This paper aims to discourse word function processes during the kid development. explore the constructs of “Fast” and “Slow” function. discourse the application and acquisition of word associations and definitions in the context of word function. and conclude by showing that the procedure of amplification through which children’s significances of words grow to include categorical semantic dealingss between words requires slow function. ? “Fast” Maping

For a kid being inundated with new vocabulary from minute to minute. hints to any one peculiar word’s significance may be few and far between. yet somehow a kid manages to take these limited exposures to new words. derive significance from them. and maintain representations of them for future usage. Carey and Bartlett ( 1978 ) have termed this rapid procedure of deducing comparatively right and complete initial significances of fresh words given a limited figure of exposures to the words “fast mapping” ( Behrend. Scofield. & A ; Kleinknecht. 2001 ) .

It is widely assumed that kids must possess an unconditioned mechanism of specialised restraints specific to word larning to account for their “precocious abilities to deduce fresh word meanings” ( Deak & A ; Wagner. 2003. p. 318 ) . and “fast mapping” is the label applied to this system ( Behrend et Al. . 2001 ) . Fast function was foremost demonstrated in an experiment done by Carey and Bartlett ( 1978 ) . in which 14 kids. ages three to four old ages old. were ab initio presented with a fresh colour word in a impersonal context without first being explicitly taught its significance. and subsequently tested on their cognition of the new term.

All of the kids had begun mapping colour words to matching colourss. and 13 of the 14 kids were able to grok and bring forth six to eleven names for matching colourss. The kids were hence familiar with the belongings and construct of colour. which allowed the research workers to see “how larning a new colour would reconstitute the child’s bing lexical and conceptual colour domains” ( Carey. 1978. p. 271 ) .

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Prior to the debut of the kids to the fresh colour word. each kid received a production trial in which he was asked to call the colour of each of a figure of different colored french friess including an olive colored one. Most kids called the olive colour viridity. while others called it brown. but none of the kids referred to the olive bit as olive. Carey and Bartlett ( 1978 ) chose to present the kids to the fresh colour olive ( a colour the kids were unfamiliar with ) . but alternatively of mentioning to it as olive ( a word that some kids might be familiar with ) they chose to name the olive colour Cr.

The research workers painted one cup and one tray in the children’s nursery school schoolroom olive. while an indistinguishable cup remained ruddy. and an indistinguishable tray remained bluish. The research workers asked the children’s instructor to present the new colour word separately to each kid in a normal mundane context. such as fixing for bite clip. The instructor avoided explicitly showing the new colour word either by inquiring the kid to “Bring me the Cr tray. non the bluish 1. the Cr one. ” or to “Bring me the Cr cup. non the ruddy 1. the Cr one” ( Carey. 1978. P.

271 ) . The phrase “not the blue/red one” provided adequate information for the kid to convey the right tray or cup. As a consequence. the kid was implicitly provided with lexical. syntactic. and contextual cues “adequate to the full mapping” ( Carey. 1978. p. 272 ) of Cr. while non being forced to trust on the new colour word to supply any extra information necessary for the completion of the undertaking. All except one of the kids chose the right tray/cup upon first exposure to the new word.

And even though they did non necessitate to trust on the new word to do the right pick. the bulk of the kids attended to the fact that they had merely heard a new word. and either repeated it aloud or sought blessing for the choice they had merely made. One hebdomad subsequently the kids took portion in a 2nd instruction undertaking in which a group of six different colourss ( including olive ) was presented to each kid. and the kids were each asked to map these different colourss to their specific matching colour words ( including Cr ) .

This undertaking had been designed to function as a comprehension undertaking in finding whether or non the kids had learned to right map the colour name Cr to the olive colour. However. since olive was the lone colour for which the kids had non antecedently demonstrated holding a name. and since a control group ( with no old exposure to the olive/chromium function ) performed the undertaking at the same degree as the experimental group. the research workers determined that the undertaking was non genuinely a comprehension undertaking. but instead another instruction undertaking.

The kids hence experienced two instruction undertakings prior to being tested. Five hebdomads after the 2nd instruction undertaking. the kids were given a 2nd production trial merely like the 1 they received prior to the introducing event. However. unlike the first production trial. in which the bulk of the kids called the olive colored bit either green or brown. eight of the 14 kids now either said that they did non cognize what colour name to utilize to mention to the bit or began mentioning to the olive bit utilizing one of the colour names that they knew but had non mapped stably to any one peculiar colour.

