time, characters and their activity), complication (a dilemma or a change in the events continuance), evaluation (narrator’s perspective), resolution (a description of the complication’s outcome) and coda (a closing of the sequence of events) (Labov, 1972, 1997; Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). Story grammar components were statistically analyzed by independent sample t-tests for each of the six components. High Point Analysis focused on overall narrative structure (Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983), and narratives were classified into the following patterns: (1) classical: the narrative orients the listener to characters, events, time, and place of the events, builds actions up to a high point, and then resolves it; the classic narrative pattern minimally includes an orientation, complication, evaluation and resolution; (2) high point ending: the narrative builds up to a high point and ends without resolution; (3) leap frogging: the narrative jumps from one event to another, leaving out major events and not following a logical sequence; (4) chronological: the narrative contains a chronological sequence of events but no climax. High Point Analyses were analyzed by Chi-square analyses to compare the production of narrative patterns of hearing participants and those with hearing loss. The following narrative (produced by a participant with hearing loss) illustrates the classic pattern. The translation from Arabic is not literal, since the focus here is on macrostructure. Transcription and translation of examples of morpho-syntax and complex syntax intentionally maintained errors when they existed; otherwise, conventional English was used. The example narrative begins with an orientation, presenting the time, place, characters, purpose, and initial event. The next component is a complication, which presents a dilemma and a change in the events. This is followed by an evaluation component, including suspension of the complicating events and an opinion comment. The narrative continues with an outcome resolving the dilemma. The narrative ends with a coda which closes the sequence of the events: (Orientation) Once when I was young. I was less than one year. [I was] months. Now we had a small ledge behind the [flower] bed, which overlooks our neighbor’s house below our house. Now when I was {and} young I was playing in the bathtub. (Complication) I fell upside down. Now, there was a box down there. I fell on it. My back head was injured. (Evaluation) Now, if there was no box, I would have been finished. (Resolution) They took me to the hospital immediately on the spot. And over there, they stitched my head from here (pointing at his head). And I stayed in the hospital for [a] few days. (Coda) And I went back home. At that time, my father took me to the “Omra”, and based on that he called me Muammar. Microstructure For microstructure abilities, measures of productivity, morpho-syntactic errors, and complex sentences were assessed. Productivity was assessed by total number of content words. Grammatical morphemes concatenated to content words used in each narrative were counted separately. Grammatical morphemes included: plural suffix /at/, determiner /el/, negative suffix /ʃ/, conjunctions /w/ and /fa/, concatenated prepositions /be/ “in” and /le/ “to” and suffix enclitic pronouns /ʔiʒro/ “[his] leg.” In addition, total number of syntactic units were tallied. A syntactic unit was defined according to Berman and Slobin (1994) as a “unit containing a unified predicate, whether in the form of a verb or adjective” (p. 26). Mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors was calculated out of the total number of syntactic units. Morpho-syntactic errors were identified as one of 16 types and classified into six word class categories, as presented in Table 2. Morpho-syntacic errors were analyzed statistically by independent sample t-tests. Table 2 Morpho-syntactic error types and examples Grammatical category Error type and examples Verbs Subject–verb agreement Example: /(kan) ajam saʕbe/ “they (was) difficult days.” Inflection errors for person, gender, number, tense and conjugation Example: /baqet ʔana meʃ tʕawadet/ “I was not I used to.” Verb omission Example:/______ ʔiʒrak/ “____ your leg.” Prepositions Preposition omission Example: /rohet mustashfa/ “I went hospital.” Preposition substitution Example: /wke3et fi l ared/ “I fell in the ground.” Preposition addition Example: /konet ʔa γamedˁ bi ʕenaj/ “I was closing in my eyes.” Pronouns Omission of obligatory pronouns Example: /ʔaʃuf ħaddo iza () asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if () was faster or not.” Person, gender and number errors in pronoun inflection Example: /behay essef/ ‘In “this (feminine) summer (masculine).” Insertion of a pronoun to a lexical subject Example: /konna nelʕab(ha) kalemat/ “we were playing (it) words. Adjectives Errors in gender and number in noun-adjective agreement Example:/lamba madwi/ ‘a lamp (feminine) is lit (masculine inflection)‘. Determiners Determiner omission Example: /ʕaʃan lamba madwi/ “because lamp is lit.” Determiner insertion Example: /kasaret el qazaz el shubbak/ “I broke the window the glass.” Clauses Omission of subject, predicate or object Example: /() akbar minnu b sene/ “() was older than him in one year.” Omission of subordinate clause after a subordinate conjunction or relative pronoun Example: /maraq min ħadna tren elle/ “a train which…passed by us.” Errors in word order Example: /aʃuf haddo iza asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if faser or not.” Insertion of conjunction Example: /marra baqet w zγire/, once I was and a little girl’. Insertion of object to an intransitive verb Example: /henne rah yeqdaro yerbahoni/ “they will be able to win me.” Grammatical category Error type and examples Verbs Subject–verb agreement Example: /(kan) ajam saʕbe/ “they (was) difficult days.” Inflection errors for person, gender, number, tense and conjugation Example: /baqet ʔana meʃ tʕawadet/ “I was not I used to.” Verb omission Example:/______ ʔiʒrak/ “____ your leg.” Prepositions Preposition omission Example: /rohet mustashfa/ “I went hospital.” Preposition substitution Example: /wke3et fi l ared/ “I fell in the ground.” Preposition addition Example: /konet ʔa γamedˁ bi ʕenaj/ “I was closing in my eyes.” Pronouns Omission of obligatory pronouns Example: /ʔaʃuf ħaddo iza () asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if () was faster or not.” Person, gender and number errors in pronoun inflection Example: /behay essef/ ‘In “this (feminine) summer (masculine).” Insertion of a pronoun to a lexical subject Example: /konna nelʕab(ha) kalemat/ “we were playing (it) words. Adjectives Errors in gender and number in noun-adjective agreement Example:/lamba madwi/ ‘a lamp (feminine) is lit (masculine inflection)‘. Determiners Determiner omission Example: /ʕaʃan lamba madwi/ “because lamp is lit.” Determiner insertion Example: /kasaret el qazaz el shubbak/ “I broke the window the glass.” Clauses Omission of subject, predicate or object Example: /() akbar minnu b sene/ “() was older than him in one year.” Omission of subordinate clause after a subordinate conjunction or relative pronoun Example: /maraq min ħadna tren elle/ “a train which…passed by us.” Errors in word order Example: /aʃuf haddo iza asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if faser or not.” Insertion of conjunction Example: /marra baqet w zγire/, once I was and a little girl’. Insertion of object to an intransitive verb Example: /henne rah yeqdaro yerbahoni/ “they will be able to win me.” Table 2 Morpho-syntactic error types and examples Grammatical category Error type and examples Verbs Subject–verb agreement Example: /(kan) ajam saʕbe/ “they (was) difficult days.” Inflection errors for person, gender, number, tense and conjugation Example: /baqet ʔana meʃ tʕawadet/ “I was not I used to.” Verb omission Example:/______ ʔiʒrak/ “____ your leg.” Prepositions Preposition omission Example: /rohet mustashfa/ “I went hospital.” Preposition substitution Example: /wke3et fi l ared/ “I fell in the ground.” Preposition addition Example: /konet ʔa γamedˁ bi ʕenaj/ “I was closing in my eyes.” Pronouns Omission of obligatory pronouns Example: /ʔaʃuf ħaddo iza () asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if () was faster or not.” Person, gender and number errors in pronoun inflection Example: /behay essef/ ‘In “this (feminine) summer (masculine).” Insertion of a pronoun to a lexical subject Example: /konna nelʕab(ha) kalemat/ “we were playing (it) words. Adjectives Errors in gender and number in noun-adjective agreement Example:/lamba madwi/ ‘a lamp (feminine) is lit (masculine inflection)‘. Determiners Determiner omission Example: /ʕaʃan lamba madwi/ “because lamp is lit.” Determiner insertion Example: /kasaret el qazaz el shubbak/ “I broke the window the glass.” Clauses Omission of subject, predicate or object Example: /() akbar minnu b sene/ “() was older than him in one year.” Omission of subordinate clause after a subordinate conjunction or relative pronoun Example: /maraq min ħadna tren elle/ “a train which…passed by us.” Errors in word order Example: /aʃuf haddo iza asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if faser or not.” Insertion of conjunction Example: /marra baqet w zγire/, once I was and a little girl’. Insertion of object to an intransitive verb Example: /henne rah yeqdaro yerbahoni/ “they will be able to win me.” Grammatical category Error type and examples Verbs Subject–verb agreement Example: /(kan) ajam saʕbe/ “they (was) difficult days.” Inflection errors for