Vocabulary Knowledge Predicts Lexical Processing: Evidence from a Group of Participants with Diverse Educational Backgrounds

Mainz, Nina; Shao, Zeshu; Brysbaert, Marc; Meyer, Antje S.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01164

Cited by 51 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with earlier research showing a clear link between vocabulary knowledge and performance in all four language skills (Milton, 2013). It is also in line with the finding that various vocabulary tests measure the same skill (Mainz, Shao, Brysbaert & Meyer, 2017). It confirms the importance of vocabulary in language learning, especially at early levels (starting from absolute beginners).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we examined the level of English proficiency children can obtain through out-of-school exposure in informal contexts prior to English classroom instruction. The second aim was to determine the input types that fuel children's informal language acquisition. Language learning was investigated in 780 Dutch-speaking children (aged 10–12), who were tested on their English receptive vocabulary knowledge, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Information about learner characteristics and out-of-school English exposure was gathered using questionnaires. The results show large language gains for a substantial number of children but also considerable individual differences. The most beneficial types of input were gaming, use of social media and speaking. These input types are interactive and multimodal and they involve language production. We also found that the various language tests largely measure the same proficiency component.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, it is plausible that average RTs reflect a collection of wordspecific processing speeds (hereafter, the emergent capacity account). This approach captures the fact that many item-level features of words predict speed of lexical access (e.g., frequency, imageability, age of acquisition), which in some cases interacts with vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Mainz, Shao, Brysbaert, & Meyer, 2017). An emergent capacity account is consistent with domain-specific theoretical approaches to automization, where increased experience with specific events automatizes (i.e., speeds up) processing (e.g., Logan, 1988).…”

Section: The Nature Of Individual Differences In Lexical Processing Ementioning

confidence: 71%

Individual differences in lexical processing efficiency and vocabulary in toddlers: A longitudinal investigation

Donnelly

Kidd

2020

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on infants' online lexical processing by Fernald, Perfors, and Marchman (2006) revealed substantial individual differences that are related to vocabulary development, such that infants with better lexical processing efficiency show greater vocabulary growth across time. Although it is clear that individual differences in lexical processing efficiency exist and are meaningful, the theoretical nature of lexical processing efficiency and its relation to vocabulary size is less clear. In the current study, we asked two questions: (a) Is lexical processing efficiency better conceptualized as a central processing capacity or as an emergent capacity reflecting a collection of word-specific capacities? and (b) Is there evidence for a causal role for lexical processing efficiency in early vocabulary development? In the study, 120 infants were tested on a measure of lexical processing at 18, 21, and 24 months, and their vocabulary was measured via parent report. Structural equation modeling of the 18-month time point data revealed that both theoretical constructs represented in the first question above (a) fit the data. A set of regression analyses on the longitudinal data revealed little evidence for a causal effect of lexical processing on vocabulary but revealed a significant effect of vocabulary size on lexical processing

show abstract

“…Finally, earlier studies have shown that participants' vocabulary size predicted performance in picture-naming and lexical-decision tasks, with larger vocabularies being associated with faster and/or more accurate responses (see Brysbaert, Stevens, Mandera, & Keuleers, 2016;Diependaele, Lemhöfer, & Brysbaert, 2013;Mainz, Shao, Brysbaert, & Meyer, 2017). In addition, some studies have reported weaker word frequency effects in participants with larger, compared to smaller, vocabularies (Brysbaert, Lagrou, & Stevens, 2017;Diependaele et al, 2013;Yap, Tse, & Balota, 2009).…”

Section: The Choice Of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Tasksmentioning

confidence: 96%

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Hintz¹,

Jongman²,

Dijkhuis³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical access is a core component of word processing. In order to produce or comprehend a word, language users must access word forms in their mental lexicon. However, despite its involvement in both tasks, previous research has often studied lexical access in either production or comprehension alone. Therefore, it is unknown to which extent lexical access processes are shared across both tasks. Picture naming and auditory lexical decision are considered good tools for studying lexical access. Both of them are speeded tasks. Given these commonalities, another open question concerns the involvement of general cognitive abilities (e.g., processing speed) in both linguistic tasks. In the present study, we addressed these questions. We tested a large group of young adults enrolled in academic and vocational courses. Participants completed picture-naming and auditory lexical-decision tasks as well as a battery of tests assessing nonverbal processing speed, vocabulary, and nonverbal intelligence. Our results suggest that the lexical access processes involved in picture naming and lexical decision are related but less closely than one might have thought. Moreover, reaction times in picture naming and lexical decision depended as least as much on general processing speed as on domain-specific linguistic processes (i.e., lexical access processes).

show abstract

Vocabulary Knowledge Predicts Lexical Processing: Evidence from a Group of Participants with Diverse Educational Backgrounds

Cited by 51 publications

References 40 publications

Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?

Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important?

Individual differences in lexical processing efficiency and vocabulary in toddlers: A longitudinal investigation

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About