scholarly journals Teaching Vocabulary By Using Semantic Feature Analysis Strategy For The Young Learners

Curricula ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Dona Alicia
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Young Learners ◽  
Analysis Strategy ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

scholarly journals Teaching Vocabulary By Using Semantic Feature Analysis Strategy For The Young Learners

Curricula ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Dona Alicia ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Young Learners ◽  
Analysis Strategy ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of semantic feature analysis: An evidence-based systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.M. Maddy ◽  
G.J. Capilouto ◽  
K.L. McComas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Take Time For Action: Reasoning about Linear Equations

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-148
Author(s):  
A.Susan Gay ◽  
Charlotte J. Keith
Keyword(s):  
Linear Equations ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Mathematics Classrooms ◽  
Literacy Strategy ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Have you heard of or used semantic feature analysis? It is a literacy strategy that can help students determine relationships among related vocabulary terms (Cooter and Flynt 1996). In mathematics classrooms, the use of semantic feature analysis is relatively new.

Semantic Models and Translating

Target ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Kussmaul
Keyword(s):  
Word Meaning ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Word Meanings ◽  
The Core ◽  
Semantic Models ◽  
Structural Semantics ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Abstract This paper examines the relevance of three semantic models for translation. Structural semantics, more specifically semantic feature analysis, has given rise to the maxim that we should translate "bundles of semantic features". Prototype semantics suggests that word-meanings have cores and fuzzy edges which are influenced by culture. For translation this means that we do not necessarily translate bundles of features but have to decide whether to focus on the core or the fuzzy edges of the meaning of a particular word. Scenesand-frames semantics suggests that word meaning is influenced by context and the situation we are in. Word-meaning is thus not static but dynamic, and it is this dynamism which should govern our decisions as translators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document