person, gender, number, tense and conjugation Example: /baqet ʔana meʃ tʕawadet/ “I was not I used to.” Verb omission Example:/______ ʔiʒrak/ “____ your leg.” Prepositions Preposition omission Example: /rohet mustashfa/ “I went hospital.” Preposition substitution Example: /wke3et fi l ared/ “I fell in the ground.” Preposition addition Example: /konet ʔa γamedˁ bi ʕenaj/ “I was closing in my eyes.” Pronouns Omission of obligatory pronouns Example: /ʔaʃuf ħaddo iza () asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if () was faster or not.” Person, gender and number errors in pronoun inflection Example: /behay essef/ ‘In “this (feminine) summer (masculine).” Insertion of a pronoun to a lexical subject Example: /konna nelʕab(ha) kalemat/ “we were playing (it) words. Adjectives Errors in gender and number in noun-adjective agreement Example:/lamba madwi/ ‘a lamp (feminine) is lit (masculine inflection)‘. Determiners Determiner omission Example: /ʕaʃan lamba madwi/ “because lamp is lit.” Determiner insertion Example: /kasaret el qazaz el shubbak/ “I broke the window the glass.” Clauses Omission of subject, predicate or object Example: /() akbar minnu b sene/ “() was older than him in one year.” Omission of subordinate clause after a subordinate conjunction or relative pronoun Example: /maraq min ħadna tren elle/ “a train which…passed by us.” Errors in word order Example: /aʃuf haddo iza asraʕ walla laʔ/ “to see beside it if faser or not.” Insertion of conjunction Example: /marra baqet w zγire/, once I was and a little girl’. Insertion of object to an intransitive verb Example: /henne rah yeqdaro yerbahoni/ “they will be able to win me.” Finally, mean percent of complex sentences was calculated out of the total number of syntactic units. Four types of complex sentences were identified: (1) Passive constructions where the object of the active variant is the grammatical subject, for example: /meʃ maʕqul enha tkun enkasrat edek/ “it’s not possible that your hand was broken.” (2) Relative clauses linked to a noun phrase constituent of the main clause, for example: /hada elmaħal elle besaʒlo fejo/ “the place where they registered in.” (3) Complement clauses included arguments of a predicate selected by a verb, noun, or adjective, for example: /ʃantiti hi elli taqriban ħamatni/ “it was my bag which almost protected me.” (4) Adverbial clauses where the adverbial clause modifies a verb phrase or sentential clause, for example: /hi ʕam tiħkini ʕaʃan telhini/ “she was talking to me in order to distract me.” Modern Standard Arabic Lexical items, grammatical constructions and conjunction words from MSA were identified in the narratives. The mean percent of MSA use out of the total number of syntactic units was calculated for each participant, and totals are reported for each group. These percentages for the two groups were compared via independent sample t-tests. Reliability All 124 narratives were coded by the first author. In addition, two adult native speakers of Arabic, both university graduates, each viewed 26 video recordings (13 from each participant group) and coded each narrative for the High Point Analysis patterns and morpho-syntactic errors. Intra-class Correlation Coefficients were calculated from the three ratings. Reliability for the narrative pattern (High Point Analysis) ratings of the three different judges was 0.847 for both groups combined with a 95% confidence interval, F(23,38) = 6.447, p < .001. The Intra-Class Correlation reliability coefficient for the morpho-syntactic errors among the three raters for 21% of the narratives (26/124) was found to be: ICC (2,3) = 0.987, p < .001. Results Findings are first presented in sequence for Macrostructure (Story Grammar components and High Point Analysis), for Microstructure features (productivity and morpho-syntax) and for the use of MSA. The next two sections report on the relationship between MSA expressions and morpho-syntactic abilities and the relationship between macrostructure patterns and morpho-syntactic abilities. Macrostructure Story grammar components The results showed that all but a few participants included orientations (n = 120) and complications (n = 123) in their narratives, that most participants included an evaluation component (n = 97), and approximately half produced resolutions (n = 70) and codas (n = 56). However, very few (less than 15%) included abstracts (n = 16) in their narratives. These findings support the hypothesis that most narratives among both groups would contain orientations and complications as well as evaluations and resolutions, and a small number of narratives would contain an abstract and a coda. Independent sample t-tests for each of the six components showed that only the evaluation component yielded significant differences between the two groups, where 86% of the hearing participants included an evaluation component as compared to 70% of the participants with hearing loss, t(122) = 2.072, p = .04. This significant difference supports the hypothesis that the evaluation component would distinguish the two groups. High Point Analysis Four different narrative patterns were identified in the narrative data: classic, high point ending, leap frogging, and chronological. Table 3 presents the distribution of the four patterns for the participants with and without hearing loss. Table 3 Distribution of narrative patterns for participants with and without hearing loss Classic High point ending Leap frogging Chronological Hearing 37 18 7 1 Hearing loss 34 19 5 3 Classic High point ending Leap frogging Chronological Hearing 37 18 7 1 Hearing loss 34 19 5 3 Table 3 Distribution of narrative patterns for participants with and without hearing loss Classic High point ending Leap frogging Chronological Hearing 37 18 7 1 Hearing loss 34 19 5 3 Classic High point ending Leap frogging Chronological Hearing 37 18 7 1 Hearing loss 34 19 5 3 Results showed that 57.3% of all participants used the classic pattern to tell their narratives, 29.8% produced a “high point ending” pattern, with the remaining divided between the leap frogging (9.6%) and chronological patterns (3.2%). One narrative (from a participant with hearing loss) was unclassifiable. Chi-square analyses were performed to compare the production of narrative patterns of hearing participants and those with hearing loss. Results showed no significant difference between the two groups, χ2(4,124) = 2.123, p = .697. In addition, comparison of the classic pattern with the other three patterns yielded no significant differences, χ2(1, 124) = 0.806, p = .369, rejecting the hypothesis that the “classic” pattern would be prevalent among the narratives of the participants in the study. Microstructure Features Productivity (number of words and number of syntactic units), complex sentences and morpho-syntactic errors were examined. Productivity Despite the fact that the narratives of hearing participants were longer as measured in the number of words than those with hearing loss (M = 83, SD = 88 versus M = 64, SD = 48.9) and as measured in syntactic units (M = 20.4, SD = 19.5 versus M = 18.6, SD = 15.5), neither productivity measure yielded significant group differences, t(122) = 1.49, p = .14 and t(122) = 0.554, p = .58, for length in words and syntactic units, respectively. This result supported the hypothesis that participants with hearing loss would tell stories of similar length to those of their hearing peers. Morpho-syntactic errors Hearing adolescents produced fewer morpho-syntactic errors (M = 9.5%, SD = .12) than those with hearing loss (M = 16.8%, SD = .12). This difference was significant, t(122) = 3.35, p = .001, also supporting the hypothesis. Table 4 presents the mean frequency and percent of syntactic units for six morpho-syntactic error categories and results of t-tests for the differences between the narratives of participants with and without hearing loss. Table 4 Mean frequency and percentage of syntactic units for each of six syntactic error categories in narratives of adolescents with and without hearing loss and t-values for the difference between the two groups Error category Hearing Hearing loss t Value Frequency (%) SD Frequency (%) SD Verbs 17 (1.3%) (3.6%) 42 (3.6%) (0.086%) 2.220* p = .028 Prepositions 5 (.04%) (2.8%) 10 (.09%) (3.52%) 1.058 p = .292 Pronouns 13 (1%) (3.2%) 20 (1.8%) (3.59%) 1.168 p = .245 Adjectives 1 (.00%) (.009%) 10 (.09%) (1.37%) 2.679** p = .008 Determiners 0 0 10 (.09%) (3.12%) 2.455* p = .015 Clauses 74 (7.3%) (7.5%) 84 (7.4%) (7.88%) 1.289 p = .20 Error category Hearing Hearing loss t Value Frequency (%) SD Frequency (%) SD Verbs 17 (1.3%) (3.6%) 42 (3.6%) (0.086%) 2.220* p = .028 Prepositions 5 (.04%) (2.8%) 10 (.09%) (3.52%) 1.058 p = .292 Pronouns 13 (1%) (3.2%) 20 (1.8%) (3.59%) 1.168 p = .245 Adjectives 1 (.00%) (.009%) 10 (.09%) (1.37%) 2.679** p = .008 Determiners 0 0 10 (.09%) (3.12%) 2.455* p = .015 Clauses 74 (7.3%) (7.5%) 84 (7.4%) (7.88%) 1.289 p = .20 *p < .05, **p < .01. Percentages calculated out of total syntactic units. SD = standard deviation. Table 4 Mean frequency and percentage of syntactic units for each of six syntactic error categories in narratives of adolescents with and without hearing loss and t-values for the difference between the two groups Error category Hearing Hearing loss t Value Frequency (%) SD Frequency (%) SD Verbs 17 (1.3%) (3.6%) 42 (3.6%) (0.086%) 2.220* p = .028 Prepositions 5 (.04%) (2.8%) 10 (.09%) (3.52%) 1.058 p = .292 Pronouns 13 (1%) (3.2%) 20 (1.8%) (3.59%) 1.168 p = .245 Adjectives 1 (.00%) (.009%) 10 (.09%) (1.37%) 2.679** p = .008 Determiners 0 0 10 (.09%) (3.12%) 2.455* p = .015 Clauses 74 (7.3%) (7.5%) 84 (7.4%) (7.88%) 1.289 p = .20 Error category Hearing Hearing loss t Value Frequency (%) SD Frequency (%) SD Verbs 17 (1.3%) (3.6%) 42 (3.6%) (0.086%) 2.220* p = .028 Prepositions 5 (.04%) (2.8%) 10 (.09%) (3.52%) 1.058 p = .292 Pronouns 13 (1%) (3.2%) 20 (1.8%) (3.59%) 1.168 p = .245 Adjectives 1 (.00%) (.009%) 10 (.09%) (1.37%) 2.679** p = .008 Determiners 0 0 10 (.09%) (3.12%) 2.455* p = .015 Clauses 74 (7.3%) (7.5%) 84 (7.4%) (7.88%) 1.289 p = .20 *p < .05, **p < .01. Percentages calculated out of total syntactic units. SD = standard deviation. Independent sample t-tests conducted on the mean percent of syntactic units for each of the six morpho-syntactic error types showed significant differences for three error categories, as follows: a. more verb errors were found for the participants with hearing loss (M = 3.6, SD = 8.6) than for the hearing participants (M = 1.5, SD = 3.6), t(122) = 2.2, p = .028; b. more adjective errors were found for the participants with hearing loss (M = 0.9, SD = 1.3) than for the hearing participants (M = 0.01, SD = 0.09), t(122) = 2.7, p = .008; and c. more determiner errors were found for the participants with hearing loss (M = 0.09, SD = 1.3) than for the hearing participants (M = 0, SD = 0), t(122) = 2.5, p = .015. Error categories which were uncommon for the hearing participants included adjective and preposition errors. In addition, the hearing participants did not produce any determiner errors at all. In summary, for microstructure analyses, hearing participants produced significantly more complex sentences and significantly fewer morpho-syntactic errors. In terms of specific errors, the participants with hearing loss produced significantly more verb, adjective and determiner errors than their hearing peers. No differences were found for productivity measures. Complex sentences Both groups of participants produced relatively few complex sentences in relating their personal narrative (M = 13.7%, SD = 7.8). Overall, the mean percent of complex sentences was significantly higher for the hearing adolescents (M = 15.4%, SD = 7.8) than for the participants with hearing loss (M = 12%, SD = .08), t(122) = 2.41, p = .018, thus supporting the hypothesis. Modern Standard Arabic Instances of MSA included features of vocabulary, sentence structure and the conjunction word “fa.” Both groups of participants produced relatively few MSA expressions while narrating their personal experiences. Overall the mean percent of MSA expressions use (out of the total number of syntactic units) was 4.3%. Participants with typical hearing produced more than four times as many MSA expressions (M = 7%, SD = 9.4) than participants with hearing loss (M = 1.6%, SD = 4.2), t(122) = 4.087, p < .001. Examination of individual data showed that 99 instances of MSA were produced by a total of 32 hearing participants (32/63), and 20 instances among the participants with hearing loss were accounted for by only 12 participants (12/61), a single participant producing five of these 20 instances. For hearing participants, over half the instances of MSA involved “fa” (54 out of 99 instances), about 25 percent involved vocabulary choice (26 of 99) and the remainder (14 of 99) involved MSA grammatical structures. For the adolescents with hearing loss, MSA use was evenly split between “fa” (8) and vocabulary choice (7), with only two instances involving grammatical choice. The results here support the hypothesis that very little MSA would be used in the personal narratives of both groups. In addition, the data confirm expectations that the hearing participants would produce more expressions from MSA. MSA and Morpho-Syntactic Abilities In an effort to further understand the use of MSA in the narratives, correlations were conducted between the frequency of MSA expressions and a. the frequency of morpho-syntactic errors and b. the use of complex sentences. All resulting correlations were non-significant for each group separately. One significant correlation emerged for the sample as a whole: between the mean percent of MSA expressions and the mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, r = −.189 (p = .035), showing that the presence of fewer morpho-syntactic errors was accompanied by more MSA expressions. Macrostructure Patterns and Morpho-Syntactic Abilities Table 5 presents the mean percent of complex sentences and morpho-syntactic errors produced by both groups of participants for each narrative pattern. Table 5 Mean percent and the standard deviation of morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences produced by both groups of participants for each narrative pattern Group Narrative pattern Morpho-syntactic errors Complex sentences Hearing Loss Classic Mean 18.91 12 N 34 34 SD 12.75 8.1 Ending at high point Mean 12.78 15.0 N 19 19 SD 10.89 82 Leap frogging Mean 21.10 12.62 N 5 5 SD 14.47 4.4 Chronological Mean 10.17 11.83 N 3 3 SD 9. 3.95 Total Mean 16.75 11.95 N 61 61 SD 12.39 7.96 Hearing Classic Mean 7.76 17.28 N 37 37 SD 10.22 7.09 Ending at high point Mean 13.79 12.66 N 18 18 SD 14.65 8.63 Leap frogging Mean 9.36 11.39 N 7 7 SD 7.78 7.25 Chronological Mean .00 21.10 N 1 1 SD . . Total Mean 9.54 15.37 N 63 63 SD 11.58 7.83 Group Narrative pattern Morpho-syntactic errors Complex sentences Hearing Loss Classic Mean 18.91 12 N 34 34 SD 12.75 8.1 Ending at high point Mean 12.78 15.0 N 19 19 SD 10.89 82 Leap frogging Mean 21.10 12.62 N 5 5 SD 14.47 4.4 Chronological Mean 10.17 11.83 N 3 3 SD 9. 3.95 Total Mean 16.75 11.95 N 61 61 SD 12.39 7.96 Hearing Classic Mean 7.76 17.28 N 37 37 SD 10.22 7.09 Ending at high point Mean 13.79 12.66 N 18 18 SD 14.65 8.63 Leap frogging Mean 9.36 11.39 N 7 7 SD 7.78 7.25 Chronological Mean .00 21.10 N 1 1 SD . . Total Mean 9.54 15.37 N 63 63 SD 11.58 7.83 SD = standard deviation. Table 5 Mean percent and the standard deviation of morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences produced by both groups of participants for each narrative pattern Group Narrative pattern Morpho-syntactic errors Complex sentences Hearing Loss Classic Mean 18.91 12 N 34 34 SD 12.75 8.1 Ending at high point Mean 12.78 15.0 N 19 19 SD 10.89 82 Leap frogging Mean 21.10 12.62 N 5 5 SD 14.47 4.4 Chronological Mean 10.17 11.83 N 3 3 SD 9. 3.95 Total Mean 16.75 11.95 N 61 61 SD 12.39 7.96 Hearing Classic Mean 7.76 17.28 N 37 37 SD 10.22 7.09 Ending at high point Mean 13.79 12.66 N 18 18 SD 14.65 8.63 Leap frogging Mean 9.36 11.39 N 7 7 SD 7.78 7.25 Chronological Mean .00 21.10 N 1 1 SD . . Total Mean 9.54 15.37 N 63 63 SD 11.58 7.83 Group Narrative pattern Morpho-syntactic errors Complex sentences Hearing Loss Classic Mean 18.91 12 N 34 34 SD 12.75 8.1 Ending at high point Mean 12.78 15.0 N 19 19 SD 10.89 82 Leap frogging Mean 21.10 12.62 N 5 5 SD 14.47 4.4 Chronological Mean 10.17 11.83 N 3 3 SD 9. 3.95 Total Mean 16.75 11.95 N 61 61 SD 12.39 7.96 Hearing Classic Mean 7.76 17.28 N 37 37 SD 10.22 7.09 Ending at high point Mean 13.79 12.66 N 18 18 SD 14.65 8.63 Leap frogging Mean 9.36 11.39 N 7 7 SD 7.78 7.25 Chronological Mean .00 21.10 N 1 1 SD . . Total Mean 9.54 15.37 N 63 63 SD 11.58 7.83 SD = standard deviation. In order to examine the relationship between macrostructure and microstructure abilities, between subjects ANOVAs were conducted for the difference in mean percentage of morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences across the four narrative patterns. For morpho-syntactic errors, no significant differences emerged for either group across the four narrative patterns. For the participants with hearing loss, F(3,57) = 1.521, p = .219 and for the hearing participants, F(3,59) = 1.348, p = .268. For complex sentences, however, a trend toward significance emerged for the narratives of the hearing participants, F(3,59) = 2.238, p = .078. The classic pattern had the most complex sentences, followed by the high point pattern and leap frogging, which included the lowest percent of complex sentences. Thus, disregarding the one participant who used the chronological pattern, this finding indicates that more complex sentences were used in the more developmentally advanced pattern, i.e., the classic pattern. For the participants with hearing loss, the results showed no significant difference among the patterns, F(3,57) = 1.647, p = .189. The various subgroups of the participants with hearing loss were compared for measures of macrostructure (macrostructure components and narrative patterns), microstructure (length, morpho-syntactic errors, and complex sentences) and the production of MSA expressions. Hearing level The mean values for the production of morpho-syntactic errors, complex sentences, and MSA expressions in each subgroup, as well as the ANOVA results of the differences between the subgroups are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex sentences, and Modern Standard Arabic expressions for three subgroups of hearing severity and ANOVA results for subgroup differences Moderate Severe Profound Total F value n = 15 n = 27 n = 19 n = 61 Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 12.65 (10.18) 17.33 (14.11) 19.16 (11.08) 16.75 (12.39) F(2,58) = 1.218 p = .303 Complex sentences (SD) 9.54 (6.57) 11.62 (7.48) 14.33 (9.26) 11.95 (7.96) F(2,58) = 1.593 p = .212 MSA expressions (SD) 2.8 (6.3) 1.02 (3.42) 1.43 (3.19) 1.59 (4.23) F(2,58) = 0.867 p = .426 Moderate Severe Profound Total F value n = 15 n = 27 n = 19 n = 61 Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 12.65 (10.18) 17.33 (14.11) 19.16 (11.08) 16.75 (12.39) F(2,58) = 1.218 p = .303 Complex sentences (SD) 9.54 (6.57) 11.62 (7.48) 14.33 (9.26) 11.95 (7.96) F(2,58) = 1.593 p = .212 MSA expressions (SD) 2.8 (6.3) 1.02 (3.42) 1.43 (3.19) 1.59 (4.23) F(2,58) = 0.867 p = .426 MSA = Modern Standard Arabic; SD = standard deviation. Table 6 Mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex sentences, and Modern Standard Arabic expressions for three subgroups of hearing severity and ANOVA results for subgroup differences Moderate Severe Profound Total F value n = 15 n = 27 n = 19 n = 61 Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 12.65 (10.18) 17.33 (14.11) 19.16 (11.08) 16.75 (12.39) F(2,58) = 1.218 p = .303 Complex sentences (SD) 9.54 (6.57) 11.62 (7.48) 14.33 (9.26) 11.95 (7.96) F(2,58) = 1.593 p = .212 MSA expressions (SD) 2.8 (6.3) 1.02 (3.42) 1.43 (3.19) 1.59 (4.23) F(2,58) = 0.867 p = .426 Moderate Severe Profound Total F value n = 15 n = 27 n = 19 n = 61 Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 12.65 (10.18) 17.33 (14.11) 19.16 (11.08) 16.75 (12.39) F(2,58) = 1.218 p = .303 Complex sentences (SD) 9.54 (6.57) 11.62 (7.48) 14.33 (9.26) 11.95 (7.96) F(2,58) = 1.593 p = .212 MSA expressions (SD) 2.8 (6.3) 1.02 (3.42) 1.43 (3.19) 1.59 (4.23) F(2,58) = 0.867 p = .426 MSA = Modern Standard Arabic; SD = standard deviation. For Morpho-syntactic errors, there was a gradual increase as a function of severity of hearing loss, the adolescents with moderate hearing loss showing the fewest morpho-syntactic errors in their narratives, those with severe loss somewhat more, and those with profound loss the most morpho-syntactic errors. The frequency of complex sentences also shows a gradual increase as a function of severity of hearing loss, least among those with moderate loss and most among those with profound loss. None of these differences were significant. Assistive listening device Participants with cochlear implants told longer narratives (M = 24.2, SD = 19.6, as measured by syntactic units) than those who use hearing aids (M = 16.1, SD = 12.7), t(59) = 1.9, p = .06. In addition, those with cochlear implants, all of whom had profound hearing loss, produced more complex sentences in their narratives (M = 0.14, SD = 0.09) than hearing aid users (M = 0.11, SD = 0.07). However, this difference did not reach significance, t(59) = 1.59, p = .12. Table 7 displays the descriptive statistics for the subgroups based on Assistive listening device. Table 7 Narrative length (words and syntactic units) and mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex errors, and Modern Standard Arabic expressions for two subgroups of assistive listening device for participants with hearing loss Cochlear implants Hearing aids Total N = 19 N = 42 N = 61 Narrative length in words (SD) 81.32 (61.57) 56.21 (40.36) 64.03 (48.87) Narrative length in syntactic units (SD) 24.16 (19.58) 16.14 (12.71) 18.64 (15.47) Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 19.16 (11.09) 15.66 (12.92) 16.75 (12.39) Complex sentences (SD) 14.33 (9.26) 10.88 (7.16) 11.95 (7.96) MSA expressions (SD) 1.44 (3.18) 1.66 (4.67) 1.59 (4.23) Cochlear implants Hearing aids Total N = 19 N = 42 N = 61 Narrative length in words (SD) 81.32 (61.57) 56.21 (40.36) 64.03 (48.87) Narrative length in syntactic units (SD) 24.16 (19.58) 16.14 (12.71) 18.64 (15.47) Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 19.16 (11.09) 15.66 (12.92) 16.75 (12.39) Complex sentences (SD) 14.33 (9.26) 10.88 (7.16) 11.95 (7.96) MSA expressions (SD) 1.44 (3.18) 1.66 (4.67) 1.59 (4.23) MSA = Modern Standard Arabic; SD = standard deviation. Table 7 Narrative length (words and syntactic units) and mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex errors, and Modern Standard Arabic expressions for two subgroups of assistive listening device for participants with hearing loss Cochlear implants Hearing aids Total N = 19 N = 42 N = 61 Narrative length in words (SD) 81.32 (61.57) 56.21 (40.36) 64.03 (48.87) Narrative length in syntactic units (SD) 24.16 (19.58) 16.14 (12.71) 18.64 (15.47) Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 19.16 (11.09) 15.66 (12.92) 16.75 (12.39) Complex sentences (SD) 14.33 (9.26) 10.88 (7.16) 11.95 (7.96) MSA expressions (SD) 1.44 (3.18) 1.66 (4.67) 1.59 (4.23) Cochlear implants Hearing aids Total N = 19 N = 42 N = 61 Narrative length in words (SD) 81.32 (61.57) 56.21 (40.36) 64.03 (48.87) Narrative length in syntactic units (SD) 24.16 (19.58) 16.14 (12.71) 18.64 (15.47) Morpho-syntactic errors (SD) 19.16 (11.09) 15.66 (12.92) 16.75 (12.39) Complex sentences (SD) 14.33 (9.26) 10.88 (7.16) 11.95 (7.96) MSA expressions (SD) 1.44 (3.18) 1.66 (4.67) 1.59 (4.23) MSA = Modern Standard Arabic; SD = standard deviation. Sign language exposure Only narrative length (as measured by mean number of syntactic units) showed a trend toward significant group differences, with participants exposed to sign language producing longer narratives (M = 25.6, SD = 24.3) than those who had not been exposed (M = 16.8, SD = 11.7), t(59) = 1.87, p = .066. Table 8 displays the descriptive statistics for the subgroups based on exposure to sign language. Table 8 Mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex sentences and use of Modern Standard Arabic in narratives of adolescents with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants with and without sign language exposure and t-values for the difference between the two subgroups Exposed to sign language Not exposed to sign language Total t Value N = 7 N = 12 N = 19 Morpho-syntactic errors 13.81 (13.67) 22.28 (8.38) 19.16 (11.08) 0.197 Complex sentences 12.16 (10.99) 15.6 (8.34) 14.33 (9.26) 0.179 MSA expressions 5.2 (4.95) 9.63 (6.29) 8.8 (6.11) 0.847 Exposed to sign language Not exposed to sign language Total t Value N = 7 N = 12 N = 19 Morpho-syntactic errors 13.81 (13.67) 22.28 (8.38) 19.16 (11.08) 0.197 Complex sentences 12.16 (10.99) 15.6 (8.34) 14.33 (9.26) 0.179 MSA expressions 5.2 (4.95) 9.63 (6.29) 8.8 (6.11) 0.847 MSA = Modern Standard Arabic. Table 8 Mean percent of morpho-syntactic errors, complex sentences and use of Modern Standard Arabic in narratives of adolescents with profound hearing loss with cochlear implants with and without sign language exposure and t-values for the difference between the two subgroups Exposed to sign language Not exposed to sign language Total t Value N = 7 N = 12 N = 19 Morpho-syntactic errors 13.81 (13.67) 22.28 (8.38) 19.16 (11.08) 0.197 Complex sentences 12.16 (10.99) 15.6 (8.34) 14.33 (9.26) 0.179 MSA expressions 5.2 (4.95) 9.63 (6.29) 8.8 (6.11) 0.847 Exposed to sign language Not exposed to sign language Total t Value N = 7 N = 12 N = 19 Morpho-syntactic errors 13.81 (13.67) 22.28 (8.38) 19.16 (11.08) 0.197 Complex sentences 12.16 (10.99) 15.6 (8.34) 14.33 (9.26) 0.179 MSA expressions 5.2 (4.95) 9.63 (6.29) 8.8 (6.11) 0.847 MSA = Modern Standard Arabic. Table 8 shows that for the narratives of adolescents with profound hearing loss, exposure to sign language did not have much of an effect on the production of Complex sentences, but did seem to have an effect on Morpho-syntactic errors. Adolescents exposed to sign language had on average half as many morpho-syntactic errors in their narratives (M = 13.81) than those not exposed to sign (M = 22.28). These differences, however, did not reach significance, t(9) = 0.197, p = .667. Discussion The present study focused on three main aspects of narrative abilities: macrostructure, microstructure, and the use of MSA. The personal narrative task allowed opportunities for the production of complex and communicative language across multiple linguistic levels, and is less constrained to particular content and picture stimuli than story generation or retelling tasks which limit the topic and order of narrative events. In this light, personal narratives do not provide contextual support and are generated from memory, with accompanying cognitive demands. Thus, analyses of personal narratives show how narrators impose order on the flow of experience to make sense of events and actions and use their cultural resources and linguistic abilities. Overall, the two groups showed generally similar performance for macrostructure, except for the evaluation component of the story grammar model. In addition, the two groups differed for microstructure: Participants with hearing loss made significantly more morpho-syntactic errors and used significantly fewer complex sentences than their hearing peers. Finally, there were very few expressions with MSA in the corpus, but a significant difference emerged between the two groups, the participants with hearing loss producing fewer syntactic units with MSA expressions. Macrostructure Macrostructure components Significant group differences were found for the evaluation component only, with more found in the narratives of hearing participants than those with hearing loss. These results are consistent with Klecan-Aker and Blondeau (1990) study of written stories of orally-educated 4th–11th grade hard-of-hearing students which reported that hard-of-hearing students used most of the elements of a narrative, but had more difficulties with the evaluation component. One possible explanation for the fact that the evaluation component was omitted more by participants with hearing loss could be poorer morpho-syntactic and syntactic abilities, which are necessary to produce evaluative language. Findings in the present study also showed more morpho-syntactic errors and fewer complex sentences in the narratives of children with hearing loss. Numerous studies have shown that the ability to provide evaluation devices in narrative develops with age and is related to linguistic abilities, including syntax and semantics in addition to cognitive, social and emotional abilities (e.g., Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; Bamberg & Marchman, 1991; Berman & Slobin, 