Vocabulary depth and its contribution to text quality in the early years of primary school ( Profundidad de vocabulario y su contribución a la calidad textual en los primeros años de Educación Primaria )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2021
Vocabulary depth and its contribution to text quality in the early years of primary school ( Profundidad de vocabulario y su contribución a la calidad textual en los primeros años de Educación Primaria )
The purpose of this study is to analyse how vocabulary depth develops in the early years of primary school and to ascertain the effect it has on the quality of the texts produced by the students. A total of 332 Spanish students from the first to fourth grades participated by doing a synonyms/antonyms task to evaluate their vocabulary depth, along with several tasks in which they wrote descriptive texts to evaluate text quality. Vocabulary depth was analysed using a four-dimensional system created ad hoc: change in lexeme, fitting the meaning requested, preservation of syntactic category and degree of conventionality. The text quality indicators were productivity, subordination rate and text organization. The results revealed that both vocabulary depth and the quality of the texts produced improved significantly by grade. The study also found that this type of lexical knowledge contributes significantly to the quality of the texts evaluated. Finally, this article discusses the possible teaching implications of these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W.FayolM. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318
2.
Alexander PanB.UccelliP. (2010). Desarrollo semántico: El aprendizaje del significado de las palabras. In Berko GleasonJ.Bernstein RatnerN. (Eds.), Desarrollo del lenguaje (7 ed., pp. 109–141). Pearson Educación.
3.
BabayiğitS.StainthorpR. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y
4.
BabayiğitS.StainthorpR. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive–linguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671
5.
BeersS. F.NagyW. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9
6.
BermanR.Nir-SagivB. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text quality: Global versus local. In EvansV.PourcelS. (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–440). John Benjamins.
7.
BreetveltI.Van den BerghH.RijlaarsdamG. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how?Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2
8.
ByrneB. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
9.
CastilloC.TolchinskyL. (2018). The contribution of vocabulary knowledge and semantic orthographic fluency to text quality through elementary school in Catalan. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9786-5
10.
ClarkE. V. (1995). The lexicon in acquisition (Vol. 65). Cambridge University Press.
11.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
12.
Gómez-VeraG.SotomayorC.BedwellP.DomínguezA. M.JéldrezE. (2016). Analysis of lexical quality and its relation to writing quality for 4th grade, primary school students in Chile. Reading and Writing, 29(7), 1317–1336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9637-9
13.
HuntK. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written in three grade levels. Research report no. 3. National Council of Teachers of English.
14.
KentS. C.WanzekJ. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 570–601. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315619491
15.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2012). Knowledge of words, knowledge about words: Dimensions of vocabulary in first and second language learners in sixth grade. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9272-9
16.
LauferB.Ravenhorst-KalovskiG. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30.
17.
LlauradoA.MartíM. A.TolchinskyL. (2012). Corpus CesCa: Compiling a corpus of written Catalan produced by school children. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.06lla
18.
MalvernD.RichardsB.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
NagyW. E.ScottJ. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
OlinghouseN. G.LeairdJ. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second-and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22(5), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z
21.
OlinghouseN. G.WilsonJ. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5
22.
OrdóñezC. L.CarloM. S.SnowC. E.McLaughlinB. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer?Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.719
23.
OuelletteG.BeersA. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1
24.
OuelletteG. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
25.
SalasN.LlauradóA.CastilloC.TauléM.MartíM. A. (2016). Linguistic correlates of text quality from childhood to adulthood. In PereraJ.ApariciM.RosadoE.SalasN. (Eds.), Written and spoken language development across the lifespan: Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp. 307–326). Springer.
26.
SalasN.TolchinskyL. (2017). Hunting for the links between word-level writing skills and text quality. In E. Segers & P. van den Broek, (Eds.), Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven (pp. 103–118). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
27.
SchmittN. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077
28.
SchwartzM.KatzirT. (2012). Depth of lexical knowledge among bilingual children: The impact of schooling. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1947–1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9308-9
29.
SénéchalM.OuelletteG.RodneyD. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman, S. B. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). The Guildford Press.
30.
TolchinskyL. (2015). Continuidades y discontinuidades en el aprendizaje de la lengua escrita. In MataJ.NúñezM. P.RiendaJ.(Coords), Didáctica de la lengua y la literatura (pp. 131–146). Pirámide.
31.
TolchinskyL. (2019). Evolving structure of descriptive texts and learners’ abilities. Journal of Literacy Research, 51, 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19858354
32.
VerhallenM.SchoonenR. (1998). Lexical knowledge in L1 and L2 of Third and Fifth Graders. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.452
33.
VerheydenL.Van den BrandenK.RijlaarsdamG.Van den BerghH.De MaeyerS. (2010). Written narrations by 8-to 10-year-old Turkish pupils in Flemish primary education: A follow-up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01430.x
34.
WagnerR. K.PuranikC. S.FoormanB.FosterE.WilsonL. G.TschinkelE.KantorP. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
