Age-of-Acquisition Effects in Word and Picture Identification.

Juhasz, Barbara J.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.684

Cited by 322 publications

(302 citation statements)

References 183 publications

(540 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

269

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A third and increasingly compelling account has emerged from connectionist modeling of ageof-acquisition effects (e.g., Juhasz, 2005). Its logic is as follows: A memory network organizes itself, through larger weight changes, into a certain efficient configuration early on to represent what it knows about (e.g., a childhood language); it cannot nimbly reorganize itself even if the nature of the input changes (e.g., a second language).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvaging a childhood language

Knightly

et al. 2008

Journal of Memory and Language

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Childhood experience with a language seems to help adult learners speak it with a more native-like accent. Can analogous benefits be found beyond phonology? This study focused on adult learners of Spanish who had spoken Spanish as their native language before age 7 and only minimally, if at all, thereafter until they began to re-learn Spanish around age 14 years. They were compared with native speakers, childhood overhearers, and typical late-second-language (L2)-learners of Spanish. Both childhood speakers and overhearers spoke Spanish with a more native-like accent than typical late-L2-learners. On grammar measures, childhood speakers-although far from native-like-reliably outperformed childhood overhearers as well as typical late-L2-learners. These results suggest that while simply overhearing a language during childhood could help adult learners speak it with a more native-like phonology, speaking a language regularly during childhood could help re-learners use it with more native-like grammar as well as phonology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvaging a childhood language

Knightly

et al. 2008

Journal of Memory and Language

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of AoA on word recognition and production has been demonstrated not only in adults, but also in preschool and/or school-aged children using a variety of different tasks (Assink, van Well, & Knuijt, 2003;Garlock, Walley, & Metsala, 2001;Johnson & Clark, 1988;Walley & Metsala, 1990, 1992. Despite the fact that robust effects of AoA have been reported in a variety of different populations and tasks, some researchers have dismissed this effect, suggesting that AoA is another measure of word frequency (Juhasz, 2005). Although some researchers have reported a moderately strong, negative correlation between AoA and word frequency, others have shown that the effects of AoA are much stronger than those of word frequency and they occur even when word frequency has been controlled (see Juhasz, 2005, for reviews).…”

Section: Age Of Acquisition Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age of acquisition and repetition priming effects on picture naming of children who do and do not stutter

Anderson

2008

Journal of Fluency Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of age of acquisition and repetition priming on picture naming latencies and errors were studied in 22 children who stutter (CWS) and 22 children who do not stutter (CWNS) between the ages of 3;1 and 5;7. Children participated in a computerized picture naming task where they named pictures of both early and late acquired (AoA) words in two consecutive stages. Findings revealed that all children's picture naming latencies and errors were reduced following repetition priming and in response to early AoA words relative to late AoA words. AoA and repetition priming effects were similar for children in both talker groups, with one exception. Namely, CWS benefitted significantly more, in terms of error reduction, than CWNS from repetition priming for late AoA words. In addition, CWNS exhibited a significant, positive association between linguistic speed and measures of vocabulary, but CWS did not. These findings were taken to suggest that the (a) semanticphonological connections of CWS may not be as strong as those of CWNS, and (b) lexical measures may not be sensitive enough to differentiate CWS from CWNS in lexically-related aspects of language production.

show abstract

“…This source gained importance in research on the age-of-acquisition effect in visual word recognition, which demonstrates that words learned early in life keep a processing advantage over words learned later in life, even when corrected for the best possible frequency norms (for reviews, see Ghyselinck, Lewis, & Brysbaert, 2004;Johnston & Barry, 2006;Juhasz, 2005; see also Cortese & Khanna, 2007, for the most recent evidence on this for English monosyllabic words). The database most often used for childhood frequencies in English is the Zeno database (Zeno, Ivens, Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995).…”

Section: Edited Texts May Not Be the Best Source Of Information For Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles

Keuleers

Brysbaert

New

2010

Behavior Research Methods

490

449

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most important predictors of word processing times is the frequency with which words have been encountered. In large-scale studies, word frequency (WF) reliably explains the largest percentage of variance of any predictor of word processing times (e.g., Baayen, Feldman, & Schreuder, 2006;Balota, Cortese, Sergent-Marshall, Spieler, & Yap, 2004; Yap & Balota, 2009). Therefore, psycholinguists have invested time in the collection of WF measures. The first list of word frequencies widely used in language research was published in English by Thorndike and Lorge (1944; see Bontrager, 1991, for a review of older frequency lists including German ones). Its main motivation was educational (helping teachers decide which words should be taught to pupils). A few decades later, Ku era and Francis (1967; KF) published a list (also for American English) that would become the frequency measure of choice for language researchers up to the present (Brysbaert & New, 2009).For the Dutch language, van Berckel, Brandt Corstius, Mokken, and van Wijngaarden (1965) collected word frequencies based on a newspaper corpus of about 50,000 words. Although this list contained additional statistical information, such as ngram sequences up to three letters, about the Dutch language, it did not gain wide adoption. The first publicly available frequency list for Dutch was edited by Uit den Boogaart (1975), who published frequencies of "written and spoken Dutch" based on a corpus of 605,733 words from written sources and 121,569 words from spoken sources. This book was superseded in 1993, when the Centre for Lexical Information (CELEX) published frequencies based on a 42-million-word corpus of written texts collected by the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993). In addition to the frequencies of the different forms (e.g., play, plays), the CELEX database also contained the frequencies of the words as different parts of speech ( play as a noun vs. play as a verb) and the frequencies of the headwords or lemmas (e.g., the frequency of the nominal lemma play consisting of the summed frequency of the word form play as a noun and the word form plays as a noun). Since its publication, CELEX has been the primary source of word frequencies and other lexical information for the Dutch language. 1 For a long time, face validity was the main factor in assessing the quality of a frequency measure for research in word recognition. Two criteria were of importance: the representativeness of the sources and the size of the corpus. On both criteria, CELEX scored well. Special care had been taken to select texts from a wide variety of documents produced by the Dutch-speaking community, and the size of the corpus was larger than what was available in most other languages. However, in the past 2 years, researchers have started to measure the validity of word frequencies for research into word recognition processes by correlating them with word processing times for thousands of words. This research has revealed considerable qu...

show abstract

Age-of-Acquisition Effects in Word and Picture Identification.

Cited by 322 publications

References 183 publications

Salvaging a childhood language

Salvaging a childhood language

Age of acquisition and repetition priming effects on picture naming of children who do and do not stutter

SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About