1994; Botting, 2002; Dasinger & Toupin, 1994; Labov, 1972, 1982, 1997, 2001; Labov & Waletzky, 1967). The evaluation component imparts meaning to the actions of the narrative, underscores the point of the narrative, and expresses the narrator’s perspective towards the events (Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe, 1983). In doing so, it explains the causes and sequences of the events (Norbury & Bishop, 2003). Labov found that production of complex sentences in narratives is relatively rare and is used to represent marked forms. Thus, a departure from basic syntax has a considerable evaluative effect. This departure is generally expressed by minor syntactic elements such as intensifiers, comparators, correlatives, and explications, which serve as evaluation devices (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1972, 1982, 1997, 2001). The results in the present study showed fewer complex sentences in the narratives of participants with hearing loss, and this may help explain the lack of an evaluation component in their narratives. An alternative explanation for the lack of an evaluation component in the narratives of participants with hearing loss focuses on their limited experience using interpretive language. A study by Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder, and Mayberry (1996) reports that students with hearing loss typically relied more on associative kinds of techniques without elaboration when writing narratives elicited by a picture. They proposed that this type of language production should be instructed and taught in schools. The students with hearing loss in the present study have limited opportunities to use the kind of complex language required for conveying evaluations. The focus of their education and therapy may be restricted to tasks focused on structure rather than on pragmatic aspects of language. Conversational interaction, both at home with family members and at school with friends, generally consists of questions and responses. Rarely are adolescents asked to elaborate and interpret, thus restricting opportunities to use and acquire the linguistic structures that are needed to make evaluative comments in the framework of an elaborated narrative. High Point Analysis Studies making use of High Point Analysis (e.g., Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2007; Berman & Slobin, 1994; Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Nippold, 2002, 2007; Peterson & McCabe, 1983; Wigglesworth, 1997) have shown that narratives develop as a function of age, from a description of individual events, to a chronological sequence of events, and then to a prototypical narrative structure, i.e., “the classic pattern.” Other studies (e.g., Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; Peterson & McCabe, 1983) found that around age 10–11 years, the organization of events follows canonical narrative form, and the stories become more complex, more detailed and structurally coherent. Crosson and Geers (2001) conducted a study of oral English narratives elicited from 8 to 9 year olds in response to a sequence of pictures. Children with typical hearing were compared with two groups of children with cochlear implants – good and below average speech perceivers (based on an auditory speech perception test). Children with typical hearing produced “classic” narratives including “a high point, a resolution, and one or more evaluative statements” (p. 381). The narratives of below average speech perceivers contained more orientations, and fewer narratives from this group contained a resolution component after the high point of the story. On this basis and since all participants were above age 12, we hypothesized that the participants in both groups would produce the classical pattern. The large percentage of the high point ending pattern (30%) may be explained in part by the elicitation method and task. The opened-ended elicitation technique used here did not allow for control of the narrated events and was based on the memory of the storyteller. The narrator may tell his/her personal experience, ending at the high point, possibly to highlight the complicating event. In addition, narration requires an integration of linguistic and cognitive skills, world knowledge and awareness of the listener’s knowledge in order to produce a pragmatically coherent and semantically cohesive message with all narrative components. Thus, narrative is a complex task that may not have been fully developed among the adolescents who participated in the present study. In addition, we raised the possibility that cultural factors may have been at work. Bliss and McCabe (2008) discussed cultural considerations in assessment of personal narratives. They review studies of narratives of African American, Latino and Asian children’s narratives which point to a range of differences from those of North American children including differences related to topic maintenance, informativeness, event sequencing, referencing and fluency. By way of example, they cite a study by Silva and McCabe (1996), which reports that Spanish stories may seem like certain events are missing, since “the point of telling a story for Spanish-American narrators may not be to recount events so much as it is to let listeners know about the narrators’ families” (p. 134). In addition, they state that “Event sequencing” may appear to be lacking, since this is not a feature of stories which is stressed at home. Although no studies of personal narratives elicited from Arabic speakers were found, the relevance of cultural differences cannot be discounted as a possible explanation for the findings regarding narrative patterns in the present study. Microstructure Features: Productivity, Complexity, and Morpho-Syntactic Abilities Productivity measures The hearing participants and participants with hearing loss produced narratives of similar length as measured both in words and in syntactic units. This result is in line with research using a variety of elicitation tasks and languages (Arfé, 2015; Boons et al. 2013; Soares et al. 2010; van Beijsterveldt & van Hell, 2009). Overall, the personal narratives in the present study were short, resulting in exclusion of many details, personal beliefs, thoughts and feelings. An explanation for the brevity could be the genre as well as the elicitation task, which may have influenced the quantity of narrated information. Another possible explanation may be related to cultural and social factors. Personal narratives are revealing of the narrator’s social and historical life (Riessman, 2001), and the adolescents may have been reticent in this regard. Personal narratives also tell about the narrator’s strengths, the way s/he faced a dangerous experience. Children from the Arabic-speaking communities who participated in the study may have been hesitant to reveal themselves, in particular to an unfamiliar, adult listener. In addition, these adolescents had relatively little experience talking to a speech and language professional about personal matters, and they may have been reluctant to open up. Thus, both limited abilities in the pragmatics of narrative and lack of experience with unfamiliar adults may have led to relatively short narratives. Morpho-syntactic errors Numerous studies have shown that individuals with hearing loss experience delay in morphological development (e.g., Boons et al. 2013; Briscoe, Bishop, & Norbury, 2001; Friedmann & Szterman, 2006; Huysmans, de Jong, van Lanschot-Wery, Festen, & Goverts, 2014; McGuckian & Henry, 2007; Moeller, Tomblin, Yoshinaga-Itano, Connor, & Jerger, 2007; Tur-Kaspa & Dromi, 2001). The participants with hearing loss in the present study produced significantly more morpho-syntactic errors (16.9%) than the hearing participants (10.9%). Sixteen different types of morpho-syntactic errors were found. This wide range of errors is due in part to the richness of Arabic morphology. The 16 error types were classified into six word classes: verbs, propositions, pronouns, adjectives, determiners and clauses. All error types were more frequent among the participants with hearing loss. Clause errors (omission of a subordinate clause and omission of a subject, object or any other part of the clause) were the most common error type. The next most frequent error type was related to verbs, e.g., verb inflection errors, followed by pronoun errors. Finally, adjective, preposition and determiner errors were uncommon for the hearing participants A wide range of studies on spoken and written language of individuals with hearing loss from different languages and cultures report similar morpho-syntactic errors to those found in the present study (Elfenbein, Hardin-Jones, & Davis, 1994; Kohen, Ravid, and Most,2001; McGuckian & Henry, 2007; Norbury, Bishop, & Briscoe, 2001, 2002; Tur-Kaspa & Dromi, 2001; van Beijsterveldt & van Hell, 2009; Worsfold et al. 2010). The most frequent errors in these studies included errors in complex syntax, verb structures and inflections, subject–verb agreement, gender and number agreement as well as errors in bound morphemes and pronouns, omission of auxiliaries and determiners, and omission and substitution of prepositions. These error types were also found in the present study. One error unique in the present study was related to adjectives, which in Arabic are inflected and must agree with nouns in gender and number. Complex sentences Syntactic complexity differed significantly in the narratives of participants with and without hearing loss (12% complex sentences in the narratives of participants with hearing loss versus 15% for narratives of hearing participants). This