Fast function is apparent in that after merely two brief exposures to the Cr colour word/olive colour coupling. “the kid had learned and retained for over a month that olive is non called viridity ; in seeking his vocabulary for a name to name it. he found another colour word with no stable referent which was more extremely accessible than the new word Cr. Therefore for these eight kids at least. the procedure of reconstituting the conceptual and lexical spheres had already begun” ( Carey. 1978. P.

273 ) . The kids had demonstrated their ability to deduce significance ( as to which colourise the word Cr referred to ) by trusting entirely on the state of affairs and the context in which they encountered the word. In the old illustration the children’s keeping would be limited- although non inhibited entirely- if exposed to a great assortment of colourss that had ne’er been introduced to them earlier. This averment illustrates the importance of range to proper constitution of the context.

Surveies have found that as the factors increase in figure or belongings. topics of all ages are more likely to disorient and bring forth equivocal definitions ( Patson. 2010 ) . Precise. reciprocally sole footings are the most contributing to a clear and complete apprehension of a word. A survey examined the potency of common exclusivity by first inquiring if the portion pointed to was the windpipe and so further disputing the pupil by necessitating them to stipulate whether the whole country or one specific portion was the windpipe. When the capable country is antecedently known it is normal for kids to prefer an inclusive definition. I.

e. accepting craniofacial alternatively of accepting cranial and facial as two. separate. specific. mutually-exclusive nomenclatures ( Hansen. 2009 ) . The rectification of such mistakes is untypical to fast function. where the construct is merely understood. Fast function provides a apparently speedy and efficient manner for kids to ab initio get right partial significances that are specific to the contexts in which new words are heard. However. geting a complete definition for any one word by and large requires the integrating of a figure of partial functions derived from specific brushs with the word in mundane life.

Fast function is simply the beginning of a longer more gradual amplification and reorganisation procedure called “slow mapping” that consequences in a more complete definition ( Carey. 1978 ; Johnson & A ; Anglin. 1995 ; McGregor. Friedman. Reilly. & A ; Newman. 2002 ) . “Slow” Mapping Slow function is “a drawn-out period during which the kid must keep a delicate new representation in lexical memory. separate it from many other delicate representations. continue to speculate about the significance of the word. and update the representation as a consequence of those hypotheses” ( McGregor et al. 2002. p. 332 ) .

The partial significances of words acquired during fast function are retained in memory while significances derived from new brushs with words provide extra information and let connexions both between and within new and bing cognition to be created. eliminated. and reworked. Slow function is the term applied to this procedure in which information provided through both old and new brushs with words is easy incorporate and evolves into progressively accurate and complete definitions. Whereas fast function has been by experimentation captured ( e. g. Carey & A ; Bartlett. 1978 ) . and shown to be “replicable” ( Deak & A ; Wagner. 2003. P.

318 ) . the drawn-out timeline and more elusive nature of slow function have made it hard to nail. survey. and understand the procedure. It appears that much guess surrounds the true nature of slow function. Johnson and Anglin ( 1995 ) remark “this amplification procedure is non yet good understood. but it appears that kids someway develop extra significance dealingss among the new word and others within the same semantic field and progressively integrated contextual limitations. distributional belongingss. and syntactic privileges of occurrence” ( p. 614 ) .

Carey ( 1978 ) admits. “I have gone much further than available informations license” ( p. 292 ) in sum uping her hypothesis on the nature of slow function following a description of her fast function survey. Deak and Wagner ( 2003 ) attempted to entree the procedure of slow function in the acquisition of categorical semantic dealingss between words by presenting kids aged four to seven old ages old to made-up words with invented significances and semantic relationships to one another ( introduced as an “alien” linguistic communication ) and later proving their comprehension and production of these new words.

Children were taught basic categorical semantic dealingss of exclusion ( no convergence between word referents ) . inclusion ( referents of one label are a subset of the referents of another label ) . and overlap ( the sets of referents of two labels intersect ) during two separate drama Sessionss in which each of four labels for freshly contrived classs were presented ( along with specifying information ) a lower limit of 20 times. The semantic dealingss were either explicitly expressed or implicitly derived by the kids during the drama Sessionss.

The older kids of the group ( six- and seven-year-olds ) were able to larn more semantic dealingss and word definitions than the younger kids ( four- and five-year-olds ) . and exclusion was the categorical semantic relation most readily learned in both age groups. The rule determination of the survey was that although all of the kids were able to larn new categorical semantic dealingss between words every bit good whether the dealingss were explicitly stated or implicitly derived. the kids were non able to fast map these categorical semantic dealingss as they were able to make with basic word significances.

