Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:38:09.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic categorization and reading skill across Dutch primary grades: development yes, relationship no*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2010

MARTINE A. R. GIJSEL ,
ELLEN A. ORMEL ,
DAAN HERMANS ,
L. VERHOEVEN  and
ANNA M. T. BOSMAN
MARTINE A. R. GIJSEL*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioral Science Institute
ELLEN A. ORMEL
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioral Science Institute and Pontem, St. Michielsgestel
DAAN HERMANS
Affiliation:
Pontem, St. Michielsgestel
L. VERHOEVEN
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioral Science Institute
ANNA M. T. BOSMAN
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioral Science Institute
*
Address for correspondence: Martine A. R. Gijsel, Expertisecentrum Nederlands, Postbus 6610, 6503 GC Nijmegen, The Netherlands. tel: +31-24-36 15624; fax +31-24-36 15644; e-mail: m.gijsel@taalonderwijs.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study, the development of semantic categorization and its relationship with reading was investigated across Dutch primary grade students. Three Exemplar-level tasks (Experiment 1) and two Superordinate-level tasks (Experiment 2) with different types of distracters (phonological, semantic and perceptual) were administered to assess semantic categorization skills. Reading was measured with a standardized word-reading test. Results of both experiments demonstrated that children in the higher grades had shorter reaction times and fewer errors than children in the lower grades. Reading skill, however, was not related to semantic categorization performance. Moreover, neither grade level nor reading skill was related to the effect of distracter type on error percentages. Based on the results of this study, we suggest a substantial development of semantic categorization skills over time, and reject the notion that Dutch poor readers have less advanced semantic categorization skills than typical readers.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 356 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

We thank Corina Michielsen, Annelies Leechburch-Auwers and Jikke Planting who collected most of the data and assisted in creating all test materials. We are also grateful to all the children who participated in the study and to the teachers who gave their permission to run the experiment.

References

REFERENCES

Assink, E. M. H., Van Bergen, F., Van Teeseling, H. & Knuijt, P. P. N. A. (2004). Semantic priming effects in normal versus poor readers. Journal of Genetic Psychology 165, 67–79.Google Scholar
Azuma, T. & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 484–504.Google Scholar
Barker, T. A., Torgesen, J. K. & Wagner, R. K. (1992). The role of orthographic processing on five different reading tasks. Reading Research Quarterly 27(4), 334–45.Google Scholar
Ben-Dror, I., Bentin, S. & Frost, R. (1995). Semantic, phonologic, and morphologic skills in reading disabled and normal children: Evidence from perception and production of spoken Hebrew. Reading Research Quarterly 30, 876–93.Google Scholar
Berends, I. E. & Reitsma, P. (2006). Addressing semantics promotes the development of reading fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 247–65.Google Scholar
Berent, I. & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A Rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review 102, 146–84.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2004). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. University of Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
Borowsky, R. & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 63–85.Google Scholar
Bosman, A. M. T., de Graaff, S. & Gijsel, M. A. R. (2006). Double Dutch: the Dutch spelling system and learning to spell in Dutch. In Joshi, R. M. & Aron, P. G. (eds), Handbook of orthography and literacy, 135–50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bosman, A. M. T., & van Hell, J. G. (2002). Orthography, phonology, and semantics. Concerted action in word perception. In Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C. & Reitsma, P. (eds), Precursors of functional literacy, 165–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bosman, A. M. T. & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In Perfetti, C. A., Rieben, L. & Fayol, M. (eds), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages, 173–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bosman, A. M. T., Vonk, W. & van Zwam, M. (2006). Spelling consistency affects reading in students with and without dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia 56, 271–300.Google Scholar
Farrar, W. T. & Van Orden, G. C. (2001). Errors as multistable response options. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 5, 223–65.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Namy, L. L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487–513.Google Scholar
Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights form connectionist models. Psychological Review 106, 491–528.Google Scholar
Howell, M. J. & Manis, F. R. (1986). Developmental and reader ability differences in semantic processing efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 124–29.Google Scholar
Irausquin, R. & Mommers, C. (2001). Leesladder. Een programma voor kinderen met leesmoeilijkheden. [Reading ladder. A program for children with reading difficulties]. Tilburg: Zwijsen.Google Scholar
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L. & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 243–55.Google Scholar
Keenan, J. M. & Betjemann, R. S. (2008). Comprehension of single words: The role of semantics in word identification and reading disability. In Grigorenko, E. L. & Naples, A. J. (eds), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives, 191–209. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lucariello, J., Kyratzis, A. & Nelson, K. (1992). Taxonomic knowledge: What kind and when? Child Development 63, 978–98.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90, 227–34.Google Scholar
Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading 27, 342–56.Google Scholar
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. & Humphreys, G. W. (eds), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, 264–336. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nguyen, S. P. & Murphy, G. L. (2003). An apple is more than just a fruit: Cross-classification in children's concepts. Child Development 74, 1783–806.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. (2001). Perception is a two-way junction: Feedback semantics in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 545–51.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J. & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 542–49.Google Scholar
Scarborough, H. S. (1991). Antecedents to reading disability: Preschool language development and literacy experiences of children from dyslexic families. Reading and Writing 3, 219–33.Google Scholar
Schaerlaekens, A., Kohnstamm, G. A. & Lejaegere, M. (1999). Streeflijst woordenschat voor zesjarigen: Derde herziene versie gebaseerd op nieuw onderzoek in Nederland en België. [Target list vocabulary for 6-year-old children]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96, 523–68.Google Scholar
Silva-Pereyra, J., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Fernández, T., Díaz-Comas, L., Harmony, T., Fernández-Bouzas, A., Rodríguez, M., Bernal, J. & Marosi, E. (2003). Are poor readers semantically challenged? An event-related brain potential assessment. International Journal of Psychophysiology 49, 187–99.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly 24, 402–433.Google Scholar
Strain, E., Patterson, K. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21, 1140–54.Google Scholar
Van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. (1985). Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse Woorden: 4600 substantieven, 1000 verba en 500 adjectieven. [Imageability ratings of Dutch words: 4600 substantives, 1000 verbs and 500 adjectives]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F. & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review 97, 488–522.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., DeSetto, L. & Pruzek, R. M. (1981). Developmental trends in the salience of meaning versus structural attributes of written words. Psychological Research 43, 131–53.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M. & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 59, 76–123.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M. and Tanzman, M. S. (1990). Differential sensitivity to the meaning and structural attributes of printed words in poor and normal readers. Learning and Individual Differences 2, 19–43.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. (1995). Drie-Minuten-Toets. [Three-Minute Test]. Arnhem: CITO.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J. & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 33, 468–79.Google Scholar
Waterman, B. & Lewandowski, L. (1993). Phonologic and semantic processing in reading-disabled and non-disabled males at two age levels. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 55, 87–103.Google Scholar
Waterman, B. & Lewandowski, L. (1994). Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic processing in reading disabled and nondisabled subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills 79, 35–45.Google Scholar