Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 1319–1338 | Cite as

Are French Fries a Vegetable? Lexical Typicality Judgement Differences in Deaf and Hearing Learners

  • Kathryn CroweEmail author
  • Marc Marschark
Article

Abstract

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) learners are known to have vocabulary knowledge and language outcomes more heterogeneous than their hearing peers, with a greater incidence of difficulties presumably related (both as cause and effect) to documented challenges in academic domains. In particular, there is increasing evidence that differences may exist in the ways that semantic networks are structured and accessed in DHH and hearing learners. Individuals’ judgments of word typicality offers a window into their semantic networks, revealing internal relationships in the mental lexicon. In the present study, 90 DHH and hearing college-aged learners provided typicality ratings at two points in time for 120 words common words considered to be central, borderline, or non-members of six categories. DHH and hearing participants differed in terms of their word knowledge, rating consistency, and rating magnitudes. Relative to hearing peers, DHH participants reported not knowing more of the words, but rated all words as being more typical than did hearing participants and rated the typicality of items more consistently over time. Implications of these findings for understanding mental lexicon structure for DHH and hearing learners, interpreting previous research, and constructing stimuli for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Deaf Hearing loss Typicality Semantic structure Lexicon Conceptual categories 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the Grant Development Funding Scheme from the Faculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University. The first author was supported by an Australian-American Postdoctoral Fulbright Scholarship.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10936_2019_9660_MOESM1_ESM.docx (76 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 75 kb)