Whereas kids were able to deduce comparatively right significances of the novel words about instantly. for illustration. they could right indicate out examples. they were unable to fast map categorical semantic dealingss even when these dealingss were explicitly stated. Deak and Wagner ( 2003 ) conclude. “when word acquisition is measured at a surface degree. kids show a appreciation of new words. but this appreciation is weak. It is improbable to include cognition of significance dealingss. or incorporation into a differentiated semantic web. even after many unambiguous exposures to the new words” ( P.

323 ) . Therefore. it appears that fast mapping describes children’s ability to rapidly tie in words to referents. but does non capture the procedure of amplification through which children’s significances of words grow to include categorical semantic dealingss between words. Slow function is the path through which the uncomplete initial word significances obtained through fast function expand to include more information about the significances of words including semantic dealingss between words.

Penno. Wilkinson. and Moore ( 2002 ) have besides attempted to entree the procedure of slow function. albeit utilizing a different process. by showing kids aged five to eight old ages old with new words through the context of storybook reading. Children were read a storybook one time a hebdomad for three back-to-back hebdomads in little groups. and were given a multiple-choice vocabulary trial both prior to the first reading and after the last reading.

The multiple-choice vocabulary trial included 15 words present in the storybook that were assumed to be unknown to the kids. In add-on. following each reading of the storybook. the kids were asked to finish a retelling undertaking in which they retold the narrative they had merely heard to the best of their ability to the research worker. After the full procedure had been completed for the first storybook. kids were read a 2nd storybook following the same process.

The kids received an account for each of the 15 new words ( every clip one of the words was encountered ) during every reading of one of the two storybooks. For the staying storybook. no account was supplied for unknown words. The chief aim of this survey was “to examine the effects of perennial exposure to a narrative and the linear effects of account of the significance of mark words on students’ vocabulary” ( Penno et al. . 2002. p. 23 ) .

Both repeated exposure and account of intending were so important subscribers to vocabulary growing. The procedure of slow function was displayed through the “linear betterment in the truth of usage of the mark words across the three retellings of the stories” ( Penno et al. . 2002. p. 31 ) . After being read a storybook for the first clip. the kids were able to recite the narrative in a mode that demonstrated their fast function ability in that they were able to supply some indicant of a basic apprehension of the new words’ significances.

However. the 2nd and 3rd readings and retellings of a storybook revealed the slow function procedure. as the kids used the new words with of all time increasing truth through each subsequent storybook reciting. Accuracy and deepness of word cognition was measured incrementally through a cryptography system incorporating six classs runing from class nothing ( bespeaking “no cognition or usage of the mark word” ) to category five ( bespeaking “generalized cognition of the mark word” ) ( Penno et al. . 2002. p. 26 ) .

For illustration. the coding system might find a child’s truth and deepness of word cognition as come oning from class two ( “Developing knowledge” : the mark word is used. but unsuitably ) at the first storybook reciting. to category three ( “Synonym” : a synonymous phrase or word is used for the mark word ) at the 2nd storybook. up to category four ( “Accurate knowledge” : the mark word is used accurately and more often than a equivalent word ) by the 3rd storybook retelling ( Penno et al. . 2002. p. 26 ) .

Children besides benefited from having accounts for unknown words. exposing greater additions in vocabulary when provided with accounts than when non. proposing that the account may hold provided utile experience with the significance of the unknown words. One of the challenges of word function research country is happening word cognition appraisal methods that go beyond steps of children’s ability to place the right referent of a word or to utilize a word in an appropriate context. In 2009 the consequence of the cultural. lingual differences between mainstream English and African American English was measured.

An equal figure of African American English talkers and mainstream ( largely Caucasian. Hispanic. and African American ) respondents were given a series of syntactical inquiries. This consequence was that native talkers of English who were African American were predisposed to hold more trouble with the grammatical construction of formal English ( Johnson. 2009 ) . In add-on to the methods described in the old three surveies. children’s word definitions may function as a beginning of information on the procedure of function ( Hughes. Woodcock. & A ; Funnell. 2005 ; Johnson & A ; Anglin. 1995 ; McGregor et Al. 2002 ) .

Children’s word definitions have besides been found to alter with age. These alterations may reflect. in portion. increased apprehension of the words’ significances. Another beginning of information on word function may be children’s word associations. Word Definitions Word acquisition. get downing at around age of one twelvemonth. advancements at the rate of about 10 new words every twenty-four hours ( Bloom. 2000 ) . or about one per every waking hr ( Carey. 1978 ) . Werner and Kaplan ( 1950 ) depict the acquisition of the significances of words as happening in two ways.

One manner a kid learns a word is “by expressed mention either verbal or objective” ( p. 3 ) . in which a word is verbally defined or an object is straight named for the kid. The 2nd manner a kid learns a word is “through implicit or contextual reference” ( p. 3 ) . in which a word is inferred from the context of a conversation. Up until around two old ages of age. a kid may larn a great many words through “explicit mention. ” as grownups will frequently reiterate common phrases and names of objects and supply definitions for unknown words in an attempt to learn a child new vocabulary ( Carey. 1978 ; Werner & A ; Kaplan. 1950 ) .

However. as kids grow older. they receive this vocabulary coaching less and less and they must trust chiefly on “implicit or contextual reference” to get the bulk of vocabulary. Children learn the bulk of their words from hearing how others use them in daily life. In making so. they must trust entirely on “the lingual context in which the word occurs and the state of affairs in which it is used” ( Carey. 1978. p. 265 ) to deduce significance for new words.

Research workers recognize the ability to bring forth quality word definitions as a metalinguistic accomplishment ( Watson. 1985 ) . as “individuals must non merely see their cognition of the to-be-defined word and find what features should be included in the definition but they should besides cognize how to form information into conventional definitional form” ( Skwarchuk & A ; Anglin. 1997. p. 298 ) . An individual’s command of the signifier and content of word definitions is imperative in bring forthing quality definitions ( Watson. 1985 ) . and there are a figure of well-established tendencies refering the development of both.

The definitions provided by immature ( approximately preschool ) kids tend to be comprised chiefly of functional information. e. g. “a knife is to cut with” ( Litowitz. 1977 ) . but they besides include ( to a lesser grade ) perceptual characteristics. e. g. “a kitty is furry” ( Hughes et al. . 2005 ) . Young children’s definitions besides tend to include information that is personally relevant. such as “I have a friendly coney named Hoppy” ( Watson. 1985 ) and are frequently concrete. simple. and context edge ( Skwarchuk & A ; Anglin. 1997 ) .

As a kid grows older. a passage occurs in the content included in a definition. proposing a conceptual displacement “from the separately experienced to the socially shared” ( Litowitz. 1977. p. 289 ) . and definitions become more abstract. complex. and precise in nature ( Skwarchuk & A ; Anglin. 1997 ) . However. the accurate acquisition of a definition is dependent on the single accomplishments of the kid and of the lucidity of the context in which the new conceptual definition is presented ( Nicoladis. 2010 ) . Namely. the hearer must acknowledge the likely purpose of the statement through the reading of gestural cues.

This is done through the rapid analysis of the word use. the verbal tone. the context. and the old experiences of the hearer ( de Ruiter. 2010 ) . A child’s illative ascriptions to a word are besides built upon their personal accomplishments. In the Sally Ann undertaking. the kids are asked to gestate the ideas of others and are measured by their success at that undertaking. their ability to profess that the other’s ideas are non needfully rectify. and to organize a conjectural. mental frame of context through which to analyze the likely ideas and actions which inform that person’s determinations ( Jary. 2010 ) .

The ability to successful incorporate the representational theory of head tested by the Sally Ann undertaking has been proven to help in the conceptualisation of both grammatical construction and definition ( Jary. 2010 ) . Both signifier and content develop and alteration over clip. but these alterations do non needfully happen at the same time. and kids are by and large able to show semantic content more successfully than they are able to utilize right Aristotelean definitional signifier ( Johnson & A ; Anglin. 1995 ) .

Since signifier and content of children’s definitions change as their cognition of and experience with words additions it seems logical that analyzing the amplification and polish of word definitions in kids over clip would let us to better understand the procedure of slow function ( McGregor. 2002 ) . The readings of the ambiguities of linguistic communication. such as the usage of the finite “that” for an infinite pool of possible contexts. are cardinal subscribers to the truth of slow function in the inferred or abstract definition of words ( Jary. 2010 ) .

In a survey designed to capture the slow function procedure of word significance development. McGregor et Al. ( 2002 ) offer some grounds that children’s definitions may so supply an accurate representation of the semantic cognition possessed by a kid. McGregor et Al. have shown that a child’s abilities to supply a name for and pull a image of each of a series of objects correspond faithfully with one another and are besides consistent with a child’s ability to supply definitions for those objects.

The survey suggests that the three undertakings ( calling. pulling. and specifying ) entree a common semantic representation and hence validates the usage of the specifying undertaking in supplying a window into the slow function of word significance. Word Associations Children’s word associations besides change as word cognition alterations over clip. Consequently. analyzing children’s word associations may supply an extra chance to capture the slow function procedure of word significance development. Petrey ( 1977 ) draws attending to the development of word associations as switching from episodic ( or schematic ) to semantic ( or taxonomic ) as children’s word cognition grows.

She remarks. “Whereas adult’s responses are grouped chiefly by semantic memory of words’ internal content. children’s responses display chiefly episodic memories of external context” ( p. 69 ) . For illustration. if the stimulation word were “rabbit. ” a kid is likely to supply an episodic response like “carrot. ” and an grownup is more likely to supply a semantic response like “squirrel. ” Petrey’s research suggested that the displacement from episodic to semantic association responses occurs by around 3rd class.

Research workers have besides attempted to explicate altering word associations as reflecting a syntagmatic-paradigmatic displacement. Syntagmatic refers to words being syntactically related. that is. likely to happen together in the same sentence. like a verb response to a noun. whereas paradigmatic refers to words being in the same syntactic category. like a noun response to a noun ( Nelson. 1977 ) . This description has proven to be less good supported than the episodic-semantic ( or schematic-taxonomic ) displacement. Another account refers to the cultural influences of the child’s caretaker ( s ) .

Because as the kid ages there is less need and ability to specify the abstract constructs. there is an increased trust on word ascription ( de Ruiter. 2010 ) . Bilingual kids favor the grammatical construction and the customary use of their stronger linguistic communication ( Nicoladis. 2010 ) . In Blewitt and Toppino’s survey. superior responses in the word association undertaking became progressively frequent with age ( as is the instance in word definition undertakings ) . proposing that the word association undertaking may so be a utile tool to implement in future work aimed at capturing the slow-mapping procedure.

The increasing usage of superior footings provided both in the word definition undertaking and the word association undertaking suggest that the two undertakings may be mensurating the common implicit in procedure of amplification and completion of word significance over clip that is slow function. Drumhead Conventional estimations suggest that by age 17 the vocabulary of an mean English-speaking single comprises more than 60. 000 words ( Bloom. 2000 ) .

In order for this monumental undertaking to be achieved. word acquisition. get downing at around age of one twelvemonth. must come on at the rate of about 10 new words every twenty-four hours ( Bloom. 2000 ) . or about one per every waking hr ( Carey. 1978 ) . Werner and Kaplan ( 1950 ) depict the acquisition of the significances of words as happening in two ways. One manner a kid learns a word is “by expressed mention either verbal or objective” ( p. 3 ) . in which a word is verbally defined or an object is straight named for the kid.

The 2nd manner a kid learns a word is “through implicit or contextual reference” ( p. 3 ) . in which a word is inferred from the context of a conversation. Up until around two old ages of age. a kid may larn a great many words through “explicit mention. ” as grownups will frequently reiterate common phrases and names of objects and supply definitions for unknown words in an attempt to learn a child new vocabulary ( Carey. 1978 ; Werner & A ; Kaplan. 1950 ) . These two methods for accessing developmental alteration in children’s word cognition have both been found to alter with increasing age and apprehension of words. and appear to supply entree to decelerate function in kids.

In general. cognition about familiar words is easy acquired. Children both increase their apprehension of the semantic dealingss among words. and larn about the inside informations of the objects labeled by the words. Children are unable to fast map categorical semantic dealingss even when these dealingss were explicitly stated. Conclusively. the procedure of amplification through which children’s significances of words grow to include categorical semantic dealingss between words requires slow function. The ability kids possess to deduce initial significances for fresh words given a limited figure of exposures to the words “fast function.

” Fast function provides a apparently speedy and efficient manner for kids to get initial significances of fresh words. but the significances kids gain through fast function are frequently uncomplete. particularly necessitating a longer more gradual amplification and reorganisation procedure called “slow mapping” in order to go complete definitions. Decelerate function allows the connexions both between and within new and bing cognition to be created. eliminated. and reworked. as progressively complete and accurate definitions evolve.

Slow function. a much slower and more elusive procedure than fast function. has non been by experimentation captured. and much guess continues to environ its true nature. Attempts to entree decelerate function by research workers have provided some penetration into the nature of that procedure. However. research surveies have non accessed children’s word understanding beyond an initial. superficial degree. Mentions Behrend. D. A. . Scofield. J. . & A ; Kleinknecht. E. E. ( 2001 ) . Beyond fast function: Young children’s extensions of fresh words and fresh facts. Developmental Psychology. 37. 698-705.

Blewitt. P. . Toppino. T. C. ( 1991 ) . The development of systematic construction in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 51. 296-319. Bloom. P. ( 2000 ) . How kids learn the significances of words. Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press. Carey. S. & A ; Bartlett. E. ( 1978 ) . Geting a individual new word. Documents and Reports on Child Language Development. 15. 17-29. Carey. S. ( 1978 ) . The kid as word scholar. In M. Halle. J. Bresnan. & A ; G. A. Miller ( Eds. ) . Linguistic theory and psychological world ( pp. 264-297 ) .

Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press. de Ruiter. J. . Noordzij. M. . Newman-Norlund. S. . Newman-Norlund. R. . Hagoort. P. . Levinson. S. . et Al. ( 2010 ) . Researching the cognitive substructure of communicating. Interaction Studies. 11 ( 1 ) . 51-77. doi:10. 1075/is. 11. 1. 05rui. Deak. G. O. . & A ; Wagner. J. H. ( 2003 ) . “Slow mapping” in children’s acquisition of semantic dealingss. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 25. 318-323. Hansen. M. . & A ; Markman. E. ( 2009 ) . Children’s usage of common exclusivity to larn labels for parts of objects. Developmental Psychology. 45 ( 2 ) . 592-596. doi:10. 1037/a0014838. Hughes. D. . Woodcock. J. . & A ; Funnell. E. ( 2005 ) .

Concepts of objects across classs: Childhood forms resemble those of grownups. British Journal of Psychology. 96. 1-19. Jary. M. ( 2010 ) . Assertion and false-belief ascription. Pragmatics & A ; Cognition. 18 ( 1 ) . 17-39. doi:10. 1075/p & A ; c. 18. 1. 02jar. Johnson. C. J. . & A ; Anglin. J. M. ( 1995 ) . Qualitative developments in the content and signifier of children’s definitions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 38. 612-629. Johnson. V. . & A ; de Villiers. J. ( 2009 ) . Syntactic Frames in Fast Mapping Verbs: Consequence of Age. Dialect. and Clinical Status.

Journal of Speech. Language & A ; Hearing Research. 52 ( 3 ) . 610-622. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Litowitz. B. ( 1977 ) . Learning to do definitions. The Journal of Child Language. 4. 289-304. McGregor. K. K. . Friedman. R. M. . Reilly. R. M. . & A ; Newman. R. M. ( 2002 ) . Semantic representation and naming in immature kids. Journal of Speech. Language. and Hearing Research. 45. 332-346. Nelson. K. ( 1977 ) . The syntagmatic-paradigmatic displacement revisited. A reappraisal of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin. 84. 93-116. Nicoladis. E. . Rose. A. . & A ; Foursha-Stevenson. C. ( 2010 ) .

Thinking for speech production and cross-linguistic transportation in preschool bilingual kids. International Journal of Bilingual Education & A ; Bilingualism. 13 ( 3 ) . 345-370. doi:10. 1080/13670050903243043. Patson. N. . & A ; Warren. T. ( 2010 ) . Evidence for Distributivity Effects in Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology / Learning. Memory & A ; Cognition. 36 ( 3 ) . 782-789. doi:10. 1037/a0018783. Penno. J. F. . Wilkinson. I. A. G. . & A ; Moore. D. W. ( 2002 ) . Vocabulary acquisition from teacher account and repeated listening to narratives: Do they get the better of the Matthew consequence?

Journal of Educational Psychology. 94. 23-33. Petrey. S. ( 1977 ) . Word associations and the development of lexical memory. Cognition. 5. 57-71. Skwarchuk. S. . & A ; Anglin. J. M. ( 1997 ) . Expression of superiors in children’s word definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 89. 298-308. Watson. R. ( 1985 ) . Towards a theory of definition. Journal of Child Language. 12. 181-197. Werner. H. . & A ; Kaplan. E. ( 1950 ) . The acquisition of word significances: A developmental survey. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 15 ( 1. Consecutive No. 51 ) .


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out