4.2 Article

Effects of Vocabulary Size on Online Lexical Processing by Preschoolers

期刊

LANGUAGE LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 331-355

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2014.961066

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD [R01-02932]
  2. NICHD [2-T32-HD049899, P30-HD03352]
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [T32HD049899, P30HD003352] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS [R01DC002932] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to investigate the relationship between vocabulary size and the speed and accuracy of lexical processing in preschoolers between the ages of 30 and 46 months using an automatic eye tracking task based on the looking-while-listening paradigm (Fernald, Zangl, Portillo, & Marchman, 2008) and mispronunciation paradigm (White & Morgan, 2008). Children's eye gaze patterns were tracked while they looked at two pictures (one familiar object, one unfamiliar object) on a computer screen and simultaneously heard one of three kinds of auditory stimuli: correct pronunciations of the familiar object's name, one-feature mispronunciations of the familiar object's name, or a nonword. The results showed that children with larger expressive vocabularies, relative to children with smaller expressive vocabularies, were more likely to look to a familiar object upon hearing a correct pronunciation and to an unfamiliar object upon hearing a novel word. Results also showed that children with larger expressive vocabularies were more sensitive to mispronunciations; they were more likely to look toward the unfamiliar object rather than the familiar object upon hearing a one-feature mispronunciation of a familiar object-name. These results suggest that children with smaller vocabularies, relative to their larger-vocabulary age peers, are at a disadvantage for learning new words, as well as for processing familiar words.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据