References

  1. Auer, E. T., Bernstein, L. E., & Tucker, P. E. (2000). Is subjective word familiarity a meter of ambient language? A natural experiment on effects of perceptual experience. Memory and Cognition, 28(5), 789–797.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellezza, F. S. (1984). Reliability of retrieval from semantic memory: Common categories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(4), 324–326.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03333832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Convertino, C., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., & Durkin, A. (2014). Word and world knowledge among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19(4), 471–483.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enu024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Crowe, K., Marschark, M., Dammeyer, J., & Lehane, C. (2017). Achievement, language, and technology use among college-bound deaf learners. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(4), 393–401.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enx029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowe, S. J., & Prescott, T. J. (2003). Continuity and change in the development of category structure: Insights from the semantic fluency task. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(5), 467–479.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y. C., Button, L., Seeto, M., Zhang, V., Whitfield, J., et al. (2018). Spoken language and everyday functioning in 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 57(Sup2), S55–S69.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1370140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, L. S., Geers, A. E., & Nicholas, J. G. (2014). The effects of audibility and novel word learning ability on vocabulary level in children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants International, 15(4), 211–221.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1754762813Y.0000000051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2016). Structure and organization of the mental lexicon: A network approach derived from syntactic dependency relations and word associations. In A. Mehler, A. Lücking, S. Banisch, P. Blanchard, & B. Job (Eds.), Towards a theoretical framework for analyzing complex linguistic networks. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Djalal, F. M., Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2016). The typicality ranking task: A new method to derive typicality judgments from children. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0157936.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157936.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  12. Eysenck, M. W. (2014). Semantic memory and stored knowledge. In A. Baddeley, M. W. Eysenck, & M. C. Anderson (Eds.), Memory (pp. 165–194). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Halliday, L. F., Tuomainen, O., & Rosen, S. (2017). Language development and impairment in children with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(6), 1551–1567.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-16-0297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampton, J. A. (1998). Similarity-based categorization and fuzziness of natural categories. Cognition, 65(2–3), 137–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00042-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 79–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(06)46003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hampton, J. A., Dubois, D., & Yeh, W. (2006). Effects of classification context on categorization in natural categories. Memory and Cognition, 34(7), 1431–1443.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195908.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hampton, J. A., & Passanisi, A. (2016). When intensions do not map onto extensions: Individual differences in conceptualization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(4), 505–523.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jerger, S., & Damian, M. F. (2005). What’s in a name? Typicality and relatedness effects in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(1), 46–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.04.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jerger, S., Damian, M. F., Tye-Murray, N., Dougherty, M., Mehta, J., & Spence, M. (2006). Effects of childhood hearing loss on organization of semantic memory: Typicality and relatedness. Ear and Hearing, 27(6), 686–702.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000240596.56622.0c.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jerger, S., Lai, L., & Marchman, V. A. (2002). Picture naming by children with hearing loss: I. Effect of semantically related auditory distractors. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 13(9), 463–477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kallioinen, P., Olofsson, J., Nakeva von Mentzer, C., Lindgren, M., Ors, M., Sahlén, B. S., et al. (2016). Semantic processing in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Large N400 mismatch effects in brain responses, despite poor semantic ability. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kenett, Y. N., Deena, W.-K., Kenett, D. Y., Schwartz, R. G., Ben-Jacob, E., & Faust, M. (2013). Semantic organization in children with cochlear implants: Computational analysis of verbal fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(543), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lederberg, A. R., Prezbindowski, A. K., & Spencer, P. E. (2000). Word-learning skills of deaf preschoolers: The development of novel mapping and rapid word-learning strategies. Child Development, 71(6), 1571–1585.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lederberg, A. R., & Spencer, P. E. (2009). Word-learning abilities in deaf and hard-of-hearing preschoolers: Effect of lexicon size and language modality. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(1), 44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Leigh, G., & Marschark, M. (2016). Recognizing diversity in deaf education: From Paris to Athens with a diversion to Milan. In M. Marschark, V. Lampropoulou, & E. K. Skordilis (Eds.), Diversity in deaf education (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Li, D., Yi, K., & Kim, J. Y. (2011). Korean deaf adolescents’ recognition of written words for taxonomic categories of different levels. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 105–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00853.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, D., Gao, K., Zhang, Y., & Wu, X. (2012). Chinese deaf and hard of hearing adolescents’ awareness of thematic and taxonomic relations among ordinary concepts represented by pictures and written words. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(5), 476–491.  https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.1603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Li, D., Gao, K., Wu, X., Chen, X., Zhang, X., Li, L., et al. (2013). Deaf and hard of hearing adolescents’ processing of pictures and written words for taxonomic categories in a priming task of semantic categorization. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(4), 426–437.  https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Li, D., Gao, K., Wu, X., Xong, Y., Chen, X., He, W., et al. (2015). A reversed-typicality effect in pictures but not in written words in deaf and hard of hearing adolescents. American Annals of the Deaf, 160(1), 48–59.  https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2015.0008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lund, E., & Dinsmoor, J. (2016). Taxonomic knowledge of children with and without cochlear implants. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(3), 236–245.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., & Gennari, S. P. (2003). Universality and language specificity in object naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 20–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00021-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann, W., Sheng, L., & Morgan, G. (2016). Lexical-semantic organization in bilingually developing deaf children with ASL-dominant language exposure: Evidence from a repeated meaning association task. Language Learning, 66(4), 872–899.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maridaki-Kassotaki, K. (1997). Are rating-based procedures reliable for derivation of typicality judgments from children? Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29(3), 376–385.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marschark, M., Convertino, C., McEvoy, C., & Masteller, A. (2004). Organization and use of the mental lexicon by deaf and hearing individuals. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(1), 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2004.0013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Marschark, M., & Everhart, V. S. (1999). Problem-solving by deaf and hearing students: Twenty questions. Deafness and Education International, 1(2), 65–82.  https://doi.org/10.1179/146431599790561370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marschark, M., & Knoors, H. (in press). Deaf studies in learning and cognition: A coming-of-age story. In M. Marschark & H. Knoors (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in learning and cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marschark, M., & Leigh, G. (2016). Recognizing diversity in deaf education: Now what do we do with it?! In M. Marschark, V. Lampropoulou, & E. K. Skordilis (Eds.), Diversity in deaf education (pp. 507–535). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marschark, M., Machmer, E., Spencer, L. J., Borgna, G., Durkin, A., & Convertino, C. (2018). Language and psychosocial functioning among deaf learners with and without cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(1), 28–40.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enx035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Marschark, M., & Rosica, M. (in press). Reading abilities of deaf college students: Has Elvis already left the building? In S. R. Easterbrooks & H. Distal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies in literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Marshall, C. R., Jones, A., Fastelli, A., Atkinson, J., Botting, N., & Morgan, G. (2018). Semantic fluency in deaf children who use spoken and signed language in comparison with hearing peers. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 53(1), 157–170.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McCloskey, M. E., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 462–472.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McEvoy, C., Marschark, M., & Nelson, D. L. (1999). Comparing the mental lexicons of deaf and hearing individuals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 312–320.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ormel, E. A., Gijsel, M. A. R., Hermans, D., Bosman, A. M. T., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Semantic categorization: A comparison between deaf and hearing children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(5), 347–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.03.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pimperton, H., & Walker, E. A. (2018). Word learning in children with cochlear implants: Examining performance relative to hearing peers and relations with age at implantation. Ear and Hearing, 39(5), 980–991.  https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pittman, A., Lewis, D. E., Hoover, B. M., & Stelmachowicz, P. G. (2005). Rapid word-learning in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children: Effects of age, receptive vocabulary, and high-frequency amplification. Ear and Hearing, 26(6), 619–629.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000189921.34322.68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Plant, C., Webster, J., & Whitworth, A. (2011). Category norm data and relationships with lexical frequency and typicality within verb semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 424–440.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0051-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Quaranta, D., Caprara, A., Piccininni, C., Vita, M. G., Gainotti, G., & Marra, C. (2016). Standardization, clinical validation, and typicality norms of a new test assessing semantic verbal fluency. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(5), 434–445.  https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosch, E. H. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruts, W., Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(3), 506–515.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sandberg, C., Sebastian, R., & Kiran, S. (2012). Typicality mediates performance during category verification in both ad-hoc and well-defined categories. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(2), 69–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.12.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarchet, T., Marschark, M., Borgna, G., Convertino, C., Sapere, P., & Dirmyer, R. (2014). Vocabulary knowledge of deaf and hearing postsecondary students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(2), 161–178.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Shivabasappa, P., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2017). Typicality effect and category structure in Spanish-English bilingual children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(6), 1577–1589.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0377.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Spencer, L. J., Marschark, M., Machmer, E., Durkin, A., Borgna, G., & Convertino, C. (2018). Communication skills of deaf and hard-of-hearing college students: Objective measures and self-assessment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 75, 13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.06.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Stelmachowicz, P. G., Pittman, A. L., Hoover, B. M., & Lewis, D. E. (2004). Novel-word learning in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 25, 47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000111258.98509.DE.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Thoutenhoofd, E. (2006). Cochlear implanted pupils in Scottish Schools: 4-year school attainment data (2000–2004). Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 171–188.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Uyeda, K. M., & Mandler, G. (1980). Prototypicality norms for 28 semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12(6), 587–595.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03201848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(3), 289–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verheyen, S., De Deyne, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2011). Uncovering contrast categories in categorization with a probabilistic threshold model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1515–1531.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Verheyen, S., Hampton, J. A., & Storms, G. (2010). A probabilistic threshold model: Analyzing semantic categorization data with the Rasch model. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 216–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2018). Education as a source of vagueness in criteria and degree. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & W. Sassoon (Eds.), The semantics of gradability, vagueness, and scale structure: Experimental perspectives (pp. 149–167). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker, E. A., & McGregor, K. K. (2013). Word learning processes in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(2), 375–387.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0343).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Walton, D., Borgna, G., Marschark, M., Crowe, K., & Trussell, J. (2019). I am not unskilled and unaware: Deaf and hearing learners’ self-assessments of linguistic and nonlinguistic skills. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(1), 20–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1435010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. White, A., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Verheyen, S. (2018). Mind the generation gap: Differences between young and old in everyday lexical categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 12–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yi, K., Li, D., Park, W. S., Park, K.-H., Shim, T.-T., Kwern, O., et al. (2011). Korean deaf adolescents’ awareness of thematic and taxonomic relations among ordinary concepts represented by pictures and written words. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3), 375–391.  https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IcelandReykjavíkIceland
  2. 2.Charles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia
  3. 3.National Technical Institute for the DeafRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  4. 4.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations