JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.47 392-406 April 2004. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/032)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jarvis, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Haitsma, K. S. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jarvis, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Haitsma, K. S. V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Input That Contradicts Young Children's Strategy for Mapping Novel Words Affects Their Phonological and Semantic Interpretation of Other Novel Words

Lorna Hernandez Jarvis 1
William E. Merriman 2
Michelle Barnett 3
Jessica Hanba 3

Kylee S. Van Haitsma 3

1 Hope College, Holland, MI
2 Kent State University, Kent, OH
3 Hope College

jarvis{at}hope.edu

Children tend to choose an entity they cannot already label, rather than one they can, as the likely referent of a novel noun. The effect of input that contradicts this strategy on the interpretation of other novel nouns was investigated. In pre- and posttests, 4-year-olds were asked to judge whether novel nouns referred to "name-similar" familiar objects or novel objects (e.g., whether japple referred to an apple or a binder clip). During an intervening treatment phase, they were asked to pick the referents of novel nouns from pairs of familiar objects (Experiments 1 and 3) or were taught subordinate names for familiar objects (Experiment 2). Most resisted the lure of phonological similarity in the pretest but increased selection of name-similar familiar objects over novel ones in the posttest. In Experiment 3, which involved monosyllables that differed in initial phoneme from the familiar words, treatment produced this effect only when accompanied by a rhyme-sensitization procedure. Experiment 2 included two other age groups: 2-year-olds, who were less resistant to phonological similarity in the pretest and responded to the treatment like the 4-year-olds; and adults, who nearly always selected the novel objects in the pretest and posttest. For children, the impact of treatment was positively associated with ability to detect phonological similarity and negatively associated with vocabulary size.

KEY WORDS: semantic development, phonological development, word learning, word mapping, lexical development

Submitted on February 20, 2003
Accepted on June 24, 2003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JSLHRHome page
M. Alt and E. Plante
Factors That Influence Lexical and Semantic Fast Mapping of Young Children With Specific Language Impairment
J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2006; 49(5): 941 - 954.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.