finding is consistent with studies of deaf children from English, Dutch, Italian, and Hebrew speaking communities (Crosson & Geers, 2001; Kohen et al. 2001; Meir, Kupersmitt, Yizhaki, & Katz, 2012; van Beijsterveldt & van Hell, 2009). Both groups in the present study produced a range of complex sentence types: passives; relatives, complements and adverbial sentences, and the prevalence of these types was similar for the two groups, complement clauses being most frequent, adverbial clauses next most, followed by relative clauses. Passives were least common and when they did occur, it was mostly with the verb conjugation “enfaala” (e.g., /enkasrat eʒri/ “my leg [was] broken”). In contrast, research in typically developing English indicates that in preschool and early elementary school years, the most common complex sentences were adverbial clauses of time (when) and reason (because) (Gummersall & Strong, 1999). In summary, the participants with hearing loss produced more morpho-syntactic errors and fewer complex sentences than their hearing peers. In addition, the same order of frequency of errors resulted for both groups, clause errors occurring most frequently, followed by verb errors. The types of morpho-syntactic errors produced in the present study were similar to those reported for research in English, Dutch, and Hebrew. However, the order of accuracy was only partially consistent with research in those languages. Finally, syntactic complexity distinguished the two groups, but both groups used the same range of different types of complex sentences. Use of Modern Standard Arabic The brief review of narrative research in Arabic at the outset showed that diglossia plays a role in syntax, morphology and lexicon as well as the content chosen by the narrator. The narratives in the present study contained very few words and structures from MSA (4.3% of the syntactic units). This relatively limited use of MSA is most likely a result of the genre of the stories (personal narratives), the informality of the interview and the settings in which they told the stories. Participants were interviewed in their homes, schools or afternoon clubs. The interviewer used colloquial Arabic (“Ammia”), and there was no explicit instruction to use any specific variety of Arabic. In such a situation, the expectation was that colloquial Arabic would be used. Results did yield a difference between the groups for the percentage of MSA expressions used: 7% of syntactic units contained MSA in the narratives of participants with hearing loss versus only 1.6% in the narratives of hearing participants. This finding is likely due to greater exposure to MSA and may be indirectly related to linguistic abilities, specifically in the area of morpho-syntax. In an effort to clarify this relationship, correlations were calculated between two microstructure features (morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences) and MSA expressions. The only significant correlation to emerge showed greater use of MSA when there were fewer morpho-syntactic errors, but this was true only for the sample as a whole. Thus, the relationship between MSA use and microstructure did not distinguish between the groups. Macrostructure and Microstructure Abilities The narratives of hearing participants and participants with hearing loss differed in one aspect of macrostructure (production of an evaluation component) and two aspects of microstructure (morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences). In a further effort to explore microstructure-macrostructure relationships, three narrative patterns were examined (classic, high point ending, leap frogging) for the presence of morpho-syntactic errors and complex sentences. The only difference to emerge was a trend toward greater use of complex sentences (for the hearing participants only), with more complex sentences occurring in the classic pattern (17%) than in the high point (12.6%) and leap frogging (11.4%) patterns. Participants with Hearing Loss In large part due to the small number of participants in each of the various subgroups, it was not possible to parcel out the relative contribution of assistive listening device or sign language exposure to narrative performance. Adolescents with cochlear implants (all of whom were diagnosed with profound hearing loss) and those with exposure to sign language told longer narratives than those with hearing aids and those without exposure to sign language. Those with implants and sign language exposure also had more complex sentences and fewer morpho-syntactic errors in their narratives. However, the participants who were not exposed to sign language and those who had moderate hearing loss produced more MSA expressions. Limitations and Future Research The present study investigated oral personal narratives elicited from Arabic speaking adolescents with and without hearing loss. Analyses focused on macrostructure components, narrative patterns, microstructure features of morpho-syntax and complex syntax, and the use of MSA. Future research with this understudied population should examine additional genres, e.g., other types of narrative and expository discourse. Given the broad scope of the present study, only a limited range of macrostructure and microstructure features were examined. Further research should attempt to clarify further reasons for differences between the hearing participants and those with hearing loss in terms of production of the evaluation component in narrative. Possible avenues to address this issue would be to investigate causal relations at the macrostructure level (e.g., Trabasso & Nickels, 1992; Fichman, Altman, Voloskovich, Armon-Lotem, & Walters, 2017) and semantic abilities at the microstructure level, both of which underlie narrative abilities, but were not investigated in the present study. The relation between macrostructure and microstructure could be further probed by examining in more detail evaluation devices such as frames of minds (expressions that include descriptions of the character’s motivation and intentions, mental and emotional states and behaviors, and comments about the characters), hedges (labels used for indicating vagueness and uncertainty) and opinion comments (comments about an event or a person) (Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; Chen & Yan, 2011; Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Labov, 1997) and how they are formulated and used to produce an evaluation component in overall narrative structure. In addition, future research should explore the use of different elicitation tasks with both MSA and colloquial varieties. More formal genres than those used in the present study are expected to generate higher rates of MSA, perhaps clarifying the relationship between the use of MSA and other linguistic and cognitive abilities in both hearing and hard of hearing individuals. Finally, study of the influence of sign language exposure on narrative abilities may afford more insight into cognitive and linguistic benefits of exposure to another language in general and sign language in particular. Clearly, more research focused on individuals with cochlear implants is necessary in order to address the kind of intervention which would contribute most to the development of narrative skills in Arabic-speaking adolescents. Practical Implications and Conclusion Clinical intervention and educational programming for individuals with hearing loss can benefit greatly from research grounded in both macrostructure and microstructure features of narrative. Currently, much intervention still focuses on vocabulary and sentence level skills. Sullivan and Oakhill (2015) call for greater focus on text-level skills such as the ability to use cohesive devices, to draw inferences and to show metalinguistic awareness. We too think this direction would make a valuable contribution. Narrative skills are important for the development of cognitive and academic abilities as well as for social and emotional development, especially self-concept and identity. The literature on narratives among deaf and hard of hearing individuals focuses more on fictional narratives and narratives based on sequences of pictures, and much more on written and signed narratives than on oral personal narratives. Teachers of children with hearing loss would benefit from research which helps identify and interpret the linguistic features and other factors which make storytelling difficult at both macrostructure and microstructure levels. Research of this kind could assist in more effective assessment and diagnosis of linguistic abilities. Identifying narrative features that present difficulties for adolescents with hearing loss is also very important for developing effective language and social interventions. Personal narratives may offer insight into interesting and important experiences and may improve academic, emotional, social, lingual, and cognitive abilities. Educational intervention should involve systematic training in the characteristics of narrative structure and narrative patterns, including practice in identifying and producing the “classic” narrative as well as each of the major narrative components, i.e., abstract, orientation, complication, resolution, evaluation, and coda. Special attention should be paid to skills needed to produce evaluation devices and an evaluation component in a personal narrative. The present study focused mostly on the weaknesses of children with hearing loss in narrative production, in particular the lack of an evaluation component, morpho-syntactic errors and the lack of complex sentences. However, the narratives of this population also showed some strengths, in particular with regard to macrostructure features of narrative organization. Building on these strengths related to macrostructure may provide scaffolding for developing interventions which target morpho-syntax and other microstructure features of language. The relationship between macrostructure and microstructure abilities in this population is clearly worthy of further research. Both are essential elements in language in general and in narratives in particular. Conflicts of Interest No conflicts of interest were reported. References Arfé , B. ( 2015 ). Oral and written discourse skills in deaf and hard of hearing children: The role of reading and verbal working memory . Topics in Language Disorders , 35 , 180 – 197 . doi:10.1097/tld.0000000000000054 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Ayari , S. ( 1996 ). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world . Language, Culture and Curriculum , 9 , 243 – 253 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Bamberg , M. , & Damrad-Frye , R. ( 1991 ). On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further exploration of children’s narrative competencies . Journal of Child Language , 18 , 689 – 710 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Bamberg , M. , & Marchman , V. ( 1991 ). Binding and unfolding: Towards the linguistic construction of narrative discourse . Discourse Processes , 14 , 277 – 305 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Berman , R. A. ( 1995 ). Narrative competence and storytelling performance: How children tell stories in different contexts . Journal of Narrative and Life History , 5 , 285 – 313 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Berman , R. A. , & Nir-Sagiv , B. ( 2007 ). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox . Discourse Processes , 43 , 79 – 120 . doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4302_1 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Berman , R. A. , & Slobin , D. ( 1994 ). Relating events in narrative. A crosslinguistic developmental study . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum . Bliss , L. S. , & McCabe , A. ( 2008 ). Personal narratives: Cultural differences and clinical implications . Topics in Language Disorders , 28 , 162 – 177 . doi:10.1097/01.tld.0000318936.31677.2d Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Boons , T. , De Raeve , L. , Langereis , M. , Peeraer , L. , Wouters , J. , & Van Wieringen , A. ( 2013 ). Expressive vocabulary, morphology, syntax and narrative skills in profoundly deaf children after early cochlear implantation . Research in Developmental Disabilities , 34 , 2008 – 2022 . doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.003 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Botting , N. ( 2002 ). Narrative as a clinical tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments . Child Language Teaching and Therapy , 18 , 1 – 22 . doi:10.1191/0265659002ct224oa Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Briscoe , J. , Bishop , D. V. , & Norbury , F. C. ( 2001 ). Phonological processing, language, and literacy: A comparison of children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and those with specific language impairment . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 42 , 329 – 340 . 10.1111/1469-7610.00726 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Carle , J.F. ( 2000 ). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading . Reading and Writing , 12 , 169 – 190 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Chen , L. , & Yan , R. ( 2011 ). Development and use of English evaluative expressions in narratives of Chinese–English bilinguals . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 14 , 570 – 578 . doi:10.1017/s1366728910000362 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Crosson , J. , & Geers , A. ( 2001 ). Analysis of narrative ability in children with cochlear implants . Ear and Hearing , 22 , 381 – 394 . doi:10.1097/00003446-200110000-00003 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Dasinger , L. , & Toupin , C. ( 1994 ). The development of relative clause functions in narratives. In R. Berman , & D.I. Slobin (Eds.) , Relating events in narratives: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 457 – 514 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum . Elfenbein , J. L. , Hardin-Jones , M. A. , & Davis , J. M. ( 1994 ). Oral communication skills of children who are hard of hearing . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 37 , 216 – 226 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Ferguson , C.A. ( 1959 ). Diglossia . Word , 15 , 325 – 340 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Fichman , S. , Altman , C. , Voloskovich , A. , Armon-Lotem , Sh. , & Walters , J. ( 2017 ). Story grammar elements and causal relations in the narratives of Russian-Hebrew bilingual children with SLI and typical language development . Journal of Communication Disorders , 69 , 72 – 93 . doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.08.001 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Friedmann , N. , & Szterman , R. ( 2006 ). Syntactic movement in orally-trained children with hearing impairment . Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 11 , 56 – 75 . doi:10.1093/deafed/enj002 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Geers , A. , Nicholas , J. , & Sedey , A. ( 2003 ). Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation . Ear and Hearing , 24 , 46s – 58s . doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000051689.57380.1b Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Gorman , B. , Fiestas , C. , Pena , E. , & Clark , M. R. ( 2011 ). Creative and stylistic devices employed by children during a storybook narrative task: A cross-cultural study . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 42 , 1 – 30 . doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0052) Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Gummersall , D. M. , & Strong , C. J. ( 1999 ). Assessment of complex sentence production in a narrative context . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 30 , 152 – 164 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Henkin , R. ( 1998 ). Narrative styles of Palestinian Bedouin adults and children . Pragmatics , 8 , 47 – 78 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Holes , T. ( 1995 ). Modern Arabic: Structures, functions and varieties . London : Longman . Hudson , J.A. , & Shapiro , L.R. ( 1991 ). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories and personal narratives. In A. McCabe , & C. Peterson (Eds.) , Developing narrative structure (pp. 89 – 136 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum . Huysmans , E. , de Jong , J. , van Lanschot-Wery , J. H. , Festen , J. M. , & Goverts , S. T. ( 2014 ). Long-term effects of congenital hearing impairment on language performance in adults . Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Generale , 139 , 102 – 121 . doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.06.003 Ibrahim , R. , & Aharon-Peretz , J. ( 2005 ). Is literary Arabic a second language for native Arab speakers? Evidence from semantic priming study . Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 34 , 51 – 70 . doi:10.1007/s10936-005-3631-8 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Johnstone , B. ( 2004 ). Discourse analysis and narrative. In D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen , & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.) , The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 635 – 649 ). Maladen, MA : Blackwell . Kaye , A.S. , & Rosenhouse , J. ( 1997 ). The Arabic dialects and Maltese. In R. Hetzron (Ed.) , The Semitic language (pp. 263 – 311 ). London : Routledge . King , C. , & Quigley , S. P. ( 1985 ). Reading and deafness . Austin : PRO-ED . Klecan-Aker , J.S. , & Blondeau , R. ( 1990 ). An examination of written stories of hearing-impaired school-age children . The Volta Review , 92 , 275 – 282 . Knoors , H. , & Marschark , M. ( 2014 ). Teaching deaf learners: Psychological and developmental foundations . NY : Oxford University Press . doi:9780199792023.001.0001 Kohen , Sh , Ravid , D. , & Most , T ( 2001 ). Story-telling ability of hearing impaired and hearing children aged 6;6-7 years on scripts and narratives . The Israeli Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Disorders , 23 , 147 – 165 . [Hebrew]. Labov , W. ( 1982 ). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In D. Tannen (Ed.) , Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 219 – 247 ). Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press . Labov , W. ( 2001 ). Uncovering the event structure of narrative. In D. Tannen , & J.E. Alatis (Eds.) , Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (pp. 63 – 83 ). Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press . Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Labov , W. ( 1972 ). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular . Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press . Labov , W. ( 1997 ). Some further steps in narrative analysis . Journal of Narrative & Life History , 7 , 395 – 415 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Labov , W. , & Waletzky , J. ( 1967 ). Narrative analysis: Oral version of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.) , Essay on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12 – 44 ). Seattle : University of Washington Press . Lavin , A. ( 1994 ). The grammar of the Arabic dialect of Jerusalem . Jerusalem : Hebrew University Press . [In Hebrew]. Leikin , M. , Ibrahim , R. , & Eghbaria , H. ( 2014 ). The influence of diglossia in Arabic on narrative ability: Evidence from analysis of the linguistic and narrative structure of discourse among pre-school children . Reading and Writing , 27 , 733 – 747 . doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9462-3 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Marschark , M. , Mouradian , R. , & Halas , M. ( 1994 ). Discourse rules in the language productions of deaf and hearing children . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 57 , 89 – 107 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Marschark , M. , Spencer , P. E. , Adams , J. , & Sapere , P. ( 2011 ). Evidence‐based practice in educating deaf and hard‐of‐hearing children: Teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs . European Journal of Special Needs Education , 26 , 3 – 16 . doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.543540 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Martin , J.R. , & Rose , D. ( 2008 ). Genre relations: Mapping culture . London : Equinox . McGuckian , M. , & Henry , A. ( 2007 ). The grammatical morpheme deficit in moderate hearing impairment . International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 42 , 17 – 36 . doi: 10.1080/13682820601171555 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Meir , I. , Kupersmitt , J. , Yizhaki , A. , & Katz , A. ( 2012 ). Temporality production in narratives of deaf children compared with hearing children . The Israeli Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Disorders , 31 , 1 – 20 . [Hebrew]. Moeller , M. P. , Tomblin , J. B. , Yoshinaga-Itano , C. , Connor , C. M. , & Jerger , S. ( 2007 ). Current state of knowledge: Language and literacy of children with hearing impairment . Ear and Hearing , 28 , 740 – 753 . doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e318157f07f Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Morgan , G. ( 2002 ). The encoding of simultaneity in children’s BSL narratives . Journal of Sign Language and Linguistics , 5 , 131 – 165 . doi:10.1075/sll.5.2.04mor Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Morgan , G. , & Woll , B. ( 2003 ). The development of reference switching encoded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In K. Emmorey (Ed.) , Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 297 – 310 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . Nelson , K. , & Gruendel , J. ( 1986 ). Event knowledge: Structure and function in development . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum . Nippold , M. A. ( 2002 ). Lexical learning in school-age children, adolescents, and adults: A process where language and literacy converge . Journal of Child Language , 29 , 449 – 488 . doi:10.1017/s0305000902275340 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Nippold , M. A. ( 2007 ). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults ( 3rd ed. ). Austin, TX : Pro-Ed . Norbury , C. F. , Bishop , D. V. , & Briscoe , J. ( 2001 ). Production of English finite verb morphology. A comparison of SLI and mild-moderate hearing impairment . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 44 , 165 – 178 . 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/015) Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Norbury , C. F. , Bishop , D. V. M. , & Briscoe , J. ( 2002 ). Does impaired grammatical comprehension provide evidence for an innate grammar module? Applied Psycholinguistics , 23 , 247 – 268 . doi:10.1017/s0142716402002059 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Norbury , C. F. , & Bishop , D. V. ( 2003 ). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments . International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 38 , 287 – 313 . doi:10.1080/136820310000108133 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Petersen , D. B. , Gillam , S. L. , & Gillam , R. B. ( 2008 ). Emerging procedures in narrative assessment: The Index of Narrative Complexity . Topics in Language Disorders , 28 , 115 – 130 . doi:10.1097/01.tld.0000318933.46925.86 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Peterson , C. , & McCabe , A. ( 1983 ). Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative . New York : Plenum . Ravid , D. , Naoum , D. , & Nasser , S. ( 2014 ). Narrative development in Arabic: Story re-telling. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & R. Malatesha (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy insights and perspectives (pp. 153 – 170 ). New York, London : Springer Science & Buisness . doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8545-7_7 Ravid , D. , & Saban , R. ( 2008 ). Syntactic and meta-syntactic skills in the school years: A developmental study in Hebrew. In I. Kupferberg , & A. Stavans (Eds.) , Language education in Israel: Papers in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 75 – 110 ). Jerusalem, Israel : Magnes Press . [Hebrew]. Reilly , J.S. , Bates , E. , & Marchman , V. ( 1998 ). Narrative discourse in children with early focal brain injury . Brain and Language , 61 , 335 – 375 . doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1882 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Riessman , C. ( 2001 ). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium , & J. A. Holstein (Eds.) , Handbook of interview research (pp. 695 – 710 ). SAGE Publications Ltd . Sartwell , C. ( 2006 ). Frankie, Johnny, Oprah and me: The limits of narrative . Narrative Inquiry , 16 , 156 – 163 . doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.20sar Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Silva , M. J. , & McCabe , A. ( 1996 ). Vignettes of the continuous and family ties: Some Latino American traditions . Chameleon readers: Teaching children to appreciate all kinds of good stories , 116 – 136 . Snow , C. E. , & Dickinson , D. K. ( 1990 ). Social sources of narrative skills at home and at school . First Language , 10 , 87 – 103 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Snow , C. E. , Tabors , P. , Nicholson , P. , & Kurland , B. ( 1995 ). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children . Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 10 , 37 – 48 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Soares , A. D. , Goulart , B. N. G. D. , & Chiari , B. M. ( 2010 ). Narrative competence among hearing-impaired and normal-hearing children: Analytical cross-sectional study . Sao Paulo Medical Journal , 128 , 284 – 288 . doi:10.1590/s1516-31802010000500008 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Stein , N. L. , & Glenn , C. G. ( 1979 ). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.) , New directions in discourse processing ( Vol. 2 , pp. 124 – 138 ). Norwood, NJ : Ablex Publishing . Strong , C. J. , & Shaver , J. P. ( 1991 ). Stability of cohesion in the spoken narratives of language-impaired and normally developing school-aged children . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 34 , 95 – 111 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Sullivan , S. , & Oakhill , J. ( 2015 ). Components of story comprehension and strategies to support them in hearing and deaf or hard of hearing readers . Topics in Language Disorders , 35 , 133 – 143 . doi:0000000000000051 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Trabasso , T. , & Nickels , M. ( 1992 ). The development of goal plans of action in the narration of a picture story . Discourse Processes , 15 , 249 – 275 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tur-Kaspa , H. , & Dromi , E. ( 2001 ). Grammatical deviations in the spoken and written language of Hebrew-speaking children with hearing impairments . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 32 , 79 – 89 . 10.1044/0161-1461(2001/007) Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed van Beijsterveldt , L.M. , & van Hell , J.G. ( 2009 ). Evaluative expressions in deaf children’s written narratives . International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 44 , 675 – 692 . doi:10.1080/13682820802301498 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Wigglesworth , G. ( 1997 ). Children’s individual approaches to the organization of narrative . Journal of Child Language , 24 , 279 – 309 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Worsfold , S. , Mahon , M. , Yuen , H. M. , & Kennedy , C. ( 2010 ). Narrative skills following early confirmation of permanent childhood hearing impairment . Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 52 , 922 – 928 . 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03641.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Yoshinaga-Itano , C. ( 1986 ). Beyond the sentence level: What’s in a hearing impaired child’s story . Topics in Language Disorders , 6 , 71 – 83 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Yoshinaga-Itano , C. , & Snyder , L. S. ( 1985 ). Form and meaning in the written language of hearing-impaired children . The Volta Review , 87 , 75 – 90 . Yoshinaga-Itano , C. , Snyder , L.S. , & Mayberry , R. ( 1996 ). How deaf and normally hearing students convey meaning within and between written sentences . The Volta Review , 98 , 9 – 38 . © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Narrative Production in Arabic-speaking Adolescents with and without Hearing Loss
JF - The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
DO - 10.1093/deafed/eny048
DA - 2019-07-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/narrative-production-in-arabic-speaking-adolescents-with-and-without-Sv0TRkAKed
SP - 255
VL - 24
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -