Korean deaf adolescents’ recognition of written words for taxonomic categories of different levels

Abstract

Deaf college students seem to have relatively stronger associations from words for taxonomic categories of basic (e.g., snake) to those of super-ordinate (e.g., reptiles) level than vice versa compared with hearing students in word association (Marschark, Convertino, McEvoy & Masteller, 2004). In deciding whether two sequentially presented words for taxonomic categories of different levels are conceptually related, deaf adolescents might therefore have a poorer performance when they see a category name before than when they see it after one of the corresponding exemplar words. Deaf Korean adolescents were found to recognize words for taxonomic categories of super-ordinate level with lower efficiencies than those of basic level. Their accuracy seemed to reflect a reversed typicality effect when they decided that first-presented words for taxonomic categories of basic level were conceptually related to second-presented words for those of super-ordinate level. It was argued that deaf Korean adolescents went through a temporary stage of having iconic representations of several exemplars of the category aroused in working memory before the abstract semantic representation was fully activated when they saw the word for a taxonomic category of super-ordinate level.

"Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Adolescents’ Recognition of Category Names"

“…The fact that an anti-typicality effect was consistently revealed in Korean [3] and Chinese [5] DHH adolescents' category-name recognition can be explained as follows. With no ready expressions for taxonomic categories of super-ordinate level available in sign language, DHH students may learn category names in written language by associating them with exemplars of middle typicality but not with those of high-level typicality.…”

“…Similar to the case of Li, et al [5], the participants had to keep the two sequentially presented words in working memory before they made a response in a trial in Li [3]. Different from Li, et al [5], the participants did not have the availability of contextual information.…”

“…After years of school education, DHH middle-school students are able to recognize written words such as category names that are quite abstract in meaning. Interestingly, however, they seem to have developed a particular mechanism in category-name recognition [3][4][5]. In Li [3], a cohort of Korean DHH students were required to decide whether or not the two sequentially presented words (a category name and an exemplar word of the category) were semantically related.…”

“…Interestingly, however, they seem to have developed a particular mechanism in category-name recognition [3][4][5]. In Li [3], a cohort of Korean DHH students were required to decide whether or not the two sequentially presented words (a category name and an exemplar word of the category) were semantically related. The category name preceded or was preceded by the exemplar word, and the exemplar word was of a high or a middle level of typicality in a trial.…”